BTS Please...Group Waypoints in CMAK

[kmead]

Panzermartin wrote:

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.

I use the group move to get a large group to a general area as well. I then choose individual units to modify where they ended up and to add secondary and tertiary movements that may not be as long as the initial movement.

As I stated in the previous post, I think that we wouldn't be satisfied with the placement of multiple units through multiple waypoints. I find the end points of most group moves for individual units to be entirely unsatisfactory as it sits as they end up in the exact same orientation and grouping at the end as they had at the beginning. A much better logic would be needed by the TacAI to manage the units movements to match the way real troops would behave. Going across an open field is a quick way to die.

A convoy command for vehicles on roads would be greatly appreciated however.

[Jarmo]

Originally posted by Moon:

...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.

Ooohhh! I'll take this one! Please, please, please.. :eek:

[Cull]

Allow this lazy-assed commander to add another "yea" vote for at least some version o' this idea.

I gotta agree that, though I see Moon's point, there's no reason not to do this because of "unrealism"---we already do it, it's just a pain in the arse to do.

I suppose this is one of those "fun/playability vs. realism" design issues, but I think the "fun" choice, in this case, would make the game "better". But that's just me, of course.

[HarryInk]

I absolutely agree that it's crap that one can only plot a single waypoint for a whole platoon (for example) before having to collapse into individual squad plotting. It does collapse the argument offered by Moon: ie. if they didn't want that sort of game feature, why is even a single waypointing option there?!

I would love to be able to move platoons across ground by just plotting a series waypoints for the whole lot. Quite often I have to bring reserves forward toward the firing line via a covered route, not 'as the crow flies' (which would bring them under fire). So now I have to plot to the first turn, then TEDIOUSLY plot each squad (perhaps of a whole company) up the trail. How much better to just click the lot through the trail with say five waypoints.

I can't see the feature being much used in the firing line. It's not its function. It's the sort of thing that takes the tedium out of the rear areas. Like other writers above, I've got kids and time demands on me other than CM, and time savers like this would be ace. The game would be more playable for the likes of us who have only slices of time available. (and yes...I do enjoy too toooo tooooo much of my time with it already *LOL*)

[Joachim]

Originally posted by kmead:

Panzermartin wrote:

I second this!

Telling the lead vehicle to follow that road, and all the vehicles in the convoy to follow that road at somewhat constant distances from the vehicle in front would not be a big problem in RL. On a two way road you can easily drive along without jamming it.

If you have 50m distance at 30mph, there should be no problems in peace time .

And even in war, the following vehicle does not necessarily detour because there is a (short) temporary jam ahead caused by two idiots who can't keep the distance cause they only know full acceleration and full brake.

I guess we don't need so much of a big group move, some other commands would do:

1) Move along road

2) Follow that vehicle (With all the risks if the lead vehicle gets ko'ed...)

3) Move in cover (it is already in the game, but only gets triggered if the AI overrides your move/mtc command cause there is some obstacle)

The first two commands would stop that stupid mouse clicking when moving along winding roads (esp. reinforcements)

The second command would make one waypoint (and the pause button) sufficient for groups("Rally point is that farmhouse over there - start interval 20seconds") .

Gruß

Joachim

[Thomm]

I am wondering ... if there was more than one waypoint, would the preset formation have to turn at each waypoint involving a lot of intermediate movement with some units even reversing?! Or would it just be a succession of translations where the overall orientation of the formation never changes? The former appears to be more difficult to code, while the latter seems to be less intuitive.

[Richie]

I can't but help agree with Scarhead about convoy movement. I'm also looking at the membership #'s of the fella's in this discussion and there seems to me to be some "deep rooted" disagreements on the fundamental objective of the game from people who have been playing since Moses was a boy.

I'm an ASL gamer from way back (bloody little fiddley cardboard effing counters :mad: ) and the objective I've come to believe we are all striving to achieve is REALITY. ASL is very cumbersome but it offers an excellent insight to squad level combat. From the massive campaigns to the quick battles it does this. COMBAT MISSION is no different. I find it to be an improvement of the ASL idea... (rumour has it ASL was its origins)

Yes kmead, my example was oversimplified

If you gave the command to go directly to the farmhouse, no waypoint, across your fields then the platoon will surely be cut to pieces by those MG42's.

