BFTB Newbie questions Direct Fire

[petdocvmd]

Good Day,

I recently purchased CO: BFTB, and wow – amazing and overwhelming! I'm also a noob to military strategy, so there's a lot for me to learn.

I've immersed myself in the great assets available for the game and its predecessors, having read the manual, worked through the tutorial scenario with the videos (twice), and read through Markshot's mini-guides, tips, and battle planning checklist (whew).

I plan to try playing a short scenario or two tonight – I think I've reached the knowledge saturation point and now need to gain wisdom that only comes from playing (I did finish out the tutorial on my own). However, I have a couple of questions from my preparation that I'm hoping to clear up.

I am a bit confused regarding the use of direct fire units. For example, here is an excerpt from Markshot's COTA guide:

Yellow - All our direct fire guns will be concentrated on hill over looking the Bridges and
Tempe. They will break enemy positions near the bridges and prevent reinforcements.
We'll also place a few guns to cover the Pz 3 Regt.
Are these simply any unit that shows up with the “Guns” unit filter employed that are NOT bombarding arty?

I am coming into this pretty naïve regarding military armaments, so the terminology can be a bit confusing. Are these things like machine gun nests, anti-tank guns, and bazookas, etc? I am trying to take some time on the equipment tab to study the composition of units and double-click on stuff to read more about it

Next, is it typical to give these units independent orders, and do you use a “Defend” order with “in situ” formation? What about the “Fire” command? Is that independent of a defend order, replace it, or...how exactly is it used?

I understand the use of fire bases for arty, and factors regarding attaching/detaching mortar units, but the direct fire guns are still a bit of a mystery!

Thanks!

Scott

[Phoenix100]

Great you're enjoying it, petdocvmd. Once it catches you, it really is a great game, you're right. Welcome!

Sorry you didn't get an answer before you started your games! It has been a bit quiet in here recently though.

I assume when Markshot talks about direct fire guns that he isn't talking about bombard guns, but Anti-tank units or Infantry guns, or even Anti-air guns that can be used in the dual role (all of them, I think). Normally, I suppose you would use a defend order to get them to fire on a certain area. You can place them individually, or group them by lassoing or Cntrl-click selecting and then just give their newly-created leader a defend order and the Ai will place them in a pattern conforming to the formation you pick. Or you can, as you say, place them where you want, group them and then click in situ to get them all into a command structure, but still placed where you want them. It's important to watch how many units you give direct orders to (taking them out of a command structure)as this can overload the on-map boss (this is how I've understood it - someone can correct me if I'm wrong). Look under the command tab for the highest ranking unit in your OOB (the 'on-map boss') and you will see figures for 'capacity' and 'load' The load should not exceed capacity (for any lead unit, in fact)if you don't want things to seize up with very long orders delays, and every time you give direct orders to a unit it gets credited as part of the on-map boss load.

You can use direct fire to get units to fire quickly at a unit, but why do that when you can let the unit AI do it? It has several very useful, though 'gamey' applications too, however. Like giving an indirect fire command to arty units the direct fire command seems to skip normal orders delay. So, for example, if you see a unit heading off in a direction you do not want (sometimes you will change your mind about where they should go, sometimes the AI does crazy things) then the quickest way to stop it is to give it a direct fire order. It will then stop - to fire - within seconds, instead of incurring the usual orders delay. Or, for example, if you have a Bn approaching a primed bridge you wish to seize but find that the lead elements arrive to engage the enemy before the Bn mortar is in range then you run a very high risk of the bridge blowing in your face. The way to stop this happening (9 times out of 10) is plot manually a fire mission for the Bn mortar onto the bridge defenders, a preliminary bombard. So how do you get the lead elements to stop until the mortar is in range? Give them a Fire order. These gamey things are the only way that I've used the direct fire button.

[petdocvmd]

Phoenix,

Thanks for the fast reply - I just posted this a few hours ago, actually

Okay, I understand what you are saying about moving and grouping the direct fire units, and the increased load on command. My goal is to balance micro- and macro- managing so that I can tweak my maneuvers without too much command stress.

Are the "gamey" uses for the "Fire" command the sum total of its use? I'm trying to understand then why the developers implemented it..?

