Jump to content
Skybird03

Infantry Problems

Recommended Posts

Just a general remark. If eSim staff acts daft or clueless, it probably is because we are. ;)

We're not going to defend our software when there is a clear and obvious bug. If we do not react immediately, the most likely reason is that we are not observing the same issues. That doesn't mean that the issues do not exist. But apparently there is a different behavior on different computers, or a different perception of the same behavior.

Therefore we ask to provide a specific test scenario which ideally shows the problem early in the mission without the need for modification. Even if you think that it's glaringly obvious, and that it happens "all the time", please be so kind to give us a pointer to a specific scenario (even if it comes "out of the box" with the SB Pro PE installation), ideally with a description of the sequence of actions in order to see the trouble.

We are short on manpower, and therefore short on time. If a scenario doesn't show the issue quickly we cannot know whether it's an intermittent or constant problem, so that we may or may not restart the scenario. Say, it's an intermittent thing that happens in one out of five scenarios within five minutes after mission start. It may takes up to 43 minutes with eight re-runs to to observe the issue at least once, and maybe a further 120 minutes of additional re-runs to figure out a specific description that is "actionable" for Al to dev elop a solution. As we have no full-time beta tester, two to three hours a day of testing time is about the maximum that we can spend on testing per day. If the description of the problem is not specific, if the scenario is not given, a search for a similar problem will take so much time that a single tester may be occupied an entire day and even if we find something we still don't know if it is the same that you have observed. This is a very wasteful way to invest testing time.

This is why we ask you to help us by being as specific in bug descriptions as possible. Provide the scenario, tell us where to go and what to do, describe what happens (or fails to happen) and what your expectations are that should happen (or what happened in the past, but not now).

If you can tell us that the issue occurs on your computer all the time, and it doesn't occur on our machine, this is a very valuable piece of information, because then we can draw the conclusion that it is a local problem. We can then investigate what makes your computer different from others where we can't observe the issue.

We want to help you, and we want to have as few bugs and a reliable and robust behavior of our computer controlled units as possible. But in order to be efficient in our bug hunt, we need to rely on your cooperation in the way described above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at it now. Which unit/route am I to watch?

The tank unit, of course, the mission should be played with just one platoon. Do not hit multiple triggers! consider the trucks unwise to be taken to the front, they are comsetic.

Route: however you see fit, the mission is played with player in lead tank. Make your way to the described area, and drive through it, means: find a way around the ponds in your lead tank. If you pass them at a matching distance so that your wingmen hit them, they will. It also cna happen that you spend time just west of them, when the enemy tanks in the W-NW appear, or you are distracted from a sighting in the south. I also trap wingmen there when assuming battle positions there with enemy tanks in the West showing up. I travel, I see tanks, I hit "E", my tanks go back and forth, and eventually they go into the ponds in reverse, or after the firefight when regrouping.

My problem is with driving live in formation, and wingman behavior in BPs, and it is as old as SBP is. From BPs, they seem to evade whole rivers now (had no time to test that much), but not small water ponds - here, their behavior appears to be unchanged to me.

P.S. I now know why you and/or Volcano did not get my email. I found an email in my box this morning demanding confirmation that I am no spambot, but a real person.

Edited by Skybird03

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a general remark. If eSim staff acts daft or clueless, it probably is because we are. ;)

We're not going to defend our software when there is a clear and obvious bug. If we do not react immediately, the most likely reason is that we are not observing the same issues. That doesn't mean that the issues do not exist. But apparently there is a different behavior on different computers, or a different perception of the same behavior.

Therefore we ask to provide a specific test scenario which ideally shows the problem early in the mission without the need for modification. Even if you think that it's glaringly obvious, and that it happens "all the time", please be so kind to give us a pointer to a specific scenario (even if it comes "out of the box" with the SB Pro PE installation), ideally with a description of the sequence of actions in order to see the trouble.

We are short on manpower, and therefore short on time. If a scenario doesn't show the issue quickly we cannot know whether it's an intermittent or constant problem, so that we may or may not restart the scenario. Say, it's an intermittent thing that happens in one out of five scenarios within five minutes after mission start. It may takes up to 43 minutes with eight re-runs to to observe the issue at least once, and maybe a further 120 minutes of additional re-runs to figure out a specific description that is "actionable" for Al to dev elop a solution. As we have no full-time beta tester, two to three hours a day of testing time is about the maximum that we can spend on testing per day. If the description of the problem is not specific, if the scenario is not given, a search for a similar problem will take so much time that a single tester may be occupied an entire day and even if we find something we still don't know if it is the same that you have observed. This is a very wasteful way to invest testing time.

