UI suggestions

[Steiner14]

I think the average clicks for face-orders to make units face in the correct direction of the biggest expected danger, could quite drastically be reduced, if the face-order would not only be applied to one single waypoint.

I have experienced that now it takes a LOT of unnecessary clicks and navigation, to apply face orders to paths:

Now you set a waypoint and click O for the face command.

If you want additional waypoints, you have to deselect the path, otherwise the movement order would be applied to the last segment instead of plotting a new one. Repeat with every waypoint.

Then, when finally plotted, you want to make sure, that your unit does not turn around and simply go away, but keeps facing in it's current direction (usually the direction of danger or incoming fire): so you TAB back to the unit and issue it a face command.

PHEW! IMO very frustrating. Even more, if you think this could be reduced dramatically:

A more intelligent and practicable face-order on a waypoint automatically would apply face-commands to several prior points, EXCEPT the unit itself (because in 90% of all cases it usually faces in the correct direction anyway) and therefore the unit receives a face command of the direction it is facing already.

If a face-command already exists prior in the path, then only until this last face command the new face commands are inserted.

For example the player plots a new path:

UNIT - new waypoints A + B + C

On the last point C the player issues the enhanced face order:

The system checks if waypoint B already has a face order. If not, it receives one, too.

Also A is checked: if nothing present, then it receives a face command, too.

Finally the unit itself is checked if it has a face command applied. If not, then it receives one, but NOT in the new direction, but in the direction is is facing already. The reason is, in most cases, units show torwards the enemy, or the biggest threat. Moving them means, that they should keep looking in that direction and not turning around and walking away. Turning the rear or the side torwards the enemy is in 90% of all cases not a good idea.

Here is how a path of an infantry unit in cover (i.e. behind a bocage), that is about to move and leave cover, would work with an enhanced face-command:

Instead of clicking and applying face commands like crazy to every waypoint, you begin to set the first waypoint where the unit is about to leave cover and then plot the rest. At the final waypoint you apply the enhanced face command, which results in face commands for all waypoints until a waypoint is reached that already contains a face command. If no face commands are present, all waypoint receive a face command, while the unit itself receives a face command of the direction it is looking already.

Teh effect would be that the unit moves torwards the first waypoint facing in the old direction (usually where the danger comes from), and then it automatically turns torwards the new direction for the rest of the newly plotted path segments.

And there's room for more improvement:

With a modifier (i.e. SHIFT-O), the automatically inserted face-commands could be interpolated between the last facing position in the path and the new orientation.

1. If you are plotting mostly single point paths, effectively nothing changes with the new face command.

2. If you plot more complex paths, the facing becomes mostly automated and should fit for 90% of all cases.

3. And in the case, you want extremely complex paths, or where the enhanced face command wouldn work, then simply build the path of single segments, like it has to be done now with many clicks.

Any problems with that system?

[womble]

Alternatively you could elect for the default behaviour to be "drop out of waypoint placing mode when I've placed the waypoint". It could be something affixed to the shift key. So if you press shift-q and then click (or q then shift-click, maybe), you just get the one waypoint, and can then elect to either move to a new unit, or select a waypoint. And while you've got a waypoint selected, shift-[movement-order] would immediately go into adding new waypoint mode.

[Humbug]

I'd be happy with draggable waypoints. This change alone would lower the workload by a TON.

Now: Select a platoon, choose a move order and click on the destination. Then delete the waypoints of the squads that will be wrong (like on the other side of a wall for example) and redo them one by one.

Then: Select a platoon, choose move order and click on the destination. Click and drag the waypoints that are slightly out of place. Done.

This single change would make the UI a lot less clunky and frustrating and more time could be spent enjoying the game instead of wrestling with the UI.

[LemuelG]

Any problems with that system?

Yeah, I think it's a waste of time to 'face' if they're not pausing at the waypoint, and if they are I'm clicking it anyway and your scheme is redundant.

Furthermore, the way you describe your system just sounds like it will make the whole process more confusing and frustrating. I simply can't think of any situation in which I would want this.

Not gonna fly.

[LemuelG]

Then: Select a platoon, choose move order and click on the destination. Click and drag the waypoints that are slightly out of place. Done.

Didn't even read this at first, but must respond...

So, you want to individually adjust each unit's waypoint after you make a formation movement order? And this is better than setting each one individually in the first place, how?

[Humbug]

You seriously cannot see the benefits of draggable waypoints? Are we even playing the same game?

When you give multiple units a move order a few of those will often be in a place that is less than desirable, like when you want to put them all against a bocage wall for example. Adjusting those few units with a drag and release would be one hell of a lot faster and more intuitive than having to select each unit individually and giving them separate move orders one at a time. Also, sometimes (like when playing RT) there's no time to be taking the long way around and as it is now you just have to settle with inprecise move orders or take the time that could be better used elsewhere.

But I suppose even the currently existing feature of being able to select multiple units and giving them orders all at once isn't really needed since you never, ever use that particular function, right?

[womble]

Didn't even read this at first, but must respond...

So, you want to individually adjust each unit's waypoint after you make a formation movement order? And this is better than setting each one individually in the first place, how?

Take the example of moving a vehicle. You have to put down a lot of waypoints for swift, smooth movement around obstacles. The best way to do this is all in one go so you don't have to keep reselecting the move order you want, so "Fast > Click, click click...." rather than "Fast > Click > deselect movement mode > move camera > Fast > Click > deselect..." A consequence of the clunky camera navigation. So you're laying a potentially long path from a long way away. Some of the waypoints will be in the wrong place. If, once the path is down and you're not in 'add waypoints' mode, you could sweep the camera along the path and just shuffle the one or two waypoints that are off-line it would save deleting and redoing all the many further waypoints.

Obvious really.

[Steiner14]

Yeah, I think it's a waste of time to 'face' if they're not pausing at the waypoint,

And the reason for that statement is?

[LemuelG]

And the reason for that statement is?

Because they will move on immediately to their next order once they reach the waypoint, the facing order isn't relevant or necessary (you want them to move-on, not align themselves behind cover), it's a waste of time and a redundant order. So why do you do it?

Take the example of moving a vehicle. You have to put down a lot of waypoints for swift, smooth movement around obstacles. The best way to do this is all in one go so you don't have to keep reselecting the move order you want, so "Fast > Click, click click...." rather than "Fast > Click > deselect movement mode > move camera > Fast > Click > deselect..." A consequence of the clunky camera navigation. So you're laying a potentially long path from a long way away. Some of the waypoints will be in the wrong place. If, once the path is down and you're not in 'add waypoints' mode, you could sweep the camera along the path and just shuffle the one or two waypoints that are off-line it would save deleting and redoing all the many further waypoints.

Obvious really.

Oh really? You have to click on the unit to show the order-line anyway, and you have to manually click and drag that order to the specific location you want it to go too... does that not beg the question: why not just select each individual unit and place the order? click/hotkey/click - next; I can precisely move a full, split-squad platoon in seconds.

Obvious to you, an irrelevance to me.

But I suppose even the currently existing feature of being able to select multiple units and giving them orders all at once isn't really needed since you never, ever use that particular function, right?

No, never ever. It just creates more work when it turns out all the guys but one are gonna end up in the wrong place anyway and you have to spend time individually adjusting most of them... I guess we are playing the same game, huh?

[Humbug]

No, never ever. It just creates more work when it turns out all the guys but one are gonna end up in the wrong place anyway and you have to spend time individually adjusting most of them... I guess we are playing the same game, huh?

Well, duh. Thanks for proving my point. Draggable waypoints would be much quicker and easier than both the individual ordering that you claim to always do no matter if you're moving an entire batallion or not, AND simultaneous ordering with the clunky manual removal and re-adding of move orders. It's just a flick of the wrist, really. I've played enough games that DO have this feature to know what a time saver it really is.

You say you know how much work moving groups of units can be when you have to readjust them currently and still you try to argue against a feature that would actually make this very problem much less of an issue. What a silly person you are.

Even though YOU (or so you say) may be a god of epic proportions when it comes to ordering individual units one by one in an endless sea of other units, not everyone are, and believe it or not, the game isn't made solely for your enjoyment.

[George MC]

No need to biatch slap each other guys - useful discussion without the side swipes

[Steiner14]

Because they will move on immediately to their next order once they reach the waypoint, the facing order isn't relevant or necessary (you want them to move-on, not align themselves behind cover), it's a waste of time and a redundant order. So why do you do it?

Are you sure, that's the only effect of the face-order?

My impression is, that units are less susceptible to incoming fire if they have a face-order torward the incoming fire.

IIRC correctly, the face order was the reason, why the CMX1 retreat command was abandoned, since you can issue a "fast" or "quick" to run away but combine it with a face order torwards the incoming fire.

[LemuelG]

the game isn't made solely for your enjoyment.

