Support leading the Assault

[dazkaz15]

This is a very old bug that is still hanging around.
Not a major bug by any means, but still an annoying one.
Also in this series of saves will be the bunkering down once the assault at time has been missed during an attack, that the community have requested a change of behaviour for as seen here:

tm.asp?m=3313015

Image 1

[dazkaz15]

I have just noticed something else very interesting about the above image.
The image was taken straight from a save game.

Notice how the facing has defaulted to north even though I am absolutely positive that it was set to South West before the save, in the orders box for II Bn HQ 19SS PG Regt, and Kampfgruppe Telkamp!
In fact if you look at the yellow open ended box of the attack order in Vielsalm you can see that it is still set as I left it before the save.

So you might want to take a look at that as well when I send you the saves, because this has something to do with the facing north bug, after a save.

[Lieste]

Yet, one of the Bn Attacks is still facing SW. Are you certain this difference wasn't present prior to save/restore?

[dazkaz15]

I have just been looking into this to check by loading up an earlier save.
The 2 formations that have had the facing spring to north were both set to auto facing, but the one that stayed facing SW was manually set to face that way, so it would seem that the problem is with the units that are set to auto facing before a save.

These are the ones that spring back to face north on loading a new save instead of going back to auto facing.
At least in this instance.

Would need to do more tests on other units to confirm this, but now I think about it, it explains a lot because I make it a habit of setting the Divisional HQ's to auto facing, in situ formation, and I am forever having to re set these after a save.

One thing I can be absolutely sure of is I never set them to North [:'(]

[dazkaz15]

Image 2

[dazkaz15]

Here is an unaltered image of the facing.
Its impossible in game to make the yellow projected position box face that way without altering the facing dial, so it must have been from the save.

The confusing thing is that the previous saves have the facing set to auto which is usually a closed box.

I have real doubt in my mind now as to what I set it as either auto or SW, the only thing I am absolutely certain of, is I never set it to North.

Or any of my Divisional HQ units some of which are set to north again in this very save.

[Arjuna]

Daz,
 
So where is the picture showing the AT unit in the lead?

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Daz,

So where is the picture showing the AT unit in the lead?

I'm getting to it...slowly but surely [:'(]

And I thought it was us lot that were the impatient ones [:D]

Image 3

[Arjuna]

Still don't see it Daz. Am I too impatient? [;)]

This is starting to look and feel like an AAR not a tech support issue. But I do like the snaps with their lovely annotations. Very nice eye candy. [:)]

[dazkaz15]

Here you go [:'(]
Ill get the saves sorted out now then [;)]

[BletchleyGeek]

Hmm, looks like the problem is that the two Infantry Coys decided to "halt" their advance on the objective, but the AT platoon didn't and hence moved ahead.

BTW, very good tactics Daz - I liked those two companies providing fire support north of the bridge (or that's what it looks like).

Let me second Dave that this looks to me as a quite good AAR. It's shame you're doing these write-ups here, where they are probably not going to have so much of an audience.

[dazkaz15]

There would have been a whole Regiment of armour just to the south if they hadn't decided to pull out at the last minute [:(]
Could you imagine the kind of reception they would get from the infantry Coy's if they did that for real?

I was wondering if the support units should be more closely linked somehow to the Coy's they are attached to.
So that when it stops they do. If it retreats they do.

Is there an orders delay between the support unit, and the Coy it is attached to during an assault?
If there is I think it should be removed, because these 2 units would be working very closely together during an assault when used like this.
If they were deployed further back in a longer ranged support role then I could see the need for an orders delay, but not when working closely like in the assault in this example.

As for the AAR, yeah I got kind of carried away [:D]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

There would have been a whole Regiment of armour just to the south if they hadn't decided to pull out at the last minute [:(]
Could you imagine the kind of reception they would get from the infantry Coy's if they did that for real?

Sorry mate, didn't get that. What regiment of armour? I only see a force the size of a Bn.

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
I was wondering if the support units should be more closely linked somehow to the Coy's they are attached to.
So that when it stops they do. If it retreats they do.

Is there an orders delay between the support unit, and the Coy it is attached to during an assault?
If there is I think it should be removed, because these 2 units would be working very closely together during an assault when used like this.
If they were deployed further back in a longer ranged support role then I could see the need for an orders delay, but not when working closely like in the assault in this example.

I'm not aware of anything like such an orders delay. Orders delay is modelling the time needed to work out plans and communicate them to subordinates. There are other delays, but these are of a more 'contingent' nature (for instance, a unit needs to take cover because of incoming enemy artillery fires, delaying other units moving in formation).

In CO1, the planning routines are not capable of developing attack plans where a part of the force plays the role of 'direct fire support', as would be fitting for that AT platoon. Such a thing is expected to be done by the player (see the Tutorial, where Dave develops a plan with fire support manually). One of the big jobs for CO2 is extend the current gamut of plans the AI can develop, including developing "fire plans" that take into account units capable of either direct and indirect fires.

[Arjuna]

Daz, I'm in the middle of going throught the intel code right now. Can you please check what formation role the AT Pl has and who its superior is in the formation ( you will need to set the force structure to formation to do that ).

[Bobbybat]

Quick butt in...These bug posts are actually fantastic for a complete noob like me because the (as you called it) AAR-like nature with so much detail to illustrate the suspect behaviour is actually great insight into tactics and the use of formations. This talk about the AT Pl providing fire support had me thinking "Hmmm, how do I go about organising a formation to act as fire support for another's assault?" And then you answered that straight away saying that Dave covers it in the tutorial...Can anyone point me at which bit that is in (if it's not too much trouble) as they are quite long and involved to hunt through...

Thanks all,
Mark

PS Love the sound of the CO2 AI managed fire support concept but jeez that's gonna be hard to do! Great challenge:).

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Bobbyb1

Can anyone point me at which bit that is in (if it's not too much trouble) as they are quite long and involved to hunt through...

Sure Mark, check out the "TM 3: Contingency Planning" tutorial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1DsphHR5qg

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Daz, I'm in the middle of going throught the intel code right now. Can you please check what formation role the AT Pl has and who its superior is in the formation ( you will need to set the force structure to formation to do that ).

11 Coy and the Pak Pl are subordinated to 10 Coy.

The Pak Pl is designated at Line Filler for the Assault.

See in the image for more details.

Its also shown in Image 1 and 2 above, so has not changed its Role during the assault that I am aware of.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Bobbyb1

Quick butt in...These bug posts are actually fantastic for a complete noob like me because the (as you called it) AAR-like nature with so much detail to illustrate the suspect behaviour is actually great insight into tactics and the use of formations. This talk about the AT Pl providing fire support had me thinking "Hmmm, how do I go about organising a formation to act as fire support for another's assault?" And then you answered that straight away saying that Dave covers it in the tutorial...Can anyone point me at which bit that is in (if it's not too much trouble) as they are quite long and involved to hunt through...

Thanks all,
Mark

PS Love the sound of the CO2 AI managed fire support concept but jeez that's gonna be hard to do! Great challenge:).

Thanks Mark, glad you liked them [:)]

[dazkaz15]

On a side note Dave.
Shouldn't 10 Coy 19SS PG Regt have bunkered down by now?

His Fatigue has been stuck as 89% for ages, and does not seem to be getting any higher, and he is still assaulting.

Have you changed the behaviour for fatigue?
Or is there a bug stopping them going above 89% now?

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

There would have been a whole Regiment of armour just to the south if they hadn't decided to pull out at the last minute [:(]
Could you imagine the kind of reception they would get from the infantry Coy's if they did that for real?

Sorry mate, didn't get that. What regiment of armour? I only see a force the size of a Bn.

Yes. sorry mate its a re-enforced Bn size Kampfgruppe.

What threw me was the fact it has a Bn HQ subordinate to the Kampfgruppe commander, that I was giving the orders to.

I will have to get out of the habit of thinking all Kampfgruppe's are the same size of Peipers [:'(]