level of micromanagment.

[pamak]

Can anybody inform me about the requirered level of micromanagment?
Does the player have the tools and is the AI capable to execute general orders?
Can i for example order a whole formation or sub unit to advance or attack a specific objective,without giving specific details for the execution?

I ask this cause i read before that the game was designed to let a player assume the command of higher echelons.
On the other hand ,i read that there were problems with design and AI that were forcing player to command small units.
If this is still the case after all these patches ,then i do not see the reason of having this very realistic model of FOW which is a key part of the whole game.

Can anybody inform me about the tools the player can use to execute his maneuver without micromanagment?
For example ,does he have to point specific routes of advance or designate specific targets to sub units ?
Can he designate types of formations for sub units, or is the waypoint system flexible enough to let sub units establish their own specific routes or make coordinated movements,or execute actions on their own initiative,like embark disembark for example?.

[HercMighty]

You may get plenty of ideas on this. From what I can tell the game requires a lot of Micro Management even though Scott has said it should be played from a Macro Level.

The only "real" orders you can give are movement orders. You have SOP's and Reaction orders to enemy fire but two things here:

1. There are a lot of options on the SOP page. And you have to set it for each unit I believe.
2. Reaction orders are simpler and can be applied to all units of the same type or to the formation.

Overall I think the game was designed for the Military where they have all the necessary people to play all the different roles. Therefore Scott really in my opinion left all the options in forcing us the civillian gamers to have to play all those roles.

There is no "Scout, Attack, etc..." type of orders. You cannot give orders in this sense and therefore cannot provide constraints or expected unit behavior from your units other than if you see X unit at this range shoot, and I have yet to get reaction orders to work.

You do not see any of the SitReps or hear any communication from the units. And the FOW is enough to make you pull your hair out. I was playing a scenerio at the ABQ airport and on open runways could not:

1. Be able to keep track of my units

and

2. Keep track of enemy units

This is all with units within command radius and LOS unblocked, yet supposebly because units are free to move so freely I could not keep an acurate picture.

Scott has a really good simulation here for a group of military people. For one person at a computer I believe it lacks the tools to be a Macro Level game. Even as a Micro Level game it still lacks a refined user interface. You really should be able to select a composite unit, issue SOP's which include: Firing, movement rules (Such as facing, formation, etc...) and orders (Be it attack, defend, scout, etc...) and then an objective.

There is a lot of possibility here but unfortunatly I really do not see POA2 changing much more than it is. Scott seems to be thinking to POA3 according to an interview and recent emails I have recieved and I do not see much changing here except for the interface to be upgraded.

I will say the game has come a lot farther, but I would caution you in your buying purchase.

[Don Maddox]

First, read my review of the game. In addition to that, I will add that POA-2 has a high level of micromanagement. Some things that should be easy are fairly...well they're a pain in the butt. The reason for this is simple: POA-2 offers a huge number of options to the player, thus this tends to complicate everything. The interface is also clumsy so that doesn't help either.

POA-2 offers an incredible level of detail, but the way this detail is implemented and presented to the player is not as good as it could be. Scott has improved POA-2 a lot since it was released, however, actually playing games with it is still more like work than fun. Can the system be improved to the point where it lives up to the expections gamers have? I'm not sure. This is Scott's baby, and I don't see him quitting on it any time soon. So there is a chance it will eventually evolve into a solid piece of software. As it stands right now, tinkering with POA-2 is more of an interesting experiment than wargaming.

[Werewolf]

As it stands right now, tinkering with POA-2 is more of an interesting experiment than wargaming.

I disagree with this to a point. Ignoring all the C++ errors, other error windows and the occasional CTD POA2 is an excellent wargame that permits the player to do everything from nothing to control multiple targets and individual vehicle facing.

By using the staff officers the player can do nothing and just watch a battle unfold, he can use the staff officer and then control the units he wants control. In other words the game allows each player to control just those combat functions he or she desires control of.

For example I normally concentrate on maneuver and use the staff officers to handle artillery and targetting. I will usually handle CAS too. Why because I'm into maneuver which is what a task force commander would handle. He certainly wouldn't be directing an individual platoon to fire on a particular enemy unit.

But that's just me - other's may be interested in different aspects of modern tactical/operational level combat and they can explore those aspects with POA2.

That said - it is difficult to ignore the constant barrage of error windows and C++ errors that occur. IF those are fixed POA2 will be an excellent product. It is not there yet but I - for one - do have high hopes.