COTA (mini-guide): Tutorial, AAR, and tips!

[MarkShot]

I won't show you the reinforcement tab; suffice it to say that I will have no reinforcements. It's a "come as you are" party for us.

[elmo3]

Reinforcements?! Hell you have about 11 to 1 odds now. You better not lose this fight! [:'(]

[MarkShot]

Yep, but that is the intel picture. Of course, the guys who prepared that picture are not on the dusty trail marching down to the river with us. They are back in Berlin having schnapps right now.

Also, don't let this scenario fool you. If the right things are done, the Germans can get pretty tied up.

[MarkShot]

Okay, it is time for a plan.

Remember I said that the key insight is that the enemy is weak, on foot, and trying to prepare a hasty defense?

So, what does that mean to us? It means that speed is everything. Speed in this situation will be more important than careful plans, organization, and structure.

For those of you who have read my HTTR guides, you know that I am very fond of time tables, recon, carefully planned attacks with multiple axises of advance, etc... Well, you'll see none of that here.

If we can move fast enough, we'll prevent the enemy from:

(1) The enemy will arrive where he is going --- With a river in front of us, there are clearly some very advantageous positions for the enemy to deploy if he is given that luxury.

(2) The enemy will deploy/dig in --- He will be much more vulnerable and lay down less fire if he is moving. Basically, we will be on an equal footing with him. However, we do outnumber him. If he gets dug-in, then first we will initially be taking fire and not even be able to identify its source. Then, when we his positions are known we will have a hard time dislodging him.

(3) The enemy will make the main encounter for the bridges take place at night --- If we can force the issue in daylight, we will be in a much better position to bring our superior fire power of numbers and support weapons to bare. Furthermore, we'll have a much better fix on the enemy's positions. This should help us greatly in frustrating his plans to blow the bridges.

So, in summary, we are in a hasty attack situation. It is my intention to push forward as hard and as fast as I can. If we stop to organize a proper attack what will be the consequences?

(1) All the negatives I listed above will come to pass.

(2) Given the lack of cover and obstructed LOS all our actions will be completely visible to the enemy. There is no element of surprise to be had. No matter how we go about it, our intentions are going to be clearly telegraphed. At least, if we move swiftly, the knowledge of our plan may provide the enemy with little actionable information. (meaning he'll know what we are doing, but not be able move fast enough to interfere)

(3) We don't know what the enemy's arty/mortar situation is. Trying to get organized could end up being a much more protracted process than it appears on the surface.

(4) By delaying the initial contact, the enemy's second line positions will be prepared for action. Even if we break the first line, we'll still be forced to deal with them. If we move quickly enough, he will never recover and we will blow right through him.

(5) Time is tight and given how far the Pz Regt 3 has to go get down to Larissa across contested ground, we don't have anything to spare.

(6) Getting across the river is everything. Once we are across no matter how disorganized we are, it is pretty much over for the Allies. Delays on our part more than action on their part will decide whether they suceed or fail.

[MarkShot]

(duplicate post deleted)

[MarkShot]

Here is the plan. Yes, I realize my artistic talents leave something to be desired.

We will cross the river at Kouphalades Ferry. In achieving that, we will cut off the enemy from withdrawing to Larissa and have that route for ourselves.

We will cross the river at the Tempe Bridges. This is one of our primary objectives. Achieving this will allow us to push the Allies away from the river.

My plan's legend:

Orange - Div HQ and engineers will deploy here waiting for word that Tempe is secure so that the engineers can be sent in to remove the charges.

Dark Blue - Our initial arty deployment. We'll be in reach of all the engagement areas along the river.

Light Green - Mortar positions. Our heaviest concentration of mortars will be Tempe. The next concentration with be a Kouphalades. We'll place a single platoon the North to cover the Pz Regt 3 as they make their way to Tempe.

Yellow - All our direct fire guns will be concentrated on hill over looking the Bridges and Tempe. They will break enemy positions near the bridges and prevent reinforcements. We'll also place a few guns to cover the Pz 3 Regt.

