In Situ

Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!

Paypal System Update

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

In Situ

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> In Situ

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

In Situ - 3/6/2011 3:04:47 PM

BK6583

Posts: 267
Joined: 10/8/2002
Status: offline

I've played every game of this series and yet I still find things that at times baffle me. One of the significant frustrations I've found with this game is that when I order a Bn to defend, the AI doesn't necessarily deploy its companies in what I would consider the best defensive positions. No problem I'm informed - put your companies where you want them and then reattach and order the the Bn HQ to defend "In Situ". EXCEPT that in looking at the fire table a formation that's "In Situ" only fires at 30%!! What am I to do here? Micro-manage companies and deploy them in better defensive positions (with say, a "Line" deployment) and lose the value of the Bn HQ or let the Bn HQ poorly manage their defensive positions?

Post #: 1

RE: In Situ - 3/6/2011 10:15:43 PM

Joe 98

Posts: 3964
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BK6583

What am I to do here? Micro-manage companies and deploy them in better defensive positions (with say, a "Line" deployment)

Yes !

-

(in reply to BK6583)

Post #: 2

RE: In Situ - 3/7/2011 5:37:50 PM

wodin

Posts: 6503
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

Micro manage into line deployment then reattach in situ...which means they will stay in line deployment...if I can remember right...in situ means they stay where they are...I think if you do a move order in situ then they are considered 30%

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame

My FB page, see I'm not that bad.

https://www.facebook.com/jason.costa.rimmer

(in reply to Joe 98)

Post #: 3

RE: In Situ - 3/7/2011 9:53:01 PM

freeboy

Posts: 8345
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

this is a prety important point.. can units defend in situ and not take a hit to effectiveness?

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 4

RE: In Situ - 3/8/2011 12:35:33 PM

simovitch

Posts: 3885
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

this is a prety important point.. can units defend in situ and not� take a hit to effectiveness?

This is a good question. I'm fairly certain that if a unit's formation is "in-situ" it will be experiencing the 30% regardless of the what the task is.

_____________________________

simovitch

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 5

RE: In Situ - 3/8/2011 10:50:31 PM

Deathtreader

Posts: 652
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

this is a prety important point.. can units defend in situ and not� take a hit to effectiveness?

This is a good question. I'm fairly certain that if a unit's formation is "in-situ" it will be experiencing the 30% regardless of the what the task is.

A very good question indeed..........if it does mean you're down to the 30% effectiveness then it almost nullifies any advantage gained by player positioning of units on the defence. Possibly the old trade-off of preferred positioning at the expense of horrendous "boss" command loads.
Geez, I hope not.

Rob.

_____________________________

So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)

(in reply to simovitch)

Post #: 6

RE: In Situ - 3/9/2011 8:10:16 AM

wodin

Posts: 6503
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

Really isn't how i thought it worked...we need an answer....

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame

My FB page, see I'm not that bad.

https://www.facebook.com/jason.costa.rimmer

(in reply to Deathtreader)

Post #: 7

RE: In Situ - 3/9/2011 10:08:06 PM

Joe 98

Posts: 3964
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

Do a word search in the manual.

The answer seems to be on page 191
-

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 8

RE: In Situ - 3/11/2011 10:00:18 PM

BK6583

Posts: 267
Joined: 10/8/2002
Status: offline

That's the page and the fire table I used to reference my initial post. If the 30% fire appears to be the case, I'm hard pressed to see what utility the "In Situ" order has.

(in reply to Joe 98)

Post #: 9

RE: In Situ - 3/30/2011 12:34:55 PM

nestor

Posts: 10
Joined: 10/20/2005
Status: offline

Bump!

Any chance of getting the official line on this?

I use this, as it seems others do, to set-up a bespoke defence and then reattach the units to their hq which has an 'In situ' order to prevent the AI moving my deployments and also keep the command load down for the on-map boss.

If 30% is confirmed, I'd love to know how I'm supposed to do this without using 'In situ'.

(in reply to BK6583)

Post #: 10

RE: In Situ - 3/30/2011 4:58:27 PM

ZBrisk

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/16/2010
Status: offline

That's kind of beside the point. Micromanaging every company is gamey in this game where you're supposed to let subordinates do their thing.

The problem is that the AI should be defending well in the first place. I mentioned this about CotA here. Fortunately I haven't noticed this nearly as bad in BFTB so far.

(in reply to nestor)

Post #: 11

RE: In Situ - 3/30/2011 7:11:29 PM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

I wasn't particularly happy with the assumptions in the Formation table - particularly formation vulnerability - where line formation was more vulnerable from the front (where each man is a target, but over/unders are no risk) than from the flanks (where only a fraction of the unit is directly targeted but the overs/unders may cause many casualties per burst, or a higher proportion of effective impacts of HE rounds). As a result I modified most to be similar, with slight increases in vulnerability to column front/rear, line flanks etc.

The absence of 'corners' in the direction table means that the oblique formations don't get their strengths or penalties well represented - here echelon left is more-or-less an obliquely inclined line formation - with the enfilading fire coming from the right front and left rear directions rather than left and right.

Arrow and Vee have a compromise between half enfiladed and half 'frontal' when hit from a front-flank.

I think if you set in-situ and 'aggressive' or 'allow attacks' if they aren't greyed out, that the AI will use relevant local formations to maximise firepower/protection, so the difference between line and in-situ may not be that relevant.

