Pathfinding and Infantry Effectiveness

[Calvin]

'lo all-

Will shortly find time to take patch 1.03 out for a spin.

In the meantime, I was wondering if improvements to pathfinding and the AI have remedied the tendency of infantry to mindlessly continue on their assigned path until they are (rapidly) eliminated to a man.

I do understand that modern firepower makes infantry assaults without adequate covering fire, overwatch, artillery/tac air and other prep suicidal. However, in previous versions, I almost never bothered to dismount infantry even after reducing enemy targets to shards with AFV and indirect fire. They just got eaten alive.

Any improvements here? Please report!

PS>> while I'm hardly the reincarnation of Napoleon (at least when the Haldol's working), I am a reasonably competent wargamer, and observe the essential do's and don'ts of combined arms ops. So I really think this is a game issue, and not due to some fundamental tactical blunder on my part.

[Calvin]

Anybody?

[SgtMuhammed]

It seems somewhat better. I think the changes in LOS make the difference though because they still run around like idiots.

[massive1974]

hey,

my experience is that in open areas out in the desert you really need to grind the Syrians into the ground before letting your troops move up. But that's logical and anyway they do have the sense of getting into the empty trenches and using them. I rarely do an assault, rather have them simply "move". That's much better for awareness. So that's OK.

In cities heavy covering fire does the trick for me. However, if there is a main entrance in the line of fire and one in the back they still tend to use the main door. They're either being polite or it's part of an abstraction element.

[Calvin]

Thanks fellahs.

I agree that attacks over open ground SHOULD be suicidal, as it's like Verdun all over again only with assault rifles to go with the machine guns.

But I do think that, even over open ground, when infantry attacks a heavily reduced Syrian force that remains under overwatch and is receiving constant fire from strykers/M1's and deployed MG squads--- that sounds like a mopping up operation to me. What happens instead is that remnant Syrian squads remain lethal, capable of eliminating fresh US infantry in short order.

A final concern (and I'd like to hear if your experience has been similar), deployed infantry seem LESS capable of spotting/identifying enemy units than buttoned up AFV's in the same area.

Still needs some work methinks. I think the game should punish tactical blunders mercilessly, but when the player is observing good combined arms tactics, CM:SF should better reflect reality.

Thanks again for your input. I think I'll skip the "Assault" command for the now and use the "Move" order per massive1974 suggestion.

[massive1974]

I can't say that my AFVs are better at spotting than the troops...but they're definitely better in relaying info. So, it might just happen that when AFV's spot sth they are aware of it for a longer time than troops, who by moving around, have to spot and re-spot much more often. AFV's seem to retain info better probably due to the better comms. That might explain what you experience. But this is just a wild, very undereducated guess.

[Calvin]

That's a reasonable theory, and would be a realistic thing to model in the game (i.e. AFV's better comms).

But I've noticed failure to spot the enemy even when the infantry squad is about 10 meters away, or even taking active fire from the un-spotted target.

I think one payoff for dismounting/risking your infantry is having better "eyes" on the field. Not terribly well-modeled in CMSF, hope it gets patched!

[thewood]

In CM1 I brought infantry along because they were better at spotting and hiding than an AFV. I do not find that in CMSF. I find that infantry can't hide effectively and AFVs are better at spotting.

[Calvin]

Word.

[massive1974]

The world of combat has changed. Robots roam the battlefields of today. Our future is in danger. Hasta la vista, baby.