CMX2 and Vehicle Passengers

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

I argue here not for simplicity. CM is a complex game, and we all love it for that. Without its deep, rich, realistic layers, it's just another wargame. I argue for USER FRIENDLINESS.

We are in agreement about that. Where we disagree is in the specifics of what needs cutting and what doesn't.

Now, if a "Follow Vehicle" command was added to make convoys easier, would it dramatically cheapen the game? No!

See? Now I happen to agree with that. IIRC BFC feels much the same way and the reason it was never implemented in CMx1 is that the coding of the engine would have made it too difficult to do. Hopefully that is one of the things that CMx2 will cure.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

...unpredictiveness (does that word in English exist? )...

Not until you created it, LOL. But the standard English word, in case you want to know, for what I think you mean to say is 'unpredictability'.

HTH.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

There is an inherent difference between "user friendliness" and "realism" and "playability". Here they are...

Realism is what governs CM's overall character. We look to see what is realistic, and what is not, and simulate things accordingly. This is our Prime Directive

Next comes playability. How well does that feature work in the context of all other features in the game. Does one run into problems with another and reduce overall realism, or does it allow for a gamey cheat, etc. etc. etc. If so, then we try to fix it so that it is compliant with the Prime Directive.

Last comes useability. Is the feature, which is realistic and playable, present unreasonable user interface issues for the player. If so, we redesign the user interface so that playability and realism are not harmed.

Other games do things the other way around... the make the game simplistic to use, simplistic to play, and realism.... well, not even the remotest of concerns for most games. The ones that do care about realism to some degree usually stop short at graphics and names of weapons and so forth.

The issue being argued about here SHOULD be argued at the useability level. But that isn't the case. Instead it is being argued about at the realism level. People might THINK they are asking abtou useability or playability, but in fact they are asking for compromises to realism. Because the interface is dead simple to use (sorry folks, it really is) and not that hard to master (most people don't have a problem) WITHIN the confines of realistic behavior, I see absolutely no reason to change anything. It's working just fine.

Now, something like Follow... there we have a real issue. Units should be realistically able to coordinate their movement based on the unit directly in front of them. If the unit in front stops, so should the one behind it and the one behind that, etc, etc. That is not possible in CMx1, mostly because of the difficulty in programming such a thing from an AI standpoint (given the nature of the engine's existing code). The ramifications of no Follow command are unrealistic and do limit certain types of tactics and tactical scenarios from behaving the way they should. So the argument for the Follow command is primarily about realism, but it is also about playability (vehicles do crazy stuff that increases their chances of getting knocked out), and useability (there is no easy interface for a work around, not to mention to get the behavior directly). That means the Fix O Meter tilts strongly in favor of us doing something about this issue for CMx2.

Hopefully by illustrating these two side by side you can see there is a HUGE difference between the two and our reaction to them.

Steve

[c3k]

Gents,

What is a more complex undertaking in a combat zone: calling in an artillery strike; laying an ATG on a moving target; unloading a squad out of a half-track near the farmhouse?

In CMx1, I can call in an artillery strike, of any caliber, with one command: "Target". Yes, there may be a delay. Suck it up.

In CMx1, I can have my anti-tank gun acquire, aim, compensate, choose ammo, and fire on a moving enemy vehicle with one command: "Target".

In CMx1, to unload a squad from a half-track near a desired location requires multiple, coordinated, unrelated commands. Inherent in doing so also requires an in-depth knowledge of how the game engine functions, adjusting for known and anticipated command delays, and finesse in the placement of movement orders.

Hopefully, CMx2 will include a simple command: "Unload". The game engine will take care of all the details. Sure, give me a delay. Sure, give a chance of the troops cowering and refusing to unload. But don't make me, the PLAYER, have to do all the work in CMx1 to ensure a successful unloading.

Thank you,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

I would compare unloading infantry with anticipating WHERE to fire that artillery and WHERE to position the AT gun, not the commands to use them. The command for getting infantry out of the Halftrack is simple. Select the infantry and click on the ground where you want it to unload. That's all. No different than the one click to call down artillery, no different than the one click for the AT gun to target something.

Yes, there is some more subtle points to learn about how to unload or load infantry. There are tactical considerations and anticipation of unknown events that the player must evaluate. The players that know how to do this well get an advantage, just like the one who knows that calling down a 82mm mortar strike on a big building is probably a waste of ammo, or that by the time that 155 strike lands all that enemy infantry is likely to be somewhere else, or putting an ATG on an exposed hill might give you excellent LOS that works both ways, or firing an ATG that has a slow rate of fire at a fast moving vehicle near the gun's max range is a waste of ammo and exposes oneself to enemy fire with probably little net positive effect.

Or are you saying you want to boot up the game, make 3 clicks, and have to do nothing for the rest of the turn?

Seriously guys... I just don't get it. You're complaining about an aspect of the game that requires mastering. Why not complain about everything else in the game that isn't braindead obvious to even a 5 year old? There are RTS games that do that sort of gameplay quite nicely

Steve

[Soddball]

I would like CMx2 to give me a foot massage and bring me a beer whilst I'm playing it.

[melb_will]

And it must have cupholders. 2 at least. Maybe even three.

[Cpl Steiner]

It is possible to get passengers and vehicles to coordinate pretty effectively by adding command delay etc. However, it is fiddly, and can result in stupid results when it doesn't work, such as a vehicle moving off before its passengers have got in, or the passengers advancing over open ground, whilst under heavy fire, to the place they were supposed to have disembarked out of their armoured transport.

My point would be that, as it is possible, but fiddly, to get these things to coordinate, why not let the computer do what computers are for, and take the pain out of adding all those pause commands. I mean, adding pause to a vehicle to get it to wait for a squad to mount up is more or less the same as having a waypoint "trigger" such as "move to next waypoint when passengers have got in". Why have fiddly manual ways of doing stuff that the computer is very good at doing automatically. This is not a realism issue, as the manual method achieves the exact same result, but is just a pain to get right.

[aka_tom_w]

OK....

I have only been following this thread a little bit.

I have read Steve's posts and what he says all makes sense.

Steve says:

"The 1-2 minutes it takes to load a vehicle in CMx1 pales in comparison to hours it would likely take in the real world. So complain all you want about how unrealistically long it is to taks to load/unload, because in the real world it is unrealistically short by a huge amount. The most realistic thing we could do is not allow any vehicle to embark any unit during regular gameplay. So if realism is what you want, we can do that."

In my experience trying to make this loading of vehicles with passengers it ALWAYS works if you give it enough time.

( 1 -2 minutes)

Once the passenger and the vehicle meet up it always takes at least one full minute (one turn) to mount up. This seems unrealistically short in my opinion. I would say it "should" take longer.

I am not exactly sure what folks are complaining about here.

If the expectation is that troops and vehicles should meet up in the same minute AND the troops should get on AND the vehicle should proceed on its way ALL in one minute then that is simply unrealistic.

I find it unrealistic that a transort can be loaded and on its way in a one minute turn. I think it should take more than one minute to get 8-12 men on board ANY vehicle and on its way.

The game works fine the way it is with regard to this issue IMO.

-tom w

[CobaltTiger]

It seems to me that almost everyone is arguging something other than the points brought up in the first post. Really he was only asking for two things:

1) Vehicles: Stay here until troops are loaded, then move

2) Troops: Stay in vehicle until you reach disembark point (unless under fire etc)

Is that really so unreasonable? He wasn't arguing against command delays, or asking for a way to make everyone arrive at a destination at the same time. He just wanted a way to smooth out the endpoints a bit.

If you want to argue for realism, having a truck sit there for 40 seconds after the infantry finishes mounting or having troops jump out short of the destination (or arrive at the destination and sit around until the next turn) isn't particularly realistic.

Sure, you can minimize the delays by fiddling around with pauses and having a knowledge of how the engine works, but, the argument is, why should that be necessary when command delays and similar should already be factored in? If you're worried about troops jumping on and off a vehicle too quickly, by all means add in a embark/disembark delay. I've always felt it silly how troops will plop down onto the ground immediately and then move off after their command delay anyway.

[c3k]

Gents,

CobaltTiger has summarized the transport problem succinctly.

CMx1 puts too much detail into the player's control of the transport issue. I want a pickup point, a move, then a disembark point. How that is implemented in CMx2 could be a GREAT improvement over CMx1.

A solution would be to place a pickup point for the squad/hq/gun at the end of a movement order. Place another pickup point at the end of a movement order for a vehicle. Then LINK the two units together. ("Pickup at/with" - the first click selects the location, the second click selects the unit which will be paired up with the first unit. Similar to "Shoot and Scoot".)

Neither unit would move from the pickup point until the pickup is accomplished. (Excepting orders changes, enemy fire, loss of control, etc.)

Thanks,

Ken

[juan_gigante]

Okay, then add a huge "Loading Delay". Like the unlimber time for guns and other set stuff. That would also be good, because if you're loading a 20mm Flak, it can take less time than a 150mm Infantry Gun. The problem isn't the time that it takes.

The problem is, as Steiner points out, that unless you use this whole battery of commands properly, it's very much possible that annoying stuff will happen. Simplfying the unloading process won't cheapen the game; there will still be tactical decisions to be made. I'm not asking for an unload command that would magically teleport my gun to the perfect spot; I'm asking for a command that eliminates the hassle. It can still take time, it can still be risky, and it can still require tactical consideration, but it would make the process streamlined. As I have said earlier, I would rather worry about how the actual battle is going than about whether or not my boys will get out of the truck or not.

[c3k]

Steve,

In my example comparing the calling of arty or firing an ATG to transporting infantry, you stated that the "WHERE" of locating your assets is important. You also mention that unloading infantry is as simple as clicking on the ground where you want them. True: to a point.

Trying not to be too tedious, but here's an example refuting your claim.

I select a half-track with a squad to move 200 meters, then unload the squad. I place the squad's first movement point 10 meters from the end of the half-tracks move. During the turn, the half-track doesn't go 200 meters (shocked, immobilized, bogged, bad path, whatever). My squad will STILL unload regardless of the distance to the endpoint of the half-track's move. Bad juju if that means they have to slog 190 meters across open ground.

The tactical nuance and subtlety of transport is NOT simulated by that. That's a game engine shortcoming. It forces unloads. Uploads can also be missed due to similar circumstances. That produces the result of an empty transport moving forward while its would-be passengers sit back at the pick-up point.

If I choose the wrong unload point, my men will suffer. Too close, my transport is chewed up. Too far, my men don't close with the enemy in time. That can be simulated by a SIMPLER transport design in CMx2.

Thanks,

Ken

[juan_gigante]

c3k, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Or what about when you are trying to unload, and you've got the halftrack in place. You give the troops a move order to near the halftrack with, say, a 10 second delay. I then give the halftrack a move order with, say a 30 second delay, assuming that the troops will get out, right? Wrong. They figure that the halftrack will eventually move, so they stay on. Here's the kicker. If the move order is short enough, the halftrack does it, comes to a stop, and my boys hop out, and move the 100 yards or so across open ground back to their original unload spot. And infantry squads are pretty fast and resilient compared to guns. God, if that happens to a gun I can nearly guarantee its demise. That kind of thing is what I dislike.

An unload command would prevent that because it could be a set thing that would prevent the halftrack from moving until whoever was out. They would get out, it would go. If you think that taht would be too quick, make it a slow process. Give 'em a delay. But make it one, simple command so that mix-ups like that can be avoided.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by CobaltTiger:

If you want to argue for realism, having a truck sit there for 40 seconds after the infantry finishes mounting or having troops jump out short of the destination (or arrive at the destination and sit around until the next turn) isn't particularly realistic.

Done much driving in the field, have you? Actually, the unrealistic thing is having a truck on the map at all in most cases...

So what makes you think either of the above cases is "unrealistic"? You think transport drivers get issued marked maps and do recces and know exactly where to drop passengers off to within a metre?

I've driven troops on occasion - funny thing, in CM you don't simulate the slow crawl of trying to find a 'black route' in the dark, or a clump of trees in the daytime which is somehow supposed to look different from every other clump of trees, or be able to find "the tall hill" when all the hilltops are covered in trees and you don't know which one the platoon commander meant, so you drive slow then boot the infantry out at someplace you "think" was 'the spot.'

Realism? If you wanted realism, your troops would rarely if ever get out where you tell them to, or better yet, would never get in a truck to begin with.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys... again you are talking about stuff that is unrealistically precise in terms of coordination (at least in some cases). If you want to make sure your passengers disembark at the correct spot, then have them plot their first movement in relation to the end point of the vehicle's. When the vehicle reaches its endpoint, it stops, and the passengers get out. It's that simple and it will work all the time every time.

