Arrghh. Gameplay frustrations

[c3k]

Gents,

I'm playing Al Huqf, a meeting engagement between one US platoon with a single Bradley and one Syrian platoon with, hopefully, a single BMP.

I'm advancing my squads through the urban landscape using "Hunt". The terrain is close single story buildings with the occasional 2 story. The buildings are close, but not too close.

My idiot squads a killing themselves.

Here's the terrain: B is building wall, d is door.

.....BBB

....ydud

x....BBB

.............z

My squad, with hunt, starts at x. I plot a hunt to y, through door d into the building to point u.

While hunting I hear "enemy unit spotted" several time. On veteran mode in replay (wego) I see nothing. They keep hunting. They DON'T enter. (No rubble, no blocks.) Second and third teams hunt to z. WTF? There, they stop. There's more vocalizations about enemy units. After several seconds a BMP appears to the northeast of the building. My plucky lads shoot a 40mm grenade at it. Nothing. They mill around for several seconds. The BMP opens up. 4KIA and 1WIA out of 6 men.

Issues: Pathfinding; Spotting; TacAI behavior.

Pathfinding: I do not know how or why my entire squad did not enter d to go to point u. I don't know what the attraction to z was.

Spotting: on hunt they announced enemy unit but continued forward. No dissemination of target.

How can a BMP in the open at ~50 meters NOT be seen?

TacAI: why would two sections stay in the covered arc of a BMP when cover was right behind them. The path they followed removed them from cover then they froze.

Savegame available.

Comments? Or, better yet, solutions?

Thanks,

Ken

(edited to format map)

[ March 26, 2008, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

[Topo]

I've been same problem in "In search of a Ghost" campaign (great.)

I've splitted a squad, and half squad has entered without problems.

[JSB]

I noticed that too much waypoints is not good. In the example you give, I think that "y" is useless, because your squad has to regroup outside the house before entering it. When a squad regroups, it wastes time and much place.

I also noticed that for very precise moves, especially in urban environment, spliting squads is very effective.

Finally, I think that sometimes, the problem comes from the choice of the command. Why choosing "hunt"? Do you really want your men to stop in the middle of the street if they spot something?

[M1A1TC]

If you use Move, Quick or Run they will not fire back. So you have to use Hunt. In Assault you waste too much ammo every time

[YankeeDog]

I agree with JSB. Less waypoints is generally better. Lots of waypoints plotted together seems to confuse the pathfinding AI.

And definitely don't use hunt to cross a street unless you actually want your infantry to stop in the middle of the street. Only Hunt where you actually would want a unit to stop and hunker down if they come under fire. Otherwise, use Quick, Fast, or Assault, as appropriate.

I don't know why your Hunting infantry didn't stop. Mine always have. Are you sure it was the Hunting unit that called out the contact? Now that Borg Spotting is dead, the Hunting unit has to actually spot the enemy itself, or it won't stop.

As for general advice, use small moves, go slow. Give your guys time to sit still and watch/listen. Stationary units spot MUCH better than moving ones, and you need to give them time to notice stuff.

When you have to send guys into a building that that might have enemy inside, best tactic I have found is to send a team under Quick to just outside the door, let the team sit there for a 15 seconds or so, and then order a Hunt the short distance into the building. DO NOT plot the Quick to outside the building and the Hunt inside on the same orders plot. I don't know why, but plotting a 2-waypoint entry into a building like this screws up the pathfinding AI sometimes. It would be nice to see this fixed so you can plot it all at once, but it's livable for me right now because you can't rush this; you want that team to sit outside the building for a little bit to watch and listen, before sending them inside. So move to just outside of building on turn 1, enter on the next turn works pretty well in WEGO.

And definitely use your split teams when you're advancing to contact in MOUT. Enter a building with the minimum number of guys possible, and the maximum amount of overwatch.

Al Huqf gives you MOUT squads, which means you can split down to 3-man teams. Very useful. Keep two teams back as overwatch, and send just one forward into a building first. If they make it without incident, move the rest of the squad forward.

I did really well on that scenario; on the first try I got a Total Victory with no casualties. I barely used the Bradley, too -- it's total contribution was maybe a half dozen shots to finish off an already pinned enemy squad.

But I will admit that alot of this was luck; early on, I just happened to move one of my squads forward into a position where two of the Syrian infantry teams moved in the open right across their line of fire. So half the Syrian infantry was mowed down almost without returning a shot. Later, the BMP blundered right in front of another of my teams hiding in a building, and the team promptly took it out with their AT4. After these successes, the remainder of the Syrian units were hugely overmatched.

I personally didn't have any trouble with pathfinding or spotting in this scenario. My guys generally picked up the enemy at appropriate distances, and moved from building to building in the ways that made sense. A few times, I've seen funky pathfinding from infantry, but only rarely and not in this scenario.

I did play Elite Realtime, though. I wonder if any of the OP's problems are related to WEGO. I also wonder if there's a problem with the specific building(s) at issue. IIRC, Steve has said there's a problem where if buildings and doors are not done correctly when the map is designed, the AI won't use them properly. I don't understand all the details, but apparently this is something BFC is working on.

As for the spotting stuff, I dunno. This scenario does take place in the dark in heavy urban terrain, so spotting should take place at closer ranges. Nevertheless, my teams picked up the enemy infantry and BMP just fine; I got tentative "?" contacts as they got close, which resolved into solid contacts after 15-20 seconds. Not sure why your experience was different. In the specific situation you describe, I could see the squad moving around the corner failing to notice the stationary BMP the instant they come around the corner, but I certainly think they would spot it within a few seconds.

Move-to-cover thing you mention is definitely an issue; the vehicle AI is now much better at attempting to evade and break contact with superior opposition, but the infantry self-preservation AI is still a bit lacking. . . guys will just sit in the open and get killed, unless you order them to do otherwise. Not as big a deal in Realtime where you can jump in and save the day, but problematic in WEGO. By the time the next minute mark comes around, it's often too late.

Cheers,

YD

[Zwolo2003]

Yup, same problem seen in several different scenarios. To me looks like some kind of a problem with pathing where team-squad interaction is involved, i.e. you give orders to squads which then the AI has to translate into paths for teams. I think sometimes AI has trouble with fitting in all teams at once, but instead of queueing them one after another, it sends the whole squad around on some roundabout way to try and find a better entry point. It is also very unpredictable as sometimes queueing works well.

Also, another problem which might be related to squad-team interaction is where the player plots a movement order to a good, covered position and finds that one team wanders off into the open and gets promptly slaughtered.

Increasingly often I use the whole squads only until they make contact with the enemy and then maneouvre by teams. Obviously, this adds a new layer of micromanagement, but gives better results.

Zwolo

[YankeeDog]

Zwolo's point is interesting, and may explain why my experience in that scenario was so different.

The tighter the terrain, the smaller manuver units I use. In a tight urban MOUT situation, If I think enemy contact is at all possible, I'm almost always splitting squads down into teams.

[Zwolo2003]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

If you use Move, Quick or Run they will not fire back. So you have to use Hunt. In Assault you waste too much ammo every time

This points to another issue. Time and time again I find that there is no command really suited to advancing under fire (I know the wisdom of doing this in the face of modern small arms can be debated but sometimes it just has to be done).

Assault is not that command. Firstly, it can be used only with a whole, multi-team squad which is (see above) too unwieldy to use half of the time. Secondly, Assault gives you a squad doing bounding overwatch, and the bounding team must stop somewhere to allow the overwatching team to move. Trouble is AI has problems finding the right spot to do it and often the bounding teamstops in the middle of open ground and is shot up.

Hunt does not work either - the unit stops when sees the enemy and will not advance.

Quick and run also do not work. Firstly, the soldiers do not fire back. Secondly, they run in single file, so even if they could shoot back, they would not do so well. Thirdly, they are more likely to panic as apparently this command simulates soldiers not expecting to be fired at.

And finally Move does not work either because of morale hit when shot at.

I think we are missing a command where soldiers move in arrowhead or skirmish line formation, expect to be shot at and stop to fire from time to time. On the other hand Run and Quick are almost interchangeable (except that Run tires troops whle not being that much faster so I use it rarely) One of them could be dropped. Or move - I almost never use that, except to reposition crewed weapons.

Zwolo

[c3k]

Zwolo2003,

Your points are well made.

I do not like to break down into teams unless I have a specific reason for doing so. The extra overhead in micromanagement is a deterrent. I want my squads to manuever as squads.

To enter a building, I'd like all my men to get in rapidly. If there's anyone in there waiting to ambush me, a team may be wiped out if they go in solo. A squad would have a better chance of achieving firepower superiority. (One squad of 3 teams is better than 3 separate teams.)

The pathing issue is the most frustrating.

Sometimes my squad will overshoot a waypoint and then come BACK to it. Other times the overshot waypoint gets "eaten" as the squad continues in the direction they should be going. I don't know what the variables are which determine which behavior will be exhibited. Frustrating.

What command equates to "advance in tactical formation with expectation of enemy contact at which time maintain best cover and fire back". Does that exist?

