Concerned about Urban Combat...

[warrenpeace]

This thread reminded me of a previous thread where I pointed out a defect in certain buildings with regards to where the doors are located. Has this ever been fixed?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=112659

Also, in playing the other night I noticed something interesting. If two buildings are placed next to each other such that one buildings door abutts another building side that has no door or window, it is still possible to traverse (and fire) between the buildings. Thus it is important to check both sides of the wall if you are worried about an ambush.

[Erwin]

...and sometimes, having one door next to a wall with no door doesn't allow traverse. It's frustrating as one really can't know fer sure until on issues orders and see the results.

When my guys unexpectedly go outside and get gunned down, I see this as a reasonable excuse to replay the turn.

[76mm]

Those maps look great RockinHarry, please keep up the good work in CMRT!

[Jishmael]

German full strength HMG teams have 6 men. This includes the gunner team and the ammo bearers. This unit can not be split. US HMG teams have gun team and ammo bearers seperated (2 teams) by default.

The point is that full strength german HMG teams are a rather big target when cramped in a single AS, depending on terrain type. Usually it´s just the 3 men gun team occupying a fighting position, with the ammo bearers seperated at a distance, at least 1-2 AS apart in game terms. In real life they would keep out of the fight, unless in an emergency. A single german HMG team thus can not operate the weapon and at the same time have ammo beareres on hide. Any fire directed at such a large team would make it very vulnerable at whole.

I do the same strength reduction for US/UK teams under AI control and usually leave them at original strength when human played.

Steve said it´s made this way so that there´s enough crew members left to operate the weapon, when the actual gunner(s) has been killed. Well, in RL a HMG would seldomly stay until last crew member is killed and rather retreat or move to a switch position. Matter of realism, or maybe of taste, but I prefer to have HMGs a small of a target as possible, particularly for an AI player.

Okay I can totally understand strengthening the AI in Ways like that. It needs every Advantage it can get.

Leaves me curious what was the basis for the design decision to handle german and american mgs differently

[LRC]

Any recommendation about how tho fight the AI in urban terrain ?

With CMMG, the AI seems to have abnormal advantage for spotting and cover.

I did a comparison (exact same urban assault, veteran difficulty) of H2H hotseat vs. Human againts the AI. Even with cover arcs and teams spread all around the building at close range, the AI has kill ratios greater than 5to1.

This would be acceptable with wrong tactics but with realistic tactics, this seriously limit the game play in urban terrain.

[LRC]

Any recommendation about how tho fight the AI in urban terrain ?

With CMMG, the AI seems to have abnormal advantage for spotting and cover.

I did a comparison (exact same urban assault, veteran difficulty) of H2H hotseat vs. Human againts the AI. Even with cover arcs and teams spread all around the building at close range, the AI has kill ratios greater than 5to1.

This would be acceptable with wrong tactics but with realistic tactics, this seriously limitS the game play in urban terrain.

[sburke]

The AI has no advantages in urban terrain except maybe more patience. If not told to do anything, it won't

Seriously the player can execute suppressive fire, smoke, demo charges (if you have em) etc. The AI has none of those in it's tool chest. Attacking in urban terrain however is a whole other thing. Recon by fire is a nice way to get the AI to reveal itself.

[RockinHarry]

I do not have MG, but assume it´s the same in CMBN 2.12 generally. In current test play I have US AI attacking through urban terrain and they hurt me (as human player) most, by employing rifle grenades! So I´d likely suggest buying and using the grenadier versions for infantry forces. Some Demolition teams are good for some mouse holing, as well as any other standoff HE in your inventory, like Zooks/Schrecks ect. As attacker, keep off the streets and make also use of smoke. I do not think the AI has an inherent advantage, but really depends on close examination of the situation, map and forces.

[womble]

With CMMG, the AI seems to have abnormal advantage for spotting and cover.

It cannot be stressed enough that this simply is not the case. The AI gets no advantages in these areas, ever. The only advantage I've ever seen confirmed for the AI is in the area of C2 at long ranges. As sburke says, all the technical advantages are, on paper at least, with the human player.

I did a comparison (exact same urban assault, veteran difficulty)...

The "difficulty" level really doesn't have any effects on the tactical resolution of the situation.

...H2H hotseat vs. Human againts the AI. Even with cover arcs and teams spread all around the building at close range, the AI has kill ratios greater than 5to1.

