Level of detail in formation movement

[GoodGuy]

Thank you for your reply.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Re Mech/Mot Inf units. .... hence these units cannot deploy into terrain that is impassable to motorised. However, these units do "dismount" when in contact with the enemy and do derive the full benefit of the firepower of their troops and vehicles. This feature is high on the wish list.

Sorry about the "dismount" part, that was bad wording on my end. I had typed so much, that escaped my attention. My point was that they do not change their class (to foot) once deployed/dismounted, of course, so I should have said that they can't "disembark".

Re Ignore stragglers. Let me clarify that this affects units that are out of fuel, exhausted or disorganised - ie if a unit rests because it is exhausted or reorgs because it is totally disorganised or stops because it has run out of fuel then it will be left behind and the force will continue on, leaving this straggler to recover and make its way independently.

Thank you for clarifying the new stragglers feature. So the "ignore stragglers"-option involves friendly "handicapped" units (within the player's formations) only, as it is an order that is supposed to ensure say an entire Bn wouldn't be held off by a single Coy or an HQ Coy that had run out of means (fuel, suff. lvl of organization, lack of rest. phases) to keep up with the main force, right?
That's how I understood the feature initially, as you had mentioned it a while ago, but Pergite explained and interpreted the stragglers-option with so much verve, that I thought he might know more/better than me.

Re Withdrawal/Retreat. I beg to differ here with you GoodGuy. You strike me as a player in search of a tactical simulation rather than an operational level one. I make no apologies for the operational focus.

Why would you have to make apologies anyways? The game excels in simulating the operational level, so there's no need to shift the focus. I've thought about your comment reg. my supposed "search" for a tactical simulation, but I can assure you that I am not someone who would like to have a myriad of tactical options in an operational wargame.
But, imho, even an op. level wargame has to consider a few basic tactical necessities. This goes especially for tank combat, as I outlined before.

While we enable you, the player, to give orders directly to a unit ignoring the command chain, we still impose a delay for that unit to receive its orders, process them - ie assess and plan - and issue orders down the line to its subordinates.

Yes, I agree there, but that goes rather for planning of attacks and sophisticated moves, not so for disengagements or speedy controlled retreats, imho.

Now I don't know what direct military experience you have had but mine certainly confirms that you cannot get 120 men, heavy weapons and vehicles on the move in a coordinated manner without spending some time beforehand. With excellently trained units they can get this down to a fine art but still will take some time to plan and process orders.

I assume neither of us has had combat experience. But from my manoeuvre experience I can tell that it takes a platoon leader, and even a Coy CO a relatively small amount of time to have their units pull back after first contact, especially with small Coys. With bigger Coys (say ~120 men) shouting orders may not work/spread fast enough, so you employ runners (if there are no radios), which takes around 5 mins, if the unit hasn't scattered too much.
In the German Army (nowadays), if it's then necessary to employ a rear guard (eg. enemy moving, or light to moderate enemy fire), the platoon may leave a squad (Gruppe) or a half-squad (eg. with MG) as rear guard, maybe even assisted by members of the platoon HQ squad, which is used as reserve, but which also has additional snipers and an AT-weapon crew (eg. Panzerfaust 3-T or 3-IT-600).
If a given platoon/Coy has just made first contact, but decides to break contact, then it doesn't take some 20 or 30 minutes until the given unit is able to retreat.
There's a textbook example in the "Band of Brothers" series, namely the assault on the '88 position (entrenched position, covered by several MG 42 nests), where Lt. Winter's group (~ squad-size) retreats within 1 min (under fire btw), with ~ 1 MG covering his retreat.

The Withdraw order should result in the deployment of a rear guard blocking force while the main body disengages. The rear guard should delay to the objective in leaps and bounds if it has two or more line units.

Well yes, but this goes for units (say a Bn) where sub-units are involved. If there's just a tiny Coy or even an understrength unit involved (with less than say 70 men), then you don't have the overhead created by fully blown command chains say of a Bn or even a division. Some engagements/order delays in the game do not feel right on company level, that's one of the points I tried to bring forward.

Now if you don't want to employ this method, then simply order them to Move with min aggro, so they won't spend their time firing at the enemy. But I would recommend splitting the force, issuing an immediate Move to the main body and then issue a subsequent one to the rearguard. That way your main body, with all its support troops, will have a change of disengaging.

I don't use the method you described anymore, as I had tank units (for example) that kept loosing 1-3 vehicles during such "makeshift" retreats on many occasions. I was able to verify my observation by reloading the savegame (right before I ordered the move with min. aggro), so it wasn't just coincidence.

I don't know if it's about the units' frontage which may change for a move order, or something else, since I don't know what's going on under the hood, but it felt like the tanks turned their backs (in order to move away) and "collected" a few shells with their rear armor, at least.
An attack is often the best (if not the only) way to have a tank unit perform a retreat without substantial losses, which is odd. An attack order coupled with "move"-orders/waypoints, would make the unit move out right away (without ANY additional delay - besides the level of order delay set by the player, as it will reorg' at the FUP), but engage several times if higher aggro settings were selected. A minimum aggro settings then could (and would) sometimes result in an "uncontrolled" retreat or even losses, as described above.

That said, maybe some tiny basic tactical rules could be considered, even if it's an operational wargame. If you employ a realistic level of penetration computations etc., and if you decide to render tank units, then you may also want to include some basic tactical components of armored warfare:

Eg. speed, flanking manoeuvres, "never expose your rear (armor)", "don't waste ammo on targets your infantry can deal with".

For the latter, an option "don't shell enemy infantry", in order to ignore ENEMY stragglers and save HE ammo (so that only MG ammo is used), would make life easier for tank formations in the game, as tanks often get to strongpoints (or main objectives) with no or little amounts of HE ammo.

For the "never expose your rear"-rule (for tank units), a dedicated retreat order could also cater for tank formations to pull back using rear gear for a while, in order not to "collect" enemy shells with their rear ends. Shouldn't be a problem code-wise, I assume.

Last but not least, especially during the BFTB, quite some German units fell back to an old school tactic during the last 1 or 2 years of the war, as quite some of their commanders insisted on tanks advancing with infantry support, in fear of losing precious tanks to enemy AT and bazooka fire, at least in wooded areas or difficult terrain without clear LOS/LOF. This deprived their fast troops of a vital tactical advantage (in quite some sectors): the speed.

ORIGINAL: simovitch

In some cases like battalion asset towed guns we allowed movement into woods but reduced the overall movement rate.

You mean you classified these units (and their chunky assets) as foot units?

[Arjuna]

Thanks for your response GoodGuy.

But from my manoeuvre experience I can tell that it takes a platoon leader, and even a Coy CO a relatively small amount of time to have their units pull back after first contact, especially with small Coys. With bigger Coys (say ~120 men) shouting orders may not work/spread fas enough, so you employ runners (if there are no radios), which takes around 5 mins, if the unit hasn't scattered too much.
In the German Army (nowadays), if it's then necessary to employ a rear guard (eg. enemy moving, or light to moderate enemy fire), the platoon may leave a squad (Gruppe) or a half-squad (eg. with MG) as rear guard, maybe even assisted by members of the platoon HQ squad, which is used as reserve, but which also has additional snipers and an AT-weapon crew (eg. Panzerfaust 3-T or 3-IT-600).
If a given platoon/Coy has just made first contact, but decides to break contact, then it doesn't take some 20 or 30 minutes until the given unit is able to retreat.

We already model this as a reaction. It's called a Retreat - ie a retrograde move under control of the local commander. It's automatic and not under the player control. The reason for that is that it is a tactical response, not one that an operational commander makes. I don't believe the game would be better for allowing the player control of such actions. They are supposed to be fulfilling the role of the operational commander, not the company unit commander. Our engine is designed to model oeprational command decision making - ie it's about macro management not micro management. This may not be to everyone's liking. I admit that. There are plenty of other games out there that cater for micromanagers.

Having said that, perhaps the real issue is identifying situations where a retreat is invoked that we currently don't invoke one. I'm all for improving the AIs ability to react.

[GoodGuy]

Well, if you dislike the thought to hand over some control to the player reg. retreats, how about adding some "orange" light (which I suggested somewhere above) to indicate that the unit is having troubles and may cripple/retreat soon?

Or maybe like that:
Yellow: "May be forced to retreat soon", Orange: "Retreating" , RED: "Routing".

The player could at least try to arrange for a controlled retreat, that way.
Currently, it's like the player has a rough idea about a given Coy's condition (by checking the parameters in the GUI), but even a strong/rested unit may retreat suddenly, so that he feels a tiny bit powerless there.

I think adding something like that, plus removing some of the stickiness single Coys are experiencing atm, will enhance the game experience greatly.

[Arjuna]

Thanks for your suggestions.

The player could at least try to arrange for a controlled retreat, that way.

The thing is that retreats, by design, are out of the players control. You cannot order a retreat. The only time where this would be realistic is if the opCommander was co-located with the unit. What you are proposing is to bypass the command system and allow the player to micromanage any unit he chooses. To an extent we allow that, in so far as you can issue a direct order to a unit. However, we still restrict the types of commands you can give and impose an orders delay commensurate with the framework that you are the operational commander not the unit commander.

Re Yellow light proposal. What factors should we use to determin if the unit may be forced to retreat soon?If it's just morale and proximity of enemy, then that is already pretty demonstrable.

Re stickiness of company units. What do you mean by that?

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

The thing is that retreats, by design, are out of the players control. You cannot order a retreat. The only time where this would be realistic is if the opCommander was co-located with the unit.

Hmmm.. not necessarily. IF a Bn Co had received orders not to commit all the resources (means not to let the enemy annihilate his contingent, ergo not to loose all troops in a planned attack), or if he thought the current angle of attack would not result in a successful outcome, the Auftragstaktik gave him (and sometimes even a Coy CO) enough room to change, break off or modify an attack.
Even more so if it wasn't a major op but just a first contact engagement, or if a given objective was to be taken by a formation of the size of a Bn only - so that NO superior level unit (ie. division) and command overhead was involved (like with some operations in the BFTB and in the battle of the Hürtgenwald), and if there were no further orders that projected to check a secondary enemy unit.

What you are proposing is to bypass the command system and allow the player to micromanage any unit he chooses.

That's already in the game, like you said. But if I don't micromanage, means if the AI controls things, disengaments (especially dis. of tank units, but it also goes for foot units to some extent) can turn into a tenacious procedure. And even with micromanagement, disengaging may be cumbersome, imho.

Re Yellow light proposal. What factors should we use to determin if the unit may be forced to retreat soon?If it's just morale and proximity of enemy, then that is already pretty demonstrable.

Ok. I, as a player, can try to evaluate the combat power of the friendly and the enemy unit. If I commit a unit with say lvl 4 combat power against a lvl 4 enemy unit, this bit of info will not give me any idea about the likelihood of an uncontrolled retreat.
In real life, if an attack was stalling (with high chances of resulting in heavy losses and an uncontrolled retreat), the unit CO either gave order to halt and relayed info to the Bn CO that he is unable to make progress, or he'd have continued and annihilated his troops until he received word from his CO.
Depending on how much room for independent decisions his superior had given to him, he may have had 3 options:

1) Attack and disregard losses,
2) halt and hold gained ground if further progress is impossible, or
3) retreat and pull back to a less exposed position, in order to preserve resources.

The switch "min - max losses" in the game caters for that to some extent, but the engine currently does not cater for a "voluntarily" controlled retreat atm (not on AI level, and not on a user level), even though this would be needed to consider 3).

Option 3) was clearly an option either for Bn COs or (occasionally) for Coy COs. A Bn CO was free to decide about how many Coys he would commit, and if he would employ a Bn reserve or not. He could also pull back an exhausted Coy and replace it with his reserve Coy if necessary. In case one of the Coys did not have sufficient ammo to carry out an attack, it was just used to mount a diversive attack only, or it was not committed at all.
There are numerous examples where Coys did not line up, although Bn COs or Div COs ordered them to participate, in late 1944. Unit diaries are full of entries, noting that XY Coy had failed to line up, and that the attack had to be carried out with less than the projected contingent. Currently, the AI commits even "empty" units, means units without sufficient ammo, and actually against tanks even if they have no AT ammo left, IF i am not mistaken.

Back to the retreat-thing, If I am not mistaken, an AI Bn CO would only commit the reserve (if it decided to have any) if another Coy is retreating and/or if a flank is exposed.

That said, such an "orange" indicator could use the very same calculation routine the engine uses to determine when a unit will be forced to retreat. I don't know how many factors are involved there, but it's probably a mix of proximity of enemy, number of friendly losses, enemy combat power/morale, friendly level of morale and ammunition, and range and effectiveness of enemy weapons. Maybe more parameters maybe less.

So if you have this routine trigger a warning (light), indicating that losses are high and that morale and/or effectiveness drop to a dangerous low level, the player would have at least the chance to arrange for a controlled retreat.

Re stickiness of company units. What do you mean by that?

I was referring to tank Coys for example, with their "eagerness" to halt temporarily and react to enemy units/fire, even with low aggro involved, and the tendency to lose tanks to enemy AT fire if the player tries to counter such stickiness by selecting minimum aggro.

EDIT: Therefor (in order to avoid such unecessary losses) an "arranged" retreat may involve using a somewhat higher aggro level again, which in turn makes the unit more sticky (as it will halt to fire, then move, then halt again, and so on), again. Unit facing may trigger the problem (with unusual losses), I don't know, it feels like a tank unit attracts shells like a magnet, on such occasions.

EDIT: That said, using the move order and min. aggro or the withdraw order will often either result in an uncontrolled retreat, unusual casualties or slow progress, if under moderate/heavy fire. The attack order is then the only way to get a given unit (foot or armored unit) out (in one "piece", like we say, means without substantial losses). So the word "stickiness" is my synonym for a unit that doesn't do what the Coy CO has told to do. The player shouldn't have to use the Assault order to get his troops outta places, plus - as I lined out several times before - the speed of withdrawals (using the withdraw function) seems somewhat low, hence my initial suggestion to add a retreat order. If you think it's not necessary to add a retreat order, you may want to consider to tweak withdraw and move in a way that the stickiness is reduced to an acceptable level.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

Well, if you dislike the thought to hand over some control to the player reg. retreats, how about adding some "orange" light (which I suggested somewhere above) to indicate that the unit is having troubles and may cripple/retreat soon?

Or maybe like that:
Yellow: "May be forced to retreat soon", Orange: "Retreating" , RED: "Routing".

The player could at least try to arrange for a controlled retreat, that way.
Currently, it's like the player has a rough idea about a given Coy's condition (by checking the parameters in the GUI), but even a strong/rested unit may retreat suddenly, so that he feels a tiny bit powerless there.

I think adding something like that, plus removing some of the stickiness single Coys are experiencing atm, will enhance the game experience greatly.

I like this idea. However I was thinking I'd like far more info coming to me from the units in message form and this is something that is ideal.

A unit can send a message saying they are under severe pressure and want to retreat or ask for reinforcemnts. This way you can they check the situ out and make a decision.I know you get a message about there defend or attack order and the limit is exceeded but by then kits to late.

The messages are very important for me when I'm playing the game. I do feel the message system could be used to add more atmosphere and immersion just by wording alone. There are times in the game I think I wish a message had come through to tell me that etc. Another message could be enemy spotted. Then in contact. A message stating the size of the force etc etc.

Not sure if this is something anyone else wants.

