Future Directions - Features

[Perturabo]

The Estab editor could use an option to copy multiple forces and to copy services and rank sets of services.

[Genghis Khan]

Howdy Folks:
OK, I'm relatively new to Command Ops (CO), about a week or so, so bare with me if some of my suggestions, or observations, seem rather misinformed.[;)] I haven't read all the post in this thread yet, so I'll probably be
repeating what others have already pointed out.

- OVER RUNNING UNITS:
This ability seems to be lacking and I think it is a bit of an oversight that should be addressed with provisions that:
- only routed or routing units can be over run since they are in a complete state of disarray and usually quite willing to give up the fight at that point.
- units routing out of a melee (one unit on top of another) would still have to be over run to be captured.

- AIRBORNE DROPS:
It would be nice to be able to drop airborne units to any location on the map that the player chooses provided:
- Weather permitting.
- There is an actual hang time that the units are open to ground fire, especially during day drops.
- Once on the ground, unit cohesion is penalized
- And, of course, resupply and "Command and Control" are dealt with realistically.

- RECONNAISSANCE:
This should be a function of any line unit, like attack, move, defend etc. But different units should have different abliities:
- Mechanized units recon roads faster, Non-Mech units recon woods faster etc.
- When a unit is put into Recon mode, then the information from the area around it, say to a radius of 2 to 3 Km
should improve over time as it's recon platoons,or squads move outward from the centre unit. With no actual
need to show the recon squads.

[Arjuna]

Gengis Khan,

Welcome.

Re Overruning Units. What are you really asking for? Do you want a seperate Overrun task or do you want this behaviour built into the general movement routines. If the latter then I think you'll find that it is there already. Units can and do move through enemy units. Or are you really saying that you would prefer them not do do so unless the enemy unit is routing.

Re Para Drops. Agree but we would need to make some UI changes to bring that about and have some sort of pre scenario adjustment process. I'll ponder that some more.

Re Recon. I agree with your approach but would prefer to incorporate this into the normal Defend task with an opption to adjust the amount of recon being undertaken and as you do so expand the area which is being surveyed and/or the prob of detection. Basically abstracting the recon patrols. We could go a step further and also model the engagement of the patrols on any enemy entering the units recon zone.

I would have a seperate Screen task that would see a force either deploy at a location and setup a recon zone through which it would conduct a mobile defence or to which it woul move and project a recon zone forward to provide early warning of contact. These will take some mtime to develop. Unfortunately, There are always more good things to do than time available.

[Lieste]

Careful with automatically increasing recon value with time in place - history is rife with units becoming complacent and standards of patrolling falling far short of what was supposed to happen - all qualities of units & this isn't something that *only* happens with poor troops. Discipline, doctrine, training and good low-level leadership can improve things somewhat, but still human nature is to become lax and to cut corners, and not everyone can be supervised 24/7.

This isn't necessarily people 'falling asleep on guard duty' though that did happen, but also 'keeping out of the wind', 'smoking in the OP', not performing adequate patrols - or only during the day/only at night, failing to man the Out Post line, poor sighting of OP, so they have poor visibility/are easily approached/cannt be supported from the main position etc. 'This is a quiet sector of the line' - 'let the new guy take OP - I want a warm bunk'.

[Genghis Khan]

Hey Arjuna:
What I mean by "Over Run" is when an enemy unit occupies the same space as a routed unit, the routed unit surrenders
and ceases to exist. If this already happens in CO, then all I can say is "Ya Ya I know I'm a noob".[:D]
I'm sure you guys at Panther Games have probably already considered all the possible enhancements and additions for
your system and it's just a matter of implementation. You look to have a very solid foundation and it's going to be
interesting to watch it develop. Should you decide to develop a Platoon level environment, I'd be more then curious.

[Lieste]

It doesn't immediately lay down arms, but it is likely to either surrender over the course of a few 10s of minutes or be so badly shattered that it is never an effective unit again if it does wiggle free.

Some units are particularly stubborn and might recover and continue fighting, but these outliers are scarce, and routing/overrunning an enemy defensive group is the primary method of enemy destruction - normally casualties from fires are typically lower than surrender casualties after the break-in fight.

[Genghis Khan]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

It doesn't immediately lay down arms, but it is likely to either surrender over the course of a few 10s of minutes or be so badly shattered that it is never an effective unit again if it does wiggle free.

Some units are particularly stubborn and might recover and continue fighting, but these outliers are scarce, and routing/overrunning an enemy defensive group is the primary method of enemy destruction - normally casualties from fires are typically lower than surrender casualties after the break-in fight.

So I'll have to exercise a little patience then, the expectations picked up playing turn based games are hard to shake.
While the reality is that it would take time to round up and disarm all of the units troops, tend to their wounded, then
form them up and arrange for transport to the rear. Thanks for the pointer, I'll be sure to give it a try.

[Lieste]

Perhaps more importantly, a close-pressed routing unit will likely lose most of its heavy weapons, bases will lose almost all their supplies etc.
So even if some of troops escape being KIA/WIA or becoming POW, they will likely be far less of a threat than previously.

You'll see highly fatigued troops, those without basic supplies, or with low ammunition being more prone to surrender. Troops with good morale, high stubbornness, ample small-arms will be slightly more likely to hold, eventually recovering in place or displacing, depending on the situation - for these the best thing is to attempt to regain separation, and then bombard with mortars until they break, take a few more prisoners, and repeat until they give up - they will surrender in small parties if they can see enemy forces nearby (within 300m?) and are in retreat or rout status - particularly if they are taking casualties from artillery (DF or IDF)
At some point a whole unit will choose to surrender, but this seems to require very low ammunition, high fatigue and low morale, so this isn't reliable - more common is the remnants disbanding (dispersing and being added to the strength of nearby unit(s)). Unfortunately this effectively means you must fight these troops again, although it does remove the unit, preventing it from interdicting supplies etc and otherwise being a nuisance.

[Genghis Khan]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Perhaps more importantly, a close-pressed routing unit will likely lose most of its heavy weapons, bases will lose almost all their supplies etc.
So even if some of troops escape being KIA/WIA or becoming POW, they will likely be far less of a threat than previously.

You'll see highly fatigued troops, those without basic supplies, or with low ammunition being more prone to surrender. Troops with good morale, high stubbornness, ample small-arms will be slightly more likely to hold, eventually recovering in place or displacing, depending on the situation - for these the best thing is to attempt to regain separation, and then bombard with mortars until they break, take a few more prisoners, and repeat until they give up - they will surrender in small parties if they can see enemy forces nearby (within 300m?) and are in retreat or rout status - particularly if they are taking casualties from artillery (DF or IDF)
At some point a whole unit will choose to surrender, but this seems to require very low ammunition, high fatigue and low morale, so this isn't reliable - more common is the remnants disbanding (dispersing and being added to the strength of nearby unit(s)). Unfortunately this effectively means you must fight these troops again, although it does remove the unit, preventing it from interdicting supplies etc and otherwise being a nuisance.

Yes, managing the areas to the rear and policing supply lines is the primary motivation behind my thinking, but what
you suggest would seem to require a lot of micro management of units that are behind the lines and I'm having a hard
time keeping myself from micro managing the units that are involved in the thick of things, as it is.[:-] Maybe a "Mop
up" task, or a "Mop up" option for the Defend task would be reasonably realistic solution that wouldn't cause the
programmer's too much grief.

[Lieste]

Well if they are isolated (scattered remnants) rather than fully formed bodies of men, then they should be relatively easy to push around, and will wither over the course of a day or two... you will have problems if it is more of a deep salient, with support and supply being fed in, as your troops will suffer the same problems of being in deep salients, the enemy will be stronger and more resilient, and you might find yourself being isolated in turn - just who is in who's rear? [:D]

[Genghis Khan]

The Post AAR Post-Mortem Examination:
Hey Arjuna:
I've noted that after the AAR is issued, that I don't have access to the opponent's sidebar information.
While the deployment of the enemy's units are displayed (which is great), having access to the same level of information on
the opponent's units, that I do for my own units, would be a great aid in the analysis and evaluation of strategies and tactics
employed during the scenario. Naturally, I think that this information should only be available after the AAR is issued and that
some may use the "Save, Surrender, Reload" routine to sneak a peek, myself included, but I think the time delay nature of your system
limits the effectiveness of "peeking" to a certain degree. Anyway, I firmly believe having access to this information once the scenario
has run it's course would be of great benefit to tacticians and strategists alike and I'm hoping that making it available won't present
any large programming changes.

Thanks, G.K.

[wodin]

The new patch has a brand new AAR screen.

[Lieste]

What he's asking for is when the intel picture is updated from 'Friendly - fog of war' which is used during play, to 'Friendly - perfect intel', that it instead use the 'Actual' situation in the AAR.

It has been suggested, but time ran out - I'll be lobbying for it again when the next core engine updates happen, as it would also allow the option to investigate 'Friendly - fog of war' state and toggle with 'Actual' rather than losing the end-state intel picture.

[Genghis Khan]

I'll definitely join you in that lobby. At least it's a change that shouldn't effect the game play as it currently exists
and I really like the game as it currently exists.[:)] All too often it is easy to recommend changes without considering
how much work is involved, or how it may fundamentally change the game.

[wodin]

I'd love a new feature where every unit has a threat tab which you can click and it lists any units that it can spot (By name if known also approx how many men and AFV's) also any unit considered a threat could have it's name highlighted in red. Also when you go to the tab it sends out a black line to spotted and say a red one to spotted and a threat (I know we have threats at the moment but this will seem alot quicker to access the info).

Also I'd still like to have alot more feedback through radio messages say from my unit's, with options to filter.

[Templer_12]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Re Para Drops. Agree but we would need to make some UI changes to bring that about and have some sort of pre scenario adjustment process. I'll ponder that some more.

We are currently able to determine what targets to attack with our artillery and with the airstrike.

The use of paratroopers would expand our options in the same sense.

Para drops - absolutely!

[notenome]

I think I've mentioned this before, but this is my number one on the wishlist (well Eastern Front was the number, but since that's happening, now this is the number one):

A campaign. Really everything is there already when you think about it. Many of the scenarios feature troops at a fraction of their strength, and there are many alternate scenarios depending on how earlier battles went. So really all that would be needed would be to string together scenarios depending on the victory level achieved. Units would start with the strength they finished the last scenario ( + replacements and vehicle repair etc) and the rate of reinforcements would be the rate that units are exited off the map (which solves the old problem of only withdrawing units at the last possible second).

So for example, with Peiper's rush to the Meuse, if the German player managed to get the tanks across on the first/second day, he would exit those troops to have them ready for the next scenario, instead of holding them back to help defend against the Allied counterattack.

As aforementioned, I think the engine and the way scenarios work and are built already have all the requisite tools, all that's needed is the extra interface/metagame code to create the interface.

Another thing (and I know this probably won't happen yet but its something I've always wanted from my wargames) is for the player to not have complete control over friendly forces. So let's say you have a scenario with three divisions. You are the major general of one of these divisions, and the other two are controlled by the AI with its objectives. You then have to cooperate with them, which is one of the most crucial things in strategy but something that pretty much never is addressed in wargames, though I believe the command ops engine to be the only one capable of handling this.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: notenome

I think I've mentioned this before, but this is my number one on the wishlist (well Eastern Front was the number, but since that's happening, now this is the number one):

A campaign. Really everything is there already when you think about it. Many of the scenarios feature troops at a fraction of their strength, and there are many alternate scenarios depending on how earlier battles went. So really all that would be needed would be to string together scenarios depending on the victory level achieved. Units would start with the strength they finished the last scenario ( + replacements and vehicle repair etc) and the rate of reinforcements would be the rate that units are exited off the map (which solves the old problem of only withdrawing units at the last possible second).

So for example, with Peiper's rush to the Meuse, if the German player managed to get the tanks across on the first/second day, he would exit those troops to have them ready for the next scenario, instead of holding them back to help defend against the Allied counterattack.

As aforementioned, I think the engine and the way scenarios work and are built already have all the requisite tools, all that's needed is the extra interface/metagame code to create the interface.

Thanks for your suggestion. We did start working on a Campaign mode before COTA but shelved it when we realised we needed to support mixed mode movement. Both were BIG jobs and we couldn't do both, so Campaigns was shelved. Despite what you think, it's not a trivial undertaking and the game engine is even more more complex now. It boils down to priorities. Take for example the upcoming East Front game. For this we opted to focus our development effort on simulting Soviet doctrines because you can't really have a realistic east front game without them. We will eventually get to it but I can't say that it will be soon.

Another thing (and I know this probably won't happen yet but its something I've always wanted from my wargames) is for the player to not have complete control over friendly forces. So let's say you have a scenario with three divisions. You are the major general of one of these divisions, and the other two are controlled by the AI with its objectives. You then have to cooperate with them, which is one of the most crucial things in strategy but something that pretty much never is addressed in wargames, though I believe the command ops engine to be the only one capable of handling this.

To achieve this we need to support multiple commands rather than the single command per side that we support now. This then requires more command and control measures like boundaries to define the different areas of operation. I would really like to do this as it would also enable team play but again this is something we will get to over time.

I realise that this is not really what you want to hear but, who knows, we may receive a bag of gold from a benefactor and be in a position to deliver a lot sooner...you never know. [:)]

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

To achieve this we need to support multiple commands rather than the single command per side that we support now. This then requires more command and control measures like boundaries to define the different areas of operation. I would really like to do this as it would also enable team play but again this is something we will get to over time.

I see where you're coming from regarding the boundaries, as the friendly AI commander's troops or say divisions should not cross the paths/attack routes of the friendly player's troops, for example.

But wouldn't it be feasable, as "work-around" (which would allow for earlier adoption), for the friendly AI commander to act according to the TO&E and still provide plans for all divisions, but then add new routines which check for interfering (planned) paths and actual movements of the different divisions, which would avoid say divisional attacks taking place right next to the player unit (Division) (by employing a variable min. distance rule) and right in front of a friendly player division?
That would require something like a little analyzer that would ensure that friendly Div A could attack on the left or right wing of friendly player Div B to attack town Z, but would avoid that it could move in front of friendly player Div B or say cross Div B's path, in order to execute an attack on town X.

I think you could also still employ one map boss per side only, imho, by introducing something what i would call "BOSS AI advice", where the Side's Boss AI includes the player's unit in his plans, means where it plans and draws the player Division's route, FUP and path of attack, just like as if the player's Division would be controlled by a subordinated divisional AI commander, but as a proposal only, where then the player will still be free to pick his own routes, and where the Boss AI can be informed (say with a checkbox in the left-hand menu), whether the player wants to stick to the Boss AI's plan or develop his own attack plan. The Boss AI would then either have to leave a free slot (say if the player wants to attack on the left wing, as proposed by the AI), so the Boss AI would then leave room for the player's unit and not field any AI unit on that wing, or (2 more checkboxes: 1. "fill position , 2. "consolidate units") where the Boss AI would fill the empty position with spare/reserve units or move the remaining AI divisions closer together, in order to muster a Schwerpunkt attack, so that the player can roam freely or develop a supportive flanking attack, for example.

I hope the stuff above made sense.

I know that you use to head for the best (and often most time-consuming) solution, but sometimes even you employ some compromises along with abstractions, so I wonder if such a work-around would be feasable, and less time-consuming, programming-wise?

[Arjuna]

Part of what you are suggesting would be addressed by a course of action (COA) analyser, where multiple plans are developed from which the player can select one and modify it if they desire.