Well, this will let me get started - looking forward to diving into a few scenarios

Thanks!

Scott

[petdocvmd]

I managed to finish and actually achieve a decisive victory in the Skorzeny scenario [:)]!

However, I felt like I had done so in spite of myself (some dumb errors), and my kamikaze HQ [:@]...

Why does the AI move the HQ right into the thick of combat??? By HQ I mean the regiment or battalion HQ commanding a battle group. Several times, in response to attack orders I issued, the AI moved the HQ right in after the troops, well before any semblance of a secure location. Then of course it routed, and ground was lost until it reorganized itself away from the action...only to plunge back in again!!

Can I do anything to prevent this short of cutting it out of the chain of command and issuing orders directly to the battle group units, which would pretty much negate much of the flavor of the game...

Any advice would be much appreciated!

Thanks,

Scott

[simovitch]

what order did you give the Battalion? if it was simply a move command, or they were enroute to the destination of another command (besides assault) they will travel in an unsecured formation and pay for it if they run into the enemy. The HQ should travel near the rear of the column but may find itself in the front if the lead companies route away.

[Phoenix100]

Are you on the latest version of the game, also? That is 4.5.264 Most of that kind of errant behaviour has been fixed, I thought. I don't see it often, hardly at all, though people do sometimes complain (me included, if I don't give orders as described below, detaching the support) about mortar platoons leading assaults. Mostly I would plot the FUP for an attack at least a kilometre (one grid square) back from the target, and then mostly I would see the base and the mortar (and AT gun, if there is one) will stay around the FUP or even move back. The FUP - as you know doubt know, is the last click waypoint before you place the attack arrow. I seriously haven't seen a base leading an assault for over a year at least. If you get one though, then post a pic and try to keep a save from just before it happened. Dave (Arjuna, the creator, developer, coder) - when and if he gets back into action here - might be interested.

As Simovitch says if you give a Move order, with attack checked then you might end up with all manner of units leading -it's not a safe form of travel in a combat zone, and though the AI will plot an attack on contact (if you've checked 'attack') it will take time for that to be plotted and meanwhile the lead units will be vulnerable. I have read - but haven't tried yet - that if you uncheck 'stragglers' then you are less likely to see more vulnerable units leading Move phases. Sometimes you will see AT units leading and it's because they are wheeled and everyone else is foot (check the E&S tab), and I believe unchecking stragglers is meant to keep them more together in this sort of situation. For myself I always detach the support units and give attack, or move orders to the HQ so that the HQ and line units can carry these out unhindered by the support. PLace the support where I want them manually, then re-attach at an appropriate point (after an attack, for example - don't interrupt an attack with re-attachments or the whole thing will be scrubbed and re-planned!). The AI isn't too good at doing preliminary bombards with the support units, so best to do them yourself.

Well done on getting the best result available - decisive vic - first time off!!! You were obviously made for this game. I must confess that the Skorzeny what-if is one of the few I haven't tried. Try Hofen as Axis and see how you do. there are lots of AARs about it in the AAR section.

Legit uses of fire? I have set up ambush points using AT guns, for example and manually targeted the enemy armour when it appears. But I don't see why this would yield a better result than placing the AT unit on defend and letting the AI fire away.

As the overall commander you might feel that your subordinates are not targeting your conception of the priority targets on occasion. I guess this is what the fire command is for, no? But the 'gamey' uses are very useful!

[dazkaz15]

Hi petdocvmd welcome to one of the best strategic war-game simulators ever!

Sometimes the HQ will run into trouble once it thinks its units have reached there objectives, as it often uses a different route to get to the objective, than what line units have just cleared on there way to it.

Please see here to stop me having to type it out again [;)]

tm.asp?m=3353408&mpage=1&key=dazkaz15&#3354030

Post RE: HQ's again - 6/25/2013 5:21:02 AM

[Phoenix100]

Hadn't seen all that, Daz. I haven't noticed the HQ behaving like this either, but I probably will now petdocvmd has raised it and I've read your old thread...

[petdocvmd]

Wow – nice to see the forum spring to life with help for a new player

I am using the latest version of the game (4.4.263).

