CMX2 and Vehicle Passengers

[MOS was 71331]

I largely agree with PLM's post above. While I admit that units under fire may be unable or unwilling to carry out fairly simple orders, I get frustrated when a jeep not being fired on won't move down a road past a stationary friendly tank on the side of the road and moves instead back forth through scattered trees next to the road. The straight line I plotted somehow turns into a jagged path with twenty waypoints, and I only see the waypoints remaining after the minute ends. I can only guess how many waypoints got executed in the minute after the movement started -- actually less than a minute because there was an eleven second command delay.

It shouldn't be all that hard to implement a command for a vehicle to move from one point on a road to another point on the same road -- and just wait for blocking traffic to clear rather than driving randomly into scattered trees or brush. (I say "randomly," because there's no logic apparent in all the two and three meter movements between the AI's waypoints.

[Battlefront.com]

The problem with simulating coordination on the battlefield is partly how it is presented to the user. The 1-2 minutes it takes to load a vehicle in CMx1 pales in comparison to hours it would likely take in the real world. So complain all you want about how unrealistically long it is to taks to load/unload, because in the real world it is unrealistically short by a huge amount. The most realistic thing we could do is not allow any vehicle to embark any unit during regular gameplay. So if realism is what you want, we can do that

Road movement and blockage is a tough problem to overcome amd it has absolutely nothing to do with a unit "not wanting" to carry out an order. If the player makes a path that intersects with an impassible obstacle an alternative path around it must be found. The TacAI plots the most logical (yup... it is very deliberate) path around the blockage. If you are seeing a really crazy TacAI path, then it isn't as simple as driving past something that isn't in the way. If it isn't in the way the TacAI won't be engaged to plot around it.

Steve

[juan_gigante]

The reason that everyone responds so harshly to the difficulty of transporting stuff and people is that we, as the player, have this god-like power over so much of the battlefield and our troops, and it kind of ruffles our feathers to not have that kind of control over small facets of the game. So whether or not it is easier or harder than in real life, it is irritating that embarking/disembarking, convoys, etc. are more difficult that other things in game. In essence, when everything else is so easy, it is annoying that this is so hard. Are were spolied brats? Hell yes! Do we want to be more spoiled? You betcha!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

The reason that everyone responds so harshly to the difficulty of transporting stuff and people is that we, as the player, have this god-like power over so much of the battlefield and our troops, and it kind of ruffles our feathers to not have that kind of control over small facets of the game. So whether or not it is easier or harder than in real life, it is irritating that embarking/disembarking, convoys, etc. are more difficult that other things in game. In essence, when everything else is so easy, it is annoying that this is so hard. Are were spolied brats? Hell yes! Do we want to be more spoiled? You betcha!

Speak for yourself, please. As indicated earlier in the thread, some people feel no hardship with the inability to unrealistically co-ordinate on map forces.

[PLM]

Well it ruffles my feathers because on the level of control, plenty of other things are capable of being done that you shouldnt be able to do while stuff like vehicle coordination is very difficult.

It isnt so much of a matter of coordination as being able to give orders. If you can send orders to units simultaneously with the command delay, then whats so hard about giving a vehicle the order "wait til infantry mounts, move to point A." If I can tell any vehicle or unit without a radio and in command to do anything at all, then whats so hard about getting a vehicle to perform certain tasks just like any other unit. Are other vehicles going to be one-use only just because they aren't part of a platoon or dont have a radio?

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For those who don't like it, there are plenty of RTS games out there that don't give a flying fig about realism

I'm trying to get Rome Total War installed for some massive slaughter fun but I cant, I ruined installshield somehow and cant fix it. Been trying to fix it all day. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

So complain all you want about how unrealistically long it is to taks to load/unload, because in the real world it is unrealistically short by a huge amount.

I wonder if the 'problem' is not so much realism, or percieved lack thereof, but with internal consistency, or percieved lack thereof.

[juan_gigante]

I think PLM hit the nail on the head. We can give units detailed orders in so many ways - except when it comes to embarking/disembarking. There, we're fumbling in the dark.

And Michael, after that whole "CM's next setting" thing, with 1939 East Front vs. Korea '06, I've started assuming that pretty much any blanket statement I post does not apply to you. I'm glad to disagree with you, and I respect your opinion and believe you make good points. I happily disagree with you and I hope that our disagreement makes us both better people. It just seems like we do that a lot.

[Gpig]

There was a great post somewhere's that was VERY helpfull regarding embarking/disembarking.

Filled with handy tricks and whatnot.

Since reading up and experimenting with it, I NEVER have difficulty embarking/disembarking my troops. In fact, I feel it is quite good/realistic.

One of those tips is ALWAYS compare command delays of vehicle and emb/disembarking troops in order to gauge your timing. If you think you've got enough time to get aboard before the tank leaves, good. Now add 10 seconds pause to that vehicle.

Also, when DISembarking troops, plot the FIRST waypoint right on the ground next to the vehicle, that way the troops FIRST order in the que will be "executable" even if the vehicle stops for just a short period of time.

My 2 bits.

[ July 25, 2005, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Gpig ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

I agree with everyone who says that disembarking / embarking is a pain in the butt. Far too often have I ordered "troops get off, vehicle pause 30 sec, then drive away", and my boys think "It's gonna move! Stay on!" and then they are way far away. Usually what ends up happening takes three turns. 1st turn: Vehicle drives to spot, waits for end of turn. 2nd turn: Troops get off. 3rd turn: Vehicle drives off.

It is mighty irritating.

You must be doing something wrong then. With me, it's arrive at destination and troops disembark. Second turn, vehicle receives new movement order and proceeds on its way. No sweat.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PLM:

...whats so hard about giving a vehicle the order "wait til infantry mounts, move to point A."

It isn't hard at all. The procedure is to order the vehicle to move to the point where the personnel are to mount it. The personnel mount. Then you give the vehicle its next movement order. What's so hard about that? If you stop the vehicle close enough to the personnel, you can even give it a move order the same turn that the personnel mount, giving it a suitable delay, like say maybe half a minute. If you aren't good at guessing how long it will take the personnel to move and mount, then wait until they have completed mounting before giving the movement order to the vehicle. Simple and realistic too.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Actually, there are no nitty gritty orders in CMx1, only generalized ones. In fact, the Ambush order was removed from CMBO in order to have one less special case order to deal with. If you want to start talking about "wouldn't it be nice to have an order to do this" then we'll be here for months and the list will be nightmarishly long.

CMx2 uses the same core philosophy... more is not necessarily better.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I also don't have any problems with mounting/dismounting. The key thing is to not plan on doing it in places where you're likely to be shot at. And guess what? That's a realistic consideration

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The key thing is to not plan on doing it in places where you're likely to be shot at. And guess what? That's a realistic consideration

Hey! I already said that in the fifth post of this thread!

[PLM]

Well I pretty well consider the direct movement of squads and vehicles nitty gritty. You dont order a tank commander to move in an exact set path down to the meter. Even a tank platoon commander doesnt do that, its up to the actual crew. You play God very much so giving exact movement orders to the tank.

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

Hey! I already said that in the fifth post of this thread!

Sometimes a point only becomes noticed when it is mentioned 2 dozen times

PLM,

Well I pretty well consider the direct movement of squads and vehicles nitty gritty.

You need context or discussions quickly become pointless. If you want to control every tiny thing possible in real life, unrealistically and without difficulty from even the most simplistic restrictions... this is not the game for you. CM was painstakingly designed to be as realistic as possible given the constraints of development time, playability, and hardware capabilities. Adding hundreds of Orders so a player can control every last detail a unit could possibly perform is just not the game we wanted to make.

It all comes down to where to draw the line. For us, realism is the #1 concern. No, we can't make a game 100% realistic. Why not? Well, you can check out about 1,000 posts of mine on this topic stretching back over 6 year's worth of archives if you feel up to it But that doesn't mean we have to throw in the towel and make a game with almost no realism in it. Far from it.

So when we come upon something that is unrealistic, and we can avoid it or restrict it in some way, we do. There are hundreds of examples of this in CMx1. Making the game deliberately less realistic, because someone doesn't like the realism of the feature, isn't of interest to us. In fact, it just reminds us what to make sure we don't do.

The vehicle mounting and dismounting might not be perfect, but it is fairly realistic and a lot more flexible than other games (the few that even have mounting as an option!). Trying to argue in favore of less realism just because you don't like having to deal with the realistic issues it raises is a non-starter argument.

