Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

The new Cold War turned hot wargame from On Target Simulations, now expanded with the Player's Edition! Choose the NATO or Soviet forces in one of many scenarios or two linked campaigns. No effort was spared to model modern warfare realistically, including armor, infantry, helicopters, air support, artillery, electronic warfare, chemical and nuclear weapons. An innovative new asynchronous turn order means that OODA loops and various effects on C3 are accurately modeled as never before.

Moderators: WildCatNL, cbelva, IronManBeta, CapnDarwin, IronMikeGolf, Mad Russian

pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by pzgndr »

From the other thread on scenario balance:
ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Pzgndr,
Don't take this the wrong way but this game is not an Assault clone. We didn't set out to copy any game. So, for you to expect, think it should maybe, or even accidentally not play like another game you really like has no bearing on how FPC plays or the functions we plan to put in it.
However, there's always a 'HOWEVER' :D the features that you liked from other games that would improve this series are welcome IF they make sense for this series of games. We aren't going to work around what we've already created to implement something that was great in another game if it doesn't fit here.
I had Assault all of about 2 weeks and loaned it to one of my best friends son. I never saw it again and didn't rebuy it. So, I have no idea how Assault played. In that respect I have no idea what you are referring to when you compare us to Assault.
Good Hunting.
MR

Here are some thoughts on the Assault! game system versus FPC-RS, for discussion and consideration.

Two features were important for the Command & Control rules: the sources of operations points, and the uses of operations points.

Sources. US company/Soviet battalion HQs had inherent points for their units. US battalion/Soviet regimental TOCs had points for both command and planning, where unused points could be accumulated up to a limit for later execution. Some scenarios provided some additional off-board points from higher HQ. And there was a minimum default of 2 points if there was no other active source. Another interesting feature was that players would roll a die for the command ratings of each HQ and TOC, which reflected both good and bad commanders/staffs. FPC-RS aggregates all of the orders for the entire side without differentiating between the HQs and the TOCs, and there is no provision for planning. These operations points were all for 5-minute turns, which FPC-RS probably doesn't need; 10-15-minute standard turns could also work, or perhaps provide a player option for standard turns in lieu of dynamic cycles. So some of these elements could be considered for v2.1.

Uses. Units did not need points to move in march formation (hasty move) or fire. Additionally, recon units, HQs and TOCs did not need to use points to move or change formation. Operations points were required when changing formation, moving in combat formation (deliberate move), replacing HQs, cross-attaching units, and rallying units. In FPC-RS terms, an assault or deliberate move should count as an order; a hasty move probably should not. Also, these actions cost 1 point when units were visible (in command range) but 2 points if not visible (out of command range). Additionally, units starting in the same hex moving together as a stack could count as a single operation. So v2.1 could reconsider what actions count as an order and what does not.

The net effect of all these rules would drive players to adopt the appropriate doctrines. US/NATO forces had more operations points and thus more flexibility to do more with fewer units, but generally qualitatively better units. Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces had fewer operations points, so relied more on Soviet Battle Drill to control quantitatively more units. This was the reality of the period, and at least on the US side, we adopted AirLand Battle doctrine in the early 1980s and then trained accordingly at the NTC at Fort Irwin and the CMTC at Hohenfels. The OPFOR used Soviet doctrine. The training exercises were as realistic as we could make them, and the results were fairly balanced based on the strengths and weakness of both sides.

Assault! came out in 1983 and I got into it around 1985. At the infantry officer advanced course in 1987, I used Assault! to help study what we were learning in the classroom. In Germany with 1st Armd Div, we trained at Hohenfels and I got to experience both sides. So from a gaming and classroom and practical exercise perspective, I found the Assault! game system to be pretty good. Maybe not perfect, and perhaps not totally accurate since we never got to put our respective doctrines to the ultimate test. However, I would assert that it was pretty realistic as far as it goes, and OTS should strive to implement similar features to achieve comparable effects in v2.1. At least strive to implement the most realist command & control possible and set that as the standard for game and scenario design. Player options can always make things easier by not using limited orders, or more difficult by various player handicaps or enemy bonuses. But shoot for realism as the goal.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by Mad Russian »

+1

Good discussion points.

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
kipanderson
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: U.K.

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by kipanderson »

Hi,

I am not sure what goes on under the bonnet currently. But anything that firms up the “realism..” of the command and control of units gets my vote.

All the best,
Kip.
Tazak
Posts: 1461
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:57 am

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by Tazak »

Just some thoughts:

1. fixed turns - should be a big no-go, its one of the key features of the game that make it standout for other 'war games' and to me represents a real flow of battle with each side giving orders at their own rhythm and pace. The simulated effect of time taken to issue orders and the ability to impact both yours and the enemies command cycle is critical and often poorly represented in wargames whereas in FC you can impact command cycles through different means.

2. The amount of orders available during limited orders can be modded in at least 3 different ways (no. of HQ subunits, amount of orders per HQ and % reduction amount of EW levels, the last 2 are in the nationals tab of the user data files). By altering the amount of HQ subunits in a HQ unit you are differentiating between HQs and TOCs although I would like to see some impact of the training levels on available orders(i.e. reflecting both good and bad commanders/staffs).

3. While I agree that ORBAT changes should cost command points, I strongly disagree with having nil cost orders simply because that order had to be issued somehow thus taking up on someones time (i.e. 20 seconds on the company radio net or a runner being sent to the unit). I believe one of the dev's have mentioned that range to HQ is a change in the order delay their discussing for 2.1 so will leave that alone apart from the comment - good change




AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO
Flef
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:02 am

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by Flef »

Personnaly I think the order phase is not representing what it should.

Every X minutes we launch a salvo of orders all at the same time then the units do their jobs.

while in reality, you take your map and your radio, contact a unit, give order, acknowledge good reception, rinse/repeat until all necessary orders are given.

From a simplistic point of view the "colonel" give a set of orders at time t, then the transmissions' staff are relaying the orders. It takes time.
It can be reprenseted ingame by according a time of transmittal to each order. First order would be transmitted at (example) minute 1, second at minute 2 etc... until all are given.

that would be a fine addition to represent the delay between orders. Then the player would be forced to prioritize from the first order his units, to know if he has to give an order to he company HQ or to the unit directly

If you combine this with the future reduced delays for small moves, the game may have a fine order system quite close to reality, giving a bit of interest to give orders to company HQs rather than individual units if it is unnecessary.
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by Mad Russian »

I agree to some extent Flef, the only thing I can tell you is that the FPC series will not evolve to a real time game. Which is what it would take to implement what you are discussing.

There are discussions going in all directions concerning the issuing of orders including adding specific leaders to the game and the actual chain of command. How much of that gets implemented depends on the AI. Because the AI has to be able to do both sides in this game. That's a feature that I feel is often overlooked. That the AI does the friendly actions as well as the enemy actions.

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
Flef
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:02 am

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by Flef »

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

I agree to some extent Flef, the only thing I can tell you is that the FPC series will not evolve to a real time game. Which is what it would take to implement what you are discussing.

There are discussions going in all directions concerning the issuing of orders including adding specific leaders to the game and the actual chain of command. How much of that gets implemented depends on the AI. Because the AI has to be able to do both sides in this game. That's a feature that I feel is often overlooked. That the AI does the friendly actions as well as the enemy actions.

Good Hunting.

MR
I didn't thought to the AI, true. But my proposal is not to get to real time. It is to add a delay to each order in respect to sequence given by the player.

At time of the order cycle, the player gives orders in a certain sequence. The order in the sequence adds a proportional delay.

These delays can be exploited by the players to create a momentum.

Only an idea.
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
There are discussions going in all directions concerning the issuing of orders including adding specific leaders to the game and the actual chain of command. How much of that gets implemented depends on the AI. Because the AI has to be able to do both sides in this game. That's a feature that I feel is often overlooked. That the AI does the friendly actions as well as the enemy actions.

