Thoughts on Waypoints.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Rick
Ah, maybe I jujst interpreted different then. I thought he meant if we tacked on a "mount" or "enter building" order we would need to alot time for it. And I really hope Matrix doesn't make it happen automatically, that means I'd lose the ability to hide behind buildings.

I don't know if my interp is right either, dunno. Even if Matrix wants to keep using "mount" for buildings and to add waypoints (ie, allowing a unit to approach and enter a building in the same turn), it seems like it would be easy to build in some delay for mounting the building; it would be really cool if the delay is variable to some extent, so if a unit is unlucky it can get "stuck" outside of a hard-to-enter building longer than it anticipates.

[British tommy]

Let's not get stuck on this entering/leaving a building thing.
I thought this thread was about way points? [&:]
No need to get overly complicated using them (although some players do!). I like them! [:)] You can give a platoon a few short way points then concentrate on the next platoon. I don't want to be constantly adjusting things throughout the battle [:-]

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: British tommy

Let's not get stuck on this entering/leaving a building thing.
I thought this thread was about way points? [&:]
No need to get overly complicated using them (although some players do!). I like them! [:)] You can give a platoon a few short way points then concentrate on the next platoon. I don't want to be constantly adjusting things throughout the battle [:-]

Good point, although since Eriks already said they'd like to add at least one or two waypoints to next game release, I figured heck, the threads already here, - might as well extend the converstion - *g* .

Sorry, you're right probably should stay on point.

Rick

[Capitaine]

The problem with waypoints, as Mobius alluded to earlier, is that they are somewhat unrealistic.  It's not unrealistic to chart a short path with a waypoint or two to move in a particular manner through terrain that your platoon can see.  It is unrealistic, however, to plot extended moves across the map with an intricacy suggesting access to Google Earth.  At every order, you'd have to ask whether your platoon knows what is beyond the limit of its vision.
 
To some extent the same issue exists without waypoints.  But with waypoints it appears that the issue is being exploited to a much greater extent.
 
Perhaps a time or distance limitation on movement paths could help.  I would just be disheartened to see this game devolve into the ridiculous exercise that move plotting was in CM.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Mobius
If done in movement there should be a time cost. To mount up on vehicles would take maybe 20-40 seconds. If dismounting maybe half that time. Entering building might require more time as just barging into an unknown building could be dangerous. So time is taken to check it out and make sure it is clear.

Why is that? It's not that way now. If I get close enough to the building I hit the mount command and they are in. The mount command at the moment costs me nothing but being close enough. No time penalty.

The net result of the way it is now is that it takes somewhere between 0-40 seconds to enter a building depending on your end move position. Thus 20 seconds on average. I thought the goal was to be more realistic?
Plus it there are ever basements added to the game you wouldn't know if the building was occupied until you get right up to it.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
I'll assault the building if I need to but I'm NOT going to sit outside on the ground for 40 seconds while we all talk about going inside!!

Right blindly barge the entire squad through the door in to take a SMG burst in the face. Plus there would have to be a door in the direction of the entry or are the squadies going to leap through the windows?

Mobius, don't get me wrong here. Of course you don't go running over open ground to throw yourself through the first opening you find when you get there.

On the other hand, you don't sneak over 50 meters of open ground, to have a cigarette break at the other end, while you decide how to go into the building either.

Most of those orders would be given at the time of the original movement to contact. Unless there is not an entrance where you move across and are only going into a blind area as a precaution or because there is little/no defensive fire there.

Will PC model that with doors? If so, I have no problem with having to enter at a door. If not, then let's just abstract that we'll find one when we get there.

I also have no problem with a delay before entry. If we do one it should be variable and fairly small. How long does it take to say, "Mark you throw a grenade in, and after it goes off, Steve you go through the door. The rest of us will cover you"?

Entering buildings in combat isn't rocket science. It's pretty easy. You see the drill on the evening news every night. The police use that drill everyday. And even though they use it everyday they still get people killed doing it. It's a dangerous business.

