Zealous Medics

[Field Marshal Blücher]

OK, I'm very glad that BFC increased the propensity of soldiers to give buddy aid to fallen comrades. It was earlier way too infrequent. But now, soldiers must really be after that Congressional Medal of Honor in a bad way.

The way that it should be, I feel, is that soldiers give buddy aid to guys in their action spot, building floor, etc. But now I've noticed that men have a propensity to stick their necks out in ways that don't make sense.

Two examples of this:

1) A squad on the second floor of a building took heavy fire and bugged out down to the first floor. This removed them from enemy LOS; they were safe. Then, some guy decides to go help his friend out IMMEDIATELY (before there's been enough time to deal with the threat), and promptly gets killed. This, by itself, was not nearly as frustrating as:

2) A squad took some fire running into a building and took a casualty outside the building entrance. They ran into the building and were safe. Then, one bright individual, literally as soon as he ceased to be pinned, ran right outside and began providing buddy aid to the guy and was promptly killed. Then ANOTHER genius did the exact same thing. I was forced to relocate the whole squad to prevent one man's death from causing eight more.

This isn't a huge issue. It's only happened to me a couple of times. I've only mentioned it because it seems relatively easy to fix (i.e., for squads in buildings, restricting buddy aid to soldiers on their floor and in their building).

Thanks for listening to me whine! :D

[Pvt. Ryan]

In my experience they do wait until things calm down before going outside or to another floor in a building before trying to administer aid, but even so, they tend to put themselves in harm's way when they shouldn't. If a squad got blasted by a tank when it was on the fourth floor, and then ran down to the first floor to take cover, there's a good chance that tank will still be out there three minutes later and will shoot the guy with the band-aids.

[Pandur]

funny i wanted to create a thread about this not some houers ago.
there are 2 things i see with medics;

1st - is the behaviour described, wich isnt nice but its no "bug", it just needs to be tweaked so they dont crawl around to action spots they are not in, to medic someone. as long as they do they gona crawl over the top/crest, around the corners and whatnot to medic guys and draw fire and die quiet often.

2nd - thing i see is clearly a "bug" as i see medics warp through fences/walls/housewalls to medic someone. if noone saw it so far i can elaborate further, but depending on the battle and the places where the action takes place it happens fairly often.
someone should have seen it.

[Bigduke6]

Matter of taste, but I think self-sacrificing medics is terrific coding and one of the things that separates CM from the rest of the pack.

Now if only they could do something about the nerve gas in the HE shells...

[Scipio]

Instead of recoding the medic, I propose that wounded soldiers get sound effects, so we hear them cry for pain and their mothers, what they likely do in reality. We currently do have the impression that all soldiers who are marked as 'wounded' are clean and unconcious.
Of course this is not a serious request - but it would explain why sometimes soldiers run into fire, trying to save there brothers. Wound a soldiers and wait for the next idiot who tries to save him is also a common sniper tactic (AFAIC).

[Adam]

Matter of taste, but I think self-sacrificing medics is terrific coding and one of the things that separates CM from the rest of the pack.

Now if only they could do something about the nerve gas in the HE shells...

I don't really get what you mean about nerve gas but I agree that it's neat seeing the soldiers act like *people* who care about their comrades and will risk their person to try and help. It fits with how I imagine people acting in a battle, anyhow. I have no idea if it's accurate.

[Meach]

What you would do is grab the wounded guy on the ankles, lapels, or any part of his apendages you can reach, pull him back into cover then buddy aid him. If he's out in the open like Full Metal Jacket standard procedure is to provide covering fire and only approach once threats are neutralised.

Now, when your buddy you been thru boots and basic with is lying with a sucking chest wound and looking you right in the eye and you know he's begging you to help him......

Scipio hit it right on the head, there is no emotional hook for us to get caught on when someone crawls right out into the open to buddy aid. We think..."NOOOO, not the SMAW guy!" cos we can be cold and rational about the tactical situation.

[birdstrike]

I'd also say that the way buddy aid works now feels about right.

Though I agree, sometimes it would be a good thing if a wounded soldier in a different action spot thant the rest of the squad would first be dragged to the squad's action spot before applying buddy aid.

[Pandur]

the things you talk about right now are plausible and would be nice as feature but we have it as a "glitch", or i would call it like that. i dont think its human to crawl out to buddy aid someone for 2 or 3 minutes under fire in the open to get shot and the next rat is commin out of the hole crawling to medic these guys. and the next and the next. hell even rats would get it but the human squad does kill itself as a whole if you dont stop this by relocateing them.

that is too much, this is pulling on my nerves, iam playing the commander here and not the oh so understanding buddy of the guy shot. same with the Magic David medics warping through solid walls to medic someone.

[Meach]

I agree about the chain-medic phenomenon, Pandur.

The warp medic is something I have never encountered ingame. All I can say is put it down to a determined medic climbing, crawling, jumping, backflipping or cartwheeling if he had too to get to that injured guy :D

[Scipio]

It is also unrealistic that your men keep sitting in a save and warm place, while their buddys are dying 5m away...
I guess a sensefull reaction would be fire on the suspected enemy position. This would also keep your men away from giving buddy aid; IIRC only unsupressed squads/teams without fire or movement orders give buddy aid (but I could be wrong here). In other words, it's all your own fault. You men are not suppossed to sit around ;)

[Sgt Joch]

Charles actually spent a lot of time tweaking the "buddy aid" behavior arround 1.10/1.11. We tested builds ranging from one extreme, where soldiers would totally ignore their comrades dying right next to them to the other extreme where they would ignore enemy soldiers firing on them to perform buddy aid.

Under the current behavior, at least from the testing I saw, a soldier should not perform "buddy aid" if he is currently being fired at or under fire. The problem, of course, is that it is impossible to get the AI of the individual pixeltruppens to always behave as a real human would. :)

The way it works now is obviously the compromise that BFC and most testers felt the most comfortable with, within the limitations of the AI.

[nikita320106]

Instead of recoding the medic, I propose that wounded soldiers get sound effects, so we hear them cry for pain and their mothers, what they likely do in reality.
if dev's do in this way, we all should must request another option for marines "kill enemy's wounded, 'cos no time for heal them ass"
just kidding))

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Under the current behavior, at least from the testing I saw, a soldier should not perform "buddy aid" if he is currently being fired at or under fire. The problem, of course, is that it is impossible to get the AI of the individual pixeltruppens to always behave as a real human would. :)

To clarify, he was not under fire when he ran out to medic the dude, but he was under fire in the same spot as the wounded guy under a minute earlier (and probably only 15 seconds or so earlier). He literally ran out as soon as he ceased to be suppressed.

The way it works now is obviously the compromise that BFC and most testers felt the most comfortable with, within the limitations of the AI.

I realize that, and I appreciate everyone's work! :) I just thought that I should point this out. I too agree that they should do something, but it should be more along the lines of "pull the guy into the building/down to your floor before medicing" rather than "rush blindly out into the kill zone to medic someone who's not even in your building." :D

[Sgt Joch]

I should also point out that Steve has mentioned that CM:WW2 will feature a new way to treat casualties. I am as much in the dark about what that means as everyone else, but I presume this will affect how casualties, including "Buddy Aid" is handled in CM:WW2 and CMSF2.

[Scipio]

To clarify, he was not under fire when he ran out to medic the dude, but he was under fire in the same spot as the wounded guy under a minute earlier (and probably only 15 seconds or so earlier). He literally ran out as soon as he ceased to be suppressed. The pixeltruppen doesn't remember obviosly what has happend to them in which spot. I assume the additional dataload the game would need to be able to handle this could be... a lot.

[Wengart]

I've only had this happen to me while attempting to clear buildings, on occasion. The first guy in will get shot and everyone outside hits the deck. However one guy will rush in to provide buddy aid and gets shot too.

Perhaps if the game could remember what happened to the last guy that attempted buddy aid the chain problem could be prevented, not that I have run into it. so If someone in a squad goes out to provide buddy aid, and gets shot the rest of the squad could use that info to choose not to give aid.

But it seems to be a minor problem with the buddy aid system. So no need to completely change it around, I wouldn't think.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Buddy aid should only be administered if the wounded guy has a nice watch.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Buddy aid should only be administered if the wounded guy has a nice watch.

Or a picture of his girlfriend.

[MarkEzra]

Buddy aid should only be administered if the wounded guy has a nice watch.

Or an I-Pod with good tunes... After all, this is a modern war setting :D

[Meach]

It's the chocolate ration I would be buddy aiding :D

[Normal Dude]

Or a picture of his girlfriend.

