COTA (mini-guide): Tutorial, AAR, and tips!

[Arjuna]

Another way of looking at the command structure is to recognise that in fact there are three structures being used:
 
[ol][*]The Organic Structure - or the structure units are normally in
[*]The Player's Plan - the structure units have been ordered to be in by the player
[*]The Force Plans - the structures units have subsequently been ordered to be in by AI controlled subordinates[/ol]
It was our intention to display all three both in the OB Display tab and on the map using the command lines. However, we ran into a limitation of our ForceGroup data structure. When originally designed back in 1996 we were concerned to minimise the amount of space ( HD and RAM ) required to store this data. So we opted to not store every unit nested in a tree structure but instead assume that it was based on the organic structure less detachments and attachments. From this we calculate the structure on the fly. This is data efficient but it only associates the atts and dets with the Subject ( boss ) of the ForceGroup. So it doesn't support subsequent attachments to subordinates down the tree.
 
This meant that displaying the Force Plan's structures would soke up a lot of processing time to calc them on the fly. So instead we compromised with the current solution of displaying the organic structure in the OB display and the Player's Plan structure with the command lines. Paul is currently redesigning our ForceGroup class so that hopefully by the time we release BFTB we will be able to display all three structures readily.

[MarkShot]

The way to take advantage of units with prepared positions (like entrenched) at the start of scenarios is to issue a DEFEND order with the IN-SITU formation type. I think most of you know that already.

However, what can you do once the unit has been driven back? At that point, you can issue a defend order at the original location with a rout type of SHORTEST. Why? The game engine remembers where prepared positions are on the map even though it is not displayed. (btw - I have requested displaying this for the wishlist.) Thus, in theory, the unit should be able to get dug-in faster by returning to that position. (In principal this should work, but I have not done any empirical tests.)

Here is another slight change you may notice from HTTR. In HTTR, units always attempted to return to their originally assigned positions when driven off. This behavior was modified in COTA such that units which are within 500M of their assigned position may just stay at the new location. The thinking was that a unit may often get set up in a new position during the retreat recovery period ... once deployed, then why should it make itself particularly vulnerable by moving say 200-300M? I know we discussed this quite a bit while beta testing, since this can throw a monkey wrench into the micro-managing aspects of the game (like when you need engineers to be within 500M of a crossing point). I believe what was ultimately settled on is that units with orders from the AI may follow this "500M from the task marker is close enough" approach; however, single units with direct orders from the player will be more inclined to reoccupy the exact location of task marker set by the player.

{Dave, if you are reading this later can you please confirm or deny whether I have got this stuff right. It seems my memory ain't what it used to be. Thanks.}

[Banquet]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

The way to take advantage of units with prepared positions (like entrenched) at the start of scenarios is to issue a DEFEND order with the IN-SITU formation type. I think most of you know that already.

If you do that - does it matter where the defend order is placed? You don't get the chance to specify in-situ until you've placed a waypoint. If this waypoint is in a different spot to where the unit it - will they all get up and assume in-situ at the new point - or do they simply not move (and ignore the waypoint) if in-situ is used?

I keep meaning to test this but whenever playing a scenario I get caught up in the atmosphere and forget!

[MarkShot]

Banquet,

They simply will not move.

IN-SITU can be used for the situation I mentioned above. It is also a good option for defensive delaying situation in homogenous close terrain.

Suppose you just want to slow the enemy down. If you don't use IN-SITU, they will attempt to return to their original locations. As mentioned, that action will increase their vulnerability and casualties. With IN-SITU they will be driven off and then begin to rally (retreat recovery) and while doing that deploy and dig-in. As the enemy presses forward again, they will find your units once again ready to shoot it out.

When micro-managing ... If you have a small town at a cross roads, you won't want to use IN-SITU with a company, because you will want them to try to retake the good ground. However, if they are in a big city or woods, then one location will probably be as good as the next. No need to fight their way back to the original task marker.

When I set my IN-SITU markers, I will still tend to set them a short distance from the unit's current location to just make it easier to access the task marker later without click on the unit itself.

I hope that helps.

[Banquet]

Helps a lot - thanks MarkShot [:)]

[MarkShot]

While on the topic ...

Units in good terrain that have already prepared the position will generally initially retreat recovery in place as opposed to displace. They will be less combat effective in that state. However, this simulates that a rattled unit is more likely to hug the ground in a fort than displace to open ground a short distance from the fort. (meaning the troops are shaken, but not stupid) I believe this behavior was added in one of HTTR's patches.

[MarkShot]

From another discussion on taking bridges ...

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Of course, one of the considerations whether you do this as a single command with a single force (ATTACK task check SECURE CROSSING option) or a two step process with an assault force and a single engineering unit (ATTACK task first, SECURE CROSSING task second) is: The degree of opposition you expect to find and the risk that your engineers will get shot up in the attack. Sometimes, performing the two step approach can actually be quicker, since you don't send in the engineers until the it is safe. Typically, playing on the max order delays will yield an order delay for an engineering unit of under one hour. Being a single unit (and usually motorized), the engineers will tend move very quickly to the crossing area when ordered. {So, in the two step approach, you often start with the engineers held back in a safe location or providing supporting fire at a distance as opposed to being part of the assault force. You can see this latter approach in my COTA Mini-Guide AAR.

