First impression

[dazkaz15]

confirmation of change of orders

[dazkaz15]

starts to slip then abort

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

Alright...so...I just picked up the game after seeing some of the tutorial videos.

The concept of actually COMMANDING and not micromanaging was very appealing. Being a military guy, I felt like it was a realistic and appealing concept. Being a gamer, I knew that there would be some issues with AI being able to develop and execute orders.

First off...I've played the tutorial mission a dozen times, strictly following guidance from the tutorial videos. I have yet to come close to a victory - which is TOTALLY FINE. It's going to take some time. Just like Unity of Command took me a dozen or so crushing defeats before I could grasp some of the realistic aspects of the game.

Here's my biggest issue with this game:

Its title, and main marketing concept appears to be: COMMAND UNITS - NOT MICROMANAGE. Maybe I'm wrong, but this was my perception. Even the initial tutorial videos boasted a 'powerful AI' and lack of micromanagement. However, when I give my battalions order to attack, they will send in units piece-meal and usually get slaughtered.

I know that I can set all kinds of parameters for the Battalion to use in it's attack....but again, that's painful micromanagement. For example: Why can't the "powerful AI" determine that it needs to attack with 3 companies abreast, instead of sending them in column formation, piecemeal? Or, why can't my AI Battalion coordinate its own attacking companies? The powerful AI can't do its own terrain and/or enemy assessment? what is so powerful about the AI? It's certainly not tactical..

Even if I synchronize my Battalion attack plans, the AI will still develop terrible Company-level concepts....so...now I get to micromanage...not fun. Especially not fun when you hit Day 3 on the tutorial and you have 4 or 5 battalions to command. That's approximately four CO's per BN, so 20 or so Companies that you have to closely watch and manage, because the AI cannot do it, and they will get slaughtered if you don't.

Not fun, and I'd go as far to say that this game is painful to play. Add to the fact that it is not a very pretty game, and is mostly boring to watch.


Edit - Tactically speaking, the tutorial videos were on point. Whomever made them is smart on their tactics, and the concepts of time-distance analysis are crucial in real-life operations. It would be nice, however, if the AI actually followed some sort of tactical guidelines. For example, during offensive operations both American and Soviet doctrine recommends organizing forces into three elements - Support/Fix, Breach/Assault, Assault/Exploit. It would be nice if the AI was able to recognize this, and plan accordingly.

In my first venture (Conquest of the Aegean), I thought I bought a book end for my easier-played games, but I stuck with it.

Tried to command at a high level (attack with a division) and got poor results.

Switched to Brigade / Regiment, and got less poor, but still disappointing results.

Then I decided to read the manual and then work through the tutorial [:)]

Yes, the "AI" wouldn't manipulate subordinate units the way I wanted, but then, I was fighting an AI which defeated me, kind of indicating I wasn't doing something right to break the defense or the AI which failed me would do a lot better if I simply switched sides.

Was a problem until I learned how to form task groups, and assign them to the doctrine I understood.

Wasn't always successful, but the averages trended in my favor because I could use task groups to pay attention to tactical goals, terrain, combat power, and assembling that combat power at the decisive point to win skirmishes, and ultimately battles.

As with any software dependent simulation, there are glitches.

But, once I got past assumptions of how things would work if I wrote the software, those glitches diminished to the point where the game became playable and enjoyable in understanding military tactics and their effects on a battle and the real glitches were a sideshow on nuances of the battle instead of the determining factor in success or failure.

Hope this helps.

[MikeAP]

dazkaz15,

I'm also finding that you can only set FORMATION / SPEED / ROUTE once during a movement path.

Taking a look at the tutorial mission. I want 318 IN to move through the woods to reach their FUP at the edge of the woodline. Once at the edge, they will launch their attack at 0630 (using ASSAULT AT: 630). During the assault I want them to move in a BN "Arrowhead" (it's called a WEDGE in real life) using the shortest route.

Is this possible?

[dazkaz15]

During the assault, the assaulting line units will advance via the shortest route only. They will use the formation you set during the assault stage if they have room. I.e. if the terrain allows.
In your situation here there should be no problem with that, until you get to the bridge. You might want to try successive lines for the attack across the bridge, but best not to adjust this duing the assault. Practice and see what works best for you.

During the move to the FUP they will use the route you specify.

This close the enemy you will probably get best results with,safest. With this setting they will use the cover of the woods if they think its necessary, and avoid any known enemy contacts.

