Tac AI makes player assets total idiots

[Jim Harrison]

Sheez I am SO TIRED of the tac AI making my assets expose themselves to killing fire. It is SO bad that when I make a senario I NEVER use green troops for that reason. Nothing much has changed with CMAK in that regard, green troops panic and then expose themselves to killing fire, and in fact (by the way the game treats them) the US had no green troops i.e. untrained or poorly trained. They had untested troops who had not seen battle (regular by game standards). Anyhow enough of my rant (I just hate these lopsided senario's and probably will never like them) can't wait for full version so I can make "adjustments"

[ November 20, 2003, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

[Michael Dorosh]

You seem to have a lot of problems that other people don't...

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002636

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=027281

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=009545

"drivil" (sic)

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=005804

"there is nothing wrong with my post except your ego"

[ November 20, 2003, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[CMplayer]

One thing I was wondering about was this:

Isn't a common reaction when troops Break (IRL) that they just hide as deep as possible in the bottom of their hole or trench?

In CM in general, it seems to happen a bit too often that they jump up out of their holes and make a run for it over open ground. I'm not saying that that sort of thing doesn't happen—after all panicking people do that instinctively—just that the curl up and wish it would all go away response is just as common.

I'd like to see some sort of 'go to deep cover' response for broken troops in foxholes or fortifications, where they would become almost impossible to hit with direct fire, but wouldn't move or be able to spot anything or return fire. They would just lie there until they either rallied or were wiped out by enemy closing to grenade range or closer. (or VT artillery, or truly earth-moving HE)

[ November 20, 2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Redwolf]

A agree with CMPlayer. Adding to what he says, there is also the fact that the TacAI doesn't take intermedeate cover into account, like walls or woods that are between threat and unit when the unit is in the open.

I think increasing the tendency to just sit put and do nothing instead of running away would be realistic change.

[Moon]

Actually this tendency HAS increased in CMAK. In fact I wonder if this has something to do with the higher POW numbers people seem to be seeing... Hmm...

Martin

[YankeeDog]

the US had no green troops i.e. untrained or poorly trained. They had untested troops who had not seen battle (regular by game standards).

I think you need to reread the Manual definition of Green vs. Regular troops (assuming the defintion stays the same for CMAK). Regular troops are defined to be either very well trained, or decently trained, with a little bit of combat experience. Green troops are supposed decently trained, but with no combat experience.

Just to be clear, the US most certainly had green troops engaged in combat, and especially in North Africa. For example, the 34th ID, while the bulk of it was fairly well trained, many units had been depleted of their best infantryman, as these soldiers were siphoned off to start new units, including one of the Ranger battalions. The replacements that came into the 34th just before TORCH and were VERY green, having barely finished basic training, and with minimal live-fire experience. This was partially due to equipment shortages (so much of what was produced in 1940 & 1941 was sent overseas on Lend-Lease that US Army units found themselves underequipped for training purposes), and partially due to time restrictions - TORCH was very much a last-minute affair and units had little time to prepare and train for the operation. I would argue that, at least at the time of the TORCH landing, the entire 34th ID would qualify for an average level of "Green" in CM.

While units equivalent to CM's "Conscript" quality in the US Army would be very rare, there were specific occasions where 2nd line troops who had little more than basic weapons training were pressed into front line service, and you could argue that these units would qualify for the conscript tag. The most famous example of the US Army using truck drivers and cooks as front line units happened during the Battle of the Bulge, but I know of a couple of occasions where it happened in North Africa as well, albiet on a smaller scale.

The behavior of Green and Conscript troops under fire in the game is another issue. In general, I do not find these low-quality troops too brittle. I do agree that infantry in general is a bit too willing to 'run for it' across open ground under heavy when it breaks, but honestly this is a minor issue for me. I find it completely proper that commanding Green troops is rather like juggling fresh eggs - one slip and you've got a big mess on your hands. . .

To each their own, though. If you prefer working higher experience troops, the more power to you.

Cheers,

YD

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Moon:

Actually this tendency HAS increased in CMAK. In fact I wonder if this has something to do with the higher POW numbers people seem to be seeing... Hmm...

Martin

This IS interesting. POSSIBLE VERY MILD SPOILERS BELOW FOR ITALY SCENARIO, Line of Defense (a good one BTW.)

*

*

*

*

*

*

When playing the US in the Italy scenario vs. the AI last night, I captured 3 different German squads down to three men each. All had been pinned for prolonged periods and surrendered when approached closely by troops (or in one case a Stuart.) In CMBO/CMBB I found I rarely captured more than one man in a squad--the most common capture was an immoblized HMG (couldn't run away.) This suggests that panicked/broken and thus pinned troops will in fact stay in place sometimes until they are captured. Seems to be like a more realistic result.

