Matrix Games Forums

One of the questions open for discussion in the Tactical Reconnaissance article is:

Can you advance your units by bounds in a COTA scenario with orders delay?

First off, let's make clear that movement and maneuver are different things. Tactical movement is how you move your troops before contact with the enemy. Maneuver is how you move your troops after enemy contact.

The question above refers to tactical movement and I think some tactical movement techniques are quite tricky to accomplish in COTA if we are playing with orders delay.

According to current US doctrine the specific form of tactical movement the commander adopts depends on how likely enemy contact is.

1. Traveling. When enemy contact is unlikely and speed is important. I think that COTA AI subordinates can manage this movement technique terrific. Just an move order will provide an advance, main and rear guard.

2. Traveling overwatch. When enemy contact is possible, but speed is important too. The leading unit moves continuously and a unit (trailing unit) is kept right behind to overwatch its advance. The trailing unit adjusts its speed, even pauses, to overwatch the advance of the leading unit. If the leading unit contacts with the enemy, the trailing unit will support it by fire. When it comes to COTA, I think a simple move order to a battalion sized force will accomplish this type of tactical movement. The leading unit will be an advance guard Coy, and the closest main guard unit could provide cover right away. Don't forget that the "Fire" command doesn't have delays of any kind. So, the player orders a move to the Bn and keeps the main guard unit closest to the front ready for a "fire" command.

3. Bounding overwatch. When enemy contact is expected. The commander separates the forces in two (or more?) bounding elements. While one of these elements moves, the other(s) stay and provide cover. There are actually two variants of the bounding overwatch: alternate bounds and successive bounds. In the alternate bounds movement technique, the advancing unit advances beyond the position of the overwatching unit. The other bounding overwatch technique, successive bounds, is a bit more slow: the advancing unit advances only as far as the bounding unit position.

Implementing bounding overwatch in a COTA game with orders delay is less than trivial. Imagine the Tactical Reconnaissance scenarios you will play soon. Every Coy in the battalion has at least 28 mins of force delay. That means that when you switch a unit from overwatching to advancing you will hit a delay.

I wonder if you guys have any ideas on how to efficiently (faster and safer) implement a traveling overwatch in COTA.




Julio

I have done maybe a poor man's version of traveling overwatch by giving orders to the leading unit and then identical orders to the trailing unit but wait some TBD delay before I do so.

I hope to hear some other more sophisticated version exists out there!

ORIGINAL: Deerslayer

I have done maybe a poor man's version of traveling overwatch by giving orders to the leading unit and then identical orders to the trailing unit but wait some TBD delay before I do so.

I hope to hear some other more sophisticated version exists out there!

That's great Deerslayer!

What pros and cons can you remember from that experience?[&o]

The worst thing I can remember is that everything likely takes 28 minutes. If the terrain is close, with not too much open fields of view (more bounds are needed), it becomes a drag.

Thanks,

I wonder if you guys have any ideas on how to efficiently (faster and safer) implement a traveling overwatch in COTA.

To secure an advance (when contact is likely) I usually setup imaginary lines (when on road, these are at vital crossings or intersections) that I assault along the way, just like deerslayer have done. When my advance grinds to a halt from enemy fire, I will order the advance units to defend, and send up some fresh reserves from the rear.

All this of course takes alot of time, but I find it rather realistic. Advancing against an enemy takes alot of time, and if you want to keep your troops safe, then its better to be patient.

ORIGINAL: Pergite!
To secure an advance (when contact is likely) I usually setup imaginary lines (when on road, these are at vital crossings or intersections) that I assault along the way, just like deerslayer have done. When my advance grinds to a halt from enemy fire, I will order the advance units to defend, and send up some fresh reserves from the rear.

All this of course takes alot of time, but I find it rather realistic. Advancing against an enemy takes alot of time, and if you want to keep your troops safe, then its better to be patient.

I think Pergite makes an excellent point about tying his movement technique to key terrain.

Any force composed of two or more units moves in bounds. Thus, I always conduct recon with single units (usually AC or light armor). I have convered this in the Mini-Guides. For me, the whole point of recon is:

* Rereading my post my thoughts drifted as they often do to cover not just why speed is important, but some of the reasons how recon fits into the larger action.

(1) To increase your knowledge of enemy deployment and intentions over the largest portion of the battle space as possible; especially in those areas where you plan to operate.

(2) To produce actionable information as quickly as possible for the purpose of minimizing the impact of order delays upon your own plans while potentially getting within the enemy's order cycle. Thus, forcing enemy to be reacting to you calling the plays. NOTE: Big gains are to be had if you can produce this information in the first 59 minutes, since you can immediately issue the appropriate orders to a battle group with a net saving of anywhere from 3 to 16 hours depending on the size of the battle group.

(3) To determine what portions (especially the road network) of the map which the enemy has under observation. So, contrary to #1, you may not need to see the enemy to produce a useful result. It may suffice that the enemy sees, you and bombards the cr_p out of the recon element. If the enemy can do that to a single fast moving AC unit, imagine what he will do to a column of soft trucks plodding along full of infantry.

(4) To pin down the exact location for the FUP. FUP too close and your attack is mauled before they jump off. FUP too far and they exhaust themselves before even making contact. Recon can help place that FUP point right at the sweet spot.

(5) Penetrate deep into the enemy's rear and identify high value targets which can be disrupted either through direct fire or bombardment like arty batteries and supply bases.

(6) Develop a target portfolio for your artillery such that long before the main force is in contact with the enemy, your arty has the opportunity to begin to attrit the him. You are more likely to catch the enemy not dug-in and thus more vulnerable to barrage by fast recon. Early barrages on an enemy who is unprepared will act as a force multiplier in the struggle.

So, there you have it. The true confessions of a gamey single unit recon man. No thank you please, no bounds for me.

Hi Mark!

The question about bounds is sort of general. It can be asked for any type of formation.

I liked your deep recon approach. It is bold and daring. And it makes sense informartion-wise!

However, I am concerned on the potential perils of having single recon units all spread around a wide area.

How much staying power they have in that way?
Don't these single units become sort of useless after enemy contact?

One thing I have to concede: the AI enemy will quickly devote into reassesment when you face him with suitable threats. That's very cool because if you don't allow the enemy to overwhelm the AC unit, you can delay the bad guys quite a bit while they reorganize and replan.

Regards,


Julio

Well, it generally is between 2-4 units conducting recon; not like I have 25% of my force as single units running all over the map.

I find that I always get volunteers for these missions when I ask. Yes, in some cases, it may be suicidal, and in other cases, a recon unit may actually see very little action. War is like that at times ... all give some and some give all.

Also, don't under estimate the recon units ability to stand and fight if they must ... what they lack in terms of direct fire is often well compensated for by having the undistracted support of the gun batteries before the larger battle is joined.

That's very good stuff Mark. Thanks!
 
One thing catched my eye: "undistracted support of the gun batteries". It makes me wonder how deep you push your "volunteers" [;)] or how forward you bring your artillery batteries.
 
 
Julio
 
 

To move forward without overwatching units is just a little too risky for me.

I frequently use bounding overwatch (alternate bounds) and normally will slow the game speed, but occasionally will “pause” the game to issue the orders. Adjusting which type of unit is bounding according to terrain is the tricky part for me-fine tuning a movement with too many attached units can get out of control quickly. Two bounding elements with a reserve is doable.

I frequently use “successive” bounding as an attack maneuver. I have seen the AI follow the same tactic, so I am slowly letting go of controlling an attacking organization-leaves more leisure time to watch the victory unfold.[;)]

Attacking through your own lines works pretty well ... I wonder if not too well, since one would imagine there should be some friction there, maybe? (probably even more friction if falling back through ones own lines ... ie. orderly withdrawl through your own lines spreads panic and confusion)

MarkShot

Passage of lines is indeed a complicated operation. When different commands are involved, I would imagine that some (very) serious prepreations would have to be made. If the units in the foward edge of the battle area (FEBA) are under the same command as the passing unit they would/should be operating under the same operation order so standard unit SOP's would apply and there should not be any significant snafus. Scouts and perhaps some cheerfull MP's will show the proper paths for the advancing units to follow. Due care is still very much a requirement; weapons orientation, obstacle avoidance, and don't disturb/crash into friendly fighting positions.

COTA does present some RL passage of lines situations; priority on roads/unit density, who gets the available artillery-more, I'm sure.