Purple - The 141st. Regt (infantry on foot) will push as fast as possible to cross at Kouphalades Ferry.

Red - The 143rd. Regt (infantry on foot) will push as fast as possible to cross at Tempe so that the bridges can be secured.

Light Blue - The Pz 3 Regt (minus recon units on foot; armor and motorized infantry) will race down and push on to Larissa. They will assist where they can and otherwise take advantage of the chaos push on towards Larissa.

[MarkShot]

By the way, the grey gridlines on the map (if you didn't own a previous game) are 1km square boxes. Note, this is just for reference. There are no hexes or turns in this game.

I'll pick this thread up again in a day or so.

That should give my fellow beta testers Ray and Eddy a chance to snicker at my clumsy plan which relies on a sledge hammer to break eggs. And Bil to complain to Dave that I have debased yet another new game release by not using mil symbols on my counters in the screen shots.

[MarkShot]

Okay, before we get started with the battle, let me talk for a minute about how we'll look at the battle. Since I previous had explained this in my HTTR AAR/tutorial/tips thread, I'll just quote the relevant passages below.

Here is how I play and how I will present this battle:

Before actually formulating our plan and starting this particular game, let's talk a little bit about style of play. What I am going to describe here is my style of play and yours may well differ. Although HTTR is a realtime game, I do pause at times to analyze the situation and I always pause when issuing orders.

We could say that HTTR will take two forms of player inputs. There are query inputs. These will be key strokes or mouse actions that you will issue for the purpose of displaying information. There are command inputs. These will be key strokes or mouse actions that you will issue for the purpose of altering the outcome of the game. I generally find that while playing HTTR, you will be performing more query inputs than command inputs. In another thread, I had said that HTTR is a "true" strategy game. You will not be spending most of your interaction with the game handling miniscule details which only fractionally contribute to your overall strategy. In fact, when you issue command inputs, they will generally reflect your strategy in a clear succint manner and have a significant impact on the very outcome of the battle.

By the way, the thread I refer to is here: A Perspective: What Makes HTTR Truly Special

So, I tend to generally regard an HTTR game as having a number of order cycles. The cycle begins when I have a plan or sub plan and issue orders to carry it out. The cycle ends when the orders are either completed or I revise them. For example, the order cycle begins when I order an attack. The order cycle ends when the attack has succeeded and the battalion completes securing the objective and assumes a defensive posture.

Thus, in my view, an HTTR game is made up of a series distinct junctures (order cycles) where you implement/revise a plan. Aside from formulating plans, the challenge to you, the commander, is to recognize out of the continuous flow of battle when a key juncture has been reached and a new order cycle is required. So, as you play, you will spend much of your time watching a dynamic situation and trying to evaluate the progress of your plan, the enemies intention, and the ebb and flow of battle. So, as I present this AAR, commanding may seem very simplistic and that is because without actually playing the game, it is not easy to see what a challenge it is identify these discrete points in a battle which for the most part is completely continuous. HTTR models this continuous nature of battle very well. Unlike other games, battle in HTTR can be quite messy and at any given point in time it is not easy to say with certainty what the true situation is. Individual units will advance and fall back. Battle lines will not be like lines drawn on paper. For you the reader, this AAR is going to look cleaner than battle really is, since you will be unable to watch the actual flow of the game.

Here is the key contents of the thread, "A Perspective: What Makes HTTR Truly Special". It is true of all the games in the series:

I wanted to take a few minutes out to discuss why I feel HTTR is a very special game.

Before going any further, in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I am a Beta tester. (Dave O'Connor, the President of Panther Games, had asked that we make that clear if we post opinions on public forums.)

What I find most exciting about HTTR is the gaming engine (the technology) itself. Certainly, the Market Garden Campaign is historically interesting. However, as has been discussed in another thread, it has been done before. And, it will certainly be done again, too.

I get a feeling when playing HTTR that I have rarely gotten when playing other games. I have played other war and strategy games, but I am by no means a crazed fanatic with 20 years of war game experience going back to table top and board games. When playing HTTR, I feel that the crux of what I am doing is defining and monitoring a strategy I have drawn up for a battle.

