CMx2's new movement system explained

[Peter Cairns]

Isn't a way to achieve this perhaps to make the "Game Scenarios" editable just like a "Home made" scenario.

That way instead of playing with the AI, you could go in and alter victory conditions or start positions or even the units.

Peter.

[SSG D]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Group Commands may or may not make it in. We'll just have to see. There are a lot of niggly little problems for us to work through to make this feature somewhat useful instead of totally useless.

Steve

I think group commands are a huge deal. I hope you are able to get them in the game.

SSG D

[aka_tom_w]

Group Commands

I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing here...

Perhaps this issue needs and/or deserves its own thread.

BUT

If we are talking about "band -boxing" or group selecting a whole bunch of units and asking them all to do the same thing once, (like in CMx1 almost all units could be group selected and asked to MOVE forward) THEN this is a MUST for RealTime play IMO.

I say this because the quick and dirty way to play CMx1 if you are really lazy is to group select or band box all your units and have them ALL move forward. Done! thats it. Its ugly, but it gets the game moving quick.

NOW in CM:SF if there is a time constraint inherent with any RealTime system then group orders and band boxing of similiar units becomes a MUST HAVE feature IMO.

I could be wrong and they may have overhauled the User Interface so heavily that some other quick and dirty system (whatever it is) will work better to issue commands to multiple grouped units all at the same time in RealTime and that would be fine. BUT for Realtime play the player should have some option to use some very quick and dirty (quick and easy) method to order mulitple units to all do the same thing. All move and ALL target are big ones off the top of my head.

I don't think we are asking for group moves with mulitple way points (although in RealTime that would be nice), but some form of group move or group order would be a great help in a tense RealTime battle.

Thanks

-tom w

[ November 15, 2005, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Group Commands may or may not make it in. We'll just have to see. There are a lot of niggly little problems for us to work through to make this feature somewhat useful instead of totally useless.

Steve

Please keep us updated about where you are at with Group commands.

I think something like a "group command" is important for the quick action in Realtime play.

thanks

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

We'll know more about group commands when the game is further along in development.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Steve posted,

“Oh, the Strategic AI will be vastly superior”

sounds good to me… and the more detailed explanation that we can scrip or pre-program the Strategic AI is just the job. That is really what is needed.

All good stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

[Brent Pollock]

I'm guessing that COHESION is the "normal" you are after.

Originally posted by mazex:

Some questions about the commands displayed in the screenshot (wich are all MOVE commands):

Why is there no "normal" (yet)? In may situations you want you soldiers to simply march without getting exausted, but without dragging their feet behind...

[snip]

/Mazex

[Renaud]

One of the things we are allowing scenario designers is the ability to "spell things out" for the StratAI.

Oh my lord, it's the holy grail of scenario designers!

CMx1 scenarios could be so much more awesome if even basic scripting was available. Right now I have to design scenarios around various stratAI propensities to desert positions, run around in circles and generally misbehave. Also, red-force-only and blue-force-only objectives, map notes and expanded briefings with ability to include jpegs, and little designer helpers like that, would be super-duper swell-diddly-doodlie.

The concept of 'triggered' activation for reserves (on or off-map), as in Hunter's upcoming CMC, is a good one too (while i'm getting carried away).

[Peter Cairns]

Renaud,

Steve has already indicated that different sides will be able to have different objectives and that it will be more than just flags.

Like editing "Game" scenarios I think that is much more practical than scripting something as complex as the AI.

Peter.

[Renaud]

Great!

Like editing "Game" scenarios I think that is much more practical than scripting something as complex as the AI.

Not sure what you are talking about.

Steve said there will be designer scripting in the form of waypoints or the like.

[Scrapple]

I am not following the thread, but I wanted to get my 2cents in, since I have been playing CMAK all week.

Add an EXCLUSIVE TARGET BUTTON.

Once, when I charged through smoke. I found my vehicle too close to fire at the e-vehicle, and vis-a-versa. At the end of the turn the two vehicles were side by side, and were both firing in opposite directions at infantry. I planned my tank to rotate to face, and to back up to gain range. Instead of tracking the target at 0m, the tank disengaged an armored vehicle with AP rounds, in favor of enemy inf at 200m... and got shot to pieces....

I do believe that the exclusive target is something that every armed forces trains for.

Perhaps some stress modifier could be added if the player forgets to unlock the target, or if the player asks a squad to do something unreasonable. Maybe to keep players from forgetting to allow squads to target-at-will, the Exclusive Target function could only last one round, requiring the player to reinstate the Exclusive at the end of the round.

Also, this could be added as an interesting "Vengeance" feature, part of combat stress, as soldiers who have lost squad-mates will sometimes lose focus of the larger battle, and think solely "You killed Billy-Bob! Die you *^%&$%$!!"

It sounds like the new movement buttons will help my problem alot, but this could still be a nice feature, as it would help your last tank, with only 3 rounds left, spend those precious rounds attempting to knock out the enemies last tank, instead of firing them 300m at dug-in infantry.

[J_Toe]

Scrapple, wouldn't the 'cover armor' command do this in CMAK?

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Scrapple:

Add an EXCLUSIVE TARGET BUTTON. ...

"T" for target is already in CMAK...

...and the cover arc ARMOR.

So either I don't understand what you mean or what you want exactly.

[MikeyD]

Word on the street is CMSF is a total from-the-ground-up new game engine. So hoping & wishing to see some of the old CMx1 commands stay in this game is not entirely inappropriate. Of course alot of those CMx1 'special' commands we love had to do with WeGo fighting and that one minute gap between issuing orders. If you're playing CMSF in Realtime 'Cover Armor' could perhaps be replaced by simply jumping in and issuing orders on the fly!

[Axel]

I am going to enjoy this gaaaaame!!

[Vikkelä]

Battlefront, Thank you. Thank you for excisting and making superior games like this. Thank you.

Vikkelä

[Sergei]

Three Finns in a row! Come on, let's roll this thread!

[JaguarUSF]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

some of the old CMx1 commands

All of the commands available in the game are in my preview:

http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2007/05/combat-mission-shock-force-preview.html

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JaguarUSF:

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

some of the old CMx1 commands

All of the commands available in the game are in my preview:

http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2007/05/combat-mission-shock-force-preview.html </font>

[Mikko H.]

But I am!

[Fly Pusher]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You're not Finnish! :mad:

Sadly, we cant all be so lucky.....

[Scrapple]

Well, perhaps the error was in not understanding the arc command. I, however, hate reading instruction manuals, and so was not aware that the cover arc would have taken care of that problem.

The point still stands to some degree, as the AI would be far more 'intelligent' if it was able to discern threats such as the above instance on it's own.