Engine 5 Wishlist

[chuckdyke]

6 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

 Then i would agree , we dont' have that ,and Im always up for more detail, options and commands, such as a more precise armor arc, i would like to set an armor arc so it  excludes firing at annoying, small recon vehicles such as jeeps, halftracks, and weak armor recon.

Armor Arc                      All Armor Vehicles

Armor Arc Medium        75mm and less

Armor Arc Heavy          76mm and over

 

The opponent is like a shark, the ones you see are ok. If they target you, you won't know what hits you.

[Glubokii Boy]

3 hours ago, 37mm said:

Here's an experiment which proves that the CMx2 (v4.0) AI is indeed more advanced than what one might imagine.

I honestly don't think that this shows all that much of what the AI can or can not do in a useful way...

It is a TEST run on a VERY SIMPLE map...with VERY FEW terrain features.

It really does not resemble the well made, detailed and complicated maps that we usually are fighting on at all.

Even on this...VERY SIMPLE map the AI units are zig,zagging their way forward...and choosing their bounding locations somewhat strangely as can be sen in the second to last picture.

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

6 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Sorry BP, but this is not quite true.

I don't know how much time you've spent in the AI Editor and then playtesting the results, but you will find that the computer doesn't just have the units QUICK or SLOW directly and all at once in a nonstop beeline to their (randomly chosen) destination square.

1. The units in the AI group set off at different times (it seems, although I've never quite confirmed, that rifle sections jump off first with other units - HQs, MGs, etc. - following after a delay of as much as 3 minutes). 

2. When there's cover terrain along the way, even if it's not quite in a straight line, the computer will, with no human instructions needed, have the units pause in it long enough for lagging pixtruppen to catch up before taking another bound.

3. If they come under fire and become ALERTED or worse, they will go to ground, but once the shooting stops and they aren't too shot up, they will usually resume their advance as before.

Thanks for the explanation.

I have actually dabbled a bit in the editor (not to the extent you have) but my scenarios are generally quite small, and I have been treating individual teams as AI groups, so I can't say I have a lot f experience ordering large formations about.

The times I did try it though, I did not notice units setting off at different times, or finding cover in any sensible locations along the way. What I did see was teams on assault orders running right past low walls or shell craters to stop their movement in open field. It seemed completely random where they would set up overwatch. I tried varioius combinations of movement orders and stances (cautious/active), but did not notice any difference about finding cover.

We agree about teams resuming movement once they are no longer suppressed though. That would of course be a big difference compared to the orders we have now.

Edited February 13, 2021 by Bulletpoint

[LongLeftFlank]

Yes, agreed, there is a good bit of randomness in the AI behaviour that remains a black box, and the behaviours can also be nonsensical (suicidal) at times. Perhaps there's a more experienced scenario programmer out there who can give a more accurate description than me. But at this stage, I think I've pounded this nail through the board and am becoming repetitive. Thanks for listening.

Edited February 13, 2021 by LongLeftFlank

[weapon2010]

More control of the formations within the squad such as The Line , The V, The Column.

The Line

 

The V

 

The Coulmn, well the best i can get it,lol

[Stardekk]

@weapon2010 You can't do that, because its only works for WW2 stuff.....

 

Also, I would like to have a "Rules of Engagement" folder for each Platoon commander and above, that will determent what the Platoon will do in ana event of a fight, fo example, dont fire that thing  unti that thing happens, move at a speed of X, dont fire until the range of Y, etc etc...

Edited February 13, 2021 by Stardekk

[Freyberg]

11 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

The times I did try it though, I did not notice units setting off at different times, or finding cover in any sensible locations along the way. What I did see was teams on assault orders running right past low walls or shell craters to stop their movement in open field. It seemed completely random where they would set up overwatch. I tried varioius combinations of movement orders and stances (cautious/active), but did not notice any difference about finding cover.

I've been getting much better results very recently than I ever used to, by making liberal use of the 'Max Assault' order.

Quite counterintuitively, as I only recently learned on this forum*, this order allows AI-controlled units to stop during their advance or assault and respond to the player's units - it should be called 'max response'.

[* it's probably in the manual, perhaps some time in the last decade I should have read it...]

[Freyberg]

3 hours ago, Stardekk said:

Also, I would like to have a "Rules of Engagement" folder for each Platoon commander and above, that will determent what the Platoon will do in ana event of a fight, fo example, dont fire that thing  unti that thing happens, move at a speed of X, dont fire until the range of Y, etc etc...

I fully and totally understand this point of view, but I don't agree with it.

I would like the AI to do these things without being told - and in fairness, the AI has been getting better over recent upgrades.

I love making maps, especially QB maps, but I don't want to spend hours micromanaging and testing AI plans. I would prefer improvements and extensions to the way it works already.

