Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different

[SlapHappy]

As an example, the "fighting withdrawal" was something the Germans resorted to often and were apparently quite good at. Unfortunately, CM scale does not permit the unbridled simulation of such a maneuver. The maps are just not large enough to pull this off.

What it can do quite well is simulate an entrenched repel-defend at all costs immobile combatant.

It will be very helpful with the addition of exit zones to at least try and bring the elastic defense with maneuver element to bear in this iteration of CM. I foresee a lot of narrow frontage, higher depth maps in CM:BN.

[SlapHappy]

Seemed perfectly reasonable result to me. I made a very bad tactical decision, countermanded a sensible TacAI decision, and then got wiped out. Would this ever happen in real life? Probably not. But what is the game supposed to do about this... not allow me to move the rest of the Squad into that house? How would it even know not to do this?

Steve

Exactly. And this is why, personally, I have toyed with the idea of self-restraining any attempt to manipulate any unit this is withdrawing or repositioning based on TACAI morale results. At least until after that AI movement has been completed.

It's just hard sometimes to drive out the impulse to compound a stupid maneuver with another stupid maneuver....

[JonS]

As an example, the "fighting withdrawal" was something the Germans resorted to often and were apparently quite good at. Unfortunately, CM scale does not permit the unbridled simulation of such a maneuver.

The whole point of this thread is that this is now much more doable than in the past. Part of it is, yes, map design, but a big part of it in CMx1 was the extreme difficulty of moving backwards. A lot of the issues that cause that difficulty have been mitigated for CMBN.

[~Viajero]

Very interesting discussion no doubt...

I would tend to agree whith those that suggest casualty numbers realism or lack thereof in games is also heavily influenced by the tactics used by each player, not just the game engine and model.

I would like to add to teh discussion a "maybe" relevant extrapolation to a game I just happened to get involved with, and that some of you may know. It is Arma (well Arma 2 in this case), an allegedly very realistic FPS that is also allegedely portrays and simulates very faithfully infantry engagements (it also covers vehicles and aircarft but from what I have seen it excels at infantry above all else).

If some of you know this game you could probably confirm that players behaviour here is nothing compared with your usual FPS rambo style. In Arma, one typically spend 30 minutes quitely eating grass and crawling or even static to then just die of a single shot in less than 1 second firefight. It goes without sayingt that the survival instincts and behaviour JasonC and others suggest as more realistic, and limiting real casualties, is in theory applied to the letter here. Hear a hand grenade nearby? Go prone and stay there for the next 10 minutes.

Nevertheless, in your usual average difficulty mission here, most of the time out of the 2 or 3 squads in one side, losses amount up 80%+, and more often than not we are all wiped out (either human against AI or human vs human). Granted, most of my fellow friend players are also new to the game and inexperience may be a reason for this but still, we die because try to go on and achieve the objective no matter what when in reality if our squad was real they would have probably withdrawn or flee. This is a game and if we die, we can still come back and play another mission.

Point is the game seems to be one of the most realistic around forcing players to really apply survival instincts as portrayed by JasonC etc. Nevertheless we die like flies becuase we know is a game and we do not mind maybe trying going that extra yard that may gets us closer to our target, but that ends up killing us. Tunguska spotted 400m away? Hmm... let me try crawling so to place that satchel charge and blew it up! fun!... ok, wait, what?

It is not just the game engine or model, it's (in a significant part) us. Maybe it has been discussed already but one ways of maybe forcing players to behave more realistically would be to make geographical flags or positions held Victory Points subject to a certain cap of own units losses. It could be maybe done in a stage manner, i.e. if losses are betwen 10-30% you only get 80% of flags VP, if you get more than 30% then you get only 50% of flags VP etc, or something along those lines. At least it would give a different priority to players, a bit more akin with self preservation.

[Lt Belenko]

I don't play CMSF, but the best thing I'm reading about that will preserve troops is the ammo resupply feature. In CM1X, a 40 minute game left most of my guys low an ammo and a 60 minute game often resulted in me forcing bullet-less men rushing the flag.

In CM2X, the additional time in a 2 hour game will allow extensive manuevering, and the additional bullets will allow massive and continuous suppression fire, thus preserving troop life.

[c3k]

Hmmm, I'm just sitting here wondering about playing a game which would take 14 hours MINIMUM to complete one battle, most of which was bombardment. I don't think there'd be much of a market for that.

Ken

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Before I begin answering your posts, note that your questions don't have much to do with the topics being discussed.

they are directly related to the fidelity of infantry simulation?

I'm not sure I know what you mean. "Fidelity" is the degree of detail found in a particular part of the game. "Consistency" is how frequently the results are within acceptable bounds compared to being outside acceptable bounds. What do you think in CM:SF isn't behaving that way?

for example the "snap to 8 meter grid" functionality is not consistent with the rest of the game. the level of fidelity just doesn't match. i think it's quite obvious. it's not any kind of game breaker, though sometimes it's a pain, especially in situations that contain some form of keyholing.

there are a number of other inconsistent fidelity infantry simulation aspects, like the lacking building interior simulation, too tight formations, lack of "crawl 3 meters to cover" AI, lack of friendly LOF blocking, the tendency of fire in certain situations to hit walls and corners unrealistically and so forth.

If you wish to consider this an exception to "no difference" that's fine with me. It doesn't change what I wrote.

you simply do not need to move a unit 20 meters or into another tile to break LOS in CMx1 and an individual 20x20 meter tile can contain lot's of variation.

it's simply not true and anyone can check it out in CMx1.

No, there is no plans on changing the fidelity because it is unnecessary.

i hope that's true.

CMx1 was low fidelity, CMx2 is higher fidelity.

what comes to unit positioning CMx1 has superior fidelity.

[c3k]

urc,

Your last point regarding CMx1 vice CMx2 unit positioning fidelity: Just because you could tweak a CMx1 unit by fractions of meters, does NOT mean higher fidelity. Let me explain my reasoning.

If my CMx1 icon was repositioned by .5 meter, what does that mean? Sure, you change the unit's stats by whatever terrain/LOS that .5m represents. In CMx2, you see each man. A USMC 13 man squad cannot just shift everyone forward 1/2 a meter. The guy behind the wall? That would put him IN FRONT of the wall. The guy who's crawled into a shellhole? Now he's flat on the pavement. Etc. If you want to adjust just one man, you have some tools in CMx2. Split the squad into the various teams. In some cases you'll end up with one man.

The use of trees as cover? Not in CMx1. There the icon stays in a WOODS tile.

I'd say that CMx1 offered the ILLUSION of greater PRECISION in unit placement. The unit as a point in space with a vulnerable beaten area around it, versus each individual.

Regards,

Ken

[undead reindeer cavalry]

strong modelling of suppression goes long ways into limiting suicidal heroics. if you have trouble moving your men into effective weapon ranges there will be lot's less killing and dying. as a bonus the battles start to follow historical patterns and dynamics. having never played CMBN i have no idea if that's exactly how the game plays.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

I'd say that CMx1 offered the ILLUSION of greater PRECISION in unit placement.

it's a funny illusion because it's directly related to the ability to get the MG to the spot required to be able to fire at the target specified (this is my real issue, not the intentional LOF breaking). in CMx2 my choises are available only by every 8 meters and even then it's up to how the soldier in question ends up positioned within those 64 square meters. even if there is by divine luck a LOF between my possible tiles and the target area (the combination of tile positions (different tiles, not positions within 8x8m tiles) is limited), the soldier may not have LOF or his fire may mind-numbingly repeatedly hit some static terrain feature on the path to the target. yes, it's partly a map design question, but the more realistic the map (more clutter and LOF blockers) the worse the issue. it's not the end of the world - i just have troubles accepting that the fidelity in this regard is higher in CMx2.

[Battlefront.com]

they are directly related to the fidelity of infantry simulation?

Not really. As c3k pointed out, "fidelity" of CMx1 was an illusion. As I said in my earlier posts, from a simulation standpoint there was no difference whether a Squad was on the extreme right or the extreme left of a 20x20m Tile. As far s the simulation was concerned, you were in the same exact terrain in both points and every point within. Special exceptions made for "linear" terrain such as walls and roads.

I don't know about Finland, but I'm pretty sure you won't find 20x20m pieces of ground with 100% identical terrain within. Then .00001m you cross a line and now you have 20x20m of identical terrain again.

So the inherent level of fidelity of CMx1's terrain was extremely crude, both in terms of variety of types and in terms of variation within a specific Tile. How units interacted with it is a different issue. This is where some design for effect elements created the illusion that you weren't playing in big 20x20m chunks. But you were.

for example the "snap to 8 meter grid" functionality is not consistent with the rest of the game. the level of fidelity just doesn't match.

The fidelity of the simulation is entirely consistent because the terrain within an 8x8m Action Spot is interacted with by the soldiers in very small detail. Not 100% simulated real life (no furniture and walls in buildings, for example), but pretty close. And because the terrain is inherently more realistically varied within a given number of meters, the fidelity is vasty more detailed than CMx1.

On top of this the systems within the game resolve down to those individual positions and individual Soldiers. Effects are, therefore, truly dependent upon those individual positions. Therefore, the game is internally consistent.

The control of placement is a separate issue. While the simulation is setup to have individual soldiers placed partial meter, the player can't do two things:

1. Instruct any one individual soldier to do something specific. Players order Units, not individuals.

2. Instruct a unit to move a customized number of meters. Action Spot to Action Spot is the only option.

This has nothing to do with the fidelity of the simulation. Instead, both of these are restrictions on player behavior necessary to have a playable game. The first issue is to prevent over micromanagement (and the UI necessary for it), the second is to allow the average PC to handle the CPU calculations for LOS on top of everything else.

there are a number of other inconsistent fidelity infantry simulation aspects, like the lacking building interior simulation, too tight formations, lack of "crawl 3 meters to cover" AI, lack of friendly LOF blocking, the tendency of fire in certain situations to hit walls and corners unrealistically and so forth.

Not so much fidelity problems, but rather practical limitations on what PCs can handle. And for those situations we use "design for effect" methods which are consistent with the "engineered" effects. I've not said anything in this entire thread that contradicts this.

You should not be thinking in absolutes. CMx1 was mostly designed for effect, but it had some very detailed engineered aspects. CMx2 is mostly engineered, but it still needs some things to be designed for effect. It's never an "either or" type thing.

you simply do not need to move a unit 20 meters or into another tile to break LOS in CMx1 and an individual 20x20 meter tile can contain lot's of variation.

it's simply not true and anyone can check it out in CMx1.

That's simply not true and nobody needs to check either game to see that:)

Even if CM:BN had the same restricted variety of terrain types, it still has 4x more variation within any given 20x20m space compared to CMx1. But that's just a part of it. CM:BN allows for several additional types of terrain to be mixed into a single 8x8m space than was possible in CMx1.

These are simple facts that can not be argued with.

Ask yourself this... how small of a gap could you make in CMBO Bocage? 20m is the only answer I can think of (I don't think we had a special "break" tile, but I could be wrong). How small of a gap can you have in CM:BN? 8m without a special "break", 1m with a special "break".

what comes to unit positioning CMx1 has superior fidelity.

True, user control over positioning a unit in CMx1 had higher fidelity in most cases. However, this is an illusion. In CMx1 there were types of terrain that blocked movement, correct? Well, that meant those pieces prevented all movement within 20x20m. Having precise control over where the unit moved was, therefore, irrelevant. In CMx1 there would be roughly 4x Action Spots in the same physical space, any of which could be blocked or not. So in CMx2 you can have more operational flexibility because the terrain is more refined. This means that user placement within CMx2 is, in some cases, far more precise than in CMx1.

Another thing is about elevation changes. CMx2 allows roughly 4x as many variations of elevation within a given space than CMx1. This is because the terrain mesh in CMx1 was based on 20x20m squares, CMx2 is based on 8x8m squares. Again, this is simple math that anybody can see without having to look in the games themselves.

But why does that matter when absolutely everything in CMx1 was of a radically lower fidelity? Given a player more control over a lower fidelity simulation doesn't make the fidelity any higher. Just like reducing player control over a higher fidelity simulation doesn't lower its fidelity PROVIDED the TacAI behaves in compliance with the higher fidelity. Which it does, so there is no problem.

This is not to say that there aren't times when the player is frustrated he can't move around individual soldiers or move a unit a few meters only. Absolutely agree there and those rough spots are being reduced over time. But again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the underlying fidelity and consistency of the simulation itself.

Nothing.

Steve

[wolf66]

CMx1 was low fidelity, CMx2 is higher fidelity.

Steve

Actually CMx1 is Vinyl and CMx2 is CD - If you really care about music, you know that vinyl is still the superior medium

[Rocky Balboa]

Actually CMx1 is Vinyl and CMx2 is CD - If you really care about music, you know that vinyl is still the superior medium

I like your analogy here. There are those that believe analog is superior to digital sound for listening quality. However, others feel benefits of digital sound cannot be dismissed. Which is the right choice? Answer: Neither or Both ...

If you still have good hardware that will play your analog music then why should you give it up? Life's too short to give up what you enjoy

[dan/california]

it's a funny illusion because it's directly related to the ability to get the MG to the spot required to be able to fire at the target specified (this is my real issue, not the intentional LOF breaking). in CMx2 my choises are available only by every 8 meters and even then it's up to how the soldier in question ends up positioned within those 64 square meters. even if there is by divine luck a LOF between my possible tiles and the target area (the combination of tile positions (different tiles, not positions within 8x8m tiles) is limited), the soldier may not have LOF or his fire may mind-numbingly repeatedly hit some static terrain feature on the path to the target. yes, it's partly a map design question, but the more realistic the map (more clutter and LOF blockers) the worse the issue. it's not the end of the world - i just have troubles accepting that the fidelity in this regard is higher in CMx2.

I think what our Finnish friend is actually trying to say, is that CMX 2 AI at the level of a single team occasionally does things that are obviously idiotic. The one that occasionally makes me nearly pull my hair out is when you have an ATGM team and a squad in the same building or action point and you just can't get the guy with the rocket in position to see the bloody tank. This is obviously a breakdown in the game engine. The question is how bad is it in the overall scheme of things, and what to do about it. Many people on this board want some ability to manipulate individual soldiers positions and actions within a single action spot. Steve has consistently maintained that the way to fix it is to gradually and continually improve the TAC AI so that we have fewer of these little moments, and don't create an unplayable level of micromanagement and with in the game. I have a relatively strong impression that Steve isn't going to change his mind, so the verdict comes down related to whether any given person wants to play anyway.

And I think he's probably right, although there have been moments when you couldn't convince me of that at the point of a gun. CMX2 is already of the limits of a single person's ability to keep track of what's going on. Trying to go from managing 15 or 20 teams to 100 or 200 individual soldiers will just swamp most people. There are certainly plenty of historical anecdotes about Pvt. Jones being unable to get it together, in these cases you just have to tell yourself you're having one of them.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Not really. As c3k pointed out, "fidelity" of CMx1 was an illusion. As I said in my earlier posts, from a simulation standpoint there was no difference whether a Squad was on the extreme right or the extreme left of a 20x20m Tile. As far s the simulation was concerned, you were in the same exact terrain in both points and every point within. Special exceptions made for "linear" terrain such as walls and roads.

lol wtf? seriously? what can i say? you are simply wrong. it does make a difference where you are located within the tile.

This is where some design for effect elements created the illusion that you weren't playing in big 20x20m chunks. But you were.

nay, i beg to differ. again, what can i say. it's evident from how the game behaves that you are not playing in 20x20m chunks. you, the co-designer, are simply wrong, as amazing as it is. i knows bestest!

And because the terrain is inherently more realistically varied within a given number of meters, the fidelity is vasty more detailed than CMx1.

yeah it's quite obvious, no argument there.

On top of this the systems within the game resolve down to those individual positions and individual Soldiers. Effects are, therefore, truly dependent upon those individual positions. Therefore, the game is internally consistent.

The Game is internally consistent in that sense, but the consistency of fidelity in the simulation of a firefight is not only those things you wrote about above. the function of the unit is things like ability to project its firepower in sound way, to utilize the cover offerend by the surroundings in a sound way and ability to move in a sound way. in CMx2's case it's when the unit is able to position the individual soldiers in ways that fulfill the unit's function. CMSF does some of that pretty good already (e.g. moving or projection of firepower when surroundings are simplistic) but i think you'd agree that there's still some room for improvement: that's why i asked if there had been made any improvements on these areas in CMBN.

Not so much fidelity problems, but rather practical limitations on what PCs can handle.

i think they are fidelity problems but i can accept / acknowledge the given reason for it.

Even if CM:BN had the same restricted variety of terrain types, it still has 4x more variation within any given 20x20m space compared to CMx1. But that's just a part of it. CM:BN allows for several additional types of terrain to be mixed into a single 8x8m space than was possible in CMx1.

These are simple facts that can not be argued with.

yeah, no argument there.

True, user control over positioning a unit in CMx1 had higher fidelity in most cases. However, this is an illusion. In CMx1 there were types of terrain that blocked movement, correct? Well, that meant those pieces prevented all movement within 20x20m. Having precise control over where the unit moved was, therefore, irrelevant. In CMx1 there would be roughly 4x Action Spots in the same physical space, any of which could be blocked or not. So in CMx2 you can have more operational flexibility because the terrain is more refined. This means that user placement within CMx2 is, in some cases, far more precise than in CMx1.

having precise control over where the unit moved is far from irrelevant in CMx1. it goes as far as dictating success in a number of cases (e.g. stuff like knowing to place that SMG squad deep enough in that heavy building so that it can fire into the street but it can't be directly targetted from the building across the street etc).

Another thing is about elevation changes. CMx2 allows roughly 4x as many variations of elevation within a given space than CMx1. This is because the terrain mesh in CMx1 was based on 20x20m squares, CMx2 is based on 8x8m squares. Again, this is simple math that anybody can see without having to look in the games themselves.

yeah again no argument there. i am not arguing about this stuff.

But why does that matter when absolutely everything in CMx1 was of a radically lower fidelity? Given a player more control over a lower fidelity simulation doesn't make the fidelity any higher.

buttt unit positioning is done in higher fidelity :cool:

Just like reducing player control over a higher fidelity simulation doesn't lower its fidelity PROVIDED the TacAI behaves in compliance with the higher fidelity. Which it does, so there is no problem.

yeah there's no problem if it does.

This is not to say that there aren't times when the player is frustrated he can't move around individual soldiers or move a unit a few meters only. Absolutely agree there and those rough spots are being reduced over time.

finally! great to hear! i feel blessed.

so, any new major tweaks in CMBN?

But again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the underlying fidelity and consistency of the simulation itself.

Nothing.

i don't see a need to argue about this. it's just semantics in the end.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

The one that occasionally makes me nearly pull my hair out is when you have an ATGM team and a squad in the same building or action point and you just can't get the guy with the rocket in position to see the bloody tank.

yeah exactly, that's a part of it and i fear MG positioning in CMBN will become a similar issue (especially for "standard" German squads who get 90% of their firepower from one single weapon). one other part is when the Action Spots just happen to be aligned in a way where you can't effectively target some specific target - you would need to get the unit into the area between the Action Spots. etc. i would think we all know these situations from playing CMSF.

[Rocky Balboa]

Steve has consistently maintained that the way to fix it is to gradually and continually improve the TAC AI so that we have fewer of these little moments, and don't create an unplayable level of micromanagement and with in the game. I have a relatively strong impression that Steve isn't going to change his mind, so the verdict comes down related to whether any given person wants to play anyway.

And I think he's probably right, although there have been moments when you couldn't convince me of that at the point of a gun. CMX2 is already of the limits of a single person's ability to keep track of what's going on. Trying to go from managing 15 or 20 teams to 100 or 200 individual soldiers will just swamp most people. There are certainly plenty of historical anecdotes about Pvt. Jones being unable to get it together, in these cases you just have to tell yourself you're having one of them.

Yes, and the reason why this becomes inconvenient is because CMx2 supports RT. If it were purely WEGO as is CMx1 then adding addition levels of micromanagement wouldn't be as much of an issue. With RT the TAC AI needs to shine ....

[vincere]

yeah exactly, that's a part of it and i fear MG positioning in CMBN will become a similar issue (especially for "standard" German squads who get 90% of their firepower from one single weapon). one other part is when the Action Spots just happen to be aligned in a way where you can't effectively target some specific target - you would need to get the unit into the area between the Action Spots. etc. i would think we all know these situations from playing CMSF.

One thing that niggles with me sometimes is the automated bit of the action spots for multi section squads. For example if you want a squad to move often one of the action spots alway highlighting where you don't want a team to go.

This isn't a problem because we can split squads but the then they go out of C2.

I'd like to see the C2 taken another level lower to let split sections get some C2 so long as the squad leader can communicate with his split team leader be that by sight, audible, or in modern electronic.

[dan/california]

We Go versus RT has very little to do with it, at least for most people most of the time. It just becomes cognitively overwhelming to try to deal with too many things at once. And even in we-go there needs to be some limit on how long it takes to go through a single turn. Fixing this through micromanagement will hurt more than it helps in the long term.

[Other Means]

There's functionality to move the most relevant unit to a firing position with in the action spot for the target in SF.

Target it and it should do it automatically.

[dan/california]

The problem is when the unit can't see it, and therefore can't target it. It happens when a two man ATGM team spreads out on roof for instance. What you really want is the guy with the missile in the key hole in the center that has LOS all the way down the street. It can be very aggravating when it occurs, but its a low frequency problem.

[JonS]

Dan,

I just had a situation in the AAR game where a sniper pair were keyholed, and some enemy infantry approached along the keyhole. However, they were out of sight to the guy with the rifle. The guy with the MP-40 targeted them, while the guy with the rifle got down on his guts, crawled laterally 3-4m to a position where he could engage, then got up to engage. All without any input from me, and all within an action spot.

Of course, by that time the enemy had moved out of sight again In fact, the exposure was so short even the guy with the MP-40 didn't have time to swing round and get some shots away. Still, the desired behaviour was there.

Oh, before you ask: I was happy with where the sniper was initially because he was able to see what I considered the most likely avenue of approach. Turns out I was wrong about that but ... *shrug* stuff happens

This is quite a bit ahead of where the AAR is now, so I don't want to get into specifics

It wasn't a freak event either - I noticed a similar thing happening a little earlier with another keyhole.

[Gpig]

I've seen that behaviour in CMSF many times. It's great!

Gpig

[Battlefront.com]

lol wtf? seriously? what can i say? you are simply wrong. it does make a difference where you are located within the tile.

But it is still the SAME TERRAIN. The only difference it might make is in the diminished LOS/LOF when such things become important. But as far as the game is concerned, if you are in one corner of that 20x20m spot it is identical to the other corner. There is *NO* difference in terms of the terrain.

This is not true in CMx2. Each meter of terrain in CMx2 can be different. Trees, for example, are explicitly simulated while in CMx1 they were not. So if you have a tree in one corner of an 8x8m Action Spot, then that corner is different than the other corner. There is absolutely, without any question, nothing similar like this in CMx1. That's because for 20m in any direction the terrain was absolutely identical. Slight exception for the few "linear" type terrain features that were allowed in specific Tiles.

The Game is internally consistent in that sense, but the consistency of fidelity in the simulation of a firefight is not only those things you wrote about above. the function of the unit is things like ability to project its firepower in sound way, to utilize the cover offerend by the surroundings in a sound way and ability to move in a sound way. in CMx2's case it's when the unit is able to position the individual soldiers in ways that fulfill the unit's function. CMSF does some of that pretty good already (e.g. moving or projection of firepower when surroundings are simplistic) but i think you'd agree that there's still some room for improvement: that's why i asked if there had been made any improvements on these areas in CMBN.

Again, this is not a question of fidelity, this is a question of control and/or TacAI behavior. Not the same thing. What you are talking about are things like Soldiers doing the wrong/dumb things. CMx1 had tons of that too. Tanks backing up to the enemy, for example, or soldiers running out the wrong side of a house when Panicked. These are issues completely separate from the underlying game system.

having precise control over where the unit moved is far from irrelevant in CMx1. it goes as far as dictating success in a number of cases (e.g. stuff like knowing to place that SMG squad deep enough in that heavy building so that it can fire into the street but it can't be directly targetted from the building across the street etc).

