BTS Please...Group Waypoints in CMAK

[panzermartin]

One of the weak points of the CM series in my opinion is the lack of the ability to move a

group of forces through many waypoints. You

can only give a 1-waypoint order to a group

and not designate a route for a whole company with a few mouse clicks.

Ever found yourselves not moving some units in a TCP battle because it is too boring and time consuming to draw all these paths for each squad, mg team etc? The existance of such command would make life easier for the players and big battles far more playable than they are now.

Is it possible to include in CMAK this kind of command?

It will be also nice to be able to number your groups lets say 1,2,3..etc and recall them with a simple click without having to go to camera 1 trying to seperate your mortar team from a squad

next to it or a hmg from a nearby gun etc etc etc. Sometimes I lose minutes to click on the right unit and give the orders, ensuring that I didnt give by mistake a human wave order to my stationary hmg next to my rifle platoon

I've been playing quite a lot of time CMBO and CMBB and have reached a high degree of automatation in my ability to make moves fast and accurately but unfortunately big infantry battles (3000+) still remain almost unplayable for me due to the lack of simplified group commands.

[Richie]

You hit an excellent point there. Oh to be able to get a platoon to just turn a corner.....

[Moon]

The one-waypoint limit for group moves is actually a design decision, not an "accident". In order to coordinate such a perfect formation move in real life, it takes time - a lot of time in fact. Allowing the player to perfectly have his battalions zig-zag through the map in a clockwork like fashion would mean to give up any resemblance with reality. That, or we would have to code up drastic command delays, take away player control of individual units while in "formation movement" to disallow perfect micromanagement and allow units to "screw up a plan" once in a while.

Thing is - each turn in CM represents 60 seconds. Setting one waypoint for a formation is plenty enough for such a short period of time. Think for a second what you can do in 60 seconds, now compare to what some people want hundreds of soldiers to be able to do...

We are all for designing a game interface that is as intuitive and easy to learn as possible for the player. But there has to be a line, and that line is drawn where the "ease of use" would lead to unrealistic results on the battlefield. In other words, people have to learn to not mix and match "limitations based on the reality of WWII warfare" with "game limitations". WWII wasn't all that we could code the game to be.

Martin

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Moon:

Think for a second what you can do in 60 seconds,

Martin

1. Have sex (3 times)

2. Recite my entire vocabulary (2 times)

3. Down a case of beer (only once)

[Richie]

Not even one little corner ???

[Slaghead]

It seems to me, that unless there is a time limit during the planning stage, then all this does it make things tedious. If the decision is based on the fact that it takes a long time, then put a command delay penalty on the move or something. It's not like you can't make a million moves for a million soldiers individually which takes even more time to plan out. Seems counter-intuitive to me.

[Banshee]

Originally posted by Slaghead:

It seems to me, that unless there is a time limit during the planning stage, then all this does it make things tedious

What he said.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Banshee:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Slaghead:

It seems to me, that unless there is a time limit during the planning stage, then all this does it make things tedious

What he said. </font>

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Banshee:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Slaghead:

It seems to me, that unless there is a time limit during the planning stage, then all this does it make things tedious

What he said. </font>

[UberFunBunny]

Originally posted by Malakovski:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Banshee:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Slaghead:

It seems to me, that unless there is a time limit during the planning stage, then all this does it make things tedious

What he said. </font>

[panzermartin]

I understand about the perfect zigzagging around the battlefield. But why not be able to draw at least 2-3 waypoints further than now allowed in a group move? What is the difference between giving 10 individual orders to move your platoon from a patch of woods to another patch of woods, through a wheatfield, and doing the same with 2 clicks? This would be extremely useful in big battles. When you have a huge number of units under your command it is simply not possible to be the battalion commander, the company commander and the platoon commander simultaneously and draw accurately movement for all units separately for the sake of realism. There must be some helping hand in such situations.

The ability to plan movements with the precision of a msecond and mmeter exists already in CM, which isn't that realistic anyway (but offers unique gameplay).As already mentioned, you can make group movements as accurate as you wish if you have the time. So making them more difficult for the user isn't quite a solution. I would too agree perhaps for a slightly increased time penalty for group movement through waypoints or a restriction in number of group waypoints.

Infantry has become really challenging to master with the new commands and supression model, requiring a huge ammount of baby sitting for proper coordinated moves. A simplified group movement option would be a significant help for faster gameplay . It will leave out more time for tactical thinking than for drawing

millions of waypoints for each private on the field when this isn't quite necessary.

Don't get me wrong, CMBB is the greatest of the greatest, a unique game in the history of wargaming. This is just my view for making a perfect game a bit more user friendly.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by panzermartin:

The ability to plan movements with the precision of a msecond and mmeter exists already in CM, which isn't that realistic anyway (but offers unique gameplay). As already mentioned, you can make group movements as accurate as you wish if you have the time. So making them more difficult for the user isn't quite a solution. I would too agree perhaps for a slightly increased time penalty for group movement through waypoints or a restriction in number of group waypoints.

