An exercise in frustration

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Just FYI, I just updated the PBEM FAQ thread with a screenshot tutorial. Please review it if you run into any issues.

tm.asp?m=1772118

Thanks for all your hard work Erik. That is very helpful.

[76mm]

Although I've bought the game, I haven't played it yet (too busy...).

One frustration seems to be that if you want the HQ to do something different from all of its squads, you have to give the new order to the HQ, and then go back and "cancel" them for the squads. Instead of this rather convoluted procedure, could Matrix change the interface so that if you press the "shift" key while giving an order to an HQ, it only affects the HQ (and not all of the squads)?

Not sure not having even played yet, but it seems like something like this would reduce some of the frustration that some are reporting.

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Although I've bought the game, I haven't played it yet (too busy...).

One frustration seems to be that if you want the HQ to do something different from all of its squads, you have to give the new order to the HQ, and then go back and "cancel" them for the squads. Instead of this rather convoluted procedure, could Matrix change the interface so that if you press the "shift" key while giving an order to an HQ, it only affects the HQ (and not all of the squads)?

Not sure not having even played yet, but it seems like something like this would reduce some of the frustration that some are reporting.

That sounds like a good idea 76mm. Perhaps you could also issue orders to individual units in a similar fashion. For instance, holding the shift key and then right clicking would allow you to issue orders to individual units that are different than the orders you gave to your HQ unit.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
One frustration seems to be that if you want the HQ to do something different from all of its squads, you have to give the new order to the HQ, and then go back and "cancel" them for the squads.

Actually, it already cancels them for you and sets them to the HQ's orders, which is what was bothering RocketMan.

Good suggestion though.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: RocketMan
Perhaps you could also issue orders to individual units in a similar fashion. For instance, holding the shift key and then right clicking would allow you to issue orders to individual units that are different than the orders you gave to your HQ unit.

You can already give different orders to individual units, just as long as they are within the same base Platoon order group. If you mean giving them a completely different platoon order, that would kind of defeat the entire point of the platoon orders system. I'd rather focus on making that easier to use than completely bypassing it.

[PDiFolco]

Erik,
I think you're not heading the right way : what we need is a system where you would *want to* use platoon level orders because it's the best way to play the game, not because there are some artificial constraints forcing you to use them. For example there's no rationale for not letting a squad run to cover, whatever his platoon leader is doing !
 
I'm boarding the boat late but feels somewhat like Rocketman in the initial post. Like him, a part of it was due to poor understanding of the magical "engage" orders -that is imho badly named/organized, because it's a mix of fire and movement orders, that is below the others movement orders. Like him I'm rather annoyed by the "let's move parallel" default behavior, that require manual adaptations, and I can add that the I miss waypoints, given that there is no "safest" pathing option (ie path using best cover).
However, I have no big problems with armor units - the current orders are mostly ok, tanks don't need as much details, the problem lies with infantry.
 
What I'd suggest is to aim at more "lifelike" platoon orders - like "1st squad run to the patch of wood 50 m ahead to the left, while covered by 2nd squad's fire, and 3rd squad makes a flanking move to the right". Or else get rid of the squads altogether (let's play platoon-sized infantry units) if the idea is to not be able to order them (the squads). Wanting to have simple orders, the same that could apply to a squad, but apply them at platoon level can't be completely satisfactory.
 
 

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Actually, it already cancels them for you and sets them to the HQ's orders, which is what was bothering RocketMan.

yes, but for instance if you only want the HQ, not the squads, to move a bit into a better position, wouldn't you have to cancel the new move commands for the squads? I understand that there are sub-orders that allow you to move individual squads, but didn't see that it was possible to move the HQ w/o moving the squads.

I guess it would help if I played the game, will have to get on that...

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Erik,
I think you're not heading the right way : what we need is a system where you would *want to* use platoon level orders because it's the best way to play the game, not because there are some artificial constraints forcing you to use them. For example there's no rationale for not letting a squad run to cover, whatever his platoon leader is doing !

I'm boarding the boat late but feels somewhat like Rocketman in the initial post. Like him, a part of it was due to poor understanding of the magical "engage" orders -that is imho badly named/organized, because it's a mix of fire and movement orders, that is below the others movement orders. Like him I'm rather annoyed by the "let's move parallel" default behavior, that require manual adaptations, and I can add that the I miss waypoints, given that there is no "safest" pathing option (ie path using best cover).
However, I have no big problems with armor units - the current orders are mostly ok, tanks don't need as much details, the problem lies with infantry.

What I'd suggest is to aim at more "lifelike" platoon orders - like "1st squad run to the patch of wood 50 m ahead to the left, while covered by 2nd squad's fire, and 3rd squad makes a flanking move to the right". Or else get rid of the squads altogether (let's play platoon-sized infantry units) if the idea is to not be able to order them (the squads). Wanting to have simple orders, the same that could apply to a squad, but apply them at platoon level can't be completely satisfactory.

