Possible Bug: ARV-scripted waypoints

[Splash]

After watching the recent eSim tutorial vid on the subject, I was experimenting with scripting ARV recovery actions and noticed the following: The ARV AI will recover and tow a disabled vehicle when the ARV-conditioned waypoint has HOLD, DEFEND, GUARD, SUPPRESS or NONE tactics ... but not if said waypoint has STAY tactics. 

 

That might be intended (Stay means stay?) but is contrary to instruction in the video at about the 5:00 mark where it says you need a "Stay" or "Hold" command on the hitch waypoint. 

 

If not a bug, maybe the vid is wrong or unclear.

 

In my testing, as I said, the AI performs the recovery under all tactics except STAY, and you do not need to give, as the video seems to say, a manual "Proceed" command or put a delay condition on the route proceeding from the hitchpoint. You just need an "Embark if" condition on said route.

 

The attached .sce example shows all this.

 

On another related point, I noticed the AI ARV will blow past an ARV "Hitch if"-conditioned, no-tactics waypoint if there's a nonconditioned route leading from it ... but will stop and unhitch at an ARV "Unhitch if", no-tactics waypoint before proceeding on an unconditioned route. (This can be tested in the attached .sce by adding a nonconditioned route to WP21.)

 

 

Hitching_test.sce

[Ssnake]

I suspect that "Stay means stay" and it was an oversight in the video script. I suppose we'll have to check it once more.

[Splash]

Thanks. As mentioned, also interested in why a "None" tactics waypoint's "Hitch if" order is ignored when it has an attached unconditioned route, but an "Unhitch if" order is not ignored when it has an attached unconditioned route.

[Ssnake]

14 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I suspect that "Stay means stay" and it was an oversight in the video script.

Confirmed; our mistake. Sorry.

[Ssnake]

13 hours ago, Splash said:

Thanks. As mentioned, also interested in why a "None" tactics waypoint's "Hitch if" order is ignored when it has an attached unconditioned route, but an "Unhitch if" order is not ignored when it has an attached unconditioned route.

It's inconsistent from the POV of towing vehicles, but makes sense to me from the "none" tactic perspective; the unit's waiting to move on along the next route from a defined waiting point (the last waypoint/current location). Unhitching requires no change of its position. Hooking up another unit means it needs to drive there, thus changing its position. With battle position tactics (other than "Stay") this is a behavior that's to be expected. Without such a tactic chosen, the expectation is that the unit remains in place unless it's targeted by artillery fire.

[Splash]

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Unhitching requires no change of its position. Hooking up another unit means it needs to drive there, this changing its position.

 

Ah, OK. Makes sense, and I see now this is consistent with similar waypoint-based "if" scripting for Troop mounting and dismounting.

 

Strangely, the unconditioned "Mount" command (no "if") on a no-tactics waypoint results in the vehicle departing its route to pick up nearby troops and then proceeding to the next waypoint. Hmmm. But I'm muddying the waters from my original post. 

 

[Ssnake]

I'm not saying that my argument is a strong case to keep things the way they are. I could imagine that we might actually change it in a future version.