operator error vs game status

[MikeCK]

Kind of an odd question I suppose but I am returning to SoW after leaving it about 2 weeks after release. I fell in love with another game for awile but now I am back to dig into this one. As you all are aware, this is a complex game particularly when played HITS and courier only....which is what I like. So, my question is about the status of the game as it relates to the mechanics. Are you guys satisfied that the game is working as designed? If I order a brigade to go somewhere to do something and it doesnt happen the way I want, can I be assured that (generally) it is something I am doing wrong and not the game itself? Is the courier system working? Time delay all set? (there were problems originally with delayed attacks), etc.

Basically, I am just curious from the vets here, if when I am yelling at a general to quit pulling his brigade off of the line because I had thought I had ordered him to "hold" or some such nonesense...can I be relativly sure that its either (a) my fault or (b) intentionally designed and not a game mechanics deficiency.

I did update to the new patch and use the courier mod.

[Cruiser]

When an order to "Hold" is issued to a general, the way I look at is I am telling him what to do, not how to do it. If I want a regiment or brigade to behave in a particular way in a particular position and do not trust the General's tactics, I should Take Command of that brigade and allow the General to implement my orders in the way he sees most appropriate with his remaining forces. The Brigade and Division commanders in this game tend to use some variation of a mobile defense. Very often, I do not agree with how a Division or Brigade commander maneuvers his forces but if I trust my General's judgment, they will often conduct a credible defense or attack.

I normally TC a Division or Brigade in each game I play and attempt to assist my commander to win the fight.

[Little Powell]

Cruiser wrote:

When an order to "Hold" is issued to a general, the way I look at is I am telling him what to do, not how to do it. If I want a regiment or brigade to behave in a particular way in a particular position and do not trust the General's tactics, I should Take Command of that brigade and allow the General to implement my orders in the way he sees most appropriate with his remaining forces. The Brigade and Division commanders in this game tend to use some variation of a mobile defense. Very often, I do not agree with how a Division or Brigade commander maneuvers his forces but if I trust my General's judgment, they will often conduct a credible defense or attack.

I normally TC a Division or Brigade in each game I play and attempt to assist my commander to win the fight.

Great answer.

"Hold To The Last" would be your best order to get a brigade to stay put. But even then, there are many factors here, depending on the personality of the commander. He might adjust his lines (see Sickles actions on the second day of Gettysburg... :laugh:), or he may stay completely stationary. But like Cruiser said, the only way he's going to completely obey you 100%, is to TC him.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

MikeCK:
Welcome back. I too play almost exclusively using the courier system. I can say that it does work as designed. You just need to be aware of a few caveats when using it. For instance, if your troops/arty are already engaged, they generally do not respond to movement orders unless you give them a 'no orders' command first. Even then, the infantry may take its sweet time carrying out those orders. The AI behaves in a very human fashion on many occasions. It determines weather your orders make sense given its assessment of the situation. The response can range from immediate compliance to completely ignoring your orders until the battle is over. This is why having a hefty reserve is always a good idea. If your engaged units are too busy to pay attention to you, you can use some of your uncommitted troops to carry out your plan. Screaming at these long dead commanders for ignoring you is perfectly permissible. Your better half will just have to learn to understand.

Another useful feature of the courier system is the ability to stack orders together. You can order a unit to move to a certain location, use the road system, face a certain direction when they get there while changing into certain formation and then assume a certain stance. Very handy. I wrote an after action/tutorial on the courier system that you may find helpful. It is in the NSD News section.

[MikeCK]

Marching Thru Georgia wrote:

MikeCK:
Welcome back. I too play almost exclusively using the courier system. I can say that it does work as designed. You just need to be aware of a few caveats when using it. For instance, if your troops/arty are already engaged, they generally do not respond to movement orders unless you give them a 'no orders' command first. Even then, the infantry may take its sweet time carrying out those orders. The AI behaves in a very human fashion on many occasions. It determines weather your orders make sense given its assessment of the situation. The response can range from immediate compliance to completely ignoring your orders until the battle is over. This is why having a hefty reserve is always a good idea. If your engaged units are too busy to pay attention to you, you can use some of your uncommitted troops to carry out your plan. Screaming at these long dead commanders for ignoring you is perfectly permissible. Your better half will just have to learn to understand.

