Will infantry animations be fixed in 1.05?

[skelley]

Not sure if it is just the animation that makes troops (when dismounting) take the longest possible route to the relative safety of buildings. It seem like they like to do a few laps around the streets while being hosed with MG fire before getting to cover.

[John Catsack]

There seem to be a lot of problems like that. Soldiers not using good movement routes, not using cover, no ability to change formation.

[skelley]

Agreed. Also if your squad takes a bunch of casualties they become impossible to move even if there is no threat arouund. They seem to get stuck in one spot, one team will run so far then just stop while the other squad won't move at all.

[Nicoch]

Yeah, it's just one of the many game-breaking bugs.

[MikeyD]

Game-breaking my aunt Fanny. Yeh, v1.05 has a whole laundry list of VERY welcome changes coming.

[Meach]

Do tell...

[SgtMuhammed]

Can we please stop the crawl of death? When you are in the open and you get shot at you don't crawl to cover you haul ass to get out of the kill zone. Crawling in the open only gets you killed.

[GSX]

Crawl of Death [CoD] would be one of mine. That and running 4 block to enter a building that has a doorway 3ft from the Stryker. Also LOS/LOF problems. Fix those three and you have the makings of a nifty little game. Then get Strykers to haul ass when confronted by a T-something and not fire little bullets at it and your on the way to a winner.

Fix none of the above and just do some more peripherals and it wont be any better what so ever.

Hopefully we will see the former and I will re-install the game on my HD becuase until they are fixed the game will remain unplayable and more to the point mal-simulated.

[Cpl Steiner]

Whilst we're on the subject of infantry, I would also like to see building interiors simulated properly.

Examples:

1) If I place two buildings next to each other and delete both connecting walls, squads should move freely between them as if they are one big building. At the moment, they tend to go over the roof to the next building.

2) If I place two buildings next to each other and match up the doors of the connecting walls, squads should be able to use the connecting doors to access the neighbouring building but should not be able to trace LOS through them.

3) If I place two buildings next to each other and match up the windows of the connecting walls, squads should be able to trace LOS through them into the neighbouring building but not move through them. N.B. - I accept that windows shouldn't be that much of a barrier but until they can be moved across for external walls, internal walls should be treated the same.

4) If adjacent buildings have both connecting windows and connecting doors, then both (2) and (3) above should apply.

5) Ideally, the editor should take account of when buildings are adjacent and ensure that a click on one wall to change the door and window layout is mirrored on the connecting wall of the adjacent building.

[Guest]

This (the Crawl of Death) is a pretty common thing in 1:1 AI-run infantry models, as I'm sure you've probably seen in the CC series, among others.

In CM:SF terms, though -- when an untrained insurgent can kill a running soldier at a couple hundred yards with fair ease, do you REALLY want your men to be running to cover when they get fired upon?

If they're doing it the way I'd think, your guys are determining the best stance to be in based on their chances of survival while moving that way in the current situation (possibly with some past information to help smooth a bit). Crawling is probably a good idea considering current weapons performance.

Maybe a fix to the uncanny accuracy of small arms fire at all ranges would do more for the game as a whole than forcing troops under fire to run to cover.

I have no idea how the code looks, of course, so they could be doing things quite differently.

[SgtMuhammed]

That would be a valid question if crawling actually improved their chance for survival. All it does is place them in the kill zone for a tremendously long time without giving any survival bonus. Once the squad begins crawling they all eventually die except any that are already behind cover.

[Guest]

If you consider current CM:SF weapons accuracy, do you think, mathematically, they have a better chance of being hit while crawling or running?

My point is that it *is* probably improving their chances for survival to crawl (whether that's the model or not) -- that's where the problem with weapon accuracy comes in.

[SgtMuhammed]

It is consistently shown in the game that if they crawl they die if nothing stops the enemy from shooting at them. I really don't know how they would do if they unassed the AO because I have never seen them do it.

I actually agree with you that weapons accuracy is entirely too great in the game which is one of the reasons I do think running to cover gives them a better chance. Since they die while crawling, hitting the dirt doesn't seem to really give them any advantage but it forces them to remain in the kill zone for much longer. Six of one, half a dozen of the other I suppose.

[Guest]

Hmm. Fair enough. I guess I hope that a change to weapon accuracy might "fix" not only this problem but a few others related to TacAI. Only Charles and Steve would know for sure.

I do recall in earlier patches that when infantry on the run ignored enemy fire they were generally cut to pieces. That may have been mitigated by intervening fixes, certainly, but if small arms' accuracy hasn't changed (was that in the change list? can't remember) then those effects would likely be the same.

Off topic, I totally missed the formerly sgtgoody thing. Am I thinking right? The guy who likes infantry and wishes they were represented more realistically in game? (Unless I'm completely butchering what you've said, it's been a while since I got into those discussions.)

[SgtMuhammed]

That's me. I'm protesting the whole teddybear thing.

[Guest]

Ahh, neat. Glad I asked.

What's the teddybear thing?

I'd be interested in hearing from Steve if they've experimented with lowering overall weapons accuracy with the 1.04 code, and any resulting effects on the TacAI if so. I'm certain the values they've got in there now are the result of quite a bit of triangulation. Just curiosity on my part really.

[Battlefront.com]

I can say that we found a bunch of problems associated with certain "types" of doors. Internally the code has a bunch of different door types for various "under the hood" reasons. The results, as of v1.04, affect pathfinding more than anything. I *think* we've got them all fixed for v1.05.

As for the TacAI behavior in response to fire and weapons accuracy... well, let's see what you think of v1.05 and then we can talk about what might be necessary for v1.06. Just know that it's very difficult to come to an agreement about these sorts of things. We constantly get pulled in several directions at the same time, with some people saying it's fine and others saying it's either too weak or too strong. The bitch of it is that very often the guys holding the different positions have all been shot at in real life, so it makes it hard to know who to ignore

Steve

[Guest]

Well, I've never been shot at in real life, I've just simulated it, so I'm certainly not an authority. I am able to recognize well-known AI... behaviors, though, and know a bit about their causes.

Thanks, Steve. I'm looking forward to 1.05. I definitely know it's hard to reconcile what your domain experts are telling you (I should mention as I write this, that we're REALLY lucky that you *have* domain experts willing to help, I'd think it's hard to get so many different knowledgeable opinions on the topic).

Personally, I'd ignore the guys who have no idea what they're talking about (myself) and take the average of the others. (! )

[aka_tom_w]

My only experience by being shot at in real life is on the receiving end of a paint ball or having been shot at by "friends" wielding .177 pellet rifles or AirSoft rifles. I am not sure that makes any difference in this discussion. (and yes I have been hit by both paint balls and .177 lead pellets and airsoft plastic 6mm BB's).

I am not sure I see a problem with small arms accuracy in the game.

Is the claim that small arms are too accurate?

If someone suggested US inf units with body armour are getting killed at too high a frequency when they should only be getting a yellow base and ending up slightly injured I would tend to agree with that, but I would not say small arms are too accurate in the game at all.

I think what you are seeing is the appropriate level of accuracy when combatants are too close. Most folks here may be seeing high small arms accuracy because the fighting in most scenarios takes place in urban environments and the ranges can be quite short, that in turn means more damage and greater accuracy.

(short range = easier to hit, factor in, training (US shooters are well trained and should be a good, or better then "good" shot), plus they fire a 3 round burst, plus many of them have some form of scope or optics).

I think small arms accuracy is pretty well modeled. (I think this will be more obvious and "feel" better when v1.05 comes out)

I actually agree with you that weapons accuracy is entirely too great in the game which is one of the reasons I do think running to cover gives them a better chance. Since they die while crawling, hitting the dirt doesn't seem to really give them any advantage but it forces them to remain in the kill zone for much longer. Six of one, half a dozen of the other I suppose.

I think this is nothing more then a by product of poor tactics and close range.

Guys in the open should get cut to pieces, I think the game models this well.

If the squad is in the open and pinned it won't matter if they run or crawl or hide, If there is no cover, the shooters will, (and Should) cut them to pieces with accurate small arms fire. (And I don't care which side is doing the shooting, any unit caught under fire out in the open with no cover is toast in this game, as it should be).

[ December 10, 2007, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Small arms accuracy is completely over modeled. Look at the casualty figures for any operation of comparable size to a CMSF scenario. We regularly get casualty rates in an hour that entire divisions would get during a day of hard fighting. Look at the recent operations in Iraq where a month's urban fighting ends in a couple hundred casualties combined.

What is different in the game from real life is that every shot in the game is aimed. In actual combat 99 of 100 are of the spray and pray variety. That's why you can't do a "Blackhawk Down" scenario in CMSF, your Hummers will get eaten alive before they move 100 meters. Targeting priority is:

1. Known enemy troops: Unfortunately the enemy rarely pops up like they do on the range.

2. Known enemy locations: You saw the guy there a minute ago so you are hosing the area.

3. Suspected enemy locations: You think you saw something in that window or in those bushes.

4. Likely or possible enemy locations: That's where I would be if I was trying to defend this area so lets hose that area.

The vast majority of fire falls into the last three categories and is designed to keep the enemy's head down. Even fire in the first category is against a target that is usually visible for only a second or two and is moving and most likely 100 to 200 meters away.

[skelley]

My problem with it is the time the troops screw around in the streets before following my orders to quick move into a building.

Here is what they do most of the time:

--------XXXXXXXXXXX

--------X BUILDING XX

----------=======BRADLEY

----------=------=

----------=------=

----------======

Equal sign being the path, They usually run out into the street then do a circle back to the building. I just want them to run out of the vehicle and directly into the house.

Also there can be buildings a hundred meters away with the enemy in them. As long as they don't open fire, you don't know they are there. I don't think you should have to have every house being actively suppressed just to dismount troops.

[Guest]

Very good post, SgtMuhammed.

In game, this boils down to an insurgent set to "green" shooting at something visible for only a second or two at 100-200 meters and *hitting*.

That's overly accurate fire. Even at 50 meters it should be a difficult shot under those conditions, unless I'm much mistaken. But... when my troops are on the move, that's what I see when I cross open areas covered by (what should be) tactically ineffective fire.

It's like maneuvering a regiment at 100 yards in a Napoleonics scenario and suddenly losing 40 men to muskets. Yeah, sure, it's theoretically possible, but the shooters are 40 of the *luckiest* soldiers in the world.

Maybe the "luck" factor just needs to be dialed down a bit.

Edit: good point, skelley, exposure times do seem high.

[SgtMuhammed]

One further note. The Army guidlines for use of the low crawl is low cover or concealment NOT wide open terrain. If you ever find yourself having to cross a wide open area you pray that no one shoots at you, you don't crawl. If you do get shot at you use the 3 to 5 second rush to move from cover to cover if you move at all. Usually you hide until something can be done to make the bad men go away.

[Cpl Steiner]

In the "Commando" TV documentary on UK TV about Royal Marines training one of the instructors passed on the following mantra to his recruits: "I'm up; I'm moving; he's seen me; down". You're supposed to recite that in your head when moving from cover to cover so you know you aren't exposed to enemy fire for too long. This chimes in with what SgtMuhammed and others have said about it being very hard to hit a target that is only exposed and/or moving in the same direction for a few seconds. By the time you're ready to take a shot, the target has dropped behind cover. Something like this needs to be factored into the game fore sure.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

In the "Commando" TV documentary on UK TV about Royal Marines training one of the instructors passed on the following mantra to his recruits: "I'm up; I'm moving; he's seen me; down". You're supposed to recite that in your head when moving from cover to cover so you know you aren't exposed to enemy fire for too long. This chimes in with what SgtMuhammed and others have said about it being very hard to hit a target that is only exposed and/or moving in the same direction for a few seconds. By the time you're ready to take a shot, the target has dropped behind cover. Something like this needs to be factored into the game fore sure.

This kind of thing would work if every single bit of environmental trash, clutter, shadow and slot were modeled.

The other way to do it, in my opinion, is to simply make stationary figures very very very hard to hit. I.e, assume there simply IS no such thing as "open ground" in the game and that no one with any training ever stops unless he IS in cover. Maybe green guys gain less of a benefit from that.

-dale