COORD FEATURE CALL TO ARMS...

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2
Although I do not believe I will even be playing it.

You don´t know what you are missing! Compare it to a pub crawl. The next pub is always more interesting and you simply have to have another pint. The next morning, frustration in the shape of a bad a** hangover, but still, that last pub was great fun

Before you reach your "frustration point" with COTA you will still have had a lot of fun. It´s a lot more challenging than HTTR...

[pamak1970]

I assume that the time delay for a coordinated attack by two subunits is going to be more than the time delay for the execution of two uncoordinated attacks by the same elements.

Am i right?

[simovitch]

All the concern about not having the ability to tell the computer to coordinate your attacks for you is astounding. I'm assuming everybody here has played a large AA scenario requiring attack coordination?

Why would you want to give up that aspect of planning to a computer switch or toggle? To me, coordinating your attacks (Bn. A probes the right flank for 2 hours before Bn. B hits the left, etc.) is most of what the human interactive element IS of this game. Orders delay provides the penalties for changing your plans, and rewards you for sticking to them.

IMHO the most gratifying moments in this game is experiencing the fruits of a correctly timed attack after bringing forward and positioning the troops and support weapons, resting, reorg, and resupplying them. I wouldn't want to give the final attack timings away to the AI.

I just don't get what the beef is. Am I missing something here?

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

All the concern about not having the ability to tell the computer to coordinate your attacks for you is astounding. I'm assuming everybody here has played a large AA scenario requiring attack coordination?

Why would you want to give up that aspect of planning to a computer switch or toggle? To me, coordinating your attacks (Bn. A probes the right flank for 2 hours before Bn. B hits the left, etc.) is most of what the human interactive element IS of this game. Orders delay provides the penalties for changing your plans, and rewards you for sticking to them.

IMHO the most gratifying moments in this game is experiencing the fruits of a correctly timed attack after bringing forward and positioning the troops and support weapons, resting, reorg, and resupplying them. I wouldn't want to give the final attack timings away to the AI.

[&o]Damn, that is exactly, 100% on the mark. That "is" the game, otherwise to quote "Ranthood"[;)] it would be "like watching a movie". Well said and you describe precisely what makes the AA series so unique and enthralling.

[barbarossa2]

simtovitch,

While I can understand your point, why make being able to control your operations more complicated than it should be? As Panzer Max states, this lack of control is the biggest problem in the system (in my estimation at least) and is simply something which must be addressed in the near future.

Please note than in "World War II Infantry Tactics (company and battalion)" by Dr. Stephen Bull and published by Osprey, the statement is made...

"In any case the battalion commander would soon issue his own orders, making sure to include details of enemy and friendly dispositions; the mission; 'phase lines'; frontages; and special orders for subordinate units. Frontage instructions regulated movement and helped determine the boundaries between sub-units, while phase lines - to be crossed at a certain time or in the event of a specific circumstance - gave the battalion commander control in battle. Under normal visibility phase lines were 1,000 to 2,000 yards apart."

Why would we want to give this control up? What little control an operational commander has over his battlefield? Phase lines could be simulated by attaching a time box to each waypoint. Units would attempt to head to the next waypoint at the time indicated on it.

Dr. Bull goes on to state...
"Actually doing anything required a flood of paper. The assault crossing of a single dyke in Holland - Operation 'Guy Fawkes' in November 1944 - required five closely typed pages of 'Battalion Operation Order'. Such brevity was only achieved by means of so many abbreviations and codewords as to make the whole virtually unintelligible to the initiated."

Planning operations was no simple task...that IS one reason I LOVE AA. I almost wish we could order hasty operations and well planned operations, which would have differing levels of competency in their execution!

[Arjuna]

Chris,
 
Well while I agree that an option for the human player to coordinate tasks would be good, I do take issue with doing so at the Bn Cmdr level. This is already done for you by the AI now. When you order a Bn to attack it does coordinate the timings and actions of all subordinates. They move in formation, they assault in formation and they deploy on the objective in formation. At the Bn level the prime purpose of phase lines is to keep the force in formation - ie the coordinated alignment/deployment of units. Within a Bn level attack the reserve, fire support and assault groups are coordinated. The Bn mortars if within range already will move to a good location and provide on-call support asap. If they have not reached their firebase by the start of the assault, they switch over to on-call from their current location. If they start too far away, they go in with the assault, but deploy as soon as they get within range and enemy are spotted. That is coordination and it is automatic.
 
At higher levels, phase lines and more importantly their timings are designed to achieve simulataneous application of force on a common objective or on a series of interrelated objectives. This is where the current engine is deficient. Don't fall into the trap of trying to command a Corps the same way you would command a Bn. While the principles of war may be the same, the application of those principles can be quite different. At the Bn and lower levels formations are one of the primary means but formations become unwieldy at Bde and nigh impossible at Div and above. If you want to see this in practice, just start a larger scenario and order a Div to move in arrowhead. Ideally we should weed out this ability from the game engine too. A Div may employ its lead Bde in arrowhead but the remainder should simply move in column behind it. Another feature for the wish list.

[barbarossa2]

Okay! [:)]

"At higher levels, phase lines and more importantly their timings are designed to achieve simulataneous application of force on a common objective or on a series of interrelated objectives. This is where the current engine is deficient."

I understand what you have explained here to me...and I like what I hear...including differentiating between battalion and higher operations.

I am happy and think we are on the same page! Thanks for listening and giving it a dignified, thoughtful response.

Is this now an item for the hard core to do list? Or just a "pie in the sky" do list? [:)]

By the way Arjuna, don't take any of this the wrong way. Thanks for all of your hard work. This engine will be awesome in a couple of years time. And we will have no one to thank but you (and our support!).

Chris

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

ORIGINAL: simovitch

All the concern about not having the ability to tell the computer to coordinate your attacks for you is astounding. I'm assuming everybody here has played a large AA scenario requiring attack coordination?

Why would you want to give up that aspect of planning to a computer switch or toggle? To me, coordinating your attacks (Bn. A probes the right flank for 2 hours before Bn. B hits the left, etc.) is most of what the human interactive element IS of this game. Orders delay provides the penalties for changing your plans, and rewards you for sticking to them.

IMHO the most gratifying moments in this game is experiencing the fruits of a correctly timed attack after bringing forward and positioning the troops and support weapons, resting, reorg, and resupplying them. I wouldn't want to give the final attack timings away to the AI.

[&o]Damn, that is exactly, 100% on the mark. That "is" the game, otherwise to quote "Ranthood"[;)] it would be "like watching a movie". Well said and you describe precisely what makes the AA series so unique and enthralling.

And I agree 100% with both your sentiments...... but how would the ability to specify an 0600 start for a 2 or 3 brigade attack after doing all ordering & pre-positioning you allude to above give the attack timings away to the AI?? I'm the player and like many commanders throughout history I want my multiple axis assault to start at "X" hour. And yes there should be some friction for those plans to go astray and whatnot. Maybe I'm just not a very good player but I find that often when I give mutiple formations the order for say a concentric attack that they go in piecemeal after Fupping etc. Like you I find that orders delay and all the rest is enthralling and truly unique but giving the player the chance to specify a start time is in line with the operational art. If I change my mind then yes "orders delay is the penalty".

Regards,

Rob.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

Like you I find that orders delay and all the rest is enthralling and truly unique but giving the player the chance to specify a start time is in line with the operational art. If I change my mind then yes "orders delay is the penalty".

Regards,

Rob.

[:)]Don't get me wrong, i'll take the feature, heck i'll even use it. But i think that there is too much focus on this one issue, which inevitably "may" make it into the series anyway, so IMHO i would rather see time spent on bugs and scenarios. With time (pun intended) the player will learn how to coordinate attacks on his own once the unique AA engine is fully realized by the player. RDOA, HTTR and COTA are IMO not "pick up and play" games like so many others, the player needs to a) read the extensive manual b) invest a good chunk of time in learning how not only to play...but play effectively.
IIRC HTTR took me a few months before "poof" that light went on in my head and now coordinating attacks is second nature. It does require work by the player and if Panther games decides to include this feature in a patch(not likely) or future games that's fine with me, but it won't make or break a sale on my end. I enjoy the work-reward ratio of a well executed plan...i would worry if it became too easy[;)].

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

The Bn mortars if within range already will move to a good location and provide on-call support asap. If they have not reached their firebase by the start of the assault, they switch over to on-call from their current location.

I don't think that this is a good solution, because:

• These AI-controlled mortar units (the ones that switch over) happen to be unable to bombard the designated area often (given, depending on terrain).
• In RL, the Bn commander would insist on having such mortar-unit commander's ass handed over to him for some bashing, because he would rather want to have the unit getting in range late, instead of choosing to do without ANY mortar support for the entire assault. It looks like some of the mortar units choose to go on vacation, or just bombard in on-call mode here and there way OFF the designated target area, on quite some occasions. This just happened when re-testing the Malta scenario, where units face clear / open territory, which allows for rapid deployments / attacks.

Mortar units seem to be too slow there (where the frontline units can form up quickly) quite often (hence switching to on-call way off and way too early).

[Arjuna]

re Mortars firing at targets away from objective. This is balancing act. First off mortar and arty units in an attack by default are restricted to only providing on-call support to units within the attack. however, each of these units can call in on targets up to 3000m away. Priority is given to enemy firing or asaulting or bombarding but if we reduce the range say to 1500m then you can get situations where an enemy HMG unit will not be engaged even though it can be shooting up the assault line from 1800m. The same argument applies for enemy mortars out to 3000m. Hence why we opted for this range. Yes it can lead to targets on the flanks being engaged but it's case of the lesser of two evils ( oe ius that weavels [;)] ).
 
To address this situation properly we need to add in areas of operation and prevent fire onto targets outside the Area of Ops. Again it's on the wish list but not likely for some time.