Another useful feature of the courier system is the ability to stack orders together. You can order a unit to move to a certain location, use the road system, face a certain direction when they get there while changing into certain formation and then assume a certain stance. Very handy. I wrote an after action/tutorial on the courier system that you may find helpful. It is in the NSD News section.

Excellent, I will check out that tutorial. The "Hold" example was just an example..it hasnt been a problem. Its just when I played it when it first came out, I gave a delayed order and the commnader left immediately. Turned out, that was a bug that got fixed but I wasnt sure at teh time if it was WAD...that type of thing. Its just such an ingenious system that I cant help but want to use it.

Can I also say that I am finding HITS is the only way to go...I always wondered why commnader on the ground seemed so oblivious to what was happening when you read about battles. How could so-and-so not know that the enemy had flanked him? how could general Snodgrass not realize that his left wing wasnt really in danger of collapsing and he didnt need to send in teh reserves. Now you can get a taste.

[Little Powell]

MikeCK wrote:

Marching Thru Georgia wrote:

Can I also say that I am finding HITS is the only way to go...I always wondered why commnader on the ground seemed so oblivious to what was happening when you read about battles. How could so-and-so not know that the enemy had flanked him? how could general Snodgrass not realize that his left wing wasnt really in danger of collapsing and he didnt need to send in teh reserves. Now you can get a taste.

Yes! That's exactly why I play HITS.. Not all the time, but on smaller battles. The Brickyard Lane Scenario (available in the first mod sample scenario) is a great HITS scenario.

You really appreciate the importance of the terrain in HITS.

[Marching Thru Georgia]

MikeCK wrote:

Can I also say that I am finding HITS is the only way to go...I always wondered why commnader on the ground seemed so oblivious to what was happening when you read about battles. How could so-and-so not know that the enemy had flanked him? how could general Snodgrass not realize that his left wing wasnt really in danger of collapsing and he didnt need to send in teh reserves. Now you can get a taste

Quite right. When viewed from ground level, the AI plays a very solid game. He makes very few errors. Managing to crush his flank always seems like a stroke of genius when accomplished on horseback. I play a modified version of HITS. I use the 'F' key, (press it twice). This allows me to jump from my saddle to a subordinates'. I use this technique in lieu of no couriers bringing me information from them. Hopefully, this capability will be added in the next patch.

[norb]

A lot of what you experience is the nature of the way we write this game. This game is not an RTS, where units will continue walking while getting shot up until they die. The goal is to simulate what command was like in Gettysburg. I'm not saying that we do it perfectly, but that was the goal. So when you tell someone to hold, we go through a bunch of factors to determine how much they will hold. Will an enemy 200 yds off draw them? Will they continue pursuit if attacked? We try to make the AI act like the humans of the day may have acted. It's frustrating! But we figure it was frustrating to command back then. During development, the team felt that our AI was a little too rebellious, that during GB units would hold more than the AI was holding. So we added some new commands, so that when historically a unit held until the last man, the AI could as well.

I think that the way the AI works adds to a lot of replay value. But the idea behind it is that you learn to recognize the attributes of the units and which attributes will provide the best man to hold. Just like in real life you would get to know your officers and know who to give which commands.

Hope that helps.

[JMayer]

Thanks Norb I have been tring to relate that to some as long as game has been out. I feel that to command the div. is to let my Brig. commander do what he is meant to do unless I have a plan I need him for. I will TC him then and have him not think. This is why it is so important to have TC'ed Commanders obey Div Orders,as you know that already.

JM