Commanders and the CRC

[Searge-Major]

This is really a repetition of what I posted here, I have created this topic because there were no responses to it.

Currently, you only need to research CRC to get all of it's benefits, which are namely the ability to research and consequently build commanders, and the ability to research the Research Module.

The idea was to change the research requirements of the CRC to include Synaptic Link Data Analysis and hardened sensor tower, and to do away with Command Turrets all together. To replace this, building the CRC would allow a limited amount of commanders to be assigned in the field. This would work via a button on the unit menu, and would allow any unit of any type to be assigned as a commander, perhaps excepting trucks, (unless XP was implemented for them, but that's another topic). Once assigned as a commander, a unit would show the star and it's commander number when selected, but would otherwise be indistinguishable from other units of the same type, retaining it's ability to use it's weapon(s). This also could allow VTOL commanders, as no special turret would be needed. XP and maximum number of units assigned would work the same as with the old commanders.

The upgrades to Command Turret could be converted to general commander upgrades, perhaps increasing the efficiency of commanders or giving other bonuses, or perhaps they could be related to the CRC instead, increasing the max number of commanders available, or similar.

When attacking with a commander, the target would be illuminated by crosshairs like the sensor turrets, though to help distinguish the two, a different colour or style could be used, but this is a minor issue. The important difference is that there would be no way to tell from the enemy's point of view which, if any, unit is a commander. This, at least IMHO, would greatly increase the multi-player friendliness of the commander, by being more desirable as the pros are greater, and the largest con, which IIRC was that commanders could be easily picked off, would be negated.

This is not part of the suggestions made here, but if the code for commanders is improved, and they are given their own ai as I read somewhere in these forums, the abilities of commanders could really help with micromanaging, esp. if they were able to perform there own micro, even to a limited extent.

Please reply, with your own ideas, criticisms (constructive only) , even pointing out flaws in the ideas is more than welcome, as long as it is done nicely.

[Corporal Punishment]

As anyone knows who reads here for a while, I'm a big fan of commanders so any topic about them is something I consider, unless I miss out for being away for a while.

The idea of disguising commanders sounds appealing on first sight. A real-life armored battalion commander rides a standard tank into battle that can not easily be distinguished from other vehicles, at best through it's behavior if at all. When I think about it, though, it throws up several problems which are related to the principles of games in general. WZ is a game and not real-life warfare. Hence, a droid is a play-piece and not a real soldier or vehicle. As such, it must fulfill certain requirements that are alien to actual units:
One of these, and by far the most prominent, is that it must be easily identifiable to it's owner, but not necessarily his opponent. Traditional board games make individual pieces identifiable to any player simply because they are wood or plastic figurines, more or less abstracted. There is simply no feasible way to hide anything from opponents. This limitation does not apply to video games, as you have correctly observed. The game engine can create individual views of the same piece for every player, that is, every screen.
Still, the owner of a unit he has promoted to be a commander must still be able to find it at first glance. Just giving it the little asterisk seems insufficient to me. In a big clutter, it is not easy to identify a commander even now. If it was a cannon tank among others, this would become almost impossible. So I propose that if your idea was implemented (and I will argue against it later) the commander gets a more prominent marker in the shape of a opaque green arrow twice the length of a heavy body pointing at it at all times.
Now for my argument against disguising commanders. In a real-life war, fairness (represented by the Hague and Geneva conventions) is thrown to the wind almost instantly by any side, no matter how much they stress the opposite. In a game, fairness is vital to avoid frustration and ultimately make players abandon the game. Fairness takes two shapes here: First, all players must abide to the rules. In the case of a video game this means nothing else then not using cheat codes. Secondly, the game itself must subject all play-pieces to treatment by the same principles. In our case, where a field unit is identifiable to any player with respect to all it's functions, the commander would violate this principle if he disguises as a normal combat unit. The opponent can react to the composition of a attacking force by picking out the most dangerous units first, which might be drastically different ones with respect to his own force (if he is going for cyborgs, MG are more dangerous then AT-rockets or vice versa if he is going for tanks). Currently, the commander is no exclusion to this: The opponent knows a commander is present and is free to decide when and if to pick it out. Following your proposal would create a exception for the commander as to such an extend that the opponent is left unaware of whether or not a commander is present, limiting the opponent's freedom of choice artificially in one special case.
Another point I wish to stress is that we must draw the lines clearly. If we allow commanders to disguise as less prominent units today, somebody will demand sensors to have the same ability tomorrow. This is the most drastic impact of making an exception to any principle: One exception renders the principle entirely void.

[Searge-Major]

The idea of disguising commanders sounds appealing on first sight. A real-life armored battalion commander rides a standard tank into battle that can not easily be distinguished from other vehicles, at best through it's behavior if at all.

Just for the record, I didn't even think about real life, I was just looking for a solution to a problem. Although, looking back on my idea, the CRC is still almost as useless as before...

When I think about it, though, it throws up several problems which are related to the principles of games in general. WZ is a game and not real-life warfare. Hence, a droid is a play-piece and not a real soldier or vehicle. As such, it must fulfill certain requirements that are alien to actual units:
One of these, and by far the most prominent, is that it must be easily identifiable to it's owner, but not necessarily his opponent. Traditional board games make individual pieces identifiable to any player simply because they are wood or plastic figurines, more or less abstracted. There is simply no feasible way to hide anything from opponents. This limitation does not apply to video games, as you have correctly observed. The game engine can create individual views of the same piece for every player, that is, every screen.
Still, the owner of a unit he has promoted to be a commander must still be able to find it at first glance. Just giving it the little asterisk seems insufficient to me. In a big clutter, it is not easy to identify a commander even now. If it was a cannon tank among others, this would become almost impossible. So I propose that if your idea was implemented (and I will argue against it later) the commander gets a more prominent marker in the shape of a opaque green arrow twice the length of a heavy body pointing at it at all times.

I realise that it would be quite hard to find a commander that way, however by clicking on the CRC, you can select any one of your commanders. You can also use alt+ 0-9 to jump to any of 10 commanders in a similar way. Nevertheless your point still stands, and I have to say I agree with you on it.

Now for my argument against disguising commanders.

...knew that was coming...

In a real-life war, fairness (represented by the Hague and Geneva conventions) is thrown to the wind almost instantly by any side, no matter how much they stress the opposite. In a game, fairness is vital to avoid frustration and ultimately make players abandon the game. Fairness takes two shapes here: First, all players must abide to the rules. In the case of a video game this means nothing else then not using cheat codes. Secondly, the game itself must subject all play-pieces to treatment by the same principles. In our case, where a field unit is identifiable to any player with respect to all it's functions, the commander would violate this principle if he disguises as a normal combat unit. The opponent can react to the composition of a attacking force by picking out the most dangerous units first, which might be drastically different ones with respect to his own force (if he is going for cyborgs, MG are more dangerous then AT-rockets or vice versa if he is going for tanks). Currently, the commander is no exclusion to this: The opponent knows a commander is present and is free to decide when and if to pick it out. Following your proposal would create a exception for the commander as to such an extend that the opponent is left unaware of whether or not a commander is present, limiting the opponent's freedom of choice artificially in one special case.

I definitely agree with the principles behind this, however I felt that my proposal would not be disguising the commander as such as removing it as a unit in itself, and replacing it with an ability that could be possessed by a limited number of units. Somewhat similar to commanders, as in my suggestion, would be groups. Currently (as of 2.3.9 and for some way back, I don't know how far), you can select any number of units of any number of types, and assign them to a group with control+ 0-9. There is no way of telling for an opponent, or indeed an ally, to tell whether or not a unit is or is not assigned to a group. However this is of course not important as there are no benefits for units inside a group, the only benefit is ease of accessibility for the player. That is essentially how I envision commanders operating.

