The "debate" about CMBB's Infantry Modeling

[Battlefront.com]

Wolfe,

Hi, Steve. I understand that, but even when they get close enough to spot enemy units, the MGs still won't voluntarily fire.

OK, I saw that clear as day myself. This is what I would call a "borderline" case for making the MG fire on its own. The German unit in question was in very good cover and at a decent range. The stats were:

Range - 225m

Exposure - 20%

Firepower - 50

In general, this is not a good shot. In this situation, however, it was at least worth a try. But that is a decision the AI can not make. Only the Human can. And I issued a Target order and the MG happily chattered away for the next two turns without stopping.

So what I see here is that initially the MGs did not fire because they did not have targets. Then when a target did appear, the MGs thought they weren't going to do much damage and therefore withheld fire. When manually ordered to fire they slavishly did my bidding And since the delay is max 60 seconds, that is probably not unrealistic or even that harmful.

Thanks for the files though! This is exactly what I wanted to see.

Steve

[Hat Trick]

From Steve at Battlefront:

Oh!! BTW, something I totally forgot about until now. I had Charles tweak some AI weights a bit so that both the StratAI and TacAI will not be as snobbish about open terrain as it was before. This might help out a bit regarding troops favoring sneaking to distanat cover rather than staying put. But we probably won't know that until the larger audience (i.e. you guys) gets to see it first hand.

Great. This type of change is what I was asking about, and its good to know that it can be done. Thanks also for taking the time to answer my questions and consider my ideas, twice no less. Having spent 6 hours on the phone with my internet service provider to get my connection working :mad: , I have to say that I'm blown away by the service you guys at Battlefront provide.

[Battlefront.com]

Somazx,

Your overwhelmingly complicated AI never used to have issues with acquiring targets in LOS in CMBO

Correction... the CMBO TacAI had poorer ammo management than in CMBB. What I think is happening here is that people are confusing various different issues. Some are seeing the TacAI not engaging Sound Contacts and thinking that is a problem. Some are seeing marginally spotted units being only inconsistantly engaged. Some are seeing horrible shots not being taken and not understanding that LOS is only one factor in figuring out the quality of a shot. Some are expecting the TacAI to hae situational awareness and know "my buddies are getting shot up, I must save them!" without player input.

These are all very different circumstances, but they have a common end result. The problem is people have been focusing on the end result and not the various causes. This is exactly why I disagree with Redwolf about how to approach a potential problem. I want details right up front so I can figure out what is going on at the lowest level.

In the Osfront section it states "units pin much sooner than before" - a deliberate change apparently within the developers control. Perhaps this adjustment is a good candidate for influencing the early routing/panic. Units pinned who don't find cover soon enough will rout.

This is in fact what happens. Obviously we can debate forever where those breakpoints should be, but as far as I can see they are just about right.

Perhaps remembering that these factors are mainly debatable because in a past version (CMBO) they were not an issue in this regard. In other words we're not complaining about how you failed to achieve the perfect AI, we're debating if we've taken a step backwards from what was an already achieved and accepted performace of the AI

Ah... but it isn't that simple, as this thread clearly demonstrates We changed the fundamental way infantry and small arms are modeled. This has made the game work inherently differently than it did before, even if the code wasn't changed. What some people are now asking for is for us to change the AI or revert back to CMBO infantry modeling. Most people are saying it is fine the way it is. There is always room for debate, but we can't flip a switch and make everybody happy.

We're helping you isolate and identify what is being debated as questionable behavior - as was requested. Perhaps some here would also present specific solutions if the source code were available - otherwise we can't offer you much in the way of code specific solutions.

Hehe... the source code would not help. Well, not unless someone played around with it for a year before they made their first tweak. And as I illustrated above, it is a piece of cake to point out flaws, even flaws that some (even a majority) might not agree with. It is a whole nother thing to figure out ways of fixing these problems. Heck, first we all have to agree it is a problem in the first place, and that is clearly a difficult proposition to begin with!

You needent have wasted your time reiterating the defense: "the AI is complicated, we feel we've taken it far enough for this development cycle" for my sake - I have read it a few times in this topic.

