UberFunBunny Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Here's a common situation: My tank can't target an opponent's tank unless I move my tank a few meters in either direction. I spend 3 or 4 turns moving my tank back and forth to try and get LOS. By the time I get LOS, many minutes have been wasted in unrealistic micromanagement. How about a "Seek LOS" command for units, much like the "Seek Hull-down" command? (This new command could be used by ALL units not just tanks.) [ January 10, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Are you related to the infamous Gunny Bunny? Anyhow - how is it unrealistic for a squad or tank take a few minutes to get properly set up in a fighting position? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 This could be useful for previously spotted units. It is something of more defined 'move to contact' order where LOS is maintained before stopping. It's one of those commands that could cause problems though since you may move into the LOS of some other unit (or the intended target) who ends up targetting you much quicker... thus it becomes a 'move to die' order. Unfortunately I doubt you'll see anything like this in any CMBB patch. Such changes will most likely have to wait for the engine-rewrite (...50,000 improvement requests and counting...). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Why not just use hunt, and lay out paths that cover the areas you think you might need to cover? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Are you related to the infamous Gunny Bunny? Are you related to the infamous Weasle Moron? Anyhow - how is it unrealistic for a squad or tank take a few minutes to get properly set up in a fighting position? I think it is completely unrealistic. The order from the officer would be for the squad to move into LOS of the unit. It would not be to spend one minute walking towards it, see it at 30 seconds but continue walking, then stay out of LOS, then walk back etc etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Why not just use hunt, and lay out paths that cover the areas you think you might need to cover? Yes this is possible, but I'm talking about an ACTUAL target that has already been spotted. In other words, the target should be able to be selected so the friendly unit can get to within LOS of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by UberFunBunny: Are you related to the infamous Weasle Moron?Bunny, you'll find that name calling does not go over to well here. Originally posted by UberFunBunny: The order from the officer would be for the squad to move into LOS of the unit. It would not be to spend one minute walking towards it, see it at 30 seconds but continue walking, then stay out of LOS, then walk back etc etc.Why do you drop the waypoint too far to begin with? That is the problem. After a while playing you should be ablo to judge this fairly quickly. A little trick some of us morons use is to drop a rotate command and stretch it to the point in question and see if A) it changes color, or has a little "bend" over a hill. Play with this a bit and see if it does not help you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: thus it becomes a 'move to die' order.I find a lot of my orders are like that.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Well, global spotting is even more unrealistic. If you stop to actually think about it, you are ordering a unit to move until it sees something it does not know exists - only the player knows about it because of the Borg spotting. With the engine rewrite, this will not be an issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Dirtweasle: Bunny, you'll find that name calling does not go over to well here. Being patronizing doesn't either. Why do you drop the waypoint too far to begin with? That is the problem. Um, no it isn't.... After a while playing you should be ablo to judge this fairly quickly. A little trick some of us morons use is to drop a rotate command and stretch it to the point in question and see if A) it changes color, or has a little "bend" over a hill. Play with this a bit and see if it does not help you. I have been playing these games for longer than "a while". I guess you were against the "Seek Hull-down" and "Move to Contact" orders too right? You preferred to micromanage every inch of the battlefield didn't you. A "Seek LOS" command would greatly enhance the realism of the game IMO as I outlined in my example: "The order from the officer would be for the squad to move into LOS of the unit. It would not be to spend one minute walking towards it, see it at 30 seconds but continue walking, then stay out of LOS, then walk back etc etc." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Dirtweasle: Are you related to the infamous Gunny Bunny?Actually, he sounds a lot like Voxman, I wouldn't be surprised if the two were the same person, despite the different locations given in the profiles. Notice the plea to BTS for attention in the thread titles, for example. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Well, global spotting is even more unrealistic. If you stop to actually think about it, you are ordering a unit to move until it sees something it does not know exists - only the player knows about it because of the Borg spotting. With the engine rewrite, this will not be an issue.Michael, now you're starting to talk some sense! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dirtweasle: Are you related to the infamous Gunny Bunny?Actually, he sounds a lot like Voxman, I wouldn't be surprised if the two were the same person, despite the different locations given in the profiles. Notice the plea to BTS for attention in the thread titles, for example.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by UberFunBunny: Dirtweasle: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Bunny, you'll find that name calling does not go over to well here. Being patronizing doesn't either. Why do you drop the waypoint too far to begin with? That is the problem. Um, no it isn't.... After a while playing you should be ablo to judge this fairly quickly. A little trick some of us morons use is to drop a rotate command and stretch it to the point in question and see if A) it changes color, or has a little "bend" over a hill. Play with this a bit and see if it does not help you. I have been playing these games for longer than "a while". I guess you were against the "Seek Hull-down" and "Move to Contact" orders too right? You preferred to micromanage every inch of the battlefield didn't you. A "Seek LOS" command would greatly enhance the realism of the game IMO as I outlined in my example: "The order from the officer would be for the squad to move into LOS of the unit. It would not be to spend one minute walking towards it, see it at 30 seconds but continue walking, then stay out of LOS, then walk back etc etc."</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 I was / am in favor of the commands you've mentioned. I don't understand the need for the seek LOS command you are lobbying for as you can easily do it yourself. Just as you can "easily" seek your own hull-down position or "easily" move to contact with the enemy. In other words, if the "Seek Hull-down" command did not exist and I had suggested a need for it, you would have written the same thing. [ January 10, 2003, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 No Bunny, because they are different. The move to contact, shoot n' scoot are impossible to simulate yourself in CMBO. Hull down to a lessor degree, as it can be done albeit it is much easier with the new command. Please look at how the "Rotate" command and waypoint work. It is so very simple to figure LOS using it. You do not need 3 - 4 turns extra to get into position, maybe 1 tops if you make a mistake. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Dirtweasle: No Bunny, because they are different. The move to contact, shoot n' scoot are impossible to simulate yourself in CMBO. Hull down to a lessor degree, as it can be done albeit it is much easier with the new command. Please look at how the "Rotate" command and waypoint work. It is so very simple to figure LOS using it. You do not need 3 - 4 turns extra to get into position, maybe 1 tops if you make a mistake.The wonderful thing about Combat Mission is its attempt at realism, and the delegation of commands to the squads. Having a platoon commander to order rotates and back and forths is not as realistic as "Move ahead 20 meters and get into position so you can see that tank which our company HQ has spotted!" Your command would be "Move ahead 20 meters, then rotate a little, then go back 2 meters, then forward 1 meter, then rotate again. Can you see it yet? No? Ok move back 5 meters...." This example also shows that even though a squad may not have spotted the enemy, another squad in direct contact (with the friendly unit) may have. This allows for my idea to work in a "relative" spotting environment. I think what could be used instead of a "Seek LOS" command would be a "Move to Contact" order that could be *assigned* to an enemy unit that has been spotted. This would work under both global spotting and relative spotting as above. [ January 10, 2003, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 [Edit: double post] [ January 10, 2003, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 'move to los of a particular unit' sounds like micromanagement... i would agree that a 'fortified move to contact' command could be added, so that instead of stopping at sound contacts, a unit only stops upon los... but into los of one unit in particular... i don't think so... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by manchildstein II: 'move to los of a particular unit' sounds like micromanagement... i would agree that a 'fortified move to contact' command could be added, so that instead of stopping at sound contacts, a unit only stops upon los... but into los of one unit in particular... i don't think so...But isn't that what a unit could be ordered to do? HQ: "Move ahead until contact unit x which I can see". Isn't this a real world order? Surely micromanagement is taking several turns ordering the troops into positions they could have gotten themselves into. [ January 10, 2003, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huhr Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I think this forum should be to help others, God forbid I answered my students that way when they come into my counseling office, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Gentlemen... if you suspect someone of being a past offender (i.e. someone who is banned), or someone who is using duplicate accounts, please email Matt, Moon, or myself and we will take a look. Otherwise, kindly refrain from vigilante actions. It doesn't help. For the record, I see no evidence to suggest that UberFunBunny is GB and have no idea why Voxman is popping up here since he is not banned and hasn't posted in a month. As for the question of micromanaging for LOS... it is not on the whole unrealistic. On the whole the player already has FAR too much control of his units and the precision in which they carry out orders. We are therefore very cautions about giving more control and more precision to the game. Seek Hull Down was included because precision is almost always required and often hard to acomplish. Finding LOS is not in general difficult or unrealistically difficult when it isn't done right away. This is, in fact, the first call in over 3 years for such an order. If finding LOS was a significant problem I am sure we would have heard a lot more rumblings before now. The new engine will bring with it many fundamental changes. But no changes are being made to CMBB. From a development standpoint it is complete and not being enhanced in any fundamental way. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Steve, OK, I'll try and refine my point a little. Here goes! IMO, the "Move to Contact" order is a great asset to the game. Essentially what I am saying is that to make this order more effective (and realistic) would be to allow an enemy unit that has been spotted to be the "target" of this order. Here is an example: An enemy heavy MG has been spotted and is creating havoc. It is supported by a couple of infantry squads. These enemy infantry squads are closer to my men than the MG is, and are being suppressed by some of my units. I order a squad who doesn't have LOS to the enemy MG to move ahead 30 meters max into a clump of trees and to stop and engage the MG as soon as they have LOS. The current "Move to Contact" order would force my men to stop as they came into contact to the closer enemy units. I'm not saying that finding LOS is difficult. I'm saying that the situation above is quite common and making the "Move to Contact" command more powerful would be a good thing - and quite realistic as well. Of course, you may not agree! If this is the first call for such an order I am very honored! (Also, to assure, I have never posted to this forum under another name.) [ January 11, 2003, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by UberFunBunny: If this is the first call for such an order I am very honored! (Also, to assure, I have never posted to this forum under another name.) I didn't really care if you had; although I haven't been here forever, I've been here since CMBB, and not only do I consider this a great idea, I actually haven't seen it a million times before! Good job, Mr Bunny. CMBB really is done, though. I think Steve's response will be or would be that you can since 101 use Move To Contact *with* a Cover Arc to make the unit proceed along his path until a unit is inside the *Arc*. Try it! It's an open question to me at least whether that can be defeated by tough LOS circumstances like those dern trees, which as we know are symbolic only, if you know what I mean, (can't think of a better word than 'symbolic'... representative?) Anyhow that trick possibly will ameliorate many cases for you. I do agree though that a 'Seek LOS' command would be more pleasingly isomorphic to what I imagine real life commands were... "Faust Team; 100 meters; Approach Left; All Costs; GO!!!" (Hee. Now I'm pumped! Time for a QB!) BTW this 'GunnyBunny' person I never knew, but apparently he was a real pain in the buttocks- the other poster I don't think meant to be rude, just suspicious/concerned/acting instinctively... Eden 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Eden: I didn't really care if you had; although I haven't been here forever, I've been here since CMBB, and not only do I consider this a great idea, I actually haven't seen it a million times before! Good job, Mr Bunny. Thank you! I think Steve's response will be or would be that you can since 101 use Move To Contact *with* a Cover Arc to make the unit proceed along his path until a unit is inside the *Arc*. Try it! Yes, I'll give it a go. It should work in some situations, but probably not in others.... A "hack", if you will. Moving into position so that the unit has LOS of an actual identified enemy would be better, but maybe in the new engine. I do agree though that a 'Seek LOS' command would be more pleasingly isomorphic to what I imagine real life commands were... Yes! This is exactly my angle on it! BTW this 'GunnyBunny' person I never knew, but apparently he was a real pain in the buttocks The UberFunBunnies from Springfield never did like the GunnyBunnies from Smallville. All that new money, no class (the GunnyBunnies that is). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.