can I increase command load?

[Phoenix100]

Can anyone help? I am trying to devise a workaround for a limitation in the engine which presently makes, at least, a very big scenario like From the Meuse to the Rhine a little hard to play. The problem is this: there is a huge area to cover and so I have to place individual units in widely spaced positions covering possible attacks form many angles. I can place all their facings individually to achieve this then group them all manually and give a defend in-situ order to ensure that they do not all remain under my (the on-map boss's) command load. If I do this with roughly Bn size groups it can work relatively well. BUT, in From the Meuse to the Rhine, for example, when XXX Corps arrives and becomes on-map boss it's command load is 32. To get within this command load I have to group at least some units at Regimental type level, and if I do this then the facings that the AI selects are all over the place (I've found the best chance of something sensible is if I click 'auto facing' - anything else imposes the facing of the HQ on everything, resulting in a mess, units furthest away from the HQ facing completely the wrong direction, if I don't touch the facing setting when setting the defend in-situ then the AI seems to default to a north facing for everything...). It would be desirable - and Dave has agreed with this - if when we select defend in-situ there is an option to preserve the facings you have chosen also. But that doesn't exist at the moment. So what I need is to be able to command at Bn level without exceeding the on-map boss's command load. Does anyone know how I can increase the on-map boss's command load in the scenario editor, if there is a way?

[Phoenix100]

I think there are two things going on that are problematic, one possibly a bug. See this pic.



In order to get the XXX Corps command load bang on 32 I have had to make 3 such large defensive groupings across the map. this is one example. All the highlighted groups are under the command of the 1AB Corps HQ. whose facing you can see. in-situ is selected. If I could show you the facings of the far flung units you would see that, though they don't all face north, as the HQ unit's facing does, some of them are far from ideal. Certainly not where I placed them before I selected defend in-situ. But if I want to get within command load then I don't have an option here other than to make such groups. And anyway this game should allow that as it's meant to model a scalable command level, and it's no good if I can't - as now - at least on some occasions command above Bn level. The way around the difficulties created by this is that Dave has said he will look into changing this facing issue to allow the user to select a 'keep individual facings' option when selecting defend in-situ - but that's for CO2. Meanwhile I want to be able to command at Bn level where I can get relatively reasonable facings out of the AI. Hence the question starting this thread - how do I increase an HQ's command load? Anyone know?

There is a second issue here though. It's been mentioned by others. I did not set this units facing like this, in fact. I set it with 'auto' facing selected, then I saved the game. When I opened the save I got this - auto no longer selected and the facing set to nth. That's a bug, I think. I wonder how much it affects things. Is it going to count as an order change, for example - are all the subordinate units now going to get an order to change their facings to north?

[springel]

The optimal behaviour, that doesn't require new options, would be that units would keep their facing in an defend in situ order without facing, and realign when the order gets a facing attached. Then you could order your companies individually to take on a facing, but that would only last a short time until they have executed and you reattach to a higher level that has an in situ defend without facing.

[Phoenix100]

Dave has said he'll look into that for CO2, Springel. Meanwhile...

Further to my wondering whether the facing change to nth would count as an order change, I have noticed now only that my selecting all the units (grouping them) and giving a defend in-situ order with auto facing selected came through eventually as a new order, but I didn't see any facing change at all as it filtered down through the units. So I will have to experiment a bit more.

UPDATE: As far as I can see the fact that the facing of the order is changed to nth, with auto deselected when you open the game from a save doesn't affect what happens subsequently. If, for example, I group units under a certain HQ then give them a defend in-situ with 'auto facing' checked, then save the game, close it, re-open the game, open the save, run it, then what I see is that that the task has gone to nth facing, with auto not selected (the bug?) and that eventually the grouping and defend order will appear as a 'new order' in the HQ's tab, however the subordinate units do not show a 'new order' entry in their tabs for this event, no matter how long I wait - their facing does change though, and not necessarily to north. The behaviour looks to me to be consistent with the order still having an 'auto' facing attached to it - so the bug, if it is one, looks like merely something in the UI, not affecting the unit behaviour. Moreover, the 'auto facing' option seems to entail that as the tactical situation changes the AI will change the facing accordingly, and, as far as I can see, when it does so, this does not affect the dug in status of the individual units.

From anybody who knows how to, however, I'd still need to know how to increase the command load for an HQ in the scenmaker, if that's possible....

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Can anyone help? I am trying to devise a workaround for a limitation in the engine which presently makes, at least, a very big scenario like From the Meuse to the Rhine a little hard to play. The problem is this: there is a huge area to cover and so I have to place individual units in widely spaced positions covering possible attacks form many angles. I can place all their facings individually to achieve this then group them all manually and give a defend in-situ order to ensure that they do not all remain under my (the on-map boss's) command load. If I do this with roughly Bn size groups it can work relatively well. BUT, in From the Meuse to the Rhine, for example, when XXX Corps arrives and becomes on-map boss it's command load is 32. To get within this command load I have to group at least some units at Regimental type level, and if I do this then the facings that the AI selects are all over the place (I've found the best chance of something sensible is if I click 'auto facing' - anything else imposes the facing of the HQ on everything, resulting in a mess, units furthest away from the HQ facing completely the wrong direction, if I don't touch the facing setting when setting the defend in-situ then the AI seems to default to a north facing for everything...). It would be desirable - and Dave has agreed with this - if when we select defend in-situ there is an option to preserve the facings you have chosen also. But that doesn't exist at the moment. So what I need is to be able to command at Bn level without exceeding the on-map boss's command load. Does anyone know how I can increase the on-map boss's command load in the scenario editor, if there is a way?

Span of control is defined in the Estab.

[Phoenix100]

Thanks Jim. I took a look - I see nothing entitled 'span of control' - is it the slot entitled 'staff capacity'? In which case, do you know how it's related to the figure which appears in game under the commander's command load? XXX Corps, for example, would be a British Line Corps HQ (?), which is given in the estab as having a 'staff capacity' of '15'. But load, when XXX Corps appears in the game is '35'. How are these two figures related? Do you know? Thanks for the help.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Thanks Jim. I took a look - I see nothing entitled 'span of control' - is it the slot entitled 'staff capacity'? In which case, do you know how it's related to the figure which appears in game under the commander's command load? XXX Corps, for example, would be a British Line Corps HQ (?), which is given in the estab as having a 'staff capacity' of '15'. But load, when XXX Corps appears in the game is '35'. How are these two figures related? Do you know? Thanks for the help.

Span of control is the military planning term.

Staff capacity relates to it.

"Staff Capacity and Staff Load" is described in pages 143-145 in the manual.

Basically capacity is the raw number of sub units a headquarters can control, and load is a measure of how responsive those sub units are to the HQ's operational procedures (e.g. whether the sub unit is part of the HQ's chain of command and thus familiar with how to address the superior HQ's mission, or is attached from outside that chain of command and thus less familiar with the HQ's mission).

I'm working on some new force Estabs right now, and am wrestling with quantifying staff capacity for the various HQ echelons based on the force's units having ad hoc configurations instead of regular TO&Es.

[simovitch]

More realistically would be to set up your defense lines and re-attach your Bn's to their regiment and then Regiment to Division with defend in-situ commands along the static fronts. This will relieve the command load on your Corps to concentrate on Arnhem or whatever offensive objective is currently hot on the plate, and is much more historical, since the Corps operated more efficiently when is had a single offensive group to concentrate it's resources on.

I've done this with some success in this scenario in particular. It's how the command structure is supposed to be simulated.

