Welcome to the LnLP Forums and Resource Area

We have updated our forums to the latest version. If you had an account you should be able to log in and use it as before. If not please create an account and we look forward to having you as a member.

For the players: is the game playable?

JArraya

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
113
Points
18
Age
49
Location
UK
I've been a huge fan of this game for a while and like most I am so looking forward to the update.

One question for the players - do you think the game is playable in the current version (beta)? By playable
- Do you think the mechanics work as they currently are?
- Do you have issues that put you off from playing the game? (ie. supply issues, orders not followed, etc?)
- Do you get enjoyment from the game?

I would like to see how others feel about the game currently.
 

2GvSAP Flea

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Messages
8
Points
3
Age
55
Location
Huntsville, AL
I’m playing and enjoying it. I have the standard Steam version (don’t know if that is the Beta or not). Does the game do things I’m not expecting or I think are stupid? Yes, but it just adds to the Fog of War. I’ve seen many a real life Lt or Capt do things that were incredibly stupid (and I include myself in this group) so any game quirks I just chalk up to “that’s how things go.”

I recognize that part of my satisfaction may be based on not knowing what I don’t know. I’m looking forward to the updates, but I’m still thoroughly enjoying the game as it is.
 

frerealmo

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2021
Messages
4
Points
1
Age
70
Location
la ciotat france
bonjour, oui c’est un jeu magnifique, avec quelques petits problèmes dans certains scénarios (comme un manque d’approvisionnement lorsque l’unité est proche de la source d’approvisionnement dans une zone sécurisée ou l’impossibilité de se désengager pour une unité endommagée par le feu ennemi ou des attaques improbables avec le chef et le soutien en tête et la troupe loin derrière) mais cela ne gâche pas le plaisir et je continue à jouer à ce jeu et je vous remercie tous de l’avoir fait vivre
 

col.sanders

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2016
Messages
72
Points
8
Age
66
Location
midwest usa
I've been playing Command Ops for quite some time In My opinion it is the best WW2 operational level game around I like how the A.I takes over the artillery with the last beta I still enjoy this game very much time of development seems quite long but also understand it is a one man show so yes this game has only improved since I started playing it looking forward as I'm sure all of us for Bradley at Bay and the next update.
 

john connor

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
2,488
Points
63
Age
60
Location
Brussels
Disclosure: I beta test the game, so I have access to what the enemy is doing, to check that when we test things.

I would say it's in great shape now in that many of the things that have been off-putting (for me) for many years are getting more and more rare, and I'm talking here with perfect knowledge of what the enemy AI is doing, due to playing using the dev build. For instance, units up front that shouldn't be (HQs, bases, support units) - I think this has been my biggest irritation since I first played RDOA many many years ago. But it's rare I see it now. I do still see it, and I hope the long, long haul that it's been waiting for the next update will make it even less often that this happens. Second in my irritation list - crazy pathing. Again, much more rare. Third, enemy arty units continually moving and never getting the chance to fire (only visible if you can remove FOW, obviously). Ditto. Getting much better. Fourth - the AI failing to put in co-ordinated attacks and using Move too much instead. These days I see much more proper planned co-ordinated AI attacks. Fifth - the enemy AI holding back too much of a reserve. That's putting it nicely. Again, happens less often. Sixth - formation lock-ups. These are now very rare, I think.

The arty is great at the moment, I think. I NEVER manually plot arty (because if you do that you're giving yourself a massive advantage over the AI, for whom all arty calls are organic, called in by units on the map, not by some Gods-eye super being such as the player), but I never need to. Both friendly and enemy arty is very plentiful and effective, usually. A joy to watch.

If I play as a player, not as a tester, as I often do, using the arty house rule mentioned above, I get thrashed very often. By which I mean that I fall short of what my side managed historically, with the same forces as were available historically. Seriously. I'm crap, perhaps, but even so, I've been playing the game for many many years and know it pretty well. But the AI still surprises and still beats me.

My wish-list now mostly consists of things that if you play as a player (with FOW) you probably won't notice as a problem. Big code changes to do with enemy defensive routines, for example. Better strategic-type AI planning over the whole operation.

And - what everyone would like to see - some form of mount/dismount function (nothing too fancy, but something).

So it still gets a thumbs up from me. Is still the best wargame (of any type) I've ever played against an AI. No hexes, proper maps, deeply historical and accurate, proper command chain, no click-fest RSI injuries, real time, STILL by far, without a doubt (for me) the very best AI there is in a wargame. A work of art.
 

JArraya

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
113
Points
18
Age
49
Location
UK
Disclosure: I beta test the game, so I have access to what the enemy is doing, to check that when we test things.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a considered reply. I agree with you that some of those things are getting better.
One thing that you didn't mention that I think also needs addressing is the supply issue of trucks getting lost and supply not arriving to units when clearly there is no reason for this to happen. I know supply happens in not-real-time, so there are some possible delays which could cause the losses (for example a stray enemy unit of 5 men which manages to interrupt your supply) but this should be very rare.
Do you also see this supply issue or is it just me?
 

john connor

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
2,488
Points
63
Age
60
Location
Brussels
I've queried in the past the loss of trucks when no enemy are near. Sometimes it's due to bombardment, ranged fire or air attacks, sometimes, true, it's a bit inexplicable, I have felt. But part of the difficulty with pinning it down has been not knowing where exactly the interdiction has taken place. I have had the feeling that if the supply route runs through enemy controlled territory on the control maps then interdiction will sort of randomly happen, without much consideration of where actual enemy units are that might have done this - that is, it's an abstracted feature. But I'm not sure. I have raised many times in the past circumstances where all I can think is happening is that interdiction is happening from beyond the FLOT, by units that the FLOT is simply in contact with, fighting. This is real enough, of course, but the last segment of the supply line is also meant to be a bit more devious, using manpads etc to infiltrate supply through (all done in an abstracted way, I mean). I'm not sure where we're at with that particular issue at the moment. It's a long while since I raised it. Certainly, it's something you could post saves and reports about, and we could watch out for. But I wouldn't, myself, do anything now until we get the next build, whenever that will be, as really nothing much is being looked at at the moment, I think, except that build, so any reports might just get lost and forgotten at the moment. That's what I've found.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,182
Points
63
Age
76
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
Thank you for taking the time to write such a considered reply. I agree with you that some of those things are getting better.
One thing that you didn't mention that I think also needs addressing is the supply issue of trucks getting lost and supply not arriving to units when clearly there is no reason for this to happen. I know supply happens in not-real-time, so there are some possible delays which could cause the losses (for example a stray enemy unit of 5 men which manages to interrupt your supply) but this should be very rare.
Do you also see this supply issue or is it just me?
Though the supply system is emulated rather than modeled in detail, it takes into account the matters which govern battlefield supply distribution -- routing and supply operations in proximity to enemy positions.

There's been a significant amount of work done on supply in the past to make it more realistic. Efforts included better analysis of visibility based on both weather and time of day impacting an enemy unit's ability to "see" and interdict deliveries, and identifying routing options that are best for avoiding known enemy dispositions.

What hasn't been addressed is the frequency of supply operations, with higher frequency delivery events resulting in more chance of supply personnel to face danger.

On the realistic battlefield the same transport equipment was used for a number of different missions including combat operations, medical transport, tactical storage, operational and tactical unit moves, communication, and supply distribution among others. In the World War II era, the only time a combat unit could absolutely count on supply deliveries was during planned cycles, in the game modeled as the every 12-hour morning and evening supply pulses because there were neither the personnel nor equipment to do much more given the remaining responsibilities of the transport group. Combat units contended with this in two manners -- fire discipline to preserve combat capability until the next expected delivery pulse, and tactical level cross leveling, where units which suffered less demand on their stored (tactical) supplies during the 12 hours between scheduled pulses shared the "extra" resources with those suffering more demands.

This makes the "emergency resupply" unrealistic the way it's modeled. While transport was a 24-7 operation, there had to be time for all the missions identified above, and for the troops performing them to rest and for the equipment to be serviced. If the supply unit was operating at a high tempo for the 24/7 period it could be available the whole system would eventually collapse from troop fatigue and equipment breakdowns.

If "emergency resupply" were conducted less frequently -- as in only in overwhelming emergencies -- you'd see less transport loss from supply operations because it wouldn't be exposed to enemy fire as frequently and for as long a time as it is now in the game.

We've discussed solutions in the Beta Team (I'm the resident logistician), which resulted in the refinement of the visibility and routing discussed above. Putting a constraint in the "emergency" operations is a reach too far at this time, because the work being done for the attack and movement operations that's included in the next update is more important, as John noted earlier.
 

Grognerd

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
215
Points
28
Age
71
Location
Melbourne, USA
But your discussion is on the right track. Don't shelve it, wait for the correct time to get it on the table...
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,182
Points
63
Age
76
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
But your discussion is on the right track. Don't shelve it, wait for the correct time to get it on the table...
My suggestion is to subject the "base" units to the same kind of fatigue and disruption combat units suffer from taking excessive fire or excessive movement without rest.