But if he shows off a the picture during setup phase, he has to get nailed by a Syrian sniper. I'm pretty sure that is in the manual somewhere.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Lol. Too bad we can't have our pixel troopers stealing from each otherleft and right; otherwise we'd see humvees and trucks rolling down the street missing doors, and battalion staff-types missing batteries for NVGs and stuff.

[Bigduke6]

I mean mostly the program makes squads stay more clumped up than they would likely to be in RL, plus since it's a sim ground is smoother and contains less tiny bits of man-sized cover, than RL. Plus the little pixel soldiers, unlike real ones, will keep doing their thing rather than hug the ground and/or hide when a tank points its main gun at them. PLUS (this last one I can't state as fact, but I suspect it) CMSF tank gunners don't miss very much. Net result: Single Tank HE shells erase half squads/crews routinely, and squads quite frequently.

I find that inaccurate and I complain about it on these forums from time to time, as I do here.

I don't really get what you mean about nerve gas but I agree that it's neat seeing the soldiers act like *people* who care about their comrades and will risk their person to try and help. It fits with how I imagine people acting in a battle, anyhow. I have no idea if it's accurate.

[Combatintman]

What are we basing these opinions regarding medic behaviour on? If one of your blokes goes down you get him out - that's it - its what you do. He's one of your mates - somebody you went through training with, somebody you've been drinking with, somebody whose wedding you went to, somebody you'd do anything for, somebody you've spent the best years of your life with - in essence somebody who you have a closer bond with than anybody else in the world. Ask anybody who's been in the Army - you're not fighting for your country .... or victory points ... you're fighting for your mates.

[Los]

Amen to that!

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke6,

Plus the little pixel soldiers, unlike real ones, will keep doing their thing rather than hug the ground and/or hide when a tank points its main gun at them.

Yeah, we've had this discussion a couple of times and this is one of those situations where AI programming runs into some game problems. And that is, having your guys preemptively take cover because of a perceived threat is realistic only if the reaction is correctly modeled. Otherwise all you have to do is get near the enemy an start spinning your tank around in circles and all the enemy goes for cover or heads for hills. Obviously we'd have a few complaints about that :)

Having said that, we do have it on our minds as to a way to improve the TacAI behavior in a way that would probably be worth the effort.


PLUS (this last one I can't state as fact, but I suspect it) CMSF tank gunners don't miss very much.

I think this is a function of several things. First, range... I think most circumstances where this happens are well under 500m. At that range even a WW2 tank should usually hit first shot. Second, these aren't WW2 tanks :D Even the crappiest targeting system on the Syrian side is better than what was available in WW2. Or at the very least, no worse. Third, the terrain often is very not-friendly to squishes being targeted by treadheads. In the wide open both cover and intervening terrain are often lacking, while in urban environments the terrain often helps contribute to casualties.

Net result: Single Tank HE shells erase half squads/crews routinely, and squads quite frequently.

As has been stated here every time "clumping" comes up, the game already accounts for this by downgrading the effects of big boom-booms. This was done in CMx1 even more because in that game system all the guys in a unit were in a single pixel. So all effects were abstracted. For CMx2 we are able to abstract less, but we still have to abstract it somewhat.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Los,

Amen to that!

So you're saying you used to carry enough chocolate to get your butt saved? How did you handle the melt factor :)

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

What are we basing these opinions regarding medic behaviour on? If one of your blokes goes down you get him out - that's it - its what you do. He's one of your mates - somebody you went through training with, somebody you've been drinking with, somebody whose wedding you went to, somebody you'd do anything for, somebody you've spent the best years of your life with - in essence somebody who you have a closer bond with than anybody else in the world. Ask anybody who's been in the Army - you're not fighting for your country .... or victory points ... you're fighting for your mates.

Well, I look at it like this. If the picture of my buddy's girlfriend is exceptionally important to unit morale, I'll go out and try to retrieve it. But, since I can't come up with a reason to save the picture, and not my buddy, I go ahead and try to save my buddy in the process. Generally, though, if someone already goes out to get the picture before me, and also gets hit; I'm not likely to go out for them until the tactical situation changes. Dramatically. Some situations would cause me to override my diminished sense of self-survival, I suppose.

[Phillip Culliton]

BigDuke6,
Yeah, we've had this discussion a couple of times and this is one of those situations where AI programming runs into some game problems. And that is, having your guys preemptively take cover because of a perceived threat is realistic only if the reaction is correctly modeled. Otherwise all you have to do is get near the enemy an start spinning your tank around in circles and all the enemy goes for cover or heads for hills. Obviously we'd have a few complaints about that :)

Having said that, we do have it on our minds as to a way to improve the TacAI behavior in a way that would probably be worth the effort.