And CMx2 has that on an even finer scale because the terrain is so much more detailed. It matters if a Soldier is even looking over a wall as opposed to being behind it. Whether a Unit in CMx1 or a Soldier in CMx2 does exactly what it should for that situation is a totally different thing completely.

buttt unit positioning is done in higher fidelity :cool:

User control is a different issue. Having more precision within a less precise environment doesn't increase the precision of that environment.

As I keep saying over and over again, the precision in CMx2 is higher. Period. The precision of Human placement within the CMx2 environment is lower, but the outcome is still a higher level of fidelity. Control and fidelity are not the same things.

finally! great to hear! i feel blessed.

I've never said the TacAI in CMx2 is perfect, just like I never said the TacAI in CMx1 was perfect. Neither will ever be, but the higher fidelity of CMx2 allows

so, any new major tweaks in CMBN?

Sure, we make improvements all the time. With the increase in types of terrain and variations we have had to constantly refine the TacAI.

Will it produce frustrating results still? Absolutely. Just like CMx1 would do from time to time. There's never going to be a perfect TacAI.

i don't see a need to argue about this. it's just semantics in the end.

No, it's not just semantics. Terms matter because they represent larger concepts. If you don't care about keeping the concepts straight, that's not really helpful.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Fixing this through micromanagement will hurt more than it helps in the long term.

Absolutely. A wargamer's classic response to a game not doing EXACTLY as he wants (even if the game is correct, BTW) is to demand more micromanagement. Sometimes giving the player more control is a good idea, but generally speaking it is not. As the amount of interface increases the interest level in playing drops. It's a very well known problem game designers face all the time.

There are very few players who actually want the amount of control they ask for. Very few. Certainly not enough for a game company to remain in business. Therefore, we have built in as much automation as possible. Far better to have a large number of people playing and occasionally ticked off than to have a few people playing and still complaining

The problem is when the unit can't see it, and therefore can't target it. It happens when a two man ATGM team spreads out on roof for instance. What you really want is the guy with the missile in the key hole in the center that has LOS all the way down the street. It can be very aggravating when it occurs, but its a low frequency problem.

This behavior has been progressively improved over time. I personally don't see this very often. I think the big advances were around the v1.15 timeframe.

Dan,

I just had a situation in the AAR game where a sniper pair were keyholed, and some enemy infantry approached along the keyhole. However, they were out of sight to the guy with the rifle. The guy with the MP-40 targeted them, while the guy with the rifle got down on his guts, crawled laterally 3-4m to a position where he could engage, then got up to engage. All without any input from me, and all within an action spot.

Of course, by that time the enemy had moved out of sight again In fact, the exposure was so short even the guy with the MP-40 didn't have time to swing round and get some shots away.

Thanks for another example about the increased fidelity, Jon. It might actually get this thread back on track

Now, one can say that this was "simulated" in CMx1. But it wasn't. What happened was if the enemy unit appeared within LOS/LOF of the friendly unit, and the spotting/target cycle wasn't mis-aligned, the friendly unit would have fired 100% of its weapons capable of firing and that would have hit the ENTIRE enemy unit. If the spotting/target cycle was mis-aligned, the enemy unit would receive 0% of the friendly unit's firepower.

The net result is that small units were far more likely to be wiped out in short order because it was far more likely they would be hit with full firepower even when exposed for an extremely small amount of time.

CMx2 vastly improves this sort of thing by having individual Soldiers count on both sides. You might find one guy with a rifle cracking off a single shot against 9 guys on the other side. And if that one shot hits the Squad Leader, huzzah (as Jon would say!) for the good guys.

Still, the desired behaviour was there.

...

It wasn't a freak event either - I noticed a similar thing happening a little earlier with another keyhole.

Although the game will never be perfect, I do think there's a bit of Tempest in a Teapot syndrome right now. Focusing on the 1 time in 100 things don't work right might make for interesting posting, but it's not necessarily a good reflection of what really happens within the game.

Steve