Face command on the move?

[Vinnart]

Just want to clarify something I am not sure of. When you give a face order before a move is the unit paying more attention to that direction while on the move? You can see the line stays as they move so I am wondering is this in essence a 180 degree undefined arc so to speak as they move? Will this increase chance of spotting that direction while o the move? If it is not, then why shouldn’t it be that way? I know giving the order before move tells them to face that way at the end of the move, but I want to know more about it's function while on the move.

[womble]

I sincerely doubt it. They look the way their eyes are pointing, seems to be the vibe BFC are giving, and that's along the route of march (or at their boots, given the spotting performance of moving troops.

If situational awareness is more important to you than speed, try moving in small bounds, and add Face commands at the waypoints. Even without Pauses, the first troops to arrive at the waypoint will keep a better eye out, though I'm not sure they'll obey the Face til the last pTruppe arrives, so you might need 5s pauses to actually get them to look the way you want them to.

[Vinnart]

I sincerely doubt it. They look the way their eyes are pointing, seems to be the vibe BFC are giving, and that's along the route of march (or at their boots, given the spotting performance of moving troops.

If situational awareness is more important to you than speed, try moving in small bounds, and add Face commands at the waypoints. Even without Pauses, the first troops to arrive at the waypoint will keep a better eye out, though I'm not sure they'll obey the Face til the last pTruppe arrives, so you might need 5s pauses to actually get them to look the way you want them to.

Yes, I do this with infantry many times IIRC your second paragraph. If given the face order after a move order INFANTRY (not armor unless paused) will orientate to that face order at each waypoint with the automatic pause they all take at each waypoint for the squad to regroup. This said, if you want them to pay more attention to a direction while moving it is good to do in giving the face order after a movement order. If speed to destination is priority then giving the face order is not as good, since they will spend more time pausing automatically at each waypoint to orientate to the facing direction. Without the face order they will keep orientated to their front, which is faster than all turning right for example, then turning front again for the direction of movement.

My question is more in regard to its function while on the move mainly with tanks. In this pic you will see the face line is present while the tank is still moving. As facing matters in spotting, and situation awareness in particular to that direction then I was wondering if the tank commander is looking more in that direction, rather than the facing line just telling the unit, and player that the tank will orientate turret, and hull to the direction when it stops. So, as far as you have observed I am gathering it is not having an effect on spotting while the tank is moving from what I get IIRC in your first paragraph.

[womble]

My question is more in regard to its function while on the move mainly with tanks. In this pic you will see the face line is present while the tank is still moving. As facing matters in spotting, and situation awareness in particular to that direction then I was wondering if the tank commander is looking more in that direction, rather than the facing line just telling the unit, and player that the tank will orientate turret, and hull to the direction when it stops. So, as far as you have observed I am gathering it is not having an effect on spotting while the tank is moving from what I get IIRC in your first paragraph.

That's how I think it works, yes. I'll just check that you know the turret would orient itself to the midpoint of any covered arc you gave the vehicle, if you did so, even while moving. This would put the gunner's and commander's eyes facing the right direction more...

[Vinnart]

That's how I think it works, yes. I'll just check that you know the turret would orient itself to the midpoint of any covered arc you gave the vehicle, if you did so, even while moving. This would put the gunner's and commander's eyes facing the right direction more...

What I am getting at is different than how arc works. This I know keeps turret in a direction indipendent of movement. In my logic to the posted pic it would be reasonable to assume while the turret is facing in the movement direction while the face is to it's right that the commander is paying more attention to the specified face direction, but I do not think this is the case which is want I am trying to know for sure.

What I will be getting at is an improved face functionality on the move for tanks. Basicly the turret should face in the face direction in the pic. When the tank stops the HULL should realign with the turret direction.

[womble]

What I am getting at is different than how arc works. This I know keeps turret in a direction indipendent of movement. In my logic to the posted pic it would be reasonable to assume while the turret is facing in the movement direction while the face is to it's right that the commander is paying more attention to the specified face direction, but I do not think this is the case which is want I am trying to know for sure.

What I will be getting at is an improved face functionality on the move for tanks. Basicly the turret should face in the face direction in the pic. When the tank stops the HULL should realign with the turret direction.

Yeah I got what you're saying. I don't disagree that it doesn't work like you hoped. What you're asking for is one of several permutations and combinations of moving vs "at arrival" behaviour, no one of which could probably achieve critical mass for a "must have" improvement, though, I fear.

[Vinnart]

I beg to differ womble. Anything that can streamline, and improves the players control over the units is certainly something worth giving feedback on.