Guys bailing out of disabled vehicles is generally a good thing. The game system isn't sophisticated enough to alert the passengers as to why their ride is kaput, so they just assume the worst (i.e. enemy fire) and bail. If they have movement orders they assume they should not sit around and instead move towards their objective. I agree that if the first waypoint is far away they probably shouldn't, but really... how far do they get before the turn ends and you can redirect them? 200m? I doubt it.

If you are trying to do more complicated things than that, they are most likely unrealistic. The argument to make the behavior less convoluted to achieve these things is, therefore, the wrong direction. What we should be doing is figuring out a system that prevents such unrealistic behavior. Like not including trucks at all

So I'll state again... most of the examples I've seen so far are either overstated or unrealistic. Therefore, not much interst on our part to address them in CMx2. There might be some changes though, simply because there are changes to the way things work in general. Therefore, it might be that you'll be happier with CMx2's system. But it won't be because of the arguments in this thread. Most are bunk

Steve

[CobaltTiger]

So let me get this straight. It's unrealistically precise for someone to bang on the roof of the truck and shout "We're all in!" to the driver so the truck can take off? And yet it is not unrealistically precise to, say, issue a specific target to a unit?

What is so terribly wrong with making it less difficult to do something that is already largely possible in the current engine? Again, we are not advocating "precision drops" or anything like that.

Yes, if a mishap occurs we can stop the troops, stop the truck, issue new orders to get them back together, then issue new orders to have them resume going wherever they were going. But why not save us the rare headache when troops decide it's a good time to bail out for no reason (and I've seen it happen before in a hotseat game, so I can assure you they weren't under any kind of fire) and let us say "Stay in that truck until you get where it's taking you, the truck becomes disabled, or you come under fire."

So what makes you think either of the above cases is "unrealistic"? You think transport drivers get issued marked maps and do recces and know exactly where to drop passengers off to within a metre?

Apparently they are issued maps, because I can already order the trucks to drive to a specific destination within a meter already. Along with any other vehicle in the game. You can't call having precision control over one vehicle unrealistic when we have it over all vehicles. If we can order a tank to fire on a specific target, why can't we order a truck to take off as soon as everyone is loaded?

[eyepilot]

Look you guys, Dorosh is right (this time)*-) I figured out a long time ago there is an unrealistic amount of transport vehicles available anyway. Juan ,you finally "got" it by unloading your troops far away from the heat. As for me, I know its going to take a couple of turns and some God like re-directs in the orders of those movements.1/2 tracks with troups are not assault vehicles but transports and support vehicles. Guns take a long time to set up and you don't back into your uber position or you will pay dearly.Transport vehicles need be used properly or not at all. Combat movement takes time and this is modeled very well IM"H"O.

[juan_gigante]

I don't mind having to exercise caution and not being able to drive my halftracks all over like they've got 100mm armor. I do mind the inconvenience of many unloading commands, the risk of mess-ups and the fact that nearly all the annoying hassle that we could deal with is not included - except for this. I am willing to accept how this is in CMx1, but I merely hope that another embarking/disembarking system will be in CMx2. Steve said there will be changes in CMx2. I am looking forward to seeing what they are when the time comes.

I think that this is one of those issues that poeple can become very, very polarized on. I know that I'll never convince Dorosh and the "it's good" crowd that I'm right, and it would take a hell of a lot more from them to convince me. I've said my piece several times already, and I merely hope that BFC will consider my opinion when deciding how to do things in CMx2.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

It is possible to get passengers and vehicles to coordinate pretty effectively by adding command delay etc. However, it is fiddly, and can result in stupid results when it doesn't work, such as a vehicle moving off before its passengers have got in...

Sorry, but I have to repeat: the obvious way to avoid this is to wait until the passengers are in the vehicle until you give the vehicle orders to move. What's fiddly about that?

The other slightly fiddly alternative if you want to save a little game time: if you are reasonably assured that the personnel are going to be in the vehicle early in the turn, you can give the vehicle its movement orders with enough delay so that it doesn't start moving until late in the turn. This one takes a bit of finesse and learning, so for some players, it might not be worth it, I don't know. For them, waiting until the next turn to start moving the vehicle is perfectly reasonable and realistic too.

..or the passengers advancing over open ground, whilst under heavy fire, to the place they were supposed to have disembarked out of their armoured transport.

