James Ling Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 I have seen many times infantry who are covered by a hills crest come under direct fire and instead of ducking behind the skyline they abandon that solid position of cover/concealment/commanding view and actually run towards the incoming fire to the flimsy cover of say scattered trees. In all cases the incoming direct fire was from a direction & angle which could not hit the reverse sloap of the hill's crest. Is this a bug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 Maybe it's more of an oversight. I think you're onto something. It does seem like the AI's "run away" target selection is based on terrain tile type and not whether it gets out of the enemy's LOS, regardless of tile type. IOW, because the reverse slope might be open ground, the AI doesn't consider it when looking for cover. Maybe this could be changed? I don't know. Going over the crest requires some degree of rational thought. If the unit is panicked, maybe it should just go for obvious tiles of cover. But if it was just alerted or taking cover, or was of higher quality, it might go over the crest. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 Mmm, I think there is something else here also. I just finished playing a scenario where my defending troops were in foxholes(open ground) on the reverse slope of a ridge. I hoped to ambush the enemy as they came over. It didn't work out that way because as soon as my troops began receiving fire they left the safety of the foxholes for some scattered trees nearby. CM doesn't appear to weigh foxholes in the open very high in the cover department since scattered trees really aren't that great either. This was played with 1.03. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 Joe Private: Units are smarter about seeking cover in 105. Not sure about the crest issue though. Madmatt ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! Combat Mission HQ CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission CMHQ-Annex Host of the Combat Mission WebRing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Ling Posted September 8, 2000 Author Share Posted September 8, 2000 Dear BTS I belive the issue of hill crest cover should be sorted out because it takes away a fundimental portion of cover used in reality by infantry. A soldier fireing from a hill crest is effectivly hull down - his body and legs are out of the firers los - if pinned the soldier can just duck behind the skyline for total cover. It would be strange not to include this factor in what is a brilliantly realistic game. Could not the los calculations used for tanks be used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mensch Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 I second this.. reversed slope tatics so far never worked for me.. same problem of them leaving the foxhole for what! some stupid bushes or scattered trees.. guh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 I third it. Can be more than just a tad annoying when your troops run screaming towards the nearest flimsy copse of scattered trees when they were in perfectly good foxholes located on the reverse of a slope & hence, in most experts minds, in pretty darn good cover. Just shamelessly trying to get this topic to catch BTS's eyes. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 I fourth it. I've been trying to use this tactic since I saw it in an AAR by Fionn. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: I fourth it. I've been trying to use this tactic since I saw it in an AAR by Fionn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But in that AAR the reverse slop was either made up of scattered trees or forest. So the guys were in doubly excellent cover. I also agree with everyone. I have had the same problems with my troops running for "better" cover on the front side of a hill when they were perfectly safe on the reverse slope. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degrees of Frost Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 This situation can be very frustrating - the crest doesn't appear to give infantry behind it any cover and when fired on they head for cover - any cover - which sometimes means the poor sods head straight out from behind cover and head across the enemies LOS in the open - getting shot down the whole time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michlos Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 At first it sounds strange that the infantry would do that kind of rush. After a while though i thought of something, im not saying that this has to be true or anything like that so dont be hurling hamster at me guys : ) Lets say that you have a rifle squad on the far side of a hill. Since they are on the back side of the hill they won't see anything on the other side and all of a sudden the ground starts shaking from lets say heavy artillery fire. Since they have no idea where the artillery is located they will probably just run for a better cover hoping to get away from the artillery bombardment. For them is probably very smart to run to the other side of the hill since they have no way of knowing that the enemy has that side of the hill covered. Just my 2 cents worth... ------------------ < All gave some, some gave ALL> Owner of MiNa's CMBO Page http://come.to/combatmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kinch Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 I am not sure exiting a foxhole in the face of arty fire is the best way to keep a squad intact. Even if they get to cover (say trees) tree bursts may be worse still. Was a "hold at all cost" command ever discussed on the forum? This may keep our troops in place until they panic and we lose control of them. Even with such a command, I could still see units with lower moral have an increasing probability of disobeying the hold command and then leaving open ground foxholes. That way we would not have complete control on the "hold at all cost" order. Since 1.05 is supposed to be better, I want to observe my squads more before I really support such a command. - Kinch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaKilnGuy Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 I strongly agree, why would any soldier run from behind complete cover directly into the gunshots that scared the bejesus out of him. Even if they did pnaic wouldnt