Levels of Decision Making commands

[Philo32b]

I was reading about advantageous of decentralized decision making in warfare, such as in maneuver doctrine, and it occurred to me that AGEOD games are very centralized: you give your orders, and your commanders obey them to the letter if they can with no localized decision making. (Except if you tell a commander to intercept another unit, of course.) I wondered if adding decentralized decision making would be a possible enhancement to the game.

Here is the idea: along with Command Postures and Rules of Engagement there is another band of options that you can set for each unit: Level of Decision-Making.



Complete Centralized (CC) Decision Making is the default. With it in effect the unit acts just as in normal AGEOD games, obeying your every command if possible, with no localized initiative from the commander.

Moderate Centralized (MC) Decision Making is a slight relaxing of centralized command in favor of some localized initiative. While carrying out your orders for a particular unit, if it is set to MC the AI will take advantage of some other goal or attack only if a very compelling opportunity presents itself. Perhaps there is a unit 1/5 its strength within striking distance, or an unguarded depot, or something like that. The AI will also deviate if your order would cause it to engage a force that is clearly too strong to take on.

Moderate Decentralized (MD) Decision Making is a greater relaxing of centralized command. Instead of varying from strict commands to the unit for a target 1/5 of its power, perhaps it now will deviate if it sees an opportunistic target 1/3 or less of its power within striking distance, or a depot with a minor guard. The AI will also deviate if your order would cause it to engage a force that is reasonably too strong to take on.

Complete Decentralized (CD) Decision making is a complete relaxing of centralized command. Not complete AI takeover, but the AI has a large say in following your orders. Perhaps this would be a good level for partisans to have, for both completely unexpected rear targets but also to avoid heavily guarded targets that the AI can see it is outmatched against.

With this sort of enhancement to the game players could enhance maneuver actions, with opportunistic strikes at times, and precision-based movements at other times. It would also help alleviate the occasional complaint against whatever time frame is used in the game as being too long, since commanders can be given the leeway to respond in a more timely manner.

Enhancement to the game or unneeded complication?

[Orel]

In my opinion the idea is interesting. I personally hate it when my troops call off an attack because "their cohesion is too low", and the system you are offering will help decrease the inconvenience. Though I am not sure about whether the AI should be allowed to give orders.

There is another problem I sometimes have in my RUS games: suppose I attack the enemy army with my army and achieve victory BUT the enemy does not retreat from the area, since he is not totally routed. Realistically, there should be a second battle occurring in the same turn that results in either my or enemy troops being pushed out of the area. But instead, after the first battle my troops take defensive position and a second battle does not occur. As a result, my troops are in defensive position, in an enemy controlled area. I suppose a system as the one that Philo32b is offering would allow my troops to make a second attack, and not change their posture if the "completely centralized" order is given.

[Altaris]

I know what you mean on the stalled attacks Orel. From what I can tell attacks are only initiated once when a stack moves into an enemy area. One thing that can help is sending in waves of stacks, as each stack will initiate a combat... but this is risky as each stack fights one at a time (probably the best way to do it is to create "sacrifice" stacks of one small unit to start the combat, and let the main stack take over after that). I agree it would be better if battle was checked each day (using the ROE settings to determine whether to initiate or not on each side). Would also simulate multiple-day battles better this way. But that would be an engine change I suppose.

[Philo32b]

Could you do a stack wave attack with sister corps? Then you would get the benefit of them fighting together with additional battles as the next corps moves into the region with aggressive posture selected (and pulling the corps already in the region into battle again, too). If three sister corps enter the same region one after the other, there should be three battles and each of the battles should have all the three corps participate, unless I'm missing something.

[Altaris]

Philo, your theory here is correct... however, it does have one potential flaw. If one of the stacks retreats and goes green/green as a result, it won't participate in the subsequent battles. So it can be a bit dangerous unless you're sure you can win with any individual stack - otherwise you can end up having each individual stack get wiped out piecemeal.

[Philo32b]

OK, that is good to know. Maybe then it can have a particular use, such as when you are facing a smaller force and need to destroy it completely as quickly as possible, and are willing to take higher casualties in doing so.