Command Delay In CM:N?

[c3k]

Bigduke6,

Nice suggestions.

Ken

[noxnoctum]

I'm fine with command delays, but a better system is needed, so that plotting a tank's path down a curvy road doesn't make it stop repeatedly and take forever to even start.

[noxnoctum]

After reading Biduke's post I'm REALLY liking the sound of that.

Good/veteran units should not be pausing at every waypoint, at all, unless you want them to. Ideally, we'd be able to set some sort of "formation mode" where you can choose close formation to make the unit stop and stay together if it gets too spread out or "loose formation" whereby they will run nonstop to the next waypoint (good for assaults obviously).

I'm guessing that's too much work though, so please at least make infantry units not have to pause at every waypoint!

I can't say how many times it's irritated me when I'm trying to raid a house and my guys stop right outside the building and sit there for 3 seconds getting gunned down before rushing inside.

BFC please look into this!

[Blackcat]

I'm fine with command delays, but a better system is needed, so that plotting a tank's path down a curvy road doesn't make it stop repeatedly and take forever to even start.

I agree whole-heartedly, an instructon such as "drive down the road to point X" is not long or complicated and so should not incur a penalty. The limitations fo the game system mean that multiple way-points are needed not the nature of the order.

A road movement order could be a nice way round this and aviod the tedium of plotting all those way-points (as was discussed in the old CMAK threads).

In addition a convoy order would also be most welcome and essential if the command delay is to be based on C2 and number of way points is included in CM:N. I well remember in CMAK trying order a platoon of vehcles to move down a road, the inevitable result was chaotic, snarled traffic, loss of formation and, for most units, it always took longer to complete the move than going accross country.

If the idea of command delays is to increase realism then they should not add a different level of unrealistic outcomes.

The traning of the troops must also be taken into account, as mentioned above. What is complex to set up in the game does not imply complex orders in real life. For example, assualting a bulding inevtiably incurs numerous way points along with instructions to be completed at each (area fire, smoke, target arcs etc.). Any force of trained soldiers will have standard drills for completing such a manouvre. So, again, adding delays to represent the time it takes to inpart complex orders is hardly realistic.

Given trained troops, at the scale represented by the game, the only reason I can see for command delays is the time it takes for the order to reach the unit leader who is going to carry it out.

[noxnoctum]

In addition a convoy order would also be most welcome and essential if the command delay is to be based on C2 and number of way points is included in CM:N. I well remember in CMAK trying order a platoon of vehcles to move down a road, the inevitable result was chaotic, snarled traffic, loss of formation and, for most units, it always took longer to complete the move than going accross country.

Yes this is very sorely needed.

[LongLeftFlank]

I too would love a "follow command" for both vehicles and infantry (preferably both a "follow in column at 1 action spot interval" and "follow in line abreast - left/right")

However, I gather from previous threads on this topic that getting units to vary their movement route from a straight "point to point" beeline is not as simple as it sounds programming-wise. Also, I believe that such solutions would be computationally "expensive" -- having each moving unit scanning dynamically for the next road tile or locating its designated "follow me" unit... kind of like a whole new set of LOS checks.

However, BFC has done it in the case of getting infantry to move down trenches without getting in and out of them, or getting AI-controlled moving units to generally prefer cover to open ground.

I wonder whether a possible 80/20 workaround might be to push the work off on the scenario designers. Basically have us embed a series of "route" tags (embedded waypoints) along major and winding pathways such as roads or streambeds/gullies that have a high likelihood of being used in the game and where it's important to keep the moving units "on the track". Up to the designer how many (if any) of these routes they want to embed in their maps.

So if a unit is in an Action Spot that contains a route tag and is ordered to a waypoint with an action spot on (or adjacent to?) another route tag, it will default to the preplanned route. The player won't see the tags at all, but will see the unit varying its path along the winding road/gully/whatever instead of "vectoring" directly to the waypoint.

[Michael Emrys]

I wonder whether a possible 80/20 workaround might be to push the work off on the scenario designers. Basically have us embed a series of "route" tags (embedded waypoints) along major and winding pathways such as roads or streambeds/gullies that have a high likelihood of being used in the game and where it's important to keep the moving units "on the track". Up to the designer how many (if any) of these routes they want to embed in their maps.

So if a unit is in an Action Spot that contains a route tag and is ordered to a waypoint with an action spot on (or adjacent to?) another route tag, it will default to the preplanned route. The player won't see the tags at all, but will see the unit varying its path along the winding road/gully/whatever instead of "vectoring" directly to the waypoint.

Interesting if workable.

Michael

[GSX]

Guys... those of you who play RealTime exclusively, do you do it to exercise more control than you would have in WeGo? Roughly how much longer does it take for you to finish a game vs. the realtime clock of the game play. Above I estimated that a 30 minute scenario takes about 90 minutes to play in WeGo. Do WeGoers disagree with that?

I think it depends. I definitely dont pause every minute in RT but in a larger battle I do it quite often. Then again in some WEGO battles I zoom thru a lot of turns because I know that nothing is happening. So some WEGO games that should last 30 minutes I may finish in 25 or less. Alternatively, some RT games that should last 30 mins, always last at least that, but more often less.

However, Im in the no command delays camp here, I actually agree that theres enough going on already without having to figure in differing times of delay for advancing troops of differing quality for example.

[Childress]

I too would love a "follow command" for both vehicles and infantry (preferably both a "follow in column at 1 action spot interval" and "follow in line abreast - left/right")

However, I gather from previous threads on this topic that getting units to vary their movement route from a straight "point to point" beeline is not as simple as it sounds programming-wise. Also, I believe that such solutions would be computationally "expensive" -- having each moving unit scanning dynamically for the next road tile or locating its designated "follow me" unit... kind of like a whole new set of LOS checks.

Exactly right. I think Battlefront is correct to avoid implementing this desideratum. Too much work for the pay-off. Sure it would be (somewhat) useful but the battle starts, as a rule, when the transports stop and the maneuvering begins. It's not CM:Convoy. Also, with the recent patches, the vehicles do a pretty good job with road pathfinding, IMO.

[dkchapuis]

Also, I believe that such solutions would be computationally "expensive" -- having each moving unit scanning dynamically for the next road tile or locating its designated "follow me" unit... kind of like a whole new set of LOS checks.

that is not the way that it would need to be done. each vehicle wouldnt need to check to see if it could still see the other. they dont have to develop sophisticated convoy procedures. basically it is a means to give the same routing info to a series of units - that is very different. So just like you can select a number of units and give them all a movement order, the "follow unit" order would just have the "following unit" adopt the movement orders of the "lead unit", and then stop if the lead unit stops, and (probably) have it move to the lead units start location first.