André Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Hi I have experienced this problem several times now, and this is what happens. I order an infantry unit to "move" or "move to engage" and press GO. The turn passes and nothing happens. Next turn I click on the unit and the waypoints are gone. I am not sure if this only happens if I use the covered arch command, but that might be the case. Anyway, has anyone else experienced this and what might possibly be the cause? Best regards, Heinz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 I've seen some things like this, but not often enough to be sure if it wasn't my own fault. I'll keep an eye open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André Posted October 23, 2002 Author Share Posted October 23, 2002 I just setup a small QB, just to see if I could replicate the BUG. And it took me only 2 turns to make it happen. Unit X is ordered to move forward using the "move to engage" command and a covered arc of 30m. After moving 10m or so he spots an enemey vehicle quite a distance away and he STOPS. Why does he do that, should he continue moving until a target appears within the 30m set by the covered arc command? Using covered arcs together with the "move to engage" command does not work properly as it is now. BFC, PLEASE FIX OR SOMEFINK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mPisi Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 A Move to contract order being immediately cancelled since the unit has LOS to an enemy? Edit: posted at the same time. Does it say anywhere the the covered arc and move to contact are connected in any way? In my experience the move to contact makes the unit stop when they see an enemy at any range. Linking it to covered arc would be an excellent way to add utility to the command, which IMO is pretty useless in the middle of a battlefield after contact is made. [ October 23, 2002, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: mPisi ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André Posted October 23, 2002 Author Share Posted October 23, 2002 Sorry, "move to contact" is the command I was refering to, not "move to engage". So a unit using the "move to contact" command will stop whenever seeing an enemy unit, even if he is using the covered arc command? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 i've had a few problems with move to contact as well. tanks will stop moving sometimes even when no enemy is in sight(or sound). i've also had problem using the hide command with covered arcs. infantry will often unhide even though enemy enters their arc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Yes, that's my understanding of it. In this way, your man can spot the enemy without giving away his position by firing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Move to contact behaves very conservatively. I've had units with this order not move at all if there is anything going on in the vicinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 A cover arc has no affect on the move to contact command. I think it would be a nice change if move to contact could be controlled by the cover arc. I have no idea if that's possible with the current game engine, however. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Generally speaking, move to contact should not be used when moving through open terrain for exactly this reason. Units will stop when they spot an enemy unit at any range. Use plain move or fast instead and save move to contact for movement when spotting distance is contracted, like when moving through woods. Basically, the command is there for when you are likely to come upon enemy units unexpectedly and you want them to stop and engage when they do. If you are just moving them from place to place, move or fast are much better. Michael [ October 23, 2002, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 If the Move To Contact command is gone next turn, and your unit hasn't gone anywhere, then very simply he is already in Contact. Ergo, the command really *was* completed. I've said this before about tanks and MTC- if you give a tank an MTC command, and he is in sight of even so much as a Routed Crew, he won't proceed... Many possibilites exist for adding to the functionality of this command, "MTC anyone I'm not already in Contact with", "MTC some specific unit", "MTC some specific *type* of unit", "MTC Armor..." At a minimum, it would be helpful if adding a Cover *ARMOR* arc to a tank would cause the MTC command to proceed until Armor is Contacted. Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agua Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Echo Michael's comments here. I hadn't read anywhere that the cover arc has any effect upon the movement to contact order with regard to the area within which the contact must occur in order to halt the units. That would be a pretty useful feature if it does / could be made to work that way, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 I want to agree with Agua here (don't we make a lovely couple? ) and others who mentioned that joining covered arc with move to contact would be a good idea. But if people use it that way, they should not scream if their squads (or whatever) walk right past an enemy unit outside their covered arc which then proceeds to shoot them in the back. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 At a minimum, it would be helpful if adding a Cover *ARMOR* arc to a tank would cause the MTC command to proceed until Armor is Contacted. Of course then someone would complain when their tank get moving in the line of fire of some AT gun. I think that there is some real danger in trying to make the commands too "clever". A set of simple commands seems much more like the way to go. Actually if you want to add possibilities, then a better approach is to have different types of commands that can be combined individually, rather than having to combine features into a single command. I'm thinking more of something like the TacOps SOP feature. That way one could combine a "Stop when enemy sighted" effect with any of the normal movement commands: Run, Walk, Sneak(Crawl), etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Beavis Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 I like the idea of being able to use the covered arc command with the move to contact command. I'm not an expert programmer, and I haven't seen code for CM, but I don't believe it would be too difficult a change to make. Perhaps someone from BTS will stop by and comment on this, and maybe we'll see it in the upcoming patch. I can't really think of any reason why the two commands SHOULDN'T be combined, as mentioned above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Originally posted by tar: Of course then someone would complain when their tank get moving in the line of fire of some AT gun.I would classify an AT gun as armor for the above context; the desire is to get *some* use out of MTC when a tank is currently staring at nothing but a Routed Crew. I think that there is some real danger in trying to make the commands too "clever".I don't think the commands as they are now are in any danger of being too clever, but if you prefer shaken not stirred that's fine- this seems a nitpicky detail to me in the face of the much larger issue: I'm thinking more of something like the TacOps SOP feature.Yes yes yes a million times yes. I've said this before- doesn't it strike you that when we consider the "realness" of the game, the armor penetration model which is mind-boggling, versus the graphics which seem to me as good as they would ever need to be, versus the ability to give your troops simple SOPs... Well, which one seems to you the weakest link in that chain?!? That way one could combine a "Stop when enemy sighted" effect with any of the normal movement commands: Run, Walk, Sneak(Crawl), etc.Exactly. Thank you. And many others, (Reverse on contact x meters, etc). THAT is where this program would most benefit from some growth, imho. Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Originally posted by Eden Smallwood: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />That way one could combine a "Stop when enemy sighted" effect with any of the normal movement commands: Run, Walk, Sneak(Crawl), etc.Exactly. Thank you. And many others, (Reverse on contact x meters, etc). THAT is where this program would most benefit from some growth, imho.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Originally posted by Eden Smallwood: I would classify an AT gun as armor for the above context...The hunt command already does this, guys. Check p. 78 of the manual. Sheeze... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 I would classify an AT gun as armor for the above context; the desire is to get *some* use out of MTC when a tank is currently staring at nothing but a Routed Crew. Sure - especially since the "V" (Covered Arc - Vehicles) command already classifies AT guns as "vehicles." It may be worth pointing out, though, that if that's the behavior you want, "Hunt" is pretty darn close if not exactly what you're asking for. [ October 23, 2002, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: demoss ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: Can't argue with that. In fact, that's substantially the same suggestion I made four years ago.Yes Professor Emrys, I know you did, because I remember you're having said so quite some time ago. Now I own this crazy program, and I have logged several bazillion QB hours, and I see that you were right. So that makes two, or a two-possible-three if we count "tar". We're making definite progress! Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: Can't argue with that. In fact, that's substantially the same suggestion I made four years ago.Yes Professor Emrys, I know you did, because I remember you're having said so quite some time ago. Now I own this crazy program, and I have logged several bazillion QB hours, and I see that you were right. So that makes two, or a two-possible-three if we count "tar". We're making definite progress! Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts