Infantry, trenches, waypoints & cover

[Other Means]

Originally posted by thewood:

While only conjecture, it may be obvious what the problem is. The squad is trying to maintain a formation around an action spot. I wonder where the action spot is relative to the trench and waypoints. This is forcing some or all members to move outside the trench. The priority of the squad is to maintain organization around an action spot vs. logical movement and self preservation.

You can rationalize it all you want around how movement commands are issued, but it is once again obvious that the waypoints followed the trench.

The solution that no one wants, but may be easiest is to only allow waypoints to be on the action spots. It will allow the orders to synch with the graphical representation. This would allow you to better control unit movement in trenches and built up areas.

It would also key in scenario designers to only put certain terrain in certain places to line up with action spots.

I do think this would not be a good solution from a realism perspective, but would alleviate a lot of frustration.

I don't think it's anything to do with action spots. AIUI action spots are just short cuts in the LOS calculations, not the actual map itself.

Other than that, yes, I'd agree. The squad is just trying to keep its formation around a specific point rather than being a bit cleverer about what needs to happen.

But AIUI this kind of squad micro behaviour is the focus of 1.05.

[thewood]

I believe the action spots also play a role in locationing on the map. I thought I read into that in one of Steve's posts. Look at the long dicussion about building corners. The whole focus of that was that the unit was trying to reform around an action spot at the end of its movement.

Maybe Steve can clarify.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by thewood:

I believe the action spots also play a role in locationing on the map. I thought I read into that in one of Steve's posts. Look at the long dicussion about building corners. The whole focus of that was that the unit was trying to reform around an action spot at the end of its movement.

Maybe Steve can clarify.

I'm a simple man thewood.

The action spots to me are like Michel Jackson in "Billie Jean" treading on the pavement. They light up and you got LOS. LOF will then piggyback on that to say, "I know you're in there - git some".

Therefore the Action spot just provides a quick way to initiate the larger - but much less used - action of firing.

If they had an effect on movement wouldn't each squad member teleport from one to the next?

But there's also a virtual spot that's the centre of a squad, and it's that that the game tries to optimise in terms of cover, movement etc.

So what's needed is a way for that centre of the squad to perform better, hence my suggestion that the point man in a movement order is considered the centre of the squad, so when he triggers an action spot (..not mah luver...) there's only him exposed, which makes sense to me from a reality point of view.

What's also needed is better micro behaviour around this spot which is the focus for 1.05, AIUI.

[thewood]

But I think I remember it being said that the center point of the squad must line up with the action spot in the end. That is why there have been so many issues with squads running around at the end of movement.

[c3k]

Hmm,

I hope this can get fixed. The engine seems to be coarser than the graphics.

Ken

[C'Rogers]

Move Tactical is maybe a command option we are missing.

To make the game near perfect there are probably hundreds of commands we are missing (probably ten to twenty have been requested on the forum).

Problem is that move did work correctly in this situation, the units spread out and assume they won't come under fire (a valid move command). There is a lack of any command between a speed of 'don't hurry', an expectation of 'possible danger' and a formation of 'stick together'.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

MOVE uses a spread out formation during its move. It uses standard (non contact) walking patrol formation. It is not designed to be used in combat or moving in a trench. If you want to complain that something is not working as intended then don't use a command that it was not intended for. I have stated that ASSAULT does work, since he was under fire from the other trench (clearly seen in the 1st photo) if you choose to ignore that that is your choice, but don't complain when you get your ass killed.

Hi. Did you read my post, at all?

Just not worth the effort.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

Problem is that move did work correctly in this situation, the units spread out and assume they won't come under fire (a valid move command). There is a lack of any command between a speed of 'don't hurry', an expectation of 'possible danger' and a formation of 'stick together'.

I think a lot of these problems go away if troops actually pay attention to their situation, and not a strict set of rules pertaining to a movement command. Why is there a movement option in the game at all that pays no attention to cover? CMSF doesn't simulate forced marches in friendly territory, it simulates combat and the couple of quiet moments before combat - cover should be observed in all situations, especially if I'm explicitly drawing a line along a covered route.

[rammer4250]

It almost seems that when items are not aligned with the grid there are problems. Like buildings and ditches especially.

I played the first battle and no matter what movement command I used the squad stayed in the trench but moved according to the command. Move, assault, etc. They stayed in the ditch. The action points are also aligned with the ditch in this scenario.

[Sixxkiller]

While some of you guys have some good ideas, Huntarr has given you the way to do it along the lines of what CMSF is capable of doing. It's tried and true, but I suspect it's a bit late in the game to screw up the movement commands when there is so much to fix already. Who knows if it would break other stuff.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Sixxkiller:

While some of you guys have some good ideas, Huntarr has given you the way to do it along the lines of what CMSF is capable of doing. It's tried and true, but I suspect it's a bit late in the game to screw up the movement commands when there is so much to fix already. Who knows if it would break other stuff.

The problem is, CMSF is not capable to do very basic things the right way. I use 'simple' in the meaning of basic military/human behavior such as 'move from A to B' and 'make use of available cover and keep alive and healthy'.

I understand that the basic concept of an actionspot-grid is necessary to reduce the needed computing resources for LOS/LOF calculations.

But if (?) the same grid is used for movement, pathfinding and cover calculations, than it doesn't seem to work very well. In this case, the basic concept is a problem.

[ October 13, 2007, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Lurker765]

Originally posted by Sixxkiller:

While some of you guys have some good ideas, Huntarr has given you the way to do it along the lines of what CMSF is capable of doing. It's tried and true, but I suspect it's a bit late in the game to screw up the movement commands when there is so much to fix already. Who knows if it would break other stuff.

I believe Scipio posted earlier that it doesn't matter what movement command he uses, the men still leave the trench and get shot. Huntarr's suggestion doesn't help in this case of a trench laid out in this direction.

[thewood]

To me its a matter of the squads not knowing what to do with its members when the are moving. It is just trying to get the center point of a squad to the waypoint. It just drags the members along in whatever default formation it is coded with for a move, regardless of the cover or threat.

[Cpl Steiner]

Even "Theatre of War" (which I hated) handled trenches better than CM:SF. You got a nice context-sensitive "enter trench" icon if you moved the waypoint cursor over a trench and once in the trench I'm pretty certain the men would follow it to other sections of trench.

What CM:SF is desperately in need of is a whole host of new context-sensitive icons like the "enter vehicle" one. In fact, the enter vehicle icon could serve equally well for "enter trench". I would also have a wall icon for "hug wall" and a corner icon for "look around corner".

[Sixxkiller]

Huntarr, is there a "toon" for getting people to follow simple directions? Looks like you may have to draw some pictures for these folks....

[molotov_billy]

Six, have you read all of the replies here? Several people have mentioned that the problems occur during all movement types. The problem here is that infantry behavior is unpredictable around trenches, and there isn't anything a player can do to prevent it.

It's a bug that needs to be fixed, not user error.

[Huntarr]

Here ya go Six

[ October 13, 2007, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Huntarr ]