When are we going to solve the problem of the defeated troops?

Discussion in 'Command Ops Series' started by 共工熙雲, Nov 15, 2017.

  1. 共工熙雲

    共工熙雲 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2017
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    6
    The scattered troops can run behind my back. Did every AI learn Mao Zedong's guerrilla warfare? No need for supplies, no need connection, no need system,Move everyone like Rambo in enemy forces in any.The U.S. Army is so powerful, in those days,Why not do alternately go to the Berlin?In addition, in the absence of vision, can I determine whether there is an enemy near the occupation point, and can basically determine the strength, God perspective? It's bad for attacking FOTILE.And this victory point is extremely magical! More than once I saw a company of the enemy seized my victory spot near a regiment of mine.Why can't polish it?
    I only see the focus in: "selling DLC, studying historical issues of all sorts of details, Doubt others is a swindler.."
    Has anyone seriously read the manuals of "Paradox Interactive"?" Who's going to play their game tutorials?.But what about their sales?
     
  2. DerGrenadier

    DerGrenadier Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    2
    No offense, but I dont understand what youre trying to say.
     
  3. 共工熙雲

    共工熙雲 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2017
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    6
    It's nothing.Just because I've been playing this game for too long.. But the game doesn't update. So complain about it.
     
  4. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    109
    I think he/she (sorry, but can't read the name language) is saying that routed units sometimes end up behind enemy lines, a fact that has been debated and tweaked for nearly 15 years, lol, with many, many changes and improvements. It happened in real life, and it happens in the game, but not so often, now, or in such a way as I would notice it as a cause for complaint, at the moment. Where it happens in a way that looks off then I would say to the OP that he/she should provide picture examples and - most important - save games, otherwise nothing can be done at all.

    There's an update due, as everyone knows, though, iirc, there are no changes to routing behaviour therein. I would expect we will see both that update and an expansion at the beginning of December, fingers crossed.

    In response to the poster - I'm not sure he/she is aware that this game is basically maintained, coded, tweaked, updated by one man - Dave O'Connor - who also has a day job. It's not Electronic Arts (or, indeed Paradox Interactive), or any large, well-resourced outfit, we're dealing with. There's a small team for scenario generation, and a voluntary beta team, but the coding is basically a one-man show. Knowing that might affect how you ask for things - not sure....
     
    #4 john connor, Nov 15, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2017
    共工熙雲 likes this.
  5. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    72
    Command Ops sometimes does have its quirks. But as John said having enemy units slip behind the lines is as far as I'm concerned something that happened in real life. The AI does tend to gravitate towards going to objectives instead of trying to return to their own lines though. I'm guessing in real life self preservation would kick in and those units would make sure to head back.
     
    共工熙雲 likes this.
  6. simovitch

    simovitch Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2014
    Messages:
    574
    Likes Received:
    37
    Comparing the resources of Paradox interactive with those of Panther games is like comparing the USA to Albania. Panther is more or less a one-man shop with a couple of volunteers and it's amazing that they can produce what they do with what they have.
     
  7. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    Paradox has 200-225 employees and still puts out games as full versions that rather resemble beta versions, and where the customer of the full version finds himself being a beta tester. One or another patch, that doesn't address many of the quirks, the lag and the bugs, and then a DLC or an expansion that carries a price tag and that then fixes the stuff that should have been fixed on release date of the retail version. More than often community modders fix numerous bugs and oversights and get the games to a halfway enjoyable level - with their free mods. They can't fix hardcoded bugs with their scripts, though.

    So, to compare or even just mention Parasux in the same post that addresses CO's coding or Panther Games' patch policy does not do the game justice.
    Over the years, and even tho Dave leaned towards different solutions at times and even though he was not totally thrilled when someone came up with one or another feature suggestion at times, many user requests have made it into the game.
    If I'd have to compile a list here, it would probably extend to the tenfold amount of lines I am typing here.

    While there are still major features on ppl's wish lists, the amount of changes made to Unit behaviour, user interface changes, adding of features (info tabs, more rings, etc.etc.) to the point of making the estabs accessible and even putting up a discussion in the community forum about the game's financial model shows a level of tranparency and care for the customer that you will not find often in the game industry, and certainly not among major labels.
    When Conquest of the Aegean was released, 2 things disappointed me, to some extent: The release version or the first patch (don't recall which one) contained a mishap, where the arty aiming pointer would act as if it would have mistakenly used the pathfinding routine of motorized units, so that it wouldn't fire at locations in dense woods, and that the game - unlike its predecessor - restricted motorized units from accessing woods. I remember me being somewhat pissy, that the game was pretty much unplayable for me, as I played the game with detached arty units - means I manually controlled most of the artys, throughout a mission, which I expressed in the forum, as I felt that I had bought a full price game which then became unplayable (for me at least). and that Dave (Panther Games) was somewhat offended, as I came across as being pushy/demanding. Actually, I was just super enthusiastic, since I loved the game so much, so I could not hold my horses and expressed that the mishap was quite frustrating for me. I did not intend to come across as pushy, I just thought that the "arty-bug" was a somewhat unnecessary mishap for a developer that had very high standards but also a very strong record delivering very solid games, and as I thought (and still think) that this game is a gem.
    The German way of addressing things is often more up-front, which may offend or irritate people from other cultures, but it's not meant to be offending but meant to identify problems, so that they can be addressed (and the product be improved) quickly. Well, kinda ... German engineering style, you know. (not on a Diesel-Gate level, though ;-p )

    Panther worked hard and corrected the arty routine with the next patch, and the new class "wheeled" was a "political" (game design) decision, that aimed at making movements (foot vs motorized) more realistic (correct me if I am wrong).
    Other than that, Panther always exceled regarding program stability, customer care, involving the community, accepting a decent amount of feature requests from users, and even considering individual users' research results (shoutout to TMO :p et al).
    For a one-man show, this is an outstanding achievement.

    You might not know anything about Panthers' resources, but the tone you provide here is beyond what I expressed back then when I got owned by my enthusiasm. If you think something can be improved, then maybe raise a feature request in the corresponding forum, or ask other users if the straggler situation is something that can be (or was) addressed (before).

    The game is really solid, I can't think of any code- or compatibility-issues that would keep users from playing it.

    My 2 cents.
     
    #7 GoodGuy, Nov 18, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
  8. jimcarravallah

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    54
    That scattered / routed / bypassed troops regained cohesion and attempted to retake / reassemble at key objectives identified in their mission is realistic. That they may be identified as reassembled and regain a supply path to their location isn't to some extent, depending on how far away from their supply base they reassemble, the disposition of enemy forces between them and the supply base, and the time required to reestablish communications -- some forces in World War II still relying exclusively on courier-carried and / or hard wired phones for command and control.

    That many players take critical objectives and then fail to garrison them as they advance is their error rather than the game's.

    Command Ops2 does an excellent job of replicating the vision effects on a battlefield (and is adding more refinement in the next patch). Particularly during the World War II era, most of the enemy detection was by line of sight, affected primarily by interfering terrain, and lighting conditions, and weather.

    If nothing else, the current version of the game doesn't offer as many vision restrictions as existed on real World War II battlefields -- particularly the ability to lay smoke barrages to hide friendly movements from enemy observation.

    As far as the "God Perspective" goes, it's a crutch. I guess it would be nice for a player who doesn't want to test themselves under the realistic vision conditions that existed on a battlefield (just as some would rather not worry about issues like supplies for guns or gasoline for vehicles).

    Page 155 of the Game Manual Version 1.2 explains what is required to achieve victory points by holding an objective.

    If you have less than a 10-to-1 superiority over enemy forces in the objective circle, then you don't control the objective.

    If you're not interested in history, then perhaps the game isn't for you.

    You indicated you're working on the Battle of Nanjing in your region.

    Are you going to design it so only the Chinese can win?
     
    共工熙雲 and GoodGuy like this.
  9. Keydet

    Keydet Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    13
    I do believe there should be an e & e trigger. I suppose that is the disband function. But the troops do not merge with any other unit.
     
  10. jimcarravallah

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    54
    There's already a function where weakened units merge with peers in combat.

    There are many stories, the air drop in Normandy coming to mind, where stragglers have assembled into functioning combat units focused on the original mission. It was dependent on the initiative and situational awareness of the senior commanders in proximity to the stragglers, but the units were able to focus on those senior commanders' understanding of the goals for the mission -- in terms of the game that would include moving toward mapped objectives.

    There should be penalties in cohesion and reacting to the map boss command and control decisions, but moving toward objectives or interdicting supply columns isn't that far fetched.
     
  11. ghibli

    ghibli Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    2
    It's surely well known, however:

    1) I think that even if historically units when cut out from their own army organized small actions of sabotage behind enemy lines, it is not in the scope of the game to fully model this. The game as it is, is not suited to effectively model partisan like warfare (e.g. pursuing a single unit could take all your patience and concentration, and it's surely not the task of the on map boss, i.e. more or less the player). For example a unit routing in a forest would be splitted in several groups, which could either hide or move somewhere, officers could get killed, probably those who are alive would be sure on what to do, especially if point 2 below apply...

    2) The game does not model the communication lines between the HQs and their units. In real life, and for overrun units this is even more likely, units wich lost or broke their radio equipment, if cut from friendly lines (by several kms) would not be able to communicate. May also happen that difficult terrain reduced the range and signal quality. Sometimes after a while they were considered missing in action and no effort was made to rescue them, otherwise some troops were sent to retrieve them. So in game units cut out from their HQ should neither be able to receive orders, nor give their HQ reports on their status or what they see.

    Maybe it makes sense to establish some criteria about establishing and loosing comm line. A unit which loses it may get controlled by the AI with us as the sr HQ being unable to receive reports from it. If comm line is not restored after a while it become MIA, and is removed as disbanded.

    Modelling communication could be in general another step forward in the game system. Also the possibility of issuing orders from the point of view of subHQs (with respect to the on map boss) could maybe bring some benefits and increase the flexibility and realism in many situations.
     
    Seb3brv78 likes this.
  12. Bie

    Bie Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    72
    As frustrating as that would be, I do like the idea of that.

    As you said, maybe have the AI take over and at least let them try to return to their own lines. This would also mean that without line of sight, the unit might "disappear" from the map (the same way enemy sighting is handled).

    Having it be MIA and be disbanded would be a step to far for my liking though. I'd rather have them wander around until they find their way back or until they are engaged and ultimately surrender to the enemy.
     
  13. 共工熙雲

    共工熙雲 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2017
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    6
    I don't mean the "victory point" is not reasonable.
    For example:
    If my troops occupied the "victory point",But the enemy was close to the "victory point" when I couldn't see it.

    I can rely on the news of "losing the victory point" to know that the enemy is approaching, which is unfair to the enemy.
    ============================================================================================

    I'm not prepared to let the Chinese win.
    It's a battle that can't be won.
    I'm a very hardcore Military game fan.
    The details of any game, I strive to conform to historical facts,reality,actual.
    One of the purposes of making this script is to let more people know and buy CO2.
    I love this game very much, although it has many shortcomings, but it and other wargaming is not the same place I think it has infinite possibilities.
    Instant combat and command chain, as well as terrain and vision, I want to make a map like dota2 to attract players. (but this UI is too difficult to attract the public.)

    The battle of Nanjing is very sensitive to the Chinese people. I hope not only to make such a campaign to attract players, but also I think the performance of CO2 can also make the players feel the pain and despair of the predecessors who have resisted the invaders. Let the player remember history. Cherish peace.

    If I succeed in attracting creative players, then it's possible to make more campaigns with the CO2 editor. For example, the Korean battlefield, China's war against Japan in the whole process of World War ii.

    My idea wasn't just for fun.
    ==========================================================
    The scattered troops are able to act arbitrarily behind enemy lines with very high morale.
    Can try to learn: the settings in "Steel Division: Normandy 44"?In addition to the paratroopers, It's easier to sink down if there's no friendly troops near the army.
    =====================================================
    I heard that Dave was going to turn CO2 into 3D. Is that true?
     
