Chain of Command - best way to simulate it?

[RFalvo69]

I’m returning to Armored Brigade after a few years. Nice to see that it is still an impressing game. My problem, however, is how to simulate the chain of command in a realistic manner.

Let’s say that I’m creating a scenario with a US tank company. I basically have two choices:

- Buy a tank company and drop it on the map, no questions asked.

- Buy a tank HQ and four tank platoons. This gives me the inherent flexibility of Western armies. I could even but two tank platoons and a mechanized one, or any other kind of mix-and-match deemed the best for the contingent simulation.

While the second solution does seem to be the best, what about order delays? Would be better to buy a tank company and then break off the various platoons so that they have the kind of mobility and independence expected by a flexible defense?

I know that I can just create some scenarios and experiment, but if someone knows better than me the innards of the game, any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks!

[Perturabo]

My problem, however, is how to simulate the chain of command in a realistic manner.

You can't do it in Armored Brigade.

When it comes to units, Tank company still needs a tank HQ.
IMO buying whole company makes sense if you're playing a regiment, otherwise platoons are best way to go, since a company is still a collection of squads, not a collection of platoons.

[kevinkins]

The chain of command end at the company level. Higher levels would be nice. However, company HQs do enrich the game with tactical considerations - from the manual:

In general, the headquarters (HQ) units represent company HQs. They reduce the friendly unit command
delay and improve morale inside the HQ radius circle. HQ units can act as artillery and mortar spotters and can call on-map helicopters for help. The HQ capability is not functional if the unit is retreating. The command delay is the time it takes for the order to travel from the player to the unit in question. It is affected by the faction attribute and the HQ contact state. When commanding individual units the command delay is usually longer, compared to commanding formations. In real life a Cold War commander would probably have had just a map and radio, but since in the game the player has the luxury of seeing all the action everywhere in realtime, artificial means of creating friction are needed. The command delay
prevents the player from having the maximum benefit from micromanaging everything, and most of the time the AI opponent controls full formations, not individual units. The best way for a HQ unit to communicate with another unit inside its command radius is by radios. Otherwise, they need to be un-buttoned and see each other to communicate. Two units in a same formation can share information and thus reduce the command delay. They need to be un-buttoned and within 150 meter distance from each other so they can communicate via voice, or up to 300 meters to communicate using visual signals if they see each other. The ‘player character’ unit is not subject to command delay.

[Perturabo]

and most of the time the AI opponent controls full formations, not individual units.

Interesting. It suggests that there are times when AI opponents does control individual units.

[kevinkins]

and most of the time the AI opponent controls full formations, not individual units.

Interesting. It suggests that there are times when AI opponents does control individual units.

This might refer to individual AI units firing at the player when there is LOS. So more about firing than moving. Although "broken" infantry do retreat individually.

[Veitikka]

and most of the time the AI opponent controls full formations, not individual units.

Interesting. It suggests that there are times when AI opponents does control individual units.

For example when a mechanized infantry unit has lost its transport.

[Perturabo]

and most of the time the AI opponent controls full formations, not individual units.

Interesting. It suggests that there are times when AI opponents does control individual units.

For example when a mechanized infantry unit has lost its transport.

So it's only when formations fall apart? Or does the AI ever detach units intentionally?