Command & Control

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

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] >> Brother against Brother: The Drawing of the Sword >> Command & Control

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Command & Control - 5/23/2015 4:46:47 AM

shoelessbivouac

Posts: 63
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline

I need a little C&C clarification help at the moment.

Aside from the stated benefits of being "in command" of one's higher echelon commander(s) (i.e, "Speed Division Function," "Division Coordination," etc.), what exactly are the strategic / tactical command effects of one's higher echelon units over his subordinate commanders?

IOW's - by just one hopeless (for me to figure out) example, if my Army Commander is set to "Rally" while one of his Corps Commanders is set to "March" while his Division Commander(s) are set to "Hold" while their brigades are set to "Assault" what exactly should I expect? a complete mess?

So, in the opening training scenario, I have Longstreet more strategically set to "March" while Early and Jenkins are likewise set to "Rally" (more often - in order to try and maintain over all unit morale) while their immediate brigades are given the more tactical orders of "Hold," "Advance," "Assault," ... but NEVER, NEVER "Withdraw" ....

Needless to say, perhaps, whether at Lieutenant Colonel or Sergeant level of play, I have not 'enjoyed' much success in gaining a win over Hancock. I know it's not my brave troops on the field who are failing me. That leaves only me left to blame. Help, please.

(I guess I'm asking for a bit more of a C&C tutorial that might cover - more or less - all the variables of command orders from top to bottom. Or perhaps, I just completely missed the section in the manual that spells out what to expect from a chain of command with varying orders, aimed at being more strategic at the top of the chain, but entirely tactically oriented at the brigade level.) Thank You.

< Message edited by shoelessbivouac -- 5/23/2015 4:50:37 PM >

_____________________________

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours --R. Bach

Post #: 1

RE: Command & Control - 5/23/2015 5:49:31 AM

FroBodine

Posts: 872
Joined: 5/5/2007
From: Brentwood, California (not the OJ one)
Status: offline

These are all excellent questions. I look forward to hearing from the developers.

What does IOW's mean, please?

(in reply to shoelessbivouac)

Post #: 2

RE: Command & Control - 5/23/2015 6:29:56 AM

zakblood

Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline

In Other Words

(in reply to FroBodine)

Post #: 3

RE: Command & Control - 5/23/2015 5:04:50 PM

shoelessbivouac

Posts: 63
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline

So I'm not sure if I made myself clear, but, is there a formula I can apply during game play to better predict how applying different orders to my Army (for example, "March"), Corps ("Advance"), Division ("Rally"), and brigade ("Hold") commanders effect regimental conduct?

In my first trial games, by example, I found my regimental morale dropping too much too early in the battle, so I began trying to change this by setting my Division commanders to "Rally" - while still ordering my brigades to either "Hold" or "Advance," etc.

I hope this helps to clarify my above question. Thank you.

_____________________________

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours --R. Bach

(in reply to zakblood)

Post #: 4

RE: Command & Control - 5/23/2015 5:23:07 PM

zakblood

Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline

i honestly don't know, as i rally single regiments and brigades when a unit became unresponsive etc, if the whole army group was effected then, by then it's maybe too late anyway to do much about it, apart from changing all to rally to recover morale.

if a units rout's, i rally the single unit or brigade it's in to recover it before it leaves the map and i lose it, if i have 2 units rout from a brigade, i change the whole brigade orders to rest and rally the whole lot, as i've never had more than 2 units from a brigade ever rout together, i've never had to go higher up so can't really say.

for me i march to area, advance to contact, assault to battle, hold to give less casualties, rally to recover morale loss, and withdraw to keep facing while i move away from combat before i either hold in better ground or rally behind it.

most of my major commanders are left in hold or advance orders, hold just in case they are attacked, and advance when i need to more them a lot but are safe or i think they are.

hope that helps some, if not a developer may reply with better or more correct reply

(in reply to shoelessbivouac)

Post #: 5

RE: Command & Control - 5/23/2015 7:06:30 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Your question confuses me. You cannot set an army to "March." Do you mean the "Speed Division" function on p. 35 of the manual? That lets an army commander select one or more divisions that will get bonus movement points that turn, but the manual also states that it doesn't benefit units that are already under "March" brigade orders. Also, and I admit that I haven't taken the time to fire up the game to check on this, there shouldn't be a way to have an entire corps "advance" or an entire division "rally" (unless there was a change made post-release, but I'd like to think I'd remember something that significant). I'll have to ask Eric to chime in here, but if you could post a screenshot showing the "echelon window" and how you're clicking on it that would be great.

