Quick questions

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: springel

Another quick question

I want to set up a regimental defence line, but when I give the regimental headquarters a defence order in line formation, its maximum width is much smaller (900m) than that either of the constituting battalions (2000m).

Shouldn't I be able to order a regimental defence line of at least 4000m (actually I need 3000m)?

Use the formation frontage and depth controls on the sidebar to control the width of a defensive formation (pg. 61 of the game manual).

Clicking on frontage allows you to toggle the formation's width up to a point where the AI calculates the number(s) of subordinate units and troops in those are no longer capable of defending as a single formation. Reducing the depth allows for a more dense line at the front.

[springel]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

ORIGINAL: springel

Another quick question

I want to set up a regimental defence line, but when I give the regimental headquarters a defence order in line formation, its maximum width is much smaller (900m) than that either of the constituting battalions (2000m).

Shouldn't I be able to order a regimental defence line of at least 4000m (actually I need 3000m)?

Use the formation frontage and depth controls on the sidebar to control the width of a defensive formation (pg. 61 of the game manual).

Clicking on frontage allows you to toggle the formation's width up to a point where the AI calculates the number(s) of subordinate units and troops in those are no longer capable of defending as a single formation. Reducing the depth allows for a more dense line at the front.

Yes, that is what I have been doing, but the Regiment allows a smaller footprint than its constituting battalions on their own. The whole regiment cannot have a wider front than 900m, while each of its battalions can cover up to 2000m (even more with a few attachments that belonged to the regiment).

[Fred Sanford]

Did you just recently reattach the bns to the regt HQ before you gave the defend order that only allowed 900m? The max frontage is calculated based on the attached units, after the HQ develops its plan. Once the HQ does a replan and "knows" about the attached bns, then you can give it a wider frontage, BUT I believe that triggers another replan, which is weird IMO.

[springel]

ORIGINAL: Fred Sanford

Did you just recently reattach the bns to the regt HQ before you gave the defend order that only allowed 900m? The max frontage is calculated based on the attached units, after the HQ develops its plan. Once the HQ does a replan and "knows" about the attached bns, then you can give it a wider frontage, BUT I believe that triggers another replan, which is weird IMO.

Ah, after I experimented a bit with the situation from start - it was all at the start of the Veve scenario - I think I know what happened, my fault. I didn't actually reattach the battalions, I just deleted their orders, thinking I was undoing everything that way. Sorry for the false alarm.

[springel]

Another quick question:

I am currently starting to play the Greek scenario at the Olympus, and at start the Allied front line forces are entrenched but their facing is weird, ie. sidewards, not towards the front.

I don't want to give up their entrenchments, so is there any alternative to giving a defence in place order? Or is there a possibility to give them another order so they adjust their facing, but keep using their entrenchments?


EDIT: OK, asking a question can be the road to answering it yourself [;)]
So it appears it is possible to give a defend in situ command with a facing, and all companies will assume the new facing without losing their entrenchment status.

[Phoenix100]

You sure they don't lose their entrenched status if you change the facing? Note that if you give a group a facing then all the elements in the group will adopt the facing of the HQ in the group (which might mean a change to their facing, depending on their position relative to the HQ and their original facing)). Dave has said recently that this will be looked at for CO2. But as for the facings (especially in the old COTA and HTTR games) being pretty poor on scenario start, this was something subject to a fix a bit back - so things are meant to be better now. They used to face all sorts of ways (like, directly away from the obvious direction of attack) and you had to lose the dug-in/entrenched status to correct it, but I think it's better now, not quite so bad. But I still thought that if you tampered with it (did anything other than give a defend in situ order without touching the facing setting) then you lost the dug-in/entrenched status for a bit. I might be wrong. Maybe someone in the know could clarify. Or are you saying that you've experimented, Springel, and it is possible to change the facing setting in combination with a 'defend in-situ' order without a penalty to your dug-in/entrenched status?

Nice to see you aren't completely taken up with CMRT, anyway!! Though there doesn't seem to be many people in here at the moment. I think Dave is taking a little rest, by the way, or has a cold or something (he said something to that effect) which might account for why he hasn't answered many questions over the last couple of days.

[springel]

I did experiment. I gave one battalion a defend order, formation 'in situ' and facing East. Then I ran the game for a few minutes, looking at their activities. Nobody showed any other activity than being in position, but all the facing blocks jumped into the right direction. And all units showed still being entrenched.

I have just become in the mood for Command Ops, through all the talking about the patch, and the beautiful work of Daz, so although I played a bit around with CMRT, I preferred spending a night with the Veve scenario. Where I was unpleasantly outflanked by the German AI and had to describe it as a disaster, just a short while after I was so satisfied with the fighting at the pass.... [X(]

[Phoenix100]

The AI is certainly the beauty in this game. And its bane. A continual process of fine tuning. I just started another thread about a slightly related facing issue which is completely messing with my fun in playing the really big HTTR scenario.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: springel

I did experiment. I gave one battalion a defend order, formation 'in situ' and facing East. Then I ran the game for a few minutes, looking at their activities. Nobody showed any other activity than being in position, but all the facing blocks jumped into the right direction. And all units showed still being entrenched.

I have just become in the mood for Command Ops, through all the talking about the patch, and the beautiful work of Daz, so although I played a bit around with CMRT, I preferred spending a night with the Veve scenario. Where I was unpleasantly outflanked by the German AI and had to describe it as a disaster, just a short while after I was so satisfied with the fighting at the pass.... [X(]

Since you like to micromanage, a defend "in situ" is most effective if the units are individually assigned appropriate over watch / defensive spots for the terrain, and then reattached to the higher HQ with a defend "in situ" command after reaching those spots.

I'm playing the All American over Nijmegen scenario, where the Nazis can attack the 508th Reg's flank along the Kranenberg-Nijmegen Highway via the bridges over the waterways paralleling the highway.

I assigned individual companies to secure critical crossings along the highway line, moved the BN HQ and remaining companies / mortar platoon to a central position amidst the secured crossings as a tactical reserve, reattached all to the companies to the HQ, and then issued a defend "in situ" order to the BN HQ.

It blocked any incursion on the move to Nijmegen center and the bridges by the remaining 508th Reg units and allowed freer movement of the remaining 82d regiments toward critical crossings for the XXXth Corps units arriving at a later time.

Basically, individual units are assigned defensive positions at mobility chokepoints and then ordered to defend "in situ" at those spots until AI enemy counter action dictates a change in tactics.