von Lucke Posted July 30, 2000 Share Posted July 30, 2000 OK, I've seen this brought up before --- just not lately. But since it just happened to me, personally, I feel it's my sovereign right to whine about it. So here's the set-up: I've got a platoon+ of Waffen SS troopers in some light trees facing about 500m of flat, open terrain with a large patch of woods on the other side. Just as I start across (after looking both ways, of course), at a dead run, my opponent starts dropping some very large (at least 150mm) arty on the light trees I had just vacated. No prob, thinks I, as my troopers are well on their way to the safety of the woods, now only some 250m ahead. Well, not really... Seems a stray round impacts near one of my squads and the platoon HQ. No casualties, but they become "Shaken" and change course toward the nearest cover (can you see where I'm going with this?). Well, that "nearest cover" just happens to be the light trees they just left. The same light trees that are under heavy bombardment! Needless to say, there where no survivors. So, to recap: Troops scared by near miss (no casualties), and rather than keep running ahead toward the safety of the woods as ordered, turn 180 into an active artillery barrage (because the cover there is closer) and are wiped out. I've seen something similar happen when a squad is advancing into small-arms fire and becomes "Shaken": In running toward the nearest cover, the squad ends up throwing themselves on the bayonets of the unit firing at them, simply because that's the nearest cover! Same thing with bailed-out AFV crews, only it's even more of a slaughter then... Perhaps the AI needs to be told "Shaken = Nearest Cover - Enemy Units" and include falling artillery shells under the heading of Enemy Units. Thoughts? Anecdotes? Witty rejoinders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted July 31, 2000 Author Share Posted July 31, 2000 What? Nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 That would probably happen in "real life" and I know its been documented before. ------------------ The names Ash, Housewares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Ash said (without stuttering over "klatu feratta whatever") <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That would probably happen in "real life" and I know its been documented before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> More than a few firemen have died from panicking and running further into the fire instead of out of the building. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 I understand what von Lucke is saying here. Sometimes you just have to shake your head as you watch the enemy in panic, running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyland Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Ah, If only I could have seen it! Hell, if only more of his troops could have gone with the HQ! Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: Perhaps the AI needs to be told "Shaken = Nearest Cover - Enemy Units" and include falling artillery shells under the heading of Enemy Units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds reasonable to me. People do weird, unaccountable things, and especially under the stress of combat, BUT the kind of thing you describe seems to be a little too common in CM. I think the TacAI could use a little tweak here. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scarhead Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Sounds reasonable to me. People do weird, unaccountable things, and especially under the stress of combat, BUT the kind of thing you describe seems to be a little too common in CM. I think the TacAI could use a little tweak here. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Second this. Sometimes: Yes, it did happen, so it shall happen sometimes. Often: No. I had it that my troops ran away from a house under direct HE fire (2 tanks). They ran behind the nearest bocage, just as told. They were out of sight to the tanks still shelling the house. I left them alone. But then they returned next turn towards the house - they never made it. And they weren't even shaken nor panicked or routed. Hey - this was with 1.01, so the "bocage = no cover bug" was gone. Tried the same situation (reload....) several times. They always returned. One of the 2 units was a Coy HQ... (Road to Mortain, scen 1) Same problem in Elsdorf - the remnants of the forward plt (2 Jumbos and one Sherman shot by the Schreck!!) withdrew from their forward position - at least one of the 3 remaining units stopped, and ran back thru!!! the enemy tanks who already were encircling the little woods where my plt came from. The point of return was about as close to the "safe" woods as towards their original positions. I guess you would run away from the enemy and the shelling - at least if the "enemy" are tanks in the open Scarhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 I may be completely wrong, but I think there is a specific issue which makes this tweak, and also the one concerning halftracks under mortar fire, impractical. The issue is that, from what I understand of the game's engine, it probably couldn't be programmed to allow units to recognise artillery impacts (or any kind of impact, for that matter). I think ordinance trajectory is information which the engine only uses in relation to the firing unit, and any units which suffer damage. This information is not available to other units when they're deciding what to do. In other words, you can see shells falling around your rifle squad, but at a programming level, the squad is effectively blind to this unless it is caught in the blast (suppressed or injured). What I think _could_ be done, is units could be programmed to avoid any point which has been targetted by enemy artillery. This is obviously both unrealistic and inadvisable. For example, the artillery might not have started firing, so how does your squad know to avoid the area? Even if shells are falling, how can your squad judge the epicentre of the barrage? And if it's a wide barrage, they'd have to run halfway across the map to get out of it, and they have a small chance of being hit anyway. I'm no programmer, so I may be talking rubbish, but I think this is essentially correct from a programming perspective. You may be able to see the shells falling, but your men can't, because they're computer-generated puppets. They can't be programmed to 'see' what's going on around them and interpret it intelligently as you can. That kind of AI is a few years away yet. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chris B Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Something similar has happened to me a lot of times. I send troops running in the open towards an objective, like a heavy building. At the start of their run they are not under fire, but they come under fire in the later part. I hear myself saying "They are gonna make it!" as they get within touching distance of the heavy building. Then shots are fired, "Alerted", "Pinned". If they would just seek cover in the nearby building they would not only be in cover, but also in the place I wanted them to go in the first place. No such luck. More shots and the squad retreats pell-mell back where they started, only to be cut to ribbons. This leads me to the conclusion, right or wrong: Troops will retire towards their latest cover. Ironically if this is so, it also means a vehicle crew with a destroyed AFV, who has no latest cover, will seek cover in nearest available cover, while a squad in the same space will retreat over open terrain back to where they come from. [This message has been edited by Chris B (edited 07-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BasilD Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 This is just my first two thoughts on the matter, but what about A) Use multiple waypoints so that the 'latest' cover isnt 200m back towards those trees and Use more elite units/officers that are more likely to follow orders ------------------ As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 in a PBEM game against Berli, my British platton was advancing in the open and came under fire. They rushed towards the nearest cover - one empty foxhole. 30+ men all trying to huddle in one foxhole. I moved them away next turn and they ran right back. SIGH! Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts