Order Delays

[06 Maestro]

This new forum is a great idea-I’m looking forward to some of the generals stepping up to the podium. I will be sitting with the students for a while yet.

Among the many improvements the AA engine offers operational level gamers, the orders delay really stands out. It is both a blessing of realism, and, at times, a curse. I think this is one area that new players could really use some help from the veterans. This one aspect of the military art is certainly one of the most important problems that must be considered-for all operations. This is also one aspect of the military art that is not easily absorbed just by reading military history.

Purchasing COTA confers a rather big advance in rank for most of us. [8D] Practical experience at this level of command would be rare.

For many situations I can make a close guess as to how long a particular order may take to be acted on. For some complicated situations, I feel like I need to break out a pen and paper. The normal stated delays seem straight forward, but there are other factors. It would be helpful to have the entire process discussed-covering command ranges and all.

I for one would appreciate any tips, do’s and don’ts from the AA veterans.

War college can cover a lot of ground; I’m looking forward to it.

[Jakerson]

Yeah next step to this would be friendly fog of war where player don’t know location of each own companies all of time this happened lots of time in offence and during most intense combats.

FFoW would be excellent simulator to describe why friendly fire happened so much USA army estimated that from WW 2 casualties 20% on average came from friendly fire witch is pretty huge number.

[Helpless]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

FFoW would be excellent simulator to describe why friendly fire happened so much USA army estimated that from WW 2 casualties 20% on average came from friendly fire witch is pretty huge number.

as a first step there might be a choice to disable a "friendlies nearby" check for arty bombardments..

[Real and Simulated Wars]

This is a great topic 06Maestro!
One thing that I have to master is paying attention to the messy command structures I ussually create. The command structure certainly affects orders delay!

@Jakerson: FFoW would be great. IIRC, the issue with it was computing power.


Julio

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Chelco


One thing that I have to master is paying attention to the messy command structures I ussually create. The command structure certainly affects orders delay!

Julio

Yes, yes-I have done the same thing. This is one of those areas that I would like adressed; are there some unproductive/un-magical command structures which need to be avoided. In time, it would all become clear, but there may be some short cuts to Nirvana-that;s what I'm hoping for.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
are there some unproductive/un-magical command structures which need to be avoided.

NetCentric warfare! [:D] No kidding, CotA's dynamic command structure allows to apply some concepts from that. [8D]
We need "Command and Control" as part of the curriculum.

In time, it would all become clear, but there may be some short cuts to Nirvana-that;s what I'm hoping for.

Your Nirvana maybe just your search for those shortcuts. [:'(]
One of the things you will notice in the first two or three so-called article-scenario modules is that they come out with relatively small/short scenarios. Besides practicing the concepts discussed in the article, the scenarios are also intended for you to experiment at will without "spoiling" that scenario you are saving unplayed for when you become more knowledgeable.


Julio

[06 Maestro]

I'm looking forward to the first module; I think I will do them all, even if I'm an expert for that particular subject.[;)]  Practice makes perfect.

[Jakerson]

One thing would be also cool separate transport company’s witch you can temporarily attach with Infantry Company and motorize Infantry Company temporarily or you can order separate transport companies to attach supply depot witch speed up supply efforts.

Ability to detach motorized infantry companies transports would be cool so you can use their transports to motorize some other infantry companies.

[Arjuna]

Jakerson,
 
I appreciate that once you start discussing tactics and how they are applied in COTA it's only natural for ideas to come up about new features. These are good and encouraged. But could you please make them in the Wishlist thread or in a separate thread of its own on the main COTA forum. That way we will stay on topic here. Thanks matey. [:)]

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Jakerson,

I appreciate that once you start discussing tactics and how they are applied in COTA it's only natural for ideas to come up about new features. These are good and encouraged. But could you please make them in the Wishlist thread or in a separate thread of its own on the main COTA forum. That way we will stay on topic here. Thanks matey. [:)]

So this is how bureaucracy starts increasing in these forums? [:'(]

I got 100 new ideas each day and I’m good solving problems according to my boss but am not good at following any type of rules and bureaucracy. When I got new idea I need to write it down quite soon or I forget it. This is how it works.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
This is how it works.

Hah, spoken like a true bureaucrat! [;)]

Here's a helpful hint. If you use IE 7, create a new tab or if not then create a second instance of your browser, select the COTA forums from your favourites, select the Wishlist thread and start typing. That way you can flip between the two forum threads. This also makes it handy for copying text or reviewing posts while you make your post.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

When you get to play the scenarios (in particular scenario 2), if you use orders delays take this into consideration.

First, the 9th Reconnaissance Battalion sitting somewhere in the map. Unit and force delays shown.

All good. It will take around 26 min to Coy 1.9, 2.9 or 3.9 to do whatever you order them next.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

The next screenie is the same Battalion when on the move.

I pasted roles (Advance, Main and Rear Guard) and orders/force delays.

Note how the Advance and Main Guard Coys, 3.9 and 1.9 have force delays of 46 and 50 minutes. Compare that to the 26 minutes in the previous post. Something to watch after when you play the scenario.

[06 Maestro]

I will watch the delays very closely for these exercises. I am a week or two from being able to inroll in PWC-I will make it.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Ey 06![:)]
 
Don't worry, take your time.
 
Coming back to the 2nd screenie: do you guys know why the main and advance guard have extra force delays? [&:]
 
 
Julio
 

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Just to clarify: I issued a move order to the Bn HQ (see also, is the only one with the white stripe). I'm macromanaging.

Julio

[Helpless]

ORIGINAL: Chelco



Coming back to the 2nd screenie: do you guys know why the main and advance guard have extra force delays? [&:]


Julio

Obviously it is caused by additional load on it. Now the question is where this come from, if there is no subordinates? And does force delay matters for single units? [&:]

I didn't find anything in manual regarding this issue. Can make just guesses. Could it be reassessment?

[Arjuna]

Yes the Main Guard does appear to comprise two or more units, hence its Load of 2. It's a bit hard to tell which units are under command of the Main Guard without a saved game. My bet is that it's the Hvy Wpns Company as this would add a load of 2 points.

[Helpless]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Yes the Main Guard does appear to comprise two or more units, hence its Load of 2. It's a bit hard to tell which units are under command of the Main Guard without a saved game. My bet is that it's the Hvy Wpns Company as this would add a load of 2 points.

Dave,

Could you be more specific on that? Does tihis mean that advance companies may start sending orders by AI? How do determing who is under command? Does this have any effect on the "loaded" unit?

I just started to pay attention to that. Sometimes I see that load on companies goes up to 4, when the whole Bn consist of 6 units. At the same time the load on Bn HQ stays the same.. [&:]

thanks

Pavel

[Arjuna]

One of the problems with the current forceGroup class is our inability to maintain attachments down the chain. This means we have difficulty in displaying the various forceGroup structures during play. In fact there are three different structures - organic, player and current.
 
The organic structure is permanent - A Inf Coy belongs to 1st Inf Bn HQ. The player structure is what you create with your orders - A Arm Sqn is attached to 1st Inf Bn. The current structure is how the units are assigned once they develop their plans based on your orders - eg A Arm Sqn is attached to A Inf Coy of 1st Inf Bn.
 
At the moment the OB Tab displays the organic structure. The command lines on the map display the player structure and nothing displays the current structure. We are currently working on this very issue at the moment for BFTB. It has meant a major overhaul of the forceGroup class. Instead of the very data efficient system we have had, we will now be using a tree structure. This will mean more RAM and a bigger file size but it wilol provide us the means to display the current structure during play. We hope to provide buttons on the OB display and on the Display Toolbar that will allow you to set which type of structure you want displayed.
 
This should then address your concern and help you to understand how everything is organised from each of the three perspectives.