This is why we ask you to help us by being as specific in bug descriptions as possible. Provide the scenario, tell us where to go and what to do, describe what happens (or fails to happen) and what your expectations are that should happen (or what happened in the past, but not now).

If you can tell us that the issue occurs on your computer all the time, and it doesn't occur on our machine, this is a very valuable piece of information, because then we can draw the conclusion that it is a local problem. We can then investigate what makes your computer different from others where we can't observe the issue.

We want to help you, and we want to have as few bugs and a reliable and robust behavior of our computer controlled units as possible. But in order to be efficient in our bug hunt, we need to rely on your cooperation in the way described above.

Well, volcano and me accidentally bumped our shoulders when wanting to go through the same door at the same time, that may explain the slight verbal irritations there have been. When I started this thread, I was calm, and I think I stayed friendly and polite. I did not wish to vent frustration (for I am not frustrated), and in my percpetion just described some problems that I have, and not in just specific scenarios, but in general. I also could complaim about the IEDs now being equal to two or three truckoloads of explosives, taking out any heavy tank in their blast radius, ALWAYS now, damaging all onboard systems and engine etc., just the crew remains unhurt. The thing is the do not just mess up a scenario where I needed them as kind of a randomised damage generator, but behave like this in ALL scenarios and circumstances, indepedant from the questions whether it is one of my scenarios, or a stock one. It is not a specific, scenario-dependant but a general symptom. Infantry not using their ATMs also is like that over here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In regards to your "tame" infantry. Here is an idea: since Red has US equipment, try using something other than the M72 and M72A2 LAW rocket as the RPG. I am not sure what you expect the infantry to do with that against Strv 122s and CV90/40-Cs. Why not give them all M136 AT-4s and see what happens? It is easy to select one and then check the box "use these ammo types". Save it as an alternate version and see if they are better.

Also, you need to consider adjusting your theme. I am getting 65kph cross country speeds in vehicles, so it is very easy to drive at insanely high speeds up to the infantry before they can actually fire their RPGs. Once you get inside their minimum safe range then they are useless.

Consider adding some bumpiness to your woods. Currently I see that there is no bumpiness, so the infantry do not sink into the ground in the woods -- they are just sitting ducks. Also consider adding bumpiness to the open ground too so that infantry can sink in there as well for cover. Actually, try replacing your theme with "Realism woodland (summer)" or something like that, if nothing else but than to get an idea of what to set the sliders to. Save it as an alternate version of the scenario and run it to see how infantry can become deadlier.

---------------------

If you make these changes, then I am sure you will have infantry hell to deal with. It is not unnatural to have to rebalance a scenario to a new version either. With a few quick changes the infantry can be deadlier than they ever where before.

As it looks right now though, you have no protection given to the infantry in the form of bumpiness on the theme, the theme is set at such a high mobility that infantry can be driven over at 65 kph cross country, the infantry have the worst RPGs in the sim, and they are opposing some of the best protected vehicles in the sim (Strv 122 and CV90/40-C).

That said, there may be an old bug with the M72 and/or M72A3 RPG. I am trying to determine that now.

As you said yesterday, my email has not reached you, I give you some details form that again.

The mission was done in summer 2007. It was the actual SBP version before the BETA.

Originally, there only was just one platoon of Leo-2A5DK, optionally a CV9040 platoon instead. Not realistic, but I did it the way I like to play missions. These details have been changed over this week. What you see in blue forces now, is new.

However, the Red side has not changed, and their old missiles are intentional - considering status summer 2007. Because basically the very same scenario you now have, back then was a very aggressive missile-infested hell for tanks. Not only was small arms fire and heavy machine guns directed at them (I can understand that firing rifles at tanks now is considered a silly idea), but the ATMs also flew around that it was a joy, eh, pain I mean. Very, very tough to get around with just one platoon and acchieve all those objectives!

So I had to tune them down, making sure that at least frontal hits were less likely to do mission-killing damage too early on. So I replaced the modern ATMs with more obsolete ones. The player still was under fire and took hits, but eventually could carry on. At the same time in summer 2007, infantry became easily just cannon-fodder, so: you have realised that the squads are spawend when Blue enters trigger zones that match the squads viewing field, so that they would appear (from the hidden), and immediately start to ambush the player, which was danegrous if they were in his flank, and at close range. - This all is the reason why I armed them with older missiles. And it worked, and worked almost too well, with plenty of action. I have had several versions of the mission with different armament for Red, for testing, and I think I have not messed it up and now by mistake base on a version that represents a test result I have ruled out back then.

