This is a must fix

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

This is a must fix

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: The Longest Day >> This is a must fix

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

This is a must fix - 5/16/2009 5:59:10 PM

Slyguy3129

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/16/2009
Status: offline

I know that CC TLD is still brand new. I love the new game play and the AI is fantastic (compared to the old AI) but there is one issue that needs to be fixed. Well two but one is minor the other is a gameplay breaker.

Fix the blasted Aborting Move due to Attack junk. It does nothing but get men killed and it essentially breaks the game because once you get that message, you are not going to be able to move them out of there, period. I don't want to hear the standard cookie cutter line that this is how men react in combat. Horse*****, I am former Army and let me tell you, if I was told to advance and then came under fire and then I was told to fall back, I don't care how much I'm getting shot at I am going to move back as quickly as I can, not shout back that I ignore the order because I'm being shot at. My NCO would march up and butt stroke me with my rifle if we had done that. Now I can understand the suppression and by god I would be moving slowly but I would be moving, I would NOT be sitting in the middle of a field with a few rifle rounds going over my head spinning around on the ground with my thumb up my arse. To make matters worse it seems like any time they are fired at ie MG42 or Kar98 whether it be 1500 rounds or 1. And once that message has popped-up there is nothing you can do. And most of the time when this "bug" happens they continue to slowly crawl towards the fire until they are all dead. Awful brave bastards to ignore an order to fallback just to crawl forward to their death. In short I do not want excuses or reasoning, I don't want it in the game. Now I can understand the withering fire if it has been sustained for a lengthy period of time and of course morale and training help as well. But this is absolutely ridiculous. Please resolve this. This was not prevalent in the originals, it happened but only under dire circumstances.

Secondly we have to do something about the can't see mess as well. Again I don't want cookie cutter answers ie are there windows, is he by a window. The AI should place the MG at the window period, you should not have to micromanage one man of a 5 man team and tell him, Yo post up by the window. This makes MGs in buildings broken as well. Please resolve this. This was not present in the originals

In short compared to the originals it is a breath of fresh air. You guys at Matrix are doing a great job at keeping the CC line alive with these games. I plan on getting CC WaR after I finish this one. But there are somethings that need to be ironed out. I'm not being critical, I'm being honest. Again great job guys and thanks for all the hard work. You might not hear it much but we really do appreciate all of this!

Post #: 1

RE: This is a must fix - 5/16/2009 7:46:47 PM

Slyguy3129

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/16/2009
Status: offline

Nobody agrees or disagrees?

(in reply to Slyguy3129)

Post #: 2

RE: This is a must fix - 5/16/2009 8:19:02 PM

squadleader_id

Posts: 302
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline

So...looks like I'm not the only one who finds this new feature more of an annoyance than an enhancement to the CC series

This new AI feature might be more realistic...but from a gameplay perspective it can be really annoying!
This has been discussed a lot over at CCS...affectionately known over there as the GS(TM) AI

Actually, the GS AI in CCTLD is rather mild. Squads still tend to fail their "morale check" too often...but CCWAR (incl CCMT and COI) was worse IMHO!
Infantry failing their morale check and aborting movement will also try to retreat and find cover quicker...too bad when in the process of retreating to cover they're shot at again...another form of the crawl of death is back.
I'm actually getting used to the GS AI...but it's still extremely hard to get your men to properly assault enemy strongpoints even after using smoke with suppressing+flanking tactics...if the enemy manages to get off a few shots...your men will be on the ground crawling to find cover instead of assaulting

Even when trying to retreat...orders keep getting cancelled out...so you'll have to frantically click new orders over and over.
AFVs aborting movement when fired at also leads to uneeded micromanagement...or a quick death.

(in reply to Slyguy3129)

Post #: 3

RE: This is a must fix - 5/16/2009 8:34:58 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

The effect was lessened for TLD.� Also one thing that was added is troops now head for cover when getting shot at instead of going to ground and getting shot up.� That being said there are many factors that come into play so there will definitely be exceptions to this expected result. Realistically troops freezing and hitting the dirt would be just a much a part of the expected reaction of coming under fire as troops heading for cover, firing back, bolding attacking in the face of withering fire and everything in between.

I see�this discussion and ones like it�as less a issue with the game and more an illustration of how many diversly opinionated folks play the game.� If we fixed it to make you guys happy we'd be pissing of as many who like it the way it is.� Can't win for losing.� No way to decide who gets their way.

Any ideas on how to objectively resolve those kinds of differences in opinion?

< Message edited by RD_Oddball -- 5/16/2009 8:37:24 PM >

(in reply to squadleader_id)

Post #: 4

RE: This is a must fix - 5/16/2009 8:51:22 PM

berndn

Posts: 206
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

I haven't watched to closely when my men have been in GS(TM) mood but maybe an idea would be to disable the effect when in a radius of a command unit ?

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 5

RE: This is a must fix - 5/16/2009 9:06:46 PM

Slyguy3129

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/16/2009
Status: offline

Ah see I didn't realize this was a "feature". I just assumed it was a bug but then again you know what they say about assuming

. Oddball the only thing I can suggest, since I can't possible imagine people enjoying this "feature", unless they are extreme masochist, is at least tone it down a bit. Perhaps even changing the code to where the troops go into a sneak mode rather than a sit still in an open field mode. Don't get me wrong I definitely see it where the "feature" would come into good effect ie MG42 or 3 to 4 good rifle teams laying down suppression fire would do it. The one thing that gets my blood boiling though is how one shot from one rifle man ends the entire command. Whats the old saying? A battle plan never survives the first minute of combat? But one shot from one man stops a team running full blast and they never move again.

I had another frustrating moment on Sword beach. There was a grenade(spell check) team in the north building, you know the three story building on the beach side of the road in front of the bunker there. I had 3 or four rifle team at the very south (I made a concentrated attack to the middle south) trying to secure that area of town and the exit vl. I would issue the move fast order and the grenade team would fire one shot. I received abort movement notices. Rinse and repeat a good 2 minutes and it had me damn near tearing my hair out

. To make matters worse I swear this new AI was mocking me, for the only time the gernade team would fire at me was when I tried to move, it would fire one shot and then remain silent untill I attempted to move again.

Squad you saw this "feature" is worse in CC WaR. Thats a true shame, thats almost enough to make me not buy it. To me it seems like a broken "feature" if it is indeed one. You are correct, it makes it impossible to assualt anything at all any more. I'm sorry but I can't see how anyone would welcome or like this "feature".

But it isn't fair to critizise without offering a possible solution. What I would suggest is that you accumulate both sides of opinions and see if both sides can agree on a comprimise. I would cast my vote to tone down the feature. I would offer a more technical solution but I am not educated as far as scripting and programing so I do not know to what extent you work would be in order to do this.

Again my main concern is that small arms fire or non sustained small arms fire should not cause this feature to kick in. Sustained heavy fire (lmg,mmg,hmg,mortars) and sustained small arms fire(2 or more teams firing over a period of time) should no doubt do so. Also make the sneak button immune to this feature? From what I percieve of the sneak feature in the CC series is that the soldier are doing what we call nick at night. Gun fire over head and you hugging the ground and moving forward as much as you safely can, that way the team still moves, but at a much slower pace more liken to what normally happens in combat. That way if they are in an open field you can aleast back track you men to safety. Of course you will still lose some, but not a whole team.

Of course this is all in my own (not always humble

) opinion.

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 6

RE: This is a must fix - 5/16/2009 11:18:12 PM

FeurerKrieg

Posts: 3397
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

Make the level of this effect something that can be adjusted in the options.

_____________________________

Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

(in reply to Slyguy3129)

Post #: 7

RE: This is a must fix - 5/16/2009 11:22:18 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

I never used the word feature in my reply.

� Also�I didn't code/program the game but I can certainly bring it to the attention of the person that did.� It's duely noted and I hope I didn't come across as diminishing the importance of yours or anyones opinion.� It's certainly a valid point of view.� The "go to ground" action was worse in WaR and the reaction to it was one reason why we toned it down for CCTLD and added an alternate scenario to simply going to ground and getting shot up.� The alternate is that they stop their present course and immediately look for cover.�

Like I said we've made note and thank you for offering it.

*edit*

Feurer Krieg, you and I must've been posting at the same time. Actually this already is optionable. If you select "Always obey orders" in the battle realism settings you shouldn't see the "go to ground" action happening. If so it needs to be reported as a bug.

< Message edited by RD_Oddball -- 5/16/2009 11:26:51 PM >

(in reply to Slyguy3129)

Post #: 8

RE: This is a must fix - 5/16/2009 11:41:14 PM

Southernland

Posts: 2283
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

I think it should be noted that the original effect in WaR has been toned down by the patch too

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 9

RE: This is a must fix - 5/16/2009 11:56:13 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

Good point Shane. Sorry for not mentioning it first.

(in reply to Southernland)

Post #: 10

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 12:25:49 AM

Senior Drill

Posts: 199
Joined: 11/21/2007
From: Quantico
Status: offline

I believe that the compromise will be found in:

1. Increasing the capability of a team that is prone or doing Sneak to survive and fight back. If a moving unit takes fire and goes to ground, it should begin to fire surpessive area fire at the suspected source of the fire - even if they get it wrong, they should be firing backbefore attempting to dis-engage. One or two attempts should be made to complete the original move order prior to heading for cover. Part of this will require coding, part can be influenced in the Elements.txt file.

2. A new movement order is needed: Assault. This has been suggested in the past. Assault would be similar to "Units Always Obey Orders", but only can be placed out about 50 to 100 meters and incures a higher fatigue factor.

To get a visual of what that would look like choose Play as Allies, enable the "Units Always Obey Orders" option for Allies. Use the default, first battle. Move all units up to the deploy area limit, group them and give Move Fast to the middle of the map. Start and sit back and watch. That's Assault. (Of course, this distance is much farther than I suggest it be available for, but it will likely cause an overrun attack on German units.)

< Message edited by Senior Drill -- 5/17/2009 12:28:41 AM >

_____________________________

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.

(in reply to FeurerKrieg)

Post #: 11

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 12:57:14 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

Thanks Drill

It is a feature we have floating around as a possibility.

Very nicely illustrated though.... thanks again.

:)

(in reply to Senior Drill)

Post #: 12

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 1:59:10 AM

squadleader_id

Posts: 302
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline

Great suggestion, Drill!

How about:
- Toning GS(TM) even more for elite/more experienced troops, make them less prone to failing their "morale check". This way you can at least use elite troops to assault with reasonable chance of success...while the line troops can lay down suppressing fire.
- Toning down GS(TM) for Command Units. Units are supposed to perform better when near command units...but command units also tend to fail their "morale check" too easily. Often times when advancing squads are accompanied by a command team...the command team will be the first to go to ground and head for cover (the AI targets command teams?)...seeing their leaders cowering like these must break men's hearts

- When ordering a pinned/cowered unit to retreat to cover...don't cancell out the order...the unit should 'memorize' that retreat order and execute the order when they're not pinned anymore.
Currently you need to babysit these unit to safety...and they get wiped out too easily because they keep aborting orders.
- Working out a compromise for Vehicle/AFV "abort movement when fired at". Maybe make them automatically return fire (and deploy smoke) while backtracking to nearest cover? Stopping in the middle of the road so that enemy gunners can have free shots at a stationary target is just wrong!

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 13

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 4:00:51 AM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill
"...enable the "Units Always Obey Orders" option ..."

Thats the fix right there. No compromise needed.
Agree w/ sl_id ... it is more realistic.
Personally I love to watch my soldiers think and fend for themselves.
The way teams 'string out' during movement, I believe it keeps sprites alive.
TLD's infantry survivability is excellent. Seen lots of extended firefights at short range.

The only tweaks I'd suggest are:
1. if in cover when engaged, by all means stop and shoot back.
2. if sneaking and engaged in the open at close range, shoot back
3. units w/ 'aborted moves' should try to reverse course back thru their move path until in cover (then shoot back) or out of enemy LOS.

(in reply to Senior Drill)

Post #: 14

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 5:43:40 AM

Tomcat

Posts: 131
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Dallas
Status: offline

It seems that while the troops can not be seen by a tank (or other predator) that wants to shoot them up, they can see alright when it comes time to fire at your troops. has anybody else noticed this? If so, I consider it incorrect. If they can see out to shoot, they can be shot at.

(in reply to Slyguy3129)

Post #: 15

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 5:47:05 AM

Senior Drill

Posts: 199
Joined: 11/21/2007
From: Quantico
Status: offline

Uhh, what? Could you rephrase that, please?

_____________________________

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.

(in reply to Tomcat)

Post #: 16

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 5:51:07 AM

Tomcat

Posts: 131
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Ok, to rephrase. I was responding to the "can't see" message. If my tank wants to shoot at troops in a building it often comes up with a "can't see message". The explanation is that they are hiding away from windows, or doing something similar to avoid being seen by the tank. However, these troops that are hiding from sight seem to be able to shoot when they want to. If they can't be seen then they should not be able to see to shoot.

(in reply to Senior Drill)

Post #: 17

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 8:08:01 AM

squadleader_id

Posts: 302
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill
"...enable the "Units Always Obey Orders" option ..."

Thats the fix right there. No compromise needed.

Nah...enabling that option basically turns our beloved CC wargame into just another Command&Conquer clone

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 18

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 9:56:20 AM

loyalcitizen

Posts: 241
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

I wish the AI units would disobey orders more often. I see these way too often:

MG teams leading the charge towards VPs. Can't support units be coded to stay put a bit more?
Charges that don't stop. When the AI manages to cross a bridge/road/field, they should really stop and create a new base of fire to protect the follow-up units. Instead, the leading element simply keeps running straight into the hail of bullets unsupported.

Question:::: Does the AI know when it's in a one-shot battle and when it's in a Grand Campaign? I'm talking different coding of priorities and tolerances for casualties.

(in reply to squadleader_id)

Post #: 19

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 2:37:30 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squadleader_id
Nah...enabling that option basically turns our beloved CC wargame into just another Command&Conquer clone

And CC's award winning psych model is a major reason its 'beloved'. Complaining that soldiers wont obey move orders when fired at is like complaining they wont shoot when suppressed.

(in reply to squadleader_id)

Post #: 20

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 6:02:46 PM

Slyguy3129

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

I never used the word feature in my reply. � Also�I didn't code/program the game but I can certainly bring it to the attention of the person that did.� It's duely noted and I hope I didn't come across as diminishing the importance of yours or anyones opinion.� It's certainly a valid point of view.� The "go to ground" action was worse in WaR and the reaction to it was one reason why we toned it down for CCTLD and added an alternate scenario to simply going to ground and getting shot up.� The alternate is that they stop their present course and immediately look for cover.�

Like I said we've made note and thank you for offering it.

Oh no that isn't how you came across. I was hoping I didn't sound to critical

If worse comes to worse then I'll just have to learn to work around it. But thanks for the haste and honest response RD it is much appreciated.

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 21

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 6:06:34 PM

Slyguy3129

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill
"...enable the "Units Always Obey Orders" option ..."

Thats the fix right there. No compromise needed.
Agree w/ sl_id ... it is more realistic.
Personally I love to watch my soldiers think and fend for themselves.
The way teams 'string out' during movement, I believe it keeps sprites alive.
TLD's infantry survivability is excellent. Seen lots of extended firefights at short range.

The only tweaks I'd suggest are:
1. if in cover when engaged, by all means stop and shoot back.
2. if sneaking and engaged in the open at close range, shoot back
3. units w/ 'aborted moves' should try to reverse course back thru their move path until in cover (then shoot back) or out of enemy LOS.

No X I am afraid that is not a fix nor is it realistic in any way. Again keep in mind I'm not talking about when you are suppressed my MGs or multiple teams I'm talking about when one soldier is firing and stoping a whole teams movement. It does not and never has worked that way. But I do agree with you suggestion as such especially moving out of the LOS that would be a great way to solve this little issue.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 22

RE: This is a must fix - 5/17/2009 6:10:36 PM

Slyguy3129

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

quote:

ORIGINAL: squadleader_id
Nah...enabling that option basically turns our beloved CC wargame into just another Command&Conquer clone

And CC's award winning psych model is a major reason its 'beloved'. Complaining that soldiers wont obey move orders when fired at is like complaining they wont shoot when suppressed.

Your missing my point X. I understand that troops will not move when they are fired upon a great deal. But its should NOT cancel the entire order out period. That is absolutely ridiculous. In the old CCs when fired upon the teams would G2G and then sneak. If they survived long enough you could slowly sneak them back and away. In CC TLD you are no longer able to issue commands to them period. They still have the ability to attempt to follow it, but the game cancels it out before the AI can act on it. That is the issue I am bringing up not the fact that they are not following commands. I want Human not Machines, but even Humans will attempt more self preservation than the game is allowing the AI to do because this "feature" is handicapping it.

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 23

RE: This is a must fix - 5/18/2009 5:52:50 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

See the Infantry assault vid... those yanks don't do too bad.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2116905

sound went a bit wonky, sorry.

< Message edited by Andrew Williams -- 5/18/2009 5:53:02 AM >

(in reply to Slyguy3129)

Post #: 24

RE: This is a must fix - 5/18/2009 12:41:40 PM

nietsche

Posts: 55
Joined: 11/25/2008
From: Ozzieland
Status: offline

Can I attempt to explain what is a real problem here.