[Phoenix100]

Thanks, Simovitch. Not sure what you mean though. When I lasso forces then the AI distributes command amongst them in a hierarchical chain. What are you suggesting that results in something different? Do you mean that I should set, individually, the position and facing of each company (as I do already), then lasso them with their Bn HQ and give a defend in-situ order (with what facing?, or leave facing untouched - which?). Then what? Reattach the Bn to its regiment? Is that what you're suggesting? Will that not result in the return of command to the AI, which can then change the position and facing of the companies as it wishes, in accordance with the order the Regiment is following? Surely it does mean that? And do you mean that I should re-attach after the lasso order has taken effect - after I get a message saying 'new orders', or immediately? But in any event, as I say, re-attaching will defeat the whole purpose, no? Which was to take control of position and facing away from the AI. I'm not sure what solution you're suggesting here. Obviously I've missed your point. Could you clarify, please? Sorry.

Peter

[springel]

I tested this:

I gave individual defence orders to companies, with facing, but in situ:
They change their facing according to the command, but they remained dug in.
Then I reattached them to their battalion, giving the battalion a defence in situ command without facing.
The companies kept the same facing and the dug in status.
The I reattached the battalion to the regiment, giving the regiment a defence in situ command without facing.
The companies all changed facing into a weird direction.

[Phoenix100]

Thanks Springel. Helpful. What did you mean, Simovitch?

Maybe if we give no orders to the Regiment? (Or if it already has, then cancel them without giving more)? And attach the Regiment to the Division, and give no orders to the division. And attach the division to the corps, and give no orders to the Corps, so that everything is attached, but the only orders given are at Bn level? But that's highly impractical, I think, even if it resulted in the Bns staying put with a proper facing. You have to at least move the Corps, division and Regiment at times, and have to then give orders, and if everything below is attached then everything will move. I really don't know what Richard meant. Can you clarify please, Richard?

Peter

[dazkaz15]

I really wouldn't let this facing thing spoil your fun Peter.

Just leave most of your defending forces on auto facing defend in situ, and take more direct control of the formations that are in imminent danger of attack.
Its not an ideal situation, but the facing hardly makes any difference to most scenarios I find, especially one the size you are playing.

I find they turn to the nearest threat eventually even if they are not in the ideal facing for the initial contact, wen left on auto facing, defend in situ.

I wouldn't leave a Bn size formation or larger without a specific facing though, on any other defend formation than in situ as they wander around to much for my liking.
Especially when you detach individual units from them.
This causes them to lose their dug in bonus.

[Phoenix100]

Thanks Daz. I think you're right. It doesn't seem to have much impact which way they face.

Meanwhile, I'm starting day 5 of FTMTTR and it's been a breeze. XXX Corps will shortly link up with the Arnhem bridgehead. The AI has been totally passive. I don't understand it at all. There have been hardly any attacks and what there have been has been small and showing a distinct failure to think large enough to exploit the superiority the Axis has in this scenario. In Arnhem the positions have remained at a respectful stand-off for the last 3 days, no attacks at all into my bridgehead. All very odd. Something must surely be wrong. After this is finished, and after the final patch is out (soon, I hear) I will try this with the stock scenario. I'm playing a scenario that has a fair bit of air power and lots of allied supply compared to the stock scenario. I can't see how this would have caused the AI to shrink within itself, but I don't know. Too frightened of jabos to move? That's crediting Dave with more than he's put into the AI, I fancy. I keep wondering whether the AI has just had one huge formation lock-up. I sent Dave a save of it, in case he wanted to check. I will win this, I think, though only because the AI has sat back and let me, which doesn't usually happen in this game.

[Phoenix100]

On a surrender pic it looks like this, and has done for 3 days....





Makes me wonder what the AI is doing. It has control of 2 objectives there, but not the main central Arnhem/nth bridge objective. It looks very odd to me. There's easily enough material gathered to have crushed my bridgehead 3 days ago. It should be putting together attacks to contest the objective in central Arnhem and the objective sth of the bridge, I think. But nothing... The 156 mortar platoon out at point, by the way, is the result of leaving facing and placement decisions to the AI!! But since there aren't actually any attacks coming from nth of the bridge, and haven't been for days, you would have to commend the AI decision in that respect. That mortar platoon is actually safe.

