Consider this for the infantry

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Other Means]

I think having the first soldier in the group being where the squad’s action spot is attached would solve a lot of these problems.

It seems to me that many of the issues we currently get is because several of the soldiers are in an exposed position before the system checks LOS, which leads to several soldiers being in LOF by the time anything changes.

If only the point man was in LOS/LOF, the AI could take appropriate action without endangering the squad.

This seems realistic to me. The point man being shot would, IMHO, be a realistic risk.

It could also bring something good to the game, like the point man throwing the appropriate hand signals to the squad (Like “Please fetch the medic I appear to have been shot”) or jumping backwards etc.

[Cpl Steiner]

As well as the TacAI, I think CM:SF needs another layer of AI at the squad level. All this AI would do is figure out which are the best action spots for each team to be on and reorganize the squad accordingly. At the moment I don't think the AI moves individual teams around when they aren't split. An example would be a squad on a section of road where there is a friendly vehicle. If the squad comes under fire, the AI could figure out that Team A is behind the vehicle but Teams B and C are out in the open. It could then make Teams B and C quick move to A's action spot behind the vehicle.

[Dirtweasle]

Yea, the large full sqaud moving in a rural setting looks ok, but even I have to admit to kind of chuckling at how they move in built up areas. No leap-frogging, no overwatch by fire team, just a mob running about.

Way back when I think it was Gpig that drew up some rough sketches and while playing last night I was thinking about those sketches. Got me to thinking that maybe the squads are too detailed? You watch them move and they look like 8 - 10 - 12 soldiers or whatever it is and you expect them in your mind to behave properly. But they don't. So I was thinking would it be better if they were more like a cartoon? Really, and I don't mean that as a dig.

Seems to me maybe you expect more from something that on the surface looks very human, very realistic, to behave very realistic?

[Other Means]

Yeah the Uncanny Valley idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

AIUI, squad micro behaviour is the main focus of 1.05.

[Dirtweasle]

Well, I'll be.

Hypothesis

Mori's hypothesis states that as a robot is made more humanlike in its appearance and motion, the emotional response from a human being to the robot will become increasingly positive and empathic, until a point is reached beyond which the response quickly becomes that of strong repulsion. However, as the appearance and motion continue to become less distinguishable from a human being, the emotional response becomes positive once more and approaches human-to-human empathy levels.[citation needed]

This area of repulsive response aroused by a robot with appearance and motion between a "barely-human" and "fully human" entity is called the Uncanny Valley. The name captures the idea that a robot which is "almost human" will seem overly "strange" to a human being and thus will fail to evoke the empathetic response required for productive human-robot interaction.

Theoretical basis

The phenomenon can be explained by the notion that, if an entity is sufficiently non-humanlike, then the humanlike characteristics will tend to stand out and be noticed easily, generating empathy. On the other hand, if the entity is "almost human", then the non-human characteristics will be the ones that stand out, leading to a feeling of "strangeness" in the human viewer.

[Echo]

I talked to my brother, who was a Marine recon in Iraq, about this. He said they used a "ranger line" when pushing up a road or through a city. (its not in the marine field manuals, this is all stuff they have learned since the war began) Its a single file line, and only the first guy makes contact. Then they all lay down fire and push up into the contact.

Really no way to do that with the game. But moving small teams is the best.

[gman552]

I've also found that breaking up the squads into teams greatly improves their behavior in MOUT - quicker movement in and out of buildings, you can provide overwatch within the squad, etc.

I also like to have the teams use roof-to-roof movement (if the roofs are connected and at the same level), then hunt down to the ground floor.

No more wholesale slaughters when a full squad decides to do a dick-dance outside a door

[Pandur]

my biggest problem with spliting squads now is that they often get droped out of C2 than somehow.

i would split my squads more often if i wouldnt have to fear that they are without command.

[Huntarr]

drop of C2 was noted for 1.05

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[molotov_billy]

So I've ever seen the uncanny valley thing applied to human group movement, though I suppose there's no reason for it not to be.

In terms of gameplay experiences and frustration, I can't say that it really applies to infantry issues in CMSF. We're not exactly dealing with the problem of feeling empathy for AI soldiers - I couldn't care less about them, and it doesn't really matter.

My frustration comes from the gameplay implications of their un-human behavior - ie, running into an open area and getting shot, not seeing enemy units near them, not firing on the move, etc. These are all behaviors that a player is helpless to deal with, which makes it even more madeningly frustrating to deal with.

