Rob
Member
Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor
Panther Games Designer
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 3,416
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- www.panthergames.com
Done. See here for v1.1 of the CO2 Game Manual.
http://forums.lnlpublishing.com/resources/command-ops-2-game-manual.64/
http://forums.lnlpublishing.com/resources/command-ops-2-game-manual.64/
simovitch
Member
Dave, I think you should reconsider this. If HQ's serve no purpose as to proximity to their subordinates, then why advance them toward the front at all? There has to be some benefit to having your HQ in the area. Morale or fatigue recovery? Having the orders delay penalty could at least represent an abstraction of overall lowered unit effectiveness.
Some proximity benefit should at least apply to organic units of a subordinate Bn I would think.
Some proximity benefit should at least apply to organic units of a subordinate Bn I would think.
If the units are still attached to the HQ under AI control they will stay close to the HQ anyway, as the AI HQ never lets them get very far away.
Any units that you move not attached to the HQ are effectively under command of the On Map Boss, who's command radius usually covers most of the map anyway, or at least as far as the enemy front line for most of the scenario in very large maps.
It would massively increase the load on the On Map Boss playing like this so command delay times would go up anyway.
The only way to play and not keep your HQ's close would be to move all your units individually with all the HQ's sitting on the edge of the map with in situ orders, which would be a ridiculous way to play.
Things would get complicated when you make player groups under a different HQ as code will have to be put in place to allow for this so as not to penalize the player unfairly due to distance from its organic superior.
I believe there would still be a command load penalty for doing this if the new group was not within the organic formation, or overload anyway, thus preventing player exploits of grouping the whole Division under command of a Bn HQ.
The benefit of using the HQ's is the reduction in the On Map Boss's command load.
In order to use the HQ's for this purpose they will need to be close to their subordinates, as any command you give them other than in situ, will require them to close with their subordinates as a requirement of the existing AI.
So to summarize: The game already promotes close cooperation with the HQ's by the nature of the AI.
Exceptions to this would be rare and could be explained by the use of radios or field telephone.
Edit: The most useless HQ would become the Regiment HQ, if everyone was to just concentrate on playing with the Bn HQ's, so there is cause for concern there I guess, as it would be feasible to leave the RHQ with a defend in situ order where it enters the map, then just reattach the Bn's until they are needed again.
It's not how I would choose to play however.
Any units that you move not attached to the HQ are effectively under command of the On Map Boss, who's command radius usually covers most of the map anyway, or at least as far as the enemy front line for most of the scenario in very large maps.
It would massively increase the load on the On Map Boss playing like this so command delay times would go up anyway.
The only way to play and not keep your HQ's close would be to move all your units individually with all the HQ's sitting on the edge of the map with in situ orders, which would be a ridiculous way to play.
Things would get complicated when you make player groups under a different HQ as code will have to be put in place to allow for this so as not to penalize the player unfairly due to distance from its organic superior.
I believe there would still be a command load penalty for doing this if the new group was not within the organic formation, or overload anyway, thus preventing player exploits of grouping the whole Division under command of a Bn HQ.
The benefit of using the HQ's is the reduction in the On Map Boss's command load.
In order to use the HQ's for this purpose they will need to be close to their subordinates, as any command you give them other than in situ, will require them to close with their subordinates as a requirement of the existing AI.
So to summarize: The game already promotes close cooperation with the HQ's by the nature of the AI.
Exceptions to this would be rare and could be explained by the use of radios or field telephone.
Edit: The most useless HQ would become the Regiment HQ, if everyone was to just concentrate on playing with the Bn HQ's, so there is cause for concern there I guess, as it would be feasible to leave the RHQ with a defend in situ order where it enters the map, then just reattach the Bn's until they are needed again.
It's not how I would choose to play however.
Last edited:
simovitch
Member
Daz, you obliquely highlighted one point I was making, in that HQ's have become nothing more than a 'grip' to move groups of units and the game artificially prohibits you from keeping them in the rear out of harms way.
I guess after playing the game for over 10 years thinking that I was improving the delay times by moving my Regiment and Division HQ's forward to find out it was all for naught is kind of a let down. I thought it was a cool feature.
I guess after playing the game for over 10 years thinking that I was improving the delay times by moving my Regiment and Division HQ's forward to find out it was all for naught is kind of a let down. I thought it was a cool feature.
Yeah I know what you mean
I personally will still be moving my higher command forward as it adds to the role play side of the game.
I like to keep the units within their own boundaries if I can with the HQ's close. My RHQ's are usually deployed with the Regimental base well forward of the Div HQ but still a good distance back from the Bn HQ.
At least in a perfect scenario, as this organization can quickly go to pot, when the *%&!#* hits the fan
The HQ's are a gip to move groups of units, that's pretty much what they are historically.
They are not only that though, they also lower overall command delay by taking it from the On Map Boss, who's overloaded command delay effects every unit in the force.
Its true that they can not really be kept a long way to the rear, but in defensive positions they can be placed further back by increasing the formation depth, or using in situ command.
In the attack they can be kept out of harms way by placing the FUP a long way from the objective and using the excellent new feature of the defend in situ tick box for attacks, then brought forward when its safe to do so.
