Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 3/22/2015 3:06:00 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

From the other thread on scenario balance:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Pzgndr,
Don't take this the wrong way but this game is not an Assault clone. We didn't set out to copy any game. So, for you to expect, think it should maybe, or even accidentally not play like another game you really like has no bearing on how FPC plays or the functions we plan to put in it.
However, there's always a 'HOWEVER' :D the features that you liked from other games that would improve this series are welcome IF they make sense for this series of games. We aren't going to work around what we've already created to implement something that was great in another game if it doesn't fit here.
I had Assault all of about 2 weeks and loaned it to one of my best friends son. I never saw it again and didn't rebuy it. So, I have no idea how Assault played. In that respect I have no idea what you are referring to when you compare us to Assault.
Good Hunting.
MR

Here are some thoughts on the Assault! game system versus FPC-RS, for discussion and consideration.

Two features were important for the Command & Control rules: the sources of operations points, and the uses of operations points.

Sources. US company/Soviet battalion HQs had inherent points for their units. US battalion/Soviet regimental TOCs had points for both command and planning, where unused points could be accumulated up to a limit for later execution. Some scenarios provided some additional off-board points from higher HQ. And there was a minimum default of 2 points if there was no other active source. Another interesting feature was that players would roll a die for the command ratings of each HQ and TOC, which reflected both good and bad commanders/staffs. FPC-RS aggregates all of the orders for the entire side without differentiating between the HQs and the TOCs, and there is no provision for planning. These operations points were all for 5-minute turns, which FPC-RS probably doesn't need; 10-15-minute standard turns could also work, or perhaps provide a player option for standard turns in lieu of dynamic cycles. So some of these elements could be considered for v2.1.

Uses. Units did not need points to move in march formation (hasty move) or fire. Additionally, recon units, HQs and TOCs did not need to use points to move or change formation. Operations points were required when changing formation, moving in combat formation (deliberate move), replacing HQs, cross-attaching units, and rallying units. In FPC-RS terms, an assault or deliberate move should count as an order; a hasty move probably should not. Also, these actions cost 1 point when units were visible (in command range) but 2 points if not visible (out of command range). Additionally, units starting in the same hex moving together as a stack could count as a single operation. So v2.1 could reconsider what actions count as an order and what does not.

The net effect of all these rules would drive players to adopt the appropriate doctrines. US/NATO forces had more operations points and thus more flexibility to do more with fewer units, but generally qualitatively better units. Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces had fewer operations points, so relied more on Soviet Battle Drill to control quantitatively more units. This was the reality of the period, and at least on the US side, we adopted AirLand Battle doctrine in the early 1980s and then trained accordingly at the NTC at Fort Irwin and the CMTC at Hohenfels. The OPFOR used Soviet doctrine. The training exercises were as realistic as we could make them, and the results were fairly balanced based on the strengths and weakness of both sides.

Assault! came out in 1983 and I got into it around 1985. At the infantry officer advanced course in 1987, I used Assault! to help study what we were learning in the classroom. In Germany with 1st Armd Div, we trained at Hohenfels and I got to experience both sides. So from a gaming and classroom and practical exercise perspective, I found the Assault! game system to be pretty good. Maybe not perfect, and perhaps not totally accurate since we never got to put our respective doctrines to the ultimate test. However, I would assert that it was pretty realistic as far as it goes, and OTS should strive to implement similar features to achieve comparable effects in v2.1. At least strive to implement the most realist command & control possible and set that as the standard for game and scenario design. Player options can always make things easier by not using limited orders, or more difficult by various player handicaps or enemy bonuses. But shoot for realism as the goal.

Post #: 1

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 3/22/2015 7:39:04 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

+1

Good discussion points.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 2

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 3/23/2015 6:25:54 AM

kipanderson

Posts: 394
Joined: 8/27/2001
From: U.K.
Status: offline

Hi,

I am not sure what goes on under the bonnet currently. But anything that firms up the �realism..� of the command and control of units gets my vote.

All the best,
Kip.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 3

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 3/24/2015 1:07:22 PM

Tazak

Posts: 1452
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

Just some thoughts:

1. fixed turns - should be a big no-go, its one of the key features of the game that make it standout for other 'war games' and to me represents a real flow of battle with each side giving orders at their own rhythm and pace. The simulated effect of time taken to issue orders and the ability to impact both yours and the enemies command cycle is critical and often poorly represented in wargames whereas in FC you can impact command cycles through different means.

2. The amount of orders available during limited orders can be modded in at least 3 different ways (no. of HQ subunits, amount of orders per HQ and % reduction amount of EW levels, the last 2 are in the nationals tab of the user data files). By altering the amount of HQ subunits in a HQ unit you are differentiating between HQs and TOCs although I would like to see some impact of the training levels on available orders(i.e. reflecting both good and bad commanders/staffs).

3. While I agree that ORBAT changes should cost command points, I strongly disagree with having nil cost orders simply because that order had to be issued somehow thus taking up on someones time (i.e. 20 seconds on the company radio net or a runner being sent to the unit). I believe one of the dev's have mentioned that range to HQ is a change in the order delay their discussing for 2.1 so will leave that alone apart from the comment - good change

_____________________________

AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 4

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 3/24/2015 4:22:28 PM

Flef

Posts: 68
Joined: 11/16/2013
Status: offline

Personnaly I think the order phase is not representing what it should.

Every X minutes we launch a salvo of orders all at the same time then the units do their jobs.

while in reality, you take your map and your radio, contact a unit, give order, acknowledge good reception, rinse/repeat until all necessary orders are given.

From a simplistic point of view the "colonel" give a set of orders at time t, then the transmissions' staff are relaying the orders. It takes time.
It can be reprenseted ingame by according a time of transmittal to each order. First order would be transmitted at (example) minute 1, second at minute 2 etc... until all are given.

that would be a fine addition to represent the delay between orders. Then the player would be forced to prioritize from the first order his units, to know if he has to give an order to he company HQ or to the unit directly

If you combine this with the future reduced delays for small moves, the game may have a fine order system quite close to reality, giving a bit of interest to give orders to company HQs rather than individual units if it is unnecessary.

(in reply to Tazak)

Post #: 5

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 3/24/2015 6:45:28 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

I agree to some extent Flef, the only thing I can tell you is that the FPC series will not evolve to a real time game. Which is what it would take to implement what you are discussing.

There are discussions going in all directions concerning the issuing of orders including adding specific leaders to the game and the actual chain of command. How much of that gets implemented depends on the AI. Because the AI has to be able to do both sides in this game. That's a feature that I feel is often overlooked. That the AI does the friendly actions as well as the enemy actions.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to Flef)

Post #: 6

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 3/24/2015 7:53:45 PM

Flef

Posts: 68
Joined: 11/16/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

I agree to some extent Flef, the only thing I can tell you is that the FPC series will not evolve to a real time game. Which is what it would take to implement what you are discussing.

There are discussions going in all directions concerning the issuing of orders including adding specific leaders to the game and the actual chain of command. How much of that gets implemented depends on the AI. Because the AI has to be able to do both sides in this game. That's a feature that I feel is often overlooked. That the AI does the friendly actions as well as the enemy actions.

Good Hunting.

MR

I didn't thought to the AI, true. But my proposal is not to get to real time. It is to add a delay to each order in respect to sequence given by the player.

At time of the order cycle, the player gives orders in a certain sequence. The order in the sequence adds a proportional delay.

These delays can be exploited by the players to create a momentum.

Only an idea.

< Message edited by Flef -- 3/24/2015 8:54:01 PM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 7

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 3/25/2015 12:48:24 AM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
There are discussions going in all directions concerning the issuing of orders including adding specific leaders to the game and the actual chain of command. How much of that gets implemented depends on the AI. Because the AI has to be able to do both sides in this game. That's a feature that I feel is often overlooked. That the AI does the friendly actions as well as the enemy actions.

The game and its AI currently get limited orders (operations points) from sources and then executes (uses) orders. All I suggested was that these sources and uses be reconsidered somewhat to produce more realistic effects. There should be minimal impact on the current AI? As always, nothing is simple though...

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 8

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 3/26/2015 12:10:35 PM

Flef

Posts: 68
Joined: 11/16/2013
Status: offline

Stupid question:

how is computed the limit of limited orders?

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 9

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 3/26/2015 12:57:48 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

Good question actually. The number is based on number of active HQs, EW hindrance, and global readiness.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Flef)

Post #: 10

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 3/30/2015 4:16:48 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
Good question actually. The number is based on number of active HQs, EW hindrance, and global readiness.

A follow-up to this. First, is the number dynamic in any way during the scenario? I haven't noticed but then again I have not played as extensively as I would like. So if it is dynamic and the cycle length is also dynamic there may be some confusing overlap with these two features. Second, I looked at mod guide #2 and there doesn't appear to be any editable parameters for order limits for each side. So is this just hardwired based on the above and there's no way for us to experiment with higher/lower limits? Lastly, I assume the AI plays by limited orders if the option is selected, but are there any hidden bonuses or handicaps we should be aware of?

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 11

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 3/30/2015 4:55:15 PM

Tazak

Posts: 1452
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

Yes, the number of 'orders' per phase does vary, I've noticed:

1. number of HQ's - either +/- as reinforcements appear and HQ's are destroyed or withdrawal
2. Global readiness (total readiness of all units divided by number of active units - I think)

I haven't sat down and tried to work out the formula used but it seems fairly consistent i.e. I've not seen any unexplained decease or increase in number of orders available each phase

I don't think the AI is subject to limited orders regardless of what is selected

< Message edited by Tazak -- 3/30/2015 5:57:13 PM >

_____________________________

AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 12

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/1/2015 12:24:31 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak
I don't think the AI is subject to limited orders regardless of what is selected

Could we get a confirmation of this; is the AI playing correctly with limited orders or no? If not, then the NATO solitaire player is essentially playing against a numerically superior Soviet computer opponent unconstrained by any realistic command and control limitations. Which would be a rather important bug that warrants some attention before v2.09 goes final.

Any word on order limits being editable in any way? But if the issue above isn't resolved, there's not much point trying to edit the scenarios to see if it makes a difference.

(in reply to Tazak)

Post #: 13

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/1/2015 2:17:49 PM

Flef

Posts: 68
Joined: 11/16/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak
I don't think the AI is subject to limited orders regardless of what is selected

Could we get a confirmation of this; is the AI playing correctly with limited orders or no? If not, then the NATO solitaire player is essentially playing against a numerically superior Soviet computer opponent unconstrained by any realistic command and control limitations. Which would be a rather important bug that warrants some attention before v2.09 goes final.

Any word on order limits being editable in any way? But if the issue above isn't resolved, there's not much point trying to edit the scenarios to see if it makes a difference.

page 30 of the manual

quote:

This rule does not apply to computer players.

or did I missed something?

< Message edited by Flef -- 4/1/2015 3:18:32 PM >

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 14

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/1/2015 4:06:30 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

To clear up confusion.

1. The AI is NOT constrained by limited orders. It is constrained by the dynamic command cycle and can only replan/retask at those points in time. It does not cheat by adjusting on the fly during turn resolution. The AI is very complex as it stands and trying to have it toggle to use the limited orders option would have been difficult at best. No bug here. As designed.

2. Limited orders for the player are dynamic and will change based on the addition or loss of HQs and Readiness. A Time to Dance shows this off well as the NATO player gains orders as more of the HQ net goes up.

3. You can make you own scenarios using modified User files. On the National Tab of each data file there are two entries that control Limit Order numbers. "Base Order Rate per HQ per Cycle" - this is the base number of orders per HQ the force has active on the map. "HQ Loss/Order Loss" - is the amount of Limited orders lost if a HQ is lost/removed from the battle. I'm also sure there is a 2 or 3 min order limit. I started looking at a better system of LO calculations a few month back and if LO stays in the game we make use some of those ideas in 2.1.

Hope that info helps.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Flef)

Post #: 15

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/1/2015 4:06:53 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flef

page 30 of the manual

quote:

This rule does not apply to computer players.

or did I missed something?

So, "Limited Staff Rule is NOT in Effect" does not apply to computer players, meaning the limited staff rule IS in effect.

