I'd like to suggest 3 new features.
1) "Manual" HQ placement
I think it would improve the game's realism (and gameplay) if an HQ units' task tab would receive an option that would allow the user to determine where to establish the command post.
Technically, the user is both, an operational commander (say CO of a Corps or an Army) and - if he chooses to detach units, with detachment sizes ranging from Coys to even a Rgt or Division - a local commander.
While the higher echelons often advised/ordered staging areas, local commanders often enjoyed some freedom of choice when it came to the decision where to establish their CPs. These could be strongpoints (say a bunker), houses or hills providing for extra visibility/overview.
Aggressive commanders then often picked CPs closer to the objective (say a hill occupied by the enemy), to be able to give directions and drive the assaulting troops, sometimes even right at the frontline (which was one of the main reason for the high casualty rates among Coy commanders - especially on the East Front, by the way, another significant share was killed by enemy artillery fire - usually unobserved interdiction/harrassing fire, just behind the front, as the prevalent attitude of the officer corps included the thought that at least Captains were supposed to lead by example and show courage and fighting spirit, which would then also inspire their soldiers, at least according to their ways of thinking), while quite some experienced/seasoned COs maintained a safe minimum distance, to ensure the CP wouldn't be threatened/overrun by undetected/flanking units or wiped out during a counterattack.
This could mean that even a Coy CP would be established 4 - 6 km from the objective, or even from the FUP, especially during later stages of the war. Radios or telephone lines then ensured that the subgroups could be controlled in real time, if necessary.
Weak-spirited and unexperienced COs, say on the Coy or Bn level then might have preferred to stay way behind and solely rely on motorbike messengers, radios and phone lines (if available on the assaulting troops' ends), with the respective delays in command and control, if the subunits operated outside the radio range and if the advance had been so fast that phone lines had not been layed, yet.
It should be mentioned, that German commanders and group leaders performed mission-type tactics, especially on the Bn/Coy levels, so - with experienced COs and NCOs, subunits then often needed no or less directions, unless an attack failed or if a devensive perimeter was broken.
So, a) German units were taught/allowed to act independently to quite some extent, and b) a lack of communication or massive order delay didn't necessarily mean that a unit would just sit there and wait, as currently depicted in the game, IF the general attack orders were communicated beforehand (date/time of attack, general direction of the thrust or specific objective, etc.).
Imho, at least for the German doctrine/order delay regime, the game focuses too much on order delay, even though in reality a local CO's own initiative could make or even made up for broken comm. lines with higher echelons.
That's why I suggested something like an "adaptive order delay" a couple of years ago, which would reduce the delay down the command chain, until the delay reaches 0 (zero), IF the user issues a direct march order (eg. changing direction by ordering or adding a right turn) to a given Coy, since the user then acts as Coy commander.
There is no order delay for a Coy commander acting on his own initiative and residing at the head or in the middle of his columns, as he is with his unit and as his Lieutenants then execute the orders with their platoons, immediately. In the field, means in reality, there'd only be a delay of some say 5 minutes, for the actual preparation of an attack, for example, means the time needed to drop the field packs, to grab additional ammunition and hand grenades, to check the guns and assign a few soldiers to carry extra ammo for the MG teams, if such Coy is not supposed to time its attack with another Coy.
1) a) Manual placement
Such function could be included in the GUI with 3 checkmarks in the HQ tab:
The first one would basically say "establish CP right here" and the second would be say "join main force when perimeter is secured and safe."
The third checkmark would then have a checkmark saying "maintain distance" and an additional field where the user could enter a fixed distance from the HQ to its subordinated units (eg. for a Bn HQ). Say the user would enter 2 km, then the HQ would always (!) maintain that distance, on the offensive, on the defensive and during march.
Additionally, the last option could be also added as checkmark in the game settings, so that ALL HQs would always keep the indicated minimum distance to its frontline units.
2) Defensive stance
The Germans, for instance, had guidelines that determined the setup right behind the MBL on fixed fronts. There were field manuals and/or cadet/officer training instructions detailing the general distances, the setup of the second line defense behind the MBL, which was usually equipped with AT guns, tank traps or other natural or man-made constrictions to narrow the enemy's path of advance and which were usually placed along the left and right flank of a projected breakthrough path. Higher echelon HQs, including divisional HQs were supposed to be established in particular zones, at distances of 8 km, at 15 km etc., I outlined the distances either here or at Matrix, I'd have to dig for my own post, as I can't remember the details atm.
