Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Eidolad

Groups nested with groups...or units within groups: which field order has priority?

Recommended Posts

Testing a concept here...we'll see what happened the next time I sail them across the water:

I created an "empty" group containing two groups:

1. Group "Invaders" with "no orders" for field orders. No units inside this group. Just contains two groups below.

a. inside is a "Protectors" group of cruisers and DD with aggressive orders (i.e. like them to go kill those planes, subs, and ships if they get near) but stay with the group otherwise

b. the second group inside is the "Transports" group and is passive field orders. No attacking...just get you and your tanks to the shoreline.

...I give movement orders to the "Invaders" group only...and split off "Protecters only when necessary...and rejoin them as needed with "join group" movement command.

So some questions:

1. which level of field orders, group or sub-group, takes precedence?

...now, does it matter what field orders the "Invaders" group inside has? I'm just now playing with this "nested group" config. I'm using "no field orders" on the "meta-group" to keep it safe and fight defensively only.

Said another way: *if* an individual group has field orders...are these overriden by the group that contains it?

2. On a related note: Let's say a Destroyer is within a group with a transport. If I keep the transport "passive" orders and then keep the Destroyer "aggressive" orders...and the Group does NOT have field orders. Does that Destroyer's own field orders override the group level? Or vice versa?

3. Will a sub-group, like "Protectors" above really use their aggressive field orders and then return to the group (i.e. split off and attack incoming subs they see rather than wait for them to come into range of the transports?) Or sit there and just defend (i.e. when it is too late for those transports)

Not much point then in putting shooters in the same group as the transports...other than damage spreading then...

4. By NOT having any units in the same group as the transports...did I just give away a crucial "damage soak" ability...of say...a few DD to help spread the damage around?

I only made the mistake of having "aggressive orders" with a group containing transports....once. Boy did that hurt. So "no field orders" makes sense but I want to organize the convoy in the most effective fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The field orders make a unit actually move in the direction of the enemy, so your stack will be engaged fully whether you like it or not. In my testing, a group's field orders take precedence over any of the field oreders of sub-units or sub-groups. So whatever the main group has for field orders will apply to everything within.

I like your thinking though, it would be nice if you could choose for one group to continue on its path while the escort group split off to attack the enemy. The only way to do this is to have them close by following but not stacked together.

One feature I'd like to see is a way to actually choose what the default field order is. Kind of like a global setting, since I find I want my units on "none" more often than I want them on "agressive".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Testing a concept here...we'll see what happened the next time I sail them across the water:

I created an "empty" group containing two groups:

1. Group "Invaders" with "no orders" for field orders. No units inside this group. Just contains two groups below.

a. inside is a "Protectors" group of cruisers and DD with aggressive orders (i.e. like them to go kill those planes, subs, and ships if they get near) but stay with the group otherwise

b. the second group inside is the "Transports" group and is passive field orders. No attacking...just get you and your tanks to the shoreline.

...I give movement orders to the "Invaders" group only...and split off "Protecters only when necessary...and rejoin them as needed with "join group" movement command.

So some questions:

1. which level of field orders, group or sub-group, takes precedence?

...now, does it matter what field orders the "Invaders" group inside has? I'm just now playing with this "nested group" config. I'm using "no field orders" on the "meta-group" to keep it safe and fight defensively only.

Said another way: *if* an individual group has field orders...are these overriden by the group that contains it?

2. On a related note: Let's say a Destroyer is within a group with a transport. If I keep the transport "passive" orders and then keep the Destroyer "aggressive" orders...and the Group does NOT have field orders. Does that Destroyer's own field orders override the group level? Or vice versa?

3. Will a sub-group, like "Protectors" above really use their aggressive field orders and then return to the group (i.e. split off and attack incoming subs they see rather than wait for them to come into range of the transports?) Or sit there and just defend (i.e. when it is too late for those transports)

Not much point then in putting shooters in the same group as the transports...other than damage spreading then...

4. By NOT having any units in the same group as the transports...did I just give away a crucial "damage soak" ability...of say...a few DD to help spread the damage around?

I only made the mistake of having "aggressive orders" with a group containing transports....once. Boy did that hurt. So "no field orders" makes sense but I want to organize the convoy in the most effective fashion.

Oops. Sorry, I saw your question earlier and meant to answer it after I took a look at the code. Units inside groups ignore their Field Orders. They depend on the field orders of the unit-group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks folks. I will use separate groups when I need separate behaviors.

That last part from Brit about "units ignore their own orders, when inside a group" is important as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...