Graviteam

The move toward less micromanagement with the new test update is interesting- but I can't see limiting any movement orders yet due to the problematic pathfinding (particularly by halftracks). I started looking at the latest update with the spirit of "less is more" with the amount of orders I was giving, but this didn't last long, as my single "move" order came to naught due to 4 halftracks miring in a river at a ford. This happens regularly (still).

This is the biggest outstanding issue of the game for me. I enjoy it greatly, but am constantly frustrated by the inability of the friendly AI to avoid driving up the side of a building or take a left to avoid driving the other half of the bridge or ford to see what kind of fish live at the bottom of the river. It's not the orders I'm giving- they are simple- go to one point, nothing complex at all.

I can't see having players give LESS orders when this is such a big problem still.

Please give the pathfinding another look.

+1000..it's a major issue esp with the goal of less micromanagement. This is the sort of thing I worry about, how are we going to have a super TACAI when it has such obvious difficulty traversing terrain.

Use by road or vehicles on road together with column formation or no formation to go through fords or villages if possible. However, I also agree that pathfinding has sometimes issues and may lead to unnecessary losses. Luckily enough, the problems only arises at certain situations and the risk can be reduced by using the movement orders I mentioned (you can't drive through a village or ford in a line formation!) or not going through dangerous areas in the first place (sometimes this is "realistic", sometimes not). Otherwise I think the pathfinding works well considering how big the maps are. At least we don't have to worry about vehicles immobilizing in the mud etc...  ;D I hope that "bogging" of vehicles (but not purely random) would be included in the game so there would be real reasons to use roads as it should be. That would almost be masochistic.  :D

Use the proper modifiers. If you send tight formation with vehicles in the woods or through the village, the AI ​​will have to somehow do this wrong order.

There is no point problems with orders to blamed on the pathfinding or AI steps  :P.

Someone could do a manual detailing how these modifiers act. Another way to help would be a tutorial explaining how each order is interpreted according to the terrain and situation.
Much of beginners, like me, would be grateful and would have a less frustrating experience when playing this great game.

In a tactical manual described various options (from page 35) with schemes (from page 46). But there's nothing complicated, they are logically reflect real life.

Use simple rules:
1) Tight formation through the villages and forests do not have to go.
2) If you need to get somewhere far away, it is better to do it by the road in a column (select "by road" modifier).
3) If you want attack to the enemies - select attack order, clear place and line formation.
4) If you want to hold defence - select defence order (not movement) and drag face direction that you need.
5) Hold Shift and make a detail plan (waypoints) if you want more control.

Simple set appropriate modifiers and order.

That doesn't explain AFV's falling into trenches\holes or Halftracks not searching for crossing points over rivers..sorry but I don't think it is the players fault here using the wrong tactics..I use the right tactics for the right situation..but the pathing and tac ai with this regards needs working on. To say it's the players playing it wrong means it will never be looked at even though it's obvious it needs looking at. You want less micromanagement yet we have to micromanage movement and even then your tanks will fall into holes etc.

Understood. I have been doing all of the suggestions above with regularity since the first game (where pathfinding was more of a problem). As I mentioned, this happened in a ford crossing one of the rivers. This was in "line" and "road column" orders. There's still some need for an improved "impassable" avoidance routine by the vehicle AI. A test of sending vehicles over fords (and through any dense terrain) will surely show this issue to still result in an undue loss of vehicles. I am all for a certain degree of "bogging", but loss due to vehicles taking a left in the middle of a ford (3 of them!) is something else.

As I said, I like the game very much. Just making a helpful observation on something that I find to something that could stand some more tweaking if we are going further away from player control.

Developers are also playing their game, and APC will not fall into holes and are looking for the point of intersection of rivers, etc.
Therefore it is better to put screenshots such notes (with max tacinfo), or I not believe to you :)

APC can not timely respond to the obstacle like a river in only one case - a dense formation in the line that crosses the river. This is what I was saying upper. Sorry but this is clearly slipped from the player not AI.

Please put screenshots (with tacinfo) and description what you do. And that so hard to understand what happened and to adequately correct or point out the error.

Will do, thanks.

There is a screenshot on this forum which shows three tanks all in holes..it happens.

I really do think pathfinding and close anti tank weapons for Inf needs working on to give the Inf abit of bite against Tanks.

However we have to agree to disagree;) Shame as others notice these things aswell.

One screenshot one incident from two years? Its not a problem at all  ;D.
And yes send right orders with right modifiers... You control your forces not an AI.

I think that path finding is more than adequate and effectivness of anti-tank weapons is too high. The first will not touch, and the second will decrease in the near future  ;D.


