ORIGINAL: Arjuna
...like what happens if the range set is too great for the weapons the unit now has. Do we then second guess the user - not really recommended.
As the current automatism (which is being tested) seems to demand a minimum amount (was it like 67% ?) of a unit's weapons which have to be brought to bear within the actual ambush range, in order to trigger the ambush, my proposed option/window could easily compute/give a (max) limit. If the engine is able to adjust move orders ("..to the nearest reachable location") it should be able to adjust the user's ambush range in such an option's window/field in the same manner.
Another reason for handing over a little little bit more of control to the player:
Ppl who are having a hard time getting familiar with the AA engine (ppl who are rather used to play turn-based/hex games), use to complain about the fact that AA feels a bit like watching a movie.
While they don't seem to realize that developing a plan, reacting to the AI's/human player's actions and adjusting plans locally can be a real challenge (i use to compare it to playing a chess game, where u really have to use your brain), I have to say that some of these complaints are understandable.
I do think that assuming control of a Div or a Bn´, which you do in the game, was/is like this in real life, though. You develop plans, then you overlook the progress, and adjust things where needed. The game gets as close to the reality as a game/simulation can get, I think.
But, as this game allows to take over a Coy commander's role as well, adding tidbits of additional controls would not hurt and it may even enhance the realism, plus it will make it easier for new players to get into the game (immersion, possibilities).
Hehe.. that was "hidden" in my essay. The following should be part of my wishlist, i guess. [:D]ORIGINAL: RedDevil
I quite like GoodGuy's idea of having a different delay applied to the withdraw order.
Having different levels of delay would offer more realism and reduce some problems the engine's current order delay system uses to cause:
- A) Different levels of order delay are needed for the withdrawal option (or even better, NO order delay for an imaginary retreat task, at all, as the withdrawal would still not happen in many situations).
The current system (with delay) feels like there's some despotic "hold the ground at all costs until we get the OK to get away from the heavy enemy fire"- doctrine under the hood.
If a commander decides to be a wimp , or if he decides to save vital assets and move them away from the front, he should be allowed to do so in the game.
along with a lower delay on a Coy level, for certain tasks/actions: - B) A Coy commander telling some 50 troops to "stop and hold right here, right now" in a very dangerous situation, would not have to contact Div. HQ, right? Means his orders would NOT have to pass several levels within the command structure; also, he may not stick to the order [let's say to move to point A] stubbornly just because the execution of orders used to be "in order" in a war. Local commanders in WWII (in most armies) actually did have some free hand (the Russian commanders, and to some extent the German commanders too [especially after Stalingrad], had less freedom than Allied commanders).
If facing serious trouble, a Coy commander would stop, order his troops to take cover, then - if radio com is available - he'd ask for further instructions, or he'd retreat IMMEDIATELY.
Right now, the only way to stop a unit (if playing with order delay) is to either switch to in-situ PLUS issuing a defend OR rest order, but it would still act as if the "stop" order would have to go up and down some of the command levels, means it won't stop immediately (given it's still faster than the execution of other orders - with the rest order offfering the fastest way, but it still takes a ridiculous amount of time - the player prays and sweats until the unit actually stops, just to see it routing and being hammered badly the next minute).
This is not realistic and very frustrating, especially if moving big assets, like arty units.... if such units execute a move order on max order delay, and if they stumble over a few units occupying the path, they get hammered badly, or even face destruction, as there is no way to stop the unit, it would just stick to the order stubbornly.
I'd love to see this being revised. Maybe add a STOP button [;)](which would actually DO the job for B) if the delay could be overwritten that way [:D]), hehe.
In the instances described above, the luxury limousine-style AA engine kinda overacts, as it automates so many things, maybe too many things. 98% of these automatizations are brilliant and display the excellence of this engine, but the other 2 % (like the order delay being applied to each and everything uniformly among a few other things -> friendly fire for example) are reducing the realism somewhat.
Oh heck... [:D]I'm adding this to my wishlist too :
- Abolish the friendly fire limitation PLEASE.
I, as the player (and local commander in the game) want to determine where my arty is supposed to drop its shells. Maybe i should form a petition? [;)]
