Do we really need the deploy command

[Rocky Balboa]

Why is deploy such an issue? Dont you guys ever move and then hide? Or apply a facing? Or a target?

Meethinks this is a solution in search of a problem. I just have a mental checklist on 'last move waypoints: do I want to deploy/hide/face/fire/unbutton/whatever? No? Move to next unit. There really are loads of things you might want to do... why pick on deploy?

Your example is exactly why [deploy] is being questioned. In a game already overburdened with micro management. Why have a command like deploy that may not be necessary when the TacAI might be able to reasonably make the decision when to [deploy] and when not to.

Hence this discussion.

[Sailor Malan2]

Your example is exactly why [deploy] is being questioned. In a game already overburdened with micro management. Why have a command like deploy that may not be necessary when the TacAI might be able to reasonably make the decision when to [deploy] and when not to.

Hence this discussion.

But why is 'deploy' any different? Telling my tank commanders to unbutton, or my scouts to hide.... all the same. And in numerical terms deployable heavy weapons are not exactly common in each battle.

[agusto]

Why have a command like deploy that may not be necessary when the TacAI might be able to reasonably make the decision when to [deploy] and when not to.

I dont trust the TacAI enough to make this decision. You can construct an almost infinite amount of situations where auto-deploy would be unrealistic and ruin the game. For example:

I have a deployed Pak40 and i see a mortar spotting round impacting in its vicinity and i guess it might be a good idea to move it away. It undeploys, starts to move away, but during the next turn a spotting round hits right next to the Pak40, kills one guy, the rest ist cowering, all movement orders are canceled. Now the Pak40 will start to deploy again automatically and i cant do anything about it. I will have to undeploy it again before i can continue to move it out of harms way and this will cost me precious time and eventually lead to the loss of the gun wich otherwise had survived.

[noob]

In a game already overburdened with micro

management.

Given there is no benchmark to measure whether there is too much, or to little, micro management in CM, your statement is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

[Rocky Balboa]

Given there is no benchmark to measure whether there is too much, or to little, micro management in CM, your statement is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact.

Can't edit my post at this point but you are correct that this is entirely my opinion. Although I would think most readers would realize that this goes without saying.

[Wodin]

Anyway looks like a majority are happy with it as is as it gives choice..so think case closed.

[noob]

Can't edit my post at this point but you are correct that this is entirely my opinion. Although I would think most readers would realize that this goes without saying.

Apart from the arts, IMO, one should never say something by not saying it :- )

[Michael Emrys]

You may be right. I guess it depends on how the majority of folks make use of the deploy command as it is. Personally it is only rarely that I don't deploy weapons after units finishing moving. So switching the default would benefit me. But perhaps I am in the minority...

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you give your crew served weapons long, complex movement orders that cover many turns and that they don't stop until they reach their final destination. That is one play style of choice.

However, I don't play that way. In a given turn, I give a unit just the orders to complete that turn (exception: if a unit is a long way in the rear, I may give it a movement order that will require several turns to complete before it gets far enough forward that it might get spotted and shot at). I learned through hard experience that plotting long, complex multi-turn orders was not only a waste of time, but was counter-productive. In a minute's time the situation for that unit might change drastically. Enemy units might suddenly pop up, artillery might begin to fall in the area I had intended to move, and so on. So at the minimum it could require that I drastically alter the command sequence that I had so carefully plotted out, or eliminate it altogether. At worst, it means that my unit might walk into an ambush and be destroyed.

So you see, for me and anyone who plays like me, having an automatic deploy at the end of every movement sequence would be a major pain in the ass, a serious bummer, an infuriating encumbrance to deal with. I would probably simply not buy a game with something that irksome that I had to constantly deal with.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

But why is 'deploy' any different? Telling my tank commanders to unbutton, or my scouts to hide.... all the same. And in numerical terms deployable heavy weapons are not exactly common in each battle.

