Action Square /spot

[Lacroix]

are there any plans to improve unit spacing?

for example sending an team or in worse case squad from point A to point B and ensuring they take good positions,can be problematic. Soldiers will just unrealistically try to be as close to eachothers as they can,often being on top of each others

 

besides not looking very nice, it impacts gameplay alot. and realism.

 

interaction between unit spacing and HE (or any other rounds) is my point

 

tight formation, which is completely unnessesary , makes them more vulnerable to the HE rounds. now, it might be the case that HE rounds are not as deadly in the game as they are irl.

which bring us to another thing: Not Realistic much

 

in my opinion,this is a big flaw in cm games. i dont mind that much strange animations and sometimes abysimal shadows but this is one of the things that is critical for realism

 

are there any plans to adress this,and if yes would it be @v4 or x3 engine

 

 

[Wiggum15]

I agree with you. The whole modeling of Infantry needs to be redone. We need formations (column, line, free) and spacing options (tight, normal, wide).

I also agree with the HE problem, it adds to some inconstancy within the engine.

Maybe BFC (with their limited time & money) should better retun to the abstracted modeling of Infantry similar to CMx1

Just think about the amount of work needed to get it right with a 1-1 representation...MOUT, Inf-Veh coordination.

Then you have the cover and spotting problem, CM generally offers a unrealistic small amount of cover for Infantry but ha them spotted WAY to easily.

I hope they put some work into the infantry for the Bulge game but highly doubt it...

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Maybe BFC (with their limited time & money) should better retun to the abstracted modeling of Infantry similar to CMx1

 

Maybe with the maturity of the automotive engine in question, it would be best to return to the horsedrawn carriage.

 

Sarcasm aside, perhaps there could be some system of terrain based formation changes, like if the terrain offers some small amount of cover and is fairly open, infantry would assume a wider spacing, while in urban or complex enviroments it would bunch up more.  

 

I'm loath to support squad formations as a button simply because it's getting a bit too into micro, I'd rather just have a slightly flawed, but mostly functional system that let me set my dudes on their way without too much baby sitting.  

 

Further maybe it'd be tied to movement speed/behavior.  Examples:

 

Move would be a column, with spacing maintained based on terrain (slightly abstracted, like it if entered a series of urban action squares it'd tighten up to maintain cohesion, while if it entered a light wood it'd spread out)

Tactical move (new command), walking pace, same as above with formation broadly flexing to orient on assumed or known infantry positions*

Quick: same as tactical move only at a fatiguing, but faster pace

Fast: Run.  No spacing or formation.  Basically reserved for getting troops through an area as fast as possible

Hunt: .75 tactical move speed, cohesion loose, formations on line/wedge oriented on line of travel**

Assault: less spread out than hunt, bounding by sections.  Sections basically run for short distances while the other fires.  Lays down suppressive fire automatically at known or suspected enemy (so both enemy icons, and ? icons) regardless of chance to hit.  Should exhaust troops and expend ammunition at a very high rate***

 

Just some thoughts.  Likely more complex than needed, but would be cool to give a command and have a certain kind of output vs giving a command, then a spacing, and a formation instruction too.  

 

*The difference between move and tactical move being that "move" would exist chiefly to get dismounted infantry from place to place without tiring them out, while tactical move would be used for long distance movements to contact, or where possibility of enemy contact cannot be ruled out.  

**Hunt would basically be used for moving infantry into combat against likely or known enemy positions.  They move in a deliberate, controlled manner, and have a narrower focus for spotting the enemy, but are much more likely to spot something in front of it.

***In contrast to hunt, assault is basically moving to finish an enemy that has been fixed in place.  You're accepting some vulnerability by keeping troops close in order to get the most number of soldiers and firepower on the objective.  Also as anyone who's done an attack in a STX type lane, you're going to be pretty spent, and 40-50% of your ammunition lighter after assaulting through the objective.  Again you're basically sacrificing ammo and soldier fatigue to improve your chances of taking the ground at the end of the assault movement.

[Vinnart]

Yes they can set up less than desirable sometimes with current Action Square system. The best way currently to deal with it is to split your squads although it does take more micro managing.

