Command structure?

[beita 10]

Well, one thing HC can't do, is formations in the HC structure.

Say, I have a USMC Rifle Squad. I make the Squad Leader the HC Commander, the Fire Team Leaders the HC Subordinates. I cannot tell my FTLs to form a wedge on the SL for example. I can only tell them to move to various waypoints I place. Makes moving over long distances annoying, you have to micromanage the waypoints, instead of telling the squad to fall in on your formation and just go.

I haven't messed around with HC all that much and may have missed something, if you CAN have subordinates follow a "High Command" formation, let me know how!

[avmyg 10]

I have a dream - a dream that one day, we can make a batallion-size battle. Maybe less than that, but it should be enormous.

It should have it all included - logistics, airforce, armor, infantry, special forces and of course a chain of command with a high ranking commander on top.

And that commamder should off course be someone with a common sense, reason and a great tactical overview - Not some 14-Year old who would send troops into certain death when stressed out.

[walker 0]

I have a dream - a dream that one day, we can make a batallion-size battle...

Hi avmyg

I already made and released such missions using the CEX command Engine in ArmA 1. The largest released mission was 2 battalions plus on BLUEFOR and 5 battalions on OPFOR. I tested 4 battalions vs 4 battalions but did not release it.

Do a search for CEX in the ArmA 1 user missions.

Kind regards walker

Edited June 3, 2009 by walker

[dreday 1]

No, they don't, because there is no reason at all to be able to do this in A2. I am sure that this is one of the reasons they actually bothered with this HC system (i.e. because the A1 teams system was extremely limiting).

If you want to do this, just set each fireteam as a HC subordinate group to your squad leader group and you can change individual formations, etc, since they are their own independent group which you have complete control over in the HC interface.

The interface for commanding the subordinates in HC is much more limited than the one for your own squad members. There are quite a few things that you simply can not do with HC (i.e. having your subbordinate board a vehicle that is not in their gorup).

Besides, what about the missions where you don't have the HC set-up? It would have definitely been nice to beef up the team interface for the command over the fireteams in your squad, while keeping the HC for commanding other squads/platoons.

Peace,

DreDay

[Spooner 0]

Not being able to command them to get into other vehicles is obviously a bug (or at least an oversight), not strictly a limitation of the HC system. Even if BIS don't think it is correct to be able to do this, there is nothing to stop us adding a "get in" context option when you hover over a vehicle, just like you get an "attack" context option when you hover over an enemy unit. Try changing the fire-team system (a1 or a2) even one iota and you'll realise why, even if HC isn't perfect, it is more powerful and has massively more potential than that old hard-coded system!

For example, I'm sure that if CEX has any functionality greater than HC, then that could be added to HC rather than having to have a whole CEX system running in parallel to HC.

[dreday 1]

Not being able to command them to get into other vehicles is obviously a bug (or at least an oversight), not strictly a limitation of the HC system. Even if BIS don't think it is correct to be able to do this, there is nothing to stop us adding a "get in" context option when you hover over a vehicle, just like you get an "attack" context option when you hover over an enemy unit. Try changing the fire-team system (a1 or a2) even one iota and you'll realise why, even if HC isn't perfect, it is more powerful and has massively more potential than that old hard-coded system!

For example, I'm sure that if CEX has any functionality greater than HC, then that could be added to HC rather than having to have a whole CEX system running in parallel to HC.

Oh, I agree that a perfect HC system could eliminate the need for teams... it's just that the current system is very far from perfect and there is no guaranty that it would ever get there - that's why a "fixed" team system would have been a nice supplement to it.

Peace,

DreDay

[MBot 0]

What are peoples thoughts about the squad command interface including the new quick command system? Frankly I am a bit disapointed. The new quick command system is useful for the basic commands but the overal command interface is still quite unwieldy and unintuitive.

-The squads still come without designated fire teams. The game expects the user to create appropriate sub-groups at the start of every new mission. For a military game this seems to be a very strange design to me. The ability to rearrange your teams during the mission is appreciated but I think that commanding your squad through fire teams should be the default setup for a game like this.

-Sub-groups still do not seem to act as one unit, rather it seems that groups are just a way to select a number of individual units. Need to get some more in-game time to further verify this but until now it does not look like it.

-The selection process of a group is very unwieldy. Pressing Shift + F-(one unit of the group) or going through the complex command interface to select one of your teams is no efficient way to manage your squad.

-Having a seperate quick command interface on your left from the complex command interface on your right is often rather confusing, it makes the whole system look very un-unified. Selecting a unit then open the quick command window, then open the complex interface (because the intended command was not under quick command) will reset your unit selection. Generaly I often can’t remember if I should first select units, then open the interface or vica-versa. This means I often end up trying it multiple times, wasting time to fight with the interface instead of the enemy. A very unintuitive system.

-Overal the game makes a very bad job of explaining the various options of the command interface. The training mission is very basic and the majority of commands are not documented in the game nor the manual. The user is expected to find out on his own what for example “Engage at will†or “Danger†will do exactly.