Another point I wish to stress is that we must draw the lines clearly. If we allow commanders to disguise as less prominent units today, somebody will demand sensors to have the same ability tomorrow. This is the most drastic impact of making an exception to any principle: One exception renders the principle entirely void.

Again, I must agree with you, however, as I stated before, I do not view the commanders as described in my first post as an individual unit type like a sensor, more as an ability like grouping, but with a single unit as a leader, and retaining the group benefits from the old commanders.

I hope other people will comment on this too, as to form a broader picture we're going to need more than two opinions.

Thank you for your post Corporal Punishment, it is a really good criticism and I hope for more like it.
Regards, Searge

[aubergine]

On the subject of CRC, this post contains some related discussion around the CC and CRC: Command center

[Searge-Major]

On the subject of CRC, this post contains some related discussion around the CC and CRC: Command center

Yes, as a matter of fact that was where I first posted my idea.

[Corporal Punishment]

Okay, if you view commanders not as a unit type but as a ability a unit can gain, you violate another principle of WZ: One play-piece has a predefined set of functions which are known to all players. A combat unit deals one type of damage, a repair unit repairs others, a truck builds and maintains structures, a sensor directs artillery, a commander directs combat units. And suddenly a combat unit comes around that can or can not have a hidden function. This is basically the same argument as above, but it is valid no matter how you describe your idea. Only the violated principle changes.

[Searge-Major]

Ok, I have to agree with what you are saying, and the last thing I want to do is ruin WZ in any way, but can you provide any solution to the problem I was trying to address? The problem as I see it is that the commanders are just not suited for multi-player games.

Now, before I get my head bitten off, I know commanders are used in multi-player games, but for players like me at least, it is too much hassle for too little benefit to bother having commanders in game, when at any point in a battle the commander could become the focus of an attack.
For example, if your commander is a tracked heavy body, then obviously the simple way to get rid of it is with anti-tank rockets, and a "suicide" squad of half a dozen or more, or else a few strike VTOLS, should be capable of taking out a single commander in one or two strikes, provided both parties are at comparable tech-levels. There are similar methods for other propulsion types, but that's the general principle.

This is especially annoying if your commander is an elite or similar level. If you get a commander up to that level, then you obviously put a fair amount of time into it, and to have be destroyed in a matter of seconds, personally put off the idea of using commanders for multi-player at all.

Getting rather long-winded here, but to sum it up, I was trying to find a purpose for a relatively rarely used unit, that otherwise IMHO, might as well not exist in the game.

Note: I am aware that there are other rarely used units, Nexus Link, EMP, and a few others, but, one at a time.

[Terminator]

I like commanders too, long time ago I've been discussing the same thing. & yes, CMDs are too week in currrent state if enemy would focus it. I was trying to raise CMD turret stats more armor more HP, but Zarel at that time dont really wanted to do that. Anyway I've come to conclusion that CMDs useless with current pathfinding code, cause main headache comes from units stupid behavior everything just gliching all the time. So until pathfind won't be fixed there are no use of CMDs in the future.

p.s. sorry for my Eng, if not understandable.

[Corporal Punishment]

If a solution to the commander problem was easy it would have been found long ago. In my view, this solution lies in a series of changes. One important step is that the commander stays behind it's group, as is implemented in the most recent builds. This should shunt him from most conventional attacks. Before we proceed any further this should be thoroughly tested. To address dedicated airstrikes changes are feasible not to the commander, but to VTOLs. Specifically the long-since promised dogfight capability. This will be implemented in the future but I suspect it's a big old pile of work so it will take it's due time. Once VTOLs can attack other VTOLs in mid-air, air strikes against commanders are improbable as long as you maintain control over your airspace. This leaves flanking attacks. What can I say? Watch your flanks!

[effigy]

I still haven't tried commanders in 3.x... but I agree, if they hang back behind their units then low HP is less of an issue. If that were to prove to be effective the next issue would likely be that you can't assign as many units to a commander as might make sense due to the higher oil content of all maps (vs. campaign).

