mini map

[Ephrum]

JC Edwards wrote:

Ephrum wrote:

Hancock the Superb wrote:

We need some real people that respond to real orders in this game. I would love not to push the TC button and just type out orders onto the screen to have it happen, and if I included, follow to the letter, they would!

Much more realistic!

Hancock- I for one would be happy to follow your orders "to the letter".
But let me ask you this; What if you gave me an order to move my division/corps to support another, and a few minutes later, you get a dispatch from me that says, "I've run into A.P. Hills corps moving on my right flank. I can't support as ordered." ?
Don't get me wrong Hancock, it's not a trick question, and I'm not trying to pick on you. But something like that is bound to happen to all of us at some point. This is where we're going to have to learn to trust our subordinate commanders to take care of the unexpected. I mean to say, it may not be an easy transition for those of us, who prefer to Take Command of ALL our forces in TC2M.

*courier message from Ephrum to Hancock the Superb*

Sir, I regret to inform you that I cannot complete my support mission as requested. I and my command have had the misfortune of encountering the "Mad One" himself and we are in desperate need of reinforcements! Artillery on both flanks; Cavalry has blocked any means of withdrawal. Taking heavy casualties...I pray this courier reaches you
your most obedient servant, Gen Ephrum Zimbalist III

Yeah, yeah, yeah,.............Dream on!:P

[Ephrum]

ironsight wrote:

Ephrum Wrote: This is where we're going to have to learn to trust our subordinate commanders to take care of the unexpected. I mean to say, it may not be an easy transition for those of us, who prefer to Take Command of ALL our forces in TC2M.

True, except when subordinate commanders are allowed their AI heads, they sometimes have a suicidal attraction to enemy cannister!:( Using that TC icon is a 'tight rope' balancing act for sure.
For some reason lately, even when i TC a Brigade Commander 2 or so out of 10 times he won't obey my orders and stops short of his ordered destination.
Been playing 'high' AI lately, maybe thats got something to do with it.

I must admit, I've not tried the "high" AI cycle yet. It's on my list of things to try, before we get MP. Now that you've mentioned it, I'll do that today! Win or lose, I'll let you know how it goes for me.
For the record, if I fight for you in the future, I promise; no suicidal tactics!B)

[Hancock the Superb]

I would allow for some variation, but in the game (what I mean by real people is real AI that can read) they would obey orders!

[Ephrum]

Hancock the Superb wrote:

I would allow for some variation, but in the game (what I mean by real people is real AI that can read) they would obey orders!

Sorry Hancock, I misunderstood you.

[69th NYSV]

Just remember any form of communication is open to interpretation, it happened in real life. The first thing that springs to mind is Burnsides orders at Fredericksburg. They were interpreted to mean use exactly the minimum forced mentioned by the main assault and on the flank they thought they were "stretching" the bounds of the orders with the "supporting force"

[Hancock the Superb]

That was hard to understand, you saying what Burnside said!

[69th NYSV]

That is exactly my point!!! :cheer:

[ironsight]

Still, Hancock's idea of a unit strictly following orders come hell or high water would be interesting to play as an experiment if nothing else! This idea or similar is on some wish lists by the way.
Lets say you order a Brigade to a specific area to HOLD and i mean HOLD dam it. Once they reach that area the HOLD orders would unconditionally stand until changed again. Now if that Brigade is attacked on the way, the Commander would fight off the attack and when the attackers are routed, he'd remember his previous HOLD orders and carry them out. The advantage is that once the Brigade reached its destination, it would not have to be unTC'd and then watched like a hawk to keep it from being decimated by foolishly wandering off to attack an enemy grand battery with no other support or just plain ignoring its HOLD orders to wander around somewhere else.

TCing the Division Commander might accomplish the same thing but then he's useless for scouting, giving orders to other Brigades, etc. Also unChaining the Brigade might accomplish the same thing which i haven't tried yet, maybe the next battle i play.

Offhand, can't remember though if Brigade Commanders can even be unchained as i never tried it. Unchained regiments currently in TC2M sometimes ignore that order and leave their position to find their Brigade. A bug? Don't know if this would also apply to an unChained Brigade.

[JC Edwards]

ironsight

Offhand, can't remember though if Brigade Commanders can even be unchained as i never tried it.

Yes they can. The best way to handle that is unchain him, but place him on TC. This way if you order him to stay in a certain position/area, he will. As will his brigade.

[estabu2]

The problem that I find with TC'ing a brigade is that they do not necessarily confront an enemy, unless you move their individual units. If you place the brigade in a formation they will stay there and even if attacked they only regiments that are attacked are the only ones that will fight. I think if you TC a brigade they should stay in their spot but still have some form of self preservation.