Moderators: ralphtricky, JAMiAM
ORIGINAL: Raindem
This would be good as long as we retain the ability to set the force track all at once. I shudder to think of having to do it one formation at a time.
ORIGINAL: freeboy
hello GD.. since I have not used the editr, forgive if this is an ignorant off the wall ?.. could you use an event trigger to simulate some of the above.. ie shouck etc for larger groups?
Elmer should keep HQs and other support units away from the front. It also knows the difference between Infantry, Recon and Armor. Is this still happening?ORIGINAL: DabbsThese are issues good to keep in mind even when developing the OOB - The PO may look at the combat values of its individual units, it does not appear able to distinguish which of its units is a tank unit or a headquarters....so it has a distinct tendency to rush its HQ's into exposed positions when it has the chance - without protection. That tends to advocate reducing the movement allowance of the HQ grouping it with a few other appropriate units (artillery, air defense and some kind of infantry for protection or local reserve), and assigning that formation objectives 1-2 hexes behind the true front line units. Or, it may mean assigning the HQ icon to a front line unit.ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Nope. He's saying that given time, ELmer may evolve enough to be able to kick you from one side of the map to the other <g>
Right [;)]Just as long as Elmer doesn't become Hal...we should be safe. Right Dave?
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
...
Elmer should keep HQs and other support units away from the front. It also knows the difference between Infantry, Recon and Armor. Is this still happening?
...
Has the formation been given "Independent" orders?ORIGINAL: sstevens06
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
...
Elmer should keep HQs and other support units away from the front. It also knows the difference between Infantry, Recon and Armor. Is this still happening?
...
Interesting you should mention that: I have an Egyptian divisional HQ unit going rogue on me in a playtest of Suez Canal 1973 with the PO playing the Egyptian side. Not only does the PO place it in a rather exposed position - not on front lines but dangerously close - that position is NOWHERE NEAR its assigned objectives! I'll send you the pertinent files and a detailed report via email.
How close? It should come within range of the enemy units and wait there.ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff
While we are on the topic, how can I get the AI's artillery to actually take a position close to the front, rather than far in the rear?
Right, and that's exactly what it does -- except, artillery firepower apparently decreases with range, especially with extended range units, and so the result is that AI artillery sits out at such a far range that it minimizes its potential.ORIGINAL: ralphtrickHow close? It should come within range of the enemy units and wait there.
I need to investigate the whole ranged equipment thing more. Between extended range and the mixture of equipment with different range, it's cofusing.ORIGINAL: AdamRinkleff
Right, and that's exactly what it does -- except, artillery firepower apparently decreases with range, especially with extended range units, and so the result is that AI artillery sits out at such a far range that it minimizes its potential.ORIGINAL: ralphtrickHow close? It should come within range of the enemy units and wait there.
It looks like that formation is independent.ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Has the formation been given "Independent" orders?ORIGINAL: sstevens06
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
...
Elmer should keep HQs and other support units away from the front. It also knows the difference between Infantry, Recon and Armor. Is this still happening?
...
Interesting you should mention that: I have an Egyptian divisional HQ unit going rogue on me in a playtest of Suez Canal 1973 with the PO playing the Egyptian side. Not only does the PO place it in a rather exposed position - not on front lines but dangerously close - that position is NOWHERE NEAR its assigned objectives! I'll send you the pertinent files and a detailed report via email.
Your engineering units are having problems.ORIGINAL: sstevens06
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
...
Elmer should keep HQs and other support units away from the front. It also knows the difference between Infantry, Recon and Armor. Is this still happening?
...
Interesting you should mention that: I have an Egyptian divisional HQ unit going rogue on me in a playtest of Suez Canal 1973 with the PO playing the Egyptian side. Not only does the PO place it in a rather exposed position - not on front lines but dangerously close - that position is NOWHERE NEAR its assigned objectives! I'll send you the pertinent files and a detailed report via email.
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
It looks like that formation is independent.ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
Has the formation been given "Independent" orders?ORIGINAL: sstevens06
Interesting you should mention that: I have an Egyptian divisional HQ unit going rogue on me in a playtest of Suez Canal 1973 with the PO playing the Egyptian side. Not only does the PO place it in a rather exposed position - not on front lines but dangerously close - that position is NOWHERE NEAR its assigned objectives! I'll send you the pertinent files and a detailed report via email.
Indepenent orders are strange.
The intent is that the formation will be spread out and will use the objective track of up to three different formations. WHen the objective tracks are short, they will support 3, as the formations advance and take more territory the support will narrow until they are following only the objective track that matches the one defined for that formation the closest.
If you turn on polog, and possibly unitpolog in the ini file, you'll get more information than you want [;)]
Ralph
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
Your engineering units are having problems.ORIGINAL: sstevens06
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
...
Elmer should keep HQs and other support units away from the front. It also knows the difference between Infantry, Recon and Armor. Is this still happening?
...
Interesting you should mention that: I have an Egyptian divisional HQ unit going rogue on me in a playtest of Suez Canal 1973 with the PO playing the Egyptian side. Not only does the PO place it in a rather exposed position - not on front lines but dangerously close - that position is NOWHERE NEAR its assigned objectives! I'll send you the pertinent files and a detailed report via email.
To properly ford, you have two options.
1) For a normal scenario, you need to put one objective on one side, and the other objective on the other side that's enemy controlled. That's the normal approach for a standard advance in normal terrain.
2) For other scenarios (specifically this one<g>) you should define one(1) objective which is where the ford should be. If you change the objectives to only be one, you should be fine.
Let me know if that works.
Thanks,
Ralph
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
...
Indepenent orders are strange.
The intent is that the formation will be spread out and will use the objective track of up to three different formations. WHen the objective tracks are short, they will support 3, as the formations advance and take more territory the support will narrow until they are following only the objective track that matches the one defined for that formation the closest.
If you turn on polog, and possibly unitpolog in the ini file, you'll get more information than you want [;)]
Ralph
It will actually split the formation up and send part of it down each matching path. It looks at the base objectives it has that are firendly controlled, and calculates the difference between it and all the other non-independent formation paths. It sorts them, and picks the closes1, 2 or 3 paths. It them splits the formation and sends some of the units to support each path.ORIGINAL: sstevens06
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
...
Indepenent orders are strange.
The intent is that the formation will be spread out and will use the objective track of up to three different formations. WHen the objective tracks are short, they will support 3, as the formations advance and take more territory the support will narrow until they are following only the objective track that matches the one defined for that formation the closest.
If you turn on polog, and possibly unitpolog in the ini file, you'll get more information than you want [;)]
Ralph
How does the PO select which formation(s) an 'Independent' formation will use the objective track(s) of?
Seems like the 'Independent' formation order would more accurately be represented as a 'Support' order - does that make sense?
I've put many of the Egyptian Ranger (Special Forces) formations on 'Independent, Ignore Losses' orders - what effect does that have? As opposed to giving these formations 'Advance, Ignore Losses' orders for instance?
ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
...
2) For other scenarios (specifically this one<g>) you should define one(1) objective which is where the ford should be. If you change the objectives to only be one, you should be fine.
Let me know if that works.
Thanks,
Ralph
ORIGINAL: Dabbs
I'm making a list...and checking it twice, to get Elmer to make players pay the price... Okay, well - that doesn't make a very good Christmas Carol...ha...
What are the tricks for making Elmer most competitive?
