A brand new campaign-based 3D tactical engine covering combat in World War II, from the developers at Koios Works. The first operation covered is the famous "Wintergewitter" or Winter Storm, a desperate attempt by Hoth's 57th Panzer Korps to break through to the encircled 6th Armee at Stalingrad and the Soviet counter-attack by 2nd Guards Army that drove them back.
Waypoints are needed if infantry has any chance of surviving in these wide open spaces. I've attached a screenshot of an example of an instance where some more finesse is needed in the way units use cover.
I tried many different placements of this movement, and this(the blue line) was one of the better paths available. The village at the top of the picture is swarming with Soviets. I want my little dudes to approach under the cover of the tree line, as drawn in by me at left in green.
Why do these guys insist on moving through an open field with the movement system as is? Will I need to "baby step" them with several little move orders to keep them alive? If so, this is more micromanagement than having waypoints.
Attachments
Untitled1.jpg (90.62 KiB) Viewed 429 times
"Fear is a darkroom where the devil develops his negatives" Gary Busey
I understand that there are some concerns about the pathfinding and the desire to have waypoints.
But, to be clear, the pathfinding algorithm is looking for the fastest route between two points. It will avoid running through the trees since that willtake much longer. If, as a strategy, you are trying to use the trees for cover, then you should run them into the trees.
Deride
On the face of things, a lot of folks will agree with you. But, the short distances that units move really tends to render the use of waypoints a secondary concern, at least IMO. I state this because I believe that the practical effect of the game's relatively small movement increments is to give players a considerable amount of say in which direction a unit SHOULD go as they negotiate the battlefield.
Take the situation depicted in your screenshot, for example. It's gonna take that infantry unit a couple of turns to complete that move, interdicted or otherwise, even if they use a RUSH order. If they use an ADVANCE or ENGAGE/DEFEND MOVE order, it'll take a lot longer.
It seems obvious that the solution to your dilemna is to issue shorter, more frequent movement orders for you squads or vehicles. The result is virtually identical to plotting waypoints. If a player is really concerned about walking in to a disadvantaged situation, all he has to do is issue a shorter move on the front end. If one of his units is heading for trouble, he can simply halt them.
The shortest route to the destination in this case will certainly end in disaster. See the other gents sprawled by their APC nearby.
If the end result is issuing shorter movement orders, I can live with that. Any tweak that will have infantry attempt to use more covered routes would be appreciated, however.
Thanks for the replies, gents.
"Fear is a darkroom where the devil develops his negatives" Gary Busey
I'm not opposed to the idea. I just don't think that it's a deal-breaker. The turns are short, movement increments typically small (apart from RUSH), and you can stop a unit half-way through its turn, during the reaction phase.
What I am opposed to, though, is a system based on the extreme micro-plotting of moves, not only of subordinates, but also of their subunits, one where the events unfolding on the map end up looking like some bizarrely conceived play from American football.
I've seen folks draw up a turn, some of it entailing movement clear across a map, waypoints and all. Plenty of players obsess over such moves for hours at a time. Well, come the next turn, they'll turn around and redraw all the movement that went uncompleted in the previous turn because the situation changed. No kidding, they do it all the time.
Again, I'll refer you to the diagrammed illustration at the top of this thread. It appears as though it's gonna take the infantry at least three turns to complete that move, (if they use the RUSH command). Why not just draw up several shorter moves, over a span of turns, through less exposed terrain?
Of course, my comments are all based on personal preference. I respect your views and wouldn't remove the game from my computer were waypoints to be included in some future patch or game. IMO, however, resources would be better spent on developing other aspects of the game.
ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
What I am opposed to, though, is a system based on the extreme micro-plotting of moves, not only of subordinates, but also of their subunits, one where the events unfolding on the map end up looking like some bizarrely conceived play from American football.
I've seen folks draw up a turn, some of it entailing movement clear across a map, waypoints and all. Plenty of players obsess over such moves for hours at a time. Well, come the next turn, they'll turn around and redraw all the movement that went uncompleted in the previous turn because the situation changed. No kidding, they do it all the time.
You really caught on to the gist of the game.
Underlining the orders to infantry or other units should reflect what a CHQ or Platoon HQ might quickly tell their men. Go there, defilade right to there. Not some weird series of points at distances that only a survey team or 1000' foot general might see.
Good comments here, thanks. The intention was indeed to plot shorter moves when wanting to remain in cover. However, adding a pathfinding option to stay in cover as much as possible may be a good way to streamline this. We'll discuss and see if that can be implemented.
Waypoints of some kind are also on the design table and have already been looked at as far as what it would take to implement them.
My suggestion is calibration or distance marks on the movement string. To show where a full move would be, a half move and 25m or whatever is the maximum Defend>Move distance is at. So the order with greatest firing for that amount of moving can be selected.
However, adding a pathfinding option to stay in cover as much as possible may be a good way to streamline this.
My fear of this is how CM does it. AI controlled vehicles on a tree lined road will hug the edge of the road trying to stay in the trees for cover. That can cause traffic jams, slow movement, which makes designing a AI attack scenario difficult.
Conflict of Heroes "Most games are like checkers or chess and some have dice and cards involved too. This game plays like checkers but you think like chess and the dice and cards can change everything in real time."
However, adding a pathfinding option to stay in cover as much as possible may be a good way to streamline this.
My fear of this is how CM does it. AI controlled vehicles on a tree lined road will hug the edge of the road trying to stay in the trees for cover. That can cause traffic jams, slow movement, which makes designing a AI attack scenario difficult.
Agreed. I don't make any confidence to any pathlosing AI [:D] . I want waypoints to plot several turns'moves to contact, and put my guys in sensible cover locations.