Thanks,

Ken

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by c3k:

Zwolo2003,

What command equates to "advance in tactical formation with expectation of enemy contact at which time maintain best cover and fire back". Does that exist?

Thanks,

Ken

Hunt

[YankeeDog]

Interesting points, Zwolo. I do agree that Run (aka "Fast") is pretty much worthless for infantry. Quick is almost always the better choice.

Move I do use for infantry in out-of-contact movements to conserve energy. But definitely not where contact is at all possible.

I guess I never noticed the whole movement under fire problem because I almost never move under fire, execept for very short movements to gain better firing position or break contact if this can be done very quickly (10m or less). In general I wait until I have fire supremacy and the enemy has almost stopped firing back entirely before I do any larger movements. In these cases, the quick order (team-by-team, with lots of overwatch) seems to work fine -- it's the job of the overwatch teams to keep the fire up. The maneuver team's job is to get to their new position as quickly as possible, and lay down fire for the next maneuvering team once they get there.

But perhaps you are right that the orders should be reviewed; there doesn't seem to be any equivalent to the classic "I'm up, you see me, I'm down" movement under fire drill. Even assault doesn't really approximate this very well.

Cheers,

YD

[z1812]

Hi All,

The game is much improved with version 1.07. However some pathing and other issues still remain.

Fortunately, at least in single player, I rarely have too many "Arrghh" moments.

I have noticed that LOS seems sometimes odd. That is when you have 2 units in the same location. One can see an enemy and the other one can't.

MultiPlayer really needs attention as it does not seem to work very well at all.

In the urban sceanrios, as well as most others, I never move without establishing recon at positions that give me clear fields of view through areas that I wish to move. Overwatch and bounding movement also work quite well.

Right now I am anticipating the Marine Module and the reduction of "Arrghh moments" that I hope it will it will bring.

Regards John

[c3k]

M1A1TC,

Hunt is what I've been using, yet it doesn't seem that to work as well as I'd like.

The "freeze when you see the enemy, then take time to figure out what to do" aspect is what I don't like.

In the situation I posted at the beginning of this thread my squad was using "hunt". Then it saw a BMP. It froze, stayed out of cover, fired an M203, then had 5 out of 6 men killed or wounded. This took some time.

Hunt: BMP! Get back! Okay, Smitty, peak around the corner and tell me what the BMP is doing. Jones, get that AT-4 ready! Sanchez, make sure the LT knows about the BMP.

But that would require the TacAI to recognize the BMP as a threat and to recognize that falling back on the path just taken would put the squad in cover. (The other option would be to follow the rest of the ordered movement path; an analysis of risk would need to determine the best action. (I would think if I walk into the open and see an enemy, a few steps back would be best. Rarely would many steps forward be best.) The final option would be ignore all pathing, past and future, and get into some other cover.)

As it is, I would LIKE hunt to perform as I posted before. Right now it seems to just freeze my men in position - similar to "advance to contact" from CMx1.

Regards,

Ken

P.S. All this ignores the fact that in this case my 6 men (2 teams) had split themselves off from the squad leader without orders and had ignored the path I set for them...significantly. (sigh)

[c3k]

I replayed the turn in question.

58 seconds on timer (2 seconds into the turn) "enemy units spotted". No icon.

48 seconds, "enemy approaching". No icon.

40-30 seconds, a flurry of enemy approaching, contact, spotted, heads up enemy armor, etc. No icon.

16 seconds, advanced in open. No icon.

15 seconds, enemy BMP in sight, fully shown BMP.

11 seconds, point man tries to run, M203 fires grenade, BMP fires machinegun.

8 seconds, BMP fires with cannon, killing cluster of men next to corner of building.

The men DID attempt to get out of sight. Kind of... They clustered tightly within the effective zone of fire of the BMP as was obvious from the resulting casualties.

The flurry of contact calls with no icon or change in behavior is odd. The slowness of the point man to see the BMP and get back is frustrating. The quickness of the BMP's reaction is good...for them.

The timeline is added to provide quantitative points of reference. Playback savegame is available, but it doesn't show how my squad split and did not follow the ordered path. (It does not show paths in playback. The fact that the teams split without orders is evident from the teams placement and that they are shown in the unit interface as being a squad, not a team. Does that make sense?)

Thanks,

Ken

[JSB]

I guess that you have to play in elite mode to know exactly what your guys are spotting or not, am I wrong?

[Guest]

c3k, you've brought up a number of my pet peeves.

I think the issues you're talking about are the last real remaining hurdles to CMSF being a truly awesome combat sim. I know the team has put a lot of time into infantry behavior, for the scale it might be the best 1:1 infantry I've seen, but their reactions (or lack thereof) in a variety of situations are still an issue.

Please keep posting saves and keep the threads going, this is a discussion that may take a while to bear fruit. BFC, I think, is aware of the need for change in this area, and any additional information will only help them make the fixes / modifications that need to be made. Just keep letting them know it bugs you, and why.

[YankeeDog]

Not 100% sure. CMx1 used to have a "target next" command which would cycle through all the enemy units a specifc unit could see. I don't remember offhand whether CMSF kept this command, and I'm not at my home computer where I could check.

But it definitely is a lot easier to tell in Elite. Just click on the unit, and you see the battlefield as that unit sees it.

I love Elite mode. Don't play any other way.

[c3k]

Hmmm,

I'm trying to creep up on CMSF and I'm using Veteran mode right now. Once I learn the basics I'll move on to elite.

In Veteran mode, deselecting all units allows you to see every enemy unit spotted by any friendly unit. For example, friendly A sees only enemy 1; friendly B sees only enemy 2; etc. If I have A selected, the only enemy I can see is 1. If I deselect A without selecting any other unit (double clicking on empty space? I forget right now) Then all enemy units 1,2,3,4...etc appear.

In the example I gave the enemy units were being called out but no icons were appearing.

It is possible that my units were calling out dead enemy units as they saw the bodies. That would need to be tweaked if that is the case.

Regards,

Ken

[Guest]

c3k, where can I get that savegame?

Thanks.

[c3k]

It's on my harddrive. C'mon over!

Barring that, I can email it to you (I'm not sure of it's size).

The savegame is the replay of the action I described.

Regards,

Ken

[Guest]

Sure, I'd be happy to come over! You'd have to pay for the sitter while I trek across the country, though.

Please email it. My address is in my profile. If we can't get that to work I can set up an FTP location for you.

Thanks.

[c3k]

Another detail: My squad which did NOT enter the building, but rather sent team 2 and team 3 out to be slaughtered, exhibited some other odd behavior.

Team 1 did go near the waypoint by the door. Team 2 and team 3 went orienteering into an ambush. While they were being pummelled, resulting in 4 KIA and 1 WIA, the SQUAD (including Team 1 by the door) showed fully PINNED. The remaining green soldier in the ambush was pinned and showed it. (He also said something about wanting to leave, which was a nice detail!)

The 3 members of Team 1, near the back door, totally out of sight of the BMP, totally immune to any effects from the BMP, totally out of sight of Teams 2 and 3, and totally unaware of the ambush...were also PINNED and mewling about their fate.

The game treated the disparate, separated teams as if they were together. This is odd.

Regards,

Ken

[YankeeDog]

The more I read you descriptions, Ken, the more I think the problems are related somehow to TacAI's ability to handle larger infantry units (like full squads) in close terrain.

It sounds like the TacAI has trouble figuring out exactly how to do things when it has to move and organize a large infantry unit, such as a full squad, in very tight terrain.

While players issue the general movement orders, with 1:1 representation, the TacAI still has to figure out exactly where each soldier goes, what formation they use, etc. This is a radical departure from CMx1, here squad formation was simply abstracted. I think this is one of the single most exciting changes in the new engine, and when the 1:1 representation in CMx2 works well it's an exciting thing to behold. But obviously there are some rough edges that still need to be worked out. . .

It is probably a much greater programming challenge to make a squad move intelligently in a MOUT situation where the pathfinding has to take into account walls, doors, rapid changes in cover level and LOS etc. than in more open or consistent terrain.

As I mentioned, I've never seen anything quite like what you describe, but I almost always split my squads into small teams when maneuvering in tight terrain. It appears that the TacAI does much better when it only has to figure out the pathfinding and formation for a small group like a split squad. This makes sense; it is a far simpler problem to figure out movement formation and path for 3 guys, than it is for a formation of 9 guys.

I guess lesson for now is that it's better to maneuver with small groups like split squads in tight terrain. I agree this is less than ideal for all situations as it requires additional micromanagement.

Hopefully, over time the part of the TacAI that handles the details of individual soldier pathfinding and squad formation will get better, and this issue will fade.

Cheers,

YD

[abneo3sierra]

If it is any consolation, in many ways it is more realistic that it is hard in tight areas for the full squad. Personally I would also like a step between hunt and assault, but micromanaging can work pretty well in real time as well.

[JSB]

I agree that there has to be some improvements: the Move command is not very usefull in a combat environment, I almost never use it. There is a need for a "Carefull advance" command, i.e. a hunt-like command which could apply even when ennemy is spotted, but out of critical danger range.

But on the other hand, I suppose that real MOUT operations also require some additionnal "micro-management".