SOP: Seek Cover (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade



Message


Veitikka -> SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 6:39:25 PM)

There have been many suggestions for improved infantry behavior when under fire, and having a SOP option for it. So...

If the SOP 'Seek Cover' option is enabled, and the infantry unit is stationary, taking direct fire, not dug-in and not engaging targets, it then advances immediately to an adjacent map cell that has a higher 'cover' value than the current position. No command delay for toggling the option on/off.

I think all player and AI opponent infantry units should have it enabled as the default option, except 'gun' units (recoilless rifles, AT-guns).

What do you think?




budd -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 6:52:19 PM)

Sounds like an improvement. Questions, if there moving and start taking fire will the SOP kick in? I ask because the description says stationary. Will they seek the best cover in a cell, house, trees or is cover strictly rated by cell not individual houses or trees.




alexandreagrg -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 6:54:47 PM)

+1 for this




noooooo -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 7:00:59 PM)

Yes, this would be a great change. +1




Veitikka -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 7:08:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: budd

Sounds like an improvement. Questions, if there moving and start taking fire will the SOP kick in? I ask because the description says stationary. Will they seek the best cover in a cell, house, trees or is cover strictly rated by cell not individual houses or trees.


The individual objects you see in a cell are there just to make it look nicer. One cell has only one 'cover' value. What I'm saying in the feature description means that the units can escape to another cell if it can provide better cover. For example, they can move from a 'field' cell to a 'building' cell by placing an 'advance' waypoint there.

Doing this when moving is not a good idea, because it would make formation movement even slower than it currently is. The pathfind 'covered' option in the SOP menu is for that purpose.




Red2112 -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 7:16:49 PM)

+1 here too!




gbem -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 8:15:28 PM)

+1 here




Doggie3 -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 8:57:38 PM)

Sounds good - how will it work if there are several adjacent cells with equal cover values? Random selection/furtherest from the enemy? Will it affect their morale?


Cheers





kevinkins -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 9:22:45 PM)

Seek cover is a good idea that might get sort of complicated. For example, the best map cell to advance to may be a map cell w/o any cover but simply out of the LOF. (A grassy area behind a building). While the map cell with "higher 'cover' value than the current position" may actually be under other forms of fire like arty. Not to mention training and moral factors. Best to think "seek cover" through before coding.

Kevin




Veitikka -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 10:03:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie3

Sounds good - how will it work if there are several adjacent cells with equal cover values? Random selection/furtherest from the enemy? Will it affect their morale?


Cheers




It will make a list of the locations with the highest cover value, and then select one randomly. I don't think morale has any effect here.




Veitikka -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 10:17:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

Seek cover is a good idea that might get sort of complicated. For example, the best map cell to advance to may be a map cell w/o any cover but simply out of the LOF. (A grassy area behind a building). While the map cell with "higher 'cover' value than the current position" may actually be under other forms of fire like arty. Not to mention training and moral factors. Best to think "seek cover" through before coding.

Kevin


I don't think the purpose of this feature is to hide the unit. The basic idea is that the unit is taking direct fire and then moves to a position with better protection against bullets and shrapnel, and then continues fight. 30-45 meters is not very far away so the locations of nearby artillery concentrations don't make much difference, because artillery is inaccurate. It may be a bad idea to start moving if taking direct or indirect fire though, but on the other hand if the reward is better cover then it might be worth the risk. If the unit is taking direct fire then it's already been spotted, so it shouldn't matter if it loses its hiding capability.




kevinkins -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 10:22:22 PM)

But would they run into an area under more deadly fire than they are currently receiving just to seek cover? There is a saying: "out of the frying pan and into the fire". They might be better off staying in the frying pan than accepting the random area with cover that is more deadly. So maybe the list can exclude locations not under fire at that moment. Just a thought.

Kevin




Doggie3 -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/27/2018 11:33:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka


quote:

ORIGINAL: Doggie3

Sounds good - how will it work if there are several adjacent cells with equal cover values? Random selection/furtherest from the enemy? Will it affect their morale?


Cheers




It will make a list of the locations with the highest cover value, and then select one randomly. I don't think morale has any effect here.



No worries, thanks for that. I agree it doesn't necessarily have to involve a morale check.

Cheers




Werezak -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/28/2018 3:56:12 AM)

I think this is a good idea, especially when infantry is under fire from enemies they can't see. Definitely don't want it triggering when the unit is on the move (could make assaults uncoordinated), and triggering while the unit is engaging a target could break line of sight, so both restrictions sound good. Seeing it in action is the only way to know for sure, but I think it strikes a good balance.




CiniKo -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/28/2018 5:04:43 AM)

+1.




Phoenix100 -> RE: SOP: Seek Cover (11/28/2018 7:25:30 AM)

Sounds good. We can try it. No doubt it will throw up all sorts of issues and unintended consequences - some of which kevinkin is trying to predict for you. I have sympathy with his implied suggestion that a better solution would be for them to seek cover in the 'safest' location, which would not necessarilly be that providing better 'cover', in terms of buildings etc, but that would be a more complex thing to code, for sure, and on the other hand, what is 'safest' might change in a matter of seconds, whereas the safety of a building is more durable.

Thanks for listening to all the comments about this, Veitikka.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.441406E-02