Brigade Tactical Ex Comments

[cabron66]

And not to point out the obvious, but the acceptable casualty settings have a large impact on how often a unit can attack, retreat, reorganize and attack again: a feature which I like and do not like at the same time.

I like it because it allows me to control the level of commitment and my units' reaction to surprises. This gives you the ability to probe enemy units without taking excessive losses and also to not push an attack in a non-critical sector of the battlefield.

Of course, I raise this point because the lower the tolerance for casualties the better chance the unit has to retreat in good order, reorganize relatively quickly and attack again. The more casualties you allow a unit to accept the more likely it is to not retreat until it is already badly depleted. Usually, the more battered the unit becomes the longer it takes to reorganize and get back in the fight.

This is interesting because it tends to conflict with the image that most gamers have of how WWII was fought. In reality, entire division-sized attacks would be defeated after taking casualties that gamers regard as trivial. Of course this can vary widely depending on the doctrine, but generally speaking, Seelow Heights-Huertgen Forest meatgrinder style attacks were not the norm.

During the Ardennes Offensive, for example, a retreating U.S. battalion asked for 80mm mortar fire to cover its withdrawal. The response to their request was several thousand rounds over the next couple of hours dropped in a wide pattern against an unknown enemy. German reports show that the pursuing battalion of fusiliers made only one attempt to pass through the bombardment, took a grand total of 12 casualties (out of an approximate strength of 800 men) and decided the retreating Americans were not as important as their divisional commander thought they were.

Needless to say most gamers, if they see a battalion refuse an order after taking 12 casualties, would be damn angry and would most likely immediately post something nasty on a forum like this one.

I don't like the feature because it has too many settings and allows for excessive micromanagement. In reality I doubt very much anyone would ever order a unit to withdraw as soon as it hit 75% and even if they did, no commander would ever be able to know with such pinpoint accuracy at what percentage his unit was. In many situations a commander might not have any idea how badly his men were getting pounded until the damage was already done. My grandfather's platoon was almost wiped out during Market Garden and he said no one at his company HQ knew about it until he and the other 2 survivors managed to sneak back after night had fallen.

Anyway, play with this feature and see what happens. You might find that you can get your units to act a little more like you expect them to or, at the very least, understand why they are bouncing so much.

Cheers

Paul

p.s. And a note on ambushes. Isn't there a range setting in CotA that allows you to set fire arcs or am I confused? I seem to remember the game allowing me to order units to only open fire at units within a set range.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Hola iberian! Gusto de encontrar un espaniol. Yo soy argentino.

ORIGINAL: iberian
...Fast access to the hill is limited to the highway, since there are woods and streams bordering it. Since the new COTA engine makes terrain impassable by mechanized forces, what is use in such scenario for the cavalry regiment and the tank battalion? ...

There is some room for maneuver motorized and armor units besides the highway. If you are using the "Day Attack" variant, the start of the scenario at night time is special to scout these routes with your cavalry without too much interference. I made heavy use of the right button of the mouse to figure out those spots. I'm just unable to figure out terrain [:'(]

I positioned the cavalry to the west of the hill, controlling the bridge and cutting that escape route to the enemy. I also positioned the tank battalion to the south of the hill, hoping for some kind of support from them. None of them were able to do much. They fired a couple of times, but it was a worthless effort.

Have you issued a "Fire" order to these units? Make sure also to check the LOS to the target.

Cheers,

[wodin]

Also remember that the counter isnt the actual unit as such. The unit covers far more ground than the counter as you see whn you give out your orders. Also remember this is still abstract.

I dont see the whole coy retreating back abit then moving forward, I see as a certain number reteareting and then being rallied or just an impression on how the battle is flowing.

[MarkShot]

Cabron66,

Ranges and arcs ... I think that is CMBB/CMAK which has that. RDOA/HTTR/COTA only have ROF.

Regarding the casualty settings, I believe that it only changes behavior when a [P]ROBE is ordered. Otherwise, I believe that value is only used for generating an informational message saying that the threshold has been exceeded, but it is up to you to do something about it.