The game and its AI currently get limited orders (operations points) from sources and then executes (uses) orders. All I suggested was that these sources and uses be reconsidered somewhat to produce more realistic effects. There should be minimal impact on the current AI? As always, nothing is simple though...
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Flef
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:02 am

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by Flef »

Stupid question:

how is computed the limit of limited orders?
User avatar
CapnDarwin
Posts: 9254
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Newark, OH
Contact:

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by CapnDarwin »

Good question actually. The number is based on number of active HQs, EW hindrance, and global readiness.
OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
Good question actually. The number is based on number of active HQs, EW hindrance, and global readiness.

A follow-up to this. First, is the number dynamic in any way during the scenario? I haven't noticed but then again I have not played as extensively as I would like. So if it is dynamic and the cycle length is also dynamic there may be some confusing overlap with these two features. Second, I looked at mod guide #2 and there doesn't appear to be any editable parameters for order limits for each side. So is this just hardwired based on the above and there's no way for us to experiment with higher/lower limits? Lastly, I assume the AI plays by limited orders if the option is selected, but are there any hidden bonuses or handicaps we should be aware of?
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Tazak
Posts: 1461
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:57 am

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by Tazak »

Yes, the number of 'orders' per phase does vary, I've noticed:

1. number of HQ's - either +/- as reinforcements appear and HQ's are destroyed or withdrawal
2. Global readiness (total readiness of all units divided by number of active units - I think)

I haven't sat down and tried to work out the formula used but it seems fairly consistent i.e. I've not seen any unexplained decease or increase in number of orders available each phase

I don't think the AI is subject to limited orders regardless of what is selected
AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: Tazak
I don't think the AI is subject to limited orders regardless of what is selected

Could we get a confirmation of this; is the AI playing correctly with limited orders or no? If not, then the NATO solitaire player is essentially playing against a numerically superior Soviet computer opponent unconstrained by any realistic command and control limitations. Which would be a rather important bug that warrants some attention before v2.09 goes final.

Any word on order limits being editable in any way? But if the issue above isn't resolved, there's not much point trying to edit the scenarios to see if it makes a difference.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Flef
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:02 am

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by Flef »

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Tazak
I don't think the AI is subject to limited orders regardless of what is selected

Could we get a confirmation of this; is the AI playing correctly with limited orders or no? If not, then the NATO solitaire player is essentially playing against a numerically superior Soviet computer opponent unconstrained by any realistic command and control limitations. Which would be a rather important bug that warrants some attention before v2.09 goes final.

Any word on order limits being editable in any way? But if the issue above isn't resolved, there's not much point trying to edit the scenarios to see if it makes a difference.

page 30 of the manual
This rule does not apply to computer players.

or did I missed something?
User avatar
CapnDarwin
Posts: 9254
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Newark, OH
Contact:

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by CapnDarwin »

To clear up confusion.

1. The AI is NOT constrained by limited orders. It is constrained by the dynamic command cycle and can only replan/retask at those points in time. It does not cheat by adjusting on the fly during turn resolution. The AI is very complex as it stands and trying to have it toggle to use the limited orders option would have been difficult at best. No bug here. As designed.

2. Limited orders for the player are dynamic and will change based on the addition or loss of HQs and Readiness. A Time to Dance shows this off well as the NATO player gains orders as more of the HQ net goes up.

3. You can make you own scenarios using modified User files. On the National Tab of each data file there are two entries that control Limit Order numbers. "Base Order Rate per HQ per Cycle" - this is the base number of orders per HQ the force has active on the map. "HQ Loss/Order Loss" - is the amount of Limited orders lost if a HQ is lost/removed from the battle. I'm also sure there is a 2 or 3 min order limit. I started looking at a better system of LO calculations a few month back and if LO stays in the game we make use some of those ideas in 2.1.

Hope that info helps. [8D]
OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: Flef

page 30 of the manual
This rule does not apply to computer players.

or did I missed something?

