Dismounts

[Hub]

Still getting the hang of ATF- I like what I see (a lot) so far except it seems to me that when infantry dismounts from the carriers, the units are placed on map quite far from the carrier itself- further than the infantry could move in a few seconds, definitely. This seems at odds with the precision built into the map, allowing the player to try and use terrain for cover. Also, multiple dismounts from the same carrier end up being very dispersed- not always the preferred result. If I had my druthers, I'd like to see the dismounts appear much closer to their carriers when they get out. If this is the inverse of the relatively wide area allowed for a carrier to "gather" dismounts for loading, I have no problem with having to get them closer together to load, either.

[kbluck]

Ah, at last! Somebody else who complains about this issue!

I've carped about this problem many times, but no indication yet as to when (or if) it might be addressed.

--- Kevin

[Hub]

Ah, at last! Somebody else who complains about this issue!

I've carped about this problem many times, but no indication yet as to when (or if) it might be addressed.

--- Kevin

I hope it will be, down the road, if not for ATF. You think you have the carrier in a good spot to unload, and when you do, half your teams are standing out in the open with their pants around their ankles... Even if the icons wind up stacked on top of the carrier, requiring a little sorting, that would be OK by me.

Teams wind up displayed about 300 m from the carriers. Two teams seem to dismount in opposite directions, and would be 600 m apart. Three teams form a triad, each 300 m from the carrier...

[Hub]

I'm hoping Capt. Proctor will see this and comment. For me, it's the only thing that mars the game...

[Hub]

Still getting the hang of ATF- I like what I see (a lot) so far except it seems to me that when infantry dismounts from the carriers, the units are placed on map quite far from the carrier itself- further than the infantry could move in a few seconds, definitely. This seems at odds with the precision built into the map, allowing the player to try and use terrain for cover. Also, multiple dismounts from the same carrier end up being very dispersed- not always the preferred result. If I had my druthers, I'd like to see the dismounts appear much closer to their carriers when they get out. If this is the inverse of the relatively wide area allowed for a carrier to "gather" dismounts for loading, I have no problem with having to get them closer together to load, either.

Capt. Proctor: are there any plans to fix this? This is the only issue I really have with ATF, but it bothers me enough that if it's not fixed in any of the follow on titles, I probably won't buy any of them.

[CPangracs]

Capt. Proctor: are there any plans to fix this? This is the only issue I really have with ATF, but it bothers me enough that if it's not fixed in any of the follow on titles, I probably won't buy any of them.Sorry you feel that way, Hub, but please, bear with me for a moment. This is only my opinion on this issue, and I'm sure Pat will chime in when he gets a spare minute or two.

This was done for a reason. When dismounting troops, they are pushed-out to the outer limits of their MOUNT ring so they are easily selectable at any map zoom level or icon size. This is the programmer's view of things, and most likely resulted from complaints/suggestions from Beta testers. As for how LONG it takes for the infantry to get there, ensure you are playing at 1/1 speed and not accelerated in any way, and you may be surprised how long it takes for the squads to dismount and move into those positions! 30 seconds to dismount the first squad, a total of 45 for both squads. Fast? Somewhat, but we can also control that with the times given to the vehicles for mounting and dismounting.

The added bonus for me is I like the that they are placed that distance from the carrier, for the simple fact that it is NOT normal SOP for dismounts to get out of the carrier and set-up right next to the carrier (it's called avoiding being a target be being next to a BIGGER target!). When the you-know-what hits the fan, I don't want to have to move my dismounts away from the carrier. Also, if I'm not mistaken, if you have SBF/Defense Formation for the vehicle/hierarchy when you dismount, the dismounts will do their best to get into positions to do exactly that!

When I was in the infantry, the M2 or M113 would attempt to find a good defilade position 200m or so from the actual battle position(s), but able to scan the kill zone with its weapon systems while the squads would normally move at LEAST 50m, more often double that, from their carrier. This was about 15 years ago, so I could be outdated.

