Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

why?

 
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 >> Tech Support >> why? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
why? - 6/8/2009 11:46:55 AM   
jacksy

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/5/2009
Status: offline 		Hi Guys
Playing the GC as allies atm. what i don't understand is that when my men come under fire whilst moving towards an empty building they then crawl away from the safety of the building back twords the direction they came from.
Post #: 1
RE: why? - 6/8/2009 7:47:00 PM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		This has been discussed at some length in these forums Jacksy.  I can't find the exact posts right now but the programmer gave some explanation of the intended infantry handling and some rules on how a successful assault would be commanded.  Of course you reserve the right to command how you wish but don't be surprised at the results.

Hopefully someone else will recall or be able to find exactly which thread it was in. I'll keep looking in the meantime.

(in reply to jacksy)
Post #: 2
RE: why? - 6/8/2009 8:17:52 PM   
Qwixt


Posts: 902
Joined: 6/19/2006
Status: offline 		Well, this behavior was sort of the selling point for the whole series. The soldiers are suppose to behave like real ones. So if you tell them to make a suicide charge, many will disobey the command. Others I think call this the "girly man" syndrome which is suppose to be toned down in CCTLD. It still does not make sense to leave he building though once there, but perhaps the soldier routed or something.

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 3
RE: why? - 6/8/2009 9:30:31 PM   
jacksy

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/5/2009
Status: offline 		A whole squad crawling towards a building came under fire Then within yards of the building they decide the best course of action is too crawl all the way back to where they came from. I doesn't make sense to me,surely better cover is in the buidling?

This has happened on more than one occassion and im just wondering is this normal or am i doing something wrong?

(in reply to Qwixt)
Post #: 4
RE: why? - 6/8/2009 11:19:22 PM   
Senior Drill


Posts: 199
Joined: 11/21/2007
From: Quantico
Status: offline 		"Normal" is subjective.  What this behavior replaces was called "The Crawl of Death", which was the bane of CC3, CC4 and CC5.  Units used to continue to crawl forward to the target location regardless of enemy fire or casualties, often resulting in the entire team being wiped out if the player did not notice this happening.  It was absurdly easy to defeat the AI because all one had to do was wait for the enemy to crawl forward, butcher them to a man, then wait for the next batch.

The new "movement canceled by attack" with return to cover may have some issues with it, depending on who you talk to, but it is a damn sight better than the old Crawl of Death. 

_____________________________

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

(in reply to jacksy)
Post #: 5
RE: why? - 6/8/2009 11:56:44 PM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		Perhaps the best explanation is that this aspect of the game is recreating something that is a pretty serious quandry.  In that situation the notion of continuing forward would make sense to some, but at the risk of over-extending your squad or brining yourself within dangerous range of the enemy.  I'm not saying the AI is operating that sophisticatedly but one conclusion one could draw in that situation.  The notion of returning to your last position where there was good cover where you know the terrain would make sense to others.  Standing up and charging would yet again make sense to others.  Belly crawling yet another solution that has logical elemtents to it depending on the situation.  Being within 10 yards of safe cover but instead returning to the last known cover?  Yes questionable.  Agreed.  I think Steve's explanation of how to hand the troops in that situation was pretty clear but without being able to find that post I can't say for sure if it answers your question/complaint/bug/etc..  I'd have to find it.  Still looking.  I can't recall if it was in a bug post or general forum.

(in reply to Senior Drill)
Post #: 6
RE: why? - 6/9/2009 2:45:03 AM   
Senior Drill


Posts: 199
Joined: 11/21/2007
From: Quantico
Status: offline 		Remember the post, but don't know where it is either. Basically, one has to micro-manage such contacts by giving repeated move forward orders to move the chains. Bits of a Crosby, Stills and Nash song kept playing in the back of my mind as I typed that sentence....

_____________________________

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

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 7
RE: why? - 6/9/2009 1:05:23 PM   
jacksy

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/5/2009
Status: offline 		I see that makes more sense.Think i need to make sure that i suppress enemy units better and only make small advances into better cover

(in reply to Senior Drill)
Post #: 8
RE: why? - 6/9/2009 2:25:55 PM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		And yet another valid solution to the problem.  I'm sure dozens more.  Pretty cool that a game can present such sophisticated, complex problem solving situations without being contrived.  Tis why we all love the game so much. 

Again to be clear, not saying we've got the AI cranked down to a perfect, flawless operation but we humbly proffer it's improved.  We'll continue to work on it as we get the opporutunity to do so.  Getting this kind of feedback is valuable.