In general, gamers think that easily identified issues are easily fixed. No matter how many times I reiterate how wrong this perception is it continues. So I will have to keep repeating myself for many lifetimes to come I am afraid

If thats your "final answer" then there isn't any point in having this discussion at all. However other posts made it appear the developers were open to attempting to isolate the issues further with requests that people work to do so.

Just to make sure you understand... I am one of those "developers". Charles, who does all the programming, and I started both CM and Battlefront together some 5 years ago. We absolutely want to hear feedback from customers, but hearing feedback does not mean we should/could/want to act on it. The trick is to figure out what should be changed and how based, in part, on the feedback. Right now we are still in the stages of seeing if there is a problem, not to mention the need for a solution.

I thought Tom, Dalem and myself were doing a pretty good job of helping in that regard by pointing out that that battle worked to replicate the behavior but your response seems defensive and patronizing instead of appreciative - and that leaves me crying in the rain with my wooden umbrella and still all wet.

I think how people read into other people's posts tells more about that person doing the reading than the person doing the posting. I am not patronizing anybody, and clearly I am spending a LOT of my time here discussing these issues. If I didn't care I wouldn't be here, would I? The difference is I am not going to say things that are not true. If I don't think the modeling is broken, I will say that. If I think it is, but we can't do anything about it, I will say that too. If I think there is something that both SHOULD BE and COULD BE fixed, then bingo... it happens. But I in my answers I also seek to educate people about how things work behind the screen they see in front of them. This might seem patronizing to you, but I think most people see it as an opportunity that very few developers ever allow for their customers.

I think we've hit a turning point, there actually seems to be more people emotionally defending CMBB in a defensive, passive aggressive or patronizing manners than emotional "whining" by those suffering the frustration of the issues at hand. I'm sure its good for the self esteem to imply our poor tactics is what is at fault and nothing is wrong with the game - but is that what this is about?

Er... who is being emotional now? I am trying as best I can to figure out why there are differences in outcomes. Tactics is the obvious place to look, not the game system. If everybody were getting poor results then it would almost certainly be the game system. It is not my problem if some people don't want to hear it. I have to hear people like Kraut state that infantry is utterly useless and don't anybody DARE tell him otherwise, so I think others should be sure enough with their own egos to think about what has been written here and check to see if perhaps their tactics could be improved a bit more. Or they can get overly defensive and claim that the game is broken and that they don't need to be told by anybody that they might not know everything.

Look, this has been the most productive and emotionalless debate held on these various issues so far. I think a lot of people are learning from this discussion. That is why I continue on with it. For me it matters not if people want to improve their game outcome or not. I just to make sure that facts are out on the table instead of empty conjecture, groundless accusations, and unrealistic expectations. That has been the halmark of previous "debates" and is exactly why I started up this thread.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Steve Said

"I am trying as best I can to figure out why there are differences in outcomes. Tactics is the obvious place to look, not the game system. If everybody were getting poor results then it would almost certainly be the game system. "

I am honestly trying to be part of the solution here so I hope my interest in this issue is not being mistaken for something other than curiousity and the interest in trying to solve a good puzzle or problem. I'm a Mac Techy guy and I try to figure out problems all day long and find appropriate solutions so I enjoy the challenge.

so when steve says

"If everybody were getting poor results then it would almost certainly be the game system."

I would like to suggest we are ALL in fact seeing the same behaviour in the infantry model, and getting the same poor results (At least I would like to suggest we can all see the kind of behaviour that has been pointed out in this thread).For some folks, perhaps because this is SO radically different than Most other games and so different from CMBO, this could be a big challege, and for others, if they take the game too seriously (and perhaps are even more serious about winning competitively) this is a problem, and perhaps they are less than interested in exploring new ways to work around the problem or adapt to the new model. I say this because I think we are all seeing the same infantry behaviour, some think its ok and realistic, some think it could use a tweak like in the new patch, (I hope) and some may be suggesting it is unplayable and bordering on "unfixable".

This is clearly and issue Steve is most interested in and he has been very kind to solicit our uncensored comments and experience with this issue. I am sure he the BFC staff have been down this road at least once with all their Beta testers. I would like to suggest that I think they are keen to have the game tested by veterans of small unit combat and that previous combat experience (collectively) amongst the beta test group may have helped give us this somewhat "brittle" infantry model. (just a guess here :confused: )

again:

"If everybody were getting poor results then it would almost certainly be the game system."

My point is that we are all getting the same results but some players can live with it, some players actually like it because they feel it is realistic and some players suggest it is actually so hard it is unplayable.

I would suggest we are all playing the same game and seeing the same behaviour, its just we all have different reactions to it and perceptions of what the infantry model "should" be in our favourite wargame.

I hope that this helps the discussion.

-tom w

[ November 21, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Wolfe]

Steve (Battlefront) wrote:

Thanks for the files though! This is exactly what I wanted to see.

Not a problem.

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

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

Cover Arcs have been touted as a way to restrict firing, it looks like they're also a way to encourage it. And there are hot keys which help set up a big arc quickly...

This is exciting news. Before today, I was inclined to believe the opposite. Live and learn...

Michael</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Tom,

I would suggest we are all playing the same game and seeing the same behaviour, its just we all have different reactions to it and perceptions of what the infantry model "should" be in our favourite wargame

For the most part I think this is quite accurate. However, there is something to be said about the degree which an individual sees one or more "problems" as well as their perception of its impact.

The TacAI isn't perfect, so obviously we will all see things 99 out of 100 people would call "unrealistic". The difference here is that some people are saying they see it a couple of times every so often and it doesn't affect their game, while others are saying that each battle they play is so riddled with these "flaws" that it is unplayable. And of course, various degrees inbetween.

This is very important to note because it points the fingure of "responsibility" back at the player and away from the game system. This is not a blame thing, rather a very good piece of advice. If someone doesn't want to see these "problems" crop up so often, it is within THEIR control to change this. Nobody has to wait for us to finally "get it" and release a patch. Just boot up the game after reading this thread and try some of the things suggested here. It can't hurt

Either that or show us, using save game files, where there is indeed a code problem that we can fix. Because until then nothing in the code will change, just like we didn't make Tigers stronger after dozens of complaints that they were unrealistically weak.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Tom,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I would suggest we are all playing the same game and seeing the same behaviour, its just we all have different reactions to it and perceptions of what the infantry model "should" be in our favourite wargame

For the most part I think this is quite accurate. However, there is something to be said about the degree which an individual sees one or more "problems" as well as their perception of its impact.

Steve</font>

[dalem]

Steve-

I want to thank you again (and Rune, and everyone else who kept and is keeping their head here) for discussing this topic in general, and my particular issue specifically. I've given this a lot of thought today, and let me see if I can sum up my thoughts as a customer and a player.

1) Obviously there have been some subtle and not-so-subtle changes to the combat modelling from CM:BO to CM:BB.

2) These changes were well-thought out and deliberately engineered, coded, tested, and included.

3) In my case, some of the core changes (AI ammo management for instance) has had a tremendous impact on my style of game play. This is irrefutable. It is also completely coincidental. Obviously I am a player who likes throwing lead downrange (in some cases non-Area Fire) in hopes of keeping a few heads down, and this has been taken away from me (non-Area Fire).

4) The above does not mean anything is "broken" with the modelling any more than it means my style of play is "poor".

5) It does, however, in my opinion, mean that in some key aspects the game is insufficiently documented. I must say that what is in the manual is well-written, but too much is not there, not even in the simple bullet point style of the Ostfront chapter. Reading the manual cover to cover and in pieces during visits to the potty room still gave me no inkling that Covered Arcs are not simply "fire restrictors", but are also "fire encouragers". Nor did it hint that my "iffy" direct fire habits were no longer allowed.

As I posted before, not everyone, and certainly not me, enjoys going on an Easter Egg Hunt with a game. Now in my more paranoid moments I'm left thinking "is that something I'm supposed to know?" Food for thought for helping folks like me make the future jump from CM to CMII.

All that being said, I should point out that I feel much better now that Steve has cleared up my particular issue, and I will start playing CM:BB again.

-dale

[Grisha]

Dale,

While I didn't have the troubles you did over the game I will side with you on your last post. It was unfortunate that these insights into the TacAI weren't communicated previously. Had they been, players would've been able to more quickly determine their options.

Having said that, I will also say that what the TacAI does is very human-like in some respects. Much of what I saw and see is explainable in human terms. My advantage to all this may be that I was never very pleased with how CMBO allowed infantry to bravely rush into enemy fire without too much trouble, and that always made it difficult for me to play CMBO. I guess, it's come full circle.

CMBB is certainly a different game, and has changed a lot of how I play compared to CMBO.

Best of luck.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Dale,

4) The above does not mean anything is "broken" with the modelling any more than it means my style of play is "poor".

Well stated. This is the I see it too in this case. Your tactics aren't really unrealistic or unreasonable, just that we tweaked the modeling a bit to make units less likely to blow through their ammo. This was a problem in CMBO but IIRC a serious issue early in CMBB development.

5) It does, however, in my opinion, mean that in some key aspects the game is insufficiently documented.

No argument there. Writing up documentation for something so deep and complex is nearly impossible. The amount of stuff in the game, and the variable ways it comes into play, is so huge that even Charles often has no clue what-so-ever about if something works this way or that He did when he coded it and testers approved of it (by default, everything is approved unless they raise an issue with it), but now a couple of months or even YEARS later he has to look it up in code to figure it out. Sometimes even that doesn't help!

For example, the stationary pinning thing we tried in CMBB. When I asked Charles to give it a shot he said "gee... I think that is the way it used to work and we found it sucked, but I can't remember why". If CM were a much simpler game this wouldn't happen, but we know CM ain't simple

As I posted before, not everyone, and certainly not me, enjoys going on an Easter Egg Hunt with a game. Now in my more paranoid moments I'm left thinking "is that something I'm supposed to know?" Food for thought for helping folks like me make the future jump from CM to CMII.

CMBO was also under documented in many ways. What I suggest is when you see something you don't understand or think is broken, really think about why it might be working correctly. Generally with a bit of thought and experience you can come up with the right answer. I'm not saying this is the perfect way to do things, but it does work for the most part.

All that being said, I should point out that I feel much better now that Steve has cleared up my particular issue, and I will start playing CM:BB again.

Glad to be of service

And a quick note to those who have taken offense to the "change tactics" advice. I have seen more than a few of the extreme "it's broken, and it ain't my friggin tactics!!" players come back and say "OK, I sucked it up and changed my tactics and things work great now. Sorry!" I do not say this to say "I told you so!" but rather offer it up as evidence that tactics and perceptions are at the heart of most of the "it's broke" issues brought forward so far. Not all, certainly, but at least the major ones.

Steve

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

When a unit has a Cover Arc it is able to focus solely on that patch of ground inside the arc. Therefore it is more likely to see firing opportunities and to take them, not that non-Arc units are inherently dumber about things. That does not mean a unit will fire at something within its Arc, just more likely vs. a unit without a Cover Arc command. The downside, of course, is that the unit with the Cover Arc will generally ignore everything else on the battlefield. Also, the bigger the Arc, the more it looses its focus and therefore the more similar it becomes to a unit with no Cover Arc. HOWEVER, a Cover Arc command is, basically, a "cover this area" command and therefore puts the unit into a more shooting friendly mode.

Well, well, well.

WELL!

I believe this little gem belongs in the FAQ, or in the patch "manual updates" section, or something. I've been waiting since the demo to know what's going on with those *&*$(#$ arcs!

And may I say that, if Steve has been using Arcs, which engender fire, and I have not, (which is the case), then perhaps we need look no further for an explanation of why Steve doesn't ever see the egregious refusals to fire that I have.

Hmmm well it sounds good on paper, but I still don't think I'll be using them. In critical situations this is good to know, but... that would add an *enormous* amount of clicking to the average battle, to be sure that every unit is maximizing the usefulness of his "attention".

My troops will simply have to make do, won't they?

Eden

[Battlefront.com]

Eden,

And may I say that, if Steve has been using Arcs, which engender fire, and I have not, (which is the case), then perhaps we need look no further for an explanation of why Steve doesn't ever see the egregious refusals to fire that I have.

I'd say the TacAI's reluctance to waste ammo and partially ID'd enemy targeets are probably the more likely reason to see a unit not firing. And an actual "refusal" to fire is always because the target is either not visible or is such a waste of ammo that the TacAI overrides your order. But mind you, the TacAI is coded to say "well, if he wants me to waste the ammo, I'll do it". Therefore, if the TacAI does not fire after you target, you should understand that ther is a horribly poor chance of doing anything, even suppressing.

