More waypoints = more delay. Realistic?

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

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

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

However, in CMBB, since adding waypoints adds delay, then I can add two waypoints were there was once only 1 to increase my margin of error on the timing or orchestrate an even larger ballet.

Heh heh. Yeah, inserting a spurious waypoint can give more fine grained order delays than the 10 seconds avail in the orders menu.

Neat idea.

But now it's starting to get pretty Ptolemaic don't you think?</font>

[flamingknives]

What is needed is a better TacAI. Tell a platoon to move to a point, and it will do it as well as possible, with variences in the actual behaviour related to experience.

But this removes a level of tactics from CM:BB.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by CMPlayer:

Yes, but a simple 'move in column' function would solve all those proliferating problems in one sweep. Column movement was one of the most clamoured after features, but did BFC care? Noooooo! Did BFC listen? Nooooooooo!

Heh, well I'm not saying that its the perfect solution, but it is a step up (once you make use of it) from CMBO.

And while I would love a better method of moving columns, I haven't yet jumped on the bandwagon of getting a "perfect" column movement command.

I've read most of the threads where it's come up, and I'm still left with the plethora of car accidents that occur. I mean, even people just backing out of or pulling into a parking space. I bring that up simply because the common argument seems to be "Well, if I said follow Bob down the road, you would and would adjust your speed accordingly." Yes, unless there was an accident And traffic WAS a problem in WWII so...

Basically, I like the theory but until I see a real good idea for its implementation, I'll remain skeptical on the overall good-ness of its inclusion.

If you don't mind, since you seem to be awake and reading this thread actively, have you any thoughts on the suggestion for an additional movement system?

[ October 27, 2002, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

What is needed is a better TacAI. Tell a platoon to move to a point, and it will do it as well as possible, with variences in the actual behaviour related to experience.

But this removes a level of tactics from CM:BB.

Well, I believe that was one of the reasons that I suggested leaving both systems in place. Moreover, the pathing-/tac- AI for the "simplified" waypoint should not outshine a human (just as it does not now).

In other words, once the fur started flying, you'd want to be specific about where to go and what to do. But "gross" movements would be easier to accomplish and less prone to disaster.

And I'm definitely NOT advocating "Platoon A, take that hill." I would be loathe to see that introduced. While I'd like to play Airborne Assault, I don't want CM to be AA

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

If you don't mind, since you seem to be awake and reading this thread actively, have you any thoughts on the suggestion for an additional movement system?

If you know how to do pathing, then I hope you can go work for BFC, because their pathing AI is unbelievably weak. I am often struck by the massive imbalance in CM. They have gone to great efforts to get detail with some things, but left so many fundamentals, like pathfinding, and infantry behavior, so painfully underworked.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

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

If you don't mind, since you seem to be awake and reading this thread actively, have you any thoughts on the suggestion for an additional movement system?

If you know how to do pathing, then I hope you can go work for BFC, because their pathing AI is unbelievably weak. I am often struck by the massive imbalance in CM. They have gone to great efforts to get detail with some things, but left so many fundamentals, like pathfinding, and infantry behavior, so painfully underworked.</font>

[CMplayer]

I should add, that whenever I meet a rich guy I ask for 10,000,000 to pump into CM AI development. I realize that there are only 163 hours in a week, and AI development is labor intensive for a small noticeable gain (as opposed to historical detail of units, OOBs etc, where you can get more visible results for your effort)

So far, noone has given me the money, btw.

[ October 27, 2002, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Question - If you were us, how would you simulate the differences between simple orders ("Charge that House") and complex ones ("Walk 453m in a zigzagging path through dense woods, switch into a more cautious form of movement, take a windy road another 58m, crawl behind a wall you will find there for 16m, and then charge the House over 67m of open ground using zig zagging moves")?

I believe that 90% of multi-waypoint orders are of the first type (can be summed up in a sentence or two), and 10% are of the second type (actually long-winded and complex orders). That's just my opinion, but it means I prefer the CMBO model.

Perhaps keeping the CMBO system (ie. green troops get "flat-rate" bigger initial delay), but preventing waypoints from being movable (ala human wave) would have the desired effect? There would be fewer waypoints and no gamey waypoint abuse because of the lack of flexibility, and troops would get the delay everytime new waypoints were plotted, hence slowing the game...relative to troop quality too. I'm sure you guys tried this tho and rejected it for some valid reason.

The REAL complex orders (the ones that should cause substantial delays) are the ones that involve to-the-second coordination of multiple units from multiple parts of the map. For example if 10 green squads all issue an ASSAULT command at the start of the same turn, the delay should be 2 minutes for each of them. If two tanks join the assault the delay should go up to 4 minutes. That sort of thing.

Of course that kind of system is probably near impossible to implement (and may be so frustrating that the game is no longer fun), but it is the area where I think the extra delays should lie, not with individual unit waypoints.

yada yada

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by tecumseh:

The REAL complex orders (the ones that should cause substantial delays) are the ones that involve to-the-second coordination of multiple units from multiple parts of the map.

Thanks for a very insightful comment.

[tecumseh]

How about every ASSAULT, ADVANCE, HUNT, AREA FIRE and DIRECT FIRE (ie not the TacAI targetting) order given in a single turn increases the delay for every unit performing that command that turn, or something

So co-ordinating an attack is a real mission, and requires time.

Or for a simpler solution, how about ONLY those orders create the extra delay in CMBB, and stringing together MOVE, FAST, RUN, and REVERSE are "free"?

[ October 27, 2002, 06:05 AM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

[Battlefront.com]

cTreeburst,

I would first define "simple orders" and "complex orders" by the number of waypoints plotted. Four or less would be simple orders, and more than that would be defined as complex. I would have no waypoint delays for the simple orders.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer First of all, read what I wrote about why this system was coded and why it was universally rejected through testing. In other words, it was tried and it sucked ass so it was removed

Secondly, you are really not thinking about what a "complex" and "simple" order means when comparing real and game realities. Next time you play a game on the attack choose one unit and give him an order to move to an Objective. Now, by your definition this is a "simple order". Sure, and "work hard and make lots of money" is a simple thing to do too Think about it... while the act of issuing ONE waypoint is simple, and in realism terms the order itself is simple, but the execution of it is ANYTHING but.

Captain - "Sergeant! Take your men from their current position [London] and seize Berlin!"

Sarge - "Uh.... what do you want me to do sir?"

Captain - "What's the matter with you Sergeant!! It is a VERY SIMPLE ORDER!!! Move out and take Berlin. Do you understand the order?!?"

Sarge - "Yes sir I do. But how?"

Captain - "What do you mean "how"?!? You are a damned Sergeant in the finest military in the world! You figure it out! I'm going to take a nap with my pookie bear. Send me a message from the Brandenburg Gate so i know you aren't utterly incompetent!"

Sarge - "Sir, please meet Mr. Colt Nineteen Eleven. You and he will have no problems if you just do as I say..."

Again, the problem I asked people to consider here is that "simple" and "complex" can be defined in more than one way. Which gets me to CMplayer's point...

The issue is that a lot of the time the use of many waypoints does not represent complex orders of the sort you describe. This has been repeated again and again.

Instead of repeating the obvious over and over again, stop and think about what I have been repeating over and over again. So far you, and a few others, have apparently not "got it" yet. Waypoints represent TWO different behaviors; the one you keep harping on and the one you are totally ignoring. Until you realize there are TWO behaviors that need dealing with, as we have, then you will continue to argue around in the same flawed circle of logic that you are still using.

The problem with complex simulations is that they require a large degree of abstraction in order to work. Sometimes the abstractions work 90% of the time in 90% of the situations. That means, obviously, that there are times when the abstraction breaks down. And this is one of them.