If anything is changed with this, I would hope that he could reduce the distance from the carrier by half, BUT ALSO DO THE SAME FOR MOUNTING UNITS!!

I noticed no one has complained about the dismounts being allowed to mount from 200-300m, so I'm encouraged to say it cuts both ways!

This is, for lack of a better term, an abstraction of the above maneuver, as well as a playing aid to facilitate dismount selection for orders.

The only thing this feature does is force the player to dismount and approach an objective BEFORE they come under fire, if at all possible. NOBODY wants to try and dismount a vehicle in a hail of gunfire, I assure you!;)

Personally, I hope Pat keeps it in, if at a reduced distance, but I'm but one man among many...

[kbluck]

I noticed no one has complained about the dismounts being allowed to mount from 200-300m, so I'm encouraged to say it cuts both ways!

I have. (Big surprise, right?) I noted that it was possible to "teleport" dismounts along a chain of carriers some time ago. And the mount radius is more like 600m at the moment. If you compare the circle against the map, you'll see that it is significantly wider than a grid square.

At any rate, I concur with your proposed solution, that the dismount radius be reduced. I suggested exactly that some time ago, and a few times since. Given the scale of the game, I think a 100m radius is more than adequate to avoid mousing precision problems, yet can reasonably be abstracted away by the mount/dismount time and the general chaos inherent in dismounting drills. It would be nice, though, if they never were dumped forward of the vehicle immediately on dismount --- that is practically never where you want them to be.

--- Kevin

[Hub]

C Pangracs:

Thanks for answering- I hope the more people get involved in this, the better the chance a revision will be made. But, I think I didn't make myself clear enough- I'm not complaining about the dismounts from the standpoint of doctrine, I'm complaining that at 1/1 Time Scale, the dismounts take their 30-45 seconds to disembark (I'm OK with that), but then appear 300m away from the carrier. Even using kbluck's revised sprinting rates in his database, a US Mech fireteam could not get that far away in such a short time frame. What exacerbates the situation is that if a carrier drops off two teams, they seem to wind up on opposite sides of the carrier, or 600m apart. What if I wanted those two teams together for some reason? It would take about 150 seconds for the two teams to sprint back to each other (even longer if you use the standard database).

Then there is the fact that it seems pointless to find a good covered positon for the carrier to drop off the dismounts, when they will quite likely end up "teleported" to some really bad place out in the open. It sort of negates having those awesome maps with the pinpoint height elevations...

I would like to see the distance they're shown appearing from the carrier to be reduced to a maximum of 100m- less would be better. And, I would expect the same to hold true for picking up dismounts (I actually did say that in my first post, near the end- so I agree with you there- one should go hand-in-hand with the other...

[Leo]

Maybe a good solution would be:

when you press the button "dismount" you have to set an initial waypoint for your infantry men. This waypoint could be eg 200m away or beneath your AIFV. But when the waypoint is set 200 away from the vehicle it must take some addition time for the dismount to reach it.
This is particularly more micromanagement but imo i think that doesn't matter.

Leo

[kbluck]

Maybe a good solution would be: when you press the button "dismount" you have to set an initial waypoint for your infantry men. This waypoint could be eg 200m away or beneath your AIFV. But when the waypoint is set 200 away from the vehicle it must take some addition time for the dismount to reach it.Leo


It would have to be optional, since there are occasions when the infantry dismounts without the player's intervention. The AI enemy is most obvious, but even the player's forces can dismount automatically under fire as a matter of SOP.

Speaking as a programmer myself, the easier you make things for the developer, the more likely your suggestions are to be implemented. Simply radically reducing the radius would solve most of the truly distressing issues, and could probably be done for a patch. (Although of course I don't know that for sure, not having access to the source.) Limiting the dismount "zone" to the rear half of the vehicle is harder, but probably still doable for a major revision. Involving player input where none existed before likely involves very significant recoding, and is unlikely to ever be done without huge gameplay improvements, which in this case are probably unjustifiable.

