Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Haswell

In Development: Directed Mechanized Infantry Fire

Recommended Posts

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-directed-mechanized-infantry-fire

Quote

When the Mechanized Infantry feature was introduced, we mentioned more options to actually control your troops in combat. The way Mechanized Infantry works now, it effectively only attacks targets closest to it, regardless of their value. In other words, it will fire at the frontal armor of an MBT instead of that fragile AFV hiding behind that.

 

This will change in one of the future patches coming as a part of Update 0.33. This new feature will be quite simple but very effective. By targeting your enemy and pressing the right key (V by default), your Mechanized Infantry will attack the target as long as it is within its range.

You can direct all three types infantry this way – yes, even mortars.

scr2

The target marked for attacking will appear with a special reticle over it. Your Mechanized Infantry will keep attacking it until:

  • It is destroyed
  • It disappears from sight completely
  • It leaves the infantry’s range or line of fire
  • A different target is selected by you

If any of the above occurs, the infantry target lock is broken. Loading your Mechanized Infantry into the vehicle will reset the target lock as well. In other words, this command is useful for specific tactical situations, not for focusing on one target the entire battle.

If any of these events happen, your infantry will fall back to the standard target prioritization and will start attack the nearest target again.

scr3

If the selected target is within range for only some of your troops, typically when firing at maximum range, only the specific troops within range will fire at the target (this is essentially only relevant for the AT Squad).

For the future, we are still working on making the Mechanized Infantry mobile (using the same action key), although we currently cannot share any specifics or timeframes for that.

Let's see how long we have to wait this time, or if it gets canned again.


Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Haswell said:

Let's see how long we have to wait this time, or if it gets canned again.

I want to see what this messes up.

Will it be tested on PTS?


 

"If you were not birthed with claws or fangs, store bought will do just fine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Katsumoto said:

Will it be tested on PTS?

Highly unlikely, unless the feature got delayed to become a launch feature for new update e.g. 0.34 or 0.35. Otherwise it'd be released directly live for testing or direct implementation.

For reference the infantry deployment feature was first tested on live server mid-0.30 without going through PTS.


aMcZOFg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Qbicle said:

Highly unlikely, unless the feature got delayed to become a launch feature for new update e.g. 0.34 or 0.35. Otherwise it'd be released directly live for testing or direct implementation.

For reference the infantry deployment feature was first tested on live server mid-0.30 without going through PTS.

Then it will be messed up when it gets rolled out.


 

"If you were not birthed with claws or fangs, store bought will do just fine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Katsumoto said:

Then it will be messed up when it gets rolled out.

It works fine on the dev server. Exactly as described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Silentstalker said:

It works fine on the dev server. Exactly as described.

...yeah, I poke at patches and releases, but to be fair the devs haven't quite had a stellar track record have they?


 

"If you were not birthed with claws or fangs, store bought will do just fine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Katsumoto said:

...yeah, I poke at patches and releases, but to be fair the devs haven't quite had a stellar track record have they?

It is what it is, I suppose. But as long as new features and ideas keep coming, the game will stay fresh and alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game should also offer some sort of Follow Me or Move To command for infantry units. Once infantry is disembarked it is stupid to use enter-and-exit from vehicle to move it for another 10-15 meters.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, dfnce said:

The game should also offer some sort of Follow Me or Move To command for infantry units. Once infantry is disembarked it is stupid to use enter-and-exit from vehicle to move it for another 10-15 meters.

Or enter-and-exit just to shift the deployment vector 15 degrees so they actually use the cover next to you.  It would also save us from having to advance the vehicle butt-first just so the infantry run in the correct general direction. Move To would be great...  like aim at the spot and press the <MoveTo> key.

QR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2020 at 3:11 PM, dfnce said:

The game should also offer some sort of Follow Me or Move To command for infantry units. Once infantry is disembarked it is stupid to use enter-and-exit from vehicle to move it for another 10-15 meters.

This is the part that is extremely complex - pathfinding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most bots in PvE tend to follow scripted paths to their destinations (with limited maneuvering) and then transition into free-roam in the general area. The logic behind avoiding obstacles while moving works fairly well actually, if they weren't constrained by movement mechanics (ie. can't move sideways).