In each case, I had given an attack order, and specified a FUP in what I hoped was the closest “safe” location.

I did make a few saves, including one which caught the HQ in the act

The attached screenshot does show a couple of things (if it uploaded correctly):

“X” HQ safe to the west after routing SW of the West bridge because it had its nose way too close to the action during the attack.
“Z” HQ merrily marching up the road towards Malmedy, shortly before it ran a picket of Allied forces salivating at the opportunity to blast away at it!

Both HQ eventually reorganized, and I regained all 3 objectives, but I stopped gaining VP for a while as the objectives were lost for about half a day.

My strategy here was for the Z regiment to move through the battlegroup holding the West bridge and join the two companies fighting for their lives at Malmedy Bridge. I envisioned the HQ and mortar hanging out in the treeline near Cligneval, rather than abruptly deciding to scoot after the attacking brigades through the hornet's nest of Allied troops east of the West Bridge!

Would that even be possible? Could the HQ command reasonably from Cligneval? I know the mortar unit could reach from there! Next time I will detach the mortars prior to the attack order.

So if I am reading the responses (and linked post) correctly, then (in similar cases) once the battle for the objective appears won, I should detach the battle group from HQ (or order each unit in the group individually for more granular control) and order it to defend, issue a move order with carefully selected waypoints to HQ, then regroup them and issue a defend order with in situ formation. Does that sound correct?

In this scenario, early on I could have moved X HQ and the mortar unit across the West Bridge and down to Waverumont. But what about Z HQ? If I wanted its regiment to attack Malmedy bridge, would the HQ have had to plough through West Bridge during the Allied attack, or could it have been somehow made to stay put in Cligneval (and would it be effective commanding from there)?

Thanks again for all of the amazing help! Looking forward to my next scenario

BTW - accidentally posted this in the linked thread...couldn't figure out how to delete that post..?

Scott

[Phoenix100]

There's a version newer than that, Scott, in the members area. .264. Tell me if you don't know how to get into the member's areas. You will need to register your copy. Worth updating as there were significant fixes. They're all 'beta' so I wouldn't worry about that.

Sounds right - your account of Daz's workaround. You should tick 'shortest' by the way if you want your waypoints followed exactly. That might just make a difference to what the HQ does in the attack too. Make sure you've tried shortest as an option.

[petdocvmd]

Ah - I was updating program via the in-program updater, which "told" me that .263 was UTD. I did register, so I'll head over and DL it. I had seen the beta file there, but wasn't sure about stability, etc.

Appreciate the help, and will be trying out the ideas next scenario.

Thanks!

Scott

[dazkaz15]

I used to think that selecting shortest route applied to the route from the FUP to the objective, for the HQ and support units, but I'm now convinced it only applies to the route to the FUP before the attack begins.

The HQ and any other reserve, or support that's held back during the attack, at the FUP, automatically takes an avoidance route, for the re-org on the objective phase, and ignores the route setting that applied before the attack.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: petdocvmd
Would that even be possible? Could the HQ command reasonably from Cligneval?

The Battalion HQ can command up to 3km before the orders delay starts to become longer. So yes it is just about in range. I don't think the penalty for being out of range is much anyway. See here for more ranges.
tm.asp?m=3321177

ORIGINAL: petdocvmd
I know the mortar unit could reach from there! Next time I will detach the mortars prior to the attack order.

That's always a good idea, because if you try to use them during an attack if they are attached to the HQ, it will alter the force size, and your attack will fall apart.

ORIGINAL: petdocvmd
So if I am reading the responses (and linked post) correctly, then (in similar cases) once the battle for the objective appears won, I should detach the battle group from HQ (or order each unit in the group individually for more granular control) and order it to defend, issue a move order with carefully selected waypoints to HQ, then regroup them and issue a defend order with in situ formation. Does that sound correct?

Yes that's right.
You don't always have to do this. If the axis of your attack is following a road, the HQ will use this road to regroup with its line units anyway, its more useful, for an attack x-country or through forest, that has a road running around it.

ORIGINAL: petdocvmd
In this scenario, early on I could have moved X HQ and the mortar unit across the West Bridge and down to Waverumont. But what about Z HQ? If I wanted its regiment to attack Malmedy bridge, would the HQ have had to plough through West Bridge during the Allied attack, or could it have been somehow made to stay put in Cligneval (and would it be effective commanding from there)?

