Jump to content

Movement Command Interface


Recommended Posts

This is still a little too half-baked to put in the CM2 wish list, so I'm running it up the flag pole here to see what happens.

I'm uncomfortable with several aspects of the movement interface.

First, I have trouble accepting the increasing movement delay for extra waypoints.

Second, I probably have trouble accepting waypoints themselves, but am not sure what to propose in their place.

Even if I suspend disbelief for a bit and try to live with them, I keep encountering things that I have trouble reconciling with reality.

[NB: to make sense out of the following you have to realize that I'm still stuck in a CMBO time-warp.]

If I want to move someone to the other side of the map I'm going to use a lot of waypoints, if for no other reason than I don't want the unit that I'm moving to go ploughing into bottomless wells and the sides of barns, even though that doesn't hurt in CM.

And it gives me the room to maneuver. I don't care for waypoints, but can rationalize some of what follows on the grounds that the interface is a little off, and this probably compensates for it. But I don't like it.

If my unit gets halfway across the map and has a waypoint every thirty meters or so, if it encounters an obstacle it can often maneuver around it by resetting the waypoints. To some extent I'm ok with this, but if the maneuvering around involves ducking around a unit and changing speeds, including, perhaps, a bit of crawling, I start to wonder.

On the other hand, if I want my platoon to arrive at the other side of the map in some kind of order, I need all those waypoints so that I can vary the speeds of the different units to keep them in the same relative position (which probably means we need a maintain relative position command for line as well as column movement). I shouldn't be penalized with the waypoint penalty for telling my troops to simply march around the bottom of that ridge over there by going through those fields in line abreast.

On the other hand, the waypoints give me a little too much flexibility. The other day I had a tank hunt around the obstacle it was using for cover and take up a new firing position a little further ahead. It had just cleared the obstacle but hadn't finished its move when it encountered a new threat. By the time my turn started it was clear that the tank was overmatched, so I simply repositioned the unused hunt waypoints, changed them to reverse, and cancelled target. I think this was simulating the tank commander screaming at the driver to back up. The tank didn't have enough waypoints to get back to where it came from, so I had to issue another order to reverse it back behind the covering obstacle. Net effect, the tank, in a miracle of responsiveness moved backwards without even having to shift gears. Then stopped dead in its tracks while the driver smoked part of a cigarette, then reversed away to safety.

I can rationalize some of those events taking place individually, but I simply can't imagine them taking place in combination. The instant short reverse achieved by dragging back the waypoint and converting it into a reverse seems the hardest to swallow, and is probably the easiest to fix (code the game so you can't change directions on the speed menu without pausing to shift gears). But I'm still not satisfied, because it seems to me that that tank commander would have been screaming at the driver to back up because he was staring down the barrel of a rather nasty anti-tank gun and had just watched two shells bounce off its front armor. So once the driver's ears stopped ringing I don't think he would have backed up a bit and then stopped, unless his foot slipped big time.

The game engine wasn't simulating some bizarre mishap, it was giving a standard response to a fairly common situation. So any way I look at this I'm unhappy about something, and can't help wondering if the movement process might not benefit from bit of a rethink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Formations might not be a bad idea IMHO. At the moment all selected units cover the same distance, so in theory should all complete their move in same positions relative to one another.

Being able to use formations (single file, line abreast, V etc would be a lot less hassle than having to individually assign each unti in a company a seperate finishing point.

Shouldnt be too hard for AI to sort out, I mean things like making sure your mortar squad isn´t on point are just common sense aren´t they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they never reconsider the command delay for increasingly complicated movement commands.

[CMBO? c'mon. It's evolved mon!]

Use shorter movements. Less waypoints!

I agree, CMBO interface is a 'lil off imo ... but only compared to BB/AK.

Please try zooming closer to the ground to bypass obstacles. The graphics get redundant, though the maps and tactics never will.

kudos on saving your tank. This is the fun of the game imo, but make no mistake, you were lucky. This all could have happened 30 seconds off from what it did and the outcome would have been dramatically different.

You certainly would know better. After all you played the turn, but if you happened to save it ... delay all your troops 20 secs and replay the turn. See what happens then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phillipe

I can see what you are getting at. I disagree with you simply as I see the penalties as a method of stopping someone micromanaging to the extreme.

Drawing extremely complicated and overly clever routes that hug the ground and are speediest to where they wish to be.

Maps were never that good! A unit would not have the benefit of borg spotting or zooming to ground level 300 metres to spyout the land before it gets there. The fix may seem to be a fudge but it generally works.

If you play TCP?IP in real time 1 minute moves i minute for orders you get the adrenalin buzz - and you learn to give platoon orders for the computer to get your troops to X. You do not generally give long range orders as you try to work by bounds, if you get bounced you only have moments to rectify the problem in your order phase.