The assault at function is very problematic at the moment, and I think its bugged. For instance what I would like to do, and have tried this recently is to set a time well in advance in the assault at box for several Bn HQ attacks. This would stop the constantly having to re adjust the timings as one of them starts to slip, which they almost always do as its very hard to judge what time to set it to.
What I would then do is wait for all the Bn HQ to get into position , and finish their re-org then uncheck the assault at box for all of them so they go to auto. This would be like an assault at my command, and as the Bn commanders report in by runner or radio that they are in position to regimental HQ the regimental commander will say "GO". This should send them all in on the assault at the same time, and to start with it works great....but then after the command delay time has finished once you do this, the assault is abandoned or falls apart . In fact any tinkering with the assault at time, or any of the other timings after you have set your initial assault order, will cause the assault to fail. I'm not sure this is working as it should as I never remember it being a problem in the old version.

Anyway back to your assault.
Don't bother with the assault at time. Especially not for 0630. That's nowhere near enough time to get all the men formed up on the start line in the dark, and snow.
Let them go in on Auto Assault time. I think you may have your FUP to close to the enemy as well.
Dave put in some code that prevents the Bn HQ, well all HQ actually from getting to within 1000m of the enemy, which he is in the process of changing to 500m, but this might only effect them on route to the Objective Re-org not the FUP re-org. I'm not sure.

Anyway if you want them to come through the woods, why not set the FUP behind the woods? I think it's a better place for it anyway, and gives them more room to manoeuvre during the forming up stage.

So my advice is forget about assault at for now. If you want to set a preliminary bombardment, and need to know what time to set it wait until the HQ has developed its plan then hold down Ctrl key and press down arrow repeatedly. This will cycle through its orders. The time you will be looking for is the end of the re-org or the start of the assault stage. This is the best time to set your preliminary bombardment for.

It's always good to have a suppressed enemy when you first come into contact with them [;)]

Some of the enemy positions you see at the start of a scenario are only a rough estimate of where they are though. Bare this in mind [;)]

I'm no expert on this game however, in fact Im quite new to it, and if others know different, please say so.

[Arjuna]

Mike,

Thanks for that screen shot. It tells me all I need to know why you got the aborted report. The key bit of data is the end time you have set. No WW2 foot Bn is ever going to be able to mount an attack in one hour. If you leave the timings unspecified it will endeavour to mount the attack asap. It will slip and adjust timings as required. However, if you start setting the times then the AI presumes you know what you are doing. It won't second guess you but if your orders cannot be achieved then it will abandon and advise you. This it did in this case.

I have to do something else right now but I will be back to explain how best to manage timings for an attack.

[Emx77]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

I have to do something else right now but I will be back to explain how best to manage timings for an attack.

That would be great. I'm also having a lot of trouble with attacks coordination.

[Arjuna]

Mike,

The following screen shots describe how to set the timings for an attack. The first shot shows the default timings. Note that the attack will end at the end of the scenario. It will end well before then but this assures there is enough slack to allow slippage if its needed.

[Arjuna]

In this next shot I have set the Assault At time. This specified when the Assault should start. An Attack normally comprises a Move to the FUP, a Reorg at the FUP, an Assault to the objective and a Final Reorg at the objective. Note I have not specified an end time. I have left it at the default to guarantee the mission will have enough slack for any slippage.

In determining the Assault At time I have estimated that it will need 42 minutes for the orders delay. I got that by selecting the HQ and then selecting the Cmd tab view on the side bar and referring to its Force Delay value. I have estimated that the Move should take around 15 minutes to cover the 500m or so to the FUP ( ave eff foot rate of 2kph ). I have allowed 20 minutes for the reorg and a contingency allowance of 13 minutes making a total of an hour and a half. That may be tight. A lot will depend on whether they meet with any opposition.

[Arjuna]

Well as I suspected they did more time to reach the FUP. The lead element was receiving enemy mortar fire for a period and that probably delayed them. Note that the AI has automatically slipped the attack. It was able to do so because there was slack in the duration because the end time was not set.

[Arjuna]

Here I have selected the Assault plan task icon. It is located at the objective. To select it, just click once on the attack icon, which is normally displayed on top and then another time to see the assault task. It has a grey background rather than the white background for your order. Note that its times have been slipped also confirming the slippage within the attack. All is good and the assault is proceeding.

[BletchleyGeek]

Dave,

I'm going to copy your description in a thread in the War Room, so it's easy to find and refer to.

[wodin]

Thanks Dave that will be a help for everyone.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Dave,

I'm going to copy your description in a thread in the War Room, so it's easy to find and refer to.

Yeh go for it Miquel. BTW how do you copy individual messages out of one thread and into another. I can move a whole thread with the Management options.

[MikeAP]

But how do I set different Formations / Speeds / Routes within a plan with multiple waypoints?

Whenever I change one of those parameters for one waypoint, the entire plan defaults to that setting. So, if I just want my BN move in a column formation through the woods, but I want them to attack in a Wedge...it is not possible?


I understand the timing now, but just for clarity...I didn't set the 0700 end time. That was automatically set by the computer. I would recommend that you add an "until complete" option. Manually entering the scenario end time is...weird..?

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Dave
I'm going to copy your description in a thread in the War Room, so it's easy to find and refer to.

Yeh go for it Miquel. BTW how do you copy individual messages out of one thread and into another. I can move a whole thread with the Management options.

Good ole cut & paste

Copying the text and pasting on the other posts. For the images I just used the URLs that Matrix forum software assigns to pictures embedded in posts.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: MikeAP
But how do I set different Formations / Speeds / Routes within a plan with multiple waypoints?

Whenever I change one of those parameters for one waypoint, the entire plan defaults to that setting. So, if I just want my BN move in a column formation through the woods, but I want them to attack in a Wedge...it is not possible?

Aggro, route specs and formation are global for the whole plan. A plan in Command Ops can be either one single Task (Move, Defend, Attack, Probe) or a sequence of Tasks (say, Move-Move-Move-Attack). Being able to specify task settings for individual tasks in a plan is a feature several people have been requesting, and Dave has acknowledged that as something that may be added sooner or later.

In the particular case you mention (march through a covered route all the way to the FUP and then launch and attack), the formation you specify will be adopted when launching the attack. The AI will have your units adopt a road column march formation (with and advanced and rear guard, mind you) for you.

I sincerely hope you're appreciating a bit better what you have in your hands and also enjoying it more. Rather than having an operation to play as a set of very coarse-grained and abstracted events (such as battles and movement in UoC), you can see the processes unfolding in front of you, and the action comes in small, realistic events generated by high-fidelity models of the terrain and the forces in the scenario. Compared with many other wargames portraying things at a similar scale and with similar level of detail, the level of micro-management is very, very low.

EDIT: Used the word "plan" to refer to sequences of tasks.

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
I sincerely hope you're appreciating a bit better what you have in your hands and also enjoying it more. Rather than having an operation to play as a set of very coarse-grained and abstracted events (such as battles and movement in UoC), you can see the processes unfolding in front of you, and the action comes in small, realistic events generated by high-fidelity models of the terrain and the forces in the scenario. Compared with many other wargames portraying things at a similar scale and with similar level of detail, the level of micro-management is very, very low.

I'm playing with Company visibility turned off, so I only see BN HQs. I get the feeling that the company icons that I see running all over the place are just abstract and are not actual representations of what the units are doing....that's what I'm going to tell myself. Instead, I'm going to look the other way and pay closer attention to the engagement and routing status at the BN level. I was able to get a decisive victory on the tutorial mission as well as Joe's Bridge. During those victories I tried not to stress about where the Company icons where located, and just that the tasks were being accomplished and that each objective was mutually supported by multiple battalions and executed correctly.

At this point, if I can win firefights and seize objectives then I guess I'm doing something right.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

I'm playing with Company visibility turned off, so I only see BN HQs. I get the feeling that the company icons that I see running all over the place are just abstract and are not actual representations of what the units are doing....that's what I'm going to tell myself. Instead, I'm going to look the other way and pay closer attention to the engagement and routing status at the BN level. I was able to get a decisive victory on the tutorial mission as well as Joe's Bridge. During those victories I tried not to stress about where the Company icons where located, and just that the tasks were being accomplished and that each objective was mutually supported by multiple battalions and executed correctly.

At this point, if I can win firefights and seize objectives then I guess I'm doing something right.

Yes you are Mike. However, the company icons are not abstract. They are actual representations. But whatever works for you is fine.

Please note that at the moment the engine only allows you the human player to assign one order to a force. Waypoints allow you to specify where the route shall go in a rough manner. The order settings ( formation etc ) apply to all waypoints for that task. What I believe you are asking for is what we refer to as sequential tasking. The AI already handles sequential tasking but there is no user interface for it. The latter would allow the user to assign multiple orders to a force that are conducted in sequence. Then you would be able to issue say three different Move orders each with different formation settings.

That sequential tasking feature is very high on our wish list at the moment, but where not there yet. Before we do that we want to add multiple AI threads to improve the performance and allow us to model a larger operational area with more units. We need this for our next expansion pack - Knock on All Doors - and for another more tactical game called Legends of the Blitzkreig. In this game we want to be able to model more realistic mounted operations - ie have a carrier and foot components to a mech inf company.

But once they are out of the way we will look at sequential tasking. This does involve other supporting features to make it work. These include triggers for starting/ending tasks and planning graphics. But that's another story.

[wodin]

No coy icons!!! WOW. Not sure how you can play like that..still. Not sure I've ever seen coy run all over the place. I have a feeling you still don't understand the game. Hopefully it will click. Your def expecting something it isn't or not used to a realistic game like this that doesn't use hexes and therefore can at times be more chaotic. Since the formation overhaul coys behave very well indeed and in a organised realistic manner. Try and remember that it's not1:1 time either..so it may seem some move quick.

As the Btn are so far back from the attack..how do you know whats happening on the battlefield?