Page 1 of 1
Revised ETA?
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:02 am
by Brady
The Skinny on the ETA is, now........?
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 12:59 am
by Arjuna
Providing an ETA is not a $64,000 question but yes we are running behind. One of the culprits is the Mixed Mode Movement code, which is proving to be a HUGE undertaking. Given the very steep terrain in the area of operations we decided that we had to address this issue. In HTTR there are no slope effects ( hey Holland's effectively flat, right? ) and there are no locations on the maps which are traversable to one moveType but not to another - eg. foot units can traverse but motorised cannot - ie all locations are either traversable or not for all unit types.
So we have added slope effects, which reduce the speed at which units can move on sloping ground. If it gets too steep, then movement is prevented. For foot this cuts out at around 60 degrees, while for motorised it cuts out at 30 degrees. So now we have cases where foot units can enter a location with a 45 degree slope but motorised units cannot. This causes heaps of problems for the AI that has to handle cases where, for instance, a foot infantry unit that is currently half way up a mountain is assigned a motorised AT troop and ordered to move to another location. The very start location for the boss( the Inf coy ) is impassable to the motorised AT troop. So this has meant quite a bit of revision and modification to our code.
We're almost done on that. Hopefully, we will be able to get out a new beta build for our testers later this week ( touch wood! ).
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:24 am
by Brady
Ty for the reply, this goes to show just how great this game will be, the atention to detail is impresive.
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:37 am
by thecker
I would think that even in holland there would be terrain types impassible to motorized...like woods or marshes?
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:48 am
by CriticalMass
ORIGINAL: thecker
I would think that even in holland there would be terrain types impassible to motorized...like woods or marshes?
I think in HTTR even these seemingly impassable terrains do in fact have implicit tracks and trails which allow a degree of movement to all (even major rivers are passable, somewhere). I think a mountain side track is another proposition.
TANX
Andrew
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:35 pm
by pamak1970
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Providing an ETA is not a $64,000 question but yes we are running behind. One of the culprits is the Mixed Mode Movement code, which is proving to be a HUGE undertaking. Given the very steep terrain in the area of operations we decided that we had to address this issue. In HTTR there are no slope effects ( hey Holland's effectively flat, right? ) and there are no locations on the maps which are traversable to one moveType but not to another - eg. foot units can traverse but motorised cannot - ie all locations are either traversable or not for all unit types.
So we have added slope effects, which reduce the speed at which units can move on sloping ground. If it gets too steep, then movement is prevented. For foot this cuts out at around 60 degrees, while for motorised it cuts out at 30 degrees. So now we have cases where foot units can enter a location with a 45 degree slope but motorised units cannot. This causes heaps of problems for the AI that has to handle cases where, for instance, a foot infantry unit that is currently half way up a mountain is assigned a motorised AT troop and ordered to move to another location. The very start location for the boss( the Inf coy ) is impassable to the motorised AT troop. So this has meant quite a bit of revision and modification to our code.
We're almost done on that. Hopefully, we will be able to get out a new beta build for our testers later this week ( touch wood! ).
One question regarding the above.
Does the new movement system and limitations apply to forests also ,or only to slopes?
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2004 10:26 pm
by Golf33
We are currently reviewing movement data across all terrain types as part of the introduction of the new movement system. We'll be able to provide more details at a later stage in the process.
Regards
33
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:07 am
by Arjuna
ORIGINAL: pamak1970
Does the new movement system and limitations apply to forests also ,or only to slopes?
As Golf said we are curently reviewing this. but the short answer is yes it will. The new mixed mode movement code will enable us to prohibit one class ( eg motorised ) from entering a particular terrain type while allowing another class ( eg foot ) to enter it. So it will be possible in the MapMaker to say that forests are "no go" for motorised.
The net effect of the changes mean that we now support different movement tables as evidenced below. These are viewable from the MapMaker. In the example below, the darker the colour the easier or quicker a unit of that type can move, white is impassable ( eg magor rivers ) and red means the area is unreachable ( usually because it is surrounded by some impassable terrain ( eg. the tops of steeply sloped hills and/or forested areas on the Wheeled table below ). Note that for Foot units the bulk of the map can be traversed fairly easily, though a few mountain peaks are impassable ( white areas ). However, the area is not so easy going for motorised ( wheeled ) units.
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:59 am
by CriticalMass
Will there be any indication in from the UI that a certain area on the map is "impassable" or more specifically "unreachable". What are the ramifications of ordering a unit to move to an unreachable position? will it circle it ad infinitum trying to find a route "in"; or will follow its normal route until it can move no further, then, "hunker" down.
TANX
Andrew
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:53 pm
by Bil H
Hey Dave, I love the side by side comparison of foot and vehicle movement tables. Looks like armor will be relegated to the roads on that map, eh? The way it should be. Excellent.
This will make controlling the road network very important in COTA battles.
Bil
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:24 pm
by Arjuna
ORIGINAL: CriticalMass
Will there be any indication in from the UI that a certain area on the map is "impassable" or more specifically "unreachable". What are the ramifications of ordering a unit to move to an unreachable position? will it circle it ad infinitum trying to find a route "in"; or will follow its normal route until it can move no further, then, "hunker" down.
TANX
Andrew
Critical,
Don't worry. When you try and place an objective for a force at a location that it cannot enter or reach a check is made and if invalid the objective is automatically and instantaneously moved to the nearest valid location. See below:
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:26 pm
by Arjuna
ORIGINAL: Bil H
Hey Dave, I love the side by side comparison of foot and vehicle movement tables. Looks like armor will be relegated to the roads on that map, eh? The way it should be. Excellent.
This will make controlling the road network very important in COTA battles.
Bil
You bet and when combined with the new Delay code it means the Allies can fight an effective delaying action. [:)]
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:14 pm
by Plodder
Damn, this game keeps getting better and better.[&o]
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 5:34 am
by pamak1970
Being myself Greek , i will agree with the rest here that the development team does a terrific job.
I do not want to overload you with questions but i would like to ask something else before i leave you to continue the development [:D]
How do you plan to deal with the movement of motorized infantry?
What i mean is that infantry can ride the carriers and use "wheel movement" but it can also get out, leave vehicles behind and march using "foot movement" to attack for example an enemy position .
Is there going to be an action like embark or disembark?
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:56 pm
by Arjuna
pamak1970,
Motorised and mechanised infantry units are classed as "motorised". The AI automatically disembarks them whenever they are 'deployed' or whenever they get close to enemy units and re-embarks them once they are not.
At this stage of development we will not be providing the users, or the AI for that matter, the ability to split the unit into two components ( ie foot infantry and vehicles ) so that you could send your foot component over terrain impassable to vehicles. To do this will require a major development effort and more processing power as effectively you double the number of units ( which in turn increases the load on route calcs and Line of Sight checks ).
RE: Revised ETA?
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:51 am
by thecker
Just as a thought, in PzC you can order your motor/infantry to go on foot, they then are foot units until they get next to their HQ, when they can be re-motorized. It is assumed that the base unit of a motorHQ is always motorized, no unit is drawn for the trucks they just are absorbed into the HQ/base unit.
I would think that alot of HQ/base units are motorized(other then german foot infantry)
most american units can only use motor transport by borrowing it from HQ(usally only briefly). Even though all american units were technically motorized , most rarely ever saw a truck, other then for supplies.