Jump to content

Vehicles still driving into the drink...


Recommended Posts

Bridge crossings are not the major issue, regarding water, I think , good preparation and planning helps to avoid unwanted accidents.

But that vehicles after 5 years still manage to drown themselves in BPs from which they slightly fall back or move forward and into a nearby river or lake or whatever it is, in order to react within the usual 200-300m margin to new enemies - that is something I have a big issue with. To me it was the number 1 maximum callibre bug from all beginning on, and it still is.

Major tells Lieutenantn to set up battle position in that small forest. Lieutenant says: "No, there is a small lake somewhere, my boys may drown themselves". Major says he should take a position in that meadow then. "Not possible", says the Lieutenant, "there could be a waterhole hidden somewhere. My boys get magically attracted by anything liquid, and then are of no use anymore." Major says he should hid his platoon between the huts beside the road over there. But 200 m nearby is a small river. "Impossible", the Lieutenant says. "My guys may ignore it and drive right into it when readjusting their positions slightly. I never got it into their heads that a tank is no submarine even when they have a periscope."

C'mon, eSim! After 5 years, finally get it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
To me it was the number 1 maximum callibre bug from all beginning on, and it still is.
Everyone has their own personal pet peeve "bug"...

C'mon, eSim! After 5 years, finally get it!

Are the dramatic zingers necessary? If I am talking in the same dramatic way then: after 5 years, you should know not to put a BP very near a body of water, especially one that places the unit's back to the water. So, maybe it is you who should finally "get it". :wink:

But in all seriousness, I invite you to install a version from 5 years ago and tell me how much worse the water avoidance is in it. I think we can agree that progress is being made, albeit slowly. But I will explain why this behavior happens briefly:

A BP releases the AI to backup into a "hull down" position. That hull down position in this case is the river bank. It will (usually) stay there for a while, provided that the river bank is not a steep cliff - in which case it will likely fall in immediately, but as it is doing its forward and reverse move while engaging the enemy, a vehicle will eventually back up too much and slide into the water because it will make mistakes (being fixated on the enemy, intentional behavior AFAIK).

As Ssnake said in the other long winded thread, path finding will improve over time (as it has improved over time already).

Edited by Volcano
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone has their own personal pet peeve "bug"...

Are the dramatic zingers necessary? If I am talking in the same dramatic way then: after 5 years, you should know not to put a BP very near a body of water, especially one that places the unit's back to the water. So, maybe it is you who should finally "get it". :wink:

But in all seriousness, I invite you to install a version from 5 years ago and tell me how much worse the water avoidance is in it. I think we can agree that progress is being made, albeit slowly. But I will explain why this behavior happens briefly:

A BP releases the AI to backup into a "hull down" position. That hull down position in this case is the river bank. It will (usually) stay there for a while, provided that the river bank is not a steep cliff - in which case it will likely fall in immediately, but as it is doing its forward and reverse move while engaging the enemy, a vehicle will eventually back up too much and slide into the water because it will make mistakes (being fixated on the enemy, intentional behavior AFAIK).

As Ssnake said in the other long winded thread, path finding will improve over time (as it has improved over time already).

;) I know the explanation. Haven'T I explained it just myself? Yes, you can place BPs farther away. Even when that is not advisable concerning the battle tactics, or is serving not for a tactical purpose, but as a work-around for a characteristic of the AI that renders it blind for water. My criticism is that still a workaround as a repair for an erratic aspect of the sim that is highly unrealistic is needed. A workaround. Or you pass over a huge open prairie, and pass waterholes, tiny chunks of water hidden by bushes, that in reality not every third platoon passingh would lose one or two tanks to. You can workaround by having your platoon not in line formation or wedge, but in column. Even when advancing under fire, in a battle, so: is that logic for a workaround really that logical, realistic, advisable?

My initial snappy tone came from that somebody refers to problems with water, and it was given the impression he simply talked about bridges and how to correctly pass them, while ignoring the other big big problem with water and how the AI ignores it as if it does nto exist. IMO it is a major annoyance, the only real big annoyance I have with SBP - from all beginning on. You just offer workarounds for the state things are in. But workaround do not fix and repair things. They are just temporary improvisations. At least they should be that.

