Tanks only covered arc.

[weapon2010]

A tanks only covered arc would make things significantly more interesting.Even more specifics such as Heavy tank CA and so on?

[A Canadian Cat]

?? There is an armour only cover arc. Are you aware of that and just asking for more specific commands? If not 'M' is the short cut IIRC. If yes then - yuck - don't need more commands

[weapon2010]

39 minutes ago, IanL said:

don't need more commands

So the engine does not need anymore commands?Did you think that when only the covered arc was available and the Arnor arc wasn't?what about the failed "follow command"?or ammo leveling?free thought for change of addition or subtraction should be encouraged

[weapon2010]

if we have 2 arc choices, we could have 3 or 4, would defenitley add to tactical, tough decisions on both offense and defense, adding to the depth and layers of the game

[A Canadian Cat]

So, you are allowed to express your opinion but I'm not?

Joking aside this forum is for discussions and if you post you can expect some actual discussion. So in that vein:

3 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

So the engine does not need anymore commands?Did you think that when only the covered arc was available and the Arnor arc wasn't?what about the failed "follow command"?or ammo leveling?free thought for change of addition or subtraction should be encouraged

Follow command I would love to have. That would be so nice. I'd like it added to the AI scripting too.

I was never really a huge fan of the cover arc any way so I did not think we needed the armour arc. I do occasionally use it to keep tanks from getting distracted by infantry but even then not really that often. So, I could still happily live without it. As for more. I see no value. What value is there in having tanks not shoot at IFVs but only shoot at tanks? That sounds like a bad idea especially in a modern context.

Ammo levelling - pass thanks. Armour vehicles would not be doing that on the battlefield. Infantry already have sources for acquiring new ammo. So, no need for the command.

 

3 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

if we have 2 arc choices, we could have 3 or 4, would defenitley add to tactical, tough decisions on both offense and defense, adding to the depth and layers of the game

I do not think that adding commands is a method for depth to the game. It will add complexity to the UI. Because of that we should think long and hard before adding more commands because they come at a cost.

[Dynaman216]

17 hours ago, IanL said:

 

Follow command I would love to have. That would be so nice. I'd like it added to the AI scripting too.

I

Just had a thought.  The follow command was too complicated to implement but how about a copy command.  When putting down a move order and clicking on an existing vehicle the option to copy it's move command from that point on pops up.  This would make plotting multiple units through a jagged road much easier and only the order entry code would need modified.

[Pelican Pal]

Yea this is a frustrating one, especially when dealing with any sort of mechanized force that can easily throw trash at your line. Having your well placed AT gun reveal itself when dealing with a HT is a pain. The only real solution is to set a covered arc that prevents the gun from firing at all and remove that once you've spotted armor. Although in WEGO that isn't really doable.

This is a great example of how a SOP system to allow commands to be edited would be very useful.
- Set armor arc
- set "only fire at AFVs" for the arc

The tacai lacks any sort of context awareness and this would be a good way of giving them that awareness.
 

[MikeyD]

You want to be able to edit the game's commands. Wow. Just Wow.

[grungar]

47 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

Yea this is a frustrating one, especially when dealing with any sort of mechanized force that can easily throw trash at your line. Having your well placed AT gun reveal itself when dealing with a HT is a pain. The only real solution is to set a covered arc that prevents the gun from firing at all and remove that once you've spotted armor. Although in WEGO that isn't really doable.

This is a great example of how a SOP system to allow commands to be edited would be very useful.
- Set armor arc
- set "only fire at AFVs" for the arc

The tacai lacks any sort of context awareness and this would be a good way of giving them that awareness.
 

perhaps giving your at gun a short coverd arc to avoid hitting the first thing to come out would mitigate that issue. fireing off an atg to early can be a pain agasinst any unit coming into view in the bigger scheme.

[Pelican Pal]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

You want to be able to edit the game's commands. Wow. Just Wow.

Why is this astonishing to you? 

Basic operating procedure commands exist in a variety of games and they are great for turning a relatively static command into a dynamic one that can work in many situations. If you are confused by the usefulness of SOPs well....

- Hunt (triggers on spotting an enemy)
- SOP upon trigger *Fallback*
- Movement type *slow*

And suddenly a movement type that will see men lay in an open field for ~45 seconds waiting to be killed turns into a command that sees them returning to cover. All without cluttering up the action selection menu. I'm actually flabbergasted that you can't see the benefits of SOPs in a 1:1 tactical game.
 

32 minutes ago, grungar said:

perhaps giving your at gun a short coverd arc to avoid hitting the first thing to come out would mitigate that issue. fireing off an atg to early can be a pain agasinst any unit coming into view in the bigger scheme.

Yea for sure. I think the best solution is to just buy a second weaker gun that has an extended firing arc to nail trash vehicles and then a real AT gun with a closer in arc for armor. But that can be expensive and difficult in many situations. Part of the overall issue is that we have a set group of commands and then rely on the tacai throughout the action minute to handle things. Yet the tacai is completely incapable of understanding context and acts passively.

Which given the dynamic nature of the battlefield isn't great.

Edited October 9, 2019 by Pelican Pal
e

[A Canadian Cat]

19 hours ago, Dynaman216 said:

Just had a thought.  The follow command was too complicated to implement but how about a copy command.  When putting down a move order and clicking on an existing vehicle the option to copy it's move command from that point on pops up.  This would make plotting multiple units through a jagged road much easier and only the order entry code would need modified.

But how would you copy the commands from one vehicle to another and have the points all line up the same way on the road? Would you just have the game automatically generate a way point from the second vehicle to the location where the first vehicle was and then copy the rest? What are the chances that would be satisfying?

There are a ton of issues and questions to deal with. Starting with what are you actually trying to accomplish? If you are trying to create a convoy command then wouldn't it be better to have the vehicles actually follow the roads themselves? That would be way more powerful. If you are trying to allow formation movement then follow is not what you really want to call it and copying the movement orders might actually be just perfect (have the orders start relative to the end of any existing move orders). But then that might not actually be so hot because if you have a true formation then you want the following vehicles to take queues from the lead vehicle and not just blunder along when it stops.

[Dynaman216]

56 minutes ago, IanL said:

But how would you copy the commands from one vehicle to another and have the points all line up the same way on the road? Would you just have the game automatically generate a way point from the second vehicle to the location where the first vehicle was and then copy the rest? What are the chances that would be satisfying?

 

The tank moves to the point where the copy is done and then literally copies the existing movement commands from the other unit.  Tank A has 5 movement commands, tank B plots a move on to the existing tank A spot and a popup asks if tank B will copy tank A, if yes is chosen Tank B is given the same plot points as A.  The final plotted point may need to be modified or both tanks would try to stop in the same spot but if plotting a column through a wooded road it would not require plotting 10 to 20 points per tank.

[slysniper]

actually THE COPY MOVE COMMAND is a pretty good suggestion. Since they have never been able to program a smart follow command.

I could see the use of a copy command, then one would only have to adjust the command for the unit once it has the same move point locations shown.

 

 

 

 

[John Kettler]

In the cosmic scheme of things, we are lucky to have a Cover Armor Arc, for the lack of one caused a lot of CM misery because tanks were all too often tied up shooting at infantry, which created uncontested opportunities to shoot the distracted tank with AT cannon on various platforms. Is it galling to have your tank engage, say, a 251, when the intended quarry is a Panzer IV? Of course. It would be nice to be able to impose some sort of SOP (e.g, main gun reserved for tanks, SPGs and ATGs), such as what TAC OPS had, but BFC has said nothing at all, ever, on doing such a thing in CMx2 and beyond.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Freyberg]

Instead of a 'follow' command, why not just have a 'drive on road' command...?

[rocketman]

24 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

Instead of a 'follow' command, why not just have a 'drive on road' command...?

Excellent idea. In muddy conditions (and sometimes in better conditions) all it takes is just a wee bit off road and you bog down. And then movement paths for vehicles behind adjust, go off road and bog down as well. Ugh...

[76mm]

On 10/9/2019 at 12:32 PM, Dynaman216 said:

When putting down a move order and clicking on an existing vehicle the option to copy it's move command from that point on pops up.  This would make plotting multiple units through a jagged road much easier and only the order entry code would need modified.

Not sure that I understand correctly, but it doesn't seem like a "copy move" command would work, because the various vehicles would encounter curves in the road, etc., at different points in their move and so would drive off the road?   Or am I missing something?

[slysniper]

The copy command would not be a exact copy in my mind, it would be a duplicate path with the way points at the exact location of the unit that you have selected to match.

So the only path difference would be the first one, since the units do not start in the same location. The first path would have to be plotted to the first known way point that had been copied.

 

So this leads to another likely need, adjusting the path once you have it. We can slide waypoints presently, but being able to add waypoint along any portion of the path is a tool which we lack.

[Dynaman216]

13 hours ago, 76mm said:

Not sure that I understand correctly, but it doesn't seem like a "copy move" command would work, because the various vehicles would encounter curves in the road, etc., at different points in their move and so would drive off the road?   Or am I missing something?

First move to where the copy move is being copied from and then copy all move commands after that.  

[76mm]

hmm, ok; not perfect but definitely better than nothing.

[Dynaman216]

Yes, it would have limited application but where it helps it would really help.  The mind numbing tedium of plotting through a long jagged road in woods or other bogging terrain with lots of vehicles comes to mind.

[Thewood1]

Steel Beasts uses copy paste move commands as a core part of being able manage large numbers of units.  It works great and is a key to making the game playable with large formations.  They also have detailed SOPs that go along with waypoints and such.  It really simplifies playing the game.  

[A Canadian Cat]

On 10/10/2019 at 2:48 PM, Freyberg said:

Instead of a 'follow' command, why not just have a 'drive on road' command...?

This is the better way to go. Even better just have the game realize that two way points are on roads and automatically favour staying on the road net to go between. Then there isn't even a need for a separate command.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

4 hours ago, IanL said:

Even better just have the game realize that two way points are on roads and automatically favour staying on the road net to go between. Then there isn't even a need for a separate command.

That, in fact, is the better way to go and my hope for the future.