a soldier be more likely to run the other direction. Not only does further down the hilll get you further out of los and out of danger, further down the hill is the opposite direction of the gun that scared him in the first place. Sorry if i seem bitter but i have sufered from this as well. It seems to me the squads are reacting to how close the incoming fire was and how open they were instead of reacting to how unlikely it was they would get hit. ------------------ Hot enough for ya'? DaKilnGuy [This message has been edited by DaKilnGuy (edited 09-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Ling Posted September 9, 2000 Author Share Posted September 9, 2000 Michlos - this is not a flying hamster - the situation you describe is perfectly correct. I opened this topic about direct small arms fire against the cover afforded to infantry by hill crests and also the reactions of those fired on inf being a bit unrealistic. I see this as a last bastion of innaccuracy in an otherwise near perfect game - one which I hope Steve & Charles will soon comment on and do somthing about. Hang on, Steve & Charles have got just about everything else covered - surely they must have looked at this issue, mayby there is some programming problem which prevents it from being done? Like wreaked viechals not blocking los issue. I'd really like to hear from the guys at BTS what is what. [This message has been edited by James Ling (edited 09-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 I think this topic is important enough to bump it up, hoping BTS will take notice. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 Of course, if a unit is taking fire, it is by definition not being protected by the terrain. I am in no doubt that hill crests provide cover - it's not like they're going to function differently from big hills and every other kind of terrain in the game - but what you see isn't a perfect representation of how the terrain really is. I've seen target lines almost wrapping over a hill (even accounting for the fact they float a bit). You've just got to treat terrain like buildings - if your unit is too close to the edge, they might not actually be in cover in the eyes of the game engine. I think any change made would have to be a universal one - ie. making all units more inclined to stay in open terrain while under fire. I'm not sure if this would be a desirable tweak. Unfortunately the AI isn't smart enough that it can consider the lie of the terrain a unit is in when deciding how it's going to react to incoming fire. A 'hold at all cost' feature might be a good idea, to indicate to a unit that the position they're in is very important, and they shouldn't move unless it's a really bad idea to stick around. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kinch Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 To clarify ... "hold at all cost" command would apply to units in any terrain type, not just open foxholes. - Kinch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parson Larson Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 I add my support to the call for crest lines acting as cover. This is almost an inexcusable omission from the game. Keith Larson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ACTOR Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 This has been discussed before, in this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007848.html I for one would like to see this issue (not really a bug in my mind) addressed. I continue to see units target through houses and over hills, and while I understand that the graphics are not a perfect representation of what the computer is calculating, if a unit is 5 or 10 meters beyond the crest in visual representation it should not be able to be targeted. Or if it is, then how far off is the visual representation? In the thread a website is mentioned that has some representative screenshots. I think the author of this page did a good job showing the issue. Thank you Simon. http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 Its also debataable about units moving TOWARDS the enemy when the enemy is firing. I have tried to bring this to BTS attention in some threads. I find it laughable the way units run throu enemy positions. There should be some zone of control or soemthing along those lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ACTOR: ...if a unit is 5 or 10 meters beyond the crest in visual representation it should not be able to be targeted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What about being targetted by an enemy unit at a higher elevation? This issue may not be a simple as you think. I'm not sure how the game engine handles intervening obstacles, but I get the feeling from what I've read that it's not ready to handle too much stress yet. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havermeyer Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 This thread single handily changed my force selection and tactics in a PBEM I recently started. All I had was reverse slope cover as the hills in the setup were so shallow and my opponent commanded the high feature (plus 2 story structure). A .50 cal would have stunted the entire attack for two turns. Made me change everything, whereas I had assumed I would at least have some cover for my troops. I wish BTS would respond to this. I thought this was adequate cover as well, given my reading of a Fionn AAR (Sunken Road). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ACTOR Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 Michael, I am not sure I follow you. My units are on the reverse slope ~10m down, and yet they are targeted by an enemy unit that is in the flat lands on the other side of the hill. Again, I think this needs to be addressed, but it is not hurting my game play. I just consider the fact that I need to be further down hills before I feel safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaKilnGuy Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 Just hoping bts will notice. hits galore might give the peng thread a run for its money. ------------------ Hot enough for ya'? DaKilnGuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaKilnGuy: Just hoping bts will notice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just hoping BTS is not "noticing" and deciding not to comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts