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

[Renaud]

I am sure that many actual battlefield commanders wished that their flesh-and-blood troops would likewise do what they wanted and otherwise follow their orders faithfully. However they did not have an engine rewrite to look forward to or god-of-code to appeal to as do we. Can you imagine 'new and improved battlefield solder v2.01'? delivered to Patton on request?

I have to say I'm a little leery of arguments which essentially say that "my troops do stupid things, I would never do this! My orders clearly redound to their benefit, if they would only have the brains to follow through with them." Sounds like the lament of every commander. I agree there is SOME crazy behavior going on which should and probably will be addressed with 'AI memory' or somesuch advance. For my part I really don't see a huge problem. I find that the troop morale AI, often unpredictable (a good thing I believe), is plausible given that you are ordering men forward into desperate life-and-death situations.

I do agree that there are some improvements that could be made. For instance in units pushing each other out of foxholes and heavy weapons teams sneaking to utter exhaustion (perhaps). But I disagree that there is something generally wrong or missing from the infantry behavior modeling. I just accept that in this game, as in reality, men under fire will do some crazy ****, often resulting in unnecessary casualties. When I think of it this way, I understand why half my green force is reduced to confused running/sneaking/rerouting by that surprise mortar barrage. Having to issue orders repeatedly and have them repeatedly ignored/refused is exactly what we see happen in RL accounts, so this does not lead me to question the correctness of the game. I would be the crazy one if I expected anything approaching rational behavior or absolute devotion to my orders. Frankly I don't want a game that proposes this level of control over allegedly 'human' troops.

Try playing with 50% fanatical elite troops and high leader bonuses. Then you get something approaching automatons. Such troops are not unknown to history, so I appreciate that BTS has made them available, but are certainly the exception rather than the norm.

I'm writing this mainly to give the 'other side' (meaning 'my side') a hearing. I may be mistaken, but I believe there are a number of people out there who agree. I would be really bummed if BTS incorporated many of the changes that are being asked for here, apparently for the purpose of making infantry behavior more rational, predictable and reliable. In other words, the behavior of robots not men.

Ren

[ October 28, 2002, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[Redwolf]

OK, Renaud, so do you think it is realistic that a 75mm PaK currently engaging a bunch of T-34 evacuates their foxhole when a bunch of broken crewmen from a broken mortar come by?

Do you think it is realistic that upon a traffic jam vehicles fall off the horizon?

Do you think it is realistic that soldiers always, and I mean reliably always, crawl to their total exhaustion when they come under fire? And I'm not only speaking of completely broken troops here, where I'd say its OK.

Maybe I am a little short-tempered today, but you people really drive me crazy. I am really not speaking about turning green CM soldiers into supermen here. All the pinning and crawling for cover is perfectly fine, but some side-effects around the edges are broken. Clearly broken. And fixable without consulting the soldier's diary.

Where exactly did I make an proposal which would make the pinned unit more combat-capable? Nowhere. I just don't want them to unrealistically affect other troops, I don't want them to be effectivly put out of the battle by automatic exhaustion, and I don't want vehicles to disappear unles I order them off the map myself. Is any of this a realism stretch?

[Renaud]

Whoa tiger!

Now I have to quote myself:

"do agree that there are some improvements that could be made. For instance in units pushing each other out of foxholes and heavy weapons teams sneaking to utter exhaustion (perhaps). "

I include falling off the edge of the world and other anomolies in the 'some improvements' category.

Also, I attributed nothing to your personally. So if my comments do not characterize any positions which you have endorsed, why reply?

Ren

edit: comments on your last para.

1. ("unrealistically affect other troops")

Here you refer to the foxhole push-and-shove contest. Not entirely unrealstic, but in the case of forcing heavy weapons out of their positions, yep needs fixing.

2. exhaustion put men out of action regularly in combat. I think you mean specifically the heavy weapon team 'crawl-to-exhaustion' thing. In reality I think they would abandon their heavy weapons, particularly if broken. Then they would not get exhausted while leaving the AO. As it is this can't be modeled, resulting in arguably unrealistic exhaustion.

3. vehicles can and do leave the area without orders, as part of vehicle morale/retreating. But I think you are referring specifically to the reported traffic jam map-edge problem. Never experienced it myself but yes it's a prob.

So in short I mostly agree with you on these points.

Ren

[ October 28, 2002, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[PeterX]

OK, Renaud, so do you think it is realistic that a 75mm PaK currently engaging a bunch of T-34 evacuates their foxhole when a bunch of broken crewmen from a broken mortar come by?

Redwolf, have you ever attended a rock concert? Ever find yourself in the middle of a crowd seized with euphoria or panic? Personally, I haven't observed the musical chairs phenomenon you cited, but it doesn't seem entirley implausible. There are some enlightening first person accounts of what transpired on the Titannic that might change your perspective on group psycholgy.

Do you think it is realistic that soldiers always, and I mean reliably always, crawl to their total exhaustion when they come under fire?

I have a hard time picturing myself, caught in the open, being raked by machine gun fire, hearing the screams of my mates, and lying perfectly still in a state of Zen fatalism. I'm going to crawl ,squirm, whatever. Preferably to a nice, secluded spot but basically anywhere is better than where I find myself now.

And remember, you can always lasso the units in question and reissue orders. I find the whole mise-en-scene quite realistic.

[ October 28, 2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Redwolf]

Grumble, grumble, grumble

Take it easy, guys, on second thought we don't seem to be that far apart. I do not think your examples and suggestions apply but I said that repeadently by now.

Speaking of it, I should go to a rock concert, but I missed Deep Purple this summer. Maybe that's why I am so grumpy.

[Renaud]

Yea Red I think in some specifics we agree. Read my edit to original post at top of page.

Ren

[Broken]

I think everyone agrees that you should lose control of panicked or routed troops. However, they should behave in ways that make sense for someone who's overwhelming priority is to save their own ass. Some may freeze, some may drop their weapons and run for better cover, but few are going to go suicidal - which unfortunately happens too often with the current panic model.

[Renaud]

Broken! has described my central disagreement. That is, I think there should be many times when units go out of control, not only when they are broken, routed or panicked. I find it quite understandable when units under fire refuse my orders and even perform actions that, from my relatively godlike perspective, appear irrational and are likely to result in 100% casualties. After all they can't know whether the foxholes 10 meters away are safe, or whether it's a better bet to try and crawl 50 meters back where they came from. This assumes that the men in this situation are even capable of rational thought at that point. Currently I don't think I see 'too many' bad AI decisions, just 'a lot' of them. Which makes sense to me given the context. But trust me, I am right there with you screaming at my computer-grunts when they go the wrong way into certain death!

One improvement that I think could be made with future AI models as new game engines allow, is a distinction between various experience levels of troops with regards to the choices they make. That is, a crack unit pinned down in the open would be much more likely to make the correct choice while a green unit would have roughly 50%/50% odds of doing the 'right thing' (as an arbitrary example). Of course the 'right thing' can be subjective in all but the most obvious cases, making this a tough call. Right now I can't detect any difference in path choice based on experience, only in how quickly their morale status degrades. Perhaps experienced troops could 'remember' farther back, using the memory model mentioned by steve on page 1, while conscripts would forget everything at the sound of a distant rifle shot.

Ren

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

The point about going to ground is that once down the units morale isn't going to change much**, and when the next orders phase rolls around the player (assuming they aren't panicked or routed) can either order them to return fire from where they are, send them to cover in a location that makes sense to the player***, or give them orders to get moving forward again****. Either way, its up to the player, but he doesn't have to contend with auto-exhausting units on top of everything else.

** At least, not as much as having them running around in the open, or crawling hither and yon which just gets them exhausted. IIRC, being tired or exhausted does bad things to a units morale.

*** Thereby avoiding all the murky decisions that the AI can't handle very well at the moment, including moving to positions out of LOS but otherwise in open ground.

**** Yes, this would mean incurring the command delay, but in this case, IMHO, that's not such a bad thing.

By gum, that makes more sense than anything else I've read on this particular subject!

Michael