Some things that need fixing in CMBB (not in 1.01)

[Redwolf]

1) automatic exhaustion from sneaking to nearest cover and always switching back to sneak no matter what the player does. This is unfair and unrealistic and certainly no pay fun.

Possible solution: let units which switched to sneak on their own behalf not fall below "tired".

2) automatic (TacAI) traffic jam untangling moved AFVs off map for me.

Fix: consider off-map terrain unpassable for the purpose of path calculation, just like trees etc.

3) Panic'ed units running back into occupied foxholes, pushing out the legitimate occupiers. Including small crews pushing out guns (which will then turn away from the enemy 180 degrees).

But extension, problem 3) leads to the now-homeless fit units to come under fire and subsequently sneak to nearest cover, but usually to the friendly map edge, thereby leading to problem 1).

Solution: don't consider occupied foxholes suitable cover as destination when searching for destination on panic or broken.

%%

Summary in short: you end up with an exhausted sneaking blob of units starting from a KO'ed kuebelwagen before your lines, except for AFVs which are off-map and guns which walk upright in open ground pointing to your rear.

EDIT: Yes, CMBB is cool. This is just to make the now preferred attack/defense more fun.

[ October 25, 2002, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Situation: my platoon is advancing over about 70 meters of open ground to a stand of scattered trees. They come under fire from a machince gun several hundered meters to their flank. They go to ground and start sneaking towards the objective. About 5 meters away from the cover of the trees one of the squads goes to panic status and turns around and starts sneaking the other direction, over the same 70 meters of open ground they just covered.

Not a new problem; it was in CMBO as well. But if we're going to have a thread about things that we'd like fixed, it's as annoying a problem as any other.

Oh yeah, and for something I'm certain wont happen, I'd like the new system of increasing command delay for every waypoint plotted stripped out and returned to the way it was in CMBO. This is the one new feature in CMBB that I think actually detracts from both playability and realism.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by redwolf:

3) Panic'ed units running back into occupied foxholes, pushing out the legitimate occupiers. Including small crews pushing out guns (which will then turn away from the enemy 180 degrees).

Haven't encountered this one yet, but it sounds... errrmm... annoying.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Oh yeah, and for something I'm certain wont happen, I'd like the new system of increasing command delay for every waypoint plotted stripped out and returned to the way it was in CMBO. This is the one new feature in CMBB that I think actually detracts from both playability and realism.

I think it is more realistic. If I say to my squad: "run to that building NOW!" I expect they should do it without delay and plot their own path if there are things that block their approach. But if I say: "Run forward 20m then turn left at the rubble heap, then run 15m more, then climb up to the top floor and put your men in the NE corner," I would think my squad leader would need a few extra seconds to devour those orders (not to mention the extra seconds I need to relay them to him over the radio). It just makes more sence than plotting 35 waypoints (as in CMBO) and having your green Sherman undersatnd everything you have told him and exicute it in 20 seconds.

[Treeburst155]

Vanir said, "Oh yeah, and for something I'm certain wont happen, I'd like the new system of increasing command delay for every waypoint plotted stripped out and returned to the way it was in CMBO. This is the one new feature in CMBB that I think actually detracts from both playability and realism."

This I wholeheartedly agree with. I almost always agree with Vanir. It's strange. Anyway, it can easily take three or four waypoints to get a unit to do a very simple thing. For example, "Move to the right of the woods, then head for that farmhouse through the gap in the wall. I would not consider this a complex set of instructions, but it will take several waypoints. The gap in the stone wall could very easily make an additional waypoint necessary.

I think the waypoint delay should not kick in until more than four waypoints are plotted.

Treeburst155 out.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Treeburst,

Although I think the new system is better, I think your compromise for it has merrit.

[Redwolf]

The new waypoint delay system is missing to give one simple curve the same penality as a simple straight move.

Only changing directions, curves into other directions than the previous one should be punished.

I didn't innclude it in my list since it is probably hard to implement.

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Oh yeah, and for something I'm certain wont happen, I'd like the new system of increasing command delay for every waypoint plotted stripped out and returned to the way it was in CMBO. This is the one new feature in CMBB that I think actually detracts from both playability and realism.

BFC's already reponded to this:

More waypopints = more delay. Realstic?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

If I say to my squad: "run to that building NOW!" I expect they should do it without delay and plot their own path if there are things that block their approach.

Exactly. The problem is that is it often the case that it is necessary to plot a lot of waypoints to do things that really wouldn't be complicated in real life, or that would be decided "on the fly" rather than preplanned. This seems to be especially true in city fighting. You may say "run to the building NOW!", but what path do they take to the building? Where do they stop in the building? These are things that in real life would usually (but not always) be not necessary to preplan out to the last detail, but you always have to plot these out in the game, because you as the player are playing the role of the squad leader as well as the platoon leader.

A good example someone came up with in another thread a while back was that when you are about to drive down a road in your car, do you stop and plan every turn? No. If you already know where you're going you just go and deal with the minute details that pop up as they come.

In a recent game I gave a rather lenthy string of waypoints to a tank thet ended up giving him a delay of almost 2 minutes. The thing is, most of the waypoints were ploted to manuever him around impassible terrain in his path, such as a pond, a house, some swamp, ect. This is stuff the tank driver wouldn't need to be told to do by anyone, nor need to plan out in advance. He'd just drive around the obstacles as they appeared. No reason to for a big command delay.

There were already command delays in CMBO, and I thought they did a fine job of abstracting the rather nebulous C&C structure of CM. The new system just makes the game harder to play without really adding any realism.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by tecumseh:

BFC's already reponded to this:

More waypopints = more delay. Realstic?

Yes, I remember the thread. Let's just say that in my so-far experience with the game, I really do notice longer delays even with regular troops (the tank I mentioned above was regular). Maybe it's just the way I play, but it seems to take forever to do things anymore. I'm starting to think 60 turns for a 3000 pt attack/defend QB is not to long. This is fine if its in the name of realism, but as I have stated, I question the extent to which this is true for this feature.

One thing Steve said stood out:

We beat ourselves to death trying to come up with a way to simulate what is basically not possible to simulate.

In my opinion, the CMBO system did a fine job. If the purpose of the new system was to more accuratly simulate lower experience troops by making them clumsy to handle, I think this was already the case in CMBO. I found green troops to be much more sluggish than regulars, and conscripts were enought to make me pull my hair out. I guess I look at it as fixing something that wasn't broke.

But I know they won't change it. I'm just venting

[Redwolf]

Can I politely ask to discuss the waypoint delay system, if needed again, in a different thread?

I would like to concentrate on the "new" points I brought up.

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by tecumseh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Oh yeah, and for something I'm certain wont happen, I'd like the new system of increasing command delay for every waypoint plotted stripped out and returned to the way it was in CMBO. This is the one new feature in CMBB that I think actually detracts from both playability and realism.

BFC's already reponded to this:

More waypopints = more delay. Realstic?</font>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

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

3) Panic'ed units running back into occupied foxholes, pushing out the legitimate occupiers. Including small crews pushing out guns (which will then turn away from the enemy 180 degrees).

Haven't encountered this one yet, but it sounds... errrmm... annoying.</font>

[russellmz]

i remember a suggestion for cmbo: "let guns reverse"

[Battlefront.com]

There will be no significant changes/tweaks to the AI. The simple reason is that we have hit the point of diminishing returns on it with this code base.

The main problem is that the behaviors being mentioned are VERY hard to simulate to begin with. Some of them can be simulated better in theory, but run up against RAM or CPU limitations. Others would increase the filesize by perhaps 10-100 times, depending on what was going on. Because all these issues need to be coded into the very core of the simulation engine, even if technically possible they could not be done with this codebase.

With the rewrite we will do things differently. The main shortcoming of almost all AIs, including CM's, is that each unit has no memory of what it just did or was supposed to do before getting distracted. This is in part why you can have a unit cover 90% of its open ground movement and then run away 10% from safety.

When the unit flips out it "forgets" that it intended on getting to that patch of woods (for example), and instead looks at the situation fresh. Why not go the shorter route to better covering terrain? Because Panicked/Routed/Broken units value moving away from the threat more heavily than terrain. Most of the time this works fine, but sometimes it obviously doesn't. Having "memory" would help fix this.