The more "emergencies" that are addressed with ad hoc deliveries, the greater the effect of fatigue and disruption starting with delays in deliveries and advancing in increments to the point where the "base" shuts down for a 24-hour rest and refitting period.
 

Grognerd

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
215
Points
28
Age
71
Location
Melbourne, USA
I've only seem one book on the logistics of WW2 (it was the western allies). Unfortunately never read it.
Would think that Corp level and even Army level assets would assist in big push.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
1,182
Points
63
Age
76
Location
Livonia, MI (Detroit-area suburb)
I've only seem one book on the logistics of WW2 (it was the western allies). Unfortunately never read it.
Would think that Corp level and even Army level assets would assist in big push.

You're no different than the normal combat commander. Their training includes a logistics module, but it was endured until they could get to the
"good stuff" in combat. When they experienced real combat and realized "I should have paid closer attention."

Any work on the Western Allies efforts would deal with strategic logistics, the closest it would get to tactical logistics would be the truck convoys used to bring fuel and supplies from the port to division locations because of the destruction of the rail lines in the ETO.

So at the strategic level, you're right. That effort is emulated by the SEP, where wholesale or strategic supplies enter the combat area.

Where the emulation changes from the WWII concept is at the retail level, at the battalion and below. In the game, logistics assets for that level are aggregated up to the "regimental base" but in real life, there were support and storage assets at each echelon of command, company and below dealing in hourly disbursement of supplies and battalion and above dealing in the scheduled pulses. In general, a battalion would handle three-days worth of pulses, meaning it was expected to operate independent of higher level resupply for three days.

The game assigns the effort at the regiment and above. This results in the vast variety of supply routes from the regimental base to line combat units. In real life, supplies flowed through each level of command to subordinate line units, the regiment carrying enough to resupply the battalion a planned number of 3-day operational spans and staffed to reach the battalion once in a 3-day span. The only line or line support combat units a regiment may have reached directly were those assigned as direct reports to the regimental commander, generally anti-tank, artillery, engineering and in some cases scouting units. The bulk of the line combat units were handled at battalion and below.

Division, corps and army assets flowed in similar echelon steps on the battlefield, with the time period between scheduled pulses less frequen than the regimental to battalion level deliveries.

TGhe number and variety of routes causes the first non-realistic danger to supply delivery resources, and except for company to line units, the number of deliveries increases that jeopardy.
 

GoodGuy

Member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Messages
443
Points
28
Location
Cologne
Very interesting discussion.

It's understandable that - with the supply flow being abstracted - some details aren't on the cards.

In some armies, Bns had to draw from (the very small) divisional depots, for instance. In the German army, divisional depots never had a fixed place, and not a fully-fledged supply vehicle pool, either. The Division could only store the amount of supplies that was needed to equip the frontline units with the first loadout (before going into combat). The Corp was not involved in the (re)supply process at all.
The Army (unit) set up and maintained fuel depots in each division's AO, which means that it pushed fuel supplies to the divisional area of operations.
For food/water supplies - in non-motorized units, the Bn HQs combined the Coys' supply columns no. 1 (one horse-drawn vehicle) of each company and sent them to retreive and distribute food/water supplies. The Coys' supply columns no. 2 (one 3-ton truck and 1 Krad per Coy) were usually employed/combined by the Regiment and used to retreive and distribute ammo to the Bns.
So food was handled slowly and ammo was shipped double time, if trucks were available/combined, basically

An artillery regiment didn't have supply columns, as each of its Bns had their own columns: a light artillery Bn had 1 light supply column (motorized, in some units partially horse-drawn) with a total capacity of 36 tons, heavy arty Bns had 1 light supply column (motorized, 28 tons total capacity) in each battery, IIRC.

Ammunition supply chain: the industry delivered the ammo to the Wehrmacht's ammunition institutes. Ammunition was often delivered separated (safety measure), so the institutes then had to assemble the parts. The institutes also served as QA entities, so they also verified functionality/quality and adherence to production standards. The ammunition was then transported (train cars) to the ammo depots of the Army (unit). These deliveries were directly hauled to district depots near the divisions in exceptional cases, only.
Usually, the supply columns of the Army or the Division would then draw ammo supplies from the Army ammo depot and haul them to the divisional issuing point.
The light supply columns of the regiments/of independent Bns then drew the ammo for their subordinated units, and delivered the ammo supplies either to the fire bases of the artillery batteries or to the frontline units' ammo supply points. Combat vehicles could pick up ammo supplies, ammunition carriers (as in men) picked up ammunition for the infantry (at the frontlines), at these points.
If the frontline conditions allowed for direct supply runs, supply vehicles were sent right to the frontline.