As I tried to explain, there is absolutely a problem with how CM treats orders. There is no way to cleanly seperate a "complex" order from a "simple" one. And after "beating ourselves up" we couldn't figure out a better system which still fit within the parameters of the CMBB sequel. Expect some MAJOR changes for the rewrite because for that one we have a fresh slate to work from and this will be a high priority to redesign.

Until then, we have to balance one abstraction vs another using a singular system. This is never easy to do. But we feel VERY strongly that what we have is better than what CMBO had. If you disagree, fine, but it isn't changing. We feel very confident that our line of reasoning is more valid than the one seen contradicting the existing system. Plus, we have also had the first hand experience of playing various different alternative solutions, including one that has been proposed in this thread, and have seen how they REALLY work.

Bottom line is that if you find yourself fighting with the system you need to change either your perception of what it should do or how you interact with it. As I said, I don't experience the frustration/problems you apparently do, so I can say for sure it is possible to do this.

If you know how to do pathing, then I hope you can go work for BFC, because their pathing AI is unbelievably weak. I am often struck by the massive imbalance in CM. They have gone to great efforts to get detail with some things, but left so many fundamentals, like pathfinding, and infantry behavior, so painfully underworked.

"Painfully underworked"? Puuuuuuhleeeeeeeease! Ever play RTS games? CM's (or any) TacAI is limited first and foremost by CPU speed and, to some extent RAM.

The other large limiting factor is practical coding issues. If you have ever seen TV shows on AI you would know that people far smarter than Charles, with every day of their lives devoted to pathfinding AI (funded by universities and big corporations) don't do that much better. In fact, there has been a new move towards forgetting about complex pathfinding (like a higher animal, such as a Human, would use) and instead first deal with insect level pathfinding. And they haven't yet done that either

But in general, I think we play different games I rarely have path finding problems. And when I do, they are NEVER a big deal. I have been suspicious of this for a long time now -> problems with TacAI are closely linked with player style. I think players who try to do too much in too short a space of time with too many waypoints are most likely to be the ones who run into the most problems. As I said before, I only use a couple of tactically focused waypoints at a time. If you don't, perhaps you should try it?

tecumseh,

The REAL complex orders (the ones that should cause substantial delays) are the ones that involve to-the-second coordination of multiple units from multiple parts of the map.

Unfortunately, because the player controls all units all the time, this is absolutely impossible to account for. All wargames suffer from excessive ability to over coordinate.

Steve

[Mark Gallear]

I can see why Battlefront have done it this way and largely approve. I would like to see greater command and control for Russian armour in the early period as they had to wave flags at each and radios were only used to connect them to higher command levels. Not easy if MG bullets are bouncing off the turret.

I noticed more command and control problems for the 3 T34s in the demo than has occurred for me so far in the game?

Also like to see tank rate of fires lowered for inexperienced crews and tanks are firing far to few rounds to hit the target – whatever the skill level. I suspect tank duels were much more drawn out than the game portrays.

As for aircraft is one of the designers related to Herman Goring – and got stats on the effectiveness of aircraft directly from him by any chance? I find hard to believe that a fighter-bomber could even find individual platoons hidden in wheatfields let alone attack them accurately. I admit that the Stuka dive-bomber was the precision guided weapon of its day but were very vulnerable and without having total air superiority risk heavy casualties. The Sturmovick in contrast had a reputation for keeping going and absorbing a lot of punishment. The system particular in operations begs for a system that could stop your Stukas arriving if the Russians suddenly put a lot of fighters in the air over the battlefield or allowed the Russian players ground attack planes to make limited attacks what ever the tactical situation in the air.

Well I can hope cann't I

[Tarquelne]

Unfortunately, because the player controls all units all the time, this is absolutely impossible to account for. All wargames suffer from excessive ability to over coordinate.

How about a random element in a unit's delay times? The less expereinced the unit, the larger the random element. (In-command squads/vehicles often use the same random number?) So, even in the absence of enemy fire a Green company would show close co-ordination only if you're lucky, but you could pretty much count on Crack troops executing both halves of a "pincer" movement at the same time...