It will also actually result in higher scores for the attacker than if panicked units are killed, assuming the attack succeeds--though it may also make attacks go more slowly as in the following sequence: 1) defending unit panics and burrows in to cover rather than runs away and dies; 2) unit rallies and shoots back; 3) unit breaks again under heavy fire and burrows deeper; 4) unit is approached by attacking infantry and surrenders. Result: a bigger prize for the attacker but the attack takes longer. This description above seems consistent with my experience in the Italy scenario--the attack did go slowly, units were hard to root out, but more were captured.

[Lurkur]

Purely anecdotal, but I saw an interview with a former member of the Afrika Korps who was at the battle of El Alamein. He and a friend were in a trench being pinned down with heavy fire and being overrun with tanks. This man knew he had to stay put, but his friend panicked and tried to bolt. The man wrapped his arms around his friend's legs to hold him in place, but the friend was beyond reason, kicked his way free and was gunned down in seconds.

The problem in the game is that squads have to act as whole units. Perhaps a better solution would be to factor in the fleeing troops as casualties, making a squad dissolve over time, rather than having whole units skeedaddle.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Lurkur:

The problem in the game is that squads have to act as whole units. Perhaps a better solution would be to factor in the fleeing troops as casualties, making a squad dissolve over time, rather than having whole units skeedaddle.

Well, that is how I rationalise the losses that suddenly climb when the squads start to leg it. Ever noticed how they suddenly go down from 9 to 2? I just think of it as guys panicked, staying put, whatever, but definitely not participating in this battle again. In operations you get some replacements, and I always saw those as stragglers returning.

If you read about Italy, you notice that often units seemed to just melt away a bit during the attack, individual soldiers 'getting lost' in the dark (and who can blame them).

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Lurkur:

Perhaps a better solution would be to factor in the fleeing troops as casualties, making a squad dissolve over time, rather than having whole units skeedaddle.

Although at some point, the rest of the guys left in their hole just aren't going to 'skedaddle'. So the entire squad shouldn't dissolve, perhaps only a part of it. Those who are left are those who realize that you don't bolt over open ground in an overrun situation. That is the equivalent of certain death.

[Dirtweasle]

In CM in general, it seems to happen a bit too open that they jump up out of their holes and make a run for it over open ground...

Seems that way to me too.

If a squad gets panicked you can pretty much bet that unless they are already in what the TacAI thinks is " really good cover" they bolt in very strange directions. Away from the platoon leader, other firendly units, etc...

[Battlefront.com]

Hi all,

OK, I think the Green US troop issue has been very well answered by YankeeDog (nice job!). For early parts of TORCH, practically no US troops were Regular. Anybody who has read about early US performance there would agree that, in general, they had a lot to learn.

This incidentally got the Germans into a bit of complacency about the threat from US forces. I've seen plenty of German vets, from grunts to senior officers, say that the US performance in North Africa was substandard. They expected the same thing in Italy, but found out that things were changing quickly. By 1944 the Germans weren't laughing any more. Many senior German officers were astonished at how quickly the US troops learned from their mistakes and corrected their prewar doctrine. Even more so than they were of the Soviets I think.

Lurker,

The problem in the game is that squads have to act as whole units. Perhaps a better solution would be to factor in the fleeing troops as casualties, making a squad dissolve over time, rather than having whole units skeedaddle.

Yeah, that is really the crux of the issue with panicking troops. The fact is that when a soldier gets to this state he either cowers with a complete inability to move or attempts to run as far away from the danger as possible. This is regardless of which is the "best" thing to do (i.e. stay instead of run, run instead of stay). Logic goes out the window in both cases.

It's kinda like being in woods and having artillery come in. The instinctive move is to throw oneself to the ground. The correct move is to stand next to a thick tree trunk.

In CMx2 we will absolutely have more finite detail of individual soldiers. For CMBO/BB/AK this was never part of the original design and therefore not an option. This was to keep the game system more managable from a playability standpoint, but with several years of CM under our belt we think we know how to change things for CMx2 without screwing them up.

Steve

[ November 20, 2003, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Jim Harrison]

Well first off Michael I guess I am not the only one. Secondly I guess my definition of "green" and others differ greatly when it comes to the game. Regardless of what the manual says, green troops in the game react as "untrained" when fired upon, I had "green" grant tanks reversing and presenting their flanks to the enemy, any "trained" tanker (be it ever so slight) knows that when "bugging out" he must present his best possible armor toward the attacker while reversing out of harms way. I have no problems with "green" troop wishing to leave the battle, it is the manner in which they leave that is suspect to me. Historically the American GI's when first arriving at North Africa were "green" in that they had not seen combat, but they were NOT untrained.

This discussion can and probably will go on forever regarding how closely you can simulate the "historical fact" with the game mechanics of CM, for me I never go below Regular troops with my senario's and it seems to work much closer to the actual battles or at least to me it seems so.