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

In terms of gameplay experiences and frustration, I can't say that it really applies to infantry issues in CMSF. We're not exactly dealing with the problem of feeling empathy for AI soldiers - I couldn't care less about them, and it doesn't really matter.

My frustration comes from the gameplay implications of their un-human behavior - ie, running into an open area and getting shot, not seeing enemy units near them, not firing on the move, etc. These are all behaviors that a player is helpless to deal with, which makes it even more madeningly frustrating to deal with.

This just sounds like bad tactics. I manuever with the thought of preservation in mind. I DON'T run them into the open, I DON'T assume I see all the enemy, I DON'T expect them to be Rambo (fire on the move). Amazingly my troops don't die when I care about their preservation. IMHO I suggest you develop a sense of empathy, you might be surprised by your results.

[KNac]

Some days/weeks ago while we had some chat about LOS/LOF is a big thread before 1.04 release, I suggested to use allways it's possible teams in MOUT. It reduces a lot of issues with the current LOS/LOF checkin limitations and TacAI behaviour BUT, and is not a small but, it increases micro a lot.

I barelly can deal with 2 platoons in RT in large maps, the GUI does not help (have been playing some RTS last days and I can control hundreads/thousands of units with less clicking and easier than I can control a few units in CMSF), and probably there is no way to make it easier w/o a simplifiation we all don't want or more help from the gui (minimaps/alwerts, easier way to select units quickly and direct commands with mouse) which would be even more unrealistic in terms of help a real commander does not have (but allways we have the question of real commander not having to babysit every damn unit, so is a trade that seems fair).

What does this mean? Going more towards WeGo cause in RT is impossible to manage all this (or decreasing the scale of the battles RT is meant to be played at, more). This, at the same time adds other difficulties, for WeGo to be mroe enjoyable we need a more responsive TacAI, so we still have tod evelop AI, maybe in otehr areas than squad behaviour, but still need to develop it.

Without mentioning the technical difficulties, every extra unit needs to compute it's own LOS/LOF & pathfinding. Persoanlly I don't think this is a problem, I still haven't found which is the limit for my computer to run games (haven't etsted), but I'm sure it can manage Bn sized in RT decentlly, so reducing it to half wouldn't be a problem for me as that's what I play at much even in WeGo (I feel confortably playing company sized battles, after all is the scale of the game).

I don't find as bad the current model, I can select when I want to use teams, so in MOUT I have the option to split squads and use teams as fundamental unit; there are limitations for the syrian side as per TO&E/doctrine and that would have to be fixed somewhat certainlly. I want this to be a company/reinforced company game, and the hability to play in RT is good, saves a lot of time and I want to keep this option. So, INHO, I don't think increrasing microing is a solution in the long term, but can help right now and you can split teams allready (certainlly the syrian side needs some help too).

My two cents.

[rammer4250]

I know this has been talked to death but the size of the battles really should be played in WEGO. Obviously if the AI was up to it you could give each squad or platoon mission type orders and if they execute them in an acceptable manner than yeah RTS would work. But let's get real the AI can't handle it now. I know this is opinion but everybody crying RTS is more realistic is nonsense. Combat takes time. I love military history so I prefer WEGO. And unfortunately the only way to have a more realistic experience is to jump into each squad leader position; each platoon commander position; and each battalion commander position. And that can only be done by micromanaging at this point of time therefore WEGO is the best representation. RTS is for kids who have a short memory span (sorry couldn't resist).

Rammer

[KNac]

Is not RTS, is RT; just a clarification. Real Time Strategy is a gaming genre (CMSF does not belong to it, not even remotelly), RT = Real Time. Fix your sig (RTS != RT) There are two styles of playing: Real Time or WeGo, not 'RTS' and WeGo.

Don't agree much with your post, I play both styles, and RT is more demanding in every aspect, but don't want to hijack the thread so let's focus on what the threads has been created for: infantry combat/management.

[rammer4250]

Thanks KNac

I fixed my sig. Also you are entitled to your opinion. I really didn't want to hijack thread so moving on. See you in another discussion.

Rammer

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

This just sounds like bad tactics. I manuever with the thought of preservation in mind. I DON'T run them into the open, I DON'T assume I see all the enemy, I DON'T expect them to be Rambo (fire on the move). Amazingly my troops don't die when I care about their preservation. IMHO I suggest you develop a sense of empathy, you might be surprised by your results.

