Field Marshal Blücher Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 The TacAI really, really needs a massive fix here. The default action upon a unit's becoming pinned is to hit the dirt and immediately start Slowing to their waypoint, or, if they have none, the nearest available cover. This is acceptable at long to extreme engagement ranges, but is suicidal at point-blank up to medium ranges. This is because it actually makes it easier to shoot them, since the target doesn't get all that much smaller, but is suddenly moving much more slowly. Again, I'm no programmer, but it seems like it would be a simple fix where you keep the current AI if the enemy is shooting from, say, 200+ meters, and instead have them Fast or Quick to their waypoint or cover when the enemy is closer than that. An example of the problem that occurred not ten minutes ago: A rifle and HQ squad are Quicking to a building. The rifle squad takes an RPG round and loses two men. This causes them to start Slowing to the building, which will now take them (even assuming no enemy interference) at least a minute if not more--a long time in a firefight. Then, the HQ squad nearby also takes an RPG, inflicting two casualties on them and one more to the rifle squad. Now both squads have completely stopped moving. They sit there and lost a total of 6 additional casualties to a sniper (who, BTW, is under 100 meters away) before they finally wise up and start suppressing him. That's 7 completely unnecessary losses out of two squads totaling 13 men before the fight. If they had ran like hell instead of just stopping and ceasing to respond to my orders, only 1 or 2 of those 7 at most would have ended up dead. Please, can we have this fix, BFC? I'm willing to wait, I'm a patient man, but I really would like to know if you guys are going to change this. Thanks! -FMB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted May 15, 2008 Author Share Posted May 15, 2008 The TacAI really, really needs a massive fix here. The default action upon a unit's becoming pinned is to hit the dirt and immediately start Slowing to their waypoint, or, if they have none, the nearest available cover. This is acceptable at long to extreme engagement ranges, but is suicidal at point-blank up to medium ranges. This is because it actually makes it easier to shoot them, since the target doesn't get all that much smaller, but is suddenly moving much more slowly. Again, I'm no programmer, but it seems like it would be a simple fix where you keep the current AI if the enemy is shooting from, say, 200+ meters, and instead have them Fast or Quick to their waypoint or cover when the enemy is closer than that. An example of the problem that occurred not ten minutes ago: A rifle and HQ squad are Quicking to a building. The rifle squad takes an RPG round and loses two men. This causes them to start Slowing to the building, which will now take them (even assuming no enemy interference) at least a minute if not more--a long time in a firefight. Then, the HQ squad nearby also takes an RPG, inflicting two casualties on them and one more to the rifle squad. Now both squads have completely stopped moving. They sit there and lost a total of 6 additional casualties to a sniper (who, BTW, is under 100 meters away) before they finally wise up and start suppressing him. That's 7 completely unnecessary losses out of two squads totaling 13 men before the fight. If they had ran like hell instead of just stopping and ceasing to respond to my orders, only 1 or 2 of those 7 at most would have ended up dead. Please, can we have this fix, BFC? I'm willing to wait, I'm a patient man, but I really would like to know if you guys are going to change this. Thanks! -FMB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted May 15, 2008 Author Share Posted May 15, 2008 The TacAI really, really needs a massive fix here. The default action upon a unit's becoming pinned is to hit the dirt and immediately start Slowing to their waypoint, or, if they have none, the nearest available cover. This is acceptable at long to extreme engagement ranges, but is suicidal at point-blank up to medium ranges. This is because it actually makes it easier to shoot them, since the target doesn't get all that much smaller, but is suddenly moving much more slowly. Again, I'm no programmer, but it seems like it would be a simple fix where you keep the current AI if the enemy is shooting from, say, 200+ meters, and instead have them Fast or Quick to their waypoint or cover when the enemy is closer than that. An example of the problem that occurred not ten minutes ago: A rifle and HQ squad are Quicking to a building. The rifle squad takes an RPG round and loses two men. This causes them to start Slowing to the building, which will now take them (even assuming no enemy interference) at least a minute if not more--a long time in a firefight. Then, the HQ squad nearby also takes an RPG, inflicting two casualties on them and one more to the rifle squad. Now both squads have completely stopped moving. They sit there and lost a total of 6 additional casualties to a sniper (who, BTW, is under 100 meters away) before they finally wise up and start suppressing him. That's 7 completely unnecessary losses out of two squads totaling 13 men before the fight. If they had ran like hell instead of just stopping and ceasing to respond to my orders, only 1 or 2 of those 7 at most would have ended up dead. Please, can we have this fix, BFC? I'm willing to wait, I'm a patient man, but I really would like to know if you guys are going to change this. Thanks! -FMB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Another Crawl of Death issue. I have, on