The "debate" about CMBB's Infantry Modeling

[Schoerner]

Very interesting observation...

[David Stone]

I return to the forums after a long time lurking.

I must preface this post. I do not have CMBB (yet) b/c my elderly PC was not up to snuff, but it is being upgraded right now.

My point: I have the utmost confidence in BTS's ability to tweak CMBB with the 1.01 patch. The initial patch for CMBO was extensive, well thought out, and beneficial to game play. I have no doubt the initial patch for CMBB will be the same.

[Kong]

I think I understand now part of the BBG issue. They want the modeling to be 100% consistent! It is the randomness that drives them nuts! They want to know that any identical unit will behave a particular way EVERYTIME under the same conditions.

The beauty of CM IS the randomness!

The other issue is still tactics.

As Steve has said a good deal (the majority) of this "undesired" unit behavior is solved with sound tactics.

JaegerMeister, you gave a good example of doing most things right... but. I wonder if your squad who broke were within HQ range and how close they were to their fellow squads? If they were not in range and not close and began taking fire from 2-3 enemy squads then I would expect a Green squad to freak and run home to Momma. Even if they were under HQ command and had friends close if one squad is getting alot of enemy fire I would expect them to break, especially a Green one. Green squads need lot's of reassurance from HQ and friends to sit tight while under fire.

Maybe what we need to do is have some of are Armed Forces friends put together a COMBAT SIMULATION event for CM'ers to demonstrate what it is like to be under fire!! Then to top it off we could have a LIVE FIRE exercise as well! Hey that sounds fun, sign me up!!

[Sardaukar]

I have no problem with infantry model in CMBB. I have found it very realistic and have others who have experience from military. Sure it's frustrating when your squads get pinned/routed/crawling and exhausting themselves, but that's how it is. I doubt that many really understand how hard it is to get troops to move again if they are pinned by enemy fire. It's inherently against human nature to even try to return fire in that situation. I have no problem that it might take 10-15 mins to convince squad to move again...and I have no problem with fact that if they don't have cover, they usually die or get wounded within few minutes. That is how it is. Key is not to get into that kind of situation...but it'll happen eventually..just have to accept it.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Ace Pilot]

I think kking has brought up an excellent point.

Originally posted by kking199:

I think I understand now part of the BBG issue. They want the modeling to be 100% consistent! It is the randomness that drives them nuts! They want to know that any identical unit will behave a particular way EVERYTIME under the same conditions.

The beauty of CM IS the randomness!

Another (less extreme) example is this quote from dale:

Combat anecdotes make great reading but are still a few standard deviations away from the mean.

True enough, but I don’t want to play a game where the outcomes are limited to a few standard deviations from the mean. That’s too predictable. It’s the unexpected outcomes that create a lot of the fun – and get most of the attention, no matter how infrequently they occur.

Could part of the problem be that CM does an excellent job of representing the “bell curve” of combat, but people are focusing on examples from the tail ends of the curve?

I’m glad that I’m playing a game where there’s a chance that my green, out-of-ammo, rattled HQ can dash across a street in the face of multiple machine guns and lob its last grenade through the open hatch of that King Tiger and take it out. It’s not a good chance, and I’m an idiot to count on it happening, but you can be sure the forum will hear about it when it happens.

Ace

[JaegerMeister]

Hi, KKing..i hear what your saying, the squad that broke was just outside the command range of its HQ (because of terrain), the other 2 nearby squads were in CC.

But bearing in mind the 2x armour sitting just outside the building and other squads in firing range, surely that unit should have stayed put, head down/pinned, not ran out into the open street to get 8 men killed (it had suffered no casualties upto this point remember), and why were the other squads not giving the cover fire (yet again!). And as someone else said, yes i'm a klutz, i forgot to save the file...you get carried away in these battles..me bad!!

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Not all things in CM are spelled out for people in blaring Neo lights.

Steve

Understood. But not all players like playing Easter Egg Hunt to discover the subtle changes which have affected their game play. I think this was something that should have been in the "Ostfront" section of the manual. Would have saved this player a whole heckuva lot of frustration. Thanks for responding Steve.

-dale

[clcaldwell]

Dance of Death

Steve, I've seen the Dance of Death only once or twice in playing CMBB. I definitely fall more on the side of "It ain't broken".

But

I don't recall ever seeing this in CMBO. So, is there something that changed in the way infantry evaluate current threats? I'm just trying to figure out the interplay of all the CMBB changes that make this happen. Is it that CMBB units are more likely to try to move?

For instance, in a CMBO PBEM "Grosshau Ridge" the enemy American infantry is getting pounded by my artillery. I see his unit rotate back and forth as it's morale goes down with impact hits and back up in the lull in-between. Eventually the unit does break and runs to the rear (where it is shot down by my HMG, but hey). This was fairly common to see.

But in CMBB it seems (note the use of seems -- I am not using it lightly) that infantry more often start sneaking away immediately. Then other impact hits cause them to change direction.

So, I guess my question is, is this a matter of perception? CMBB units get underway faster through use of the new Sneak command whereas CMBO tried to Crawl away and never made any progress.

Possible?

[aka_tom_w]

Martin (Moon) has hinted the patch should be here sometime this week.

The CDV version of it seems to be out already.

That could really impact the dicussion of this issue once we all get to try out the new patch !!!

Thanks!!

-tom w

[somazx]

MORE SPOILING of Defence of Verkhne-Golubay

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I played that battle as the Russians last night too

and I tried the massive human wave type assault as well

and same thing

the one MG 42 in the church was a REAL killer!

Those who are interested in seeing some of what is beeing discussed here should play the Russians in the above mentioned scenario. Play EFOW and let the AI set up as the Scenario Default.

it is a tough one and I think that scenario as the Russians (vet units) against the vet Germans shows HOW really EFFECTIVE one lone MG 42 can really be.

It is a good example of inf units advancing in the open trying to overcome stubborn defenders in buidlings, rubble and foxholes with mg's and HMG's.

I thought it was tough to win as the Russians, in fact in my first and only attempt so far I got a rating about about %37 (captured all the flags on the river) but earned only a MINOR DEFEAT

but it was an interesting learning experience

-tom w[/QB]

Hi Tom,

Three questions, for you to answer:

So sounds like although difficult, you feel the game/battle played out in a reasonable manner in terms of being practical. Or do you feel the MG was excessively EFFECTIVE?

Did you happen to experience your own Maxim MG's being stubborn about not voluntarily acquiring targets as well? If not, did you use covering arcs - as other posts suggested that using covering arcs improves spotting and target acquiring - personally I have not made big use of covering arcs.

And did you note that your squads were routed or panicked without having taken significant casualties and after rather short lived exposure to MG fire?

Not trying to corner you, just trying to clarify.

PS - I'm actually blown away you did as well as you did. My first attempt using a rush didn't get me past the cemetary and I surrendered to try again - but I wasn't getting much in the way of cover fire from those MGs and I can see that making all the difference. I played that map a second time and with equal focus on flank attacks as the central attack. The central push again failed miserably even with tank support. However both my flanking efforts went reasonably well and in the end I accomplished about the same as yourself: gaining control of the flags along the river. If I played it again I would forget all about the central push, concentrate on the left flank (one with the functional bridge) and push for the hill with the main flag.

[ November 21, 2002, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: somazx ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by somazx:

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

I played that battle as the Russians last night too

and I tried the massive human wave type assault as well

and same thing

the one MG 42 in the church was a REAL killer!

Those who are interested in seeing some of what is beeing discussed here should play the Russians in the above mentioned scenario. Play EFOW and let the AI set up as the Scenario Default.

it is a tough one and I think that scenario as the Russians (vet units) against the vet Germans shows HOW really EFFECTIVE one lone MG 42 can really be.

It is a good example of inf units advancing in the open trying to overcome stubborn defenders in buidlings, rubble and foxholes with mg's and HMG's.

I thought it was tough to win as the Russians, in fact in my first and only attempt so far I got a rating about about %37 (captured all the flags on the river) but earned only a MINOR DEFEAT

but it was an interesting learning experience

-tom w

Hi Tom,

Three questions, for you to answer:

So sounds like although difficult, you feel the game/battle played out in a reasonable manner in terms of being practical. Or do you feel the MG was excessively EFFECTIVE?

Did you happen to experience your own Maxim MG's being stubborn about not voluntarily acquiring targets as well? If not, did you use covering arcs - as other posts suggested that using covering arcs improves spotting and target acquiring - personally I have not made big use of covering arcs.

And did you note that your squads were routed or panicked without having taken significant casualties and after rather short lived exposure to MG fire?

Not trying to corner you, just trying to clarify.[/QB]</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Dschugaschwili

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.

Tarqulene,

Or is that the way Cover Arc is supposed to work? And conversely, non-covering arcs... cover arc = unit "eager" to fire, no arc = unit reluctant to fire.

Not quite, but close. 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.

Also note that the TacAI has very little "awareness" in the sense we Humans have. A unit is not capable of thinking "my buddies are getting hammered over there! I have to help them out!!". This is a very complex thought process which is highly situationally dependent. It is not something that we can code into the game. Instead, the unit will say to itself "there is an enemy unit firing at something. Considering all the things that can happen to me if I fire, and the things I can't do while I am firing at that unit, do I want to take the shot?" The answer is heavily weighted by how good the shot is, how many other units are engaging it already, its threat value, etc.

Ace,

True enough, but I don’t want to play a game where the outcomes are limited to a few standard deviations from the mean.

Totally agree. However, I think in the tactical sense, units do a lot more "cowardly" things in real life than the history books report. For example, when you read about a battle it generally describes things in more or less B&W or very vague terms. So and so "advanced and took the town" and the other side "had enough and withdrew". Did the advancing side always advance or did some units hesitate or even turn tail? What happened to 1st Squad, 2nd Platoon, B Company each minute of the 30 minute firefight? I think you get the picture here.

Most 1st person accounts of combat I have read skim on tactical details too, simply because that isn't what they generally are trying to focus on describing. But one thing I see in the 1st person grunt perspective is how scared and hesitant they are for the most part. The difference between a good unit and a poor one is that every so often, when it really counts, the good unit can overcome this "problem" and do something that has an impact. So it could be said that the "norm" in CM should be units pretty much sitting around doing nothing or running away

Could part of the problem be that CM does an excellent job of representing the “bell curve” of combat, but people are focusing on examples from the tail ends of the curve?

I am sure this is a BIG part of it. We Humans tend to remember extremes and take them out of context with the big picture. For example, where I live there are a group of numbheads that want to increase moose kill permits because every year one or two people die in car collisions with the big animals. They scream about how dangerous it is to drive around with them lurking in the woods, waiting to pounce out in front of their car/truck. Yet statistically dozens more people die and thousands more are injured every year in speed related accidents within the state. They also don't take into consideration how many hours of driving time the population racks up with NO incidents at all. But do people remember these factors when they see the nightly news announcing that some person they don't know, 250 miles away was killed while driving at 2am in fog, too fast, with 3 or 4 beers in his system? Nope

My point here is that it is Human nature to focus on "interesting" and "exotic" example of life. Especially if they are negative. They also tend to completely forget, overlook, or downplay how such events fit into the Big Picture. So we see people here complaining about how this or that feature is totally broken and makes the game unplayable when in fact the same feature functions correctly 99% of the time. But we are used to it because this has been going on since the CMBO Beta Demo non stop It is our job to figure out which part of the bell curve the event SHOULD be on and where it in fact is appearing. If it should be rare as Hell and is in fact coming up all the time, then there is a problem. But almost all the time it is just about where it should be.

JaegerMeister,

But bearing in mind the 2x armour sitting just outside the building and other squads in firing range, surely that unit should have stayed put,

Sure, they probably should have. But this is only because a Human can see that which the AI is utterly incapable of seeing... and that is the Big Picture in infinite detail and with knowledge of how everything should work at an intuitive level. Oh, and Humans also have the benefit of hindsight and learning too This just ties in with what I said above about the AI not being capable of understanding the greater context of the battlefield more than just a tiny bit.

clcaldwell,

I don't recall ever seeing this in CMBO. So, is there something that changed in the way infantry evaluate current threats? I'm just trying to figure out the interplay of all the CMBB changes that make this happen. Is it that CMBB units are more likely to try to move?

