Action Square /spot

[Vanir Ausf B]

Oh I am sure it is baked in.  And as you say only Charles knows but I strongly suspect that changing the code to allow each team to spread its members over two AS would be considerable less work, and have less wide ranging effects, than changing the AS size to 4X4 or 2X2.

 

Teams already are allowed to spread out over multiple action spots while moving, but Charles seems to feel this is an undesirable state since the game prioritizes regrouping when they stop (my guess is that it has something to do with spotting).

 

Now mind you moving to smaller AS size is attractive to me to help solve other issues with LOS and LOF especially in urban environments.

Yes, this is my only major complaint about the current action spot system.

 

As for bunching up and formations... meh. I am not convinced that the present unit density is particularly unrealistic. Careful spacing and formations are for patrols and parade grounds. Having men in a conga line offset from each other on the y-axis by a meter or so would mitigate the "one bullet kills 4 guys" issue, but frankly if you are running your guys straight at an enemy that is unsuppressed enough to shoot at them you are doing it wrong. That hasn't been a smart infantry tactic since the mid 19th century.

 

 

[A Canadian Cat]

Yep, nice pics.

[eniced73]

Not to derail the current discussion but this is related.  Why is it that when you try to move a previously issued waypoint from infantry it snaps from AS to AS but sometimes when you move the AS of a vehicle it allows you to fine tune and pretty much move it where you desire?

[LukeFF]

Vehicles are not tied to action spots. 

[c3k]

I just re-read the initial few posts of this thread. The initial post has a point. The next good point came in post #4. (Post #2 was inflammatory, hyperbolic, and did not contribute anything.)

 

I.

 

One issue raised was spacing. Vinnart's idea (AIUI) is to have sub-elements to Action Spots so the player can fine-tune the placement of individuals.

 

A few reminders:

- The game has Action Spots. These are 8m x 8m squares.

- TEAMS use individual AS for WAYPOINT placement. (Squads use multiple AS.)

- Within the AS, the members of the team (1 to 7 men), position themselves based on facing and cover.

- Within the AS, the game allows an infinite number of positions. (The in-AS "mesh" is millimetric or centimetric...or close enough not to matter.)

 

If I move a 4-man team into an AS which has a small shellhole in it, one of the men will use that shellhole as cover. Likewise, a tree or other cover. The men shift and move to take advantage of cover within the AS which is between them and the enemy. This shifting is done without player control, other than placing a FACE command (or other Target-type order) to orient the algorithm to the player's desired facing. Once that is done (the target command), the algorithm will use the appropriate cover.

 

The game engine is team based. If you, the player, use a platoon or squad approach, you will be giving up a lot of control to the game's algorithms. (Every team in a 3 team squad will stay adjacent: they will use 3 AS, each touching at least one other.) If I break a squad into teams, I can place each team 100's of meters away from any other team.

 

And, again, each member of each team (even if 100's of meters away from other teams of their squad) will self-position within their action spot, with an infinite sub-mesh, to take advantage of the best cover.

 

 

 

II.

 

The other, and first, issue raised was a dual issue of spacing and columns.

 

Both of these are up to the player. Column is easier to discuss, so I'll start there.

 

II A.

 

Columns form when the waypoints are too far apart for a tactical approach. That may be your desire, or not. If I have a 1km approach march for my platoon to cover before they come in contact with the enemy (reinforcements coming up to the line), sure, I'll give one or two group MOVE waypoints and monitor the platoon for the next 10-15 minutes until it gets near the combat zone.

 

The most heavily laden soldiers will lag behind, further and further, until internal cohesion is disrupted. A stop is required to allow them to catch up. This is an example of poor command. No platoon commander would allow his HMG's or Mortars to string out 200m behind the rest of the platoon. Pauses work to allow everyone to stay with their squadmates. These pauses are called "waypoints".

 

Columns can be eliminated by adding more waypoints. Additionally, they can be eliminated by breaking the squads into teams and giving teams movement orders. This is appropriate when the unit is within the combat zone.

 

 

II B.

 

Spacing for HE. This has been discussed a lot. A very lot.

 

Some facts:

- Teams stay within the same AS. (The exception being when a heavily laden member lags behind due to long waypoint spacing. That individual will continue to move until he regains the same AS that the rest of the team is in.)

- Because teams stay within the same AS, HE has been tuned down. This is because IRL men would scatter to a degree that the player cannot command. Sub-AS movement, slight terrain benefits, or ducking back are behaviors that can be done IRL, but a WeGo player cannot command (or a RT player cannot for the above reasons as applicable to RT vs. WeGo).

- The HE effect reduction is very slight and is in proportion to the intra-team spacing limitation of 1 AS.

 

 

Given that, the only reason that a unit greater than a team is too close together is that the player has ordered it that way. Give better waypoints. Use PAUSE so that in-trail spacing is maintained. Break down into teams to gain better spacing.

 

 

******************************************************************************************

 

All of the above of factual descriptions of the game engine (as observed, with the usual caveat that I may be a bit loose on the edges), with techniques the player can use if they wish to affect the behavior of their units.

 

As well, all the techniques described are for the HUMAN player. The TacAI (and Operational AI) is a totally different subject.

 

An over-arching reminder needs to be stated: this is a game. If it were a pure simulator, battles would take far longer, units would quit the fight far sooner, men would be far more cautious, the battlefield would be far more disperse. 