I wrote in my mail to you that you should open one squad, replace the armament of it with a modern ATGM, tick the boxes that give the same type and number of weapons to all units of that kind, and try with that. That way you easily and qickly arm all infantry there is with modern weapons. but they still do use them only sporadically, rarely, after very long time of hesitation, no matter the difficulty setting (which does effect reaction time, if I remember correctly, or am I wrong?)

that is how things are over here. when a line of tank column enter a trigger zone 20 m away from a tree of lines, or on a road inside a forest, and infantry is spawned in their flank and has missiles, I expect them to use their damn weapons, if not for ambushing then at least for self protection. But if they hesitate so long that at medium speed and close formation spacing the whole column can pass their position unharmed and maybe without even realising them, then I think something works not as intended. Also, when a line of tanks passes an infantry position or even approaches it because it has seen them and the tanks show them their frontal armour now, and the distance has shrinked to 100-200 m, one would assume that older weapons of that range as well as newer missiles as well would engage them - especially if not just one in three but all infantry squads are soaking with missiles!

The point is, it worked like I wmnated it and descirbed it, with older versions of SBP! The layout for Red is like you have seen it right becasue it worked so damn well and Red was so very lethal. And that is not just my memory failing me - you can see that a lot of time has gone into that design, although it is not finished, since each squad's missile loadout is individually chosen, and a lot of tests werre needed to establish the trigger zones the way they are. And there are several dozens of them!

As I said repeatedly, I see infantry behaving like this in other scenarios now, too, stock scenarios as well, and two other edits of mine. It is not specific for this scenario only. That's why I am so irritated by you demands for me to make it a specific situation. I am not aware if all these other stock scenarios have updated bumpiness factors, I see some infantry melting into the ground, so it seems to be the case. That does not chnage the bhehavior of theirs.

Enemy tank units still do not like me, though. they fgight like they are supposed to be. Also, infantry running into infantry also results in a hefty firefight. But when I approach the scene in an IFV - almost no missiles for me. If I would need to estimate, I would say missile activity went down by 80%.

Readjusting the bumpiness of my scenario was why I started to edit the mission this week, but then got carried away (the helicopter inserts and the company size of the attack are new), but when I realised the peacefulness of infantry, I started wondering whether it was worth it.

I try the terrain theme you suggested, but other than that infantry will no longer be sitting ducks, I have little hope that it raises their aggressiveness to their former dangerous levels.

Maybe I should spread around some of these new nuclear IEDs :) instead, they now seem to flatten whole appartement blocks and always take out all and everything in their blast zone, completely... Any way to tune their lethality a bit? The distance of the trigger zone to the icon on the editor-map does not do the trick.

Anyhow, it seems I have to live with things in 2.460 as they are. I probably will focus on scenarios that are tanks-exclusively now, a loss in diversity, but still plenty of fun. when having seen more of 2.460, maybe I decide to go back to pre-Beta state, since I do not play online anyway. Let'S examine it a bit more, and see.

Thanks anyhow,

Sky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question though, on the new diversity with infantry, maybe that has something to do with it.

There are new types of infantry squads since the Beta: heavy MG groups, light MG groups, I think, and also - ATGM groups that have dedicated, tougher, longer reaching ATGMs. These are not used by the default infantry squads anymore, if I see it correctly, and recall it correctly how it has been before.

I do not remember how it has been, but I know that I have added many of these longer range missiles in the original scenario - to standard infantry squads. But standard squads I just realised no longer have access to for example Milans. However, I had added some rare Milans, and others, back then. And none of them are there anymore, since dedicated ATGM-groups were not any different from normal infantry.

Maybe this has something to do with it.

another question is if the sim/the AI now is aware of whether or not it'S missiles could actually hurt a tank, or not, making use of them only if their kill potential is suitable to defeat the kind or armour they face? Before, they fired just what they had, without any discrimination. Now, maybe it has been changed?

That then it would not make a difference when I add modern ATMs to the current standard infantry squads to replace the old ones, is no wonder - since they still would not have access to the modern ATGMs that now are in use by dedicated ATGM groups only, but no longer are listed in the weapon options for standard infantry.

I feel that maybe I have stumbled over kind of an explanation for my major problem here. It did not happen earlier since I did not check the new types of infantry before. I read months ago that they are there, and left it to that, and forgot about it.

Time to do some edits today, and test it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also could complaim about the IEDs now being equal to two or three truckoloads of explosives, taking out any heavy tank in their blast radius, ALWAYS now, damaging all onboard systems and engine etc., just the crew remains unhurt. The thing is the do not just mess up a scenario where I needed them as kind of a randomised damage generator, but behave like this in ALL scenarios and circumstances, indepedant from the questions whether it is one of my scenarios, or a stock one. It is not a specific, scenario-dependant but a general symptom.

In regards to the IED issue, appologies on not answering, it must have been buried in another post earlier.

