HITS Improvements

Davinci
Reactions:
Posts: 3034
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: HITS Improvements

Post by Davinci »

What do you mean by openplay davinci? Sandbox or MP?
Well, OpenPlay was the original name of single-player game until Norb changed it to the SandBox-Thing , but I always make a point to call it by it’s original name…which is Open-Play .

1) Does it show three times? That sounds odd.

Check out this topic that I posted in the Mod Section:
http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/modifi ... --question

2) Can you explain this to me one last time - I can't find the original post we discussed this in. Don’t go into too much detail, I remember most of it. [/quote]

Yes, if I am using a Corps Commander, or a Divisional Commander, or even a Brigade Commander – to send a courier message, the message should be dispatched by whom ever I have selected.

I understand that this is just a game, but this game tries to create the atmosphere of the Civil War, and the courier would\ should leave the position of the sender.

davinci
The only true logic is that, there is no true logic!
con20or
Reactions:
Posts: 2541
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:49 pm

Re: HITS Improvements

Post by con20or »

Thanks for that davinci

- One of those times is the execution time, so its not the same thing. Just because it not used much doesn't mean we should get rid of it. The other two are a but much alright, I'll put it on the list.

- I think I remember this now, you were playing as army commander? So all messages were therefore sent from you. You cant send messages as different generals because you can only be one, a choice you make at the start of the scenario/openplay game.

Edit : Davinci - just to make sure I understand correctly

- Are you saying that you are playing with couriers on, but not using the courier screen.
- You click on a unit and order it to x location.
- The courier goes from you as army commander, but you want it to come from the unit commander.
Last edited by con20or on Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Davinci
Reactions:
Posts: 3034
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: HITS Improvements

Post by Davinci »

Edit : Davinci - just to make sure I understand correctly

- Are you saying that you are playing with couriers on, but not using the courier screen.
- You click on a unit and order it to x location.
- The courier goes from you as army commander, but you want it to come from the unit commander.
OK, I think that this is where me and Little Powell kept on going around and around with neither one of us in agreement.

If, I am playing the Open Play game, and have a Commanding Officer, along with two Corps Commanders, and say four Divisional Commanders, and sixteen Brigade Commanders.

Due to the fact that this is an Open Play \ Single Player game, anyone that is on my side, anyone that I click on - would be me .

So, even if the army, my army, has a higher ranking Officer, that shouldn't matter since I can play as anyone of them, meaning that I can control all of them.

The AI has no control over any of my forces unless I chose to allow them access to move my units, which I don't allow them to.

So, if I click on a Brigade Commander - and use the courier to send a message to another Brigade Commander which happens to be stationed several miles back from the front line.

I want the courier to leave the position of whom-ever sent the message, just like it would happen in real-life .

If the Commanding Officer who happens to be several miles away is sending the couriers - well that is sort of like they have walkie-talkies , which is just not realistic.

The courier must leave the position of the one that is sending the message.

And, Yes - I understand that the message is signed by the Commanding Officer. So I don't care if the courier leaves the position of the sender, rides over to the Commanding Officer, and then the Commanding Officer sends another message to the Brigade Commander to move where I indicated him to.

Thanks,

davinci
The only true logic is that, there is no true logic!
Marching Thru Georgia
Reactions:
Posts: 1769
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: HITS Improvements

Post by Marching Thru Georgia »

Davinci wrote:
Due to the fact that this is an Open Play \ Single Player game, anyone that is on my side, anyone that I click on - would be me .
I don't agree. You are you. :) If the player is the army commander, then that is all he can ever be. He cannot suddenly 'transform' himself into a division commander. That is the beauty of this game. The player assumes a role and the AI handles everything else for better or worse. There are times when as corps commander, I want to order brigades from my reserve division to opposite ends of the battlefield. Since the AI division commander can't do this, I will either give him a hold at all costs stance or even TC him, so he won't interfere, and then order the brigades as I please. But I don't want to jump into the division commander's saddle. I still have a corps to manage.

Now if the courier system could be improved to handle the above scenario, where I could order the reserve division commander to deploy those brigades as I want them, that would be splendid. Con20or, please have Norb make it so at his earliest convenience. :laugh:
Last edited by Marching Thru Georgia on Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.
Davinci
Reactions:
Posts: 3034
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: HITS Improvements

Post by Davinci »

I don't agree. You are you. :) If the player is the army commander, then that is all he can ever be. He cannot suddenly 'transform' himself into a division commander. That is the beauty of this game. The player assumes a role and the AI handles everything else for better or worse.
I'm going to have to disagree due to the fact that the AI doesn't have control over any of my forces, so all of my forces are acting on my behalf.

Now, I would agree if this was a Open-Play game, and I was controlling only a part of the army, but as stated I'm controlling the entire army.
A simpler courier improvement would be a 'countermand' order. Say I have a brigade marching to one end of the battlefield. Suddenly, I decide I need it somewhere else. I cannot issue another move order until the brigade commander reaches his first assigned spot. No courier is sent.
I am one-hundred-percent sure that I can send a courier to have a brigade commander to march to any location on the map, and then send him another order by courier to march to a different location.

Once the brigade leader receives the courier order, they will immediately move to the new location.

I do this all of the time, and I have never known the brigade commander to continue to move to the first location .

davinci
The only true logic is that, there is no true logic!
Marching Thru Georgia
Reactions:
Posts: 1769
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:56 pm

Re: HITS Improvements

Post by Marching Thru Georgia »

Davinci wrote:
I'm going to have to disagree due to the fact that the AI doesn't have control over any of my forces, so all of my forces are acting on my behalf.
So you are TCing all your troops and then using couriers to order them about? I didn't know such a thing was even possible.
I am one-hundred-percent sure that I can send a courier to have a brigade commander to march to any location on the map, and then send him another order by courier to march to a different location.
Not in historic or custom courier play. The commander must reach his ordered position before a new move order can be issued. This has been the case since version 1.00. But if you TC your troops, then events may be as you say.
I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.
Davinci
Reactions:
Posts: 3034
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:53 pm

Re: HITS Improvements

Post by Davinci »

So you are TCing all your troops and then using couriers to order them about? I didn't know such a thing was even possible.
I play the game by dividing my force into three separate groups, such as the main attack force, a smaller force usually on the left or right of the main attack force, and a sort of reserve group.

I never TC of any of the units until they reach the battle-line.

As long as the Commanding Officer \ Corps Commanders are stationed farther back from the fighting, they will very seldom move any of the troops that are not in the fighting. These would be the troops that I have placed in reserve.

Only after the troops are located at or near the fighting line will I take command of them and place them into position.

So, all movements are ordered by courier until they are stationed at or near the battle-line, which sometimes requires an additional order to move to the left \ right \ rear of General Etc...

But, none of these units are under the Take-Command-Status....
Not in historic or custom courier play. The commander must reach his ordered position before a new move order can be issued. This has been the case since version 1.00. But if you TC your troops, then events may be as you say.
You have got me there, I'm not sure which type of engagement I have been using except for the fact that it's Open-Play , no time limit, and no Objectives.

davinci
The only true logic is that, there is no true logic!
Martin James
Reactions:
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:23 pm

Re: HITS Improvements

Post by Martin James »


- Removing ALL icons from the map, even the eye - so you would have to locate and orientate yourself by scanning the terrain. Obviously some OBJ marker would still be needed, and the assigned quadrant square. Maybe a few other icons, will need to think this one through.

- All casualty info/unit strength would be removed and a new toolbar made - but the OOB would still give you this info, so i was unsure how to go ahead with it. I would probably leave fatigue and morale bars, not 100% realistic, but in real life you would see if troops were exhausted, or scared, but you cant in game, except for just before they break.
I like the sound of these con20or. Removing the eye though would be very tough if you don't know the map well. Yes I think you could justify leaving the fatigue and morale bars, as officers could tell the general state of a regiment if they were close enough to see the faces and bearing of the troops.

Martin
Hancock the Superb
Reactions:
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:06 am

Re: HITS Improvements

Post by Hancock the Superb »

We need a new game variable: is commander within x yards of selected unit. Then you can hide the moral and name and fatigue unless you are really close. You could also make it so troops are not tc'd unless you are within x yards of it.
Hancock the Superb
con20or
Reactions:
Posts: 2541
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:49 pm

Re: HITS Improvements

Post by con20or »


- Removing ALL icons from the map, even the eye - so you would have to locate and orientate yourself by scanning the terrain. Obviously some OBJ marker would still be needed, and the assigned quadrant square. Maybe a few other icons, will need to think this one through.

- All casualty info/unit strength would be removed and a new toolbar made - but the OOB would still give you this info, so i was unsure how to go ahead with it. I would probably leave fatigue and morale bars, not 100% realistic, but in real life you would see if troops were exhausted, or scared, but you cant in game, except for just before they break.
I like the sound of these con20or. Removing the eye though would be very tough if you don't know the map well. Yes I think you could justify leaving the fatigue and morale bars, as officers could tell the general state of a regiment if they were close enough to see the faces and bearing of the troops.

Martin
Yeh, possibly. Although certainly realistic. If you were a general you didnt know the land well, you may never have been there before! Anyway, it's just an idea im mulling over, wont get a chance to do it for quite some time.
Post Reply