Tris Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 If I recall there was discussion earlier re a tweak in the beta .EXE to cause infantry to leave buildings which are close to destruction and seek better cover elsewhere. In a current PBEM (Chambois, I'm the Poles) I've twice ordered units out of a light house with two asterisks attached only to see these assets turn right around and return to said building (intermittently under fire from machine guns and a Pz IV) immediately of their own accord. This last turn was the worst, when not only did the squads I ordered to leave return to this hazardous structure but their platoon HQ, ordered to hide some 35m away behind a perfectly good fold of solid ground where it had safely resided before, got it into its head that this light structure which is about to collapse was a good place to hide itself as well! Bottom line: now I have the two squads and the parent platoon HQ cowering in this flimsy structure which is closer to enemy threats than where I've ordered these unit to go. Now maybe I'm mistaken re previous discussion of this and no tweak has been made re such a scenario; if so I'd say there needs to be because such behavior on the battlefield defies common sense. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Did you save a copy of the movie? If so, I'd suggest you send it to MadMatt with your comments. BTS is very responsive to constructive criticism, but it's hard for them to fix anything without seeing it firsthand. ------------------ "Don't lie to me, Gustav! You're a stinkin' Mac user!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted January 2, 2001 Author Share Posted January 2, 2001 In this case I'm dead sure BTS knows about this issue already. My post is merely to accentuate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 No, we need to see a movie or save game please. Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Buckeye, every time I see your sig it cracks me up, you stinkin' PC user! ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. -Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 I have reviewed the movie in question and do not see behavior out of the ordinary when put into context. First off there is a HQ unit exposed in the clear. It receives MG fire early in the turn and runs for the cover of the building which is just a few meters to its front. In this building is already two suppressed squads which have taken 2 and 3 hits respectfully. One squad stays suppressed for almost the duration of the turn. The other seems to carry out the orders it was given after about 13-16 seconds. It runs out of the building to a location (in the clear) and rotates and hides ( I assume this was the orders given). After a few seconds, it too receives MG fire and it also runs for the nearest cover, which is the building. Your issue is apparently that since the building is a severely damaged that it does not make decent cover, perhaps not but it is the only valid cover near by and since that building received no HE fire throughout the turn it represents a safe location, temporarily at least. You must remember that the Building damage logic is based on units being *inside* a structure under fire. I don't think units are really aware of building damage otherwise. That's why they returned to the building but since the house was not under HE fire I can see why they did. Perhaps this knowledge is something that can be changed or maybe it's already in, I will ask Charles but I tend to think its not nor will it be anytime soon. Madmatt [This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 01-02-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted January 2, 2001 Author Share Posted January 2, 2001 In this building is already two suppressed squads which have taken 2 and 3 hits respectfully. One squad stays suppressed for almost the duration of the turn. The other seems to carry out the orders it was given after about 13-16 seconds. It runs out of the building to a location (in the clear) and rotates and hides ( I assume this was the orders given). After a few seconds, it too receives MG fire and it also runs for the nearest cover, which is the building. The one squad which followed it orders was not ordered to run out into the clear and just sit there and you know this, Matt, because we've just concluded an exchange of some half-dozen emails to that effect. In truth, the squad in question was ordered to run some 20m to the northwest (i.e., away from the enemy panzer shelling it) and to then hide behind a knoll of earth 3m high and itself "protected" from view by the house this squad came from, which lies directly along the LOS of the enemy Pz IV which had been shelling the house. It's more than a little incredible that the panzer could see the squad behind that knoll in the first place in order to put its MG to use. Furthermore, the squad, which had been SHAKEN inside of the house, returned to a relaltively better status of CAUTIOUS once it reached its ordered hiding place behind the earthen knoll, with the implication here being that the AI recognized this place as relatively safer than the place whence it came. Therefore: 1) the AI would appear to be confused as to its proper behavior when it comes to determining sites of relative safety, 2) the AI LOS routine is off loads in some cases (this has been questioned many times before) and 3) even when units are directly ordered to leave unsafe structures (the light housing in question had two asterisks appended) they might immediately return in spite of orders to the contrary, which itself suggests the AI has no "memory" with re to the relative safety of sites (remember, the squad went from SHAKEN to CAUTIOUS when it reached the knoll, an improvement in its morale), which is not even to get into its rather worrying disregard for said orders. For the platoon HQ to run to the severely damaged light building when it had been ordered to move to the rear of the protective knoll it had before sat on top of (and in an exposed position) is even more inexplicable yet. This unit was only at a state of ALERTED so its behavior, which amounted to something akin to panic, seems to make little sense and further suggests that individual units act in relational information "vacuums" (they are perfectly ignorant of most events around them--this doesn't surpise me, by the way, just making the point for the record in case anyone else doesn't see this). NOTE: You went on to say that the building in question was not actually being shelled (with regard to units understanding that it might be in danger of collapsing soon), though in fact for the two previous turns it had been shelled by the Pz IVG, so we can see that units also do not have "memories." Finally, the building in question resides closer to the enemy than the protective knoll. And now the pattern becomes all too familiar: infantry units losing their cool and charging toward the enemy instead of away from the enemy (in this case its objective is a flimsy house about to collapse, but it could as well be bocage or woods or tall pines or even an enemy-occupied foxhole) and thus into a potentially more dangerous situation in terms of geography and proximity to enemy fire than where it previously sat. This is neither news nor something good. It is a problem. Why should this be difficult to grasp? Why can't we just admit there's a problem in this regard and either try to fix it or admit that it can't be fixed, for whatever reason? What I can't understand is this effort to explain this behavior away as being somehow rational. It isn't rational. It's foolish. It's deadly. That much should be intuitive to human beings. Now whether we're able to get the computer to act as intelligently as we do is something else. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 01-02-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Tris, your assesment of that knoll is FLAWED. How many times do I have to tell you this? Look in the editor and you will see that the LOS is not blocked to the location of the first row of buildings and the location of the Panzer. Yes, the LOS from the tank to the squad is a little suspect due to the corner of the building but this is not a new issue at all and is do to some abstractions of the graphic tiles that you see which are required in order to make this game even remotely playable. No one is saying that the game is perfect, least of all us, but it does pretty damn well when you consider the almost limitless tactical situations it has to deal with. Issues like persistent battlefield situational memory, better elevation appraisal while seeking cover, and dynamic cover appraisal are great and would put the TacAi on par with the best human player and are also TOTALLY out of the realm with what is possible with todays computers. For now, you will need to accept a certain level of abstractions in the game. For better or for worse. We will continue to try and make these abstractions have as minimal of an impact as possible with tweaks patches and additions to the underlying *thinking* of the units. Now, as I have already gone over this issue about a dozen times with you tonight I am going to close this up as there is no more to be said on it. Madmatt [This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 01-02-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts