March to slaughter, my mindless automatons!

[Rocky Balboa]

PHIL

How many people would want a public-facing, user-created bug list? Could you guys make use of it at all, BFC? Or would it hinder your efforts?

I think this would be a useful exercize and even if BFC is working on some of the issues in your list, there may be one or two that they weren't aware of ..... At the least maybe it will prompt Steve to give us a definite list of issues being worked on in 1.04

[Sgt Joch]

It would be a good idea to have a comprehensive bug/issues list, right now it is spread all over the forum, i.e.: pathfinding, tac AI...

...we can even add Molotov_Billy's

"my_squad_running_blindly_into_an_ambush_gets_whacked!" bug

p.s.(just joking )

[MarkEzra]

Perhaps an REPORT YOUR BUG HERE ONLY post and request that all NEW bug report post be closed by the moderator with linkage to it.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

How long does it take for a squad to round a corner on quick?

They were actually fairly strung out, because they had moved maybe 50 yards up to that point. My guess (with day old memory at this point) is maybe 15 seconds max, probably more around 10 seconds.

[Truppenfuhrung]

This thing is very frustrating when you enter a house full of Syrians.

They walk in the house, they pass right trough the Syrians an when the order is complete, the surviving one don't return fire. I have to order them to face the Syrian at the other side of the house before they finally open fire.

[Chelco]

The_Capt,

I will attempt to show you other ways to turn that corner that do not involve getting all of your pixel soldiers sent home to Mrs Pixel in rubber.

Would you start a thread in the tactics forums and show me?

My boys are getting shredded to pieces.

Thanks in advance.

[The_Capt]

Mr Billy,

Rather than us continuing to banter back and forth I have run some test and simply put, you are your own victim.

Not only does the "quick" around a corner mean suicide in real life and CMSF but it will yield the exact same result in CMx1.

As soon as I get some pics I will post them but let me describe the results;

In real life; not a modern military on the planet would prescribe running your troops around a blind corner. Particularly against another section covering said corner and in anything that come close to a prepared position.

In the game they are lying in the middle of the road but in reality they would be finding cover of some sort, covering arcs and if they are smart holding their fire. What you see as your troops get slaughtered is a section in ambush at very close range...very bad in any reality.

I had a lengthy post that would try to explain to you how this could happen in reality but then a simple fact dawned on me...this is game and no matter what we may think or want it will be an abstraction from real life. It will mirror realistic effects but never be 100% complete.

So let me close the real world discussion by stating simply that your tactics would not work and you would get at best half of your section wiped out and probably the entire lot against any opponent who knows what they are doing. If you don't believe me sign up, spend 20 yrs in and then get back to me.

So onto CMSF. I ran a series of tests (scenario file avail on request) with a regular section coming around a blind corner and tried different combos to see how they fair. A single waypoint cutting the corner and quick is a disaster pretty much as you describe. The section gets blitzed. I will admit the visual is a little silly but the result is realistic....a lot if not all of your troops dead.

So I decided to try and apply a little common sense to the problem and added a couple of waypoints around that corner, here things get a little better. The troops still get whacked but they take longer to do it as the reorient at each waypoint, this means more time for you to hit the halt button.

Then I thought maybe some more realistic tactics might work..so I quick-moved them just to the edge of the corner and switched them to hunt in two waypoints around the corner. The result was solid. My troops covered the clear ground quickly and then moved cautiously past the cover line of the coner, they came under fire, took two casualties and quickly regrouped back under cover.

I tried this several times and in each instance so long as you switch the section to hunt prior to the enemy sightline you will take far fewer casualties and your troops will fall back.

I will write up some quick rules to live by in urban ops as they relate to CMSF, but what I have found is that if you use real world tactics they will work, to a degree in the game. More on that later and it will be posted in the tactics section.

"Micromanagement!!" You will no doubt cry...in fact you already have once. Well for a laugh I reloaded CMAK v 1.03 and set up an identical (well as close as I could) test of a US section coming around a blind corner against an Axis Airborne section at a range of about 10m(keep in mind scales are different for CMx1 and the buildings are all semi-transparent).

If you thought the CMSF result was entertaining. Using "run" the US section was wiped out without seeing the enemy section in about a second. Then I tried "advance". The US section lasted a little longer but still got killed very quickly.

So then for a laugh I tried "Contact" and guess what the US section noticed the Axis squad early and actually managed to return fire and only took 3 casualties.