Not only that, I can document their words into practice, showing what's what. And you?  ;D

For you guys, look carefully  ;D
http://youtu.be/hkB02d55fGE

***Feel the power of the AI***

Looks great, but really if you going for less micromanagement shouldn't the tacai automatically choose the best route over the river then drop back into the attack\move formation you gave it once across? Without having to give an order by road\column across the river then redo the move order once across to drop back into line formation.

So I did not choose, I gave exactly one order by one click in each experiment, the AI ​​went back to the desired formation - see last experiment.
And AI should nothing to anybody ;D, it does something that it will ordered by player. If ordered nonsense, it will try to do the nonsense.

So I was always a fun from reference to the fact that the AI ​​there stupid or something like that   :D.

(http://i50.tinypic.com/2zzkhsx.jpg)

Okay, what did I do wrong here?

Orders were Attack/Column from one side of the river to the other (enemy is obviosly present, so "move" seems not the right order). I would prefer to give an order where the attacking forces move to the ford in column, cross at the ford, then spread out, but stringing orders together doesn't seem to work for me.

The halftracks going over the ford drove right up to the river, with one spinning it's wheels and getting mired (Holt). Meanwhile, the infantry (seperating from their transport) decide they don't want to use the ford, and are headed waaaay to the left to cross somewhere else. They are highlighted in the blue boxes in the screenshot. Mu orders are also displayed.

Any ideas on how to get across this impossible river?

did you do attack\column\road?

Still think the tacai should cross a river and avoid holes in the ground without having to give specific orders for it to do it properly. Why can't you give your attack order and when it gets to a river automatically change around so it can cross properly and then drop back into attack formation? Surely that will be a case of a clever AI...showing how it will adjust your order to complete it's objective in a realistic way..rather than needing spot on orders for it not to act stupid. Your asking more form the AI that currently can only do the right thing if given the exact order. Why can't it use abit of "intelligence". i.e it's given an attack order across a river, it gets to the river and uses the best possible route across then when across goes back into attack formation set by the player. That way you'll be really showing off a damn fine AI that will think for itself abit esp facing obvious obstacles.

Andrey the AI is very good at the moment and I do love the game but no AI is perfect we still  have a very long way to go for that so maybe one day this sort of thing will happen in GT..the AI or tacai will think for itself at times and act in a realistic way when facing obstacles like a river. Thatw ay you'll be getting towards your goal of less micromanagement.

Please see my video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkB02d55fGE
And enable tacinfo due to make screenshot.
I am not a psychic man and not seen the hidden things  ;D

Now the comments in general:
1) What do you do with the APCs in this area?
2) What do you expect to move around impassable terrain? A miracle? it will not  ;D
3) The game have a very lenient rules for terrain passableness / obstruction. In reality, you would be there all the APCs stay stuck.
4) Briefings clearly written as did German commanders in reality (as it is strange but they were moving along the road only) , it is in my view useful information. I understand that the players at times smarter than the real commanders  :D, but still a better ride on the road as well as in reality.

Tracked vehicles has limited mobility. There is no need to check it from time to time, choose the square with roads and use modifier move by road.

Andrey,

I think your points here are correct, but you may be missing the actual point. Cross-country driving is always risky and maybe even impossible in some places for vehicles, but in the game this does not always turn out as it should. The problem is how vehicles immobilize. Let's compare reality and the game:

IN REALITY vehicles are immobolized because they
- sink or get stuck into mud, soft ground or snow...
- get stuck between obstacles
- lose ground contact of wheels/tracks
- lose function of or damage their wheels/tracks or have other mechanical failure
- etc

All of this may happen because of
1) unforeseen and unpredictable event
2) driver makes a mistake (drives off the path for example)


IN GAME vehicles are immobolized usually (excluding damage by enemy) because of
1) Order given by the player is not appropriate and AI do as ordered even if the order is stupid
2) ''AI driver'' makes a mistake - i.e drives off the path and sinks into river, keeps on driving against obstacle or drives into a trench.

It's difficult to accept some of immobilizations in the game because they can be seen as technical errors in pathfinding, not as unpredictable physical events or as mistakes made by ''human'' driver.


p.s. I think the pathfinding is not bad in the game and actually works pretty well. But something strange do sometimes happens - as said, it's not perfect yet. ;)

In the game, and these, too:
- sink or get stuck into mud, soft ground or snow...
- get stuck between obstacles
- lose ground contact of wheels/tracks

Excluding the error on commands, they will come out on top.

Well, the player is the "biggest problem" for any realistic game, as he can command and do strange things without risk and never admits his mistakes, trying to blame the AI, during the human nature  ;D.




