Large Operations + Real Time = need for platoon level order

[LRC]

In large operations + real time, waypoints&orders micromanagement is uneffective and kills the interest in CMSF.

Are there plans (or at least some interest...)for company level orders where tasks would be given to full platoon and executed by AI.

[Combatintman]

I don't know where to start with this to be honest - if you don't like it - play WEGO.

Otherwise if the management levels were upped to Pl or Coy level and there was less ability to micromanage can you imagine the whingeing that would go on. There's plenty of it already regarding cornering/entering buildings/target/target light/hunt (I'm losing the will to live already) etc ad nauseum. This is a can of worms that IMHO doesn't need opening.

[ April 18, 2008, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Combatintman ]

[Huntarr]

As has been stated WeGo is the great equalizer for large operations. Or remember there is a pause key

[John Kettler]

Combatintman,

Funniest parenthetical ever!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Combatintman]

John,

I use the phrase a lot - tells you how my life sucks sometimes!

[Paper Tiger]

Huntarr has got it. I play exclusively RT and I've been playing some pretty big missions lately and it's quite doable if you hit the pause button when you feel a bit overwhelmed. I've been playing RT since the game came out and the micromanagement certainly hasn't killed the immersion for me. Quite the opposite actually.

But of course, we're all different.

[LRC]

To clarify the initial question/request/point:

Let's say that I want the platoon to occupy a block of buildings.

I know how to play that part decently in micromanagement style (fire saturation+cover+short small team moves).

Now I "just" want to instruct the AI to run this in autopilot ("platoon A go occupy this block of building") while I am micromanaging some more interesting/complex part of the action.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by LRC:

To clarify the initial question/request/point:

Let's say that I want the platoon to occupy a block of buildings.

I know how to play that part decently in micromanagement style (fire saturation+cover+short small team moves).

Now I "just" want to instruct the AI to run this in autopilot ("platoon A go occupy this block of building") while I am micromanaging some more interesting/complex part of the action.

It takes me about 30 seconds to tell a platoon to occupy a set of buildings.

[Paper Tiger]

Quote

"Let's say that I want the platoon to occupy a block of buildings.

I know how to play that part decently in micromanagement style (fire saturation+cover+short small team moves).

Now I "just" want to instruct the AI to run this in autopilot ("platoon A go occupy this block of building") while I am micromanaging some more interesting/complex part of the action."

Interesting, that's precisely the kind of thing I enjoy micromanaging and I certainly wouldn't want to 'hand it off' to the TAC AI. It's getting quite good but it'll NEVER be THAT good. Assaulting an enemy-occupied block of buildings is probably the most difficult/complex thing YOU have to do in the game. Usually, everything else you're doing in the mission leads up to that moment, it's the climax of the action.

[Combatintman]

Originally posted by LRC:

To clarify the initial question/request/point:

Let's say that I want the platoon to occupy a block of buildings.

I know how to play that part decently in micromanagement style (fire saturation+cover+short small team moves).

Now I "just" want to instruct the AI to run this in autopilot ("platoon A go occupy this block of building") while I am micromanaging some more interesting/complex part of the action.

And what we're saying is that you can't do it and asking for it opens up a whole can of worms. The system is like life ... it is a series of compromises. The solutions are quite simple - play WEGO, or hit PAUSE in RT or fight smaller engagements.

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

Huntarr has got it. I play exclusively RT and I've been playing some pretty big missions lately and it's quite doable if you hit the pause button when you feel a bit overwhelmed. I've been playing RT since the game came out and the micromanagement certainly hasn't killed the immersion for me. Quite the opposite actually.

But of course, we're all different.

Yes we indeed are. I hate it (but yet i like to play CMSF)... As US i don't much use (leading to unnessecary casualities), but as Syria i'm usually forced to it.

Just today micromanaged my RPG-teams to play cat and mouse with 3 M1A2 SEPs + one Bradley standing in middle of road... one-by-one i ordered each team to rush to firing position, fire and rush back to cover. It was nice when all tanks were dead (cost me just one RPG-team), but i sure as hell hoped that i shouldn't play as each RPG-team's leader, basically i just had one or two teams/squads which were on playing with tanks while rest fo them (about 5-6) sit back and sucked they thumbs.

Question is how would you program TacAI to do it that way, performing hit-and-runs with the way human could? I quess there's no other way than babysit it.

I press pause each time i issue orders even if there is no such situation that i would need it. Couple of times tried to not press pause when issuing orders but i just don't like it atall. Yet i try to "simulate" "the-heat-of-modern-war" by not thinking siatuiation when game is in pause... :eek: just giving orders

Ps. One thing i miss from CMx1 is to fine-tune movement orders by dragging waypoints with right mouse click... Or is it present in CMSF? That way issuin commands for whole platoon waas quite simple: Just click on general location like edge of forest and then drag them to correct places.

Overall i'm trying to reduce level of micromanagement outside MOUT by keeping units in squad-line or squad-colum. They doesn't do too good job on maintaing their formation, but usually don't screw it complitely.

[Childress]

Originally posted by Secondbrooks:

Question is how would you program TacAI to do it that way, performing hit-and-runs with the way human could? I quess there's no other way than babysit it.

Good, you've finally arrived at the seventh stage of grief: Acceptance! By now it's pretty clear that, with their current format of combining WEGO and RT, the current and future iterations of CM are always going to incorporate two similiar but non-identical games. Short of tweaking the TacAI to Newtonian perfection, WEGO will continue as, OK, the not the ugly stepchild, but as the sub-optimal alternative to RT. But I suppose this has been discussed to death....