[Arjuna]

wodin,

I'm not averse to adding more messages. However, we need to be carteful we don't bombard the p[layer with a plethora of messages that swamp his ability to absorb all the detail, resulting in him just turning all them off. At the moment we filter messages by priority. For this to work effectively we probably would have to also provide a filter by type and/or a filter by unit. The latter could work by having a default type filter for the side and then the ability to override this for a selected unit in the sidebar or by selecting a group of units and applying the filter setting. It needs more thought.

What do others think?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

What do others think?

I'd like to see more notifications about friendly and (estimated) enemy losses during the game.

However, what I'm really dieing for is a much more detailed accounting of what's occurred, so that I can analyze it AFTER the game is over, who did what to whom. I want accurate statistics, so that I can improve my game. If it can't be done from within the game, then I suppose a text file deposited to the root directory with the information would suffice. This would also alleviate some of the never-ending speculation as to whether or not units are actually doing anything at all, shooting for instance.

Forgive me if I've strayed off-topic with the above comment. [:)]

[wodin]

Yeah more filters would be fantastic if we get more messages. As I said the messages we get now I find invaluable during play....a few more to aid me wouldnt go amiss. Again the wording would help in immersion.

I also agree wholeheartedly with Prince...a more detailed AAR is something I asked for whilst CotA was being made. To be able to check each units performance and the losses it inflicted would be fantastic.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

... who did what to whom. I want accurate statistics, so that I can improve my game. ....
.... whether or not units are actually doing anything at all, shooting for instance.

This could be achieved by adding 2 new bars to the unit's general tab. Besides indicating morale and fatigue level etc., there could be additional bars indicating

• a) unit's losses (exact number) vs initial strength (exact number)
  (as the "strength" bar does not tell the whole story, especially if the player hasn't touched/checked that particular bar for a while and if he fails to remember the initial strength, or if he loads a savegame), and
• b) estimated losses inflicted on the enemy
  (this could turn into an "established" number of losses after a while [in case the friendly unit won/drove the enemy away], as a bodycount would reveal the amount of enemy casualties).[/quote]
  
  Maybe even 2 more bars (or text somewhere), indicating
  
  • "effectiveness" (calculated by considering the unit's own losses, enemy losses and the amount of ammo spent, so that the player can rotate ineffective units).
  • ammo level (APers,APierc,HExp,ATank)
    It's a bit cumbersome to go to the equipment tab of say a tank unit each time and check how many AP or HE rounds it has left.
    IIRC, Arty units have such a bar (Fire Mission window?). Also, I hate to send Inf - that ran out of AT equipment/ammo - against tanks, which may happen just because I forget to check their Eq. tab for ammo, at times.
  
  Also, the field where it says "deployed" or say "dug in" could be expanded to carry infos like "returning fire" (then you even know who started the mess), "no AT ammo", "no means to fight tanks", "no armor-piercing ammo", "firing at enemy armor", "engaging at max effective range", and even act as warning like "assaulting, low effectiveness".
  

  .... whether or not units are actually doing anything at all, shooting for instance.

  
  By the way, that's already in the game, if you select a unit, it says "Firing" in the status bar above the general tab.

[GoodGuy]

Oh one more thing comes to my mind:

Units with AT guns or Inf guns automatically select their targets, right?
If a friendly AT or Inf gun unit (which has HE and AP ammo) faces an enemy inf unit and an enemy tank unit (let's assume these enemy units are in line formation = next to each other, and have the same distance to the friendly unit - say 700 meters), the friendly AT guns would fire at the tank unit, means they would go for the highest threat, correct?

Say the enemy tanks wouldn't move (as they just cover their Inf), but the enemy inf would Assault in order to silence the AT position (let's assume the tanks can't or don't want to get closer), then the AT guns would proceed to fire at the tanks until it's too late (as the enemy inf would have closed in meanwhile).
Question: Would the AT guns shift fire and fight the closest enemy unit or would they proceed to fire at the highest threat (which would be the tanks, imho, if you consider their calibres and effective range)?

In case they would opt for the latter, then a checkbox like "ignore armor", or (if the player wants to sacrifice the AT guns, with the chance of taking a few enemy tanks with them) "ignore inf", would be useful.
Alternatively, the unit could make the majority of guns "focus on armor" or "focus on inf", while it would shoot at the (then) secondary target once in a while only.

Thoughts?
Too "tactical", Dave? [;)]

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: wodin

A unit can send a message saying they are under severe pressure and want to retreat or ask for reinforcemnts. This way you can they check the situ out and make a decision.I know you get a message about there defend or attack order and the limit is exceeded but by then kits to late.

I agree with this statement. More messages (with new filters if necessary) are generally a good thing. Particularly in the case of the "exceeded losses threshhold for this order" message as it is almost always too late to try and rectify the situation before the unit in question goes the way of all flesh. Even the reduced orders delay associated with the "Withdrawal" order is often is often insufficient timewise to get the boys out of Dodge in time to save the unit. A little prior notice in the form of a new message like those suggested above might help alleviate this.
As far as new orders types are concerned, I for one would like to see a "hunt down and destroy" order (maybe call it "Pursue") for all those pesky remnants and other small enemy units that haunt your rear areas, trash your supply columns, and call in artillery strikes. Those are the 16 deadliest enemy soldiers in the whole game IMO. I realize the current orders structure is based on geographical area and not specific enemy units but this is surely a case where one might be warranted. Otherwise I guess I keep doing what I do now in those situations -- issuing a "Move" order to my hunter killer unit(s) with a ton of waypoints that I can manually adjust in pursuit of those remnants or platoons or whatever. Talk about micro-managing!! How many RL Corps or Divisional commanders have to get directly involved in an endeavour of that nature??

Just my 2 cents........

Rob.[:)]

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

Otherwise I guess I keep doing what I do now in those situations -- issuing a "Move" order to my hunter killer unit(s) with a ton of waypoints that I can manually adjust in pursuit of those remnants or platoons or whatever. Talk about micro-managing!! How many RL Corps or Divisional commanders have to get directly involved in an endeavour of that nature??

None. [:D]

I for one would like to see a "hunt down and destroy" order (maybe call it "Pursue") for all those pesky remnants and other small enemy units that haunt your rear areas, trash your supply columns, and call in artillery strikes.

I've wished for such a function since HTTR, but I never suggested that, as I thought it would be too big of a job to add target tracking (and chasing).

Those are the 16 deadliest enemy soldiers in the whole game IMO.

So true. [:)]

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy


Also, the field where it says "deployed" or say "dug in" could be expanded to carry infos like "returning fire" (then you even know who started the mess), "no AT ammo", "no means to fight tanks", "no armor-piercing ammo", "firing at enemy armor", "engaging at max effective range", and even act as warning like "assaulting, low effectiveness".

This info is ideal for the messages request. Though no AT ammo and no means to fight tanks are two and the same.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: wodin

This info is ideal for the messages request. Though no AT ammo and no means to fight tanks are two and the same.

Erm, I meant "AT rounds" as in ammo of dedicated AT units, tanks or multipurpose inf/arty units, and "no means to fight tanks" refers to rather low-grade/makeshift Infantry equipment with some lower effectiveness, ranging from Molotow-cocktails, makeshift sticky bombs (like the Brit./Oz equipment in COTA) to flamethrowers and Zookas, etc.

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
This could be achieved by adding 2 new bars to the unit's general tab. Besides indicating morale and fatigue level etc., there could be additional bars indicating

• a) unit's losses (exact number) vs initial strength (exact number)
  (as the "strength" bar does not tell the whole story, especially if the player hasn't touched/checked that particular bar for a while and if he fails to remember the initial strength, or if he loads a savegame), and
• b) estimated losses inflicted on the enemy
  (this could turn into an "established" number of losses after a while [in case the friendly unit won/drove the enemy away], as a bodycount would reveal the amount of enemy casualties).
  
  Maybe even 2 more bars (or text somewhere), indicating
  
  • "effectiveness" (calculated by considering the unit's own losses, enemy losses and the amount of ammo spent).
  • ammo level (APers,APierc,HExp,ATank)
    It's a bit cumbersome to go to the equipment tab of say a tank unit each time and check how many AP or HE rounds it has left. Also, I hate sending Inf against tanks, even though they ran out of AT equipment/ammo, because I forgot to check their Eq. tab.
    
    Also, the field where it says "deployed" or say "dug in", could be expanded to carry infos like "returning fire" (then you even know who started the mess), "no AT ammo", "no means to fight tanks", "firing at enemy armor", "engaging at max effective range", and even act as warning like "assaulting, low effectiveness".

Excellent ideas GoodGuy!

The "effectiveness"-value touches an element that I only once have seen in a wargame (I cant remember where though). When going into battle with new units you do not know who will preform good, what unit that will be underachieving and what units that will surprise you. In wargames you just get your units strength presented to you in numbers from the start.

How about offering a friendly FoW for strength, and its not until after a few hours of contact that you through the estimated effectiveness know exactly how strong your units are. You will of course have a rough understanding from the start given each unit type, but other than that they will initially be pretty generic. The commander bio as it is now could be sort of clue but other than that strength to some extent could be randomized for each scenario to achieve even more repeatability. This feature would be very appreciated in longer scenarios/campaigns where you thoroughly want to get to know your force.

I am also all for that the units should give more sitreps on significant action and events (as mentioned in GoodGuys post) that effect their contact status and abilities. These could for added realism perhaps also suffer from delay, but not to the same extent as the current order delays. A filter option is of the essence not to swamp you with information if you don't want it.

I have played or at least tried to play HPS Point of Attack 2. There you have IIRC options of five detail levels concerning the fighting. You could basically watch each single rifle rounds effect its target or suffice with just a broad understanding of what took place in a contact. I do believe something similar could work with the Command Ops engine although its real-time. If the player could zoom in on a single unit he also could be given the option to take part in the fighting in more detail, getting the actual data and equations that governs the fighting translated from code and presented to him scrolling in plain text. "Attacking unit B, range 400 meters, with Pak38 and MG34, taking incoming mortar fire, lost two men and one truck". The information is already there, taking up processor power, so why not also boast with its elegance and in the process adding additional immersion?

Regarding the fear of bombarding the player with information I believe its important to retain a "pull" system for all this information, where the player actively have to open a dialogue to look the for added information. This could favourably be done in a standard staff structure G1-G6. G1 could present the current rosters of own forces including losses. G2 could give you a overview of the estimated opposing OOB and their losses. G3 could give you the strength and status of your unit. G4 would offer complete view of the logistics. G5 would probably be where you could see reinforcements and G6 is where the delay times in command could be presented to you.
In COTA and HTTR I missed a comprehensive picture of my forces, it was all scattered in the ORBAT window and on the tab for each individual unit. You had to do a lot of the staff work yourself with a notebook and pencil.

...

Highest on my wish-list for this series of games is however the ability to be able to draw on the map. Creating phase lines, outlining roads, engagement areas, movement corridors etc. This is essential in real life but I have not yet encountered a computer wargame that allows me to do just that, which has always puzzled me.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

I agree with this statement. More messages (with new filters if necessary) are generally a good thing.

Actually, I switch to "Flash" usually. In order not to get bombarded by messages.
Playing at FF speed, the "ding, ding, ding" sounds of all those supply-messages would drive me crazy otherwise.
Another reason for reducing the msg display to "Flash" was that COTA was having a problem dealing with my particular soundcard I had a while ago (soundblaster Live), as I received some CTDs when I moved task pointers too often (or too fastly). I had posted that in the COTA support forum back then, but I didn't track down the reason sufficiently. I received less CTDs when I set the msg filter to Flash, PLUS setting (sound) hardware acceleration to "basic" in DXdiag. I'm using an excellent onboard soundcard now, a Realtek HD Audio chipset, and haven't had a single CTD (and I didn't have to tweak the DX settings either).
Still, from that experience I got used to using FLASH, as it allows me to focus on situations where units route or fall beyond the attack threshold ("urgent" setting? Can't remember :p). If there'd be some "orange" indicator (on the unit itself, just like the current yellow/red system) I proposed before, I wouldn't have to dig or watch out for messages, the color alone would tell me that some action is necessary (as the unit in question may be forced to retreat soon otherwise).

I would rather like to get a customizable filter:

A click on the message filter button would reveal several options (with checkboxes):
Where then ALL existing types of message would be displayed (with a checkbox behind each item), say "Supply messages", "Assault status msgs" etc. etc.

I would also like to see more transparency regarding a unit requesting artillery support:

Who requested arty support, and where?

I know that Arty units that aren't detached will give support automatically, but such message (or indicator) would be useful if the player wants to order additional bombardments - using detached arty units, to give the bombardment more punch.
Also, if I want to find out what AI-controlled "on-call" arty unit is executing what bombardment mission (and where), I have to click on every unit, zoom out (quite cumbersome if it's a unit with some 8-16 km range) and follow the grey task marker/line to see which enemy unit it is picking on, actually.

Maybe it would be even more transparent if a requesting unit would have say a green (or whatever color) indicator, right in the bar where ppl usually see the yellow (retreat) indicator. COTA isn't installed on my system right now, erm... does the full-size (full width) bar only show up if you switch to display combat power or does it always have a full-size bar? I can't remember. It's desirable to always have a full-size one, at least.

[Arjuna]

I too would like to see the supply level indicato bars on the Gen tab, but there is only so much screen real-estate. One option post BFTB is to widen the sidebar. Most systems nowdays come with widescreens and so horizontal space is at less of a premium. Havging a wider sidebar would allow us to shuffle things around and fit more data on the Gen tab view.

Re exact pers qty figures. perhaps these could be added to the right of the indicator bar if we widen the sidebar

Re more stats ( incl est losses inflicted on enemy ). Currently we don't record these unit by unit. It's doable but unless we restrict the stats to a handful per unit, we would add significantly to the data in RAM. If that were so, I would prefer to log these to a file.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Re more stats ( incl est losses inflicted on enemy ). Currently we don't record these unit by unit. It's doable but unless we restrict the stats to a handful per unit, we would add significantly to the data in RAM. If that were so, I would prefer to log these to a file.

How about an evaluation say every X-amount of minutes, comparing the estimated or actual number of enemy troops and/or vehicles (present in a given unit) with the initial number (according to the estabs) as indicator for "losses inflicted", and comparing the initial friendly amount of ammo (plus the losses from the calculation above) and then offering "high", "medium" and "low" as indicator - for each of them - "somewhere" (on some tab):

• Losses inflicted on enemy
• Losses received
• Efficiency .
  
  You can ship around tracking each and every paramenter that way, and reduce RAM load (where I think RAM ain't a problem these days, with people having 3.3 to way over 4 GB these days, well unless the engine itself has a RAM restriction. The memory footprint of COTA (for example) isn't that high, if compared to say recent games, and I doubt that BFTB will use way more RAM than COTA.
  Alternatively, to preserve space in the tabs for other things, you could add this to the text in the status bar where it says "Firing", "Dug in" etc., and just seperate it with "/".
  Like:
  "Dug in / High efficiency / No losses"
  "Assaulting / Low eff. / High losses"

That's way less accurate, but it gives the player a better idea how his units are doing, while still preserving RAM.

[wodin]

I agree with alot of requests above.

This particular wargame should be the most immersive wargame out there.

With just a few more added bits of detail like more messages (with options to filter) and a more detailed AAR we would be there.

Also Pergite's request for a system similar to PoA2 with several layers of detail to combat would be fantastic.

However FoW for your own troops I wouldn't be to keen on. This sort of realism for me would effect gameplay and overall enjoyment of the game. I want more info on what is happening on the field not less.

I want to feel pride in a particular unit that performed above and beyond and imagine reprimanding one that underperformed. All this info could be conveyed to you during the game with the message system. Infact most of what has been asked for here could be sent to you in message form.