No... it isn't is it? Sorry I don't support your idea, there are other things I want coded (a long long list) before things you personally desire, but which I would never use. Get it?

Best of luck with that.

[LemuelG]

Are you sure, that's the only effect of the face-order?

My impression is, that units are less susceptible to incoming fire if they have a face-order torward the incoming fire.

IIRC correctly, the face order was the reason, why the CMX1 retreat command was abandoned, since you can issue a "fast" or "quick" to run away but combine it with a face order torwards the incoming fire.

I can't be too certain of much, I suppose - but my experience seems to be that the facing only occurs once the waypoint is reached, and is just the guys arranging their position behind available cover in the direction you order them. If I'm right that means a facing on un-paused waypoints is never made, and they just move-on instead.

What you suggest is kinda cool - I'll have to play around the next time I fire it up. In the meanwhile I must acknowledge the possibility I'm wrong, naturally I don't think that I am

[c3k]

I'd be happy with draggable waypoints. This change alone would lower the workload by a TON.

Now: Select a platoon, choose a move order and click on the destination. Then delete the waypoints of the squads that will be wrong (like on the other side of a wall for example) and redo them one by one.

Then: Select a platoon, choose move order and click on the destination. Click and drag the waypoints that are slightly out of place. Done.

This single change would make the UI a lot less clunky and frustrating and more time could be spent enjoying the game instead of wrestling with the UI.

This would really speed up the amount of time each turn could take. It will also enhance the player's use of platoon objectives.

Ken

[PapaKhann]

I miss moveable waypoints from CM1.

Actually, I miss several things from the CM1 interface. Which is saying something, since I never really thought the CM1 interface was very strong.

Papa

[Humbug]

No... it isn't is it? Sorry I don't support your idea, there are other things I want coded (a long long list) before things you personally desire, but which I would never use. Get it?

Best of luck with that.

You personally prioritizing other things first, while I don't agree, I respect your right for that opinion, but coming into this thread and trying to shoot down the suggestion with false claims that there's absolutely no need for it whatsoever is a very different thing altogether, my friend. Like I said, you yourself admit that moving multiple units at once is currently flawed to the point of being unusable, that to me sounds like it should be a pretty big priority seeing how a streamlined UI can make or break an otherwise good game and forcing people to always individually move their units isn't really an option with bigger force pools.

Wanting to have an UI at least as good as in CMx1 isn't too much to ask, is it?

[womble]

Oh really? You have to click on the unit to show the order-line anyway, and you have to manually click and drag that order to the specific location you want it to go too... does that not beg the question: why not just select each individual unit and place the order? click/hotkey/click - next; I can precisely move a full, split-squad platoon in seconds.

Obvious to you, an irrelevance to me.

Hey, try reading. I gave the example of a vehicle movement path. You talk about infantry. You ignore the fact that you can [gasp] place more than one waypoint for a unit at a time. And that [horror] sometimes intermediate waypoints (because of the ornery interface) might not be in exactly the right place (sufficiently so to be problemmatic). Being able to adjust the intermediate waypoint is so much easier than having to delete all subsequent waypoints, redo the erroneous one and then redo the subsequent ones (with additional chance of error and iterations of this cycle).

Have you played "Crossroads" in the Courage and Fortitude campaign?

[LemuelG]

Being able to adjust the intermediate waypoint is so much easier than having to delete all subsequent waypoints, redo the erroneous one and then redo the subsequent ones (with additional chance of error and iterations of this cycle).

Have you played "Crossroads" in the Courage and Fortitude campaign?

No. Unless that's the first one, then yes.

Wouldn't it be easier still to just get all the waypoints in the right place first-time? Why aren't your intermediate WPs (waypoints from here on) in the right place? It never happens to me, so why should I see it the same way as you? Is it not possible that your technique needs work, rather than there being any notable issue with the game?

I'm not trying to break anyone's balls - but this idea just sounds like people can't accept that they aren't playing CMx1 anymore... what feature currently in-game would you have dropped to institute movable WPs? Would you rather have this than fixing the OOM issues many suffer from? Would you have this instead of earthworks which aren't a hopeless kludge? Are you happy to wait much much longer for other units and theaters to be added to the game?

This is how software development works - is the feature worth the work it will take to implement it? Clearly BFC answered "no". I agree - I see no great difference between what you ask for and just doing it manually to individual units.

Here's a comparison between adjusting a WP, and just placing them precisely first-time:

Manual: LMB (select unit); order-hotkey; LMB (WP placed).

Adjusted: LMB (select unit); hold LMB (select WP); drag (move WP); release (WP placed).

Well, you saved yourself a hotkey-press per WP (sort of, you still have to do it for the group) and gained an annoying carpal-tunnel-inducing hold-and-drag. Worth it? I say not.

That's what I'm talking about - I wont support an idea I see as redundant, and being a public forum I reserve the right to challenge people's ideas - if this is causing you trouble then maybe the problem is you. My diagnosis: some folk are still playing CMx1. New game, new techniques.

[Steiner14]

L,

have you ever plotted a not trivial path for a vehicle? Well, then you should have recognized, that hard turns should be avoided for a fast movement. This becomes very important under enemy threat and if the vehicle should pass a location as quickly as possible.

If the player now finally has plotted a difficult path and checks it from another perspective, he has no ability to correct corners in the path or fine tune the path!

If you are talking about single clicks then you have no clue, that plotting paths in CMx1 allowed to be of an interactive process: plot and check - adjust - check - adjust.

And with the current system of action spots, it is more often necessary than it was in CMx1, to go back several waypoints and plot them in other action spots to get the curving right. :mad:

The ignorance that has taken rule over the forum is becoming frustrating.

[womble]

No. Unless that's the first one, then yes.

Can you even count past two? I regularly make vehicle movement paths that are 20 or thirty waypoints long and cover half the map.

Wouldn't it be easier still to just get all the waypoints in the right place first-time? Why aren't your intermediate WPs (waypoints from here on) in the right place?

No it wouldn't. Not with the clunky camera controls. You have a choice when you're laying waypoints: either you plonk all the waypoints down without moving the camera or you use the edge of the screen or arrow keys to position the camera or you drop out of waypoint movement mode to move the camera. The middle option is just too clunky to use often. The last leads to even more clicking, so most of the waypoints get laid from the camera starting position and most of them end up in the right place. Once the basic path is laid, I can zip along it with the camera and check it's in the right place. If I could drag the ones that went astray because of parallax, it'd be faster than deleting the entire path back to that point.

It never happens to me, so why should I see it the same way as you?

Because being able to see another human being's point of view is one of the things that distinguishes us from lower order animals.

Is it not possible that your technique needs work, rather than there being any notable issue with the game?

Never said that lack of movable waypoints was a 'notable issue'. I've only ever said that it would be a usability improvement. Maybe if you stopped putting words in my mouth and read what I wrote, you'd understand better.

I'm not trying to break anyone's balls - but this idea just sounds like people can't accept that they aren't playing CMx1 anymore...

I never moved a single waypoint in CMx1, that I recall, and I thought it was a silly idea when people whinged about it to start with. I can see the use of it now.

...what feature currently in-game would you have dropped to institute movable WPs?...

Meaningless question, that. Nobody here can say whether movable waypoints would be more or less effort than any other given feature. Things I would happily have done without for various other improvements: internal vehicle detail for enclosed vehicles; wind movement of trees; deformable suspensions. Not much else springs readily to mind. And this thread is, by the way, a suggestion for improvements in the future, not a thread complaining that something should have been in from the start.

Would you rather have this than fixing the OOM issues many suffer from?

Well if I was to take your attitude, I don't suffer from the OOM issues, so maybe they should improve their rigs rather than get a fix off of BFC?

Would you have this instead of earthworks which aren't a hopeless kludge?

Those are two problems of different orders of magnitude. One's an interface tweak, the other's a re-engineering of a basic game structure (the terrain grid).

Are you happy to wait much much longer for other units and theaters to be added to the game?

No interface changes of this scale will be introduced til the Bulge family, and BFC have already hinted that they aim to attack the interface very strongly in the development of that product. Movable waypoints are an interface issue. Why should there be any delay for the adding of something that's part of what they're already doing?

I see no great difference between what you ask for and just doing it manually to individual units.

Just because you're incapable of seeing something doesn't mean it isn't there.

Here's a comparison between adjusting a WP, and just placing them precisely first-time:

Well ****, you simplify an example to a basic level and all of a sudden you're right. The point is about 15 waypoints further on and then 10 back. Keep going and eventually you might get there.

[user38]

Womble, LemuelG makes a valid point when he says "Wouldn't it be easier still to just get all the waypoints in the right place first-time?" And if you think about it for a minute, it is a suggestion that has applications far beyond a trivial computer games. Human error causes billions of dollars of lost revenues and destruction of property each year. Not to mention countless lives lost to mistakes. For example, earlier this year Brisbane suffered a devastating flood which was exacerbated by poor management of the flood mitigation dam. One wonders, rather than poorly managing the dam, would it not have been a better idea to properly manage it? Rather than make a mistake which causes a traffic accident would it not be a better idea not to have made that mistake? It is really quite a brilliant suggestion. (Rather than wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on a wife and children would not your utility have been maximised by spending that money on alcohol and prostitutes?)

The problem is not that the interface prevents you from moving waypoints. The problem is you putting the waypoints in the wrong place to start with. LemuelG never makes any mistakes when he plays this game. Rather than wasting your time arguing with LemuelG, should you not direct your energies into emulating his error free play style.

[LemuelG]

you're right.

Burn. Maybe I should start myself an Emrys-style sig-line. Your tendency to plot 20-WP movements is baffling to me, and does not somehow turn simple logic upside-down.

click/key/click

click/click-hold-drag/release

Once, or a hundred times, the ratio remains the same. Not nearly enough 'improvement in usability' to be justified. I guess we're just gonna disagree, no skin off my nuts - I'll play carefree, and you'll complain that your 20 WP movements make for too much work, and it's not your fault, but the camera/UI etc etc. That's one endless-loop I'm getting out of right now.

The moral of the story: don't hold your breath adjustable-waypoint fans.

[womble]

Burn. Maybe I should start myself an Emrys-style sig-line. Your tendency to plot 20-WP movements is baffling to me, and does not somehow turn simple logic upside-down.

Oh ho ho ho.

The failure of your sarcasm meter is catastrophic. As is your failure to comprehend.

Long vehicle paths are useful for plenty of reasons. You don't understand them, that's your problem. The trouble with 'simple logic' is that oversimplifying a situation to the point where you can comprehend it, and then applying 'simple logic' doesn't actually apply 'simple logic' to the complicated original situation.

Sure I could plot short movement paths for the vehicles, but that would mean going back to them every order phase to add more paths. Sure I could just plot one distant waypoint, but that would mean leaving the poor vehicle to the mercy of the AI pathing, and an almost certain catastrophe. With a nice waypoint track I can do long displacements of all kinds of elements through 'safe' areas without having to pay them very much attention after I've initiated them. That makes the long waypoint track, for me, worth the effort, and correcting them on the occasions where there's a stray waypoint would be easier with moveable WP than it is without.

And that's not the only application anyway.

Once, or a hundred times, the ratio remains the same.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's not about a ratio. You're obviously not even trying to comprehend, so just forget that anyone else might have a valid point of view.

[LemuelG]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's not about a ratio. You're obviously not even trying to comprehend, so just forget that anyone else might have a valid point of view.

It's clear I don't think the idea is valid - if you can wish-up a fairy-Godmother to wave her wand and have it in, then sure - I see it primarily as a case of hundreds of hours of coding and testing for S.F.A. How hypocritical and patronizing of you. If this was the steppe I'd be rollin' just like you, but it's bocage-country, and if you're getting enough waypoints wrong that it's worth making this much noise you should adjust your tactics, like RL.

There are approximately 1 zillion things which, in my opinion could benefit the game at-hand more than this: fire; flamethrowers; castles; medals and more sophisticated campaign 'stat'-databases; partisans and civilians; trains; anti-aircraft; on-map aircraft; bulldozers; smaller trees (seriously); streams, creeks and other above sea-level water bodies; thin dirt-tracks; bridge-layers; recovery vehicles; repair sections and highly dynamic vehicle-damage; boats; swimming; parachuting soldiers/re-supply; soldiers climbing steeples, trees etc; proper ammo re-supply methods; collapsible GUI; earthworks - good ones; animals (how are the Germans to tow their heavy weapons?); medics; aerial-observers; curved roads and an end to the tyranny of a 45-degree angled world; many many different types of flavour-objects and buildings; more sophisticated 'morale' model; all vehicles, weapons and national armed-forces of WWII in it's entirety... who doesn't want a million things?

Sure I could have ignored this subject (not even the damn topic), so the troll in me is coming out - just try to dig that software-design is about what you can afford leave out as much as what you actually put in to it, and is perhaps a more arduous and risky process than laymen assume. Marginally useful may not be good enough, I am sure they thought about it, and decided no - I agree - it is like a piece of scum floating by in the gutter while I window-shop for items I just can't afford. You don't agree, fine - it's not that I can't comprehend, I choose to challenge the idea, welcome to the internet.