Whatsoever, in these guidelines, the general use of a prepared (usually empty) rear position that was comparable to the function of the position used in Private Ryan (the "Alamo position"), the "Auffangposition" (a blocking position and last line of defense, used during the battle on the Seelow heights and on many other occasions), was seen as a vital part of such setup.
If the enemy had penetrated the MBL and if he had managed to pass the second line positions, then survivors and reinforcements (if available) were supposed to move to the blocking position. While higher echelons sometimes didn't allow to retreat to such positions, some local COs then sometimes claimed that their comm. equipment failed or that messages had not reached them in time, and still moved there.
In theory, the blocking position was supposed to be manned/prepared right after the MBL was penetrated and when it was foreseeable that the 2nd line would not last long or even be mostly ineffective (say against KV1 counterattacks during the early Barbarossa campaign when higher calibre AT guns were not - or rarely- available).
It would be nice if such setup could be implemented in the defense code. This would enable the user to say use a Rgt. or a division and deploy it in a way that would simulate the deployment on fixed fronts seen in WWI or WWII in a historically accurate way, and without having to place them manually.
For instance, the Germans (and partially the Russians) switched to a defensive stance in winter/spring 1941/1942 almost all along vital parts of the southern front, digging trenches and establishing the setups described above.
In such stance, and if line formation (say with a width of several kilometers - ordered by the user) is used, an AI commander of say a division would then create a line of companies that would sufficiently cover the perimeter, but also be able to react to breakthroughs, means it would send nearby units to fill the gap and to contain the breakthrough.
3) Trace function
In order to contain breakthroughs or to find/knock out/capture stragglers, a trace function would be needed. This would save quite some hassle, where the user has to send several Coys to surround 24 enemy stragglers, who - in some instances - may even get resupplies, and where in reality one full Coy would be able to do the job, easily.
A trace function was mentioned by some users, already, so it's not an entirely new idea, but it seems like there's an actual demand for such function.
1) "Manual" HQ placement
I think it would improve the game's realism (and gameplay) if an HQ units' task tab would receive an option that would allow the user to determine where to establish the command post.
Technically, the user is both, an operational commander (say CO of a Corps or an Army) and - if he chooses to detach units, with detachment sizes ranging from Coys to even a Rgt or Division - a local commander.
While the higher echelons often advised/ordered staging areas, local commanders often enjoyed some freedom of choice when it came to the decision where to establish their CPs. These could be strongpoints (say a bunker), houses or hills providing for extra visibility/overview.
Aggressive commanders then often picked CPs closer to the objective (say a hill occupied by the enemy), to be able to give directions and drive the assaulting troops, sometimes even right at the frontline (which was one of the main reason for the high casualty rates among Coy commanders - especially on the East Front, by the way, another significant share was killed by enemy artillery fire - usually unobserved interdiction/harrassing fire, just behind the front, as the prevalent attitude of the officer corps included the thought that at least Captains were supposed to lead by example and show courage and fighting spirit, which would then also inspire their soldiers, at least according to their ways of thinking), while quite some experienced/seasoned COs maintained a safe minimum distance, to ensure the CP wouldn't be threatened/overrun by undetected/flanking units or wiped out during a counterattack.
This could mean that even a Coy CP would be established 4 - 6 km from the objective, or even from the FUP, especially during later stages of the war. Radios or telephone lines then ensured that the subgroups could be controlled in real time, if necessary.
Weak-spirited and unexperienced COs, say on the Coy or Bn level then might have preferred to stay way behind and solely rely on motorbike messengers, radios and phone lines (if available on the assaulting troops' ends), with the respective delays in command and control, if the subunits operated outside the radio range and if the advance had been so fast that phone lines had not been layed, yet.
It should be mentioned, that German commanders and group leaders performed mission-type tactics, especially on the Bn/Coy levels, so - with experienced COs and NCOs, subunits then often needed no or less directions, unless an attack failed or if a devensive perimeter was broken.
So, a) German units were taught/allowed to act independently to quite some extent, and b) a lack of communication or massive order delay didn't necessarily mean that a unit would just sit there and wait, as currently depicted in the game, IF the general attack orders were communicated beforehand (date/time of attack, general direction of the thrust or specific objective, etc.).
Imho, at least for the German doctrine/order delay regime, the game focuses too much on order delay, even though in reality a local CO's own initiative could make or even made up for broken comm. lines with higher echelons.
That's why I suggested something like an "adaptive order delay" a couple of years ago, which would reduce the delay down the command chain, until the delay reaches 0 (zero), IF the user issues a direct march order (eg. changing direction by ordering or adding a right turn) to a given Coy, since the user then acts as Coy commander.
There is no order delay for a Coy commander acting on his own initiative and residing at the head or in the middle of his columns, as he is with his unit and as his Lieutenants then execute the orders with their platoons, immediately. In the field, means in reality, there'd only be a delay of some say 5 minutes, for the actual preparation of an attack, for example, means the time needed to drop the field packs, to grab additional ammunition and hand grenades, to check the guns and assign a few soldiers to carry extra ammo for the MG teams, if such Coy is not supposed to time its attack with another Coy.
1) a) Manual placement
Such function could be included in the GUI with 3 checkmarks in the HQ tab:
The first one would basically say "establish CP right here" and the second would be say "join main force when perimeter is secured and safe."
The third checkmark would then have a checkmark saying "maintain distance" and an additional field where the user could enter a fixed distance from the HQ to its subordinated units (eg. for a Bn HQ). Say the user would enter 2 km, then the HQ would always (!) maintain that distance, on the offensive, on the defensive and during march.
Additionally, the last option could be also added as checkmark in the game settings, so that ALL HQs would always keep the indicated minimum distance to its frontline units.
2) Defensive stance
The Germans, for instance, had guidelines that determined the setup right behind the MBL on fixed fronts. There were field manuals and/or cadet/officer training instructions detailing the general distances, the setup of the second line defense behind the MBL, which was usually equipped with AT guns, tank traps or other natural or man-made constrictions to narrow the enemy's path of advance and which were usually placed along the left and right flank of a projected breakthrough path. Higher echelon HQs, including divisional HQs were supposed to be established in particular zones, at distances of 8 km, at 15 km etc., I outlined the distances either here or at Matrix, I'd have to dig for my own post, as I can't remember the details atm.
Whatsoever, in these guidelines, the general use of a prepared (usually empty) rear position that was comparable to the function of the position used in Private Ryan (the "Alamo position"), the "Auffangposition" (a blocking position and last line of defense, used during the battle on the Seelow heights and on many other occasions), was seen as a vital part of such setup.
If the enemy had penetrated the MBL and if he had managed to pass the second line positions, then survivors and reinforcements (if available) were supposed to move to the blocking position. While higher echelons sometimes didn't allow to retreat to such positions, some local COs then sometimes claimed that their comm. equipment failed or that messages had not reached them in time, and still moved there.
In theory, the blocking position was supposed to be manned/prepared right after the MBL was penetrated and when it was foreseeable that the 2nd line would not last long or even be mostly ineffective (say against KV1 counterattacks during the early Barbarossa campaign when higher calibre AT guns were not - or rarely- available).
It would be nice if such setup could be implemented in the defense code. This would enable the user to say use a Rgt. or a division and deploy it in a way that would simulate the deployment on fixed fronts seen in WWI or WWII in a historically accurate way, and without having to place them manually.
For instance, the Germans (and partially the Russians) switched to a defensive stance in winter/spring 1941/1942 almost all along vital parts of the southern front, digging trenches and establishing the setups described above.
In such stance, and if line formation (say with a width of several kilometers - ordered by the user) is used, an AI commander of say a division would then create a line of companies that would sufficiently cover the perimeter, but also be able to react to breakthroughs, means it would send nearby units to fill the gap and to contain the breakthrough.
3) Trace function
In order to contain breakthroughs or to find/knock out/capture stragglers, a trace function would be needed. This would save quite some hassle, where the user has to send several Coys to surround 24 enemy stragglers, who - in some instances - may even get resupplies, and where in reality one full Coy would be able to do the job, easily.
A trace function was mentioned by some users, already, so it's not an entirely new idea, but it seems like there's an actual demand for such function.
Last edited:
