Jump to content

KI is horrible sometimes


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

right ... so what is the problem ?

i allready said that differnt people play this game a different way. so for sure not everyone recognizes the same as others do.

am i wrong ?

so why cant blackcat post how he has experienced the game?

Man you need to take some chill pills or something...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice if the squad selected someone to shoot at the TC. Rather than having the whole squad open up.

I don't really have an issue with buttoning TCs, but it's done in such a way that it invariably reveals the position of the troops, and if your opponent has HE chuckers or artillery that spells disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for what someone have to leran aqbout how to use arcs ? i told you that this aslo works somnetimes and sometimes not, if you read my post in complete.

a "hold fire" button indeed makes everything much more confortable, then using features for different issues to help yourself out with other issues.

sure i can shoot into my knee, when i think i am to fast, but that is what i or you want to ?

You are so right - the arcs don't always work and the fausts or schresks will fire from too far away. Frankly, depending on the quality of your unit this is very reasonable. Under the stress of combat this will happen. Many inf units in Normandy were not yet fully trained (even in 17SS) and some of the static units had poorly motivated ethnic Ost troops or whole units of men over age 30 with various issues (medical, training, previously highly skilled and deferred, etc, etc).

However firing your personal weapons does not seem like combat stress to me. More likely the rattled troops would fire the anti tk weapon at too long a range and then try and get away or totally freeze and not fire. It might make more sense not to let them fire their pers weapons while they still have a antitk weapon and rockets to fire. Complicated writing that in the program perhaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT teams need some work. This obnoxious firing at tanks with pop guns has got to be fixed. I'm also tired of having my units waste their precious bazooka ammo on soft targets. Last night I had a squad with tanks on one side of the hedge and a decimated German squad across a field, within view. I hadn't ordered my team up to the hedge to engage the tanks yet, because I was waiting for them to get a better broadside. Well, what do my troopers do? They open up on the German infantry, WASTING two of their five rockets. This is ridiculous and totally frustrating. I AM supposed to be the brains behind that squad. I AM their Major, Captain, Lieutenant, Seargent, Corporal. MY ORDERS stipulate that they are to save their rockets for the GODD*MN tanks . . . which are now approaching. Furthermore, the first jackass that opens up on a tank with his non-scoped rifle is going to have a court martial to answer for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ narsis

do you think all these circumstances you listed up in your post are implemented by the programmers into this game ?

i cant beleave that :)

Good, because they are :D We had the same sort of behavior for CMx1's Cover Arcs and Hide commands. The better the unit, the more likely they won't act too early. The worse the unit, the more likely it will ignore your orders and fire anyway. This is very realistic and it underscores why experienced units are better at ambushing than inexperienced units. Just like in real life.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT teams need some work. This obnoxious firing at tanks with pop guns has got to be fixed. I'm also tired of having my units waste their precious bazooka ammo on soft targets. Last night I had a squad with tanks on one side of the hedge and a decimated German squad across a field, within view. I hadn't ordered my team up to the hedge to engage the tanks yet, because I was waiting for them to get a better broadside. Well, what do my troopers do? They open up on the German infantry, WASTING two of their five rockets. This is ridiculous and totally frustrating. I AM supposed to be the brains behind that squad. I AM their Major, Captain, Lieutenant, Seargent, Corporal. MY ORDERS stipulate that they are to save their rockets for the GODD*MN tanks . . . which are now approaching. Furthermore, the first jackass that opens up on a tank with his non-scoped rifle is going to have a court martial to answer for.

This is always a very, very tricky thing to pull off without explicit UI (which, overall, would be more frustrating in our opinion). AT rockets, be it WW2 or modern day, are often used by infantry to gain an upper hand. In real life soldiers tend to be more concerned about the threat right in front of them instead of the one down the road. After all, if you don't live long enough to see the enemy down the road... what's the point of making plans for the future?

There's also the issue of what happens when there are no enemy tanks to shoot at. Should your infantry not use their AT weapons? I can just see the threads popping up about that if we changed the behavior :D

The other problem is although you, as the player, are wearing all the "hats" of your chain of command, often would be the case that the Squads wouldn't know that armor was coming down the road. Maybe even the immediate CO wouldn't know that either. Plus, situations can change minute by minute, so authorizing the use (because no armor was known of) could leave the unit low on ammo in an hour when armor comes into play.

Sooooooo....

AT rockets were used against soft targets in real life. They will continue to be used that way in the game as well. It would be very unrealistic, and undesirable, to have it any other way. But it could be good quality units are a bit too eager to use their AT weapons. We can take a look at it.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished a small battle where I had american infantry fighing a platoon of tanks. using some common sence and holding fire when possible, I destroyed 5 of the 6 tanks with AT teams. I was wanting to see how much of a issue it was going to be to see if they opened up with small arms fire. This was a mixture of experence since I let the qb select my troops, Only one veteran crew. Yes I saw some small arms fire from my teams, but my man with the bazooka always managed to select the correct weapon and

generally in a short time frame get off a first round. Only twice in the game did I lose men to returning tank fire. No this is not any official test, but it satified me that the game generally is performing correctly and that if it does otherwise, it is because of the poor human commander or the game is allowing for poor troop decisions at times also.

Both of which exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok the AT rocket was used against soft targets, with how much effect I don't know. Remember it wasn't an explosive projectile it was a HEAT projectile so if it didn't have some thing to hit like a bunker or a tank then most likely it would expend most of its energy into the ground in front of the enemy position or behind it ,so didn't the AT rocket teams know this? It seems that the tube guy would have been of more use if he had picked up his Garand or carbine and used that. AT Grogs or their acquaintances welcome to reply. Secondly: If a trooper did pop up out of concealment and start pinging away at a buttoned up tank 200m away with his Garand then he would have most likely been quickly subdued by his squad mates if they could have gotten to him. This firing at buttoned up tanks with small arms may have been Russian doctrine and maybe even Russian practice but I doubt that it happened often enough on the Western front to be even considered anything other than as a rare occurrence performed by a shell shocked trooper or an idiot. AT Grogs or their acquaintances welcome to reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HEAT rounds are quite effective against soft targets in terms of suppression. Killing with a HEAT round generally requires a pretty good hit where the round detonates on something (stone wall, building wall, tree, etc.) which cause secondary splinters. IIRC the single biggest cause of casualties in buildings, as stated by a US military study, were wood and masonry splinters.

Note that the modern day squad level AT weapons are HEAT based and they are most often used against infantry and not armored vehicles. In fact, the US Marines recently dusted off the old Vietnam era M72 specifically for anti-infantry uses.

I also wish I would stop seeing people saying small arms are firing at buttoned tanks. This has been explored many times before and ZERO evidence of this happening has emerged. So I ask people that make this claim to either prove it or stop repeating bad information.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HEAT rounds are quite effective against soft targets in terms of suppression. Killing with a HEAT round generally requires a pretty good hit where the round detonates on something (stone wall, building wall, tree, etc.) which cause secondary splinters. IIRC the single biggest cause of casualties in buildings, as stated by a US military study, were wood and masonry splinters.

Note that the modern day squad level AT weapons are HEAT based and they are most often used against infantry and not armored vehicles. In fact, the US Marines recently dusted off the old Vietnam era M72 specifically for anti-infantry uses.

I also wish I would stop seeing people saying small arms are firing at buttoned tanks. This has been explored many times before and ZERO evidence of this happening has emerged. So I ask people that make this claim to either prove it or stop repeating bad information.

