follow command?

[crumply]

I'd like to see it.

To me, plotting the same paths for multiple units in large scenarios gets very tedious; and the group movement version now available (everybody runs in a straight line) just doesn't cut it.

Instead, how about you plot the course and type of moves for a platoon leader, and you can tell units under his command to follow the same.

[Rod]

I'll second that.

I had a scenario where my reinforcements had to navigate down a long road and then cross a single bridge. It turned into a big pain(relatively speaking) keeping units in any kind of cohesion. It would be nice to just copy a set of waypoints to the members in command. As it works now I rarely use the multiselect command since its only really good for short distances. Which in my opinion is just as easily accomplished by giving individual commands to your units.

Hopefully this makes the list.

[David Aitken]

Everyone Jump On The Lieutenant?

Good idea, if you want your whole platoon to be wiped out with a single shell.

David

[mikeadams]

I would like a 'converge on' option. There are many times I want a scattered group to all end up in a single location.

[Guest Germanboy]

I think this is a good suggestion if you have to move convoys through winding roads, woodlands and scattered trees. Of course you should not use it when you have made contact or are about to. But for reinforcements, it would definitely help. A converge command I am not so sure about. I never felt the need for it. Your troops should not go that far astray, and that command really opens the short road to a place called desaster, as David pointed out.

------------------

Andreas

[Redleg]

Im surprised you havent been called a big jerk yet by some worshipers of the search function and original design of CM. How dare you question the design of Platton movement!!!! (By the way, just so everyone knows, all of the above statement is in jest - OK)

IF I understand the question, you want waypoints for Platoons and you want the Platoon oriented in a particular direction at the end of movement. I agree and would like to see the Platoon movement work maybe like so

click PL and he gets the standard commands with the addition of:

-Move Platoon (acting like standard move with waypoints, except it applies to the entire Platoon)

-Rotate Platoon to (Like armor has, except the entire platoon rotates in formation to cover a direction with fire.) i.e.

SQD SQD MG SQD

PL

ROTATE TO 30deg

SQD

SQD

PL MG

SQD

etc....

I belive this would reduce some of the major clicking arround when dealing with platoons, fine adjustments can still be made with standard commands, but this set of commands would get the Platoon very close. Just an Idea.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Everyone Jump On The Lieutenant?

Good idea, if you want your whole platoon to be wiped out with a single shell.

David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David, I hsve found that the current way movement works makes this MUCH more likely. (Everyone bunching up)

When giving multiple types of vehicles movement orders up a road, they inevitably get all bunched together and a large traffic jam quickly ensues, rather than having them just follow one another at the best possible speed.

Have you tried the Villers-Bocage op? In the second battle, you have to move a few Tigers, several MkIVs, and half a dozen tracks up a few roads bordered by bocage. I have yet to figure out how to do that without the tracks trying to run over the Tigers, then trying to go around them, etc., etc. It quickly turns into quite a mess.

However, a lot of these commands we want could be quite difficult to implement. Right now, it seems like none of the movement is dependent upon one unit knowing the location of another unit. Asking a platoon to move in formation or a convoy to follow a lead vehicle would necessarily involve ading code that would make a unit aware of the location of another unit. That might be a non-trivial task.

Jeff Heidman

[Rod]

David,

I think thats an issue no matter what. You have to get your troops to the fighting as fast as you can. This means using roads. Sure you are vulnerable. In fact that did happen in the example I gave above. A few mortor rounds fell and my guys scattered. But then I had to go through the monotonous task of resetting up paths for over a company of men and support teams. I had no real choice, they had to get across the bridge.

With the suggested system you could, once the waypoints are set, easily make minor adjustments to waypoints or even add pauses to keep your guys spread out.

[crumply]

Jeff:

I am hardly a programmer, but to my mind, the movements would be relative to the movement paths of the leader, not the leader himself. The game obviously recognizes the movement path. This command doesn't seem inordinately complicated to implement, but what do I know?

[Guest Chris B]

>I am hardly a programmer, but to my mind, the movements would be relative to the movement paths of the leader, not the leader himself. The game obviously recognizes the movement path. This command doesn't seem inordinately complicated to implement, but what do I know?

No, relative to the leader. In scenarios with a lot of vehicles in a cramped space, say a road with trees on the sides, faster units will catch up to slower vehicles, and instead of waiting for them to move, ie relate to their position, they will plot a new movement path, quite possibly down the road the way they came, thus causing the next vehicle in the queue to replot it's path.

In short: Traffic jam.

Now if only the vehicles would keep their distance and maintain the same speed as the vehicle in front of them, everything would be ok.....till the enemy butts in.

[This message has been edited by Chris B (edited 08-08-2000).]