The US Army used well defined procedures as well, which can be checked in the particular field manuals. Jim pointed to a number of quite interesting FM-manuals, in the past.

The Germans used a wide range of vehicles to deliver ammo to frontline (trench) units, they converted/used a number of tankettes and ammunition carriers (mostly of French/Belgian, British and German make) to save precious trucks and to be able to cover the last say 200 to 600 meters under combat conditions. They even modded such vehicles, so that ammunition could be dumped into trenches and strongpoints under moderate/heavy small arms fire by using a handle from inside a carrier (pretty much like in a lorry), where then the cargo bed could be raised and where the ammo then just slid down into the trench, for instance. This regime reduced manual work and troop losses.
British units used bren carriers, converted Vickers tankettes or similar vehicles for such jobs, afaik.

That said, it's quite clear that it'd be quite a job to render such details.
On the other hand, and with the existing system, you have a situation where trucks are sent into combat, technically.
It is true that say the Russians and the Germans lost huge amounts (relative to their total amount of trucks produced/captured/received) of transport/supply vehicles, but it's also a fact that a large amount of these supply columns were destroyed by situational fire, eg. unexpected enemy advances, air raids, artillery interdiction fire (accurate Allied fire was rather rare, at least until autumn 1944) etc., or by planned interdiction/S&D missions - performed by fast motorized units or by partisan units forming raid parties, and not by single enemy units occupying single supply routes.

Generally, the several armies, especially the Germans, tried to avoid sending precious cargo space into combat zones.
The German Army lost quite an amount of supply trucks through attrition (wear & tear, breakdowns) in 1941- when they had to cover huge gaps (large distances that had to be covered with truck transports because the Russian railway lines had to be converted, first, the transport pool used for this extra job - in the main - comprised of a huge amount of Allied trucks captured in 1940), but also some amount during their onslaught in France in 1940, already, with another huge loss of cargo space during the Russian counterattack near Moscow in December 1941 and in the Stalingrad pocket, means through enemy action, of course. The Germans never managed to replace the loss of those captured vehicles and the subsequent loss of trucks when the Russians started their counterattack near Moscow, their production output was too low, production and assembly of truck parts were too slow.

So, except for unexpected enemy actvities (counterattacks, raids, etc.), supply units tried to avoid the frontlines (especially the horse-drawn ones) wherever possible. Yet, in the game, everybody and his mom seem to be eager to bring their vehicles to the (combat) party. If you investigate ingame and try to find out who's sitting on your supply route, you can very well dash into remote woods and past elevations off-route, without seeing any enemy nearby. It feels like enemy units resting 1 or 2 squares away from your supply route are destroying a vital percentage of your supply trucks, even tho they didn't even move for some say 12 hrs. Now, I may be wrong here, but that's how the system felt at times.

Another detail: with the details about the German supply regime, it is quite obvious that putting the transport pool into a giant base attached to say a Division doesn't do the historical regime justice.
Basically, if say 2 Coys lost their supply truck elements, then the ammo supply level of the sister Coy was affected, too. The regimental officer in charge of the combined supply columns no. II (from the Coys) then either had to spread the ammo evenly (so that all attached Bns received less than the required ammo deliveries) by using the remaining truck, or the Coys' food supply elements (reminder: horse-drawn) would have had to fill the lost trucks' (2) roles and draw ammo from the distribution point, until replacements for the trucks could be acquired.
With the latter option, such Coys would have been undersupplied ammo-wise in combat situations due to the low speed of the horse-drawn vehicles, for the time being, because the pretty small Bn column could only support the Bn HQ.
Since the Coys' food supply columns were combined and controlled by the Bns, the Bn officer (or the division's quartermaster) in charge of the supplies could also opt for using parts (or the whole) of the food supply columns to haul ammo to the Coys, but then the food supply of all subordinated units would have been severely affected, of course.
In the game, the emergency supply runs seem to counter/rule out such historical effects/outcomes, partially at least, which leads to somewhat unrealistic results, imho.

In any case, the game's current supply system doesn't represent historical German or US supply regimes, and since supply units are not rendered the actual cargo pool losses are definetely kind of off-kilter, imho, which means they appear too high.
 
Last edited:
Top