Steve

I've learned something about HEAT rounds and am busy eating crow because I didn't myself observe the firing on buttoned tanks. I'll be in touch if I do though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"HEAT rounds are quite effective against soft targets in terms of suppression"

Damn right they are! My US sections often have a bazooka and they do a spiffing job at suppressing enemy infantry, especially in buildings. Of course, they usually start firing when thay are too far away and so waste a lot of rockets, which can be embarassing later if they bump into armour. However thats my fault and my choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does range matter? Say a tank is within effective rifle range but a bit of a long-shot for a AT-rocket: Will the Anti-tank soldier delay firing, or (seems more likely) just take longer to fire? That'd give Mr. Optimistic, the guy with carbine shooting at the Tiger, a chance to fire first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ narsis

do you think all these circumstances you listed up in your post are implemented by the programmers into this game ?

i cant beleave that :)

Well, BF gave you the answer. I would've said "I think so or else what is the point in selecting in QB or Editor the skill level of your units. Its very frustrating of course to watch your unit go to nervous and rattled but **** happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does range matter? Say a tank is within effective rifle range but a bit of a long-shot for a AT-rocket: Will the Anti-tank soldier delay firing, or (seems more likely) just take longer to fire? That'd give Mr. Optimistic, the guy with carbine shooting at the Tiger, a chance to fire first.

Yes, range does matter. The issue is usually the assistant/loader has a rifle which has a far greater range than the AT rocket. If the target is within range of both, then theoretically a 2 man Team this means 50% chance that the assistant/loader firing first. It is likely, however, that the AT rocket gunner takes longer to aim/fire than a guy with a rifle does.

There is logic in the game now to try to dampen the assistant/loader firing at other infantry. I think the primary problem that remains is the chance of firing against an unbuttoned AFV.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiple issues here.

Third issue: Self preservation after missing TC. In the example stated, if a sniper fired at a TC (giving CMBN the benefit of the doubt and assuming that the sniper fired at an exposed TC), and missed, then the tank began turning to his direction, a FAST move out of there would nice.

Ken

I eagerly await the year 2020 or so to see this. :D

Until then...we just have to accept the fact that we can backseat drive the AI decisions all day but they won't always do what we thought was the best thing. I look forward to BF doing what they can to minimize some of the issues that people bring up such as whether certain weapons should be used on certain targets taking into account chance of success, but until then I'm gonna accept the fact that my soldiers on occasion or gonna do things to get themselves killed. If you can't accept that, better not be a leader in combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT teams need some work. This obnoxious firing at tanks with pop guns has got to be fixed. I'm also tired of having my units waste their precious bazooka ammo on soft targets. Last night I had a squad with tanks on one side of the hedge and a decimated German squad across a field, within view. I hadn't ordered my team up to the hedge to engage the tanks yet, because I was waiting for them to get a better broadside. Well, what do my troopers do? They open up on the German infantry, WASTING two of their five rockets. This is ridiculous and totally frustrating. I AM supposed to be the brains behind that squad. I AM their Major, Captain, Lieutenant, Seargent, Corporal. MY ORDERS stipulate that they are to save their rockets for the GODD*MN tanks . . . which are now approaching. Furthermore, the first jackass that opens up on a tank with his non-scoped rifle is going to have a court martial to answer for.

To avoid this kind of frustration i usually split teams and keep my zooks/schrecks in good cover (e.g. with a small cover arc) and get them into the action just when needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It occured to me, around the same time that my zookers were wasting their ammunition on a total of two, half-dead German infantrymen who were crawling in the opposite direction, a hundred yards away while the sound of Panzers approaching from a lesser distance could most-likely be heard over the din of battle . . . ahem, it occured to me that one thing I do miss from the CMX:1 games is the independant bazooka squad.

The option to split teams is, perhaps, a decent work-around. I'll try it next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahem, it occured to me that one thing I do miss from the CMX:1 games is the independant bazooka squad.

Independent bazooka teams are available in CMBN. You can purchase them in a QB and attach them to the platoon of your choosing.

Of course, whether you see such teams in a scenario is entirely up to the scenario designer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is always a very, very tricky thing to pull off without explicit UI (which, overall, would be more frustrating in our opinion).

Steve, I think the vehicle cover arc that was implemented in the CMx1 engine was perfect for these situations. It seemed to work as advertised back then, so why can't it be implemented for CMx2? I seem to recall someone saying that you said the coding was complex for this, but rather than to speculate on rumor I'd like to hear it from you. Or can someone link to where you've already talked about this?

thanks, Jeff

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...