However with the current group move you can still tailor the arrival points and could do on a group move with one waypoint, or you could command the men to make the group move using 'contact'.

Surely the AI would stop the squad if they came under fire. Wouldn't the MG42's wait till half the squad was in the open before they opened up. Damn, I would.

Really, no offence, but I feel your arguing about the way we play the game. I like to play larger battles where there is a plethora of microbattles going on. To me all the little battles together mean as much as the bigger picture. I love to see a platoon of men "reach the farmhouse" under fire and hold up, perhaps with a line of fire onto a road, cutting off resupply to maybe a company or two embroiled in fighting down the road. They struggle as they are counter attacked by precious forces diverted from the main battle, but they're line of fire to that road stops any trucks getting through.

I just don't think I need to lay a path for every squad as they skirt the woods and dash across to the farmhouse.

Yeah, a few dudes are going to buy it, but they would anyway if there's an MG42 nest hidden and waiting.

kmead, you describe at length what you like to play and why. Please appreciate the fact that others don't neccesarily feel bound by the limitations you describe. I work shift work and I often have a few hours to kill. I like a campaign or two. It works for me. So to be able to move a platoon to a farm house through some woods rather than a group move across a field only increases the realism and playability for me.

[c3k]

Convoy; follow vehicle; and follow road. That's what _I_ want.

In RL, I say, "Follow that winding road to the village. Stop next to the church. GO!" Within 10 seconds the truck is driving away from me. Great.

In CMBB, I select the truck and, using "Fast Move" create the 97 waypoints necessary to follow the curves of the road. The truck is still in command delay paralysis as the scenario ends on turn 50.

New command: "FTFR" (Follow The Road)

Ditto for multiple vehicles - set the movement order for the first one. Select the second vehicle and "target" the first one. A drop-down menu opens asking for the "follow" distance. Something, in steps, from 20 to 100+ meters.

Ken

[Andreas]

I think there are at least two different issues here that are being confused.

1) The lacking ability to give groups multiple waypoints

2) The lacking ability of the AI to clearly ID a road and stick to it as the best way forward

These two are not really connected, IMO, except for the ability of using 1) if it were implemented as a crutch resolving some of the issues from 2).

I would be against implementing 1). I am currently reading 'cassino' by John Ellis. One thing that is clear from reading it is the chaos that descended very quickly onto the battlefield, breaking up battalion assaults into platoon or even section affairs. Commanders not knowing where they were, radios malfunctioning all the time.

Units get lost, trundle back to their startline, disappear into the void. Martin is IMO right when he argues that if allowing a group-move for multiple waypoints, BFC would have to add in some snags by design. It would make the game more of a command game than what it currently is.

I assume that those interested in this group-move prefer to play larger battles (battalion and up)?

A great quote by an officer of 22eme Régiment when approached by another officer from a different unit enquiring about the location 'My friend, we have been here for 12 hours and have fought a first-class battle - but where I am - I do not know.' Something to ponder.

[McAuliffe]

scroll down to the 12th post on this page

Enough said.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by McAuliffe:

scroll down to the 12th post on this page

Enough said.

I do fail to see what one has to do with the other McAuliffe. Clearly a general group-waypoint command would, while maybe addressing your problem (can you be sure it would make vehicles follow the road?), be much more powerful than what you are asking for?

So no, not 'enough said'.

[Jarmo]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I think there are at least two different issues here that are being confused.

1) The lacking ability to give groups multiple waypoints

I would be against implementing 1). I am currently reading 'cassino' by John Ellis. One thing that is clear from reading it is the chaos that descended very quickly onto the battlefield, breaking up battalion assaults into platoon or even section affairs. Commanders not knowing where they were, radios malfunctioning all the time.

I fail to see how making the game more tedious to play solves this problem or achieves better realism. Perfect micromanagement is currently possible, and required for "as good as possible" play.

Units get lost, trundle back to their startline, disappear into the void. Martin is IMO right when he argues that if allowing a group-move for multiple waypoints, BFC would have to add in some snags by design. It would make the game more of a command game than what it currently is.

Command game vs micromanagement clickfest. I know which I'd like and the snags would be welcome. Although, since perfect management of units one by one is availlable now, I dont see why making movement more platoon or company based would necessitate the snags.

Current system encourages micromanaging single squads here and there, the group movement would encourage moving troops in platoons or in companies.

I assume that those interested in this group-move prefer to play larger battles (battalion and up)?

That's obiously where it would help the most. Currently I prefer small battles as I grow weary of tuning up the movements in battallion or regiment size fights.

Following roads would have little practical benefit for me, since I prefer to avoid the roads whenever possible. Follow vehicle, on the other hand would be an excellent thing.

Actually, if I could select a company of infantry and have them "follow" a recon squad, that would be fine enough for me. No need for group movement then. I could just plot one path and have the follow ups follow.

[McAuliffe]

Like others already brought forward, the chaos on a battlefield should not be reflected in the tedious work of plotting every waypoint for each unit.

Now, with the present game, a player will take already the time to plot the waypoints for a his column. The fact that he needs 15 minutes to execute this movement doesn't seeme much to do with the realism on a battlefield to me. On the contrary, I think that a soldier or a driver on a bttlefield is well capable enough to avoid an obstacle to follow the road or to duck for cover when he comes under fire. What I would accept however, is a penalty in reaction time for units further positioned from "the leader" or for less skilled units.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Andreas:

A great quote by an officer of 22eme Régiment when approached by another officer from a different unit enquiring about the location 'My friend, we have been here for 12 hours and have fought a first-class battle - but where I am - I do not know.' Something to ponder.

Yeah, happens to me all the time when I'm playing Combat Mission.

I don't see the connection to the issue, though. Players can already spend all the time in the world to plot movements for one squad, then another one, etc. until they're happy and troops attack as if it was one big borg commune. What would improving the group movement change with this?

As it stands, I often have to give a platoon a group move and then give additional waypoints to individual squads, still keeping the platoon together (you don't expect me to mistakenly send half of the platoon to Florida, do you). It just takes some more time, seemingly because someone has decided that it is more realistic to do it with ten clicks instead of two. What next, enforced Franko's True Combat? Replacing graphics with a verbal report of what you would know is happening? Multiplayer rules in which your enemy can initiate a sneak attack on your forces and decimate them while you're at work?

P.S. I could however see a new special attribute for HQ's, called "dumbness". It would only be available to the scenario designer and hidden from the players, kind of like the fanaticism at the moment is. A dumb officer would often deliver wrong orders to his subordinates and take his platoon some 500 metres to the left of where you wanted him to go and his platoon would easily misidentify a barn for a Tiger II and an assault boat for USS Nimitz. A dumb+2 (dumber) HQ would consistently do things like fire at friendlies, attack when you mean them to defend, rout when you wanted them to attack, sell their support weapons for booze and eventually get a promotion and a transfer to the War Ministry should they not be shot into back by one of their own men before that.

[aka_tom_w]

"Following roads would have little practical benefit for me, since I prefer to avoid the roads whenever possible. Follow vehicle, on the other hand would be an excellent thing.

Actually, if I could select a company of infantry and have them "follow" a recon squad, that would be fine enough for me. No need for group movement then. I could just plot one path and have the follow ups follow."

that is a good point

I could live with a follow command

taking the time to give one unit a tedious path of a whole bunch of way points would be NO problem if you could simply tell other units to follow that unit :confused:

as it is now what happens is that you give a group order for the first way point

then click every unit in that group to set additional way points

I am glad to read that I am not the only player doing this.

the issue is that it is tedious to plot the SAME path for every unit in a group

I am not sure that a "stay on the road" order is needed

I think the "follow this unit" and do exactly what it does (behind it like in a column) would cover most of the problems in this thread.

Group ways points beyond one would be nice but I don't think that is what the good folks at BFC have in store for us (ever!)

-tom w

[Richie]

A follow command sounds great !!!

Surely when we move a platoon of men through the woods and we micromanage the move with many waypoints, making sure the squads don't stray too far from each other, maintaining an even gap between squads of say, 20m, (skipping every fallen log and hiding behind every tree ), just in case, aren't we compromising reallity because we have an overview of the whole battle and we CAN micromanage every event along one squads path?

Andreas highlights the chaos on the battlefield and how squads did stray and lose contact.

That's reallity

I guess I'm just asking for a chainsaw instead of an axe. (bad analogy? :eek: )

You still get the job done, you can still see the chips fly, but it just ain't as much hard work getting there.

It's a question of TOOLS isn't it?

About reducing double handling and increasing playability.

So I ask, not even one group command waypoint?

When is CMAK due out?

[Andrew H.]

I'd like a "stay on the road" command so that my StuGs or other heavy vehicle doesn't wander off the road and get stuck in the mud. This would be useful for convoy moves, too, of course - but the only real reason I'm concerned that my vehicles stay on the road is because I don't want them to get bogged.

I have a couple of thoughts about multiple waypoints for group moves. One would be that you would allow it, but that there would be a significant delay (based on experience plus some randomness), *at* every group waypoint to account for regrouping, etc.

Alternatively, you would still only permit one group waypoint, but you could specify whether the group should take the fastest way to the waypoint, the most covered way to the waypoint, or a "normal" way to the waypoint. Airborne Assault had a feature like this which was pretty cool. Combining this with an SOP command - like in TacOps - would be pretty cool.

[kmead]

Richie

A follow command sounds great !!!

Surely when we move a platoon of men through the woods and we micromanage the move with many waypoints, making sure the squads don't stray too far from each other, maintaining an even gap between squads of say, 20m, (skipping every fallen log and hiding behind every tree ), just in case, aren't we compromising reallity because we have an overview of the whole battle and we CAN micromanage every event along one squads path?

No I don't think so, the second louie and his sargeants are micromananging the squads. Where we depart from reality in a huge way is the Borg spotting and massive coordination we apply, neither of which will change with this command addition.

I guess I'm just asking for a chainsaw instead of an axe. (bad analogy? )

You still get the job done, you can still see the chips fly, but it just ain't as much hard work getting there.

It's a question of TOOLS isn't it?

About reducing double handling and increasing playability.

So I ask, not even one group command waypoint?

I will say again my primary view, which is that I don't think the command as you state it would give the desired effect. I agree that if they did choose to add a new command such as you describe and the units kept the initial formation having to adjust some unit waypoints to better match the terrain would certainly be better than having to generate all the waypoints.

The scenario that Martin espoused would not be to my taste, although it really does make the most sense and reduces the massive coordination that we are currently capable of.

When is CMAK due out

Fall as I recall.

In regards to your other post, no I am not making a judgement about how or what you wish to play. I really don't care, rather more power to you if you have the time and inclination. I do know what I like to play and just stated it, with no reflection on you. I envy you the time you can apply to fight a massive battle or campaign. I wish I had more time, hopefully some day I will (without getting RIFed) so that I can suffer your current pain.

Maybe Charles and company will come upon some wonderful new command that gives some of what you desire.

I wonder how valuable a follow command would be in the desert with the loss of LOS due to the dust clouds from each vehicle.

[ May 26, 2003, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: kmead ]

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I think there are at least two different issues here that are being confused.

1) The lacking ability to give groups multiple waypoints

2) The lacking ability of the AI to clearly ID a road and stick to it as the best way forward

These two are not really connected, IMO,

That's why I seperated them in 3 different commands .

Can't see any reason vs. the vehicle commands except "what happens if the convoy gets shoot at"... well, a bit of chaos, I hope .

I would be against implementing 1). Units get lost, trundle back to their startline, disappear into the void. Martin is IMO right when he argues that if allowing a group-move for multiple waypoints, BFC would have to add in some snags by design. It would make the game more of a command game than what it currently is.

