can I increase command load?

[Phoenix100]

Thanks Daz. But are you certain that setting the higher HQ(s) to defend in situ with auto facing means that they will leave the company facings alone? I think Springel reported that they changed to odd directions when he didn't select a facing for the higher HQs. Selecting 'auto' gets the desired result?

Myself I am quite happy - and have now successfully done this - to change the on-map boss load to way above what I would need, allowing me, should I wish, to micromanage at will, on the basis that each time I give orders at a very low level I'm dropping out of the 'purity' of pretending to command at a top level (it's never like that anyway in the game, is it? most people end up commanding at Bn level, if we're honest) and I actually don the captain or colonel's hat for a bit, the justification for that being that the AI isn't that refined just yet that it can do it as competently as I would wish (in order to get even near RL). So why be penalised? The command load exists, it seems to me, to try to simulate the clogging that would result if the on-map boss were actually himself (or herself) giving all these individual orders. Fair enough. But I'm not doing that. It's not Monty telling A company to face west (obviously....), it's the bloke (captain, would it be?) in charge of A company.

It's all still no substitute for a button that allows you specifically to preserve the set facings when you give a defend in situ order.

[dazkaz15]

No, it will not keep the facing you set to individual Coy's.

They will face what ever way they see fit. That's what auto facing is.
They change facing to where they think the threat will come from.

I agree this is not very often the way as commander that I would want them to face, but then not all the AI Commanders are very tactically aware [:'(]

Although this is not ideal it is the lesser of two evils; Command load V Bad Facing.
I know which one I would give preference too.

[dazkaz15]

To be honest I think the Command load idea and mechanics are very good.

Its like a penalty to encourage the player to allow the friendly AI commanders, that also have their own traits; Leadership, Aggressiveness etc. some responsibility, but still allows the player to manage the critical, "centre of gravity" of the battle with individual Coy orders if necessary.
Resting, and non critical movement, defence, and rear echelon duties, can all be left to the AI commanders, grouped under Bn, and above HQ's, but still be left with enough command load to micro important actions, down to Coy level.

Most of the scenarios I have played so far seem to have this balance perfect in my opinion.
With the use of the technique I outlined in my Hofen AAR, I have never found command load to be to much of a problem, in my micro managed games, as I usualy only micro where it matters, at the center of gravity.

I must admit though that one of the times I have been severely over command load is when trying to manoeuvre newly arriving Para drops into position in the "From the Meuse to the Rhine".
This is partly because the scenario is HUGE, and partly because I try to take advantage of the no command delay for moving the newly arriving units, but doing so puts load onto the on map boss, that causes increased delay for the units already on the map [:'(]

[Phoenix100]

I think it's great too. I'd prefer not to have to micro-manage to the extent I do in this big HTTR scenario, Daz. But so many of the defaults that the AI will use are not useful, I think, when the scenario is this big. The size of your Bn defensive perimeters is the one I've been talking about. If you're going to play the scenario more or less historically and try to cover all the bases they tried to cover then you will end up very quickly with a command load over 30. You will place many units individually, breaking up the default Bn widest footprint size to desperately try to block entry points to your rear, your DZs, your supply areas. You will definitely NOT want to click on Regimental or Divisional HQs from XXX Corps arriving at map bottom and give them huge Move orders in order to keep your command load low, because that just leads to massive, slow traffic jams. Instead you need to select Bns and move them through many different, available routings to get them across the map quicker. These two facets alone will overload your boss in a way that doesn't reflect anything that would impact in RL. If there was a button which said 'preserve facings and positions' and a button which said 'split column at Bn level to make use of fastest routes' for example, then you wouldn't need to invent. It's a superb game, with superb AI - nothing even close to it out there, as I keep saying - but it goes as far as it goes, and hence we end up looking for workarounds. I've decided that the command load limits in these huge scenarios don't allow me to mimic as much 'reality' as if I extend them a bit. It's an artificial thing - the command load implementation - and I think it's a matter of getting a balance. The game defaults, in the estabs, are fine for slightly smaller scenarios, but the limit should go up for huge scenarios, I think.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

To be honest I think the Command load idea and mechanics are very good.

Its like a penalty to encourage the player to allow the friendly AI commanders, that also have their own traits; Leadership, Aggressiveness etc. some responsibility, but still allows the player to manage the critical, "centre of gravity" of the battle with individual Coy orders if necessary.
Resting, and non critical movement, defence, and rear echelon duties, can all be left to the AI commanders, grouped under Bn, and above HQ's, but still be left with enough command load to micro important actions, down to Coy level.

Most of the scenarios I have played so far seem to have this balance perfect in my opinion.
With the use of the technique I outlined in my Hofen AAR, I have never found command load to be to much of a problem, in my micro managed games, as I usualy only micro where it matters, at the center of gravity.

I must admit though that one of the times I have been severely over command load is when trying to manoeuvre newly arriving Para drops into position in the "From the Meuse to the Rhine".
This is partly because the scenario is HUGE, and partly because I try to take advantage of the no command delay for moving the newly arriving units, but doing so puts load onto the on map boss, that causes increased delay for the units already on the map [:'(]

That's all true, except the AI decision logic which apparently requires human micromanagement is the same decision logic the enemy uses to get an upper hand during the battle.

There's no way that one is deficient and the other isn't.

[Phoenix100]

Lol. That's very true, Jim. I'd forgotten entirely that the poor Axis must be having to cope with fragmentation in a much worse way. Very true. I wonder what it does? Maybe that'swhy it seems so passive - because the only way it can keep its command load manageable is by grouping units together and doing nothing.....

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Lol. That's very true, Jim. I'd forgotten entirely that the poor Axis must be having to cope with fragmentation in a much worse way. Very true. I wonder what it does? Maybe that'swhy it seems so passive - because the only way it can keep its command load manageable is by grouping units together and doing nothing.....

Pretty much how they defeated the allies -- attrition at the choke points along a difficult to control route to the Rhine while organizing depleted units between Nijmegen and the Arnhem Rhine crossing for a strong defense.

Montgomery counted on them being in such disarray from their defeat in France and their swift retreat that they couldn't react quickly enough to his surprise before being overwhelmed with forces crossing the Rhine.

Axis reinforcements represent the recall of units which had been moved by train into Germany for a short rest and redeployment to the Eastern Front when the High Command realized the Ruhr was in jeopardy from a route crossing at Arnhem.