City fighting, what are the isssues??

[poesel]

I think the disconnect usually comes from an inability to give orders that make human sense.

This. Also I would rather tell CM my INTENTION than string together many commands.

[A Canadian Cat]

This. Also I would rather tell CM my INTENTION than string together many commands.

Clearly that would be pretty cool - I agree. It is however probably going to take a while before computer AIs can handle that. In the mean time I would like to see tweaks, changes, new commands etc. that will help us get a better experience in an urban environment.

[A Canadian Cat]

BTW thank you @slysniper for starting this thread. I have wanted to put forth my list of urban fighting issues for a while but never got my act together - too much fun playing the game

Were you inspired by our urban fight (Palma di Montechiaro) we have going right now? Because it has been fun and I do not feel we hit any of the issues mentioned here. So, lets be clear, it is possible to have a good fun urban fight.

I am getting my a** handed to me but it is fun finding tricky paths between the streets and setting up ambushes and then falling back. Sadly for me @slysniper has managed to avoid most of my ambushes and falling back has not worked out as well as I had hoped. I was particularly impressed by the building to building breach you did on the third floor. I did not even know that could be done - so cool.

[sburke]

I was particularly impressed by the building to building breach you did on the third floor. I did not even know that could be done - so cool.

I want to see that AAR!!!

[slysniper]

Hmmm.

I do not see the issue. Honestly, I have not fought that many house-to-house engagements jet, but never felt it needed an overhaul.

Maybe some players forget that house-to-house fighting has always been awful bloody business. As long as I get only a third of my attacking party greased in taking a certain objective (i.e. the next block) I feel, I did a pretty good job.

About the 'throw-grenade' issue:

My experience is that infantry throws grenades pretty seldom in general. A fail-safe way to get them fragging the places is giving an area target command less than 20 meters away. Always worked for me.

Best regards

Olf

Well, thus the reason for the thread, I enjoy city fights now and just really wanted to hear why some have issues with them still. Some good points have been brought out and there is always room for improvements, no harm in discussing that. But none of these issues should stop someone from playing or finding present tactics that work. But some might disagree with that.

[slysniper]

IThe order I would like to give is "sneak up behind that tank and close assault it" or " sneak up behind that tank and use your AT weapon to blow it up". Instead what I have to do is give the squad a series of movement orders along the street to get behind the tank and then through a house and into the street so they are behind the tank where they will blast it. This has worked well. The trouble is that when the turn unfolds if the tank moves even 20m down the road the squad just follows the movement orders and ends up standing alone in the street in full view of the tank.

This type of issue has been brought up more than once on the forum, It would be nice to have a command that helped a unit focus on the mission you want it to perform.

But I do have one issue, look at your example. Now if such a command was possible, how do you justify it if the unit is not in contact with the enemy tank already anyway. You (god) know where the tank is, but likeky the squad you are assigning the task to assault it with, likely does not have sight of it and knowledge of its exact location. You are the one sending it to the perfect ambush spot that you know, they would have had no clue of that unless they had scouted the area. we sometimes forget, we are moving our troops way more accurately still than likely would happen in real life. So having a command that would help them radar in on a moving enemy target is touchy, when would it be allowed and not allowed.

So if a enemy tank moves down the street and you get caught trying to kill it where it was, is not really part of the problem. Because every move you make with any piece in the game can have that issue, we move units constantly and get in trouble when we anticipate the opponents moves incorrectly. That is just part of the game.

[womble]

...every move you make with any piece in the game can have that issue, we move units constantly and get in trouble when we anticipate the opponents moves incorrectly. That is just part of the game.

One skill in WeGo is "drawing the line" between "enough" and "too much" when giving your pTruppen their marching orders. When you've got a situation that takes half a dozen waypoints and most of a minute to get the guys into position, you probably want to not give them the "dash out into the road" part of their orders because the situation may well have changed by the time they get there. If the tank doesn't move away, it'll still be there at the beginning of the next minute, to be rushed from much closer, and if it does, you didn't want to do the last leg anyway; the window in which having a delay between reaching "final jump off point" and actually going for the assault run would mean the tank gets away when it otherwise wouldn't have is quite small. But it's fine to give vast meandering movement orders that take multiple minutes to complete (and even longer to plot ) when your troops are not going to finish up in contact.

