Additional Movements

[rich12545]

There are a few movement options I always wished for in toaw. These are like different movement shortcuts and can reduce micromanaging moving units.

1. Formation movement. Select the hq and move it. The window popup will include formation move (kind of like stack move). If chosen, all units in the formation will move in the same general direction as the hq.

2. Form up. Right click the hq. One option is form up. If chosen, all units in the formation will move toward the hq.

3. Continue movement. Allow the right click to move anywhere. If the unit can't get there in one turn, it will automatically move there (or toward there) the next turn. Then the next turn, etc. This would mostly be used to bring units from the rear to near the front.

[parusski]

Yes, yes, yes. I have been meaning to ask for formation movement too. I love the game(my wife is most likely going to divorce me over it)-but I hate moving the units one at a time. Good idea.

[Industrial]

well, you can always use group movement to move a stack of up to 9 units at a time, but how should formation movement work?
Especially if a formation was seperated and half of it is deployed 100s of Km from the HQ? Or blocked by natural obstacles? Or by the enemy? What if heavy overstacking penalties would apply, because the MP squad from another formation isn't in place yet?
Or if 'moving towards the HQ' would send them straight through the swamps while there might have been a railroad nearby to move them far more efficient?

In short, something like this close to impossible to resolve in a reasonable way, there are simply too many possibilities, the AI could never do a good job at such a task.

It would be far too complicated to specifically tell a formation what you ment by 'formation move' (should all advance in the general direction? or assemble at that specific point? what if obstacles block the way? ...), so that it's far easier and in the end less time consuming to actually move every unit manually.

[rich12545]

Not complicated at all.  There are many games that use formation move.  Steel Panthers group move comes to mind.  Also Combat Mission.  Obviously you wouldn't use it if units are too spread out or separated by obstacles.  That's one reason to have the form up movement also.

If the hq is ordered to move north, for example, then every unit in the formation would move north from wherever it is.  The use of formation and form up would make movement simpler, not more complicated, and way easier to keep formations more closely formed.

[Industrial]

In Combat Mission you don't have formation movement, you have group movement, whereby you select nearby units and give them a move order. Because they are nearby that makes sense, because they will travel a similar path, over identical terrain, to the same target, so as a player you can be halfway sure that they'll get where you want them to go.

But just imagine playing a large map, buying a platoon of T-34 and placing them neatly spaced in 500m distance from eachother at the bottom of the map, would you think that 'formation move' would make any sense than? No, because the terrain ahead will be so different for each tank that you'd have to correct all their movement path manually anyway.

Well, as I said, group movement is already part of TOAW, and it sometimes make sense to simply move a whole stack at once, but a formation could be really spread out, facing entirely different terrain ahead, not to speak of enemy resistance, than such an order won't really help most of the time.

[PaladinSix]

ORIGINAL: Industrial

In Combat Mission you don't have formation movement, you have group movement, whereby you select nearby units and give them a move order.

Wouldn't the same sort of thing be possible it TOAW? Select multiple units at different locations and have them move towards the same point? Something along the lines of the "All Units Attack" command from the pop-up menu, but for movement instead.

Since the computer alread recognizes formations, and is capable of executing the same command for multiple units, combining these two features doesn't strike me as all that difficult. Of course, I'm not a programmer, so I may be wrong but......

PaladinSix

[rich12545]

Formation movement and the group movement in CM would be similar.  With FM, if the units are too far apart or it wouldn't work well in that instance, then don't use it.  But there would be many many situations where all units in the formation are fairly close together but you don't want to stack them all and it would greatly simplify movement. 

Also, there are advantages to keeping the formation somewhat close.  Form up would work great for that if the units are spread.

[Industrial]

first problem, you can give orders to multiple units, but only if they are in the same hex, there is at the moment no way to select several units from different hexes at the same time

next, say you select 5 units in a row and have clear terrain ahead, and all 5 are ordered to move straight ahead for 10 hexes, at hex 2 your middle unit bumps into a previously unseen enemy, what should happen? The other units should just eep on advancing as ordered, taking ZOC penalties and diesengaging shots from the bypassed enemy? This would basically make group movement suicidal, but whould the whole group on the other hand just stop? the outermost units could advance with no problem.

problems, problems, problems, I can see many problems, but very little to gain from such a function, I doubt whether the development team will (if ever) put such a function on high priority on their to-do list

[rich12545]

Well, I guess I don't see the problems you do.  And if we're lucky enough to get these three moves in the game, you know what?  They'd be optional and you wouldn't ever have to use them.

