Unpopular newbie opinion about the SOP

[Stelteck]

Hi.
I'am playing the game against the AI for 2 weeks and i really love it. Thanks a lot.

The feature that i found the most difficult is the SOP.

- There is a lot of parameters. It is difficult to understand them and configure them correctly.
- It can break your game (like troops running away from a proper defense line).
- Default parameters are not optimal and you discover it the hard way.
- It is really "micro management", while the other parts of the game are more high level.
- It is probably a pain to program correctly for the AI and have the AI use it.
- i'am quite satisfied of my now default never/never relocate/never everything standard feature. which is a desactivation of the feature. And it is less time consuming, i can jump in the fun right away !! (And it is really fun).

While many may love to be able to parameter with great precision the behavior of individual units, i find it quite at odd with the other level of abstraction of most parts of the game. A quite tedious.

I'am not sûre it really add something to the game. Maybe a simple posture system (Like passive/Defensive/Aggressive) that would impact the probably of spontaneously escaping a position under pressure (under fire, too many enemies around, etc..) would have been better for less software development...
Or even only using the order (Hold/Screen) to determine the behavior.

Only my opinion of course and i'am quite newbie to this game. And i really love it, it is amazing !

[CapnDarwin]

SOP and the UI for it are a work in progress. We need to both add new things to it and, at the same time, do a better job of removing or consolidating these options into better, more clear directives the players can understand. A tall order, anyway we slice it. We are taking feedback, and we will be working to make this better in the future.

[budd]

To be fair, a lot of customers who played RS requested more options regarding SOPs and waypoints. I agree it could be more clear, but me personally, I wouldn't want to go backwards.

[WABAC]

For me the single best example of "why SOP?" is that of scouts that should not reveal their position by fire or movement.

At present there are two ways to control fire in that situation. One is never fire, and the other is don't fire until fired upon. I doubt that never fire was added for grins. But it's purpose is not apparent to me.

At present I let scouts return fire. They don't last long after they are bumped into.

[cbelva]

Budd summed up the reason why we have an SOP editor in Southern Storm. I was by far the most requested feature after we released Red Storm. Rob didn't want an SOP editor and argued against it. In fact, in Red Storm, unit behavior was tied to its end state profile (Hold or Screen). However, that was too rigid for modern warfare. There are just too many variables and situations that a rigid profile could not account for. Rob didn't want an SOP editor for the reasons Stelteck sighted. New players would have a hard time understanding it and using properly.

Our goal was to create an SOP editor that was simple to use and didn't overwhelm the player. You can see how well we did with that.

We are looking at ways to simplify the SOP editor for new players while keeping the options for more advanced players.

PS--Keep the comments and ideas coming.

[cbelva]

For me the single best example of "why SOP?" is that of scouts that should not reveal their position by fire or movement.

At present there are two ways to control fire in that situation. One is never fire, and the other is don't fire until fired upon. I doubt that never fire was added for grins. But it's purpose is not apparent to me.

At present I let scouts return fire. They don't last long after they are bumped into.

Scouts/Recon units still need some love, especially in the Battle Planner and the AI. However, the Fire Discipline settings in the SOP has revolutionized recon units over Red Storm. In Red Storm they were basically "speed bumps". Now, you can set a recon unit to sit in a hex with enemy all around and if the cover is good, they will be hard to detect. Very few things are as satisfying as having a recon unit out front undetected calling down arty on enemy formations. Btw, I actually have had the AI do this to me on a few occasions. I couldn't figure out why the AI's arty was so accurate. It seemed as if the AI was cheating (even though I know it doesn't). When the scenario was over with, I found that the AI had snuck a recon unit into a village and could see almost all my units. I was on the defense with the enemy moving forces up to attack me. The AI's arty kept raining down on my positions slowly wearing me down.

[Stelteck]

Thanks for the answers.

[Bagpipe]

For me, one of the biggest SOP improvements I would like to see is a copy and paste action.
//Instead of// In addition to the "assign to subordinates" or "assign to same type" functions (keep these, they do have a use at other times) I would like an "assign to..." function which then lets you highlight any friendly units that will have the same SOP assigned and then a commit button to confirm selection.
In this instance we should be able to select and de-select units and when committing the SOP it should automatically apply to future orders instead of having to do that part manually to.

This to me would make setting up your starting/default SOPs much faster and easier while leaving the current system in place for micro-ing certain orders and units ad-lib.
This on top of the already discussed things such as being able to back track on the "assign to subs" orders etc touched on over on the discord.

Thanks for listening

[cbelva]

@Bagpipe there is a feature that "kinda does" what you want. Select a unit and set the SOP you want for that unit. Leaving the SOP editor open, right click on another unit on the map and select "Apply SOP to Unit as Default SOP" if you want to set the unit's Default SOP to those settings or "Apply SOP to Unit's Matching Orders" if you want to set the SOP to that unit's current orders.