(in reply to jacksy)
Post #: 9
RE: why? - 6/17/2009 3:39:49 AM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline 		aint technology grand.......im no PC programmer but one would think that it could be programed that if the squad is 6o% to its objective it would continue to the objective NOT crawl farther back and die on the way back??? seems so simple doesnt it??
but im not holding my breath....so far all i get is flak when i post.....so this also will be a waste of my time im sure.

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 10
RE: why? - 6/17/2009 1:30:08 PM   
RD Oddball

 

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

ORIGINAL: STIENER

....so far all i get is flak when i post.....


Really? That concerns me. Please show me where. That should not be happening and needs to be corrected. I would assume by flak you mean that you're being unfairly ridiculed or criticized? I would hope that the responses given to your posts are factual, to the point and address the issue you're inquiring about regardless of whether or not the answer supports your viewpoint.

RE: on topic - As with all other versions of CC in order to be successful in your strategic or tactical plans there are certain "rules" you must follow. As with any other game. I recall some heavy duty rules on TT's VetBOB mod for CC4 where as allies you'd better hide your troops and wait for the Germans to get in close before opening fire otherwise you'd be booted from the map every single time. Another for instance general CC rule is keeping your teams within command radius of a command team to have them be as effective as possible. Don't run your guys across open ground in front of an MG42 or you might encounter erratic behaviour from your troops might be another. Don't drive your tanks in front of ambushing AT guns would be another.

Similarly Steve has created what we feel is a reasonable set of rules you must follow if you want to successfully navigate your troops across a map. As I've said before that's not to say we've got it exactly, pefectly right. We need feedback and we need specifics to improve it beyond where it's at. Exactly what the conditions were, (team type, in command radius, ground you were traversing, in enemy contact? if so what type?, on and on) so we can weigh that against the intent to see if things are acting as expected and if it's a reasonably close facsimile of reality. The more details the better. The AI is not a simple thing we're talking about and there are countless variations of possible outcomes.

I finally found Steve's post about how to handle troops when under fire. This is the best way to handle troops (read "rule") if you want to be successful.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2117677

I hope this helps Stiener.

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 11
RE: why? - 6/17/2009 9:07:11 PM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline 		Oddball
things got a bit nasty in the CC4 watch on the rhine thread about tanks being tracked. thats what i refer to. the people who buy the games speak up about what they dont like and what they think should be changed and give valid reasons why and the programmers argue till the cows come home about how its all ok and were not changing it. its crap. we wont buy the games soon if this continues to be the case. ive supported the CC community for about 15 years?? ever since CC1.... and im not impressed.

case in point here......people dont like the way the troops react. it doesnt make the game better. it makes it worse. its not realistic to have troops get 3/4 of the way to the objective and then run all the way BACK and get killed on the way. what troops probably would do is if they realized they couldnt get to the objective they would go to ground or try to find cover closer to where they are, NOT go all the way back to the start point. most of us already know how to move troops on the CC battle field, we have played the game before. is it an easy fix [ using my suggestion from above ], probably, but im not a programer. will it be changed....from what im reading...i dont think so. so yet again i say why did i bother to write anything and get involved. perhaps i cant help but try to make the games better. but im still not impressed. 

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 12
RE: why? - 6/18/2009 2:44:31 PM   
donkuchi19


Posts: 1062
Joined: 3/14/2004
From: Cleveland, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

Oddball
things got a bit nasty in the CC4 watch on the rhine thread about tanks being tracked. thats what i refer to. the people who buy the games speak up about what they dont like and what they think should be changed and give valid reasons why and the programmers argue till the cows come home about how its all ok and were not changing it. its crap. we wont buy the games soon if this continues to be the case. ive supported the CC community for about 15 years?? ever since CC1.... and im not impressed.

case in point here......people dont like the way the troops react. it doesnt make the game better. it makes it worse. its not realistic to have troops get 3/4 of the way to the objective and then run all the way BACK and get killed on the way. what troops probably would do is if they realized they couldnt get to the objective they would go to ground or try to find cover closer to where they are, NOT go all the way back to the start point. most of us already know how to move troops on the CC battle field, we have played the game before. is it an easy fix [ using my suggestion from above ], probably, but im not a programer. will it be changed....from what im reading...i dont think so. so yet again i say why did i bother to write anything and get involved. perhaps i cant help but try to make the games better. but im still not impressed. 


I can see why you get flak now. You imply when you say people that there is a great multitude of people that don't like the way it works. It was one guy asking a question. He got an answer that he accepted and you went on about how it is totally unrealistic and we know what we are doing, but you can't fix it crap. It's easy to point fingers at others at why you are getting flak, but check your own posts first and you may see why.