Infantry has become really challenging to master with the new commands and supression model, requiring a huge ammount of baby sitting for proper coordinated moves. A simplified group movement option would be a significant help for faster gameplay . It will leave out more time for tactical thinking than for drawing

millions of waypoints for each private on the field when this isn't quite necessary.

This is a good point.

A player can already do a group select to make the first waypoint, then it is just a matter of spending the time to set and place all the other way points after the first group select, and this is just plain tedious.

-tom w

[Michael Emrys]

Okay, this isn't going to make a lot of people happy, but it occurs to me that to make this situation a little more just and more realistic, BFC should limit the number of waypoints that can be assigned individually to units. That would at least cut down on the tedium in any given orders turn, though admittedly the player would have to return each turn—or nearly so—to each unit on the move.

Michael

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Okay, this isn't going to make a lot of people happy, but it occurs to me that to make this situation a little more just and more realistic, BFC should limit the number of waypoints that can be assigned individually to units. That would at least cut down on the tedium in any given orders turn, though admittedly the player would have to return each turn—or nearly so—to each unit on the move.

Michael

I would not be opposed to this, but command delay would need to be adjusted. If I can only plot two waypoint and command delay is 75 second for my poor Russian conscript.

The problem is a little more complicated than just the number of waypoints though...e.g. in one of the games I am playing now, I had ten halftracks I wanted to move onto the road and then proceed down that road. This involved lots of waypoints, BUT, if I was the battalion commander talking to the armored company commander, the order would be simple: proceed to the road and head north, or some such.

The problem is that the AI is not smart enough to understand that order, move to the road, form a column, and proceed north. The player has to, in effect, translate his own orders to waypoints for each unit.

Unless the AI can be drastically improved to do things like "occupy that ridge", "advance up the road and expect contact", and so on, this is not going to change, and allowing more group waypoints will just alleviate tedium.

I only use group movement when precision doesn't matter anyway, i.e over long distance when no contact is expected. Once things get busy, I always give orders individually...

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Malakovski:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Okay, this isn't going to make a lot of people happy, but it occurs to me that to make this situation a little more just and more realistic, BFC should limit the number of waypoints that can be assigned individually to units. That would at least cut down on the tedium in any given orders turn, though admittedly the player would have to return each turn—or nearly so—to each unit on the move.

Michael

I would not be opposed to this, but command delay would need to be adjusted. If I can only plot two waypoint and command delay is 75 second for my poor Russian conscript...ugh.

The problem is a little more complicated than just the number of waypoints though...e.g. in one of the games I am playing now, I had ten halftracks I wanted to move onto the road and then proceed down that road. This involved lots of waypoints, BUT, if I was the battalion commander talking to the armored company commander, the order would be simple: proceed to the road and head north, or some such.

The problem is that the AI is not smart enough to understand that order, move to the road, form a column, and proceed north. The player has to, in effect, translate his own orders to waypoints for each unit.

Unless the AI can be drastically improved to do things like "occupy that ridge", "advance up the road and expect contact", and so on, this is not going to change, and allowing more group waypoints will just alleviate tedium.

I only use group movement when precision doesn't matter anyway, i.e over long distance when no contact is expected. Once things get busy, I always give orders individually... </font>

[-E]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon:

Think for a second what you can do in 60 seconds,

Martin

1. Have sex (3 times)

</font>

[MrNoobie]

i didnt read the posts but how about a follow command for vehicles?

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by MrNoobie:

i didnt read the posts but how about a follow command for vehicles?

That would be another godsend.

I hate playing bumpertanks on a road...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Malakovski:

The problem is a little more complicated than just the number of waypoints though...e.g. in one of the games I am playing now, I had ten halftracks I wanted to move onto the road and then proceed down that road. This involved lots of waypoints, BUT, if I was the battalion commander talking to the armored company commander, the order would be simple: proceed to the road and head north, or some such.

Agreed. I am still waiting for that Great Breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence that will solve all our problems.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by -E:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon:

Think for a second what you can do in 60 seconds,

Martin

1. Have sex (3 times)

</font>

[kmead]

I would agree that a follow comand for vehicles would be most excellent on roads, off road I don't want my vehicles in a line.

As for the group move through many waypoints, its not a good idea. Sure it would be convenient but it really would not give you what you really desire. I believe this for the folowing reason: take a group of units in the formation that you placed them on the map. Give them a group move to some other point. Now click on each unit to see where the path they are going to follow is and where they end up. If you were an infantry leader would you move a platoon or section directly across a clearing? or just beyond the stone wall as your end point?

Successfully getting your men to the attack point or transiting to a different location requires careful planning of the route to take the best possible advantage of the terrain. In addition don't you do bounding overwatch with small units? None of this nuance is there using multi-way point group moves.

Although it would be convenient for certain battle types such as meeting engagements where you know you won't meet the enemy until the middle. For any battle where you don't know where the enemy is, and when you will meet him, this sort of move is of no value. Real battles on the scale of this game were not fought using group moves, they were all individual actions.