(in reply to zakblood)

Post #: 6

RE: Command & Control - 5/23/2015 8:04:06 PM

shoelessbivouac

Posts: 63
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Your question confuses me. You cannot set an army to "March." Do you mean the "Speed Division" function on p. 35 of the manual? That lets an army commander select one or more divisions that will get bonus movement points that turn, but the manual also states that it doesn't benefit units that are already under "March" brigade orders. Also, and I admit that I haven't taken the time to fire up the game to check on this, there shouldn't be a way to have an entire corps "advance" or an entire division "rally" (unless there was a change made post-release, but I'd like to think I'd remember something that significant). I'll have to ask Eric to chime in here, but if you could post a screenshot showing the "echelon window" and how you're clicking on it that would be great.

Thanks for responding, Gil (and Zakblood).

For example, The CSA "army" - in the training scenario - is overseen by Longstreet (He's at the top of the COC). That's all I meant. So, IOW's, I might keep Longstreet with his "March" orders, change D.H. Hill and Anderson to "Advance" early in the game, and may continue to give Jenkins a "Hold" while bringing up Early, who will get his "Assault" orders as soon as he can get into some desired position.

Maybe, Gil, because of your question, this is where the confusion has existed for me: Every Army / Corps / Division commander has its own specific "March/Rally/Advance" orders options - just like brigade officers when clicked on. IOW's, they're treated herein as "independent" units. So, when I think I've been assigning a "Rally" Command down from Longstreet, or even D.H. Hill / Anderson - in the training scenario - to their subordinate brigade officers ... nothing of the kind is happening. I guess, because these higher echelon commanders - when individually clicked on - only give orders to their own specific unit!? I guess I just never thought of a chain of command functioning in this manner.

So, in one final example, say, the standard 1st Manassas scenario, and assuming I now understand the C&C modeling in BAB, if I click on the individual Gen. Beauregard unit, and change his orders to "Rally," "March," "Advance," etc., this order apparently ONLY affects the Beauregard unit, yes? Ditto Gen. Johnston, yes?

_____________________________

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours --R. Bach

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 7

RE: Command & Control - 5/23/2015 8:55:08 PM

marcpennington

Posts: 335
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline

I experimented quickly, and it is indeed possible to change division and corps commanders from march column to other orders, assault for example. But I don't think it has any effect, as it's essentially just for that officer and his staff, and the brigade orders still show as march column on that officer unit, nor does anything like movement rates change or such. Interestingly enough, though, you can loose half of you movement points for the brigade order shift.

So in other words, that looks to be an interface bug, and probably just need to stop that button having any functionality to prevent confusion like the above. But while on the subject, would it be possible to stop commander units from showing their order as march column when the brigade order overlay is used? There seems little reason to show it, and it occasionally leads to confusion (i.e. did I leave a unit near the front in march orders), plus it would be far more useful to see the officers name and such when the brigade orders are showing.

< Message edited by map66 -- 5/23/2015 9:55:24 PM >

(in reply to shoelessbivouac)

Post #: 8

RE: Command & Control - 5/23/2015 11:55:22 PM

shoelessbivouac

Posts: 63
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Your question confuses me. You cannot set an army to "March." Do you mean the "Speed Division" function on p. 35 of the manual? That lets an army commander select one or more divisions that will get bonus movement points that turn, but the manual also states that it doesn't benefit units that are already under "March" brigade orders. Also, and I admit that I haven't taken the time to fire up the game to check on this, there shouldn't be a way to have an entire corps "advance" or an entire division "rally" (unless there was a change made post-release, but I'd like to think I'd remember something that significant). I'll have to ask Eric to chime in here, but if you could post a screenshot showing the "echelon window" and how you're clicking on it that would be great.