No, the core behavior did not get changed much at all. What did get changed was the entire way infantry and small arms fire is modeled. This has had a profound effect on all other aspects of the game. Some come out looking similar to CMBO, some totally different even though that particular code was barely (or not at all) changed.

So, I guess my question is, is this a matter of perception? CMBB units get underway faster through use of the new Sneak command whereas CMBO tried to Crawl away and never made any progress.

Sneak is what Crawl used to be. I also think Charles might have made units in CMBB more likely to stick with Human/TacAI orders than in CMBO. If true, that could explain why units don't appear to sit and spin under fire as much as they used to. And in general, that is a very good thing.

Steve

[somazx]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

hope that answers your questions

Yes, thank you.

However a little concerning that my carefull and delibrate rush went far worse than your lazy and hurried one =)

However I think we've established that this battle makes for a good illustration of two behaviours (possible excessive routing and possible failing to fire problems)that people have been debating.

Folks complaining that there is a lack of reproducable examples should quiet down now - between this scenario and the others mentioned.

This scenario and discussion should be enough to aid the developers in making a more precise scenario to further isoloate and reproduce the behaviour and either identify a problem or deffinatively point out justification for what we've observed.

[ November 21, 2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: somazx ]

[Tarquelne]

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.

How significant is that effect? In my "test" the size of the arc never mattered - units with a 150m by 10 degree arc acted the same as units with a 3000m by 180 degree arc. They both saw the same 150m distant unit quickly. Would I have been more likely to see a difference in the spotting of a more distant unit?

Or - sorry about asking for all this speculation on your part - it's it more likely that all the units did spot the enemy unit, but without assigned arcs decided not to fire?

HOWEVER, a Cover Arc command is, basically, a "cover this area" command and therefore puts the unit into a more shooting friendly mode.

Ah ha! That explains a lot, including the CNTL-cover arc command (or maybe SHIFT?), which I had thought to be of dubious utility.

An update: I tried having the German squad fire on the Russians squads in the woods. The squads will indeed _return_ fire, though they may take several burts to provoke them. Which does seem realistic - they've realized that thinking "White paper, white paper!" isn't going to work.

Also note that the TacAI has very little "awareness" in the sense we Humans have. A unit is not capable of thinking "my buddies are getting hammered over there! I have to help them out!!".

Oh, I'm aware of that! (At least in how it applies to other situations.) A PzIII of mine backed itself into LOS of a KV-1 and 2 T-34s the other day. 200m, side presentation. It was obvious the TacAI wasn't all that aware of the battlefield. Thus, my formal request for a new unit command: "If You Move You're F*cking Dead! This Isn't a Threat, It's a Prediction."

[ November 21, 2002, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Wolfe]

Just to highlight Tarqulene's observations, you can try these two scenarios for yourself. I plotted an advance movement across open ground for 3 platoons with a number of supporting Maxim MMGs. Unless given a specific order or a covered arc, the MGs refuse to fire.

CMBB Attack.zip [8KB]

"1 attack" is in snow (for reduced LOS). "3 attack" is in clear weather. "1 attack 01" is a saved game. Weather doesn't seem to make a difference. The Maxim's won't join the fight automatically.

BTW, you may have to run it a couple of times from the Allied side to actually get close enough to spot the German units. Once spotted the attacking units will open up (if they're not already supressed/routed), but the MGs won't.

- Chris

[ November 21, 2002, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

[Battlefront.com]

Somazx

Folks complaining that there is a lack of reproducable examples should quiet down now - between this scenario and the others mentioned.

This scenario and discussion should be enough to aid the developers in making a more precise scenario to further isoloate and reproduce the behaviour and either identify a problem or deffinatively point out justification for what we've observed.

The TacAI will do some dumb stuff, that is no surprise to us nor is it preventable. It might even do some dumb stuff very consistantly in a given situation, that is also no surprise to us. The problem is that tons of AI programming time generally doesn't help the overal situation. There will always be something that could use specific coding to fix, and since AI coding is extraordinarily time consuming... we as developers just have to "cut our losses" (so to speak) and move on.

