Josey Wales

For anyone interested, I just uploaded a blog post on Using Listening Halts.  This is a subject I have discussed many times before in my AARs, but have never really written at length about it.  Hope its useful.
Bil  

Maintaining C and C and information sharing is the real game. The work that @MOS:96B2P did have radically altered the ways I fight my command and highlights the importance and relevance of HQ units and information sharing.

True, and combining that with Josey Wale's work on how the soft factors and leadership works is pretty crucial I think.

I've been running quite a few tests on symmetric squads in and out of C2, and the effect on recovering suppression is really reliable - they'll happily suppress each other at a similar rate to begin with, but the squad in C2 will recover first, and therefore end up winning the firefight over the course of a few turns.

The Coy XO definitely takes over if the Coy Commander goes down.
A Bttn XO does not appear take over if the Bttn Commander goes down.
It would seem as if from @Bulletpoint's post that the Asst Plt Ldr behaves more like a Bttn XO than a Coy XO.
I have no idea or explanation as why it is like this.
 
As for a leader attributes passing down to his subordinate units - this categorically does not happen. I explain this in my post The Relationship between Soft Factors, Morale & Fatigue
To conceptualise this, imagine the leadership modifier is exactly the same as the fitness modifier with respect to who it affects.
An unfit Platoon HQ that gets out of breath walking up a hill does not mean that all of the squads under their command get out of breath walking up the hill. 
The same for Leadership. A Plt Leader who has a -2 Leadership modifier only applies that modifier to the rest of the Platoon HQ. The squads are dependent on the leadership modifier of their individual Squad Leaders (or team leaders when split).
I think this gets confusing for people because of 2 reasons.
1. The Leadership modifier is the only soft factor that can dynamically change as a result of casualties.
2. It is the only one of the factors that is applied to individuals as opposed to the team as a whole. Experience, Fitness and Motivation remain the same for a unit throughout the game irrespective of which individual within the team becomes a casualty.
What I mean here is that a unit with +2 Motivation, Veteran Experience and is Fit at the start of the game will still have +2 Motivation, Veteran Experience and be Fit at the end, even if all but one member is killed and the unit is Rattled and Exhausted.  Leadership, however, will change depending on which individual becomes the casualty. If for example the sole survivor of a squad is Sgt Cane who had a +2 Leadership modifier at the beginning, the Squad will still have the +2 Leadership modifier. However if the sole survivor is Private Pants then the Leadership modifier is likely to have changed to -1 or -2. The the other soft factors will remain the same as they were at the beginning because they apply to the unit as a collective.
 

To elaborate further:
Some years ago, inspired by that C2 & Information sharing post, I did some tests in Battle for Normandy and it mainly concerns vehicle spotting . I made a small map in editor, put some German forces in a forest (Pak40 and some MG's and also one infantry squad), put an American scout team in another forest to observe the Germans. One Sherman tank was placed on the map and I made sure that there was no way for it to observe the Germans or the scout team. I also made sure that there was no radio contact between the tank and the scouts.
With that set up I tested the spotting times and it was pretty conclusive. When the scout spotted German positions, I ran him to the tank, waited until the info was passed (waited a full turn). Then I moved the tank forward so it can have LoS on the forest occupied by Germans. When they were unbuttoned/opened up, they spotted almost instantly (less than 2 seconds). When they were buttoned up, they spotted in less than 5 seconds.
I also did some tests with no info sharing, unbuttoned came to about 10 seconds for the spot and I was under the impression that the crew tac-ai prioritized spotting AT positions. Buttoned up was above 10 seconds and I didn't really test it that much, cause I felt like I was just asking for someone to come and burn my tank.
So this was my conclusion:
Unbuttoned with previous knowledge>buttoned with previous knowledge>unbuttoned with no previous knowledge>buttoned with no previous knowledge.
So guys, make sure your AFV's have the information, unless you want them to end up like 131st Separate Motor Rifle Brigade in Grozny.

MOS thank you for making the effort to redo this. I did have trouble trying to follow the original but it's really clear and obvious with the images and your explanations.
I think some testing needs to be done to prove that having a tentative contact makes acquiring an actual LOF of fire to the contact quicker. I hope it does.

I would like to remind you what has been introduced in patch 4.0 because you complain a lot, and the game looks much better than version 3.0. I will mention only what happened in the gamplay and editor,  it's hard to call it a game break. The only thing is the infantry is leaving the place too easily under fire which seems safe.
In some cases, this is annoying just like spotting a short distance. However, you can still play it.
 
Gamplay
Hulldown Command
 Vehicles have access to a new movement command called Hulldown. This command allows a vehicle to move forward until only the turret is exposed to a specified target, and then the vehicle stops moving.
Improved Infantry Spacing
 Infantry on the move will now respect each other's personal space! While moving, squad and team members will maintain a few meters of distance between each other. Soldiers will also spread out laterally on the move when possible (some terrain may necessitate column movement, such as paths through rough terrain).
Peeking Around Building Corners
 Infantry units positioned adjacent to building corners will now automatically post some soldiers at the corners to observe and fire around the obstacle
AI Proactively Avoids Artillery Fire
 The TacAI that runs soldiers and vehicles will more proactively, and reactively, attempt to avoid incoming HE fire. Two classic examples are that the AI will attempt to avoid being wiped out by incoming artillery barrages and direct tank fire.
Combine Squad Command
 Combine Squad is a new Admin Command for squads. This command is useful for squads that have suffered major losses and need to consolidate their remaining personnel into larger teams.
 
Editor
AI Area Fire Orders
 The AI can now be scripted to use Area Fire! Each AI Order can have a target zone designated.
AI Facing Orders
 Each AI Order can be given a location for it to Face towards.
AI Withdraw Orders
 AI Groups can be ordered to Withdraw towards their movement destination. Vehicles will move in Reverse to the destination, while infantry will leapfrog back while turning around to face behind them.
Campaign Resupply
 Personnel replacements and ammunition levels are now more uniformly resupplied across all core units between campaign missions, as opposed to the all-or-nothing check on each unit done previously.
3D Flavor Object Clone Tool
 Flavor objects can be cloned within the 3D view without having to go back to the 2D view.
32 Order AI Plans
 Each AI Group can now have up to 32 orders, increased from 16.
Stream Terrain
 Small streams can now be placed on battle maps.
 

there HAS NEVER BEEN GAME BREAKING BUGS.
Now the bugs in the 4.0 version is game breaking  in a sense in arty  and infantry reaction to it if you are not accepting of it, but all it has ever taken is to play the game in version 3.0 before that change was made.
what you have is 4.0 format not a good format for play against the AI if you are using arty. Any other way the game is played has been fine, 4.0 is good except for a few other issues.
For those needing to bomb the heck out of AI troops, 3.0 was always still available.
Yes, was it a issue that buying the upgrade and not getting the fix all this time was bad form. Of course it was, but don't act like the game is been unplayable, for it has not.
You all know 4.01 fixes the problems, the releases are close at hand, after all this time you might as well take your chill pills because nothing on your part is making it happen any faster.
 

Seriously guys...
 

My congratulations also. 

Being the world's most famous Puritan I obviously have no idea what this is about. And on no account was I tapping my foot the whole way through it.

I think that's a quite superficial analysis.
The US spends more on military and NATO contributions, but the EU spends more on humanitarian aid and global development (as share of GNI).
Or to stay in your metaphor, you're pushing down on the lid of the pot to prevent it boiling over, while the EU is trying to douse the fire below.
This arrangement actually benefits the USA, because you are able to translate your military investment directly into geopolitical influence, whereas the benefits of global development are more widely distributed and don't always return directly to the donor countries.
Also, by keeping the EU military small, you're neutering a potential future military rival and keeping EU countries dependant on the USA.

Best to treat enemy held buildings like landmines:

If you can go round it, go round it.
If you can't go round it... blow it up before you go near it.
If you can't blow it up... shoot the crap out of it in the hope that you'll hit something important that stops it going off.

Clearing the building is the equivalent of stepping on the landmine- don't do it unless you literally have no other choice.

The main one, for me, is perfectly fine troops leaving cover to stand in the open an action spot or two away when fired upon by Arty (and in my case a machine gun).  This was a result of tweaking some other code in the unit AI to handle some other item that I don't remember.
 