In my opinion the series was in need for a complete re-design of the command interface since OFP. Unfortunately this did not happen with Arma 2. It carries on an old and unintuitive system which got quick commands dropped on top. The quick commands help to speed up some every-day tasks like boarding vehicles or sending your (whole) squad somewhere. But it can’t cure the basic problems of the command interface. What is needed in my oppinion is a complete re-design that is quick and intuitive, has a more graphical/structural approach (instead of pages with lists of stuff), works with teams first and individuals second and retains or even improves the tactical options. For a game like Arma 2 this is a very central gameplay element and should in my opinion by a very high priority.

[DaveP 66]

-The squads still come without designated fire teams. The game expects the user to create appropriate sub-groups at the start of every new mission. For a military game this seems to be a very strange design to me. The ability to rearrange your teams during the mission is appreciated but I think that commanding your squad through fire teams should be the default setup for a game like this.

-Sub-groups still do not seem to act as one unit, rather it seems that groups are just a way to select a number of individual units. Need to get some more in-game time to further verify this but until now it does not look like it.

These should be relatively fixed when BIS introduces AI Higher Command Control; you'll be able to set up fireteams as separate groups and using the HC system have commands filter down from your squad leaders to fireteam leaders, etc.

May not give as accurate reportage, but will give you what you want

[Spooner 0]

@DreDay:

Since HC is largly soft-coded it doesn't matter if BIS don't ever finish/fix it (as long as the SQF hc* commands all work properly). The community can finish the job :D

I think that, for me, this is the key improvement in A2. The new systems are mainly scripted, so we can modify/disable/enable/extend/fix them to our heart's content!

[lwlooz 0]

Hello,

I think I will have to respectfully disagree on the current form of HC replacing the need to fix the "color team" functionality there .

From what I see the HC looks neat , very neat infact , it's a neat platoon command module . Simply,quick and to the point.

What it does not do is that it allows you to select single man in said fireteam if you were to set them up that way as far as I know.

Hence to fix the ole "Color-team members having the wrong relative position in their formation" is still valid I am going to say.

(They position themselves according to their number in the overall squad instead of the new colorteam, easy to fix I am boldly going to say ).

Personally I would not get my hopes up. BIS does not , like most of the post-OFP community , care much about leading AI's [if you disagree, play ACE]

I will give them that they started working on their UI , I hope they will continue to do so.

There is also the problem of the formation.fsm kicking in full style wether your a human leader or not. Rather unfortunate.

I for one can foresee 3 systems being used for command structure still.

1. The squad system for controlling individual AI and Fireteams/Vehicles(This part needs to be massively improved.. like 5 years ago).

2. The platoon system (HIGH Command) for giving quick combat orders and simple orders to squads , mostly in 3D while in Combat.

3. A system like CE2,CEX for all the more complex commanding of squads and maybe platoons in the future.

If those 3 systems are neatly able to work side by side, saying you can for example detach part of your squad (e.g Platoon Medic Section) off to HC/CEX into their own little squad and sending them off a couple of kilometers , and when they come back, reintegrate them and order them around as a colorteam (in the vicinity of less than 100m),

I think you get the best of all worlds. And then this shooter suddenly turns into a bloody wargame, hopefully.

Edited June 4, 2009 by lwlooz

[Spooner 0]

You have some good points there. I am inclined, however, to give the squad leader the option to attach a HC subordinate group that would become a new team or detach a team as a new HC subordinate group. Again, this is an option that is already feasible to add to the current systems we have been given, whereas asking BI to do brand new work is considerably less likely to produce results.

[dreday 1]

Speaking of the command system - has anyone been able to figure out how the new "Suppress" command works? I have tried it out under multiple scenarios/conditions, but I've never seen it produce any results.

Has anyone had any luck with it?

Peace,

DreDay

[frederf 0]

I like reading all of the above 15 posts or so. They really show a great understanding of what's going on, what's possible, and what's not. The comparison to and residual value of the colorteam method is very interesting.

My strongest agreements come at the points where the HC system "is a good more capable-than-current concept but has some oversights/bugs." Not being able to select your subunit gamelogic and assign it a formation is just daft, especially since this functionality is very doable. If a waypoint can reassign formation for a group, why not a HC gamelogic?

The case of the rifle squad is very peculiar because the real life grouping of fire teams is not official but rather "soft" where sometimes the SL->TL->Team member structure is in effect and sometimes the SL is in direct control of the whole squad. It's not unheard of for fire team organization to be completely malleable based on the situation. I think it is on this level that BIS will encounter the most difficulty to satisfactorily achieve the full spectrum of structure and individual control, simply due to the inherent real world complexity.

However the most pressing issue about the HC system is that it lacks built-in flexibility to be reconfigured on the fly. OFP/ArmA groups have always suffered from a very rigid nature, especially in the very quick-paced multiplayer environment. We need to be able to move members around between groups, create, expand, and compress groups if it is to be of lasting value.

I personally think that the reason VON hasn't really taken off in popularity (other than the technical difficulties) is that it lacks the flexibility offered by TeamSpeak/Ventrillo/Mumble, etc. There are just so many things that you can't do in the built-in VON that makes people abandon it for 3rd party communication, which is a dread same as it makes non-connected public players on a TeamSpeak-communicating serve feel like lepers and misses a great opportunity for in game state to effect the communication system (range, radio equipment, group, vehicle).