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

Maybe a good solution would be:

when you press the button "dismount" you have to set an initial waypoint for your infantry men. This waypoint could be eg 200m away or beneath your AIFV. But when the waypoint is set 200 away from the vehicle it must take some addition time for the dismount to reach it.
This is particularly more micromanagement but imo i think that doesn't matter.

Leo
Again, I disagree. If you are dealing with a full mech company, you truly will find it frustrating to have to give every squad that dismounts an initial point to move to when dismounting. Also, if you give one area to dismount troops, you still then have 2 squads of dismounts in the exact same place, both of which can be taken-out by one good round of HE by the bad guys! No, I like the varied spread of the troops here, even at half the distance from the carrier than it is currently.

[Leo]

Ok guys,

i must agree that as kbluck said "simply" reducing the range of the "dismount zone" would be the better solution. Less complicated and much simpler to implement.

Leo

[CPangracs]

C Pangracs:

Thanks for answering- I hope the more people get involved in this, the better the chance a revision will be made. But, I think I didn't make myself clear enough- I'm not complaining about the dismounts from the standpoint of doctrine, I'm complaining that at 1/1 Time Scale, the dismounts take their 30-45 seconds to disembark (I'm OK with that), but then appear 300m away from the carrier. Even using kbluck's revised sprinting rates in his database, a US Mech fireteam could not get that far away in such a short time frame. What exacerbates the situation is that if a carrier drops off two teams, they seem to wind up on opposite sides of the carrier, or 600m apart. What if I wanted those two teams together for some reason? It would take about 150 seconds for the two teams to sprint back to each other (even longer if you use the standard database).

Then there is the fact that it seems pointless to find a good covered positon for the carrier to drop off the dismounts, when they will quite likely end up "teleported" to some really bad place out in the open. It sort of negates having those awesome maps with the pinpoint height elevations...

I would like to see the distance they're shown appearing from the carrier to be reduced to a maximum of 100m- less would be better. And, I would expect the same to hold true for picking up dismounts (I actually did say that in my first post, near the end- so I agree with you there- one should go hand-in-hand with the other...
I could see maybe wanting them on the same general side, but I would rather have them 600m apart than 50, for the simple fact that one HE round could take them out quickly, especially if you have the "Dismount on Contact" SOP turned on!

I understand about the problem with the terrain, but this is where technique comes into play. Try gauging where the dismounts MAY be using the blue ring. I believe the dismounts may place themselves in an SBF position, which is part of the AI map. I know I have yet to dismount people directly into a firefight, so I'm not sure about this one. I could see how that would be frustrating.

I know Pat is really busy today at work, so we'll probably hear from him in the next 24 hours or so,...and if not, I'll call him tonight and tell him to get on this issue! ;) :)

[Hub]

C. Pangracs:

OK, thank you- I'd be interested in what Capt. Proctor's take on this would be. I guess we agree to disagree- I'd rather have my dismounts close together initially, to facilitate coordination and risk the chance of getting clobbered by arty (however, the idea was for the carrier to arrive in a covered and hopefully unobserved location to begin with). I'd still want to risk this, even with a "Dismount on Contact" situation.

kbluck:

If it is too difficult to program dismounting to the carrier's rear arc, then I'd settle for 360 degrees- but if the dispersal pattern for more than one dismount must remain as it is now, then I'd like to see the dismount radius shrink to 100 m or less...and pickups the same.

[kbluck]

I believe the dismounts may place themselves in an SBF position, which is part of the AI map.

No. It seems to attempt to dismount units as far apart from each other on the circumference of a circle as possible. One goes straight forward. Two go one forward, one back on opposite sides. Three form an equilateral triagle. Etc. So, as Hub says, you end up with fire teams scattered uncontrollably over most of a grid square, about half of them well forward of the carrier.

I tried with SBF and all, but couldn't find a way to change the basic behavior.