With what I have suggested in how it could work better the player would not have to make as many arcs just to get the turret pointed in desired direction. All one would have to do is give the face order as shown to achieve a non-restrictive 180 degree arc so to speak. This gives players, especially RT, the ability to adjust the turret quickly to a desired general direction without constantly having to make arcs when less restrictive behavior is desired. Arcs will still be needed for instance for shoot and scoot from behind a house, but 95% of the time I use arcs for tanks simply to get them to face the turret while on the move, rather for desired depth of fire. Because of this I make large 180 degree arcs when this would eliminate that need.

This also makes the tank more combat ready when it comes to the last waypoint in that the turret will already be in a more favorable orientation to begin with. When stopped the HULL would move to realign with the turret.

This also would look so much more visually pleasing in the reduction of creating so many arcs to achieve pointing the turret.

[Vinnart]

[womble]

I beg to differ womble. Anything that can streamline, and improves the players control over the units is certainly something worth giving feedback on.

You're not getting me. The point is that there are a large number of combinations of "Keep the turret this way, end up with the hull that way, Look over there, shoot over there" options that different people would want. And every single one of those that they have to implement has to have a command for it. Right now, Face only does anything at all at a waypoint. Changing that is going to be heinous complicated (like changing dismount behaviour would be) to incorporate into RT and WeGo models of play.

Maybe you'll get what you want, but really, I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Vinnart]

You're not getting me. The point is that there are a large number of combinations of "Keep the turret this way, end up with the hull that way, Look over there, shoot over there" options that different people would want. And every single one of those that they have to implement has to have a command for it. Right now, Face only does anything at all at a waypoint. Changing that is going to be heinous complicated (like changing dismount behaviour would be) to incorporate into RT and WeGo models of play.

Maybe you'll get what you want, but really, I wouldn't hold your breath.

“Oh man, don’t hit me with those negative waves so early in the morning”

Please tell me a way that is more sensible as what I am proposing for directing the turret easier? Please tell me one that utilizes what is already there? Please tell me a quicker way to turn the turret while on the move for the real time player, and for the WEGO plotting moves? Also one that improves the way the game looks in regard to less arcs needed?

As far as programming goes, you are right in that I do not know the complications in implementing since I am not a programmer. Are you?

“Don’t hold your breath.”

I have been told that before.

I was one of those who lobbied for more distinctive unit icons, FoW icons, casualty notifications (the added flickering), and one of the many that asked for adjustable waypoints. Some, like the adjustable waypoints were admitted to be complicated, but they found a way to do it. We got all of the above because they were good logical things to do to improve the user experience.

If I think something can be improved for practical reasons all I care about is that Battlefront sees an idea, and contemplates the practicality of it. I do know if people do not give feedback then it does not help them to develop their products to the fullest.

“Why can’t you say something positive, and righteous for a change.” Think that that bridge will be there, and it will”

"Kelly's Heroes"

[Amizaur]

I second that. This change can be made relatively easily (using existing commands and interface - the changes in vehicle code should be minor) and it would improve the control over a unit - while not complicating anything. So IMO it's worth doing.

[CM1fan]

Don't ever give a Face command to an AT gun after the set up is over. I just wanted the AT gun's crew to watch for enemy approaching from a particular direction. Now the crew is "packing up", and I can't cancel the command. My blunder effectively removed the gun from my order of battle. My opponent can pick off gun crew members at his convenience, and I expect they won't even fire in self defense.

[Vinnart]

Don't ever give a Face command to an AT gun after the set up is over. I just wanted the AT gun's crew to watch for enemy approaching from a particular direction. Now the crew is "packing up", and I can't cancel the command. My blunder effectively removed the gun from my order of battle. My opponent can pick off gun crew members at his convenience, and I expect they won't even fire in self defense.

Are you sure you didn't give move order instead? Face should just rotate the gun with no ploblems.

What I am pertaining to with this concept is particular to turret vehicles, and halftracks that can rotate their machine guns 360 degrees to give easier control of these things for the player, and reduce the need for as many arcs. Hope you get the AT gun thing figured. I have not played much with them in the game so far, since I am on the attack more than defense.

[JonS]

Don't ever give a Face command to an AT gun after the set up is over. I just wanted the AT gun's crew to watch for enemy approaching from a particular direction. Now the crew is "packing up", and I can't cancel the command. My blunder effectively removed the gun from my order of battle. My opponent can pick off gun crew members at his convenience, and I expect they won't even fire in self defense.

You've probably done something wrong then, because as Vin said, aFACE command shouldn't cause them to pack up.

Also, you should be able to cancel the pack up. Cancel all existing movement or combat orders and check that the DEPLOY order is in effect. They should start deploying.

[CM1fan]

You've probably done something wrong then, because as Vin said, aFACE command shouldn't cause them to pack up.

Also, you should be able to cancel the pack up. Cancel all existing movement or combat orders and check that the DEPLOY order is in effect. They should start deploying.

As I recall, I cancelled the gun's movement and combat orders two minutes (turns) ago. The crew members continued packing up through the last minute (turn). I believe the deploy command was unavailable (greyed out) during the last command phase.

[womble]

I second that. This change can be made relatively easily (using existing commands and interface - the changes in vehicle code should be minor) and it would improve the control over a unit - while not complicating anything. So IMO it's worth doing.

Before you even start programming you have to resolve a conflict. An illustrative example:

First let's assume you have Face in effect while moving, and it will point the turret the way the Face is issued, even if it's off-axis. Let us also assume that the Face-while-moving is relative to the hull. Note that this is consistent with Cover Arc behaviour, but not with normal Face behaviour, where the Facing is absolute; assuming the opposite behaviour would introduce the converse inconsistency, so they're as bad as each other.

1. My tank is at A, hull pointing north.
   
2. I issue a Face east (so the gun will rotate to point over the starboard side of the tank.
   
3. I issue a Move order straight ahead so the tank moves North to point B.
   
4. At point B, I want the hull to be pointed North. Because, under the described suggested scheme for Face, the hull would be turned East at point B, I have to issue a Face order North, or replace the Face with a CA whose midpoint points East.
   
5. From point B, I want to move West towards point C, but keep my gun pointing East. If I order a Face East, my hull will turn towards the East before continuing on to rotate to point West and move off, a behaviour I do not want.
   

If you give Face two purposes, there will be times when they clash.

If you want something to move somewhere with its turret pointed one way, and then to align its hull with its gun when it arrives, use a CA at the beginning and a Face at the end. Job. Done.

Just to note, I have a small bet with myself about any reply to this.

[womble]

As I recall, I cancelled the gun's movement and combat orders two minutes (turns) ago. The crew members continued packing up through the last minute (turn). I believe the deploy command was unavailable (greyed out) during the last command phase.

I've had something that sounds a bit like this issue when the ATG was deployed behind a hedge in a half-AS. They didn't start "packing up" though, they just started crawling around, trying to find where to go. The gun became inoperable, and various things were greyed out. To be clear, is the status text for the crew in the bottom left corner saying "packing up"?

[Vinnart]

Before you even start programming you have to resolve a conflict. An illustrative example:

First let's assume you have Face in effect while moving, and it will point the turret the way the Face is issued, even if it's off-axis. Let us also assume that the Face-while-moving is relative to the hull. Note that this is consistent with Cover Arc behaviour, but not with normal Face behaviour, where the Facing is absolute; assuming the opposite behaviour would introduce the converse inconsistency, so they're as bad as each other.

1. My tank is at A, hull pointing north.
   
2. I issue a Face east (so the gun will rotate to point over the starboard side of the tank.
   
3. I issue a Move order straight ahead so the tank moves North to point B.
   
4. At point B, I want the hull to be pointed North. Because, under the described suggested scheme for Face, the hull would be turned East at point B, I have to issue a Face order North, or replace the Face with a CA whose midpoint points East.
   
5. From point B, I want to move West towards point C, but keep my gun pointing East. If I order a Face East, my hull will turn towards the East before continuing on to rotate to point West and move off, a behaviour I do not want.
   

If you give Face two purposes, there will be times when they clash.

If you want something to move somewhere with its turret pointed one way, and then to align its hull with its gun when it arrives, use a CA at the beginning and a Face at the end. Job. Done.

Just to note, I have a small bet with myself about any reply to this.

womble, In working the way I have suggested it is no different than it is now with the face order only more functional. At point B you would have to issue either another face, or CA now, and with this if you wanted a different direction at the end. There really is no difference. In your argument you are not realizing that the tank will ONLY align the turret to hull when STOPPED just as it is now. In order to do it as I described the FACE order must me given to a tank AFTER the MOVE order is given. At point B to move to C there is no problem. At waypoints it moves through it keeps the facing to whatever direction. If you gave a PAUSE at an intermediate waypoint, then it would start to align because it is stopped.. Trust me it is no more extra steps than it is now in some cases, only you can accomplish the same thing as arcs, but quicker.

