movement comments (complaints?)

[BDW]

1. Units seem mindless in that they do not seem to take their final destination into account. This seems at odds with the philosophy of the game design (ie units having autonomy). For example, recently I ordered some infantry units to move along the edge of the boccage for cover. A few turns later I noticed one of them was lagging way behind the others. Why? Because my movement command was too close to the boccage - therefore my unit was actually moving through the edge of the boccage!

My point is that this seems inconsistent with the "intelligence" of units in this game. For exmaple, units will respond to threats and take cover very smartly. Even if I specifically target a certain threat, my units will retarget a more immediate threat if necessary. I like that design philosophy. But why are these units so mindless when it comes to movement commands?

I think that movement commands should be merely guidelines for troops, not routes carved in stone. In the example above, the infantry unit would have taken the end destination into account and walked alongside the boccage. This would take some of the micromanagement out of movement commands.

2. Along this same line of logic, I would like to see an option whereby a movement "Destination" order can be given to a unit. This order would supplement the current waypoint system and cuold be used in conjunction with it.

For example, if I want a halftrack to drive all the way up a curvy road to the other end of the map, I could simply enter a single "destination" movement command to that unit and it would use its own judgment to travel to that destination - reacting to its environment and threats along the way. I think that this would be a very useful and entertaining feature for this game. It would be very interesting to see how your more experienced units chose their routes.

What do people think about all this?

[Guest Pillar]

Sounds great.

The only issue is whether its practical from a programming standpoint at this time.

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

1. Units seem mindless in that they do not seem to take their final destination into account. This seems at odds with the philosophy of the game design (ie units having autonomy). For example, recently I ordered some infantry units to move along the edge of the boccage for cover. A few turns later I noticed one of them was lagging way behind the others. Why? Because my movement command was too close to the boccage - therefore my unit was actually moving through the edge of the boccage!

My point is that this seems inconsistent with the "intelligence" of units in this game. For exmaple, units will respond to threats and take cover very smartly. Even if I specifically target a certain threat, my units will retarget a more immediate threat if necessary. I like that design philosophy. But why are these units so mindless when it comes to movement commands?

I think that movement commands should be merely guidelines for troops, not routes carved in stone. In the example above, the infantry unit would have taken the end destination into account and walked alongside the boccage. This would take some of the micromanagement out of movement commands. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had the same thing happen to me. Furthermore, when I noticed what was going on, I carefully replotted the movement path so that all parts of it ran through clear terrain, and they STILL struggled through the bocage. Something really wrong here. Until it gets fixed, I suggest that you plot movement so that it swings well wide of any bocage, even if you have to go through woods or something.

Michael

[Juju]

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

For example, recently I ordered some infantry units to move along the edge of the boccage for cover. A few turns later I noticed one of them was lagging way behind the others. Why? Because my movement command was too close to the boccage - therefore my unit was actually moving through the edge of the boccage!

My point is that this seems inconsistent with the "intelligence" of units in this game

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. But what if I actually WANT a unit to move in such a way. How would the game-engine "intelligence" know that?

[Los]

Well then what happens when you want unuits to go into Bocage for reasons of cover or otherwise? Seems to me eth easier option is to be a bit more careful (And liberal with creating waypoints) when plotting your movement routes.

Los

(BTW experienced the same problem myself once or twice but now have learned to aviod it.)

[Mark IV]

This is one of those slippery slopes, as LOS points out. If the AI is that "smart" it may decide not to do other things I told it to, because it's "smarter".

The stroll through Paris was instructive.

POSSIBLE SPOILER!!!

X

X

X

X

X

X

I'll bet a lot of us ordered the infantry to move straight ahead, inside the long rows of buildings, unaware that the connecting walls were impassable. So the AI figured it would help, and plotted 700 waypoints that moved each unit into and out of each successive building.

The alternatives would have been for the squad to run into the impenetrable wall and continue ramming it with their helmets for the balance of the turn... or for the AI to reason that I wanted to reach the endpoint, so why not disregard my orders and take the easy route down the center of the street (cue MG42 .wav file).

Some things are just better learned by experience- I would prefer the units try to execute my orders even if they seem stupid.

[Lou]

<BLOCKQUOTE>I'll bet a lot of us ordered the infantry to move straight ahead, inside the long rows of buildings, unaware that the connecting walls were impassable. So the AI figured it would help, and plotted 700 waypoints that moved each unit into and out of each successive building.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for pointing that out! I was wondering why my guys insisted on running into the street (and enemy fire). Doh!

[This message has been edited by Lou (edited 07-18-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lou (edited 07-18-2000).]

[Wayne]

Be thankful that your units were that obedient. In the gold demo in CE, I had a platoon that kept insisting on charging hells bells across an open field toward a German machine gun rather than staying behind cover of a stone wall.

