BletchleyGeek Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 I am also happy to take a look at your AI plans Repsol - just post a link to the scenario over Dropbox. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 36 minutes ago, sburke said: well you haven't provided me a single save yet so . . . . . My bad ! I will put something together...scenario and description of what i'm experiencing. It will not happen tonight...Sweden is playing quaterfinal in the junior World cup (hockey) but hopefully about this time tomorrow. I will PM you a dropbox-link. Thanks... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 13 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said: I am also happy to take a look at your AI plans Repsol - just post a link to the scenario over Dropbox. I will send you the link also Thanks, Bletchley 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 "I trust that (if there's a problem) BTS will fix it " And this is the issue I am talking about. You immediately assume something needs to be fixed. I have played CMFB and CMBN on 4.0 for hours have yet to see any significant difference. And even if its different I am not seeing an issue that needs to be fixed. If you look through the thread, there are at least as many people saying this is no different than pre-4.0. Two assumptions being made with VERY little information... 1) There is a significant difference 2) It is a problem My point is that one guy comes in with very little hard evidence. For example, playing 3,12 vs 4.0. There are no saves. But for some reason, a couple people are suddenly boycotting an upgrade. It almost looks like they are waiting for something to latch on to for not upgrading. What would you need for proof before you seperate yourself from the $10. And lets not even consider all the other features in the upgrade. Even if this is an issue, I mean, 99.999% of the game works, but lets focus on the one item. I mean, some thinks they might have possibly seen something. So lets all run around panicking and refusing to buy the game until BFC fix or do somefink. This is why the internet is broken. Anyone can come in and through one opinion and absolutely zero information around and make people waste time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 23 minutes ago, Thewood1 said: "I trust that (if there's a problem) BTS will fix it " And this is the issue I am talking about. You immediately assume something needs to be fixed. I have played CMFB and CMBN on 4.0 for hours have yet to see any significant difference. And even if its different I am not seeing an issue that needs to be fixed. If you look through the thread, there are at least as many people saying this is no different than pre-4.0. Two assumptions being made with VERY little information... 1) There is a significant difference 2) It is a problem My point is that one guy comes in with very little hard evidence. For example, playing 3,12 vs 4.0. There are no saves. But for some reason, a couple people are suddenly boycotting an upgrade. It almost looks like they are waiting for something to latch on to for not upgrading. What would you need for proof before you seperate yourself from the $10. And lets not even consider all the other features in the upgrade. Even if this is an issue, I mean, 99.999% of the game works, but lets focus on the one item. I mean, some thinks they might have possibly seen something. So lets all run around panicking and refusing to buy the game until BFC fix or do somefink. This is why the internet is broken. Anyone can come in and through one opinion and absolutely zero information around and make people waste time. While overall I agree with your sentiment, I do now have a couple very good examples of TAC AI behavior that can create a frustrating experience for a player and which are clearly not intended behavior. Those only get addressed if people bring it up and provide examples that can be submitted. Personally I give this thread a thumbs up as I actually have something tangible that I can submit. A win for everyone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 18 minutes ago, sburke said: A win for everyone. Except Charles 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BletchleyGeek Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 25 minutes ago, sburke said: While overall I agree with your sentiment, I do now have a couple very good examples of TAC AI behavior that can create a frustrating experience for a player and which are clearly not intended behavior. Those only get addressed if people bring it up and provide examples that can be submitted. Personally I give this thread a thumbs up as I actually have something tangible that I can submit. A win for everyone. The wandering pixeltruppen issue that Cobetco describes was there pre 4.0 - I do recall it being discussed over at The Few Good Men forums in the context of the first scenario of the Drums of War tournament. It was very bocage intensive, requiring to traverse several of those rabbit holes used to represent openings in the bocage. I can't find the threads, maybe @Bootie can help digging that out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 49 minutes ago, Thewood1 said: "I trust that (if there's a problem) BTS will fix it " And this is the issue I am talking about. You immediately assume something needs to be fixed. I have played CMFB and CMBN on 4.0 for hours have yet to see any significant difference. And even if its different I am not seeing an issue that needs to be fixed. If you look through the thread, there are at least as many people saying this is no different than pre-4.0. Hold on. If I had "immediately assumed something needs to be fixed," I wouldn't have gone out of my way to include the "if" clause you quoted. You're responding as if I'd trashed the update or the game. I've done no such thing. However, the potential problem I've seen reported would be a severe one, so I'm trying to see what others' experience is and (if there's a problem) hope for a solution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 The Last Defense uses many Dense woods and Low bocage tiles. These effect foot movement in two ways--- Troops will move slower and fatigue quicker. I actually changed some of the tiles when observing this in testing. (That's just one of the changes made for the actual Complete scen release to come in Mid January.) But players should submit save files when they can so beta testers can see what is actually going on. It could be a bug. These movement oddities (as many of you long time players know) don't always reveal their true nature willingly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BletchleyGeek Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) I got to reproduce the issue discussed by @Cobetco on that scenario of the Drums of War tournament, here's a screenshot Note that the BAR team goes forward leaving behind the rest of the squad, which is not what usually happens. See the full text of the ticket I just opened below - there's a good reason why this has been hard to track, and it is that if you reload the save, you get different, but still incorrect, behaviour. ===== As discussed on this forum post:http://community.battlefront.com/topic/124173-40-infantry-ai/?do=findComment&comment=1695526there seems to be a long standing issue with pathfinding through severely constricted terrain, such as tall bocage "rabbit holes". Cobetco's comments on the thread above reminded me of some trouble that was found during the first round of the Drums of War tournament organised by Bootie at the Few Good Men. See Post #23 on this threadhttp://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/the-drums-of-war-round-one-scenario-download-it-now.23427/page-2 and following. While I lost my saved games long ago, I have the scenario and tested the plan formulated for the 3rd Squad, 3rd Platton, A Coy in the file "Squad Separation - Plan.bts" you can find on this Dropbox shared folder https://www.dropbox.com/sh/17uud03soz8yv5g/AADwq-kvSOk3Sc5I1_re7lALa?dl=0 Squad separation happened after about 7 minutes and a half, between the time points 00:54:18 and 00:52:50. Now comes the interesting bit. When I reloaded the game from the 00:54:18 the behaviour shown in the attached screenshot couldn't be replicated. Instead, what I got was that the squad members "shuffled" around without going through the hole in the bocage, and waypoints started to get cancelled one by one, closest first, until the unit ceased to have any orders. Good luck, M. Edited January 3, 2017 by BletchleyGeek These text edition applets really don't work on Chrome... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BletchleyGeek Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 7 hours ago, MarkEzra said: The Last Defense uses many Dense woods and Low bocage tiles. These effect foot movement in two ways--- Troops will move slower and fatigue quicker. I actually changed some of the tiles when observing this in testing. (That's just one of the changes made for the actual Complete scen release to come in Mid January.) But players should submit save files when they can so beta testers can see what is actually going on. It could be a bug. These movement oddities (as many of you long time players know) don't always reveal their true nature willingly. No, certainly they don't also the input to pathfinding routines, like what the TACAI understands as cover and concealment, isn't WYSIWYG in the current iteration of the UI. I am pretty sure the beta builds include "developer mode" switches to make those apparent and help with debugging. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) missions what im making right now , i get only this sneak behave starting only whit max assault. Normal assault , quik or any other command type i dont get Ai starting to use sneak under fire. are you tested difrend activity leveles . sou how easyly AI stop and start to shoot back ? because i use 99% time " active" sou AI shoot back wery often. Honestly i like this new behave because now pixel troops taking cover and not tjust run like cannon folders on field that often. Edited January 3, 2017 by snarre 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1000 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 big ups to battlefront on the 4.0, I think this was the best patch! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 4 hours ago, user1000 said: big ups to battlefront on the 4.0, I think this was the best patch! Surely, you didn't call this Major Upgrade just a Patch :-/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, snarre said: missions what im making right now , i get only this sneak behave starting only whit max assault. Normal assault , quik or any other command type i dont get Ai starting to use sneak under fire. are you tested difrend activity leveles . sou how easyly AI stop and start to shoot back ? because i use 99% time " active" sou AI shoot back wery often. Honestly i like this new behave because now pixel troops taking cover and not tjust run like cannon folders on field that often. Yeah, Repsol, also thinks that the Scenario AI Settings are set at Max Assault and why we are getting this behavior...Lower Settings should appropriately give us the desired results. As, Cobetco, and others have mentioned, we also need the AI Pathing issue to be looked into. Edited January 3, 2017 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 i had do correct my self , i tested this Ai path things more. Ai chance its movemend to slow all sou on other moment types. sou on maxassault AI chance it faster and ceep it longer. Normal assault order AI try ceep assault oreder longer uder fire , plus it will chance slow move order back to assault when in coming fire drop down. This is my feeling and resoult after testing this things more. I dont know if im right or wrong whit this thing 100% . Only steve can confirm this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Not directly related to V4.0, but did anybody notice that infantry has a preference for moving/exiting buildings through what the game considers the "front" side (in map editor the lightly brownish edge on the building icon)? In my experimental urban map I closely observed some infantry that during every test play sooner or later will break and rout from a particular building into open street and get slaughtered. This building is a single AS (8x8m) modular type and more single AS buildings are placed next to it, forming a larger block and connected internally by doors at the adjoining walls. This block is aligned perpendicular to where I set the enemy frontline with "front" sides facing the main street. Now I had the idea to delete all the buildings and replace them by the same type, but this time with the "front" side facing away from enemy frontline (doors and windows arranged via CTRL+Click so they match the original arrangement ). A repeated test now got the routing infantry not exiting the building into the street like before, but this time through the internal walls/doors right into the adjoining building. Never seen that before during my countless test plays. So if the "front" side of buildings is really hard coded and the AI having a preference for using it for entry and exit movements, this could be quite important for (urban) map building and infantry movements generally. No more infantry moving through wrong doors/open walls at the wrong time. That would really be nice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 5 hours ago, snarre said: Normal assault order AI try ceep assault oreder longer uder fire , plus it will chance slow move order back to assault when in coming fire drop down. This is my feeling and resoult after testing this things more. I dont know if im right or wrong whit this thing 100% . Only steve can confirm this. Snarre, thanks for your comments and testing about this. "plus it will slow move order back to assault in coming fire drop down" Have you been able to se this ? In my testing of this i have not ones seen the AI troops get back on their feet (change back from a slow movement) in mid-waypoint. No matter how long they are in a possition that has no incomming fire. They will simply not recover until they have reached the nest AI waypoint. If they do actually recover in mid waypoint that is really good news I have just not seen it. Thanks ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 I have also finally submitted a few save-game files to BFC to have a look at... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 they will get upp and continue whit assault order when incoming fire drop down enough. all sou one way to avoid or make them chance move order faster back to quik or assault is make space between move orders (yellow painted area) shorder , then its take less time AI get in destination and start moving again. i dont think this behave affect to old scenarios/ camppaings because AI is usually defending. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BletchleyGeek Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 I was writing to @RepsolCBR about the importance of separation between orders, it makes quite a difference. Is that distance related to the maximum length of the bound a squad with an Assault order? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardradi Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 This thread is quite confusing but I think i had a similar issue 4.0 with a HQ Team and MG Team moving through (Quick) a wheat field both at the same time. The two groups in the rear, "dragging A$$" appear to be crawling. The MG Team were split over about 180 meters. Full squads got through fine. I have a save game from which I extracted the screenshot below. Is this what you guys are talking about? I only had this happen at the start of my first battle in 4.0 and have since played three more battles without noticing anything similar. If someone wants the save game let me know how/where to upload it. Happy to help. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BletchleyGeek Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 20 minutes ago, Hardradi said: This thread is quite confusing but I think i had a similar issue 4.0 with a HQ Team and MG Team moving through (Quick) a wheat field both at the same time. The two groups in the rear, "dragging A$$" appear to be crawling. The MG Team were split over about 180 meters. Full squads got through fine. I have a save game from which I extracted the screenshot below. Is this what you guys are talking about? I only had this happen at the start of my first battle in 4.0 and have since played three more battles without noticing anything similar. If someone wants the save game let me know how/where to upload it. Happy to help. It could be related to the problem I replicated with that tournament scenario @Hardradi. I would suggest you to open up a ticket in the helpdesk following more or less the style and content of my report: most important is to determine if you can replicate that behaviour regularly with the files provided, or there is some "hidden" factor in play that is affected by saving and reloading, or the WEGO turn-based gameplay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardradi Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 5 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said: It could be related to the problem I replicated with that tournament scenario @Hardradi. I would suggest you to open up a ticket in the helpdesk following more or less the style and content of my report: most important is to determine if you can replicate that behaviour regularly with the files provided, or there is some "hidden" factor in play that is affected by saving and reloading, or the WEGO turn-based gameplay. This was 7 minutes into the battle so I would have to go back and attempt to try and replicate the move down the wheat field on the right flank to see if it happens again. I image that this would be difficult. I suspect it happened because these guys were fired upon by the Germans in the buildings, a couple of the guys freaked out (rightly so) and froze while some of them went on or were perhaps they were far enough ahead to be not affected by the fire. The troops are Airborne, regular morale and Tiring. Perhaps the teams consist of Green and Veteran and average out to regular. If this was the case the outcome would make sense. The only problem is the guys who advanced further couldn't do much (from memory). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BletchleyGeek Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Hardradi said: This was 7 minutes into the battle so I would have to go back and attempt to try and replicate the move down the wheat field on the right flank to see if it happens again. I image that this would be difficult. I suspect it happened because these guys were fired upon by the Germans in the buildings, a couple of the guys freaked out (rightly so) and froze while some of them went on or were perhaps they were far enough ahead to be not affected by the fire. The troops are Airborne, regular morale and Tiring. Perhaps the teams consist of Green and Veteran and average out to regular. If this was the case the outcome would make sense. The only problem is the guys who advanced further couldn't do much (from memory). @Hardradi is a scenario? Or is it a quick battle? What was the plan? Move orders for everyone across the fields up to the buildings? Edited January 4, 2017 by BletchleyGeek 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.