A group move such as you describe would be good for a game that has an even higher level of abstraction, such as counters that represent the entire platoon or company. In a game of that scale, group moves make sense as you are not actually trying to manage the units actual paths. In the scale of CM, your platoons and even squads can be the difference between success or failure. You have to manage them all effectively or you will lose them or the surprise you were attempting.

I suspect those of you asking for this feature probably play large battles with hordes of units. I have played some of them but generally find them to be a somewhat tiresome clickfest trying to properly manage the units. This game is not the battalion commander talking to the armored company commander, it is the battalion commander (you) making the comand decision and then carrying it out with each vehicle and squad. Playing TacOps is more the scale that some of you are calling for in terms of the capability.

This does of course give rise to an interesting combination game: what if you were a battalion or even division commander and moved the appropriate counters on a (2D topo) map giving approximate paths to the objectives, fire support etc. You hit go and the the map changes to the actual ground that we see in CM with all the units now broken down to the level of the current CM series. Your orders have been turned into the comands that will move your platoons, squads, weapons teams and vehicles to the points you have chosen and you watch the action unfold. Now the computer has control of all the actual waypoints, moves, fire and so on. You watch the movie as many times as you want to understand the action and to see the threats. This action phase allows you to see what would be reported back up the chain of command (in a bit more detail than a real commander would ever get). You then move back to the Command Map mode which shows the actual updates of where each unit is now and its general condition and make your next turn using the counters etc. based on what you have seen. Having read a few posts here over the years, I think there are a number of us that would enjoy a game like I have described.

Clearly something such as what I have described would not be possible with the current or future engine, but it is certainly something that could be done eventually. Just a thought.

[panzermartin]

Under fire and close to the enemy group movement is most of the times not very effective. In many cases though I use even in combat the 1-waypoint group command with significant success. It is just a matter of experience. Combinined with micromanagement, group movement can be

useful even in combat situations.

I play mainly quick battles via TCP. Thus, I need to travel my troops a lot and fast. And when you have a battalion sized infantry force and you can't make a simple "go straight and then right" move for your platoon things can be very frustrating.

When you are attempting a company sized maneuver, the overwatch role for instance is up to a whole platoon and not a single squad. The roles are upgraded to a larger scale. You have to maneuver your company as if you had a 3-squad platoon, with each platoon representing a squad. You need to be more flexible than just having the 1-waypoint order but also having the option to plan individual detailed moves. I'm not saying that this will solve all the micromanagement problems. But it will certainly help in many cases.

I'm not the kind of player that plays strictly from cameras 6-7-8 pushing all his troops forward with massive group movements etc. Even in large battles I like to spend most of my time on the isometric views and mostly at view 1. But I am forced to spend very little time down with my troops because most of the time I am busy creating multiple paths for moves that could be made with significantly fewer mouse clicks.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by -E:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon:

Think for a second what you can do in 60 seconds,

Martin

1. Have sex (3 times)

</font>

[Richie]

"I suspect those of you asking for this feature probably play large battles with hordes of units. I have played some of them but generally find them to be a somewhat tiresome clickfest trying to properly manage the units."

As posted by kmead

Hey, no offence but really...

You've never tried to recreate a large battle or are you saying the system isn't up to it?

Battles large or small don't have to be gamey...

"Oright men, I want you to skirt the woods and then head west to that farm house. Thats the rally point. Any Questions?"

Not even one waypoint?

[kmead]

Richie wrote:

"I suspect those of you asking for this feature probably play large battles with hordes of units. I have played some of them but generally find them to be a somewhat tiresome clickfest trying to properly manage the units."

As posted by kmead

Hey, no offence but really...

You've never tried to recreate a large battle or are you saying the system isn't up to it?

Battles large or small don't have to be gamey...

"Oright men, I want you to skirt the woods and then head west to that farm house. Thats the rally point. Any Questions?"

Not even one waypoint?

No, I think the game is up to it, and yes I use waypoints all the time tailored to the individual unit. Agreed that no battle needs to (or should) be gamey.

I tend not to play huge battles due to the limited time I have to play (job kids house cars etc). I do however find that big battles are for me a bit less enjoyable as I don't have time to really move the units in the way I would like. You would be right to accuse me of wanting to be a company commander and not a regiment or division commander with this particular system. Now what I described in my original post would be to my liking for commanding a division.

Ultimately, I don't think the game is currently up to the task of properly moving units through multiple waypoints in a fashion that would satisfy anyone. As it is now, you give a group move and they all move exactly the same amount together on that vector. So some units go through the farmhouse or end up in the middle of a glade that is nicely covered by an opposing machine gun team.

So the "Oright men, I want you to skirt the woods and then head west to that farm house. Thats the rally point. Any Questions?" ends up being nothing like what you described. The units won't skirt the woods, they go through the house and they end up in a sad lump at the proposed rally point ill arranged for the the attack you had in mind. For me the real power of this game is in the relatively small actions that require conservation of men and material.

Oh, a final note, I hate meeting engagements and no longer play them. Attacking a prepared position, defending a prepared position, probing, or just try to get to the other side while the other bloke tries to get to mine are all very enjoyable. Racing to the middle to then slog through a stale mate is not of interest to me.