Yo Cap'n Darwin, could y'all maybe please do something with this?? I mean, just apply the restriction to the AI with some modest priorities for how to execute the orders it has available. If it doesn't work we can always check the box and be no worse off than we are. I would rather not have to wait until 2016 for v2.1.

Edit. A little bit of overlap here with the response above. Still, it would be nice to see what the AI does with limited orders.

< Message edited by pzgndr -- 4/1/2015 5:09:55 PM >

(in reply to Flef)

Post #: 16

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/2/2015 7:01:11 AM

Tazak

Posts: 1452
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

I would rather not have to wait until 2016 for v2.1.

but you want to see what the AI is like subject to limited orders

Seriously though asking to subject the AI to limited orders will end in tears, there are too many variables to take into account and will generate a huge amount of issues that will prevent any serious work being carried out on 2.1 (I'm a IT project manager and have seen the impact of minor code changes let alone a major change like this to scheduled release dates).

The AI is pretty dumb (no offence Dev's) and to handicap it further with limited orders will wreak havoc, plus what additional options need to be implemented to make the game 'harder' for players, after all that's the intent of limited orders.

Personally I'd rather see the AI programmed to be better in defence before its smacked with limited orders.

_____________________________

AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO

(in reply to pzgndr)

Post #: 17

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/2/2015 12:13:51 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak
you want to see what the AI is like subject to limited orders

Yes. There is the game option to toggle it on/off. If it just totally sucks then players can choose to not subject the AI to limited orders and be no worse off than we are right now. I think players deserve a chance to at least try this and compare/contrast some NATO vs Soviet differences, and be better informed going into v2.1.

There are a lot of fine features in this game and I was very optimistic that the command and control features would result in some realistic effects similar to what I saw in Assault! But I'm not seeing that and the dynamic cycle length business may provide some sense of realism to some players but I'm not feeling it. So for me with a kinda personal "been there done that" perspective, I'm not getting out of this game what I would like to. In many ways this game is nicer than TacOps, but for more realistic control of units via orders/SOPs and a more doctrinally correct OPFOR then I'll stick with TacOps.

I cannot make myself any plainer. This is a nice game but it is a game. The unit combat mechanics are fine but the whole command and control aspect is very frustrating. Whenever Cap'n Darwin speaks of "if LO stayes in the game" I cringe. How do you compel the Soviet player/AI to adopt Soviet doctrine using more rigid/restrictive Battle Drill formations if there are no significant differences between NATO and Soviet orders limits? I don't get it.

If nothing is to be done with this now then we shall all just have to wait and see what v2.1 provides. Hopefully LO stays in the game.

(in reply to Tazak)

Post #: 18

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/2/2015 6:10:30 PM

kool_kat

Posts: 558
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

To clear up confusion.

1. The AI is NOT constrained by limited orders. It is constrained by the dynamic command cycle and can only replan/retask at those points in time. It does not cheat by adjusting on the fly during turn resolution. The AI is very complex as it stands and trying to have it toggle to use the limited orders option would have been difficult at best. No bug here. As designed.

2. Limited orders for the player are dynamic and will change based on the addition or loss of HQs and Readiness. A Time to Dance shows this off well as the NATO player gains orders as more of the HQ net goes up.

3. You can make you own scenarios using modified User files. On the National Tab of each data file there are two entries that control Limit Order numbers. "Base Order Rate per HQ per Cycle" - this is the base number of orders per HQ the force has active on the map. "HQ Loss/Order Loss" - is the amount of Limited orders lost if a HQ is lost/removed from the battle. I'm also sure there is a 2 or 3 min order limit. I started looking at a better system of LO calculations a few month back and if LO stays in the game we make use some of those ideas in 2.1.

Hope that info helps.

Thanks Jim

For me, I'll toggle limited orders "off" and not handicap myself versus the AI.

BTW... been playing with limited orders off in my last several games... and enjoying the experience quite a bit!

_____________________________

Regards, - Mike

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 19

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/3/2015 6:37:31 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

Due to the feedback on this issue, I will reluctantly agree to take them out of the game as seems to be the way you gamers want it.

Thanks for all your opinions and comments. We do listen.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to kool_kat)

Post #: 20

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/3/2015 11:26:02 PM

z1812

Posts: 1796
Joined: 9/1/2004
Status: offline

Why not leave it as an option. Then each player can suit themselves.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 21

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/3/2015 11:46:19 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

It always was an option. Apparently that wasn't a good option.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to z1812)

Post #: 22

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/4/2015 1:06:23 AM

griffin115

Posts: 14
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: z1812

Why not leave it as an option. Then each player can suit themselves.

+1

_____________________________

(in reply to z1812)

Post #: 23

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/4/2015 7:16:49 AM

Tazak

Posts: 1452
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

Utterly disappointed that this feature will be taken out, it may not be perfect and have its flaws but its still useful and adds an interesting OPTION to make the gameplay a more challenging.

WHINE TIME - why are you removing an OPTION, if people don't like it, feel its not realistic, <insert other issue with limited orders> - they don't have to use it - its not hard to put in or remove a tick mark from one of 6 options (this is not an attack on anyone or any person's stance - this is me letting of steam!)

< Message edited by Tazak -- 4/4/2015 8:31:14 AM >

_____________________________

AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO

(in reply to griffin115)

Post #: 24

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/4/2015 7:36:42 AM

Flef

Posts: 68
Joined: 11/16/2013
Status: offline

It is a wonderful option that makes the game feeling different from many others. I really like to prioritize my orders when there is a lot of things to do. I would even vote for more limitations and some tiny enhancement to prevent some easy exploits to bypass the limited orders threshold.

I don't understand really why people are complaining about the AI not being limited. The AI is absolutely not a good player, it can have a tiny advantage, it won't change anything. Limiting the AI would be like cutting the arms to a disabled person in a wheeling chair.

(in reply to Tazak)

Post #: 25

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/4/2015 11:02:55 AM

Tazak

Posts: 1452
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

Looking at a few scenario�s from a frequency perspective where EW level stated is how much EW NATO & WP are subject too, and timings (CC=command cycle i.e. length of time between ability to issue orders) are taken from the scenario editor and the NATO player C3 tab after loading the scenario.

Fulda Frontier of Freedom � med EW � NATO CC 22min, WP CC 21min
Test of wills � high EW - NATO CC 28min, WP CC 27min
Hell�s crossroads � high EW - NATO CC 29min, WP CC 27min
Eyes, ears and teeth � high EW - NATO CC 29min, WP CC 27min

Looking at these in the scenario editor tells me 2 things 1). WP are able to give orders as frequently (if not quicker) with the same EW impact, and 2). It presents a skewed impression of NATO�s C3i capability. I believe people want either NATO to issue more orders more frequently or WP issue less orders less frequently, however we can only change/mod the more/less orders but have no control over the frequency of issuing orders (it appears set based on the number of HQ vs. units and possibly some modifier for either NATO & WP).

The only way to impact this frequency is via losses during the game, maybe we need some way to increase/decrease by various percentages

OR are we looking at this from the wrong perspective, is this the only thing that needs getting cut. If your playing solo its the only indication of when the AI issues orders, we don't see when or wont see how many. It appears a seamless transition between the tactical AI making on-the-fly adjustments and the Enemy AI issuing new orders

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Tazak -- 4/4/2015 12:04:40 PM >

_____________________________

AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO

(in reply to Flef)

Post #: 26

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/4/2015 12:47:18 PM

cbelva

Posts: 1843
Joined: 3/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Utterly disappointed that this feature will be taken out, it may not be perfect and have its flaws but its still useful and adds an interesting OPTION to make the gameplay a more challenging.

WHINE TIME - why are you removing an OPTION, if people don't like it, feel its not realistic, <insert other issue with limited orders> - they don't have to use it - its not hard to put in or remove a tick mark from one of 6 options (this is not an attack on anyone or any person's stance - this is me letting of steam!)

Ok, reality check. There has been no decision to remove limited orders from the game engine going forward. In fact the last decision that I know of is that it was going to remain. Rob and Capn D are the final arbiters of this since the game is their brainchild and they do all the hard work of coding.