Me, I scan maps in editor by rpoutine and delete all tiny water obstacles, dry minor rivers of their water whose slightly falling slopes, harmless in themselves I plan to make tactical use and where water normally would be no porblem if the driver would not intentionbally or blindly drive right into the middle of it, and I clean water from any map I play on - becasue I do not want to need to make constant tactical compormises due to not a realiostic representation of reality in the sim, but an issue with the AI being blind to these liquid entities. Do you think doing like I do is the way things should be like - after five years?

Usually I do not post much anymore in this forum here, and stay out of almost everything. But this bug - that'S what it is - is a major buggar. Maybe not caused by something broken, but caused by an unwanted interaction or consequence of the control logic, but the effect still is the same like from a bug. The damage gets done. And I do not know how much frustration I took from it over the years. Certainly far too much.

I can forgive no suspension, honstely I just do not care. I do not care for shadows. Weather, what for? I did not demand a playable T-72 twice a week. I made no calls for any new vehicles at all. - But this one bad thing, AI and water - that is something I want getting fixed. Finally.

So again my request, I am willing to trade away half of the new, or even all new vehicles having arrived with 2.640 for this: after 5 years, get that AI being blind on water finally fixed. After 5 years, that is not asked too much for, I think, patience cannot be pout in doubt here. It is not requesting a feature, but a call for fixing an issue. You can explain why it is like it is, and I already knew that. But that does not solve it.

No hard feelings, Volcano. :cvcsalut: My unwavering defence and "propaganda" :) in favour of SBP in the tanksim.com forum should tell you how big a fan of eSim and SBP I am, even when I gave you two or three headaches in past years . Some of the members here at eSim forums, or customers of the sim, turned into that because I "turned" them into :) by my five years of input and news posting over there. Even when this one issue on water really makes me very angry, I still love you all. :biggrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No hard feelings, Volcano. :cvcsalut: My unwavering defence and "propaganda" :) in favour of SBP in the tanksim.com forum should tell you how big a fan of eSim and SBP I am, even when I gave you two or three headaches in past years . Some of the members here at eSim forums, or customers of the sim, turned into that because I "turned" them into :) by my five years of input and news posting over there. Even when this one issue on water really makes me very angry, I still love you all. :biggrin:

Yes, we are aware of this because you say it after every time you make a scene. But anyway, the point of my post really is that the dramatics are not necessary. It isn't going to make things happen any quicker and you make it seem as if no progress has occurred over the years. Maybe it is because people who have been around for 10 years know exactly how bad it used to be...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, we are aware of this because you say it after every time you make a scene. But anyway, the point of my post really is that the dramatics are not necessary. It isn't going to make things happen any quicker and you make it seem as if no progress has occurred over the years. Maybe it is because people who have been around for 10 years know exactly how bad it used to be...

:decu: Always making a scene, eh? Saying it after every time... eh? 10 years, hm?

Maybe you just try to make a cover-up of an issue you want no talking about, eh? :decu: And on that "saying this every time after I made a scene", you may want to check my forum activity statistics to teach you how absurd that claim is. I am simply not that much around anymore. Since longer time. Two years or a bit longer ago I even took some months break since it was indirectly implied that I just fabricated descriptions of an erratic behaviour, which I took extremely queer and personal.

And while I remember that, I suddenly remember why I took several months of a break back then, and never became that active here again like several years ago.

For your record. I'm following SBP since SB Gold. I was with SBPPE from release date on. I even reviewed it, followed it through all poatches and upgrades. Sometime a bit unhappy, which on a few occaisons was my own fault. I realsied that, learned, and got happy again.

And sorry, if I play on the old maps and I do not treat water bodies the way I learned to over the past five years, I still lose my tanks to riverslopes or in small ponds as if the AI-water-issue never received any attention. That tanks occasionally rock back and forth when meeting such a tiny obstacle, does not meant that at the end they do not manage to trap themselves nevertheless - they do.

Else I would not need to waste time editing and cleaning maps of blue dots.

Good night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely have units "drown themselves." I'm about to post a mission I created which features several of the situations you mentioned. I've played it probably a hundred times and maybe twice one unit got stuck. That was due to improper routing on my part. Don't take this the wrong way, but I just don't see it as that much of a problem if the proper tactics are used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But this one bad thing, AI and water - that is something I want getting fixed. Finally.

I can but repeat, we are working on it. But before I have seen the work results and tested them, I cannot predict whether it will solve the issue once and for all. All I can say is that it has the potential to do it.

Finally, do not underestimate the power of tank crews to get themselves into trouble. Believe me, it's amazing how stupid some crews can be, how they can get lost, how they can drive into bottomless pits of mud - and how treacherous can be what we usually call "firm ground".

