reduce "click" count > basic formation deploy orders

[womble]

So if BF implemented such a function, you would be compelled to use it to move foot units into compromising positions ?, sounds bizarre, you do realize that any such function, like the current single path move order function we use now, would allow the user to not only choose how they use such a function, but what type of units they use it with.....amazing eh ?

My point was that most of the time it wouldn't be any use, so why bother coding it?

You can (once everything's all tickety-boo and version 2) already mass move a group selection and then fine tune where the elements end up. You would, in order to use the "make a line here" suggestion, have to do the fine tuning anyway in a large proportion, if not all, of the cases in which you use it because straight lines generally don't run through cover. And if there's no enemy overwatch, why does a straight line matter when you can use current tools to move as a blob for general position?

It's a marginal, in a couple of senses of the word, improvement that would be a bunch of work to code, document and maintain.

[noob]

My point was that most of the time it wouldn't be any use, so why bother coding it?

Maybe not so much with the Normandy games, but i can see it becoming more relevant with the Eastern Front games.

You can (once everything's all tickety-boo and version 2) already mass move a group selection and then fine tune where the elements end up.

I mention that in my reply to sburke.

You would, in order to use the "make a line here" suggestion, have to do the fine tuning anyway in a large proportion, if not all, of the cases in which you use it because straight lines generally don't run through cover. And if there's no enemy overwatch, why does a straight line matter when you can use current tools to move as a blob for general position?

Whether it would be difficult, or easy, to implement is irrelevant to me, as my post wasn't a request, just a suggestion that was inspired by the original OP, and the fact that i am playing a big tank battle on a flat open map, so i'm not insisting this be implemented as soon as possible, i'm just thinking out loud, however,anyone that "doesn't" want BF to prioritize the ability to cancel an artillery mission without having to reload the turn, is going on the list

[womble]

...anyone that "doesn't" want BF to prioritize the ability to cancel an artillery mission without having to reload the turn, is going on the list

Well, dodged one bullet today then

[Erwin]

The pro and con groups regarding formation orders will probably divide into the two camps regarding scenario size. Those who prefer small scenarios will not see much reason for extra orders like this.

Those (of us) who want to play large-huge scenarios in CM2 in a more efficient (less "make work" time-consuming) manner need formation orders to make the game more playable.

[womble]

The pro and con groups regarding formation orders will probably divide into the two camps regarding scenario size. Those who prefer small scenarios will not see much reason for extra orders like this.

Those (of us) who want to play large-huge scenarios in CM2 in a more efficient (less "make work" time-consuming) manner need formation orders to make the game more playable.

Mr Erwin, Sir, I play them big-assed scenarios, and I still think most formations would be a waste of time applied at any scale larger than the platoon, and mostly a waste of time at that level. You'd still either need to micro the end points after a large group move (as you already can in v2) or leave pTruppen hanging out to dry.

[sburke]

Mr Erwin, Sir, I play them big-assed scenarios, and I still think most formations would be a waste of time applied at any scale larger than the platoon, and mostly a waste of time at that level. You'd still either need to micro the end points after a large group move (as you already can in v2) or leave pTruppen hanging out to dry.

Same here. In larger scenarios I do use group orders for movement more but only in places I know are out of LOS of my opponent. Placing a move order to a platoon is simple enough now and gets them going where I want them to for a forming up position well enough. I think (and I could be way off base here) that Erwin is actually considering group orders in situations where you can expect enemy contact. I wouldn't likely take advantage of that feature as when I am expecting any potential contact, my unit orders get a lot more complicated than I expect the AI to ever be able to do - covering positions, leapfrogging units etc.

[Vinnart]

How does the "Follow" command work when the vehicle your unit has been ordered to follow suddenly breaks into an interpretive dance impression of the 4th of July?

