Matrix Games Forums

The first minute after I've given a unit a HOLD order, it is immediately dug-in.
Is this intended? Is it just wrong information being shown?

Whooo boy howdy, this is a complicated set of compromises filed under "Simplification, Abstraction, and Aggregation"

The label could be better. We all know (or should) that this isn't really "dug in". That requires a lot of blade time (bulldozers and entrenching tools). So what is really going on here from a combat standpoint?

Let's look at "Screen". Infantry dismounts to provide local security. It's a temporary halt situation (more than a few minutes) and the unit is well disposed to mount up and resume movement.

"Hold" includes not only dismounting of infantry, but dispersal, assigning sectors of observation and fire, and a fire plan. That alone dramatically alters what happens upon enemy contact and is why Hold works better than Screen when in contact.

Under the covers, we do look at that taking about 30 minutes. What we don't do is have a "Work In Progress" state that bubbles up. And that's OK, really! It's another bit of friction for a Battalion Commander.

The aggregation part is you, as a Player-Commander, use the Hold order to accomplish a number of tactical tasks. Some examples are: Defending a location, occupying an attack/support by fire position, occupying a surveillance position and using Hold to decrease signature and increase survivability. Hold increases survivability by dispersal and use of cover, increases direct fire effectiveness by making targeting enemy subunits easier, and decreases detectability by dispersal and use of concealment. Battalion and above don't track where in the process of getting set in Hold a unit is.

We are unlikely to give the Player more info on the actual current state of the unit in question. The challenge her is terminology that fits all the uses of the Order. It's more like a "Set" or "Deployed", but that's too generic. I'll continue to noodle on it, but there's other work in the pipeline that may well make it issue moot.

I am going to assume you're trying to figure out if a particular set of combat resolutions are reasonable. Your rule of thumb is if the unit hasn't been in Hold for 30 minutes, the result will look more like the unit is in Screen.

When moving units I will most often end my movement, especially if I know there will be future moves screening. There is most definitely a longer delay for a unit with Hold orders when they are ordered to move. Great question though. There is a lot of depth going on in this engine.

22sec wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:17 pm When moving units I will most often end my movement, especially if I know there will be future moves screening. There is most definitely a longer delay for a unit with Hold orders when they are ordered to move. Great question though. There is a lot of depth going on in this engine.

Yeah, exactly this. Don't think of the "Screen" order as being a "Screen Mission", meaning the early warning security mission done by forward or flank units. It's a temporary halt.

AND, it's the baseline for a lot of stuff. Visible enemy platforms for direct fire? Example: Screen is the base. Hold is better. Everything else is worse. Being visible as a target of direct fire? Screen is the base. Hold is better. Everything else is worse.

On Call (for arty units) is like Screen in this respect.

Some orders, like Assault, it just doesn't matter what order you start with. The amount of work to prepare for what you're going to do overshadows what you're currently doing.

I could be wrong, but I guess this happens at the first turn?
During initial setup phase any unit put Hold will automatically considered as dug-in in the first minute.

Tcao wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 9:36 pm I could be wrong, but I guess this happens at the first turn?
During initial setup phase any unit put Hold will automatically considered as dug-in in the first minute.

Correct. Setup orders and also reinforcement arrival turn there is no order delay.