PLEASE tell me this is improved in CMBB...

[Ben Galanti]

Ok, I'm just bitter due to a bad PBEM turn I just recieved, but I hadn't heard anything about this topic in reference to CMBB, so I thought I'd ask.

Will the TacAI be more intelligent about seeking cover in CMBB? Currently in CMBO, it seems that a squad under TacAI control (due to incoming fire or what not) invariably heads for the closest square with a high 'cover' value. What the TacAI seems to completely ignore is the fact that sometimes there is a much better way to get completely out of LOS all together. Either hiding behind a building or terrain.

The case that I'm griping about in particular is of a squad that was in a grass square when it came under fire. This squad had just crested a hill when it came under fire (and the previous turn ended) I had ordered it to move behind a building further down the hill (forward) to get it out of LOS of all the fire. The TacAI took over early in the turn (fine, completely understandable) but what it proceeded to do is what drives me nuts. It ran towards the nearest bunch of 'woods' which happened to be about 60 meters away AND tried to run through a 'slope' square to get there. So, it was slowed down and in LOS of the enemy even longer. It then breaks and runs towards a building on the top of the hill, keeping it in LOS longer still... Before all of this, my plotted path had the squad breaking all LOS with the enemy in about 5 meters.

As I said, I understand I don't have full control and that 'stuff happens'. Thats part of the game that I really enjoy. My whine is that squads ALWAYS seem to head towards high cover terrain instead of looking for an option to break LOS. They always head for that not so nearby patch of woods or bocage or what ever instead of heading back over the hill they just crested or up behind a nearby building.

It just seems to me that breaking LOS with the units firing on a TacAI controlled squad is not taken into consideration when looking for a place to take cover.

The strange thing is, vehicles seem to do a much better job of this (usually). I assume it's since they can't enter those woods or bocage tiles. So, I would assume that there is code in there for 'break LOS', I just wish that the TacAI would give that a higher priority then looking for high cover terrain for infantry as well. I would think not being fired at at all would be better then being fired, but with a bit of cover...

Thanks for listening to my rant.

Ben

[Silvio Manuel]

A useful rant it was, Ben. I hope they fix this one as well...it sounds like the "seek LOS" TacAI feature for armor is already there...why not adapt it for infantry too.

[Michael Emrys]

FWIW, Ben, I think you are 100% right. Another aspect of this same thing is when a unit breaks and runs for cover, gets shot at on the way, changes its mind, turns around and runs for some more distant cover, gets shot at, changes its mind....etc. I find this little dance of death quaintly amusing...as long as it's the enemy's troops who are putting on the performance.

Michael

[Schrullenhaft]

I don't know if this will be addressed in CMBB or not. It's a legitimate complaint, but it is a complex problem to solve.

The solution would seem simple from a logical standpoint, but the LOS and AI-pathing may be very hard to combine to get a 'realistic retreat'. Workarounds may involve retreating in the opposite direction of advance to the nearest cover (rather than say some better cover that may be at an angle to the incoming fire and closer, etc.). Programming the AI to take these variables into account may be beyond the current engine setup (in other words the variables wouldn't be available to the AI to use in making a decision).