The increased IED power is by design -- it is a feature. There was nothing but justifiable complaints before that the old IED caused little to no damage unless the vehcile was right on top of the pixel that that it was under, so it was greatly increased in power. At some point we want to have the sceanrio designer have the ability to specify the power of the IED, but until that point then we have to go with the maximum power IED (which is more the norm used by insurgents than you might think), in the form of several 155mm artillery rounds bundled together and buried.

Even with the power it has now, someone can rightfully argue that they are still too weak since they never actually kill the vehicle nor any of the occupants. There is a video of such an IED that I care to never see again (or mention, for that matter) of an M1 tank being sent over 60 feet into the air from the blast... you can imagine what happened to the tank. The turret came off as well. :(

You said you were using IEDs to simulate random damages. Do you mean for maintenance failures? If so, there is a more efficient way to do this, just put an invisible penalty zone across the map and apply random light damage to it. Then give the probability something very low. I have done this in the past to represent periodic and random maintenance failures of components.

I do not remember how it has been, but I know that I have added many of these longer range missiles in the original scenario - to standard infantry squads. But standard squads I just realised no longer have access to for example Milans. However, I had added some rare Milans, and others, back then. And none of them are there anymore, since dedicated ATGM-groups were not any different from normal infantry.

Maybe this has something to do with it.

Hmm, maybe so. In the past, maybe you had them equipped with non-RPGs such as some Milan 2 or Dragon II ATGMs? I do remember that infantry squads could carry them before but now they have been exclusively set for ATGM teams with the 3D launcher. If you originally designed the scenario around these, then I can see why it might appear that they are suddenly tame. I think that if you changes some of the troops to ATGM teams and then added some bumpiness to the theme then it will become exponentially in favor of the troops in the level in which you were probably used to seeing.

I earlier mentioned that there might be a bug with the old M72 and M72A2 RPGs, but I can see them firing in several tests. I think that part of the problem which makes the LAW rocket so useless is that it has such a short range, and the tanks can drive up on their position so quickly, they they are quickly under the minimum range in which they will use it. It may very well be true that the "minimum safe range" in which the infantry will use the RPG is far too generous to the enemy tanks, I will have to run some tests and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I travel, I see tanks, I hit "E", my tanks go back and forth, and eventually they go into the ponds in reverse, or after the firefight when regrouping.

This explains why we could not get the tanks to drive in the water after many attempts. When tanks are engaging they are purposely concentrating on the enemy and will make mistakes like backing into water (since everyone with situational awareness is buttoned up and looking at the enemy). Now whether or not this is too strict is definately a valid point. Other than that, I would say just avoid setting up a BP near water obstacles, at least for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Units will always check if their weapons have a chance of disabling or at least damage the target. If not, they will eventually hold their fire.

2) ATGMs were pulled from squads because in reality they are very heavy loads, so they should slow down these troops considerably. This way we now have heavy anti tank assets, but in order to make them mobile you need to motorize them - pick Humvees with TOWs, to name an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I had to tune them down, making sure that at least frontal hits were less likely to do mission-killing damage too early on. So I replaced the modern ATMs with more obsolete ones. The player still was under fire and took hits, but eventually could carry on. At the same time in summer 2007, infantry became easily just cannon-fodder, so: you have realised that the squads are spawend when Blue enters trigger zones that match the squads viewing field, so that they would appear (from the hidden), and immediately start to ambush the player, which was danegrous if they were in his flank, and at close range. - This all is the reason why I armed them with older missiles. And it worked, and worked almost too well, with plenty of action. I have had several versions of the mission with different armament for Red, for testing, and I think I have not messed it up and now by mistake base on a version that represents a test result I have ruled out back then.

Yes, this is another reason why infantry now sink into the ground with the bumpiness slider (in the theme). They were just so much fodder before, laying in plain sight to everyone. If you can adjust the bumpiness (make the forest very high, up in the .80 or .90 range) then you won't have to spawn the troops to keep then hidden and they will be very hard to hit as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"E" also tells the tank to find a hull down position. This is not the best command to use near water....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Units will always check if their weapons have a chance of disabling or at least damage the target. If not, they will eventually hold their fire.

Good point. Actually this IS the reason why the troops are not firing M72s at the Strv 122s. Skybird, try this out:

Create a new sceanrio in the scenario editor with a Rifle Platoon on blue. Arm each one of them with M72 (LAW) RPGs. On red, put a platoon of blind Strv 122s to the east of them about 200m or so and have them on "stay" tactic and oriented towards the Blue Rifle Platoon.

When you start, you will see that they will not engage the tanks because they have no chance of causing damage. Now, exit to the editor and change the troop's RPGs to M136 AT-4 (or anything in that penetration range or higher) and start it back up. The troops will engage with those RPGs.

