BFTB Build 4.4.259

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Ramses

ORIGINAL: Jafele

Thanks Dave, I´m amazed [X(] with your hard work on BFTB.

Same here.

The sad thing is I do have another ctd to report. Hell on wheels scenario. Savegame sent.

Ramses,

Thanks for the save. I was able to confirm that part of the new code I had added to adjust the bounding box of the order icon wasn't checking for dud units. It now does. FIXED.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Dave. Is this really how you wish it to be? I've given an HQ a very slight Defend task. The pic is taken after surrender, so you can see how close the enemy units are. I'm guessing that the units at the bridge ramp are within the 1000m range, but this is counter-intuitive, I feel. And infuriating. I ought to be able to get this HQ and its base to move this short distance. No?

First off I think it is a pretty dumb idea sticking your Regt HQ in that exposed position less than 1000m away from the enemy. But I respect your desire to be able to do it.

There are two alternatives to satisfy you. First, turn off the threat assessment for senior HQs and support units or provide an order option for you to ignore this. The first one will then have you complaining that HQs and support units are heading off into danger and for that there was a loud clamouring last time IIRC. So I'm not going to do that. The second option is a new feature. I think it is a good feature but I am not going to hold up the final patch #4 for it. It will be added to the wish list for future development. That's the best I can offer right now.

[navwarcol]

I definitely do NOT want, even a very good AI, choosing whether or not to bring up a regimental HQ or a supply depot into range of enemy fire. I do think maybe if a human controller selects the HQ and chooses to move it forward, then perhaps that "direct order" should override the game's caution...perhaps if combined with a stubborn or aggressive commander rating. In the end though there are few regimental commanders who would have chosen to expose themselves so close to enemy units.. and most who did, did not survive to do it again.

[Arjuna]

Jim,

You may not want the AI to choose but choose it must because otherwise it would do as before - ie it has an order to Move to a Reserve Loc for an attack but on the way it runs into enemy that were not there when the original plan was developed. Without some reaction and reassess code to handle this case it would continue as ordered into harms way. I think everyone agrees that this is not a good thing. The alternative is to simply raise an alert message and continue, leaving it to the player to respond if they wish. This would have the irksome effect of requiring the player to get involved making decisions that normally would be left to the subordinates and/or of running the risk that the user misses the message while focussed elsewhere and then cursing the stupid AI for getting his Bde HQ destroyed.

[navwarcol]

Was actually meaning that in agreement with you, but I did not phrase it correctly. I meant that I do not want it to choose (in favor of) a route that takes it close to the enemy. I prefer it always choose to stay far away, safely behind lines. The idea of a human override option is appealing, but I would want it only by human control able to override, never by AI control.

[dazkaz15]

I actually agree with Phoenix on this one.

I preferred the way the HQ, and especially the Depot was before the 1000m rule. Sorry about that [:(]

Yes, it was annoying if the AI chose a bad route for HQ or Base that passed through locations you know will have enemy in them, and the AI was unaware of, but its far more annoying that you can't move them into positions that make tactical sense to you as a player, to save them from destruction as in some of the HTTR scenarios.

At least before once you became aware that this may be a problem you got into the habit of checking the route that the AI had chosen, and if it was a bad one you where able to issue a fire order to halt it in its tracks, then put in a more accurate route for it via more waypoints or shortest path etc.

This new way of handling the HQ takes away choice/options from the player, and places it in the hands of the AI, and until we have an option that

The second option is a new feature. I think it is a good feature but I am not going to hold up the final patch #4 for it. It will be added to the wish list for future development

It would be better to go back to the old method of keeping an eye on the HQ moves.

I'm not demanding anything Dave, this is just my opinion, if you and others think different, or you don't want to mess with it an more, or don't have time to fit it in then fine, I'm sure we can adapt [:)]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Jim,

You may not want the AI to choose but choose it must because otherwise it would do as before - ie it has an order to Move to a Reserve Loc for an attack but on the way it runs into enemy that were not there when the original plan was developed. Without some reaction and reassess code to handle this case it would continue as ordered into harms way. I think everyone agrees that this is not a good thing. The alternative is to simply raise an alert message and continue, leaving it to the player to respond if they wish. This would have the irksome effect of requiring the player to get involved making decisions that normally would be left to the subordinates and/or of running the risk that the user misses the message while focussed elsewhere and then cursing the stupid AI for getting his Bde HQ destroyed.