To a lesser degree I felt like Rocketman as well. The issue is, as you say, only in the infantry combat system.

But in PC's defense, a wargame is a series of compromises and abstractions. The combat model can be used to show combat in any one of thousands of different view points. What Matrix has chosen is to show combat from the small unit commanders view. Company or Battalion Commanders.

Now if you don't abstract that somewhat you are ONLY capable of giving orders to the platoon commanders and NO individual units at all and you have to live with what the games TacAI gives you for their following your orders. Not much of a game.

We are after all looking at a game and not a small unit leader training simulator.

So, there are some abstractions. I can tell you after playing this game ALOT over the past couple of weeks that by the end of the first couple of games after you figure out the orders system the game is second nature.

Whether you give orders from the ground up or the top down really makes no difference. You will have to learn the games system for giving orders. CM gave orders from the bottom up. PC gives orders from the top down. The differences in the two and the learning curve is pretty much over when you learn about PC's Engage and Defend order sets and how they work.

Yes, PC is different. That's okay. For what they seem to be trying to accomplish here it needs to be.

You play a few more games with the command system and then let us all know if you still feel the frustration or if it was just part of the learning curve that PC has.

For me personally that frustration left quickly and it was just part of PC's learning curve.

Good Hunting.

MR

[PDiFolco]

Ok, mad Russian, I'll try that.
Problem may be that after 8 years playing CM I have totally adapted to them and I've difficulties to change ! [:o]
 

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Ok, mad Russian, I'll try that.
Problem may be that after 8 years playing CM I have totally adapted to them and I've difficulties to change ! [:o]

That was by far my biggest problem. Unlearning the CM system and actually using what I've been given in PC. After a couple games I was fine with the PC way of life.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Capitaine]

Good post, MR.  Nice to hear others appreciate and understand what PCK is trying to accomplish with its command system.  There may be some individual instances needing to be addressed, but the philosophy of the game is sound.

[thewood1]

76, I have found that to be true sometimes, but not others.  Haven't quite firgured out what I did different in each case.
 
I know I have given individual orders and then gone back to give an order to the HQ without losing the individual orders.  But I am not sure if this is because I didn't change the base order or not.  I may just not have noticed.

[thewood1]

It seems that as long as you don't change the base units base order, the subordinate units retain whatever order you gave them.  If you change the base order, eg, defend to engage, you subordinate units have their orders cleared.

This allows you to set the HQ's order then destination as you would expect.  Then, as would in any other game, set the subordinate units destination or target.  But if you change the HQ after that, you will have to go back an replot/retarget the subordinate units.  The issue to me is now you have to double check the orders of every unit to make sure you don't mistakenly issue orders while adjusting an HQ.  I have do this several times a game in larger scenarios.

What I haven't checked is if you reissue a defend order to an HQ that already has a defend order, what happens to the existing subordinate units' orders.

[thewood1]

One thing I am finding is that there seem to be too many orders to move.  Advance, rush, defend/move, engage/move, bound, withdraw, regroup, and maybe I missed one.  It is obvious what some of these do, but how some differ needs a better chart.  Advance, engage, defend all seem to have different impacts on targeting and combat.
 
I would also like a better display of the units orders.  Currently it is the info screen at the same color and font as the units name.  It is easy to miss.  Can we change the color of the unit info box to reflect the units stance or current order?
 
Right now, the orders system requires checking and double checking current stance/orders to avoid inadvertently altering or forgetting orders to subordinate units.  Some visual indication via button/icon would also be helpful.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
76, I have found that to be true sometimes, but not others.  Haven't quite firgured out what I did different in each case.
I know I have given individual orders and then gone back to give an order to the HQ without losing the individual orders.  But I am not sure if this is because I didn't change the base order or not.  I may just not have noticed.

The rule is basically this - orders for individual non-HQ units do not override anyone else's orders. So you can change your sub-unit orders as much as you want within the existing base order. Also, if you are already in a base order and the subordinates have their own sub-orders, adjusting the HQ unit's orders _without changing the base order_ should not override sub-orders.

The HQ unit's order will override its subordinates if you either change the base order or if the subordinates do not have specific sub-orders yet.

For example, if you have a platoon of three tanks on Engage and the two non-HQ tanks have already got Engage -> Move orders, setting the HQ to Engage->Target will not re-target all of them. However, if you switch the HQ to Defend -> Stay, they will all change orders.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
The issue to me is now you have to double check the orders of every unit to make sure you don't mistakenly issue orders while adjusting an HQ.  I have do this several times a game in larger scenarios.

