Christmas Bone

[Mord]

Yep. You want command delays but a 30 to 60 second + pause on your units then issue them orders. Bingo. Instant command delay.

Mord.

[Dadekster]

Yes, once again...so crazy it may just work.

I'll skip the sarcastic 'nuke from orbit' internet reference since it seemed to confuse someone earlier.

[Sergei]

Yep. You want command delays but a 30 to 60 second + pause on your units then issue them orders. Bingo. Instant command delay.

Mord.

Care to give us your Instant Formula so we too can calculate the correct delay for every unit in every situation (in/out of command, commander bonuses, experience, radio/no radio etc.), Einstein?

[Collingwood]

Roll a D20 and consult the initiative table before change of orders can be issued. Remember those days ?

[Fizou]

Sorry, but all solutions I've read so far are worse than what we have now.

Why? Because they fix some situations and break others. There is no net gain - it's just different.

Now we have a game that works and is fun to play. It has unrealistic reaction times through god-like communication, ok. But this is a premise of the game: that we can control every unit on the field every minute. If you want to change that you want a different game.

+1 . I also think the Italians are handled in a great way as is. Im sure BF will do something great for the Russians as well. But as others have pointed out.. maybe that isnt relevant for 1944. The red army had come a long way since 41..

[76mm]

These posts remind me of those old crime TV shows where the serial killer leaves the cops a note "Stop me before I kill again!"

If you think issuing immediate orders is gamey then don't do it. If you think overflying enemy positions investigating the terrain to gain an advantage is gamey then don't do that either. Same for hugging map edges to avoid a flank attack, replaying a move sequence over and over to detect the source of incoming fire, or having troops area fire on a spot though they can't see the opponent. None of these apply to the AI since the AI is incapable of doing any of that. So its largely a question of self restraint. Nobody claims that Honda has a design flaw because it allows theirs car to be purposefully driven into a ditch. The operator needs to take some responsibility.

Why not extend this great idea to other parts of the game? Let's dispense with all of those pesky C&C rules and just let players decide when/if their troops "should" be out of command. Heck, those LOS rules drive me crazy too, I think I should be able to decide when my troops can see the enemy. I could go on and on, but I think the point is that players should not be allowed (forced?) to make up the rules as they go along on "simulation" issues.

The other mechanisms you mention (...overflying enemy positions investigating the terrain...hugging map edges to avoid a flank attack, replaying a move sequence over and over to detect the source of incoming fire...) are totally different in that they are literally "gamey" issues (ie, arising from the game itself) rather than "simulation" issues (ie, rules intended to simulate reality).

I'm not sure what the solution is to the lack of command delays, or frankly if a solution is needed at all, or if needed, is practicable, but the lack of any distinction in the responsiveness of conscript vs elite troops does strike me as being rather odd.

[Lt Belenko]

On 23 Dec, Santa began his roll in to town according to the BFC home page. Last night (7 Jan) I stored the Christmas decorations up in the rafters, however, comma, no sign of Santa....yet. Not even a pre-ordered Santa.

Just saying.

[Mord]

Care to give us your Instant Formula so we too can calculate the correct delay for every unit in every situation (in/out of command, commander bonuses, experience, radio/no radio etc.), Einstein?

No. Because I don't give a **** about command delays. I was just offering a solution that is staring everyone in the face. However, that is a good idea, you should make up some rules, Freud.

Mord.

[sburke]

Peregrine is Einstein. He's already put together a pretty intricate set of rules.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1475843&postcount=1

[Baneman]

...

I'm not sure what the solution is to the lack of command delays, or frankly if a solution is needed at all, or if needed, is practicable, but the lack of any distinction in the responsiveness of conscript vs elite troops does strike me as being rather odd.

I'm not sure I agree with this - IRL, if you tell Conscripts or Elite troopers to "Go to that position", there's unlikely to be any delay for either of them.

What they do when they get there or if they freeze on the way due to nearby fire would be the difference and the game already does a good job with that.

I guess that means the lack of command delays makes sense to me.

[Sgt Joch]

On Command Delays.

Personally, I would love to see them, both movement and area fire, although we would need something more sophisticated than in CMx1, taking into account not only the experience level of the troops, but of the leaders and whether they are in C2.

As far as I know, BFC has never said they would never come back, only that if they do they come back, it will not be the same as in CMx1.

That being said, at some point I'd like to try and figure out some other way to hamper operational action without also screwing up reasonable tactical freedoms. But I already know it's a tough nut to crack. Nobody else has cracked it as far as I know.

Steve

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1489362&postcount=44

CMx2 is constantly in evolution. As the Chinese proverb goes: "The journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step" ..... or is that "Don't start a land war in Asia!". I always get those two confused.

[JasonC]

Sgt Joch - it is "never get involved in a land war in Asia". Who started it is not the question. The folks to get stuck in this sort of thing very frequently did not *start* their particular war, but get *involved* anyway. And of course the point of the adage is that it is much harder to *end* a land war in Asia, because Asia itself as a territory practically does not end.

Just a quibble...

[Sgt Joch]

proverb Grog.

[76mm]

I'm not sure I agree with this - IRL, if you tell Conscripts or Elite troopers to "Go to that position", there's unlikely to be any delay for either of them.

Maybe, but not sure. For instance, if you tell conscripts "go to that position", they:

1) might not even hear/see the command, because their head is buried in the dirt or looking straight ahead, etc.

2) might hear/see the command, but not understand what you're talking about--"what position, sir? That wall or those bushes?"

3) might hear/see the command and understand it, but not understand how to do it, at least without further explanation: "sir, do we need to do that bounding overwatch thing again, or can we just run over there?"

4) might hear/see the command, understand it, know how to do it, but just decide that they are better off doing what they're already doing.

Also, it is probably fair to assume that the NCOs and officers in conscript units are not "best in class" either, so they are probably not doing the greatest job of giving proper commands or motivating their troops to follow them. Untrained leaders leading untrained troops is not a recipe for crisp execution of orders.

And of course all of this depends on what specific command we are talking about, and the situation--are they marching down the road, stationary returning fire, or what? "Command delay", if any, would be different in almost every situation.

So it is very possible that having a blanket delay is as unrealistic as no delay; it would be great to have some kind of "command AI" that would deal with all of this in an appropriate way, but that wouldn't be easy, and maybe not even feasible.

[Sergei]

I'm not sure I agree with this - IRL, if you tell Conscripts or Elite troopers to "Go to that position", there's unlikely to be any delay for either of them.

*watches the men go to wrong position*

Maybe there should be alternatives - either you accept some delays, or you accept that your men don't get unambiguous orders and will end up in a wrong place, facing the wrong direction and firing at wrong targets?

[sburke]

*watches the men go to wrong position*

Maybe there should be alternatives - either you accept some delays, or you accept that your men don't get unambiguous orders and will end up in a wrong place, facing the wrong direction and firing at wrong targets?

With some of the pathing issues that seems to end up happening often enough.

[John Kettler]

Sergei,

There's always that leadership thing: "Follow me!"

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vark]

I remember in, IIRC, Michael Herr's Dispatches, about a Marine officer, the men disparagingly called, Lt Gladly, because he'd 'gladly do anything the men were asked to do.' He lasted a few weeks before dying, leading his men, from the front.

If you have command delays, it should also be related to the unit's morale state, as well as proficiency. For added realism, NCO's could be modelled screaming at the men, 'get up you bleeps and get bleeping moving!'

[76mm]

For added realism, NCO's could be modelled screaming at the men, 'get up you bleeps and get bleeping moving!'

Excellent point. The volume and obscenity levels could increase as command delays increase, and at least on the Russian Front, drawn pistols could be used to further encourage especially sluggish troops!

Kind of a sad story about Lt Gladly...

[Canada Guy]

There is also a big difference between leadership & authority. Give a commissar a uniform and they have all the authority they can handle but that does not mean that they are providing leadership. The current US army uses the idea of Be-Know-Go with its emphasis on allowing subordinate troops to solve their own problems and the leader acting as facilitator. I think this was in a similar vein as the Germans. Quality over quantity. The soviets looked at this more as authority, especially in the early years. I say this so you do this. If i do not say it, you do not do it. Very different leadership styles.

I am not sure upon which theory or how the commonwealth or the US trained their leaders in WWII but I think that this is hard to model in CMBN. The Italians seem to have some leadership flavour but the Brits, US & Germans all see a little leadership generic. I think there were national differences & I think it should be reflected in the game (or if it is, it is all hidden behind the scenes without letting us know) there was different leadership styles between the Germans and soviets as well (with this changing for both as the war went on) but how do you reflect this without either something like a command delay or creating inherent national characteristics?

[Dadekster]

Sergei,

There's always that leadership thing: "Follow me!"

Regards,

John Kettler

As someone who went through the Turning Blue ceremony that little phrase means more than some may think. All earlier flippant remarks aside when it comes to this game I'll share what the whole "command delays" means to me. Usually I enjoy coming here and reading the spirited discussions that go on but I find this a rather important personal topic for a guy that was at the bottom of the CoC much of the time. Also I realize the vast majority of people on these boards understand most of what I am about to type but it seems some are losing sight of the forest when discussing the trees.

Command delays to me should basically reflect the time lag between what highest level HQ in game decides what they want to do and the time this filters down to the squad leader or whoever is in charge of that particular element you are clicking on. It should reflect how squared away your leaders are from top to bottom. If they are green they are going to be probably holding the map upside down assuming it is the right map in the first place. Veteran leaders are efficient seeing the battle develop ahead of events and not second guessing themselves or at the appropriate level at least not in front of their men. A year of seasoning made for a MASSIVE difference for butterbars at least at the NTC when I was there. Knowing what needs to done after experiencing it multiple times is a big difference between having just read about it.

On a related note, I find the TacAI in this game plenty fine. Soldiers hide when they should be hiding, scanning when they should be scanning and returning fire when they can etc etc. Command delays should have nothing to do with that. There should be no command delays at the start of the game either since most of the time everyone is on the jump off point or there generally is a set of actions taken on point of contact in something like a meeting engagement no matter the army. Whether that happens or not comes down to training and experience of course but I find the experience ranks given to units handles this rather well imo with how long it takes them to react. Please note I am not implying all of it is perfect as some of the discussion in other threads are evidence of that I think.

So making everything equal regarding experience what you have left with is scope. If you are playing one squad then I'd say it is safe to say there should be zero delay between what the squad leader says and what your guys do. You see all and control all to a degree. Now you are in control of a platoon you have several squads being the LT and have to relay orders to squad leaders. For the most part I'd say stuff still gets done pretty quick at this level assuming all are within visual sight. At the company level...well now it gets tricky. Many times you will not have visual sight of all platoons. To me this is where command delays start to make a big difference in this game. LT's are very important here. These are the guys where the rubber meets the asphalt. Personally I always thought the Shock Force series represented command delays very well between verbal, sight only, etc. It's been a while since playing those tbh but iirc units reacted quicker the more in comms you were with them. Prone to believe it wasn't much different in WW2 no matter what branch at this level, especially since our digital troops don't display higher level initiative themselves. You kinda have to do that for them whether they are German or Russian.

I feel much of this is about scope. Once you hit company level op's this is where you start getting into delays as your LT's attempt to carry out your directions. Things get more complicated. A CPT may tell Platoon A to take Hill X while Platoon B provides cover but the LT of Platoon A is going to have to tell his platoon how to do this. That itself takes time. This is the time going by that you see as a CPT after you tell Platoon A to take Hill X and they are just sitting there. Hopefully LT of Platoon X is looking at the correct map or has a SGT to steer him straight before they charge up Hill Z. Higher up then that and it just starts to multiply the higher you go. Command staff starts to make difference. But back to the CPT who now has to formulate the best way to do what Battalion just told him within his scope and explain this to his LT's. Everything is fine until you have to change your plan and start issuing orders on the fly creating command delays which as far as I am concerned should probably just be called communication delays hence the KISS principle. The more moving parts the longer big plans take to carry out. This game however is limited in that scope. We aren't concerned in how to encircle an army group just in how to take that crossroad in that village.

Call me crazy but I thought how CM1 handled command delays was pretty well done for the time. Every time you added an additional command the time it took to carry this out increased. Pretty common sense to me especially when it took into account the training and experience of the unit in how quick said order was carried out. The biggest drawback in it again was of course scope. If you are getting your rear end handed to you most units are not going to wait for a battalion level order to pull back to a more defensible position fifty feet behind you. In my opinion I think the current TacAI handles this well for the most part or at least I am willing to trust them on it via abstraction. If they run out into the open and get mowed down I look at it from the perspective of that they must have thought where they were coming from must have been even worse. Usually if they are in a crappy spot they hump dirt and try to get somewhere deeper. I also can justify it in that the squad leader is ordering the unit in the heat of battle and as a result carried out ASAP.

What is harder to justify is the Battalion commander recognizing a new threat on an unexpected axis and getting one of his companies to start pivoting within 3 seconds like its on a parade ground the moment he recognizes said threat all ESP like. Sure you may have to wait that 60 seconds but what if it happens in the last 10 seconds or you play RT? Yeah, I call BS on that as every single squad executes this order immediately. To me this is the biggest reason for implementing a command delay. Sure the platoon commander or even the company commander may see this threat and react to it but even then there will be delay. It is reasons like that why many people I think elect not to have screening forces or even proper reserves tbh but that is pure speculation. I still have vivid memories of watching BluFor lunchlights going off and the pure confusion of the involved units as they maneuvered around after being flanked. I can tell you that they DID not ESP.

I'll end it for now on that and thanks for making it this far if you have...quite the wall of text I think but some of you are both prolific readers and writers it seems. :cool:

[Endymion]

I think that all this argument comes from differing views about what CM actually is or should be.

For some it seems to be (or they want CM to be) a supreme commander simulation where you pass orders down the command chain to your men. In such a view command delays seem a good and realistic idea.

But for me it appears that CM is not that game. Its concept bases on the idea that you are not only the supreme commander (battalion, company, whatever forces you have at your disposal) but rather you are EVERY commander, at every level, from the main HQ down the chain to every squad and team leader. You make decisions at every level, for every lowly commander, not only the main HQ. That's why any command delay does not make any sense in CM.

As I see it, it's mostly a micro scale tactical game in its roots and even if you take it up to battalion level or even higher, it still is that game. It still has all the micromanagement that it was designed for despite the larger scale. And that's why it can't function as a purely supreme commander simulation. You can't simply drop all the micromanagement and give more power to the AI to carry out your orders. If that was the case then sure, some delay would be appropriate. But it's not and delays simply don't make any sense if you look closely at the game concept.

CM is an abstraction, it gives you godlike powers, sure. But it's designed that way and does a great job doing exactly that, and adding delay simply doesn't fit it. Because it's just not that kind of game.

[Albe Pavo]

I totally agree with Endymion.

CM is great the way it is, the player is not the real commander, is the god-like commander, or better the player is every commander in the army, down to the sergeants.

CM is the best WWII tactical combat simulation ever, but it's not a supreme commander simulation.

Adding an order delay is a very bad idea IMHO, it would change the game completely.

[JonS]

Command delays are an interesting idea. There is some - ok, a lot - of sound historical and realistic basis for this concept. Boyd's OODA loops are based on the idea that if you can shorten your own thought-action cycles c.f. the enemy's, then eventually anything the enemy does will be hopelessly irrelevant to your actions.

Doing things on the battlefield, even simple things, takes a really long time. Take a simple advance to contact, then a platoon quick attack to destroy a small enemy detachment – say, 3-5 men. Stereotypically, it goes something like this:

1) the lead scouts of the lead section receive fire, go to ground, and start returning fire. (time elapsed: a few seconds)

2) The rest of the lead section deploys onto line to suppress the enemy and win the immediate firefight (time elapsed: several minutes, maybe up to ten, depending on circumstances)

3) Concurrently, the platoon commander moves to a position where he can get some sense of WTF is going on, where the enemy is, and the lay of the land. (time elapsed: several minutes, maybe up to ten, depending on circumstances)

4) concurrently, the remainder of the platoon closes up behind the lead section, and provides all-round defence, preferably without getting involved in the ongoing firefight. (time elapsed: several minutes, maybe up to ten, depending on circumstances)

5) The platoon commander calls a short O-Group, consisting of the platoon sgt and the three section commanders, which is often along the lines of ”Chris, you stay here with your section and keep the enemy pinned down. Phil and Bruce, you two come with me on the recce, and bring one of your guys each as a protection party. Sarge, you're in charge here until I get back. Right, recce: brief your sections and meet back here. We leave in 5 minutes.” (time elapsed: 2-3 minutes)

6) The recce party moves out. The platoon commander is looking for a covered route to an FUP from which the enemy position can be assaulted, generally off to a flank so that fire support isn't interrupted. Often the rough route and likely location of the FUP has already been determined from step 3). Once the route and FUP have been established, the recce party move back to the rest of the platoon. (time elapsed: 15-20 minutes)

7) While the recce party is out, the lead section continue to keep the enemy pinned down, using fire discipline to ensure that the available ammo is not consumed too quickly. The rest of the latoon rests, and ensures that everything they'll soon need – in particular, full magazines – is ready to go. (time elapsed: 15-20 minutes)

