Proposal: Retire TC

[RebBugler]

Hyde wrote:

I'd like to agree that I really like your ideas RebBugler. I think calling the new command "No Orders" would be a bit insufficient, but the idea itself sounds great!

GShock: My point was that I was spouting out ideas without inclination of how difficult or feasible actually making it happen would be. Norb does seem as if some sort of magician when it comes to brilliant coding, though. It is all about the priority list, and I have seen countless replies from Norb stating that "feature" patches are still a way down the line.

Despite our discussions presently, I believe Norb has his priorities in the right order.

Yes indeed, another Rebel (as in rebellion, not necessarily Reb) for the cause. You're right, 'No Orders' is not a very impressive banner to be waving. Need a command more appropriate to rally around and support. I'm thinking something like: PC - Player Controlled, GT - General Control, PT - Place Troops, MP - Move Position, or, MF - Move Formation...oops, maybe not that abbreviation. :woohoo:

Ideas?

And you're right, Norb can code about anything folks can come up with. With adequate support for a feature, he'll get on it. He wants a game that has appeal for everyone, as long as it retains the quality he's known for. B)

[GShock]

Did you notice what I posted about the ROE concept in my a.b.o.t. thread? Do you know what I was talking about when I mentioned ROE?

[RebBugler]

GShock wrote:

Did you notice what I posted about the ROE concept in my a.b.o.t. thread? Do you know what I was talking about when I mentioned ROE?

Sir,

You're obviously intelligent and want this game to evolve towards your idealist concepts. However, your approach is akin to demanding the 'speed of light', when we're still struggling to build a great Bullet train. Don't know what you're saying now, please provide a link, unless it's off thread regarding this proposal.

[Lees Warhorse]

I agree I always TC my troops because Im just not sure what the AI might do. I am also a bit of a control freak that like me orders followed to a T. I do understand what RebBugler is getting at It would take away the mundane selecting of each individual brigade but I would still be wary of what the AI would do.

[RebBugler]

Lees Warhorse wrote:

I agree I always TC my troops because Im just not sure what the AI might do. I am also a bit of a control freak that like me orders followed to a T. I do understand what RebBugler is getting at It would take away the mundane selecting of each individual brigade but I would still be wary of what the AI would do.

Yeah, all us control folks are wary of what the AI will do, hence this proposal. Let me clear up one thing. This proposal would be a stance, an order if you will, not a command, I misspoke in a prior post. Select the stance, then the AI will leave your units alone, unless engaged, then it's your ally.

[GShock]

RebBugler wrote:

GShock wrote:

Did you notice what I posted about the ROE concept in my a.b.o.t. thread? Do you know what I was talking about when I mentioned ROE?

Sir,

You're obviously intelligent and want this game to evolve towards your idealist concepts. However, your approach is akin to demanding the 'speed of light', when we're still struggling to build a great Bullet train. Don't know what you're saying now, please provide a link, unless it's off thread regarding this proposal.

The concept of ROE is as called by AgeOD and developed into AACW is basically the unit stance. Not much to develop for SoWGB in AACW it's based on 4 buttons each of which has 4 more sub-buttons. These decide the stance of the stack of units that affects their actions during the subsequent resolution phase (after you hit the end turn the AI takes over all units in the game and moves the player's pieces according to his choices, ROE included).

I was just figuring that the STRAT orders as they are in SoWGB are very detailed. You can point out a location and assign a specific order for that location but the AI can also take over your STRAT order. Now AI generals execute your strat orders according to their abilities and situation. It's basically the same of AACW with the difference that in AACW you know how it works and what's going to happen with an IF->THEN string while in SoWGB you do not know what's going to happen because it's down to a more tactical level. I wonder if the STRAT orders are they are, are too "precise" for such a level of chaos as the tactical battlefield is whereas perhaps a less detailed system (to which the AI should be entirely dependent and not discretional) wouldn't be better.

The postures in AACW are All-Out, Aggressive, Defensive, Passive. Maybe just 4 Strat order types for SoWGB would do for the stance rather than the action in itself as it is now. In other words, my idea is to use the move order and let the assigned ROE do the rest where this ROE has no specific set location, it's just a stance.

Sorry I tried to explain it as easy as I could.

[RebBugler]

GShock wrote:

RebBugler wrote:

GShock wrote:

Did you notice what I posted about the ROE concept in my a.b.o.t. thread? Do you know what I was talking about when I mentioned ROE?

Sir,

You're obviously intelligent and want this game to evolve towards your idealist concepts. However, your approach is akin to demanding the 'speed of light', when we're still struggling to build a great Bullet train. Don't know what you're saying now, please provide a link, unless it's off thread regarding this proposal.

The concept of ROE is as called by AgeOD and developed into AACW is basically the unit stance. Not much to develop for SoWGB in AACW it's based on 4 buttons each of which has 4 more sub-buttons. These decide the stance of the stack of units that affects their actions during the subsequent resolution phase (after you hit the end turn the AI takes over all units in the game and moves the player's pieces according to his choices, ROE included).

I was just figuring that the STRAT orders as they are in SoWGB are very detailed. You can point out a location and assign a specific order for that location but the AI can also take over your STRAT order. Now AI generals execute your strat orders according to their abilities and situation. It's basically the same of AACW with the difference that in AACW you know how it works and what's going to happen with an IF->THEN string while in SoWGB you do not know what's going to happen because it's down to a more tactical level. I wonder if the STRAT orders are they are, are too "precise" for such a level of chaos as the tactical battlefield is whereas perhaps a less detailed system (to which the AI should be entirely dependent and not discretional) wouldn't be better.

The postures in AACW are All-Out, Aggressive, Defensive, Passive. Maybe just 4 Strat order types for SoWGB would do for the stance rather than the action in itself as it is now. In other words, my idea is to use the move order and let the assigned ROE do the rest where this ROE has no specific set location, it's just a stance.

Sorry I tried to explain it as easy as I could.

OK, on thread, but too much information. I'm trying to keep this proposal as simple as possible regarding coding. No changes in AI, just including a 'Player Control' stance. Your "IF->THEN string" would serve as the engagement inclusion. Thanks for your knowledgeable and intelligent input. Please remember, "speed of light" is not a pursuit here, maybe in the far distant future, hope I live that long.

[GShock]

Well no, actually, the stance conception is that you hit a button and the AI does it according to that button.

In here we have a more feasible system but it seems to conflict with the personality of the AI general AND with the location of the order (and of course eventual AI scripting) whereas a simpler thing like that stance would not only make things easier (both for the AI and for the player) but also more accurately reflect the concept of AI personality (and freedom of action) since by hitting that button you tell the AI what to do without linking it to a specific objective.

Of course, you want the AI to keep that stance for example to attack a place or defend a place, you would just basically move the whole BDE or DIV... then according to the stance it's up to the AI to make its moves.

This would also take a lot out of the TC function which I like only when using the BDE courier level (unfortunately the drawbacks of this level are so heavy I resumed to Army mode but I am sure in due time they will be fixed).