Jump to content

Zealous Medics


Recommended Posts

BigDuke6,

Plus the little pixel soldiers, unlike real ones, will keep doing their thing rather than hug the ground and/or hide when a tank points its main gun at them.

Yeah, we've had this discussion a couple of times and this is one of those situations where AI programming runs into some game problems. And that is, having your guys preemptively take cover because of a perceived threat is realistic only if the reaction is correctly modeled. Otherwise all you have to do is get near the enemy an start spinning your tank around in circles and all the enemy goes for cover or heads for hills. Obviously we'd have a few complaints about that :)

Having said that, we do have it on our minds as to a way to improve the TacAI behavior in a way that would probably be worth the effort.

PLUS (this last one I can't state as fact, but I suspect it) CMSF tank gunners don't miss very much.

I think this is a function of several things. First, range... I think most circumstances where this happens are well under 500m. At that range even a WW2 tank should usually hit first shot. Second, these aren't WW2 tanks :D Even the crappiest targeting system on the Syrian side is better than what was available in WW2. Or at the very least, no worse. Third, the terrain often is very not-friendly to squishes being targeted by treadheads. In the wide open both cover and intervening terrain are often lacking, while in urban environments the terrain often helps contribute to casualties.

Net result: Single Tank HE shells erase half squads/crews routinely, and squads quite frequently.

As has been stated here every time "clumping" comes up, the game already accounts for this by downgrading the effects of big boom-booms. This was done in CMx1 even more because in that game system all the guys in a unit were in a single pixel. So all effects were abstracted. For CMx2 we are able to abstract less, but we still have to abstract it somewhat.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are we basing these opinions regarding medic behaviour on? If one of your blokes goes down you get him out - that's it - its what you do. He's one of your mates - somebody you went through training with, somebody you've been drinking with, somebody whose wedding you went to, somebody you'd do anything for, somebody you've spent the best years of your life with - in essence somebody who you have a closer bond with than anybody else in the world. Ask anybody who's been in the Army - you're not fighting for your country .... or victory points ... you're fighting for your mates.

Well, I look at it like this. If the picture of my buddy's girlfriend is exceptionally important to unit morale, I'll go out and try to retrieve it. But, since I can't come up with a reason to save the picture, and not my buddy, I go ahead and try to save my buddy in the process. Generally, though, if someone already goes out to get the picture before me, and also gets hit; I'm not likely to go out for them until the tactical situation changes. Dramatically. Some situations would cause me to override my diminished sense of self-survival, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigDuke6,

Yeah, we've had this discussion a couple of times and this is one of those situations where AI programming runs into some game problems. And that is, having your guys preemptively take cover because of a perceived threat is realistic only if the reaction is correctly modeled. Otherwise all you have to do is get near the enemy an start spinning your tank around in circles and all the enemy goes for cover or heads for hills. Obviously we'd have a few complaints about that :)

Having said that, we do have it on our minds as to a way to improve the TacAI behavior in a way that would probably be worth the effort.

Just a quick note on realism:

Several years back I corresponded with a US Army major who was building a combat model that was built on "realistic" individual psyches and training in response to real and perceived threats. I built my own simulation based on his papers and also tested his simulation out... believe me, if you're playing a game where you expect to have fun, "realistic" is NOT what you want. "Realistic" is brutal, unsparing, and occasionally very, very short. (Consider Steve's example: is it really that unrealistic to think that a Red force might run at the sight of a tank if they didn't feel up to taking it on? Not so much.)

In short, you have to be very careful that their reactions are "correctly modeled" (to borrow Steve's phrase), meaning (my meaning) that they still create situations that will be largely entertaining for the player. I think that when gamers ask for realism they mean that their specific ideal or target scenario is pre-coded to have the correct "look and feel" which may be in fact be one possible realistic response or fun to watch but very, very hard to simulate generically. As a gamer that's what *I* tend to really mean, anyway. ;)

In short, it's hard to make an AI play an enjoyable game without tons of specific coding (which is why, for example, generic bots in FPSes do such a poor job of being anything other than successively harder-to-kill targets). I think BFC has done a stunning job in this regard. You feel like you're facing an opponent instead of a machine, and you're leading entities that respond well to most situations instead of needing constant supervision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are we basing these opinions regarding medic behaviour on? If one of your blokes goes down you get him out - that's it - its what you do. He's one of your mates - somebody you went through training with, somebody you've been drinking with, somebody whose wedding you went to, somebody you'd do anything for, somebody you've spent the best years of your life with - in essence somebody who you have a closer bond with than anybody else in the world. Ask anybody who's been in the Army - you're not fighting for your country .... or victory points ... you're fighting for your mates.

I agree completely: you get him out. You don't stand out in the open 15 meters away from the enemy soldiers who wounded him trying to dress his wounds on the spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philip,

I think that when gamers ask for realism they mean that their specific ideal or target scenario is pre-coded to have the correct "look and feel" which may be in fact be one possible realistic response or fun to watch but very, very hard to simulate generically.

Yes, I think that's what we all have in mind. We want a certain balance between realism and entertainment. Too much in either direction is bad. Too realistic and the game suddenly holds no entertainment value. Too unrealistic and there's no entertainment value. And that's because we want to be entertained with a mix of elements.

A perfect example of this cropped up the other day when an experienced soldier and tester played a scenario I made for the Brit Campaign. The conclusion was that it was a lot of fun, but in the real world the British force would have pulled back at the first sign of trouble and had the entire area in front of them hit hard with massed artillery and/or sustained air attacks. It would have probably taken less time to do that and then advance, than it would have been to slug through it without such support. BUT where is the fun in that? Exactly :D

And for those who think this issue is related to modern warfare only... read your history books again. Time after time you'll see battles where one side disengages prematurely in order to come back a few hours, days, weeks, or even months later with a different plan, force structure, support assets, whatever. Once again, do people really want to set up and maneuver their forces (which takes hours in real life time) only to have a short 20 minute firefight and then pull back or watch the enemy run away but be unable to do anything about it? Call me crazy, but I don't think so :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely: you get him out. You don't stand out in the open 15 meters away from the enemy soldiers who wounded him trying to dress his wounds on the spot.

Let me clarify this statement. I repeat: I'm not asking for a functionality that has soldiers drag their wounded to safety. That would be way too complicated. All I'm asking is that they don't leave safety without orders to do so, because that simplifies the issue. In all of my games, I try my hardest to medic every casualty. Is it too much to ask that I ensure that the area is secure before my men move in to provide medical aid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

What you said about realism vs entertainment. I find the majority of QB's that get set up would never happen cos the troops would look at what they had to achieve with what they had to hand and promptly bugger off and wait for reinforcements, artillery or air support.

For example, one quick battle, I had a platoon of AT strykers and MGS defending a small village on a hill vs the Syrian hordes. In reality I suspect it would be a quick volley of fire then scarper, not hang about for 25-40minutes while the infantry infiltrate into RPG range and promptly barbecue your vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...