The simple truth is that even a rather dumb player can correctly point out the shortcomings of the AI. But that doesn't mean anything because identifying an AI problem is generally akin to figuring out that if it rains you get wet. Very obvious cause and effect relationship, but trying to solve that problem is infintely more difficult. Building a crude umbrella out of wood might keep off some of the rain, but it could be too heavy over time and not practical, but building it out of cardboard doesn't last long. And if the wind is blowing it doesn't matter beacuse the rest of your body will get soaked even if your head doesn't, which might also get soaked if the wind is really blowing. So the solution is to build a rain suit, which is all well and fine but that isn't easy to do. OK, assume you now have a rain suit, great! You are all nice and dry provided you don't move. If you move you begin to sweat, and because the suit doesn't let moisture in it won't let moisture out. So now you aree wet inside the suit. Perhaps not as bad as without the suit, but bad enough to make you look for different materials. Now you get some high tech materials after years of development and millions of dollars spent (remember, you are building this yourself!) and you develop a lightweight material that allows moisture out but not in. Unfortunately, its water resistance is not as good as the previous material so in a really hard rain the material becomes soaked through. Now you need something different, etc. etc. etc.

The lesson here is that it is not enough to point out the problems. One also has to take into consideration what solution is necessary to fix it and, even more importantly, if that solution is practical. It also has to be understood that no matter what you do, how smart you are, and how much time you have... something will still not work right with that SPECIFIC behavior you are trying to model. Not to mention the other thousands of things you aren't spending your time addressing. Oh, and then of course there is the rest of the game that suffer while you twiddle with stuff

No, I am not saying that we will never make any improvements or what not. But so far what I have seen is either explainable or not fixable in practical terms. And therefore don't expect any fixes because we aren't even going to explore them. Just exploring them takes time and time is not something we have an infinite supply of.

Tarqulene,

How significant is that effect?

As with all answers to questions of this nature... it depends on the exact circumstances

In my "test" the size of the arc never mattered - units with a 150m by 10 degree arc acted the same as units with a 3000m by 180 degree arc. They both saw the same 150m distant unit quickly. Would I have been more likely to see a difference in the spotting of a more distant unit?

Yes, most likely if the unit is even likely to spot things that far out. Infantry Squads aren't the best thing for that test. Probably FOs or unbuttoned TCs. Also keep in mind that with Absolute Spotting one unit spots it ALL units spot it. That doesn't mean they have LOS to the unit or will pick it up as a target right away or at all. Just that it is in some way aware of the unit's existance and location. Relative Spotting will solve that issue.

Or - sorry about asking for all this speculation on your part - it's it more likely that all the units did spot the enemy unit, but without assigned arcs decided not to fire?

Probably.

Steve

[Tarquelne]

Thanks for all the answers, Steve.

[Battlefront.com]

Wolfe,

I tried out "1 attack" just now and everything worked perfectly well. Indeed, the Soviet MGs did not open fire. But what were they supposed to fire at? They didn't get a single identifiable target. Just Sound Contacts. The TacAI never has, and never will, fire back at such targets because they aren't anything but blind guesses. You can Area Fire on those areas, but that is something the player *must* decide upon.

Just to check and make sure things were all square, after the Soviet infantry was mowed down and the front quiet again I moved one of the German Squads in the woods laterally towards one of the buildings. It didn't get more than a meter or two out into the open before every single Soviet unit capable of hitting it opened up on it. Needless to say the Squad didn't hang around too long after that

Interesting note was that it RAN back to the Woods, and then RAN to the back portion and out of LOS of the bad guys. No SNEAK used and perfectly optimal results.

As I speculated earlier, I think the main problem here is that people expect their units to open up on targets which are not identified enough. CMBO's and CMBB's TacAIs do not work that way and shouldn't.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Wolfe,

I tried out "1 attack" just now and everything worked perfectly well. Indeed, the Soviet MGs did not open fire. But what were they supposed to fire at? They didn't get a single identifiable target. Just Sound Contacts. The TacAI never has, and never will, fire back at such targets because they aren't anything but blind guesses. You can Area Fire on those areas, but that is something the player *must* decide upon.

