Leaders OOC

[Gerry4321]

Seems leader can be the ones OOC quite often? In Meximieux I just had 3/4 of the Leaders OOC but all squads were OK.

[Paullus]

First leaders are checked. Bad leaders should be OoC more often. Then the squads check themselves if leaders fail.

[Gerry4321]

I understand but I was surprised 3/4 of the leaders failed the check and all the squads were OK.

[Paullus]

Yes that is a bit odd but can happen.

[Monkie]

The C&C part of the game is a bit puzzling but also important. It makes sense to keep leaders close to decrease the chances of being OOC but it would be nice to know a bit more about other factors that are involved. Are certain nationalities better coordinated? Can it be tweaked in the scenario editor?

At the start of the Help from the Stugs scenario both AFV's were OOC on the first turn, that made a huge difference in how the Germans had to proceed. Certainly the Lt. could not just run back to the Company commander and say "My AFV support didn't show up so I just called the whole thing off". It's that uncertainty that makes the player face many of the decisions that his historic counterparts had to make.

Some might call it chaos and others might see it as combat reality.

As for the leaders being OOC with the Squads being "in good order". Maybe the squad leaders didn't get a good briefing, had bad intel, were newly assigned to the unit. While the leaders were unable to be effective the squads had some cohesion and at least could save themselves from the incompetent leadership.

[blazej]

I've had the same experience. I played the first tutorial scenario on High, and when one of my units was OOC, it was almost always a leader. And units stacked with him were not OOC in most cases. It's very unrealistic and causes strange situations when a veteran leader has to stay behind in a hex while his team moves forward.

So it looks to me like it could be a subtle bug in the engine.

Best,
Michał

[Paullus]

We will take a look at this.

[z1812]

ORIGINAL: blazej

I've had the same experience. I played the first tutorial scenario on High, and when one of my units was OOC, it was almost always a leader. And units stacked with him were not OOC in most cases. It's very unrealistic and causes strange situations when a veteran leader has to stay behind in a hex while his team moves forward.

So it looks to me like it could be a subtle bug in the engine.

Best,
Michał

I experienced exactly the same behaviour with the first tutorial. Sure leaders can experience difficulties but the amount of OOC suffered by leaders was disproportionate when considering the OOB suffered by regular troops.

[Paullus]

You have to consider also that regular troops within two hexes of a leader only checks for command if the leader gets OoC. If the quality is high of the troops this would be normal, as the leaders checks for command much more often and before any regular troops.

[blackcloud6]

ORIGINAL: Paullus

You have to consider also that regular troops within two hexes of a leader only checks for command if the leader gets OoC. If the quality is high of the troops this would be normal, as the leaders checks for command much more often and before any regular troops.

This is good to know stuff. And a good feature too. Keeping your leaders up near the troops is for C2 is a nice planning feature and a trade-off decision when you need to send a leader back to rally. I like that.

[Gerry4321]

Problem is it doesn't make sense militarily. Your leaders will not in general be worse in terms of quality than their troops. And to have all the units find the will-power to move etc. but the leaders cannot doesn't make military sense.

ORIGINAL: Paullus

You have to consider also that regular troops within two hexes of a leader only checks for command if the leader gets OoC. If the quality is high of the troops this would be normal, as the leaders checks for command much more often and before any regular troops.

[Monkie]

is there a mechanic in ASL that corresponds to the C&C system in ToTH?

[Gerry4321]

No, not in ASL. SASL has this. So TotH is an improvement over ASl as Blackcloud explained above. But it doesn't make sense that the leaders are failing so much and then the squads, who have to check on their own, all pass.

[Monkie]

I was working with a scenario using the hot seat mode and the C&C didn't seem to be working at all. Is it only used in games vs the AI?

Without the C&C you end up pushing robots around but it seems it could use some more tweaking and thought as to what it's trying to simulate.

[Gerry4321]

There is no real C&C in ASL as I understand. Leaders can rally troops and direct fire. But you could have your troops head off on their own away from the leaders and in ASL there is no penalty for that.

In TotH there seems to be a benefit of staying within two hexes of a leader (like ASL there is no particular platoon leader or squad leader, just leaders).

[Monkie]

The ASL system had limitations that the computer can overcome. I think the current C&C system is a great idea but could use some tweaks. As it stands now it seems a bit too random even though I'm sure there are factors under the hood we are not seeing.

SL and ASL used the leader counters and the "broken" status to try to simulate loss of cohesion and leadership. Adding the C&C of ToTH to that system is a bold step really and might not mesh as easily as first thought.

Being "Out of Command" can represent many things but basically it's saying that squad or leader is at that point in time ineffective, indecisive, etc. I had a squad that spent about 4 turns in the middle of a street in OOC status. I thought of it as if they got confused, couldn't make entry into a building, maybe they got lost for a bit. As I thought about it later it seemed a bit excessive, maybe being OOC shouldn't last turn after turn, maybe it should be max time it can be in effect for a single unit.

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: Monkie

I was working with a scenario using the hot seat mode and the C&C didn't seem to be working at all. Is it only used in games vs the AI?

Yes, C&C rules are only used in games vs AI only.

[blackcloud6]

There is no real C&C in ASL as I understand. Leaders can rally troops and direct fire. But you could have your troops head off on their own away from the leaders and in ASL there is no penalty for that.

ASL has what I call "soft C2." This is a C2 process that is centered around the skill of the player to overcome all that the game system and the enemy player can through at him such as: breaking squads, pinned unit, malfunctioned weapons, weather changes, enemy hidden units (or threat thereof), residual firepower, Heat of battle, ELR, fire lanes, enemy dispositions, "skulking," poor dice rolls, and so on. The player has to come up with a plain that is flexible enough to overcome all of these and still deal with the enemy. Player skill is very important in ASL and is what makes it such a great game to play against another person. I have never been, and still am not in favor of an overlaid c2 system of passing orders down through the cardboard leaders to the units to see if they participate. The player has already given them orders and they will have enough trouble carrying them out due to all those things I've mentioned. An overlaid C2 system would feel artificial in person v. person game. The player is the C2.

C2 works in Human v. AI TotH because it is a solitaire game and the added C2 layer adds more problems for the player to plan for and solve. It adds something whereas the AI, althought it may be good, it will never be as good a sneaky bastard enemy human player. C2 works and enhances SASL for the same reason. The c2 layer in TotH is properly placed as a component of playing against the AI but would not be rightly used in human v. human games.

[blackcloud6]

Oh, and I was beginning to not like the C2 feature as it seemed (note "seemed") to be just random. Now that I know that leaders influence and units can benefit from being within two hexes of the leaders that do not lose c2, I like it. It now adds an importance to the leader placement and usage decisions. For example: "Do I send Sgt Schmedlap back to rally those two broken squads or do I keep him behind the three squads that are pressing the supporting attack?" Risk-reward decisions are all what tactical decisions are about.

[z1812]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

ORIGINAL: Monkie

I was working with a scenario using the hot seat mode and the C&C didn't seem to be working at all. Is it only used in games vs the AI?

Yes, C&C rules are only used in games vs AI only.

I would be curious to know why C&C does not work when playing a human?