Those pesky enemy units that have routed

[Joe98]

Sometimes they do a reorg, rest and then move to cut my supply or sometimes to move near to an objective and capture it.

Given certain criteria, routed enemy units should be forbidden from cutting my supply or taking objectives.

1. Its only a game

2. I cannot police the whole road.

3. An enemy unit of 10 - 20 men could never achieve such spectacular results.

 

[Iconoclast]

My two cents:

especially the mopping up of enemy remnants is am important job for every fast moving unit. Since we are moving towards a more sophisticated representation of Mech units, cutting out the remnants would be a drawback. We all feel your pain though, but war has never been an easy endevour. The decision to press on Vs. mopping up your rear is a very thrilling decision itself and should not be underappreciated.


Having said that, I think that it is very well reasonable to reduce the durability of remnant Coys. Maybe give them a moral penalty for being to far away from any friendly units ( as long as they are no recon units or maybe Paras), or implement some sort of "deserter" modification, representing a number of people per day that decide to hit the road and surrender. You could modify this number with Cmdr "determination" or the units "aggression" value.

3. An enemy unit of 10 - 20 men could never achieve such spectacular results3. An enemy unit of 10 - 20 men could never achieve such spectacular results

never underestimate the little people

A

 

[Erik Springelkamp]

The order of battle is not very suitable to protect the rear now though. For that one should be able to break up companies in much smaller units, and that would introduce a whole new game scale. So to avoid that, remnant should somehow be neutralised in an abstract way.

 

[Rob]

Hi all,

This has long been an annoying (but not a game breaker by any means) niggly thing for me. Perhaps we could get a "Patrol" type order that functions much like a "Move" order with the allow attack option set to on (also disallows road column) where we could designate 2 points on the map (begin, end) and the unit would continue to move along routes set between those 2 points until ordered otherwise by the player and hopefully attacking those "leakers" when they're spotted by the patrolling unit. It needn't be elaborate, just allow a unit to endlessly "move" between it's starting point and where the order icon is placed on the map with the ability to attack anything it spots and then return to it's patrol route until either I order otherwise or another leaker is spotted. I do this in a manual fashion now but it requires LOTS of close together waypoints and micromanagement not compatible with a Brigade/Division/Corps level command perspective.
Just an idea......
Or even a Move order with a task option that would allow similar functionality would serve.

Rob.

 

[john connor]

Erik's point is a good one, Iconoclast, and Rob. You wouldn't, in RL, have to send a whole company to locate a handful of demoralised stragglers whose presence alone (within the game mechanics) is cutting your supply. And since the game stops at companies, more or less, then I agree with Joe 90 that some kind of abstract solution would be nice in certain situations. What he suggests sounds good - basically, once it sinks below certain thresholds it cannot cut supply/take objectives etc. Above certain numbers - when the unit could still more or less hold its own in a company level game - then the decision to ignore it should surely be risky, as Iconoclast suggests? But can we not have thresholds below which the recovered routed unit can have no effect on supply/VPs/etc?

All that said, what I'd really like is to be able to split units into platoons...

But it's never 'only a game'. Joe 98!!!! Sacrilege!

 

[Iconoclast]

in RL, have to send a whole company to locate a handful of demoralised stragglers whose presence alone (within the game mechanics) is cutting your supply.

As far as Rl goes: Yes, sometimes you send whole Coys, or substantial parts of follow-up Bns to clean up after the attack. It depends on the pocket and situation though.

What he suggests sounds good - basically, once it sinks below certain thresholds it cannot cut supply/take objectives etc.

I think so too! Maybe we could introduce objectives with different sensitivity? An Obj that represents an MSR for the Div that has to be cleared would be more sensitive, since fewer units are required to disrupt it. A whole village needs more units to tip it into your possesion, since there is more area to cover? Something like that maybe.

