Spook Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 ....or specifically in my case...bocage. First, let's provide a quote from the v1.1beta fix list: "- Infantry TacAI is less likely to seek cover when it would require moving closer to the enemy to reach that cover. Also, infantry often automatically retreats from buildings being blasted by heavy weapons that are in danger of collapse." It was further alluded that "bocage" would no longer be regarded as "cover" by panicking troops. OK, this sounded like the answer to my nagging earlier problem with infantry & bocage in CM 1.05---that alerted/cautious/panicked/etc./ foot soldiers had a tendency to run TOWARDS enemy troops on the other side of bocage, and into the bocage itself (thus getting "hung up" in trying to run into or through it). Well, I went back to my "bocage test" scenario to check this out with v1.1beta. Provided below is a snapshot of one such scenario run. A pretty impressive demise of a UK infantry company, it would seem. All of those squads having bravely charged into the teeth of the Germans standing near their foxholes on the other side. Only one little detail; not one of those dead squads were given the order to advance or move towards the Germans. NOT ONE. OK, obviously some more detail is needed to explain the pattern seen here. This particular bocage field is 100X100 meters. In the prior turn, the UK troops advanced from their bocage line on the other side and crossed into the field to form a line about 40-45 meters from the German's hedge line. (In effect, the UK troops were "closer" to the German hedge in front of them instead of the hedge behind them.) The Germans didn't fire in the previous turn. But at the second turn's start, the Germans opened up on the UK troops now in the open. All it took was for a UK squad to become "alerted", and boom, off it charged right towards the Germans. "Alerted" troops did try to shoot back on occasion, but at all other worse morale levels, it was more often just a mad rush only to reach the bocage or perhaps the foxholes on the other side, even if Germans still occupied these foxholes. I had found, though, that IF instead the UK troops had formed a line in the open field, but closer to THEIR own bocage hedge behind them, then the UK troops under fire had a higher tendency to stay in position and duck down---or to break/rout to their friendly side. This pattern wasn't absolute in each play run---but it was VERY repeatable in the test scenario. I wish that was the worst of it, though. It's not. Regardless of where I had the UK troops form a line in the bocage field, there was a VERY high tendency for the German troops to leave their foxholes and start running INTO the bocage; even to run to the other side. I had seen it so many times that I've started yelling, "STAY IN YOUR HOLES, YOU &%$#ING NUMNUTS!!!" What the picture above shows is a rare exception where the Germans DID stay in their foxhole cover, but otherwise this was too infrequent for me. The trends thus perceived by me: 1) Troops caught out in the open MIGHT have a lower tendency to "panic move" towards enemy units in 1.1beta, but this is hardly discernable at lower ranges of 50 meters or less. As of yet, I don't know if the goal of the "panickers" is the bocage or the foxholes on the other side. 2) Troops in foxholes behind bocage (but otherwise in the open) don't seem to regard their foxhole as sufficient cover. 3) There is a strong possibility that troops are still regarding bocage as "cover" to seek shelter in. That is the only thing I can figure regarding the tendency of the German foxholed squads to run out into the bocage instead. Steve/Charles, I regret being such a nuisance to make this into a public issue, considering how you guys & the Beta team busted nuts to put together 1.1beta. But from what I've seen concerning "bocage" in specific, I am about at wits end. So, getting past my ire, I am thus asking---heck, imploring---if it is at all possible for you to take another pass at reviewing the routine/algorithms that are supposed to make panicky troops less likely to run towards enemy troops, or to check if bocage really is a "non-factor" in the seeking of cover. I can send you a pair of test scenarios if you are so inclined. If you can look into this, I would be very appreciate. And if you can't discern a problem after doing so, so be it. [This message has been edited by Spook (edited 12-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 That ones been looked at Spook. It didnt make it into the first beta, but should be in the next one... Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 8, 2000 Author Share Posted December 8, 2000 OK, then, Dan. Thanks very much for responding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 Good post Spook. Im sure BTS will address the problem next patch. I've only played bocage scenarios in v1.05 and below and have also seen that similar behaviour. It sure is annoying and unrealistic. Just had an idea about an alternate way of modelling bocage that might be worth considering (for future?). Have the bocage feature "sit" on a thin strip of terrain (like scattered terrain) slightly wider than the width of the bocage itself so that units next to the bocage get some extra protection, rather than just sitting in open terrain (as is almost always the case). From the pics I have seen of hedgerow in WW2 (http://www.geocities.com/jeffduquette/phtNORM2.html), there typically was a 1'-2' ditch which may have provided extra cover for those adjacent to the hedgerow. It might enhance the defendabilty of bocages and prevent some of that "Germans defending in foxholes behind bocage running into the bocage" kind of behaviour, as they would technically now be in "cover" terain, not open ground. I'm sure this couldn't be done in CM but its just an alternative way it could be modelled. Lt Bull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 8, 2000 Author Share Posted December 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lt Bull: Just had an idea about an alternate way of modelling bocage that might be worth considering (for future?). Have the bocage feature "sit" on a thin strip of terrain (like scattered terrain) slightly wider than the width of the bocage itself so that units next to the bocage get some extra protection, rather than just sitting in open terrain (as is almost always the case). Lt Bull<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good comments in turn, Lt Bull. What you've suggested above has been on the back of my mind too (about a texture "strip", so that being next to bocage might confer a little cover against artillery fire). Perhaps this might be a possibility if the CMBO theme is revisited with an updated CM engine sometime after CM2. Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 Hey Spook, from Dan's response, looks like you're right on with this one, but I have an option that may factor in here. From looking at your pic, I've noticed that there is no other cover present. Now perhaps the logic should still be tweaked somewhat, but where else are they supposed to run? If they stay in the field, they die; if they run to bocage further away, they die; perhaps grabbing the closest cover (the bocage closer to the enemy, or even their foxholes) is the wisest move the TacAI sees. I think to better your test, you should throw a copse of trees behind the brits, to see if the go for that or the bocage. That may solidify your results. Then again, maybe this go against what you're actually trying to test, but I thought I'd bring it up for you. ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: You rock, Croda<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 8, 2000 Author Share Posted December 8, 2000 Actually, Croda, I have done what you've suggested earlier in my test scenarios too. In one case, there was "cover" further back behind the German hedge like scattered-tree copses or a house; in other cases, none. I've even fiddled with differing (larger) bocage fields so see how that would impact the behavior of the UK infantry "caught in the open." The patterns were still the same. I've found from my tests that I can nominally control the "behavior" of the UK troops in the targeted open field. If they're closer to their own bocage line, they will stand in place (or duck down) more often than to run towards the Germans. Letting the AI control the foxholed Germans, however, was more problematic. But I had the notion that bocage was "switched off" as "cover" in 1.1beta. Fortunately, KwazyDog (Dan) has corrected this notion, and this may explain why the German defenders in 1.1beta are still leaving their foxholes and to run into the bocage in front of them. We'll see what the next patch brings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 Lt.Bull, This is a good suggestion. Unfortunately, hybrid terrain tiles are a bit problematic for us to add. However, when we move to a smaller tile structure with the future rewrite of CM's engine this should be solved. If not, we can make sure that hybrid terrain types are allowed. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 22, 2000 Author Share Posted December 22, 2000 I'm being the gadfly here to raise this topic back "from the dead." But now having downloaded and tested v1.1b24, the issues and problems as I've related for the first beta (regardless of what's stated in the "bug fix" list on Infantry TacAI) are STILL the same. Bocage STILL seems to regarded as alternative cover by the German defenders to leave their foxholes for. The Allied troops in the open bocage field STILL make a mad dash right TOWARDS the enemy on the other side of the bocage when they start "panicking" (alerted/cautious/etc.) if they are "close enough" (within 50 meters or so). I try to be mindful of how many other bugs and discrepancies you members of the BTS team have been chasing & killing. But allowing my opinion on what I consider to be a CRUCIAL issue here on infantry behavior in CM, I think the "routine" that is supposed to make troops less likely to "panic-run" TOWARDS enemy troops needs another review. And I think that bocage is still be considered as "cover." So in the pursuit to get from the v1.1betas to v1.1, I do hope this doesn't get forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 23, 2000 Author Share Posted December 23, 2000 A bump until a BTS insider is willing to comment if this issue will be visited again for the final CMBO 1.1............