[Mobius]

Dudes, ordering warships to attack is not a wise choice. Setting up waypoints is so much better.

[General Battuta]

Dudes, ordering warships to attack is not a wise choice. Setting up waypoints is so much better.

Mobius is really correct. I'm not sure warship AI improvements are feasible given the vast possible number of configurations and ship shapes. It's not like they all have most of their guns pointing forward like fighters do.

[Mobius]

Yeah, personally I much rather set up waypoint sets, but the main FS2 campaign gives capships attack orders on occasion, which is my real issue with it.

That's one of the errors by FREDders shouldn't replicate.

[General Battuta]

Attack orders are sometimes the correct choice, particularly with cruisers.

[Mobius]

No, they aren't.

[General Battuta]

Excuse me?

I just FREDded a great mission, and attack orders were a good choice for one situation.

What's your issue? I'm agreeing with you in 99% of situations, in this thread and the simulators one.

[Dilmah G]

I would agree, cruisers aren't that bad when placed on attack orders, since their smaller size makes the maneuvers they undertake look more plausible.

[Mobius]

Excuse me?

I just FREDded a great mission, and attack orders were a good choice for one situation.

What's your issue? I'm agreeing with you in 99% of situations, in this thread and the simulators one.

I sincerely doubt it. Also define the "good" situations.

If you know for sure that the cruiser(s) will get destroyed before they get in "maneuver range", it may work to some extent. Its firepower would still be focused on its target, thus making the assault pattern predictable.

Hypothetical situation:

Cruiser A

                                                 Cruiser C           

Cruiser B


C attacks A:

Cruiser A
                 Cruiser C
                                                           

Cruiser B


Then attacks B:

Cruiser A               
     

                                                       
     Cruiser C

Cruiser B


But, with a waypoint:

Cruiser A

                     Cruiser C                                     

Cruiser B

...the cruiser would fire on both opponents as it gets close, for the sake of the coolness. Also, getting close to both enemy cruisers is not a good choice because of short-range weapons.

EDIT: One of the main advantages in using waypoints is the possibilty of choosing the approach speed. Note how Cruiser C's speed is different in the last scheme. Getting close at maximum speed results in awful maneuvers.

I would agree, cruisers aren't that bad when placed on attack orders, since their smaller size makes the maneuvers they undertake look more plausible.

One of the first things we do in the FSCRP is removing attack orders and adding waypoints. Crazy attack maneuvers? They shouldn't even be seen.

[General Battuta]

Excuse me?

I just FREDded a great mission, and attack orders were a good choice for one situation.

What's your issue? I'm agreeing with you in 99% of situations, in this thread and the simulators one.

I sincerely doubt it. Also define the "good" situations.

Don't be an asshole. It was a good mission, and it's not your place to 'sincerely doubt' it until you've had a chance to play it.

When you see the mission, you'll recognize it was a fine choice and waypoints weren't necessary. However, as I have already said, I AGREE WITH YOU that waypoints are the correct choice most of the time.

[karajorma]

I sincerely doubt it. Also define the "good" situations.

Dogmatism in a FREDder is a big sign that they rely on superstition rather than making attempts to figure out what FRED can do by themselves.

Saying "You must do it way x because any other way doesn't work" when someone says that they have made something work in a different manner is a sign that not only have you never contemplated doing it any other way, but that you still aren't willing to contemplate it even when you have evidence it might work. That's not a sign of a good FREDder. No one knows all the tricks you can do with FRED. Not even me.

[chief1983]

And if Windmills isn't evidence enough of that, I don't know what is.

[Dilmah G]

Exactly, there's more than one way to do things in FRED, Mobius, you of all people should know that, you've been FREDing for a while haven't you?

[Mobius]

Don't be an asshole. It was a good mission, and it's not your place to 'sincerely doubt' it until you've had a chance to play it.

When you see the mission, you'll recognize it was a fine choice and waypoints weren't necessary. However, as I have already said, I AGREE WITH YOU that waypoints are the correct choice most of the time.

Speed management alone is what makes attack orders bogus. Did you even read my previous post?

If you want to throw ships that go berserk at your opponent without caring about the risks, attack orders work for you - I don't quite understand why sending a Fenris against an overwhelming force at 20 meters per second should look plausible. Well, that's not a widely accepted style.

Also, stop with personal offenses. Having each other on our respective ignore lists doesn't necessarily mean targeting each other in the forums.

Dogmatism in a FREDder is a big sign that they rely on superstition rather than making attempts to figure out what FRED can do by themselves.

