What's the trick for big missions?

[sages]

I had the same problem in SB1: whenever I'm in control of forces larger than a company, I get anhilated. I'm constantly in the map -- I never even try to just fight a vehicle. There's just too much to do, to fast: constantly adjusting vehicle's plans, making sure they're not parked somewhere dumb, calling art, responding to arty, having units move to new firing positions etc... And I can't keep up well enough to keep my units out of trouble. Many of these are a level of micromanagement that a real commander would not have to do.

It seems like the large missions (and there are a lot of them) are really only playable in co-op mode.

Is there a way to view and select unit on a TOE, or select multiple units?

If, while paused, I could give orders on the map, and check units placement etc... it would be much more managable.

Or, do I just suck and need to practice more?

[PaleRider]

I would recommend becoming proficient with smaller units first, then graduate to somethng bigger. If your comfortable a company, start building from there. Situational awareness is key. Keep your units out of the enemies line of site, until you want to be seen, i.e., engagements. Or if your in the attack, make sure you use bounding overwatch to give cover to moving units along with proper use of artillery. It takes practice, I myself need to scrape off alot of rust!!

[PS-SCUD]

You really have 2 options.


1. Create many more waypoints, routes, and control logic in your plan. If done correctly you will easily be able to put units in a triangular defensive position, which avoid arty and maintain overwatch. You will be able to quickly snap units to the correct route or waypoint to move them when needed.

Make sure you create a flexible plan that can adapt to surprises.

2. Practice. It really does take alot of work to control a company sized force. You must get used to rapidly moving units to and from checkpoints. The way I play, I create checkpoints for all feasible BPs during the planning phase, then just move my units to and from those checkpoints during the course of a game.

[mapman]

In the planning stages you can also use triggers. That is, make the Embark If Trigger 1 (or 2 or 3) is True logic. That way, you can hit one key and have all your forces shift East ( or west etc).

Just plan on spending an hour or two in the planning stages and writing down trigger references so you do not forget.

[sages]

Can you save your planning stage setup?

Ssnake: I think a nice feature might be the ability to do control logic during the action phase, but with the game paused.

[RENEGADE-623]

Can you save your planning stage setup?

Ssnake: I think a nice feature might be the ability to do control logic during the action phase, but with the game paused.
That would be great, but you have to remember that this product was meant to be a training aid for the military so it is unlikely that that will ever happen. But to answer your question, yes, you can save your plan anytime you want and continue it at another time.

[ShermansWar]

I have found that it is not really possible to handle or manage more than 14 units effectively. 10 tanks and a platoon of brads, for example, after that, you cannot stay on top of your units, and even 14 is difficult in MP play. I say this as a player with a reputation for playing with a lot of units and hosting scenarios with a lot of units. once you go over a company, there is too much to do, routing, gunning( evebn if you arent in the veghicle for the opening of the engagement. in fact, a lot of players solve the problem by parkinh their shit and only fighting with one or 2 units at a time. If you're gonna fight that way, it's possible to handle a battallion, but your not really handling a battallion.

[Ssnake]

I always said that anything beyond a reinforced company will overwhelm even an experienced player, and thus degrate the combat effectiveness of such a force. Bigger is not always better.

[Bluewings]

Amen Nils .

With Pro PE , 1 Company really start to hit my fighting capabilities .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[sages]

Hey Bluewings, didn't you design border patrol -- which gives the player 2 companies and spare change? :=)

Glad to hear it's just not me. I'd like to see more single-company only missions designed. A battalion is just way too big.

[Bluewings]

Yes indeed I did designed it , but to my defense Blue has a full scripting which allow you to play from the gunner seat and not bother about anything ~if you decide to do so .

Nevertheless , I have to admit that I agree with you . A single Company mission for a single player scenario is much better and far more enjoyable . The most used option is to have Computer controled Units beside the player controled Company .

It has to be noted that MP sessions are very different than SP scenarios . In MP , it is very hard and unnacceptable to spend 2 hours ~or more~ to make a plan which include routes for all the Units you can control , but in SP missions you have all the time in the world to do your own scripting , even for a full Battalion , but this is an extreme exemple .

Btw , I did upload 2 SP missions where you only have one Company to take care of . Most of my creations ~which will be uploaded~ rarely go over one Company . :wink:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[sages]

Maybe if I just let he scripting go, I wouldn't have gotten owned so bad in BP? I don't want to give anything away, but the "little surprise" went poorly for me.

Excellent on the new scenarios. Can't wait to see 'em! Get crackin'!

[ElTorrente]

I'd like to get more help from my computer controlled counterparts. It would be nice to be able to issue orders to a platoon, a company, a battalion, division, whatever.. and the subordinates would do their best to formulate a plan based on the objective I ordered.

For instance, there is a game called "Highway to the Reich" that does exactly this. You can issue an order to the whole brigade, then if you want to you can go into the companies or platoons and micromanage and fine tune if you wish. The important thing though is that you can get everyone moving roughly toward a given objective. It's realistic and manageable.

[mapman]

You can do this in the planning stage if you are willing to take the time.

You can set up check points with multiple routes that can be triggered by assigning a trigger to each check point. So you can have your forces go straight, flank right, flank left, retreat back etc. It is strictly up to you how much you want to plan.

If I am playing SP on a large mission, I will often spend hours setting up the plan, sometimes saving it and coming back to it another day before ever starting the battle.