Steve

[PLM]

I like realism because its great to succeede in realistic circumstances. Its just being a commander IRL isnt much more than giving orders from safety, not doing stuff like nudging your stug forward. IRL you command a battlefield of real humans which the AI cant simulate. I havnt practiced with mounting dismounting much. You might get to make some miniscule moves like that but you arent the guy interpreting your orders, and you can make precise movements which rarely get misinterpretted by the AI. The God part seems necessary on a lot of levels thats the way I feel about stuff like giving specific orders to disembark etc. Dont care for the way realism is portrayed

BTW, Steve is it me or have you been posting way too much in the past 24 hours. There's a game to be made

[JonS]

Whose grass is that?

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by PLM:

Well I pretty well consider the direct movement of squads and vehicles nitty gritty. You dont order a tank commander to move in an exact set path down to the meter. Even a tank platoon commander doesnt do that, its up to the actual crew. You play God very much so giving exact movement orders to the tank.

You don't actually play God. You play every single unit in your force. Not just the commander, but also the tank crew, the infantry squad and the AA gun. And because of that you are allowed to give every unit its orders in a way the unit might interpret something that it has been told from above. The command delays could be more variable, but basically there's nothing broken here.

Dschugaschwili

[juan_gigante]

I'm looking at the yellow lines that are coming out of the head of whoever's being whipped. If it's blood, it means that somebody at BFC (not Steve; I believe he's the one on the left) bleeds yellow, which clearly makes them an alien. I don't really know what else could cause the little lines... an explosion? Is this an explosive-tipped whip?

And about disembarking, I know that it is unrealistic to have it be super easy, but for an idiot like me who's lucky to find his own ass with both hands, it is pretty irritating. It's gotten to the point where I just don't move anyone on vehicles anymore. If troops come in halftracks, I unload them well away from battle so I don't have to worry about disembarking under any sort of pressure, and basically I assume that any gun I place won't move. Some times I move one and it's a happy surprise, but mostly they stay put. But that's also partially because of the slow movement and the monster unlimber times. Oh, well.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

If troops come in halftracks, I unload them well away from battle so I don't have to worry about disembarking under any sort of pressure,

Sounds almost historical to me.

[juan_gigante]

Yeah, I'm thinking about suicide rushing the enemy lines with the halftracks when I'm done. Would that gamey it up enough so it wouldn't be historical? I'll also have 10 naval artillery spotters ready to nail anyone who pops up to shoot the halftracks, clearing the way for a skirmish line of bazookas, then engineers, Sherman Easy Eights, and Greyhounds. Too bad in CMAK I can't have Super Pershings or nearly as many SMGs.

[ July 26, 2005, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: juan_gigante ]

[Steiner14]

Good to hear, that BFC stays on the realistical route.

I'm sure, besides the conjunction with reality, one of the aspects that make CM so interesting even after years, is the difficulty of certain tasks, i.e. the synchronization of an attack. Less dificulties would not only mean less realism, but also less thrill and would reduce the long-time motivation a lot.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Less dificulties would not only mean less realism, but also less thrill and would reduce the long-time motivation a lot.

Yes, I too think BFC has struck a good balance on that account. I am of the opinion that in general, people who cry out for this or that rule change to make the game more "playable" are being short-sighted, and don't realize how far that might drive the game toward boredom.

Although usually tossed into the Grog camp, I can assure you that I definitely don't want a game that is an excessive strain to play either. That's why I stay well away from these monster scenarios with a regiment or more on each side. But a game that is too simple is also too easily "cracked"; a certain set of actions mechanically applied inevitably produces a certain outcome. At that point, interest drops off and boredom sets in. I play CM in the assured knowledge that something is going to go wrong with my "perfect plan" and I'd better be able to cope with that.

Michael

[juan_gigante]

Well, I think that making it easier to get guys out of halftracks wouldn't reduce their thrill of CM. In fact, I think that it would increase it. What is, after all, exciting about CM? Combat. What is the tense part, the part when you're on the edge of your chair, the part where you start yelling at the computer (SHOOT! SHOOT! DON'T SWITCH TARGETS! SHOOT!)? Combat. And what part should be the focus? Combat. Now, I'm not saying to make all movement, support, etc. a piece of cake. I just saying that every second I spend worrying about whether or not my squad will hop out of their halftrack is a second that I don't spend worrying about whether my Sherman will beat that PV IV to the trigger. It think that trying to get a flank shot on a Tiger is much more thrilling than trying to unload a gun off a truck.

Consider your own games. What do you enjoy more, trying to pull back your MLR under heavy fire, or trying to move a convoy? What moments from games long past would you like to revisit? Those when your valient ATG pulls down three enemy tanks in under a minute, or those when your valient ATG won't disembark from the damn jeep, despite clear orders to do so? Are you honestly trying to tell me that you would rather put effort into moving a convoy down a road than attacking an enemy position?

I argue here not for simplicity. CM is a complex game, and we all love it for that. Without its deep, rich, realistic layers, it's just another wargame. I argue for USER FRIENDLINESS. For cutting out the annoying stuff so that the player will be able to spend their time and energy on combat, which is, if memory serves, the primary purpose of the game.

Now, if a "Follow Vehicle" command was added to make convoys easier, would it dramatically cheapen the game? No! Instead of meticulously plotting every point for every vehicle, I do it once and I'm done. They all still have command delays - this isn't Starcraft - but it is significantly easier for the player to conduct the business of getting ready to fight. I think that no harm will be done if a little fat is trimmed.

Michael, you say making the game easier will drive the game to boredom. For me, dealing with tons of extra crap to dismount troops is boring. The combat, which is still complex and exciting, is what I care about. You mention "a certain set of actions mechanically applied". A set like those needed to embark troops.

I say one last time that the point of this game is exciting, complex, deep combat. Making it easier to plot the path for a convoy or easier to dismount troops will not cheapen that.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

What is, after all, exciting about CM? Combat. What is the tense part, the part when you're on the edge of your chair, the part where you start yelling at the computer (SHOOT! SHOOT! DON'T SWITCH TARGETS! SHOOT!)? Combat. And what part should be the focus? Combat.

And what makes combat a thrill?

That you don't know the outcome.

IMO unpredictiveness (does that word in English exist? ) in general increases tension.

Now, I'm not saying to make all movement, support, etc. a piece of cake. I just saying that every second I spend worrying about whether or not my squad will hop out of their halftrack is a second that I don't spend worrying about whether my Sherman will beat that PV IV to the trigger.

The uncertainity forces you, to choose a more careful, a more realistical aproach to the problem. What's bad with that?

You want the unit hop out? Then make sure, they have enough time.

It's really that easy. But giving them more time, can make things dangerous. So it adds in general difficulty, uncertainity and tension.

It think that trying to get a flank shot on a Tiger is much more thrilling than trying to unload a gun off a truck.

I'm not sure. What if the sucessful setup of the gun decides about an open or a protected flank?

Consider your own games. What do you enjoy more, trying to pull back your MLR under heavy fire, or trying to move a convoy?

What moments from games long past would you like to revisit? Those when your valient ATG pulls down three enemy tanks in under a minute, or those when your valient ATG won't disembark from the damn jeep, despite clear orders to do so?

I understand what you mean, but i think this moments of frustration work more on a psychological level: we all know them and hate them, but they only happen, if we did something wrong - too much orders in too less time.

And what is so bad, about this happening: do you think in reality such things don't happen?

Imagine it, as the driver recognizing, he drove to the wrong place, or the Geschützführer (gun-leader?) thinking that.

Warfare means controlled chaos and you can't really complain, that CM doesn't give us enough control over it.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that you would rather put effort into moving a convoy down a road than attacking an enemy position?

I don't see it as seperate things. They both are integral part of warfare each with their own problems.

Just think about the two week delay of the attack on Stalingrad: units didn't know where to go, the streets were jammed. This delay was decisive for the outcome.

And you want really complain about a gun not disembarking?

I argue here not for simplicity. CM is a complex game, and we all love it for that. Without its deep, rich, realistic layers, it's just another wargame. I argue for USER FRIENDLINESS. For cutting out the annoying stuff so that the player will be able to spend their time and energy on combat, which is, if memory serves, the primary purpose of the game.

I think, you underestimate the impact of those "restrictions" on the whole gaming experience.

[ July 26, 2005, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]