[Arjuna]

TT2959 - UI - Display Prepared Positions on map - option button on Display Toolbar

[Arjuna]

{Dave, if you are reading this later can you please confirm or deny whether I have got this stuff right. It seems my memory ain't what it used to be. Thanks.}

 
Mark,
 
I'll check out the code next week and get back to you.
 
TT2960 - AI - Confirm "Near Enough is Good Enough" Code watered down for player controlled forces

[MarkShot]

I have been following the threads. A number of you are playing with MAX order delays and are concerned about command load and the impact on order delays when you chose to micro-manage some important aspect of the battle. So, this tip is for you ... how to have your cake and eat it too.

The example will be drawn from an HTTR game I am in the middle of, but the same approach applies to COTA. Here we see a bridge which I must secure. You will note that the points are awarded upon completion as opposed to being the result of occupation. Thus, one enemy unit infiltrating the area could be enough to cause me to lose the battle. Additionally, the battle is going to end in low light conditions.

[MarkShot]

Here we see the tail end of a successful attack on the Bridge. You see four companies of 7th Bn under under command of Bn HQ who is taking direct orders from me. You also see a recon unit to the South who were harassing the enemy under my direct orders.

[MarkShot]

Now, as I explained when I started, it is going to be very important to do a good job of securing the perimeter. Furthermore, I really want the troops to prepare their positions, since they are very exposed in the polder. So, you see new orders directly from me that explicitly puts 5 companies on the perimeter with Bn HQ at the Bridge.

Isn't this going to add to the overall command load, you ask? Yes, it will.

[MarkShot]

Here we see the final deployments as per my direct orders.

[MarkShot]

Finally, here you have the solution to the excessive command load problem. I once again turn command back over to 7th Bn HQ with the following orders ... "I like your current deployment of your men, keep it that way. Advise if you the enemy makes contact again." How? I group the units and give them an IN-SITU DEFEND order.

[Banquet]

I have found if I want to move a company or two that I can order it to a certain spot and then re-attach it - and usually the HQ leaves it where it is (assuming it has a defend order) but this seems to be a better - and more reliable - way of doing it.

This may not be the place for such a question - but it is in a way related since it leads to me taking command of companies temporarily..

Are HQ's programmed with a desire to find cover for their units, and if so, how much?

I've noticed a few times, when giving a defend order especially, that one or two companies can be near, but not on, good defensive terrain.. I.e, I order a battalion to defend a town - there a lots of buildings and trees in the area for cover but some companies are put in clear open ground. Is there a military reason for this? It's the most common cause for me to take the unit and give it orders to get it in cover - and then re-attach it again.

I do re-assign the depth and frontage to try and accomodate what I want - but you can't be too exact with this to fit the terrain.

[MarkShot]

According to Dave, the AI does seek good terrain for deployment. Personally, I have always felt that the AI is more predisposed to foot print than key terrain. So, in mostly open terrain with only a few key defensive features, I will often opt to micro-manage when setting up a defense.

Of course, the flip-side to micro-managing is you that you have removed your commander's initiative on the ground to respond to events as the develop. For example, take the case which I just presented. It was pretty clear that in my mind the major threat of attack would be on the North Bank. Now, look at the following screen shot (I am back to using my favorite RDOA Classic Look textures). There is an approaching enemy force to the South East. My ATG units who were on the move to support the next phase of Operation Big Grab to the East blundered into these German units.

Now, if the 7th Bn HQ was given full control, he might respond to this situation by shift his defensive line South to cover the River. However, for now, 7th Bn will maintain a configuration which is best suited to repel an attack from the North.

So, maybe you cannot have your cake and eat it afterall.

[Banquet]

Well maybe that's one advantage of positioning companies and then re-attaching them.. the commander can then use his initiative.. but obviously if the HQ repositions them for no good reason then it nullifies the whole point of the exercise. So far I have found the commanders leave units where they are - but I'm only scratching the surface of the game at the moment.

[MarkShot]

And for those of you who are following along at home and have yet to crank up the order delays, this is how it is a different game when playing with order delays. Without delays, I could easily shift the defense down to the river to hold the bridge. However with MAX order delays if those Germans are determined to retake the Rail Bridge and that contact report only represents the lead elements, then I have been caught with my pants down. Issuing new orders probably won't save the day (or the night in this case). No other game I know gives you such opportunities to make a total jack ass of yourself like this series. (and that is playing against the AI ... I hate to even think of what someone like Yakstock or Tzar007 would do to me in an online game)

{At this point, I am going to sit tight. Since the only thing worse than what is building South, would be to pull the line units back from their defensive positions only to find a strong attack coming from the North through the Polder. I have mortars set up (not seen) and will depend on them to turn the enemy back and constriction of the Rail Bridge to turn the enemy back. G_d I love this game!}

[Banquet]

Markshot,

You said somewhere that you detach all your arty.. does that include battalion mortars?

[MarkShot]

When I said that, I was refering to the big guns.

The considerations when dealing with mortars are quite a bit different. Mortars are an interesting animal that exhibits both the traits of indirect fire weapons like guns and support weapons like ATG/HMG units.

The HTTR Mini-Guide goes into a good amount of detail about various issues and situations when handling mortars.