[Searge-Major]

If a solution to the commander problem was easy it would have been found long ago.

True, but nothing wrong with trying to find a solution anyway.

In my view, this solution lies in a series of changes. One important step is that the commander stays behind it's group, as is implemented in the most recent builds. This should shunt him from most conventional attacks. Before we proceed any further this should be thoroughly tested. To address dedicated airstrikes changes are feasible not to the commander, but to VTOLs. Specifically the long-since promised dogfight capability. This will be implemented in the future but I suspect it's a big old pile of work so it will take it's due time. Once VTOLs can attack other VTOLs in mid-air, air strikes against commanders are improbable as long as you maintain control over your airspace. This leaves flanking attacks. What can I say? Watch your flanks!

Agreed. If your commander dies to a flanking attack, that's just tactics, not a weakness of the commander. So that particular issue is not an issue, IMO, because the idea is not to make the commander invincible, the idea is just to fix it's weak spots to make it a worthwhile avenue to follow in WZ, esp. in mp games.

As to VTOLs, well I hope that those features are implemented soon , as well as maybe VTOL versions of the sam turrets?
Until then, there's always VTOL patrol with sunbursts, and they can be quite effective.

I still haven't tried commanders in 3.x... but I agree, if they hang back behind their units then low HP is less of an issue. If that were to prove to be effective the next issue would likely be that you can't assign as many units to a commander as might make sense due to the higher oil content of all maps (vs. campaign).

That might not be such a big problem. If the number of units a commander could command initially was higher, say eight, and if the number increased by four instead of two, then you only need a "Regular" ranked commander to control 20 units, the equivalent of a "Special" ranked commander. Am I wrong in thinking this would only need minor changes to the commander code?

[aubergine]

VTOLs can attack other VTOLs in mid air - I hope to have a video out showing early trial runs of that in a few weeks.

[Emdek]

I still haven't tried commanders in 3.x...

I don't see difference, from campaign stand point.

If that were to prove to be effective the next issue would likely be that you can't assign as many units to a commander as might make sense due to the higher oil content of all maps (vs. campaign).

Well, there is difference, in campaign you need to make it more experienced unit, in MP you just need to research more to allow to assign more units (are these divided into limited "normal" group and unlimited group of artillery in MP?)...

If we talk about commanders and their hiding behind commanded units, I would like to see in future possibility to decide [...can't find good word in English for that...] how units are positioned, I really hate current random positioning of units (looks like worse that in 2.3.9, whole group - at least without commander - tries to go into one tile and rotate all the time, which in case of artillery means that it won't attack).
For example let to set them in line or rectangle (for example allow to set corners of area where they should position themselves), in case of commanders there could be maybe option to decide where commander should stand (at least in campaign it has very big HP so it makes sense to stand in front if you have weak units).

To be more on topic, I'm against removing special unit type for commanders.
If it's not already possible, then VTOLs maybe should be allowed to have own flying commanders too.
However it would be less valuable due to high risk of losing it if it would stay targeting and all other would return, so it would need to use some algorithms to determine if it should retreat and when return.

Moreover to make it less visible to opponent commanders could have kind of cloaking option (to make them look as normal units or invisible, maybe only from larger distance), possibly only as option to research.

[aubergine]

... I would like to see in future possibility to decide [...can't find good word in English for that...] how units are positioned ...

I think "formation" is the word you are looking for.





Pretty difficult to do, especially for land units - eg. you'd have to keep the formation (or recreate it) when going round corners.

[Emdek]

Yep, I was searching more in direction of German Schick, but translation gave me words related to fashion and Wikipedia failed to have connected entries this time.

Well, for sure it is hard, if it would be easy then it will be probably already available (at least could be used by AIs), but really useful (especially for land units, smaller groups with different formations).

And it is less important to how they will move, it's more important how they will behave stationary.