In many so called "strategy" games, the player may formulate a strategy in pursuit of victory. However, when it comes to executing the strategy, it is largely incumbent on the player to execute each small detail in order to realize the strategy. So, the "strategy" is actually something the player imposes upon the gaming system, as opposed to the player actually interacting with the system at the strategic level. At worst, this leaves the player so mired with the details that the big picture is lost or at best, the player can track the big picture but finds much of their involvement happening at a lower level than the one for which they acquired the game for in the first place.

So, what is it that is different about Panther's engine that allows strategy to be both the main focus of the player and main interaction with the game?

(1) Panther has introduced a flexible multi-level chain of command structure into the game. The player may interact with units/sub-units at any level within the chain of command. Thus, it is very adaptable to individual style and needs. One can both micro/macro manage within even a single gaming session. A critical road block can be created by tasking individual companies while some place else an entire brigade can be given very open ended orders to make an attack.

Some games have a natural level at which the player should interact with the game. As long as scenarios and forces are constructed around that natural limit, they play very well. Panther's engine is much more open ended. The ability to command at any level makes the game highly scalable. In many games, if you double the forces, the complexity for the player will quadruple (exponential scaling). In Panther's engine, the scaling is more of a logarithmic function. So, doubling the forces may increase the complexity for the player by a factor of 1.2 or so.

(Okay, keep this scaling in mind as I will come back to it soon.)

(2) Along with this being able to take command at any level, Panther has provided a very powerful (or as they prefer to say "capable") AI. In most games, the AI is something that serves as your opponent. In the Combat Mission series, Battle Front identified two different AIs. First there is the Tactical AI, which resolved combat between individual elements (units) in the game system. Second, there is the Strategic AI which formulates a high-level plan for the battle against the player. If we look at Panther's engine, we will also find both of these AIs. However, in the Panther engine the Strategic AI also functions on behalf of the player to produce plans in the execution of orders given by the player. It is this which allows the player to command at any level. The player need not concern him or herself with a myriad of typical details like choosing the best route, coordinating the movement of many units with proper overwatch and security, developing a proper attack formation, deploying different type of assets to their maximum advantage, etc...

---

So, when we add the two above features together we get a highly scalable system that allows the player's main involvement to be with defining and monitoring strategy. In some games, you may be able to command large scale battles. However, this is often achieved by abstracting the forces involved in the battle. With Panther's engine, large scale doesn't mean highly abstracted. In fact, while playing HTTR you will find all the low level elemental units like infantry companies, anti-tank platoons, mortars platoons, ... individually represented and involved. So, even though you are directing a battle involving tens of thousands men and giving order to brigades, it is fought before your eyes at a much finer level of granularity. All the inherent messiness and give and take of battle is not abstracted away by some hidden numerical system. It is all there for your immersion and analysis despite your involvement at a much higher level.

(3) I think there is one other aspect of Panther's engine that significantly contributes to the strategic nature of the game. This is order delays. Anyone who is serving or has served will tell you that no plans/orders are immediately executed. They require time to plan, communicate, organize, and execute. You will also be told that command and control delays during WWII were much greater than they are today. There were no GPS satellites, computers, integrated battle management, etc... Panther has implemented such command and control delays into the gaming engine. While playing, you are free to issue orders and reissue orders at any point in time. However, if you choose to play with order delays (this is optional, but is selected by most players), then you will not be issuing orders and revising them every simulated hour. You are going to analyze and then, formulate a plan. Then, you will issue orders. Then, you are going to, with as much patience as you can muster, sit back and let things run their course. Even when things are not going well, you will not immediately jump in and tweak this or that. You will make a commitment as the commander to stand by your decisions until a major overhaul is needed.

Believe me, this all feels very real life. The requirement to create the best plan on incomplete/inaccurate information and then sit back and let things just happen, adds a lot to the fact that this is about strategy. You will work out a strategy and then set it in motion. You are not going to keep nudging things in the right direction based on some tables published by players who have reverse engineered the gaming system. I have never served in the military, but I have managed large scale software projects and this game truely captures the feel and challenges of leadership/management.

