ORIGINAL: TheWombat
The game is sort of positioned between a traditional wargame (you manually control every unit) and a more abstracted command-based system like Command Ops (you give orders to formation HQs primarily, and the AI plans out the implementation). Right now my sense is that there's some issues with the way command and control is handled, in that being in command and subordination doesn't seem to play as much of a role as it should. As you give orders to individual units, not formations, while you might get some delays for out of command units (it's hard to tell, as the game doesn't communicate this to you really well if at all), there doesn't seem to be a huge reason to devote a lot of time to keeping people close to their HQs--and the command ranges are really short, as well, so it's nearly impossible to keep all your formations in command anyhow.
But then, if you adopted a more Command Ops style approach, where you gave orders to formations not individual units usually, and the AI handled the deployment and movement/combat, you'd have a very different game. What I'd like to see is a hybrid approach--you generate orders from your HQ, and you can either give them individually to units or to formations; if you activate a formation, you get to give each unit in that formation an order, but only if they're in command control. This would maybe cost one order for a company, two or three for a battalion, etc.
I don't know, but I just think it would add something if the whole HQ/subordination/command and control system felt a bit more robust.
I agree. It's an awesome game. I love it. But it could be improved if I could give formation orders -- more like Command Ops. Otherwise, there's no "benefit" (with limited orders, the real way to play) with formation. My recommendation would be to "charge" two orders for formation orders -- as the WP, give an entire battalion an order.