Gil, Here's a "snippet," showing Longstreet's unit highlighted and the echelon window showing Longstreet with his "March" orders. I guess it just never dawned on me that these "March" orders only affect the Longstreet unit, but otherwise serves no game play purpose, eh? I had always been 'trying' to play the game as if these orders were somehow in play, by passing down the order to subordinate officers.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by shoelessbivouac -- 5/24/2015 1:07:46 AM >

_____________________________

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours --R. Bach

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 9

RE: Command & Control - 5/24/2015 12:35:00 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Oh! Now this whole thread makes complete sense to me.

Yes, those March orders are for Longstreet's HQ unit alone, and do not apply beyond that. It so happens that for 1.05 Eric made a change to the code so that HQ units always move as if set to "March" -- a change made because at Mill Springs, as one player found, I put a brigadier commander's HQ unit into line and this made it move far less than it should have. It now occurs to me, though, that since HQ units should never themselves assault the enemy -- I hereby declare that Longstreet and his officer manning some artillery at Antietam be declare an anomaly! -- that this should probably be disabled. It's quite odd that no one ever raised this issue before.

On a semi-related note, we do sometimes have units that are attached directly to an army, corps or division -- reflecting the actual historical OOB -- and in such cases the unit can have its "brigade order" (so to speak) changed using this button. But that's different from what's being described here.

(in reply to shoelessbivouac)

Post #: 10

RE: Command & Control - 5/24/2015 1:57:42 AM

shoelessbivouac

Posts: 63
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline

quote:

I hereby declare that Longstreet and his officer manning some artillery at Antietam be declare an anomaly! -- that this should probably be disabled. It's quite odd that no one ever raised this issue before.

Ha! and, I agree to the disabling of our higher echelon commands - like, "Rally" ... as if I've ever yet seen Longstreet ever become disordered! let alone broken! to the point he needs to rally himself.

quote:

On a semi-related note, we do sometimes have units that are attached directly to an army, corps or division -- reflecting the actual historical OOB -- and in such cases the unit can have its "brigade order" (so to speak) changed using this button. But that's different from what's being described here.

In my limited play so far, I have yet to experience the directly attached units to commanders ... but, yeah, I originally expected that was how my Fauquier artillery units were to be given their "March," "Advance," etc., orders - by none other than Gen. Anderson, himself.

_____________________________

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours --R. Bach

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 11

RE: Command & Control - 5/24/2015 3:36:47 AM

marcpennington

Posts: 335
Joined: 1/31/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Oh! Now this whole thread makes complete sense to me.

Yes, those March orders are for Longstreet's HQ unit alone, and do not apply beyond that. It so happens that for 1.05 Eric made a change to the code so that HQ units always move as if set to "March" -- a change made because at Mill Springs, as one player found, I put a brigadier commander's HQ unit into line and this made it move far less than it should have. It now occurs to me, though, that since HQ units should never themselves assault the enemy -- I hereby declare that Longstreet and his officer manning some artillery at Antietam be declare an anomaly! -- that this should probably be disabled. It's quite odd that no one ever raised this issue before.

Ironically enough, that was me who posted that Mill Springs commander movement thing, as well as the post that explained to the designers the new bug. So I hope I've helped to nail down a bug that I helped create in the first place from reporting a previous bug... :)

But all said, I am really impressed by the quick response on improvements and bug fixes on this--- bodes very well for the future.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 12

RE: Command & Control - 5/24/2015 7:03:21 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

map66,
It wasn't really a bug -- I simply didn't notice that I'd put that HQ into line when using the scenario-editor. But your finding this raised the issue of whether HQ units should be able to do that, and now shoelessbivouac's confusion has raised a related issue. As of 1.05 this becomes a non-issue for that HQ unit at Mill Springs, and if one knows that HQ's don't need to have special orders this all becomes rather minor, but it would be good to minimize the chance of confusion.

(in reply to marcpennington)

Post #: 13

RE: Command & Control - 5/25/2015 6:05:16 AM

zakblood

Posts: 22687
Joined: 10/4/2012
Status: offline

for me C&C is a important part of the game, and if you play as the US side against the CSA / AI you notice the the AI pushes the commander more forward that you may do, but they did tend to lead from the front and take more risks, if you play as the CSA against the US / AI, they hang back slightly and maybe aren't so bold in leading from the front, with now over 500 battles played and finished i have to say this is a classic game, not a good game either, but a really good and great game for many reasons.

the history, the design, the ease of use, with enough of a learning curve to keep a casual player to mid groghead happy for more than a year, as that's how long i've played if for, or more tbh.

i might even one day play pbem but at the moment i'm still finding new stuff and tactics out and have not yet ran out of plans, i have had some A3 maps done for this and had them laminated so can draw on them with markers then rub off to play onstyle where units are and where i want them to be etc, wasn't much tbh at a local shop and sure does help, as not every one can do it in there heads, in the larger battles i've fought with and without planning and enjoyed them both, so doesn't really matter which way you play it as long as you enjoy it.

most games now seem to want to make stuff over complicated where as this one can be if you wish it, but if you hide some of it and view only what you wish to see and use it and view it as you want to play and see, for me is very user friendly, while some say map clutter, i say map information, so too much for some is just enough for others so it's a balance with you can't keep everyone happy so try and keep them all with options to enable and disable some stuff with the menu's etc, for me it works, you just need to play with the menu's to suit your tastes and play style.

the game is evolving and as the more play it, the more the design and layout will over time to suit the player who ask and add stuff to the wishlist, most are very good idea tbh and only wish some of them would have been brought up a year ago, but you can't think of everything or do everything either at once as the game been in development long enough, and now will evolve some more while it's out with patches and fixes and small alterations.

if you like it, tell your friends, if you don't like something, post it here and i'm sure it's either in a menu to turn on or off, or add it to the wish list and wait and see...

either way enjoy it and play it how you wish to play it as you have bought it, i have my view maybe totally different to your's as i've set it up to display all i wish to see and have hidden all i don't want to view.

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 14

RE: Command & Control - 5/26/2015 4:25:17 PM

ericbabe

Posts: 11927
Joined: 3/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: shoelessbivouac
IOW's - by just one hopeless (for me to figure out) example, if my Army Commander is set to "Rally" while one of his Corps Commanders is set to "March" while his Division Commander(s) are set to "Hold" while their brigades are set to "Assault" what exactly should I expect? a complete mess?

So, in the opening training scenario, I have Longstreet more strategically set to "March" while Early and Jenkins are likewise set to "Rally" (more often - in order to try and maintain over all unit morale) while their immediate brigades are given the more tactical orders of "Hold," "Advance," "Assault," ... but NEVER, NEVER "Withdraw" ....

Army commanders don't have brigade orders. Their staff and escort units can sometimes be given orders as independent units; this depends on whether Gil has marked such units as independent or not in the scenarios. He'll have to describe why sometimes such units are independent and other times are not. If you mouse-over Longstreet's march-column button the tooltip shows that this is an independent order for his staff and escort unit, not a brigade order for his (non-existent) brigade.

_____________________________

(in reply to shoelessbivouac)

Post #: 15

RE: Command & Control - 5/26/2015 8:44:54 PM

shoelessbivouac

Posts: 63
Joined: 4/29/2015
Status: offline

quote:

Army commanders don't have brigade orders. Their staff and escort units can sometimes be given orders as independent units; this depends on whether Gil has marked such units as independent or not in the scenarios. He'll have to describe why sometimes such units are independent and other times are not. If you mouse-over Longstreet's march-column button the tooltip shows that this is an independent order for his staff and escort unit, not a brigade order for his (non-existent) brigade.

Yes, this only dawned on me as a result of publicly voicing my confusion herein..

The game treats all higher echelon (non-brigade) officers as "independent" units - apparently able to order themselves to:

"March," "Rally," "Hold," "Withdraw," "Advance," "Assault" ... which if you think about it could come across as confusing to those unfamiliar with the game's C&C modeling design.

Frankly, I have yet experienced the need to "Rally" Longstreet - i.e., the individual unit itself - or any other officer on the map ... let alone order Pete to "Assault" Hancock or his boys ... but, I guess what the BAB designers have in mind here is that it's still possible, yes?

If the answer to the above is "no," ericbabe, then perhaps, our "independent" higher echelon unit orders might be better off simply being disabled (greyed out or something)?

< Message edited by shoelessbivouac -- 5/26/2015 9:48:07 PM >

_____________________________

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours --R. Bach

(in reply to ericbabe)

Post #: 16

RE: Command & Control - 5/27/2015 3:13:24 AM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

I'm not sure of what will be decided, but you may rest assured that this issue is being discussed at the highest levels.

(in reply to shoelessbivouac)

Post #: 17