8) When the recce party returns, there is another O-Group, and the platoon commander prepares and then issues assault orders, along the lines of ”Chris, you're fire support. Phil, you're the assault section. Bruce, you're depth – send your MG over to Chris to beef up the fire support. *points at mud model* Fire support is up on this high ground, the enemy are here in this copse, and the FUP is over here on the left flank. The route from here to the FUP is along thiscreek, which is in low ground. The enemy consist of at least four pers, in four seperate pits, as shown here *points at mud model again*, with their LMG in this forward left pit. Our mission is to destroy the enemy in their current position. I intend to destroy the enemy here, and re-organise on the position, ready to continue the patrol. Order of march to the FUP is Bruce first, then me and platoon HQ, then Phil. Bruce will secure the FUP while Phil you shake your guys out. Chris, make sure you keep your eyes peeled, so when Phil's guys start assaulting though you shift your fire away to the right. H Hour will be at 1645. We leave here in 5 minutes.” (time elapsed: 5-10 minutes)

9) The platoon, less the firesupport moves to the FUP. (time elapsed: 5-10 minutes)

10) At H-hour the assault commences, and continues until the enemy position is overrun. (time elapsed: 5-15 minutes)

11) The firesupport section moves up, and the platoon reorganises (time elapsed: 5-15 minutes)

Total time elapsed: around 45 minutes.

That's three quarters of an hour, from the first exchange of shots until that little battle is complete. During that time the platoon commander makes two or three key decisions, and the delay between his thought and the platoon acting on that thought is at least 10 minutes in each case. Training and SOPs and drills and mutual confidence can shorten that time, but not that much.*

The basic concept as applied to CM seems, to me, to be to introduce a pause between the players thought and action by his game units, or - to put that another way - to de-synchronize his ideas from the resultant activity on screen. Thus players would either be forced to plan well in advance to get multiple independent units to work together coherently, or forced accept regular pauses while their units work through the delay.

In CM terms, that would mean that a player that can plan well and in advance to synchronise his forces in time and space (I'm looking at you, BilH ) will be OODA-Looping like a maniac and regularly tromple a player who can't or won't and instead uses pauses to let his units catch up with what he wants them to do.

But how much reality do you really want here? As others have pointed out, in CM you are taking the role of all the vehicle commanders and all the team commanders and all the section commanders and all the platoon commanders and all the company commanders and all the battalion commanders. In short; you are every commander on the map. Sometimes, yes, there probably should be a delay while the platoon commander goes and does a recce – because he can't see what's over behind that hedge or down in that gully** – rather than immediately sending 2 and 3 Sections haring off around the left flank. But other times it is quite reasonable for 1 Section to kick straight in to things because the section commander/player can see what needs to be done.

That ambiguity between when it's reasonable for there to be a pause and when it isn't creates a significant problem for anyone trying to come up with a rules-based approach, which is exactly what software requires.

Then there's also playability. A hypothetical perfect command delay system would be a PITA to actually play with. Panther Games have done a pretty ok job of implementing command delays in their Command Ops series, but having played around with it a bit I don't believe that it's something I'd like to see in CM. For one thing it creates weird artificial peaks and troughs of activity, especially at the start and end of scenarios, which wouldn't translate well into the different scale of CM vs CO. And would you really want to play a game in which it took 45 file exchanges to complete a simple platoon attack? Really?

Jon

* During that last year of WWII, CW brigades were able to plan and prepare a brigade attack - from a standing start to H-Hour – in 2 hours, in the right circumstances. That is; the thought-to-action time for the Brigadier was as low as 2 hours. The actual advance/battle was on top of that. I think that is rather impressive, although it would make for a stunningly boring scenario.

** the perfect terrain knowledge possessed by every CM player is, I think, a significant factor in speeding up the flow of CM battles c.f. 'real battles'. Resolving that would, I think, have more impact, and slow battles more, than imposing command delays, because command delays would naturally follow from not knowing exactly what's out there. I have little expectation that 'terrain FOW' will be part of CM any time soon.

[PanzerMike]

Great post JonS.

Your second footnote about the player's perfect knowledge of the terrain is spot on. It takes time to get oriented even in perfect conditions. While under extreme stress in combat this will be even harder no doubt. This kind of time consuming activities are hardly there in CM right now. But FOW of this kind is not something we will soon see (if ever) I guess.

If IIRC the action of Easy Company against the guns at Brecourt Manor took some 3 hours. In BoB this is also condensed in what, 15 minutes or something?

Too realistic could turn out too tedious.