[slysniper]

Were you inspired by our urban fight (Palma di Montechiaro) we have going right now? Because it has been fun and I do not feel we hit any of the issues mentioned here. So, lets be clear, it is possible to have a good fun urban fight.

I am getting my a** handed to me but it is fun finding tricky paths between the streets and setting up ambushes and then falling back. Sadly for me slysniper has managed to avoid most of my ambushes and falling back has not worked out as well as I had hoped. I was particularly impressed by the building to building breach you did on the third floor. I did not even know that could be done - so cool.

Maybe a little, I am enjoying that game, then here on the forum I read these statements about how city fight must be improved before releasing MG and I think to myself, "What is wrong with some of these people" I would like improvements as much as anyone, I do get tired of the childish statements some make like trying to claim they will never buy another game unless BF fixes something such and such. Really, that is why they are writing on the forum, because they cannot play the game because of certain issues, but spending time here constantly requesting their desire changes.

I just see it as a bunch of bull, they are playing the game, spending time with it, just like the rest of us and they want changes, just like the rest of us, so they think by making statements like that, it will show how important it must be to get it fixed. I would much prefer to have a open discussion like is happening in this thread, as for what BF does, they wage their efforts as they see fit. I am just glad that at times they do take what they read here and try to implement or improve apon their game. I think the game reflect that, has become the leader in its field and I hope to see them continue to find ways to improve what they are providing us.

As for my third floor breach, I am pretty proud of that also. Just happened to be the right move for the situation. I just knew that building would be a ambush point for your units to be sitting in and that any approach I would take would be deadly since it had a commanding view. Then I saw that common wall and I thought to myself, breach and assault into hand to hand combat with him. I figured I could overwhelm you that way without heavy losses. Then I started thinking, he likely has units on the first floor, not sure about the rest. Why not breach on a level he is not likely at, then assault in a safer manor with my main infantry units. well a second floor breach makes no sence since I might receive returning fire from 3 levels. So the third floor became the prime location, plus if I covered the doors for your units leaving the building on the first floor, I could gun down any cowards. You have to love it when a plan comes together. No AAR, but it would have been a good battle for showing some good tactics. I like how I managed to push the one flank so quickly that I started cutting off his withdrawl paths and managed to gun down enemy units as they were pulling back or retreating from their sector.

[slysniper]

One skill in WeGo is "drawing the line" between "enough" and "too much" when giving your pTruppen their marching orders. When you've got a situation that takes half a dozen waypoints and most of a minute to get the guys into position, you probably want to not give them the "dash out into the road" part of their orders because the situation may well have changed by the time they get there. If the tank doesn't move away, it'll still be there at the beginning of the next minute, to be rushed from much closer, and if it does, you didn't want to do the last leg anyway; the window in which having a delay between reaching "final jump off point" and actually going for the assault run would mean the tank gets away when it otherwise wouldn't have is quite small. But it's fine to give vast meandering movement orders that take multiple minutes to complete (and even longer to plot ) when your troops are not going to finish up in contact.

Good point, one to remember in the present game system.

[sburke]

Maybe a little, I am enjoying that game, then here on the forum I read these statements about how city fight must be improved before releasing MG and I think to myself, "What is wrong with some of these people" I would like improvements as much as anyone, I do get tired of the childish statements some make like trying to claim they will never buy another game unless BF fixes something such and such. Really, that is why they are writing on the forum, because they cannot play the game because of certain issues, but spending time here constantly requesting their desire changes.

I just see it as a bunch of bull, they are playing the game, spending time with it, just like the rest of us and they want changes, just like the rest of us, so they think by making statements like that, it will show how important it must be to get it fixed. I would much prefer to have a open discussion like is happening in this thread, as for what BF does, they wage their efforts as they see fit. I am just glad that at times they do take what they read here and try to implement or improve apon their game. I think the game reflect that, has become the leader in its field and I hope to see them continue to find ways to improve what they are providing us.

LOL I'd go a little lighter as I know sometimes things can be frustrating when units do something unexpected or just plain crazy. However I do agree with the general assessment. There are limitations we currently face that have to do with TAC AI capability, design of the AS for fundamental position and movement etc. None of that however is stopping anyone from having a kick a** time with an urban fight.