Just to check and make sure things were all square, after the Soviet infantry was mowed down and the front quiet again I moved one of the German Squads in the woods laterally towards one of the buildings. It didn't get more than a meter or two out into the open before every single Soviet unit capable of hitting it opened up on it. Needless to say the Squad didn't hang around too long after that

Interesting note was that it RAN back to the Woods, and then RAN to the back portion and out of LOS of the bad guys. No SNEAK used and perfectly optimal results.

As I speculated earlier, I think the main problem here is that people expect their units to open up on targets which are not identified enough. CMBO's and CMBB's TacAIs do not work that way and shouldn't.

Steve

Hi Steve

Just curious...

Are you testing that scenario with the new v1.01 patched version of CMBB now?

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Tom,

Are you testing that scenario with the new v1.01 patched version of CMBB now?

1.0 release, just like you folks have. And even if I used 1.01 it shouldn't have mattered because we didn't make any changes that would affect targeting. Or at least none that I can think of.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Tom,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Are you testing that scenario with the new v1.01 patched version of CMBB now?

1.0 release, just like you folks have. And even if I used 1.01 it shouldn't have mattered because we didn't make any changes that would affect targeting. Or at least none that I can think of.

Steve</font>

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I tried out "1 attack" just now and everything worked perfectly well. Indeed, the Soviet MGs did not open fire. But what were they supposed to fire at? They didn't get a single identifiable target. Just Sound Contacts. The TacAI never has, and never will, fire back at such targets because they aren't anything but blind guesses.

Hi, Steve. I understand that, but even when they get close enough to spot enemy units, the MGs still won't voluntarily fire. Here's one where 3 enemy units have been spotted enough to be fired on. The first showed up in the building on turn 4 at 0:12 (but has since disappeared), the second in the middle of the tree copse at 0:13 (still visible) and the third in the front part of the trees at 0:14 (still visible). My attacking squads which are in bad shape will fire on them, but the MGs won't.

CMBB Attack 2

I *love* the new covered arc commands and use them a lot, but I really don't understand why units sometimes won't fire without it when they're not supressed, have decent LOS, plenty of ammo, and aren't jammed. CMBB's code certainly has many subtleties I'm not aware of, but I don't see how this situation is particularly subtle.

- Chris

[somazx]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Somazx

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Folks complaining that there is a lack of reproducable examples should quiet down now - between this scenario and the others mentioned.

This scenario and discussion should be enough to aid the developers in making a more precise scenario to further isoloate and reproduce the behaviour and either identify a problem or deffinatively point out justification for what we've observed.

The TacAI will do some dumb stuff, that is no surprise to us nor is it preventable. It might even do some dumb stuff very consistantly in a given situation, that is also no surprise to us. The problem is that tons of AI programming time generally doesn't help the overal situation. There will always be something that could use specific coding to fix, and since AI coding is extraordinarily time consuming... we as developers just have to "cut our losses" (so to speak) and move on.

The simple truth is that even a rather dumb player can correctly point out the shortcomings of the AI. But that doesn't mean anything because identifying an AI problem is generally akin to figuring out that if it rains you get wet...

</font>

[Tarquelne]

I really don't understand why units sometimes won't fire without it when they're not supressed, have decent LOS, plenty of ammo, and aren't jammed. CMBB's code certainly has many subtleties I'm not aware of, but I don't see how this situation is particularly subtle.

But they will fire if given cover arcs, correct? (Just a sec... dowloading... installing.. playing) Yes, they will. I think this may boil down to "situational awareness." The TacAI doesn't know you expect those motionless, rested ammoed-up HMG is supposed to be providing cover fire. So it doesn't. I believe it's been mentioned before that the digital soldiers, like real ones, don't like to borrow trouble - if they can pretend what's going on 75m away is somebody else's problem they often will.

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...

And even if I used 1.01 it shouldn't have mattered...

It doesn't.

[ November 21, 2002, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Michael Emrys]

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