While it may be true that human crews would avoid water obstacles better than our computer-controlled crews do, I can assure you that human crews will create other forms of friction that can drive you mad.

Maaad! I tell you! :eek2:

The things I have seen! Waaa!

No, really. Real tanks are always in a state of disrepair. They may still be able to fight, but having a tank with no need for repairs and maintenance just means that you haven't looked at it with due diligence (or that it is brand new from the factory - and even then...).

Steel Beasts may be throwing sand into the gears of your magnificent plans. In reality it's a different kind of sand - but you can't get rid of the friction. You can try to minimize it with rigorous training (if you have the time and money for it (usually Armies do not, contrary to popular belief)). It's important as a matter of mental preparation that, no matter what, some things will not go as planned, and especially with mechanized forces technical difficulties will play a role. Low oil pressure. Clogged air filters. Hydraulics leaks. Crew errors. Moronic tank commanders taking absurd risks, and acting on impulse and ludicrous ideas. People who mix up north and south (or left and right) while reading a map.

Link to post
Share on other sites
:decu: Always making a scene, eh? Saying it after every time... eh? 10 years, hm?

Maybe you just try to make a cover-up of an issue you want no talking about, eh? :decu: And on that "saying this every time after I made a scene", you may want to check my forum activity statistics to teach you how absurd that claim is. I am simply not that much around anymore. Since longer time. Two years or a bit longer ago I even took some months break since it was indirectly implied that I just fabricated descriptions of an erratic behaviour, which I took extremely queer and personal.

And while I remember that, I suddenly remember why I took several months of a break back then, and never became that active here again like several years ago.

For your record. I'm following SBP since SB Gold. I was with SBPPE from release date on. I even reviewed it, followed it through all poatches and upgrades. Sometime a bit unhappy, which on a few occaisons was my own fault. I realsied that, learned, and got happy again.

And sorry, if I play on the old maps and I do not treat water bodies the way I learned to over the past five years, I still lose my tanks to riverslopes or in small ponds as if the AI-water-issue never received any attention. That tanks occasionally rock back and forth when meeting such a tiny obstacle, does not meant that at the end they do not manage to trap themselves nevertheless - they do.

Else I would not need to waste time editing and cleaning maps of blue dots.

Good night.

Honestly, I have no idea what you are going on about. You are the one that mentioned "5 years", I was just saying that in 10 years, the water pathfinding has come a long way (because you implied that nothing has changed) -- they used to be certified lemmings (in not so many words). Other than that, I think you have a flare for the over-the-top dramatic, and I was saying that it is not helpful to the discussion. Your subsequent dramatic reply does no better at proving this to be false.

This is all I have to say on that topic.

Edited by Volcano
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think vehicles ending up in the drink are less frequent then before , however it really depends much on how big a scenario is. You can counter the problem by micro managing your units but when the shit hits the fan and you got tons of vehicles to micro manage and also try to fight of the enemy then you are actually fighting 2 different fights at the same time and will most likely result in 1 or 2 vehicles ending up in the water . Its can be a frustrating bug at times , but personally i can live with it as it is right now..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Low oil pressure. Clogged air filters. Hydraulics leaks. Crew errors. Moronic tank commanders taking absurd risks, and acting on impulse and ludicrous ideas. People who mix up north and south (or left and right) while reading a map.

Amen, brother.

You have not felt fear until you feel your track slowing down, tell the driver to step on it, he says he has it boarded - and you look over the side and see a bow wave....

(about a km SW of Monument Woods)

Not to mention broken headsets, mismarked maps, a driver insisting that "I can make it"....

The AI does plenty of unrealistic and frustrating things, but driving into the water and getting stuck is not that unrealistic.

DG

Link to post
Share on other sites
Amen, brother.

You have not felt fear until you feel your track slowing down, tell the driver to step on it, he says he has it boarded - and you look over the side and see a bow wave....

DG

And then ask him how long ago he checked the bilge pumps (meant to be part of the daily or weekly service - IIRC). :)

Or that he has lashed the trim vane with junk so he can’t deploy it even if he wanted to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or your 2nd Lieutenant Troop commander somehow locates a 30 year old Swimming Kit (a La DD tank) in the Squadron lines basement for your 432 and plans a "River Crossing Exercise" . Sighs of relief all round when we found it was full of holes (secretly I sort of wish we had done it ! LOL )

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...