I could see maybe wanting them on the same general side, but I would rather have them 600m apart than 50, for the simple fact that one HE round could take them out quickly, especially if you have the "Dismount on Contact" SOP turned on!

I think the important question is: Do you find it unrealistic for dismounts to be vulnerable to such fire immediately after dismounting?

Certainly, dismounts should take up a formation *after* dismounting, as directed. But, it is a fact that immediately after unassing the carrier, they're unavoidably going to be clustered up until they deploy. That deployment, IMO, should be a function of heirarchy formations and normal real-time game movement, not an "instant" byproduct of the dismount algorithm.

That is, I think they *should* dismount into a fairly small cluster, and then immediately begin moving to adopt their heirarchy's current formation, whatever that might be. If the heirarchy happens to be stopped and set to "None" formation, then they should remain in a cluster. Shame on me for not setting up an appropriate formation in that case. If the enemy capitalizes and kills them all with a well-timed mortar barrage right as they're exiting the carrier, well, that's entirely realistic in my book.

As for clickability issues with the "pile", the game already has a mechanism to deal with that, the popup list. Given formations, it shouldn't normally be necessary to click them immediately in any case.

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

No. It seems to attempt to dismount units as far apart from each other on the circumference of a circle as possible. One goes straight forward. Two go one forward, one back on opposite sides. Three form an equilateral triagle. Etc. So, as Hub says, you end up with fire teams scattered uncontrollably over most of a grid square, about half of them well forward of the carrier.

I tried with SBF and all, but couldn't find a way to change the basic behavior.

I think the important question is: Do you find it unrealistic for dismounts to be vulnerable to such fire immediately after dismounting?

Certainly, dismounts should take up a formation *after* dismounting, as directed. But, it is a fact that immediately after unassing the carrier, they're unavoidably going to be clustered up until they deploy. That deployment, IMO, should be a function of heirarchy formations and normal real-time game movement, not an "instant" byproduct of the dismount algorithm.

That is, I think they *should* dismount into a fairly small cluster, and then immediately begin moving to adopt their heirarchy's current formation, whatever that might be. If the heirarchy happens to be stopped and set to "None" formation, then they should remain in a cluster. Shame on me for not setting up an appropriate formation in that case. If the enemy capitalizes and kills them all with a well-timed mortar barrage right as they're exiting the carrier, well, that's entirely realistic in my book.

As for clickability issues with the "pile", the game already has a mechanism to deal with that, the popup list. Given formations, it shouldn't normally be necessary to click them immediately in any case.

--- Kevin
Yeah, I've been messing with it as well, and it can be frustrating. However, I have to admit that having the units separate like this, and in a predictable pattern, gives me something to work with. If I know that two teams are going to dismount exactly 300m forward of my vehicle, I ensure I am stopped 300m away from my objective and that I have the path continued past the stop node so the vehicle is still pointing in the desired direction of travel,...simple!

Seriously, though, the more I test things during this beta period for Raging Tiger, the more I would like to see it in RT, especially with the dearth of difficult terrain and the obvious need for a great deal of dismount activity!

I'll see what I can accomplish with Pat.

[CPangracs]

WOOHOO! Look for an announcement from Mr. Proctor soon!

[Pat Proctor]

Gents,

Sorry I have not been very active on the forums of late. I have been pretty busy at work (my *other* work, I mean). This should die down a bit in the next couple of days.

Dismounting: If you don't like the current radius, please make yourself known on this forum, so I can get a sense of the percentage of displeasure. (Let me know if you LIKE it, as well.)

Keep in mind that the reason the radius is as it is (300m) is so that individual dismounts will be easy to see and grab after dismounting. Also keep in mind that changing it might slightly break some scenarios (designed by players of ATF) that have units dismount and move on routes (since origin dismount points will change.

Please don't give me the "can you make it an adjustable setting" answer ;) as many people will never find the option burried in the tons of configurables and options in the game.

[Hub]

Capt. Proctor:

Thanks for taking the time to review this part of the game mechanics.