March to slaughter, my mindless automatons!

[khagler]

I just got the game a few days ago, and encountered this particular bug last night,in a scenario where each side has an IFV and an infantry platoon.

I ordered a squad to assault a nearby building, while another squad and my Bradley covered what I thought where the places an enemy might appear. Turns out I was wrong--there was a BMP in front of the next building over from my overwatch squad.

The first three men of the assaulting squad were killed by autocannon fire from the BMP. Okay, that I could live with. However, the six guys who were supposed to be watching for threats to the advancing three didn't react at all.

As soon as the first three died, the next three ran out and got killed in the same way. Then the next three ran right out (although one of them got lucky and lived).

[bwgulley]

What works the best for me is break squads into teams and ALWAYS use the hunt command with overwatch. That helps in many ways, 1. movement, they seem to follow orders better, i.e., pathfinding in much better. 2. firepower, yes firepower, since we have 1.1 representation only 3 or 4 guys are shooting anyway so you really don't lose much and you have less people exposed to fire. 3. scouting, again less people exposed, AI opens up at long range and uses up ammo, which they have very little in most cases. Of course the above works best in MOUT scenarios. Last but not least take you're time. Try it I think you'll like the results.

[Guest]

Hmm. I really have seen this "cornering" issue in other situations, not just when I was foolishly Quick-ing around a corner. I think the issue that I've seen, though, is related to what khagler reports above: units do not always notice or respond to the enemy.

Hunting is a great solution when it works, but if I tell a team to watch a sector I need them to respond to threats in it. This does not always happen. (In fact, I rarely see target arcs work, honestly. I'll get a bug together on that.)

And... when a unit jogs around a corner (remember, Quick is *not* supposed to be "blind running") and their point element takes fire... they should at least attempt to stop and return fire, not continue jogging and die.

The_Capt, you may be right that the representation is throwing us off, but I think there is still a bug lurking in there somewhere, and workarounds like always hunting (while great suggestions for now) or micromanaging corners are not tantamount to a fix.

Also, (soapbox here, I guess) I think we need to stop comparing this to CMx1. BFC has a clear ability to make things *better* in CMx2, so proof that it worked that way in CMx1 doesn't solve the problem, it just makes clearer the need to determine if there's actually a bug.

[The_Capt]

Phillip,

Reaction to enemy while in overwatch/covering arcs. Excellent next test, can you give me a few more details and I will take a look.

My point is..no pun intended..is that the point man would not be the one to take the opening salvo. A trained enemy force will hold fire till more troops are exposed or they are spotted. I am going to run a test to see what happens when both enemy and friendly meet at a blind corner ie both sections are not ready. I can also see what happens with the enemy facing the wrong way.

Against a prepared enemy squad (and by prepared we are talking static, facing the right direction and I see little guys going prone, which I assume is utilizing whatever cover is around) going around a blind corner in any mode except hunt will get your section killed.

As to CMx1 references, I totally agree with you, CMSF is suppose to be an improvement. However, before some on the board call CMSF "totally unplayable and broken beyond repair", we should probably confirm it is playing these situations worse than CMx1. Especially considering CMx1 set the standards we should expect from a BFC product.

[dalem]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

Dale,

You have again hit the nail on the head. It is not the result (ie 9 pairs of boots facing the wrong axis) but the presentation that led to that result.

I can understand this but if you look at CMx1 the presentation was even more abstract. Literally one second a healthy squad with visions of apple pie and mom...the next a little round headed guy on his back.

Correct. In CMx1 the presentation abstraction matches the engine and mechanical abstractions. So no confusion. Not the case in CMx2 apparently.

What our young champion seems to be failing to understand as he stops playing in a huff is that the presentation is not his real problem...as annoying as it may appear. It is his gameplay that is causing him pain. The same gameplay that would cause identical pain in the venerable CMx1 series.

He has refused to accept this as reailty and clings to the notion that some AI bug is killing his troops. I grant fully the fact the visual may lead him down the wrong path, hence my entire diatribe, tests and so forth.

If my humble talents have come up short then it was not for lack of effort.