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USGrant Posted December 23, 2000 Share Posted December 23, 2000 I recently posted a similar issue about "cover" and retreats. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013798.html Perhaps this is part of the same issue? ------------------ USGrant When the game is over, the kings and pawns go in the same box. - Old Italian Saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 23, 2000 Author Share Posted December 23, 2000 I reviewed the other thread, USGrant, and while the "retreat behavior" of units is a common theme between the topics, there is a difference. My focus is that I have repeatedly found, even through v1.1b24, that panicking units will still run TOWARDS enemy units in close enough fire ranges (50 meters or less), regardless of the asserted tweak that they are supposed to be less able to do so. The open question to me is if the "twitchy" units are seeking out the bocage or the enemy units' foxholes behind the bocage. In either case, it looks bad to me. Now linking to your topic, this is what I've found from my test scenarios: retreating to a "home edge" seemed to play a factor ONLY when units were "broken" or "routed." In your example of the bazooka team fleeing the house (but not in the opposite direction from the enemy vehicle), was it broken or routed at the time? Take note that firing a bazooka IN a building can help shake up the firing unit also. If it gets BTS to review "retreat behavior" of units as a whole, though, I may give your thread a bump later on too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted December 23, 2000 Share Posted December 23, 2000 Bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 28, 2000 Author Share Posted December 28, 2000 I regret being a gadfly here, but until as such time that a BTS member sees fit to answer if the Infantry TacAI will or will not be "reviewed" prior to a finalized CMBO 1.1, this topic gets a bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 29, 2000 Author Share Posted December 29, 2000 Bada-boom, bada-bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted January 2, 2001 Author Share Posted January 2, 2001 Now that I've seen you float in here a little earlier, Steve G, I wonder if you can take up this request I had earlier? As it stands now, infantry behavior even in v1.1b24 is still problematic within 50 meters distance, no matter the claim of revision in the Readme "fix list." In fact, with my bocage test scenario, I would say that infantry behavior seems outright STUPID. I've discovered similar patterns of behavior in the Cheneux. Given that visibility in that (night) game is only 50 meters (and thus all combat happens within then), this extends beyond just the bocage aspect. I will relate more details in the next post if you so wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Spook, this issue has undergone almost continous testing but none of us can replicate what you see. Sometimes the wisest TacAi move is to try and close assault the defending infantry behind the Bocage. I also have seen the TacAi run away from the bocage and other times just hit the dirt where they lay. I have never seen the Germans leave their foxholes. Can you send me your test scenario for review? I want to see how you have it setup. Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted January 2, 2001 Author Share Posted January 2, 2001 Thanks, Matt, you'll get it tonight. Now in the case of the Germans running out from the foxholes (on the other side of the bocage) into the bocage, this may be related to IF bocage is still regarded as "cover" by the v1.1b24 game engine. Kwazydog alluded on that issue NOT making it into the first beta, so please check with Charles if the bocage "cover" bit got lost in the shuffle. Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 I wish I had seen your post to start this thread earlier, Ed, and I'd have simply added my "Dilapidated housing" report to this piece. Oh well, no damage done harping on this issue as it causes serious disruption to play. I would say if anything infantry behavior in v1.1b24 is more retarded than it ever was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pritzl Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Well, I was playing an operation tonight and I had the exact problem spook described. I had a German squad in a foxhole behind some bocage (i.e. squad in open ground on other side). Some americans began firing from the other side (about 10-15 meters away) and my squad panicked and then ran into the bocage toward the Americans. They were immediately cut to pieces. This is in 1.1b24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts