No moving and shooting on same turn?

[Mad Russian]

Rush would have been the movement order most often used during an engagement historically.

Rush, with a short halt to fire and then back to full speed. Fire and maneuver; to try to stay alive.

Good Hunting.

MR

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

I seem to remember it worked a little differently in PCK. Where after a unit stopped moving it would change its stance to Defend (unless in Engage) and target an enemy.

Things may have changed when the ability to select turn length was added. I used to select Engage instead of Rush because of this. But now I can use Rush and just Halt the units at the Reaction phase. Since these seem almost the same I might use Rush more because the units move faster.

I wondered about this as well. You may be right, if it reached it's destination in PCK, it may have stopped and targetted during the phase. I thought there was a sighting penalty for being in rush mode, but I don't see that in the manual.

thanks
rick

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Rush would have been the movement order most often used during an engagement historically.

Rush, with a short halt to fire and then back to full speed. Fire and maneuver; to try to stay alive.

Good Hunting.

MR

I do recall that the units moving during bound orders were changed to use rush movement instead of normal movement because of that.

Thanks
rick

[sandman2575]

I just want to be clear that I'm not second-guessing or criticizing you guys who put so much effort into Ostfront.  It's an amazing achievement, and believe me, I greatly appreciate your work.

It does seem thought that removing any auto-target capability from Engage>Move has seriously diminished the usefulness of this order.  It really hampers one's ability to play with 60s. 'no-reaction' turns -- if you give, say, a tank an Engage>Move order, it gets to its destination, is being fired at by the enemy, but just 'sits out the clock' instead of firing back.

I'm wondering what you guys think having no auto-target on Engage>Move has added to the gameplay?  Or, if it was an inadvertent change from PzC:Kharkov, whether the old-style Engage>Move could be added to Ostfront?

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: sandman2575

I just want to be clear that I'm not second-guessing or criticizing you guys who put so much effort into Ostfront.  It's an amazing achievement, and believe me, I greatly appreciate your work.

It does seem thought that removing any auto-target capability from Engage>Move has seriously diminished the usefulness of this order.  It really hampers one's ability to play with 60s. 'no-reaction' turns -- if you give, say, a tank an Engage>Move order, it gets to its destination, is being fired at by the enemy, but just 'sits out the clock' instead of firing back.

I'm wondering what you guys think having no auto-target on Engage>Move has added to the gameplay?  Or, if it was an inadvertent change from PzC:Kharkov, whether the old-style Engage>Move could be added to Ostfront?

I can certainly see your point, especially if playing single phase turns rather than two phase. And we always welcome input on things to consider to improve the game play.

thank!
Rick

[Mad Russian]

It has never been our intent that any unit "sit and wait out the clock" for anything. Let alone to not fight back when being attacked.

As you've pointed out, we made a tremendous number of changes to PCK to create PCO. In the process not all the changes were seamless. We knew that would happen and we also knew that you guys would catch our mistakes and let us know about them. We knew we couldn't create bug free software. The best we can do is to playtest it as much as possible and fix those we found. After that the best we can do is fix the bugs/issues that you gamers find when you tell us what they are.

Thanks for supporting the game enough to discuss the shortcomings as you come across them.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Jafele]

As you've pointed out, we made a tremendous number of changes to PCK to create PCO. In the process not all the changes were seamless. We knew that would happen and we also knew that you guys would catch our mistakes and let us know about them. We knew we couldn't create bug free software. The best we can do is to playtest it as much as possible and fix those we found. After that the best we can do is fix the bugs/issues that you gamers find when you tell us what they are.

Thanks for supporting the game enough to discuss the shortcomings as you come across them.

Yes, that´s the natural way to improve the game. It´s not neccesary spectacular changes when something is fine.

Thanks for your continuos work.

[sandman2575]

MR, I fear my post came across as a criticism -- let me just reiterate that no criticism, second-guessing, or anything negative of the kind was intended.  I was just genuinely puzzled by the Engage>Move issue, as I did recall (or thought I recalled) this order having different results in PzC Kharkov.  My intention was to raise the question of whether Engage>Move is functioning "WAD" or if the 'non-auto-targeting' issue needs fixing.  It sounds like it's the latter, and I have no doubt you guys will look into this and make changes if you determine changes are needed.

Again, my sincere thanks for your efforts in creating and improving Ostfront.  It's a superb game -- really a wonderful achievement. 

[Mad Russian]

I understand. I didn't take it as criticism or being overly negative. I took it, as I think you meant it, as constructive discussion to make this game better.

The design team is here to try to make this game as good as it can get. That included not only what we can come up with but what the people that play it come up with too. Many features in PCO came from gamers just like you with discussion points.

There are no points in PCO that we, the design team, won't discuss. We've been over many issues in the past. While we don't always agree with all points of view we will at least consider them. This team is very innovative, and I'm proud of the accomplishment that PCO represents, but we are far from through. To make this series the best that it can be will take ALL OF US and the ideas we have. Not just the design team.

So, far from being upset by discussions about the game, we welcome them.

While it looks like the game is sitting and doing nothing, like it during the months PCO was taking shape, there are things happening with PCO now. Nothing to announce, yet, except that we aren't just napping.

Good Hunting.

MR

[junk2drive]

Most games, including this one, are a compromise between reality and what a computer program can put in front of your eyes and other senses. We debated how accurate firing on the move would be in WWII. If you allow it with penalties, and most rounds miss the mark, would it just be a waste of ammo? Was it doctrine to stop and shoot? Can the program do that intelligently? In real time you could stop your tank, order it to fire, and move on. With WEGO you hope that the computer can be smart enough to handle that during the hands off time.

[Mobius]

I convinced myself that Engage>Move allowed the unit to fire a little after it stopped moving. I thought I saw it one time. But I guess I didn't.

As for firing on the move as in the Advamce order the Soviets did it even while moving at a pretty good clip. The German doctrine was to move in rushes and make a short halt then fire then move again. This would probably produce the same amount of movement distance in a phase as produced by an Advance order. Due to the complicated nature of the programming this it may have been decided to just make both types of Advance the same.

[sandman2575]

Mad Russian, Junk & Mobius  -- Thanks for being responsive.  Just 'in conclusion,' it would be great if this could get addressed in an update.  I use "Advance" as a default 'move' order now, but the inability to give a specific target to units with Advance (as you can in "Engage>Target") is definitely a handicap.  I find I'm using "Engage>Move" now with only the greatest reluctance, as a trade off when I *have* to have the squad leader Target a specific enemy, and I still need the other unit(s) to keep moving forward.  Perhaps if "Advance" had sub-orders a la Engage (Advance>Target), this would not be an issue.

Anyway, thanks again for listening. 

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: sandman2575
I use "Advance" as a default 'move' order now, but the inability to give a specific target to units with Advance (as you can in "Engage>Target") is definitely a handicap.

Units with Advance or Defend orders can have a specific target in the Reaction Phase but you must use the 40:40 turn.

[sandman2575]

ORIGINAL: JMass

Units with Advance or Defend orders can have a specific target in the Reaction Phase but you must use the 40:40 turn.

Yes, that's right, and it is definitely useful that they do. But it does bug me that if you give your squad leader an "Advance" order in 1st phase, none of the other units in that squad can be given a specific target *until* 2nd phase. i feel like it happens a lot, actually, where i want squad leader, and perhaps most of the other squad units, to "Advance," but there's one unit in the squad that is being yellow-band targeted by an enemy, and you cannot specifically 'target back' using Advance until phase 2. You have to hope the unit will be smart enough to auto-target the shooting enemy, which for the most part it is, but i've certainly had instances where my unit will auto-target a closer enemy, say an infantry squad, instead of an enemy tank in the far distance which is the bigger threat (and which is firing at *it* -- bad choice, auto-target!)

I just hate giving units Engage>Move now *knowing* that's 40 seconds until they will have an opportunity to do any shooting back. And on 60 second turns, Engage>Move is almost un-useable unless you are certain there are no enemies nearby.

[Mad Russian]

You may find some play tips for your own gaming in the currently running Elephant Hunt Interactive DAR.

tm.asp?m=3009751

The DAR allows for you, the forum members, to give me the general orders to engage a German force at Kursk. Then for me to implement those orders to the best of my ability.

Good Hunting.

MR

[major.pain]

Are there any plans to revise the behavior of a tank not returning fire while on a move order? Maybe link it to what SOP the units have, an Aggressive SOP will fire on any targets of oportunity or return fire while still moving and also when the move has been completed and any enemy come into view on the current phase without just sitting it out until the next phase?
Would be great if it could be altered, maybe as an option [:)]

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: M J R

Are there any plans to revise the behavior of a tank not returning fire while on a move order? Maybe link it to what SOP the units have, an Aggressive SOP will fire on any targets of oportunity or return fire while still moving and also when the move has been completed and any enemy come into view on the current phase without just sitting it out until the next phase?
Would be great if it could be altered, maybe as an option [:)]

Currently units using an advance move will target and fire without waiting for the next phase. Also units withdrawing can also fire while withdrawing.

I think we may make some additional adjustments on how this is being handled for regular Engage-->Move order. I don't think it will be full freedom to fire if the tank is using it's full movment speed.

Thanks
Rick

[major.pain]

Thats good to hear Rick i will pick it up again if this gets altered, also could the function of the "H" key slightly and have it hold position/halt of just the sqaud/tank regardless of the current orders, not the whole formation, maybe "SHIFT+H" holds position of the whole formation instead. Its a fun game but these are the main two things that pissed me off and have kept me playing it much scince i purchased six months ago and having to select the formation leader to change orders for the formation, i know he is the head honcho and all, the man with the plan, but from a game point of view changing orders from anybody in the formation would save some needless faffing. Hey, no harm in asking right [:)]

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: M J R

Thats good to hear Rick i will pick it up again if this gets altered, also could the function of the "H" key slightly and have it hold position/halt of just the sqaud/tank regardless of the current orders, not the whole formation, maybe "SHIFT+H" holds position of the whole formation instead. Its a fun game but these are the main two things that pissed me off and have kept me playing it much scince i purchased six months ago and having to select the formation leader to change orders for the formation, i know he is the head honcho and all, the man with the plan, but from a game point of view changing orders from anybody in the formation would save some needless faffing. Hey, no harm in asking right [:)]

I don't have the game with me, but if I understand what you are describing above, that is how the orders work during the Reaction Phase, ie orders only affect the selected unit. Also, if you're platoon already has any Engage order (with sub order of Move, Hold, Target, etc.), changing the sub-order of the HQ unit won't affect the orders the other units in the platoon have.

Having said that though, I think in the next game in the series we would like to overhaul the orders system to make it work a little better.

(and nope, no harm in asking!).

Thanks!
Rick

[major.pain]

Right, if i select a squad from a platoon of three squads for example with all three squads of the platoon moving and i hit "H" the move orders for the whole platoon would be canceled in the orders phase. If i repeated this in the reaction phase only the selected sqaud in the platoon would cancel its movement. So i was asking that whenever the "H" key was pressed regaurdless of which phase i am currently in or which orders the platoon is currently under that only the selected squad would stop. Sometimes i find pressing "H" does nothing in certain circumstances and you have to select from the UI dropdown menu, i was hoping "H" could be used as a shortcut to halt a squad universely and "SHIFT+H" halt the platoon.