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

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

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.

In this very scenario (Real Time) I have seen units with a move order crossing a field auto change to quick to find cover (50 m away)at the other side of the field when they come under fire. So there is some "cleverness" going on under certain conditions.

There is something odd about the ditches in this battle - I have had a MG unit stuck and unable to get out for the whole battle whatver commands I gave them.

[Law&Order]

Same here, I was playing it yesterday and had two full platoons stuck in ditches at some point unable to move. The did shoot when needed. Something seems to be up with this map and the ditches.

[birdstrike]

AH I GOT IT!!!

Here is a pic of the map section mentioned above. Perhaps it helps to analyze the problem.

The ditch at question here is the the L-shaped line east the street, height 20, ground is Marsh.

The problem is the Marsh! While it looks good, it has strange effects on a unit moving along the ditch.

I changed the ground to mud and everything works!

I will put up an updated map ASAP.

Sorry for that.

[ September 11, 2007, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: birdstrike ]

[molotov_billy]

what do I win!

[Ritter_85]

My previous message was pointles after that picture of the map but good that we got it solved....

[birdstrike]

Just uploaded the revised scenario. Let's see how this works now.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

what do I win!

A night out with The_Cap.

[TheNathan]

Originally posted by Abbott:

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

what do I win!

A night out with The_Cap. </font>

[Guest]

Yeah, my previous message was pretty pointless too. Go forums! Yeah!

I guess, technically, this message is pointless as well.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by 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.

I'd love something like this, as long as you could see the path they planned on taking.

It also seems more like the commands you'd give, as in "get to X as fast as you can", "make best speed to X", "get to X - be careful" etc.

[Cpl Steiner]

I tried the new version of the scenario and the guys do now seem to be following orders better. Thanks for checking this out and solving the problem.

I suppose I should also apologies to BFC for my rant, as the problem wasn't pathfinding or AI related. Sorry BFC!

Having said that, the number of posters who defended this behaviour before it was discovered to be a problem with the map is quite worrying. I loved the CMx1 games and I have great respect for BFC as a company but I will speak up when I see something in the game that looks wrong. How else is the game to improve?

[TheVulture]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Having said that, the number of posters who defended this behaviour before it was discovered to be a problem with the map is quite worrying. I loved the CMx1 games and I have great respect for BFC as a company but I will speak up when I see something in the game that looks wrong. How else is the game to improve?

It's understandable - to me at least. There seem to be two attitudes to command issues. Some people go with the principle of "find out what the command does in practice, and then figure out how to structure commands to achieve what you want". Others have the idea of "I know what I expect to happen with the command I gave (namely: what the manual says), and any deviation from that is a problem".

The second group tend to have (unrealistically?)high expectations of how well the tacAI can interpret orders and react to situations, and complain when the tacAI deviates from what they think a rational human ought to do. The first group are possibly too willing to live with bugs, because they expect the AI to do dumb things, so their attitude is to find out what dumb things the AI does and find out how to work with that.

The second group tend to find the bugs, but also tend to complain about things that aren't bugs rather than trying to find out what actually does happen. (With apologies for the crass generalizations).

(Random example: move to contact in CMx1. Does what it says on the tin: move until you spot an enemy unit or take fire, and the stop where you are and twiddle your thumbs or fire back. You can either argue about the sanity of the behaviour of the squad when they take fire, or do things like use advance over open ground with short move to contact sections in cover, with the result that when they take fire they continue to advance to the nearest cover and then stop there to return fire).

What seems to cause issues for some people in CM:SF is that the waypoints seem to operate both as low and high level commands.

Low level waypoint: follow this exact line to the next waypoint, rinse and repeat. If something bad happens (you spend the turn walking into a wall), that's the players problem for giving stupid orders.

High level waypoint: I want you to get to this point, not too fussed how you do it.

CM:SF mixes the two up: a single waypoint can work as a high level command. You just give a destination to a unit, and it figures out how to get there and does so, by whatever route it finds convenient. But if you want more control over the path, add in more waypoints - with the expectation of them being low level waypoints (go here, then here, then finally here). Except that the same pathfinding AI works in each case, so each one is really a high-level waypoint, but hopefully the routes between them are simple enough that they act like low level waypoints (the major exception being when there are obstacles unnoticed by the player).

I think WeGo works better with low level commands: you have time to work out the likely results of your various complex commands. In real time though, it is quite easy to imagine that there will come times when you need to give quite a lot of orders in a short time, and being able to give a unit a single 'go here somehow' order would be necessary.

(As a personal preference, I like low level commands, and being in direct control - as much as is possible - of what my units are attempting to do. I think predictability of how your units respond to your commands is absolutely essential in this sort of game).

[SlowMotion]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Having said that, the number of posters who defended this behaviour before it was discovered to be a problem with the map is quite worrying. I loved the CMx1 games and I have great respect for BFC as a company but I will speak up when I see something in the game that looks wrong. How else is the game to improve?

I replied to your original question the way I did because IMO there was a good reason why a different path might have been used. If you doubt it, put a couple of MGs to some edge of that field, then let the infantry walk to center of the field and then open fire with MGs. I haven't tested this myself, but my guess is that quite a few soldiers on that field will be casualties.

I don't know what kind of things the AI currently considers when finding the path it eventually uses. But if it worked like a human player, using the ditch might be a good idea if there could be enemy nearby.

It would be nice if you could tell the AI "do not replace my waypoints", like I suggested in my earlier post in this thread. Currently it seems you have to use more way points if you want to make sure the AI uses the path you want.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Having said that, the number of posters who defended this behaviour before it was discovered to be a problem with the map is quite worrying. I loved the CMx1 games and I have great respect for BFC as a company but I will speak up when I see something in the game that looks wrong. How else is the game to improve?