 

As for this subject, I have been wanting to put my thoughts on "paper", which is 1:1 action squares of 2mx2m vs. the current 8mx8m action square system. Both systems have advantages, but 2mx2m is much more flexible especially than 8mx8m square. How many organized/ or organic shapes can you make with one 8mx8m square? Really only one. Yes the squads do have variation of placement with in the square, but there is no order to it as to how they will set up.  Now take an 8mx8m square and divide it into 2mx2m squares. Filling in squares to represent each squad member how many shapes can now be made? Lots more. Now how many more shapes can you make if you remove the confines of the 8mx8m square?  Infinite amounts.This is taking a more "Sudden Strike"  games approach, but fitting it to Combat Mission. Like I said both systems of a larger, or smaller action square do have advantages. I am just looking at the possibilities, again applying "Sudden Strike" to CM. I'll have to get some illustrations together to better show my thoughts when i get some time.

 

Also, I'm sure more work on the AI in dealing with how infantry set up within the confines of the current 8mx8m can be improved, but the 1:1 action square creates a more flexible grid for units to interact with. From  a programming perspective it may give the AI more to work with which could take micromanaging out of it. That probably is asking too much though for the AI to choose the best formation for the circumstance, but advances in AI are made every day so I do not dream the impossible.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Vinnart

[A co]

If we wanted to be really demanding, we could ask that less experienced troops use inappropriate formations for the situation. Or fatigued or poorly motivated, etc. That would be cool to see. (Wishful thinking.)

[Kieme(ITA)]

No, I wouldn't ever want to go back to abstracted infantry. It would make the game go back instead forward.

 

I would also like to see some improvement to infantry Handling, but I guess that it will take a rework of the grid system that is in place now.

 

Vin, interesting. But is there a reason to keep the squares? What about exagons?

Edited July 6, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Vinnart]

No, I wouldn't ever want to go back to abstracted infantry. It would make the game go back instead forward.

 

I would also like to see some improvement to infantry Handling, but I guess that it will take a rework of the grid system that is in place now.

 

Vin, interesting. But is there a reason to keep the squares? What about exagons?

 

I'm sure hexagons would work too, but most games use squares no different than most board games, but more complex. Basically a computer game is nothing more than an animated interactive board game where being on a tile usually has an effect on the piece that is on it. The grid is something to program to to control the game. It is how there is differences in terrain and how they interact with the unit on it for example.

 

Using a 2mx2m grid one could program spacing for example no square, one square, 2 square space ectt.. between each man for just one example. For spacing "Sudden Strike" had a "Spread Out" Command. Each time you hit it the infantry would spread out more using the underlying grid to control it. Another cool command in "Sudden Strike" was "Take Cover". When the command given infantry,which were single men on a 2mx2m action square would move toward any cover within a curtain radius. So, if there were a house, or tree say within 10 action square the unit would move into the house or to the tree.

[c3k]

I minimize this issue by watching how my teams will deploy at each waypoint. (You do know that the teams will go to different actions spots?) If that doesn't work, I erase the squad's movement order, split it as needed, then give individual commands to each team.

 

My level of management increases as the range to the enemy decreases.

 

 

Edited to add: 2m x 2m action spots. Right now it's 64m^2. If it were 4m^2, that'd be a 16x increase in action spots. That means a 16 x 16 increase in action spot checking... That pre-game load screen? If it takes 2 minutes now, it'd take 32 minutes (AERTS). Ditto turns. Etc.

 

Not to say I wouldn't like some improved positioning, but right now, it's pretty darn good. The exceptions are notable only because they are exceptions. IMO.

Edited July 6, 2015 by c3k

[Wiggum15]

But you too think it a issue that needs to be fixed ?

[c3k]

But you too think it a issue that needs to be fixed ?

 

Wiggum:

 

1. Please don't derail this thread and cause the topic to be closed.

2. Just because something CAN be improved doesn't mean it NEEDS to be improved.

3. There is NO perfect game. Anywhere. Every single one can be improved.

4. Yes, I'd like a little better pathing/formation in CM...but it is so minor that it is only a tweak, not a "bug".

5. Things that I think are "tweaks" are not things I think "need(s) to be fixed."

 

My post was to point out the technical limitations of home computers and the ramification of a 16-fold increase in action spots. Also, if I had to place each man, the game would not be playable. It is a very well done balance of detail vs. playablility right now.