So Mr Billy and friends, I am not sure why you are surprised. In CMx1, which to the man you all sing praises to, your tactic will get your squad killed even faster (damn near instantly actually) than in CMSF. You will need to plot your sections with the same level of detail as CMx1 in order to keep them alive.

So again I ask, why is CMSF "unplayable" but CMx1 was "great" if under near identical situations, you get the same result?

I am going to package my report to Steve and the band with the clear conclusion that this is not a bug. It could stand to be visually portrayed better. But the results are consistant with CMx1 and real world expected results.

So I will clarify my point on you, Mr Billy, being a "whiner" with an axe to grind against BFC, who takes every opportunity to slag CMSF..even when it is performing nearly identically to CMx1.

You may or may not be as I describe above. So until I can build a stronger case and not risk slagging a possibly innocent man, I will retract any statements that may have painted you in such a light.

You are in fact a very bad CMSF player. With practice, some study and a little help perhaps you can change that.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Originally posted by Chelco:

The_Capt,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I will attempt to show you other ways to turn that corner that do not involve getting all of your pixel soldiers sent home to Mrs Pixel in rubber.

Would you start a thread in the tactics forums and show me?

My boys are getting shredded to pieces.

Thanks in advance. </font>

[Chelco]

Originally posted by Bil Hardenberger:

Now now Julio, no cheating

Damn, there is no place to hide from Bil! :eek:

[JasonC]

My wild unsupported guess - the threat assessment is going on unit's own spots, de-borged. Problem is, "spots" is being taken too literally. The guys getting whacked too fast can't report the spot to the rest because, duh, they already bought it.

Instead units need a "threat field" that starts with sighted enemies and radiates danger from those, sure, but then also adds "threat" anywhere a friendly gets whacked (lots), anywhere seen to be taking fire (some), and anywhere near enemy sound contacts (little). Threat field, moral state, movement order all interact to yield halt or move, fire or move, change direction or keep course, decisions.

FWIMBW...

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

Mr Billy,

Rather than us continuing to banter back and forth I have run some test and simply put, you are your own victim.

Not only does the "quick" around a corner mean suicide in real life and CMSF but it will yield the exact same result in CMx1.

As soon as I get some pics I will post them but let me describe the results;

In real life; not a modern military on the planet would prescribe running your troops around a blind corner. Particularly against another section covering said corner and in anything that come close to a prepared position.

I think you may have missed my last three or four posts where I've mentioned that my points generally have nothing to do with tactics, and that I never admitted to this as being a "sound tactic." My observations were, again:

a) Units not reacting to point blank fire

Units not reacting to their squadmates getting cut down in front of them

c) A squad of soldiers not being readily able to spot an enemy squad 10 feet to their direct front in open ground. (not in cover)

In the game they are lying in the middle of the road but in reality they would be finding cover of some sort, covering arcs and if they are smart holding their fire.

Unfortunately this isn't the case. If I had been ambushed by a unit in cover, certainly I wouldn't have had a problem with my unit's inability to spot them. In the case that I highlighted, the enemy unit was in the clear, open roadway - which as far as I know, doesn't have abstracted cover (and shouldn't), let alone enough abstracted cover to hide an entire squad of men.

So Mr Billy and friends, I am not sure why you are surprised. In CMx1, which to the man you all sing praises to, your tactic will get your squad killed even faster (damn near instantly actually) than in CMSF. You will need to plot your sections with the same level of detail as CMx1 in order to keep them alive.

I'll assume you're mistaking me for somebody else. I've certainly said no such thing about CMx1 games. They've all had their share of problems - what we're trying to do here is highlight them so that they can be fixed and create a more enjoyable experience for everyone.

I am going to package my report to Steve and the band with the clear conclusion that this is not a bug. It could stand to be visually portrayed better. But the results are consistant with CMx1 and real world expected results.

The more feedback, the better. Everyone's welcome to their own opinion, and hopefully the development team does read this thread and considers everybody's feedback, not just my own, and not just yours.

So I will clarify my point on you, Mr Billy, being a "whiner" with an axe to grind against BFC, who takes every opportunity to slag CMSF..even when it is performing nearly identically to CMx1.

Just isn't necessary. I think we're capable of debating a point without this type of stuff. As I've said before, my input is based on the hope of improving the game.

You are in fact a very bad CMSF player. With practice, some study and a little help perhaps you can change that.