There is frustration right now with some people with limited orders because it is not what they want. And it might not ever be what they want. The variable command phase is the direction of this game to simulate the command and control difficulties in modern combat. When you add the variable command phase with the orders delays that you experience once an order has been issued, you get a fairly involved command experience. And it works pretty good (IMHO). Someone complained that the variable command phase affects the entire formation. That is true, but there is also another factor involved that does affect only formations. That is the status of the local HQs and the readiness of the subunits. As they get "involved" their readiness drop hurting their ability to disengage or react to a command. Many times I have been frustrated because I waited to long and were unable to extract a formation or get them to respond to a command.
Our priority in development as we move forward is to improve upon this system--and this is room for improvement. We are not saying our system is perfect.

There is a myth that has been repeated that the scenarios are not balanced with limited orders. They are balanced, but the standard was without limited orders. What that means is that limited orders was an option for those who wanted a greater challenge. And it does give a player a greater challenge. Some has mentioned that it was not clear that was the case in the startup screen that it was an option. That may be true in how we presented it and we have talked about how to make that clearer as we go forward.

(in reply to Tazak)

Post #: 27

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/4/2015 2:50:39 PM

pzgndr

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cbelva
Ok, reality check. There has been no decision to remove limited orders from the game engine going forward. In fact the last decision that I know of is that it was going to remain. Rob and Capn D are the final arbiters of this since the game is their brainchild and they do all the hard work of coding.

There is frustration right now with some people with limited orders because it is not what they want. And it might not ever be what they want. The variable command phase is the direction of this game to simulate the command and control difficulties in modern combat. When you add the variable command phase with the orders delays that you experience once an order has been issued, you get a fairly involved command experience. And it works pretty good (IMHO). Someone complained that the variable command phase affects the entire formation. That is true, but there is also another factor involved that does affect only formations. That is the status of the local HQs and the readiness of the subunits. As they get "involved" their readiness drop hurting their ability to disengage or react to a command. Many times I have been frustrated because I waited to long and were unable to extract a formation or get them to respond to a command.

Our priority in development as we move forward is to improve upon this system--and this is room for improvement. We are not saying our system is perfect.

cbelva, thank you for the response. At the end of the day, the unit readiness effects and orders delays may get close enough to modeling NATO vs Soviet C2 differences.

For the future of LO, I'd at least respectfully ask that this get implemented for the AI, if not possibly for the v2.09 update then for v2.1, and also provide some editable parameters for the order limits so we can experiment. And it may well be that the AI will not be up to it, but that's another issue. Anyways, it's a fine game and I was playing some of mwest's new First Contact scenario last night. As I've said before, I'm looking forward to whatever improvements and enhancements you guys decide to make.

(in reply to cbelva)

Post #: 28

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/4/2015 2:55:33 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Utterly disappointed that this feature will be taken out, it may not be perfect and have its flaws but its still useful and adds an interesting OPTION to make the gameplay a more challenging.

WHINE TIME - why are you removing an OPTION, if people don't like it, feel its not realistic, <insert other issue with limited orders> - they don't have to use it - its not hard to put in or remove a tick mark from one of 6 options (this is not an attack on anyone or any person's stance - this is me letting of steam!)

This feature may not be taken out. I have simply removed my support for it. I was the only member of the team that pushed to have this in the game at the time of release. It was tested only enough to make sure it worked like we wanted. But since the release this has gotten the most discussion time after the Sudden Death feature. If it gives you guys this much heartburn I'll simply remove my support of the feature. That would mean that William would now be the sole supporter for the feature.

I much prefer it but I'm not going to continue to spend 80% of my forum time discussing an issue that has been discussed from one end to the other. I'm not going to promote that we create a clone for any particular favorite game for anyone, and we listen. So, if the prevailing feeling is that Limited Orders is broken and it will take a tremendous amount of work on our part to put it into what may be an acceptable state then I'll withdraw my support for it being in the game.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to Tazak)

Post #: 29

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault! - 4/5/2015 1:11:13 AM

governato

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

quote:

Ok, reality check. There has been no decision to remove limited orders from the game engine going forward. In fact the last decision that I know of is that it was going to remain.

Good!

(in reply to cbelva)

Post #: 30