The difference is this: If I want a unit to unhide or unbutton, I give them the order and they perform it as soon as the next turn begins. If I give an undeploy order, it will take several seconds to several minutes to perform. In that amount of time, all sorts of unpleasant things could happen.

Besides, it is just plain unrealistic for a crew to begin deploying a heavy weapon every time they dodge behind a bush to take a breather before carrying on the next leg of their movement.

Michael

[womble]

The difference is this: If I want a unit to unhide or unbutton, I give them the order and they perform it as soon as the next turn begins. If I give an undeploy order, it will take several seconds to several minutes to perform. In that amount of time, all sorts of unpleasant things could happen.

Besides, it is just plain unrealistic for a crew to begin deploying a heavy weapon every time they dodge behind a bush to take a breather before carrying on the next leg of their movement.

Michael

Michael, the Sailor fellow is agreeing with us. What you're describing does apply to hide and button and the rest, though with possibly less consequence for those other things being "default". They're all better left the way they are for the player to manage.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I personally don't think the issue is closed. For me, there should be a far more obvious way for the unit display to indicate whether a unit is deployed, not deployed or in the process of doing one or the other.

It simply isn't clear enough and before someone points out that there's a mod one can get, I find that too time consuming and annoying to have to do and then wait for when the mod can be modified (no certainty it will be) to suit the next version of the game after a patch.

Regards

KR

[Michael Emrys]

Michael, the Sailor fellow is agreeing with us.

Oh, I got that; but I had a point to make and he gave me an excellent opening. Thanks, Sailor.

Michael

[Sailor Malan2]

Michael, the Sailor fellow is agreeing with us. What you're describing does apply to hide and button and the rest, though with possibly less consequence for those other things being "default". They're all better left the way they are for the player to manage.

The Sailor fellow indeed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolph_Malan

[Rocky Balboa]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you give your crew served weapons long, complex movement orders that cover many turns and that they don't stop until they reach their final destination. That is one play style of choice.

This style of play you described here is very common for many players who play RT. I personally don't play CMx2 RT for many of the reasons being discussed in this thread. Even though I only enjoy RT when playing the smallest of battles, I find that CMx2 requires entirely too much micro management (IMO *nods to noob* ).

This is why, if the UI is to be redesigned, then commands like deploy that can be adequately handled by the TacAI, should be. RT play not withstanding even when playing WEGO, the game needs to get away from requiring the commander to manage every detail of a battle. I feel you get much better results and enjoyment that way ...

Now with all this said, I realize that many times things sound better and worse in writing than they actually are so of course before the [deploy] command is removed, all this would need to be tested and there in lies the problem. Do we remove the command and code the TacAI only to find that the command is necessary? Of course this is why I play the game because BF has done a great job of dealing with these issues in the past, they listen to their customers when appropriate and so I think the game is in great hands regardless of the outcome of this particular issue.

[womble]

...commands like deploy that can be adequately handled by the TacAI...

You have yet to elucidate how the TacAI can "adequately handle" the decision making around deploy/notdeploy decisions. Until you do, you're pretty much wasting the ATP it takes to move your fingers to type.

[Michael Emrys]

...if the UI is to be redesigned, then commands like deploy that can be adequately handled by the TacAI, should be. RT play not withstanding even when playing WEGO, the game needs to get away from requiring the commander to manage every detail of a battle. I feel you get much better results and enjoyment that way ...

I won't argue with that as an ideal. The problem as I see it though is that AI development—and not just in CM—is far from ideal. I would gladly surrender control to any AI that was capable of, in my opinion, duplicating with fidelity the actions and decisions of lower echelon commanders. But it just ain't there yet, and my suspicion is that it is still years, if not decades, away. AI coding has yet to produce an Einstein who can give us a conceptual breakthrough to vastly simplify the process of writing workable AI code for any but the simplest tasks.