< Message edited by Lieste -- 3/30/2011 7:13:14 PM >

(in reply to ZBrisk)

Post #: 12

RE: In Situ - 4/3/2011 7:03:19 PM

Wiggum

Posts: 109
Joined: 11/4/2010
From: Germany
Status: offline

Talking about "useless" formations...

Did you ever use the left/right echolon ?
Cant you get a similar result with line and setting the facing manualy ?

(in reply to BK6583)

Post #: 13

RE: In Situ - 4/3/2011 10:54:21 PM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

Left and Right echelon can be useful for movement to contact of moderate sized forces, where the enemy direction of approach will be from a flank. I tend not to over-specify these orders though - most of the time routeing is more important, and the AI can be left to deal with formations most of the time. (Once orders can be nested and issued without cancelling existing orders, then it might make sense to specify formations for particular portions of the march, manoeuvre, assault, recovery - right now it is fiddly getting the right formations with manual orders and changes can throw formations into disarray)

(in reply to Wiggum)

Post #: 14

RE: In Situ - 4/16/2011 12:51:59 PM

Deerslayer

Posts: 949
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

this is a prety important point.. can units defend in situ and not� take a hit to effectiveness?

This is a good question. I'm fairly certain that if a unit's formation is "in-situ" it will be experiencing the 30% regardless of the what the task is.

Did this ever get confirmed? I use to use in-situ for units that start a scenario as Waiting for Orders, make them Defend but in-situ so they don't move from their entrenchments. Just like the first poster said...

(in reply to simovitch)

Post #: 15

RE: In Situ - 4/20/2011 10:01:28 AM

Haiku

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/3/2010
Status: offline

It's really sad that such a basic feature is not really understood by the fan base. We need information from dev here.

(in reply to Deerslayer)

Post #: 16

RE: In Situ - 4/20/2011 1:42:57 PM

simovitch

Posts: 3885
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: online

I brought this up in the dev forum and the answer is yes, the force will take on the lower values of in-situ.

There is only so much that can be done by re-coding a better solution but they will try to come up with something for the patch.

_____________________________

simovitch

(in reply to Haiku)

Post #: 17

RE: In Situ - 4/20/2011 2:49:05 PM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

Simply using the same values for in-situ and all-round would deal with most people's concerns, and is a 30 second 'fix'.

(in reply to simovitch)

Post #: 18

RE: In Situ - 4/20/2011 10:39:48 PM

Deathtreader

Posts: 652
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

I brought this up in the dev forum and the answer is yes, the force will take on the lower values of in-situ.

There is only so much that can be done by re-coding a better solution but they will try to come up with something for the patch.

Hi all,

Lieste raises a good suggestion!

Something horrible just occurred to me..... does the 30% effectiveness rule also apply to the bombardment strength of player controlled arty units in situ when manual bombardments are initiated??

Rob.

_____________________________

So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)

(in reply to simovitch)

Post #: 19

RE: In Situ - 4/21/2011 1:40:14 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16458
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

I brought this up in the dev forum and the answer is yes, the force will take on the lower values of in-situ.

There is only so much that can be done by re-coding a better solution but they will try to come up with something for the patch.

Hi all,

Lieste raises a good suggestion!

Something horrible just occurred to me..... does the 30% effectiveness rule also apply to the bombardment strength of player controlled arty units in situ when manual bombardments are initiated??

Rob.

The modifiers to Bombard weapons are for cohesion, experience, training and suppression. So the cohesion effect would apply. If I exempt this then an arty unit that has been involved in combat and suffered a loss in cohesion is going to fire at full strength, which is not a good thing. I realise the need to avoid the severe 30% cohesion for in-situ. Let me ponder this.

< Message edited by Arjuna -- 4/21/2011 2:05:34 AM >

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Deathtreader)

Post #: 20

RE: In Situ - 4/21/2011 2:24:25 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16458
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: online

OK how about these new InSitu values?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 21

RE: In Situ - 4/21/2011 3:33:50 AM

Lieste

Posts: 1608
Joined: 11/1/2008
Status: offline

Doesn't cohesion only apply during movement? The stationary value tending to 100% for all cases?
As in-situ doesn't have a movement action, what happens with the cohesion? I can't say I've noticed it plummeting when coming off a fire/bombard mission.

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 22

RE: In Situ - 4/21/2011 10:03:39 AM

wodin

Posts: 6503
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

Arjuna much better values...

_____________________________

My Tactical wargame facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/Tacticalwargame

My FB page, see I'm not that bad.

https://www.facebook.com/jason.costa.rimmer

(in reply to Lieste)

Post #: 23

RE: In Situ - 4/21/2011 11:21:44 AM

oldspec4

Posts: 650
Joined: 11/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Arjuna much better values...

Agree..

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 24

RE: In Situ - 4/21/2011 1:48:08 PM

Deerslayer

Posts: 949
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Michigan
Status: offline

Ditto. Thank you.

(in reply to oldspec4)

Post #: 25

RE: In Situ - 4/21/2011 11:03:39 PM

Deathtreader

Posts: 652
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

Works for me.......

Rob.

_____________________________

So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 26

RE: In Situ - 5/17/2011 9:34:07 PM

Deathtreader

Posts: 652
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

OK how about these new InSitu values?

Sooooo.............is this what we're moving forward with??

Just curious.

Funny how this thread generated so many posts but you only received a handful of comments on the proposed solution.