I may set up 3-4 different check points side by side with different routes to choose from at different phase lines along the way. As the battle progresses, I will select the unit or platoon and route it to one of the near by check points depending on how the battle is progressing.

If one spends the time doing this ahead of time, less time can be spent on the map and more time going from unit to unit in the real world. In other words, you can plan and automate this just as much as you feel like and still have multiple levels of control.

[ElTorrente]

Yeah but when the action begins, as the supreme leader of my forces, I should be able to contact my company commander(s) at any time and change my initial plan and say "take this bridge instead.." or "defend this hill!". In RL a general wouldn't have to micro manage every single unit. I shouldn't have to spend hours looking at every single unit in order for them to act realistically. When I say "defend this hill", the company commander would lay down a route(s) to go to the hill and setup a defense.

I could issue the order then fine-tune the route(s) as I saw fit- but at least they are on their way and not sitting there waiting to be told every little thing. Presumably company and brigade commanders, or platoon leaders for that matter, are in their position because of their ability to follow orders, and to lead their troops on their own, and think independently when necessary.

It's a nice feature to be able to control all the routes and waypoints with conditions and such, but when the rounds start flying and things start exploding and lines collapsing, I should be able to issue orders to my subordinate commanders and know that they will act realistically and try their best to carry out my actions.

Also, I have a question: do we have a "Previous Unit" button? We have a "Next Unit", but it's annoying not being able to back up- especially in a big battle with lots of units. Little stuff like this makes it more difficult than it needs to be. Another question: Can I select a unit that appears in the text window- like when it says "unit 11 under fire", can I select that particular unit from the text window somehow or do I have to use the "Next engaged Unit" button? There are many times that I want to jump straight into the unit whose text message just appeared, but I don't see an easy way for this.

[mapman]

Your realize that this was originally designed to be a company level sim...so you would be the company comander. Anything bigger than that, it should be a co-op.

[ElTorrente]

^ I understand that.

I know that this isn't supposed to be an easy-to-use GAME. I knew what I was getting into, I'm just saying that it would sure be nice. :)

[ARM505]

I would imagine the AI would always fall short of the intended plan. To do realistic AI....well, it's already hard, and the more units thrown into the mix, the greater the likelyhood of utter AI incompetence.

On a related note, and one brought up before, what about the idea of being able to save multiple plans? Currently, only one plan per .sce is catered for - surely a 'save as' function for plans would be relatively easy to do? (I say this as a non-programmer, so I could be talking out of my butt of course...)

[mapman]

Ditto on the Save As idea!

[Bluewings]

A big ~or even huge~ single player scenario requires an extraordinary planning time . This is the "sim" part of the SP Steel Beasts experience .

It 's where I 'm coming from :D
I know of some players who played a scenario for 8+ Hours , pausing the game for food or to give a go to the wife , then resume the long battle !

If the scenario design itself allows the designer NOT TO set a time limit , and to trust his Events/Conditions scripting , a scenario can last very long . So , an according planning time might be required .
As Mapman said (Kudos to him) , "thinking" a battle and planning for it while using SB capabilities can take hours . Saving your plan and having a second look the day after can sometimes reveal ...many things !

The Multiplayer side of SB is only what it is , a side of the whole package .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[DrDevice]

ElTorrente, the only problem with implementing your ideal AI subordinates it programming said AI. There is no “artificial intelligence” to be had for games. There are just sets of conditions.

Think for a while about the number of decision points you would have to build in to even a platoon-level leader to issue a simple command like "guard this bridge." Acting in an intelligent manner under the HUGE variety of conditions that might befall that platoon leader is not feasible. If the bridge is destroyed and a RL leader knows that it is time to retreat to another position, despite the fact that his CO didn’t give explicit orders for it. Basically, you can’t program the initiative of a thinking commander.

The system you described involves implicit decisions. Explicit ones are possible in SB, they are just difficult to program. It takes time to sort out all the details. In effect you are doing the job of every soldier in the chain. At what point is the micromanagement done? That's a tough call.

Believe me, what you described would be a gamers DREAM! However, it would seem low on the priority of a training simulation to expend time to develop such a system. Their effort is more likely spent on making a top-notch “1-man 1-vehicle” system – since that’s their target market.

I think that the slippery slope of “AI” has been avoided by eSim for good reasons, even if it does place the burden on the player when game time comes. To me, it’s better to have no-AI that does what I tell it to do, rather than a bad AI that screws it up. (Even though the limited AI we have can certainly irk me on occasion! :) )

[CommC]

I don't have any problem with large scenarios, especially now that the AI gunnery is fixed. Just give orders to complete platoons. Put them in battle positions, the AI is excellent at using terrain for hull down positions, just do a quick check in 3D view to put the end of their route near ridges/hilltops. Always set "hold" or similar orders at the end of a route, they will find hull down positions by themselves.

Set up your forces to guard your flanks, and focus on playing the hot spots in person.

Yes, I would prefer to have the feature to give orders while the action is paused, but we have begged and begged for this and no dice.

eSim is fixated on this real time gunnery mode of simming. The ability to give orders while paused could be set by the scenario designer or toggled in the preferences.. and really it is a moot point since it would only be workable in single player missions. What is someone going to cheat somehow in SP?

[Bluewings]

I am against the "Pause" thing .

Cheers . :3starSK: