Proposal: Retire TC

[BOSTON]

RebBugler wrote:

BOSTON wrote:

What are you NUTS! TC forever/forever TC!

Congrats, 1st on the list of Die Hards.

Sir! I'll take that as a compliment! :laugh:

[RebBugler]

Tacloban wrote:

I think attackmarch would do a lot towards retiring ol' TC. That is one major use of it. Other (non-gamey) uses, as I think of them are:

1. Keeping a brigade or division in position when there are enemy troops (or fighting) nearby (maybe a "defendhold" command?),

2. Keeping the ammo wagon from scouting down the road ahead (maybe a "staywithbattery" command?),

3. Keeping a battery from moving out in front of the brigade line (maybe a "dontgetshot' command?), and

4. Allowing me to take over a brigade or division for a while (micro-managing can be fun), then go back to overall command (maybe a "lemmedoit" command?).

P.s. Is there a corresponding "forcemarch" command? For example, I want to move a regiment out to my flank or to a wall, though it will take fire while getting there, but it's not attacking a target.

Thanks for the heads up...ol', not ole, guess I spent too much time in South Texas. :woohoo:

1) Not sure, I'll test more here since the new 'stay' command sometimes is unreliable.
2) Nope, but I've submitted a new 'Ammo Depot' idea/Feature, that if implemented, should prove an effective option...keeping the Wagon in a designated spot
3) Doubt if it can control that, probably need your command. B)
4) Kind of maybe, I'm still figuring out when attackmarch is disengaged, I'm thinking with a new destination command.
P.S.) Yes Indeed, attackmarch is it

[Marching Thru Georgia]

MarkT wrote:

All the scenarios can be won without it used.

Are you speaking from experience? I always try a scenario without using TC first. I have never even come close in a brigade level scenario or most of the division level ones. The corp level scenarios can be won, but giving up the use of artillery makes them difficult. Additionally, since the AI is very reluctant to charge batteries, I am rather skeptical.

[MarkT]

"Are you speaking from experience?" :woohoo: :woohoo:

ummm, well yes. I have played them once or twice.

It is not easy.


In all fairness I decided to edit this.

After about thirty times I played them, I stopped with testing without TC.
There were changes in many since then, so it is possible TC can be applied, or may have to be applied. Depends on how you play.

[Janh]

This sounds like an excellent idea to me, which is even a logical extension of the message command system. +1

[GShock]

Personally, I seldom TC troops, I prefer to give orders to them individually and they generally execute them so I agree with MarkT.

[BOSTON]

Rebugler

Isn't what you are suggesting already in the game (HITS)! To tell ya the truth I'd probablly get Claustafobic using it. :blink:

BOSTON

Edit; The higher difficulty settings is what I'm refering to.

[Garnier]

I think you know my feelings.

TC must always be available.

[RebBugler]

BOSTON wrote:

Rebugler

Isn't what you are suggesting already in the game (HITS)! To tell ya the truth I'd probablly get Claustafobic using it. :blink:

BOSTON

Edit; The higher difficulty settings is what I'm refering to.

Nope, what I'm proposing has nothing to do with HITS, HITS is fundamentally narrowing the command radius.

My proposal is about replacing TC with a 'No Orders' stance. Different than the present 'no orders' command in that it could not be overridden by superiors' orders or stances. In essence, what I am proposing would give the player more control than the present TC, and eliminate much micro management that is necessary for player control.

For example, when you move a division, and you want them to move to an exact position, you must first TC the division commander, give the command, and then immediately TC all the brigade commanders. If you don't, they will stray, and do their own thing. With my proposal, you would select your division commander, click the destination, and the division moves there. In the event a brigade is engaged, the brigade commander would then move to an engagement stance, providing his support and engaging his troops as necessary to defeat that engaged enemy. The other brigades would not react, they would continue to their position that the player had designated through the division command.

In scenario design, this is crystal clear, to move a division from point a to point b is like writing the tax code, lines and lines of TC on and off. Eliminating the necessity of TC for moving troops would be the equivalent to instituting a 'flat tax' code...simplicity and efficiency.

Once again, my proposal is all about improved player control and eliminating mundane micro managing. This would not affect the 'orders' already built into the game, it would simply give the player an easy option to move and place troops, without them doing their own thing...going the wrong direction, mixing with a lateral unit, attacking when not engaged, or deciding to stop and designating themselves a reserve unit...this stuff drives me crazy, and probably you guys, that's why we HAVE TO TC.

[BOSTON]

"In my mind's eye", I would have difficulty with what you suggest, but then again I have not tried it. When playing the role of an officer, I try and do what is best for my troops, while achieving a goal. I hate to see my men end up at Andersonville or Ft. Donaldson, or massacred by artillery, because I let a mediocre/poor CO do his thing. Untill I master the tools of this game, I'm going to play it safe with TC.

BOSTON