(Hmm... and have all delay times, and all random elements in those times, increase slightly as the distance from Co. and Batt. commanders increases...)

Oh yeah, another way to put Steve's question: How do you get the _computer_ to distinguish between a simple order ("Move along the edge of the woods and go into the nearest house.") and a complex order ("Walk _here_, then walk over _there_, then in this curve... "Watch me not the sky, Corporal!", then go into _that_ house.)

BTW: If I had my druthers I'd see increases in the "cumulative" delay times for Green/Conscript troops (at least after the 4th waypoint or so) and decreased times for Crack+ troops. (The theory here being that you tell Crack+ troops "Go take Berlin." they go do it. Well, OK, _fail_ to go do it in this case, but they don't need you to explain at length exactly how they should go about it. The "complex" waypoint path needed is something that they come up with, so little "cumulative" delay is appropriate.)

Keep in mind, btw, that these opinions are based on a few weeks of casual play.

[ October 27, 2002, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

Ironically CMPlayer, the fact that extra waypoints increase the delay time actually GIVES the playler much more timing and routing control.

If I want to move a column of vehicles in CMBO, I have to hope that experience delay + some combination of 15 second delays will add up to something useable. More often than not, this just doesn't work.

However, in CMBB, since adding waypoints adds delay, then I can add two waypoints were there was once only 1 to increase my margin of error on the timing or orchestrate an even larger ballet.

And here I thought I was the only one who had noticed that!

Michael

[Treeburst155]

I see Steve's point. BFC has obviously given this waypoint delay a great deal of thought. If they think CMBB is better for it, then I'll adapt.

What do I know anyway?

I think it is just those who tend naturally toward micro-management that are a bit disturbed by the waypoint delays. I love to plot column movement, for example. I've pulled off some absolutely beautiful coordinated movement involving vehicles starting parked in a jumbled fasion with different experience levels, vehicle types, etc.. I have been know to spend an hour just on column movement. It's a beautiful sight to see when it works out, and it usually does for me now.

As pointed out by Cameroon, the waypoint delay does have some benefits. It can be used in a gamey way to some degree, and also help with column movement. I will certainly master these waypoint delays, gamey micromanaging bastiche that I am.

Treeburst155 out.

[ October 27, 2002, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[demoss]

Tarqulene wrote:

How about a random element in a unit's delay times? The less expereinced the unit, the larger the random element.

Now THAT is a great idea.

Oh yeah, another way to put Steve's question: How do you get the _computer_ to distinguish between a simple order ("Move along the edge of the woods and go into the nearest house.") and a complex order ("Walk _here_, then walk over _there_, then in this curve... "Watch me not the sky, Corporal!", then go into _that_ house.)

Simple fix that would probably eliminate the majority of the problem (at least the part that bugs me :cool: ): waypoints on a road don't count for added delay. I find that the only time I run into trouble is when I need to follow a meandering road. As an extra-cool modification of this, waypoints at/near an intersection should add EXTRA delay (which way, Ivan?).

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by demoss:

As an extra-cool modification of this, waypoints at/near an intersection should add EXTRA delay (which way, Ivan?).

That's cute.

Michael

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by demoss:

Simple fix that would probably eliminate the majority of the problem (at least the part that bugs me :cool: ): waypoints on a road don't count for added delay.

I try to avoid gamey tactics , but even I would have to abuse this feature in a city fight.

[Schoerner]

IMO the new waypoint-delay gives way too much micromanagment possibilities (i don't like the 10sec interval for waiting, too; 15sec made it much more difficult to synchronize movements).

A probably solution could be, to add additional delay only, if the waypoints exceed a certain distance (and/or are out LOS) from the actual unit's position - but therefore they increase the delay more drastically.

[demoss]

I try to avoid gamey tactics , but even I would have to abuse this feature in a city fight.