Now go back to the editor and change the Strv 122s to BTR-80s and then give them M79 LAWs again and see that they will engage the APCs with them. Unfortunately though, even though the LAW has a chance to penetrate CV90s in your scenario, they won't cause much in the way of damage to them --so you will definately want to change the RPGs in your scenario to something different.

The rationale is that they save their ineffective weapons for targets that they can get an effect on, and it is also so that they do not fire away at everything to attract attention. Of course avoiding attracting of attention doesn't matter if they don't sink into the ground. When they are sunk into the ground with cover and are out of sight, then the tanks should pass by the troops without seeing them and the troops can engage follow on units with M72s type pea shooters or small arms.

I hope that helps...

Edited by Volcano
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, time for an update.

I have started to replace the regular infantry units with dedicated ATGM-groups. To my joy, these let their missiles fly with great enthusiasm, and at great ranges. My reported suspicion from this morning, that the differences in infantry units that were introduced with the Beta first has something to do with, seems to have lead somewhere. The mission starts to show teeth and claws again. The point is not to modernise the weapons of the existing infantry units, but to replace the units alltogether with ATGM groups and hMG groups. The smaller, short-range ATm that are standard for the regular infantry, still are used extremely rarely, though, even when giving them modern types. But the ATGMs like Milan, TOW, Javelin all seem to work well, and get used . Ssnake'S reply to my question whether or not the AI maybe holds it's fire with weapons that are not strong enough, may explain that.

Next I have to apologize for having done one terrible mistake that really added to the confusion. While it is true that also in regular scenarios I see them firing small arms rarely only at tanks (which makes sense), I forgot that before I gave up desinging that mission over a year ago, I followed advise from the forum - when I asked how to make the AI stop making the player aware of enemy infantry presence by openign fire with small callibre weapons. The only workaround possible in 2007 was - TO DELETE ALL THEIR SMALL ARMS AMMO. And that'S what I did over a year ago with not all but quite some of the infantry units. Makes sense that they do not fire, then! I checked with some of them now being given back their small arms ammunitions. They still are extremely hesitent to fire, far more than before, but at least they fire occasionally now. Again, I apologize to have killed precious time with this messed up question of mine. I should have seen that in the editor, and remembered it earlier. However, small arms usiage has been chnaged nevertehless, and has been toned down, no matter the ammo state.

CONCLUSIONS on these issues: ATGMs of ATGM groups work well. Weak ATMs of normal infantry units are not being fired for the explanation given by Ssnake. Modern, tougher ATMs of regular infantry get fired, but only very rarely and after longer delay or hesitations. Small arms fire versus vehicles only is used very rarely, and has definitely been toned down, compared to pro-Beta versions. Infantry versus infantry works well, and plenty of firing. I just zhave started to experiment, but the hMG groups also seem to be a bit more aggressive in using their weapon. But that still is a very subjective, not well-examined impression of mine.

Now summarising some of your comments since yesterday:

IED and what I said about randomised damage. I meant that I used them as IEDs that created randomised ammounts of damage to a heavy tank, I did not mean to use them as a workaround (I am aware of the damage options in the editor). Right now, there is no chance to use them for that anymore, since they always kill all inboard systems now, and effectively kill the vehcile without wounding the crew. That is the only result they give me, always. It has ruined two events in one of my missions where the column of the player maybe suffered a vehcile being immobilsed, or not, may get handicapped, or not. Right now, it is always a 100% kill. I wouild like to see botzh this appartment block killer, and the weaker devices from before, and maybe a third one set somewhere in the middle. More variation is not needed, I think.

Regarding the water pond issue, I indeed referred to tanks manouvering inside their BPs, and formations being manually driven by a player in the lead tank. Water obstacle dteectio0n under these circumstances is non-existent, with the exception of rivers now. You cannot always avoid to establish a BP near such an pobstacle, when the enemy ambushes you and your wingman automatically jump into BP mode and go into line formation. You can order them back, but if the fight continues, some seconds later again they are in BP mode, or so it seems, maniuvering on their own back and forth, leaving the traveol formation. You can see that often in the Platoon Recon scenario, since it is meant to be played like this, from the lead vehicle, without establishing a network of routes in the briefing screen.

So, while I see some things clearer now, I still must say there are some changes that result in a behavior of infantry that is different than before, and sometime better, sometimes worse than before, especially the small arms thing I am still not fully clear about. A lot depends now on picking not just infantry, but the right infantry type (before there were no differences), and I will test now if changing BP tactics and focus points maybe have an effect on them that decides their firing behavior different than it was before.

Maybe an opportunity to finally finish that old mission design that I never completed in full after having spend so much time into it that one day I just had enough. It was part of a mini-campaign, the first mission is finished, and a third mission with a huge defensive battle also exists, 65% done. Just tweaking control logics proved to be very tricky, due to the complexity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CONCLUSIONS on these issues: ATGMs of ATGM groups work well. Weak ATMs of normal infantry units are not being fired for the explanation given by Ssnake. Modern, tougher ATMs of regular infantry get fired, but only very rarely and after longer delay or hesitations.

That is mostly good news then. :) We will look into the possible longer delay of infantry using their RPGs.

It has ruined two events in one of my missions where the column of the player maybe suffered a vehcile being immobilsed, or not, may get handicapped, or not. Right now, it is always a 100% kill. I wouild like to see botzh this appartment block killer, and the weaker devices from before, and maybe a third one set somewhere in the middle. More variation is not needed, I think.

Ok, maybe I can help. I understand that the current IED has broken your events, because you have tailored your events around the old IED. That makes perfect sense. This is also the reason why I said the plan is to have the scenario designer be able to specify the power of the IED. Until that point, unfortunately you are just going to have to have the more powerful IED because there were far more complaints about the IED being too weak than there were about the IED being too powerful.

Is the IED in the Suzon scenario or some other sceanrio? I can't seem to find any IEDs in the Suzon scenario. You can still accomplish the same task that you want with the use of penalty zones. You can place a penalty zone in the area of where the IED is and have it apply random damage to a vehicle that is in the region. Do this simply by calling the region something like "IED1", then select the vehicles and apply damage if events. You can even make it have a random probablity as well. You could set the IED off the road a bit further too if you still want the explosion.

Please understand that I am trying to help you out here. Change is inevitable in SB and not everyone will like it. The eventual planned result is always one where more freedom is provided to the scenario designer. Until that point you will just have to accept the more powerful IED unfortunately.

You cannot always avoid to establish a BP near such an pobstacle, when the enemy ambushes you and your wingman automatically jump into BP mode and go into line formation. You can order them back, but if the fight continues, some seconds later again they are in BP mode, or so it seems, maniuvering on their own back and forth, leaving the traveol formation. You can see that often in the Platoon Recon scenario, since it is meant to be played like this, from the lead vehicle, without establishing a network of routes in the briefing screen.

Sure you can avoid it, just do not press E near a water obstacle, especially if there is a one behind you. As long as you don't do that then they should be fine. Units will not get a BP unless you specifically press E, or give them a "set tactics" order from the map. Still, once enemy fire comes in and units start concentrating on the enemy then mistakes do happen. You should always, without a doubt, avoid using the bank of a water obstacle as cover from enemy fire. That is just asking for trouble.

That said, the AI routing and pathfinding is something that is in constant development just because of the very nature of the complexity. As I said in another thread, it is a push and pull relationship. To fix one behavior it often adjusts another. In the past, if the tanks avoided the water when you put a BP near it (I don't recall that they ever did avoid it in this case), then at the very best they would still always drive into the water along a route like lemmings, and / or when you simple changed formation near the water. It is hard to see something you are mentioned here as being utterly broken given what the behavior of the AI was around water in the past.

As I said before though, the current behavior is certainly not what anyone would call perfect (I certainly would never call it perfect, no matter how much it was improved).

...especially the small arms thing I am still not fully clear about.

In theory at least, infantry should never fire small arms at tanks anymore. They will fire at lighter armored and non armored vehicles with small arms though. Again, this was done because -- in the past -- regardless of a miracle shot that might damage a GPS, infantry firing on tanks did nothing but cause themselves to draw fire, and they also let the enemy tanks know precisely when they were all dead (you knew they were dead when the infantry stopped firing small arms at you). Also, as it was before, it was rare that a tank would stumble onto to RPG range of infantry because they would, rather stupidly, signal their presence by opening fire on the tanks at long range. Obviously the current approach is the lesser of two evils regarless of the fact of if everyone is not pleased with it. But that is what it comes down to when the tough design decisions are being made: the big picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the IED in the Suzon scenario or some other sceanrio?

No, it is in Suzon-1, a small mission (single linear patrol) set before the one mission you got yesterday, Suzon-2. It features two IED ambushes. You need it for analysis? You can get it, it is not only finished, but also already changed regarding bumpiness and infantry. I have moved the IEDs away from the trigger zone.

I can't seem to find any IEDs in the Suzon scenario. You can still accomplish the same task that you want with the use of penalty zones. You can place a penalty zone in the area of where the IED is and have it apply random damage to a vehicle that is in the region. Do this simply by calling the region something like "IED1", then select the vehicles and apply damage if events. You can even make it have a random probablity as well.

I look into that.

You could set the IED off the road a bit further too if you still want the explosion.

That'S what I did so far, indeed. That makes it purely cosmetic, though.

Please understand that I am trying to help you out here. Change is inevitable in SB and not everyone will like it.