---

Besides the three features cited above. HTTR has a clean and powerful interface for the player. Based at what I have told you above, you would certainly expect nothing less. I won't discuss the interface though, since I had really wanted to call your attention to why HTTR is a true strategy game. I am sure others will tell you more about the interface at a later date and there will be the usual previews and reviews in the trade press.

So, to restate the basic premise of this post. Panther's engine in very unique and special in the way it allows a strategy gamer to play HTTR and remain focused on strategy.

---

I have been playing (beta testing) a simulated 10 day scenario for the last few days, and I have been having a wonderful time. I thought I would taken a few minutes and share some of that feeling and the reasons why with other war/strategy gaming hobbyists. Well, I have to get back to testing; as both the Beta Team and Panther/Matrix are all working hard to keep this project on schedule.

Take care.

[MarkShot]

As stated above, I will present this battle as a number of discrete moments in time and highlight to you in particular why it was time to revise orders.

Since this battle was somewhat longer than the one which I used for my HTTR AAR, I will also give you a few situational updates (meaning no new orders were required) to follow the progress of previously issued orders.

Finally, in this battle, I made extensive use of manually issuing fire missions to my arty bty. (the other alternative is to simply leave your arty under AI control) This was required and did have a decisive impact. Given the frequency and fluid nature of such orders, we will not consider these to represent new "order cycles", but instead I will just describe this aspect of the battle in broad strokes.

[MarkShot]

As you can see here, my general approach to planning a battle is "top-down". Meaning I look at the big picture (objectives, terrain, forces, intel, ...) in order to formulate a plan in broad strokes.

However, my general approach to implementing a plan is "bottom-up". Meaning that I will start with the smallest elements of the plan and single units and lower echelon forces to actually construct the plan with the game interface. There are a number of advantages which accrue by doing it this way. The two big ones are:

(1) If you approach giving orders top-down, it is much easier to lose the smaller units which you want to micro-manage as they become hidden in an already assigned larger force. Going bottom-up it will be very easy check and double-check our plan implementation prior to starting the clock.

(2) When working out ATTACK or DEFEND footprints for a force, all included units are considered. If you later remove units implementing your plan top-down, then you will have been working with incorrect and misleading footprints.

---

Now, the most intensive time of using the interface is usually at game start and perhaps later if a great number of reinforcements arrive. This is simply due to the fact that you are starting with a clean slate. As the game progresses, changes to orders will tend to be incremental and most orders previously issued will be left to stand.

Finally, just a reminder: In general, order delays are waived for the first 59 minutes of the scenario and for the first 59 minutes after arrival for reinforcing units. When playing with order delays, there will be a time lag from when you give your commands to when they begin to be executed. Depending on circumstances and at what level you issue them, this could be anywhere from a half hour to a half day.

So, as you watch the order cycles I present, you will see that I will be issuing orders in advance based on what I anticipate is going to happen. I might anticipate a force making it across a river or I might anticipate that night fall will hide my movements ... You get the picture.

[MarkShot]

In the next series of posts, I will implement the plan.

Observe as I do that, I will do a bit of micro-managing of individual units. Also, observe that I will also do some macro-management and delegate some very broad high-level tasks to the AI to handle large forces of many units.

Part of the beauty of this game series is that it easily accomodates both styles of play and you can flexibly do both even within a single battle and/or switch styles within the middle of a battle. (In fact, you'll also see a little bit of this by me towards the middle of the battle.)

[MarkShot]

Micro-managing mode = on (just for rhetorical emphasis)
Macro-managing mode = off (just for rhetorical emphasis)

I generally like to begin with my artilleries batteries and set up my fire bases. Arty plays a key role no matter what the particulars are and there usually aren't many such units and they tend to remain fairly stationary.

Our arty is already in range of the initial engagement area. So, I want them to be able service fire missions ASAP. Thus, I gave a DEFEND order "in-situ" (don't move; do it where you are).