I've seen this kind of (apparent) AI paralysis before in Spearhead v Rhine (I posted about it then too, a long time ago), another very large scenario. It makes me think that perhaps when the scenario is very long and very large the AI would cope better and form more incisive and challenging plans when the objectives were limited to only a few. In this one, for example, limiting the AI objectives to a handful around the two bridgeheads would work better. I think also that it's possible the AI works best in scenarios of Divisional size, roughly.

[Phoenix100]

To get back to the thread subject. Can anyone help me with this? So. Say I want to increase the command load for the Allied on-map boss in this scenario. There are 2 bosses - 1AB Corps, until XXX Corps arrives, then XXX Corps. So I go into the estab editor and find a Brit AB Corps HQ and increase its capacity, ditto for a British line Corps HQ, then save and exit? And it's done then? If I then start a new scenario will the Corps HQs now start up with the new saved estab data? Or do I need to do something else? many thanks.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Could you clarify, please? Sorry.
Peter

Peter,
If your purpose is to be able to micromanage at Company level and not overload the on-map boss, then increasing the capacity of the HQ's in the estab editor is the way to go. And you can do so as you describe above.

My point is there are other ways to decrease the command load on the on-map boss, but it is the opposite of micromanagement.

[Phoenix100]

Thanks Richard. I don't want to micromanage usually - just scenarios that require large defensive footprints that are outwith those imposed by the AI if you leave it to set a defensive perimeter. You need to do that to achieve a measure of historical accuracy, I think. In RL the individual companies and platoons of some of the airborne formations had to be placed in very far-flung positions indeed in order to cover the ground. In the game, if you give a defend order to a Bn with the widest possible perimeters set then you get a span that gets nowhere near the kind of spread out dispositions they had to make in RL.

I didn't understand how your suggestion - for which, thanks, again - would allow me to set such atypical defensive perimeters (complete with micromanaged facings) and load less on the boss. Because if you re-attach anything in the command chain above your micromanaged carefully placed companies with their micromanaged carefully placed facings then you hand control of those companies back to the AI, no? So, I could set a load of companies as I wish, lasso them to a Bn HQ, give it a defend in-situ command, then (presumably after that command takes effect) re-attach that Bn to its Regiment (and the Regiment to Division, if necessary, and so on) - that's what I thought you were advising. Am I wrong? Because if that was it then as soon as I reattach the Bn I have lost control of the placing and facing of the subordinate companies, which have returned, with their Bn, to AI control. And if I've placed them wider than the AI default then it will certainly move them in and change all their facings. So I don't understand how what you were suggesting would achieve what you suggested. Unless I missed something. Cheers, though.

It's your scenario, right? From the Meuse to the Rhine? I love it. But what do you think about the AI going all passive? Did you ever experience that when playing it through? And what do you think the effect would be if I limit the number of Axis objectives to focus Axis efforts on the bridge areas, Nijmegan centre and Arnhem road and rail in particular? Or better, what was the reason for you spreading the Axis AI focus over so many objectives? There will have been a purpose, I'm sure. It's a great scenario.

[simovitch]

Peter, yes, I designed that one. The newer exe builds have added mods to how units react to enemy threats, I think, and that may be what you are seeing. If you can send me a save I will take a look at it.

[Phoenix100]

Many thanks Richard. What's your email and I'll send. You can mail it to me at peter.winship@skynet.be

[dazkaz15]

When you reattach your micromanaged Bn to Regiment, which is possibly attached to, Division, then maybe Corps, you need to ensure the highest level HQ is set to defend in situ, auto facing.
This will ensure that the Units you took the time to place stay in position.
This will decrease the command load, but its always a good idea to press the Shift up arrow which will take you to the next higher level HQ for that unit, and ensure that the higher level HQ's are set to defend in situ, auto facing.
Do this for as many superiors as necessary.

The crunch comes when you need to move that higher level HQ, because its very important to ensure that none of your defending Bn you don't want moved are still attached.
Detach as many as you need by giving the individual Bn's or Coy's individual orders to defend in Situ before you give the superior HQ orders to move.