Hmmm well it sounds good on paper, but I still don't think I'll be using them. In critical situations this is good to know, but... that would add an *enormous* amount of clicking to the average battle, to be sure that every unit is maximizing the usefulness of his "attention".

Er... this isn't a very accurate statement. I hardly ever use Cover Arc commands and I don't see my units disobeying firing commands of missing good targeting opportunities. So please don't misunderstand what I said about Cover Arcs. If you are perceive horrible problems without Cover Arcs you will most likely continue to perceive problems with them.

Cover Arcs are not necessary by and large. That was a purposeful design goal from the start. They can, however, be quite useful when wishing to cover a very specific area with a very specific unit. And since such a unit is not likely to move, it is only a matter of two clicks one time. That doesn't seeem like too much clicking to me

Steve

[Abbott]

Hmmm well it sounds good on paper, but I still don't think I'll be using them. In critical situations this is good to know, but... that would add an *enormous* amount of clicking to the average battle, to be sure that every unit is maximizing the usefulness of his "attention".

I rarely use covered arcs. When I do use them it is usually for an AT asset or to keep a turret directional. Specific situations only require their use. I may use the covered arc command maybe two or three times every other battle.

I have played TCP/PBEM eighteen battles with CMBB to date (I have won sixteen of them). I have never once encountered a problem with my base of fire troops not engaging. Never once have I encountered the so called “Sneak-of-death” in a situation that wasn’t directly my fault. Trying a risky advance or some such error. I have had Green troops break and route sometimes taking many turns to rally if at all, depending on command status. I have found this very expectable behavior however.

My suggestion to those still having troubles with “the system” would be to play veteran troops until they get the hang of the new system. Veterans while still prone to the behavior people are experiencing difficulty with (if handled poorly) are more forgiving.

[ November 22, 2002, 03:14 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Tarquelne]

Hmmm well it sounds good on paper, but I still don't think I'll be using them.

/snip/

Cover Arcs are not necessary by and large. That was a purposeful design goal from the start.

After my testing I used cover arcs a great deal in a scenario, and while it wasn't "necessary" it was well worth it.

Any and all units that I wanted to provide covering fire got arcs. And, given the arcs, they gave me the fire.

Using SHFT or CNTL with the cover arc command I'd quickly set up a HMG or a platoon with some honkin' big arcs. Any enemy units venturing to put thier heads up get tended to get a lot of unkindly attention very quickly, and often put thier heads right back down again.

Now, if I had needed to worry about ammo conservation for this particular scenario I wouldn't have done this - so it's certainly nice to have the option. And if I didn't have plentiful cover I would have wanted to get as close as possible before being spotted. However, not having those concerns, setting up these arcs really seemed worth it. Not only did the troops provide good covering fire, but it helped organize things - SHOW ALL ARCS allowed me to see who was available for overwatch, and what they were watching. The firing squads also seemed to draw fire. I'0d rather they accepted the fire than the moving squads who triggered it.

There were some cases when the units with the generous arcs probably shouldn't have fired, and wouldn't, I'm sure, if they hadn't had the arcs. However, these instances were more than made up for by the times when they did have suppressive effect.

I think this goes back to "situational awareness" again. The route of advance allowed me to set up whole platoons, in addition to an occasional HMG, to provide covering fire. A lone squad would have been wasting it's ammo... and I'm guessing squad level is where the TacAI makes these decisions. But I knew I had a whole platoon or more to provide fire. And fortunatly, had the commands that'd motivate them to do it.

So, for me, depending on the map/situation, frequently setting cover arcs looks like it's well worth the minor "trouble" of hitting C then SHFT or CNTL and clicking.

Of course, I'm using a trackball. I suppose you mouse-users might find an additional hotkey or two too much of a burden. I can imagine what it must be like: Praying to your primitive gods that the totem on your mouse-pad eases the pain in your wrist, heavy brow obscuring the screen whenever you glance down to peck at the keyboard with stubby fingers, rank grease from uncured furs fouling the keys...

[ November 22, 2002, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Fly Pusher]

Steve. Thanks for the long post. You can add me to the middle group (I could never admit to anything being PERFECT ).

