Order Sequence for micromanaging defending in place

[con]

OK I was wondering if there is a prefered way to do this that reduces time for orders etc.

If you have detatched a lot of units and you have micromanaged them into specific positions (ie on the edge of a forest hidden in valleys, defending key chokepoints/crossroads etc). Now you want to reattach these units back to their organic HQ.

Do you
1. Reattach them all and then immediately give the HQ a defend order with the formation being in situ (even though the footprint might be very different from what your actual positions are).
or
2. Give the HQ the defend order in situ and then reattach units to it?

What allows faster order time less fatigue etc.

Thanks
Con

[Phoenix100]

I think you would have to reattach first (game paused) then give the defend in situ order, no, for it to work? That's always the way I have done it. Otherwise the HQ might read the 'in-situ' part of your order as only applying to itself.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: conradmaher

OK I was wondering if there is a prefered way to do this that reduces time for orders etc.

If you have detatched a lot of units and you have micromanaged them into specific positions (ie on the edge of a forest hidden in valleys, defending key chokepoints/crossroads etc). Now you want to reattach these units back to their organic HQ.

Do you
1. Reattach them all and then immediately give the HQ a defend order with the formation being in situ (even though the footprint might be very different from what your actual positions are).
or
2. Give the HQ the defend order in situ and then reattach units to it?

What allows faster order time less fatigue etc.

Thanks
Con

I find the best way to be number 2 "Give the HQ the defend order in situ and then reattach units to it?"

[Phoenix100]

Is there an answer, then, I wonder, since it's an interesting point - an answer from someone who knows the code, I mean? Is either method more effective?

[dazkaz15]

I don't think it makes any difference really mate.

But I think if you attach them to the HQ then give the HQ, an order, you are maybe re-introducing a fresh orders delay, while the HQ processes its new order, to its line units.
If they are already in position with their current orders though, and you just re-attach them to the HQ that has already processed its defend in situ order, there is no new orders delay....I think?

[Phoenix100]

Mmm. Well, normally if you detach or reattach significant units to an HQ that forces a re-plan, no, and hence a delay? But I would have thought that either way would work the same, thinking about it, if you do them both with game paused, no?

[dazkaz15]

Well the re-plan would just be another defend in situ order so either way they don't go anywhere.

What it does effect though is the facing.
After re-attaching a unit to the HQ, and after the orders delay, the unit will face in the direction that the HQ is set to, ignoring its previous deployed facing. This happens regardless of whichever method you use.

I think the biggest advantage of giving the HQ the defend in situ order first, then re-attaching the line units as they get into position is you only have to give it once. You then re-attach the line units individually as they get into position, or can move individual ones around as you wish, then just re-attach when your happy with their new position.

This way you can move individual Coy around the HQ at anytime during the scenario without ever needing to give the HQ another order, so long as they stay in command range, then just hit that re-attach button whenever you like.
I think that it would be best to give the HQ an auto facing order in this circumstance.
When the units change facing they don't lose their dug in/entrenched bonus like they do if you order another defensive formation.