I believe these three moves would be used by the majority of players when circumstances warranted and would be a huge benefit.  So if any of you devs are looking, please give them consideration.

[Dave Ferguson]

I too would like to see formation orders in TOAW. I can't see any intrinsic problem in doing it as the PO does it all the time in its move planning. A 'form up' order is similar to placing a new target hex for the formation which it move/attacks toward. My ideal formation order list would be:

'form up' - move toward HQ
'redeploy' - move toward a target hex - same as form up I suppose but you could add a waypoint.
'form line' - move toward 2 target hexes and form a defensive position guarding a line between those hexes.

I suppose the PO does this stuff all the time and you can change to the PO during your game. Now if you could change to the PO and tell TOAW to only move designated formations with temporary target hexes and orders you would have what you want?

Question - does the PO have the logic to navigate around obstacles? It should as standard move algorithms do this.

I love those big east front scenarios but for me they take too long to play a turn and anything that would help would be welcome.

Slightly off subject but if players or the PO could change a formations PO objective hexes you would have the possibility of adding a AI layer to the PO play which would have the PO able to react to the overall situation in addition to the existing fixed objective tracks. It might make the PO a better defender.

Dave

[Szilard]

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

I too would like to see formation orders in TOAW. I can't see any intrinsic problem in doing it as the PO does it all the time in its move planning. A 'form up' order is similar to placing a new target hex for the formation which it move/attacks toward. My ideal formation order list would be:

'form up' - move toward HQ
'redeploy' - move toward a target hex - same as form up I suppose but you could add a waypoint.
'form line' - move toward 2 target hexes and form a defensive position guarding a line between those hexes.

I suppose the PO does this stuff all the time and you can change to the PO during your game. Now if you could change to the PO and tell TOAW to only move designated formations with temporary target hexes and orders you would have what you want?

Question - does the PO have the logic to navigate around obstacles? It should as standard move algorithms do this.

I love those big east front scenarios but for me they take too long to play a turn and anything that would help would be welcome.

Slightly off subject but if players or the PO could change a formations PO objective hexes you would have the possibility of adding a AI layer to the PO play which would have the PO able to react to the overall situation in addition to the existing fixed objective tracks. It might make the PO a better defender.

Dave

This si the right way of looking at, I think; add the ability to let the PO take control of particular formations. This would give you formation move etc etc etc. Of course you'd want to do this in conjunction with real force hierarchies, the ability to re-organize formation structures during the game, and a bunch of other things. I get the impression that some of this is on the drawing board for a possible future release - hope so!

Note that designers have a limited ability to change formation objectives, by setting up to 3 different objective tracks, with events to switch between them. It's clumsy & inadequate, but it does give a certain minimal degree of flexibility.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rich12545

Well, I guess I don't see the problems you do.  And if we're lucky enough to get these three moves in the game, you know what?  They'd be optional and you wouldn't ever have to use them.

Frankly I feel that in practice;
a) these movement options would be unuseable in the majority of situations
b) using them would always yeild worse results than moving units manually and above all
c) programming them would divert effort away from features which will actually make the game work better.

[Dave Ferguson]

Well if you have unlimited time to play each move you can move each unit and micromanage your game. Mere mortals like me have limited time but large ambitions when it comes to scenarios. I think the PO planning and executing the move of designated formations would enhance the game and is a valid and real goal. We are not talking attack planning here and the PO managed moves would be movement/digin operations. It does not really matter if the PO does not perform a 'optimum' move and if that is what you want you can get mouse clicking. Even being able to modify the objective tracks during game play would be useful for those who want to play a 'moderated' game against the PO.

[Telumar]

I just can second what Kraut and Golden delicious have said. Such movement options would make only sense in some scenarios or situations i.e. the east front monsters, when it comes to the Ukraine or the steppes in various Stalingrad/Fall Blau scenarios. Otherwise i see only problems, mainly enemy ZOCs and terrain obstacles like major rivers etc.

Btw, Elmer wouldn't need to be taught this, he moves a zillion times faster than we humans..

[rich12545]

Here's the deal.  These movements make sense in a lot of situations and don't make sense in others.  There have been a lot of times when I wished for a formation move but had to move each unit individually for several turns.  There have been a lot of times when I wished for a form up move to get the formation together but had to move each unit individually.  And there have been a lot of times when I wished for a continued movement but had to move each unit individually for several turns just to get units from the rear to the front.

These wouldn't be instead of what we have now but in addition to.  Nobody has to use them.  But a lot of people would a lot of the time.

Again, nobody has to use them.  So why would anybody get his tail in a knot if they were added?

Stack move is a shortcut to keep from moving each unit individually and reduce tedium.  It is optional.  These three movements would work the same way.  They would enhance the game for a lot of people.

[Industrial]

ORIGINAL: rich12545

Again, nobody has to use them.  So why would anybody get his tail in a knot if they were added?

Because the devopment 'team' is one programmer who works on this game in his free time as he still has a regular job.

So, implementing this feature, which most players won't use, or rarely use, but which would probably be really hard to program with the current TOAW game system, would distract valuable development time from some of the more important (to the majority of players) feaures of TOAW, such as air war, naval war, UI improvements, supply improvements, scenario editor improvements etc etc.

Thats why you probably can expect this (should the devs add it to the ToDo list) to be on low priority.

[Dave Ferguson]

Well, if the development team is one person coding in his spare time there is a danger that the game may be going nowhere fast. I can see why game changes have to be strictly prioritised but of course posters should not be discouraged from making suggestions, everyone can have a opinion!

Is this 'to do' list published? I would like to see in what direction the game is going as the current version appears to have several of the problems that led me to stop playing the it several years ago.

[Industrial]

Well, there is an old WishList posted at SZO http://www.xtreme-gamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33232, but it hasn't been updated for quite some time.

I'm sure Ralph has a ToDo list, but I don't know whether he'd publish it, as than most likely 10.000s of posters would start to argue about the priority of the various options [;)]

[rich12545]

Your priority is possibly my "who cares." And vice versa. Imo a lot of people would use these movements. They are as basic as stack move. How about people make suggestions and let the devs decide priority. If they don't make it then I'm not going to cry about it. But all three are very good ideas and judging from this thread, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Industrial

ORIGINAL: rich12545

Again, nobody has to use them. So why would anybody get his tail in a knot if they were added?

Because the devopment 'team' is one programmer who works on this game in his free time as he still has a regular job.

That's not entirely true, as the development team also consists of me, as the Project Manager, and a cadre of dedicated volunteers assisting with QA testing, private development discussions, and online support. I vigorously object to any denigration of their contributions, whether intentional or not.

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

Well, if the development team is one person coding in his spare time there is a danger that the game may be going nowhere fast.

We're going "nowhere" much faster than the game has gone in any time over the last 6 years. I hope you don't have a problem with that...[:-]

We don't have any problem with the community debating among itself as to what features the individual members would like to see among those incorporated in future upgrades to the engine, or separately developed products in the TOAW family. Some of the ideas may find their way into future releases, and some may not. As Industrial implies, in some cases, this may be contingent upon the amount of time and effort needed to integrate said features into the existing code base. In others, it may be due to the feature being wholly beyond the intended scope of the game.

And now, down to some analogies...[:D]

You might want to keep in mind, the image of the program as a car. One that is being restored/modified. There are some changes that we can do to this car, that will make it run faster, handle better, acquire the amenities of more modern technologies, and even function in ways that the original designer never intended. However, at each step of this restoration, or modification, process we have to ensure that the product is a consistent and well-functioning piece of machinery.

Thus, we can put better tires and wheels on the car, tweak the engine for more horsepower, add a cd-player, GPS, and halogen headlights, tighten the suspension, and put better brakes on it, as well as a host of other well-integrated features, and improvements. However, depending on where we want the game to go, as developers, we need to prioritize the addition of these enhancements in a logical fashion that allows them to work well with the other features and retains a sense of consistent purpose to the final product, as we envision it.

It is almost always a entertaining mental exercise to imagine adding retractable pontoons, anti-commuter guided missiles, machine guns, back seat mounted soft-serve ice cream dispensers, lasers that fire at the disco-balls that hang from the trunk when opened, hydraulic jumpers, and wings, like Speed Racer, and Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang, with the kind thought that "nobody would have to use those features if they didn't want to". However the reality is that far from the Walt Disney, or James Bond fueled fantasies of such multi-purpose devices' reliablility and functionality, in the real world, such excess, or largesse, often makes for an inelegant and unreliable machine, due to the necessary complexity of integrating such divergent design requests. That is the balancing act that we must perform, each time we elect to incorporate new features into the game.

That said, Ralph is very much a fan of making things easier in the UI for players to handle their forces or to reduce micromanagement, and this request seems to be of some potential use in larger scenarios. Whether it would be easy to implement, is another story. We already have a lot of things planned for the series, and unless things are extremely easy to program in, they will have to go on the "wish list" until we can get caught up. We've got a lot of "nowheres" to get to, and only a limited amount of time to do it.

We hope you all stay along for the ride.