COORD FEATURE CALL TO ARMS...

[barbarossa2]

Arjuna has said that he would consider adding a "coordinate" at time command to the AA system IF enough people supported it. And as such, I am calling all you "coordinatin'" desirin' people to arms! Yeah you! If you would like to add an "execute at such and such a time" to each waypoint marker, then MAKE AN ENTRY HERE TO VOICE YOUR SUPPORT!!!!!

The way I envisioned it, each waypoint would have a time box attached to it. If a player entered a time in this box, the units would pause there until said time, before executing the command. So attack village at...0500 hours. Blow bridge at... 0900 hours. This would not have to be entered by the player. If he chose to leave it blank, units would execute ASAP, just as in AA now.

Yesterday, I was ruminating about why I had not yet purchased COTA...

I mentioned one reason may be due to the lack of this "coordinate" feature.

As I played HTTR more and more, I realized that on realistic time delay settings, I was incapable of getting a team to come from one side of town and one to come in from the other side. All supported by 15 minutes of softening up artillery. It was always a mess. Or I wanted a "line" of units to rush across a large field so that the enemy would not be able to pick them off one at a time. Invariably, one group would set out...get massacred, then another group would set out...and get massacred. And so on...

For me personally, it was the most disappointing feature about the game. And my father (a tank company commander in cold war Germany) said not to be able to tell units to launch at a certain time, even if sending orders out six hours in advance...was too unrealistic. I tried everything to coordinate attacks to start at 0500 hours across the front. Never had any luck.

BUT I DO NOT WANT TO SAY THIS IS NOT A GREAT, GAME! IT IS AMAZING!!!! I just got so frustrated with that aspect of it, I could not deal with it anymore and stopped playing, hoping that this "problem" would be solved soon.

[Bil H]

It's a double edged sword IMO... sure if properly led and planned a coordinated attack was possible, but often this was not the case and attacks went in in a piecemeal fashion.
 
More planning would need to be done for this feature, which has been on a lot of people's wish lists (mine too) for a long time.
 
I can support this if there is a lot of fuzziness, with the real possibility that planned coordinated attacks can get off schedule and FUBAR, either on a whole or in part depending on training level of the commander's and the formations involved, terrain, battlefield friction, etc.
 
I do not think it is worth delaying BFTB for though, doesn't mean the background work can't get started now.
 
Bil

[Arjuna]

Well first off I would do it in stages - ie just a simple coord of the final waypoint ( not intermediate ones ). We would need options to coordinate start and end times and HHours. Keep it simple stupid to start with.

[Sturmovik]

would it be nonsense to represent the fuzinness of real coordination on the battlefield with some algo a bit similar to the one controlling the Order Delays ? but this time it would impact the quality of the "Time on target" of the concerned unit with something like "Right on Time", "too late " or "too early"

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Well first off I would do it in stages - ie just a simple coord of the final waypoint ( not intermediate ones ). We would need options to coordinate start and end times and HHours. Keep it simple stupid to start with.

This needs a lot of thinking IMO. It could be a game breaker in the sense the order delay breaks if not properly done. It can be done in a number of ways, of which two struck me immidiately:
1) A more advanced order interface where units would actually respond to the order by stating what they "could commit to". Either it would be "OK" or it would be "x minutes delay" at a certain point
2) Order delay in the same sense as it is done today: You issue the orders with the added coord feature, but order delays along the chain of command makes it hard to know which units will make it

I am not sure if barbarossa would like what he´d get in any case as the actual movement of the units as well as any interventions during the way would have an impact on the arrival time. So, maybe more advanced functionality and micro management ability would still end up with the coordinated attack looking very uncoordinated "in the field" which is what it looks like today in the game?! Could this be solved by a possibility to assign units more freely to create a "task force" where multiple units would be given an objective and execute it "outside" of the command structure in the game?

[Arjuna]

There is a whole host of factors at play here. First off in RL coordination is achieved by first working out the different sub elements of the plan, estimating their duration and then assigning times such that all subElements can be achieved by those times. This is not going to be possible without players accepting a large pause, as currently we stagger the plan development over time. In other words the plan is not developed at the same moment you the player issue your orders.
 
So we need to cater for various cases. In the first cut I reckon we limit coordination to just syncing the times - ie we allow players to select the multiple orders and then allow them to sync either their start, end or HHour timings. This way we store a link in each order to the other orders being synced. Then when the last one is planned we run a routine which will sync the times. This will then adjust the timings of all planTasks based on the start/end/HHour time of the latest task.
 
Once we get this working, then we can look at actually setting a specific time. This will require a lot more code to handle those cases where this proves unrealistic. We already have code that can slip a plan, but it's writing the controlling code for calling this that will be the challenge. Not a trivial undertaking.

[Deathtreader]

So we need to cater for various cases. In the first cut I reckon we limit coordination to just syncing the times - ie we allow players to select the multiple orders and then allow them to sync either their start, end or HHour timings. This way we store a link in each order to the other orders being synced. Then when the last one is planned we run a routine which will sync the times. This will then adjust the timings of all planTasks based on the start/end/HHour time of the latest task.

Works for me.... even if you never went any further this would IMHO be a quantum leap forward!! [&o]

Rob.

[PanzerMax]

Lack of attack coordination is one of the most serious faults of the current iteration of the AA series right along with the related issue of phased orders.

[Arjuna]

PanzerMax,
 
What do you mean by phased orders? Do you mean sequential orders?

[jirik]

I think that it would be nice to implmenent one very simple but really useful feature as workaround for timing attacks. If the command is issued then somewhere in the UI the estimation of time required to process command (equivalent to order delay) is printed. I beleive it is not so big change to code as there must be now any routine to compute the delay. We just need to print the result out. This can definitelly improve attempts to coordinate attacks and it can go even to COTA.
What do you think?

[Arjuna]

JIP,
 
You already have it. Just select the unit task ( the black on grey icons - they're usually under the order icon - blue on white ) and it displays the actual timings. However, these are only displayed once the force receives its orders, develops its plan and sends orders down the line. If you are using orders delay then this can be some time after you issue the orders.
 
I think what most people are asking for is a mechanism by which they can sync orders as they give them.

[jirik]

Hi Arjuna,

thanks for the response. I know the described feature but as you have told there is the missing information - time required to send orders down the to subordinates. But if you will be able to provide estimation of time immediately after order marker is placed on the map then I can roughly coordinate attacks.
Example: Attack order for one regiment - I'll get immediate information that it takes 4 hours to start attack. Then I will make an order attack for another batallion and I'll get immediate information that it takes 2 hours to start attack. Thus I will cancel order and I will make the order two hours later and I have the attacks rouhly coordinated.

J.

[Arjuna]

JIP,
 
While I appreciate what you want, it's another case of easier said than done. The only way to give you an estimate is to calc a route and this takes time. The longer the distance from the subject to the objective, the longer the route calc. So there will be a noticeable pause. Moreover, we will then have to either store that route and then re-use it during the development of the plan or we can throw it away and redo it later.
 
The former option will only remain valid if nothing changes in the meantime ( eg no new enemy observed along the route or the subject doesn't retreat etc ) and this will require more processing to ascertain. The latter option of redoing the route again basically means that we'll be doubling the route calc time for attacks. This is not a good option. I do not want to slow the game down anymore. This is something we can look at in a few years time when hardware improves.
 
As I said earlier a better approach ( well better is so far as game speed is concerned ) is to provide a simple interface for the player to sync orders and then allow the AI to automatically adjust the timings once all the plans have been developed. This will not involve extra route calcs.

[northerner]

Processing power is mentioned as one of the limiting factors in developing the game. What about duo and quad processor systems and also 64 bit systems? Would some of the calculation be able to be executed in parallel? The calculations speed would be faster on a 64 bit processor.

Would moving to 64 bit and/or parallel processing be a big jump?

[barbarossa2]

I was a student at a university (not to be named here), and I would spend much too much time on lazy afternoons digging through military history books.  And one day I was amazed to find what appeared to be an original artillery barrage planning map from what I believe I recall to be the battle of Ypres.  Or Vimy Ridge or something (WWI).  On it, there were dozens of zig zaggy lines which were the areas which the artillery was supposed to bombard and at which time the barrage would move from one part of the battlefield to the next -- in 15 minute increments -- a creeping barrage (I am sure the infantry was incapable (through no damned fault of their own) of keeping of the speed of advance which some moron had dreamed up in the comfort of his headquarters).  But the ability to tell a unit at which time it should attempt to be in a location, or at what time it should attempt to begin progress to its next waypoint seems to be a critical part of planning in modern warfare and was done as early as ... well... I won't guess here.  But I had a map from WWI in my hands which showed me to just which lengths this was done in operations planning.