It will stay at the location you set as the FUP (second to last click) until the hub unit of the attack reaches its objective. Once you see that it is getting close, give the HQ a defend in situ order, then it will stay put.
You can drag select all the units on the objective and give them a defend order as a group if you wish. The senior unit will take command of the group.

ORIGINAL: petdocvmd
Thanks again for all of the amazing help!

Does your image I edited show the route that the rest of Z Bn took during its attack, and the avoidance route that the HQ tried to take?
Your welcome [;)]

[petdocvmd]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

ORIGINAL: petdocvmd
In this scenario, early on I could have moved X HQ and the mortar unit across the West Bridge and down to Waverumont. But what about Z HQ? If I wanted its regiment to attack Malmedy bridge, would the HQ have had to plough through West Bridge during the Allied attack, or could it have been somehow made to stay put in Cligneval (and would it be effective commanding from there)?

It will stay at the location you set as the FUP (second to last click) until the hub unit of the attack reaches its objective. Once you see that it is getting close, give the HQ a defend in situ order, then it will stay put.
You can drag select all the units on the objective and give them a defend order as a group if you wish. The senior unit will take command of the group.

Just to clarify: In this example I would give HQ an order to defend in situ to stay put. If I did only that, its subordinates would also defend in situ as well, correct? But if I don't wish this, I can issue the subordinates their own orders via drag select. However, what about orders delay? If it takes an hour or so for orders to get through, won't my HQ have already thrown itself into the fire by the time it gets the orders?

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
Does your image I edited show the route that the rest of Z Bn took during its attack, and the avoidance route that the HQ tried to take?
Your welcome [;)]

Yes, pretty much [:'(]

Thanks!

Scott

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: petdocvmd
Just to clarify: In this example I would give HQ an order to defend in situ to stay put. If I did only that, its subordinates would also defend in situ as well, correct? But if I don't wish this, I can issue the subordinates their own orders via drag select. However, what about orders delay? If it takes an hour or so for orders to get through, won't my HQ have already thrown itself into the fire by the time it gets the orders?

Well that's what playing with orders delay is all about. You have to think one, or two steps ahead, to plan for what will happen next. Its part of what makes Command Ops unique.
If that something next is something nasty, then that's tough, as you are already committed, until you can get fresh orders through to the unit.
The secret is you don't need to wait for the first set of orders to play right through before you issue your next lot. Start to issue new orders when your subordinates are about 30 minutes from completing the last order you gave them.
By doing this you maintain the initiative, making the enemy react to you, rather than you to them.

[petdocvmd]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

ORIGINAL: petdocvmd
Just to clarify: In this example I would give HQ an order to defend in situ to stay put. If I did only that, its subordinates would also defend in situ as well, correct? But if I don't wish this, I can issue the subordinates their own orders via drag select. However, what about orders delay? If it takes an hour or so for orders to get through, won't my HQ have already thrown itself into the fire by the time it gets the orders?

Well that's what playing with orders delay is all about. You have to think one, or two steps ahead, to plan for what will happen next. Its part of what makes Command Ops unique.
If that something next is something nasty, then that's tough, as you are already committed, until you can get fresh orders through to the unit.
The secret is you don't need to wait for the first set of orders to play right through before you issue your next lot. Start to issue new orders when your subordinates are about 30 minutes from completing the last order you gave them.
By doing this you maintain the initiative, making the enemy react to you, rather than you to them.

Okay, I get it. I think I was just confused because of the way you worded "Once it (the battle group) is getting close..." I will think of that with consideration to orders delay. I was erroneously thinking that *sending* an order during execution would *immediately* trigger a re-plan and ruin the attack. Though that leads me to another question. Say I do send an order to HQ to defend in situ and time it perfectly (with orders delay) such that it is executed just as the subordinate battle group is reaching the objective (and presumably in a firefight). Won't that cause a reorg for HQ and the group, and impair their fighting..? [&:]

Thanks for bearing with me as I try to wrap my head around this. Would be much easier if HQ just behaved!

Scott