[cabron66]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Cabron66,

Ranges and arcs ... I think that is CMBB/CMAK which has that. RDOA/HTTR/COTA only have ROF.

Regarding the casualty settings, I believe that it only changes behavior when a [P]ROBE is ordered. Otherwise, I believe that value is only used for generating an informational message saying that the threshold has been exceeded, but it is up to you to do something about it.

Ah, ok well I am confusing games then. That's not a good sign.

Cheers

Paul

[Crimguy]

TacOps has that as well, along with a bucket-load of other SOP orders you can add. Great game that needs a facelift.

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Cabron66,

Ranges and arcs ... I think that is CMBB/CMAK which has that. RDOA/HTTR/COTA only have ROF.

Regarding the casualty settings, I believe that it only changes behavior when a [P]ROBE is ordered. Otherwise, I believe that value is only used for generating an informational message saying that the threshold has been exceeded, but it is up to you to do something about it.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
I do find a few anomalies. I am not sure if they are a result of the limitations of the engine or merely my poor choice in command or timing. Take the example of a batallion ordered to probe 2 kilometers forward into a copse of light woods.
As the batallion advances, a substantial enemy presence is uncovered. I then choose to order the batallion to go to a full assault, knowing that it will halt, take some time to reorganize and then move forward again with a more determined assault. A quick check a few minutes later finds the lead company that is only a few hundreds meters from the lead enemy company has turned it's back on the enemy and is moving backwards towards the batallion headquarters to reorganize for the coming assault action.

I would really rather not have the lead company, in contact with the enemy, turning it's flank to the enemy as part of a batallion wide reorganization for the coming assault. I have to ask myself, is this a limitation of the negine, where a company in contact with the enemy will disregard that conatct because it receives an order for a higher echelon to do something else, or is this a function of my inexperience with the engine. If I had chosen a formation of "in situ" for the batallion assault order, rather than leaving the choice of formation to the batallion headquarters, would this have prevented the lead comapany form turning it's flank to the enemy?

It seems that sometimes the seemingly bizarre behavior of an individual company being controlled by the AI may be a result of insufficiently succint orders form above.

Enhanced Attack is on our wish list and this should include options for using a pinning force, comprising of units already engaged with the objective. That should avoid the cases of engaged lead units pulling back in the face of the enemy. However, history is replete of just such occurences. Commanders often decided that it was better to attack the enemy from another direction and often this required them to pull back and circle around.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Commanders often decided that it was better to attack the enemy from another direction and often this required them to pull back and circle around.

Ok, but I doubt that they ordered their Coys to turn their backs and put off their trousers...;p...These units in COTA often look like a bunch of drunk teens dropping their trousers and hobbling to a safer position (with their pants down on their feet). [:D] It feels like that at least, so I hope that this gets improved some time.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

ORIGINAL: wodin
I dont see the whole coy retreating back abit then moving forward, I see as a certain number reteareting and then being rallied or just an impression on how the battle is flowing.

I wholeheartly subscribe to this. This game is not Close Combat.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Commanders often decided that it was better to attack the enemy from another direction and often this required them to pull back and circle around.

Ok, but I doubt that they ordered their Coys to turn their backs and put off their trousers...;p...These units in COTA often look like a bunch of drunk teens dropping their trousers and hobbling to a safer position (with their pants down on their feet). [:D] It feels like that at least, so I hope that this gets improved some time.

I agree. If the local commander decides his lead company, in contact with the enemy, should pull back to redeploy for a batallion wide assault, that lead company would likely withdraw from contact while maintaining a frontal orientation toward the enemy, rather than exposing their flank.

[Crimguy]

I'm not sure if I see this happening all that often, unless a unit routs.  Units that rout do get hammered at that time (but would do so IRL I would think).  I will check again, but it looked like my units generally withdraw in a more or less orderly fashion.

What irks me is when I see a unit rout, then bounce around like a pinball, sometimes going 3-4 clicks in the most odd direction.