[M1A1TC]

Ability to adjust the waypoints was not included in CMSF for some reason

[LRC]

At least 50% of the "clicks" in 1 turn (or sequence with RT+pause) are for mundane tasks that are automatisms for trained troops. In that case micromanagement doesn't add value to the game.

In a nutshell the AI autopilot proposal, is to let the player have fun with micromanagement of difficult actions and let the AI take care of the shores.

The AI autopiloting requires some kind of abstraction in order to be programmable. toIt is foolisht expect the AI to play each blue and red team effectively. On the other hand, it is possible to have some decent attrition rate sims from overall platoon statistics (morale/weapons/experience)

[gibsonm]

I think part of the issue is probably that the definition of “micromanagement” changes with the level you play at.

Some people want to focus on the Platoon Commander or Section / Squad leader level where deciding where 1st Squad goes and which room is entered first is the central part of their experience. To them “micromanagement“ is making sure that say the RPG has a HEAT or HE round loaded before you break cover.

Stepping back a bit are those who want to be the Company commander and let the Platoon commanders get on with the job after giving them your intent. To them “micromanagement“ is making sure that say first squad is suppressing the enemy in the building with area fire before the rest of the Platoon assaults.

I suspect implementing “autopilot” is not going to be straight forward as BTS / BFC will have to determine at which level does it cut in and as a result who will be upset by the change.

I don’t think you’ll be able to pick and choose where “autopilot” kicks in because even when playing Company commander you may well want to fine tune where say a specific vehicle goes.

As a result, I suspect it wont change for the human player and if you want to be the Company or Combat Team commander you will need to task squads (just like in CMX1) and accept the fact that you have to task all of these parts of your organisation.

Again its been said before by others but I think that then forces you to either RT with pauses or in my opinion the more realistic option of WEGO where there may well be a lag that isn’t a bad approximation for the delay it takes for your “order” to leave your CP and be relayed through subordinate HQ’s to get to the squad / vehicle that you are trying to task.

[Tactical Wargamer]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

As has been stated WeGo is the great equalizer for large operations. Or remember there is a pause key

So in head to head games in real time can you pause?

[Childress]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Again its been said before by others but I think that then forces you to either RT with pauses or in my opinion the more realistic option of WEGO where there may well be a lag that isn’t a bad approximation for the delay it takes for your “order” to leave your CP and be relayed through subordinate HQ’s to get to the squad / vehicle that you are trying to task.

Don't agree, Mike. WEGO can't be more realistic than RT because of the built-in asymmetry in planning time between the two modes. RT calls for on the fly decision making. With WEGO the player has, in theory, unlimited reflection opportunities per turn. This is realistic?

[Pandur]

WEGO can't be more realistic than RT because...

HAHA, this again.

its a game where you, the "player", control your man either in "RTwP" or "WEGO" neither of both is more realistic than the other. its a game and two ways to play it out. get over that "..is more realistic because..." crap, please!!!

In large operations + real time, waypoints&orders micromanagement is uneffective and kills the interest in CMSF.

play WEGO or be uninteressted....

[Battlefront.com]

Oh no... the age old debate about WeGo and RT being more or less realistic! We've had that go around about a billion times since we started making CMBO

The short answer is both are realistic and unrealistic in their own way:

1. RT is more realistic because minute, highly detailed planning is not easy to do. That's reflective of real life. Intuitive play is required because situational awareness and complex coordination is much harder to acheive. However, you as the player are controlling dozens of units when in real life you would be controlling your own body directly and everything else indirectly. Therefore, the time constraints and difficulty in obtaining situational awareness compromises realistic capabilities seen in real life.

2. WeGo is more realistic because it offers more opportunities for more units to be handled with a greater degree of overall realism in terms of coordination, independent action, etc. than RT allows. However, this is also its shortcoming WeGo offers far greater micromanagement and coordination between assets than is possible on a battlefield. This despite us trying very hard to reduce such effects. RT naturally reduces them, though sometimes too much in the other direction.

Depending on which things you value more, or less, determines which method of play you feel is more realistic vs. the other. Inherently speaking, both are unrealistic overall.

Moveable waypoints will make an appearance in the near future, though I can't say exactly when.

Improvements to multi-player will be done as well.

What won't be happening, ever, is what we call a "command level" game. That's where you give vague instructions to a unit and it carries it out as best it can. The reason why we won't ever do this? The year or so spent coding the AI to handle things to a degree that most people would think it doesn't completely suck is just not worth it to us. It would take us a lifetime to perfect such a system and we just don't have that sort of time

Steve

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Childress:

Don't agree, Mike. WEGO can't be more realistic than RT because of the built-in asymmetry in planning time between the two modes. RT calls for on the fly decision making. With WEGO the player has, in theory, unlimited reflection opportunities per turn. This is realistic?

Great don’t agree with “Mike” but that isn’t me.

[tierce]

What won't be happening, ever, is what we call a "command level" game. That's where you give vague instructions to a unit and it carries it out as best it can. The reason why we won't ever do this? The year or so spent coding the AI to handle things to a degree that most people would think it doesn't completely suck is just not worth it to us.

While I do have to admit that this is exactly the sort of game that I've always dreamed about (and it's why I love Conquest of the Aegean so much), I'm kinda confused by this argument. Wouldn't the necessary AI improvements be doubly useful, since they could make the enemy better as well? How much of a priority is higher-level AI?(above TacAI, that is)