Rob
Member
Hi all,
I got to thinking about the role of initiative (and how it appears to be modelled) in CO1 and how that might change for CO2 or CO3 or....whenever we get to the Eastern front and/or various national doctrines. A close reading of the manuals suggest initiative is largely determined in CO1 by the attribute "aggression" for both units and leaders. The higher the aggression - the more initiative is likely to be displayed. That works fine for the Anglo-Americans and Germans but not so well with others -- especially the Soviets who (strongly) encouraged their units and leaders to adhere to the "Plan" and actively discouraged low and mid-level deviation therefrom. Yet history is replete with instances of Soviet formations pursuing the "Plan" extremely aggressively but displaying little or no initiative as I am using the term. That non-deviation but still aggressive behaviour , in my opinion, could not be modelled very well in CO1 because of the link between initiative & aggressiveness. Would not a separate additional attribute for initiative in addition to the existing unit/leader attributes go a long way towards enabling this doctrinally based behaviour??
Just an idea...........your mileage may vary
Comments are welcome!
Rob.
I got to thinking about the role of initiative (and how it appears to be modelled) in CO1 and how that might change for CO2 or CO3 or....whenever we get to the Eastern front and/or various national doctrines. A close reading of the manuals suggest initiative is largely determined in CO1 by the attribute "aggression" for both units and leaders. The higher the aggression - the more initiative is likely to be displayed. That works fine for the Anglo-Americans and Germans but not so well with others -- especially the Soviets who (strongly) encouraged their units and leaders to adhere to the "Plan" and actively discouraged low and mid-level deviation therefrom. Yet history is replete with instances of Soviet formations pursuing the "Plan" extremely aggressively but displaying little or no initiative as I am using the term. That non-deviation but still aggressive behaviour , in my opinion, could not be modelled very well in CO1 because of the link between initiative & aggressiveness. Would not a separate additional attribute for initiative in addition to the existing unit/leader attributes go a long way towards enabling this doctrinally based behaviour??
Just an idea...........your mileage may vary
Comments are welcome!
Rob.