This puzzles me. The only times I can think of when this is likely to happen are when the vehicle stops due to being disabled through fire or bogged down. If that is happening to you enough to make a fuss of it, I have to think that you aren't transporting passengers in a sensible manner. Now, one could say that in the event of an ambush, the proper behavior of the passengers would be to bail out and got to ground/get into nearby cover. And in fact, that's what I see them do in CM, except in CMBO.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CobaltTiger:

It seems to me that almost everyone is arguging something other than the points brought up in the first post. Really he was only asking for two things:

1) Vehicles: Stay here until troops are loaded, then move

They will do that. All you have to do is wait until the troops are aboard before you give the vehicle its movement orders.

2) Troops: Stay in vehicle until you reach disembark point (unless under fire etc)

I ask again: When don't they do that?

If you want to argue for realism, having a truck sit there for 40 seconds after the infantry finishes mounting...

I think you may be making the mistake of confusing the graphic on the screen with what's really happening. On the screen, the troops appear to walk up to the vehicle and immediately take their seats. But that's not what's happening inside the box. In reality, they would sort of straggle up to the vehicle, start loading their equipment on (which, depending on what they are carrying, can be a several minute operation right there), then one by one climb on board and settle themselves. Even for the most lightly equipped infantry, all that can easily take a minute. Remember, these guys may also be tired and/or frightened and not moving as fast as fresh as a daisey.

I think part of the blame for this misunderstanding lies with the manner in which BFC has chosen to graphically depict the loading process. Perhaps in CMx2 you'll get to see and hear more of what's really going on, and then the one or two minutes that the loading process takes won't seem so odd.

I've always felt it silly how troops will plop down onto the ground immediately and then move off after their command delay anyway.

I think that's the same thing I am talking about.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Ok, we're getting to the old "if the game can't be entirely realistic, then why bother trying" argument. That's one of the oldest, and weakest, arguments to make in favor of something. So guess what its impact is

Things like this are on a slippery slope. The line has to be drawn somewhere by setting a standard. The standard we set in CMx1 was that if we could prevent something unrealistic, we would. If we couldn't, then we would try to at the very least not make it any easier to exploit.

The problem with any wargame is that you have a God like view of the battlefield. That does NOT mean that every unit is simulated to have a map. No, what it means is that we can't prevent the player from having that sort of control because to do so would mean no game. The other extreme is to say "we can't make it totally realistic, so let's not even try". That is the RTS mentality and we firmly, and obviously, reject it. The more someone argues in favor of making the game deliberately less realistic, the more we will make sure to NOT do what the person is asking.

Think about command delays. We got a rash of crap about that using the same exact argument that ColbaltTiger is using. i.e. "you can't make the game absolutely realistic, so cater to requests for less realistic game features". Instead, we need to see arguments that counter ours on the Realism standpoint if that is what is to be affected. Realistically you guys shouldn't have trucks and rarely HTs, so understand that you're on shakey ground already

Steve

[PLM]

I dont feel the vehicle mounting/dismounting business was intentional, I feel its a flaw in the game and if things had turned out slightly different then we'd have better coordination.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You keep saying that, but I think you're being narrow minded about it. Yes, it is exceedingly rare that troops in an assault or move to contact will be anywhere near trucks.

But what about special circumstances? Ambushes, specifically. When the 82nd Airborne was in it's first tour in Iraq, the standard unit SOP was to dismount and assault enemy positions when their patrols or convoys were ambushed. You've got to have a functional, flexible mechanism for disembarking - even if it does involve your dreaded trucks.

To simply write off a possibility because it isn't used in the traditional view of close combat is asinine. Most modern wars involve lots of patrolling and reactions to ambushes, especially when you compare it to the number of 'traditional' fights a unit experiences. A game set in Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, Korea or any number of places could very realistically utilize trucks on the battlefield for some scenarios.

If the DoD were ever interested in a training module based on CMX2 and they saw that there was no provision for a convoy fight, they'd walk right out.

So please.. stop simply dismissing them. It's stupid and it's tiresome and you're not adding anything to the existing issue at hand when you bring it up.

[Migo441]

I don't do this lightly, but I'm compelled to join the Dorosh-Is-Right-(This Time) crowd.

I agree the loading/unloading could be easier with additional commands or modfied behavior. However, I keep coming back the fact that a minute only takes 60 seconds.

If you want to try and massage the coordination with command delays, great. Go for it. Otherwise, as others have said, just alot a full turn for the loading or unloading. A minute isn't too much to ask to get a full squad of soldiers (or possibly multiple smaller units) and their equipment on or off a vehicle.