Decisive Action "wish list"

[Dr Zaius]

I'm not sure what Col Lunsford's plan is for the future of DA, but we can use this thread for suggestions and user-requests. I'm sure many of them Jim has already heard, however, this thread might yield some useful ideas that he hasn't thought of. At the very least it will help provide him with some feedback from the civilian wargamer community. Here are a few ideas of my own.

As it stands right now, DA does display order of battle information. The method in which it is displayed could be improved though. Right now the OOB is displayed in a simple text format as follows:

HQ 4ID(M) 100% 2
..1BDE 100% 38
..2BDE 100% 38
..3BDE 100% 40

HQ 22 FA BDE
..1-22 FA 100% 16
..2-22 FA 100% 16

The problem with this is that when units are displayed as being under a particular HQ, all the units task organized under that unit disappear. This can be a real pain when developing scenarios and also isn't as useful as it should be during gameplay. There are several ways to handle this. On way is Col Lunsford could implement a system similar to what ATF has where units are listed in a clickable hierachy. Alternately, the simple text format could be maintained, but simply add all task organized units as follows:

HQ 4ID(M) 100% 2
..1BDE 100% 38
....1-83INF 100% 10
....2-83INF 100% 10
....2-66AR 100% 14
....A/1-99FA 100% 18
....882ENG 100% 2
..2BDE 100% 38
....1-33INF 100% 10
....2-33INF 100% 10
....1-66AR 100% 14
....B/1-99FA 100% 18
....882ENG 100% 2
..3BDE 100% 40
....1-74INF 100% 10
....1-21AR 100% 14
....2-21AR 100% 14
....C/1-99FA 100% 18
....882ENG 100% 2

I would think this this would be fairly easy to implement.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Right now either player can view the enemy's OOB by simply clicking on it. We have to rely on the honor system to keep people from cheating. I would like to see this changed for PBEM games so that you can't look at your opponent's OOB unit the game is completed.

 

[CPangracs]

I'm not sure what Col Lunsford's plan is for the future of DA, but we can use this thread for suggestions and user-requests. I'm sure many of them Jim has already heard, however, this thread might yield some useful ideas that he hasn't thought of. At the very least it will help provide him with some feedback from the civilian wargamer community. Here are a few ideas of my own.

As it stands right now, DA does display order of battle information. The method in which it is displayed could be improved though. Right now the OOB is displayed in a simple text format as follows:

HQ 4ID(M) 100% 2
..1BDE 100% 38
..2BDE 100% 38
..3BDE 100% 40

HQ 22 FA BDE
..1-22 FA 100% 16
..2-22 FA 100% 16

The problem with this is that when units are displayed as being under a particular HQ, all the units task organized under that unit disappear. This can be a real pain when developing scenarios and also isn't as useful as it should be during gameplay. There are several ways to handle this. On way is Col Lunsford could implement a system similar to what ATF has where units are listed in a clickable hierachy. Alternately, the simple text format could be maintained, but simply add all task organized units as follows:

HQ 4ID(M) 100% 2
..1BDE 100% 38
....1-83INF 100% 10
....2-83INF 100% 10
....2-66AR 100% 14
....A/1-99FA 100% 18
....882ENG 100% 2
..2BDE 100% 38
....1-33INF 100% 10
....2-33INF 100% 10
....1-66AR 100% 14
....B/1-99FA 100% 18
....882ENG 100% 2
..3BDE 100% 40
....1-74INF 100% 10
....1-21AR 100% 14
....2-21AR 100% 14
....C/1-99FA 100% 18
....882ENG 100% 2

I would think this this would be fairly easy to implement.

Try Clicking on "Reports" and selecting the Unit Report. You will get a COMPLETE roll-up of ALL your units, their current status, location, and higher HQ.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Try Clicking on "Reports" and selecting the Unit Report. You will get a COMPLETE roll-up of ALL your units, their current status, location, and higher HQ.

Thanks for the tip. It's actually under "Print" - "Unit Report." That does help, but it still would be even more helpful if they were organized under each other like a proper OOB. It apears that they are currently listed as they were enetered by the scenario author.

 

[Saber 12]

...and while we're on topic

This was from an earlier thread from Maddog, regarding the ability to task organize under a brigade shell (the BDE HHC if you will).
Example, on the NTC 2 scenario there are only manuever battalions, no higher BCT to task organize them under. I don't want to have to move/fight each one of these BNs seperately-I want to attach them as subordinate units under a BCT, along with supporting artillery, engineer, ADA, so on. I want them to get supplies from the division support command (DISCOM) via the BCT forward support battalion (FSB) while task org'd.

Would also like to see supporting or division troops to be broken down to even company level, in order to slice them out to the various BCT or Division nodes.
Example, again on NCT 2 there's only 1x Eng BN & 1 ADA CO, and the DivCAV SQD. Would like the ability to slice their subordinate COs or PLTs out where I need them-say, give the three BCTs an engineer co each, or give an ADA PLT each to the main effort BCT, DISCOM, and DMain.

Understand I can do the above functions now using the editor but logistics haven't always worked like I'd wanted.

Finally, I've always felt that I got too much info on the bad guys thru contact or passing thru an NAI. Did see an early post that said this info isn't entirely accurate, but if it's 90% it's probably too much. I can see that if an enemy unit stays under observation over a longer period of time that the G2 will be able to build a clearer picture of that unit's capabilites-so maybe DA could reflect that-the longer the time unit is observed or, the more collection assets used or friendly units engaging it, the better the intel.

just my $.02

Also good to see the renewed interest in DA-always felt it had alot of untapped potential.

out,
P

 

[cbelva]

Most of what Saber 12 is asking is do-able with DA. It all depends on the scenario maker. The way NTC 2 is set up was determined by the person who made that Scenario. It is possible to make a scenario where you have a BCT where you task organize the Bn's to the BCT and move only the BCT. You can also break down the support units such as ADA and Eng to platoon level and attack them to various commands.