"Gun damage" also seems to be over blown in CM, I know that "gun damage" does cover other things such as optics etc.... but still to get over 10 percent of your vehicles "gun damaged" seems high to me and this about the average in CM??

I would love to see some stats on this particular situation??? I assume that some study was made of this by BTS??

[ November 20, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Jim Harrison ]

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Jim Harrison:

I have no problems with "green" troop wishing to leave the battle, it is the manner in which they leave that is suspect to me.

BFC has never appeared to have put much effort into pathfinding AI of any sort, including how units rout. Or rather, tactical wargame pathfinding is an incredibly complicated set of problems that could be the subject of months or years of study. There are only so many hours in the week. It's that limitation which you're seeing. Which is also why I think they would have been better off letting broken troops just stay put. The overall effect would be more successful.

On the other hand, it's worth remembering that if you had a God's eye view of a real battle you would probably wince every five seconds over the 'insane' and 'unbelievable' things people did. The replay button, and flying zoom give us that point of view.

[ November 20, 2003, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Jim,

Secondly I guess my definition of "green" and others differ greatly when it comes to the game.

The only thing that matters is how we define it. The reason is that all terms like this are subjective, so the only meaning comes from the one that defines how things work in the game. And since that is us, then only our definition matters.

Regardless of what the manual says, green troops in the game react as "untrained" when fired upon, I had "green" grant tanks reversing and presenting their flanks to the enemy, any "trained" tanker (be it ever so slight) knows that when "bugging out" he must present his best possible armor toward the attacker while reversing out of harms way.

As anybody in the armed services will tell you... you can train someone to do something, but that doesn't mean he will do it under battlefield conditions. Green means that the troops are inherently capable of knowing what to do, but they are also fairly likely to make mistakes. This is the difference between Green and Regular, Regular and Veteran, Veteran ... etc. Think of each progressive stage as being more likely to do things perfectly, or less likely with each regressive stage. Soldiers are not robots and even the best will make mistakes.

I have no problems with "green" troop wishing to leave the battle, it is the manner in which they leave that is suspect to me. Historically the American GI's when first arriving at North Africa were "green" in that they had not seen combat, but they were NOT untrained.

Agreed. That is why they are not Conscripts. Conscripts don't have any training, Green troops do. But Green troops don't have extensive training (i.e. battlefield refresher courses, lessons learned, etc.). They just have the basics and nothing more. And little to no combat experience.

This discussion can and probably will go on forever regarding how closely you can simulate the "historical fact" with the game mechanics of CM, for me I never go below Regular troops with my senario's and it seems to work much closer to the actual battles or at least to me it seems so.

All depends on the battle you are trying to simulate. Saying that the only way to play a battle is with Regular or better is something I can't agree with. I've played plenty of battles with Conscripts and found the results to be historically bang on. I don't expect my troops to respond like robots, and therefore am not upset when they don't.

"Gun damage" also seems to be over blown in CM, I know that "gun damage" does cover other things such as optics etc.... but still to get over 10 percent of your vehicles "gun damaged" seems hight to me and this about the average in CM??

This has been a topic covered over and over again. I really don't have much to add here except to say that we feel the chance of gun damage is adequate.

I would love to see some stats on this particular situation??? I assume that some study was made of this by BTS??

We can't study what isn't there or isn't found. As far as I know there isn't anything out there that gives a clear picture about what kind of damage a tank can expect from a hit. I forget how we arrived at the precentage chance of "gun damage" (which does include indirect gun related damage), but 10% seems perfectly acceptable to me. Others will argue, but in order to argue effectively one would have to come up with a better argument than "I don't like it, so lower it"

Steve

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Jim Harrison:

Well first off Michael I guess I am not the only one. Secondly I guess my definition of "green" and others differ greatly when it comes to the game.

But the game designer's definition of what HE means by "green" is what counts.

Regardless of what the manual says, green troops in the game react as "untrained" when fired upon, I had "green" grant tanks reversing and presenting their flanks to the enemy, any "trained" tanker (be it ever so slight) knows that when "bugging out" he must present his best possible armor toward the attacker while reversing out of harms way. I have no problems with "green" troop wishing to leave the battle, it is the manner in which they leave that is suspect to me. Historically the American GI's when first arriving at North Africa were "green" in that they had not seen combat, but they were NOT untrained.

I suggest reading An Army At Dawn by Atkinson. American troops, like many green troops, did some amazingly stupid things. Examples I recall are a group of Stuarts charging line abreast a group of Pzkfw IV's; American armored columns proceeding in column without infantry scouts into narrow passes; poor noise discipline, and units tending to break and flee across open ground, sometimes notaarriving back at HQ until days after the fight.