I just keep my rubberband ("U" key) setting on "side" so that I can quickly see if some units seem to have different orders than I expect.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I would also like a better display of the units orders.  Currently it is the info screen at the same color and font as the units name.  It is easy to miss.  Can we change the color of the unit info box to reflect the units stance or current order?

Can you elaborate on what you're imagining here?

Right now, the orders system requires checking and double checking current stance/orders to avoid inadvertently altering or forgetting orders to subordinate units.  Some visual indication via button/icon would also be helpful.

It's a good suggestion. The rubberbands are supposed to be the way to show this, but the miss some of the subtleties since they only really show moves and targets.

[thewood1]

But the rubberbands are all the same color.  I have to click each unit/hq to see what the orders/stance are.  What I am saying is color code the text in the unit info box in the lower left corner, based on orders.  It would a way to make sure I don't miss the units orders as I go through the units.
 
If you could color could the rubberbands and icons, you may not have to do that.

[RocketMan]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Erik,
I think you're not heading the right way : what we need is a system where you would *want to* use platoon level orders because it's the best way to play the game, not because there are some artificial constraints forcing you to use them. For example there's no rationale for not letting a squad run to cover, whatever his platoon leader is doing !

I'm boarding the boat late but feels somewhat like Rocketman in the initial post. Like him, a part of it was due to poor understanding of the magical "engage" orders -that is imho badly named/organized, because it's a mix of fire and movement orders, that is below the others movement orders. Like him I'm rather annoyed by the "let's move parallel" default behavior, that require manual adaptations, and I can add that the I miss waypoints, given that there is no "safest" pathing option (ie path using best cover).
However, I have no big problems with armor units - the current orders are mostly ok, tanks don't need as much details, the problem lies with infantry.

What I'd suggest is to aim at more "lifelike" platoon orders - like "1st squad run to the patch of wood 50 m ahead to the left, while covered by 2nd squad's fire, and 3rd squad makes a flanking move to the right". Or else get rid of the squads altogether (let's play platoon-sized infantry units) if the idea is to not be able to order them (the squads). Wanting to have simple orders, the same that could apply to a squad, but apply them at platoon level can't be completely satisfactory.

To a lesser degree I felt like Rocketman as well. The issue is, as you say, only in the infantry combat system.

But in PC's defense, a wargame is a series of compromises and abstractions. The combat model can be used to show combat in any one of thousands of different view points. What Matrix has chosen is to show combat from the small unit commanders view. Company or Battalion Commanders.

Now if you don't abstract that somewhat you are ONLY capable of giving orders to the platoon commanders and NO individual units at all and you have to live with what the games TacAI gives you for their following your orders. Not much of a game.

We are after all looking at a game and not a small unit leader training simulator.

So, there are some abstractions. I can tell you after playing this game ALOT over the past couple of weeks that by the end of the first couple of games after you figure out the orders system the game is second nature.

Whether you give orders from the ground up or the top down really makes no difference. You will have to learn the games system for giving orders. CM gave orders from the bottom up. PC gives orders from the top down. The differences in the two and the learning curve is pretty much over when you learn about PC's Engage and Defend order sets and how they work.

Yes, PC is different. That's okay. For what they seem to be trying to accomplish here it needs to be.

You play a few more games with the command system and then let us all know if you still feel the frustration or if it was just part of the learning curve that PC has.

For me personally that frustration left quickly and it was just part of PC's learning curve.

Good Hunting.

MR

The problem with giving orders at the platoon level, rather than at the squad level is that there will always be situations where you want to give an order to an individual squad that are different from the other squads in the platoon. A well designed platoon level interface will mitigate the need to do that in most cases, but it will never eliminate it.

My problem is that PZCK’s platoon level interface forces you to use platoon level commands instead of making you want to use it. But even if I wanted to use a platoon level interface most of the time, as long as the game is modeled down to the squad level, there will still be instances where I want to be able to issue orders at the squad level.

Yes, the game interface works OK in most instances, and overall the game is fun to play, but it can definitely be improved upon.

I have some thoughts on how to make the platoon level interface more intuitive and to have squads behave more realistically that I will write up at a later time.

[Mad Russian]

Well, think of it this way Rocketman....

In a platoon level game how often do you give individual squads orders? Or do you mostly give the HQ's the orders and make small adjustment orders from there.

I started off by playing CM and giving every unit an order and was pretty frustrated. Then I started playing more PC and giving the HQ's orders and just making small changes where they are needed and my frustration level went way down.

I also used to use the pause button alot. Now I rarely do. This is only after say 8 games played so far...not alot.

I also rarely make changes to my orders during the reaction phase any more either. For the most part I have a single 80 second turn that rarely needs adjusting.

Going H2H with you may change that idea. [&o]

Good Hunting.

MR