Assaulting a building is one thing. Moving into an empty building is another. There should probably be two commands here. Move into a building and assault into a building. Move into a building would have no delay associated with it. If you were wrong that could/should cost you dearly. The defensive fire should hit you like you were a unit in the open or something.

What would be your rationale that I have to leave/unmount the building before I can give the guys inside a movement order? Do I need to tell my squad, "okay, everybody outside so I can tell you where we're going"?



Good Hunting.

MR

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
The problem with waypoints, as Mobius alluded to earlier, is that they are somewhat unrealistic. It's not unrealistic to chart a short path with a waypoint or two to move in a particular manner through terrain that your platoon can see. It is unrealistic, however, to plot extended moves across the map with an intricacy suggesting access to Google Earth. At every order, you'd have to ask whether your platoon knows what is beyond the limit of its vision.

To some extent the same issue exists without waypoints. But with waypoints it appears that the issue is being exploited to a much greater extent.

The problem that you describe--plotting moves as if having "access to Google Earth" has nothing to do with waypoints--it has to do with the player's Gods-eye view of the map--this is what is unrealistic, not waypoints. With or without waypoints, I can plot my unit's path toward that covered approach that I can't see from my starting position, the only question is whether I can do it all at once or have to plot a new course every turn.

Thus, waypoints are chiefly a mechanic to streamline gameplay, although their absence sometimes makes units so "dumb" as to be unrealistic. Maybe its just how I use them, but I have a hard time seeing how waypoints can be considered unrealistic...

Let's say I want an advancing platoon to advance along a treeline which runs along a curved road--sure, I can just plot one short straight route after another to keep them within the trees, but why not allow me to set a couple of waypoints to accomplish the same end instead of babysitting them every turn?

Anyway, it sounds like Matrix plans to include the ability to create a couple of waypoints in future releases, so it sounds like the issue will be fixed.

[British tommy]

I agree 100% with 76mm on this.
Just because you have way points in the game, it doesn't mean you have to plot them from one side of the map to the other! (and if you do and your units gets destroyed, it's all your fault!).
It's very rare I have given long way points while playing the CM games and even then it was using the 'move to contact' order.
I just want to be able to move squads into cover or into a ditch during the turn especially if the rest of the platoon are already in cover.
 
And please let's not go down the CMSF road with your pixel infantry climbing through windows or going through doors.

[Erik Rutins]

Just to chime in on this again quickly, I've been reading all the discussions - just being kept too busy to get heavily involved.

I completely agree that 1-2 waypoints would be very useful. I also agree that being able to chain 2 orders together (specifically Move + Mount, etc.) would be useful. I don't think either of these would break the current philosophy of the game. I do think that a short delay (perhaps 5 seconds) to Mount or Enter is reasonable. Can't say much more than that now as a lot depends on the design of the next release and whether there will even be a "Mount" command at that point and whether it will also cover city-fighting, etc.

We're looking at the entire orders/reaction system for the next release and working on ways to streamline it and make it more logical and intuitive, without losing the command level, planning and decision-making that it encourages.

Regards,

- Erik

[76mm]

Eric, very good news, sounds like you're heading in the right direction. GL with whatever is keeping you so busy.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
I don't know if my interp is right either, dunno. Even if Matrix wants to keep using "mount" for buildings and to add waypoints (ie, allowing a unit to approach and enter a building in the same turn), it seems like it would be easy to build in some delay for mounting the building; it would be really cool if the delay is variable to some extent, so if a unit is unlucky it can get "stuck" outside of a hard-to-enter building longer than it anticipates.

To get an idea of the time it takes to enter and secure a house or building we could find US troops entering buildings in Iraq in clips on YouTube and time it. Then take either an average or make a random time to cover the variation.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

To get an idea of the time it takes to enter and secure a house or building we could find US troops entering buildings in Iraq in clips on YouTube and time it. Then take either an average or make a random time to cover the variation.

Yeah, that'd a good start, I can't think of a better way. If we really get into the nitty-gritty, it might make sense to have it depend to a certain extent on the type of building--a factory (few doors!) would probably take longer to enter than a Russian izba (peasant hut). But that could be too much detail...

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
ORIGINAL: Mobius

To get an idea of the time it takes to enter and secure a house or building we could find US troops entering buildings in Iraq in clips on YouTube and time it. Then take either an average or make a random time to cover the variation.

Yeah, that'd a good start, I can't think of a better way. If we really get into the nitty-gritty, it might make sense to have it depend to a certain extent on the type of building--a factory (few doors!) would probably take longer to enter than a Russian izba (peasant hut). But that could be too much detail...

At least we could get an rough idea. It would be better than these thought experiments.[:)]

[76mm]

For sure. Heck, on YouTube there's probably some WWII training or "combat" footage showing this stuff as well, probably would have been similar approach among the various armies.

Your job is more fun than mine! [;)]

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

I also have no problem with a delay before entry. If we do one it should be variable and fairly small. How long does it take to say, "Mark you throw a grenade in, and after it goes off, Steve you go through the door. The rest of us will cover you"?

I generally agree with you, but think that building entry would be a bit more involved than that.

For instance, you'd have to make an opening (break down a door, smash in window (perhaps with bars), etc. Then, once there was an opening, perhaps you can't just walk right though it, maybe it's a shoulder-high window, small window, partially demolished door). Finally, you'd have to get each man through this opening one by one. How long would all this take? Dunno.

Obviously if you are fighting in a partially rubbled town were all doors and windows have been destroyed, things could be easier, but I don't know how common that would be.

Finally, if you're going to work from videos (modern or WWII), it seems worth bearing in mind that perhaps the depicted building entries would be the "successful" ones, rather than those where the guys can't fit through the door, trip over each other, etc.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Mobius

To get an idea of the time it takes to enter and secure a house or building we could find US troops entering buildings in Iraq in clips on YouTube and time it. Then take either an average or make a random time to cover the variation.

Yeah, that'd a good start, I can't think of a better way. If we really get into the nitty-gritty, it might make sense to have it depend to a certain extent on the type of building--a factory (few doors!) would probably take longer to enter than a Russian izba (peasant hut). But that could be too much detail...

Yeah - it would end up being another arguing point after the next release - how long it takes to enter a two-stroy building vs a one story building. Same with factory vs peasant hut.

Though, as I think about it, that could actually be handled with the "size" attirbute of the building. In the editor you can set a building for one or two levels and for one or two squads (also distinguishs between light and heavy squads) - so the egine is able to make some determination - but entering should take at least some time.

Also - did anyone notice that the mount order now says mount/enter? (or did it alsways say that I just hand't notice?

Rick

[Mobius]

For an experiment, just walk around your house starting at the front door and check each room and closet.  Time yourself and you will find 40 seconds to enter in PCK is getting off easy.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: 76mm


I generally agree with you, but think that building entry would be a bit more involved than that.

For instance, you'd have to make an opening (break down a door, smash in window (perhaps with bars), etc. Then, once there was an opening, perhaps you can't just walk right though it, maybe it's a shoulder-high window, small window, partially demolished door). Finally, you'd have to get each man through this opening one by one. How long would all this take? Dunno.

What are you talking about? Breaking down doors with bars?

I've read lots of accounts of fighting in urban areas. Never have they had to use bars or smash anything. These buildings are peoples homes. They are just doors and glass windows. At worst you kick one in. We are not talking fortified positions here but just normal buildings.

I'm assuming here, I know I go out on limb when I do that...[:D]...that you realize it takes no effort to throw a grenade through a glass window.

Once an opening is made, that is fairly easily done, you can just walk ring in. The only thing stopping you is a defender. At present all the discussion has centered around occupied buildings but at present the procedure is the same whether they are occupied or not. Would you break down the door of an unoccupied building to enter it too?

I wouldn't.

Obviously if you are fighting in a partially rubbled town were all doors and windows have been destroyed, things could be easier, but I don't know how common that would be.

Finally, if you're going to work from videos (modern or WWII), it seems worth bearing in mind that perhaps the depicted building entries would be the "successful" ones, rather than those where the guys can't fit through the door, trip over each other, etc.

rubble doesn't need to be broken into to enter. You can see the terrain in front of you for the most part. You either eliminate the enemy from the position or you keep fighting. Close assault is an option in either case.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

For an experiment, just walk around your house starting at the front door and check each room and closet. Time yourself and you will find 40 seconds to enter in PCK is getting off easy.

I'm not going to have to check every room and closet in combat Mobius. If the enemy is there he will shoot at me as soon as I enter or the house is pretty much empty.


There were plenty of instances where there were still enemy soldiers in the house. But they were usually hiding and out of the fight.

So, here's my deal.

1) Occupied house you assault it. Takes time.

2) Unoccupied house takes virtually no time.

3) Occupant facing has ALOT to do with the results of what happen in #1.

Good Hunting.

MR

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: Mobius

For an experiment, just walk around your house starting at the front door and check each room and closet. Time yourself and you will find 40 seconds to enter in PCK is getting off easy.

So, here's my deal.

...

2) Unoccupied house takes virtually no time.

...

Good Hunting.

MR

I don't know any other way to say this than just saying you're mistaken. I'm not saying they spend minutes, but the squad moves to the building, they make sure they are in place, then the rush through the door to get into cover maybe pop in a grenade, but maybe not. They still have to look around, position themselves at windows - .

We may only be talking 5 sec, maybe we're talking 10 seconds - if its a two story, it may be more. these guys don't KNOW ithe building is empty, they think it is, but they are going to exercise caution. I fthey don't think it's empty, then it's a whole different approach to entering (actually assaulting), and it will take longer. Now maybe it was different in WWII than it was later, but I can't think they'd do it much differently

Respectfully
Rick

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
What are you talking about? Breaking down doors with bars?

I've read lots of accounts of fighting in urban areas. Never have they had to use bars or smash anything. These buildings are peoples homes. They are just doors and glass windows. At worst you kick one in. We are not talking fortified positions here but just normal buildings.

I'm assuming here, I know I go out on limb when I do that...[:D]...that you realize it takes no effort to throw a grenade through a glass window.

Once an opening is made, that is fairly easily done, you can just walk ring in. The only thing stopping you is a defender. At present all the discussion has centered around occupied buildings but at present the procedure is the same whether they are occupied or not. Would you break down the door of an unoccupied building to enter it too?

I don't think you can expect to just waltz up to an unknown building and waltz in in two seconds flat. First, some of these buildings are homes, some are factories, warehouses, offices, etc. etc. At least some (not all) of these buildings will have doors/windows that will take at least a minimum of effort to open (heavy doors, barred windows, shutters). Barred windows are not uncommon, especially on the ground floor. While you can throw grenades through a glass window, you might not be able to get in through the same window very easily (too small, too high, bars?).

OK, so you've got an opening, toss in a grenade, great. Now your squad rushes in one by one and proceeds to secure the building.

I'm not saying that you're breaking into Fort Knox, I'm saying that the actions described above would easily take more than five seconds in the best case, and could easily take, I dunno, a minute, to fumble through all this?

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
rubble doesn't need to be broken into to enter. You can see the terrain in front of you for the most part. You either eliminate the enemy from the position or you keep fighting. Close assault is an option in either case.

I probably wasn't clear--I was talking about intact buildings where the doors and any bars/shutters covering windows had been blown away. Also, it should be obvious that I'm only talking about entering a building, not securing it. A couple of times you refer to differences b/n whether a building is occupied or not...I'm not sure that you'd really know for certain before entering the building--even if you were pretty sure it was unoccupied you'd probably take some basic precautions.