Scourge of War Boards

I notice that sometimes when I give an on-map order to a subordinate (say, a Brigade commander if I'm Division) I get the arrow showing the destination, while other times I get a circle with the star-topped shield hovering above it. What is the difference, and why does it sometimes happen one way and the other?

Trilogy wrote:

I notice that sometimes when I give an on-map order to a subordinate (say, a Brigade commander if I'm Division) I get the arrow showing the destination, while other times I get a circle with the star-topped shield hovering above it. What is the difference, and why does it sometimes happen one way and the other?

The star-topped shield is the commanders orders destination when they are un-TC'd. This is different than their movement destination. So for example, if a division commander is un-TC'd, they have orders (Attack, Defend, Probe, etc), you click on the ground, the star-topped shield will show up where you clicked and this is their orders destination.

Thanks, but I'm still confused.

I just played the Rodes scenario, and I was happily giving my brigade commanders movement and formation orders that showed as arrows. After a while, though, and particularly when units became heavily engaged, I could no longer give such specific orders. Instead, when I clicked on the ground I would get the star-topped shield.

I never TC'd any of these brigade commanders in the entire scenario. What causes them to switch over to less exact ordering? Does it have something to do with being engaged? With general stance orders? Stress?

Trilogy wrote:

Thanks, but I'm still confused.

I just played the Rodes scenario, and I was happily giving my brigade commanders movement and formation orders that showed as arrows. After a while, though, and particularly when units became heavily engaged, I could no longer give such specific orders. Instead, when I clicked on the ground I would get the star-topped shield.

I never TC'd any of these brigade commanders in the entire scenario. What causes them to switch over to less exact ordering? Does it have something to do with being engaged? With general stance orders? Stress?

If they are not TC'd, they won't always follow movement orders. You can click on the ground, the shield will come up, but if they aren't TC'd, they may decide they want to go somewhere instead.. Especially in the Rodes scenario because O'Neal and Doles will basically do their own thing, no matter what you tell them to.

Thank you. Now more questions!

--When the leader gets heavily engaged and switches over from accepting direct placement orders and getting the star-topped shield instead, what is that shield marker doing? Does it tell him generally where to focus his efforts? For instance, if he has "hold" orders, does the marker tell him what location I want held?

--Does leader personality have something to do with when they go off on their own?

--After a leader has gone off on his own, does the star-topped-shield left over from previous orders still exert any "pull"? Will setting a new one help to draw him back?

--I guess what I'm wondering is this: I know what the ground arrows mean--"go here and face this way"--but I don't quite know what the star-topped-shield means in practice.

--It seems like there should be a way to exert tighter control without actually going TC. If nothing else, "hold at all costs" should be a very definite order not to wander off. (I'll bet that the "Retire TC?" thread has something to say here...)

--When the leader gets heavily engaged and switches over from accepting direct placement orders and getting the star-topped shield instead, what is that shield marker doing? Does it tell him generally where to focus his efforts? For instance, if he has "hold" orders, does the marker tell him what location I want held?

Yes. The shield is his orders destination.

--Does leader personality have something to do with when they go off on their own?

Yes, the leaders personality will determine how agressive he is. If he's a timid general, he'll be more likely to stay put and hold more forces back as reinforcements.

--After a leader has gone off on his own, does the star-topped-shield left over from previous orders still exert any "pull"? Will setting a new one help to draw him back?

I would need to test this more, but I believe if you set his orders destination, he will always want to go back there. Unless he's on "All out Attack".. Then he will constantly move around, looking for more enemy's.

--I guess what I'm wondering is this: I know what the ground arrows mean--"go here and face this way"--but I don't quite know what the star-topped-shield means in practice.

It's the orders destination.

--It seems like there should be a way to exert tighter control without actually going TC. If nothing else, "hold at all costs" should be a very definite order not to wander off. (I'll bet that the "Retire TC?" thread has something to say here...)

I agree that hold to the last should be more restrictive. Hopefully it will be made more restrictive in a future patch.

You know this makes me wonder why the shield/star STRAT order icon is the same regardless of the strategic order type... it might help to visually see what orders the general has because it would save the pain of switching from move to command tabs.

On the other hand, artillery by default switches to hold at all costs and it becomes hard to move because it's basically always engaged. So, Trilogy, if you want to move it, make sure its orders are set on NONE.