Operation Biwako, 1999 -- new beta for testing

[Mgellis]

A new beta for testing...this one is a kind of "push the envelope" experiment--it's almost all ground units.

The situation is that South Africa has sent a light regiment of ground forces (backed up by about a dozen aircraft) to eliminate the threat of heavily armed rebels in Lesotho (the back story here is that they've crossed the border and killed South Africans). I even tried to use no-navigation zones to mark out a major river in the area, which creates two tactical bottlenecks where there are bridges--as far as I can tell, there is no other way for anything like a tank to get across except at those two points.

I'm honestly not sure how good this is. I've got, I think, all the events, victory conditions, etc. set up. I also put in a lot of "noise"--civilian traffic, etc. I'm very interested to find out what people think, both about the scenario itself and about what the scenario says about how well Command currently handles ground combat scenarios.

I look forward to your feedback. Thanks!

[djoos5]

Hey MGellis,

I put a no nav zone in my scenario, Cauldron, too, to signify a river. I was trying to work out an idea where frontal aviation could knock out a bridge and thus close a passage through the no nav. I am wondering if the Lua code will allow a no nav zone to activate if a unit is destroyed (i.e. a bridge).

[batek688]

Did you establish the formations or are they just random? Some platoons show a 400m front while others are stacked on top of each other; however, the formations "seem" semi-structured (but that could be the AI). That was for Bravo. Alpha is string out in a line with the AAA up front =)

This setup is a mesh of two direct actions. I wonder how the engine would support a "spread formation" that butts up against an exclusion zone? That would allow the use of the areas (or narrow exclusion zones as phase lines).

I'm playing it now, so will post again once I see how the action plays out.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: batek688

Did you establish the formations or are they just random? Some platoons show a 400m front while others are stacked on top of each other; however, the formations "seem" semi-structured (but that could be the AI). That was for Bravo. Alpha is string out in a line with the AAA up front =)

The South African formations were actually set up with a lead and other units supposedly relative to the lead. I'm not sure how well they hold together, pay attention to where they are "supposed" to be, etc. That, I fear, is a game engine issue that may never get solved. I suspect that sometimes they are trying to get where they are supposed to be but have slowed down or just gotten confused because of some slope issue, obstacle, etc.

[batek688]

The formations were all over the map. It may be due to the entire formation trying to move at 24 kts. The result was "interesting" with the trucks up front, followed by the air defense, followed by the combat elements. I just let it run and watched my force get wiped out rather quickly.

I suspect it is the limitation that I was trying to explain which is a big difference between land warfare and sea/air. The units were stomping all over each other especially if you targeted the group and "F1" a target. It's like Black Friday at Walmart as they all try to occupy the same territory to get within weapon range.

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: batek688

The formations were all over the map. It may be due to the entire formation trying to move at 24 kts. The result was "interesting" with the trucks up front, followed by the air defense, followed by the combat elements. I just let it run and watched my force get wiped out rather quickly.

I suspect it is the limitation that I was trying to explain which is a big difference between land warfare and sea/air. The units were stomping all over each other especially if you targeted the group and "F1" a target. It's like Black Friday at Walmart as they all try to occupy the same territory to get within weapon range.

This may be one of the limits of the current version of Command. Of course, this is not really a criticism. As I understand it, complex formations of mobile ground units, in combat with similar large formations of mobile ground units, is not something the game was really designed to handle.

What I think it can handle well are:

* Fixed ground units

* Individual mobile ground units controlled by the computer if they are on a pre-set mission (e.g., "patrol this area and shoot at any hostiles") or simply meant to move randomly (e.g., civilian ground traffic).

* Individual mobile ground units (or MAYBE small groups) of mobile ground units controlled by the player

This scenario, of course, has two battalion-sized formations with 14 and 15 components and that was part of what I was testing. My conclusion is that, currently, keeping formations like this working properly seems to be beyond the AI's capabilities.

Of course, one could simply dissolve the groups and micro-manage the individual ground units, second by second, putting them back on course, slowing them down as necessary, etc. But with 30 of them, that might be a bit much for the player to handle, unless they were running the scenario at real time, and then it might get a bit dull.

Any other observations, experiences, etc. with this one?

[mikmykWS]

Ok first and foremost we haven't added one bit of land unit formation logic yet but will add this to our list as maybe it really isn't that big of a deal.

In the mean time you can pull it off using singles in the game with a bit of effort. I've uploaded a couple of examples using 2 and 4 point patrols. Feel free to play around with the different settings but it should prevent them from floating around a single point. Keep in mind with LUA add and remove missions (mission chaining) you could actually model stops and go's etc.

Thanks guys

[batek688]

Thanks Mikmyk,

I posted in the main forum rather than here, but I think it's two problems really. One is maneuver and the second is behavior in contact. LUA may provide the maneuver solution (or maybe the unit size idea I posted in the other forum); however, contact may be a different story! It may actually be a better option to create larger units in the database so that it is treated as "one blob" by the engine rather than micromanaging. Something like "USAR Task Force" where you then add weapon systems to it ala '16 M-1, 30 M-2, 4 M-3, 4 ITV.' I haven't tried to do it yet, maybe later.

IMO, this is why Command should remain Sea/Air and push land to a different instance and theater level to a higher level still (ala WITP:AE). When commanding the theater level it would be sort of masochistic to be plotting waypoints by platoon. You might have the odd scout platoon ala a single ship/sub, but most of the time I would expect battalion/task force sized formations equivalent to a CVBG or SAG.

Bill

[Mgellis]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

In the mean time you can pull it off using singles in the game with a bit of effort. I've uploaded a couple of examples using 2 and 4 point patrols. Feel free to play around with the different settings but it should prevent them from floating around a single point. Keep in mind with LUA add and remove missions (mission chaining) you could actually model stops and go's etc.

I like it. The technique appears to be to create reference points for each unit rather than for the group. I think this is what confuses people because you figure that since the units form a larger formation (e.g., a battalion) that they should be set up as a group with a formation and then the entire group is assigned to a single mission. But if an entire group of ground units with a formation is moving from one point to another, the positions of every unit within the group have to be reorganized each time the group changes direction, etc. On the other hand, if you tell each unit where to go at each phase of the move, the group should actually end up in position with the formation more or less intact.

You can also set up columns that stay pretty intact by charting a course for each unit in the same way. Each course will simply overlap the others so that the units in the column follow each other and do so in a certain order.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: batek688

Thanks Mikmyk,

I posted in the main forum rather than here, but I think it's two problems really. One is maneuver and the second is behavior in contact. LUA may provide the maneuver solution (or maybe the unit size idea I posted in the other forum); however, contact may be a different story! It may actually be a better option to create larger units in the database so that it is treated as "one blob" by the engine rather than micromanaging. Something like "USAR Task Force" where you then add weapon systems to it ala '16 M-1, 30 M-2, 4 M-3, 4 ITV.' I haven't tried to do it yet, maybe later.

IMO, this is why Command should remain Sea/Air and push land to a different instance and theater level to a higher level still (ala WITP:AE). When commanding the theater level it would be sort of masochistic to be plotting waypoints by platoon. You might have the odd scout platoon ala a single ship/sub, but most of the time I would expect battalion/task force sized formations equivalent to a CVBG or SAG.

Bill

Thanks Bill see there for my response

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

In the mean time you can pull it off using singles in the game with a bit of effort. I've uploaded a couple of examples using 2 and 4 point patrols. Feel free to play around with the different settings but it should prevent them from floating around a single point. Keep in mind with LUA add and remove missions (mission chaining) you could actually model stops and go's etc.

I like it. The technique appears to be to create reference points for each unit rather than for the group. I think this is what confuses people because you figure that since the units form a larger formation (e.g., a battalion) that they should be set up as a group with a formation and then the entire group is assigned to a single mission. But if an entire group of ground units with a formation is moving from one point to another, the positions of every unit within the group have to be reorganized each time the group changes direction, etc. On the other hand, if you tell each unit where to go at each phase of the move, the group should actually end up in position with the formation more or less intact.

You can also set up columns that stay pretty intact by charting a course for each unit in the same way. Each course will simply overlap the others so that the units in the column follow each other and do so in a certain order.

Glad to help Mark. BTW Mr. Baloogan got adding imports into LUA today so another + for the builders[:'(]

[Dimitris]

Is this ready for release?

[Mgellis]

No. I never posted a finished version. But I'm going to go back and take another look at it.