PDA

View Full Version : Some questions



holdit
01 Apr 07, 09:27
1. Are there any plans to add to the game's command and control features? It occurred to me that it would add a bit of flavour if, say, the units of any brigade commander who fails his command check were considered "fixed" for that turn.

2. If I add a additonal leader (e.g. chief of staff) with a 0 x y rating, does that leader count in checking command for subordiantes?

3. Is there a guide to the current version of the .pdt file?

Thanks in advance,

Paul

rahamy
01 Apr 07, 15:53
1. Are there any plans to add to the game's command and control features? It occurred to me that it would add a bit of flavour if, say, the units of any brigade commander who fails his command check were considered "fixed" for that turn.


That's a possobility, can't I can't give you a definitive answer right now...



2. If I add a additonal leader (e.g. chief of staff) with a 0 x y rating, does that leader count in checking command for subordiantes?

No, it is only good for melee bonuses. They can not rally a unit themselves. So best to send them in with your troops into combat and leave the main leader behind the front line.



3. Is there a guide to the current version of the .pdt file?


Yes, http://www.hist-sdc.com/waterloo/pdt.html

FM WarB
02 Apr 07, 08:24
[QUOTE=holdit;847689]1. Are there any plans to add to the game's command and control features? It occurred to me that it would add a bit of flavour if, say, the units of any brigade commander who fails his command check were considered "fixed" for that turn.

Considering that orders are not issued to brigades every 15 minutes such flavour, I feel would unduly screw up division and Corps movements. Using the Line Movement Restriction optional rule adds at least enough such flavor for me.

holdit
02 Apr 07, 17:23
[QUOTE=holdit;847689]1. Are there any plans to add to the game's command and control features? It occurred to me that it would add a bit of flavour if, say, the units of any brigade commander who fails his command check were considered "fixed" for that turn.

Considering that orders are not issued to brigades every 15 minutes such flavour, I feel would unduly screw up division and Corps movements.

That's the idea ;) At least,occasionally screwing them up to some degree...

Seriously, you might be right about the downside of something like that. Nevertheless, it seems to me that command and control is an area of the game that could use some expanding, when you consider that, as army commander, your orders are always delivered instantly by a courier who never gets lost or killed and are implemented instantly by a local commander who never misunderstands or disobeys them. The game already differentiates between the command ability of generals; I think it's a pity that isn't put to more use than just helping cure disorder.

Paul

FM WarB
02 Apr 07, 18:10
I agree with all of that, Paul, but expanding Command and control capacities/restrictions opens other cans of worms. Just one, for example: Should a lone, out of command leader, or routed/disordered unit, kilometers away from any other friendly unit be able to spot and instantly report enemy unit movements to higher command? (Did they have cell phones and GPS back then?) I could not come up with a currier solution that did not have a valid objection to solve such problems. Can you?
OOB design can go a long way to show how armies are commanded. See my Ligny/QB scenario, posted on SZO to see some of my ideas.
Warren

holdit
02 Apr 07, 18:50
I agree with all of that, Paul, but expanding Command and control capacities/restrictions opens other cans of worms. Just one, for example: Should a lone, out of command leader, or routed/disordered unit, kilometers away from any other friendly unit be able to spot and instantly report enemy unit movements to higher command? (Did they have cell phones and GPS back then?) I could not come up with a currier solution that did not have a valid objection to solve such problems. Can you?
OOB design can go a long way to show how armies are commanded. See my Ligny/QB scenario, posted on SZO to see some of my ideas.
Warren

A very good point. The answer, I think, depends on whether you're trying to model the process or the effects. Of course, the lone, out of command leader of your example should not be able to report back with his Nokia, but there's no getting away from that - "Borg spotting" as they used to call it in the Combat Mission forums.

If we're modelling the process, we need to represent the courier, the orders, the activation of those orders, etc. I seem to remember that Take Command: 2nd Manassas dealt with this reasonably well, but it could be argued that's a different kind of game. Such an approach might well be too much of a drag to be worth it in the HPS system.

Alternatively, instead of getting bogged down in the process we can look at the effect of the situation, which is that it may take some time to get reinforcements over to the lone commander, by which time it may be too late. A system which can create delays delays could well produce such a result and, if well-designed, could make it more likely in a sub-optimal command situation, so that, despite being (effectively) able to give instant accurate reports, it may take as long to get the reinforcements to where they are needed as it would have had the only communication been via paper and quill.

Paul

holdit
02 Apr 07, 19:07
OOB design can go a long way to show how armies are commanded. See my Ligny/QB scenario, posted on SZO to see some of my ideas.


I don't yet own a copy of the Waterloo game, but I've just downloaded your scenario and read the design notes with interest. You have some interesting ideas about using the game's own functionality to transcend its own limits - much better than just waiting for a patch...

Paul

Lord_Valentai
02 Apr 07, 19:23
The problem with randomly fixing units is that it causes problems say at Ligny where Blucher spread his units across the whole front. And what of skirmishers? They're meant to be out of command. And routed units, would they be fixed? The idea wouldn't really work in the current setup, and also because commanders acted with initiative, not just on orders from above.

holdit
03 Apr 07, 17:03
The problem with randomly fixing units is that it causes problems say at Ligny where Blucher spread his units across the whole front. And what of skirmishers? They're meant to be out of command. And routed units, would they be fixed? The idea wouldn't really work in the current setup, and also because commanders acted with initiative, not just on orders from above.

There would certainly be some element of chance, but don't forget that the quality of leaders in the chain of command has an effect, so overall you'd be likely to find that the better commanders are the most responsive and/pr display the greater initiative - a positive check could represent either the prompt execution of orders or the local commander taking matters into his own hands - it doesn't really matter. What would matter, though, would be the quality of the leaders who were being assigned specific tasks. A game that had you thinking like this would be introducing a new level of generalship. For example, if you are going to have a large portion of your army execute a wide flanking manoeuvre, would you want it led by a Davout or a Bernadotte? At the moment, both of these gentlemen are equally likely to arrive on time.

I'd have to look more closely at the Ligny setup, to be able to comment on it, but don't forget that fixed units are released if the enemy is close enough. I hadn't thought about skirmishers and routed units (I am just throwing an idea out there after all, not requesting a specific change), but I would imagine the simplest approach would be to have skirmishers take on the command status of their parent unit and to make routed units exempt.

I know of at least two Napoleonic miniatures rule sets that take something like this approach, and it works fine. I don't see any reason why something similar couldn't be applied to a PC game.

Paul

Sgt_Rock
14 Apr 07, 02:03
Also check out my site for more good design stuff:

Fire and Melee Website (http://www.fireandmelee.net)