Command Control tweak

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Command Control tweak

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Command Control tweak

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Command Control tweak - 7/8/2000 9:47:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

implementing the C-C feature first seen in SP-III is a very fine (if sometimes frustrating) option that forces players to deploy their units in less "god-game" fashion. I do have one question/suggestion for the Matrix gang. I've notice that if a unit's parent HQ is either taken out or is out of range that the unit in question will still be 'out of contact' even if it is in range of the next link of the chain of command. For example, unit C2 is out of range of both its company HQ (C0) and battalion HQ (B0) but is right next to the A0 unit. is there a way that this might be addressed in the next upcoming version? It would seem to make sence that a higher level HQ should be able to issue orders to a sub-unit who has lost contact with their immediate HQ.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 7/8/2000 10:36:00 PM

Ken Rutsky

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Saratoga Springs, NY, USA
Status: offline

I think this gets into some grey areas with regard to the old game vs. simulation debate. The command system, as it stands now, is designed to encourage players to keep their platoon formations together. If stray units were allowed to receive commands from a non-parent HQ, your incentive for doing this would be gone. I tend to think of the command system in the game as being more a reflection of force cohesion and initiative as well as pure command (and I think the manual does make the point that the command system is not an accurate model of how command is handled in combat...it's more of an abstracted bundle of concepts). Ken Rutsky

_____________________________

Though it be broken -- Broken again -- still it's there, The moon on the water Chosu

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 2

- 7/8/2000 10:41:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

a valid point! guess i should clarify the request. Would it be feasible to modify the CC rules so that a unit could accept 'control/orders' from the next higher up link in the chain of command, example the battalion HQ of your company, but NOT an HQ of a fellow company in the same battalion. Since there is only 'one' top command unit (A0) i would think its also logical that this unit (which is the literal game representation of 'you') should be able to extend CC to any unit within range.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 3

- 7/8/2000 10:53:00 PM

Ken Rutsky

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Saratoga Springs, NY, USA
Status: offline

You know, I think you might have something there! Maybe make the chance of your A0 taking over for an out of command squad dependent upon a skill check for the A0 leader? It would certainly add a little special something to the game ("The battle looked like a lost cause until Col. Miller took personal command of the bazooka team outside the village..."). But then, what happens when the unit is again placed under command of its formation HQ? The best solution here, maybe, would be to have that unit still follow the orders it received from A0. Command points would have to be spent to change that unit's orders to fall in line with the rest of the formation; a valid penalty for spreading your forces out too thin... Ken Rutsky

_____________________________

Though it be broken -- Broken again -- still it's there, The moon on the water Chosu

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 4

- 7/8/2000 11:18:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

if i recall my SP-III rules correctly, a unit can draw 'orders' all the way up to the A0 unit if an "unbroken" link exists in the chain of command, i.e. unit C2 can use an orders from its batalion HQ (B0) if the company HQ's orders are exhausted (C0) and if B0 is exhausted then A0's orders can be tapped. thats why it seemed logical to me that a unit should be able to be 'controlled' directly by its next higher up HQ if its in range.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 5

- 7/8/2000 11:44:00 PM

Ken Rutsky

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Saratoga Springs, NY, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Nikademus: if i recall my SP-III rules correctly, a unit can draw 'orders' all the way up to the A0 unit if an "unbroken" link exists in the chain of command, ... thats why it seemed logical to me that a unit should be able to be 'controlled' directly by its next higher up HQ if its in range.

That's correct, and I agree with your reasoning. It just shouldn't be automatic. If you've allowed your formations to drift apart too far, you should have to pay a penalty for it most of the time; your battalion or company commanders taking direct control of a stray squad should be a gift. Plus, by basing the chance of, say, your A0 taking direct control of a stray on a skill check, it would be yet another way to show the command advantages enjoyed by better trained armies represented in the game. Ken Rutsky

_____________________________

Though it be broken -- Broken again -- still it's there, The moon on the water Chosu