occasion, seen a squad get nailed, and the rest of the platoon, which is elsewhere and not being fired at, gets suppressed along with it and starts doing the crawl of death. If I do not sit there and keep canceling their crawl orders, then they will literally exhaust themselves in place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Another Crawl of Death issue. I have, on occasion, seen a squad get nailed, and the rest of the platoon, which is elsewhere and not being fired at, gets suppressed along with it and starts doing the crawl of death. If I do not sit there and keep canceling their crawl orders, then they will literally exhaust themselves in place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Another Crawl of Death issue. I have, on occasion, seen a squad get nailed, and the rest of the platoon, which is elsewhere and not being fired at, gets suppressed along with it and starts doing the crawl of death. If I do not sit there and keep canceling their crawl orders, then they will literally exhaust themselves in place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted May 15, 2008 Author Share Posted May 15, 2008 Yeah, I've definitely seen squads also being pinned by fire that is very obviously not directed at them. But that could be a little bit more difficult to code, so I'd give priority to a range-sensitive Crawl or Run decision. -FMB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted May 15, 2008 Author Share Posted May 15, 2008 Yeah, I've definitely seen squads also being pinned by fire that is very obviously not directed at them. But that could be a little bit more difficult to code, so I'd give priority to a range-sensitive Crawl or Run decision. -FMB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted May 15, 2008 Author Share Posted May 15, 2008 Yeah, I've definitely seen squads also being pinned by fire that is very obviously not directed at them. But that could be a little bit more difficult to code, so I'd give priority to a range-sensitive Crawl or Run decision. -FMB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Hombre Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Seconded. This makes for a lot of micromanagement. But then again, MOUT is all about micromanagement until we get AI that's 3 generations ahead of what we've got.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Hombre Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Seconded. This makes for a lot of micromanagement. But then again, MOUT is all about micromanagement until we get AI that's 3 generations ahead of what we've got.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Hombre Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Seconded. This makes for a lot of micromanagement. But then again, MOUT is all about micromanagement until we get AI that's 3 generations ahead of what we've got.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 100% agree with this post. Crawling to safety when you're troops are already in cover is fine by me but in the open? It would be a huge improvement if they were to run to the nearest cover rather than crawl. Or at the very least they just dropped and started returning fire. This would help to make an already fantastic game even better. BTW, since there are some real life troops in this community, I wonder how realistic they think this behaviour is? Perhaps this is what happens in real life... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 100% agree with this post. Crawling to safety when you're troops are already in cover is fine by me but in the open? It would be a huge improvement if they were to run to the nearest cover rather than crawl. Or at the very least they just dropped and started returning fire. This would help to make an already fantastic game even better. BTW, since there are some real life troops in this community, I wonder how realistic they think this behaviour is? Perhaps this is what happens in real life... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 100% agree with this post. Crawling to safety when you're troops are already in cover is fine by me but in the open? It would be a huge improvement if they were to run to the nearest cover rather than crawl. Or at the very least they just dropped and started returning fire. This would help to make an already fantastic game even better. BTW, since there are some real life troops in this community, I wonder how realistic they think this behaviour is? Perhaps this is what happens in real life... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 For what it is worth, I am constantly keeping a beta testing eye on this one, for it is the principal remaining weakness of the infantry AI in my opinion. It made me pull my hair out often enough! Especially the cases where squads freak out while being in cover behind a building and start to crawl into the building, completely exposing themselves. The other weakness, if anyone cares, is, in my opion, that teams often split up and partially take suboptimal routes to the destination waypoint and then spread out there. This, however, can be worked around by a combination of splitting squads and using the Assault order. This issue seems to be related to a design decision, whereas the problem described in this thread is clearly a error in the AI logic. I am very confident that Charles will fix this. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 For what it is worth, I am constantly keeping a beta testing eye on this one, for it is the principal remaining weakness of the infantry AI in my opinion. It made me pull my hair out often enough! Especially the cases where squads freak out while being in cover behind a building and start to crawl into the building, completely exposing themselves. The other weakness, if anyone cares, is, in my opion, that teams often split up and partially take suboptimal routes to the destination waypoint and then spread out there. This, however, can be worked around by a combination of splitting squads and using the Assault order. This issue seems to be related to a design decision, whereas the problem described in this thread is clearly a error in the AI logic. I am very confident that Charles will fix this. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 For what it is worth, I am constantly keeping a beta testing eye on this one, for it is the principal remaining weakness of the infantry AI in my opinion. It made me pull my hair out often enough! Especially the cases where squads freak out while being in cover behind a building and start to crawl into the building, completely exposing themselves. The other weakness, if anyone cares, is, in my opion, that teams often split up and partially take suboptimal routes to the destination waypoint and then spread out there. This, however, can be worked around by a combination of splitting squads and using the Assault order. This issue seems to be related to a design decision, whereas the problem described in this thread is clearly a error in the AI logic. I am very confident that Charles will fix this. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I have to agree, this crawling behaviour is pretty dumb. Better behaviour, in my opinion, would be for the unit to do short dashes towards its objective or suitable cover. In between the dashes it should stay low, remaining stationary and spotting for targets to suppress before the next dash. I think that is how it would be done in the real world, as running any sort of distance in the open is pretty suicidal just as much as crawling is. [EDIT] How on earth it would be coded is another thing, but I would add that if the only spotted target is something you can't suppress - like a tank - I guess just flat out legging it might be preferable to short dashes. [ May 15, 2008, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I have to agree, this crawling behaviour is pretty dumb. Better behaviour, in my opinion, would be for the unit to do short dashes towards its objective or suitable cover. In between the dashes it should stay low, remaining stationary and spotting for targets to suppress before the next dash. I think that is how it would be done in the real world, as running any sort of distance in the open is pretty suicidal just as much as crawling is. [EDIT] How on earth it would be coded is another thing, but I would add that if the only spotted target is something you can't suppress - like a tank - I guess just flat out legging it might be preferable to short dashes. [ May 15, 2008, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I have to agree, this crawling behaviour is pretty dumb. Better behaviour, in my opinion, would be for the unit to do short dashes towards its objective or suitable cover. In between the dashes it should stay low, remaining stationary and spotting for targets to suppress before the next dash. I think that is how it would be done in the real world, as running any sort of distance in the open is pretty suicidal just as much as crawling is. [EDIT] How on earth it would be coded is another thing, but I would add that if the only spotted target is something you can't suppress - like a tank - I guess just flat out legging it might be preferable to short dashes. [ May 15, 2008, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 good topic! the crawl of death is verry annoying, on player and enemy side! also if your own troops start to crawl towards the enemy, wich is located in the sort of cover the squad wants to be in. here, its somewhat related to this. my troops start to crawl towards the "enemy trench" becous they want to take cover in there, the fact that the only enemy is in there is ignored. thats also verry annoying if you have to watch your man crawling to certain death till the next orders phase. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 good topic! the crawl of death is verry annoying, on player and enemy side! also if your own troops start to crawl towards the enemy, wich is located in the sort of cover the squad wants to be in. here, its somewhat related to this. my troops start to crawl towards the "enemy trench" becous they want to take cover in there, the fact that the only enemy is in there is ignored. thats also verry annoying if you have to watch your man crawling to certain death till the next orders phase. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 good topic! the crawl of death is verry annoying, on player and enemy side! also if your own troops start to crawl towards the enemy, wich is located in the sort of cover the squad wants to be in. here, its somewhat related to this. my troops start to crawl towards the "enemy trench" becous they want to take cover in there, the fact that the only enemy is in there is ignored. thats also verry annoying if you have to watch your man crawling to certain death till the next orders phase. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 Uhhhh oh, that last one is bad, yet kind of typical! One thing that could work in MOUT is that the squad remembers the action points it passed on its way and simply dashes back until it finds one that provides cover. That would perhaps be the safest kind of reaction. It would also work in uneven terrain, I guess. To pin it down, the current logic seems to favor good local cover over breaking of LOS, but staying in the open. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.