[Havermeyer]

MUST HAVE. It is far too painful coordinating convoys. The realism of traffic jams would not be lost by a convoy command. It would likely take a few rounds to get the vehicles in line on the road to convoy, this preserves the chaos of armored/motorized warfare. But will make it a little easier on the poor SOB coordinating a 15 plus vehicle convoy once the boys are in line.

------------------

"Two World Wars and One World Cup, do da, do da!"

--British Hooligan, sung to Camptown Races

[Havermeyer]

Maybe we could select the vehicles to convoy and tie up an HQ with the vehicles, who would then independently organize the vehicles for effective convoy (some HQ organize convoy command, or something). That would tie up some time (and again model the frustration of organizing motorized/armored vehicles), but free the gamer to play rather than perform a click fest. Perhaps the HQs quality could effect the amount of time to organize the convoy-- that way the gamer does feel some frustration about getting the troops to the front.

We rely upon the HQs to do a lot, why not to do something else beneficial. I did a search looking under BTS, but didn't come across any thread titles that fit the convoy thread. Has BTS ever spoken to this?

------------------

"Two World Wars and One World Cup, do da, do da!"

--British Hooligan, sung to Camptown Races

[Fionn]

You know Havermeyer, you don't HAVE to resurect 2 or 3 old threads saying the exact same thing as this new thread. It is just confusing and kinda against forum etiquette.

[Havermeyer]

You know Fionn, I was making a point. The developer has not addressed this to say we are out to lunch or not. I resurrected all of them hoping someone would pop their head up and say something. In particular, someone who has the power to do something about it.

All or Nothing is a great Scenario I will never play again because of the vehicle movement. As a scenario developer, I would find this disconcerting if my audience was lost due to something which frustrates many. It is needless.

If the developer wishes to accentuate the difficulties in organizing armored/motorized coordination-- it can be done without so much bloody oversight by the player. It is time consuming and painful.

------------------

"Two World Wars and One World Cup, do da, do da!"

--British Hooligan, sung to Camptown Races

[OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Havermeyer:

If the developer wishes to accentuate the difficulties in organizing armored/motorized coordination-- it can be done without so much bloody oversight by the player. It is time consuming and painful.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why have we got multiple threads on this topic? I posted to the "Convoy command" thread what was, for me, a reasonably well constructed argument against the "follow" command. And now I see there's been an end run into a new thread. Not cool.

If you don't want to have the trouble of managing lots of vehicles along a road, don't play those type of scenarios. Simple. But don't deny me tactical opportunities inherent in such games by inserting some Age of Empires type "follow" command. If you cannot or will not control your forces when they are on the move, then you will get a whupping. That's wargaming.

I know it's a pain in the arse moving all them trucks and tanks. It's meant to be.

For my more elaborate logic, please refer to the other thread. :^)

OGSF

[Wolfe]

A few movement tips (cut-n-pasted from a previous post; hopefully it'll format ok):

Use the Move command rather than Fast. All vehicles will Move at the same speed.

Be aware of their experience level. Regular vehicles take ~13 secs to start moving, Vets take ~8 secs, etc. You may need to use the pause command on vehicles near the back. Or use Fast initially on the lead vehicles for a short distance to get them more spaced out near the front, then change the command to Move so the rest of the convoy can keep up.

Also stagger the vehicles (i.e. one on the rightish side of the road, the one behind it rides on the left, then right, then left ... etc). Small vehicles (cars, trucks, HTs) can also ride down the middle in between the staggered AFVs.

You may even want some vehicles to travel off-road next to the road. Such as HTs on Fast rather than having them within the convoy. Just be aware of any adverse ground conditions off the side of the road such as wet, snow, and tree-ed areas.

- Chris

[crumply]

I actually meant for the follow command to relate only to troops, rather than tanks, as they are the only ones who have leaders.

I just think it would reduce some of the tedium (and no, I am certain the game is not meant to be tedious), and increase the "realism" effect by emphasizing command and control.

Probably BTS considered it prior to implementing the "group move" command, but, rightfully, did not implement it in order to avoid delay in releasing the game. Just a guess.

This is only a helpful suggestion. I know BTS is very interested in "craft." But I could hardly blame them if they wanted to devote their time instead to 1. vacation or 2. CM2.

[Havermeyer]

I don't believe anyone is robbed tactically by automating convoying vehicles. Even if "managed" by an HQ or a convoy command moving tons of vehicles into a workable line takes minutes of time whether I am clicking the little tykes into place or it is being managed for me. Plenty of opportunity for you to rain holy hell on my position. It's not as if you will magically click all the vehicles into a workable line and *blink* in one turn they are there.

However, it is certifiably annoying and distracting to establish way points for 15 vehicles on a windy road-- especially when the turf on either side is soft.

As to multiple threads and resurrection of the dead-- I have not encountered a reply by BTS yet-- and that is who I want to hear from.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!:

I know it's a pain in the arse moving all them trucks and tanks. It's meant to be.