Both you and womble's follow up points are very on target and are a source of a lot of the problems people face. I think many of us forget what we know is not what our pixeltruppen "know" and we tend to plan actions for that without realizing the consequences of that disconnect. Also slow is good, fast is dead. Your units need time to spot and react otherwise they will always be the second ones shooting, if they get to shoot at all. There are exceptions to that, but not many.

Last item and I think you'd mentioned this earlier..or someone did. Map making has a lot to do with this. A generic village or town with a bunch of buildings just dropped in isn't really going to give the infantry much of a chance. There are ways to make a far more interesting urban map and avoid some of the pitfalls that buildings present. You don't have to have a rubbled building to simulate a rubbled building. Using bits of wall, changing AS elevation, adding in some rubble flavor items etc can create the feel of a rubbled building that looks better than an actual rubbled building, fewer movement issues and has no restrictions on AT usage. Drop a big crater in it and you have a pretty good looking urban battleground and some real capability for defense. Give some alleys for your buildings. Areas that are absolutley no go for vehicles but your pixeltruppen can use to move behind the rows of apt blocks in an urban fight. Put a balcony on both sides and you'll have a covered alley. There are a lot of tools available for map design to create a truly nightmarish urban battle.

[cool breeze]

A covered alley? Like the balconies from both sides meet each other in the middle? Wow how creative! Troops cant hop the rail from one balcony to the other can they? Does it provide overhead cover from arty? can the guys in the alley see the guys on the balconies and vica versa? Can AT guys shoot from balconies ( I guess no besides PIAT)?

[sburke]

A covered alley? Like the balconies from both sides meet each other in the middle? Wow how creative! Troops cant hop the rail from one balcony to the other can they? Does it provide overhead cover from arty? can the guys in the alley see the guys on the balconies and vica versa? Can AT guys shoot from balconies ( I guess no besides PIAT)?

You can put them close enough they overlap. I believe they will move from building to building via the balcony, but it has been a while since I tried that. I suspect overhead cover might be minimal but the space is tight so getting direct arty into that gap is pretty tough to begin with. I suspect yes on targetting. Mainly because buildings tend have these odd interstices that allow fire at corners and whatnot. I suspect no on At weapons as it is still considered part of the building. That however would be way cool eventually we can at least have AT fire from balconies.

I'll try these out on a test map and see if I can confirm answers.

[Childress]

Then I saw that common wall and I thought to myself, breach and assault into hand to hand combat with him.

Hand to hand combat? Doesn't exist in CM2. Too difficult to code, AFAIU. Not really a prob since that was vanishingly rare in WW2, the knife scene in SPR not withstanding. I believe there was a crude version of mano a mano fighting in CM1- essentially sound effects.

Why can't the side with lower Motivation simply surrender if trapped?

[sburke]

and lose moments like this? No way!!!

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1362472&postcount=115

Exhausted, near panic, his team leader surrendering and Hardenberger (no not you Bil) says surrender? f**k no! Eat a grenade Ami!

[slysniper]

Hand to hand combat? Doesn't exist in CM2. Too difficult to code, AFAIU. Not really a prob since that was vanishingly rare in WW2, the knife scene in SPR not withstanding. I believe there was a crude version of mano a mano fighting in CM1- essentially sound effects.

Why can't the side with lower Motivation simply surrender if trapped?

No, the game does not sim it, but my imagination does. When guys enter the same area, as far as I am concerned. the game is showing shooting and hand grenades, but I know guys are doing that plus using their guns as clubs, and that men are really rushing men and that all sorts of things are going on. Sorry if you are too mature to only accept what the game will show you. I still can imagine.

[womble]

Hand to hand combat? Doesn't exist in CM2. Too difficult to code, AFAIU.

AIUI, it's there, but the animations aren't (they're the ones that are too tricky to make look convincing in the wide variety of situations in which they might be required), and normal "firing weapon" and "throwing grenade" animations have to fill in. So the visuals, at least, are an abstraction; how the outcome is calculated, I don't think has been elucidated.

[sburke]

No, the game does not sim it, but my imagination does. When guys enter the same area, as far as I am concerned. the game is showing shooting and hand grenades, but I know guys are doing that plus using their guns as clubs, and that men are really rushing men and that all sorts of things are going on. Sorry if you are too mature to only accept what the game will show you. I still can imagine.

