Foxholes seem to be really really broken

[herr_oberst]

GAJ is just discovering the joy and frustation of the CMx2 system for the first time.

Agreed... one of the things I have to constantly remind myself is that while we all think of our brilliant point-and-click plans will work perfectly, what we are actually doing is offering suggestions to our troops.

In good shape, not previously stressed, with reasonable cover, and relative parity, our pixeltruppen will perform the requested actions.

Vary one or more of those factors from the desired state, and (as mentioned earlier here - or was it another thread?), you may well have a bunch of Uphams on your hands, refusing to do much of anything.

Just last might, I was cursing the squad that couldn't manage to put down a solo MP40-wielding german in a trench. I watched in dismay as he dismantled the better part of the squad as they closed, then picked off the remaining "Uphams" as they broke and went face down at close range... it was a gambit, and I paid for it.

To resurrect an old CMBO players sig line: "CMBO... all the frustration of golf without all the exercise!"

[skelley]

Part of the problem is that the foxholes are in this square, tightly packed spot. This gives the attacker a very small target to aim at and suppress. BFC needs to figure a way to spread them out and get the infantry to man them. Right now they are eyesores that don't work very well.

[Yak Meister]

I feel your pain. Recently 80% of my green squad cowered in the forest because a nearby friendly tank was taking MG fire. The enemy couldnt even see them but here they were in the fetal position.

On the other flank a squad and an attached MG team was annihilated by an accurate 81mm mortar barrage complete with tree bursts. The platoons 2 remaining and almost unhurt squads then went out of command for the rest of the game in response to this tragedy. This effectively reduced my force by 25% but I still managed a Major Victory. (albeit against the AI)

Personally I loved it. Antony Beevor's great book on Normandy documents the large amount of combat fatigue cases suffered by the US. It was a significant problem and alot of units would breakdown in combat. Green ones particularly would even suffer from just the sounds of combat while in relative safety.

I feel the infantry behavior is pretty accurate and if its abit flawed then its still preferable to mindless pixeltruppen who follow orders to the end.

[Steiner14]

So some of the beta testers have the opinion, it is realistic, that units stay hidden, although 10 meters away a squad is shooting at them. Ofcourse you need to be an elite soldier, to recognize, that you are going to be killed...

In CMx1 the behaviour was much more realistical, because unexperienced units followed the NATURAL behaviour of returning fire and abandoning orders EARLIER.

No with the praise of beta-testers, we need more experienced units to act like less experienced ones in real life. Great improvement!

And that HMGs can be easily overrun in open terrain was also no problem for certain beta-testers. Endless discussions and a confirmation from the developers was necessary, to be accepted...

Or what about the fact, that foxholes do not provide enough cover? Also nothing beta-testers were concerned about. They still blame it on unit experience, supression and much more. Gladly it was confirmed, that it could need adjustment...

[Vark]

What does a foxhole actually represent? There is a reason why British troops, in Normandy are often shown with a shovel strapped to their backpacks, if they had the opportunity they would dig a two man slit trench. CM seems to have foxhole and trench (which can represent a considerable fortification), foxholes offer minimal protection and are really improved positions not the basis of a prepared defensive line. Maps showing German fortifications have small rectangles on them marking rifle pits, not foxholes, far more substantive protection, it's odd that CM has a limited array of defences, perhaps it's a coding issue...shrugs.

[Vark]

Nice link to show what I mean, though foxhole seems to have quite a few connotations, I thought it meant a hasty hole dug, seeems it can mean that and a more prepared position. Thinking about it now that games can take an hour plus there really should be a mechanism for undisturbed troops to improve fighting positions.

Link to different infantry defences from War Dept 1941 (I assume German defences were not radically different)

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/FM7-10/FM7-10-I.html

[akd]

So some of the beta testers have the opinion, it is realistic, that units stay hidden, although 10 meters away a squad is shooting at them.

The unit stops hiding within 3 seconds of spotting the approaching enemy, before the enemy fires at them. A German, in fact, fires first but misses.

Seriously, are there multiple versions of this video? I feel like I must be watching some other video...

[sburke]

So some of the beta testers have the opinion, it is realistic, that units stay hidden, although 10 meters away a squad is shooting at them. Ofcourse you need to be an elite soldier, to recognize, that you are going to be killed...

No with the praise of beta-testers, we need more experienced units to act like less experienced ones in real life. Great improvement!

And that HMGs can be easily overrun in open terrain was also no problem for certain beta-testers. Endless discussions and a confirmation from the developers was necessary, to be accepted...

Or what about the fact, that foxholes do not provide enough cover? Also nothing beta-testers were concerned about. They still blame it on unit experience, supression and much more. Gladly it was confirmed, that it could need adjustment...

Yep sarcasm and continuing to bash the beta testers is helping make you a more trustworthy source for critiquing issues in the game. That has worked really well for you so far hasn't it?

Endless discussion? The game has been out just over a month and altering aspects of the game in that timeframe is considered endless? This for a game that has been in development for years. Doesn't that strike you as a slightly ridiculous statement?

It isn't that any of the issues you have raised with the game are necessarily wrong. It is simply you don't seem to provide anything other than anecdotal, incomplete info or just hop on the bandwagon of some other sliver of data someone else provides. This video is a case in point. Whether the foxholes, MG performance, hiding or morale/experience based behavior needs to be tweaked is not clear. However it definitely should not be based on this video. The situation here is too easily explainable given the conditions in this specific example. The last thing any of us (yourself included) need is for the game to be tweaked for things that aren't broken. Yet you are ready to use this video to show just how clearly the beta testers are wrong, lazy, incompetent and/or overly sensitive. It isn't particularly helpful or productive to make the game better.

Lighten up a bit, provide some saved games that exhibit the behavior you feel is demonstrably wrong and odds are you would get a different response. If your goal is to make the game better, it is the route to get you/us there. If you are just trying to thumb your nose at the beta testers just keep up what you are doing, but don't expect to garner any respect.

[cool breeze]

Steiner14 is hilarious.

[Fetchez la Vache]

To be honest I don't see how this video is showing a problem with foxholes or the 'hide' commands. I think there is a problem with foxholes, but I don't think this video proves it. :-)

I see a group of green, cautious, troops hiding in foxholes. As a result of the 'hide' command they pop up too late to pin down the assaulting enemy. A bit of bad luck results in the first German shot missing and the American shot killing the German gunner (their main firepower) and causing the remainder to become "rattled". At that point it's game over unfortunately.

My criticisms would have been about why a rifleman shoots first on the German side - the gunner should have been letting rip - and why the Germans didn't start firing by lobbing a grenade. Either of these actions might well have swung the outcome round the other way within 5 secs.

And I'm not sure why on earth beta testers are somehow responsible for all of this...

[cool breeze]

Well you could say the beta testers helped make that little jem of a video play out so realistically. Unsuppressed and well supported american squad of semi auto rifles almost manages a decisive clean up of the 3 bolt action rifle carrying guys hiding in the holes.

[ClarkWGriswold]

The unit stops hiding within 3 seconds of spotting the approaching enemy, before the enemy fires at them. A German, in fact, fires first but misses.

Seriously, are there multiple versions of this video? I feel like I must be watching some other video...

The German squad stops hiding at 25:26 (14 seconds into the video). Until that time the team spend most of their time either Hiding or Spotting. A couple guys pop up now and again to fire off a shot (9 seconds into the video, 12 seconds in), but they immediately go back to Hiding. Once they stop hiding (14 seconds into the video) there is almost always at least one man Cowering due to suppression (the meter is half full). 20 seconds into the video one of the four men is hit. At 23 seconds into the video the suppression meter is completely full, with only three men left alive to fight.

So, for the first 14 seconds of the video the guys are spending all of their time hiding (they do NOT unhide when an enemy enters their arc of fire, but they do take pot shots). The next 10 seconds they're able to fire back, but since there's only four of them they don't do any damage and are quickly suppressed. From 23 seconds onward they are completely suppressed, cowering in their foxholes. At that point the Americans are able to walk right up to their foxholes, uncontested.

The results don't seem very surprising to me. However, if a person expected that units would stop hiding when someone entered their covered arc, then it probably would be surprising. Hopefully it's clear now that Hide+Cover Arc does not work that way.

[sburke]

The results don't seem very surprising to me. However, if a person expected that units would stop hiding when someone entered their covered arc, then it probably would be surprising. Hopefully it's clear now that Hide+Cover Arc does not work that way.

I'd have to try the same with a squad that started in better shape to validate that. I have actually used hide and covered arc to spring an ambush or more than one occasion, however not with a green unit. Maybe tonight when I don't have this ridiculous thing called work interfering I can set up a test scenario with various conditions represented. If nothing else I'd like to understand what I can expect of a unit based on it's morale/experience/c2 state.

[ClarkWGriswold]

I have actually used hide and covered arc to spring an ambush or more than one occasion...

Why use Hide and Covered Arc at the same time? If you have a covered arc set, the unit shouldn't fire outside that arc anyway (except under extreme threat). If you use the Hide command you just get reduced spotting, and it still doesn't stop your men from firing anyway (as evidenced by this video and multiple people's personal experience).

So what's the advantage? Far easier and less risky to just use a covered arc and forget about the Hide command. At least that way you know your men will spot and fight back when they need to.