But this comment :

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I forgot about a HMG one time, who snuck out of his foxhole after a barrage. I finally discovered him 3-5 turns later RIGHT NEXT(!) to his foxhole and exhausted, wasted for the rest of the battle. He made it, maybe 10 meters.

Rings true for me.

Could infantry and crews be tweaked to stick in foxholes longer ? Probably the safest place in a dangerous battlefield and probably not dug to be evacuated at the first sign of trouble.

Other than that, your doing a great job.

Thanks,

FP

PS. Sorry if this has already been covered in the next 9 pages of this thread...

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And an actual "refusal" to fire is always because the target is either not visible or is such a waste of ammo that the TacAI overrides your order.

Excuse me for using the word "refusal"; just the opposite really, of course, I'm referring to what was touched on before. At end of turn, you manually target the enemy and he fires willy nilly no problems and the enemy is pooping hard and you're wishing you could have targetted him a minute ago.

I personally believe that I've seen this "lack" of friend saving fire before in cases where neither LOS nor any other "silly" thing is a problem. That's what I believe, and... that's what I believe. It's not a big problem for me, I play every day, I'm not saying it's frequent, I'm not saying the coding sucks, I'm not saying it's not a great game, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said that I'm seeing "horrible problems without Cover Arcs [which] will most likely continue..." Ack!

If there is official disagreement that this behaviour exists then so be it! I'll live! Honestly, my troops do just fine in 1.0, and so far in 1.01 so good! ( Just played SP-Library; the best one I've played so far from SP, imho. I took the board with basically just infantry- I didn't even *move* the tanks until turn fifteen, when I moved them to the side of the road so the halftracks could get by! I used the HTs somewhat, but ended up leaving the tanks there the whole game. ) I swear to you my infantry is just fine.

Now I've got Abbot (Abott? Abbott? sorry) quoting me while suggesting that "those who still have problems should use vets till they get it" or something... I'm sorry to rant but I don't see why is it so difficult to discuss these types of things without being pigeonholed into a whiner or someone who doesn't know how to play or what have you.

Cover Arcs are not necessary by and large. That was a purposeful design goal from the start.

Well that's good to know also, and helps explain why I can survive without them. If we add that statement to the preceeding blurb, perhaps we have the most accurate understanding yet. But if you focus on the word *maximize* in my inferrence, I think you'll agree that what I said does in fact follow directly from your previous explanation; it's just pure logic.

I thank you for your continuing explanations which do after all affect play. I wish we could discuss these rough edges and/or subtle nuances here more often without adversity. Over and out,

Eden

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Hmmm well it sounds good on paper, but I still don't think I'll be using them. In critical situations this is good to know, but... that would add an *enormous* amount of clicking to the average battle, to be sure that every unit is maximizing the usefulness of his "attention".

I rarely use covered arcs. When I do use them it is usually for an AT asset or to keep a turret directional. Specific situations only require their use. I may use the covered arc command maybe two or three times every other battle.

I have played TCP/PBEM eighteen battles with CMBB to date (I have won sixteen of them). I have never once encountered a problem with my base of fire troops not engaging. Never once have I encountered the so called “Sneak-of-death” in a situation that wasn’t directly my fault. Trying a risky advance or some such error. I have had Green troops break and route sometimes taking many turns to rally if at all, depending on command status. I have found this very expectable behavior however.

My suggestion to those still having troubles with “the system” would be to play veteran troops until they get the hang of the new system. Veterans while still prone to the behavior people are experiencing difficulty with (if handled poorly) are more forgiving.</font>

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dschugaschwili

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Currently infantry always seems to sneak towards some kind of cover when their self-preservation instincts kick in.

Actually, its first instinct is to get out of LOS. If it can achieve this without moving dramatically it will attempt it. However, with EFOW on the TacAI/Human often doesn't even know where the fire is coming from. I just had that happen to me in the game I played last night. Got peppered for a couple of turns before I spotted the source of the fire. Therefore, in such cases all the TacAI can do is move to better terrain and hope for the best.

Steve</font>

[SAMURAI]

Hi,

I like the new infantry model in CMBB. It seems so realistic. And it works very well when I play a game vs AI. But It takes more turns in a battle. So at PBEM, it makes me a little annoying.