Now now, no need to go there. I don't think anyone here wouldn't love to see close combat actually animated in the game. Question is what are we willing to give up and how long are we willing to wait for anything else while BF works on that. Oh and yeah BF would have to be willing to not get paid for a while as they are busy doing it.

Here are 3 shots from a map I was working on when it looked like Broadsword and I were gonna have to fight in St Lo in our campaign game. These are not original concepts. Some come from maps in CMSF (I think I may have gotten the covered alleys from you LLF, not sure) others are based on fighting in some of Pete's maps in the Shadow of the Hill campaign. I just pulled them all together to create a very specific fighting environment.

[A Canadian Cat]

I want to see that AAR!!!

I spent some time this afternoon reloading old turns and recording it. Recording is done I will stitch it together tomorrow - I have some illustrations for my previous point about targeting buildings I want to post first.

[A Canadian Cat]

But I do have one issue, look at your example. Now if such a command was possible, how do you justify it if the unit is not in contact with the enemy tank already anyway. You (god) know where the tank is, but likeky the squad you are assigning the task to assault it with, likely does not have sight of it and knowledge of its exact location. You are the one sending it to the perfect ambush spot that you know, they would have had no clue of that unless they had scouted the area. we sometimes forget, we are moving our troops way more accurately still than likely would happen in real life. So having a command that would help them radar in on a moving enemy target is touchy, when would it be allowed and not allowed.

Yep, spot on for the case where the squad cannot see the tank yet.

The worst example where my guys paid the ultimate price though was in the case where the squad assigned the task could see the tank. They were in the bocage line and the tank drove just past them and stopped - facing further away. I gave them the order to go through a small gap pretty much right behind the tank hoping they would take it out easily with a close assault. The turn started and the tank moved further down the road - out of grenade range and my guys ran out into the lane and stood there like target dummies. And that is just what they ended up being.

With a follow command perhaps they would have followed it down the road and managed to get it before it spotted them (it did take many seconds before the tank spotted them). Or with a assault tank command perhaps the would have just aborted after the tank drove off.

Clearly these kinds of commands would take significant effort to code in the tac AI. Clearly this is a wish list item. I just hope some improved way of handing assaulting tanks makes it onto BFC's todo list.

[A Canadian Cat]

Hand to hand combat? Doesn't exist in CM2. Too difficult to code, AFAIU. Not really a prob since that was vanishingly rare in WW2, the knife scene in SPR not withstanding. I believe there was a crude version of mano a mano fighting in CM1- essentially sound effects.

Why can't the side with lower Motivation simply surrender if trapped?

Surrender no way. My guys might have lost that building but the put up a fight first. Even the last guy who runs for it stops at the door and lobs one last grenade inside. Great moment. Course he dies from rifle fire from above...

[Erwin]

+1 to a "Follow Command" like in CM1. That was indeed useful (Ambush as well).

[invernomuto]

Vehicles pathfinding in building need to be improved. It's a nightmare in PBEM games.

It's my 1st issue with "city fighting" in CMx2.

Bye

[Childress]

Sorry if you are too mature to only accept what the game will show you. I still can imagine.

Thanks, SS ! (hmm...) Must...regress...to...childhood.

[JonS]

The worst example where my guys paid the ultimate price though was in the case where the squad assigned the task could see the tank. They were in the bocage line and the tank drove just past them and stopped - facing further away. I gave them the order to go through a small gap pretty much right behind the tank hoping they would take it out easily with a close assault. The turn started and the tank moved further down the road - out of grenade range and my guys ran out into the lane and stood there like target dummies. And that is just what they ended up being.

Lol. I had a case where I snuck a team (one man, I think) up beside a 95mm Churchill. "Awesome" I thought "Scratch one deathstar!" But instead my guy proceeded to buddy-aid some dead landser lying beside the Churchill :mad:

I have a funny screenshot somewhere with the Churchill turret rotated, the barrel pointing directly at him, while he calmly continues applying bandaids.

[Broadsword56]

Lol. I had a case where I snuck a team (one man, I think) up beside a 95mm Churchill. "Awesome" I thought "Scratch one deathstar!" But instead my guy proceeded to buddy-aid some dead landser lying beside the Churchill :mad:

I have a funny screenshot somewhere with the Churchill turret rotated, the barrel pointing directly at him, while he calmly continues applying bandaids.

If people cared as much for their fellow man as some of our pixeltruppen, there would be a lot fewer wars!