I think the AI ​-driver ​that controlling vehicle by handles or drive wheel, that moves by the laws of physics and who lost control in a tight spot in a realistic landscape still looks more "humanly" than as is common in other games - in this cell we get stuck with a 30% chance.
Or am I wrong?

P.S. But I agree it's strange and randomly stuck more understandable  ;D.

Thanks for the replies.

1. I gave the orders as shown from one side of the river to the other. I didn't attempt any micromanagement of the path. Once things stalled at the ford, I also let the AI deal with the issue of crossing.

2. I don't expect the AI to move around impassable terrain- a "ford" is a crossing point that is expected to be shallow enough for crossing. Am I wrong in expecting this in game terms? The orders as I have them rely on the ordered forces to get to the other side- and they attempt to use the ford with varying results of their own choice.

So, should vehicles always rely on "Road" formation to travel any distance of measure in this case, regardless of these fords (which seems to be the real issue I'm having)?

But without by road modifier?

If we got a map, at operational level
http://imgur.com/Z9mbT
we see that this square is partially impassable to move (we see marsh swamp and rivers).

If you move there w/o roads is a big risk without respect to the AI actions. Ford is a safer way to cross river but not guarantee

Modifier by the road is not enough  ;D, apparently still needed and the road itself, it lay in the left (east) in the other square :)

All right. We reflect on this "problem" for the holidays and in the March 13 patch to be updated an AI in arcade direction, even dull order for attack in line through the marsh and rivers in Krasnaya Polyana is not to result in loss of vehiclesin most cases (AI will correct players errors).

But it need to redownload DLCs and polygon updates from Gamersgate to get maximum effect :D

Yes, those are in the game, but my point was that in reality getting stuck happens unpredictably. For example: a halftrack tries to cross a ford through a safe route. Everything should be safe, but then it happens to hit a few unseen bad stones and gets stuck. In the game the halftrack usually gets stuck because he doesn't cross the ford from the correct path and instead he drives directly to the river.


If losing of vehicle control (like drive wheel rotating strongly because of stones for example) is simulated in the game, then it's acceptable and correct. A pure random change - in my opinion - is not the best way of doing things. However, I do not know any other way to simulate unknown environmental factors that are not known by both AI driver or the player.


I think this discussion is about philosophy of what A.I should know about terrain and what he should do when given a stupid order by the player.

IMO, AI should evaluate it's chances of success and choose the most effective route depending also on the distance. I would divide drivable terrain cells in four categories (most probably you have already something similiar in the game for AI):

- Easily passable terrain (like roads): AI always uses these cells to travel when by road modifier is on and vehicles approximately never get stuck.
- Passable cross-country terrain: vehicles can pass the terrain easily, but there are always some spots of bad terrain or obstacles and that sometimes lead to immobilization. If no roads are available, AI uses these cells to move when by road modifier is on.
- Difficult terrain (like forests and marsh-like areas): terrain that still can be driven but has many spots of bad terrain or obstacles and that relatively often lead to immobilization.
- Impassable terrain  (like rivers, cliffs, wet swamps, very dense forests): Impassible or high risk terrain, where you as a human would never drive unless totally drunk. AI driver never enter these areas, even if ordered by the player.

The most important thing might be that if some obstacles are clearly visible to player, AI should not drive over them. But it should be also possible for vehicles to get stuck on unseen and unpredictable obstacles (maybe generated randomly or simply simulated by random change?) like a hole covered with vegetation or soft snow (not known or seen by AI nor the player).


Thank you, I guess. I hope that immobilizations due to bad terrain can still happen and that roads will have their importance (IMO they aren't as important at the moment as they should be).

p.s. Could you also add a button that turns the vehicle back on it's wheels when pressed like on some car games?   ;D :D

Not agree
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkB02d55fGE
from 2:45
"a halftrack tries to cross a ford through a safe route. Everything should be safe, but then it happens to hit a few unseen bad stones and gets stuck." - yes? ;)

All passed, and one at the same place is jammed.

This is the "only thing" in the game that is modeled, there is not any randomized.

Now know that there is another way  ;D

Yes, there will agree, this is more of a philosophical question without an answer.


This is a bad graduation.
Take for example the tank that can swim (for example T-37), how to get him to swim if the river is a bad area?  ;D
Another example - The soldiers refused to go through the forest because it is a bad area.

It does not work. Therefore, in the game we do not have good or bad areas, with few exceptions.


No, random is a bad and strange way. If I accidentally get stuck vehicle in the wargame, I immediately start the game from the beginning or load a savegame  ::). IMO Randomly in this case is annoying.


In DLC for 150$  ;D