I'm interested in BlackVoid's idea.

BlackVoid,

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Easy - like it was in CMBO

Realistic - like it is now

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impossible because there is only one set of code - the CMBB code. There is no way to switch to something that no longer exists. With the new engine we can plan on having two or more options for certain features from the get go. That is the only way it can be done.

I also agree with Steve said.

So I modify the idea a little.

Two playablity settings:

Realistic - like it is now

Playable - modify the infantry quality

In the playable setting, the regular infantry's parameters about its quality of toughness and fearness and so would be changed as like Veteran's.

BTS need not change the codes but parameters.

And it makes the game speedy and playable.

How about this idea ?

Thanks.

[walpurgis nacht]

The patch makes ALL the difference with the infantry.

"The suppression thresholds for panicking, breaking and routing are a bit higher", yet the conceptual integrity of the "new" CMBB tactics remain. This was a perfect compromise. The fun-factor just went WAY up. Bravo.

[murpes]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:

The patch makes ALL the difference with the infantry.

"The suppression thresholds for panicking, breaking and routing are a bit higher", yet the conceptual integrity of the "new" CMBB tactics remain. This was a perfect compromise. The fun-factor just went WAY up. Bravo.

I don't know if it's the patch or me paying carefull attention to tactics in these forum - or a combination of both - but I played a most enjoyable game last night. Lots of infantry advances without the loss of control I've felt in games past. There was a decent amount of cover though, haven't tried a game with wide open spaces yet. I played the scenario in a way I never would have playe CMBO - very stealthily. I still feel like I'm pressed for time playing this way, but the + turns seem to take care of that. I just need to remember they're there before making final drastic moves.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by murpes:

[QB]

-bump-

[Ben Galanti]

A question for Steve (which I suspect I know the answer too...) Does the TacAI have any concept of supressive fire? I would assume this would require the knowledge of 'my buddies are getting shot at' which you have already said isn't possible with this engine.

The only occasions I have had trouble with over watch units not firing is when advancing on an area where troops haven't been spotted yet. new enemies appear (at some fairly low spotting level) and pin my advancing troops, while the supporting troops usually just watch (I'll try to keep a saved game the next time I see it happen). I s the TacAIs idea of a 'good shot' is one that has a decent chance of causing causlties? Often I would just like supressing fire from my overwatch units, and that TacAI doesn't seem to do that. I've taken to using a lot of area fire in these case, which seems to work out ok, though it is a little ammo-intensive. You've mentioned that you don't often use area fire, and just have the TacAI choose targets. I do that in a known pitched fire-fight and on the defensive, but have had poor results doing that as overwatch. Just wondering where I'm going wrong tactis-wise... Thanks!

Ben

[Agua]

Steve,

I realize the chance of going back to v1.0 infantry morale-under-fire model is slim to none (and "Slim" has left the blah, blah) but, could you explain how, or why you determined the v1.01 threshold level for panic, break and rout of troops under fire to be appropriate? It seems that there's a good bit more room for sloppy infantry tactics now. It may be more accurate, I don't know, but just wondering how you determined the v1.01 panic threshold to be appropriate.

Thanks in advance.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Agua:

Steve,

I realize the chance of going back to v1.0 infantry morale-under-fire model is slim to none (and "Slim" has left the blah, blah) but, could you explain how, or why you determined the v1.01 threshold level for panic, break and rout of troops under fire to be appropriate? It seems that there's a good bit more room for sloppy infantry tactics now. It may be more accurate, I don't know, but just wondering how you determined the v1.01 panic threshold to be appropriate.

Thanks in advance.

um....mostly alot of ranting and bitching and complaining in the forum maybe??

I have only played one v1.01 game but at this point I'm not sure it is fair to conclude "It seems that there's a good bit more room for sloppy infantry tactics now." That was not my experience. I think there maybe a "little bit" more room for sloppy infantry tactics now, but the infantry model in v1.01 is still a radical paradigm shift AWAY from the way things used to work in CMBO :confused:

Is it not?

Is it fair to say the panic model in v1.01 is perhaps something of a crowd pleaser?

(please don't all yell at me it was only a comment or an unsubstantiated suggestion )

-tom w