Thoughts on Waypoints.

[z1812]

Hi All,

I really miss waypoints. The initial pathing that sub-units receive from the Parent unit is alright for direct paths ect. But if one wishes to properly use terrain elements in order to mask movement it does not work very well.

Perhaps movement paths could be generated as they are now but with built in waypoints. If there were at least a minimum of 3 for every move then you could manage some plotting to take advantage of terrain.

As it is now when I issue a rush order for instance, I have to go back to each sub unit, click on rush and then indicate a final point I wish them to go to. They will move to it regardless of exposure or safety. That is, no alternate route will be taken as per Tac A.I. to avoid enemies.

A wayppoint option would improve, I believe, playability and aspects of realism. Such as, take your squad below that ridge and then secure the house at the end of the road. With a few waypoints you can achieve that.

Regards John

[Erik Rutins]

Waypoints will not be in this release. We've heard the requests for them and would like to be able to provide at least one or two waypoints per order. We actually did try to implement them for Kharkov but they proved to be a bigger job than we'd imagined so thay had to be pushed back. So for now, we have to live without them.

Honestly though, I think playstyle helps mitigate the need for them and once in combat I rarely find I need them since I'm usually replotting every turn anyway. Regular use of the Regroup order can also help adjust platoon facing and formation.

Try setting paths that are no more than a turn or two long and using Regroup if you want to turn your platoon.

Regards,

- Erik

[thewood1]

While I can see that once you are used to a system, it may not seem as big a deal.  Having to adjust destinations and time them for end of turn locations is as much, if not more micro-management as adjusting waypoints.  With waypoints and chained orders in CMSF ( and to a lesser extent, CMBB), you can basically forget a unit(s) and concentrate on something more pressing.
 
In PCK, I find my self measuring distances and speed to make sure units are not exposed at the end of phases.  I just did a regroup order to some P3s and the destination to end a few seconds before the phase ended.  I wasn't accurate enough in my timing or placement of the order.  I was off 10 seconds due to some collision avaidance) and about 5 meter (may 10).  Two blissfully sauntered for 10 seconds out into the open and were killed without firing a shot.  When I have to check speed and get a calculator out to check if my units will be in cover, that is micro-management.
 
That brings up the point of units not responding to fire from enemy units that are spotted.  I was using the regroup command in this instance and the tanks were wiped out becuase they wouldn't respond.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
While I can see that once you are used to a system, it may not seem as big a deal.  Having to adjust destinations and time them for end of turn locations is as much, if not more micro-management as adjusting waypoints.  With waypoints and chained orders in CMSF ( and to a lesser extent, CMBB), you can basically forget a unit(s) and concentrate on something more pressing.

YMMV, but in my experience you can give a unit a pretty complex orders chain in CM and still have to change it the next turn due to battlefield events. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good thing. I think waypoints and order chains would be great to have as an option in Panzer Command.

However, I do think that if you're used to them they initially seem completely indispensible. Once you play a while in PCK, they become "nice to have" but not critical. I'd like to get all that "nice to have" stuff into the game in the future though.

In PCK, I find my self measuring distances and speed to make sure units are not exposed at the end of phases.

One thing on our internal wish list is to add some kind of mark to movement rubberbands that separates it into phases, so you can see exactly how far your unit will go in the next phase, the one after that, etc.

Two blissfully sauntered for 10 seconds out into the open and were killed without firing a shot.  When I have to check speed and get a calculator out to check if my units will be in cover, that is micro-management.

Why not just stop the Regroup before they exit cover to avoid the possibility of them headng out into the open?

That brings up the point of units not responding to fire from enemy units that are spotted.  I was using the regroup command in this instance and the tanks were wiped out becuase they wouldn't respond.

Regroup is a Rush speed order, so vehicles won't spot well or fire while Regrouping. It's best for making adjustments when you want to turn or reform a platoon before its next movement leg or right before heading into battle.

[thewood1]

I thought they would be in cover.  I gave the platoon order and just miscalculated.  And literally it was a miscalculation.  In CMBB, for camparison.  I wouldn't have measured.  I would have given the caommand and then chained ahunt order on the end so it would react.  If I knew the axis of the threat, I might have even had an arc set up facing the threat as I emerged from cover.

My request once again comes down to not having a good feel for the multitude of orders and what really differentiates them, as well as not having a good situational awareness of the orders of my units looking at the map.  Micro-management is having to look at every unit's detail to see its state.  In CMBB, I can look at the entire map and immediately see each units general orders based on color coding of movement paths and targeting lines.  Example, looking at the units above, all I know is they have a move, not an advance, rush, regroup, engage, move, withdraw, or bound.

[thewood1]

My thinking on the orders comparison would be to show what speed a movement order gives, targeting implications, stance at the end of the order, how far an ordered move can be from the start point, sighting implications, etc.

I have seen nowhere in the manual where this is detailed.  Some little bits show up here and there, but, for example, nothing that would have told me regroup is a rush.  In fact, I would have assumed it was normal speed.