Memory also helps the unit try and reverse its course. For example, if a unit moves out of a foxhole forward 20m and gets shot at badly enough, in the real world it would likely try to retreat back to its foxhole over some other unknown direction.

Memory is critical for keeping track of threats. The old example of a tank tracking another tank behind a building is the best example of this. Currently it is "out of sight, out of mind". Having the TacAI keep the gun on the last known threat unless REALLY necessary to switch is something that just can not be done right now because the AI needs to compare previous threat to current threat. If you aren't tracking the previous threat, you can't do the comparison and therefore the AI is in no position to judge. Therefore, it targets anything that fits into a range of threats. Cover Arcs help and the Cover Armor Arc helps even more in the previous situation, but neither are as good as a player would like.

The unfortunate thing is... memory is VERY expensive to keep track of in RAM, process with the CPU, and store in PBEM/TCP-IP files. I doubt people would have played much PBEM 3 years ago if each file were say... I dunno, 2-3 MB prior to suffering the Internet encoding baggage. But in 2 years from now... probably will be a laughably small filesize to deal with

Bottom line is... can't do anything about this stuff now, but we can for the engine rewrite.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Vanir,

In my opinion, the CMBO system did a fine job. If the purpose of the new system was to more accuratly simulate lower experience troops by making them clumsy to handle, I think this was already the case in CMBO. I found green troops to be much more sluggish than regulars, and conscripts were enought to make me pull my hair out. I guess I look at it as fixing something that wasn't broke.

We have so much stuff on our Todo List that we never, ever, EVER fix stuff that ain't broke The simple truth is that poor quality troops in CMBO were overly effective, especially in the hands of a veteran gamer.

The main problem is that the old system allowed people to plot unrealistically complex orders (tactically speaking, not in a game sense) without *any* more penalty than asking the unit to move its ass over 10m. How realistic is that? Completely unrealistic. Therefore to say that it "ain't broke" requires overlooking this rather huge issue which can not be argued with.

Try getting a bunch of 5 year olds on their 2nd day of school to sit down. Probably pretty easy. Now try and get them to walk down a hall, out two sets of doors, and out to the playground as a group without problems. Now try and get them off the playground and back to the classroom. Do you think it would take the same amount of time to get any of the three effectively started? Conscripts are like 5 year olds

Also, sure in CMBO poor troops took a bit longer to get moving, but giving them a crudload of waypoints meant that effectively they never had to suffer the initial penalty until combat was engaged. So until combat is joined Conscripts are generally tactically equal to Crack troops. That is also silly.

If you wish to rebut this logic, please jump to the previous thread which Tom has bumpped to the surface.

As I said, and you quoted, we tried many different systems to correctly simulate the clumsy nature of crappy troops. Just be thankful you got this system instead of the first one Charles coded up If you think you are "venting" now...

Steve

[Treeburst155]

Thanks, Steve! I really appreciate these explanations of why various things are the way they are in CM.

Treeburst155 out.

[akdavis]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As I said, and you quoted, we tried many different systems to correctly simulate the clumsy nature of crappy troops. Just be thankful you got this system instead of the first one Charles coded up If you think you are "venting" now...

Steve

Is that the one where your troops were animated turning 180 deg. and extending their middle finger in your general direction?

[Tarquelne]

Bottom line is... can't do anything about this stuff now, but we can for the engine rewrite.

A little real "memory" for the AI? WOW, does that open up some possibilities! That'd be great!

If it'd help (and it probably won't) picture me slavering over the thought of such an improvement to CM's AI.

Just got CMBB and (assuming you can fit it in) I've already got an "If it's the only improvement I'd buy it." feature for the next CM game. Nifty.

Hmm... you mentioned that bandwidth requirements made such a scheme impossible (ie, impractical) previously for multiplayer CM games: How about having players send you all their CM saved games of the next few years and compile a player-behavior database? Then, for the next CM, you can just have your new AI _simulate_ various living players. Hey, you could do the same thing and make a simulated BFC forum. Computer grog heaven - no need to interact with other people at all!

[Ex Bellator]

Hi Steve,

I waffled on about the auto-sneak issue in another thread. I appreciate that sizeable changes to the AI are not going to happen in a patch, but is it possible that the rate of exhaustion due to sneaking can be tweaked?

