Feature request: position of a squad when added to another

[harkan]

dunno if this has been raised else where, if so sorry for the repeat.

When dropping a squad into another squad it automatically goes to the top of the list and changes the squad name (see bugrep about this one). A very useful feature would be to be able to specify where in the squad list it goes to, i.e. top, bottom, one down, two down etc.

As an example of the one down using the IG command platoon display and advisors:

- Command Platoon
--- Command Squad
----- Guardsmen
--- Anti-tank squad
--- Fire support squad

adding a commissar would currently place it:

- Commissar <<<<<<<
- Command Platoon
--- Command Squad
----- Guardsmen
--- Anti-tank squad
--- Fire support squad

where it should go to:

- Command Platoon
--- Command Squad
----- Guardsmen
--- Commissar <<<<<<<
--- Anti-tank squad
--- Fire support squad

or ideally:

- Command Platoon
--- Command Squad
----- Guardsmen
----- Commissar <<<<<<<
--- Anti-tank squad
--- Fire support squad

the one down may refer to roster position or unit position within the overall display.

Game mechanics for the example: the advisors (commissars, priests, psykers) are attached to the command squad of the command platoon. A comman platoon deploys independantly on the battlefield, in the example above the anti-tank n fire support could go to different places as could the command squad, however the advisores remain with the command squad. The current squads mechanism doesnt really make this intuitive.

cheers

[rob]

Due to the drag-and-drop nature of squads, it might be confusing to have the displayed position of entities within a squad be fixed. For example, what if I happen to WANT the commissar in one position as opposed to another, based purely on my aesthetic preferences? More importantly, what if my definition of the "right" location is different from your definition? Shouldn't I be allowed to do what makes the most sense to me?

Note! You might have very sound reasoning for doing something a particular way. But what's to keep a different author from imposing his definition of "right" on users in a different situation when there is no compelling reason to do it that way? The more control someone has, the more the potential for abuse becomes a concern. Unfortunately, this is something you've witnessed up close quite recently, so I'm going to guess you fully grasp what I'm worried about. :-)

Would it be sufficient to simply control the evaluation order of the entities instead? Then the user could control the visual position all he wants, but the author could control everything that impacts the evaluation handling, such as the source of the squad name.

If the display order needs to be controlled, then I'm very relucant to force the user to put things in a fixed order. Would it be sufficient to simply assign relative priorities to each entity? Or could the notion of "proximal attachments" to other units be established that would require the advisors merely be adjacent to the command squad? I don't know if that would work, but I'm just brainstorming out load here. :-)

For the specific example below, I actually think you'll be wanting to use the new "smart squads" mechanism that we have planned for V3.2. Basically, the user would create a purposed squad as a command platoon by adding it from the list of available units. The smart squad would then know of a list of units that can be added to it, and the user would be given a list of those units to choose from for the squad. Essentially, think of the squad itself as having options. These options would allow the selection of properly restricted units to add to the squad. They could be dragged out of the squad, or other units could be dragged into the squad, but the squad itself could prompt the user to add the correct units that comprise it.

Thoughts????

-Rob

At 03:07 AM 3/8/2006, you wrote:

dunno if this has been raised else where, if so sorry for the repeat.

When dropping a squad into another squad it automatically goes to the top of the list and changes the squad name (see bugrep about this one). A very useful feature would be to be able to specify where in the squad list it goes to, i.e. top, bottom, one down, two down etc.

As an example of the one down using the IG command platoon display and advisors:

- Command Platoon
--- Command Squad
----- Guardsmen
--- Anti-tank squad
--- Fire support squad

adding a commissar would currently place it:

- Commissar <<<<<<<
- Command Platoon
--- Command Squad
----- Guardsmen
--- Anti-tank squad
--- Fire support squad

where it should go to:

- Command Platoon
--- Command Squad
----- Guardsmen
--- Commissar <<<<<<<
--- Anti-tank squad
--- Fire support squad

or ideally:

- Command Platoon
--- Command Squad
----- Guardsmen
----- Commissar <<<<<<<
--- Anti-tank squad
--- Fire support squad

the one down may refer to roster position or unit position within the overall display.

Game mechanics for the example: the advisors (commissars, priests, psykers) are attached to the command squad of the command platoon. A comman platoon deploys independantly on the battlefield, in the example above the anti-tank n fire support could go to different places as could the command squad, however the advisores remain with the command squad. The current squads mechanism doesnt really make this intuitive.

cheers

[harkan]

Originally Posted by rob

For example, what if I happen to WANT the commissar in one position as opposed to another, based purely on my aesthetic preferences? More importantly, what if my definition of the "right" location is different from your definition? Shouldn't I be allowed to do what makes the most sense to me?

true - i think if the prob with squad name is fixed this may no longer be an issue

Originally Posted by rob

Unfortunately, this is something you've witnessed up close quite recently, so I'm going to guess you fully grasp what I'm worried about. :-)

Originally Posted by rob

Would it be sufficient to simply control the evaluation order of the entities instead? Then the user could control the visual position all he wants, but the author could control everything that impacts the evaluation handling, such as the source of the squad name.

sounds good

Originally Posted by rob

Or could the notion of "proximal attachments" to other units be established that would require the advisors merely be adjacent to the command squad?

yup, would be very helpful, would also assist with transports, champiosn etc

Originally Posted by rob

For the specific example below, I actually think you'll be wanting to use the new "smart squads" mechanism that we have planned for V3.2. Basically, the user would create a purposed squad as a command platoon by adding it from the list of available units. The smart squad would then know of a list of units that can be added to it, and the user would be given a list of those units to choose from for the squad. Essentially, think of the squad itself as having options. These options would allow the selection of properly restricted units to add to the squad. They could be dragged out of the squad, or other units could be dragged into the squad, but the squad itself could prompt the user to add the correct units that comprise it.

am now drooling ... gimme!!!

[Shi_Vral]

I'm with Harkan, this new "smart squad" feature sounds awesome!

[rob]

Expect it to be a topic of discussion this summer on the Beta team list. We'll need to nail down exactly how it has to work before we implement it. After that, we'll be needing you guys to "test drive" it when we get it implemented and start Beta testing V3.2. You guys will hopefully uncover any shortcomings we overlooked during the Beta test phase. :-)

-Rob

At 04:49 AM 3/8/2006, you wrote:

I'm with Harkan, this new "smart squad" feature sounds awesome!