Also, it might be interesting to be able to set up his own MSRs and ASRs? by that, the depot would start to use an ASR once supply convoys along an MSR has reached a certain casualty threshhold. That would add a little more control over convoys and by that over where they are putting themselves in harms way.

All that said, what I'd really like is to be able to split units into platoons...

Ha! And I thought the same, but also feared that Dave might have a seizure if I fling out the next game feature that I'd like to see, after I already mentioned my deepest desire to take the CO2 Engine for a walk in WWIII Good to see that other people think along the same lines

On another note: The 'split units' option would also help making a very big step forward in terms of recon mechanics.

A

 

[john connor]

MSRs and ASRs. I wonder what the position is for CO2 with regards to putting in greater user control of supply, something a few of us have definitely suggested/requested? Is there going to be any change to supply at all, I wonder? In fact, I wonder what the CO2 changes are to be, period. I've only seen the UI changes that have been posted in here, I think. I believe, from what Dave has said, that Mounted Ops is something for a future iteration of CO2, if enough money is made from this 'soon-to-be-released' (June next year? ) pack and the engine. But I haven't a clue what's to be in the new engine aside from the UI changes. Sequential tasking? I had the feeling that was for the future too. For me the biggest and most interesting group of changes I would hope to see at some stage would definitely be Mounted Ops, Sequential tasking, greater user control of supply routes, sources, bases etc, the conversion to a platoon level iteration (preferably the ability to break units down into platoons full stop) and planning type graphics in the UI (to make planning and AARs easier and better). Of those, platoons and mounted ops would be top of the list, I think. But I actually don't think any of that will be in the release they're now talking about, except the last item (UI changes). Be nice to get a list of proposed changes for the release. I will buy the pack anyway, as a support measure, hoping to pave the way to a future with some of these wishes in it, plus the EF packs, but it would be nice to see a list of some sort too.

Peter

 

[Iconoclast]

In fact, I wonder what the CO2 changes are to be, period.

I second that.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Hi guys,

I have just got back in from Melbourne where I attended and presented at the inaugural Wargaming Connections conference. I will endeavour to respond with a list of changes/features in the next couple of days.

 

[Daz]

Things have got a lot better than they used to be, in the days when we had to chase a unit all around our rear area before we could destroy it.
Badly mauled units are much more likely to disband now. Sometimes it takes quite a few hours for all the men to completely disband however.
They tend not to route/retreat as far as they used to making it easier to put in another attack.
Miguel also put in that Assault cap code to prevent units that have recently taken a large number of casualties from being used to attack for a number of hours.
It would be good to modify this to include the inability to interdict supply routes, and spot for artillery.

I think what is really needed, and is probably a lot easier option than being able to split all the Coy's into Platoons, from a coding point of view, is a new order called Attack and Pursue.
Instead of placing the attack order on the ground, you would be able to target an enemy unit.
Your unit will then put in an attack on that enemy unit after the usual command delay.
If the enemy unit retreats however your unit will be able to put in another attack immediately, without a command delay, to simulate that the order has already been given to pursue any retreating enemy.

This would have to be used sparingly however as if there was another concealed enemy unit nearby in good health your pursuing unit would be more vulnerable as it was not moving cautiously.
Maybe a combat modifier can be implemented to simulate this?

I think there should be an overrun modifier as well for units that are faster (Armour, Mech infantry), when attacking, infantry, and especially deployed Artillery, HQ's and mortar platoons, making it very unlikely that any of the enemy unit is fast enough to escape the onslaught, dependent on nearby terrain (Armour, and Mech vehicles would not be able to overrun infantry retreating through a forest for example).

 

[john connor]

Attack and Pursue a fantastic idea, Daz. Maybe Dave will be able to rush that into the Christmas release? Skip a few nights sleep and get it in.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Attack and Pursue a fantastic idea, Daz. Maybe Dave will be able to rush that into the Christmas release? Skip a few nights sleep and get it in.

It's true Xmas does bring out the optimists!

 

[john connor]

But I have faith in you, Dave. I do.