 

 

Ken

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

My main issue with the current action spot size is the  location of the action spot relative to terrain objects.

i.e.:

a ) Between hedges, walls etc. the troops are magically dragged to one side of the road

 

b ) Troops can´t fire through hedges because the action spot doesn´t let them deploy up against the hedge

 

c ) Area fire is unusable because you can´t aim at unspotted troops if they don´t happen to be right in the middle of an action spot. Of course you can say that is against the intent of area fire, but how do you resolve this fairly common situation: vehicle1 can spot enemy, vehicle2 can´t spot enemy but has LOF to said enemy. commander of vehicle1 radios commander of vehicle2: there is an enemy unit at the end of the graveyard wall. in the UI, vehicle2 has a ghost enemy symbol in the right spot, but area fire will almost certainly not be on target.

Edited July 8, 2015 by __Yossarian0815[jby]

[c3k]

My main issue with the current action spot size is the  location of the action spot relative to terrain objects.

i.e.:

a ) Between hedges, walls etc. the troops are magically dragged to one side of the road

 

b ) Troops can´t fire through hedges because the action spot doesn´t let them deploy up against the hedge

 

c ) Area fire is unusable because you can´t aim at unspotted troops if they don´t happen to be right in the middle of an action spot. Of course you can say that is against the intent of area fire, but how do you resolve this fairly common situation: vehicle1 can spot enemy, vehicle2 can´t spot enemy but has LOF to said enemy. commander of vehicle1 radios commander of vehicle2: there is an enemy unit at the end of the graveyard wall. in the UI, vehicle2 has a ghost enemy symbol in the right spot, but area fire will almost certainly not be on target.

 

a) I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

 

I agree. The diamond point spots (diagonal features) can be frustrating as well.

 

c) Hmm...Not sure if this has to do with action spots, nor if I agree it is a problem. (The ? appears should allow better area fire than non-? area fire ?)

[Stagler]

Sometimes the current infantry behaviour results in your ATGW or MGs being deployed in spots where they have almost no arcs of fire, even though if you deployed them exactly where you wanted directly ontop of the cursor they would have them.

[MikeyD]

I love these topics - Can you just do this one thing? It'll only involve rewriting the entire game engine from the ground-up using an entirely different untested logic system.

[sburke]

 

Damn you Vanir, now you have me wanting to play CMSF again.

[ASL Veteran]

Sometimes the current infantry behaviour results in your ATGW or MGs being deployed in spots where they have almost no arcs of fire, even though if you deployed them exactly where you wanted directly ontop of the cursor they would have them.

It might be helpful if you have some screen shots to show what you are describing.  I am going to assume the obvious and that you aren't placing an MG directly behind a tall wall or something like that.

[ASL Veteran]

My main issue with the current action spot size is the  location of the action spot relative to terrain objects.

i.e.:

a ) Between hedges, walls etc. the troops are magically dragged to one side of the road

 

b ) Troops can´t fire through hedges because the action spot doesn´t let them deploy up against the hedge

 

c ) Area fire is unusable because you can´t aim at unspotted troops if they don´t happen to be right in the middle of an action spot. Of course you can say that is against the intent of area fire, but how do you resolve this fairly common situation: vehicle1 can spot enemy, vehicle2 can´t spot enemy but has LOF to said enemy. commander of vehicle1 radios commander of vehicle2: there is an enemy unit at the end of the graveyard wall. in the UI, vehicle2 has a ghost enemy symbol in the right spot, but area fire will almost certainly not be on target.

Like C3K I'm unsure of what you mean with some of that, but I can tell you that for a) walls and hedges are placed in the editor such that they pass through the center of an action spot.  Troops walking along a wall can't walk down the center of the action spot that the wall occupies because the wall is in the way.  Soldiers are also told by the code not to walk down roads.  It is a deliberate coding choice because troops are more vulnerable on roads.  There are circumstances where it would be helpful to have the troops walk down the middle of the road and times where it wouldn't be, but the game isn't smart enough to know when you want them in the middle of the road and when you don't so the default was to have them walk alongside the road instead of down the middle of it.  I'm not sure if that helps you or not, but I thought I would toss it out there.

[eniced73]

vehicles are  not tied to AS but infantry are?  Can someone explain why?  Sorry guys just curious reading through this discussion.

[c3k]

Sometimes the current infantry behaviour results in your ATGW or MGs being deployed in spots where they have almost no arcs of fire, even though if you deployed them exactly where you wanted directly ontop of the cursor they would have them.

 

Yes...this does happen and is frustrating...

 

Improved positioning (force the "special" item to be placed precisely on the waypoint?) would be a good thing to have. (I'm reminded of good LOS from a bocage, but the HMG gets blocked after it gets there. Some of that has been already been improved. It used to be worse. There is room for improvement. Savegames always help.)

[c3k]

vehicles are  not tied to AS but infantry are?  Can someone explain why?  Sorry guys just curious reading through this discussion.

 

The waypoints that vehicles use for movement are freely placed. Waypoints for infantry are tied to AS. (The LOS calculations for BOTH still use the AS for blocked LOS, but actual positioning for LOS checks. If curious on this, start a new thread.) Infantry self-position within the AS; vehicles stop right at the waypoint.