A much more realistic battle occurs compared to the analysis to death before giving an order school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so much in disagreement that my wish for the next series of squad level gaming is only to have the movement commands expanded.

I'd like to see the "Advance to contact" command for when I am certain to meet the enemy. Even "Fast to Contact and Hide" has it's applications in the desert.

Free us.

(edit)

AFV commands are far more trickier.

"Hunt to contact and Reverse to Hull Down" for an example of a defensive measure.

Am I being unreasonable?

(edit2)

the more i consider the challenges, the more I realize how amazing CM isl This ... THING ... is certainly a labor of love for someone.

One man recognizes that, and thank you BF.

[ October 12, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Akula2 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bezier Curves are flexible curves with variable radius, but a very easy interface to form them.

There are 4 control points plotting a very powerful and flexible curve and (see below), if you use it for a CM-like waypoint system, you only have to touch those waypoints you care about, the rest can be defaulted automatically.

If you have working Java, there is an interactive demo here:

http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/gfx/bezier.html

If Java doesn't work for you (drop that stupid IE already), here is text'n'pictures:

http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/graphics/x_bezier.htm

Stolen from there:

bezier00.gif

bezier01.gif

illustrating the control points, try the links above to see more.

Relevant to CM are two things:

1)

it makes it very easy to have a) a penality per waypoint and B) still have the ability to drive one curve or make a move around a house with one waypoint, without forcing the user into plotting edges

The reason is that one Bezier Curve can only go in one direct and possibly back towards the old direction. If you want more you need a second curve and pay an additional penality.

2)

While plotting one bezier curve is more complicated than just one line (where you just hit the endpoint), plotting several bezier curves in succession is actualy very easy since you can make all the control points default so that the path as a whole is smoothened out at first. Only later can the user go back to waypoints in between and tweak the bezier curves control points.

[ October 12, 2004, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look in "what do we want in the new CM etc." there is some discussion of command issues.

Basically, "in real life" the tank or squad would only get one actual order from an officer, such as "advance along that ridge line" or something. The rest of the time, all movement, such as: spotting an enemy, deciding it is a very big threat to you living more than the next twelve seconds, reversing into cover, are all actions taken by the tank itself, and so should not be subject to any delay other than experience and luck delays in spotting an enemy unit.

So the two have to be reconciled with each other. One could argue that the tacAI should deal with all target spotting and target selection according to some set of engagement rules, but this would only be tolerable if the AI was actually smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Redwolf:

Bezier Curves are flexible curves with variable radius, but a very easy interface to form them. [...]

Thanks for the clarification.

Although the actual curve handling in the game still appears quite complex to me, I think I get your point. It could adress part the waypoint issue Philipe is talking about by limiting (or simply preventing) relocalization of the point in favor of the path. Meaning you would not be allowed to displace a waypoint 360 degrees around the unit and shift the mode, but simply reorient its current path in the general direction of the original waypoint.

To put the unit in reverse would imply resetting a new waypoint (Not mentioning SOPs refered to in the other post that would get very useful in such a context).

In terms of userfriendliness, I suppose you could manage to simply draw a straight line as of now, with "handles" readily workable as you demonstrate. Maybe a blend of straight waypoints (rotate, cover arcs, etc) with bezier nav waypoints could be interesting.

Since I am very far from even remotely grasping the implications of these ideas in terms of implementation (or plain mechanics for that matter) in a tactical simulator, I'll let other, more knowledgable people comment on this.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tarkus:

In terms of userfriendliness, I suppose you could manage to simply draw a straight line as of now, with "handles" readily workable as you demonstrate. Maybe a blend of straight waypoints (rotate, cover arcs, etc) with bezier nav waypoints could be interesting.

My idea is that you just place a punch of waypoints in quick succession exactly like you do now. But instead of edgy direct lines you get these curves pre-planned for you (they'd probably just smoothen out).

Then you only touch the control points (note difference to waypoints) if you are not satisfied with where the default curve landed.

Since I am very far from even remotely grasping the implications of these ideas in terms of implementation (or plain mechanics for that matter) in a tactical simulator, I'll let other, more knowledgable people comment on this.

I'm pretty sure it hasn't been tried yet.

Very obviously, a normal commercial publisher would laugh their asses off if a developer came across with that idea, with the publisher imagening how their phone support people explain the mathematical concept of a Bezier curve to a redneck who wants to plot his female beach volleyball players movement.

Obviously, it is an advanced concept and woudn't be entirely hidden from the user, so I guess even BFC wouldn't be up to it.

Having said that, I am sure that Airborne Assault internally works with Bezier curves (or a concept very close to it) to smoothen out the paths it plans. But since these paths are fully automatic and not under player control they don't have the potential problem of confusing the user with the exposed control point interface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...