SOP for CMx2

[Daroc]

I am showing my age but why cant BF do the same thing they already did for TacOps to CMx2.

 

TacOps not very graphic intensive but a number cruncher - was able to stream a list of orders of movement, SOP changes, & combat.

 

Why cant this be brought into the CMx2 core game?  If not the list of orders, but the SOP for all units?

[womble]

The arguments presented so far include the fact that the CMx2 environment is extremely complex. A satisfying SOP selection/creation tool would be a scripting language in its own right, and I don't think anyone wants a battle to turn on who's better/more assiduous at nesting IF..THEN...ELSE or WHILE/WEND or CASE statements. To support that language, the PBpT would have to have better and more comprehensive senses and appreciation of what they "see" on the battlefield. And it still wouldn't be able to be perfect for every situation, so people would still minge on about it.

The game is not about having 100% control of everything your troops do. It's pretty much the opposite, i.e. you not having perfect control over your troops' reactions.

[A Canadian Cat]

I think that adding SOP type controls would be great.  I have no experience with TacOps so cannot comment on the method.  I will say that a programming or scripting solution would not be good.  But there is no reason why a reasonably straight forward UI could not be created to let people choose from some standard SOPs with a few parameters to tweak.  All of that could and should also be available to the AI as options during the plan definition.

 

It would be great.

 

It would also be a lot of work too.

 

Hopefully some day.

[Michael Emrys]

I am showing my age but why cant BF do the same thing they already did for TacOps to CMx2.

 

TacOps not very graphic intensive but a number cruncher - was able to stream a list of orders of movement, SOP changes, & combat.

 

Why cant this be brought into the CMx2 core game?  If not the list of orders, but the SOP for all units?

 

I think you should bear in mind that TacOps and CM are massively different pieces of code, and that a feature in one cannot simply be plucked out and dropped into the other. But perhaps that is not exactly what you meant to say?

 

In any event, SOPs have frequently been suggested/requested going all the way back to before CMBO was even released. BFC have steadfastly rejected the idea. Speculating, at first their stance may have been a matter of their personal subjective preferences, but as time has gone on it is apparent that they have evolved code that in some ways covers the same ground in other ways. For instance, the Tac AI has become sophisticated enough to handle several items that would have been included in SOPs without requiring input from the player. In others, the player can achieve the same end state by using the existing orders in an intelligent manner. In yet other ways, an ability for the player to set certain SOPs would lighten the workload, but might also have unpredictable and undesirable consequences in some areas. I can't guess where the break point might be between useful and deleterious. In any event, writing and testing this kind of code would probably entail a large commitment of resources for very little actual gain.

 

Personally, I think that inclusion of SOPs would have been a big plus ten or fifteen years ago. They might have prevented or at least ameliorated some of the truly odd behavior encountered in CMx1. But at this stage of the program's evolution, I am more doubtful that they would be worth the trouble.

 

Michael

[poesel]

I would be happy if speed (or mode) of movement would be separate from reaction to enemy forces/fire.

 

E.g.: 'quick hunt' - run to this spot and drop down as soon as you get incoming fire or 'crawl fast' - crawl there no matter what (not crawl faster ) or 'normal hunt' - that would be a patrol and so on.

[Michael Emrys]

I would be happy if speed (or mode) of movement would be separate from reaction to enemy forces/fire.

 

This has certainly been requested a lot. I would like nearly all modes of foot movement to react to incoming fire the way that the present Hunt does: drop to the ground and seek cover. One exception would be Fast, which would be "keep going flat out and don't stop until you reach the next waypoint". And it also leaves a grey area where a unit might hear gunfire nearby that is not directed at them. Should they continue movement, or should they take some other action?

 

Michael