This would be acceptable with wrong tactics but with realistic tactics, this seriously limitS the game play in urban terrain.

Why do you expect to make progress at lesser casualty rates against a settled, trained, alert urban defender who knows you're coming? It takes armour support or serious odds advantages for the attacker in numbers of bullets outbound per second to cut those sort of figures. If you can't handle your own defenders to match how the AI does it, that's not the game's fault; the AI only has the same tools you do. Bear in mind that any leakage in information between your two "hotseat heads" will benefit the attacker more than the defender.

[Whiterider]

...and sometimes, having one door next to a wall with no door doesn't allow traverse. It's frustrating as one really can't know fer sure until on issues orders and see the results.

When my guys unexpectedly go outside and get gunned down, I see this as a reasonable excuse to replay the turn.

I guess it´s not easy to fix (really old issue) An autosave option could be helpful, however not a solution. Perhaps doors can be modded

[RockinHarry]

I guess it´s not easy to fix (really old issue) An autosave option could be helpful, however not a solution. Perhaps doors can be modded

It´s generally on the behalf of the map maker to have adjoining walls and door/window configurations match. On large urban maps, with possibly hundreds of buildings forming continuous blocks, this could mean 4 to 6 or more walls to fix a single building. AFAIK most the QB maps with urban settings do not have matching walls, so lots of pathing problems could be expected. Getting those maps straight, is not for the impatient, but personally I make sure for my own maps, that wall configurations match for every single building/story and are accessible where you expect them to be.

[womble]

An autosave option could be helpful...

In all kinds of ways. And "quick save" that grabs a save with a hotkey press. And a hotkey to bring up the save dialog. The last has to be more frequently needed than a hotkey for quitting the game, surely?

[Wodin]

I'm hopeful about the future of urban combat. The Market garden module has made a big improvement in that regard so it is moving in the right direction.

[MikeyD]

Oh oh! I just thought! CMRT is introducing a new very flexible [tagging] system for mods. Theoretically, they (or we) could now reassign 'hvy rocks' terrain art with a [city] tag and use rubble texture in its place. If we can agree on a tag naming convention any scenario accepting a [city] tag (for example) would then substitute the 'city rubble' art in place of the 'heavy rock' art.

oooh, that sounds promising!

[umlaut]

It does indeed

[Whiterider]

Absolutely!

[sburke]

Oh oh! I just thought! CMRT is introducing a new very flexible [tagging] system for mods. Theoretically, they (or we) could now reassign 'hvy rocks' terrain art with a [city] tag and use rubble texture in its place. If we can agree on a tag naming convention any scenario accepting a [city] tag (for example) would then substitute the 'city rubble' art in place of the 'heavy rock' art.

oooh, that sounds promising!

Heh heh I suspect that thanks to RockinHarry, I am gonna have my rubble terrain tile..like now.

Being able to have the underlying terrain match up to a scenario is just far too cool.

[LRC]

It cannot be stressed enough that this simply is not the case. The AI gets no advantages in these areas, ever. The only advantage I've ever seen confirmed for the AI is in the area of C2 at long ranges. As sburke says, all the technical advantages are, on paper at least, with the human player.

The "difficulty" level really doesn't have any effects on the tactical resolution of the situation.

Why do you expect to make progress at lesser casualty rates against a settled, trained, alert urban defender who knows you're coming? It takes armour support or serious odds advantages for the attacker in numbers of bullets outbound per second to cut those sort of figures. .

The bottom line is still that when comparing "Human vs AI" and "Human vs Human" (exact same tactical config, teams,...) the kill factors are strongly biased for the AI. (only for urban combat, no observable bias in hedgerow configs )

Just try, you'll see...

[AttorneyAtWar]

The bottom line is still that when comparing "Human vs AI" and "Human vs Human" (exact same tactical config, teams,...) the kill factors are strongly biased for the AI. (only for urban combat, no observable bias in hedgerow configs )

Just try, you'll see...

The AI does not get any advantages, their is no bias.

[sburke]

The bottom line is still that when comparing "Human vs AI" and "Human vs Human" (exact same tactical config, teams,...) the kill factors are strongly biased for the AI. (only for urban combat, no observable bias in hedgerow configs )

Just try, you'll see...