I couldn't disagree more. The complaint is not that they're dead. The complaint is that the presentation of that death on-screen is unacceptable.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Lurker765:

what was the point of 1:1 representation then?

Bingo. The search for the Holy Grail was successful for BFC, but by the time they found it they'd found they had no more water to drink from it.

-dale

[Guest]

Thanks. I'll try and get in a 1.03 game tonight. The issue that I remember covers reactions in general. Target arcs were just one obvious area.

Fair enough on your CMx1 point.

The_Capt... I gotta say that I wish I didn't have to micro-manage my guys, but then I play RT and tend not to have a lot of time to pause and fiddle.

molotov_billy -- is this still covering your points? I feel like we're getting closer to the crux of the issues that I've seen, but is there anything I'm missing in arguing this?

Thanks guys.

[Sitting Duck]

What about test scenario that has the Red and Blue forces on the move/quick around a corner so that they pass each other closely?

Red force move/quick to the east and turn north (left) at intersection. Blue force move/quick north and turn east (right) at the same intersection. Note that each force would be able to see the other at the intersection and "eyes to enemy's back" as they approach.

If you want to increase the time that the moving units approach each other eyes to the enemy's front, have Red force move/quick to the east and turn north (left) at the intersection. Blue force move/quick west and turn south (left) at the same intersection.

You might want to play with FOW setting and experience levels to see the effect.

In a real world encounter, I would expect that the units would fire at each other. Perhaps if there is a bug as was described above, maybe they would just pass each other by and no one will fire a shot.

[Guest]

Interestingly, I've seen that situation, Sitting Duck, in 1.02, and they do pass each other by, stop, regroup, dick around for several seconds, and then one side guns the other down.

I'll give it a shot in 1.03.

[Dirtweasle]

Wow, yea this thread documents a lot of what I've been seeing too Phil.

[Chelco]

Let us know how it goes, please.

One thing I wish is that the manual would be a bit more specific regarding the effect of move commands on the reaction of troops under fire.

For example, the manual says that when infantry under the "move" command is fired upon, it will discard the move order, return fire and look for cover.

The manual is also clear in that infantry under "quick" and "fast" oders will try to continue moving even if it is under fire, which off course means they will not seek cover.

However, the manual doesn't explain what an infantry unit under the "hunt" command will do regarding seeking cover when it is fired upon. It says it will stop and return fire, and as we know stoping could be trouble if the troop is in the open. My question is: will they seek cover?

Similarly, the manual doesn't specify what the infantry units will do when they are fired upon and are under the "slow" command.

Cheers,

[Londoner]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

I don't see anything wrong with reacting to incoming fire by just canceling or suspending all player orders, not give any new orders either, lay down where they are and return fire. Give it a little timeout so that you can then give orders to crawl out if you want and they don't get instantly canceled.

And I don't make this up, it is tested and works well. What I describe is what TacOps does and I think it is very elegant and straightforward, realistic and useful.

Er utterly flawed, CM is not Tacops. Example, I have ordered a squad to make a dash across a street. I know there is a MG 200 metres distant that has LOS on the road. I do not want this squad to cancel my order, lie in the road and open fire on a well protected MG 200 metres distant! Hell I don't even want them to waste ammo in wild return fire as they make their dash. I want them across the road as quickly as possible into that cosy looking house! Yes this situation arose in a recent game and I'm happy to say they did just that, even if it did cost them a man!

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Londoner:

Er utterly flawed, CM is not Tacops. Example, I have ordered a squad to make a dash across a street. I know there is a MG 200 metres distant that has LOS on the road. I do not want this squad to cancel my order, lie in the road and open fire on a well protected MG 200 metres distant! Hell I don't even want them to waste ammo in wild return fire as they make their dash. I want them across the road as quickly as possible into that cosy looking house! Yes this situation arose in a recent game and I'm happy to say they did just that, even if it did cost them a man! [/QB]

That's why they have different SOPs to choose. If you want your unit react certain way, you give different SOP in TacOps. Whole point would be moot if there was just one SOP...it'd be same as CMSF

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

Let me repeat, you are not experiencing a bug...you are playing badly. Not only badly for CMSF but badly by CMx1 standards.