It's difficult for me to invision falling back through a friendly (occupied) battle position while under direct fire attack-that is an ugly situation. There might be panic, but confusion would be an understatment. I don't know how a game can simulate such a mess except by unit density penalties.
Withdrawing to your own secondary battle positions is not that bad so long as the enemy is not right on top of you. Sometimes a unit must be sacrificed to allow time to move freely to new positions. COTA models this very well.

Well AFAIK front line units falling back through second line or rear echelon units was pretty common place. That's not to say it wasn't hazardess or chaotic - far from it. Shoot first and ask questions later was commonly observed on all sides. However, seasoned troops soon appreciated the need to give the benefit of the doubt.

Arjuna

No doubt that it did occure many times, but for it to work properly the frontline would have to withdraw before the enemy was in close contact. If the withdrawing unit was being kept under pressure, the enemy will be interspersd in the battle line as it approaches the secondary battle position. This scene of units, likely shouded in dust, firing in every direction, without time to properly plan a gracious exit is an ugly picture.

The above situation should not be considered a (desired) normal retrograde movement. It is possible to keep the enemy engaged, falling back using an overwatching method. Eventually, if freindly re-inforcements do not arrive or the enemy doe not become exhausted, then it is time to quietly speed away to a new battle line-if there is one.

06 Maestro,
 
Battle is rarely that clean cut. Units tend to either pull back at the initial engagement or to hold until guys start running or are overrun - ie it's clear they cannot hold any longer. It's often only then that a company commander decides to retreat and yes the enemy can be intermingled. However, more often its a case of the retreat being faster than the advance.
 
Moreover, if the defensive position has been set for any amount of time, then the guys in the front line usually know where the second line is and that's exactly where they want to head to when under enemy pressure. It's only natural.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

06 Maestro,

Battle is rarely that clean cut. Units tend to either pull back at the initial engagement or to hold until guys start running or are overrun - ie it's clear they cannot hold any longer. It's often only then that a company commander decides to retreat and yes the enemy can be intermingled. However, more often its a case of the retreat being faster than the advance.

Moreover, if the defensive position has been set for any amount of time, then the guys in the front line usually know where the second line is and that's exactly where they want to head to when under enemy pressure. It's only natural.

Agreed

Hi all,

I issue move orders for 2 -4 units to a common destination a fair distance away & add lots of waypoints in between. I then use the waypoints (as in moving them around) and varying the speed settings to try and mimick bounding overwatch etc......... a lot of micromanagement here though. However, if it's that critical to know then I consider it time well spent. It seems to work well enough.. the units pass each other and slow down or speed up as req'd. If the destination proves to be "a task item too far" [:D] then a fire order tends to almost stop the units in their tracks.
I also subscribe to MarkShot's theory of "deep, fast" recon --- also with lots of nice draggable waypoints.

Rob. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
I issue move orders for 2 -4 units to a common destination a fair distance away & add lots of waypoints in between. I then use the waypoints (as in moving them around) and varying the speed settings to try and mimick bounding overwatch etc......... a lot of micromanagement here though.

Rob, that's a great technique!

Julio

ORIGINAL: Chelco

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader
I issue move orders for 2 -4 units to a common destination a fair distance away & add lots of waypoints in between. I then use the waypoints (as in moving them around) and varying the speed settings to try and mimick bounding overwatch etc......... a lot of micromanagement here though.

Rob, that's a great technique!

Julio

Really?

If you want this kind of control why don't you switch off orders delay all together.

I like it, that I can move a waypoint if a unit plans a route that I clearly didn't intend to use, and that I don't incure the full orders delay in that case. But to add waypoints with the intend to move them feels gamey to me. Off course, that is only my opinion.

Hi Vance,

Yup, I agree with you about it feeling somewhat gamey. I originally came up with the many waypoints technique because I got tired of using entire battalions (often unsuccessfully) to hunt one or two squad/platoon size remnants behind my lines in HTTR. It was a workaround for not being able to specifically target/hunt other units. Then I expanded it to include forces I sent out on recon to avoid them aborting or hunkering down or boosting along the original course and bypassing something really interesting spotted off in the distance 180 degrees from the original route. This was an attempt to simulate a recon unit with the order to explore not just a route but to boldly go forth and identify what was of interest. Sort of a prioritized see what's out there order.

For this topic's question what is really needed is an "advance" type order that works sort of like "delay" (but in reverse) at the force level whereby multiple units will slowly/cautiously advance with auto leapfrogging if you so specify.
Regards,

Rob. [:)]