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 6

- 7/9/2000 12:01:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

good idea Ken! here's what i would propose. an automatic 'in contact' status if the unit is within the contact (visual) range of the higher link in the CC chain (i believe the range is 3 hexes) otherwise, and assuming the unit in question has a radio, then base it on a % chance influenced by the leadership ratings of the HQ. such a system would prevent abuse and negation of the CC rules, but weed out such erronious situations like the one i had where my A0 squad was *right next* to a subunit that had lost its command link and was stuck with an old objective (and hence could'nt change course to follow where the axis of the battle had shifted to)

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 7

- 7/9/2000 11:54:00 AM

Greg McCarty

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/15/2000
From: woodbury,mn,usa
Status: offline

I dont know. I think we in the modern era take a lot forgranted about unit cohesivness; particularly with the relatively primitive wireless sets used 55-60 years ago. Not only that, but much of the time they were using KEY; not radiotelephone. Take a look at pictures of these sets sometime. Just moving them and setting them up again was a chore. Even the compact European models often consisted of two or three interconnected metal cases --one just to contain the batteries. We're not talking cell-phones here folks, or even walkie-talkies in most cases. The visual range idea makes sense however, but even there I would use a probability modifier. Just because units can see each other, does not mean they are effectively communicating. We've read accounts of this sort of thing numerous times in combat histories where the obvious under fire wasn't so obvious. Quite honestly, I'm beginning to gain a lot of respect for the idea that this game FORCES one to engage in displined unit coordintion at the platoon level. I think it is a fairly accurate reflection historically. Perhaps a few tweaks are in order, but the kind of nearly autonamous behavior we saw in units in the earlier SP versions probably was not practicable in reality, particularly with armies like the Russians, who (for the usual paranoid reasons) kept the use of radios to a minimum.

quote:

Originally posted by Nikademus: good idea Ken! here's what i would propose. an automatic 'in contact' status if the unit is within the contact (visual) range of the higher link in the CC chain (i believe the range is 3 hexes) otherwise, and assuming the unit in question has a radio, then base it on a % chance influenced by the leadership ratings of the HQ. such a system would prevent abuse and negation of the CC rules, but weed out such erronious situations like the one i had where my A0 squad was *right next* to a subunit that had lost its command link and was stuck with an old objective (and hence could'nt change course to follow where the axis of the battle had shifted to)

_____________________________

Greg.

It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.

--Zapata

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 8

- 7/9/2000 7:45:00 PM

Ken Rutsky

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Saratoga Springs, NY, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Greg McCarty: I dont know. I think we in the modern era take a lot forgranted about unit cohesivness; particularly with the relatively primitive wireless sets used 55-60 years ago.

I agree. But you can still turn the radio switch for a unit on/off in the editor, can't you? I also agree with what you said about how the command system forces one to use formations; this aspect of the game should not be lost. Which is why, if something like this were to be implemented, it should be dependent upon a skill check on the part of the HQ unit, perhaps with a substantial penalty if the stray unit is not adjacent or in the same location. Or maybe only limit such an ability to units which are adjacent or in the same hex (with or without the substantial penalty to the skill check). At 50m/hex, we can make an assumption that radios wouldn't be needed for contact between units in the same or adjacent hexes most of the time. Ken Rutsky

_____________________________

Though it be broken -- Broken again -- still it's there, The moon on the water Chosu

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 9

- 7/10/2000 9:07:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

But I think that's how it works already? Maybe in SPWAW that connection has been broken?? It's good for gameplay so I think it should be that when a HIGHER hq in the same formation chain (or A0) is near or adjacent that you are in command... Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 10

- 7/10/2000 11:10:00 PM

Panther

Posts: 201
Joined: 4/19/2000
From: Dover,NH,USA
Status: offline

Would it be possible to change the comand structure of the system. I know that this would require coding and such. But as I uderstand now there is a linear chain of command. Unit A0 B0 C0 and so on. I think I would be fun to have system that branches out. A0 is you the big guy. But uder that unit you have unit B0 D0(Armored formations)and Z0 (Infantry formations) and for example R0 (altilerry) that have the same standing in the comand chain. Under those units you have more subordinate units which would be then assigned to these formations and would branch out as well. Now certain officers would spend cc points that were dependant on wether this units were asiigned to their command or not. For example 1 point for units in your command two points for units of another formation assunming that the formation leader is not higher in rank. This would represent the battle system better aespecially on the scale that srw@w represents now where you can command a whole division or remnants of several divisions.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 11