I think that the Tac AI makes decisions based on local conditions but tries to obey commands. Personally I like this system, as it corrects my mistakes or responds to unexpected events. We still have to make our movement choices carefully, and I think this is the best way.

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

Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[Dave]

Mark IV - How did you know that the connecting walls were impassable? I'm playing that same scenario and nothing indicates that movement isn't possible directly between buildings. Can certain units do that? Maybe engineers?

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

Well then what happens when you want unuits to go into Bocage for reasons of cover or otherwise? Seems to me eth easier option is to be a bit more careful (And liberal with creating waypoints) when plotting your movement routes.

Los

(BTW experienced the same problem myself once or twice but now have learned to aviod it.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you need to read my post more carefully. I set all my waypoints in OPEN terrain. The entire movement path was in OPEN terrain. If I had wanted my squad to enter the bocage, I would have had no qualms about ordering it to do so.

Michael

[BorderBill]

I think that maybe this adds a little realism to the game. When I was a infantry platoon leader, I thought that I had often given detailed movement orders and expressed my intent to my squads. I don't know how often my squad leaders and sometimes individual soldiers took it upon themselves to do things or go their own way. Sometimes during tactical exercises the results were not pretty. In CM, just like real life, you can't always control the actions or movement of individual squads or soldiers. You issue your plans and orders for your troops and hope that everything goes as you planned. I know you are thinking "but noone would do something that stupid" and you blame the TacAI. But I can tell you that I have seen real troops do things that make even less sense than the occaisional blunders my CM troops make . In fact sometimes my CM troops follow my orders too closely and keep trying to complete my last order even as they're dying while I yell at my computer trying to change my last commands .

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

...But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks, 'Play up! Play up! and play the game!' Vitai Lampada--Sir Henry Newboldt

Play the game! Motto of 1st Bn, 50th Infantry, US Army.

[Los]

Either they got shot at or otherwised spooked into the Bocage or more likely you THOUGHT you were moving them in open terrain and cut it too close to the Bocage. Remember a squad takes up a ceratin amount of area as it moves in tactical formation.

Los

[Fred]

The waypoint "cubes" are smaller than the actual unit bases; activate the bases and use them as a visual help for the actual area that a squad covers. This way you see, that you need more distance from certain terrain features and you can set your waypoints accordingly.

Fred

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

"I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

[This message has been edited by Fred (edited 07-28-2000).]

[Andre76]

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

Yes. But what if I actually WANT a unit to move in such a way. How would the game-engine "intelligence" know that?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's just the same with the TacAI, if you WANT your units going thru a field and u know they'll be shot up real bad, but you have a tactical reason for it, the unit will proberly not complete you movement, because the unit "thinks".

In the same way if you WANT your unit to travel inside a bocage (sounds silly anyway) for a 100 m, the TacAI thinks it's best to move along side it. This is the unit "autonomy" we all love and hate, and I for one would like to see "intelligent" movemet too.

Just my opinon. (oh, really?!? )

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

André

[Fred]

Andre wrote:

"It's just the same with the TacAI, if you WANT your units going thru a field and u know they'll be shot up real bad, but you have a tactical reason for it, the unit will proberly not complete you movement, because the unit "thinks". "

You miss the whole point about what CM tries to simulate.

You do not command mindless robots that follow your suicide orders.

They behave in a realistic way and this is the reason why CM is such an unique experience.

Place your waypoints in an "intelligent" way, and all is fine.

My troops never stumbled into hedges, walls etc.

Fred

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

"I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

[DrBrydon]

Yes and no.

I gave movement orders to a half-track across primarily open country. It plotted itself a path down a zig-zagging road.

Then I gave a tank movement orders into one of those L shaped stone walls, thinking it would swing around the top of the L. It went across the wall diagonally. I thought I was going to see my first thrown track.

What didn't think of to check at the time was the unit experience. Could that affect it?

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

Will

---

"The truly great thing is not to lose your nerve." --Unknown.

[Guest aaronb]

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

Mark IV - How did you know that the connecting walls were impassable<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On behalf of MarkIV - do a search on 'mouseholing', the practice of using HE to put holes in the connecting walls of urban buildings, to avoid moving through the streets. It can't be done in CM1, but is on the list for CM2.

[Fred]

Dr,

use more waypoints and do not rely on the AI to plot it for you.

"Pathfinding" is nice for a real-time-clickfeast, but not for a consim.

I usually use around 10 waypoints for a 100 m move(with obstacles). If it comes to walls, houses etc. I even use one every 5 m.

And I think its fine, because I play the game, not the AI

I never had a Halftrack go "zig-zag", I never experienced a tank go "through" a wall. Just use more waypoints.

Fred

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

"I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission