Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question

[pcelt]

If you are planning an assault involving lorried and carrier infantry companies from an Armoured Brigade and the final half Km to the enemy position consists of heavy woods or marsh which are not negotiable with vehicles--would the infantry automatically attack on foot or.. would those company attacks stall.

My apologies -but I am passing through an inquisitive stage re engaging with the excellent HTTR upgrade.
Thanks for clearing my mind on this one....

[simovitch]

The combat routines model the unit's ability to dismount from the transport and fire, but they do not continue on and enter into the woods. The inability to place the objective order icon inside the woods reflects that movement restriction.

The Brits will usually have a few "dismounted" battalions in the OOB for these types of tasks.

[pcelt]

Thanks Simovitch--I am reflecting here on an attack by a Guards Armoured Brigade alone wih no dismounted infantry.
What would the effect be if you placed the Assault target a little beyond the woods/marsh in clear terrain--would the attack movement still stall at the beginning of the non-negotiable vehicle terrain which exists before reaching the clear ground-----or would the movement forward perhaps be manipulated to go around the prohibited terrain if any clear terrain existed on the edges.
Many thanks

[simovitch]

the mech units will move around the obstacle and then try to coordinate your attack. The results may take longer than you would like.

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: pcelt

If you are planning an assault involving lorried and carrier infantry companies from an Armoured Brigade and the final half Km to the enemy position consists of heavy woods or marsh which are not negotiable with vehicles--would the infantry automatically attack on foot or.. would those company attacks stall.

My apologies -but I am passing through an inquisitive stage re engaging with the excellent HTTR upgrade.
Thanks for clearing my mind on this one....

And if my understanding is correct about the EF game this situation will be addressed so that infantry will dismount and attack on foot thru the heavy woods so that no detour around them will be necessary.....correct?

If so, I wonder if the dismount and proceed on foot order/task (??) will be selectable/orderable by the player or if it will only be performed by the AI as a subordinate on behalf of the player, or both manually and AI automated.
Also leads to when the dismount function will be allowed by the engine......... as in attack orders only?? Or with move orders or withdraw or whatever........


Hmmm.......lots to ponder here.[X(]

Any preliminary thoughts to share with us Arjuna??

Thanks!

Rob.[:)]

[Arjuna]

Keep going Rob. I'm keen to see where your pondering takes you. [;)]

[pcelt]

I should like to ask a supplementary question re my original problem in BFTB.
Does this inability for motorised units to dismount and attack on foot forward across terrain like woods and marsh etc also prevent them from dismounting and forming an on-foot defensive line across wooded terrain etc
If this is the case it would seem a very limiting restriction on the value of motorised infantry.

[TMO]

I'd like to see the AI handle this (mount/remount) as much as possible - I'd imagine that the AI's decision on when to dismount is relatively straight-forward. The problem as I see it is with the remount. If I have a dismounted unit defending a vehicle-unfriendly area and give it , say, a move order it ought to move to the safest and nearest vehicle-friendly area before remounting. The AI should do all this for me. If, however, I choose to continue my attack on foot (another attack in the same terrain) then I need a 'Reattach Transport' command.

This begs a question - as currently modelled, if I have units defending in mountains/forrest etc. where vehicle movement is not permited/severely restricted, how is re-supply handled? How do transport columns get to these units?

Regards

Tim

[Arjuna]

[:)]...it's nice to see the minds of others treading down the same path that I have trod already.

Resupply is easy they will work exactly like we do for foot units in that an RV will be chosen nearby at which point supplies are unloaded from the resupply column and then delivered by manpacks to the troops. The unit receiving the supplies provides the manpacks.

A more challenging question is what to do with the transports when the grunts have moved off into the forest. And do we do soemthing different for soft skinned vehicles and AFVs?

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: pcelt

I should like to ask a supplementary question re my original problem in BFTB.
Does this inability for motorised units to dismount and attack on foot forward across terrain like woods and marsh etc also prevent them from dismounting and forming an on-foot defensive line across wooded terrain etc
If this is the case it would seem a very limiting restriction on the value of motorised infantry.

Yes it does and yes it is a restriction on their value. This is why in some scenarios we have provided "leg" versions so that they can secure the forests.

Development of a simulation/game like this invarioubly involves compromises. We are trying to model a vastly complex system of systems. We've been at this now since 1996 and we continue to progress focussing on the next key issue. This has been on our key issues wishlist for some time but there have been other priorities till now.

[TMO]

A more challenging question is what to do with the transports when the grunts have moved off into the forest

For soft-skinned vehicles (likewise hard-skinned APCs) these should simply disappear when infantry become dismounted and reappear when the infantry become remounted. When using tanks as infantry transport this process is much more tricky - I need to give this a bit more thought.

Regards

Tim

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Keep going Rob. I'm keen to see where your pondering takes you. [;)]

Well.......

For the following I've assumed that you don't want to create specific Remount and Dismount order types if at all possible in order to minimize additional orders delays and player oversight load (as in I have to remember to go back to this battalion and order my assault after the dismount has occurred) and that there will be no sequential tasking in this release.

