Game mechanics questions (standoff, relocate, resupply)

[IronMikeGolf]

I totally hear you on time-of-day vs relative time and using the former making it easier to synchronize efforts. We have to look at the change footprint. The display aspect is likely pretty easy and the changes few. The delay entry aspect is more work. Granularity needs to be in minutes, so a drop-down picker doesn't work. Text entry requires validation (don't want a time in the past, is the data in hh:mm format, etc).

The waypoint times are updated as you change the delay for a waypoint. I think we can show you what you want if we change the time in the waypoint display to arrival time. Maybe also display it next to the delay spinner so you don't have to glance back and forth.

[IronMikeGolf]

"I'm surprised to learn about the "Move Hasty" exploit. Is there a plan to fix this in a patch?"

We're making a plan to fix this. The easiest/quickest is to disallow picking Assault when editing the order set. That would mean if you want your last movement to be an Assault, you have to issue Assault as your initial choice and edit the earlier movements to something "downstream". We have to think things through, like maybe you can change to something "less preparation intensive", meaning Assault can go to Move Deliberate or Move Hasty. Move Deliberate can only go to Move Hasty.

I think we do want the ability to give a FRAGO (Fragmentary Order) to units on the move. That happens in real life and such a unit executing a FRAGO doesn't just stop, build a sand table, and plan. Such an attack is degraded and we have to work out what that would mean. It's not going to be easy. More to follow in a few days.

[IronMikeGolf]

Standoff and Relocation SOPs:

I haven't looked at this in detail for several months and never saw issues doing other testing since then.

There is definitely a difference between the Relocate settings for arty units and other units. For arty, it's tied into order execution, so it happens promptly. The others are in the unit-level Think cycle, which means the unit assesses the current situation. So, a unit won't scoot immediately. At least a minute will pass before the trigger is pulled on that and the scoot is another order, subject to order delay (for the first hex of the scoot).

I'll run some tests.

[Octavian]

For me this is a very frustrating subject, since the possibilities to exploit the engine via the order changes where the single most thing I hoped the devs would adress in this sequel.
I can´t believe they worked on this title for so many years and really ignored this big issue.
Can anyone confirm, that this really didn´t happen. I was so on the edge of buying this title, but with that information missing, I must stop myself -- sadly enough..

[WildCatNL]

For me this is a very frustrating subject, since the possibilities to exploit the engine via the order changes where the single most thing I hoped the devs would adress in this sequel.
I can´t believe they worked on this title for so many years and really ignored this big issue.

We didn't ignore it. We did address it, and subsequently managed to break the implementation, when implementing more advanced ways to edit orders, and when implementing fixed time fire missions.
As Jeff said, we are going to fix it, but we'll be treading carefully doing so.

William

[theWombat]

Game development is full of stuff like this (well, software in general, but games are a special sort of case): you fix one thing, you break another, and often you don't notice it immediately because it's all so freakin' complicated. Oh, and gamers always manage do things no one thought of or could think of! I'm sure this stuff will be addressed, and I'm content they're going at it carefully, as slapdash solutions usually yield slapdash results.

[IronMikeGolf]

Game development is full of stuff like this (well, software in general, but games are a special sort of case): you fix one thing, you break another, and often you don't notice it immediately because it's all so freakin' complicated. Oh, and gamers always manage do things no one thought of or could think of! I'm sure this stuff will be addressed, and I'm content they're going at it carefully, as slapdash solutions usually yield slapdash results.

Hah! We need medals or badges for Edge and Corner Case Discoverers.

The curmudgeon in me wonders where these shining lights were when we asked (oh, also currently seeking) testers.

[vege1]

I just want to thank for a great game. I am new to the series, but really interested in learning the game. Having read through this thread, I think JacquesDeLalaing has valid points about the player needing to know more what is happening while turn resolution (i.e., there is a need for debugging the combat phase, so we can learn from our mistakes).

I think the game would benefit from a replay function (I know you can pause the turn execution, but as far as I am aware you cannot go back to relive the combat, you can only read the logs). The replay function would allow us to investigate previous turn combat phase in more detail. Something like what Vic has implemented in DC: Ardennes Offensive that you can access any time during your next turn.

Another thing that could help in debugging is to provide more easily accessible information about the units. I have been thinking about an alternative counter mode (i.e., you could toggle between different counter representations on the fly). This could be really helpful when you replay the combat, for instance, you could notice that your unit performed poorly in this particular engagement because it was low on ammo at this point, or that the unit chose to relocate due to this and this factor, etc. Also, having an alternative counter mode could help showing what SOPs you have active at the moment in all of your units (no need to click every unit and see their SOP). This would save time when you have a lot of units.

Anyways, these ideas might be unrealistic and I only have couple of hours in the game. Let me know what you think.

[blackcloud6]

This could be really helpful when you replay the combat, for instance, you could notice that your unit performed poorly in this particular engagement because it was low on ammo at this point, or that the unit chose to relocate due to this and this factor, etc. Also, having an alternative counter mode could help showing what SOPs you have active at the moment in all of your units (no need to click every unit and see their SOP).

I counter this notion with the thought: would a real commander have this detailed information on why a subordinate unit performed poorly at a specific moment? Would he know such if the unit was destroyed and there is no one left to report? I would say, no, he doesn't, and he shouldn't.

Many gamers complain that there is an unrealistic "god-like" all-knowing component to wargaming, especially in board wargames, yet then turn around an complain when they don't have all the information and control, they want to make it easy to win.

I think there are many things in this game and how they work that knowledge of which is detrimental to the play that the designers are trying to give you. We need to focus on what level of command is the primary level in this game and it is at battalion and brigade. So, the game should only give you that level of knowledge.

The designers have said, you need to play and learn experientially. And I think they are right. learn what SOPs and orders combinations work by playing the game, not by having it handed to you.

This is, BTW, exactly how the US Army trains at the National Training Ceneter... by giving the commanders and staff the ability to learn from errors, and success, in an intense training environment experientially.

My advice to the design team: stick to your guns on this and don't give away the farm.

I instructed for the Command and General Staff college for five years. I can tell you that I plan my fights in this game just as I learned in the Army and instructed at the school. And I have success in the game. Your challenge is to learn how the do so without the benefit of all the training I had received. So, get into the manuals and learn, and learn by playing. The manuals are out there, and some have been posted on this very site. Yet don't ask for the designers to give you a crutch to circumvent the learning process.

[22sec]

This could be really helpful when you replay the combat, for instance, you could notice that your unit performed poorly in this particular engagement because it was low on ammo at this point, or that the unit chose to relocate due to this and this factor, etc. Also, having an alternative counter mode could help showing what SOPs you have active at the moment in all of your units (no need to click every unit and see their SOP).

I counter this notion with the thought: would a real commander have this detailed information on why a subordinate unit performed poorly at a specific moment? Would he know such if the unit was destroyed and there is no one left to report? I would say, no, he doesn't, and he shouldn't.

Many gamers complain that there is an unrealistic "god-like" all-knowing component to wargaming, especially in board wargames, yet then turn around an complain when they don't have all the information and control, they want to make it easy to win.

I think there are many things in this game and how they work that knowledge of which is detrimental to the play that the designers are trying to give you. We need to focus on what level of command is the primary level in this game and it is at battalion and brigade. So, the game should only give you that level of knowledge.

The designers have said, you need to play and learn experientially. And I think they are right. learn what SOPs and orders combinations work by playing the game, not by having it handed to you.

This is, BTW, exactly how the US Army trains at the National Training Ceneter... by giving the commanders and staff the ability to learn from errors, and success, in an intense training environment experientially.

My advice to the design team: stick to your guns on this and don't give away the farm.

I instructed for the Command and General Staff college for five years. I can tell you that I plan my fights in this game just as I learned in the Army and instructed at the school. And I have success in the game. Your challenge is to learn how the do so without the benefit of all the training I had received. So, get into the manuals and learn, and learn by playing. The manuals are out there, and some have been posted on this very site. Yet don't ask for the designers to give you a crutch to circumvent the learning process.

Well said Fred!

I will add that the amount of depth in this game is more than surface deep. Ask questions, there is almost always a thought behind a decision made related to game mechanics and code. If anyone want a serious simulation of cold war land combat at a brigade to maybe even corps level if someone was ambitious enough, they won't find a better PC game. The equivalent in the boardgame world would be TRL's C3 series and Air & Armor. And just below this level, one must also mention Armored Brigade with the same admiration. At least that's my thought.

[JacquesDeLalaing]

The designers have said, you need to play and learn experientially. And I think they are right. learn what SOPs and orders combinations work by playing the game, not by having it handed to you.

I disagree. This is a game, not some arcane art. Players need to understand the very basics (How do I translate the orders I'd like to give into the game engine? Why do units behave differently than I expected them to behave? How am I supposed to learn if I can't understand what's going on?).

I have been quite deeply invested in a many a wargame in the past. And to be honest I'm no longer willing to spend hours and hours on end experimenting just to discover very basic things that should be explained from the beginning and not being sure if something is bugged or intended. And as I almost exclusively play multiplayer these days, what you will achieve by keeping things "arcane" and "based on experiments" is that those players who had more time "learning the engine" will have a big advantage.

The arcane and lack of information is already implemented in the game (fog of war, order delay, units always react in certain ways but have chances to react...). Shrouding the very game mechanisms in uncertainty, by contrast, will only provide you a buggy game that noone really understands. This also means that quality control is much harder, modding nigh impossible (how am I supposed to mod something I don't understand?).

And that's just me arguing against the notion that deliberately "not explaining your game to the players" is somewhat desirable or realistic. It is not me saying that FC:SS is very buggy. By contrast, I think it's already quite well polished and some of the new QOL features are really great and much appreciated. All I want to say is that documentation is direly lacking. And that this is a detriment to the game experience of all but the already very experienced players who already understand the ins and outs of the engine.

[byzantine1990]

The designers have said, you need to play and learn experientially. And I think they are right. learn what SOPs and orders combinations work by playing the game, not by having it handed to you.

I disagree. This is a game, not some arcane art. Players need to understand the very basics (How do I translate the orders I'd like to give into the game engine? Why do units behave differently than I expected them to behave? How am I supposed to learn if I can't understand what's going on?).

I have been quite deeply invested in a many a wargame in the past. And to be honest I'm no longer willing to spend hours and hours on end experimenting just to discover very basic things that should be explained from the beginning and not being sure if something is bugged or intended. And as I almost exclusively play multiplayer these days, what you will achieve by keeping things "arcane" and "based on experiments" is that those players who had more time "learning the engine" will have a big advantage.

The arcane and lack of information is already implemented in the game (fog of war, order delay, units always react in certain ways but have chances to react...). Shrouding the very game mechanisms in uncertainty, by contrast, will only provide you a buggy game that noone really understands. This also means that quality control is much harder, modding nigh impossible (how am I supposed to mod something I don't understand?).

And that's just me arguing against the notion that deliberately "not explaining your game to the players" is somewhat desirable or realistic. It is not me saying that FC:SS is very buggy. By contrast, I think it's already quite well polished and some of the new QOL features are really great and much appreciated. All I want to say is that documentation is direly lacking. And that this is a detriment to the game experience of all but the already very experienced players who already understand the ins and outs of the engine.

Totally agree. We need more concrete numbers in the manual.

What is the modifier for deliberate vs hasty move? What about hold vs screen?

There is nothing wrong with giving us hard numbers. If the underlying mechanics are good then players will use real tactics regardless.

[JacquesDeLalaing]

Some things I wonder about on a regular basis while playing the game:

1. What is the "stance" (protection, visibility, etc) of a unit that has a move order but has not yet started to move (receiving/processing orders or on intentional delay)? In other words: Is a unit exposed during order delay?

2. What is the "stance" (as above) of a unit that has a Resupply order?

3. Do scoots (change of orders when going over the acceptable losses threshold) and standoff-range relocations only trigger with Screen and Move orders? (Not with holds?)

4. What happens when a unit starts losing its APCs? Is it slowed down? Are elements destroyed/left behind?

5. When moving, is the speed of unit movement only affected by the destination hex or also by the starting hex (important for chosing positions you plan to retreat from)?

6. Does the direction of the incoming fire in relation to the current facing of the unit matter (particularly for tanks)? If so, traffic jams (AI-deviations from the planned route) are extremely dangerous. What's the overall stacking limit for traffic jams? Roughly one company worth of APCs/tanks?

7. Do tanks profit from hull-down positions (higher elevation than enemy) - in terms of cover and/or concealment?

8. A more general question, as I don't know how this works in reality: What are the factors for discovering artillery batteries (for counter battery fire)? What can I do to prevent it? Is it just distance (to enemy units), duration, intensity of fire? // EDIT: There is some info available in WildCatNL's answer in this topic: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 390563#top

9. Suppressive fire missions by artillery: It is not clear whether this order works inherently differently from the neutralization missions? I suppose that suppressive missions are not guided by spotters onto individual, spotted subunits in the target hex? And suppressive fire missions last longer and thus trigger the "under fire" status to enemy units in the hex for a longer duration, which temporarily decreases their combat power (chance to fire? fire accuracy? spotting? duration/ability to call in artillery?)?

10. Smoke: What's the height of smoke? Do I need to place smoke BETWEEN my positions and the enemy positions or does it also work if I put smoke directly ON the postions?

11. Does it take longer for a unit to get going if the unit's APCs are "hidden nearby" rather than "in support"?

[JacquesDeLalaing]

For people who also try to understand the game here are the results of a little experiment using the "spottable from" overlay:

Conditions
100% illumination, light rain, overcast
(Note that when units fire they become much more visible. The ranges below are valid if the unit refrains from firing).
(Note that even if the unit is within visible range of enemy units, LOS-degradation might play a role. I assume that the max. visibility ranges listed below refer to 100% unobstructed view)


A soviet anti tank platoon of 3x BRDM-2 is visible from:

in a hex that provides 20% concealment:
- 3000m move hasty or assault
- 2050m move deliberate
- 650m Screen
- 550m Hold (tested during deployment phase, so the status was "fully" dug-in)

in a hex that provides 50% concealment:
- 2500m move hasty oder assault
- 1700m move deliberate
- 550m Screen
- 450m Hold (tested during deployment phase, so the status was "fully" dug-in)

Same test for a soviet mech inf company (13x BMP2 + infantry elements):

in a hex that provides 20% concealment:
- 7000m move hasty
- 5950m assault
- 4750m move deliberate
- 1500m screen (APCs in support) / 800m (APCs hidden)
- 1250m hold (APCs in support) / 700m (APCs hidden)

in a hex that provides 50% conealment:
- 5900m move hasty
- 5000m assault
- 4000m move deliberate
- 1250 screen (APCs in support) / 650m (APCs hidden)
- 1050 hold (APCs in support) / 600m (APCs hidden)

[WABAC]

Some things I wonder about on a regular basis while playing the game:

Some answers based on playing Red Storm, Southern Storm, and talking to devs over the years.

1. What is the "stance" (protection, visibility, etc) of a unit that has a move order but has not yet started to move (receiving/processing orders or on intentional delay)? In other words: Is a unit exposed during order delay?

They remain as they were until they start to move. You can see this during turn resolution.

2. What is the "stance" (as above) of a unit that has a Resupply order?

Vulnerable. Not an official stance. But you want them under smoke or well out if sight. I suspect that it is similar to screen.

3. Do scoots (change of orders when going over the acceptable losses threshold) and standoff-range relocations only trigger with Screen and Move orders? (Not with holds?)

I have seen units start to move out of hold after losses. I haven't seen a lot of scoots.

4. What happens when a unit starts losing its APCs? Is it slowed down? Are elements destroyed/left behind?

Depends on the carrying capacity of the remaining vehicles. If there isn't enough capacity then they move at walking speed. Unit destroyed/fallen out are left behind. That's what all those crosses are about.

5. When moving, is the speed of unit movement only affected by the destination hex or also by the starting hex (important for chosing positions you plan to retreat from)?

Starting hex also counts.

6. Does the direction of the incoming fire in relation to the current facing of the unit matter (particularly for tanks)? If so, traffic jams (AI-deviations from the planned route) are extremely dangerous. What's the overall stacking limit for traffic jams? Roughly one company worth of APCs/tanks?

Yes the game accounts for direction of fire and facing. Pretty sure stacking limits are addressed somewhere in the documentation.

7. Do tanks profit from hull-down positions (higher elevation than enemy) - in terms of cover and/or concealment?

On defense and offense. Less of you to hit. Weaker parts of them to hit. No. They haven't given me their formulas.

8. A more general question, as I don't know how this works in reality: What are the factors for discovering artillery batteries (for counter battery fire)? What can I do to prevent it? Is it just distance (to enemy units), duration, intensity of fire? // EDIT: There is some info available in WildCatNL's answer in this topic: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 390563#top

Nothing I can add to William's answers.

9. Suppressive fire missions by artillery: It is not clear whether this order works inherently differently from the neutralization missions? I suppose that suppressive missions are not guided by spotters onto individual, spotted subunits in the target hex? And suppressive fire missions last longer and thus trigger the "under fire" status to enemy units in the hex for a longer duration, which temporarily decreases their combat power (chance to fire? fire accuracy? spotting? duration/ability to call in artillery?)?

Actually it is quite clear. Unless you have changed the option, you see a screen that allows you to fine tune your fire mission after you commit. The difference between suppression and neutralization is the number of shells poured into the area over a given period of time. At the very least, a generic suppression mission degrades morale and readiness which are major factors in the resolution of items on your list, except for calling in artillery.

Not sure what you mean by "subunits" but one of the devs has commented that observation helps.

10. Smoke: What's the height of smoke? Do I need to place smoke BETWEEN my positions and the enemy positions or does it also work if I put smoke directly ON the postions?

Never worried about the height. Have observed that it is only good for one level of terrain. Smoke on your own position will eventually attract AI artillery. A human will react quicker. Smoke also works between you and them. It's very nice when you have them stacked up at a minefield.

11. Does it take longer for a unit to get going if the unit's APCs are "hidden nearby" rather than "in support"?

I haven't seen that it makes a noticeable difference. But I only hide them nearby when I'm trying to reduce the signature of a recon unit I want to keep hidden in a specific place for a reasonable amount of time.

[WildCatNL]

10. Smoke: What's the height of smoke? Do I need to place smoke BETWEEN my positions and the enemy positions or does it also work if I put smoke directly ON the postions?

Smoke screens are ground-hugging, 20m / 60ft high. From/to elevated positions, you might see over a smoke screen. The game performs a 3D line-of-sight check.

Smoke screens are more effective between the enemy and friendly position than on the enemy position, as the enemy (when attacking) can pick the edge positions in the hex, and doesn't suffer from the full effects of the smoke screen.

William

[IronMikeGolf]

The difference between suppression and neutralization is the number of shells poured into the area over a given period of time.

Think of "Neutralization" and "Suppression" as just a preset for the number of rounds and duration of firing. You can change it afterward and I usually do. I'll do it by number of tubes in the firing unit and figure how long I want the fire to be going on. I tend to just have the firing unit fire each tube at one minute intervals, so I think more in terms of "Battery 1" or "Battery 3" etc.

For suppression, if you're reasonably close (say within 10 minutes) in synch with ground maneuver, suppressive arty will degrade the target and there won't be much time to recover effectiveness. The mission might take longer if the firing unit has taken casualties.

[WABAC]

The difference between suppression and neutralization is the number of shells poured into the area over a given period of time.

Think of "Neutralization" and "Suppression" as just a preset for the number of rounds and duration of firing. You can change it afterward and I usually do. I'll do it by number of tubes in the firing unit and figure how long I want the fire to be going on. I tend to just have the firing unit fire each tube at one minute intervals, so I think more in terms of "Battery 1" or "Battery 3" etc.

For suppression, if you're reasonably close (say within 10 minutes) in synch with ground maneuver, suppressive arty will degrade the target and there won't be much time to recover effectiveness. The mission might take longer if the firing unit has taken casualties.

Actually, I think of it in terms of Nigel Evans discussion of effects and weight of fire based on WW2 British research.

It's a tripod site, which some browsers don't like, so people can google it if they are interested. I won't post the link.

It's not the artillery Bible, just an interesting look into how one country, in one war, researched the topic.

[IronMikeGolf]

OK, I was giving advice to players as to how in-game mechanics work, tempered by my experience with FSCOORDs and FSEs in various levels of CPs over a couple of decades. My current attention has to span three and a half decades of capabilities and the current precision in fires (from GPS applied to both firing battery and target as well as finer granularity of met data, let alone PGMs for arty fires) throws a lot of stuff out the window.

I was trying to give a bit of guidance in game playing is all.

[WABAC]

OK, I was giving advice to players as to how in-game mechanics work, tempered by my experience with FSCOORDs and FSEs in various levels of CPs over a couple of decades. My current attention has to span three and a half decades of capabilities and the current precision in fires (from GPS applied to both firing battery and target as well as finer granularity of met data, let alone PGMs for arty fires) throws a lot of stuff out the window.

I was trying to give a bit of guidance in game playing is all.

And I was just adding another description of the elephant based on the very small civilian part I'm holding.

I'll never duplicate your professional experience. And I always read your comments with care. For example:

I tend to just have the firing unit fire each tube at one minute intervals

Why? You have told me the time. You have established your bona fides as a watch maker. But how did you build the watch? Or rather, why those parts in that order?

It seems to me that there are a number of new players here that have yet to grasp the purpose of all the visible numbers that have been built into the game by the team. Talking about the number and weight of artillery rounds seemed to me a gut-level description that might help civilians understand the difference between the two missions.

I ran across Nigel's site back in my TOAW days long, long, ago. I found it useful then. And it gives me context now thinking about your tube-per-minute plan.

But there are other sources besides Nigel. The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining covers the primary systems in this game. https://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/GICHD-r ... ts_web.pdf.