Complete and utter nonsense, to anyone who has actually played this game.

Here's one - I order a team to move along a ditch straddling a road (Waypoints drawn with loving empathy, unicorns and hearts.) Most of the team does so, except one soldier who swings wide left, completely off my chosen patch, wandering onto the raised road surface, promptly getting shot.

Rambo? How about the guys who run right past a newly discovered enemy, essentially brushing their shirt sleeves, completely unphased (under fire the entire time), so that they can get to their chosen corner of a house interior before ever turning and returning firing.

The game is replete with such examples, none of which have anything to do with tactics, or empathy, or anything of the sort.

[ October 09, 2007, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[Guest]

Hey guys. Good thread.

Adam1, in my experience it's far easier to lower unit sizes than to improve TacAI to cover the gap. I think that BFC has gone after a fairly large-scale battlefield, though -- I think we're going to continue to see squads as the basic unit, with improvements in TacAI.

Honestly I have an issue with the way that LOS has been handled in CM:SF. It's not a big one, really. It just strikes me, as a gamer, as being a bit wonky that one point represents the eyes and body of a unit. I'm looking forward to BFC's improvements on this.

I've said enough about how I'd handle it as a dev (scope reduction with an increase in LOS/LOF granularity); it's clear that BFC has gone a different and equally valid route. You have to make compromises if you're going to show a battalion battle in 1:1 resolution.

As for the "bad tactics" thing, you're both right. Use good tactics and go slow, and you'll do better. Rely on the AI to handle itself well, and you'll die.

The middle ground there is using good tactics and knowing the AI's limits. Huntarr, do you find that you limit yourself to make best use of the AI? If so, what do you do?

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

As for the "bad tactics" thing, you're both right. Use good tactics and go slow, and you'll do better. Rely on the AI to handle itself well, and you'll die.

Absolutely. The cases that I have frustration with are the ones that are completely out of the player's control, and happen despite 'correct' tactics. The aforementioned single guy walking onto a raised road - nothing I could have done to prevent that, hence the frustration.

[Huntarr]

Rambo? How about the guys who run right past a newly discovered enemy, essentially brushing their shirt sleeves, completely unphased (under fire the entire time), so that they can get to their chosen corner of a house before ever turning and returning firing.

You do understand that is not just an empty furniture less, open space right? The interior corners and doo dads are not represented within the building. That is what they abstracted, so yes I can see men fighting very close within a room. You really don't get that? Are you saying that you will only be happy with CQB when they make this game like some retard FPS with jumping and everyone carrying an RPG? Some things you have to use your imagination with. That is what they abstract.

As for Tactics not working...

[Guest]

Very cool, Huntarr. I notice that these three examples seem to be from smaller games. This is the same general game size that I play, but it may have some impact on the discussion.

Managing two platoons is a far cry from playing much larger games (which is why I don't do it), and discussions of tactics likely need to reflect the level at which it's practical to apply them.

As for tactics, I guess my question still stands -- do you find that you need to deal with the AI in applying your tactics? If so, how do you do so?

[Guest]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

Absolutely. The cases that I have frustration with are the ones that are completely out of the player's control, and happen despite 'correct' tactics. The aforementioned single guy walking onto a raised road - nothing I could have done to prevent that, hence the frustration.

Totally. I'm really interested in finding out how folks circumvent this. We had an answer from The_Capt, but for this addled brain more examples are better.

[Huntarr]

Billy I agree that there are some silly quirks about the TacAI such as your specific one of the guy straying but 1.04 helped that a little and Charles is working on getting even better. The TacAI is going to be the IMHO the biggest work-in-progress of CMx2.

Phillip, I only play WeGo I feel it is the only way we are going to make the overall TacAI better. The RT will only be improved if the AI can help you do the little things in 60sec. Slow and Overwatch are the name of the game. I have the patience to rewind every turn and check for what every moving unit did for 60secs. As a Scout Sniper it was all about slow and observation. I have to in order to find and report bugs. I don't have the luxury of just rushing my game to play. Believe it or not I have yet to finish the Campaign, due to testing and save format changes and testing every scenario after a new beta 1.0xx Yes the AI has to be guided more so right now than what we are used to from CMx1 but that is because this engine is so much more complex. Time is all we really need and the information that we share only helps us get a better game. As long as we don't get that BS of "fundamental flaw" crap going.

EDIT add: Those were just some saves that I could finish up real fast. I can try to show some more later.

[adultery]