As I said - part of this is (hidden) in the game. I moved 2 plts across a city map. Those with many waypoints stuck to my commands and waypoints. Those in the rear, whom I wanted not to use cover but move up (in the path of the forward units) got only a few waypoints. Result: 20+ waypoints by the AI, on the best covered approach.

Now if I can get an option to select a single move (to contact) command and get these 20+waypoints, and I can do this for a whole plt or Coy, I'd be happy. Little differences between the starting and end points of the individual squads meant big differences in their path - the units got really separated doing this. IMHO, this is the perfect way - you select 1 waypoint, and the AI chooses where your squads move.

I assume that those interested in this group-move prefer to play larger battles (battalion and up)?

If you say "battalion-sized KG", I'd say "Yes".

Gruß

Joachim

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I would be against implementing 1). I am currently reading 'cassino' by John Ellis. One thing that is clear from reading it is the chaos that descended very quickly onto the battlefield, breaking up battalion assaults into platoon or even section affairs.

Well, this is exactly what will happen as soon as a formation in group move mode comes under fire. As soon as some units decide to break out of formation and run for cover you can say "Good Bye!" to the group move ... no contradiction to what you describe.

Regards,

Thomm

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

]Well, this is exactly what will happen as soon as a formation in group move mode comes under fire. As soon as some units decide to break out of formation and run for cover you can say "Good Bye!" to the group move ... no contradiction to what you describe.

Regards,

Thomm

What is the point of having the order then? I genuinely don't understand it. It does not take away any of the requirements for micro-management. I have never missed it, most likely because I rarely if ever play something even approaching battalion size KG. As I said above - I don't think that this order should be connected in any way to the road movement problem, which is a separate coding issue.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Andreas:

What is the point of having the order then? I genuinely don't understand it. It does not take away any of the requirements for micro-management. I have never missed it, most likely because I rarely if ever play something even approaching battalion size KG.

What is the point of having a single-waypoint group move, anyway? Let's remove it, since you don't use it. Let's also remove the assault command and the Polish, because I never have found any use for them.

The way I see it, a group move is handy when, say, you have a reinforcement platoon several hundred meters away or you want to move a platoon from your right flank to your left. You want to move them up to the front via a safe route, that is, not necessarily the straightest route but so that hills and woods cover them. By being able to move them as a group, I save a lot of my own time. I don't see it rude or stupid to request the developers to consider interface issues like this to make me more satisfied. If all I want to do is move a platoon through the same route and I'm already able to do this by plotting them individually, why should it be artificially made harder if it could just as well be done in a simpler way? The game mechanics wouldn't change at all.

It's not like anyone's demanding a Roman legion in attack squares with fixed distances or like that, as the current group move doesn't either. If units get under fire, they react like they would if I had individually micro-plotted every one of them - ie. they get pinned, shaken or whatever. If you claim that there wouldn't be any use for a group move because they would stop when under fire, that's like saying that there's no use for any movement orders in CM because they wouldn't follow them when routed.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sergei:

What is the point of having a single-waypoint group move, anyway? Let's remove it, since you don't use it. Let's also remove the assault command and the Polish, because I never have found any use for them.

So, who weed into your cornflakes today then Sergei? For the record, I have not said I see no use for it. I have said that I have never felt any need for it. If you can't tell the difference between the two, further debate with you is quite pointless. If you can't tell the difference between something that is already in the game, and something that needs extra coding, again, debating it with you is a waste of time. If you can't stand someone questioning what you say, I suggest emailing BFC directly in future, instead of putting the suggestion up on a DISCUSSION board.

[Sergei]

P.S. Andreas, have you ever actually used group move in CM? I'm just wondering, because you sound like if it was a formation command that we're talking about. But it's just a way of giving waypoints to multiple units simultaneously. They still behave as individuals and handle those waypoints just like when you give them individual commands.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Andreas:

So, who weed into your cornflakes today then Sergei?

Ah, but I don't eat cornflakes.