Matrix Games Forums

Everytime I try to move my guys, it keeps saying "need (insert # here) more orders". What does this mean and how do I get my guys quickly moving again?

88MM,
If you will look at page 35 & 36 of the ver.4 manual under "Command Control and Orders", it will give a short explanion of this.
Good Luck,
Bascom

Originally posted by 88mm:
Everytime I try to move my guys, it keeps saying "need (insert # here) more orders". What does this mean and how do I get my guys quickly moving again?

Quick ('n dirty):
Go to the "Preference Screen"; "Realism ..";turn of "Command Control" !
Now you can move your units around as you wish.

Better way:

Learn how to use C&C

Arralen

Agreed Arralen.. do try to play with C&C on. It makes the game much more interesting and realistic (imo of course!).

At first it just pisses you off, but eventually its very cool to have to regroup units because you let things get disorganized before you can issue a new order to the formation. It promotes organization and planning. It also puts a premium on leaders, cause if they travel with their units you can change their orders much more rapidly. I'm becoming an actual fan of playing low leadership units cause of the need to manage them right. It's very cool.

Tomo

C&C is a harsh taskmaster, but for the combat commander whose responisibility it is not only to kill the enemy, but to micromanage his troops to do the job effectively, it is a great teachig tool.

For those who demand realism in combat, C&C should be learned and used.

History is replete with examples of men who froze in combat, did not return fire, panicked, or otherwise had serious problems dealing with the horror of the moment.

Leaders, taking charge, controlling their men, ordering return fire, kicking some butts if necessary, is all part of the picture.

WB

------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

[This message has been edited by Wild Bill (edited September 28, 2000).]

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

History is replete with examples of men who froze in combat, did not return fire, panicked, or otherwise had serious problems dealing with the horror of the moment.

Isn't this more appropriately handled in the damage routine? Example: A barrage of 150mm artillery shells lands all around a squad. The squad is in cover and nobody is hit. Pvt. Smith is wimpering and crying in the bottom of a foxhole while the rest of the squad moves forward and shoots at an enemy squad. The game abstracts Pvt. Smith as a casualty.

Isn't C&C a little closer to: 1st Lt. Johnson radioing over and over to HQ. His platoon has reached their objective and they now don't know where to go next or if they should just dig in and wait for an enemy counter attack. After radioing to HQ for 15 minutes and not receiving an answer, they 1st Lt. Johnson decides to dig in and wait for further orders. Too bad his radio fell in the mud and HQ has been ordering them to advance.

BA Evans

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tombstone:
I'm becoming an actual fan of playing low leadership units cause of the need to manage them right. It's very cool.

I am an avid proponent of C2 rules. Recently played a pbem as Italy vs Japan.
Every time an IT squad broke and retreated, I had to move my command unit back to unsuppress them. I learned to command from the rear.
Conservation of orders was priority #1 because I needed my full platoons in action to wipe out the JA squads (they don't surrender). I used my FO's for artillery direction *only*. Buying too many arty units can be a tremendous drain on your orders.

Take the time to set objectives for each formation during deployment (I hope scenario designers are taking note) and your battle will proceed according to plan. At least at some point, all units of each formation will meet up at the flag sooner or later (unless hindered by enemy action).
When setting a new objective point, move the lowest unit in the formation first; move the commander last. If by chance, not all the squads heard the orders, you won't have to send the commander back (wasting more orders) to kick butts. By leaving your commander with the laggards, they will get the message by next turn and can advance to catch up with the rest of their platoon.

I definitely agree with Major Destruction's note about scenario designers putting objectives into eacj platoon, though I rarely play scenarios. There's nothing that gripes me more than to go through all the effort to set things up (including gun ranges and engineers set to laying mines in the defensive battles) in deploy, and then to forget to set platoon objectives.

In any case, if scenarios designers preset objectives, the user can always change them if a change is needed. Afterall, it doesn't cost anymore orders to change them, than it does to make some where none existed.

If you are playing with poorly led armies, then for God's sakes remember to set your objectives before the battle starts. I played a PBEM game with France against Italy in 1940, and I forgot to set my objectives during deployment... Oh, oh! Not a single one of my platoon leaders had enough command points to set an objective, so I was forced to move 2 of the 4 or 5 units in the platoon every turn and leave the others where they were. And God forbid that my platton HQ was suppressed...

Originally posted by von Curow:
If you are playing with poorly led armies, then for God's sakes remember to set your objectives before the battle starts.

I always have two saved files for every game that I am playing. First, I make sure to save the game at the end of deployment, in case I missed something like setting objectives. The second save is what I use during the actual battle.

This way, if I find after the first turn that I forgot to place some units, or set some objective, I can always return to the deployment screen and fix my units.

BA Evans

Smart move.

Also a valid point, Charles22. I'll keep that one in mind personally. Thanks..WB

------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games