Rob
Member
Hi,
Might be room for compromise here.... how about keeping command radius at the maneuver units level i.e.. reporting to battalion/regiment but not keeping it for HQ's (only) and higher HQ's (only).
Remember also that while the Western Allies and the Germans had adequate numbers of radios that the Italians, Greeks, Finns, Soviets, Rumanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians et al, were not so fortunate. when the engine and series gets to incorporating these groups how will their leaner communications networks be modelled if their is no radius requirement??
Rob.
Might be room for compromise here.... how about keeping command radius at the maneuver units level i.e.. reporting to battalion/regiment but not keeping it for HQ's (only) and higher HQ's (only).
Remember also that while the Western Allies and the Germans had adequate numbers of radios that the Italians, Greeks, Finns, Soviets, Rumanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians et al, were not so fortunate. when the engine and series gets to incorporating these groups how will their leaner communications networks be modelled if their is no radius requirement??
Rob.
Last edited:
Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor
Panther Games Designer
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 3,416
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Canberra, Australia
- Website
- www.panthergames.com
Good discussion guys. I'm going to ponder this a bit before making a decision.
If you do decide to incorporate the distance penalty, it would be nice if you could give some kind of indicator as to the distances of the HQ's in the chain like in HOI 3.
This could help to prevent people like me and Simovitch playing for years, without realizing that the feature has actually been disabled
The mouse over pop up box (featured in this screenshot) has green and red highlights to indicate when the unit is out of range of its chain of command, as well as descriptive text as to its distance.
This could help to prevent people like me and Simovitch playing for years, without realizing that the feature has actually been disabled
The mouse over pop up box (featured in this screenshot) has green and red highlights to indicate when the unit is out of range of its chain of command, as well as descriptive text as to its distance.
The proper management the chain of command and HQ units should be an important part of on operational wargame. Honestly order delay is more than just radio delay. A commander will have a quicker and better understanding of the siutation if the Coy it commands is just nearby rather than 16 km away.
Now, if order delay has to be not implemented, then I agree with Simovitch some other bonus / malus should be bound to HQ, such as morale / fatigue recovery, or increase the probability of routing when you are away from your HQ.
Having both (delay and morale penalty) would be nice for sure
Now, if order delay has to be not implemented, then I agree with Simovitch some other bonus / malus should be bound to HQ, such as morale / fatigue recovery, or increase the probability of routing when you are away from your HQ.
Having both (delay and morale penalty) would be nice for sure
If there is no command radius, and given the difficulty of moving HQ's by themselves (as per this thread:
http://forums.lnlpublishing.com/threads/moving-just-a-hq-unit.1958/), I'm not sure that there is any motive at all for attackers to move their HQs forward, which doesn't seem right.
Defenders will sometimes need to move HQs to keep them from being overrun, but that's it.
http://forums.lnlpublishing.com/threads/moving-just-a-hq-unit.1958/), I'm not sure that there is any motive at all for attackers to move their HQs forward, which doesn't seem right.
Defenders will sometimes need to move HQs to keep them from being overrun, but that's it.
It depends on how you play.
If you play at Coy and Platoon level, then you will have an orders delay increase for not having the Coy's close to the HQ, because the on map boss will become overloaded.
If you play at Bn command level the Bn HQ's will always be in range of the Coy's anyway as that is how the AI handles them.
Same with Regiment and above.
The most likely scenario that will have no effect on the Command delay due to distance is if you are playing at Bn level and your Regiment HQ's are out of range. Div HQ's have such a large range that they cover most of the map, in most scenarios anyway.
However Regiment HQ's and bases make excellent units to occupy objectives you have taken so why not just move them to an objective behind the Bn's in their organic command. Doing this almost always brings them within command range of their Bn's.
The bottom line is how much development time do you think should be spent on a feature that no one even noticed was not working for many years and is only really applicable in a few situations?
I personally would like the range feature to be implemented, especially if there was an in range indicator as in my post above, but as I have been playing for years keeping the bases close anyway, it won't really affect me in any way.
If its easy to implement do it, if its complicated, then spend the time on other features I would say.
If you play at Coy and Platoon level, then you will have an orders delay increase for not having the Coy's close to the HQ, because the on map boss will become overloaded.
If you play at Bn command level the Bn HQ's will always be in range of the Coy's anyway as that is how the AI handles them.
Same with Regiment and above.
The most likely scenario that will have no effect on the Command delay due to distance is if you are playing at Bn level and your Regiment HQ's are out of range. Div HQ's have such a large range that they cover most of the map, in most scenarios anyway.
However Regiment HQ's and bases make excellent units to occupy objectives you have taken so why not just move them to an objective behind the Bn's in their organic command. Doing this almost always brings them within command range of their Bn's.
The bottom line is how much development time do you think should be spent on a feature that no one even noticed was not working for many years and is only really applicable in a few situations?
I personally would like the range feature to be implemented, especially if there was an in range indicator as in my post above, but as I have been playing for years keeping the bases close anyway, it won't really affect me in any way.
If its easy to implement do it, if its complicated, then spend the time on other features I would say.
