"Hunt"

[WineCape]

My guess is, if BFC is going to add Hunt and Armored Arc's to the CMx2 engine, it would be contemplated for the next family release, Battle of the Bulge. In all likelihood, it will not be contemplated until then, at the earliest.

[Blackcat]

This is actually the closest I have felt to being in the presence of divinity. I humbly and gratefully accept all that I have been given. I cannot demand anything. Through contemplation and discourse I meditate on what it is that I truly desire and then I pray. I pray so that I through insight may better myself, so that i may understand the way of the gods. In the silent hope that the lords may hear me or that I may, in the end, as the saying goes accept that that cannot be changed. So sayeth the holy Manual. SeeEm!

It´s either that or throw a bug tantrum

M.

Nice! Either path can make you feel better, but take up a lot of energy. So you may as well just jump straight to acceptance and try and find the best work-arounds for you. Saves a lot of time and effort.

[~Viajero]

My guess is, if BFC is going to add Hunt and Armored Arc's to the CMx2 engine, it would be contemplated for the next family release, Battle of the Bulge. In all likelihood, it will not be contemplated until then, at the earliest.

Argh. I really hope you are wrong in that guess!

I have not seen anything regarding the Hunt command from BF, but I recall something from them about the armour cover arc... and you confirming that it was indeed for the next "big release" or something, which would mean the Bulge, yes.

[Mattias]

Nice! Either path can make you feel better, but take up a lot of energy. So you may as well just jump straight to acceptance and try and find the best work-arounds for you. Saves a lot of time and effort.

Correct, that´s where the"humbly and gratefully accept all that I have been given" bit comes in. And speaking in general terms it´s probably the only sane way to live in this lovely and dysfunctional world of ours

The only real questions being does my work-around work for you, and should I care if it does or doesn't?

M.

[Blackcat]

Correct, that´s where the"humbly and gratefully accept all that I have been given" bit comes in. And speaking in general terms it´s probably the only sane way to live in this lovely and dysfunctional world of ours

The only real questions being does my work-around work for you, and should I care if it does or doesn't?

M.

As long as your work-around doesn't stop me using mine, I don't think you need care. Of course, it might be the neighbourly thing to do to tell me about your work-around because it might be better than the one I have come up with for myself and the other way around. Provided such an exchange is made in a spirit of neighbourliness and without dogma such an exchange will benefit both of us, and thats what forums are for.

[womble]

this is just wording, to be flexible you need options and options add complexity.

Not necessarily. If one of the options simplifies something that's a fracking pain in the patookus to micromanage, then options reduce complexity in one dimension, at least. Like the Assault command. Figuring out when to use any given command becomes perhaps a little more complex, as the cost of making it less complex in terms of mousing and the number of different commands you have to issue to a unit in a given time frame.

[Stitch]

I never use the hunt command anymore for Wego play.

If I "hunt" a squad to take some nearby trench, they will inevitably stop 5m from the trench cover to fire, then rout by turn's end.

If I "hunt" my tank towards a last known armor contact, they will inevitably stop 5 seconds in the turn when they encounter some distant squad 500m away.

However, when using "slow" I know my units will continue to advance throughout the turn until they hit cover, uncover a tank, or die along the way.

[Rocky Balboa]

I'm not sure if it works this way currently but hunt should only work within the target arc. Anything spotted within the arc causes the hunt to cease. Outside the arc and the unit keeps moving.

[DaddyO]

Design-wise, it doesn't make sense to me to have a "closed" command system. By that I mean, all available commands are designed by the designers and users are limited to those commands. What makes more sense to me is to open up the game design to user-customized or mod-able commands. Figure out all the normal parameters of movement, facing, targeting, combat posture, etc., lay them out in an interface with tabs for each, set up each tab with any needed check boxes, radio boxes, sliders, etc., and then allow the user to select a combination of parameters (ghosting out any options incompatible with current selections), give that combination a command name, and save it to be called up later.

That way the company doesn't have to take grief over figuring out what the community wants and needs, and they don't have to parcel out new commands a few at the time with each new release.

I'm sure there's software hurdles to this approach, but I would bet in the long run it would result in an easier, more satisfying and flexible situation for both designers and users.

The stock answer is that the engine is too complex to accommodate this approach. I suppose that's possible, but if so it is only because of design choices.

[Baneman]

The current Hunt aka Move to Contact is most useful ( I've found ) when advancing infantry in forests. In most other situations, it's not so useful.