Matrix Games Forums

Just to further add to the wish list, that is if these aren't already there!

As AA is more a 'General' sim than a straight wargame there are a couple of things that I feel could be better implemented:-

Firstly, the artillery - It would be good to be able to set a priority list for batteries, particularly the big field guns, say 'counter-battery', 'offensive support', 'ignore routing enemy formations' etc.

Secondly, the 'Frontage/Depth' options - this could be simplified down to a few options, say 'wide/deep' 'narrow/shallow' and so forth. Obviously these would have different effects dependant on the chosen formation for the unit(s) in question. As well as making this part of the interface simpler and more useful it would also make it more realistic as I feel it is unreal for a battlefield General to be fiddling with the exact frontage/depth of any unit.
Following on from that it could also improve the effectiveness of a 'delay' order where a 'narrow/deep' formation (terrain appropriate of course) could give the effect of platoons gradually falling back on one another. Similarly (in some ways) this could also work for 'withdraw' orders.

Secondly, the 'Frontage/Depth' options - this could be simplified down to a few options, say 'wide/deep' 'narrow/shallow' and so forth. Obviously these would have different effects dependant on the chosen formation for the unit(s) in question. As well as making this part of the interface simpler and more useful it would also make it more realistic as I feel it is unreal for a battlefield General to be fiddling with the exact frontage/depth of any unit.

Not sure I agree with this reasoning... in AA you most certainly are the Supreme Overall Commander, however you also have to have the tools to fine tune your deployments when you need to.. thus I like the frontages/depth settings as is. You better believe that the overall Commander will have the ability in reality to assign certain sectors (frontage depth) to any unit under his command. Also, there are times when you might want a Battalion (for example) to defend an area that is much wider, or much smaller, than usual.. you need to account for that.

Bil

Yes Bill, I see where you are coming from. I know that on the Eastern Front German units were sometimes stretched very thin as were some US units in the Ardennes in 1944. I'm not so sure whether such a situation would present itself in AA although it could do in future games and mods using the game engine. I suppose to a certain degree I'd like to have a GUI which is a touch more intuitive. I'm throwing ideas around to see what other players such as yourself feel about it so thanks for the post.

I think when the feature list for AA:HTTR is released you will find the setting of task frontages/depths useful and intuitive

Good stuff Paul, am looking forward to it. Have to say I had my doubts when it first was announced but now .... yeahhhh!

Kevin,

I'd just like to second what Bil says about RL commanders dealing with specific frontages, rather than loose terms like a wide front. And as Paul says the new interface for displaying frontages and depth works a treat. Check this out:



Note the Ocuppied Area is now defined by a open ended yellow box. The open end is the rear, so it also displays the facing. This is now displayed around the task icon so you can get an idea of just what area your troops will occupy.

Note also the new GUI graphics. These are not yet finished, so please excuse thewhite space behind the tabs, the old speed buttons and the button text/symbols which are hard to read.

Looks good Dave. It's a bit difficult to judge without seeing it in context. I don't deny Bil is correct but I think that the frontage/depth portion of the GUI could be simplified to maybe five or six options - each with a description. The actual effect of these on the unit would then be dependant on the unit size and chosen formation. I think that this would encourage more gamers to use this facility as at the moment it takes a fair amount of experimentation to get to use the function in a satisfactory manner. IMHO of course:) .

I use the frontage/depth/format adjustments all the time when establishing defensive positions; except when I manually place each unit.

There are just so many uses. A few quick examples:

(1) The objective is 2.0km diameter. Then, you better adjust your defend task accordingly. Otherwise, the enemy could well infiltrate and your troops may not detect and kick them out.

(2) You want to establish a long thin line as a blocking position to protect your arty battery from detection, counter-battery fire, and being over-run.

(3) You have not idea from where enemy reinforcements will come. Thus, you want to prepare for attack from all directions.

---

The part that confuses me is using the footprint modifiers with tasks other than DEFEND. Exactly how to use them with ATTACK, MOVE, etc...

---

Actually, I find that I perhaps only used about 40% of the game interface. However, I can honestly state that victory is not about knowing how to employ each interface element. Victory is about knowing when, where, and how strong to be. In essence, the one can play this game very successfully only using ATTACK and DEFEND.

correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the frontage indicator (in this exampe) show the "ordered" position, and not the current position. If so, that is very cool.

That being so, is this the frontage of the HQ and subFources or just the selected HQ?

TANX
Critical

It is the ordered position and not the actual as it is an attribute of the task marker.

As such, it is the combined frontage of all units which are assigned to this single task.

* However, as far as I know, individual units don't really vary their frontages. So, it is only relevant when you have multiple units to work with.

** You can think of this as the footprint which a multi-unit force is expected to protect.

*** Depending on circumstances for your defense, it may be better to micro-manage and assign defensive locations to each unit. The AI does not always pick the best defensive locations as it goes for footprint as opposed to cover. Thus, micro-managing is appropriate for a dug-in static defense. AI management is more appropriate if you want the defenders to reposition dynamically as threats may appear.

I hope that helps.

To add to Mark's notes, you can also assign individual defensive locations to units, then regroup them under an In-Situ Defend to restore the command structure.

Cheers
33

Originally posted by MarkShot
The part that confuses me is using the footprint modifiers with tasks other than DEFEND. Exactly how to use them with ATTACK, MOVE, etc...

That one is not easy.
I sometimes set the frontage (not depth, with a specific formation) on ATTACK when I want to cover specific ground.
But usually, I let all this micro-management for the AI.
I don't set it for other tasks, except DEFEND.

Actually, I find that I perhaps only used about 40% of the game interface. However, I can honestly state that victory is not about knowing how to employ each interface element. Victory is about knowing when, where, and how strong to be. In essence, the one can play this game very successfully only using ATTACK and DEFEND.

Agreed.
I played Beach Assault recently and I think I applied maybe one withdraw, one move, 2 bombard and 2 rest orders. Certainly not more. Should I say I happily won a decisive victory ?

Cheers,

JeF.

Good stuff going on there!! I've got to say that I've used most of the interface now although I'm still having trouble getting my head around the formation/facing side of things, particularly the Arrowhead as against Vee formation (I've only just started playing around with these so I'm sure I'll get there soon). Anyway, further to this frontage/depth question, I've looked at it in the game and now I'm wondering whether it only really applies to battalion sized units and greater. Also, when checking the formation and frontage of units I've noticed that the frontage and depth figures are given down to the metre. So now I'm asking, if I set the figure in the GUI to 300, 600 metres or whatever does the AI then set the actual figure to the nearest appropriate? Now, if it does, then why not alter the interface as I've suggested above. If it doesn't then would it be better set by the AI anyway? Aside from this, what did anyone think as to my suggestion of being able to prioritise targets for the artillery batteries?

I like the suggestion about a priority list for artillery targets, but then I would, wouldn't I?



Cheers
33