Regarding Sequential Tasking

[Rob]

Hi,

Something I have always wished I could do is change formations, frontages, task options, speed, aggro etc. at the waypoint level within the (primarily) move order. By way of example:
Issue a move order from point "A" to point "B" with 2 intervening waypoints (X and Y). Move in road column at max speed, NO attacks allowed, Min. Aggro. etc. from "A" to waypoint "X" then at "X" change to line formation with a 500 meter frontage, allow attacks, slow to normal speed, increase aggro. etc. to max from "X" to "Y" and then at "Y" revert to road column at normal speed (or whatever) normal aggro etc. no attacks from "Y" to B. It would be even nicer if we could also adjust begin/end times as well.
Do you see this as doable at the waypoint level?? Or would you see this as a sequential series of "orders"??
If done initially as waypoints within a single order then there would not be any player related orders delay other than in the routine processing of the initial move order I would think. Whereas a series of sequential "orders' might incur orders delay at each location without some fancy programming to apply orders delay to these orders but not the subsequent orders for the unit/battalion etc. in the sequencing.
Or in the end is it just 6 of one and half a dozen of the other??

Rob.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Waypoints as they are currently coded do not allow for the setting of those parameters that you want Rob. To implement that yhey would have to be a series of sequential tasks. But that doesn't mean there has to be orders delay between them. The way I was thinking of approaching this was to have you develop a plan with multiple orders, issue orders for those and then calc the delay based on the whole set, not each individually. So you would pay only one delay up front.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Eventually I would like to move to a situation where you have the option to enter "planning mode". during this mode you can lay down tasks for all your forces, modify them to your hearts content and when your ready hit "commit". Only then would you calc and pay an orders delay. But that's a little way off yet.

 

[Rob]

Interesting............

So then my example above would be a series/set of linked orders with appropriate the parameters set for each individual order in the sequence of orders. Yes??

Rob.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

That's one option. I am still debating whether to retain Waypoints. A Waypoint doesn't have all the other option settings that a full task has. We could do away them and use the same interface to set sequential tasks or we could retain them and come up with some other means for assigning sequential tasks.

 

[Joe98]

I feel we should retain waypoints. In every game the AI is not good enough to select the correct route. In many cases I place lots of waypoints just to make sure they follow the correct route.

I too the request that at each waypoint there is an option to change the orders.

If you have the game called "Arma 2" and you use the editor you can see that at each waypoint, the default is "no change" but if you want to change this is where you do it.

.
.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Yes but those waypoints are in effect their task. Their data structure will mirror if not equal a task. Our waypoints do not. So to do what you want - ie be able to change the task options at each waypoint, then the data structure has to change. It might as well become a task and yes we can provide a UIO so that it simply copies whatever the preceding tasks settings are. We can also provide options to change one and have it propagate through the others.

 

[Joe98]

I am still debating whether to retain Waypoints.
.

Please retain waypoints. Every game AI is too dumb to follow the correct route with fewer or no waypoints.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Please retain waypoints. Every game AI is too dumb to follow the correct route with fewer or no waypoints.

If we got rid of waypoints you could still lay out a series of sequential tasks that do the same as you currently get now with waypoints but you would have the ability then to set different options at each one. You wouldn't have to set the options for each one but you could if you wished.

 

[Rob]

If we got rid of waypoints you could still lay out a series of sequential tasks that do the same as you currently get now with waypoints but you would have the ability then to set different options at each one. You wouldn't have to set the options for each one but you could if you wished.

Yes but those waypoints are in effect their task. Their data structure will mirror if not equal a task. Our waypoints do not. So to do what you want - ie be able to change the task options at each waypoint, then the data structure has to change. It might as well become a task and yes we can provide a UIO so that it simply copies whatever the preceding tasks settings are. We can also provide options to change one and have it propagate through the others.

These would certainly work for me

Presumably would allow for movement orders to cross a yet to be built bridge providing the start time of the move is at least 1 minute after the bridge is completed. This would allow us to place an order icon on currently unreachable across river locations without the game snapping it to the closest location "currently" reachable. It would also allow those units to pre-plan their move across the bridge upon it's completion without having to incur the orders delay AFTER the bridge is finished because the game would not allow us to place an order icon on the far side until after it was constructed.

Yes, no, maybe??

Rob.