Why are the defenders on clear terrain?

[Fred98]

I give a defend order to a battalion. I place the order on rough terrain.

Some of the companies move forward of the rough terrain and take up position in clear terrain.

How do I get them to take up position in rough terrain without micro managing?

[Trigger Happy]

I play with depth and frontage usually and I don't place the defend order straight at the limit between open and defensive ground. I play also with the placement of the order as the time delay won't penalize this kind of experimenting.

Something cool that's been given some thoughts already is using a layer to draw interactive polygons over the map. One really useful ...er... use for a system like this could certainly be to determine EXACTELY the boundaries of defending units without adding micromanaging by drawing a polygon corresponding to the frontage. It would eliminate some AI bad behaviour considering this side of the game.

[Arjuna]

Joe 98,
 
As Trigger Happy says use the frontage and depth settings to adjust the likely task area. If you also specify a facing, then you will see an open ended rectangle depicting the likely task area. Position the order icon such that the front edge lines up with the edge of the rough terrain.
 
Now the AI still has a bit of latitude when it determine the individual units "ground of tactical importance" or GTI for short. In doing so the AI looks around and tries to find the best defensive terrain. It favours ground with a high modify against direct and indirect fire. It tries to find the edge of covered terrain like woods. It also favours high ground over low. However, it is constrained by a distance or range value. In other words it won't stray too far from where it's supposed to be in its formation. Sometimes this can mean it sticks out in the open in front of the good cover.
 
So that's why you should use the frontage/depth and facing parameters for defensive tasks.

[jirik]

Hi,

what about to add so-called formation rigidity? It will look the same as aggro/lossess setting and it will determine the AI freedom to modify the position of units in formation? Under most strict setting the unit will be placed according to its position in formation and the other setting will allow AI to use better ground in wider and wider area around the strict position?

J.

[MarkShot]

The COTA Mini-Guide illustrates how to work around force foot print issues to maximize the use of good terrain while avoiding excessive HQ overload. Sorry, but I don't have time to look up page references for you at the moment, but it is in there. (also discussed is when to best micro/macro manage defenses ... and layering of defenses ... mainly in the HTTR Mini-Guide)

[Fred98]

Aha!   Setting the frontage and depth is the answer!

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: JIP

Hi,

what about to add so-called formation rigidity? It will look the same as aggro/lossess setting and it will determine the AI freedom to modify the position of units in formation? Under most strict setting the unit will be placed according to its position in formation and the other setting will allow AI to use better ground in wider and wider area around the strict position?

J.

J,

Not a bad idea. Not sure when we would get to this but here's a TT item for it. Thanks.

TT3210 - UI - AI - Task Setting to specify degree of Formation Rigidity