Question for the players about force composition

[KNac007]

How do you prefer the composition of your forces:
-Strict OOB (form your own Task Forces with the current game game attach/dettach system)
-Usual Combat OOB (allready mixed KG/Task Forces that were usually employed and modificate it at your own taste but w/o having to form from scratch).

I find that the best would be Strict OOB if you could form your permanent KGs in-game with a more flexible system. But right now maybe the best option is llready formed KG/Taks Forces. Also if attaching & detaching wouldn't be such a pain (moving all subunits again).

This question it's because I don't know how should I do in my scenarios.

[Tzar007]

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Currently, when you open a scenario, the chain of command has already been created and usually follows historical KG/Task Forces. Then, of course, the player can always reattach units as he wish during the course of the scenario, keeping in mind though the command capacity of the units and the delays it involves.

Are you suggesting that for the scenario you are creating the user could form his own KG/Task Forces as he wish? How would you implement that?

[KNac007]

I will give eamples.

Forget about historical engangements, as units should be as they were historically (KGs and all that). Take for example "Battle Of Nijmegen Bases",
On the german side you are in command of an armoured division plus a regiment.

The units on that panzer division are not distributed strictly, for example if you check the panzer bn(s) you will see that they have amoured inf companies under their command. The strict OOB of a pz bn didn't have any pzgren coy under its command but in combat they usually were employed in mixed manner.

For example it was usual operational procedure to form armoured KG in a pz div while on attack, that would lead the way and act as breakthrough unit. That unit could be formed in lots of ways depending on the situation, but for example it would be:
*Pz Reg HQ commanding:
-Recon Bn
-SP Arty Bn
-Pz Reg Bn(s)
-Pz Pioneer Bn
-SP PzJager Coy
-Mech PzGren Bn (originally under one of the PzGren Rgt)
-SP Flak Coy

So... what should I do:
-include in the scenario that KG (they still able to reattach them anyway, with current attaching/dettaching system)
-leave each unit under it's organic HQ and let decide the player how to employ them

[MadScot]

Since the game allows attachment at will, it seem most appropriate to have the units enter or appear with their histiorical cross-attachments intact; if nothing else, it prevents having conduct a tedious doctrinal reattachment in order to obtain vaguely functional forces. If a player for some reason prefers, say, two battlegroups be even-split (1/2 armour, 1/2 infantry) rather than the 3:1/1:3 split they probably are historically, the option exists. I'd rather not have to do all the mechanical reattachments myself at the start.

Plus, reinforcements may have to arrive pre-cross-attached, anyway.

[Golf33]

It's definitely better to bring your forces on in their normal battle organisation. The AI tends not to cross-attach at Bn level so you need to provide it with an effective and realistic battle force structure from the get-go. Human players are of course at liberty to do whatever they want.

Regards
33

[KNac007]

To get it straight you prefer for example panzer regiments arriving as such, and not mixed with pzgren bn or whatever.

The only problem I have is for attaching detaching you have to issue new orders, and all gets moving up and down. Also you can't create fixed KGs or force structutures.

For example if you attach a coy to an other non-organic HQ and then you attach that HQ to other superior HQ or even to it's original superior HQ, the first coy you attached will end under the command of the biggest HQ. If I wanted a PzGren bn to have a panzer coy udner it's command and then order it's parent pzgren reg to perform a task, the pazner coy would be reattached to the pzgren reg HQ.

This is one of the things that I would like to be included in future games, like more flexible & permanent force manipulation. In-game OOB would be a first step.

EDIT: just checked Steve post. The AI, yes, I had forget about it! Definitive, way to go it's mixing units, not what I would like, but it's the best as game stands now, unless a "Human vs Human" designed scenario

[Golf33]

*bump* you might miss the one above.

Do mix the forces when designing scenarios. If a Pz Bn would normally exchange a company with a Pz Gr Bn, that's how it should be in your scenarios.

Likewise for the British, in the late-war Arm Bde the Mot Inf Bn would allocate a coy to each Arm Regt, so structure your forces like that as well. In the early-war period this was not done, so scenarios for earlier battles should keep the Mot Inf Bn and the Arm Regts separate.

Regards
33

[MadScot]

re the last point - would you enforce (can you?) not being able to cross-attach as anti-doctrinal? Just a thought?

[KNac007]

That is very close to the topic started by MarkShot the other day about realism. Doctrine Realism, must or not must be enforced, interesting question.

[Golf33]

Units from outside the 'organic' structure (where 'organic' is the structure contained in the scenario file) apply more of a load to their commanding HQ. So the doctrinal limitations are already reflected in this way. Set the force structure up the way it should be in the field, and you will be fine.

Regards
33

[MadScot]

could you then increase the non-organic load penalty for one side or the other to mimic relative inflexibility of cammand?

[Golf33]

Not exactly. The command capacities are set by us to already reflect as best as possible the basic doctrines of each side. A force that typically engages in frequent reorganisations, and does so competently, will get bigger command capacities and will therefore be able to cope with cross-attachments during the game without suffering greater delays. A force that was typically limited in its ability to reorganise, and fought poorly outside its usual habits, will have a lower command capacity which means that cross-attaching during a game will introduce greater loads. Remember command load does not start to increase until you exceed the capacity of a unit, from which point it gets steadily worse the further over capacity you go.

You can reduce command capacities by reducing the Staff Quality setting in the ScenMaker. Be aware that this reflects a generally less-competent HQ and will result in increased delays across the board, not just when capacity is exceeded. To a degree you can probably offset this effect by increasing the Commander Efficiency stats, which IIRC should affect orders delay without reducing command capacity.

Regards
33

[Tzar007]

Regarding the question of attaching and reattaching units to freely form new KG or TF, I don't think it would be right to allow players to do whatever they want in terms of attachments. I feel the system works OK as of now, i.e. delays and constraints when reattaching. I believe command capacity restrictions and replanning delays are a good way to simulate the impacts of re-attaching units to new command in real life.

In the real world, you can't simply suddenly attach and reattach new units to new HQ like snapping your fingers, even if the doctrine of a particular army did allow that relatively frequently.

[KNac007]

Well, it's not about delays, it's about that you can't form real permanent task-forces. Maybe for a short scenario of 2 days it's not a must, but for longer scenarios running for example 15 days, it would be much better if you could form a KG from the order of battle. Just see my example above to see why they current attachment/detachment system it's not complete, and then is the AI question, which it will not take advantage anyway of the attachment/detachment most times.

Anyway, replanning just shouldn't work that way many times, I have a problem specially with artillery units, why is non-sense (in RL conditions). But that's a minor point.

Delay is out of question, it wasn't my point to left it out, I think it must be included when you attach a unit, in someway or an other that represents the logistic and boundaries issues that were present IRL when you attached a unit, until we get more restrictions to boundaries and supply.

[Tzar007]

ORIGINAL: KNac007
Just see my example above to see why they current attachment/detachment system it's not complete, and then is the AI question, which it will not take advantage anyway of the attachment/detachment most times.

I do agree with you though with your example about a unit not staying attached to the HQ when this HQ is being itself re-attached to another HQ. It would be good to have the possibility to build more complex and permanent hierarchies, even if there is a price to be paid in terms of delays and command capacities.

[Arjuna]

What if we provided an Order of Battle window with a tree structure of your forces and you could at the start of the game reorganise their "organic" structure. This should then remain for the duration of the game.

[KNac007]

That's more or less the idea I had. But it would be even better if you could readdress things with the game going (for long scenarios and at least with some units). Good.

[Arjuna]

But don't you think this gives a player far too much control. Hey I'm not completely against it. Correct me if I've misunderstood you, but what you then really want is a sort of "semi-permanent" attachment. One which won't be broken until such time as you ( the player ) say so. Currently if you assign A Coy, 1st Bor Bn to the 2nd Irish Gds Bn HQ for a particular task and then later give a direct order to A Coy, when you hit "reattach" it will go back to being under the command of 1st Bor Bn HQ not 2nd Irish Gds Bn HQ. If I have this right you would want A Coy reverting to being under command of 2nd Irish Gds Bn HQ. Is that correct?

If so, this would require storing some extra data. We currently have a pointer to the "current" and "organic" bosses. When you give a direct order to a unit the "curent" boss becomes you the player. So we would also need to have a pointer to the "player assigned" boss. Not a great name for it. But it will do for now. I'll discuss this with Paul and see what we can do for future releases.

[KNac007]

You understood my point.

I don't think it's too much control, it's something a field commander could do always he want. Off course delays must be included so the player is not chnging things all the time.

[Tzar007]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

What if we provided an Order of Battle window with a tree structure of your forces and you could at the start of the game reorganise their "organic" structure. This should then remain for the duration of the game.

I would consider this as "nice-to-have" feature (in my language a nice-to-have feature is usually something that should get cut at some point in a software project [:)] ).

Personnally, I don't feel the need to tamper with the OOB at the beginning of a battle. I rather feel the need to reorganize my forces in the course of the scenario, as I am thinking my plan through, or as I am having specific problems in the field that force me to rethink the organization of my forces. But at the beginning, I am ready to go with whatever I am being given.

I agree with your other idea of giving the player the capacity to have a semi-permanent attachment by enacting a third class, the "player-assigned" boss. That would clealy be a good feature. That would allow the game to remember the player-given attachment until the player himself decides to reattach the unit to its organic HQ or to any new HQ