Let me highlight a few of the tools I used:

#1) A filter to just display the units of interest for this task.

#2) Weapon range display to verify that I can hit what I want to hit.

#3) The blue circle is the maximum range at which I can deliver fire missions.

#4) There is the task marker. (Since it is "in-situ", it doesn't really matter where I put it. I usually offset it a little from the current location to make it easy to spot.)

#5) There is the "in-situ" setting.

[MarkShot]

Micro-managing mode = on (just for rhetorical emphasis)
Macro-managing mode = off (just for rhetorical emphasis)

Okay, let's take care of some of our mortars. In this plan, I have decided to micro-manage them. Later, I'll give some of them back to the AI for management. It all depends on the situation. For a discussion of this, see my HTTR threads.

Here we see four platoons of mortars assigned to the Tempe mission.

#1) That's the platoons I have selected. (but the orders need to be given one unit at a time)

#2) This is where I want them setting up. In general, I want them to hustle over there. However, I placed many waypoints in the last kilometer, since I want to short circuit the movement parameters and make them travel through cover.

#3) Here I set them to hustle and make a maximum effort; also, the facing of their deployment.

In this scenario, most parameter settings will call for speed and maximum effort. There will not be much pacing of physical effort, ammo conservation, or holding back reserve forces.

[elmo3]

Mark

It's been a while since I played HTTR. Is that menu bar along the bottom new? Thanks.

Elmo

PS - As we discussed recently it's not like I don't have enough games already, now you are tempting me back into playing HTTR! [:D]

[MarkShot]

The bar at the bottom is completely new with COTA. (However, some of the functionality was previously available in HTTR.)

[MarkShot]

Micro-managing mode = on (just for rhetorical emphasis)
Macro-managing mode = off (just for rhetorical emphasis)

I am assigning the three remaining mortar platoons. Two are assigned to Kouphalades Ferry mission, and one to covering Pz 3 Regt coming down the road from the North-East; in case, they run into trouble. I position it across from a suspected enemy position based on intel.

[MarkShot]

Let make a quick detour here to introduce two new features and extremely useful ones. These will figure into the order for our support weapons to provide support for the Tempe mission. Support weapons being anti-tank guns (but they can also fire anti-personel rounds), AAA, and field guns.

First, we have the new LOS Area tool. It displays a pattern showing the visible area from a selected location. (For those who have played Steel Beasts, the implementation is quite similar.)

If you will recall, my plan called for me position all my support weapons on a hill overlooking Tempe.

#1) The hill.

#2) The new LOS Area tool.

[MarkShot]

Here you see the new LOS AREA tool in action. The red dot is where I clicked. The white area shows good LOS. Or in this case, confirms my decision to setup on this hill as it will give me an excellent field of fire over the bridges (to hammer the enemy) and on any approaches (to prevent reinforcement by the enemy) to Tempe.

[MarkShot]

The second new and useful feature I want to point out is the path display tools.

In RDOA and HTTR, you could specify particular types of path, but you wouldn't really know what the AI would chose until it did. Well, sometimes, you could be in for a painful surprise.

I personally has adopted the following techniques to deal with that:

(1) Place waypoints at major road junctures to constrain the AI's freedom.

(2) Place numerous waypoints at short distances when what you want at a particular point in the route is contrary to the overall parameter selection. (You see an example of that with my mortar platoon paths to the Tempe area.)

The need for #1 is largely eliminated with the new tool I will show you. However, #2 still proves to be a useful technique. (There is a wishlist item to allow parameters to be assigned in a waypoint specific fashion.)

Going back to the hill overlooking Tempe, let's see what the AI would choose as the fastest route to the hill for one particular gun unit.

The pathing tools are over to the left next to the LOS AREA tool. The green line shows the route the AI would choose for the quickest travel.

[elmo3]

Great new LOS feature. There appear to be shades of gray in addition to white. Does that imply something less than 100% clear LOS but more than 0% blocked?

Edit - Can you click anywhere on the map to use it or must you have a LOS to where you want to click first? Sorry for interrupting your display of the other new feature.