Troubleshooting different scenarios is good. If the unit that the unit is ordered to follow is destroyed I would hope it would cancel the "Follow" order. In a convoy situation the player would have to give the order to each unit to follow its immediate unit ahead. The follow condition would tell the unit behind it to follow the same path, and keep the set interval. If the unit in front stops, the unit behind also does to keep the interval, avoiding traffic jams. I’m sure BF would think through how to make it work well. From my limited knowledge of programming the “follow” condition would have a “copy” effect in functioning. In this way if a lead unit starts freaking out, and begins to reverse then the one following will reverse too to mimic, and keep the interval. Imagine the amount of mouse clicks it would save. Would have been great for moving formations through blown gabs in boccage especially in moving reinforcements up.

In regard to FORMATIONS, personally I see it more useful for squads vs. large formations. The problem I see with giving larger groups I.E. platoons, Coy ect.. formation orders is it assumes “everything fits in a nice little box”, and we all know life, and the game plans in reality do not. I think it better to micro mange placements of larger groups made easier now with the adjustable waypoints. For squads having them assume a skirmish line,”V”, or wedge, rather than a column in many situations is preferred not only in the game, but in reality. Ever notice the squad leader is the first to die in the game because he is always on point? It has been a very long time since I went through training, but I recall the formation positioning I learned kept the squad leader more in the middle, rather than in the front. The formation chosen depends on conditions, and terrain.

[Erwin]

I was thinking of scenarios like Himmelfahrt where one can recon to discover a large distance of safe territory through which that it takes later (significant quantity) reinforcements a long time to get through to reach a dangerous area.

I do agree that one would want to adjust waypoints significantly if one was in contact or moving through unknown territory.

When one may be making 5+ waypoints for each unit of (say) a company having the "base" waypoints all done in a simple formation order would be a huge timesaver even if one needed to move the last one or two waypoints. The trouble with the current "group orders" is that the units don't keep in good formation and usually run into each other, so one ends up moving a lot of waypoints to avoid traffic jams/collisions.

However, it would be an even greater timesaver if one could select the desired unit by clicking on that unit's waypoint line (as we can do in CM1).

The basic point is still that the UI seems to require a lot more effort to accomplish things in CM2 vs CM1 and much seems to be complexity for complexity's sake.

[Paper Tiger]

If the unit that the unit is ordered to follow is destroyed I would hope it would cancel the "Follow" order.

Interesting. The coding functionality to do this is already there in the HUNT command. If such a FOLLOW command were to be implemented, it might be a good idea to use the HUNT command as its base so that the command is cancelled as soon as the lead unit comes under fire. That would be better than have the whole formation follow the lead unit if it survives contact with the enemy.

[womble]

I was thinking of scenarios like Himmelfahrt where one can recon to discover a large distance of safe territory through which that it takes later (significant quantity) reinforcements a long time to get through to reach a dangerous area.

Current group move can handily serve.

When one may be making 5+ waypoints for each unit of (say) a company having the "base" waypoints all done in a simple formation order would be a huge timesaver...The trouble with the current "group orders" is that the units don't keep in good formation and usually run into each other, so one ends up moving a lot of waypoints to avoid traffic jams/collisions.

And a group move in formation would avoid this? I think you're a lot overoptimistic. Formation doesn't matter for infantry outside of contact (and then it's more 'position' than 'formation', and the pathfinding for movement of vehicles would certainly have to improve a couple of orders of magnitude to make any automatic "go over there as a group" order anything other than the definition of a cluster**** on anything other than an open field, where the existing group moves will, again, very largely suffice.

However, it would be an even greater timesaver if one could select the desired unit by clicking on that unit's waypoint line (as we can do in CM1).

I'm in two minds about this. I agree that it would sometimes be great, but can also see with the current mouse-paradigm that it could also be a massive irritation at other times.

...the UI seems to require a lot more effort to accomplish things in CM2 vs CM1 and much seems to be complexity for complexity's sake.

I couldn't disagree more about your final point. The complexity is there to allow you to do stuff. Using it effectively makes your troops fight better. If it's just a bother to you, you're missing the point.

