RE: Brigade Tactical Ex Comments
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:42 pm
And not to point out the obvious, but the acceptable casualty settings have a large impact on how often a unit can attack, retreat, reorganize and attack again: a feature which I like and do not like at the same time.
I like it because it allows me to control the level of commitment and my units' reaction to surprises. This gives you the ability to probe enemy units without taking excessive losses and also to not push an attack in a non-critical sector of the battlefield.
Of course, I raise this point because the lower the tolerance for casualties the better chance the unit has to retreat in good order, reorganize relatively quickly and attack again. The more casualties you allow a unit to accept the more likely it is to not retreat until it is already badly depleted. Usually, the more battered the unit becomes the longer it takes to reorganize and get back in the fight.
This is interesting because it tends to conflict with the image that most gamers have of how WWII was fought. In reality, entire division-sized attacks would be defeated after taking casualties that gamers regard as trivial. Of course this can vary widely depending on the doctrine, but generally speaking, Seelow Heights-Huertgen Forest meatgrinder style attacks were not the norm.
During the Ardennes Offensive, for example, a retreating U.S. battalion asked for 80mm mortar fire to cover its withdrawal. The response to their request was several thousand rounds over the next couple of hours dropped in a wide pattern against an unknown enemy. German reports show that the pursuing battalion of fusiliers made only one attempt to pass through the bombardment, took a grand total of 12 casualties (out of an approximate strength of 800 men) and decided the retreating Americans were not as important as their divisional commander thought they were.
Needless to say most gamers, if they see a battalion refuse an order after taking 12 casualties, would be damn angry and would most likely immediately post something nasty on a forum like this one.
I don't like the feature because it has too many settings and allows for excessive micromanagement. In reality I doubt very much anyone would ever order a unit to withdraw as soon as it hit 75% and even if they did, no commander would ever be able to know with such pinpoint accuracy at what percentage his unit was. In many situations a commander might not have any idea how badly his men were getting pounded until the damage was already done. My grandfather's platoon was almost wiped out during Market Garden and he said no one at his company HQ knew about it until he and the other 2 survivors managed to sneak back after night had fallen.
Anyway, play with this feature and see what happens. You might find that you can get your units to act a little more like you expect them to or, at the very least, understand why they are bouncing so much.
Cheers
Paul
p.s. And a note on ambushes. Isn't there a range setting in CotA that allows you to set fire arcs or am I confused? I seem to remember the game allowing me to order units to only open fire at units within a set range.
I like it because it allows me to control the level of commitment and my units' reaction to surprises. This gives you the ability to probe enemy units without taking excessive losses and also to not push an attack in a non-critical sector of the battlefield.
Of course, I raise this point because the lower the tolerance for casualties the better chance the unit has to retreat in good order, reorganize relatively quickly and attack again. The more casualties you allow a unit to accept the more likely it is to not retreat until it is already badly depleted. Usually, the more battered the unit becomes the longer it takes to reorganize and get back in the fight.
This is interesting because it tends to conflict with the image that most gamers have of how WWII was fought. In reality, entire division-sized attacks would be defeated after taking casualties that gamers regard as trivial. Of course this can vary widely depending on the doctrine, but generally speaking, Seelow Heights-Huertgen Forest meatgrinder style attacks were not the norm.
During the Ardennes Offensive, for example, a retreating U.S. battalion asked for 80mm mortar fire to cover its withdrawal. The response to their request was several thousand rounds over the next couple of hours dropped in a wide pattern against an unknown enemy. German reports show that the pursuing battalion of fusiliers made only one attempt to pass through the bombardment, took a grand total of 12 casualties (out of an approximate strength of 800 men) and decided the retreating Americans were not as important as their divisional commander thought they were.
Needless to say most gamers, if they see a battalion refuse an order after taking 12 casualties, would be damn angry and would most likely immediately post something nasty on a forum like this one.
I don't like the feature because it has too many settings and allows for excessive micromanagement. In reality I doubt very much anyone would ever order a unit to withdraw as soon as it hit 75% and even if they did, no commander would ever be able to know with such pinpoint accuracy at what percentage his unit was. In many situations a commander might not have any idea how badly his men were getting pounded until the damage was already done. My grandfather's platoon was almost wiped out during Market Garden and he said no one at his company HQ knew about it until he and the other 2 survivors managed to sneak back after night had fallen.
Anyway, play with this feature and see what happens. You might find that you can get your units to act a little more like you expect them to or, at the very least, understand why they are bouncing so much.
Cheers
Paul
p.s. And a note on ambushes. Isn't there a range setting in CotA that allows you to set fire arcs or am I confused? I seem to remember the game allowing me to order units to only open fire at units within a set range.