[Vinnart]

I minimize this issue by watching how my teams will deploy at each waypoint. (You do know that the teams will go to different actions spots?) If that doesn't work, I erase the squad's movement order, split it as needed, then give individual commands to each team.

 

My level of management increases as the range to the enemy decreases.

 

 

Edited to add: 2m x 2m action spots. Right now it's 64m^2. If it were 4m^2, that'd be a 16x increase in action spots. That means a 16 x 16 increase in action spot checking... That pre-game load screen? If it takes 2 minutes now, it'd take 32 minutes (AERTS). Ditto turns. Etc.

 

Not to say I wouldn't like some improved positioning, but right now, it's pretty darn good. The exceptions are notable only because they are exceptions. IMO.

 

Yes, more computing time could be a possible disadvantage of smaller action squares however, even within the current action square there is this micro computing going on for each squad member with in the action square. "Sudden Strike" used the 1:1 action square, but CM certainly is a more complex game so only one who programs CM could say if current PC's could handle it in a timely manner..

[agusto]

2. Just because something CAN be improved doesn't mean it NEEDS to be improved.

 

"You shot yourself in your own knee" with that line, as we say in my country. If something can be improved, why should it not be done then? The answear lies in your previous post.

 

Edited to add: 2m x 2m action spots. Right now it's 64m^2. If it were 4m^2, that'd be a 16x increase in action spots. That means a 16 x 16 increase in action spot checking... That pre-game load screen? If it takes 2 minutes now, it'd take 32 minutes (AERTS). Ditto turns. Etc.

 

But if it was possible to improve the matter without any negative side aspects, there would be no rational behind not improving it.

[Vinnart]

But you too think it a issue that needs to be fixed ?

 

I wouldn't say it needs to be fixed, but this is not to say a more improved flexible system couldn't be used in future engine builds. What we are talking about in regard to 1:1action squares is just brain storming the "what ifs" possibilities

[Wiggum15]

4. Yes, I'd like a little better pathing/formation in CM...but it is so minor that it is only a tweak, not a "bug".

If you think thats just something really minor...

Then please tell me what are the major shortcomings of the current CMx2 engine for you ?

In another thread everyone posted about the major improvements CMx2 made since SF, i said these were mostly minor improvements and everyone lost their minds...

[Vinnart]

 Also, if I had to place each man, the game would not be playable. It is a very well done balance of detail vs. playablility right now.

 

 With 1:1 action squares one would not be placing each man themselves. Squads/ teams are will still connected but would be more flexibility in the way they arrange which for the most part would still be handled by the AI. The AI would simply have more to work with in choices using the grid to create formation patterns. Of course giving some control to the player to override what the AI chooses for the squad to form in a line, wedge, whatever would be a good thing, but incorporating that ability would mean some type of way of issuing formation orders. One thing always affects another. In a perfect world though, for sure I would love the AI depending on its leadership modifier give the orders for how the squad should form moving automatically from column to line for example according to level of threat and terrain.

 

What i envision is instead of having one or two big squares highlighted one would see a bunch of highlighted smaller squares in pattern showing where, and how the infantry will go to. Picture a bunch of smaller squares in a line with one square space between them for example. Now picture patterns like, wedges ect. To keep from looking robotic I imagine the models having variation on the square in that they are not all centered exactly in the square.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Vinnart

[c3k]

Hmm...right now, the "unit" is a team. That team is restricted to a single 8m x 8m action spot. The members of that "unit" can position, literally, anywhere within that action spot.

 

Making action spots 2m x 2m means the largest "unit" would be a single man. (Reminds me of a nickname...). You'd have to tell the AI where to put that unit. (Insert joke as needed.  )

 

The action spots do not limit individual soldier placement. They are a "window of possible" locations for any member of a team. If that makes sense...

[Vinnart]

 

The action spots do not limit individual soldier placement. They are a "window of possible" locations for any member of a team. If that makes sense...