Michael

[Rocky Balboa]

You have yet to elucidate how the TacAI can "adequately handle" the decision making around deploy/notdeploy decisions. Until you do, you're pretty much wasting the ATP it takes to move your fingers to type.

AI coding has yet to produce an Einstein who can give us a conceptual breakthrough to vastly simplify the process of writing workable AI code for any but the simplest tasks. Michael

Womble and Michael, you are both getting ridiculous and snarky in your commentary. Of course no AI can duplicate what a human can do and with the same fidelity, if that's what your waiting for then you wouldn't be playing the game at all because I can assure you that it's full of shortcuts and compromises that you would both still be complaining about given the opportunity.

What the game does prove however is that the AI can be programmed to adequately take care of any number of battlefield tasks and I have laid out in previous posts showing how this could be accomplished with the deploy command. You obviously don't agree with that and that's ok, its your opinion. No solution is perfect and the current way that deployment is handle is no exception, sometimes adequate is a reasonable compromise.

Present your case and leave the personal attacks out of the discussion thanks ...

[Redwolf]

I disagree. Deployment and, more importantly re-deployment, takes time. Before they "move out as normal" they have to pack back up whatever they unpacked in the prior movement phase especially with WEGO. There are many situations where speed matters and losing time should be avoided. There are also occasions where I want my weapon crews to stop and rest before proceeding. Automatically un-packing and re-packing will tire them more quickly. I prefer the current process where the TacAI does not deploy crew-served weapons automatically.

That are valid concerns, but to lead to an improvement in realism to the game you then need to be very confident that all the deploy times as they are in the game are correct.

It is impossible that they are because the deploy time for e.g. a PaK40 is always the same. However, we know from narratives that they could throw the gun around to e.g. fire down a road in a very short timeframe. And don't tell me that never happened, there are more than enough photos of guns such deployed out there.

Likewise I am not comfortable with modeling exhaustion from deploying and packing up because I have no confidence that we would find a realistic value for this.

Finally, as a WEGO player, why would I wait for an additional 60 seconds before I can even start to deploy?

[womble]

...I have laid out in previous posts showing how this could be accomplished with the deploy command...

You might think you have, but you haven't. You've just waved your hand and said it could do it.

You recognise yourself:

...if you move a crew served weapon and then give them a target order at the end of their movement then [Deploy Weapon] command should be assumed. Cant target unless your deployed right? The exception would be semi deployed weapons...

that there would have to be exceptions to any general rule that you've come up with, so you still wouldn't be achieving your stated goal of removing the Deploy command and saving some interface space that you think needs saving.

...sometimes adequate is a reasonable compromise.

Getting an "adequate" (actually, none of what you've proposed is adequate to the task) replacement for something that works perfectly well in the same paradigm as several other "micromanagement tasks" is emphatically not a reasonable compromise. It's certainly not a sensible use of limited programming resource.

Present your case and leave the personal attacks out of the discussion thanks ...

Personal attack? You really think that was a personal attack? Or are you just trying to put words in my/our mouth(s). As to presenting a case, well that's done, and you've not refuted any of it. Merely restated your wish to avoid micromanagement. Just as an illustration of how "much" micromanagement you're talking about, I'm playing a game using a full Italian battalion with 8 HMGs. Apart from one that wouldn't set up where I wanted it (a problem that would have to be solved either way up) I've issued on average 2 deploy orders per gun. I've moved one entire platoon over the course of 5 minutes without needing or wanting to set them up in spite of halting their progress at two points, and am in the process of doing the same with a brace of guns. Why would a team set up their weapon when they're in defilade with "stand by to move" orders?

You're quite right I don't agree with you. You've presented not a single convincing counterargument. It would be spiffy, as Michael says, to have a TacAI that I could delegate more stuff to, but that's not something I have enough life left to wait for, so I'll handle the stuff the AI can't for myself, thanks.

[Michael Emrys]

Womble and Michael, you are both getting ridiculous and snarky in your commentary.

Whoa, buddy! My comments were not intended to be snarky or personal at all. If the reference to Einstein came out as somehow provocative, I'll say that I would happily settle for a Kepler. If you know anything about the history of science and astronomy in particular—and until I am told otherwise, I will assume that you do—you should recognize the significance of that statement within the context that I made it immediately. I am really surprised that you are so attached to your idea, given the arguments that have been made against it, or that you should take those arguments personally. Speaking for myself, I have entertained no animosity against you ever and I would prefer that situation to continue.

Michael

[LukeFF]

Why have a command like deploy that may not be necessary when the TacAI might be able to reasonably make the decision when to [deploy] and when not to.

And it might not be able to make the decision.

If the Deploy feature was that much of an encumbrance to players, BF would've done something about it long ago. It's not like it's a new feature, after all.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Speaking for myself, I have entertained no animosity against you ever and I would prefer that situation to continue.

You are wise, Michael, given that you are speaking to a man who once knocked out Apollo Creed. At least womble has an ocean between them.

[_Itchy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you give your crew served weapons long, complex movement orders that cover many turns and that they don't stop until they reach their final destination.

No, that is not the case. Typically my orders would be for a turn or two. However it is very rare that I move a crew served weapon and don't give them a deploy order when they get to that final position.

So you see, for me and anyone who plays like me, having an automatic deploy at the end of every movement sequence would be a major pain in the ass, a serious bummer, an infuriating encumbrance to deal with.

If you typically end movement orders for crew served weapons without ordering them to deploy, then yes, flipping the default would be more hassle for you as you would have more units to deselect deploy from than you currently select deploy for. As previously stated, for me this would result in fewer units that need to be tweaked at the end of their orders.

I thought Augusto made a good point about the effects that automatic deployment would have on movement orders interrupted by incoming fire and I agree that it makes no sense to deploy unless the unit has got to the designated location.

[JonS]

I thought Augusto made a good point about the effects that automatic deployment would have on movement orders interrupted by incoming fire and I agree that it makes no sense to deploy unless the unit has got to the designated location.

But now you'd have a major problem.

Assume, for the moment, that the AI can be made smart enough to know the difference between a 'designated location' and a point where movement ended because of incoming fire.

Great. The unit has stopped moving because of incoming fire, but won't set up because this isn't the designated location. Neat stuff. But now I actually DO want the unit to set up, right here. Maybe because it's an ok location, and I know I can engage the enemy from here. Or some other reason, it doesn't matter why. But now you guys have managed to get the Deploy command removed from the game, so I'll have to move the unit somewhere else, to trigger the 'designated location' criteria. I can't set up the unit right *here* without moving it away and back again.

Yeah, good one. Thanks for that. That's brilliant

[Apocal]

The only reasonable objection I've heard is that people want to save mortar ammo by not having them pop off at random targets. But last I checked, nobody in real life said things like "oh no, don't put down that baseplate or attach that bipod, it might make you fire and we don't have much ammo. Keep them separated and delay any fire order a minute or so, because otherwise we might fire at unimportant targets. We will have time when the good ones come along - maybe." In other words, it is a patch on a bad default firing behavior. I thought that was why we had arcs. OK, I agree that is MM too, and not perfect. But not assembling the weapon after going into position - to save ammo? Really? In combat?

Yeah, I wouldn't argue it is even the remotest bit realistic, it is just a fix for the TacAI being relatively poor in its target selection. And mortars firing without guidance from above at whatever target happens to be in front of them is just as unrealistic.

PROTIP: Undeployed MGs sure do fire. And so do the rest of the guys in an undeployed MG team.

If he's playing as Americans, undeployed MGs won't fire.

(which, apocal, you could probably do as well with a covered arc)

I don't mind if they fire rifles and carbines, in fact I prefer it in most cases since I primarily play real-time and can't always spare brain cycles babysitting mortars to ensure their safety and self-defense.