With you at my side, anything is possible!

[molotov_billy]

So - to add some actual info to the thread - here's another instance where I see this type of behavior fairly often -

Friendly squad is on the ground near a building and told to go to an upper floor. Upon encountering an enemy unit in the floors between point A and point B, enemy unit is ignored whether it's spotted or not (Except with hunt.) Surprisingly enough, despite close proximity, the enemy unit is generally not spotted for quite some time. Said enemy unit is also ignored completely irregardless of casualties to the friendly unit.

If the movement order is stopped by the player, the friendly unit generally goes to ground and crawls around to their designated firing positions at balconies and floors. Once they're in position, then and only then will they return fire. They do not return fire on the move, and they do not stop moving until the squad is "settled" onto one floor. The game seems to have no instances where human units shoot on the move - assuming here that it's an animation development cost, not an intended design decision.

Other things of note - hunt is generally the most useful movement command for this type of stuff, but movement isn't canceled due to enemy fire or casualties. If it was, it would obviously make up quite a bit for the TacAI's current behavior in this department. However, as it is now, it's only marginally more useful than other movement commands.

So - spotting at close range - my guess is that "spot checks" simply do not happen often enough relative to weapon effectiveness in close proximity. In other words - a squad can be wiped out before the game even attempts to figure out what that squad would actually see. Generally speaking, unless units are in very heavy cover, spotting should be automatic at point blank range - no "dice rolls" should be going on under the hood to determine if I can see a group of men in the road directly to my front. It doesn't make sense. It does make sense at longer distances of course. Spotting should be immediate and always successful at these types of ranges.

[Flanker15]

I saw this bug too when I was playing. I ordered upwards of 100 men to move into an area that had enemies. They all moved into a nice column and started marching towards the enemy, upon being shot at they started dying and getting suppressed. When they unsuppressed they got up and started walking towards the enemy again. Eventually they all got killed or routed and not one shot was fired at the enemy!

Compare this to a copy scenario in CM:AK where as soon as the enemy fires or is spotted in range your units will return fire and seek cover. When the enemy is dead or gone they resume moving or they will continue moving slower while returning fire.

The same things go for vehicles in CM:SF where they won't retreat or return fire against enemies like they did in CM:AK.

I like to think of this bug in terms of commands and mind control. In CMx1 you give units orders they will try to accomplish but they will still think for themselves and make their own decisions about targeting and movement but in CMx2 you have mind control powers on your units and they will obey you to the letter without doing much themselves.

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

This is another point where I think CMx2 is overengineered.

From incoming fire you either get what is described here, an inappropriate attempt to continue to follow your orders.

Or you get automatically given other orders, such as the (in-)famous "crawl of death", or auto-sneak-exhaustion like I like to call it.

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.

Agreed. I think also that when modelling individual soldiers, they somehow forgot to dedicate appropriate CPU cycles to do it... TacAI needs to be multitude more powerful in this case. Since it's not..results can be seen by everyone.

[Sardaukar]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

Mr Billy,

Rather than us continuing to banter back and forth I have run some test and simply put, you are your own victim.

Not only does the "quick" around a corner mean suicide in real life and CMSF but it will yield the exact same result in CMx1.

As soon as I get some pics I will post them but let me describe the results;

In real life; not a modern military on the planet would prescribe running your troops around a blind corner. Particularly against another section covering said corner and in anything that come close to a prepared position.

In the game they are lying in the middle of the road but in reality they would be finding cover of some sort, covering arcs and if they are smart holding their fire. What you see as your troops get slaughtered is a section in ambush at very close range...very bad in any reality.

I had a lengthy post that would try to explain to you how this could happen in reality but then a simple fact dawned on me...this is game and no matter what we may think or want it will be an abstraction from real life. It will mirror realistic effects but never be 100% complete.

So let me close the real world discussion by stating simply that your tactics would not work and you would get at best half of your section wiped out and probably the entire lot against any opponent who knows what they are doing. If you don't believe me sign up, spend 20 yrs in and then get back to me.

So onto CMSF. I ran a series of tests (scenario file avail on request) with a regular section coming around a blind corner and tried different combos to see how they fair. A single waypoint cutting the corner and quick is a disaster pretty much as you describe. The section gets blitzed. I will admit the visual is a little silly but the result is realistic....a lot if not all of your troops dead.

So I decided to try and apply a little common sense to the problem and added a couple of waypoints around that corner, here things get a little better. The troops still get whacked but they take longer to do it as the reorient at each waypoint, this means more time for you to hit the halt button.

Then I thought maybe some more realistic tactics might work..so I quick-moved them just to the edge of the corner and switched them to hunt in two waypoints around the corner. The result was solid. My troops covered the clear ground quickly and then moved cautiously past the cover line of the coner, they came under fire, took two casualties and quickly regrouped back under cover.

I tried this several times and in each instance so long as you switch the section to hunt prior to the enemy sightline you will take far fewer casualties and your troops will fall back.

I will write up some quick rules to live by in urban ops as they relate to CMSF, but what I have found is that if you use real world tactics they will work, to a degree in the game. More on that later and it will be posted in the tactics section.

"Micromanagement!!" You will no doubt cry...in fact you already have once. Well for a laugh I reloaded CMAK v 1.03 and set up an identical (well as close as I could) test of a US section coming around a blind corner against an Axis Airborne section at a range of about 10m(keep in mind scales are different for CMx1 and the buildings are all semi-transparent).

If you thought the CMSF result was entertaining. Using "run" the US section was wiped out without seeing the enemy section in about a second. Then I tried "advance". The US section lasted a little longer but still got killed very quickly.

So then for a laugh I tried "Contact" and guess what the US section noticed the Axis squad early and actually managed to return fire and only took 3 casualties.

So Mr Billy and friends, I am not sure why you are surprised. In CMx1, which to the man you all sing praises to, your tactic will get your squad killed even faster (damn near instantly actually) than in CMSF. You will need to plot your sections with the same level of detail as CMx1 in order to keep them alive.

So again I ask, why is CMSF "unplayable" but CMx1 was "great" if under near identical situations, you get the same result?

I am going to package my report to Steve and the band with the clear conclusion that this is not a bug. It could stand to be visually portrayed better. But the results are consistant with CMx1 and real world expected results.

So I will clarify my point on you, Mr Billy, being a "whiner" with an axe to grind against BFC, who takes every opportunity to slag CMSF..even when it is performing nearly identically to CMx1.

You may or may not be as I describe above. So until I can build a stronger case and not risk slagging a possibly innocent man, I will retract any statements that may have painted you in such a light.

You are in fact a very bad CMSF player. With practice, some study and a little help perhaps you can change that.

It's quite interesting that only one person on this thread resorting to personal insults is you...

In CM1 abstractions are acceptable, because squads were abstracted. In CMSF, they are not abstracted. Thus, increasing the detail without increasing the ability of TacAI is bad design decision. If you are right and it's not a bug...then it's design decision...

One constructive post in this topic was from redwolf..and it's some food for thought. If TacOps can use "SOP-orders when contact is made", why not CMSF ?

[thewood]

There are actually a couple of games that use SOP, specifically because they are wego. How comparable they are is another question. They would be TACOPS and POA2. All they old HPS titles, like Tigers on the Prowl, used them effectively.

[MiB]

If you're going to have a publically generated list of bugs, a wikipedia-style website would be best, I think. Easier to search and sort through.

[Panzer76]

Well... wait for patch 1.xx and hope it gets solved. Thats what many of us do...

[Pandur]

the capt

My troops covered the clear ground quickly and then moved cautiously past the cover line of the coner, "they came under fire, took two casualties and quickly regrouped back under cover."

lol, you know thats a "bug" or faulty behaviour!? look up my "unpleasent hunt behaviour" thread, in the tactics part of the forums, for this.

thats why i stoped to use hunt and that made it for me pretty useless.

edit: hunt should not be "shoot and scoot" for infantry...

[The_Capt]

Mr Billy,

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

I will give you the visual abstraction of watching troops get cut to pieces in such a manner looks wrong but the results are consistent.

Call it an abstraction, call it what you will but what you are calling "vapid nonsense" and blaming the game company for is in fact you playing badly.

I have provided a clear example of how to avoid the disaster you experienced which does not involve re-writing the entire AI for both the blue and red sections...that will result in the same damn conclusion, ableit "better looking" when it happens.

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.

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.

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.

Unless of course you want totally realistic AI at which point the section command would simply go: "Coy OC has lost it boys lets try it this way instead" at which point you would be on the forum screaming that your troops are disobeying orders, CMSF 2 is "unplayable"...etc etc.

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.

For, Pandur, I am not sure what you are expecting, perhaps your stormtroopers to round the corner and promptly kill all said "bad-guys", at which point you are playing some other game that no doubt involves jet packs and aliens. 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.

Now I think I am just about done trying, if you "don't get it" by this point, you don't want to "get it".

The most intelligent thing posted on this thread was from dalem. This game is a tactical simulation (whether you think it is fun or not is entirely up to you to decide). If you think you can go pick up Flight Simulator X, jump in a plane at realistic setting and buzz around like Snoopy on his doghouse, you are sorely mistaken.

Like a simulator, you need to learn how to use the tools you have been given and not flare up every time something doesn't go your way. Real world tactics will take you far, not all the way as solid game play is always a must.

Now I have armed you with a method to scope a blind corner without getting your section wiped out...now go forth and prosper.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

The Capt

You may have a point in saying that proper urban tactics are not to dash through corners, but there's not 1 chance in 1 zillion that a real soldier will march on its fallen comrade ignoring gunfire coming from 10 feet away !

I think this is the original poster's gripe, and I agree.

If the game is depicting battles "1:1", the squad should just get back and find cover after the front guys have been hit.

Forcing player to micromanage what should be soldier survival instinct is just wrong.

Sure CM1 wasn't better at this, but as the squad was somewhat abstracted it just didn't feel as wrong ...Plus you usually had more guys and cared less about casualties !

[dalem]

The_Capt-

In your eagerness to deal out smarm you are missing the point your poor subjects are trying to raise: the result of their movement choice seems, dare we say, unrealistic.

Maybe all ten guys doing what they were ordered to do should die. I don't think m_billy or the rest are arguing against that. But the game is presenting that result to to them as a "one at a time into the whirling knives" march that takes enough game time as to seem robotic or suicidal and fakey.

So the problem seems to be with presentation, not end result.

Dig?

-dale

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by dalem:

The_Capt-

In your eagerness to deal out smarm you are missing the point your poor subjects are trying to raise: the result of their movement choice seems, dare we say, unrealistic.

Maybe all ten guys doing what they were ordered to do should die. I don't think m_billy or the rest are arguing against that. But the game is presenting that result to to them as a "one at a time into the whirling knives" march that takes enough game time as to seem robotic or suicidal and fakey.

So the problem seems to be with presentation, not end result.

Dig?

-dale

Smarm?! "excessively or unctuously flattering, ingratiating, servile, etc."

I think I have been accused of just the opposite.

Unless of course you mean of BFC, at which point I say to you sir, "If lovin Madmatt is wrong, I don't wanna be right!!"

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.

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.

[Chelco]

From CMSF's manual, emphasis is mine:

For a tactical combat simulation to be successful the developer needs to be realistic about what can and can’t be done in the practical sense. In effect this means picking what to simulate and how to simulate it very carefully. It also means simulating as many elements as abstractly as possible so that resources can be devoted towards those things which are not as easily abstracted. Therefore,as realistic as Combat Mission is it doesn’t mean players won’t notice abstractions from time to time. It’s unavoidable simply because few gamers have a super computer at home!

Why is this important? Because you, the end user, need to know that although Combat Mission appears to simulate the real world and all its chaos down to the last boot heel and rock, there are some fundamental abstractions necessary to make this whole thing work on your PC. The end result is that as you play CM sometimes you will see things that don’t look quite right. A soldier shooting through solid ground, perhaps, or a tree branch passing through a passing tank. In a perfect world we would have enough time and computing power to avoid these abstractions. Since we don’t, we can’t. What we can do is make sure these abstractions do not negatively impact the

realism of the overall simulation. The “big picture” of your experience in CM is, after all, what is most important.

[Lurker765]

what was the point of 1:1 representation then? If the squad looks bad dying when they run around a corner and the LOS is messed up to the 8x8 tiles it just seems to add a layer of frustration to the game.

I guess if you wanted to sell the game to a military they probably wouldn't look at you unless it was 1:1, and perhaps the eye candy on a screenshot has a selling point.

But in the game itself it just raises my blood pressure when you see your individual soldier doing something that no soldier would actually ever do.

The abstraction of having to defend an entire house in CMx1 from every direction felt more right since the enemy could climb in windows,etc. Here you HAVE to enter a door, and often it is only one particular door.

It just isn't very much fun for me at this point. v1.03 made it so that I could at least play the game reasonably well, but now I am hoping further patches increase the fun factor.