    #13 共工熙雲, Nov 19, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
  14. 共工熙雲

    共工熙雲 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2017
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    6
    My English can only express meaning, and can not express any emotions or emotions.
    I read the list of production people in the game.
    I know there aren't many people in the game production company. But why not accept the help of players?
    I know the wargaming: "The Operational Art of War III", "combat mission", "Scourge of War" and some other works.Even Graviteam's "Achtung Panzer" series, they all have their own MOD.Many of them are enduring because of the presence of MOD.Why can't CO2 do it?
     
  15. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    109
    You can make scenarios. And estabs. And maps. The community does not have access to the core code in any of the titles you mention, iirc. What you keep wanting seems to be UI changes, but many people who play and love this game would probably think the UI in things like Steel Division Normandy was awful and wouldn't play CO2 if it was like that. These games cater for different tastes.

    The game is well over 10 years old and the dev has been clear that he wasn't releasing the code since the beginning. People have asked since the beginning, so these are not new ideas. It's not going to happen.

    Look forward to your Nanjing battle map, estabs and scenario! That would be a real achievement if you could put in all the work to produce completely new estabs like that.
     
  16. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    But this did not necessarily mean that ground units had to be involved.

    A large amount of recon missions was carried out by air force branches of the involved countries. This procedure goes even back to the first year of World War 1, where planes, balloons and zeppelins were used primarily for reconnaissance, initially.
    While it was almost impossible to handle bulky cameras on planes, photography equipment improved quicly and got smaller, so that planes then took pictures of frontlines, force build-ups and factories in the hinterland, in addition to the already performed roles as artillery observers and spotters (dropping notes over friendly territory, due to the absence of radios). Balloons were used to recon the frontline and the immediate rear area and as artillery observer vehicles, and Zeppelins covered 3 roles: Observer, Recon (especially over the Channel and the North Sea) and long range bomber (Paris, London, etc.).

    In 1940, the Germans used recon planes (equipped with cameras) to assess the level of damage of British airfields, aircraft factories, Air Force HQs, radar installations and assets in cities (eg. London docks) after they had been struck - during the Battle of Britain and later on. In the Russian campaign, aerial recon and local scout planes (ie. Fieseler 156 Storch) were used to identify targets (strongpoints, hubs, large enemy units) for future advance operations.

    Germany's longe range planes (FW 200, a civilian design for airlines), which were used in all theaters for long range recon missions, and which were actually acquired by the Air Force for a heavy long range bomber role (which did not materialize at large scale, due to defects in the design, low output numbers, the complicated manufacturing process, the lack of armor protection for crews, due to the absence of a tail gunner/turret, etc. etc.) were also used as maritime long range bomber and recon plane, tasked to search for Allied convoys or fast single ships in the North Atlantic and they even formed Kampfgruppen with German submarines. For these missions the FW 200 used its "Hohentwiel" radar to detect Allied ships and then dropped its bombs. So, in these missions, planes did not even depend on LOS detection. In this role, Churchill called the FW "Scourge of the Atlantic" as it inflicted heavy losses on Allied shipping. In 1940 a FW 200 bombarded the Empress of Britain (used as troop transport), which caused massive fires which then forced the captain to evacuate the ship eventually, and where then an attempt to tow the ship was prevented by a German submarine, which sent it to the bottom. Just between August 1940 and February 1941, one of the FW 200s managed to sink 85 Allied ships (amounting to 363,000 BRT). The pilot could operate the MGs in the nose, using a reticle for aiming, so the plane could also strafe enemy ships. In 1943, FW 200s from the 2nd Group of KG 40 dropped glide bombs (Henschel HS 293, which were guided) on 2 troop transports, namely the California and the Duchess of York, causing massive fires that forced the Allies to abandon these 2 large ships.

    The main workhorses for recon were German medium bombers, smaller tactical bombers, and the Fi 156, where the leightweight Fieseler 156 served in a triple role, a) as artillery observer and recon plane, b) as standard liaison and courier plane for the Luftwaffe and c) as medical evac plane (with the air ambulance version that could hold 1 stretcher, when one or 2 seats were removed). The plane offered space for 1 pilot and 2 observers.
    While often employed in a local recon role, the Fi 156 could also conduct medium and long range missions, as it could be equipped with disposable/auxiliary fuel tanks, increasing the max. range to 1,010 kilometers. Locally, when winds were strong enough, and if enemy AA and fighter threat was low, the Fi 156 could "hover" over a sector for a while, turning it into an almost stationary observer asset, pretty much like a balloon, it was famous for its very low stall speed. The Fieseler could land on pretty much most terrain types, and it just needed a strip of 50 meters for takeoff and 20 meters for landing. Since the wings were foldable, it could be transported by a truck or even slowly towed by Luftwaffe or Army vehicles.
    Due to its low stall speed, it could circle over target areas for hours (if using the disposable tanks and if flying at low speed). The Luftwaffe used this ability extensively when searching and tracking partisan movements in Yugoslavia and Russian regions with partisan activity.

    Charles D. Melson describes in "Red Sun: A German airborne Raid, May 1944" (2000), The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Routledge, how the Germans tried to pin-point Titos HQ and how they employed Fieseler planes in preparation for an airborne operation near Drvar, the actual location of Tito's HQ:
    It seems that a single German Fieseler Fi 156 flew a number of parallel runs up and down the Una valley over Drvar at around 600 metres; activity consistent with conducting low altitude aerial photography.
    Lt. Col. Wayne Eyre, (Canadian Army) adds in "Operation Rösselsprung and the Elimination of Tito, May 25, 1944: A Failure in Planning and Intelligence Support" (2006), that the aircraft paid particular attention to the villages of Prinavor and Trninić Brijeg where the British military mission and American military personnel were located. This was observed by Street, the acting commander of the British military mission, who assumed it was spotting for a bombing raid and advised both Tito and the Americans. Both Allied missions moved their locations as a result.

    Balloons were also used as recon and artillery obs assets, until around 1942.

    Only after German air force contingents in Russia had been split and moved to Italy and North Africa (ie. to help out in the North African theater) and after aviation fuel had to be rationed (partially starting in 1942, and probably severely kicking in around 1943 before Citadel , but not later than after the massive amount of sorties during Operation Citadel at Kursk), the German recon regime in Russia started to falter.

    The lack of intel about the Russian build-up at Stalingrad, which enabled the Russians to carry out a two-prongued attack that created the Stalingrad pocket, is still subject to discussion among historians, as - in theory - the Germans possessed sufficient numbers of recon or even fighter planes (which could have been used for recon, as well) in that sector. Still, the Germans appeared to be rather blind, as they either could not or just didn't gather sufficient intel.
    Several possible reasons:
    • The Russians had moved AA units near the eastern bank of the Volga as cover for the Russian artillery, (which performed surprisingly accurate shelling of German troops on the western bank, and even successfully performed some counterbattery missions, while it was difficult for the German artillery - in the main - to reach the last line on the west bank, right at the river, as the angle of the steep dunes and elevations [downhill slope pointing towards the beaches] to score hits on trenchlines and tunnels), turning recon over the eastern bank into a dangerous business.
    • Russian air units increased the number of sorties (they were conspicious by their absence during vital phases of the German onslaught in Stalingrad, though)
    • German recon (initially FW 200 at high altitude, later on Stukas, Fi 156 and medium bombers) focused on documenting the progress of house-to-house figting, instead of screening the hinterland of the eastern bank.
    • Re-deployment of units to the Italian and North African theater, decreasing the number of planes in the Russian theater.
    • early Rationing of aviation fuel that effected certain Luftwaffe units (not sure if the particular Luftflotte(n) was (were) affected). .

    So, the level/quality of aerial recon could highly influence the outcome of battles.

    In contrast, the number of Russian aerial recon missions north and south of Stalingrad increased, so that - coupled with other means of intel collection - the Russians possessed quite some knowledge about the number, sizes and dispositions of German units deployed in and behind Stalingrad. Interestingly, during the Kursk operation, even though the Russians sometimes (locally) deployed an impressive amount of ground support aircraft and fighter planes, aerial and land-based recon was piss-poor, if not non-existent, which led to the severe decimation of the 5th Guards Tank Army, as its elements ran into German tanks waiting at Prokhorovka, losing at least 235 tanks in the process, whereas the Germans lost only 3 (according to recent research by retired Colonel and military historian Karl-Heinz Frieser, who reviewed Russian and German documents and used daily actual strength reports providing the number of operational tanks - in contrast to Glantz' bloated numbers, who kept using ration strength reports and who didn't take reinforcements into account when detailing the total number of German troops and tanks available before the start of Citadel and the number of German tank losses during citadel).
     
    #16 GoodGuy, Nov 20, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
  17. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    Part Two

    The US Air Force eventually adopted the German method of embedding airforce liaison officers on the ground, and took it even to a new level when they perfected the system of aerial recon, aerial-umbrella cover for armored formations (circling over advancing columns and exchanging planes every 30 minutes) and combined strikes, in 1944 an 1945. The US Forces considered aerial recon to be a vital part of command and control, and in my books, US aerial recon was way more sophisticated/used/effective than Allied (US + British) recon on the ground. One reason was that the Western Allies had plenty of fast scout vehicles, but they lacked long range equipment (optics) or armor protection, and with quite some vehicles even both.

    The RAF employed the multi-role Mosquito (range: almost 3,000 km, hence it also served as pathfinder for bombers, as well) and bombers in medium and long range recon missions, the USAAF employed bombers, but also lightnings and other aircraft, and even fighter planes later on.


    SPOTTING RANGES

    During the Battle of Kursk, it appeared that German tank optics could not just be used for detecting/observing enemy units at long range (3 km and more), but that they also delivered a vital range advantage when used with high calibre/velocity guns: The tank destroyer Ferdinand could destroy Russian T-34s at ranges of up to 3.6 kilometers. While these TDs were vulnerable to close-range Inf attacks, they reported 500 tank kills during the operation. Depending on LOS/terrain, the newest optics in the new medium tanks (and in the King Tiger later on) and the large scopes on armored recon cars could detect enemy units at ranges between ca. 3.5 and 5 kilometers in open terrain (note: that does not necessarily translate to "effective gun range", as - for instance - the Tiger I had to elevate the barrel and use a rather curved trajectory, due to the lack of punch/velocity - and would perform such long range shots (3 - 3.5 km) mainly with HE on stationary targets), depending on type of optics.

    Obviously, aerial recon is absent in the game, but I am not sure if the above spotting ranges and particular effective ranges (say Ferdinand, King Tiger, Jagdtiger) are rendered correctly for ground units in the game. Even though British and US tank optics were way inferior, they at least allowed for increased spotting ranges (note: not effective gun ranges, as the imaging was too blurry), after the magnification levels had been increased until late 1944 and early 1945 (whenever a tank went to a repair shop), my personal guess would be 3-4 kilometers, I think Jentz mentioned some number between 3 and 5 kilometers.

    The observation tank version of the Panther (around 329 "Beobachtungspanzer V" were built) was developed as artillery observer vehicle and issued to tank artillery units. With a crew of 4 it had lost its main gun (replaced by a dummy), but featured a turret observation scope, a scissor scope and a sophisticated range finder device (note: not just reticle range finder dots), which enabled its crew to conduct long range observation and act as FO for tank artillery. The range finder was also attached to the experimental Biwa IR-light on regular Panthers for night fighting, later on. With this equipment, these obs tanks could also be used in a long-range recon or early-warning role.
     
    #17 GoodGuy, Nov 20, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
  18. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    Well, I know that at least Combat Mission offers extensive mod support, and it even allows to create a completely new (more modern) user interface.
    Offering such level of Mod support is a double-edged sword, though.
    For instance, the mod "Desert Combat" for Battlefield 1942 was a brilliant volunteer project that eventually gained many players and fans, at a time when Battlefield 1942's sequel "Vietnam" wasn't very popular and at a time when the avg. total number of players on Battlefield servers went down to 3000 or below (worldwide). With additional manpower and additional ideas, the modders added actually usable controls for planes (and the newly inroduced choppers), which appeared to be awfully wrong in the original game, and added goodies such as Scud missiles and other assets, in short: they added content that created heaps of fun.
    The developer (DICE), knowing that they never got aircraft handling right and seeing that the popularity of the Mod kept increasing, hired some (or all?) of the Desert Combat modders to help working on Battlefield 2. In that sequel, aircraft handling appeared to be halfway right, and additional features made it into the game (guided missiles). With that move, DICE managed to improve the game and secure future sales.

    That said, modding can be extremely helpful (as it can improve or add game functions), but it can also affect sales of future sequels, add-ons or DLCs, thus create trouble on the developer side. Therefor it is understandable if a small developer decides to keep core assets or even the entire eingine hard-coded, so that the dev stays in control of product content and strategy.
     
    #18 GoodGuy, Nov 20, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
  19. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    Historically, steamrolled units often could not get away, unless they had a dedicated rearguard that had a sufficient number of troops to cover the retreats. Without rearguards or sufficient materiel/morale, they would run or hide in small groups until the steamroll had passed and then try to reach friendly lines as stragglers. The Germans performed fighting withdrawals during the Russian steamrolls in late 1943 and 1944, sometimes over several hundred kilometers, until they managed to form a blocking line that reorganized units and soaked stragglers, or until they met natural obstacles, like we say, means rivers or mountain ranges that formed new defensive lines. A similar behaviour could be observed on Allied units during the Battle of the Bulge in winter 1944.

    In both scenarios, some units also either got surrounded (where remnants then surrendered or got wiped out), or they got "fixed" (suppressive fire would prevent escape) by a support team and then rolled by the assault team and wiped out in the process, on both sides.
    Technically, 2 or 3 Coys were probably sufficient to surround an enemy unit say in a small village. With a sufficient number of elevations (windows, high points on buildings, etc.) and cover, even a single attacker (balance of forces = 1:1) could probably pin and wear down a trapped unit, and then send platoons to the flanks to surround it. But you need at least 1 additional force (eg. a 2nd Coy, or additional platoons) to get to such a result, usually, means superior numbers or superior fire power (with tanks that keep the enemies' heads down and kill runners in the open, for instance).
    In the game, you usually need 3 units to surround 1 enemy unit, and even then you will create stragglers, sometimes. In some of the prequels, you even hat to use 4 units to get the job done, or push the enemy unit into a corner (say a bunker on the left side and a river on the right side, so that the unit was trapped, at times.
    Historically, there were myriads of situations where noone could escape, where a set of platoons got wiped out completely, just because they couldn't see the enemy and their heavy weapons (HMG, guns, etc.), but also a myriad of situations where individual groups of soldiers could get away, say in woods, towns, swamps, etc., especially when LOS and LOF were obstructed.
    And even entire Coys got away, maybe battered, but still equipped with some ammunition, personal cantinas and light equipment (say LMGs + ammo), so that they could still put up a firefight of say 20, 30 mins or even 60 mins. There myriads of cases where such isolated units picked up supplies, weapons and ammo from dead enemies and where such isolated units lasted several days, either until they got back to friendly lines, or until they got tracked down by enemy forces.
     
  20. jimcarravallah

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2014
    Messages:
    728
    Likes Received:
    54
    What you describe as the reorganization of stragglers into ad hoc units is the equivalent of superior officers exercising some control over lower ranking individuals encountered in retreat. Within the game mechanics, it would be natural for individual stragglers to reorganize under a superior officer (a straggling platoon, company, or battalion commander) and for a recomposed ad hoc unit either to seek out rear areas of safety or return to objectives an ad hoc commander had knowledge of being captured prior to his unit being overrun.

    It is not too far fetched for those units to engage in firefights when confronted by enemy troops.

    The problem XiYun describes regarding troops attacking rear area objectives can be resolved by garrisoning those objectives after they have been seized -- in the game mechanics moving headquarters, long range artillery, bases, or support units to occupy them after capture.

    If there were something missing from the straggler equation, it would be the propensity of the units to fall on objectives instead of retrograding toward SEPS, which are essentially the location of rear area entry zones onto the battle map.
     

Share This Page