coordinating attacks

[gts2096]

is it possible to coordinate an attack of 2 companies from two different battalions on the same objective?

[Golf33]

Yes, but other than trying to coordinate it yourself - by giving the orders at the right time, using your best estimate of how long it will take - the only way to do it is by putting them under a Bn HQ that will ensure they attack in a coordinated manner.

<edit - you could also select them both and give them the attack order, that will subordinate one company to the other (which can increase orders delays) but will produce a coordinated attack after a fashion. I wouldn't expect the attack to be terribly slick in this instance however.>

Regards
33

[MadScot]

Surely if you subordinate both coys to a BnHQ or one coy to the other, then order an attack, the coys will launch an attack on a single axis from a single FUP. What you want is a way to either time-synchronise orders for separate attacks OR an option for multiple FUPs/axes for a single attack. Neither exist (yet) AFAIK.

[MarkShot]

I believe the AI is capable of planning a complex attack (two or more levels of HQs) with multiple axis of attack. However, I, personally, have yet to see such an attack by the AI performed on my behalf.

Steve, Dave, or Paul, do you need to only specify the attack marker and not the FUP location to get that behavior from the AI?

Thanks.

[gts2096]

ORIGINAL: MadScot

Surely if you subordinate both coys to a BnHQ or one coy to the other, then order an attack, the coys will launch an attack on a single axis from a single FUP. What you want is a way to either time-synchronise orders for separate attacks OR an option for multiple FUPs/axes for a single attack. Neither exist (yet) AFAIK.

That's exactly what i'm looking for, a way to have seperate Co. from different Battalions coordinate. Understandably, they may not jump off at the exact same time due to weather, staff, orginization levels and so on....

[KNac007]

I think that this will be easier when "perform <action> at <h-hour>" it's inplemented.

[Golf33]

A Complex Attack can occur over separate axes. This can occur when you don't specify an FUP and the AI assesses that an uncoordinated attack is a workable option. I am not sure if it tries to coordinate the timings however.

Regards
33

[MarkShot]

I guess that explains why I have never seen one; I always pick my own FUPs.

[MadScot]

I've seen too much lunacy by the AI to not pick the FUP. In one case 7KOSB took a grand tour of outer Arnhem to get to an FUP behind German lines when ordered to attack over a distance of about 800m. Why they didn't attack from their existing positions I'll never know.

Since that kind of SNAFU is all but impossible to correct (since you lose time, and the units go a-wandering while you try to corral them back into line) I *never* omit the FUP. So there's no way I'll ever see a concentric attack I guess [:(]

[MarkShot]

One thing you should know is that the route type you pick will have an impact on the AI's FUP selection when one is not specified. One of the other beta testers ran up against precisely this issue by not specifying a FUP and then choosing AVOIDANCE.

[MadScot]

Hmmm - Im not sure (logically) how moving around could avoid anything more than starting the FUP at the current location (which has no route to the FUP so zero chance of encountering anything). Unless the FUP itself is being located to a "safer" place but I can't see that either. AFAIR I didn't specify an FUP and left movement unspecified.

[Golf33]

In general, if I want to take a terrain objective, I will give an attack without an FUP; if I want to clear a sector, or have a very specific reason to make the attack over a particular axis, I will specify an FUP.

I've always found the AI does a reasonable job of it - it's not infallible but neither are real-life commanders [:)]

Regards
33

[Stinger22]

So if my force is in contact, but not necessarily engaged, and I want to attack is it best to just give an attack order without a FUP? What does the force attempt to do at that point, form a FUP at it's current location or attack from it's current desposition?

What does a defend order with aggresstion set high translate into in this case?

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Stinger22

So if my force is in contact, but not necessarily engaged, and I want to attack is it best to just give an attack order without a FUP? What does the force attempt to do at that point, form a FUP at it's current location or attack from it's current desposition?

What the AI will do will be to determine the best FUP according to the situation it knows about and the parameters passed in. By default it will try and find an FUP within a reasonable range that provides some cover for the force to form up and is not within a heavy enemy fire zone. and that has a rerasonably safe route to it from the unit's current location. Now if the force is very close to the objective and not in a "kill zone" itself it may in fact FUP from it's current location.

What does a defend order with aggresstion set high translate into in this case?

Well your forces will adopt a defensive formation at their current location and shoot first and ask questions later if any enemy are within their effective range.

[Fallschirmjager]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

What does a defend order with aggresstion set high translate into in this case?

Well your forces will adopt a defensive formation at their current location and shoot first and ask questions later if any enemy are within their effective range.

I have given High Aggro orders to units on defense before and actually have had them move from their current location and go out and sweep units from the perimiter of an objective [X(] I would call that pretty high agression

[Stinger22]

Arjuna

Thanks, seems the more I play the deeper it gets. You just gave me more food for thought! AND JUST GOT THE PATCH! AND THE WIFE IS OUT SHOPPING WITH HER GIRLFRIENDS!!!!!!!

[Tzar007]

ORIGINAL: Golf33

A Complex Attack can occur over separate axes. This can occur when you don't specify an FUP and the AI assesses that an uncoordinated attack is a workable option. I am not sure if it tries to coordinate the timings however.

Regards
33

I can attest I have seen coordinated attacks of multiple HQs planned by the AI. I especially remembers asking one of the regiments of the 1st SS Panzer Div to attack a specific objective in Crunch Time scenario. Intentionally I did not specify a FUP to see what would happen. The battalions under that regiment had various routes to the objective, their was like 2 flanking routes (or just one, I don't exactly recall) and one direct approach. It was overall a decent plan, I did not override it and it went through relatively OK. Timing was not perfect though but it was not really worse than what I can do myself.

As far as having the AI position the FUP and/or route in odd places, it is indeed true as MarkShot was explaining that the kind of route selected weighs importantly on this. If somebody really wants the AI to stick to the most obvious route, just select "Shortest" and that will do the trick. However it might not be as efficient as somebody think. Also, selecting "Quickest" will make the AI look for roads so the distance to do might be longer, but the time it will take will be shorter since troops advance much more rapidly on roads.