In fact, my ideal would be that you could give the AI a single order, like 'attack aggressively', and it would work out everything else for itself. That's unrealistic for now, but the way it functions already is kind of based on that sort of thinking, which I think is the best way to go.

[chuckdyke]

58 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

I fully and totally understand this point of view, but I don't agree with it.

I would like the AI to do these things without being told - and in fairness, the AI has been getting better over recent upgrades.

I love making maps, especially QB maps, but I don't want to spend hours micromanaging and testing AI plans. I would prefer improvements and extensions to the way it works already.

In fact, my ideal would be that you could give the AI a single order, like 'attack aggressively', and it would work out everything else for itself. That's unrealistic for now, but the way it functions already is kind of based on that sort of thinking, which I think is the best way to go.

UK Battle Group Attacks in SF2, the AI also attacks as Syrian. (Meeting) It develops into a shooting gallery; it is just the fact a human is better at micromanaging the game. They don't use infantry as security attack WWI fashion (over the top). Most of the fun is the Recon phase of a game. There is where I still lose units. PBEM, the way it goes you play a game for a month or more? Same on Hotseat we play once a week and it takes at least 2 weeks to play a game. The big ones longer.

[BornGinger]

On 2/11/2021 at 8:15 PM, Anonymous_Jonze said:

I'd like to see one of the members of an MG crew carry the tripod on their back.

If there also was the feature that German soldiers had a problem with lice after having taken over lice infested Soviet foxholes, threnches and buildings, the one carrying the tripod could also scratch his back with it.

Edited February 14, 2021 by BornGinger

[Bulletpoint]

12 hours ago, Freyberg said:

I love making maps, especially QB maps, but I don't want to spend hours micromanaging and testing AI plans. I would prefer improvements and extensions to the way it works already.

I wish they would just ask their best campaign makers what kinds of new tools or features in the editor would make their work easier, faster, and better.

And then choose the ideas easiest to implement. An undo function maybe. Or being able to cycle both ways through all the combinations of doors and windows for buildings. That kind of thing.

[Glubokii Boy]

45 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I wish they would just ask their best campaign makers what kinds of new tools or features in the editor would make their work easier, faster, and better.

I would be seriously supprised if they are not doing that already ...

The problem though i'm guessing is that they don't have the manpower to implement those changes as fast as desired.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I'd like to see a toggle to control troops' behaviour: Active/cautious.

If you have a team in a wheat field, choosing "cautious" would have them generally stay prone in the crops out of sight. "Active" will have them sit upright to gain LOS.

Same goes for movement orders. There would be fewer orders, and you would combine them with the stance:

"MOVE" + "active stance" = MOVE as we know it now: walk along and when taking fire, run.

MOVE + cautious stance = HUNT. Walk slowly and when taking fire or spotting enemies, go prone.

QUICK+ active = run FAST. QUICK + cautious= move quickly but return fire if fired upon.

SLOW + active= crawl and fire on spotted enemies. SLOW + cautious = sneak ahead and try to avoid firing (moving a spotter into position for example)

[Erwin]

+1  Good ideas.  My only comment is that the MOVE+ ACTIVE = HUNT does not result in the same tiring HUNT that we presently have.  

I would suggest an additional RECON order that enables a unit to MOVE/HUNT carefully, and then, when fired on, try to find the best cover and retreat back to friendly lines.  Playing WEGO, it can be suicidal for a unit to HUNT and then lie prone when fired on for up to the 60 seconds b4 one can get them to move to safety.  (I find it a bit more survivable if one orders a HIDE at every waypoint.  The downside of this tactic of course is that at every waypoint the unit's spotting ability is very degraded, which is counter-productive.)  

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I would suggest an additional RECON order that enables a unit to MOVE/HUNT carefully, and then, when fired on, try to find the best cover and retreat back to friendly lines.

Yes, I'd like to see this too. Could work like this:

RECON + active: Run back towards friendly lines when fired upon.

RECON + cautious: go prone and hide when fired upon.

[Kevin2k]

As per the title of this topic:

I would like to see post-victory/defeat/surrender interaction. Where you are still able to move your troops around, consolidating the grounds you took. And the opponent just stands there surrendering, and/or they walk towards your end of the map. Seems like fun.

But how to handle a draw, or an partial victory? Maybe just allow movement in the area that you are holding.

 

 

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

RECON + active: Run back towards friendly lines when fired upon.

RECON + cautious: go prone and hide when fired upon.

It would be best if the AI were able to decide whether to HIDE in place, or SLOW MOVE, or RUN back to friendly lines.  During a WEGO minute, only the AI can decide what is best - maybe depending on the type, intensity and proximity of enemy fire.

[Bulletpoint]

13 minutes ago, Erwin said:

It would be best if the AI were able to decide whether to HIDE in place, or SLOW MOVE, or RUN back to friendly lines.  During a WEGO minute, only the AI can decide what is best - maybe depending on the type, intensity and proximity of enemy fire.