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 13
RE: why? - 6/18/2009 8:39:49 PM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline 		i was replying to Oddballs question, he asked so i explained to him what the deal was. you also dont know how many "people"im in contact with or am posting for. this thread is open to anyone who may have a comment on the topic....even you. i dont think the "crawl" the way it is, is realistic or works. thats my opinion. but thanks for your 2 cents....and in answer to your query....Gee, i didnt realize that?

(in reply to donkuchi19)
Post #: 14
RE: why? - 6/19/2009 1:01:58 AM   
panzerlehr62


Posts: 314
Joined: 2/23/2009
Status: offline 		Its a game, nothing more, nothing less.

No question a lot of time is put into every CC game made. I dont see how anyone can have a issue with that. I guess if one doesnt like the game (they feel cheated?), they can allways pay a group of software developers to create one for them that they like, but I dont thk $50 will buy you much (you might get a manual but no disc...lol).

Do we want everythg to be perfect, sure, but thats unrealistic.

That being said, ive got several issues with WaR too, but it wont keep me from buying another new release. The reason it prob makes me the maddest isnt because I felt cheated out of my money (because I wasnt, played a ton of hours), it was because I thought the game had so much more to give playing the GC. The starting maps were well done, but it seemed like the middle maps just didnt get enuff testing (with all the elevation changes they prob needed the most testing). I would also have liked to see much smaller force pool numbers for the allies, possibly a few leg mortar units for the armour german bgs (due to LOS issues on a few starting positions).

Then comes along TLD. Like night and day diffrence to me from WaR. Maps ive played so far have been great. Having used old maps(well tested) and very little elevation changes prob accounts for that. Force pool numbers are much smaller making one have to use a little more strategy when playing the GC. Just been a total joy for me, most relaxed CC game ive ever played so far. Vehicle tracking hasnt been much of a issue, because this is mainly a infantry game with armour used mainly as infantry support. The fact that men want to go back after being fired at is barely a issue at all, to me anyway because I tend to monitor infantry movement (mainly because you know somethg is about to happen) a lot closer then vehicle movement.

I dont work for matrix, but I got to say I think overall they are listening and trying to make us a better game with each new release. Just look at the response on the missing manual for the TLD, they came out said they were sorry and didnt realize how important it was to us and that following games would have one. They answer all the posts listed no matter how trivial. What more are they expected to do for 50 bucks? Somehow I would have to think the CC series is probably not there best seller either (we are a small community). So the fact they are still even making new versions amazes me and I for one am gratefull.

I will always support this game. I must also say thanks to people like Drill, Squadleader and the rest out here that spend a lot of there spare time making this game even better with all there helpfull advice. Just a great community of people out here!

Gz...


< Message edited by panzerlehr62 -- 6/19/2009 2:16:21 AM >

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 15
RE: why? - 6/19/2009 2:40:22 AM   
Tejszd

 

Posts: 3437
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline 		Good post panzerlehr62

For WAR the next patch should allow players to see some of the potential you describe realized.

(in reply to panzerlehr62)
Post #: 16
RE: why? - 6/19/2009 5:13:56 PM   
RD Oddball

 

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

ORIGINAL: STIENER

... troops get 3/4 of the way to the objective and then run all the way BACK and get killed on the way. what troops probably would do is if they realized they couldnt get to the objective they would go to ground or try to find cover closer to where they are, NOT go all the way back to the start point. most of us already know how to move troops on the CC battle field, we have played the game before. is it an easy fix [ using my suggestion from above ], probably, but im not a programer. 


I never said we're not interested in improving what we've offered or that we'll ignore suggestions. Besides things taking time there are many other factors at work. Some we can talk about others we can't.

As mentioned above we need very specific instances and descriptions of what you're seeing. The AI is a HIGHLY complex model beyond what myself and likely any of us can understand from our laymans perspective. We're talking about the interaction of multitudes of data and factors all occuring second to second that is constantly changing. The dev team and many others are not seeing the same issues you're seeing so either it can be explained by a difference in play style (or as I suggested above an adherence to the rules you need to follow to succeed) OR it's a very specific instance that few others have uncovered.

The only way the programmer can address it is if it's repeatable on our end so he can narrow down where in the code or data files this issue might be happening. In order for us to reproduce a specific instance is to have specific ways to create it.

Post here with screen shots and conditions and we'll look into it. That's the absolute best option I can offer. If that doesn't satisfy you I have nothing left to offer.

< Message edited by RD_Oddball -- 6/19/2009 5:14:33 PM >

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: The Longest Day >> Tech Support >> why? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.625