Also my own and some others idea which we thought would be better would be to have a unit receiving fire, and which reacts adversely, Do Nothing rather than Sneak. Specfically at the point where they would decide to start sneaking, just sit there in their current position with their faces in the mud until your orders phase.

Would that be a major AI issue? We just get fed up with Exhausted troops who you have to replot orders for anyway.

[Redwolf]

Sorry, but it does take neither any RAM nor does it need memory of the past to do any of these:

- while searching for cover a panic'ed unit does not consider an occupied foxhole to be cover, just skip over it while looking for a destination. Treat occupied foxholes the same as burning terrain

- while computing a path to untangle a traffic jam, treat off-map locations as unpassable, the same way as woods

- the sneak and exhaustion solution I propsed is harder since that would require remembering whether the sneak was player-ordered or invented.

However, I think we would all be better off when sneaking does not drop the status below "tired" in any circumstances. Reserve "exhausted" for advance, run etc. This would solve this problem just fine

[ October 26, 2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Dirtweasle]

) Panic'ed units running back into occupied foxholes, pushing out the legitimate occupiers. Including small crews pushing out guns (which will then turn away from the enemy 180 degrees).

But extension, problem 3) leads to the now-homeless fit units to come under fire and subsequently sneak to nearest cover, but usually to the friendly map edge, thereby leading to problem 1).

Solution: don't consider occupied foxholes suitable cover as destination when searching for destination on panic or broken.

I agree that units should not "force out" the guys that built the whole, especially crew served weapons. However, I'm thinking that if real people were/are under fire, they might not be too particular about what hole they tried to run for. So in my opinion, the broken unit(s) fleeing fire should be allowed to run for an occupied hole, but maybe not get into it if it's full. Of courseyou could i think easiliy make the arguement that a beserk unit or one so stressed by combat as toi me maniacle to get away would indeed root out say a tank hunter team and take over a hole.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

If you wish to rebut this logic, please jump to the previous thread which Tom has bumpped to the surface.

I have posted a response there.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Of courseyou could i think easiliy make the arguement that a beserk unit or one so stressed by combat as toi me maniacle to get away would indeed root out say a tank hunter team and take over a hole.

I am forced to vehemently disagree with this line of reasoning: it's a relatively simple consequence of game engine mechanics going on, that's it. The Routed unit has no choice and must enter the foxhole under certain circumstances. The occupying unit, which in this case is presumably in good order and therefore does have some freedom of movement, realizes it is now "overstacked" and proceeds to leave the protection of its hole.

Ridiculous on the face of it, no matter how many stories we could make up to justify it. The panicked guys would simply be batted away nine times out of ten from what I've read. And they'd head further back or disperse and hide behind trees or whatever. As it stands, a good order unit is being punished for being in good order.

This brings me to a point about CM with which I've always disagreed: actions of Routed units, or at least the perceptions of those actions. I've always found it difficult to reconcile the fact that Routed and/or Panicked units will, at times, run around crazily and illogically on the battlefield, even in the face of withering fire, with the fact that they remain in play as units at all. The most extreme panicked battlefield reactions I've read about, i.e. the running around aimlessly, the catatonia, the complete breakdowns and dirt-eating, are more appropriate to individuals, not units. If a squad loses a few guys, we all know that the little crosses can mean anything from death to hiding to running away - and in my mind, these are the guys who are panicking severely enough to get themselves hurt at times.

But the rest of the unit? As long as it's a cohesive unit it should be fighting, hiding, or moving away to cover, not charging around in some weird spiral. And in the game, even a Panicked squad, since it can Rally, is a unit.

-dale

[Redwolf]

How does this sound?

Pak40 happily blasting away at a bunch of T-34. Gun crew leader: "Gunner, target, tank at 11 o'clock" "Jawoll" [KABUMM] "target destroyed" "****, 2 more, gunner target leftmost".

Loader 2: "hey look at that poor guy running towards us" (a single-man crew will trigger the problem in CMBB). Gun crew leader "ok, men lets pack our stuff, this man leeds shelter, move to next cover to the rear" - "and he doesn't fit into the place that our crew kamerad who fell two minutes ago left, either".

"But Herr Feldwebel, our gun only rolls forward". "Well, then I guess you have to turn it, then, stupid, or do ypu have any better ideas".