Jump to content

Infantry Breaking to Easily in 4.0?


Recommended Posts

Ok, just to show a point.

Test ran.

I set up in CMBN a platoon of American infantry, Req, low morale and leadership of 0

Plenty of fox holes and split the squads up so that everyone was in a fox hole.

 

I had two german 81 mortars hit them for a minute with rounds from a distance of 350 m

Did this twice, at no point did I see one man leave their fox hole for any reason.  (BF wins that debate - customer is making false claims)

We need to do better than that, if there is a issue guys. Really need some evidence

 

What I did prove was.

First test I did not have my men hiding, second test I had the hide command on.

Results. first group 3 KIA's, 5 seriously wounded

Second group 1 KIA

 

I have known this for a long time, but to get the benefits of the foxhole or trench, your men must be laying down, (thus the reason for the hide command) If you do not do that, they are like ground hogs, they keep popping up so you can kill them.

In game play situations where I am expecting arty. I keep all my men hidden with one or two groups of spotter not hidden to watch for enemy approaching when using such terrain, actually I do that for more than just foxholes and trenches. Its a good way to stay hidden. from enemy spotting.

 

As for Sburke event, I am not saying it did not happen to you as you have said. but without that game file and the ability to see all the factors and duplicate the event, we have nothing. But within 10 minutes I have proved to myself I see no issue wit6h the game results.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

What I did prove was.

First test I did not have my men hiding, second test I had the hide command on.

Results. first group 3 KIA's, 5 seriously wounded

Second group 1 KIA

 

I have known this for a long time, but to get the benefits of the foxhole or trench, your men must be laying down, (thus the reason for the hide command) If you do not do that, they are like ground hogs, they keep popping up so you can kill them.

You're completely right, but just to nuance it: Even if you don't manually give the hide command, your troops will still benefit a lot from being in foxholes as compared to being on open ground. Because they will duck down when the first shells hit, and sometimes stay down while following bombs come in. This is also one of the reasons why rockets are deadly against troops in foxholes, even though they can't airbust - the rocket salvo can hit so massively and quickly that there's not enough time to go prone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

Ok, just to show a point.

Test ran.

I set up in CMBN a platoon of American infantry, Req, low morale and leadership of 0

Plenty of fox holes and split the squads up so that everyone was in a fox hole.

 

I had two german 81 mortars hit them for a minute with rounds from a distance of 350 m

Did this twice, at no point did I see one man leave their fox hole for any reason.  (BF wins that debate - customer is making false claims)

We need to do better than that, if there is a issue guys. Really need some evidence

 

What I did prove was.

First test I did not have my men hiding, second test I had the hide command on.

Results. first group 3 KIA's, 5 seriously wounded

Second group 1 KIA

 

I have known this for a long time, but to get the benefits of the foxhole or trench, your men must be laying down, (thus the reason for the hide command) If you do not do that, they are like ground hogs, they keep popping up so you can kill them.

In game play situations where I am expecting arty. I keep all my men hidden with one or two groups of spotter not hidden to watch for enemy approaching when using such terrain, actually I do that for more than just foxholes and trenches. Its a good way to stay hidden. from enemy spotting.

 

As for Sburke event, I am not saying it did not happen to you as you have said. but without that game file and the ability to see all the factors and duplicate the event, we have nothing. But within 10 minutes I have proved to myself I see no issue wit6h the game results.

 

 

Thanks slysniper no problem, there is actually a variation. I used off board. The rate of fire is I believe higher.  Also in my test I used blue on blues as I wanted a wider variety of arty examples. I can send you a link later today and provid my test scenario for you to compare. The rest seems comparable to yours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WELL, if you are managing to get them to break and run easy, then there is something to investigate, that is for sure.

But it would be a bug not in general settings but something showing up with the exact settings you have, so then it would need to be weeded out as to what setting or unit is creating the results.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mortar platoon should not be able to dislodge a dug-in company in trenches, behind wire and mines. It is far too easy to shoot the enemy off position now. Before troops would hunker down in their fortifications and you'd still have to press the attack, now not so much.

This is very, very obvious in Black Sea where a BMP-3 equipped company can dislodge a battalion from their trenches. 100mm air burst is no joke, but one of the differences between warriors and trained soldiers is that a soldier knows the value of digging in and staying put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, slysniper said:

 

Believe me, I am not a fan of 4.0. but I have now played enough under the new system to see troops still hold their ground under hard situations.(high moral, good troop) I have learned to use pause as a way to keep shaken troops in place. But more importantly. I have stopped trying to put unrealistic expectation on units to stay and fight if they are shot up or if they are taken ordinance fire. I have changed my tactics and now I don't see all that running and getting shot in the back stuff in the open so much.

 

My main concern with the new infantry behavior is not with regards to multiplayer (or player-side in singleplayer). It's the AI controlled troops that are more of a problem imo.

The AI troops can not use the 'pause function' to increase staying power for example and will most of the time not be as flexible as a human player to adjust to the changing situation

on the battlefield. The AI-lead troops will have a more difficult time to deal with these more fragile soldiers i fear.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RepsolCBR said:

My main concern with the new infantry behavior is not with regards to multiplayer (or player-side in singleplayer). It's the AI controlled troops that are more of a problem imo.

The AI troops can not use the 'pause function' to increase staying power for example and will most of the time not be as flexible as a human player to adjust to the changing situation

on the battlefield. The AI-lead troops will have a more difficult time to deal with these more fragile soldiers i fear.

 

I agree with you completely. thus the reason I call the troops wimps in general now. I feel like you do exactly, but until we have some type of hard case to present as to how 4.0 is flawed. we are just wasting our efforts.

I think the problem with the AI is  (you are seeing situations where the AI is pushing troops which are already fragile from earlier situations and then they break quickly and do stupid things. (really the game AI is not thinking, many times it just does what it has been commanded to do, whether smart or not.)  And for sure expecting fragile troops to do much anymore is off the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having gotten myself into a few more firefights across various titles recently (CMBS, CMBN, and CMSF (not updated, so its a good control/reference point)) I have come to see that in most instances, infantry behave realistically. That is to say, they break contact when they should, and they stick around and fight when they should. 

There are only a few cases where I think the behavior needs to be tweaked, and as I have said before, I am confident BFC will be further tweaking the new infantry behavior in upcoming patches. 

The biggest thing that I think needs to be tweaked is infantry fleeing from fortifications. 

The second thing I think needs a little tweaking is infantry fleeing (whether it be from fortifications or not) from small arms fire. I've noticed that sometimes, when taking direct small arms fire (generally from fully automatic weapons) units will break contact. Most of the time this is not a problem. However in a few instances it can be, such as if a smaller unit is making a determined defense against an attacker. A good example of this is the Lanzerath Ridge scenario in CMFB. Historically, the US held their ground against multiple attacks until they ran out of ammo. Currently with the new infantry behavior, the Germans are able to fire enough MG-34/42 rounds at the ridge to force the US teams to displace, despite the fact that they are in foxholes, and are a good 150m away from the enemy. I do not think infantry should be as ready to abandon their fortifications under small arms fire as they currently are.

Again though I'm sure the behavior will be tweaked based on community feedback. We might just have to wait a bit. In the meantime, the current behavior is far from broken. The games are perfectly playable. Some of the new behavior just requires getting used to. Once its more familiar I'm confident most of the heavy complaints will go away. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sburke sent me a file, after seeing what he was seeing. I have done some more testing in cmfb and cmbn to see if there is a issue in 4.0.

 

It is very clear that there is some type of programming issue.

I set a platoon of reg, infantry in fox holes and hit them with 81's for one minute.

I have good morale and no leadership modifiers for all my units. I set them to hide to allow them to get full protection.

 

If I do this with on board arty, the result seem very realistic. Maybe on the average 3 kia's in a minute, no one routs.

If I do this with off board arty. Within 10-20 seconds of rounds falling, men are routing and leaving their foxholes.

One clear sign something is wrong is when I view their suppression bar, its not even fully lit yet on some of them, their morale shows to be ok. in that sense.

 

Its so bad, in one test I had only 7 men in their foxholes after only one minute.

Both games show similar issues

 

I think we have the silver bullet to kill this issue as to if there is a problem.

Now to get BF to pay some attention and address the issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, slysniper said:

Sburke sent me a file, after seeing what he was seeing. I have done some more testing in cmfb and cmbn to see if there is a issue in 4.0.

 

It is very clear that there is some type of programming issue.

I set a platoon of reg, infantry in fox holes and hit them with 81's for one minute.

I have good morale and no leadership modifiers for all my units. I set them to hide to allow them to get full protection.

 

If I do this with on board arty, the result seem very realistic. Maybe on the average 3 kia's in a minute, no one routs.

If I do this with off board arty. Within 10-20 seconds of rounds falling, men are routing and leaving their foxholes.

One clear sign something is wrong is when I view their suppression bar, its not even fully lit yet on some of them, their morale shows to be ok. in that sense.

 

Its so bad, in one test I had only 7 men in their foxholes after only one minute.

Both games show similar issues

 

I think we have the silver bullet to kill this issue as to if there is a problem.

Now to get BF to pay some attention and address the issue.

 

Thanks @slysniper that is really interesting. I am back in town mid next week and will do a comparison save of both and pass the results up the ladder to get some attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

Sburke sent me a file, after seeing what he was seeing. I have done some more testing in cmfb and cmbn to see if there is a issue in 4.0.

 

It is very clear that there is some type of programming issue.

I set a platoon of reg, infantry in fox holes and hit them with 81's for one minute.

I have good morale and no leadership modifiers for all my units. I set them to hide to allow them to get full protection.

 

If I do this with on board arty, the result seem very realistic. Maybe on the average 3 kia's in a minute, no one routs.

If I do this with off board arty. Within 10-20 seconds of rounds falling, men are routing and leaving their foxholes.

One clear sign something is wrong is when I view their suppression bar, its not even fully lit yet on some of them, their morale shows to be ok. in that sense.

 

Its so bad, in one test I had only 7 men in their foxholes after only one minute.

Both games show similar issues

 

I think we have the silver bullet to kill this issue as to if there is a problem.

Now to get BF to pay some attention and address the issue.

 

Hell...I been saying that there is something wrong for both Small Arms & Arty in all my WWII Titles.

It gets pretty bad when in less then a minute of Small Arms or Arty, Good Troops are bailing out of Trenches/Foxholes/Buildings, etc...On top of that, the Suppression Meter is still in the Green/Yellow zone. 

Now, at east someone is doing actual Comparison tests...

 

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

Hell...I could've told you that there is some sort of programming issue...I get the same results with both Arty & Small Arms in all my WWII Titles. 

 

Maybe, but did you provide any test material? ?BF never responds to just complaints or anecdotal info.  You can either help with a data set to prove your point or you decide you just want to grumble and not see any changes. It is all a matter of choice. 

As to small arms fire, I can't vouch for that and that is not a component of this test. Sooooooooo ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, unless there is a BF Moderator here asking for such Tests (that they should be doing themselves) then all players can do, is complain. 

With something major like this, I wonder if, BF, even Playtests what they release. 

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have volunteers as play tester, finding such things in a game like this can be challenging.

Look I have been playing the game steady since 4.0 has ben released and I cannot think of any situation where I had arty and troops dug in to even have a chance of noticing it.

 

So if you are so sure there is other areas with issues, get involved and set up some controlled situations where you can show the unrealistic behavior.

I agree there is likely other areas that could be affected. But like this, I cannot explain why on board arty is fine and off-board arty is broken.

 

I am hoping, when they look into it, it might help find any other issue also with troops routing.

Who knows, maybe its only under a certain type of small arms troops react unrealistically.

 

But any example where you see troops routing and they have not even been suppressed yet should be easy to find and to take those files and submit them for review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my observations it seems to me that in about 80% of scenarios and maybe 90% of Quick battles that there is not an underlying problem. However, once in a while a scenario or mission from a campaign comes along that falls into the other category. The parameters are usually the same i.e. it involves a heavy attacking force trying to dislodge a much weaker defending force from either buildings or foxholes/entrenchments. I have noted the effects are similar whether the defending troops are controlled by human player or the AI. Unfortunately for me I am in the middle of one right now, trying to occupy building, trenches and foxholes at each end of a bridge to gain a victory. I am experiencing veteran and crack paratroopers running from buildings and fortifications when under small arms fire and no they are not panicked but merely rattled. Their desire to evacuate the said buildings/fortifications is so strong that at times they even over-ride the pause orders that I keep having to give them.

OekOPnR.jpg?1

The troops in the trench in the foreground are all running or about to run due to small arms fire and then to make matters worse they get creamed by mortars that just start landing on them as they cower and run around in the open. You will notice that the HQ I highlighted is crack and rattled as are most of the others. My opponent must be having a field day but I can assure you it is not much fun for me. And yes, before all you nay sayers  pipe up, I do have a saved game which proves what I and many others have been stating on here for the last few months. I will be happy to share it with any or all interested parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Well, unless there is a BF Moderator here asking for such Tests (that they should be doing themselves) then all players can do, is complain. 

With something major like this, I wonder if, BF, even Playtests what they release. 

Err. That is pretty rude. You just leveled an insult at just about every beta tester here. And no all you can do is not complain. In fact if that is all you do it will never contribute anything. You can just like anyone else here post a save, a test scenario etc demonstrating what it is you think is off.  There are a couple beta testers in this thread as well so acting like if Steve personally doesn't post or Charles doesn't gurgle from his fishbowl that it is utterly pointless reveals a level of ignorance as to how any issue has ever been brought to BFs attention. 

you've been around long enough to know better, c'mon man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hilts said:

From my observations it seems to me that in about 80% of scenarios and maybe 90% of Quick battles that there is not an underlying problem. However, once in a while a scenario or mission from a campaign comes along that falls into the other category. The parameters are usually the same i.e. it involves a heavy attacking force trying to dislodge a much weaker defending force from either buildings or foxholes/entrenchments. I have noted the effects are similar whether the defending troops are controlled by human player or the AI. Unfortunately for me I am in the middle of one right now, trying to occupy building, trenches and foxholes at each end of a bridge to gain a victory. I am experiencing veteran and crack paratroopers running from buildings and fortifications when under small arms fire and no they are not panicked but merely rattled. Their desire to evacuate the said buildings/fortifications is so strong that at times they even over-ride the pause orders that I keep having to give them.

OekOPnR.jpg?1

The troops in the trench in the foreground are all running or about to run due to small arms fire and then to make matters worse they get creamed by mortars that just start landing on them as they cower and run around in the open. You will notice that the HQ I highlighted is crack and rattled as are most of the others. My opponent must be having a field day but I can assure you it is not much fun for me. And yes, before all you nay sayers  pipe up, I do have a saved game which proves what I and many others have been stating on here for the last few months. I will be happy to share it with any or all interested parties.

I am out of town til mid next week, but I would love a link to those saves. It would help a lot. Thanks in advance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many play test, game played and designed through these last years within the CM titles,  I have seen many things happening. However most of them find an explanation and the reason of why it happens. I like authenticity and realism, so you can be sure that I have an eye on these. However, when something happens and does not fit with them, the difficulty is to corner that difficulty, or if you prefer to be able to reproduce it. So, the best advice I would give, when you find something is to reproduce it and watch it very closely doing exactly the same thing. Sometimes you will find out that what your pixels troops have done somehow was real troops would have done. No one in real life will be acting like Rambo, or if he does, he will not last long under fire. Pixels troops are behaving the same way and that is a real touch of authenticity. That does not mean that something wrong can happen from time to time. You are there to point it out, but give all you can to explain it clearly with a btt file,if possible, it will be better

Cheer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, slysniper said:

If I do this with on board arty, the result seem very realistic. Maybe on the average 3 kia's in a minute, no one routs.

If I do this with off board arty. Within 10-20 seconds of rounds falling, men are routing and leaving their foxholes.

Thanks for helping test this out. I would never have guessed it came down to the arty being onboard or offboard.

They really should have some kind of "bugfixer medal badge" on this forum for people who spend their time testing stuff like this out. We all benefit when issues get found, flanked, and fixed.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sburke said:

I am out of town til mid next week, but I would love a link to those saves. It would help a lot. Thanks in advance. 

Sure thing. I have two files up to now which I will send to you. Where do you want them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, sburke was the one that had the situation where the error was happening, I had tested on board arty and everything looked fine. So its pretty easy to take out all the variable factors and test the two things basically doing the same bombardment..

The difference is so drastic, I am sure something has been missed in a coding change somewhere for the off-board arty.

 

But there is similar complaints about infantry fire being able to do this also. But now I know to look for troops breaking cover before they are even suppressed and pinned. That should help anyone in finding when something funny is happening. After that, it is just reviewing the file and selecting one unit at a time that was involved and see if the issue can be produced in a controlled test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other ting I've noticed just in the past few turns.

We all know that a shreck or bazooka firing inside a building can suppress the team.  Under 4.0, I've seen three or four instances of this suppression causing the shreck team to vacate the building.  Under 3.0, they would have cowered in place.

They are not taking any kind of fire.  They fire the rocket, get suppressed, and stand up and run out into the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...