Honestly I have no idea how you come up with those figures. Not saying you haven't seen them, but I'd be hard put to think they are not an outlier experience. Having worked enough with the editor and in scenario author mode to test scenarios, the AI just does not have enough (any) intelligence. At the TAC AI level, the AI and you are equal. It is at the level slightly above where the advantage is all yours. You can decide when to move, the AI can only follow an AI plan or route when beaten up. Area fire, smoke, demo charges etc are all something only a human can use. Please do not take this the wrong way, but if you are suffering more playing the AI over a human player, I have to wonder what that human player is doing wrong. According to your experience, they would be better off not issuing any orders.

The AI has no special benefits over the player in anything period and I spend an inordinate amount of time messing with urban maps.

[MikeyD]

CM is fighting an expectations game. If a player expects one result and gets another in their head that must mean the AI is either hobbled or cheating, depending on what they were expecting. I recall in CMBB the arguments over 45mm AT gun were endless because people were arguing in a vacuum about the gun's capabilities. Heck, even today general knowledge about 45mm AT is lackluster so I expect people will be right back arguing about results versus expectations all over again. And the game will either be hobbled or cheating, depending on what player was expecting to happen.

[aleader]

German full strength HMG teams have 6 men. This includes the gunner team and the ammo bearers. This unit can not be split. US HMG teams have gun team and ammo bearers seperated (2 teams) by default.

The point is that full strength german HMG teams are a rather big target when cramped in a single AS, depending on terrain type. Usually it´s just the 3 men gun team occupying a fighting position, with the ammo bearers seperated at a distance, at least 1-2 AS apart in game terms. In real life they would keep out of the fight, unless in an emergency. A single german HMG team thus can not operate the weapon and at the same time have ammo beareres on hide. Any fire directed at such a large team would make it very vulnerable at whole.

I do the same strength reduction for US/UK teams under AI control and usually leave them at original strength when human played.

Steve said it´s made this way so that there´s enough crew members left to operate the weapon, when the actual gunner(s) has been killed. Well, in RL a HMG would seldomly stay until last crew member is killed and rather retreat or move to a switch position. Matter of realism, or maybe of taste, but I prefer to have HMGs a small of a target as possible, particularly for an AI player.

I didn't even realize that you could split a HMG team, have to try that. I think the bigger issue is the pathfinding. I'm in a PBEM QB right now where I'm moving US HMG's into better firing positions in a central town. The incredibly frustrating thing is how they will not hug the wall when they enter a building. Instead, they run to the door and then run straight out perpendicular to the building in the wide open and start going in the door, lined up, ready to now be gunned down.

Common sense would have them straddling the door on either side and entering one by one as the rest of the team hugs the wall and waits their turn. This is how it happens in real life...if the soldiers want to live. This has happened to me twice now in this QB alone, and I've taken to just leaving them stay put, or only moving under smoke or absolute safety in all directions to compensate for the shoddy pathfinding.

[76mm]

The incredibly frustrating thing is how they will not hug the wall when they enter a building. Instead, they run to the door and then run straight out perpendicular to the building in the wide open and start going in the door, lined up, ready to now be gunned down.

Common sense would have them straddling the door on either side and entering one by one as the rest of the team hugs the wall and waits their turn. This is how it happens in real life...if the soldiers want to live.

Yup, I noticed this as well, although I did it with a squad rather than an HMG. In future I will try to break everything down to the smallest unit before moving.

[sburke]

There are definitely behavior issues with units in CM that are not consistent with what you'd do in RL or hope a combatant would do. Keeping low in a crouch trying to stay below cover when moving, rushing across an open space and not bunching up etc. You definitely have to take those into account in CM and in close terrain it becomes much more critical. This isn't simply an issue in urban fighting, but is far more evident as the particular interactions that are at the root of it are standard environment. Doors, wall interactions with buildings etc BF has stated at different points the difficulty of working on the TAC AI, but their intent to continue to do so. As the engine progresses hopefully we will see smoother behavior etc but in the meantime, the AI labors under the same issues as does our human opponents. The lesson, think about how your pixeltruppen are going to move before you commit them and if you aren't sure, do something to increase the odds in your behavior or try a different path.

[Erwin]

Note that we cannot assume that the graphic "stance" we see in the game is actually what the pixeltruppen are doing (as opposed to what is being calculated by the engine). eg: Guys using binoculars and can't spot units one action square away etc.