Queuing unit actions

[stiiknafuulia]

Could you find the exact quote? It's really interesting.

Unfortunately I don't remember which article it was, other than it being one of the very first ones to come out after the game's announcement. It never being mentioned after that would seem to point in the direction of it being a simple misunderstanding, but it could be that the previewers just haven't had enough units to try to use the feature (or it could have yet to be implemented, due to the very problems we're discussing in this thread ).

 

[stealth_nsk]

Felis Renidens, I'm sorry for a personal question, but do you have any background in software development? I don't know how to comment on your reply, because it just don't make any sense from development perspective.

Sorry again.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

But if units and queues are already mentioned, I'd like a "follow" order that will allow me to move units together (the follower will move after the unit it follows in the same direction if possible).

This just seems completely unnecessary since combining units together as civ6 will do, is a better solution. I mean, why would you bother programming complicated path finding algorithms so that two units can follow each other, when you can just stack the two units and use the same path finding code to move both units as one?

For me, what civ6 is doing with allowing limited stacking is such an elegant solution. You can just stack 2 units and move them as one instead of worrying about 2 separate paths. And we know that path finding with 1upt can be a mess for the AI.

 

[Schuesseled]

They said that giving group orders to on army will be possible, and just that is enough for me to buy the game.

They haven't as far as I'm aware,only that you can join a military and civilian together and move them together.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This just seems completely unnecessary since combining units together as civ6 will do, is a better solution. I mean, why would you bother programming complicated path finding algorithms so that two units can follow each other, when you can just stack the two units and use the same path finding code to move both units as one?

For me, what civ6 is doing with allowing limited stacking is such an elegant solution. You can just stack 2 units and move them as one instead of worrying about 2 separate paths. And we know that path finding with 1upt can be a mess for the AI.

Except
1. You can't stack different units that are both military (a Rifleman and a Field Medic or 2 Riflemen can stack but not a Rifle and a Musket)

2. The stacking of 2 or 3 of the same military unit is only available later in the game and probably irreversible


So "following" would still be useful if
1. you have multiple types of military unit that you want to keep together
2. you have more than 3 military units
3. you haven't gotten the 'Army' civic yet (which lets you combine 2 or 3 Rifle units into a single more powerful Rifle Army unit on one tile)
4. you want to split the units up later

 

[Felis Renidens]

I work at software development, although I did not try game design, there might be factors I'm unaware of. I don't see why there should be complicated algorithms for unit B imitating unit A's action. Limited stacking will help somewhat but it's not the same thing. It's great to escort civilians and support units and can reduce some cluttering by forming armies.

For me it seems that if I moved unit A from tile X to tile Y to tile Z I can move Unit B to tile X and if no obstacle was encountered to tile Y too. I suppose giving a unit follow the list of tiles covered by the leader or waiting is very complex or will be too annoying. It might be that I know nothing and giving a feature that does not support all formations in all terrains perfectly simply does not worth it.

I vaguely remember something about moving units in formations in Civ6 but I don't remember the source. I hope something will be done in that direction, but will wait and see.

 

[King Rad]

Iirc, they have stated that the units will move in 'formation'.

I remember this comment as well. I don't remember the specifics, but I had assumed this meant exactly what was said - that units could be grouped and would move together with a single command for the group, something that has been much requested since Civ 5 came out.

 

[Felis Renidens]

FOUND IT: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/05/11/civilization-vi-details/

War itself is changing as well. Beach is satisfied with the one unit per tile approach but wanted to “eliminate some of the congestion” that it caused. To that end, units can now be organised into a formation, which means they’ll always move together rather than having to be shuffled across the map one at a time. Formations can be applied to large collections of military units or civilian units and their escorts.
[/qoute]

 

[stiiknafuulia]

FOUND IT: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/05/11/civilization-vi-details/

War itself is changing as well. Beach is satisfied with the one unit per tile approach but wanted to “eliminate some of the congestion” that it caused. To that end, units can now be organised into a formation, which means they’ll always move together rather than having to be shuffled across the map one at a time. Formations can be applied to large collections of military units or civilian units and their escorts.

Wow, nice work! The human memory is a funny thing... Out of that very specific, non-ambiguous statement, I only remembered the word 'formation' being mentioned.

Now that we have that quote, though, it begs the obvious question: how the hell can they make that work with different movement speeds, roads/no roads, hills, rivers, and especially MOUNTAINS blocking some units but not others? There have been some attempts in this thread, but I just don't see a way to accomplish this that doesn't turn into a, well, err, I'm sure you can infer the word I'd like to use here (I think 2 infractions is enough for one day).

EDIT: Actually now that I read it again, you can still understand that quote in two ways. I guess we'll only know for sure when we'll get the game in our hands. At any rate, it's fun to speculate how it'd work.

 

[stealth_nsk]

For me it seems that if I moved unit A from tile X to tile Y to tile Z I can move Unit B to tile X and if no obstacle was encountered to tile Y too. I suppose giving a unit follow the list of tiles covered by the leader or waiting is very complex or will be too annoying. It might be that I know nothing and giving a feature that does not support all formations in all terrains perfectly simply does not worth it.

Ok, let's break it down a little. We can't use "normal" pathfinding as it will break the formation. Let's say we want to implement movement in straight line. On the ned turn we cycle through all units - if they have where to move, they move, if they can't move but have movement points left, they wait. If we have only waiting units or moved units, we consider movement done. That's pretty easy. If we have multiple groups of units, we just cycle through all their units as total, this should work, although the gaps could be huge.

Now, let's say we face permanent obstacle, like mountain. What we could do here is to move towards leader. If we assume the leader already went here, this should be more or less good. What if the leader faces such obstacle? We could only pick a random direction here. A lot of possible problems could appear with units being stuck. This could also result in some backward movements.

Next, let's say we've faced a temporary obstacle like a unit. If we choose to move away, we could end up in very wrong place, so let's assume we wait. If the unit is fortified, it's unfortunate.

So, what we have here:
- At each point we've sacrificed ability for units to make full move if there's a risk the move will end up in wrong direction. This could lead in very slow movement and huge gaps.
- We don't use pathfinding, so no benefits from roads and plain terrains, plus chances to walk into a trap of mountains and cliffs.

In general, I don't see any benefits from sending each unit to the destination independently with regular pathfinding. In both cases units will not have formation on the road, but this will be much faster and easier to implement.

 

[Felis Renidens]

I assume the leader will at least use regular pathfinding and will move before it's followers (both can be arranged). If regular pathfinding will take the leader past the mountain it will work for the followers too.

There is the problem of a unit getting between the leader and followers - creating a temporary obstacle. The unit can belong to the same player - who will have to move it out of the way or break the formation, It can belong to a friendly player - In that case the units in line will have to wait and see what that unit does. If it doesn't get out of the way the formation is broken. It can also be an enemy - in that case the formation must be broken because there is a threat to consider. Broken formation means that the unit that can't complete it's move get's out of automated move.

Anyway if they will have formation (of _large_ collections), as I understand from the quote, I suppose they have already encountered those problems and hopefully found a solution. How satisfactory we will have to wait and see.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I assume the leader will at least use regular pathfinding and will move before it's followers (both can be arranged). If regular pathfinding will take the leader past the mountain it will work for the followers too.

If the leader will be moving using regular pathfinding, it could easily lead the rest to trap as they could be way behind AND they'll not be using it.

Once again I don't see any advantages over just moving group to a new location. The amount of steps to select group and send it are the same, no leader needed, each unit will use its basic pathfinding and formation will not be preserve on the move - the same as you're suggesting.

Oh, one more problem occuring in your suggestion. If units which are supposed to be behind will arrive earlier, they could prevent units which suppose to be in front line to get in position.

 

[Felis Renidens]

Well, I'll wait and see how they implement formations (it they do, as the article suggest). I don't see much reason to get into details now that I have some evidence that thought have been given to the subject.

 

[King Rad]

I anticipate that the group will be limited to the speed of the slowest unit - which would be a real-life situation if you intend to keep your formation together. So you will have a choice of moving the faster units there individually (or grouping them into one formation) and moving slower units as a separate group. I also imagine they will move in "formation" so that they will generally maintain their original relative positions, adjusting as required by mountains or other non-passable or slow terrain (e.g. a lake in the middle of the area). This would also allow the defender to utilize these checkpoints to try to "pick off' individual units as they come through the gaps, etc. Overall, I think it will be an excellent system.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Hold your horses, guys (or not, as I do enjoy the speculation, whether useful or not): it could still easily be a case of misunderstanding by the previewer, or just a poor choice of words ('formation' kind of implies a horizontal grouping). If we edit the quote a little bit, it's easy to see this:

War itself is changing as well. Beach is satisfied with the one unit per tile approach but wanted to “eliminate some of the congestion” that it caused. To that end, units can now be organised into a formation [= put into a group?], which means they’ll always move together [i.e. act like a single unit] rather than having to be shuffled across the map one at a time. Formations can be applied to large collections of military units [= max 3 units?] or civilian units and their escorts [we've seen a screenshot of a Settler being 'escorted' with a military unit iirc].

I hope for the carpet formations to be in the game ofc, but as I see no good way to do it, I'll err on the side of a misunderstanding / bad word choice for now. In this case, 'formation' could refer in an oblique way to the units being ungroupable later on (someone speculated that they'll be permanently welded together, which imo makes no sense, at least not in the case of military + civilian units being grouped together).

EDIT: The bit about 3 units vs a 'large collection' is the one to give us most hope, if we want it. Imo, Beach could've mentioned the mechanic briefly in a hurry, and the previewer drew his own conclusions. And, tbh, with the amount of units that we usually used in Civ V, 3 kind of is a large(ish) group already.

 

[King Rad]

in the same article, next paragraph, it states, "It’ll also be possible, under certain circumstances, to stack two or three units of the same type to create a powerful combined force." So the article states, "Formations can be applied to large collections of military units or civilian units and their escorts" and then separately states that it will be possible to form these 2- or 3-group armies of the same type of unit. I believe he is talking about two separate things, since it addresses formations, support-unit stacking, and armies in succession.

 

[stealth_nsk]

in the same article, next paragraph, it states, "It’ll also be possible, under certain circumstances, to stack two or three units of the same type to create a powerful combined force." So the article states, "Formations can be applied to large collections of military units or civilian units and their escorts" and then separately states that it will be possible to form these 2- or 3-group armies of the same type of unit. I believe he is talking about two separate things, since it addresses formations, support-unit stacking, and armies in succession.

Looks like by formations they meant army+support unit. So the support unit moves with regular military unit or army.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

in the same article, next paragraph, it states, "It’ll also be possible, under certain circumstances, to stack two or three units of the same type to create a powerful combined force." So the article states, "Formations can be applied to large collections of military units or civilian units and their escorts" and then separately states that it will be possible to form these 2- or 3-group armies of the same type of unit. I believe he is talking about two separate things, since it addresses formations, support-unit stacking, and armies in succession.

D'oh! Ofc I should've read the whole article... In this case it does seem like carpet formations are a thing after all. Let the speculations continue unabated!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

... Why? "go here and build this" x 3 isn't hard at all. Even builders being automated could work if the priorities were weighted correctly.

That said They've already said that from a design perspective, they don't like the idea of automation. Some things have the option to be automated (exploring, others have been removed (worker/builder automation).

I doubt action ques are in.

Action queues are *not* automation. They are a UI convention from this century.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Action queues are *not* automation. They are a UI convention from this century.

And they work really well with Builders, go to city X on the other side of my empire and improve tiles A, B, and C with a Farm, Mine, Farm