 

 You are absolutely right. My thoughts are to expand the possibility of that window by expanding the window so it is not limited to 8m x8m square. Again this is all talk of possibilities. For all we know 1:1 just may not work for this game. Still I do like to imagine concepts based on my experiences with "Sudden Strike" in seeing how these things could work in CM. I need to make some graphics I think to show what i am talking about and its practices.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I understand.

Smaller squares would change many things on the world though. Did you think about trees, for example? Such a small square would allow for 1 tree each right? So, to have a dense forest, the engine editor might switch to a "paint tool" that hits all squares at a given radius, while if you want a light forest, such tool would fill only few squares.

 

And what about those kind of units that cover more than 1 square each (a tank)? Did you think about those? Maybe this is the reason actual squares are large, to accomodate any vehicle?

Edited July 6, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Vinnart]

Kieme, what I am talking about is something not new. All of this is in a game series i used to play called "Sudden Strike", which had tanks which take up more than one action square. As far understanding all of the under the hood of how they made it work I do not know, just as I do not know all under the hood of CM. My under the hood knowledge lies in the extent of understanding and working with editors in both games, which are remarkable similar just as all cars have a steering wheel and tires. Both games have grids that control the game much like squares on board game do. I will be using the Sudden Strike3 editor for my illustrations since I have screens from earlier concept notes of mine., but Sudden Strike 2 was their best in many regards. Both 1 and 2 had similar grid systems. Both games had very detailed landscapes offering cover. I haven't had either game on my PC for years as they are dated, so I haven't looked at the editors in a long time. Of the "Sudden Strike" series #2 was their most realized and most popular. #3 was much nicer graphics, but the game was short lived because of a new very poor multiplayer support system. The series is older, but they had some good features to learn from that worked very well.

[A Canadian Cat]

 You are absolutely right. My thoughts are to expand the possibility of that window by expanding the window so it is not limited to 8m x8m square.

 

One other possibility is to stay with 8m X 8m but change it so that a team can be in any two adjacent AS - that would double the possible placements for soldiers without us having to direct each solider.  That would mean a three team squad would be able to occupy more then three AS.  Still a bunch of dev work but will not increase the CPU requirements by the same factor as moving to 2m X 2m squares.

[A Canadian Cat]

One thing that you can do right now is use shorter move segments.  The coga line thing gets worse the longer the distance the squad has to move.  So if you give a squad a move order that is 500m they will spend a large portion of that distance single filing.  If you instead give many moves that are 16-24m long each they will do it a lot less. 

[Vinnart]

One other possibility is to stay with 8m X 8m but change it so that a team can be in any two adjacent AS - that would double the possible placements for soldiers without us having to direct each solider.  That would mean a three team squad would be able to occupy more then three AS.  Still a bunch of dev work but will not increase the CPU requirements by the same factor as moving to 2m X 2m squares.

 

The problem with that is; How would they rejoin as being in adjacent squares triggers that? Again with what I am talking about one is not moving individuals like in "Sudden Strike". You are still moving squads and teams in a 1:1 action square model. As far as CPU requirements we, as layman can only assume that it is any higher CPU requirement however SS series used that system. Grant it SS series is not as complex as CM. CPU requirements or developmental budgets are something my imagination doesn't need deal with. Remember "Thinking is the Best Way to Travel" (any other Moody Blues Fans?) So, setting CPU requirements aside lets think of the possibilities.

[A Canadian Cat]

Do you mean rejoin teams back into squads?  Details, details.   But seriously right now when you move a squad you see the way point attaches to a specific AS and you see the other one or two AS get highlighted to show where the members of the squad will roughly end up.  I would propose nothing changes except that each team might place guys in two AS instead of one.  So to rejoin you do as you do now give the teams an order to the same way point and they join back as a squad once everyone gets there.  In my idea the squad might actually spread out over four or five AS instead of two or three.

[womble]

There are so many misconceptions in the original post that it's pretty much a pointless origin for any rational discussion of the matter.

[XM1 Driver]

Hello,

 

I think the system we have now works great. Like a previous posted said earlier, it's preferable to split into teams for tactical purposes hence positioning and flanking. The issue I have is sometimes I lose track of squad cohesion and have to search around to rejoin squads, if the battle gets messy. I propose an indicator connecting the squad similar to the command and control line.