Invalid move commands

[WinOrLose]

Would it be possible for for an invalid movement command to be highlighted in a similar way to the LOS marker when you try to move some where you can't?

I had an incident earlier where I tried to move a tiger about 20m through what looked like a low hedge. The hedge turned out to be bocage so the tiger decided to use its initiative and plot a 250m detour in the complete opposite direction through enemy territory to reach its destination!!!

[YankeeDog]

It does change to a "no go" symbol when the cursor is over impassable ground (for the vehicle).

However, the cursor doesn't change when there is intervening ground that is impassable, requiring the unit to deviate from the straight-line path to reach the waypoint. Left to their own devices units will make their best attempt to reach a waypoint no matter how roundabout the route...

It would be good if the game could give some kind of indicator when a path is blocked. Tricky part is exactly when this indicator should show -- what if only a minor deviation is required from the straight-line path to reach the waypoint? What should the deviation threshold be for the warning to show?

[poesel]

A solution to the tricky part would be to show the path the AI plans to take (of course without other/future influences). I'm not sure why BFC doesn't do that in first place. Seeing how fast a turn with probably hundreds of paths gets calculated its probably not a performance issue.

I would be quite happy if this preview would only show up after setting a waypoint (and not all the time).

[A Canadian Cat]

Oh I would so like this to have a solution. I would even be OK with the no go symbol showing up when you hover over impassible walls e.g. bocage. The current problem of units not following the path I expect can be annoying (and dangerous) but the fact that I have no way of testing if the terrain between two points is passable is the broken part.

I personally would like to see some version of "replace my way points with those the AI will actually use" feature.

However I could live with the ability to check all points along a path manually with the cursor to verify that it is passable. This solution would not be as good as the first suggestion but at least I could validate my path manually instead of being totally in the dark.

[Baneman]

As far as I know, the cursor does change to a red symbol when you hover it over impassable terrain.

It doesn't seem to be 100% accurate though - I wanted to know if my infantry could wade a river, hovered the cursor over every pixel of the water, green 'go' arrow showed for all of it - of course, when the infantry reached the water's edge, they turned 90 degrees left and walked along the bank towards the far-away bridge.

[A Canadian Cat]

Correct it does change when you hover over impassible terrain. But it does not change when you hover over impassible obstacles.

For example take a tank or other vehicle and notice that you can never get the no go cursor as you select from grass to grass through a bocage line. Your vehicle will never follow that path but the tool does not tell you it cannot make the trip.

[dieseltaylor]

Showing the track calculated would be best - though perhaps people would play games with the knowledge and misuse the power on a battlefield where often most of it would be unknown to them.

As an alternative how about it gives you a distance say 100/200 metres and then you know something is not the 20 metres you thought. That means you do not get the "benefit" of the AI showing you the routes.

[Erwin]

+1 to the cursor always showing impassible terrain. Very frustrating to make a long move that you have carefully checked out, only to find your vehicle or whatever has to turn around at some point and go another (usually really dumb) route.

Sometimes this even happens after blasting a gap in bocage. It seems that it is possible to blast a gap that looks wide enuff for vehicles, but is less wide than a tank requires.

[theFightingSeabee]

A solution to the tricky part would be to show the path the AI plans to take (of course without other/future influences). I'm not sure why BFC doesn't do that in first place. Seeing how fast a turn with probably hundreds of paths gets calculated its probably not a performance issue.

I would be quite happy if this preview would only show up after setting a waypoint (and not all the time).

I like that idea!

[WinOrLose]

Showing the track calculated would be best - though perhaps people would play games with the knowledge and misuse the power on a battlefield where often most of it would be unknown to them.

As an alternative how about it gives you a distance say 100/200 metres and then you know something is not the 20 metres you thought. That means you do not get the "benefit" of the AI showing you the routes.

I would go with that and it would probably be the easiest to programme/implement.

[Amizaur]

"Showing the track calculated would be best - though perhaps people would play games with the knowledge and misuse the power on a battlefield where often most of it would be unknown to them."

???

What "power" would you get by knowing that your tank/people can't go that way, and instead - with current movement orders - would go 200m around showing their rear to the enemy ? Power of not losing your vehicles/people in TOTALLY stupid and demotivating way ? You will lose lot of them, anyway, because of your tactical errors, they don't have to die because of game/interface shortcomings..........

The algorithm that "checks" the plotted path and makes corrections to it or generates an alternate one - is already in the game. This code is obviously run in the "execution" phase when a unit tries to do the moving, it checks if path is valid, and if not - it generates alternate (and usually stupid) one - in a phase of game, when you can't correct anything.

It would be enough to modify the game in a way that the same already existing code would be called in "orders" phase, just after a player plots a waypoint. The code would check if the path is "possible" or not, and if it's not, it would generate an alternate path and make correction, so it would become visible to the player. The player would at once see that the path it plotted was changed to something stupid, delete the waypoint and try a different one.

As the additional checks and most of alternate-path finding would be done in orders phase, less path-finding would have to be done in execution phase. Most of the plotted paths - that were "checked" - would be still valid in execution phase - unless in the meantime some crater shows or some vehicle wreck blocks the way.

[dieseltaylor]

Azimaur, it is nice to meet someone honest.

However you appear to miss the point I am making and then proceed to explain what I am suggesting is naughty. In RL units did not know for certain that they would be blocked by a large ditch or solid hedge or wall.

We already have a god-like view and to make it even better seems to be getting away from realism.

In my evil way at the start of a game under some of the suggestions here I would plot my moves to my eenemies backline and eventually establish all the routes without ever leaving the first turn!

[Vanir Ausf B]

If only Azimaur had lived in Diogenes time.

[Baneman]

...

In my evil way at the start of a game under some of the suggestions here I would plot my moves to my eenemies backline and eventually establish all the routes without ever leaving the first turn!

Man, I am sooooo not devious enough - this would never have occurred to me, lol