Why don't my troops follow my orders? (the fluffy version)

[Cpl Steiner]

Screenshot 1: Company ordered to cross field to the other side.

Screenshot 2: Company decides they don't like that idea and do something completely different!

Screenshot 3: Resulting in entire company marching like BLOODY ANTS!!!! down a BLOODY GULLY!!!! at the side of said field!

Now a single artillery round in the gully is likely wipe out half my company because they are all bunched up.

NO. NO. NO!!!!

I'm sorry, but this is exactly the sort of thing that means that half the time when I boot up CM:SF I end up turning it off in total disgust and doing something else.

Please, someone tell me that this won't happen any more in v1.04 or I think I'm going to lose all hope!

[Edit] Christ this thread has a life all of its own. Time to tone down the title methinks, especially as the original problem was due to a map design issue rather than the AI. In any case, it was my thread so I can call it what I like!

[ September 21, 2007, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[SlowMotion]

Maybe they think that walking across an open field is too risky? Instead they try to find a path that has more cover.

[molotov_billy]

I noticed the same thing in this scenario. I think there might be some type of unpassable marsh terrain next to the road?

[Ritter_85]

I think those soldiers think that there would be an enemy present inside those buildings....

but after I noticed those friendly units there I realized they are too careful why being extra careful when own troops are holding positions and "securing" those buildings....Or maybe they dont have any contact between company and those Humwees and soldiers at the roof.

or its a bug... that soldiers immediately thinks

crossing an open field would be a suicide...

have you tried to send scout units before ordering whole company to cross? or did they same thing?

[Ritter_85]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

I noticed the same thing in this scenario. I think there might be some type of unpassable marsh terrain next to the road?

well I see its a grainfield

[YankeeDog]

Ya, it looks to me like good idea, bad excecution; the pathfinding AI is trying to find a more covered route, but goes to far, and packs an entire company into the only good covered route in the area; the single ditch running along the road.

There probably needs to be a limit set on how far the AI will deviate from an as-plotted path, to prevent this sort of thing; for the 2-3 squads closest to the ditch deviating a bit from their path in order to take advantage of the cover of the ditch might make sense, but the unit all the way on the other side of the field is making an extreme detour.

Cheers,

YD

Edited to note:

Unless I was 100% sure that the field was not under enemy observation, or was actually deliberately running a skirmish line across the field to clear it of snipers or whatever, I would have used the covered route of the ditch myself, as the AI did. I would not, however, have run the entire company through the ditch in one mob, but rather spaced them out to limit the aforementioned possibility of multiple casualties from one artillery round or MG burst.

[ September 10, 2007, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Huntarr]

Hell I know that if I was told to cross that field and saw that nice safe ditch then that is sure as Hell where I am gonna move thru. If you didn't want them to bunch up, then you should have given more than just some crazy ass 1 waypoint destination.

[Kineas]

Looks like a screenshot from this

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

Hell I know that if I was told to cross that field and saw that nice safe ditch then that is sure as Hell where I am gonna move thru. If you didn't want them to bunch up, then you should have given more than just some crazy ass 1 waypoint destination.

Yeah, but it's not something you expect when you give an order like that.

[Huntarr]

I think it makes for a fairly strong case that there is TacAI happening. Correcting for a very general tactical decision. The Senior NCO staff helping out the "Butter Bar w/ a mouse" and trying to keep everyone in cover. If he wanted a specific route then all he had to do was place 1 or 2 more waypoints. It's not hard to do.

[magomar]

I have noticed the same behavior in the same scenario (the farm, right?), I order some squads to follow the ditch in advance, and some of them to go straight through the field, and all of them refused that path and went trough the dammed ditch

I don't think that is a proper behavior. If we had different pathfinding strategies (by time, distance, cover, and so on)then I can understand that a strategy base on cover or security would probably chose the ditch, but I do not thinkt that is the case. I thought the pathfinding algorithm here is supposed to search the quickest route, right? Then either there is another reason or there is something wrong...

[skelley]

I don't think the TacAI should do anything unless they are taking fire or there is an obstacle.

[Sitting Duck]

It's hard to tell, but it looks like there is only one waypoint (the destination) and they are following your orders. I think that if you had wanted them to march across the field abreast, then you would probably need more waypoints.

[skelley]

The more waypoints ya have the more they stop and regroup.

[Cpl Steiner]

All this talk about how the AI is cleverly finding the most covered route and counteracting my stupid orders is exactly the problem I am referring to, and what (so far) makes CM:SF a very frustrating game compared to the CMx1 series.

Say I give the order for the company to cross the open field, the AI follows my orders to the letter, and the whole company gets wiped out. Who do I blame? Myself of course. Am I still enjoying the game? Of course! I may have lost some men but in doing so I've learned a bit about how NOT to do things in future.

Now let's say the AI just ignores my orders, goes down the gully, and comes within LOS of a hidden enemy position - maybe even one I suspected might be covering the gully. As a result, half the company is wiped out. Who do I blame? The AI of course. Am I still enjoying the game. Not one bit! Why? Because I've learned nothing about how to play the game, other than that I can't trust the game to follow my orders. I might well be thinking by this stage that if the AI is just going to do what it wants anyway it may as well give the orders itself and I can just sit back and watch.

Come on people. Why is this so hard for you to understand? How can watching the AI ignore your plans make for a fun game?

[JasonC]

Indeed, this has a haywire pathfinding A* algorithm written all over it.