So, "Limited Staff Rule is NOT in Effect" does not apply to computer players, meaning the limited staff rule IS in effect. [:D]

Yo Cap'n Darwin, could y'all maybe please do something with this?? I mean, just apply the restriction to the AI with some modest priorities for how to execute the orders it has available. If it doesn't work we can always check the box and be no worse off than we are. I would rather not have to wait until 2016 for v2.1.

Edit. A little bit of overlap here with the response above. Still, it would be nice to see what the AI does with limited orders.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Tazak
Posts: 1461
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:57 am

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by Tazak »

I would rather not have to wait until 2016 for v2.1.
but you want to see what the AI is like subject to limited orders [&:]

Seriously though asking to subject the AI to limited orders will end in tears, there are too many variables to take into account and will generate a huge amount of issues that will prevent any serious work being carried out on 2.1 (I'm a IT project manager and have seen the impact of minor code changes let alone a major change like this to scheduled release dates).

The AI is pretty dumb (no offence Dev's) and to handicap it further with limited orders will wreak havoc, plus what additional options need to be implemented to make the game 'harder' for players, after all that's the intent of limited orders.

Personally I'd rather see the AI programmed to be better in defence before its smacked with limited orders.
AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: Tazak
you want to see what the AI is like subject to limited orders

Yes. There is the game option to toggle it on/off. If it just totally sucks then players can choose to not subject the AI to limited orders and be no worse off than we are right now. I think players deserve a chance to at least try this and compare/contrast some NATO vs Soviet differences, and be better informed going into v2.1.

There are a lot of fine features in this game and I was very optimistic that the command and control features would result in some realistic effects similar to what I saw in Assault! But I'm not seeing that and the dynamic cycle length business may provide some sense of realism to some players but I'm not feeling it. So for me with a kinda personal "been there done that" perspective, I'm not getting out of this game what I would like to. In many ways this game is nicer than TacOps, but for more realistic control of units via orders/SOPs and a more doctrinally correct OPFOR then I'll stick with TacOps.

I cannot make myself any plainer. This is a nice game but it is a game. The unit combat mechanics are fine but the whole command and control aspect is very frustrating. Whenever Cap'n Darwin speaks of "if LO stayes in the game" I cringe. How do you compel the Soviet player/AI to adopt Soviet doctrine using more rigid/restrictive Battle Drill formations if there are no significant differences between NATO and Soviet orders limits? I don't get it.

If nothing is to be done with this now then we shall all just have to wait and see what v2.1 provides. Hopefully LO stays in the game.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
User avatar
kool_kat
Posts: 558
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:10 pm
Location: Clarksville, VA.

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by kool_kat »

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

To clear up confusion.

1. The AI is NOT constrained by limited orders. It is constrained by the dynamic command cycle and can only replan/retask at those points in time. It does not cheat by adjusting on the fly during turn resolution. The AI is very complex as it stands and trying to have it toggle to use the limited orders option would have been difficult at best. No bug here. As designed.

2. Limited orders for the player are dynamic and will change based on the addition or loss of HQs and Readiness. A Time to Dance shows this off well as the NATO player gains orders as more of the HQ net goes up.

3. You can make you own scenarios using modified User files. On the National Tab of each data file there are two entries that control Limit Order numbers. "Base Order Rate per HQ per Cycle" - this is the base number of orders per HQ the force has active on the map. "HQ Loss/Order Loss" - is the amount of Limited orders lost if a HQ is lost/removed from the battle. I'm also sure there is a 2 or 3 min order limit. I started looking at a better system of LO calculations a few month back and if LO stays in the game we make use some of those ideas in 2.1.

Hope that info helps. [8D]

Thanks Jim [8D]

For me, I'll toggle limited orders "off" and not handicap myself versus the AI.

BTW... been playing with limited orders off in my last several games... and enjoying the experience quite a bit!
Regards, - Mike

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Limited Orders, FPC-RS vs Assault!

Post by Mad Russian »

Due to the feedback on this issue, I will reluctantly agree to take them out of the game as seems to be the way you gamers want it.

Thanks for all your opinions and comments. We do listen.

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
Post Reply

Return to “Flashpoint Campaigns Classic”