It is that a couple of stray shots (red dashed lines) can stop a sneaking command group form moving the last few metres to take a VL when the enemy is at almost 0 morale. A hiding single unit can just occasionally fire and cause the whole team to go back where it came from even if that is under less cover. Each attempt to get them to move to the objective causes "confusion" for about 30 seconds. I have failed to take a last VL with 5 minutes to remaining and only 20 metres to cover. The final analysis showed only one rifle soldier was alive on the opposition.

This Endgame effect has happened several times playing the AI and other players.

_____________________________

Hard work is a good way to succeed. There is less competition that way...

(in reply to Andrew Williams)

Post #: 25

RE: This is a must fix - 5/18/2009 9:32:26 PM

SteveMcClaire

Posts: 4472
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

The symantics of the move orders in "The Longest Day" is a bit different than the original CC series:

"Move Fast" means get to the destination as quickly as possible, all other considerations are secondary.
"Move" means move cautiously and be ready to react to spotting new enemies or new incoming fire.
"Sneak" means to move very cautiously, use stealth as much as possible, and try to remain undetected.

For best results in getting troops to move under fire:

Use "Move Fast". Short (~40m or less) move fast orders will generally be obeyed no matter how much incoming fire a team takes.
If the destination for a movement order is in good cover, the team is more likely to continue moving if it takes incoming fire. This is adjusted for the amount of time the men would be exposed to get to the cover, so again "Move Fast" is more likely to keep them going then "Move" or "Sneak".

There is one bug, which will be fixed an upcoming patch, which can result in a team ignoring all orders if it is within 30m or less of an enemy team. This does not sound like what you're seeing, however.

All that said, we do want to hear feedback from our players and I appreciate your points. We discuss this issue from time to time and will keep refining things as necessary.

(in reply to nietsche)

Post #: 26

RE: This is a must fix - 5/19/2009 5:13:36 AM

Bradley62

Posts: 153
Joined: 6/29/2006
Status: offline

Though I have not noticed any difference but, does "Move Fast" still result in infantry assaulting (grenades etc.) when approaching enemy held positions?

(in reply to SteveMcClaire)

Post #: 27

RE: This is a must fix - 5/19/2009 6:05:38 AM

Slyguy3129

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

The symantics of the move orders in "The Longest Day" is a bit different than the original CC series:

"Move Fast" means get to the destination as quickly as possible, all other considerations are secondary.
"Move" means move cautiously and be ready to react to spotting new enemies or new incoming fire.
"Sneak" means to move very cautiously, use stealth as much as possible, and try to remain undetected.

For best results in getting troops to move under fire:

Use "Move Fast".� Short (~40m or less) move fast orders will generally be obeyed no matter how much incoming fire a team takes.
If the destination for a movement order is in good cover, the team is more likely to continue moving if it takes incoming fire. This is adjusted for the amount of time the men would be exposed to get to the cover, so again "Move Fast" is more likely to keep them going then "Move" or "Sneak".
There is one bug, which will be fixed an upcoming patch, which can result in a team ignoring all orders if it is within 30m or less of an enemy team.� This does not sound like what you're seeing, however.

All that said, we do want to hear feedback from our players and I appreciate your points.� We discuss this issue from time to time and will keep refining things as necessary.

Wow, can't tell you how nice that is to hear. Its not often a company has someone who is on the forums and willing to give answer and explanations like this. Thanks, and I do like the way all this sounds and it makes sense. I will keep that in mind as a generally issue sneak orders.

(in reply to SteveMcClaire)

Post #: 28

RE: This is a must fix - 5/19/2009 6:18:16 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

It was a matter of getting the guy in the know to have a look.

Even though the rest of us on the development team know quite a bit about the game you can't beat knowing what the programmer knows about it.

(in reply to Slyguy3129)

Post #: 29

RE: This is a must fix - 5/19/2009 9:27:17 PM

Slyguy3129

Posts: 31
Joined: 5/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

It was a matter of getting the guy in the know to have a look. Even though the rest of us on the development team know quite a bit about the game you can't beat knowing what the programmer knows about it.

No doubt. Now it seems to be WAD. I tried Steve's Suggestion and it appears to be working not only correctly but how I was thinking it should work

. I assaulted a few MG42 teams on Gold beach and it worked, I did sustain casualties as expected but I did eventually take out the MG nest. Very impressive now, sorry for the confusion it was simply the case of the user not understand the mechanics of the game! Thanks for the help Steve and Oddball. I have great faith in you guys to help restore Close Combat to its rightful place among the top PC Strategy games. Keep up the fantastic work guys!

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 30