Saying "You must do it way x because any other way doesn't work" when someone says that they have made something work in a different manner is a sign that not only have you never contemplated doing it any other way, but that you still aren't willing to contemplate it even when you have evidence it might work. That's not a sign of a good FREDder. No one knows all the tricks you can do with FRED. Not even me.

The difference this time is that I have experience on both sides. I have widely used attack orders in the past and then switched to waypoints because, IMHO, throwing ships against targets "for the sake of the cool" sounds a bit childish to me.

There are people who think that cruisers performing a flying circus are a nice addition to that mission. Do you agree?


On a side note, this is the AI Wishlist thread. People are writing requests about the AI code, and the coders should focus their attention on important stuff...

AI code fixes for multiple ships flying through waypoints = Good, they should be done

AI code fixes for ships' attack orders = Likely to be a waste of time (until all bugs have been fixed and other important additions have been implemented)

If coders think AI changes to attack orders are a priority, they can go ahead anyway.

And if Windmills isn't evidence enough of that, I don't know what is.

The player is not a fighter pilot in Windmills, so the gaming experience is totally different - ships are sortied against the enemy just like pawns in a game of chess. In a conventional campaign that wouldn't happen so widely, I guess.

Exactly, there's more than one way to do things in FRED, Mobius, you of all people should know that, you've been FREDing for a while haven't you?

The problem this time is that people think I'm criticizing a style I don't know (as FREDder). That's completely false, because I relied on attack orders before switching to waypoints so I know, more or less, how things work.

And yes, I've been FREDding a lot for a while.

BTW Sushi, is there any way I can get a look at a diff of your Sushi Glide changes?

http://www.freespacemods.net/download.php?view.168

That appears to be the latest pack.

[karajorma]

The difference this time is that I have experience on both sides. I have widely used attack orders in the past and then switched to waypoints because, IMHO, throwing ships against targets "for the sake of the cool" sounds a bit childish to me.

I have experience with using them too. Probably a hell of a lot more than you. And I agree with Battuta that although they are the wrong this to do most of the time they aren't the wrong thing to do all the time. I have used attack orders in the past and have found that they did achieve the result I wanted.

Your description of how you started using waypoints sounds like exactly the kind of dogmatic superstition I was on about. You tried orders, failed to get the results you wanted, tried waypoints, got the results you wanted and now believe that only waypoints will ever work. You've formed the rock hard certainty that attack orders are the wrong thing to do 100% of the time and won't hear anything different. The possibility that maybe you weren't using attack orders correctly or that none of your missions involved situations where they are the correct thing to do doesn't seem to cross your mind.

That is not good FREDding. You do not know all the tricks. If Battuta claims that he has found a good use for attack orders then I believe him, partly because I've found uses for them too but mainly because I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know everything about mission design. 


And I'm going to split this discussion and move it to the FREDding forum in a bit cause it doesn't belong here.

http://www.freespacemods.net/download.php?view.168

That appears to be the latest pack.

That's neither a diff nor the latest.

[Mobius]

I have experience with using them too. Probably a hell of a lot more than you. And I agree with Battuta that although they are the wrong this to do most of the time they aren't the wrong thing to do all the time. I have used attack orders in the past and have found that they did achieve the result I wanted.

In one of my previous posts I stated how attack orders can be effective, but there are two important things people should consider:

* Warship focusing all the firepower on a single opponent;
* Approach speed;

Which, quite frankly, are enough to rely on waypoints unless the FREDder wants a kamikaze run and/or a ship going berserk that isn't going to get close enough to its opponent and perform a flying circus.

Your description of how you started using waypoints sounds like exactly the kind of dogmatic superstition I was on about. You tried orders, failed to get the results you wanted, tried waypoints, got the results you wanted and now believe that only waypoints will ever work. You've formed the rock hard certainty that attack orders are the wrong thing to do 100% of the time and won't hear anything different. The possibility that maybe you weren't using attack orders correctly or that none of your missions involved situations where they are the correct thing to do doesn't seem to cross your mind.

That's not exactly what happened to me. I did not switch to waypoints because I failed at using attack orders nor I failed at achieving the objectives I wanted to achieve. I switched because the usage of waypoints looks far more professional, under all points of view.

I'm not a superb writer of FRED-related essays (well, I didn't write that many), but I can give for sure that cheap solutions, no matter of how effective they can be, are the best option. Let me introduce this example:

If you have one waypoint (placed far, far away) for a convoy you have a cheap solution, but surely not a realistic one. The ETA of the convoy would be insanely high compared to the purposes of the mission (ETA is 99 minutes despite the fact that the mission is known to end after, let's say, 10 minutes). Adding a number of waypoints that is as big as the number of convoy ships is not a shortcut, but gets the job done in the most appropriate way. That's basically what happens with attack orders - it's damn easy to use SEXPs or ship orders to tell a ship to attack another, but yet still this is a cheap solution... a mere shortcut. Personally, I'd like to have full control of the movements of a ship when turret FOVs and such are of primary importance during the approach. In "Feint! Parry! Riposte!" we have a good example of warship encounter.

