FYI Suggestion from a Happy Steamer

[Stephen R Nelson]

In a future version please allow renaming of units. Command Ops 2 is brilliant but I do not buy or play it, because it is hard to track the tedious formal unit names. Can you imagine Patton saying, "Tell the 275th Armored Forward Artillery Batallion to support 2 Pl H Coy 3/32 Armored Rgt on the left flank." No, he would say "Tell Johnson to have his guns support Owens on that left flank."

 

[panzerpit]

In a future version please allow renaming of units. Command Ops 2 is brilliant but I do not buy or play it, because it is hard to track the tedious formal unit names. Can you imagine Patton saying, "Tell the 275th Armored Forward Artillery Batallion to support 2 Pl H Coy 3/32 Armored Rgt on the left flank." No, he would say "Tell Johnson to have his guns support Owens on that left flank."

If that is the only reason why you don't buy this game then... well... good that these are hard unit names, not lack of rounded corners...

 

[Bie]

In a future version please allow renaming of units. Command Ops 2 is brilliant but I do not buy or play it, because it is hard to track the tedious formal unit names. Can you imagine Patton saying, "Tell the 275th Armored Forward Artillery Batallion to support 2 Pl H Coy 3/32 Armored Rgt on the left flank." No, he would say "Tell Johnson to have his guns support Owens on that left flank."

It all depends at what level of the hierarchy you are looking at. In your example Patton (or any higher level commander) would indeed probably not specifically say which platoon (or even company) should do what. As an army commander it is also not really his job to do so as there would be hundreds of companies under his command. He would task one of his subordinate commanders to do something and those commanders would pick specific companies to execute those orders. In my opinion this is modeled really well in Command Ops 2 as you can give orders to your brigades or battalions and never really have to sink time into where its support companies or platoons need to be deployed.

So indeed, why would Patton care if 2 Pl H Coy 3/32 Armoured Regt. specifically should go on the left flank. As long as someone does the job. In this case the company (and probably also the battalion) commander would care which platoon goes where specifically. Hence, it all depends on what level of the command chain you look at it.

As far as I'm concerned I really like this kind of detail and fidelity and for me it's one of the strong points in Command Ops 2. I'm even starting to get annoyed while playing RTS games that there is no detailed order of battle and that I'm playing with "rifle platoon", "rifle platoon", "rifle platoon" and "mortar platoon" for example.

But, as it is a game, I can understand why you would want the option to change the names of the units. It would give you the opportunity to highlight some of them, or use it to change its name into their nickname (The Cherry Pickers,...). I imagine that for some players it would help them get a better view of their troops.

 

[jimcarravallah]

In a future version please allow renaming of units. Command Ops 2 is brilliant but I do not buy or play it, because it is hard to track the tedious formal unit names. Can you imagine Patton saying, "Tell the 275th Armored Forward Artillery Batallion to support 2 Pl H Coy 3/32 Armored Rgt on the left flank." No, he would say "Tell Johnson to have his guns support Owens on that left flank."

In his diaries, Patton indicated he never issued orders more than two echelons below his level of command -- meaning as an Army commander, he only issued orders at Corps and Division levels.

For your information, echelons of command are: Force (like the US Army), Army Group, Army, Corps, Division, Brigade / Regiment / Squadron, Battalion / Troop, Company, Platoon, Squad, individual soldier.

Perhaps starting with that baseline of information, the unit names will make more sense.

 

[john connor]

Lol, some of these responses. But I think you could mod the names in the editor, no? You can certainly give every single unit some kind of named commander, if necessary inventing names, and those names would then be visible in the command tab. Doesn't that solve the problem?

 

[Ron L Wilson]

I woulWhat I think would be cool is to a a chat display, much like one sees in texted on cell phones. e.g. see

https://www.google.com/search?q=cha...AUIDygC&biw=1619&bih=980#imgrc=bZX97Z0ZTe5BjM:

The interlocutors in the chat messages would be the HQ and its subordinate units. The messages would be commands or intel reports passed between the HQ and its subordinate units. It would be similar to the logs but have a C3I slant between the HQ and its subordinate units and not just the events that happened to the one unit..

Maybe one could step between a HQ and its subordinate units in the chat display with perhaps the ability top show more than two chatters at a time as well.

 

[83Reforger]

Battalion commanders do care about which company does what. They know their Company commanders, the First Sgt., and in many cases, have first hand knowledge of the capabilities of the respective Platoon Sgt.’s.

During the planning stage of any operation, “Dick”, or “Winters”, may be the CO in charge of the assault, but undoubtedly he’s going to want to know which Company, if any, is backing him up. If he has access to Artillery, sure, he may know which unit is assigned to the Battalion, but he isn’t going to guess.

Say what you want about the detail. But if I have several Companies making a push, I want to know which Company is where on the map. ( knowing their strengths and weaknesses may be the difference between taking the bridgehead, or retreat.)

THIS is what makes CO2 better than the rest. I can plan a push and divide my Companies to assault with their strengths. I enjoy a plan with maneuver, with real units, on real terrain, with actual names, so when I get beat, I don’t make the same mistake or lose a fight because I misjudged something.

I’d rather plan this way... fight this way, then continue to assault a no name town, with no name soldiers, with nothing to show for it.