Those find a weighted best choice of route, but they generally have no idea of tactical realities nor coordination with the rest of the force. The underlying mistake is believing "best" can be applied to "route" on a unit by unit basis - it cannot.

This was an issue in CMx1 too, but only for forces under AI control. And I don't mean tac AI, I mean no player.

Those would often follow a perfectly predictable route and bunch up horribly at its natural chokepoints. As a result, a single large HE round could frequently kill an entire platoon.

I ran a test fight once in which I ran up the kill total from a single sIG to over 500 men, exploiting this "stupid AI trick".

Seeking cover in a path is a fine idea if you are alone and nobody knows anything. But if it results in overly predictable movements, it is deadly. Furthermore, cover is critical against aimed infantry type fire, but against HE not bunching up is the cover that matters, and that can only be achieved by accepting less than the best route.

The right way to analyse cover it backward from an enemy threat assessment. It might be the most important thing is going where one is not expected, not where the ground looks comfy. "The easy way is *always* mined*, is after all one of Murphy's laws of combat.

If this happens too much in human games, humans will fight each other by exploiting stupid AI tricks. That is hopeless.

The player knows far more about how to analyze routes than the AI can ever hope to know.

The main reason for the tac AI to take over anything, ever, is that something might be happening on a time scale far too short for player interaction. In CMx1, that meant unplanned new developments within a minute turn. With real time, there should be fewer occasions for it, not more. Most of them will involve new sources of fire or new enemy spots - and certainly not movement planning.

[Guest]

Well, it certainly is some kind of weighted pathfinding algo.

The question is, do you cater to users that plot all of their waypoints, or to users that set one waypoint and expect the unit to choose the best route?

There's a balance to be had, and it depends partly on the level and speed that you expect "average" scenarios to play at. If you expect battalion+ operations run at a squad / vehicle command level in real-time, you need to take pathfinding out of the users' hands as much as possible. Company-level simulations probably need quite a bit of this as well.

The example is pretty egregious, but as anyone who has worked with pathing -- smart or otherwise -- knows, "egregious" can be the order of the day under the right conditions.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

Well, it certainly is some kind of weighted pathfinding algo.

The question is, do you cater to users that plot all of their waypoints, or to users that set one waypoint and expect the unit to choose the best route?

Who are these users that expect an AI to find the "best" path for their troops?? Based on the pathing complaints I have seen, you would have to be mad to rely on the AI, and I don't think many CM players are looking for that to happen.

As Steiner states in his previous post you plot out where you want your dudes to go and they should go there, plain and simple. Only if they come under fire should TacAi pathing kick in.

[Guest]

It was a rhetorical question.

I'm not arguing for one side or the other; I'm saying that if you're balancing a game's AI and pathing for high-level simulation it makes sense to "smarten" the pathfinding. This *may* have been BFC's goal in doing so.

I'm also saying that under more "normal" circumstances the problem may not have been so obvious, or even a problem at all.

[average]

Three observations.

The waypoints are a long way off.

Why do you want the guys to take the exposed route all at once ?

Other than that, it does look the tac ai decided they liked the covered approach better than straight across the field at a jog. Only problem is the tacai doesn't think about bunching or funelling.

If they had crossed the filed and got heavily engaged you'd be bleating about lemmings not reacting in all probabality.

Maybe play RT, that way you can correct on the fly.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Ritter_85:

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

I noticed the same thing in this scenario. I think there might be some type of unpassable marsh terrain next to the road?

well I see its a grainfield </font>

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Ya, it looks to me like good idea, bad excecution; the pathfinding AI is trying to find a more covered route, but goes to far, and packs an entire company into the only good covered route in the area; the single ditch running along the road.

I'm fairly skeptical that there's any logic at all such as this dictating where the tacAI moves. I haven't seen them prefer covered approaches at all, or react in any way to distant enemies, or perceived enemy positions. They generally seem to choose their path based on terrain alone.

When interrupted, or at the end of a move order, they seem to snap to cover in some situations, but never during the move itself.

[ September 10, 2007, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[thewood]

Originally posted by average:

Three observations.

The waypoints are a long way off.

Why do you want the guys to take the exposed route all at once ?

Other than that, it does look the tac ai decided they liked the covered approach better than straight across the field at a jog. Only problem is the tacai doesn't think about bunching or funelling.

If they had crossed the filed and got heavily engaged you'd be bleating about lemmings not reacting in all probabality.

Maybe play RT, that way you can correct on the fly.

Steve stated specifically that giving fewer waypoints is the way to go in a previous thread. You will also note that by using more waypoints, troops are MUCH more exposed because they mill about for a few seconds at each waypoint. There are times where you need to move troops quickly on secured routes and want them to go where you tell them without milling about.

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

Well, it certainly is some kind of weighted pathfinding algo.

The question is, do you cater to users that plot all of their waypoints, or to users that set one waypoint and expect the unit to choose the best route?

Who are these users that expect an AI to find the "best" path for their troops?? Based on the pathing complaints I have seen, you would have to be mad to rely on the AI, and I don't think many CM players are looking for that to happen.

As Steiner states in his previous post you plot out where you want your dudes to go and they should go there, plain and simple. Only if they come under fire should TacAi pathing kick in. </font>

[SlowMotion]

Maybe movement commands could work so that users could somehow select between "Use my path" and "Find a path". In the first case they would go where ever the player wants and if it means things like vehicles getting stuck in mud, that's player's problem. That second case would be what we have now.