Sure, and I appreciate it. :)

Sure you can avoid it, just do not press E near a water obstacle, especially if there is a one behind you. As long as you don't do that then they should be fine. Units will not get a BP unless you specifically press E, or give them a "set tactics" order from the map. Still, once enemy fire comes in and units start concentrating on the enemy then mistakes do happen. You should always, without a doubt, avoid using the bank of a water obstacle as cover from enemy fire. That is just asking for trouble.

I was unprecise there. "E" establishes a battle position. However, when you travel in column on a road, you see it in the symbols at the right bottom corner: "in column". When the unit gets attacked though, withoiut you needing to do anything, the column is given up by your wingmen, and you see the symbols in the right bottom corner chnaging to "in line". Next you see them forming a fireing line indeed, and your wingmen move forwards or a bit back all by themselves - WITHOURT yourself needing to press E. I put it verbally easy by referring to that behavior as BP-behavior. I shouldn't have done it, but now you get my point. the importan thing is that in case of this automatic behavior, your wingmen eventually move into or can fall back into waterpits, too, and never the "E" key pressed by you. seen and witnessed repeatedly in 2.460 now. ;), amongst other opporutnities in the mission I sent Sean, the "Platoon Reconnaissance" from the disk.

That said, the AI routing and pathfinding is something that is in constant development just because of the very nature of the complexity. As I said in another thread, it is a push and pull relationship. To fix one behavior it often adjusts another. In the past, if the tanks avoided the water when you put a BP near it (I don't recall that they ever did avoid it in this case), then at the very best they would still always drive into the water along a route like lemmings, and / or when you simple changed formation near the water. It is hard to see something you are mentioned here as being utterly broken given what the behavior of the AI was around water in the past.

I agree that it seems to have improved at real rivers. People also said in the forum that bridges and bridging work better for them - well, I cannot judge that, since I never had any troubles with bridges at all, even not bridghelayers and their bridges. However, regarding the small water obstacles and "ponds" I mention here, it never was any different than like it is today - has been a trap always, and still is a trap. These things do not seem to exist for the AI. I would have wished that map makers simply stayed away from adding these "features" all together, then the problem would never have existed. :)

In theory at least, infantry should never fire small arms at tanks anymore. They will fire at lighter armored and non armored vehicles with small arms though. Again, this was done because -- in the past -- regardless of a miracle shot that might damage a GPS, infantry firing on tanks did nothing but cause themselves to draw fire, and they also let the enemy tanks know precisely when they were all dead (you knew they were dead when the infantry stopped firing small arms at you). Also, as it was before, it was rare that a tank would stumble onto to RPG range of infantry because they would, rather stupidly, signal their presence by opening fire on the tanks at long range. Obviously the current approach is the lesser of two evils regarless of the fact of if everyone is not pleased with it. But that is what it comes down to when the tough design decisions are being made: the big picture.

Yeah, i think I got that one settled now. I just had a small test run with IFVs instead of tanks versus infantry, and saw the infantry becoming more "noisy". Not as noisy as ig engaging ifnantry, I would say, but much more noisy than versus tanks. just about their using of small range ATMs with standard infantry squads I have some doubts.

Thanks,

Sky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent some time manually driving my platoon around the water ponds, and couldn't get my wingmen to fall in. I put some T72s in to the northwest to create an engagement and issued the engage command, and none of them backed in then either. I did watch a platoon member have trouble negotiate the woods to the north and took a while to go around a tree. Ironically, that was probably due to the same change that prevents tanks from going into water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My irony here looks different. I get both that tanks negotiate endlessly between trees, and get stuck in water.

Can't explain why you do not see it. The first two missions that I played with 2.460, I think that was two versions of the stock scenario Flank Attack, and both matches greeted me with SEVERAL tanks getting trapped. That was a great Hello old Swede! after not having SBP installed for two months. :D (I have reinstalled my system early March, and did not install the old SBP anymore, knowing that the upgrade was coming).

Some tanks may have periscopes, but they surely are no submarines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For infantry - try RPG29 (like MT-LB or BTR80 sections have) or RB57 as your LATW, and then let me know how they fare. Something hugely wrong if you don't get results with those two weapons ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Informative thread.

An additional question:

1) Units will always check if their weapons have a chance of disabling or at least damage the target. If not, they will eventually hold their fire.

With all these new vehicles & weaponry, I'm getting a bit lost on who can take on who.

Would there be some kind of database where is mentioned that this round can take on that vehicle (e.g. I think I've seen BMP's take out LeoA1 with their close range cannonfire in Byto), or this RPG can take out this vehicle).

Or in another way: what are the rules upon which units do the check to open or hold fire ?

And if such a database would not exist, well so be it, I'll find things out in the virtual reality ... :-)

Rgds - K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Informative thread.

An additional question:

With all these new vehicles & weaponry, I'm getting a bit lost on who can take on who.

Would there be some kind of database where is mentioned that this round can take on that vehicle (e.g. I think I've seen BMP's take out LeoA1 with their close range cannonfire in Byto), or this RPG can take out this vehicle).

Or in another way: what are the rules upon which units do the check to open or hold fire ?

And if such a database would not exist, well so be it, I'll find things out in the virtual reality ... :-)

Rgds - K

The general rule is (in theory) that the unit simply determines if its weapon system can penetrate the armor of target vehicle. Of course this probably means that it has some sort of super human like knowledge of whether this is possible or not.

Unfortunately the only database per se is here:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition?chappeep_sbvbforum_wiki__session=dabab00f578e5e44e878acba884d356f

Which simply displays all the ammunition's penetration values. These could be compared with Raino's nice LOS armor thickness images in the various vehicle sections, but every vehicle does not have such an image. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if aspect of target vehicle plays any role for the AI considering a weapon as "capable" or not.

An older system unable to threaten a Strv-122s front or flank nevertheless may be able to crack a Leopard-2A4's rear, for example.

Lieste, as I said, reliably fired are only ATGMs in ATGM-3-men groups. The older RPG-style missiles in regular infantry units do not get fired (using Leopard 2A5/-Strv-122 mostly, the modern ones I see being fired only rarely, and after a phase of hesitation. I am relatively sure that before I saw infantry firing even less capable ATMs more frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if aspect of target vehicle plays any role for the AI considering a weapon as "capable" or not.

An older system unable to threaten a Strv-122s front or flank nevertheless may be able to crack a Leopard-2A4's rear, for example.

Lieste, as I said, reliably fired are only ATGMs in ATGM-3-men groups. The older RPG-style missiles in regular infantry units do not get fired (using Leopard 2A5/-Strv-122 mostly, the modern ones I see being fired only rarely, and after a phase of hesitation. I am relatively sure that before I saw infantry firing even less capable ATMs more frequently.

Something is wrong with your mission &/or installation then, as RPG29 is being fired at 750m at the frontal aspect of my M1A1s and the RB57 will happily engage (and eliminate) T80U frontally. Some vehicle/LATW/MAW combinations are not reliable, but I have yet to see the larger weapons fail to engage if they are not being neutralised/killed first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something is wrong with your mission &/or installation then, as RPG29 is being fired at 750m at the frontal aspect of my M1A1s and the RB57 will happily engage (and eliminate) T80U frontally. Some vehicle/LATW/MAW combinations are not reliable, but I have yet to see the larger weapons fail to engage if they are not being neutralised/killed first.

Perhaps the woods are getting in the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have finished a small design, wehre before there were many infantry ambushes. I boosted their RPG/Panzerfausts-tyle weapons to modern types (Storm and the like), and tried different weapon types. Of four ambushes (four different situations in that mission) of that kind, only one worked with a missile fired. The other three did nothing. I had made very sure they have clear LOS. Combat distance: close, 50-200m.

I then replaced the infantry squads with ATGM-groups, in exactly the same place, with the same tactic and the same focus point - they all send me a hostile greeting immediately when being spawned by entering their trigger zone. With ATGM-groups, things work well, both long and short range engagements. Almost too well. :)

But the ATM that hMG-sections and infantry are armed with, are non-starters over here, in 3 out of 4 different situations in that mission, or as I said yesterday, my estimation would be that 80% of the previous missile activity of regular infantry has been lost, compared to before.

Lesson learned for 2.460: if I want reliable AT-activity of infantry units, only ATGM-groups should be selected. The other types only work with regard to engagements with opposing infantry. theoretically it is possible that they have an LOS problem, but that often? And with ATGM-squads working if positioned in their exactly same location?

And due to the minor and absolutely unimportant sound problem I had (Bushmaster using two different MG sounds occasionally, and the Leo2A4 also occasionally uses two different sounds as gun sounds: the regular one, and the one indicating a riccochet hit on own tank's hull), I have reinstalled 2.460 three times now. Installation goes smooth, always, and there is no indicaion that it messes up at some point. Inserted mod-skins also work nice, no other mods in use.

P.S. I should have checked in the AAR whether ATGM-teams at short range fire either their Milan-type or their alternative Panzerfaust-style weapons. Over the long range (1000+ meters) it obviously must be the primary ATGM; though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are using some pure infantry (rather than the heavy weapon teams) though the RPG should function.

HMG, AGL and ATGM missile team RPG are non-functional at present, you can only use their primary weapon (HMG/AGL or ATGM, or the infantry-pure RPG).

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...