Granted, not all wargame will do everything I would like for them to do. However, DA is deeper than it seems. The more I get into it, the more flexible I realize it is. Along with a very easy and simple interface and scenario editor.

 

[Dr Zaius]

I believe what Saber 12 is talking about is a little different than the current task organization method modelled in DA. What DA currently does is temporarily absorb the task organized unit into its combat strength, which increases the size of the unit footprint accordingly. However, as Saber 12 points out, the DA engine looks at each unit in light of its specific capabilities. With the exception of artillery, it doesn't seem to do this with task organized units (i.e. a brigade which has an engineer company attached doesn't gain any new abilities, it simply gains the RCP of the engineers. When there is a specific engineer mission to be performed, the engineers can be un-attached, but remain under the command of the brigade to perform their mission.

What Saber 12 seems to be asking about is a system similar to what Highway to the Reich (HttR) has. That system allows you to give orders to a HQ and all the subordinate elements of the command will automatically move in an effort to carry out the overall mission. They remain separate icons on the map, evon though they are "task organized" in the OOB. In DA you have to do this one unit at a time and I don't know that you can have "multi-echelon" task organization as I haven't tried it. In other words, I don't think you can create companies out of individual platoons with task organization, then task organize the companies under a battalion, etc. I believe you can only task organize one layer deep. I admit I have been thinking the same thing as Saber 12. it would be neat to be able to task organize in as many layers as needed. You could then create hyper-realistic OOBs that truly reflect how a modern combat unit is structured. Of course, this would require some dramatic changes to the DA code. The unit limit would have to be significantly increased as it would take 150 units to model a single BCT!

 

[Rebel Roll]

I would like to see DA take into account night combat, and one sides advantages/disadvantages.

 

[Saber 12]

roger Maddog. I'd like to see the BCT have increased engineering or ADA capability when I add those supporting units to the BCT task org-same as arty does now.
P

 

[Dr Zaius]

roger Maddog. I'd like to see the BCT have increased engineering or ADA capability when I add those supporting units to the BCT task org-same as arty does now.
P

Right now there is really no reason to task organize engineer or ADA units under a higher unit, even though I have done it in some of my own scenarios. The reason I am doing it so the player can easily move the BCT around the battlefield and then detech the engineer unit when needed. Same goes for the ADA element. Leaving them as separate units increases the player's workload and uses up more game engine resources.

 

[Dr Zaius]

I would like to see DA take into account night combat, and one sides advantages/disadvantages.

Agreed. I would be satisfied if each side had a simple global setting reflecting the side's night fighting ability. This would be a combination of training plus NVG equipment. During night hours movement rates would be reduced by 10-30% and spotting would be a little more difficult. The side's night fighting rating would help to partially offset this disadvantage.

 

[Rebel Roll]

Agreed. I would be satisfied if each side had a simple global setting reflecting the side's night fighting ability. This would be a combination of training plus NVG equipment. During night hours movement rates would be reduced by 10-30% and spotting would be a little more difficult. The side's night fighting rating would help to partially offset this disadvantage.

Seems it would be easy enough to do. I wouldn't mind seeing weather modeled somehow eventually too, but I would rather see the night issue resolved first.

 

[Rebel Roll]

Another thing I would like to see changed is when a unit is forced to retreat it not just take off in the opposite direction it is being attacked from. They tend to ignore the terrain they pass through. I think something along the lines of a rally point would be a good start. Also, terrain restrictions need to be taken into account as well.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Another thing I would like to see changed is when a unit is forced to retreat it not just take off in the opposite direction it is being attacked from. They tend to ignore the terrain they pass through. I think something along the lines of a rally point would be a good start. Also, terrain restrictions need to be taken into account as well.

There is a way to do this but it's somewhat time consuming. Eash unit can have a "retreat route" plotted for it. There is a check box for this on the unit report. I admit I have not made use of it so I don't know how effective it is, but it seems to be a way to set a rally point.

Seems it would be easy enough to do. I wouldn't mind seeing weather modeled somehow eventually too, but I would rather see the night issue resolved first.

Agreed. I don't think the weather model needs to be terribly complex (although that would be a plus), it simply need to be able to model changing weather conditions. For instance, I would like the first 10 turns (20 hours) of the scenario to have clear weather, then on turn 11 a sandstorm comes in and severely limits visibility and movement. It should be fairly straight forward to implement such a system.

 

[KG_Norad]

I would like to be able to veiw all movement paths, and all friendly footprints.

 

[cbelva]

I would like to be able to veiw all movement paths, and all friendly footprints.

I will second this request.

 

[Mompariglia]

movement

I wish I could have an esteem of the maximum distance every land unit can cover in a turn, as it happens for AH and UAV. :nuts:
M

 

[Deltapooh]

I wish I could have an esteem of the maximum distance every land unit can cover in a turn, as it happens for AH and UAV. :nuts:
M

You can. First, there is the estimation provided when you create a path. There is also a chart available in CPangrac's Decisive Action Primer.

 

[Mompariglia]

Where is the estimation? There's no info about it in the manual. Also, can you post a link to CPangrac's guide? :nuts:
M

 

[amrcg]

Court Pangrac's Guide to DA

Where is it?

Regards,
Antonio