@IanL
Whenever is soon enough.  My intent is to build a "Scenario Designer Workshop" area on the TPGII Forum pages.  While I have a bunch of references to organize and post initially, the vision is an interactive forum where designers can reach out to each other and post their own scenario design tools as well.  No hurries.  No worries.

Indeed we have been putting a lot of work into the Scenario Depot and the Proving Grounds.  Hopefully we can get the scenario design business sparked up again after a recent wane.


 
 

TPGII (http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tpg2/) has suffered benign neglect lately.  I am in the process of developing a scenario designer's page at that site.  I have another 1-2 weeks worth of work to do before completing that.  I will post here when it is ready.  Good luck with your own scenario!

Just quickly going back to the point about the suppression indicator being objective or subjective... from my post ' The Relationship between Soft Factors, Moral and Fatigue'
"The Suppression Indicator is not merely a measure of incoming fire, more accurately it represents the units perception as to how much danger it is in based on the incoming Firepower, the immediate casualties sustained, and the Experience, Leadership & Motivation of the unit."

Just quickly going back to the point about the suppression indicator being objective or subjective... from my post ' The Relationship between Soft Factors, Moral and Fatigue'
"The Suppression Indicator is not merely a measure of incoming fire, more accurately it represents the units perception as to how much danger it is in based on the incoming Firepower, the immediate casualties sustained, and the Experience, Leadership & Motivation of the unit."

Just quickly going back to the point about the suppression indicator being objective or subjective... from my post ' The Relationship between Soft Factors, Moral and Fatigue'
"The Suppression Indicator is not merely a measure of incoming fire, more accurately it represents the units perception as to how much danger it is in based on the incoming Firepower, the immediate casualties sustained, and the Experience, Leadership & Motivation of the unit."

Just quickly going back to the point about the suppression indicator being objective or subjective... from my post ' The Relationship between Soft Factors, Moral and Fatigue'
"The Suppression Indicator is not merely a measure of incoming fire, more accurately it represents the units perception as to how much danger it is in based on the incoming Firepower, the immediate casualties sustained, and the Experience, Leadership & Motivation of the unit."

It's a bit like quantum mechanics - while moving, a team is spread out (like a wave) but then when the movement is interrupted, the waveform collapses and the game needs to decide where the exact location of this team actually is. So it decides the team is in the square with the wall, but there's a side A and B, and it picks the wrong side...
Ok, I should get out more

What killed those for me was it was strictly rts.  I won’t purchase anything that doesn’t do both wego and head to head play. It puts a severe limitation on what I’ll purchase but keeps me from wasting money on something that will end up rather quickly on the shelf.  

Well they can call fire to locations that are just outside their LOS - behind a hedge or hill and the game does have TRPs to simulate calling down fire on predetermined locations. Those could also be used to simulate what you are talking about.
So, while true you cannot call fire on an arbitrary grid the game goes some way towards simulating what you are talking about.
True combat mine clearing (more equipment and explosives) would be a great add. Just FYI engineers can find and mark mines with out tripping them. If they remain in a location for a time they will spot adjacent mines on their own.
This has been talked about a lot. Actual tankers (yeah the guys commanding things even heavier and with tracks) have chimed in to say they would *not* breach walls and fences as a matter of course - it is far to risky. Even if it was possible and happened in real life I don't think we are ever going to get this in the game.
Cool idea - a new squad split: marksman.
?? Ah frankly I think the game has this pretty much OK. Not because I agree with what you said but because that is not my experience at all. I'm playing All Flights are Delayed and stationary infantry are spotting enemy in buildings - not all of them but some.
Yeah, specific grenade commands have been requested. Maybe. The thing is there are lots of situations where I *do* see squads throwing grenades. It is unlcear to me that this is really wrong the way the game has it now or if it's more that people wish they would use them more.
This is likely not going to go away fully. Troops are not going to read your mind and do what you want them to do. That's in a perfect game that is bug free. Recognize that AI pathing is challenging and there are defiantly issues that are not ideal (aka bugs) these kinds of behaviour are going to be there for at least some situations.
Having said that the new patch will reduce the number of times troops decide to withdraw which will mean we will get to see less of these instances. So, kind of a mixed bag here - it will get better but it's not going to be prefect.
Yeah grazing fire would be nice.