There is a huge crowd here who defines reality to be whatever is in the currently newest CMxx patch. It hasn't been any different in the past. The same people who argued that CMBO infantry behaves fine when running towards a HMG turned around and declared CMBB/CMAK's HMG model to be the holy grail despite obvious problems, and it took them all of 4 weeks to do that swing.

And they are willing to shut up people who say otherwise by all means necessary.

It's a big problem, and they do considerable damage to the game. Bugs needs fixes, but bugs need hard evidence and be reproducible to get fixed. Reducing all discussions to fluffy talk won't get any bugs fixed.

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Having said that, the number of posters who defended this behaviour before it was discovered to be a problem with the map is quite worrying.

I agree with your sentiment - but in this thread it seems to me the majority by far were agreeing with you.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

There is a huge crowd here who defines reality to be whatever is in the currently newest CMxx patch. It hasn't been any different in the past. The same people who argued that CMBO infantry behaves fine when running towards a HMG turned around and declared CMBB/CMAK's HMG model to be the holy grail despite obvious problems, and it took them all of 4 weeks to do that swing.

And they are willing to shut up people who say otherwise by all means necessary.

It's a big problem, and they do considerable damage to the game. Bugs needs fixes, but bugs need hard evidence and be reproducible to get fixed. Reducing all discussions to fluffy talk won't get any bugs fixed.

Well, some of us old farts don't have the game and/or are getting sick of getting told to go away.

-dale

[Guest]

There's a difference between defending behaviour and attempting to explain it. I saw a bunch of people (myself included) trying to explain *why* it could be that way.

In the absence of a response from folks who know the facts 100%, trying to explain the behaviour can be a good stepping-stone to figuring out if it's a bug or not.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

There's a difference between defending behaviour and attempting to explain it. I saw a bunch of people (myself included) trying to explain *why* it could be that way.

In the absence of a response from folks who know the facts 100%, trying to explain the behaviour can be a good stepping-stone to figuring out if it's a bug or not.

That's why your post was good, my comment certainly didn't include you.

I forgot to mention that some of those "reality reversers" cost me a lot of time. As I mentioned in my waypoint thread, I was willing to re-test on pretty much any condition that they said would surely eliminate the problem - from patches to speed to waypoints to vehicles etc. None of that turned out true, they were making these claims without ever having actually checked whether doing X instead actually makes a difference.

They are biting their own flesh. Waste the time of those who come up with reproducible test cases, get less reproducible test cases.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by SlowMotion:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Having said that, the number of posters who defended this behaviour before it was discovered to be a problem with the map is quite worrying. I loved the CMx1 games and I have great respect for BFC as a company but I will speak up when I see something in the game that looks wrong. How else is the game to improve?

I replied to your original question the way I did because IMO there was a good reason why a different path might have been used. If you doubt it, put a couple of MGs to some edge of that field, then let the infantry walk to center of the field and then open fire with MGs. I haven't tested this myself, but my guess is that quite a few soldiers on that field will be casualties.</font>

[thelmia]

I am irritated when they won't leave or enter a building. Sometimes soldiers just will not do it, no matter what order I give them. Then suddenly they will. This happens on some maps more than others. I don't understand why.

[Ritter_85]

well... I dont know if this one is a bug or something but I have noticed one time, after ordering a squad to assault a buiding. They move in but after completing assault I noticed that ONE soldier is still at the starting point and start to move back to squad that has already assaulted and taken defensive positions.... Simulated cowardice or some "bug"

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

There is a huge crowd here who defines reality to be whatever is in the currently newest CMxx patch. It hasn't been any different in the past. The same people who argued that CMBO infantry behaves fine when running towards a HMG turned around and declared CMBB/CMAK's HMG model to be the holy grail despite obvious problems, and it took them all of 4 weeks to do that swing.

And they are willing to shut up people who say otherwise by all means necessary.

It's a big problem, and they do considerable damage to the game. Bugs needs fixes, but bugs need hard evidence and be reproducible to get fixed. Reducing all discussions to fluffy talk won't get any bugs fixed.

Well, some of us old farts don't have the game and/or are getting sick of getting told to go away.

-dale </font>

[GalacticCmdr]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

Me. If I want more control I will just lay down more waypoints. If I want less I won't, simple.

Except that it does not work that way. At every waypoint the squad takes time to re-organize, even if they only moved 5 meters. It is like watching a Den Mother and a bunch of Girl Scouts instead of soldiers.

Sarge: Okay, is everybody here?

Squad: Yes Sarge!

Sarge: How far did we move?

Squad: 10 meters Sarge!

Sarge: Excellent. Now everybody mill about for a bit while I get a head count and consult the map for our next objective.

Squad: Don'cha think that we should do something about that machine gun blazing away at us?

Sarge: Sure, I guess we could do that. Okay when I count to 5 I want everyone to turn to face the enemy.

[Ritter_85]

hehehehe.... GalacticCmdr is so funny

[Manx]

Originally posted by GalacticCmdr:

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

Me. If I want more control I will just lay down more waypoints. If I want less I won't, simple.

Except that it does not work that way. At every waypoint the squad takes time to re-organize, even if they only moved 5 meters. It is like watching a Den Mother and a bunch of Girl Scouts instead of soldiers.

Sarge: Okay, is everybody here?

Squad: Yes Sarge!

Sarge: How far did we move?

Squad: 10 meters Sarge!

Sarge: Excellent. Now everybody mill about for a bit while I get a head count and consult the map for our next objective.

Squad: Don'cha think that we should do something about that machine gun blazing away at us?

Sarge: Sure, I guess we could do that. Okay when I count to 5 I want everyone to turn to face the enemy. </font>