[Bagpipe]

@Bagpipe there is a feature that "kinda does" what you want. Select a unit and set the SOP you want for that unit. Leaving the SOP editor open, right click on another unit on the map and select "Apply SOP to Unit as Default SOP" if you want to set the unit's Default SOP to those settings or "Apply SOP to Unit's Matching Orders" if you want to set the SOP to that unit's current orders.

Interesting, had not realized that.
Not ideally as I would like but it is certainly a leg up for now!

Thanks

[WildCatNL]

The SOP 'paste' also works when having groups selected, and works in the OOB tree.

[Stelteck]

Do SOP change instantaneous ?

If yes, it is faster to change the SOP instead of using a move order in order to command a unit to relocate under (artillery ?) fire.

[Bagpipe]

Do SOP change instantaneous ?

If yes, it is faster to change the SOP instead of using a move order in order to command a unit to relocate under (artillery ?) fire.

afaik, using SOP to relocate will happen faster than issuing an order yes.
I think it removes/reduces the order delay aspect of the movement though you inherently have less control over where exactly they will move to. So many trade offs to consider.
They have on their list for future development the addition of pre-planned fall back points too which should be very interesting but is obviously subject to change based on testing etc.

[IronMikeGolf]

...
I doubt that never fire was added for grins. But it's purpose is not apparent to me.
...

From a game mechanic standpoint, when a unit gets shot at, the firing unit has spotted it. Many times, just that unit spotted it. You can't tell who can spot who during turn resolution. So, if your trusty, stunning, and brave recon unit returns fire, it triggers another spotting check to all enemy with LOS. And with a bonus due to firing signature.

A bit of history (US Army-wise). M3s were slated to go to all units with Cav Scout troops: ACRs, Div Cav Squadrons, and Scout Platoons in Armored/Mech Battalions. So, you have lots of interchangeable crews. That's a big cost savings and force readiness boost. Except Scout Platoons were "dying" in droves at NTC. Why? Cav Culture meets insufficient mass. Recon in a line battalion is way different than what is needed and works in a Cav Squadron (Div or ACR), but those scout platoons did business as usual. 1989-1990 saw line battalion scout platoons get out of armor and into HMMWVs. That toned down aggressiveness and amped up survivability. Keep in mind, a line battalion only has 3 sections of 2 vehicles, and those generally operate widely separated. A section of M3s might very well kill an enemy platoon, but they consistently lose to an enemy company. When they open, there's a good chance of them advertising their presence to the majority of an enemy battalion.

Yes, they don't survive long when the enemy "bumps into them." That's not a defect in the structure or equipment of the recon unit. That's a prolem with placement of the recon unit, meaning the plan. You should be siting recon to confirm/deny enemy COA or for security to prevent the main body from being surprised. There's no assets to provide that security to the recon. That requires good mission analysis and astute decisions before the battle. And sometimes, sadly, it means making a choice to place a unit in a low survivability situation to protect the main body.

[WABAC]

...
I doubt that never fire was added for grins. But it's purpose is not apparent to me.
...

From a game mechanic standpoint, when a unit gets shot at, the firing unit has spotted it. Many times, just that unit spotted it. You can't tell who can spot who during turn resolution. So, if your trusty, stunning, and brave recon unit returns fire, it triggers another spotting check to all enemy with LOS. And with a bonus due to firing signature.

A bit of history (US Army-wise). M3s were slated to go to all units with Cav Scout troops: ACRs, Div Cav Squadrons, and Scout Platoons in Armored/Mech Battalions. So, you have lots of interchangeable crews. That's a big cost savings and force readiness boost. Except Scout Platoons were "dying" in droves at NTC. Why? Cav Culture meets insufficient mass. Recon in a line battalion is way different than what is needed and works in a Cav Squadron (Div or ACR), but those scout platoons did business as usual. 1989-1990 saw line battalion scout platoons get out of armor and into HMMWVs. That toned down aggressiveness and amped up survivability. Keep in mind, a line battalion only has 3 sections of 2 vehicles, and those generally operate widely separated. A section of M3s might very well kill an enemy platoon, but they consistently lose to an enemy company. When they open, there's a good chance of them advertising their presence to the majority of an enemy battalion.

Yes, they don't survive long when the enemy "bumps into them." That's not a defect in the structure or equipment of the recon unit. That's a prolem with placement of the recon unit, meaning the plan. You should be siting recon to confirm/deny enemy COA or for security to prevent the main body from being surprised. There's no assets to provide that security to the recon. That requires good mission analysis and astute decisions before the battle. And sometimes, sadly, it means making a choice to place a unit in a low survivability situation to protect the main body.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. It makes sense.

Regarding the third graph, I do like to have some scouts out to direct artillery fire on his approach if I am on the defense. One thing I have learned with this iteration of the engine is that the AI may also likes those sorts of spots depending on the view they want to have. As a result, some plans have failed sooner than others.