I think that the ability to initiate dismounts/remounts for motorized units/formations will need to be both selectable by the player for all orders types in much the same manner as waypoints and FUPS are today in situations where the player wishes to exercise more control and automatically handled by the AI subordinate when not player specified. Remount and dismount could be considered to be selectable task options like bypass and stragglers etc. are today within order types such as move and defend etc. Possible rules could be:
1/ where the player has specified waypoints in an order involving dismounting then the dismount will occur at the last waypoint prior to the actual order location. Same as FUPS are player specified today in attack/probe orders. In fact in some circumstances dismount will occur at the FUP. Where the player specified FUP occurs in non-vehicular negotiable terrain then the game engine could either have the dismount automatically occur at the last location in it's path prior to non-allowed vehicular movement with the troops proceeding on foot to the FUP or make the second to last waypoint the dismount location with the last waypoint becoming the FUP for attacks and probes. This could mean that the last 2 waypoints could be very close together in some circumstances. With other order types dismounting would continue to occur at the last player specified waypoint. Once again, the last waypoint and the actual order location could be very close together. As an example using pcelt's initial question scenario above:

The player plots an assault with several waypoints with the last waypoint midway thru the heavy forest. This becomes the FUP. The second to the last waypoint (probably very close to the forest's leading edge) becomes the player specified dismount point. If the player only specifies the FUP midway thru the forest then the engine automatically dismounts the troops at the forest edge along it's chosen path to the player specified FUP.
If the player specifies Move with attack checked but does not check dismount then the unit/formation goes around the forest. If dismount has also been checked then the process as described above is invoked. Attacks along the way involve units dismounting if the AI chooses to attack in locations where vehicles are prohibited.

2/ where the player does not specify waypoints then the AI will automatically generate both FUP and dismount points using rules similar to that above. Whether dismount occurs at the AI generated FUP depends on additional factors such as route type chosen ie. shortest as opposed to quickest etc.
Using the scenario example above the attack icon is placed with no waypoints on the other side of the forest and the dismount option has been chosen with the route type is shortest. The engine generates a dismount task at the edge of the forest and a FUP hopefully somewhere near the other edge of the forest. much as it does today.

Remounts could occur in much the same way except that it would occur at the first player specified waypoint in which both foot and vehicles can navigate, this could be very close to unit's/formations' starting points. If no waypoints are specified then the engine generates a location that is also very close to current locations. Goes without saying that the waypoint must be accessible to vehicles.

I'm running out of time for today and there's more to come tomorrow as this does not address more than just a few scenario's....I'll try to finish tomorrow.

What does everyone think??
Am I just blowing smoke here??

Thanks!

Rob.[:)]

[pcelt]

Rob--Some very good ideas in my view but, for me ,becoming a little over complex in operation . As a relative newcomer to this game and certainly "wet behind the ears" I would prefer a less flexible and less complex system and rather a simpler set of mechanism which might be less realistic but more easily playable.

a) I would prefer the operation in this situation to be basically more automatic and AI controlled.
b) Where movement THROUGH and BEYOND non-negotiable terrain for motorised units is concerned. then Motorised units MUST[ find a route round the obstacle .
c) Where the movement TERMINATES in a DEFEND or ATTACK TYPE ORDER in non negotiable terrain the AI dismounts the motorised infantry at the entry of that terrain and that unit behaves as a foot infantry unit in DEFENSE and ATTACK.
d) When that unit is again issued with any future order involving any sort of MOVING the AI imposes an additional and perhaps significant order DELAY for reuniting with motorised transport and then carrying out any MOVEMENT order .

I am sure this is much too simplistic and would require much more development---but I would in general argue for not making the operation over -complex and difficult to sort out but to maximise automatic AI measures which gives the motorised infantry more realistic value; which steps the player understands ;but the brilliant AI implements.

Thanks--and I eagerly await being shot down in flames....[X(]

[Deathtreader]

Hi pcelt,

No shooting here..... we're saying pretty much the same thing except perhaps for your point B. You've just said it more succintly than I have.
In general my suggestions are intended to add functionality to existing mechanics (such as waypoints and task options) as opposed to something completely new.

Comments always welcome!

Rob.[:)]

[Deathtreader]

Hi all,

Unfortunately this thread was moved while I was composing my last batch of suggestions and the forums would not accept my reply. When I hit ok the window switched to an error message saying that the thread I was replying to would not accept replies and then just closed. All that typing and composing gone in an instant. Very, very discouraging......... so much so that I'm not going to bother redoing it.

Hey, I can hear the sighs of relief from here!! [:D]

Rob.

[Arjuna]

Sorry for that Rob, but I thought this discussion belonged in the general section rather than tech support.

[Deathtreader]

Hey, that's ok Arjuna.

You're absolutely right about about it not belonging in tech support. Timing, as they say, is everything --- and my timing was bad today. [:D]

Now honestly, am I close or way off in left field somewhere with what I've already written??

I can take it..........


Rob.[:)]

[wodin]

Great discussion lads. Not much more I can add. It seems like Dave has been working on this for awhile. I'm sure what ever way he does it will all be about how it functions in game. I have faith. I also have to give a massive thumbs up to this being in the next game.

Dave when will you have a list of the major new features that have been passed as a go for the EF game?

[Arjuna]

I'm going to take these one at a time. Right now I have a lot of Defence business going on, so I am loathe to commit to a swag of features.

[wodin]

Fair enough, defence work is where the money is.

I think the doctrine and the dismounted Inf are two that should be in. Infact I'd be very happy with those two new features.