Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

I see a need for objective sequencing for controlling AI play.

However, I can only picture a few instances where the operational commander in a real war is dictated a calendar sequence for taking objectives during an attack:

1. The OB command structure modeled in the game is coordinating with a peer structure not modeled as part of the game (e.g. the scenario is only part of a larger frontal attack and certain objectives remain out of play until a neighbor unit softens a flank),

2. An external support structure to that modeled in the OB is given a free fire zone (air force carpet bomb attack, higher headquarters artillery barrage) and the local commander is ordered to stay away to avoid putting troops in friendly fire danger, or

3. There is some sort of dependence among objectives that cannot be modeled by adjusting point values or using mapping tools (something odd, like a tunnel used for supply support that must be defeated by taking a critical point first)

Patton had a personal rule that he'd never order at more than two echelons below his command level. My assumption in the game is the player controlling the operation has received orders at the equivalent of Patton's third echelon below him.