I made a poor in-game decision which highlighted the deficiencies that the current tactical AI has. It's but one of the many situations which people have brought up that show a specific type of malfunctioning AI behavior - my tactical ability is completely irrelevant. If you but open your eyes and read a couple posts other than my own, you'll see a bunch of people chiming in with the same experiences that I've had.

In the real world the enemy section is under cover cause they are not stupid. Of course you would be happier if BFC modeled every fold in the ground, lip of a building, dead animal carcass and crate they were behind but you would need a quantum computer to run it.

Like I've said several times, the enemy unit was on a clear roadway. The defining feature of a clear roadway is that it's free of obstructions - units located there should be plainly visible, especially to someone as near as 10 feet away. I realize that there are abstractions going on in a lot of cases, but certainly not to the absurd degree of hiding a full squad of soldiers on a clear roadway from another unit that is nearly within arm's reach!

If every terrain type has the ability to hide every unit at that range, what would the use of terrain types be? What is the tactical difference between roadway and tall grass? No, it isn't as you describe, and I highly doubt that it's intentional for a roadway to have the ability to cloak units as such. There's something definately bugged in the way units spot eachother (rather, don't spot) at close range. See Phillip's other topic where a Bradley IFV went unseen at the same close range. A bradley is 6.5 meters long and 3 meters tall - what abstraction would you suppose was hiding such a thing?

The enemy would hold fire from said cover until your merry in-game band came around the corner and then they would in about 3-5 seconds fire 240 rounds at your doomed men, who would be cut down.

They were not in cover and they were not preparing an ambush - it was a meeting engagement between two units in clear terrain, and both sides would realistically have seen eachother and reacted. Because moving units are apparently blind and deaf to the world, only the enemy AI reacted.

As I've iterated so many times before, a squad of humans would have reacted to at least one of the following:

A) Seeing the enemy 10 feet in front of them.

Seeing friendlies getting cut down in front of them.

C) Hearing the sound of gunfire but 10 feet away.

They reacted to none of that. You can misconstrue my scenario into any fantasy scenario that you like, but it does us no good, because a) what you describe didn't happen, and these same behaviors occur consistently in a great number of situations, tactically sound or otherwise.

So for the simply cost of an extra couple years of development, a reqr for a super-computer to run the game...you would get the same result for sloppy play but now one molotov_billy might go.."hmm that was a really dumb move perhaps I should try something else", I will let Steve decide if it is worth the effort.

Now you're just being dramatic. I fail to see how solutions to any of the points I brought up would require a super computer or an inordinate amount of development time to adjust and fix. I would hardly expect a complete code rewrite to make the AI more aware of nearby enemies, nearby gunfire, and friendly casualties. Tweaks in this area have already been made and they were but one of a dozen fixes in under 2 weeks.

If the hunt command had a perfect real-world visual you would have point man scoot to the corner, take a peek, may see something maybe not but he would stay in postion covering the number two would would promptly cross the street and take up a cover position opposite. Then while the section commander calls up the LMG, you might get a couple guys hit but the rest of the squad will get the message and pull back..again say goodbye to framerates.

Hunt certainly is better, except that it doesn't react to casualties or enemy fire. In my scenario (and I have seen this), a large number of the squad would have continued to "sneak" forward while a bunch of casualties were sustained. Hunt only stops when enemy units are observed, which didn't happen. Regardless of how much better hunt would have been in a specific situation, the issues I've raised with other movement commands still remain, and should be resolved.

I challenge you to round a corner, have the guy next to you shot in a hail of gunfire and do something other than pull back and regroup...natures way of telling you to call in a heavy or find another route.

Fantastic! This would certainly be expected behavior, but just doesn't happen. Movement orders are not cancelled, cover is not taken, and return fire is not executed.