In theory yes, but that's going into the territory of "fantasy AI".

I don't really like games that rely on the AI to make the right decisions. I find it's better to get the player control.

Games such as Mius Front are generally frustrating to play because the game designers are obsessed about taking control away from the player and assigning it to their wonderful amazing AI instead. Which then predictably rarely does the right thing.

[arpella72]

What I would like to see is more ,and different kinds, of barbed wire in the game as well as another models of pillboxes and bunkers with different shapes and sizes.I know there s an issue about modelling deeper trenches and foxholes but,it would be a way to do it?.Defensive works need a major overhaul in the game just to do it more immersive and challenging.,Why not to model underground shelters and basements for example?

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by arpella72

[Erwin]

Nice miniatures arpella.

[chuckdyke]

7 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Yes, I'd like to see this too. Could work like this:

RECON + active: Run back towards friendly lines when fired upon.

RECON + cautious: go prone and hide when fired upon.

Try to test the following, go on hunt on the end of the hunt order have a fast move backwards. Hopefully if he stops his hunt move because he is fired upon, he will take the evasive action. I observed that scouts will shout "enemy unit sighted!" and go prone. Which maybe the correct thing to do as a running figure attracts attention.

[LongLeftFlank]

On 2/14/2021 at 8:39 AM, Freyberg said:

I've been getting much better results very recently than I ever used to, by making liberal use of the 'Max Assault' order.

Quite counterintuitively, as I only recently learned on this forum*, this order allows AI-controlled units to stop during their advance or assault and respond to the player's units - it should be called 'max response'.

[* it's probably in the manual, perhaps some time in the last decade I should have read it...]

 

Been playing with the AI (CMBN 4.03) a bit as well, and noticed a couple of issues.

(In my proposal above to let the player issue simplified AI plans to platoons, these can be addressed by manually repathing waypoints for egregiously 'dumb' moves. Or not.)

1. Units in an AI group pick their Order destination square at random from those painted on the map. So if you paint a linear or oval zone (phase line) perpendicular to the axis of advance, you commonly get units criscrossing or 'fanning out' across their fronts, with potentially lethal consequences.

2. Units may also pick a destination square with no cover, ignoring good cover in a nearby square. (It would be nice for all AI orders to conclude automatically with a 'seek cover nearby' routine even if the units aren't under fire. But not essential.)

3. Units frequently become Exhausted trying to fulfil AI orders, even when  objectives are not hugely distant. This is especially true in Assault/Max Assault mode. The primary causes seem to be that:
a. they QUICK move right through dense terrain (rather than pathing around).
b. they try to cover long stretches in SLOW crawl and ASSAULT mode.
... But I also think it's realistic that troops get worn out quickly by executing stressful orders under fire, then need a break before moving out again. Here again, extreme cases can be dealt with via micro, or not, as desired.

Lastly, @Bulletpoint's comment above that an intrusive know-it-all AI can be a drag as well is *very* well taken. Just as BFC kept WeGo there should always be an option to micro forces in good order.

[chuckdyke]

@LongLeftFlank Yes, we should keep the choice RTS or WeGo. It comes down of giving the customer choice. Now I study the editor a little more, I appreciate the effort people do to give as some decent games. For the future after playing the game for a few years the PDF files could explain more in depth about the editor. Also Unzipping the files when you install the game, I get by with some 3rd party software. The software should come with the game. How does the 'Steam' version do this? Using the .50 Cal on the Sherman when you area fire light some tanks use the .50 Cal and some tanks don't. or is it a matter of animation? Spotting on Iron the game has some spoilers. Unit out of contact still generate contact icons. We can ignore it but it is tempting. The culprit is the camera especially camera position 4. To make it realistic it comes down to choice. Camera 1 for the soldier on the ground. HQ's-have a map he uses, 1,5 and up. Elevated terrain camera position 2-3 and 4 for key terrain or if you call in air units. It should be a step above Iron for people who agree to it.Kind regards.

[chuckdyke]

I tried a technique with the scouts which seems to work. Mask their moves by making other units generate some noise nearby. Surprised it worked, -2 scout unit surprised a German listening patrol and lived to tell the tale. The German Fallschirmjäger were looking in the direction of the noisy units. The Noisy units were on normal move mode. Possibly the move mode overrides the hunt mode in regards of contact icons. Worth testing. 

[Bulletpoint]

5 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

3. Units frequently become Exhausted trying to fulfil AI orders, even when  objectives are not hugely distant. This is especially true in Assault/Max Assault mode. The primary causes seem to be that:
a. they QUICK move right through dense terrain (rather than pathing around).
b. they try to cover long stretches in SLOW crawl and ASSAULT mode.

I think the issue is that the AI will go to ground and start to crawl when under fire, but then not get up again and start running instead, when incoming fire stops. So you end up with units crawling for hundreds of metres.