OGSF

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just plain untrue. In real life, it is extremely easy to tell a dozen vehicles to drive down the road in a column.

You just tell the first guy where to go, and tell each follwing guy to, you know, follow the guy in front of them. I have been in quite a few military convoys, and we never had a problem with the faster vehicles driving off the road in a vain attempt to get around the slower vehicles, nor was there a commander constantly telling everyone exactly what speed to drive, when to pause, etc., etc.

This subject goes to show that there is a group of CM players who will resist any change, no matter how sensible.

Jeff Heidman

[Mikeydz]

I haven't had any problems so far organizing groups of vehicles down tight spaces such as roads. I always use the "Move" command since that is a constant speed for all vehicles (troop walking speed). So the only real thing you have to watch for is the command delay. As long as you don't expect your vehicles to be able to move bumper to bumper at full speed, then no problems. I usually have anywhere from 1/2 to a full vehicle lenght spacing between vehicles. Only problem that ever happens is when a pesky 88 round lances through the lead vechicle, then things get a littl chaotic, but otherwise, things go smooth

[Havermeyer]

I accept that driving at move is of great benefit. However, in scenario *snip* you get 10+ vehicles spread all over a town-- about 3-4 different types-- plus others from earlier. To get to the front a long curvy road has to be navigated. It is so tedious to fight a battle across a broad front while a clickfest in the rear is performed.

A follow command for troops is of reasonable benefit, but the vehicle convoy-thing is certifiably tedious.

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!:

If you don't want to have the trouble of managing lots of vehicles along a road, don't play those type of scenarios.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sounds to me like "If you don't like this game, play something else..."

Assuming there were such a command, no one would be forced to use it, so I don't see how this would degrade your command ability

Better than a "follow" command woule the ability to copy a PATH. All selected vehicles, after finishing their existing paths, would drive to the beginning of the cloned path and add it to their path.

Henri :

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-09-2000).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

David, I hsve found that the current way movement works makes this MUCH more likely. (Everyone bunching up)

When giving multiple types of vehicles movement orders up a road, they inevitably get all bunched together and a large traffic jam quickly ensues, rather than having them just follow one another at the best possible speed.

Have you tried the Villers-Bocage op? In the second battle, you have to move a few Tigers, several MkIVs, and half a dozen tracks up a few roads bordered by bocage. I have yet to figure out how to do that without the tracks trying to run over the Tigers, then trying to go around them, etc., etc. It quickly turns into quite a mess.

However, a lot of these commands we want could be quite difficult to implement. Right now, it seems like none of the movement is dependent upon one unit knowing the location of another unit. Asking a platoon to move in formation or a convoy to follow a lead vehicle would necessarily involve ading code that would make a unit aware of the location of another unit. That might be a non-trivial task.

Jeff Heidman

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. I was thinking about how nice a "Maintain Interval" order might be, but as you say, it would likely add a whole new layer of code to write and debug. <sigh>

Michael

[OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri:

This sounds to me like "If you don't like this game, play something else..."

We each filter things our own way.

Assuming there were such a command, no one would be forced to use it, so I don't see how this would degrade your command ability

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-09-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I have a load of vehicles which need to be moved down a road to the front line before thay can be brought into action, there are potential tactical opportunities for my opponenet due to my logistical challenges. If I have some nifty command which ensures my vehicles don't bunch up, get congested, stop and wait etc, and I use it, I am denying my opponent those tactical opportunities. Whether my opponenet chooses to use the command is irrelevant, I have already derived a potential tactical advantage (or removed a disadvantage) by my use of it. A more balanced way to move a lot of vehicles easily without affecting the tactical balance, IMO, is to use less vehicles. :^)

And yes, if you want to manage units like it's done in Age of Empires or Red Alert, why are you wasting your time with a tactical wargame?

I am not against improving CM where it is reasonable and feasible to do so, but this is a change which would not be an improvement IMO, for the reasons I have outlined.

If you begin watering down tactical and other features of this game with follow commands, whats the next thing? And the one after that? Pretty soon your back with the rubbish CM was such a refreshing move away from.

OGSF

[This message has been edited by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer! (edited 08-09-2000).]

[Tiger]

It's already implemented anyway. Click and drag a box around the platoon/units (shift click to deselect a unit in this group). Tell them to move to where-ever you want them and when they get there you can deploy them as you see fit, even interrupt them and change things every 60 seconds. Let me guess...this is too much work? Convoying is unecessary in a game such as this simply because the scale is not there to warrant such. Convy-unit waypoints seem more suited to a RTS style game. I dunno. If you don't have the time to take care of your units....

More and more I see people who want to make it so you don't have to interact with units as much, which is really the heart of the game.

-Tiger

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 08-09-2000).]