The sum of this right now is in PCK, I feel like I am gaming the turn, which is an artificial contruct being used to give the user time to micro-react to events. In CMBB, I don't feel the turn constraint for two reasons: The TacAI does a manageable job of keeping individual units from killing themselves (as well as letting the units be able to let me know they won't get killed because of my stupidity), the ability to use waypoints and chain some orders to set units up to take care of themselves. That is not to say I never game the turn in CMBB. There are things that go on in both games that are far too complex for any game mechanism to handle without human intervetion, I just find that in CMBB, I notice the turn limit much less than in PCK. In fact, that is why the reaction phase exists in PCK.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I thought they would be in cover.  I gave the platoon order and just miscalculated.  And literally it was a miscalculation.

I guess what is surprising me is that there is calculation involved. I just place the destinations and if the rubberbands end up farther than I expected, I reassign the order via the HQ to move them all further back. I use the Insert key to check the terrain map if I need to be 100% sure they are going to be in cover.

In CMBB, I can look at the entire map and immediately see each units general orders based on color coding of movement paths and targeting lines.  Example, looking at the units above, all I know is they have a move, not an advance, rush, regroup, engage, move, withdraw, or bound.

Roger, understood.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
My thinking on the orders comparison would be to show what speed a movement order gives, targeting implications, stance at the end of the order, how far an ordered move can be from the start point, sighting implications, etc.
I have seen nowhere in the manual where this is detailed.  Some little bits show up here and there, but, for example, nothing that would have told me regroup is a rush.  In fact, I would have assumed it was normal speed.

Thanks, that's a good suggestion. I will put together a more detailed Orders guide.

Regards,

- Erik

[thewood1]

Here are PCK and CMBB compared for being able to see immediatelly everyones general orders.

PCK first:





From looking at the overall picture, you can't tell what the orders are, other than some kind of move.

[thewood1]

In CMBB, you can pretty quickly see what everyone is supposed to do. Being able to move waypoints at any point is pretty easy also:

[thewood1]

The CMBB picture also gives an example of chaining move orders together.  In fact, CMSF's biggest step forward was being able to chain targeting commands onto the movement waypoints. Its biggest step back was removing the ability to move individual waypoints.

[Agrippa]

Happy to hear you will be making a more detailed orders description, I think it will clear a lot of things up for many people.

[Bil H]

I have to tell you guys that I am dismayed at the trend to insist on more micro-management. 

You need to think in shorter moves in PCK, there is no reason for you to plot a move clear across the map in this game IMO, you lose all flexibility and leave your units open to disaster.  As far as losing the PzIIIs like you did.. well, nothing personal,  but really it was your own fault... you should have been bounding if you suspected enemy contact, or you should have used terrain masking better, or you should have done a half dozen other things different... basically you have to think like a real commander and take shorter moves.. move from cover to cover, but always with an overwatching element for protection... gee, just like in real life.  IMO the enemy deserves to get off several shots if you are driving cross country like that before you should get the opportunity to react, there is no way your tanks would know instantly what is shooting at them anyway, and there would be quite lag before they should have the opportunity to respond.  There are many real life anecdotes of just this sort of thing happening, here is one: when Michael Wittman and his Platoon was killed, it was one lone Canadian Sherman Firefly from an orchard (I think) that picked them all off before they could react... it happens to the best.

While I agree that more control would be nice, I wouldn't want this game to turn into CM, I love the Platoon level command aspect and I would hate to lose that feel... I don't see the need for waypoints really at the Platoon level.  Think like a Platoon Leader, not a Company CO when ordering your Platoons. 

I would rather see a Company HQ level added where waypoints are used, while at the Platoon level you have the equivalent of the simple "move to that treeline" type orders.  Platoon hip pocket orders are not very complicated affairs in real life.  A Company layer could get you the detailed long range planning you want, and allow you to adjust your Platoon behaviour within the bounds of the "Battalion/Company Commander's Intent".

So to sum it up, I would like to see more of an emphasis on the command elements in this game, not less.

Bil

[z1812]

Hi Erik,

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Waypoints will not be in this release. We've heard the requests for them and would like to be able to provide at least one or two waypoints per order.

Thanks for your response. Two would be fine but three would be better. 4 would solve the problem completely. I see the waypoints being generated as part of the movement paths. Then you could grab them and adjust them as required.

If someone did not want to adjust them then they would be playing with orders as they are generated now. Perhaps it could be an option and be toggled off and on as one prefers.

Regards John

[Mobius]

I like the idea of some tick mark on the rubber band at the point where the unit will be at the end of a phase or end each phase. Right now the movement rubber band shows the distance at the end and if I look at the unit stats I see how far it moves a turn. But I rather not do all that.

I would say way points would be useful if they allowed a unit to move along a road but there are other and better ways to do that. Have a road bonus and the 'fastest route' mode should usually take a road if it were available.

Too many way-points and routing far ahead of a units ability to actually see the ground contours seems too much like using Yahoo Maps to plot your course to me.

[thewood1]

The micro-management arguement is rather weak.  IRL, did commanders issue orders in 40 sec. increments.  Or did they worry about where their units would end up in 40 sec.  No they didn't.  I have played both games extensivley now and see PCK as just another form of micro management.  I actually see little difference in the players load, if you want units to behave/react realistically.
 
Yes you can issue platoon orders, but then, if you don't adjuat them, your units will not be aligned/covered properly and won't react to threats..  I can play CM the same way.  There are many tools in CMBB that would a great fit in the platoon order system.  Its not micro-management to have to check every platoon for what the orders are?  Or its not micromanagement to issue new orders every 40 sec.?  As I said, its just a new form of micro-managment.  Tell me, look at the two pictures above and which one offers a quick view of orders.  Also, in the CMBB example, all orders were issued at the platoon level.
 
As to my P3s, yeah it was my mistake.  A mistake I probably wouldn't have made in CMBB, because my units would more than likely reacted or backed up.
 
Once again, I like the PCK platoon order system, but without modifications, it is no less micro-managing nor more realistic than CMBB.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

...
One thing on our internal wish list is to add some kind of mark to movement rubberbands that separates it into phases, so you can see exactly how far your unit will go in the next phase, the one after that, etc.

Ah, yes this would be very nice - perhaps as useful if not more useful than waypoints.

Regroup is a Rush speed order, so vehicles won't spot well or fire while Regrouping. It's best for making adjustments when you want to turn or reform a platoon before its next movement leg or right before heading into battle.

Hmm .. I didn't realize that. I"ll post a suggestion for manual addition in another thread.

I also miss waypoints - probably the most common time I've wanted them is manuevering advance around buildings - to keep units to the protected side. --LOL - first game I thought I could simply enter one end of building and exit the other - imagine my suprise when I unmounted to the same spot I mounted from!

So now I practice manuevering aorund buildings, and while a couple of waypoints would be nice, knowing how far my units might in different phases would probably be just as useful.

Thanks
Rick

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
I would rather see a Company HQ level added where waypoints are used, while at the Platoon level you have the equivalent of the simple "move to that treeline" type orders.  Platoon hip pocket orders are not very complicated affairs in real life.  A Company layer could get you the detailed long range planning you want, and allow you to adjust your Platoon behaviour within the bounds of the "Battalion/Company Commander's Intent".

I agree.
I don't see a way to relate multiple waypoints in a simple platoon order command. It is like issuing written orders to all the subunits of just how far to go before turning off the highway, what point to turn 48° move another 120m and what tree to park next to in advance of actually moving out. At least how do make it seem like this is not happening?

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

I have to tell you guys that I am dismayed at the trend to insist on more micro-management. 

You need to think in shorter moves in PCK, there is no reason for you to plot a move clear across the map in this game IMO, you lose all flexibility and leave your units open to disaster.  As far as losing the PzIIIs like you did.. well, nothing personal,  but really it was your own fault... you should have been bounding if you suspected enemy contact, or you should have used terrain masking better, or you should have done a half dozen other things different... basically you have to think like a real commander and take shorter moves.. move from cover to cover, but always with an overwatching element for protection... gee, just like in real life.  IMO the enemy deserves to get off several shots if you are driving cross country like that before you should get the opportunity to react, there is no way your tanks would know instantly what is shooting at them anyway, and there would be quite lag before they should have the opportunity to respond.  There are many real life anecdotes of just this sort of thing happening, here is one: when Michael Wittman and his Platoon was killed, it was one lone Canadian Sherman Firefly from an orchard (I think) that picked them all off before they could react... it happens to the best.

While I agree that more control would be nice, I wouldn't want this game to turn into CM, I love the Platoon level command aspect and I would hate to lose that feel... I don't see the need for waypoints really at the Platoon level.  Think like a Platoon Leader, not a Company CO when ordering your Platoons. 

I would rather see a Company HQ level added where waypoints are used, while at the Platoon level you have the equivalent of the simple "move to that treeline" type orders.  Platoon hip pocket orders are not very complicated affairs in real life.  A Company layer could get you the detailed long range planning you want, and allow you to adjust your Platoon behaviour within the bounds of the "Battalion/Company Commander's Intent".

So to sum it up, I would like to see more of an emphasis on the command elements in this game, not less.Bil

Needless to say, I wholeheartedly agree with Bil H and feel this overarching need for micromanagement is counterproductive. The waypoint "need" is illusory, as PCK's design demonstrates. And while I too thought it would be necessary for road movement, Mobius describes a different mechanism that may work just as well.

[JudgeDredd]

Well...Waypoints would help with this.

Seriously, I'm very surprised that it's not being mentioned more...am I unlucky? The pathing, generally, is good. However, I am getting pretty bloody tired of units getting stuck on other units. In this particular case, I ordered a bound command to my units.

The front unit is staionary this phase. The second unit which is stuck behind the front unit was the one moving along with the other unit on the bridge. It started to the left rear of the staionary unit and all along that phase moved behind the staionary unit and continued to turn north until it eventually sat behind the front unit, tracks amovin and sat there until the end of the phase.

So regardless of any other reason for waypoints, my main gripe is pathing issues and waypoints could help illiminate the problem.

EDIT
This picture is a better take on it. You can see clearly where the unit is meant to be going...in the end, it is simply stuck behind the friendly!