[Erwin]

It does make playing large scenarios very time-consuming. So, we're back to the philosophical question as to whether the CM2 engine should ever be played with anything larger than a company. Many of us who started with CM1 see this as one of the biggest disappointments of CM2 as we greatly enjoyed the huge scenarios and tournaments that are still only available in CM1 (eg the superb Birthday Bash series at WeBoB which features scenarios that offer huge scenarios to the limit of what is possible in CM1).

Re the formation command issue, the current group order creates chaos at choke points unless one does a lot of tweaking. I agree that in the game it is definitely better to play as if every tank is autonomous and doing its own thing to take advantage of every terrain feature it can. Not sure if that is "realistic" but it doesn't bother me as having fun playing the game is my priority.

However, a follow/convoy command so that one could order a large (company sized+) formation to head down a road, cross a bridge or two and continue down a road to the desired "form-up" point would be a huge time-saver - and Himmelfahrt is a great example.

Himmelfahrt is a wonderful large scenario that is highly recommended. But, aspects are gruelling to play due to the mass of orders and waypoint replotting required to get mech company reinforcements to the front line down a road, across a bridge and then either down another road, or through a pass surrounded by impassible terrain that can mess up movement unless each unit is faithfully following the unit in front.

I can see arguments on both sides for formation commands, but a convoy/follow the leader command would definitely be very helpful and time-saving... saving time so that one can focus on the fun/combat aspects of the game, and not on playing CM: TRAFFIC COP.

Re the ability to select a unit by clicking anyplace on its movement line or waypoint... I didn't understand what you meant by the "current mouse-paradigm"... Plz explain why this feature that worked brilliantly in CM1 would be a problem in CM2.

[womble]

It does make playing large scenarios very time-consuming. So, we're back to the philosophical question as to whether the CM2 engine should ever be played with anything larger than a company.

All my current games have more than a company on each side. I don't find the current system too much work.

Many of us who started with CM1 see this as one of the biggest disappointments of CM2 as we greatly enjoyed the huge scenarios and tournaments that are still only available in CM1 (eg the superb Birthday Bash series at WeBoB which features scenarios that offer huge scenarios to the limit of what is possible in CM1).

The beauty of WeGo is that it takes however long it takes, and you're playing the game the whole time. I don't see the problem.

Re the formation command issue, the current group order creates chaos at choke points unless one does a lot of tweaking.

And the "Go over there and form up in a line" command would do exactly the same thing only everyone would futter about, trying to get in line which may well, depending on the movement problem involved, cause even more chaos, as the vehicle the auto command decided should be at the right hand end gets tangled up in the chaos and ends up coming from the left, last and having to drive round all the other vehicles to get to where it wants to be.

However, a follow/convoy command so that one could order a large (company sized+) formation to head down a road, cross a bridge or two and continue down a road to the desired "form-up" point would be a huge time-saver - and Himmelfahrt is a great example.

I'm not arguing about "Follow". If it could be made to work it would be great.

Re the ability to select a unit by clicking anyplace on its movement line or waypoint... I didn't understand what you meant by the "current mouse-paradigm"... Plz explain why this feature that worked brilliantly in CM1 would be a problem in CM2.

The current "right click selects, selects actions and enacts those actions/left click deselects" sometimes gets in the way, because right clicking on empty ground gets rid of the current selection (most of the time) unless you've got an action 'loaded' on the mouse cursor. So I can see issues in getting used to clicking on empty ground to deselect, and then clicking on a waypoint by mistake and jiggering up a unit that you didn't want to mess with.

[Erwin]

Ok, I see...

For what it's worth I go to and from CM1 and CM2 a lot. One has to change the click sequence a great deal when doing that. But, it becomes instinctive and I have very rarely if ever experienced that sort of confusion. It's pretty obvious when one has clicked on a waypoint in error since the unit appears in the bottom window.

However, in a large scenario like Himmelfahrt where one has a battalion of troops in halftracks and over a company of armor etc., it is very irritating to constantly go and find the original unit in a spaghetti of waypoints/movement lines, as opposed to simply clicking on a waypoint/line to immediately access the unit. At the very least, the CM1 ability of clicking anywhere on a movement line or waypoint immediately gets you back to where the units are located without having to zoom out and move around the map to find em. (That process also seems harder in CM2 since the cntrl-click method nearly always moves me to someplace unexpected and not where I want to go - so I have stopped using cntrl-click in CM2.)

I don't see it as sufficient argument to not have that very, very useful and time-saving feature of clicking anyplace on a movement line/waypoint to select a unit that works so brilliantly in CM1.

CM2 could be so much better and so much easier to play if the CM2 UI system hadn't removed some of the CM1 features that worked so well and so intuitively.

Note that I am not talking about improving/changing the CM2 game itself, only making the PROCESS of issuing commands/orders much more ergonomic/efficient/intuitive and less time-consuming/frustrating. CM2 may be a huge improvement over CM1 in many ways, but not in its PLAYABILITY.

[Vinnart]

Beyond the benefits of a future “Follow” command already discussed here is the best advise to minimize mouse clicks: I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Get a Nostromo speedpad, and a mouse with as many programmable buttons. The more hot keys used at the fingertips makes for fewer mice clicks, and controls the game very efficiently. I can honestly say I control CM about as fast as any other RTS I have played with the aid of those devises. Even if you just have a mouse with two side buttons one can program these for free with a program called “Mouse X”. For these buttons I suggest programming them to “tab”(center camera on selected unit), and the “=” key (select next unit). Try it and see.

[Vinnart]

What would speed up gameplay a great deal is being able to select a unit by clicking on its waypoint or line (as one can in CM1).

When one has many units it takes time to go back to select the actual unit itself just so one can then go to its waypoint elsewhere to move it.

I agree this a was a convenient feature from CMx1, and would like to see it's return in the future to minimize unnessary camera moves.

[womble]

Beyond the benefits of a future “Follow” command already discussed here is the best advise to minimize mouse clicks: I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Get a Nostromo speedpad, and a mouse with as many programmable buttons. The more hot keys used at the fingertips makes for fewer mice clicks, and controls the game very efficiently. I can honestly say I control CM about as fast as any other RTS I have played with the aid of those devises. Even if you just have a mouse with two side buttons one can program these for free with a program called “Mouse X”. For these buttons I suggest programming them to “tab”(center camera on selected unit), and the “=” key (select next unit). Try it and see.

I don't feel the need for a Nostromo, but will certainly echo the "use the keybinds" sentiment. I have a G700 mouse with Fast, Quick, Slow, Tab, Ctrl-click, Target Light and Target bound to the buttons. With camera-forward, camera-back and camera track left and right bound to keys and the sidescroll, as well as the elevation on the scrollwheel, I have almost a freeflying camera, when combined with the LMB-drag view directions controls.

[Erwin]

Hmm... Programming the mouse a bit better is actually a good idea to try. I have a G500 I use for CM and maybe a G700 elsewhere. My fear is that I always somehow manage to screw up my equipment every time I do experiments with it that others find childsplay.

In addition to PC's my wife and I have iPhones and iPads, and neither of us can barely use em. They drive us nuts as we find em totally non-intuitive. The trick is to have a ten year old explain it all I guess.

[womble]

Hmm... Programming the mouse a bit better is actually a good idea to try. I have a G500 I use for CM and maybe a G700 elsewhere. My fear is that I always somehow manage to screw up my equipment every time I do experiments with it that others find childsplay.

In addition to PC's my wife and I have iPhones and iPads, and neither of us can barely use em. They drive us nuts as we find em totally non-intuitive. The trick is to have a ten year old explain it all I guess.

The trick with the Logitech mices is to make sure you set up a different profile for each game, and have it autodetect which game you're playing. If you use the same controls for FI and BN, you could happily have the one profile active for both those games.

[Erwin]

Presumably instructions for programming the mice are online only? Have no idea how to set up "profiles" or autodetection. Like I said, I have no 10 year old old here.

[womble]

Presumably instructions for programming the mice are online only? Have no idea how to set up "profiles" or autodetection. Like I said, I have no 10 year old old here.

From what I remember, the help within the logitech SetPoint software is quite useful. On thing that's worth making sure is that your SetPoint software is set to run with Admin privileges if you're on Win7 or later. I can't remember now whether it was a requirement for the advanced features to function in CM, but it's one of those things that can't really hurt.

[sburke]

Presumably instructions for programming the mice are online only? Have no idea how to set up "profiles" or autodetection. Like I said, I have no 10 year old old here.

LOL you get that from Groucho Marx?

Rufus T. Firefly: Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child could understand this report. Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head or tail out of it.

[Erwin]

It used to be one needed a teenager to explain technology to us oldsters, then it was 12 year olds, next week it will be 8 year olds...

I mean, who the f*** gives a sh** about facebook and/or the ability to tell people in real time what stupid nonsense you are doing every ruddy second? Can't believe I have transformed from a high-tech worker considered pretty cutting edge to a fuddy duddy in the space of a decade or two...

[womble]

It used to be one needed a teenager to explain technology to us oldsters, then it was 12 year olds, next week it will be 8 year olds...

I mean, who the f*** gives a sh** about facebook and/or the ability to tell people in real time what stupid nonsense you are doing every ruddy second? Can't believe I have transformed from a high-tech worker considered pretty cutting edge to a fuddy duddy in the space of a decade or two...

"Twitter is stupid. Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."

[sburke]

It used to be one needed a teenager to explain technology to us oldsters, then it was 12 year olds, next week it will be 8 year olds...

I mean, who the f*** gives a sh** about facebook and/or the ability to tell people in real time what stupid nonsense you are doing every ruddy second? Can't believe I have transformed from a high-tech worker considered pretty cutting edge to a fuddy duddy in the space of a decade or two...

I refer to myself as a luddite at work. I am responsible for a really high end VoIP network including an integration with PDA devices and they have a hard time convincing me to even use my iPhone. I am with you on FB, my neighbors use it and it drives me batty when I see my wife's FB account and the neighbors are saying - "good night, going to bed now". What the f**k is this, the Waltons? Good night John boy... Hey John boy, go f**k yourself, shut the hell up and go to bed. Our world has gotten so trivial it drives me nuts... rant over....

[Erwin]

Your rant has inspired me to rant:

It really is a new world where (some/most?) younger folks have a desperate need for constant contact with someone else they can label a "friend" even tho' there is actual no connection other than the most superficial electronic transaction. Now there is also a push to make all financial transactions electronic via your cell phone or similar - so no money, everything deducted direct from your bank AC. (And we know how hard it can be to get your $ back from a bank where there has been an error or fraud that has nothing to do with you.)

Feels like we are in the middle of a disaster sci-fi story. Anyone who's worked on DoD-related projects knows these systems are not secure, that they are being hacked all the time (altho' never admitted), and that one day the stockmarket, or the power grid or food supply or somesuch will be hacked big time and this paperless world will crash. I dread to think how the Facebook generation and their ilk will cope.

In the meanwhile, we have new versions of smartphones every few months requiring new skillsets... My wife just got a Samsung III and has barely any idea how to use it except for the basics. I still have a voice only "old" phone. I hate texting. Seems to take far longer to get actual useful info across than just calling someone.

And I liked getting Netflix DVD's in the mail. Now I have to d/l to my computer, run an HDMI cable from my computer to the TV and only then get to watch a friggin' movie(!)

All this new communications stuff seems aimed at kids who want to secretly chat in class, and moron level execs who can text while in some inconsequential meeting.