Battlefront I'm begging you...... [HQ tweak]

[UberFunBunny]

There are some quirks in CMBB that are annoying, but none more so than the way teams grab an HQ. Any chance of allowing players to designate teams to an HQ in command range for CMAK?

As for the other quirks, I can put up with those....

[Edited to rephrase.]

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

UberFunBunny

[ August 28, 2003, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

[WineCape]

Son,

Are you related in anyway with another bunny which had a gun?

[UberFunBunny]

Originally posted by WineCape:

Son,

Are you related in anyway with another bunny which had a gun?

Twat,

No.

[Redwolf]

I think the issue to deal with here is that you want to do what you suggest without complicating the interface.

If you would introduce a new menu to either the HQ or to the mortar your would confuse the hell out of new users for what BFC probably considers a pretty minor issue (personally I once ordered area fire on a HQ that got into my way, so I kinda understand your request).

A solution without mucking with the interface would be to always give a unit all the bonusses of all HQs in range, and/or use LOS of all HQs in range for mortars. But BFC is likely to reject that as in "uh, real world units were under control of only one HQ at a time". It would probably also complicated the code a lot, expanding the HQ connection from 1 to [n] is probably not going to be a cakewalk in the old codebase.

[ August 27, 2003, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[MikeyD]

If you're annoyed by wandering company commanders mucking with your chain-of-command on the board, sounds like real life to me!

Watch the movies 'Cross of Iron' or 'Catch-22' or 'The Thin Red Line', see what happens when overstuffed/underqualified career officers decide they want to grab some of the glory of combat. It's already been reported on this board that veteran troops often get saddled with green officers. An old pacific war veteran once told me how he pulled his pistol on a grass-green officer training school graduate. Officer fragging is a time-honored combat tradition in the U.S. military

[Dave H]

If you have an HQ unit with little or no modifiers, keep them away from the guys who do the shooting. Let them stay back with a reserve, to be used as a last resort.

It's always aggravating having an HQ with no modifier except for a +2 command radius. They have to stay far behind the lines, or they latch on to units all over the battle. GRRR! :mad:

[Redwolf]

It is not realistic that a mortar battery firing with semi-indirect spoting instantly stops its fire mission by the sole presense of another officer behind it. Especially not when that other officer is a lower rank.

Some people like to explain everything that happens in CM as realistic screwups, but unfortunately just randomizing the game doesn't make it more realistic. The computer's screwups are too different from real-life ones.

[ August 27, 2003, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Green Hornet]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Some people like to explain everything that happens in CM as realistic screwups, but unfortunately just randomizing the game doesn't make it more realistic. The computer's screwups are too different from real-life ones.

I agree with you there, redwolf. Sometimes there are issues that just need to be tweaked or fixed in the game.

However, while I'm playing (and waiting for the next patch or release), I do try to tell myself that these "annoyances" are just real life screws up and try to imagine some bone-heaed decision by an officer or grunt.

In this case, realistic or not, I'd imagine that some pig-headed officer ran up behind the mortar crew screaming "Soldier what the $@%^! are you firing at??!! Cease fire immediately!".

Realistic or not, it helps to keep my blood pressure down and allows me to enjoy the game more, and get angry at the game less.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Green Hornet:

However, while I'm playing (and waiting for the next patch or release), I do try to tell myself that these "annoyances" are just real life screws up and try to imagine some bone-heaed decision by an officer or grunt.

In this case, realistic or not, I'd imagine that some pig-headed officer ran up behind the mortar crew screaming "Soldier what the $@%^! are you firing at??!! Cease fire immediately!".

Realistic or not, it helps to keep my blood pressure down and allows me to enjoy the game more, and get angry at the game less.

Your description immediately reminded me of the scene in "Stripes", when John Laroquette ordered the mortar crew to fire their mortar. I can imagine this kind of behavior really happening in the pressure cooker of combat.

[UberFunBunny]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I think the issue to deal with here is that you want to do what you suggest without complicating the interface.

If you would introduce a new menu to either the HQ or to the mortar your would confuse the hell out of new users for what BFC probably considers a pretty minor issue (personally I once ordered area fire on a HQ that got into my way, so I kinda understand your request).

A solution without mucking with the interface would be to always give a unit all the bonusses of all HQs in range, and/or use LOS of all HQs in range for mortars. But BFC is likely to reject that as in "uh, real world units were under control of only one HQ at a time". It would probably also complicated the code a lot, expanding the HQ connection from 1 to [n] is probably not going to be a cakewalk in the old codebase.

How about this: Once a team has an HQ assigned by the AI, it will stick with that HQ until it loses command range. In other words, if another HQ comes within command range, that new HQ won't grab the team until the current HQ loses command range. This, hopefully, would be a relatively simple "behind the scenes" tweak (as opposed to a player assigning HQs which could be difficult to code).

Edit: Possible consequences of this change?

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

UberFunBunny

[ August 27, 2003, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

[MikeyD]

One unpleasant consequence of that would be when you've got a green platoon HQ with units in trenches and you move a crack company HQ in closer to reap the advantage... but the squads won't switched to the closer commander. Every time you nudge the AI in one direction something unwanted always pokes out someplace else, kind'a like a girdle.

[ August 27, 2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[UberFunBunny]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

One unpleasant consequence of that would be when you've got a green platoon HQ with units in trenches and you move a crack company HQ in closer to reap the advantage... but the squads won't switched to the closer commander. Every time you nudge the AI in one direction something unwanted always pokes out someplace else, kind'a like a girdle.

A Company HQ won't grab command of a platoon from a Platoon HQ if the Platoon HQ has command range (even if the Company HQ is closer). As you can see there is already an exception to the "closest HQ takes command" feature.

I'm also really talking about teams, and in particular mortars.

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

UberFunBunny

[ August 27, 2003, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

[UberFunBunny]

Any comments on my "stick with HQ until it loses command range" tweak for teams (or mortars only)?

I think it would be better than the current situation, and shouldn't be too hard to code.

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

UberFunBunny

[ August 28, 2003, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

[UberFunBunny]

A tactic I used once to remove an "unwanted" HQ from my mortar was to send him out into open ground to be cut down by machine guns.

The lack of response to this thread tells me that using the above type of unrealistic tactic (another example being redwolf's area fire) is preferred to actually fixing the problem.

[SgtMuhammed]

The ability to assign and lock an HQ is also high on my wishlist.

Thow in an "assume command" order for HQs if you want to be able to use a different HQ in a pinch.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by UberFunBunny:

The lack of response to this thread tells me that using the above type of unrealistic tactic (another example being redwolf's area fire) is preferred to actually fixing the problem.

I'm simply more careful where I put my HQs, especially in regard to mortar teams that are using them for spotting. I can't think of any time in the last two years when it's been a problem.

I think assigning units to particular HQ would be a good idea and in line with my desire for a user-definable roster/OOB. There should be a window where all units are listed and where organization/subordination can be determined.

Michael

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by UberFunBunny:

A tactic I used once to remove an "unwanted" HQ from my mortar was to send him out into open ground to be cut down by machine guns.

The lack of response to this thread tells me that using the above type of unrealistic tactic (another example being redwolf's area fire) is preferred to actually fixing the problem.

...or it tells you that we've been around this block a few times already.

I independently thought up with the same fix you mention above; I see no problems with it; I agree with you complêtement.

The answer to MikeyD's objection is simple and natural: If a "better" HQ comes along, whom you WANT to "take over", then you simply move BetterHQ closer-- give Mortar Man an order to ceasefire-- in limbo, MM is by default under the closer, BetterHQ's command-- give a new Target command-- all is well.

IOW, the "stickiness" is only for the duration of the current Target command. It seems like an all-benefit-with-zero-cost fix to me.

Eden

[Edit: Oops-- need to update my sig file]

[ August 28, 2003, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I would like it to be improved aswell, I don't mind how, really. I just hate it when the enemy presses me so hard that I have to shift my force only for my mortars to get a sudden attack of the stupids.

In one CMBO game I had dense coulumns of inf and M5 HTs attacking me. To beef up my defense I move another platoon in quickly. Instead of helping to repel the attackers, the mortars who had been giving suppresing fire and KO-ing the odd HT stopped firing and were overrun when the enemy got fire superiority and walked right into my defensive line.

[Michael Emrys]

War is hell, ain't it? Just the other day I had a Stuka bomb my own troops even though I had held them behind my start line to protect against just such an eventuality. It immobilized three of my tanks and gun damaged a fourth, while zapping two of my TCs. Also killed my best HQ.

Cest la guerre, cest la CM...

Michael

[UberFunBunny]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

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

A tactic I used once to remove an "unwanted" HQ from my mortar was to send him out into open ground to be cut down by machine guns.

The lack of response to this thread tells me that using the above type of unrealistic tactic (another example being redwolf's area fire) is preferred to actually fixing the problem.

...or it tells you that we've been around this block a few times already.

I independently thought up with the same fix you mention above; I see no problems with it; I agree with you complêtement.

The answer to MikeyD's objection is simple and natural: If a "better" HQ comes along, whom you WANT to "take over", then you simply move BetterHQ closer-- give Mortar Man an order to ceasefire-- in limbo, MM is by default under the closer, BetterHQ's command-- give a new Target command-- all is well.

IOW, the "stickiness" is only for the duration of the current Target command. It seems like an all-benefit-with-zero-cost fix to me.

Eden

[Edit: Oops-- need to update my sig file] </font>

[Madmatt]

Sorry, as we have said before, this isn't going to change, not until the engine rewrite.

Madmatt

[UberFunBunny]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

Sorry, as we have said before, this isn't going to change, not until the engine rewrite.

Madmatt

I'm a little disappointed that it won't be in CMAK, but thanks for the comment Madmatt.

[WineCape]

Originally posted by UberFunBunny:

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

Son,

Are you related in anyway with another bunny which had a gun?

Twat,

No. </font>

[UberFunBunny]

Originally posted by WineCape:

My apologies then.

Regards,

Charl Theron

No worries.

I signed up with my nick without knowledge of this other poster; had I known of him I wouldn't have chosen a similar name. He seems to have caused a lot of grief!