Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question

Matrix Games Forums

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play video

Lost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!

A sneak peek from Allied Corps!

Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!

All good Deals always come in threes

Distant Worlds: Shadows Approaches!

Lost Battles AAR: Moscow 41

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question

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 >> Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/16/2012 12:34:04 PM

pcelt

Posts: 121
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

If you are planning an assault involving lorried and carrier infantry companies from an Armoured Brigade and the final half Km to the enemy position consists of heavy woods or marsh which are not negotiable with vehicles--would the infantry automatically attack on foot or.. would those company attacks stall.

My apologies -but I am passing through an inquisitive stage re engaging with the excellent HTTR upgrade.
Thanks for clearing my mind on this one....

Post #: 1

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/16/2012 12:55:39 PM

simovitch

Posts: 3880
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline

The combat routines model the unit's ability to dismount from the transport and fire, but they do not continue on and enter into the woods. The inability to place the objective order icon inside the woods reflects that movement restriction.

The Brits will usually have a few "dismounted" battalions in the OOB for these types of tasks.

_____________________________

simovitch

(in reply to pcelt)

Post #: 2

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/16/2012 2:50:34 PM

pcelt

Posts: 121
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Thanks Simovitch--I am reflecting here on an attack by a Guards Armoured Brigade alone wih no dismounted infantry.
What would the effect be if you placed the Assault target a little beyond the woods/marsh in clear terrain--would the attack movement still stall at the beginning of the non-negotiable vehicle terrain which exists before reaching the clear ground-----or would the movement forward perhaps be manipulated to go around the prohibited terrain if any clear terrain existed on the edges.
Many thanks

(in reply to simovitch)

Post #: 3

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/16/2012 5:44:16 PM

simovitch

Posts: 3880
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline

the mech units will move around the obstacle and then try to coordinate your attack. The results may take longer than you would like.

_____________________________

simovitch

(in reply to pcelt)

Post #: 4

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/16/2012 11:18:33 PM

Deathtreader

Posts: 650
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pcelt

If you are planning an assault involving lorried and carrier infantry companies from an Armoured Brigade and the final half Km to the enemy position consists of heavy woods or marsh which are not negotiable with vehicles--would the infantry automatically attack on foot or.. would those company attacks stall.

My apologies -but I am passing through an inquisitive stage re engaging with the excellent HTTR upgrade.
Thanks for clearing my mind on this one....

And if my understanding is correct about the EF game this situation will be addressed so that infantry will dismount and attack on foot thru the heavy woods so that no detour around them will be necessary.....correct?

If so, I wonder if the dismount and proceed on foot order/task (??) will be selectable/orderable by the player or if it will only be performed by the AI as a subordinate on behalf of the player, or both manually and AI automated.
Also leads to when the dismount function will be allowed by the engine......... as in attack orders only?? Or with move orders or withdraw or whatever........

Hmmm.......lots to ponder here.

Any preliminary thoughts to share with us Arjuna??

Thanks!

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 pcelt)

Post #: 5

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/17/2012 9:22:19 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16446
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Keep going Rob. I'm keen to see where your pondering takes you.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Deathtreader)

Post #: 6

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/17/2012 4:34:11 PM

pcelt

Posts: 121
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

I should like to ask a supplementary question re my original problem in BFTB.
Does this inability for motorised units to dismount and attack on foot forward across terrain like woods and marsh etc also prevent them from dismounting and forming an on-foot defensive line across wooded terrain etc
If this is the case it would seem a very limiting restriction on the value of motorised infantry.

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 7

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/17/2012 9:26:46 PM

TMO

Posts: 228
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

I'd like to see the AI handle this (mount/remount) as much as possible - I'd imagine that the AI's decision on when to dismount is relatively straight-forward. The problem as I see it is with the remount. If I have a dismounted unit defending a vehicle-unfriendly area and give it , say, a move order it ought to move to the safest and nearest vehicle-friendly area before remounting. The AI should do all this for me. If, however, I choose to continue my attack on foot (another attack in the same terrain) then I need a 'Reattach Transport' command.

This begs a question - as currently modelled, if I have units defending in mountains/forrest etc. where vehicle movement is not permited/severely restricted, how is re-supply handled? How do transport columns get to these units?

Regards

Tim

< Message edited by TMO -- 2/17/2012 9:28:15 PM >

(in reply to pcelt)

Post #: 8

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/17/2012 9:36:34 PM

Arjuna

Posts: 16446
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

...it's nice to see the minds of others treading down the same path that I have trod already.

Resupply is easy they will work exactly like we do for foot units in that an RV will be chosen nearby at which point supplies are unloaded from the resupply column and then delivered by manpacks to the troops. The unit receiving the supplies provides the manpacks.

A more challenging question is what to do with the transports when the grunts have moved off into the forest. And do we do soemthing different for soft skinned vehicles and AFVs?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to TMO)

Post #: 9

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/17/2012 9:41:03 PM

Arjuna

Posts: 16446
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pcelt

I should like to ask a supplementary question re my original problem in BFTB.
Does this inability for motorised units to dismount and attack on foot forward across terrain like woods and marsh etc also prevent them from dismounting and forming an on-foot defensive line across wooded terrain etc
If this is the case it would seem a very limiting restriction on the value of motorised infantry.

Yes it does and yes it is a restriction on their value. This is why in some scenarios we have provided "leg" versions so that they can secure the forests.

Development of a simulation/game like this invarioubly involves compromises. We are trying to model a vastly complex system of systems. We've been at this now since 1996 and we continue to progress focussing on the next key issue. This has been on our key issues wishlist for some time but there have been other priorities till now.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to pcelt)

Post #: 10

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/17/2012 10:06:23 PM

TMO

Posts: 228
Joined: 4/12/2003
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

A more challenging question is what to do with the transports when the grunts have moved off into the forest

For soft-skinned vehicles (likewise hard-skinned APCs) these should simply disappear when infantry become dismounted and reappear when the infantry become remounted. When using tanks as infantry transport this process is much more tricky - I need to give this a bit more thought.

Regards

Tim

< Message edited by TMO -- 2/17/2012 10:38:55 PM >

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 11

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/18/2012 1:02:42 AM

Deathtreader

Posts: 650
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Keep going Rob. I'm keen to see where your pondering takes you.

Well.......

For the following I've assumed that you don't want to create specific Remount and Dismount order types if at all possible in order to minimize additional orders delays and player oversight load (as in I have to remember to go back to this battalion and order my assault after the dismount has occurred) and that there will be no sequential tasking in this release.

I think that the ability to initiate dismounts/remounts for motorized units/formations will need to be both selectable by the player for all orders types in much the same manner as waypoints and FUPS are today in situations where the player wishes to exercise more control and automatically handled by the AI subordinate when not player specified. Remount and dismount could be considered to be selectable task options like bypass and stragglers etc. are today within order types such as move and defend etc. Possible rules could be:
1/ where the player has specified waypoints in an order involving dismounting then the dismount will occur at the last waypoint prior to the actual order location. Same as FUPS are player specified today in attack/probe orders. In fact in some circumstances dismount will occur at the FUP. Where the player specified FUP occurs in non-vehicular negotiable terrain then the game engine could either have the dismount automatically occur at the last location in it's path prior to non-allowed vehicular movement with the troops proceeding on foot to the FUP or make the second to last waypoint the dismount location with the last waypoint becoming the FUP for attacks and probes. This could mean that the last 2 waypoints could be very close together in some circumstances. With other order types dismounting would continue to occur at the last player specified waypoint. Once again, the last waypoint and the actual order location could be very close together. As an example using pcelt's initial question scenario above:

The player plots an assault with several waypoints with the last waypoint midway thru the heavy forest. This becomes the FUP. The second to the last waypoint (probably very close to the forest's leading edge) becomes the player specified dismount point. If the player only specifies the FUP midway thru the forest then the engine automatically dismounts the troops at the forest edge along it's chosen path to the player specified FUP.
If the player specifies Move with attack checked but does not check dismount then the unit/formation goes around the forest. If dismount has also been checked then the process as described above is invoked. Attacks along the way involve units dismounting if the AI chooses to attack in locations where vehicles are prohibited.

2/ where the player does not specify waypoints then the AI will automatically generate both FUP and dismount points using rules similar to that above. Whether dismount occurs at the AI generated FUP depends on additional factors such as route type chosen ie. shortest as opposed to quickest etc.
Using the scenario example above the attack icon is placed with no waypoints on the other side of the forest and the dismount option has been chosen with the route type is shortest. The engine generates a dismount task at the edge of the forest and a FUP hopefully somewhere near the other edge of the forest. much as it does today.

Remounts could occur in much the same way except that it would occur at the first player specified waypoint in which both foot and vehicles can navigate, this could be very close to unit's/formations' starting points. If no waypoints are specified then the engine generates a location that is also very close to current locations. Goes without saying that the waypoint must be accessible to vehicles.

I'm running out of time for today and there's more to come tomorrow as this does not address more than just a few scenario's....I'll try to finish tomorrow.

What does everyone think??
Am I just blowing smoke here??

Thanks!

Rob.

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 12

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/18/2012 10:57:52 AM

pcelt

Posts: 121
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Rob--Some very good ideas in my view but, for me ,becoming a little over complex in operation . As a relative newcomer to this game and certainly "wet behind the ears" I would prefer a less flexible and less complex system and rather a simpler set of mechanism which might be less realistic but more easily playable.

a) I would prefer the operation in this situation to be basically more automatic and AI controlled.
b) Where movement THROUGH and BEYOND non-negotiable terrain for motorised units is concerned. then Motorised units MUST[ find a route round the obstacle .
c) Where the movement TERMINATES in a DEFEND or ATTACK TYPE ORDER in non negotiable terrain the AI dismounts the motorised infantry at the entry of that terrain and that unit behaves as a foot infantry unit in DEFENSE and ATTACK.
d) When that unit is again issued with any future order involving any sort of MOVING the AI imposes an additional and perhaps significant order DELAY for reuniting with motorised transport and then carrying out any MOVEMENT order .

I am sure this is much too simplistic and would require much more development---but I would in general argue for not making the operation over -complex and difficult to sort out but to maximise automatic AI measures which gives the motorised infantry more realistic value; which steps the player understands ;but the brilliant AI implements.

Thanks--and I eagerly await being shot down in flames....

(in reply to Deathtreader)

Post #: 13

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/18/2012 10:43:29 PM

Deathtreader

Posts: 650
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

Hi pcelt,

No shooting here..... we're saying pretty much the same thing except perhaps for your point B. You've just said it more succintly than I have.
In general my suggestions are intended to add functionality to existing mechanics (such as waypoints and task options) as opposed to something completely new.

Comments always welcome!

Rob.

(in reply to pcelt)

Post #: 14

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/19/2012 12:07:05 AM

Deathtreader

Posts: 650
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

Hi all,

Unfortunately this thread was moved while I was composing my last batch of suggestions and the forums would not accept my reply. When I hit ok the window switched to an error message saying that the thread I was replying to would not accept replies and then just closed. All that typing and composing gone in an instant. Very, very discouraging......... so much so that I'm not going to bother redoing it.

Hey, I can hear the sighs of relief from here!!

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 #: 15

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/19/2012 12:48:26 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16446
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Sorry for that Rob, but I thought this discussion belonged in the general section rather than tech support.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Deathtreader)

Post #: 16

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/19/2012 1:41:03 AM

Deathtreader

Posts: 650
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

Hey, that's ok Arjuna.

You're absolutely right about about it not belonging in tech support. Timing, as they say, is everything --- and my timing was bad today.

Now honestly, am I close or way off in left field somewhere with what I've already written??

I can take it..........

Rob.

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 17

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/19/2012 2:37:08 AM

wodin

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

Great discussion lads. Not much more I can add. It seems like Dave has been working on this for awhile. I'm sure what ever way he does it will all be about how it functions in game. I have faith. I also have to give a massive thumbs up to this being in the next game.

Dave when will you have a list of the major new features that have been passed as a go for the EF game?

_____________________________

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 #: 18

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/19/2012 11:06:03 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16446
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

I'm going to take these one at a time. Right now I have a lot of Defence business going on, so I am loathe to commit to a swag of features.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 19

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/19/2012 2:55:52 PM

wodin

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

Fair enough, defence work is where the money is.

I think the doctrine and the dismounted Inf are two that should be in. Infact I'd be very happy with those two new features.

_____________________________

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 Arjuna)

Post #: 20

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/21/2012 3:29:08 AM

Arimus

Posts: 145
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline

I abstract this by modifying the map and giving motorized units the ability to enter woods with a very low movement factor. 5% works for me. I toyed with the idea of adding woods and dense woods. They only difference being motorized wouldn't be able to move thru the dense woods.

First off, trying to track fragments would be very difficult and what does it really add in terms of gameplay? Some units may lose their transport and be dismounted for the remainder of the scenario? Not worth the effort imo, just abstract it.

Second, I don't know how forests were in WWII in Europe but in 1990 most were not so dense that we couldn't pick our way thru given enough time. Plus there seemed to be small logging trails everywhere. Again, probably not a good comparison, but, meh, we did it.

As a side not, maybe you should consider changing the unarmed halftracks from the AFV class to the Truck class. From what I read, the men prefered to fight dismounted from the halftracks. I changed it in the ESTAB and the halftracks live much longer. Prior to, they were getting hammered...

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 21

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/21/2012 9:05:14 AM

wodin

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

If it's possible to limit there movement to normal foot movement through a forest then thats a quick and easy way round at the moment. SO try and get the 5% speed to match foot movement rates through a forest.

_____________________________

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 Arimus)

Post #: 22

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/23/2012 10:41:36 PM

Deathtreader

Posts: 650
Joined: 4/22/2003
From: Vancouver, Canada.
Status: offline

quote:

First off, trying to track fragments would be very difficult and what does it really add in terms of gameplay? Some units may lose their transport and be dismounted for the remainder of the scenario? Not worth the effort imo, just abstract it.
quote:

Hi Arimus,

I agree with your point above. Abstacting something like this makes a lot of sense..........perhaps it could be done in much the same manner as supply convoys are today. The transport could all be pooled at the various bases or HQ's and when called upon would take the paths and durations to remount the infantry and when dismounted the empty trucks/carriers would travel back to their base or HQ. Alternatively, they could loiter at the dismount point (as supply convoys do now for awhile when awaiting a safe path to their destination unit) until required again. Naturally, they would be subject to interception and losses -- just like supply convoys. This way at least, the surviving transports when pooled might be able to lift some of their dismounted infantry units instead of multiple discrete surviving fragments that invidually can no longer lift any any of their dismounted infantry units due to transport truck/carrier losses.

Just a thought.........

Rob.

Hmmmm..... sorry for the double quote. Doesn't seem to want to disappear.

< Message edited by Deathtreader -- 2/23/2012 10:45:05 PM >

_____________________________

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 Arimus)

Post #: 23

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/24/2012 12:08:33 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 16446
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

It's a little more complicated than that. You have to differentiate between those vehicles that were pure transports and those that were fighting vehicles like half tracks. These often stayed near the dismounted grunts to provide fire support from their mounted heavy weapons. So in my opinion you need to have two component units, one for the leg guys and another for the transport.

got to go...I'll be back.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Deathtreader)

Post #: 24

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/24/2012 10:32:34 AM

pcelt

Posts: 121
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

May I make what is probably a very naive point--but why cant this whole particular operation be modelled fairly abstractly