...which is why my additional suggested change of making waypoints at intersections add extra delay would be good.

[Quenaelin]

No, this isn't very realistic and I don't like this feature at all in this game. I cannot do any zig-zag evasion movement with any vehicle anymore. I can understand this command delay with infantry, but with tanks this waypoint limiter should be disabled, when I like to take around small forrest or to do evasive manuaver with vehicle this game penalizes such movement too much, why?

[aka_tom_w]

bump

just for the curious

-tom w

[Guest Mike]

Ah - yes this is the thread I ws thinking of - thanks.

for those that haven't read my recent thread on this subject here's the text:

This new feature of CMBB has been discussed a bit before but I can't find the thread.

Basically the more way-points you give a unit the longer its initial delay time.

I had an extreme example recently when I gave a couple of h/tracks a long movement order along smoe roads. The delay was 180 seconds more-or-less (more for a few, less for a few!).

I only noticed it when I looked at the movie for the turn and a bunch of troops jsut sat there!

Now I could accept BTS's story about it taking time to issue orders, etc.

Except this was on T1!

AND a second group of units was given an order to move to exactly teh same point by a straight line - I got lazy & wanted to see how the AI would path-find for them. They moved out just fine, although their path ended up just as complicated as the original group.

There's a slight problem there IMO!

Now if a Corps level artillery bombardment can occur on T1 for the Russians, you'd think an order to move a kilometer along roads wouldn't be too much to ask for Pzr Grenadiers - or even Waffen Hampsters for that matter (sorry - couldn't resist!).

And you'd think that if an order was going to delay things then it would delay ppl the same amount regardless of how it was given.

sorry BTS - this one rates a C- from me.

Please have another look at it for future patches or games.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

I guess I've barely even noticed there's a difference. When does it become so critical that a few seconds here or there is that important?

I too barely noticed the difference until I started a game on a large map with some mechanised troops. I gae them orders to ove mostly along roads (but across a few sections of open terrain) on turn 1 and the delayes weer on the order of 180 seconds.

the total movement was about a km or a little more.

this was on T1, when I could probablyreasonably expect to have already briefed my officers.

Also of course as a few ppl have noted we are not only plotting the orders, but the actual movement of the troops - we are getting them to take short cuts where we think they;ll save time, etc- those are not things that are likely to be in orders, rather we are pre-identifying the local initiatives that we would expect troops on the ground to use to get the job done.

someone also pointed out that jsut plotting a straight line avoids the penalties, but another person countered that this also exposes your troops to bad AI moves.

Very true, but when I'm pretty sure I'm a long way from the enemy that's not a problem for me!! Also I can use thsi to get going and then change waypoints at the next move, or replot a new move if the current one doesn't suit - either way the intent of the change is easily bypassed.

IMO there are too many examples in this thread of bad inconsistancies to maek this a good feature.

[Quenaelin]

There should be redo waypoints command in this game, becouse those damn pause penalties. Sometimes I just accidentaly delete too much waypoints just to get penalized with more pause again when I set my waypoints again, is this realistic? I have to be very carefull when to setup waypoints after vehicle is moving.

I can understand this command delay thing, but situation tend to change in battle field, so at least tank commanders must know their terrain and how to make advantage of terrain is already written in their field manuals, then why I get penalized for giving commands which are already known by tank commanders?

Why I get those stupid pause penalties by setting more waypoints for that kind of basic terrain knowledge which is very clear to real life tank commanders and tank drivers in WWII.

Why TacAI don't get penalized for setting more and more waypoints, many times I see that TacAI putting huge amount of waypoints just to get around couple of trees, why player is penalized for doing the same thing, is this realistic? CMBO was realistic, CMBB isn't anymore, are you making this game more and more unplayable by purpose, are you enjoying this?

At least you can do is to give somekind of redo command, if player accidentaly deletes waypoint marker, so then marker can be resetted easily. You are always stating, we are making realistic game, but why realistic game cannot be more playable, I don't understand that?