[Elvis vs. JonS DAR Discussion Thread]

I'm going to assume that you haven't played CMSF recently. Parameters are only one (very simple) way to do it. You can also assign all of the units to an enemy Target objective and set a point value for it. Destroying all of the units would result in full points being awarded, and a fraction of those units resulting in a fraction of the points, scaling with the level of destruction. So with it set up that way victory becomes harder to achieve the more losses you take, on a sliding scale instead of a binary value.

i guess you don't get the "troll science" part of it. you have a racing game with different types of cars. a player complains that a Ferrari is not as fast as it should be and thus get's bad finishing times. no problem, just use the race parameter that takes off 5 seconds from Ferrari's finishing time.

the last time i played CMSF was earlier today.

[Elvis vs. JonS DAR Discussion Thread]

Some did. I each situation of the DAR that I had men throw their arms up there were others in their unit who retreated rather than surrender. The tank crew had 4 men, of which one surrendered. The squad that ran onto Hill 144 had 9 men and 4 threw their arms up and all ended up being rescued. The squad on the cart path had 6 men and 2 surrendered. Surrender is not a unit-wide thing that happens.

you mean at different periods or at the same time?

seeing the praise this feature is getting, i don't know how realistic separate surrenders are from basic battlefield psychology perspective. my understanding of the subject is that the one that surrenders is the whole group, whatever that means, a team or a platoon or a whatever, or nothing. if nothing, the other guys wait "suppressed" or "routed" for the heroic ones to get shot, then surrender if situation is still the same. unless unit cohesion is atypically low, i think different behaviour would be rare. they are brothers and they stick together no matter what. when they don't and they don't die, they are internally tormented about it for the decades to come.

but it's great that they are at least doing it.

[Elvis vs. JonS DAR Discussion Thread]

You can tack on such a large point penalty for any loss percentage you care to specify that it will make victory unachievable for that side.

do thresholds work like in CSFM, just one value per parameter?

You can set that for 5% losses and, to use the extant example, give the American player 4 hours just to take hill 154. It would probably be more realistic. But you are conflating scenario design with engine flaws, they are not the same thing.

he is or you are?

i'm a bit shocked about the popularity of this solution, because it seems to borderline the "troll science" series of memebase.com. let me change the context:

take an early FPS game. the game and the maps offer almost no ways to utilize the cover. the only way to use cover is to run behind a corner. you always fire from the hip and you can shoot just as accurately when you are running and jumping around. you wade kneedeep in the dead within a couple of minutes. well, make a casualty threshold in the scenario parameters. realistic results!

[Thickness and penetration data]

that's a good question, does any one have a link?

these?

http://mysite.verizon.net/pchardwarelinks/cm/

[CM:BN Beta AAR/DAR Bois de Baugin - German side]

If things start to go really bad in a battle, it takes weeks, not minutes, for the soldiers to recover.

it's usually when whole units become demoralized.

on the other hand many units chose to go down shooting, even after suffering prolonged periods of brutal fighting.

i find the CMBN system, as described, beautiful and sexy.

[Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different]

This may be a tad morbid. But when I see pictures like this, I always wonder what happens to the crew if they are still inside. And how can these guys look inside the turret? I mean, doesn't the crew get plastered all over the insides of the vehicle or do they simply vapourise in the violence of the blast?

just a flesh wound?

considering what happens to the 30+ ton tank around you, i'd say you have a 60% chance of getting wounded. a concussion is a possibility if you hit your head into something when the explosions start rocking. of course an experienced crew would know to hold tight to their seats and by so doing escape serious injury. and if you analyse the dynamics of the situation carefully you will realize that wearing any kind of helmet would probably prevent a concussion altogether.

BTW in the thread i linked it's said that the tank commander escaped, but later got a stone thrown at him. luckily the stone didn't hit him but it appears to have spooked him. it must have been an eventful day for that tank commander.

[Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different]

man in the middle: "i told you to use 'mahogany brown' instead of 'dark shadow' on the turret interior! son, i am disappoint."

man on the right: "WTF?!? he used the BR-350A color tones on the BR-350B shells??? i think we need to seriously reconsider his club membership."

about this T-34 and its demise, if someone is interested:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=174027

apologies for the off-topic.

[Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different]

ISTR that was a tactic -- DK how frequent -- used against T-34s during the Budapest Uprising (phone poles rammed between the bogies by a brave group of Hungarians, followed by MCs on the engine compartment).

Finns found crowbars quite effective as well. not to mention more absurd things, like all sorts of traps (stuff like trees falling on tanks). effectiveness would of course be limited, even if during the 100+ days of Winter War Soviet tank losses even just on Karelian Isthmus were over 3000 pieces per official Soviet records.

T-26s and BTs are naturally quite different from T-34, though. would be hard, or at least the method would be highly impractical, to get this sort of T-34 with logs & molotovs:

RE: small arms fire vs armour, early war tanks didn't all have vision blocks or periscopes, so it might be remotely possible to hit the drivers et al. through a vision slit.

intensive small arms fire gives things like jammed turrets & ports etc, if you want technical effects.

[Who's up for an experiment?]

I don't think I will. In my experience, if twenty people will express interest, twelve might be up for it, six will actually show up, of which three will flake out, and one will get a heart attack or divorce, leaving you with two players, if lucky. There is not much gusto here, so I think I should just abandon it.

Already a problem has cropped up, I had no trouble finding operation level players in my personal circle, but only one had CM, and only one other was willing to get it. They're doing all the tactical stuff together, and most of that is terribly lopsided and looks rather pointless when taken out of context. The example battle I mentioned above was already viewed as boring on the forum, so I think I've just been barking up the wrong tree by trying to get people from here.

why don't you go and give it a try on CMBB forum? this thread has 929 views, but still a good number of interested folks might not have noticed.

[Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different]

@Undead reindeer,

I found it amusing that in your replies to Steve, who basically played a large part designing the game, you continue to act as though he didn't understand about the terrain,etc.

i am well aware of who he is what comes to CM and discussion in these forums. i also think his ability to take contrasting comments and feedback is far underestimated. CMSF and CMBN show that beyond any reasonable doubt.

facts are facts. if one's arguments are against facts one needs to rephrase. Steve can both take and deliver as much bluntness as it takes. and to give him credit it's usually on the delivering side.

[Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different]

yeah it sounds very good. those AARs show amazing stuff.

release the game already!

[CM:BN Beta AAR/DAR Bois de Baugin - German side]

(larger image)

i only see a HMG icon so i supect all those 4 men belong to it. however two of them are not in foxholes. and cues to why that is the case?

second question: is that fellow next to the MG serving in some kind of ammo feeder assistant role (or is he perhaps the HMG squad leader doing some spotting), or is his position and pose just a coincidence? if it's not a conincidence, is there a reason why he is not in the foxhole (one foxhole can take 2 men, right?)?

[Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different]

But it is still the SAME TERRAIN. The only difference it might make is in the diminished LOS/LOF when such things become important. But as far as the game is concerned, if you are in one corner of that 20x20m spot it is identical to the other corner. There is *NO* difference in terms of the terrain.

This is not true in CMx2. Each meter of terrain in CMx2 can be different. Trees, for example, are explicitly simulated while in CMx1 they were not. So if you have a tree in one corner of an 8x8m Action Spot, then that corner is different than the other corner. There is absolutely, without any question, nothing similar like this in CMx1. That's because for 20m in any direction the terrain was absolutely identical. Slight exception for the few "linear" type terrain features that were allowed in specific Tiles.

variation in terrain types within the same 20x20m tile does exist in CMx1. one spot might be open, one open woods or scattered trees, one roads, one trench, one crater and so on. this should be obvious to anyone who goes and plays the game.

yeah, there's higher fidely in terrain modelling in CMx2 and it is also obvious for anyone who goes and plays the game.

Control and fidelity are not the same things.

i naturally agree.

the only relevancy is what you simulate and that the simulation replicates the real world aspects relevant for the simulated subject.

what comes to CMBN i don't care if it's accomplished by TaciAI, the human player or abstracted game mechanics, as long as it is accomplished well enough.

the rest is just ideological by nature and everyone is free to form their own opinions.

[Who's up for an experiment?]

I've run layered games like this before, albeit not with CM as tactical resolution. The only trick is to know your stuff and keep control, then it isn't too hard. I don't see a problem there.

Where I do see a problem, is that there just doesn't seem to be too much enthusiasm. I may have misjudged how this part of the wargames world operates. I'm more of the simming side of things, but this forum seems to be more gaming oriented. It's a matter of taste.

the niche is already filled. for those parts that are not filled, people have become cynical because in the past the ambitious meta-campaigns all died out under the weight of running them.

this is the wrong place to post about this anyway. make a post on CMBB forum to see if you get people interested. at least two of the currently active posters over there (JasonC and Bigduke6) have run meta-campaigns themselves, so perhaps you can team up and get something running.

at that point people will join if you can convince them it's doable and fun. i know i would. the thing i dislike the most about CMx1 is the isolated nature of battles.

[Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different]

The one that occasionally makes me nearly pull my hair out is when you have an ATGM team and a squad in the same building or action point and you just can't get the guy with the rocket in position to see the bloody tank.

yeah exactly, that's a part of it and i fear MG positioning in CMBN will become a similar issue (especially for "standard" German squads who get 90% of their firepower from one single weapon). one other part is when the Action Spots just happen to be aligned in a way where you can't effectively target some specific target - you would need to get the unit into the area between the Action Spots. etc. i would think we all know these situations from playing CMSF.

[Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different]

Not really. As c3k pointed out, "fidelity" of CMx1 was an illusion. As I said in my earlier posts, from a simulation standpoint there was no difference whether a Squad was on the extreme right or the extreme left of a 20x20m Tile. As far s the simulation was concerned, you were in the same exact terrain in both points and every point within. Special exceptions made for "linear" terrain such as walls and roads.

lol wtf? seriously? what can i say? you are simply wrong. it does make a difference where you are located within the tile.

This is where some design for effect elements created the illusion that you weren't playing in big 20x20m chunks. But you were.

nay, i beg to differ. again, what can i say. it's evident from how the game behaves that you are not playing in 20x20m chunks. you, the co-designer, are simply wrong, as amazing as it is. i knows bestest!

And because the terrain is inherently more realistically varied within a given number of meters, the fidelity is vasty more detailed than CMx1.

yeah it's quite obvious, no argument there.

On top of this the systems within the game resolve down to those individual positions and individual Soldiers. Effects are, therefore, truly dependent upon those individual positions. Therefore, the game is internally consistent.

The Game is internally consistent in that sense, but the consistency of fidelity in the simulation of a firefight is not only those things you wrote about above. the function of the unit is things like ability to project its firepower in sound way, to utilize the cover offerend by the surroundings in a sound way and ability to move in a sound way. in CMx2's case it's when the unit is able to position the individual soldiers in ways that fulfill the unit's function. CMSF does some of that pretty good already (e.g. moving or projection of firepower when surroundings are simplistic) but i think you'd agree that there's still some room for improvement: that's why i asked if there had been made any improvements on these areas in CMBN.

Not so much fidelity problems, but rather practical limitations on what PCs can handle.

i think they are fidelity problems but i can accept / acknowledge the given reason for it.

Even if CM:BN had the same restricted variety of terrain types, it still has 4x more variation within any given 20x20m space compared to CMx1. But that's just a part of it. CM:BN allows for several additional types of terrain to be mixed into a single 8x8m space than was possible in CMx1.

These are simple facts that can not be argued with.

yeah, no argument there.

True, user control over positioning a unit in CMx1 had higher fidelity in most cases. However, this is an illusion. In CMx1 there were types of terrain that blocked movement, correct? Well, that meant those pieces prevented all movement within 20x20m. Having precise control over where the unit moved was, therefore, irrelevant. In CMx1 there would be roughly 4x Action Spots in the same physical space, any of which could be blocked or not. So in CMx2 you can have more operational flexibility because the terrain is more refined. This means that user placement within CMx2 is, in some cases, far more precise than in CMx1.

having precise control over where the unit moved is far from irrelevant in CMx1. it goes as far as dictating success in a number of cases (e.g. stuff like knowing to place that SMG squad deep enough in that heavy building so that it can fire into the street but it can't be directly targetted from the building across the street etc).

Another thing is about elevation changes. CMx2 allows roughly 4x as many variations of elevation within a given space than CMx1. This is because the terrain mesh in CMx1 was based on 20x20m squares, CMx2 is based on 8x8m squares. Again, this is simple math that anybody can see without having to look in the games themselves.

yeah again no argument there. i am not arguing about this stuff.

But why does that matter when absolutely everything in CMx1 was of a radically lower fidelity? Given a player more control over a lower fidelity simulation doesn't make the fidelity any higher.

buttt unit positioning is done in higher fidelity :cool:

Just like reducing player control over a higher fidelity simulation doesn't lower its fidelity PROVIDED the TacAI behaves in compliance with the higher fidelity. Which it does, so there is no problem.

yeah there's no problem if it does.

This is not to say that there aren't times when the player is frustrated he can't move around individual soldiers or move a unit a few meters only. Absolutely agree there and those rough spots are being reduced over time.

finally! great to hear! i feel blessed.

so, any new major tweaks in CMBN?

But again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the underlying fidelity and consistency of the simulation itself.

Nothing.

i don't see a need to argue about this. it's just semantics in the end.

[Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different]

I'd say that CMx1 offered the ILLUSION of greater PRECISION in unit placement.

it's a funny illusion because it's directly related to the ability to get the MG to the spot required to be able to fire at the target specified (this is my real issue, not the intentional LOF breaking). in CMx2 my choises are available only by every 8 meters and even then it's up to how the soldier in question ends up positioned within those 64 square meters. even if there is by divine luck a LOF between my possible tiles and the target area (the combination of tile positions (different tiles, not positions within 8x8m tiles) is limited), the soldier may not have LOF or his fire may mind-numbingly repeatedly hit some static terrain feature on the path to the target. yes, it's partly a map design question, but the more realistic the map (more clutter and LOF blockers) the worse the issue. it's not the end of the world - i just have troubles accepting that the fidelity in this regard is higher in CMx2.

[Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different]

strong modelling of suppression goes long ways into limiting suicidal heroics. if you have trouble moving your men into effective weapon ranges there will be lot's less killing and dying. as a bonus the battles start to follow historical patterns and dynamics. having never played CMBN i have no idea if that's exactly how the game plays.

[Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different]

Before I begin answering your posts, note that your questions don't have much to do with the topics being discussed.

they are directly related to the fidelity of infantry simulation?

I'm not sure I know what you mean. "Fidelity" is the degree of detail found in a particular part of the game. "Consistency" is how frequently the results are within acceptable bounds compared to being outside acceptable bounds. What do you think in CM:SF isn't behaving that way?

for example the "snap to 8 meter grid" functionality is not consistent with the rest of the game. the level of fidelity just doesn't match. i think it's quite obvious. it's not any kind of game breaker, though sometimes it's a pain, especially in situations that contain some form of keyholing.

there are a number of other inconsistent fidelity infantry simulation aspects, like the lacking building interior simulation, too tight formations, lack of "crawl 3 meters to cover" AI, lack of friendly LOF blocking, the tendency of fire in certain situations to hit walls and corners unrealistically and so forth.

If you wish to consider this an exception to "no difference" that's fine with me. It doesn't change what I wrote.

you simply do not need to move a unit 20 meters or into another tile to break LOS in CMx1 and an individual 20x20 meter tile can contain lot's of variation.

it's simply not true and anyone can check it out in CMx1.

No, there is no plans on changing the fidelity because it is unnecessary.

i hope that's true.

CMx1 was low fidelity, CMx2 is higher fidelity.

what comes to unit positioning CMx1 has superior fidelity.

[Who's up for an experiment?]

what about leaving the computer game out of it? just draw it on paper (or MS paint or whatever) and let each player draw their plans. then use your judgement (and dice?) on what happens. would be a lot faster and way less work.

[Calling artillery]

Similar in that you can ask for how many tubes you want, how heavy and how long the arty will fall? I don't know how they did it back then.

there were huge differences in doctrines between nations. i think in most cases they wouldn't go to such details, but would rather call one of the standard fires. usually fires were such that numbers were calculated in artillery battalions instead of tubes (fires by such small numbers like individual batteries were considered wasteful because of lacking results). of course you get silly stuff like some Finnish FOs calling in single individual rounds (as crazy and theoretically impossible as it sounds, for example to target and succesfully destroy an individual enemy tank), but it would be exceptional.

[Is the T-34's gun really under modeled in the game??]

you can get the massed fire effects with smaller number of guns in my experience (no tests but have done it succesfully in games). for example Tiger I isn't normally abandoned when a small calibre gun (57mm for example) achieves a single partial penetration, but when i combine to the 57mm single partial penetration fire from two ineffective 76mm guns the Tiger I tends to get abandoned. perhaps it's all in my head.

what comes to Tiger I sides it can in real world be penetrated with 76mm standard AP ammo, but you need to hit the weak points (get very lucky or get good shots from short range). since CMBB does not model those and the modelled plates can not be penetrated, you are left with less than desirable result (like with the StuG fronts).

[Why infantry combat in CMx2 is so different]

I am sure I'm not the only CMx1 player who quite frequently found myself looking at a unit and thinking "they are dead if they move, so they might as well fight it out where they are".

"reverse advance" would be / have been great!

The other rule of thumb is that the more consistent the fidelity is within the simulation, the more consistent the results will be.

have there been any significant improvements to the CMx2 engine what comes to this (consistency of fidelity) and CMBN? for example the fidely between fire and movement is quite stark in CMSF - are there any new major improvements, fixes or tweaks in CMBN?

There wasn't much point having individual soldiers simulated (even non-graphically) since each terrain tile was internally identical. Which in turn meant ballistics couldn't be simulated directly since there weren't 13 points of fire for a 13 man unit, but rather 1 point of fire. Since there is only one point of fire there's no reason to simulate individual weapons firing on their own. Instead a volley of fire, made by "adding up" the individual weapons, was the only way to go. With no terrain variations or soldiers to use them, why bother having direct simulation of cover and concealment? So on and so forth.

i am not 100% sure what you mean ("each terrain tile was internally identical" :confused::confused:), but the way i read it is that you say that one 20x20m tile in CMx1 would not contain any variation within it. to me that seems like a counterfactual statement, since there can be variations not only in both elevations and terrain types but also in LOS/LOF "rules" (LOS/LOF may change even when elevation or terrain type does not) within a single 20x20m tile.

If this had been CMx1 the terrain wouldn't have had any affect unless Jon's guys moved from one 20x20m tile to another which offered situationally better cover/concealment, or perhaps a significant elevation fold in the middle of the tile. Meaning, as Jon's soldiers started moving they would usually have been just as vulnerable with each meter moved.

but that's simply not the case in CMx1? :confused:

for example you can only see 26 meters into woods (combined, between tiles - e.g. if you are 10 meters into a wood tile and you are looking at woods across an open field, you can only see some 16 meters into it, or if you are in middle of woods tiles you can only see 26 meters around you) or how in urban combat you can only see half way into those heavy buildings (or not see opposite corner of a light building etc etc) and then you have those tiles with multiple internal terrain types (e.g. a single 20x20m tile can contain such different terrain types like "open", "scattered trees", "road", "crater", "trench").

in optimal conditions all it takes is less than one meter of movement in CMx1 to break LOS. in CMSF you can not make such high fidelity moves - the smallest move you can make is 8 meters (when you move non-diagonally, for diagonal movement it's of course more). does CMBN allow these kind of high-fidelity movements we have in CMx1 or are there any plans for improving the system towards that direction at some point in future?

Keeping in mind the two rules of thumb noted above, the CMx2 engine was based around the 8x8m Action Spot system instead of the old 20x20m Tile system.

well...

Hope that long read was interesting

it was. sorry for the CMx1 nitpicking, but i want to be sure i haven't misunderstood something.

[Command Delay. Love it? Hate it? Should it ever return.]

The key issue in my mind is how do you differentiate between activities ordered by higher headquarters and local orders.

it's very complicated and time consuming when you try it out even just in a game like CM. some time ago (a year ago?) someone posted about his experiments about using runners on CMBB forum. i have played some battles experimenting with the idea and it's quite hard. my own house rules are something like this:

- you get German infantry company. add two tank hunter teams to represent company commander's runners (if you want to make it easier, give each platoon hq a runner as well). add some artillery (e.g. one or two medium or light batteries) or if you want it easier add a vehicle or two.

- mission is to attack against Soviet infantry-only force. you can try with 300 points tiny/small/medium map setting, but it's going to be almost impossible if you let AI choose units. if you choose enemy units, choose only a reinforced platoon or so. mission duration 60 minutes or more.

- basic idea: you are the company HQ. you see only what the HQ sees. you give orders to subunits only either directly with the HQ (distance to subunit max 20 m, or if it's firing/taking fire/pinned less than 10 m) or with runners (same distance rules apply). subunits within a formation (e.g. squads in a platoon) can pass orders to sister subunits (like "advance in line formation" etc) when it's realistic. you can move the Coy HQ freely.

- so if you want to give orders to some platoon, you have a runner (tank hunter team) next to you and make that runner pass the order to the platoon hq (plot route as seems most realistic). note: you can only give orders if there's a reason to give them from the company hq viewpoint. if some platoon is being gunned by enemy MG and you (coy hq) can't see it, you have to go see what's happening or send a runner to find out (note: the runner needs to return back to coy HQ to tell what it was).

- orders can be generic but simplistics. for example "advance into those trees, take positions on treeline towards those buildings and wait for further instructions" or "start advancing towards that treeline when artillery barrage begins" or "follow me" or "advance in line on my left". "suppress that mg if it opens up again", "call barrage on those buildings after 5 minutes has passed, use the last 1/4 of rounds on those woods" etc. "advance into those trees, then advance towards those buildings starting at turn 15, when you have taken the buildings advance towards that hill when barrage on it ends" and such complex orders are OK as well, but you most likely wont be using them after the first attempt (if anything changes you/runner needs to go to cancel the orders etc).

-platoon hq can send runner (attached tank hunter team or half-squad) to coy hq to report about some important event.

- platoon hq can change subunit targets or hide/unhide them, but only with the above mentioned distance rule. platoon hq can also withdraw the platoon to the previous position.

- you can role-play squads etc when it seems realistic (e.g. they are in open next to house, taking fire - yes you can move them into the building).

- note that if you (the coy hq) can't see a runner hasn't yet passed the message to receiving unit (for example becaue it took fire and got routed), you don't know about it. likewise when the runner returns it supposes the coy hq is where it was when it left, unless you told it otherwise. etc etc

- if you want it extra-realistic, allow the coy hq (or other similar unit) to give and receive information for only some seconds per turn. the idea is that if the transmission of information would realistically take 2 minutes face-to-face, the coy hq can't do it during the build-in delay period of the game. for bonux extra realism make it so that you have to formulate the orders in your head during the 60 seconds of the playback sequence - if you don't know what to do after it has passed just press "GO" (after adjusting subunits per situation demands).

- you can try it with the addition of imaginary flare signals, if you are familiar with their usage.

- etc

it's of course horribly masochistic but the battles are a bit more realistic and will force the change of playstyle/tactics. and most importantly it underlines how much of normal CMx1 battles are based on stuff that couldn't be executed in reality (at least the way it happens in the game). doing this might work better in CMx2 because it's easier to tell what a unit can see (removed borg spotting) and because of resupply (one of the things that break it in CMx1, together with "dance of death", is that units burn their ammo far too quickly).

[Command Delay. Love it? Hate it? Should it ever return.]

I still don't see the reasoning for this. If the company commander tells a lieutenant to take his platoon and "sneak over to the crest of that hill and let me know what you see" the command is just the same and takes as long to communicate whether that crest is 100 meters away or two kilometers. The only thing a command delay should be based on is how long it takes to formulate the command, relay it to the subordinate unit(s), and put it into action. And to my mind that is a problem too complex for the game system to solve with consistent accuracy at the present time.

it doesn't make such a difference to the platoon in question, but it is likely to make a difference to the parent formations and their other subunits, especially if the action is not just recon. you need to create new support plans, notify greater number of units etc.

i'd dare to propose (propose in this theoretical discussion, not propose as in CM feature) that the delay per meter value would double by every certain distance (it itself also doubling by every step) as to simulate in abstracted way the messing up of higher and higher level of planning in the chain of command (causing exponential delays at each new step), instead of just linear increase. the game would probably calculate the distance not only from the current position of the unit, but in relation to the initial position (or better yet, the position of the waypoints of intial "round 0" orders). the further away you get from your original plan the harder it gets to make the moves.

delay would also increase exponentially per angle to the direction of the sector, so that forward-backward movement would cause less delays than left-right movement (angle comparison by the original facing of the unit's sector or preferrably by that of the initial waypoints). this would make the typical bizarre cross-boundary/sector movements (or even worse the zig-zag and back in a circle movements) of CM battles more difficult to execute when they aren't planned on "round 0".