Infantry however don't really have to follow the movement constraints used in vehicles, wouldn't that make it simpler for the pathfinding? Or is the problem about players dynamically assigning waypoints for them to follow?


Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather them have a movement command than a fire at my target command; cause that means we have to take our aiming time to pick their targets for them and then we gotta aim back at what we wanted to shoot at.

Instead of a fire at my target command, I'd rather have some sort of a "fire at" setting we set up somewhere. The settings could be like: default - fire at closest target, stopped - fire at closest target that hasn't moved for some number of seconds, specific - fire at the closest SPG-AFV-TD-LT-MBT (the inf would fire at any AFV in range first before a LT that was closer to them, and players could set their own class order, that would be my order), and specific stopped - fire at the closest SPG-AFV-TD-LT-MBT (same as last one but goes by stopped as well; as in let's say there 1 enemy of each of LT, TD, and MBT in their range (3 enemies in total)... the MBT is stopped, the others are still moving... the inf will shoot the stopped MBT first...  but if either of the others do stop, they will shoot the others by the order)

Edited by TekNicTerror (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2020 at 12:33 PM, Silentstalker said:

This is the part that is extremely complex - pathfinding.

Probably Sudden Strike is not best example, but it was done there 20 years ago on 2D map. I think AW is mostly 2D game too, so i put the thesis is that if a developer reduces the problem from 3D path finding (which is not needed) to 2D pathfinding problem, infantry movement is actually trivial. I assume a developer should have good understanding of CE engine, its topology and collision models, so do they have ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2020 at 9:28 AM, TekNicTerror said:

Instead of a fire at my target command, I'd rather have some sort of a "fire at" setting we set up somewhere. The settings could be like: default - fire at closest target, stopped - fire at closest target that hasn't moved for some number of seconds, specific - fire at the closest SPG-AFV-TD-LT-MBT (the inf would fire at any AFV in range first before a LT that was closer to them, and players could set their own class order, that would be my order), and specific stopped - fire at the closest SPG-AFV-TD-LT-MBT (same as last one but goes by stopped as well; as in let's say there 1 enemy of each of LT, TD, and MBT in their range (3 enemies in total)... the MBT is stopped, the others are still moving... the inf will shoot the stopped MBT first...  but if either of the others do stop, they will shoot the others by the order)

I would even by happy with "fire with what your weapon will damage."  At upper tier where there is a lot of ERA, my infantry will just keep plinking away at an MBT they can't pen, until somebody else destroys it so they can acquire a new target. Sigh. 

The enemy bots will priority aim at places where they will deal damage, so infantry should be able to prioritize the same way.

QR

2 hours ago, dfnce said:

Probably Sudden Strike is not best example, but it was done there 20 years ago on 2D map.

Ooooh, loved that game. Wish I could get it working again in DOSBox.  And yes, in addition to vehicles it had a pretty good infantry model (infantry could climb buildings to see farther, officers had binoculars, medics could heal injured men, infantry could fight infantry, mount/dismount from trucks, capture field guns and MGs). All pretty autonomously.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Quantum_Ranger said:

Ooooh, loved that game. Wish I could get it working again in DOSBox.  And yes, in addition to vehicles it had a pretty good infantry model (infantry could climb buildings to see farther, officers had binoculars, medics could heal injured men, infantry could fight infantry, mount/dismount from trucks, capture field guns and MGs). All pretty autonomously.

The version 2 from stream works under Windows 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dfnce said:

Probably Sudden Strike is not best example, but it was done there 20 years ago on 2D map. I think AW is mostly 2D game too, so i put the thesis is that if a developer reduces the problem from 3D path finding (which is not needed) to 2D pathfinding problem, infantry movement is actually trivial. I assume a developer should have good understanding of CE engine, its topology and collision models, so do they have ?

Honestly, this is way beyond my paygrade, I am not a programmer. So when a developer tells me it's a massive pain in the ass in CryEngine, I have no choice but to believe this to be true. On the other hand, I know for a fact that CryEngine is really hard to work with, I've seen some snippets of codes with examples that made me facepalm. So who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...