Again.  Just a thought.  And I must say, AA is the best effort to date to deliver the real feel of combat operations to the gaming public.  So please take this constructive criticism the right way.  Thanks!!!![:)]

[CriticalMass]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2

I was a student at a university (not to be named here), and I would spend much too much time on lazy afternoons digging through military history books. And one day I was amazed to find what appeared to be an original artillery barrage planning map from what I believe I recall to be the battle of Ypres. Or Vimy Ridge or something (WWI). On it, there were dozens of zig zaggy lines which were the areas which the artillery was supposed to bombard and at which time the barrage would move from one part of the battlefield to the next -- in 15 minute increments -- a creeping barrage (I am sure the infantry was incapable (through no damned fault of their own) of keeping of the speed of advance which some moron had dreamed up in the comfort of his headquarters). But the ability to tell a unit at which time it should attempt to be in a location, or at what time it should attempt to begin progress to its next waypoint seems to be a critical part of planning in modern warfare and was done as early as ... well... I won't guess here. But I had a map from WWI in my hands which showed me to just which lengths this was done in operations planning.

Again. Just a thought. And I must say, AA is the best effort to date to deliver the real feel of combat operations to the gaming public. So please take this constructive criticism the right way. Thanks!!!![:)]

I am sure the infantry was incapable (through no damned fault of their own) of keeping of the speed of advance which some moron had dreamed up in the comfort of his headquarters

IIRC, it is documented the creeping barrages were actually to slow. The Infantry instead of walking through a hail of MG bullets would run toward the enemy and relative safety of the enemy trench system (I know, go figure) and hence into the back of their own barrages.

[Arjuna]

barbarossa2,
 
Coordination in WW1 on the western front was not a good example. Even a casual study will highlight that invariably operations were impossible to coordinate for a whole swag of reasons. There are more examples of problems arising with inf/arty coordination in WW1 that with its success.
 
Many people cite the advent of armour as the great breakthrough after WW1, and they overlook the significant impact of radio communications. It was this that facilitated greater coordination and in fact allowed armour ( radio in each vehicle ) to shine.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Many people cite the advent of armour as the great breakthrough after WW1, and they overlook the significant impact of radio communications. It was this that facilitated greater coordination and in fact allowed armour ( radio in each vehicle ) to shine.

Quite true, and it is there my good man where you have earned your salt! Not until the German invasion of France, where the power of the radio=blitzkrieg ie:communications, did the real "breakthrough" shine through.
On that note, my vote is to focus on the task at hand...Patch 2...we'll call that "waypoint 2"...then take it from there[8D].

[PanzerMax]

Sequential orders.

[barbarossa2]

[;)] No.  My WWI example was not the best one!  [;)]  It was just a stunning moment in my life to have these maps in my hand.  And I will never forget it.  I finally had a half assed excuse to share it with everyone!

There are many better examples.  I don't even think I need to give them.  Arjuna (Dave) is an intelligent person and knows what kind of feature I am talking about.  I saw you have a military background.  No need for explanations here. 

Of course, I would NEVER want to be able to so much control that it would happen EVERY TIME! I know that there was ALWAYS something getting in the way of a perfectly coordinated operation. Friction. As I believe Clausiwitz referred to it. I HATE total control and would hope that things go FUBAR a lot. That is what makes gaming interesting. I always hated how in board games, I would be able to calculate odds in advance of attacks, move in units from anywhere I needed them... just to get my 7 to 1 odds. And of course, these units I had "sent marching orders" with my fingers would show up every time! On time! IT SUCKED.

Of course I would want FUBAR programming!

Oh yes,  I will be purchasing COTA in the next week.  Although I do not believe I will even be playing it.  Too frustrating.  Because I know at one point I will want to have my units rush across a field at 600 hours and won't be able to coordinate it!  [:)]  But I know that ONE DAY, I will be able to!  And the investment is worth it! And thanks for all the other cool features you have added in the meantime which are also great game makers!