Matrix Games Forums

Units in FPG receive player input by way of point and click orders. We know that orders in the real world take a certain amount of time to be formed, transmitted and implemented. At the chosen game scale (line companies, specialist platoons, 500m locations, 30 minute turns resolved down to 1 minute increments) an instantaneous response would be sufficiently unrealistic that it is worth trying to do better.

The specification laid out these delay factors for orders:
Air Strike 20 mins,
Assault (deliberate attack, bounding overwatch) 30 mins,
Arty (Barrage, Counter Battery, Direct Support) 2 minutes,
Engineering (bridges and minefields) 20 – 30 minutes,
Hold (do or die defend in place defensive order) 30 mins (to dig in before it becomes effective),
Movement (traveling overwatch) 20 mins,
Reporting to HQ 5 mins,
Route March 12 mins, and
Screen (defend but not tied to tightly to the local location) 5 mins.
Every time a unit was given an order, no matter what the other surrounding circumstances, these time delays were imposed before the order could take effect.

There was also a provision in certain cases for ‘hasty orders’ (ie “do it now regardless”) which started the order immediately but a cost in unit fatigue. Fatigue is pretty much what you would think it is, a sort of all around ‘micro-damage’ short of an actual step being lost. The cost is sufficient to deter the player from routinely issuing hasty orders.

At first I thought these were pretty arbitrary numbers and somewhat unlikely in many circumstances that were likely to be encountered, but now I am not so sure. Further research shows that they may not be far off as quantities (considering average units over a large number of cases) go. There is also a huge game benefit to having predictable timings – it is very frustrating for a player to issue an order and have no idea at all when it will be implemented. The availability of hasty orders is a big plus and presents a nice dilemma to the player during game play.

Nevertheless, I couldn’t resist fiddling and now the delays are a bit of a mess. Before I rewrite them I thought I would solicit some opinions from a group that is so clearly qualified to address it. I want to create a short but reasonable set of rules to calculate a suitable ‘standard delay’ and also a ‘hasty delay’ based on the unit and the circumstances it finds itself in.

These are the inputs we can work with:
- Unit Type: hq, recce, armor, mechinf, arty, eng, AT of various kinds, AA of various kinds.
- Posture: fortified, dugin, defilade, exposed (not defiladed, but not incurring unnecessary risk either), and very exposed (tactically unaware).
- Orders: the ones listed above plus On Call (unit is quiet but ready to spring into instant action, e.g. arty waiting for a fire mission, tanks waiting for a move order, etc), Rest (unit stands down for at least an hour to recover supply, morale, fatigue).
- Basic Orders Delay – a calcuation based on unit training, fatigue, morale, size, number and quality of HQs above it, electronic warfare intensity level, and unit type (arty and recce are always a little quicker than otherwise). The result is in minutes scaled from 2 to 60. Most US units start off in the 4 to 10 range and Soviet units in the 5 to 20 range at the beginning of the game. This routine can be modified if new ideas come to light.
- IsMoving – we know if the unit is already moving or not
- IsFiring – we know if the unit is shooting at the enemy at the moment
- UnderFire – whether the unit has been taking fire in the last 15 minutes
- IsEnemySighted – the number of enemy units spotted by this particular unit
- ExpectedLifetime – a ‘foxhole estimate’ in minutes of how long the unit will survive given the loss rate of the last 15 minutes, and the number and range of nearby sighted enemy units. Range is 1 to 100 (100 is as good as forever). This can be used as a hasty order trigger: if it will take 20 minutes to move and you expect to have only two, its time to get out regardless!

When orders are given there is a basic orders delay period. The unit now has the new order but is in a preparation phase and remains in its old location and posture until this is complete. Once sufficient time has elapsed, the state goes from Preparing to Executing and the order will start to be implemented.

This preparation time is what I am trying to rewrite now. Can anyone suggest some nice easy formulas based on their personal experience using some or all of the above? I’d like to cherry pick some of the best ideas and work them in, because I am not very satisfied with what I have now and I’m getting tired of guessing!

Cheers, Rob.

This is my first cut at a possible set of rules:

1. If the unit is On Call or is already performing the same kind of order (ie Move to Move, Screen to Screen, just with different parameters) then the Orders Delay = 2 minutes. Otherwise the Orders Delay = standard Orders Delay (2 to 60 minutes, average 5 to 10 minutes).

2. If the unit is being rested then the Orders Delay is increased by 10 minutes.

3. If the unit needs to relinquish a dug in posture then the Orders Delay is increased by 5 minutes.

4. If the unit is not currently moving and the new order requires movement then the Orders Delay is increased by 5 minutes.

5. If the unit is under fire then the Orders Delay is increased by 50%.

6. If the scenario electronic warfare intensity is Medium then the Orders Delay is increased by 20%, if High it is increased by 33%.

7. If the unit is ordered to Assault then the Orders Delay cannot be less than 30 minutes.

8. if Expected Lifetime < Orders Delay then the Orders Delay = Expected Lifetime, and Fatigue is incremented by one for every 10 minutes difference between the two values.

<<6. If the scenario electronic warfare intensity is Medium then the Orders Delay is increased by 20%, if High it is increased by 33%.>>

I hope you allow some variation by nationality, and possibly by unit quality or type.

The major front-line NATO armies ( American, German, British) had far more radios and maps than the Russians, and many more trained, qualified company-grade officers and noncoms. Moreover, NATO's doctrine emphasized the initiative -- we expected to be heavily outnumbered in the fight -- and the need to rapidly shift units laterally across the front, as uncommitted reserves would likely be inadequate to stem breakthroughs.

In consequence, NATO basic response time should be significantly more rapid than in Pact units; but effective EW should have a greater effect on NATO.

Within the Pact, I would expect that Category A units would have quicker response times than the Bs and Cs.

Yes, good point. For unit quality I start with the 'training' rating which can have the values Elite = 7, Veteran = 6, Regular = 5, and Green = 4.

US Forces in Germany in 1989 are veteran.
Warsaw Pact – Soviet, Polish and East German Category 1 divisions, airborne, marine and airmobile are all regular. All others are green.
British – Royal Marines, Paratroops and SAS are elite, Regular British Army is veteran, and Territorial Army is regular.
West German – Fallschirmjager are veteran, 1st line units are regular, 2nd line units and reserve units are green.

This is a drastic simplification of course, and there will be lots of individual variation, but this will get us going. I tend to think it underrates the Germans and overrates the Russians, but that is just my opinion...

In the game the biggest determinant of standard orders delay is unit quality and the biggest determinant of unit quality is unit training. Using these numbers give a distinct edge in speed to the US forces which I think indirectly reflects the influences you have enumerated. They give none to the West Germans so maybe we should widen the # of categories to more than 4. I just can't believe the standard FRG unit was only as well trained as the standard Soviet unit!

I had forgotten about how EW would more adversely effect NATO units, thanks for the reminder!

Cheers, Rob.

Originally posted by RobertCrandall
Yes, good point. For unit quality I start with the 'training' rating which can have the values Elite = 7, Veteran = 6, Regular = 5, and Green = 4.

US Forces in Germany in 1989 are veteran.
Warsaw Pact – Soviet, Polish and East German Category 1 divisions, airborne, marine and airmobile are all regular. All others are green.
British – Royal Marines, Paratroops and SAS are elite, Regular British Army is veteran, and Territorial Army is regular.
West German – Fallschirmjager are veteran, 1st line units are regular, 2nd line units and reserve units are green.
Cheers, Rob.

And what about the German FernspähKompanies (LRRP),
US LRSC/LRSD and Green Berets,
Dutch Commando's (LRRP), Marines, normalArmy.
Belgium ParaCommando's, ESR (LRRP), normal Army.
and other NATO countries etc.

Soviet Spetsnaz
Warsaw Pact LRRP units (Every Army has 1 Co or Bn)

Originally posted by RobertCrandall
These are the inputs we can work with:
- Unit Type: hq, recce, armor, mechinf, arty, eng, AT of various kinds, AA of various kinds.

Are there also the following unit types: Marines, SF/LRRP, Mountain, Airborne etc

Originally posted by RobertCrandall
- Posture: fortified, dugin, defilade, exposed (not defiladed, but not incurring unnecessary risk either), and very exposed (tactically unaware).
[/B]

Is't also possible the posture: hidden, ambush?

Rob

If I had my druthers, I would set it up based not only on unit type but also location.

1. Elite = all SF/Ranger/Commando/Spetsnatz units

2. Veteran = All airborne, air assault, and marine forces. All combat formations stationed in Germany of both sides. This includes Soviet Cat A and E German Cat A divisions in E Germany. Everyone constantly trained on both sides while there, these units should naturally have the edge.

3. Regular = all regular combat formations other than those mentioned above located outside of Germany. This includes US reforger units and all Cat A and B divisions of the WP.

4. Green = anything not listed above. All territorial, national guard, reserves, Cat C and D units.


Sabre21

Rob

I will try and give my few cents worth on the time delays.

Before i start I want to mention that two things really affect the time. First and foremost is the quality of the unit. All units gad Standard Operationg Procedures (SOP's) for performing unit tasks, such as a road march, hasty attack..etc.

The second is whether or not units are in direct support of each other. If my parent battalion gave me an order, there is probably little confusion or delay where if I was attached, I might not now a unit's sop therefore causing me possible delay on figuring things out.

The other part of direct support is fire support and close air. If these are dedicated assets, I could expect minimum delay, but if they are in general support, I might get lucky to get it by tomorrow.

Air Strike 20 mins


This would be too long if in direct support...probably closer to 5 minutes if a western unit. If air isn't directly available or on station...forget it (that's fast movers...not helos).


Assault (deliberate attack, bounding overwatch) 30 mins

This is way too short. Several hours is more like it. A deliberate attack takes time to plan and get ready, lots of things to coordinate...again well trained units do it quicker based on SOP.

Most attacks after the first battle are hasty in nature partly due to how fluid the battlefield is. If things are static, then a deliberate attack is usually necessary to break thru, where if both sides are constantly maneuvering, hasty attacks is all you will see.


Arty (Barrage, Counter Battery, Direct Support) 2 minutes

Again this depends whether the unit has an artillery unit in direct support, because if you don't someone else does and you are SOL!


Engineering (bridges and minefields) 20 – 30 minutes

Hasty minefields and small water obstacles...that time might seem reasonable. Crossing the Rhine is a different story. The huge advantage here go with the Soviet Cat A forces in Germany.


Hold (do or die defend in place defensive order) 30 mins (to dig in before it becomes effective)

Thats called a deliberate defense...meaning entrenchments, minefields, arty support. I will give you a shovel with a 2 foot handle and see how long it takes you to dig a hole for your car....in the winter time...at night...in Mopp 4 gear...hehe...did I miss anything:)

Weather, time of day, available engineer assets will affect this. What you are really asking here is a hasty defense...yea...30 minutes is good enough to know you will die shortly.


Movement (traveling overwatch) 20 mins,

This seems ok.


Reporting to HQ 5 mins,

No brainer here unless the guy is dead.


Route March 12 mins

This too seems ok. Soviets call it roadmarch. All sides practiced this...one big thing to take in account though are refugees. At the onset, refugees will clutter the roads.


Screen (defend but not tied to tightly to the local location) 5 mins.

This is a Cavalry security mission type. Usually for counter recon and early warning. If a Cav unit, no problem. Otherwise them grunts might not now what to do:)


Sabre21

Rob you also need to look at the complexity of the orders. The more "waypoints" the harder it is tood do is one solution (assuming you are using waypoints).

While I feel your orders are close (if maybe still a bit short) for company level, as soon as you have more than one company moving in a coordinated way with one another the order delay needs to be increased.

Attacks need to be considered as prepared or hasty attacks. In prepared attacks the attacker should get a bonus for better preperation and coordination, but the delay should be several hours. In a hasty attack battle drills are used and the terrain is not used to its fullest, and you hav'nt spent as much time looking at enemy positions and doing your flank coordination.

Also digging in takes more than 30mins, (1-2 hours? and thats a slit trench with no overhead cover. Digging an infantry battalion in with wire obsticles, mines camoflaged positions overhead cover and maybe some alternate/dummy positions takes about 3 days),.

Cheers

RobC

Originally posted by Jo van der Pluym


And what about the German FernspähKompanies (LRRP),
US LRSC/LRSD and Green Berets,
Dutch Commando's (LRRP), Marines, normalArmy.
Belgium ParaCommando's, ESR (LRRP), normal Army.
and other NATO countries etc.

Soviet Spetsnaz
Warsaw Pact LRRP units (Every Army has 1 Co or Bn)

Don't worry! The list I gave was simplified to give an indication of the overall scheme of how I am tackling this important topic. Rest assured that unit quality (all of the intangible factors that make a mob of men into effective fighting soldiers) are crucial to me and are reflected in countless ways withinin the game.

The matter is so important that it will be up to the individual scenario designers to declare the training levels of _each and every individual unit_ in the game. They will all be free to set them as they think best in the unique circumstances of the scenario.

If the Soviets really did concentrate their best soldiers in their 1st bns and their least effective in the 3rd, and within that their 1st companies vs their 3rd companies, this can be portrayed. If there is an elite commando unit on the map, it will be tagged as such and behave accordingly.

Cheers, Rob.

Originally posted by jrcar
Rob you also need to look at the complexity of the orders. The more "waypoints" the harder it is tood do is one solution (assuming you are using waypoints).

1. We do indeed use waypoints - up to 3 of them. It had not occured to me to lengthen the delay in line with the number of waypoints. Is this what you mean, or increasingly complexity in general?

2. Moving companies in a coordinated way is a bit of a sore point with me right now. Currently they all get individual orders and make their own way along their individually plotted movement paths. This leads to some out-of-order movement and unseemly looking congestion. For now I'm saying "well, that happens in real life too" but later on it is something I would like to revisit and try to improve upon.

3. 'Deliberate' attacks. Yes I now that they can take a minimum of several hours to set up at brigade and higher level. These are the delays for companies and platoons. Getting them all in position and ready to jump off seems to take a few 30 minutes turns to accomplish, so I don't feel we are too far out overall.

4. Digging in. I don't have the data at my fingertips but I believe it doesn't take very long for troops to dig in sufficiently that they can reduce their losses by 50% compared to being out in the open. That is all I am looking for here...

More generally, I believe that apart from the British and Canadians, most troops were taught to fight over the ground rather than for it. The idea of fortifying bastions and then defending every yard of them pretty much belongs to another era. Most other troops would not expect to be in a position long enough to make it worth fixing up too much. Or was that not the case?

Cheers, Rob.

Originally posted by Sabre21
Rob
The second is whether or not units are in direct support of each other. If my parent battalion gave me an order, there is probably little confusion or delay where if I was attached, I might not now a unit's sop therefore causing me possible delay on figuring things out.


Screen (defend but not tied to tightly to the local location) 5 mins.

This is a Cavalry security mission type. Usually for counter recon and early warning. If a Cav unit, no problem. Otherwise them grunts might not now what to do:)


Sabre21

1. My direct support rules were meant to reflect what you are getting at but are somewhat in tatters right now due to other programming changes. (Typical programming problems!) They are due for a review and rewrite as a result. I know that arty and air direct support are critical but who else? Tanks for infantry too? I'd like to avoid as many special rules as possible though.

My understanding right now is that NATO arty fire control is/was much superior to the WP and that it was perfectly feasible to be able to call 'every gun within range' as needed on extremely short (2 min) notice. The WP could only call in arty that was tasked to directly support them unless of course they were willing to wait a long time for it. The net result is that NATO arty is mostly 'on call' and can automatically suport everyone quickly. The WP player has to manually assign arty support to specific units and hope he has picked the right units. When they get vaporized he has to manually reassign the artillery to someone else. It is cumbersome and erorr prone on purpose! This is a really important element of the game so I want to make sure I have it right.

2. Screening. I thought all kinds of companies could be given this order. The idea is to present a mobile defense rather than a 'do or die' defense. You are willing to trade ground for lower casualties. Is this not realistic for units other than cavalry?

Thanks for your many comments Sabre21, and everyone else too! I'm glad I asked these questions.

Cheers, Rob.

Originally posted by RobertCrandall


The matter is so important that it will be up to the individual scenario designers to declare the training levels of _each and every individual unit_ in the game. They will all be free to set them as they think best in the unique circumstances of the scenario.

Robert

I don't know if this is ask in another thread. Does the game includes a scenario editor? So yes, what can I then edit?

Map?
Units?
Equipment?

Originally posted by Jo van der Pluym


Robert

I don't know if this is ask in another thread. Does the game includes a scenario editor? So yes, what can I then edit?

Map?
Units?
Equipment?

Hi Jo

According to the info page for this product there will be an editor.

"Game Editor: Yes"

Now what you can do with it I leave Robert to answer:)

Dan

Rob

I want to try and explain Arty Fire Support a little more.

What you describe as far as Nato's Arty Fire control being superior to that of the Soviets is really subjective. It's two different philosophies on how to accomplish the task.

The Soviets have a lot of artillery, in a typical division there are 6 battalions of it plus an MRL battalion, not to mention 9 mortar battiers in an MRD and 6 in a TD. At Army level there is usually at least 1 brigade of 4 more battalions and at front at least 1 arty division of another 16 battalions and a brigade of 4 more. What I am getting at here is quantity.

A US division either had 4 battalions (3 155mm and one 8") or 3 Bn's of 155 and an MRL battery. There were also 10 platoons of 4.2" or 120mm mortars. At corps was a brigade of 3 battalions and an MRL battalion.

On a one for one basis, the western arty was quicker and more flexible. But taken as a whole, the Soviets relied more on preplanning and using massive quantities to pummel targets, so things tend to balance. Where we might assign a battery to engage a target, the Soviets would assign a battalion or two.

The biggest problem with the western method is two fold: 1) there would have been too many targets to process for the number of firing units available, and 2) massive Soviet EW would have reduced our flexibility.

The problem with the Soviet method was also two fold: 1) too centralized of a control with not enough non arty forward observers, and 2) lack of flexibility when the battlefield is very fluid. The latter is really odd too considering the majority of Soviet doctrine emphasizes the meeting engagement as their preferred method of combat.

So if we (the West), had a dedicated artillery unit (not everyone will), and we were up against an equal sized opponent in a low ew environment, our arty would reign supreme due to its flexible effectiveness.

On the other hand, if the Soviet attack was their main effort (not a side show bob thing), meaning the force ratio would be around 4-5 to 1 in the area of attack (could be much higher), EW support would be massive as would their arty pre-planned fires. The Soviet system would most likely prevail.

So, depending on the scenario will basically depend on how effective one side's arty is over the other.

Sabre21

Originally posted by RobertCrandall


1. We do indeed use waypoints - up to 3 of them. It had not occured to me to lengthen the delay in line with the number of waypoints. Is this what you mean, or increasingly complexity in general?

Increasing the delay by the number of way points. A simple order is Coy B attack the hill. A complex order is Coy A, move to the village, take the road to the right and about 500m down is a bridge, 1km NW of the bridge is the objective. Coy C will provide firesupport from feature 215, 314 Arty Bn is in direct support, 31 Arty Bde is in support. Once you have the objective reorganise and defend, providing supporting fires while 3 coy bounds forward.

2. Moving companies in a coordinated way is a bit of a sore point with me right now. Currently they all get individual orders and make their own way along their individually plotted movement paths. This leads to some out-of-order movement and unseemly looking congestion. For now I'm saying "well, that happens in real life too" but later on it is something I would like to revisit and try to improve upon.

Sounds realistic to me But players expect better AI behaviour unfortuneately.

3. 'Deliberate' attacks. Yes I now that they can take a minimum of several hours to set up at brigade and higher level. These are the delays for companies and platoons. Getting them all in position and ready to jump off seems to take a few 30 minutes turns to accomplish, so I don't feel we are too far out overall.

A company will spend 5-30 mins in the Form Up Point (FUP) prior to conducting the attack.

4. Digging in. I don't have the data at my fingertips but I believe it doesn't take very long for troops to dig in sufficiently that they can reduce their losses by 50% compared to being out in the open. That is all I am looking for here...

A sheel scrape is one thing, and that protects from incomming fire, but a proper defensive position, with all the defenders advantages, takes a lot of time. In particular it takes a lot of time to coordinate arcs of fire, make sure you have no major dead ground that the enemy can use.

More generally, I believe that apart from the British and Canadians, most troops were taught to fight over the ground rather than for it. The idea of fortifying bastions and then defending every yard of them pretty much belongs to another era. Most other troops would not expect to be in a position long enough to make it worth fixing up too much. Or was that not the case?

Both soviet and western doctrine emphasises the benefits of defence as a way of stopping or slowing the enemy using the minimum force, whilst preparing your mobile forces for a counterthrust. If anything Soviet doctrine is very good at defensive stuff, and Western Doctrine emphasises the attack, almost a complete role reversal of what you would expect...

I suggest you have a look at the Airbourne Assault Demo by Battlefront (WW2 Divisional/Corps level game, played with company/platoon sized units) for a good way of doing waypoints and doing waypoints, FUP's and assaults. Also time delays.

Cheers

RobC

Originally posted by Sabre21
Rob

I want to try and explain Arty Fire Support a little more.


The biggest problem with the western method is two fold: 1) there would have been too many targets to process for the number of firing units available, and 2) massive Soviet EW would have reduced our flexibility.

The problem with the Soviet method was also two fold: 1) too centralized of a control with not enough non arty forward observers, and 2) lack of flexibility when the battlefield is very fluid. The latter is really odd too considering the majority of Soviet doctrine emphasizes the meeting engagement as their preferred method of combat.

So if we (the West), had a dedicated artillery unit (not everyone will), and we were up against an equal sized opponent in a low ew environment, our arty would reign supreme due to its flexible effectiveness.

On the other hand, if the Soviet attack was their main effort (not a side show bob thing), meaning the force ratio would be around 4-5 to 1 in the area of attack (could be much higher), EW support would be massive as would their arty pre-planned fires. The Soviet system would most likely prevail.

So, depending on the scenario will basically depend on how effective one side's arty is over the other.

Sabre21

Excellent post Sabre.

Soviet doctrine emphasises the OPERATIONAL level or war, we westerns get stuck in tactics The Soviet aim is to mass overwheliming power at critical points to make tactics irrelevant (the Soviets have a few highly trained operational level commanders, and didn't waste too much on tactics. the west had lots of good tactical level commanders but I feel we were lacking in operational ability).

For example in the second half of WW2 when the Soviet operational theory was fully put into practice the Soviets frequently only had an advantage of 2/3 to 1 over the Germans accross a front. At the point of decision they frequently had odds of 16 to 1 or greater, with the rest of the front weakly held by troops in defensive positions (hence the important discussion in Soviet Doctrine on Defensive preperations).

The Soviet arty would be concentrated on the main effort, the supporting units would get very little.

Soviet arty does what its supposed to do, so does Western Arty, they are just both doing slightly different things

What is going to make the difference is the number of sheels they have to shoot, not getting an arty barrage on the deck 5 mins earier.

cheers

RobC

Hi Jrcar

I think by 1988 the US Army at least had fully developed the Operational Art of War. I participated on the last great Reforger in September of 1988 where nearly 120000 US troops participated. This was the largest deployment of US troops to Europe since WWII.

Having been on 5 previous reforgers, Reforger 88 was a huge improvement. During this exercise we had 2 full corps going at it with each other. Objectives in some cases were over 100 kilometers from the start point, maneuver was dominant. Seeing entire battalions of M1A1's racing at 50-60k was pretty awesome.
On several occasions our assembly area had to move or get overrun by the opposite side. I don't think our poor crewchiefs got much rest on that exercise, between recovering our aircraft each day and packing up all the gear several times each day was pretty stressful. I recal one day our lead brigade over ran a field hospital and a Lance SSM unit. You know how far in the rear those guys are supposed to be...what a great time it was.

The funny thing is, the foe we ended up using this on wasn't the intended one. The Iraqis ended up on the receiving end of 45 years of Cold War prepartion.

Sabre21

The times I refer to below are for NATO. You and Sabre can figure out the Pact times. I ain't got no stinkin' idea about realistic delays for them.

Cool. I agree with a lot of what's been said, but I can't remember it all. The comments on arty sound right to me. If you've got arty in DS, you should be able to get it within 2 minutes. (Of course, there is a question as to who the arty is directly supporting and whether there may be more units than the ones you are commanding on the map that may have call on this DS. There may be some variability as a result). As stated, GS arty would be catch as catch can. If you had TRPs preplotted, you might get rounds down range within two minutes - if they're not firing a mission for someone else. Or you may never get it at all. I don't think it would be inaccurate to have this kind of variability in the game. Some of it could be written into the scenario by assuming a general situation (e.g, heavy assaults along entire front or first sunny day in spring and enemy is doing laundry), which would then affect the random component. Thus, if the scenario calls for heavy activity, you might receive fire support anywhere from 15 minutes to never. On a light day, GS would be available from 2 minutes to 15 minutes. The player would request arty and be given a response like, "Roger, what's the grid" or "We're busy and will call you when we're available." When the call comes from arty (if it does) the player has to fire a mission then or lose the support until another call is made (starting the process over).

I agree with the statements on fixed wing support. It's either on a race track and there within five or ten minutes, or you're not going to get it. That's probably a little too all or nothing, but it's close. Frankly, I don't know the extent to which the zoomies plot ingress and egress routes. There should also be a chance of friendly fire kills if the support is other than A-10. I'll defer to Sabre on rotary wing support, but I'd think DS rotary wing would be there within five or ten minutes, with more variable delays on GS.

I'm curious about the assault/bounding overwatch mode. How does the computer know you're assaulting something? Or do you get additional offensive/defensive benefits for being in assault mode so that I can choose between assault mode, which takes more time but gives benefits, or traveling overwatch, which takes less time but I suffer some detriments as I assault Hill 182? Seems like I'd just stick everyone in assault mode on turn one and leave them there. Or do you have to select an objective for units in assault mode? Darn, Rob, there's just too much we don't know!! In any event, I would make a distinction between assault and bounding overwatch. An assault takes planning and coordination. Units should be able to accomplish bounding just as easily as traveling overwatch by radio; experienced units could probably manage competent bounding overwatch with nothing more than a fairly detailed route of advance and some flag signals that wouldn't take much more time than traveling overwatch to plan and execute. I would see the difference between bounding overwatch and traveling overwatch as being a trade of between speed/movement points and defensive/offensive bonuses.

Engineering support. Not too sure what the thirty minute delay replicates. I would think that you're looking at 6 hours minimum from the time someone decided to lay mines or a bridge before the engineers arrived on site - if they're available. This stuff is at division and they may have to travel a considerable distance, unload one type of engineering material and load another. You'd also have to have (doctrinally, anyway) lots of smoke laid on. On the other hand, if a plan is in place and the engineers are waiting 5 km back and just waiting to execute, then thirty minutes is fine. And I'm not sure what kind of minefield you're expecting to lay within the time scope of the game unless they have those groovy new tracks that just tills up the ground and lays the mine very quickly.

I agree with someone's statement about the dug-in or fortification mode. You may want to distinguish between infantry and armor on this point. Infantry can start digging holes and dragging the assorted log over to a fighting position. The best way to model this would be for the infantry to receive an additional incremental defensive benefit for each fifteen or thirty minutes since they entered the mode, which replicates the constant improvement of the position. Not sure you want to program to that degree. I think armor is going to be a kind of all or nothing deal. There just isn't that much improving you can do for a tank unless you spend a day digging fighting positions with a D-7 dozer or stacking entire trees to try and set up a HEAT shield. Otherwise, hull down is as good as anything, and you should be able find positions within ten minutes. The only other thing you could do would be to camoflage your position somewhat.

I assume reporting to HQ represents transmitting the results of combat. Five minutes sounds right. Spot reports should be one minute.

While I understand the real-world concept of screening, I'm not sure how that translates into game terms. Seems to me that the unit does what it was doing before (moving, sitting) - only it doesn't allow itself to become decisively engaged. If it is a way of telling the AI how to handle a situation without you giving additional orders, I would say ten minutes is a better number.

I think a lot of this is hard to comment on because we don't have all of the game mechanics. If you shipped us an alpha version of the game (hint, hint) we could see what you are trying to do and comment a little better. Otherwise, it is difficult to see what you mean by exposed vs. very exposed or how a unit with an assault function operates.

Originally posted by jrcar


While I feel your orders are close (if maybe still a bit short) for company level, as soon as you have more than one company moving in a coordinated way with one another the order delay needs to be increased.

Yup. Spot on. Again, it's hard for us because we don't know the game mechanics. You've mentioned various unit sizes. If there are companies, battalions, and regiments, and you are giving the order to the entire unit, e.g., move to hill 182, then there should be additional delays as the unit gets larger. Some of this I don't think you'll be able to program. There will be more delay if you are moving three companies, each separated by one hex, in a tactical mode to assault hill 182 than if you are moving just one of the companies. How in the h--l does the computer know that it is a battalion movement of three separate companies as opposed to one company moving on its own?

Actually, I gather in parsing your posts that the system is as follows: Select unit A, determine a mode and, if the unit is to move, select way points. Once you've done that for all units, you push the go button, and the units move on their own to the objective, ala Close Combat, once the delay has expired. Hope your AI is better than theirs. I can see now where you get the jumble of units moving out of order. Have fun trying to get an experienced unit and a reserve unit to move together when they have different delays. In real life, the experienced unit would wait around picking their noses until the reserve pukes are ready to go. I've been thinking more about a Panzer Campaigns type of movement where you move a unit hex by hex, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're doing. Sounds like a programming nightmare.