Anticipating v.1.12

[Peter Panzer]

As someone who came to CMBO after it had endured it's growing pains, signing on for and sticking with CMSF from its launch has been an eye opening experience. I am delighted that BFC is working on another round of refinements and fixes.

Briefly, v.1.11 was another step forward in many areas, but it also had some less than ideal consequences for a few principle actions within the game. Here are some requests for v.1.12 beginning with three points aimed at adjusting the regressive portions of v.1.11 and mitigating the predictability of some significant v1.10 behavior.

• Humvee and MTVR gunners button up if even a few rounds impact on their vehicle. Presumbably, the self preservation routine for AFV commanders is hyperactive and overstepping its bounds in this case. Gunners in the primary weapon stations of these vehicles should remain "up" and scanning for and engaging targets when under fire. Experience levels do not have any effect on this outcome.

You can find a few more details on this subject here.

• Current weapon use for most IFV's, especially those with with ATGM's, comes across as overly simplified and presents unecessary limits to the player.
  • IFV's with ATGM's (M2, M3, BMP-2) employ their missles exclusively versus structures via "Target" and autocannons are wholly used for area fire or "Target Light" versus structures. Coaxial guns are completely left out of the equation.
    
  • The BMP-1 will use its ATGM's exclusively versus structures via "Target" and only the coaxial gun for area fire or "Target Light" versus structures. The 73mm is not used at all in either case.
    
  • The BMP-3 will only employ the 30mm versus structures or area fire via "Target Light." The coaxial gun never factors in.

Given that a redesign of the targeting commands in CMSF is unlikely, I believe that reinstating these pre v.1.11 outcomes would be an adequate compromise and produce more plausible, sequential results overall:

Structures:

Target=mostly autocannon/100mm/73mm, occasional ATGM

Target Light=mostly GPMG, occasional autocannon/100mm/73mm

Area Target:

Target=mostly autocannon/100mm/73mm, occasional GPMG

Target Light=mostly GPMG, occasional autocannon/100mm/73mm

• This issue existed in v.1.10 and perhaps well before it. Infantry in buildings and on rooftops cannot be spotted until they fire their weapons. This gaurantees them the initiative 100% of the time. The number of eyes/optics observing, time spent observing, range and experience/fatigue levels do not have any effect on this outcome.

You can find more details here.

Below are a few more alterations that would be quite welcome:

• Allow the M707 (recon humvee) to use the "Target" and "Cover Arc" tools just as the UNCON spies currently do. Guessing you have LOS isn't desireable for an unarmed recon vehicle that depends on concealment for survival. The ability to scan a sector would also be very helpful.
  
• Allow teams to "Unaquire" extra items, at least while they are mounted.
  
• Allow units to exit from the map edge.
  
• If possible, permit waypoints to be adjusted/moved once placed on the map.

Finally, here are a few items pertaining to graphics/visuals:

• M16A4/M203 handguard remains truncated. The M16A4 model was fixed in v.1.11 (thank you!), but it did not get applied to the M203 version.

• Syrian armor crews are missing their unique AFV unit portrait in the UI (the infantry portrait is used instead). BLUFOR AFV crew portraits were added in v.1.10, but their REDFOR counterparts did not receive the treatment.

• There is an odd washing out of the textures on the T-72 front fenders. Perhaps as a result of the light reflections being modeled.

• TOW's and ERA blocks do not "reset" during WEGO playback. Admittedly this is minor, however given all of the outstanding work polishing playback in v.1.11 I thought I would mention it.

It certainly has been interesting to watch the game improve overall. In my experience, absolutes, like the first three items listed above, diminish the fun and erode the level of realism the game seeks to portray in wider sum. Hopefully, by drawing attention to them they can be addressed with the ultimate goal of making a more rewarding, intuitive game for those who appreciate and revel in the detail and "simulation" aspirations of the game.

Thanks for taking a look.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[akd]

Yes, autocannons are chock full of win, but you can "lose" in CMSF because of collateral damage. Besides simply making the game intuitive (target light should use the lightest weapon system available), that alone is reason enough to allow for controlled use of the coaxial MG, and likewise separation of autocannon from ATGM use.

[MikeyD]

I think Steve said elsewhere that the next eventual patch will probably be named v1.2, not v1.12. Perhaps (just a guess) to coincide with the 2nd module.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Wengart]

I would just be happy if my BMP gunners would stop reloading the AT-4 mid battle.

[Flanker15]

That glowing bit on the T-72s is related to the saturation of light process on some graphics cards, it's believed to be the same thing that makes the shell casings white for some of us. It seemed that it can't be fixed on battlefront's end.

[MarkEzra]

That glowing bit on the T-72s is related to the saturation of light process on some graphics cards, it's believed to be the same thing that makes the shell casings white for some of us. It seemed that it can't be fixed on battlefront's end.

This is exactly the case.

[Peter Panzer]

Adam/Akd

Besides simply making the game intuitive (target light should use the lightest weapon system available), that alone is reason enough to allow for controlled use of the coaxial MG, and likewise separation of autocannon from ATGM use.

Indeed. I'll hasten to add that occasions arise where it is tactically sound to conserve your units medium and heavy ordnance in anticipation of future threats. Since we do not have "Target Light/Medium/Heavy" options, we must rely on the AI to create the "blend" of weapons used and in what proportions given the two options we have.

The v.1.10 "blend/proportions," although not perfect, made a lot more sense than the present incarnation.

MikeyD/MarkEzra

...the next eventual patch will probably be named v1.2...

Thanks. Can you comment on any of the issues effecting gameplay (gunner behavior, IFV weapon use, infantry in structures/rooftops) without compromising your NDA with BFC? Are the testers taking an honest look at these items? If I am perceived to be offbase please let me know as I will gladly talk through the issues.

Suffice to say, I wouldn't be wasting my time drafting these posts if I didn't think these behaviors had diminishing effects on the game's attempt to portray real world operations.

Wengart

I would just be happy if my BMP gunners would stop reloading the AT-4 mid battle.

Well, I guess that depends on the circumstances.

As v.1.11 stands, IFV's with ATGM's will unswervingly work through their entire store of missles when assigned to "Target" a structure. Not only does this absolute approach exhaust heavy munitions and exclude medium ordnance use, but it also requires the gunner to constantly reload the launcher resulting in a very unfortunate cycle of "downtime" at the worst possible moments. Not to mention unesscessarily exposing the gunner to fire.

So, in this case, I agree, the gunners need to primarily rely on autocannons, 100mm/73mm cannons with the AI slipping in an occasional ATGM for an extra bit of motivation - v.1.10 did that rather nicely.

Now, if I have a BMP-1 in the field targetting a M2 at range and the first AT-4 goes tits up, it seems reasonable to me that the gunner would reload the tube.

It's a tricky line to walk for BFC, no doubt, I just happen to think the v.1.10 "weapons blend" was far more sensible and realistic given the limitations of the Target/Target Light scheme.

Flanker15/MarkEzra

That glowing bit on the T-72s is related to the saturation of light process on some graphics cards

Interesting. Thanks, I had not heard that piece of news. I guess we can take that one off of the list!

[MarkEzra]

I don't know about MikeyD but I always look Dis-Honestly at all bug reports.... it's just my way of insuring the game never improves

[Peter Panzer]

I'll take that as a "yes," wise ass.

Another brief note, given the amount of light vehicles in the British Forces Module, making sure gunners in rooftop stations ('1114's, MTVR's , etc.) do not immediately button up at a hint of trouble could become even more far reaching.

Thanks for your help. I will be more than glad to answer any questions.

[SlapHappy]

I'm not sure that it's because they button up that is problematic for me....it's more because you have to go back and unbutton them that makes it a micromanagement PITA.

But yeah, the tendency for them to do so could be down-shifted a bit for me as well.

[MikeyD]

Are the testers taking an honest look at these items?

Yep, I agree with Mark. I'm actually a mole for Atomic Games and have been actively sabotaging the CMSF all along (Don't tell Steve!). :cool:

[Homo ferricus]

Yep, I agree with Mark. I'm actually a mole for Atomic Games and have been actively sabotaging the CMSF all along (Don't tell Steve!). :cool:

I see potential for blackmailing here.

Send me $5,000 cash! No, wait... uh, send me the Brits module two weeks before release.

NO, WAIT... i want your house.

[Guinnessman]

I see potential for blackmailing here.

Send me $5,000 cash! No, wait... uh, send me the Brits module two weeks before release.

NO, WAIT... i want your house.

You want his house instead of the British module 2 weeks early? That's sad, man...just sad

A slight improvement in Syrian AI after my experience in The Orchard Way (which I've touched on briefly in another thread)..... if a BMP3 unloads it's infantry, the infantry should be moving way the hell away from the bump. If you hit those things with anything bigger than a thrown stone, they go up like a suitcase nuke. I'd estimate over a third of the infantry I killed in The Orchard Way didn't get a shot off at me - they were wasted when I killed the BMP3 that they were too lazy to disperse away from. Takes all the fun out of things!

[Battlefront.com]

The buttoning problem for some vehicles has been tweaked already in our development builds, so when v1.20 comes out (and yup, it is v1.20 and not v1.12) that will be all fixed up.

When we designed the game from the start we realized that the plethora of weapons systems on some vehicles, especially the BMP-3, would pose problems for us. No TacAI can possibly handle the range of situations to the player's satisfaction. Far too many circumstantial reasons to do something one way over here and do the opposite over there.

Because we feel, very strongly, that too much micromanagement of weapons usage is overall bad for the game we're content to have some situations be suboptimal. It's a sacrifice to lessen micro management.

HAVING SAID THAT!!

We do think that there are ways where we could possibly allow the player to lead the TacAI by the hand a bit more without introducing more Commands or behaviors which the player has to pay attention to. It's on our primary list for consideration for Normandy.

Steve

[panzermartin]

Please don't forget the multiplayer bug, the one with the passengers losing their weapons!

[Peter Panzer]

Steve:

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

The buttoning problem for some vehicles has been tweaked already in our development builds, so when v1.20 comes out (and yup, it is v1.20 and not v1.12) that will be all fixed up.

That sounds very promising, I look forward to seeing it in action. Thanks!

No TacAI can possibly handle the range of situations to the player's satisfaction. Far too many circumstantial reasons to do something one way over here and do the opposite over there.

I hear you on this, so I want to make sure I am clear. I am not advocating any type of "Target/Light Target" orders overhaul or extensive series of player controls. I do ask that you give serious consideration to aligning the "blend" of weapons the AI uses so that it incorporates a fuller range of the systems available in a more intuitive, escalating fashion. I know you guys are capable of doing so because you had already done it!

If we are going to rely on the AI to select the weapon systems, then the bottom line is v.1.10 did a much better job.

V1.10 worked nicely given the "imperfections" of the two tier "Target/Light Target" system. V.1.11, on the other hand, pushed the weapon selection of the AI to the singular extreme and eliminated the "blend," resulting in the series of misfortunes outlined below...

• IFV's with ATGM's (M2, M3, BMP-2) employ their missles exclusively versus structures via "Target" and autocannons are wholly used for area fire or "Target Light" versus structures. Coaxial guns are completely left out of the equation.
  
• The BMP-1 will use its ATGM's exclusively versus structures via "Target" and only the coaxial gun for area fire or "Target Light" versus structures. The 73mm is not used at all in either case.
  
• The BMP-3 will only employ the 30mm versus structures or area fire via "Target Light." The coaxial gun never factors in.

...and this...

As v.1.11 stands, IFV's with ATGM's will unswervingly work through their entire store of missles when assigned to "Target" a structure. Not only does this absolute approach exhaust heavy munitions and exclude medium ordnance use, but it also requires the gunner to constantly reload the launcher resulting in a very unfortunate cycle of "downtime" at the worst possible moments. Not to mention unesscessarily exposing the gunner to fire.

A gameplay example:

I recall bringing up an M2 in v1.10 (WEGO) to support a beleaguered squad of Mech Infantry who were taking small arms fire from a multi-floored structure.

Assigned a "Target Light" order, the IFV rolled around the corner of a building it was using for cover and began laying direct fire on the facade of the REDFOR strongpoint with the coax - very nice. Then, after four or five bursts of digital 7.62, the gunner flipped over to the M242 and popped a few rounds of 25mm into the mix before reverting back to the coax - "oh, hell yes," says I.

This is the "blend" I refer to, all accomplished with a single "Target Light" order. This is not possible in v.1.11 because "Target Light" for a M2 now translates into exclusive use of the 25mm.

The REDFOR infantry didn't take the hint. So, I transitioned to a "Target" order. Now the gunner begins laying bursts of 25mm into the structure with great effect for a full turn. No need to send my Doggies where I can send ordnance, so I continue to have the M2 suppress the targets in the building with the M242 for an additional turn when, to my surprise, the gunner touches off a TOW in between his work with the autocannon - "oh, f*ck yes," says I.

Again, the "blend" with a logical, escalating methodology allowing the player at least semi-control using the two tier command system. This too is not possible in v1.11 because the IFV will systematically fire every TOW in its inventory before using the M242 - inflexible, absolute, not fun.

What's more, forget about occupying the target structure because you just dropped it while the gunner was deliriously expending all of the ATGM's. Of course, that assumes your M2 gunner didn't get aired out while reloading the tube six times over in the face of the guys he should be whacking with the Bushmaster.

Please give me reason to begin using more foul language, in the good way noted above, when playing your game.

Blend it baby, just like in v.1.10...

Structures:

Target=mostly autocannon/100mm/73mm, occasional ATGM

Target Light=mostly GPMG, occasional autocannon/100mm/73mm

Area Target:

Target=mostly autocannon/100mm/73mm, occasional GPMG

Target Light=mostly GPMG, occasional autocannon/100mm/73mm

[Splinty]

Another less known aspect of the TOW reload process is the fact that in RL the dismounts reload the TOW, not the gunner.

[Other Means]

Peter, while I see the point of what you're saying - and I don't disagree - you could achieve what you want with a waypoint with a target command on it, a tiny reverse and advance and a "target light" on the final waypoint.

I do remember the arguments when 1.10 was out to more tightly restrict the firing of weapons to the target command. Maybe given that people made those arguments, and you can still do what you want with waypoints, it should stay how it is?

At least it's more predictable.

[akd]

Seems like a lot of AI gymnastics to perform when the basic problem is units with 3 major weapon systems (IFVs) pigeonholed into a system designed for units with 2 major weapon systems (MBTs).

Adding an additional command is hardly micromanagement if in order to avoid the problems resulting from above, the player is forced to perform even greater feats of micromanagement. Every time you have to babysit a unit because you do not know if it is going to do what you expect it to do (or what is intuitive to the situation) when given an order, load is increased on the player and frustration with the UI results (despite it being "streamlined").

[Battlefront.com]

PeterPanzer,

V1.10 worked nicely given the "imperfections" of the two tier "Target/Light Target" system. V.1.11, on the other hand, pushed the weapon selection of the AI to the singular extreme and eliminated the "blend," resulting in the series of misfortunes outlined below...

But that's just the problem I'm talking about... the behavioral differences between v1.11 and v1.12 were added because they were requested to address other targeting issues. That's my primary point here... there's no way for the TacAI to cover all circumstances equally well all the time every time. So we appear to be in the stage of diminishing returns on tweaking things because we're simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak. Or put another way, by "fixing" one problem we cause another which possibly wasn't there before. At some point we're just chasing our tails.

AKD,

Seems like a lot of AI gymnastics to perform when the basic problem is units with 3 major weapon systems (IFVs) pigeonholed into a system designed for units with 2 major weapon systems (MBTs).

Not true at all. We knew before one line of CMx2 code was written that some vehicles could have as many as 4 different weapons systems, or more if you count distinct ammo types fired from the same weapon. This could be true for WW2 as well, though 3 different systems was usually the max then as it is now. Therefore, the question has always been how to best handle the diversity without bogging down the gameplay. It's a common dilemma for us to face.

Adding an additional command is hardly micromanagement if in order to avoid the problems resulting from above, the player is forced to perform even greater feats of micromanagement.

This argument can be made for dozens of different things in the game. The fact is that if we put in commands for everything people wanted, and everything that people didn't trust the TacAI to do "right", there would probably be 50 or more Commands to choose from. Possibly twice that many. This simply isn't practical, nor is it better.

One gamer says "my pet peeve deserves an exception" and the next gamer says "well, if that guy is asking for something for his pet peeve then I want something for mine as well, which is... of course... not the same pet peeve". Soon you have a thread with 100 posts in it with each person making a case for why their pet peeve deserves special attention. Worse, the person making the new argument for change generally agrees that everything already mentioned should also be added. Gamers aren't much for prioritizing and being mindful of limited resources

If you don't believe this is the way things work around here, you need to read the feature request threads that are almost always on the first page of this Forum. There's at least one right now and you're currently reading it

Every time you have to babysit a unit because you do not know if it is going to do what you expect it to do (or what is intuitive to the situation) when given an order, load is increased on the player and frustration with the UI results (despite it being "streamlined").

Now, this is where I agree with you. Sometimes a routine task, that the majority of players feel they have to micromanage, crops up and that means the majority of players spend more time trying to work around the UI than are content to work with the UI. Targeting has always been one of these cases, even in CMx1 which had slightly more simplified weapons systems.

But what is the solution? More Commands? I don't think so. Here's why...

The BMP-3, for example, has the following:

Two bow MMGs

One coax MMG

One coax 30mm cannon

One cannon, firing several types of ammo

In real life these can be fired in any combination. How do we significantly improve the player's ability to choose what he wants to fire and when? Forgetting ammo choices for a second, there are how many possible combinations of weapons to use for a given situation? I'm terrible with math, so I'm probably UNDER counting when I say there are 21 different possibilities. Therefore, to get the full range of choices (still forgetting about ammo types!) that would require 21 unique Commands.

Obviously that's not useful, so the literal way of doing it is ruled out. Every choice less than that is a compromise which will still produce situations where the player is unhappy with the TacAI's choice. So we're in a bind because the TacAI must be trusted simply because it's impractical for the Human to have 100% satisfaction.

On top of this, there are other game considerations. If I choose to have the BMP fire only the 30mm Coax at an enemy vehicle, should it keep doing that even if it doesn't appear to be doing any damage? Should the TacAI be allowed to sense that the player would probably like to switch to the main gun and use one of the precious few ATGM rounds? Or should the BMP slavishly follow what the player has requested because it must assume the player knows what he's doing? What should the BMP do when it finds a threat and there isn't any specific instructions from the player? Nothing? Obviously not, so the TacAI is going to have to make it's best guess and go with that. Which may, or may not, be what the player wants it to do.

The other issue is that MOST of the time the TacAI selects the weapons that are best suited to defeating the specified target. Therefore, MOST of the time any further complications to issuing a command to fire on that target will be seen as cumbersome. "I just want to tell this guy to shoot at that guy... don't bother me with the details!!" is what the vast majority of players want the vast majority of the times. In fact, most players are happy with this behavior even when the choice isn't optimal because, at least intuitively, they understand it beats the Hell out of micromanaging every single targeting instruction every time all the time.

OK, so with all that said you might be thinking we've got no ideas on how to improve the targeting behavior so that the player can, selectively, be very specific with what weapons to fire when. That's not the case at all We've got dozens of different ideas sitting gathering dust. Why? Because we're not convinced that this is such a huge issue that we have to drop everything else and start working on some sort of major UI change to address what is really a minor issue. Annoying as it may be, as meaningful as it may be to one specific situation, this is small potatoes. That being said, there are 2 design change proposals I'm hoping will become reality for CM: Normandy. Not sure if they will make the cut or not (as I said, this is not the most important thing for us to be working on), but I hope that at least one of the two can come to the game soon.

Steve

[c3k]

Hmmm,

Sounds like time for the "HOLD" weapon command! I'm sure there's _someone_ around here who's put it forth before...

Thanks,

Ken

[SlapHappy]

Ahhhh...but sometimes a lack of choice leads to problems with allowing the player to be clever........

SPOILER

In the Streets of Hama mission there are two T-90's back to back in the extreme right side of the screen. They are shielded on both sides by buildings. I was able to target an destroy the front one by approaching with an M1 from a frontal angle. Now I've got one pissed off T-90 shielded by buildings on the left and right the map limit in the back and a T-90 wreck in the front. I chose to blast away at the building with HEAT on it's left flank to try and expose it. I used up all my HEAT trying to blast the building down, but wasn't able to target the building side well enough to get all shots in-place and bring down the building. I was able to blow away the nearest wall section, however.

Now I can target the far wall with Sabot rounds and....guess what....sabot round through the opposing wall and right into the side of the T-90...BOOM! The differences in the way the various rounds work can lead to different tactics. It would have been nice to simply target a line of fire where I knew the T-90 was and simply shoot it.

Barring that it would have been nice to not have to expend all my HEAT rounds to pull of this effect. The system assumed I was shooting a building and not the T-90 on the other side so it automatically chose HEAT rounds to my detriment.

[SlapHappy]

I still see what Steve is saying here, though....

Say we had a button for each weapon the UI. If we click it then that weapon button lights up and that weapon becomes "active" and can be used by the AI as per your orders. Now let's say your LAV is in MG coax mode only an is hosing down some infantry in a trench, when a BMP-2 comes into LOS way down the map several hundred meters. Normally, the AI would begin pumping 25 mm into that target, but you've told it not to so....a couple crucial seconds later the BMP sends a Sagger right up your tailpipe.

How would you feel....you'd be pissed, to say the least.

Maybe there is some middle ground here where selective and automatic fire options can blend seamlessly, I don't know. I have to admit, I haven't thought of a perfect solution.