It really is no different than how cover arc/face orders are now. Now, and if this was working like this is the future there will still be times for cover arcs for example if one issued wanted to pause at a waypoints along the way CA would be better used in that case. If one has a cover arc, or face if working this way, and they wanted the tank to orientate to a different direction at the last waypoint. Now, and with it working as I say one would still have to issue another face, or CA to do that.

There times when CA conflict, and likewise there might be times with this, but I am not seeing it. If you give a cover arc to the east, and an enemy pops up to the west will the unit break the arc to engage? Usually not, but FACE is less restrictive so the AI will allow it to face as it deems necessary for the threat. It is good though to try to troubleshoot this idea to see where problems might arise.

I have to go to work right now, but will make an illustration of the steps you gave to show where it is not clear. I will also illustration where you will see this saves time, and look much better. You can always of course make a graphic too to better illustrate. Visuals are always better to get a point across.

One last question do you play Real Time, or only WEGO?

[womble]

womble, In working the way I have suggested it is no different than it is now with the face order only more functional.

Way to miss the point. If I want to Face north while stopped at B, then east while moving away from B, since I'm only allowed one combat command at B, I cannot do this. And if Face is meant to do two things which will it do? Make my tank at B point the way I want it to, or make my turret while moving to C point the way I want it to?

ONLY align the turret to hull when STOPPED just as it is now.

So when I give a Face order at a Paused location, it won't reorient as I want it to.

Your solution creates as many problems as it solves, particularly when the vast majority of common cases can be handled quite readily by the current command set.

[Vinnart]

Womble, please be more specific in your question as I am unclear as to which you want to face when we are talking about face now. Please rephrase with more specific hull direction desired, and turret direction desired so I understand to better respond.

Like I said thinking of possible conflicts is good to troubleshoot possible problems. I am confident it causes no more complications as to the way it works now.

Dam it womble, now I am really going to be late for work.

[Amizaur]

Womble - can you accomplish what you descrived now (without that change) ?

[Vinnart]

.(Quote)

1.My tank is at A, hull pointing north.

2.I issue a Face east (so the gun will rotate to point over the starboard side of the tank.

3.I issue a Move order straight ahead so the tank moves North to point B.

4.At point B, I want the hull to be pointed North. Because, under the described suggested scheme for Face, the hull would be turned East at point B, I have to issue a Face order North, or replace the Face with a CA whose midpoint points East.

(At point B hull is already pointing north as that is the direction of hull movement. The hull will only realign with turret if stopped, or paused. The tank will move through ( while the turret remains east. If one wants hull one direction while turret another then a cover arc is needed.)

5.From point B, I want to move West towards point C, but keep my gun pointing East. If I order a Face East, my hull will turn towards the East before continuing on to rotate to point West and move off, a behaviour I do not want.(Quote)

The face order must be given AFTER the move order to do this. The hull will continue on the westward movement path.Depending on circumstance desire sometimes a CA would be better. One thing is for sure one would need to make less and have more control over the turret on the move.

Face, and cover arc have no conflict as the orders cancel each other out since only one can be used at a time. If one can still command as it is now. Really it only adds, one can still have a face command at the last waypoint to get hull, and turret to face a desired direction. Issuing the face order after the move now still gets the tank to face both hull, and turret at the last waypoint. The only difference is that the turret faces in the desired direction on the move.

Benefits:

1. Turret arrives at stopping point with it already oriented toward the enemy making it more combat ready. Tank is not as confined by an arc to threats outside the arc, while the turret is facing in a more combat ready posture toward the enemy.

2. Quicker, easier control over turret pointing, especially for real-time, while the tank is moving.

3. This only adds, and takes nothing away which gives the player more options.

4. More visually appealing when arcs are not needed.

Here are the move options for your path. You are more than welcome to post your own to point out something I am missing. Example #1,and #2 are your path and some options. At point ( what happens if an enemy appears out of the arc? It will be ignored, while the face command will be overridden by the AI.

EXAMPLE #1

[Vinnart]

EXAMPLE #2

[Vinnart]

Compare Examples #3, and #4, which are accomplishing the same thing. Which one do you think was faster to plot? Now imagine getting the turret to do that while playing real-time. Instead of drawing arcs, which can be harder while the tank is moving the face in this way quicker to issue, and with more precision. Which one looks more visually appealing since in this case all the player wanted was to point the turret without having to worry if they made an arc deep, and wide enough.

EXAMPLE #3

[Vinnart]

EXAMPLE #4