With attack orders, you can have cruisers enganging each other in a flying circus. If the goal is the destruction of either cruiser, the objective can be achieved despite the choice. The problem is how the battle looks like and how unpredictable the result can be with default parameters.

If people like watching a flying circus, they're free to watch it. Pretend a flying circus to be widely accepted as a good example of warship Vs. warship battle is another (debatable) statement.

Kamikaze runs are so far the best way to use attack orders. Well, if you want a cruise missile to hit a specific part of a warship or installation you'd have to rely on waypoints (and that's what I did a while ago).

That's neither a diff nor the latest.

That's the most recent one I found on FreeSpaceMods. I have no clue.

[karajorma]

In one of my previous posts I stated how attack orders can be effective, but there are two important things people should consider:

* Warship focusing all the firepower on a single opponent;
* Approach speed;

Which, quite frankly, are enough to rely on waypoints unless the FREDder wants a kamikaze run and/or a ship going berserk that isn't going to get close enough to its opponent and perform a flying circus.

Again you make the assumption that you have all the answers. You really don't.

First up there may be cases when the plot of the story does call for an all out attack against a single ship without it having to be a kamikaze. Secondly I don't care what you say about attack speeds, unless there is a friendly fleet present I can see lots of good reasons why a ship might want to approach as fast as it can.

In your argument you've cherry picked the situation of a ship going against a superior force and used that as an argument against every single fast approach. That's ludicrous. If you don't like them, that's your own personal style. Do not try to claim that everyone has to follow your own personal style.

That's not exactly what happened to me. I did not switch to waypoints because I failed at using attack orders nor I failed at achieving the objectives I wanted to achieve. I switched because the usage of waypoints looks far more professional, under all points of view.

And again that precludes the possibility that you simply didn't know how to get professional results from using capship orders. Given that you haven't seen Battuta's mission (or mine for that matter) it would be pretty arrogant to claim that you can get more professional results than we can.

but I can give for sure that cheap solutions, no matter of how effective they can be, are the best option.

That's nonsense. If a "cheap" method is effective and efficient then there is no good reason a more complicated method should be used and several good reasons why it shouldn't. You then quote an example where there is a problem with the cheap method which makes it less effective than the the complicated one. That's basically a strawman then.

That's the most recent one I found on FreeSpaceMods. I have no clue.

A diff is a code patch which allows me to see the changes Sushi has made to he source code. As far as I know Sushi hasn't released any, all the code is on his machine.

[Mobius]

Again you make the assumption that you have all the answers. You really don't.

First up there may be cases when the plot of the story does call for an all out attack against a single ship without it having to be a kamikaze. Secondly I don't care what you say about attack speeds, unless there is a friendly fleet present I can see lots of good reasons why a ship might want to approach as fast as it can.

In your argument you've cherry picked the situation of a ship going against a superior force and used that as an argument against every single fast approach. That's ludicrous. If you don't like them, that's your own personal style. Do not try to claim that everyone has to follow your own personal style.

As long as getting close to the enemy means providing enemy turrets with a bigger target profile AND having short range turrets firing at the attacking ship, speeds are really important.

Attack orders don't have any speed restrictions, ergo they're not effective. Simple as it sounds, really.

And again that precludes the possibility that you simply didn't know how to get professional results from using capship orders. Given that you haven't seen Battuta's mission (or mine for that matter) it would be pretty arrogant to claim that you can get more professional results than we can.

Isn't claiming the contrary equally arrogant?

The subject is too vast here. It doesn't take in consideration plot-driven parameters like a ship going berserk on the target. Since I didn't completely exclude the usage of attack orders and giving the enormous variety of situations, the only possible thing is to discuss a basic approach of one or more ships in normal combat situations, when getting so close without a damn good reason has no advantages.

What's the point in letting the enemy fire beam cannons, turret lasers, torpedoes, missiles AND flak guns at you when you can simply keep a safe distance? It's a matter of strategy and plausibility here.

That's nonsense. If a "cheap" method is effective and efficient then there is no good reason a more complicated method should be used and several good reasons why it shouldn't. You then quote an example where there is a problem with the cheap method which makes it less effective than the the complicated one. That's basically a strawman then.

If a transport is supposed to carry marines but the cargo is set to "Nothing", the mission runs... but you have a problem.

If you have only one waypoint and it's placed far away, you solved the problem of adding multiple waypoints. But you still have the problem of ridiculous ETA and also risk collisions if the waypoint placement was bogus.

If you order a ship to attack another, the mission runs and in a very smooth way. But you have more than one problem this time - other than the risk of watching another flying circus, you show poor strategy of the side that is committing the strike for the reasons I posted above.

A diff is a code patch which allows me to see the changes Sushi has made to he source code. As far as I know Sushi hasn't released any, all the code is on his machine.

I haven't noticed any, either. I thought you were refering to table edits.


Oh, by the way, a split may be approriate here.

[karajorma]

As long as getting close to the enemy means providing enemy turrets with a bigger target profile AND having short range turrets firing at the attacking ship, speeds are really important.

Sauce for the goose.

Plus you are a fast moving target while they aren't. That favours the attacker not the defender, all other things being equal.

Attack orders don't have any speed restrictions, ergo they're not effective. Simple as it sounds, really.

Simplistic. Not simple.

Again you're preaching dogmas.

Isn't claiming the contrary equally arrogant?

Nope. I've seen my missions. Battuta has seen his. You're the one claiming that your method is better without seeing either.

At this point you're basically trying to argue your method is better without anything beyond a faint clue what is mine or Battuta's. Classic signs of someone with a dogmatic point of view.

The saddest thing is that the only thing you're going to achieve by refusing to believe that other FREDders may have thought of things you haven't is to hold back your own FREDding abilities.

Feel free to keep making derogatory comments about flying circuses though. Those of us who know better will laugh at them for the sad misinformed nonsense they really are.

The subject is too vast here. It doesn't take in consideration plot-driven parameters like a ship going berserk on the target. Since I didn't completely exclude the usage of attack orders and giving the enormous variety of situations, the only possible thing is to discuss a basic approach of one or more ships in normal combat situations, when getting so close without a damn good reason has no advantages.

Except that no one but you was talking about that. Battuta led with a comment on how in certain rare cases the use of attack orders could make more sense than waypoints and you proceeded to claim that there were no such cases other than the ones you deigned to say existed.

What's the point in letting the enemy fire beam cannons, turret lasers, torpedoes, missiles AND flak guns at you when you can simply keep a safe distance? It's a matter of strategy and plausibility here.

More sauce for the goose.

If you order a ship to attack another, the mission runs and in a very smooth way. But you have more than one problem this time - other than the risk of watching another flying circus, you show poor strategy of the side that is committing the strike for the reasons I posted above.

So you claim. And more often than not you'd be right. What I take exception to is you claiming that you are always right and that therefore anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong.

Oh, by the way, a split may be approriate here.

Congratulations on noticing it several posts after I said it.

I was actually waiting for Battuta to post first.

[General Battuta]

Well, Kara, I don't have much to add.

Mobius, listen: I agree with you in 95% of cases. Attack orders, however, are acceptable once in a while. In the current example, four ships are dueling at close range as soon as the player jumps in. They are nearly 20 kilometers away from the player, but they still gotta look good in case the player switches viewpoints to the battle. Two of the ships in the duel will be destroyed within the first three or four minutes of the mission.

I tested the situation with attack orders, and it looked great. The ships circled each other; the two torpedo cruisers even looked like they were intentionally dodging the beams on the Aeolus and the Deimos. I could envision the captains yelling orders to the helm, trying to get their weapons around.

In this specific case, it made perfect sense. The torpedo cruisers have 360 degree firing arcs with powerful short-range weapons. They want to get in close and tangle with the enemy, just like a fighter pilot. Replicating the same behavior with waypoints would have produced a clumsy, artificial battle.

Moreover, most of your problems are with the way capital ships approach the fight. If there were any approaching going on in this case, the torpedo cruisers would definitely want to do so at full speed. But it doesn't matter, because the ships start the mission already engaged in the fight. They just have to look cool and behave realistically.

Also, I took you off my PM ignorelist as soon as you were unmonkeyed, and sent you a friendly message welcoming you back and suggesting we work together on something. I guess you never got it.  And you wonder why I think you're pissed at me.

[Dilmah G]

As someone who has played the mission by GB, I personally think the attack order worked fine. I mean these were Aeolus size ships duking it out, so as I said before, the "Flying Circus" aerobatics didn't look bad, in fact the ships were as Battuta was saying, circling each other, which I understand is default behaviour, culminating in both ships eventually coming to a halt broadsiding each other (I tested this in FRED, took a while for them to come to a stop though). If you want a complex battle, fine, waypoints are just fine, but in some cases such as the one in GB's mission, the attack order was adequate.