Having the game paused - so the player has time to react appropiately - when such messages are generated is a new feature we can provide in the very near future, Dave. There's a problem with MP games, of course, as both players would have to get the game paused.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Jim,

You may not want the AI to choose but choose it must because otherwise it would do as before - ie it has an order to Move to a Reserve Loc for an attack but on the way it runs into enemy that were not there when the original plan was developed. Without some reaction and reassess code to handle this case it would continue as ordered into harms way. I think everyone agrees that this is not a good thing. The alternative is to simply raise an alert message and continue, leaving it to the player to respond if they wish. This would have the irksome effect of requiring the player to get involved making decisions that normally would be left to the subordinates and/or of running the risk that the user misses the message while focussed elsewhere and then cursing the stupid AI for getting his Bde HQ destroyed.

Having the game paused - so the player has time to react appropiately - when such messages are generated is a new feature we can provide in the very near future, Dave. There's a problem with MP games, of course, as both players would have to get the game paused.

Maybe it could be accompanied with a louder, or even adjustable in volume, warning sound? Even the warning sounds could be different for, different kinds of warnings?

[Phoenix100]

Thanks Dave. I certainly recall very well what it was like when HQs used to lead attacks etc, and I was a part of that clamour you mention, so wouldn't want to return to that. Second option sounds good to me. Thanks.

I'm not sure why it's 'pretty dumb' to site it as I have, Dave. I'm coming back at you on this little comment because it seems to me that variations of this problem occur all the time in the HTTR scenarios (the big ones) andf I would hope you would take it more seriously than thinking I was simply doing something dumb when you make your decision to relegate the fix to much later. It's an airborne operation and the problem you have in those (in HTTR) is that your extended supply lines are perhaps impossible to defend over the long term, if you want to also achieve the bridge objectives. They may not be impossible for you, Dave, but for me, anyway, and perhaps many other less capable players. At any rate, you might at least concede that it's possible faced with this problem that you might think it desirable to have your bases and HQs a little closer to the front line than the SEPs are. And if you concede even that, in these scenarios, then this piece of coding has already buggered you, right there. Because we're behind enemy lines and after a time it can be impossible to find a route to ANYWHERE further away than the SEPs without running into this code, because there are enemy units all over, even if they are pretty insignificant units that all other friendly units seem to happily ignore. In addition, it's possible that you simply give the HQ a defend order (without any movement) right where it has landed, right on the drop zone, next to the SEP and if there is an enemy unit within the range then it can't even comply with that defend order!!! It gets stuck.

The pic above is from a series of experiments I've been doing, changing SEP positions (tryng to enjoy a feature of the game which you have made!! ). The one above is more extreme than others - but I've run into the same problem with all of them. So, I'll certainly be glad when you change that bit of code, by adding a new feature. But I'd add - I didn't see this pre-patch 4. So as long as we're sure it is working as planned.....

Plus, the other more obvious reason the above isn't dumb at all is that the units in threat range are not a threat at all. Absolutely not. I've played this scenario and variations on it so many times and those units are about to be rolled up no problem. That's why I should be allowed to get my HQ and base to a safe postion, within lines, completely ignoring the threat it perceives, because those units are, in fact, not a threat.

Unless there was some other reason it's dumb - something I'm not aware of?

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
Maybe it could be accompanied with a louder, or even adjustable in volume, warning sound? Even the warning sounds could be different for, different kinds of warnings?

See that when you plot a Move-like task into unreachable terrain you get an audible warning. Is that too easy to go unnoticed?

Of all the reports generated, which do you think should allow the option to get the game paused and an alarm issued?

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
Maybe it could be accompanied with a louder, or even adjustable in volume, warning sound? Even the warning sounds could be different for, different kinds of warnings?

See that when you plot a Move-like task into unreachable terrain you get an audible warning. Is that too easy to go unnoticed?

Of all the reports generated, which do you think should allow the option to get the game paused and an alarm issued?

See that when you plot a Move-like task into unreachable terrain you get an audible warning. Is that too easy to go unnoticed?

No that is fine because your attention is focused on that order at that time, as you are physically moving the order when it happens.

What does go unnoticed is all the quiet beeping for the resupply routine messages, because for the majority of time it's not important to you, and this causes your brain to switch of the beeping so you miss the important ones like in the list below. It would be more important to hear one of the resupplies that does not get through than the hundreds that do IMHO

Of all the reports generated, which do you think should allow the option to get the game paused and an alarm issued?

1, New reinforcements arriving on map. (very important this one, especially as you only have an hour orders delay free time to move them)
2, When an assault is about to begin, after the reorg at the FUP to allow you time to set up your arty fire plan for said assault.
3, When a move or attack stalls.
4, When a commander decides to re plan his attack.
5, Once the route/plan for a move or any order has been developed by the AI after orders delay, and plotted on the map to allow you to check its route.
6, When a HQ sets a bypass route after encountering enemy, onece again to check its new route.

It would be very important to make these individually optional so as not to spam the player with pauses he does not want, as different people play with different levels of interfearance.

A particular one I would like but don't know if it is doable, would be to have individual groups of units flagged to cause the pause, but other units not.
For example you are only concentrating on one Regiment and you don't really care what the others are doing, you could set that regiment only to pause on orders as mentioned above. All the others would go about their business without spamming you with pauses you don't care about.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Thanks Dave. I certainly recall very well what it was like when HQs used to lead attacks etc, and I was a part of that clamour you mention, so wouldn't want to return to that. Second option sounds good to me. Thanks.

The HQ 1000m rule was not put in to counter HQ's leading the attack as that particular problem was fixed before that, in the work Dave did on the formation code?
It was put in to prevent them from taking a route to the objective re org, or on a move through areas that had enemy in them I thought?

As for the route to the re org on the objective why does the Battalion HQ not use the shortest route, like the line units do, as they clear the area in their advance to the objective during the assault by default?
Instead it decides to take a completely different route, which looks like it's an avoidance route that generally takes it through un cleared terrain via the road, and into as yet unseen enemy on that road.
Surely a good temporary fix for this would be to make it use shortest route to the re org on the objective, to take advantage of the clearing work the line units have just done, but can be overriden by player setting a different route?

[dazkaz15]

edit:
Deleted double post

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
As for the route to the re org on the objective why does the Battalion HQ not use the shortest route, like the line units do, as they clear the area in their advance to the objective during the assault by default?
Instead it decides to take a completely different route, which looks like it's an avoidance route that generally takes it through un cleared terrain via the road, and into as yet unseen enemy on that road.
Surely a good temporary fix for this would be to make it use shortest route to the re org on the objective, to take advantage of the clearing work the line units have just done, but can be overriden by player setting a different route?

Well it that may work fine where the reserveLoc is just behind the FUP but there are many cases where it is not.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
As for the route to the re org on the objective why does the Battalion HQ not use the shortest route, like the line units do, as they clear the area in their advance to the objective during the assault by default?
Instead it decides to take a completely different route, which looks like it's an avoidance route that generally takes it through un cleared terrain via the road, and into as yet unseen enemy on that road.
Surely a good temporary fix for this would be to make it use shortest route to the re org on the objective, to take advantage of the clearing work the line units have just done, but can be overriden by player setting a different route?

Well it that may work fine where the reserveLoc is just behind the FUP but there are many cases where it is not.

As the FUP is usually placed by you in an area of relative safety within friendly controlled area, and then the line units clear from it to the objective, could it not be set up that the HQ follows the route from the reserve area to the FUP then a shortest path from there, during the re org on the objective phase?

[CriticalMass]

With regard to pausing on messages, I always liked (and suggested as) the solution the Harpoon series of games uses; a pop-up with the message and the option to either continue (at current game speed) or drop down to 1:1 time. Of course there is no 1:1 time in CmdOps...yet, but that could be pause.

I do like the idea of tasks/orders having a selectable option to pause on...what? (hmm, UI changes suck).

[Phoenix100]

Daz wrote: The HQ 1000m rule was not put in to counter HQ's leading the attack as that particular problem was fixed before that, in the work Dave did on the formation code?
It was put in to prevent them from taking a route to the objective re org, or on a move through areas that had enemy in them I thought?
Ah. Well in that case I'm with you, Daz. If the code isn't the code that stops HQs leading attacks, then I agree it would be better to revert to what we had and caution us all to watch out. Because the options that are limited presently are too much, I think, in the airborne ops. It works fine, I've found in BFTB (which is what most people here are using to test this patch) but once you start playing scenarios with bases and HQs deep behind enemny lines then it's a problem, I think. I would ask you to consider this again, Dave, if possible, please? You might not have had many complaints about it because people are not playing HTTR scenarios much, but I think once they start that (once they're converted) then you will have a 'clamour' about it. Am I right to guess that the code will lead to the position - where you have a base/HQ almost surrounded (even at, say, a distance of 1,200m) - which will happen quite frequently in HTTR scenarios, especially if they're hard to move away from SEPs - then they will be unable to sneak through lines at night, say? Surely you don't want them so stuck? I really think Daz is right and it would be better, as a short-term solution, to revert the position.

You haven't answered my previous points, Dave - but it really is useful to be able to site bases closer to the front line troops in HTTR scenarios. Supply between SEP and base is frequently cut, and if your base is right by the SEP then you can't use its stockpile at all.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Fixes for Build 4.4.259 ...

Do these fixes also affect the HttR add-on?

[wodin]

Joe taking an educated guess I think any scenario in game is effected by fixes that aren't scenario specific (for instance changing scenario set up etc)

[Phoenix100]

From my playing - hence the posts above, Joe - I'd say yes - that's why I'm raising the issue above - because it does affect the playing of HTTR scenarios.