[Agua]

I can set up a test scenario with various conditions represented. If nothing else I'd like to understand what I can expect of a unit based on it's morale/experience/c2 state.

Post the results if you get around to it.

[Agua]

So what's the advantage? Far easier and less risky to just use a covered arc and forget about the Hide command. At least that way you know your men will spot and fight back when they need to.

Well, less chance they'll be spotted and shot up by units outside their arc.

[sburke]

Why use Hide and Covered Arc at the same time? If you have a covered arc set, the unit shouldn't fire outside that arc anyway (except under extreme threat). If you use the Hide command you just get reduced spotting, and it still doesn't stop your men from firing anyway (as evidenced by this video and multiple people's personal experience).

So what's the advantage? Far easier and less risky to just use a covered arc and forget about the Hide command. At least that way you know your men will spot and fight back when they need to.

That my friend is what I desire to find out. I have no good answer as I can't actually tell you this hasn't worked for me, though it could very well be it has worked for me despite myself. Usually my really good moments in CM are based on my units ignoring my commands.

[Battlefront.com]

Steiner14... keep up your personal attacks on the Beta Testers and those who agree with them and you'll be banned from participating. It is against Forum policies to "snipe" at anybody, and Beta Testers are not an exception. You have your bad attitude going full bore in two threads right now, so put eine Socke in it or I'll do it for you.

As for the GaJ's original issue, I think it's been covered pretty well here. The defenders' Arc didn't do much good for them since they were in poor shape as the American unit came into view. HIDE might not have helped, but given what is going on with that unit I'm not sure it really had much of a negative effect.

What likely had more effect than anything is the foxholes not given the sort of cover they should be. As we all know, this is a bug that's been fixed for v1.01. In this case what I see is that maybe, just maybe, the defending unit wouldn't have been so beat up by the time the US unit came into the Arc and therefore would have responded quicker and with more vigor. This might have changed the outcome. But it's really impossible to say.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Well, less chance they'll be spotted and shot up by units outside their arc.

Correct. HIDE is designed to minimize the chances of being spotted. It also reduces the ability to spot, but that's only fair and realistic.

Steve

[akd]

The German squad stops hiding at 25:26 (14 seconds into the video). Until that time the team spend most of their time either Hiding or Spotting. A couple guys pop up now and again to fire off a shot (9 seconds into the video, 12 seconds in), but they immediately go back to Hiding. Once they stop hiding (14 seconds into the video) there is almost always at least one man Cowering due to suppression (the meter is half full). 20 seconds into the video one of the four men is hit. At 23 seconds into the video the suppression meter is completely full, with only three men left alive to fight.

So, for the first 14 seconds of the video the guys are spending all of their time hiding (they do NOT unhide when an enemy enters their arc of fire, but they do take pot shots). The next 10 seconds they're able to fire back, but since there's only four of them they don't do any damage and are quickly suppressed. From 23 seconds onward they are completely suppressed, cowering in their foxholes. At that point the Americans are able to walk right up to their foxholes, uncontested.

The results don't seem very surprising to me. However, if a person expected that units would stop hiding when someone entered their covered arc, then it probably would be surprising. Hopefully it's clear now that Hide+Cover Arc does not work that way.

You are confusing "hiding" (which is a unit order) with cowering/going prone (which is an AI reaction to fire). At 25:32 you will see one soldier go from "hiding/spotting" to "moving". This is the moment the unit stops hiding because of the targets in the cover arc. Of course this doesn't work out well for them because their morale is already being affected before the approaching guys ever take a shot, so they mostly end up cowering.

[Steiner14]

Yep sarcasm and continuing to bash the beta testers is helping make you a more trustworthy source for critiquing issues in the game. That has worked really well for you so far hasn't it?

If one customer raises a concern, what is the reaction? I cannot remember that a BT would have shared a (later corrected!) problem immediately. Instead every concern is automatically refuted.

Endless discussion? The game has been out just over a month and altering aspects of the game in that timeframe is considered endless?

Come on, you know the difference between endless development and endless discussion.

Look into the HMG-supression-effect-thread. This i call an endless discussion. The problem was clearly expressed in the beginning and what was the task of the BTs? They come up with hundreds of explanations, why the game's reaction was ok, although you can clearly see, that's not the case. It's not enough to hint at a problem, because they think they have discussed it enough and know it much better anyway.

Shouldn't beta testers be helpful in discovering problems and hint the developer where to look? Here, mostly all raised problems first have to be fought against the resistance of BTs. Steve, although developer and this is his baby, for me shows more distance to his work and recognizes problems earlier than some of the BTs.

It isn't that any of the issues you have raised with the game are necessarily wrong. It is simply you don't seem to provide anything other than anecdotal, incomplete info or just hop on the bandwagon of some other sliver of data someone else provides.

Blinded experts are ignorants. They do not listen, because they believe they know it better. They only listen, if they can't ignore it anymore. Be it because of the quantity of voices or because of the loudness or if the authority says so.

This video is a case in point. Whether the foxholes, MG performance, hiding or morale/experience based behavior needs to be tweaked is not clear.

What do we have so far:

Maybe foxholes could need to provide more cover. Also self preservation in combination with hide and/or cover arcs should be looked at, too.

And what was the reaction of some of the BTs? They immediately tried to explain why things are ok anyway. But how can this be the case, if the protection of foxholes was too low, or if unhiding units do not fast and agressively enough open fire?

However it definitely should not be based on this video. The situation here is too easily explainable given the conditions in this specific example. The last thing any of us (yourself included) need is for the game to be tweaked for things that aren't broken.

Nobody wants that.

No guts, no glory (Zu Tode gefürchtet ist auch gestorben).

Lighten up a bit, provide some saved games that exhibit the behavior you feel is demonstrably wrong and odds are you would get a different response.

You mean to explain problems that way, that the defend-my-game-threshold is not triggered?

The more intelligent ones focus on the discussed facts or the raised problem and the ignorants will defend the satus quo anyway. Therefore i prefer the direct and honest speech and if some of them therefore are running around like startled chicken, i'm very sad, but i will survive it.

[ChrisND]

Steiner, you've finally gone off the deep end. Or at least the deep-er end. I haven't seen any reactionary-knee-jerking from beta testers here. In fact the only knee-jerking I've seen here is from you. While trying to explain what some contributing factors of the case in question might be, akd also offers to check out the save out anyways to see things more closely. I don't see behavior any different from the others.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that the foxhole problems were, before and after the forum noticed problems with them, being reported internally by beta testers, including specific complaints being forwarded on from the outer forums. Probably the same testers you have such a low opinion of because they don't immediately join you in decrying the game because they actually try to investigate an issue before making up their minds, or look at their pet peeves with a sense of perspective. In short, you have no idea what you are talking about and are instead pursuing a vendetta against others.

You want to make this personal? Fine. I think you are long overdue for a ban and I hope it comes soon so that your Nazi-loving pollution doesn't taint this board any further.

[ClarkWGriswold]

You are confusing "hiding" (which is a unit order) with cowering/going prone (which is an AI reaction to fire).

Nope. I'm not confused. I assure you, I can read.

At 25:32 you will see one soldier go from "hiding/spotting" to "moving".

Actually, it looks like two guys are moving (#2 and #4), but men #1 and #3 are both listed as "Hiding". Men only hide when given the Hide command. Otherwise they show as Cowering, Spotting, etc. I'm not sure if men can start/stop an order one at a time or if everyone has to do it at once, but the text shows plain as day that at least two guys are still hiding (though it's hard to read, even in 720p).

This is the moment the unit stops hiding because of the targets in the cover arc.

At 25:27 the last unit stops hiding. That's 14 seconds into the video, just like I said. Prior to this there is at least one or two men listed as Hiding. Not to mention that the enemy units are spotted a mere 5 seconds into the video, yet we still have at least one guy listed as Hiding for almost another 10 seconds.

So, you may be right that the unit starts engaging the enemy earlier than 14 seconds, but the entire unit definitely is not engaging before that. I would chalk up the shots they're taking to the fact that Hiding units don't hide much at all, but of course neither of us knows what's going on behind the scenes in the code.

[argie]

I've never seen a Hiding unit do other than Hiding and, occasionally, Spotting. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that, thus not all of them reacted at the same time, the unit has become active. Maybe only one at a time were spotting the incoming enemies?

[ClarkWGriswold]

Correct. HIDE is designed to minimize the chances of being spotted. It also reduces the ability to spot, but that's only fair and realistic.

Steve

The problem is, I've not found the Hide command to be especially good at hiding anything. In all of the games that I've played, when I've used the Hide command my units invariably take shots at the enemy and give away their position. However, if I use a small cover arc my units do not shoot outside of that arc and stay hidden. In a PBEM game I'm currently playing I have an HQ unit inside a building with a cover arc. He's been within 100m of a LOT of enemy units for at least a dozen turns. He has not been spotted and has not engaged the enemy (other than being a mortar spotter). Another unit that was placed into a building and told to hide is wiped out now, because they decided to take some shots at a German halftrack and ended up on the wrong end of a 75mm gun. The last game I played I moved four squads up to some bocage and told them to hide. They continually popped off shots here and there as they spotted enemies. Once I slapped short covered arcs on them, all the firing stopped.

Hide would be really useful if the units would ACTUALLY HIDE!