Just a quick note on realism:

Several years back I corresponded with a US Army major who was building a combat model that was built on "realistic" individual psyches and training in response to real and perceived threats. I built my own simulation based on his papers and also tested his simulation out... believe me, if you're playing a game where you expect to have fun, "realistic" is NOT what you want. "Realistic" is brutal, unsparing, and occasionally very, very short. (Consider Steve's example: is it really that unrealistic to think that a Red force might run at the sight of a tank if they didn't feel up to taking it on? Not so much.)

In short, you have to be very careful that their reactions are "correctly modeled" (to borrow Steve's phrase), meaning (my meaning) that they still create situations that will be largely entertaining for the player. I think that when gamers ask for realism they mean that their specific ideal or target scenario is pre-coded to have the correct "look and feel" which may be in fact be one possible realistic response or fun to watch but very, very hard to simulate generically. As a gamer that's what *I* tend to really mean, anyway. ;)

In short, it's hard to make an AI play an enjoyable game without tons of specific coding (which is why, for example, generic bots in FPSes do such a poor job of being anything other than successively harder-to-kill targets). I think BFC has done a stunning job in this regard. You feel like you're facing an opponent instead of a machine, and you're leading entities that respond well to most situations instead of needing constant supervision.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

What are we basing these opinions regarding medic behaviour on? If one of your blokes goes down you get him out - that's it - its what you do. He's one of your mates - somebody you went through training with, somebody you've been drinking with, somebody whose wedding you went to, somebody you'd do anything for, somebody you've spent the best years of your life with - in essence somebody who you have a closer bond with than anybody else in the world. Ask anybody who's been in the Army - you're not fighting for your country .... or victory points ... you're fighting for your mates.

I agree completely: you get him out. You don't stand out in the open 15 meters away from the enemy soldiers who wounded him trying to dress his wounds on the spot.

[Battlefront.com]

Philip,

I think that when gamers ask for realism they mean that their specific ideal or target scenario is pre-coded to have the correct "look and feel" which may be in fact be one possible realistic response or fun to watch but very, very hard to simulate generically.

Yes, I think that's what we all have in mind. We want a certain balance between realism and entertainment. Too much in either direction is bad. Too realistic and the game suddenly holds no entertainment value. Too unrealistic and there's no entertainment value. And that's because we want to be entertained with a mix of elements.

A perfect example of this cropped up the other day when an experienced soldier and tester played a scenario I made for the Brit Campaign. The conclusion was that it was a lot of fun, but in the real world the British force would have pulled back at the first sign of trouble and had the entire area in front of them hit hard with massed artillery and/or sustained air attacks. It would have probably taken less time to do that and then advance, than it would have been to slug through it without such support. BUT where is the fun in that? Exactly :D

And for those who think this issue is related to modern warfare only... read your history books again. Time after time you'll see battles where one side disengages prematurely in order to come back a few hours, days, weeks, or even months later with a different plan, force structure, support assets, whatever. Once again, do people really want to set up and maneuver their forces (which takes hours in real life time) only to have a short 20 minute firefight and then pull back or watch the enemy run away but be unable to do anything about it? Call me crazy, but I don't think so :D

Steve

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I agree completely: you get him out. You don't stand out in the open 15 meters away from the enemy soldiers who wounded him trying to dress his wounds on the spot.

Let me clarify this statement. I repeat: I'm not asking for a functionality that has soldiers drag their wounded to safety. That would be way too complicated. All I'm asking is that they don't leave safety without orders to do so, because that simplifies the issue. In all of my games, I try my hardest to medic every casualty. Is it too much to ask that I ensure that the area is secure before my men move in to provide medical aid?

[Meach]

Steve,

What you said about realism vs entertainment. I find the majority of QB's that get set up would never happen cos the troops would look at what they had to achieve with what they had to hand and promptly bugger off and wait for reinforcements, artillery or air support.

For example, one quick battle, I had a platoon of AT strykers and MGS defending a small village on a hill vs the Syrian hordes. In reality I suspect it would be a quick volley of fire then scarper, not hang about for 25-40minutes while the infantry infiltrate into RPG range and promptly barbecue your vehicles.