Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Basically, each headquarters can handle the number of subordinate units assigned to it. Load on that headquarters is compounded when units not subordinate to it are assigned to operate with it. The more removed from the command echelon of the commanding unit the greater the burden on the headquarters issuing the commands.
This is further modified by the size of the unit being command in relation to the echelon at which the headquarters normally operates. A brigade headquarters directly commanding a non-subordinate company, for example, would only see an increase of .5 in the load for that portion of the evaluation.
There's a handy chart on page 150 of the same game manual that shows how the load is calculated.
NOTE: Rules for command load are found in the manual p. 149ff.
I'm afraid I can't explain anything either, but I've run the same tests and had pretty much the same results as you. Luckily, as command overload doesn't really seem to affect order delay anyway (which it should and which needs to be fixed), the lack of consistency doesn't really matter. ;)
One thing I noticed is that the 4th Hussars Regimental HQ had a load of 3 and a capacity of 8 at the beginning of the scenario. However, once the brigade-HQ showed up as reinforcement, the capacity of the Regimental HQ dropped from 8 to 4. I have no clue why that happened.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@1:
So first, you gave an order to 4th Hussars Reg. HQ (thereby attaching it to the onmap-boss) and the result was a load of 3/4 for the Reg. HQ. It think that this is totally fine and in accordance with the manual.
"if 1st UK Arm Bde HQ directs them it jumps to 5"
So then you re-attached the 4th hussars regiment to the brigade, gave an order to the whole brigade and checked 4th Hussars Reg. HQ's command load and it had increased to 5/4? So the load increased by 2 but the capacity stayed the same?
I did the same thing and indeed I also found the load increased to 6/4.
I have no clue why that happened and the manual doesn't explain it either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@2:
My ranger-HQ had a base load of 4/3. So there was one command point for each of the companies and the HQ had a load of 3. Slightly overladen, but okay.
However, as soon as I gave the ranger-HQ an order, the load increased from 4 to 8. It didn't matter whether I had given orders to the onmap-boss (brigade HQ) at that point or not. In both cases, the load increased from 4 to 8.
Again, there is no real explanation for this behaviour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Long delays
Indeed unless there are some secret advantages for giving orders to AI-HQs, giving orders directly to individual units is by far the better option. Units will react faster and you can give more effective orders than the AI (better consideration of LOS, protection, etc.). The only advantages for a AI-controled unit (no need to micro-manage arty that much; keeping the order of road-columns) is easily outweighted by the extreme difference in order-delay. I hope this gets rebalanced/fixed.
Btw: As a general rule, I would refrain from giving direct orders to the highest ranking unit on the map. Doing so will "detach" it (from whatever unit...?) and increase its force delay. This is irreversible, as you can't re-attach the highest ranking unit.
The manual is nice, but for many aspects it fails to explain what is happening in the game. My own and grumpy_01's (who isn't me, by the way, despite my profile pic ;) ) observations show that very clearly. There are three very fundamental game-aspects in which the manual is simply wrong and which require special attention in a patch:
Having built estabs , scenarios and forces for CO1, I learned that there are many interlocking parameters dealing with command capabilities that apparently feed the game engine algorithms. How those are weighted, randomized, impacted by current time scenario feedback, and calculated in game conditions is what affects the AI behavior.
The manual doesn't discuss the calculations because that is proprietary. The manual does a better job of explaining the parameters that affect AI simulation better than any I've encountered both in commercially released games and while working professionally in training simulation development.
Jimcarravallah,
All I'm wishing for is a reliable (i.e. verifiable in the game) answer on how command load and force delay work. In my opinion, these two aspects are so fundamental to the game that they really need to be transparent for the players. The answer "it's too complicated" (as your post seems to suggest?) is not really satisfactory because
1) How complicated can it really be? If the rules to determine force delay and command overload are really that complicated I wonder why they need to be that complicated. Everything would be fine if it worked as described in the manual, Also, if what I see in the game was in some way plausible, then I'd be more okay with the answer. Alas, the results in the game are very weird. It can't be okay for a captain to command a regiment better/faster than a regimental HQ, no?
2) Every game needs some reliable rules. Playing a game is no fun when I get the feeling that it's a blackbox of cryptic order-options (aggro...?) and all I can do is cross my fingers and hope for the best. I do think that Command Ops is a fantastic game (but order delays are bugged...). But as feedback for the player is generally sparse, almost hidden in Command Ops (all you get to see is movements and little lamps, sometimes a little message), proper documentation is even more important. If there is no documentation, how am I supposed to determine if the results that I see in the game are linked to my actions as a player? I'm totally fine with keeping the exact formula for, let's say, fire events, secret. But order-delay and command overload? Come on. It's like telling someone to play a game, without telling them the rules. Command Ops is really a game that gets more enjoyable the more you know about it. Therefore, not providing that knowledge is counter-productive in my opinion. Most fun in this game comes from developing plans - processing information and giving orders. Nothing is more infuriating to experience than seeing your master plan fail because the manual lied to you.
Sounds great, thank you! Very much appreciated! :)
All the screens are from the Brigade day attack scenario, painfully realistic delay, delay-free period is already over.
http://imgur.com/KPzgQk7
An order has been given to the 1st Ranger battalion. Force delay raises to 68 minutes as the btn is attached to the onmap-boss. Also, command load has doubled from 4/3 to 8/3.
http://imgur.com/fIHI2Ta
By comparison, if you give orders to individual ranger-companies, they would start moving after only 24 minutes. Up to a certain point, it's totally fine that companies can be moved faster than a whole battalion. (I'd just hope that there was some kind of bonus if you left units under the command of their organic superiors...)
Now, but doesn't the game penalize you for giving too many direct orders, as all units get attached to the onmap-boss and thus overload him? Let's take a look at the effect of command overload:
http://imgur.com/tFyO9Tr
I loaded almost all the non-HQ elements available at this point onto a single company-sized unit. Able squadron of the 3rd Royal Tank Regiment was now in command over 13 mostly company-sized elements. As one would expect, it was horribly command-overloaden - 49/1 (I've not made the effort to check the calculation). However, force-delay was not really that horrible: 79 minutes. Actually, that's just 10 minutes more time than it took the ranger-battalion-HQ to move the battalion. The captain here was able to move 3 battalions worth of units in just 10 minutes additional time.
And now, if you agree that this is not balanced perfectly - the onmap-boss has a much higher command load capactiy, so the imbalance is much worse. It's practically impossible to overload the onmap-boss to such an extent that you actually start to notice any consequence on order delay whatsoever. Therefore, giving orders directly to small units is always better - they move faster and there seems to be no disadvantage even if you use it excessively. Here is an example:
http://imgur.com/a/6WrdT
I gave all units available at this point individual orders, trying to overload the onmap-boss (the brigade-HQ). In this case, I was not even able to overload him because his command capactity was high enough (14/14). But the same principle applies. If a single company-captain (capactiy = 1) can deal with 4900% overload pretty easily (see above) then you can imagine that also a capacity 14 HQ can deal very easily with greater loads than 50.
And one last screen to show the "detaching the onmap-boss"-problem:
http://imgur.com/a/M9fTk
If you compare this screenshot with the one above, you can see that simply by giving a direct order to the onmap boss (brigade HQ), its unit-delay increased from 16 to 32 (here force=unit delay, as the unit had no more subordinates). I can only guess that this also has negative effects on other units? Also, it's irreversible as you can't re-attach the onmap boss.
It makes me wonder if the onmap boss is actually some abstract level above the highest ranking-unit?
I had mine set at Player Structure, so it shows me what changes I've made to OOB. Cycling to Current OP Plan Structure shows what my OOB really looks like after giving an order to HQ.
For instance, After giving Bde an order to attack my load for 4th Hussars jumps to 7 although Player OOB and Organic OOB only show a load of 3 (the OOB window shows 4th Hussars with 3 sqn at 1 load a piece)
But jump to Current OP Plan Structure shows that HQ has completely reorganized my OOB.
4th Hussars (Cap 4/Load 7) now has two subs:
1. A Sqn 3 RTR
2. B Portee AT Bty 102 AT Regt, RA
and Subbed under A Sqn RTR (Cap 4/Load 12) I find:
1. A Sqn 4 Hussars
2. B Sqn 4 Hussars
3. 3rd Fd Sqn, RE
Quite different from what I thought was going on!
I had always assumed that units would stay within their organic structure when performing operations. I can see the merit of adding armor support to an infantry attack, though. So it makes sense that OOB can be some what flexible. It does seem odd that I have a armor HQ commanding a company of armor from another regt that in turn is commanding two companies of armor from the original regt, as well as an engineer Sqn. Anyone have any insight into this? To be honest, it looks like the AI threw the whole Bde into a blender and then dumped them to attack! Again, I'm just a guy that likes to play computer war games, so take anything I say with a grain of salt!
Yes, the current OP-plan OOB shows you the sub-groups within AI-controlled composite units. It's also interesting to see that the AI gives orders to subgroups. For example, after I had given an order to a btn-HQ, I selected the btn-HQ and the game did not only show me the current task of the HQ-unit itself, but also the "order/task" of its directly subordinate units - who would then, in turn, assign themselves a task based on the "order/task" of the HQ-unit and hand down orders to their own subs. This is very typical for attack-orders to composite units: You give the order to a btn-HQ. The btn-HQ moves everything to the FUP/reserve point, then it assigns one of the assault-elements as the commander of the assault group and gives it an assault-order, while for itself and the support units, it choses a defend-task. The assault-command-element then passes on the order to all its subs (the other assault elements). In the end, the btn-HQ and support units stay back at the FUP with defend/oncall tasks, while the assault group charges forward with assault-tasks. I'm pretty sure that this has also been the case in your example: The support/reserve group was made up of the HQ and B portee AT gun battery, while the assault group was commanded by A sqdn and consisted of A & B sqdns and 3rd Fd sqdn. All these latter units acted upon the assault order that HQ had given to A sqdn. A sqdn processed the order, developed an attack-plan based on it and passed on tasks accordingly to its subs (B & 3rd Fd).
If you pay close attention, you'll also see that the whole order-processing process (temporary pink backgrounds) strictily follows the current-OP-plan structure. A subordinate unit only starts processing orders once its superordinate unit has finished processing. In extreme cases (when the AI goes over board with nesting sub-groups), the order-processing process might even take longer than the force-delay of the original player-order (which determines the starting time for all the tasks that are based on the original player-order) - but this only happened to me only a single time so far.
Also, within single groups, the AI uses roles (you can look those up for each unit in the force-tab/Gen), depending on the type of the order (e.g. for movement/road column: advance/main/rear guards; for attacks: left/center/right/rear guards). Note that a unit which is in command of other units (also in groups created by AI) never seems to have a role assigned to it in the Forcetab/Gen.
However, I fail to see how this could explain the command-overload- and order-delay-problem. I've tried it out and watched the load/capacity of the HQ while its subs changed their structure/hierarchy. The load/capacity of the HQ didn't change. Unless sub-groups have a direct effect on the HQ's "force delay" (this is the important stat!), it doesn't affect order-delay in any way.
From what I remember, force allocation algorithms try to respect pre-existing force structure, but they don't try too hard as it may result in not "filling in" slots in the plan requiring units with specific capabilities. The AI honestly tries to muster the forces it reckons are sufficient and best suited for the mission at hand.
That leads to scenarios like the one you describe, which do break a bit immersion if you look too close. Certainly, for certain armies and timelines in WW2, it would be exceedingly hard to borrow a company of infantry from a Brigade from another division. And when I say "exceedingly" hard I mean "taking a few hours" just to discuss the matter, and make arrangements for the company to be integrated in the command and control structure of the borrowing formation.
I'd advise that in this particular instance you roleplay a bit, and try to gently herd or steer the AI towards the kind of behaviour that suits you best.
PS: Also, trying to wrap your head around Command Ops in terms of "rules" is going to frustrate you. Leaving aside the occasional bugs, the engine tries to capture faithfully "processes" rather than "outcomes", so processes are explained, but the interplay of the parameters is left out for several reasons. Like avoiding the players to "optimise" and requiring them to develop a "sense" or "heuristics" to decide how to achieve their goals. Or also, being so finicky, that committing to specific values would require to rewrite the manual on a regular basis, as how different factors are weighed changes as the development team receives feedback from players and scenario designers. That is one of the things that makes CO unique, and of course, something a substantial number of players have been banging their heads against like doves trying to fly through a glass window :-)
I agree to some extent, but still it can't be okay if a captain-HQ can make a brigade move almost as fast as a Lt. Col.-HQ. It it can't be okay if the most effective way to play is to ignore HQs completely.
I'm not fighting the concept of the game. I'm fighting a quite obvious issue that imho needs to be recalibrated. In every game I play, I have at least one or two instances in which I would have prefered to give orders to a larger composite unit, but I ended up giving orders to all the individual companies/pltns, because it would take the larger HQ so much longer.
Also, for me, the very essence of playing is exactly that - optimizing (and having fun and immersion in the process ;) ). Optimizing your chance to win by any means available to you. Therefore, knowledge of the rules and the workings of the game is a very important factor and - to a certain level - a prerequisite for a game. I need to know what factors need to be considered and can be optimized. I need something to base my decisions on. Otherwise, taking decisions is no fun.
Can you elaborate on this, Mogli? So if I give an order to 1st UK Arm Bde HQ, it will "detach" itself even though it is the onmap boss?