This discussion can and probably will go on forever regarding how closely you can simulate the "historical fact" with the game mechanics of CM, for me I never go below Regular troops with my senario's and it seems to work much closer to the actual battles or at least to me it seems so.

So go with what suits your playing style and refrain from being so obnoxious in your commentary. Many, however, like using the green troops because they present more of a challenge to command, particularly in the attack.

"Gun damage" also seems to be over blown in CM, I know that "gun damage" does cover other things such as optics etc.... but still to get over 10 percent of your vehicles "gun damaged" seems high to me and this about the average in CM??

I would love to see some stats on this particular situation??? I assume that some study was made of this by BTS??

That would be interesting to me as well; however, I don't recall having anything like a 10% GUN damage rate, at least not in CMBB (don't remember CMBO very well).

Steve

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

refrain from being so obnoxious in your commentary.

That was uncalled for. We're paying customers, not the cheerleading squad. He has every right to express his concerns in the way he did IMO.

[Battlefront.com]

CMPlayer

BFC has never appeared to have put much effort into pathfinding AI of any sort, including how units rout.

Well, that isn't very accurate We did put in a lot of effort into getting units to move logically, even when in Panic mode. The fact is, as you stated, that this isn't an easy thing to do. Bottom line is that we hit a point of diminishing returns after a boatload of effort, so it was left in as good a state as we could manage. The main problem is the terrain fidelity of 20x20m squares. With CMx2 we should be able to do better simply because we are going to increase the fidelity. We also will have more RAM and processor power to computer more complicated paths than we could have ever dreamed of 3 years ago.

MrSpkr,

That would be interesting to me as well; however, I don't recall having anything like a 10% GUN damage rate, at least not in CMBB (don't remember CMBO very well).

I for one don't remember what various tests came up with for a % chance. But whatever it is, it feels about right to me.

Steve

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MrSpkr:

refrain from being so obnoxious in your commentary.

That was uncalled for. We're paying customers, not the cheerleading squad. He has every right to express his concerns in the way he did IMO. </font>

[CMplayer]

Yeah "effort" was the wrong word. "Prioritized" is more what I meant. There are so many issues that must be competing for attention. IMO CM has been groundbreaking... but could only really focus on a subset of all the interlocking systems. Sooner or later they'll all be up to the level of the best ones, and then... well who know's what it'll be like.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

See the difference in tone? A post like that is much more likely to get help from others. It is not a "cheerleading squad" post (whatever that is) but is certainly more polite.

I agree... and I'd like some polite lessons myself. (I'm good at it in RL, believe it or not). It's just that as a reader, I find it as or more obnoxious to hear you telling him off, than to read the original post. It's not your place.

On the GF it's one thing, that's a friggin free-for-all food-fight. But the fact remains, he started a thread about a legitimate question. Now we're finding out that it's a lot more subtle than it might have appeared at first. Fine. That's great. At least his post got that started, even if you don't like how it's worded.

This kind of thread always happens when a new CM is released. And it's in these kinds of threads that we get to learn the most about how the game is put together:

the 'designers notes' as it were, where the developers jump in and explain their thinking, how they worked and so on. So sure, polite is better, but anything that gets the ball rolling is fine.

[ November 20, 2003, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[MrSpkr]

Understandable, CM - I think the lack of "body language" and the anonymity of the internet makes it easier for folks to appear arrogant or obnoxious, even if that is not their intent.

Steve

[Jim Harrison]

Thanks for the input guys, sorry if some of you think the commentary was obnoxious, but I guess there are always some "thin skins" around.

I do have some military experience (Viet Nam) but not "ground pounder" since I was in the Air Force, I did basic training and realize that it is not the end all and be all of training (especially in the Air Force where they are really just giving military curtesy lessons). My father was a Marine in WWII in the pac and saw combat at Guam and Iwo Jima, my brother was also in Viet Nam with the 1st Air Cav and did get Army training both basic and advanced prior to going over there. I therefore have some idea of how guys react under fire and realize they don't always do the smart thing, but I feel it is just slightly "over top" IMHO in the CM games, not to the effect that the game is not fun and very well done, nor enough to keep me away from the game (my preorder is in).

BTW Steve I am sure some studies were done on how tanks were destroyed during WWII, I used to stop at Aberdean (sp??) proving grounds when I lived on the East Coast and I think they did alot of research on both enemy and friendly equipment, not sure if they kept seperate stats in "gun damage" though.

[Jim Harrison]

Well Mrspkr, first of all you must have me confused with the "other" Harrison on this board I hardly ever post and resent your "holier than thou" attitude, maybe you need to do some research yourself before running you mouth.

[Kingfish]

Gun damage can mean a great many things, not just actual damage to the gun itself. Something as minor as knocking out the gunner's viewport, while leaving everything else (including crew) intact can be enough to render a tank useless in a fight.