1)Infantry -carrying vehicles can move as infantry into the closed" zero-movement for vehicles" terrain as normal infantry does--but with a delay factor to reflect the unloading aspect
2) The point about differentiation re those carried in fighting vehicles and those in lorries seems irrelevant as in the close and Zero-movement rated terrain for vehicles we are considering, those fighting vehicles would not enter either------ so in all cases the infantry element would fight as infantry only.
3) Once after any combat, the unit is given any new movement out and beyond the close terrain order it can be reunited with its carrier (but with a time-delay factor to reflect reuniting and reloading.)

i appreciate that with the abstraction, reality simulation is reduced--but in my view ,playability and ability of handling situations without increasingly complex management stages by the player are very important. The player has plenty of major decision issues without over- complicating minor management issues.
My feelings were that the discussion was leading toward a need for more and more low level organizational steps and processes. What I would like would be an AI process which simply enabled Carried infantry to have a more relevant and realistic role in close terrain combat than it currently has.
I think the abstraction approach oulined would make sense to the player, would give those units a more realistic value but not involve a whole new layer of different processes and actions

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 25

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/24/2012 11:53:30 AM

Arimus

Posts: 145
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline

Not only the player, but what about the AI? I forsee truck components running all about the battlefield and maybe even leading attacks! :)
Sorry Dave, couldn't resist!

(in reply to pcelt)

Post #: 26

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/24/2012 1:45:06 PM

wodin

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

I want it pretty detailed (I don't want to much abstraction, so most of it goes on under the hood so to speak) but with an easy UI. Can be done, takes alot of work though.

_____________________________

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 Arimus)

Post #: 27

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/24/2012 3:38:24 PM

pcelt

Posts: 121
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

Arimus--An amusing and fanciful spectacle you depict but not, I think ,what would be involved at all with this approach. Infantry and carrier would never exist as separate units but the unit would move and fight as infantry only , in close terrain and move and fight as now as a single motorised or mechanised unit in usable terrain. Transitions would simply involve delay costs to represent loading/unloading of the infantry to fight in terrain currently prohibited but in reality usable by infantry.
Abstraction--yes certainly-- but not the release of a load of headless chicken.............

NB
I need to clarify this post---I had assumed as a "Dave " in real life that the last "Arimus" contri was a barb directed at my last effort and this post was a defense of my "abstraction".
I now realise that it was aimed in Dave Arjunas direction and he can sure defend himself......

< Message edited by pcelt -- 2/25/2012 10:36:21 AM >

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 28

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/24/2012 5:01:29 PM

Arimus

Posts: 145
Joined: 7/2/2006
Status: offline

Maybe I misunderstood what Dave said when he said "component units".

(in reply to pcelt)

Post #: 29

RE: Terrain and lorried/carrier infantry question - 2/24/2012 10:28:39 PM

Arjuna

Posts: 16446
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

pcelt,

I acknowledge that yoursuggestion could work. However, it is a fair bit of an abstraction. It sweeps under the carpet the issues of where to locate and for that matter protect transports when the grunts have dismounted. If I understand the model proposed the force would not have access to any of the heavy weapons on the vehicles while the force was dismounted in terrain that would normally not be passable to motorised forces. If that were so then you could not model what often happened in attacks, where the grunts attacked through the woods while the half tracks supported with fire from the open.

Another issue with this approach is that while it works fine for integrated units like motroised or mech infantry companies it fails to address those cases where non-integrated inf companies are being transported. Eg as with the American airborne and infantry forces moving into the Ardennes from off map. Moreover it couldn't be used to model airmobile ops using helicopters nor amphibious ops using amph vessels or amphtracks. In these cases the transports were not integrated but rather used as a pooled transport resource. We would need doctrine to handle these cases. So my thinking is that we do the same for the integrated units as well.

But look I'm still musing over this issue while I'm on Defence contract at the moment, so there is still time to hone the solution and I appreciate everyone's suggestions. ( But not Arimus's barb about transport components leading the charge.

)

Regardless, I do take to heart your concerns about the risk of burdeniung the player with micro management. Rest assured that whatever solution we end up with the AI will be doing all the heavy lifting.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Arimus)

Post #: 30