[ September 07, 2007, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Londoner:

Er utterly flawed, CM is not Tacops. Example, I have ordered a squad to make a dash across a street. I know there is a MG 200 metres distant that has LOS on the road. I do not want this squad to cancel my order, lie in the road and open fire on a well protected MG 200 metres distant! Hell I don't even want them to waste ammo in wild return fire as they make their dash. I want them across the road as quickly as possible into that cosy looking house! Yes this situation arose in a recent game and I'm happy to say they did just that, even if it did cost them a man!

It does seem like we have enough movement commands that a wide variety of SOP can be covered by commands alone. In the scenario you describe above, I would expect a "fast" command to do the job, though things would become a bit trickier if an unseen enemy unit occupied your movement destination, and your men furiously attempted to run onto a spot directly occupied by the enemy.

You also have to consider that despite your commands, a squad of human men have their own ideas about what's best for them. Every move command should have a threshhold at which something breaks - if my commander told me to sprint across a street in which five of my buddies had just died trying to cross, I'd obviously want to stick to the cover that I had. This should in someway be reflected in TacAI as well.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

Interestingly, I've seen that situation, Sitting Duck, in 1.02, and they do pass each other by, stop, regroup, dick around for several seconds, and then one side guns the other down.

I'll give it a shot in 1.03.

Glad you guys tested this out, I had the same assumptions last night and wanted to ask someone with two machines to try it out. So under all movement commands aside from hunt - they pass by shoulder-to-shoulder, and don't react?

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

What our young champion seems to be failing to understand as he stops playing in a huff is that the presentation is not his real problem...as annoying as it may appear. It is his gameplay that is causing him pain. The same gameplay that would cause identical pain in the venerable CMx1 series.

He has refused to accept this as reailty and clings to the notion that some AI bug is killing his troops. I grant fully the fact the visual may lead him down the wrong path, hence my entire diatribe, tests and so forth.

Again, the attitude just isn't necessary. Your first paragraph I've already covered, and as far as the rest goes - you're making assumptions, or inventing straw men - I've never compared CMSF to CMx1 (Why do I have to say that multiple times?)

[Guest]

Yep, saw it tonight. My team was Hunting. ASCII graphics time.

(In an open street.)

---> my squad: Dum-dee-dum-dum...

<--- their team: Singin' in the... sand, just sing-in' in the sand!

---> Zoinks.

<--- It is very lucky we have spotted these Americans!

---> Perhaps we should stop walking.

<--- Do you think they noticed us?

---> Let's turn around.

<--- Look, it takes them ten seconds to turn their heads! We win the war by default!

---< Maybe we should shoot them? We will handle our guns in ways suggestive of our desire to shoot them... but not actually fire.

>--- I think we should shoot them.

(Seconds pass.)

PEW PEW PEW!

---< I... think we're all dead.

>--- We have luckily only had Random Guy killed! He was useless anyway.

...

>--- Should we take the detour around that house the commander wants us to enter?

[molotov_billy]

Thanks for testing that, Phillip.

The rotation thing is interesting - I've noticed this as well, maybe because soldiers are similated as very small vehicles. Why are they so slow in turning? Seems like a quicker turning ability would help solve some of the issues that people have when running into enemy squads at close range inside buildings, etc. It just takes too long for them to find their places, and then turn to face the enemy. By the time they even fire a single shot, most of their number are on the ground.

[Steiner14]

This was something i was afraid of, since BFC announced 1:1 represenation.

The missing representation with the abstract squads was imagined subconsciously by the player (similar to chess, where you don't move dead, wooden figures, but figures with capabilitys and "personality").

In CMSF there is no room for imagination anymore and every shown unrealitic behaviour destroys the game experience, right were CMx1 shined by giving room to the player's imagination.

After some playing, i'd much more prefer this engine with abstract squads. I don't even want to imagine, how much development time was sucked up by 1:1 rep and what could have been done with that time otherwise.

I don't know, how long i will keep CMSF installed. I already lost interest, because i'm missing the kind of magic CMx1 had and i think the 1:1 representation killed CMs magic.

[The_Capt]

Gents,

My last post on this thread, cause lets face it we are really going nowhere.

For those that are interested I am going to open up a thread on the Tactics Forum and the opening scenario will be the blind corner. I have run this test thru several iterations and I can give you solutions that won't get your troops killed in the manner described when we started this.

I have good news, your observations have actually led me to some bizarre behaviour we can probably have BFC look at.

While I give you no ground on a unit turning a blind corner at a jog..use hunt and they will live. I did notice a very strange thing when two squads are moving past each other. At "Fast" as per the manual they will charge at full speed and ignore just about everything..so the two squads run through each other...hmm..odd.

Then at Quick, they did the same...again..odd.

At Move, things got downright silly. Basically two sections sauntered past each other in what I am sure was awkward silence, perhaps a brief nod here and there "morning Fred...morning Stan", and didn't stop to kill each other until they stopped.

At Hunt, they behaved like the should have, spotted the enemy quickly and engaged.

For Fast and Quick I can see how a reckless run in the face of the enemy can get a squad killed no matter how it is visually portrayed. Move is another matter altogether.

For now I would recommend only using Hunt in urban ops when advancing into likely killzones. Use Fast or Quick to move thru areas you know are clear or at least in very short dashes across a street while being covered. I will bring the Move issue up formally.

I also have a very good example of Assualt which works very well once you know where an enemy unit is and you have effectively supressed it.

For those still frustrated, I would recommend you stop fighting the game and learn to play within it. Before you come on the forum and scream "bug", take a step back and ask yourself if it is a bug or just poor play.

Turn this thing around. If you have a squad in a static position and the enemy can turn the corner at a jog, stop on a dime and effectively wipe you out we would have the thread "Sit there and die my useless slothmen!!".

I can say one thing, this thread has given me a new appreciation for the level of patience the guys at BFC must have.

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

For now I would recommend only using Hunt in urban ops when advancing into likely killzones. Use Fast or Quick to move thru areas you know are clear or at least in very short dashes across a street while being covered.

I was reading the manual earlier today - and the above is really what is it suggests in the sample examples listed after the commands.

[ September 07, 2007, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Melnibone ]

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

It just takes too long for them to find their places, and then turn to face the enemy. By the time they even fire a single shot, most of their number are on the ground.

Yep. I think they need to have a turret. A turret head if you will, and a turret torso.

Now, it appears as if they are a Stug III with a bad track-lock.

If they had a "turret head", (commanders cupola?),

and a secondary turret for their weapon, they could look around and fire.

[Guest]

Cool, The_Capt, looking forward to the thread.

Since that's your last post I feel awkward responding to it. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure BFC understands that not everything we report is a bug. I'm also pretty sure that when someone who creates combat AI on a pretty regular basis spots something he's seen before in past experiences and identified as a bug... it's a bug.

Maybe I'm too quick to jump on these things -- maybe I shouldn't extrapolate my own experiences in the code to what I see on screen. My intuition however, after twenty years of writing games, is usually pretty decent.

So -- on the one hand we have a guy with combat experience who says "you're playing it wrong!" and an experienced AI developer who says "there's a bug!" I'd imagine there's a middle ground, and we're both right in parts.

So, we can do it two ways! You capably dissect the tactical side of it (I'll be reading that, certainly), and we'll try and see if we can spot bugs in it. Just because playing something "the right way" doesn't produce the issue doesn't mean it's not a bug, as borne out by your further experimentation with movement modes.

As before, we'll work together and help BFC iron out the thorny issues that AI inevitably carries with it, and learn more about tactics at the same time.

Cheers, dude. I'll keep an eye on the tactics section.

[Mud]

Even with Hunt... there's a problem if the TacAI won't recognize a vastly superior force/position and have the Hunt(ers) shift into a position that'd increase cover/concealment, or even completely block LOS.

Ex. if your dismounts are Hunting through an intersection, and newly-revealed enemy seems to be an HMG team on the 6th floor of a building 300m away, stopping and returning fire might be less reasonable than diving for cover. Even more so if it's a T-72 that comes recklessly barreling down a parallel street with its turret pointed appropriately, or if it's the building you're Hunting towards turns out to be an enemy strongpoint.