It's a scenario design thing, but I don't remember seeing battalion recon/scout units in US forces in the scenarios I have played so far. Off the top of my head, it seems like lower profile vehicles like HMMWV's and motorcycles would be more likely to survive in never-shoot mode if they were hidden nearby. The M3's do seem to attract helos and arty.

[IronMikeGolf]

It's a scenario design thing, but I don't remember seeing battalion recon/scout units in US forces in the scenarios I have played so far. Off the top of my head, it seems like lower profile vehicles like HMMWV's and motorcycles would be more likely to survive in never-shoot mode if they were hidden nearby. The M3's do seem to attract helos and arty.

Yeah, wrong divisions for that time for line battalions going to HMMWV Scouts. And tracks are indeed harder to hide.

[tylerasmith1995]

...
I doubt that never fire was added for grins. But it's purpose is not apparent to me.
...

From a game mechanic standpoint, when a unit gets shot at, the firing unit has spotted it. Many times, just that unit spotted it. You can't tell who can spot who during turn resolution. So, if your trusty, stunning, and brave recon unit returns fire, it triggers another spotting check to all enemy with LOS. And with a bonus due to firing signature.

A bit of history (US Army-wise). M3s were slated to go to all units with Cav Scout troops: ACRs, Div Cav Squadrons, and Scout Platoons in Armored/Mech Battalions. So, you have lots of interchangeable crews. That's a big cost savings and force readiness boost. Except Scout Platoons were "dying" in droves at NTC. Why? Cav Culture meets insufficient mass. Recon in a line battalion is way different than what is needed and works in a Cav Squadron (Div or ACR), but those scout platoons did business as usual. 1989-1990 saw line battalion scout platoons get out of armor and into HMMWVs. That toned down aggressiveness and amped up survivability. Keep in mind, a line battalion only has 3 sections of 2 vehicles, and those generally operate widely separated. A section of M3s might very well kill an enemy platoon, but they consistently lose to an enemy company. When they open, there's a good chance of them advertising their presence to the majority of an enemy battalion.

Yes, they don't survive long when the enemy "bumps into them." That's not a defect in the structure or equipment of the recon unit. That's a prolem with placement of the recon unit, meaning the plan. You should be siting recon to confirm/deny enemy COA or for security to prevent the main body from being surprised. There's no assets to provide that security to the recon. That requires good mission analysis and astute decisions before the battle. And sometimes, sadly, it means making a choice to place a unit in a low survivability situation to protect the main body.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. It makes sense.

Regarding the third graph, I do like to have some scouts out to direct artillery fire on his approach if I am on the defense. One thing I have learned with this iteration of the engine is that the AI may also likes those sorts of spots depending on the view they want to have. As a result, some plans have failed sooner than others.

It's a scenario design thing, but I don't remember seeing battalion recon/scout units in US forces in the scenarios I have played so far. Off the top of my head, it seems like lower profile vehicles like HMMWV's and motorcycles would be more likely to survive in never-shoot mode if they were hidden nearby. The M3's do seem to attract helos and arty.

Generally,

US Infantry BNs will have an organic recon platoon, while the Brigade might have cav units attached to act as armored recon as well as FISTers which would be organized with the Artillery batteries.

In the case of 3rd Brigade 1st ID (Forward) which is a good example of a reinforced Brigade, they had a rotating cav troop from 1-4 Cav, then 1/16 IN and 4/16IN would each have recon platoons in ACAVs, and 3/34 Armor would have a scout platoon in Brads. Then 2/5 FA would have their FISTers in FIST-Vs, plus a few more that I'm definitely forgetting.

(I'm just reading that this has been said earlier in the thread but I already typed it out so it's staying )

Basically every US scenario I've played has had BN recon platoons, although their direct combat value is nearly zero (in my experience). They're a much different animal from the cav scouts in brads who might be able to form an effective screen or plug a gap if needed.

I never was a part of a recon platoon, and I certainly was never mech or stryker, but from my experiences I'd rather have a little bit of armor to fall back on, even if it did mean having to infiltrate to my OP from a bit farther away. In addition to this, larger vics like M3s and FIST-Vs have thermals which are GAME CHANGERS for the infantry BN/BDE commander.

In addition to this, the US was aware of the reality of NBC warfare in any WW3 scenario, so having recon platoons rolling around in Humvees wearing MOPP suits like Generation Kill was unacceptable. Leave that to the POGs with the stingers and the desk jockeys at BN/BDE HQ.

[WABAC]

Basically every US scenario I've played has had BN recon platoons, although their direct combat value is nearly zero (in my experience). They're a much different animal from the cav scouts in brads who might be able to form an effective screen or plug a gap if needed.

It's entirely probable that I haven't properly recognized them.

I appreciate what you bring to the conversation in this, and other threads. Thank yuo.