Why a 15 sec 'Pause'?

[Radar]

I've used the pause command for some time now but it is definately one of those commands that can bite you hard over its use.

I use the P command to pull up into a hull down pos for firing or to reverse out of sight. This command can get sticky against those fast rotating weapon platforms which perhaps in real life would have no benefit if say a 5 second increment was used.

The command is already hobbled to execute only at the start of the turn to prevent finely ochestrated manuevering, so why is it also made to be a clunker in its performance by being set so it would be rarely if ever used by an experienced player?

The argument that it would be a burdon of micro management is moot cause now I have to still accomplish the same fire mission but now with one stick instead of two.

[Sten]

I don't really understand what you mean?

I'm an experienced player and I use the 'Pause' command often. Draw fire with one unit and advance your tank over that ridge when the enemy is turned toward that first unit you sent. Great for creating flank shots.

Or use it to frogleap with infantry, keeping some squads on the move and others in covering position, laying fire.

IMHO, the game would be much less flexible without it.

Sten

[Robert Olesen]

Well, it is an awkward command to use.

The question of why it can only be applied at the start of a turn must have been debated to death, I'm sure, but the logic of it escapes me. I would love to have been able to tell a unit to move forward to a firing position, wait for a while and then pull back in one go.

Also, considering that the command can be issued repeatedly, a smaller increment would have been more useful. 3 5 second pauses would have the same effect as one 15 second pause and a 5 second pause would give you more flexibility.

[M. Bates]

I vote for 3 or 5 second increments instead of the clumsy 15 seconds.

[Mr. Hankey]

Originally posted by Radar:

I've used the pause command for some time now but it is definately one of those commands that can bite you hard over its use.

I use the P command to pull up into a hull down pos for firing or to reverse out of sight. This command can get sticky against those fast rotating weapon platforms which perhaps in real life would have no benefit if say a 5 second increment was used.

The command is already hobbled to execute only at the start of the turn to prevent finely ochestrated manuevering, so why is it also made to be a clunker in its performance by being set so it would be rarely if ever used by an experienced player?

The argument that it would be a burdon of micro management is moot cause now I have to still accomplish the same fire mission but now with one stick instead of two.

Well, I'm not sure I understand your post, so I really have no idea what you're ultimately trying to say, but I believe you are discussing the use of the pause. I use it this way, for example: Say you have two tanks, one is somewhere behind the other, maybe 50 meters. I want them both to crest a hill at the same time, so I give the lead tank a pause to allow the lagging tank to catch up. My use isn't much more

complicated than that. I don't know why you'd use the pause to reverse out of sight. Seems like you'd be a sitting duck just that much longer, but, hey what do I know?

[This message has been edited by Mr. Hankey (edited 03-29-2001).]

[Soddball]

I would also prefer that to a 15 second pause. Maybe they can implement this request for CM2?

------------------

"Woof!Woof!"

That's my other dog impression.

[Porajkl]

I also vote for shorter pause times and option to issue it at every move order, ie. hunt 80 meters to the top of the hill, pause 10 seconds, then reverse. And so on. In this way you could appear (and dissapear) on the hill like 2 or 3 times per turn, which you can't (unfortunately) do now.

[Homba]

I agree- we need a change to shorter pause increments (5 secs or less) and the pause command should be able to be issued at any point during the turn, not just at the start. This adds a lot of realism. If the tank commander could do it IRL, then we should be able to replicate that in CM.

Homba

[JoePrivate]

No, I don't agree that we need shorter pauses or pauses in the 'middle' of a turn or any other sort of micromanagement in that *madminute*. I use pause often and never felt a lack of flexibility, but then again I don't look at the battle in terms of individual men and seconds to be tweaked and finessed at every opportunity. If you look at your force in terms of platoons and companys, in time blocks of 2-5 mintues, then a 15s pause is short and in the 'middle' of your current orders. It is a question of scale and what CM is trying to accomplish, ie company level battle, not micromanagement every 5s. However BTS are the designers and my opinion is only worth two cents...

[Mattias]

Hear Hear JoeP!

My thoughts exactly.

M.

[Maximus]

"Why a 15 sec 'Pause'"

A sarcastic answer:

"Because BTS thought that a 16 sec pause would be too long."

But really, I think one of it's main intentions was to allow infantry to disembark from a vehicle before the vehicle took off for its destination. Due to the fact that a Regular infantry squad has a command delay of 13 seconds. (While within HQ Command radius of course.)

[Alexander]

I use pause often and never felt a lack of flexibility, but then again I don't look at the battle in terms of individual men and seconds to be tweaked and finessed at every opportunity. If you look at your force in terms of platoons and companys, in time blocks of 2-5 mintues, then a 15s pause is short and in the 'middle' of your current orders. It is a question of scale and what CM is trying to accomplish, ie company level battle, not micromanagement every 5s.

Right. I like the fact that plotting mmovement is a bit rough around the edges. Too much fine tuning and it turns CM into Synchronized Swimming.

That said, I think it would be cool to apply the 15 second delay to firing as well as moving. That is, if the unit has no movement pplot, the Pause command applies to non-opportunity fire.

[Homba]

JoePrivate, I disagree: BTS has given us the ability to micromanage down to giving 20 waypoints to a move order, interspersing various hunt/move/other orders, changing waypoint orders in mid-move, etc, etc. The battles are NOT fought in 2-5 minute segments, however much you'd like to imagine it that way. Neither is the player's perspective purely that of a company commander! BTS has given us the ability to 'take over' for each tank commander, squad, and team leader. I thank them for that, because without it, the game would be much less fun- and I think most people would agree with that statement. CM is a GAME, albeit a very realistic one. It is (obviously) not meant to be a simulation of the experience of a particular company commander- and your argument for that position fails because there is just too much fun micromanagement made available to the player.

All we are asking for is a little more control. Control is fun. What are you afraid of? If you have no problem now, you won't have a problem in the future. If you like the realism now, you'll like it better when a tank CAN top a ridge, look around for 10 seconds, and back down in the same turn. This is just an extension of 'taking over' for the tank commander- an ability which is already undeniably present in the game. We just want it better represented. Assuming tanks are in radio communication, it would be possible IRL to coordinate a pincer attack from two directions with a pretty good chance of both tanks achieving LOS and opening fire within 5 seconds of each other.

The ability to be the tank commander is already there- it just needs some fine tuning to increase the fun. Why throw a wet blanket over that? You're missing the mark when you say CM only attempts to replicate a company commander's experience.

Homba

[Vergeltungswaffe]

You can micromanage right now. Just plot some (or a bunch, if you want to hang out longer) very tiny hunt and reverse waypoints, followed by a reverse back down the hill, and, presto, you have varying length pauses. For me, I wouldn't want to run up and back in the same place during one turn. I prefer to shoot and displace to some degree.

------------------

Give a man fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for a lifetime.

[Homba]

Vergeltungswaffe, that is an example of foggy thinking about the issue: If I give a hunt command, and I spot an enemy, my tank is NOT going to reverse (unless the AI takes over). My tank is going to shoot it out. The purpose of the 10 second hilltop appearance is to get an idea of what is out there and back off quick- not to get into a fight to the finish. So your solution is flawed, not to mention tedious to employ (if it DID work as you wrongly suggest it would).

Homba

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm with Hombra on this one. Shorter pauses and being able to put them between move orders would not introduce a level of micromanagement not already in the game. All it does is give you the same flexability that real world commanders would have.

I really don't see why people think this game is supposed to put you in the position of a company or platoon leader and that's it. If that were the case you would just give general orders to your companies and platoons and let the TacAI figure out how to implement them. Yes, you are a company commander and and platoon leader, but you're also a squad leader and a tank commander.

Having a tank pop up, take a shot or 2 then back down is a real world tactic. Having to wait until the end of your turn to have the tank move up is not realistic, it's just annoying.

------------------

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[Maastrictian]

Homba wrote:

Assuming tanks are in radio communication, it would be possible IRL to coordinate a pincer attack from two directions with a pretty good chance of both tanks achieving LOS and opening fire within 5 seconds of each other.

True... it would have been possible in real life... and it probably happened. But did it happen every time? By giving the player that fine control you make such a manuver sufficiently easy that it will happen every time. As Vergeltungswaffe pointed out its it very possible to micromanage your units with a combination of moving, "fast"ing and hunting (if you move rather than hunt his solution works... I actually often make use of it). It just requires skill and doesn't happen perfectally every time. I think that is a feature rather than a bug.

--Chris

[tss]

Homba wrote:

Assuming tanks are in radio communication, it would be possible IRL to coordinate a pincer attack from two directions with a pretty good chance of both tanks achieving LOS and opening fire within 5 seconds of each other.

I think that you seriously overestimate real life coordination capabilities.

- Tommi

[Abbott]

Excuse me.

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-29-2001).]

[Homba]

Maastrician said:

(if you move rather than hunt his solution works... I actually often make use of it).

Now you have to take a shot on the move- with much less chance of hitting anything than with a shot from stop during a 10 second pause.

tss: if you think 5 seconds over-estimates coordination abilities, what is your opinion of the current 15 seconds? About the same, right? I would argue there's no practical difference, so why not adjust it down to 5 in order to give us more control.

More importantly, you don't even address the main point, which is that we should be able to 'pause' in the middle of a turn, not just at the beginning of it- just like a real-life commander could. BTS, on its first try (CMBO), has gone 99% of the way to making the tank control in this game as realistic as possible. Having covered the mile, why not go the extra meter!?

Plus- with this god's eye view, coordination is ungodly anyway! I am all for relative spotting. But until then, and even when we DO have relative spotting, I would still argue that BTS should increase the realism in this game by giving us the ability to pause tanks in the middle of a turn. And I would argue for something less unwieldy than a clumsy 15 second increment. 5 seconds sound like a good number to me.

Homba

[Homba]

Abbot, I would request some reasoning or examples on why you disagree. Your reasons may be good, bad or indifferent- but the single word "Not" doesn't really contribute anything to the marketplace of ideas. I for one hold your opinions in some esteem, and I'd like to hear what you have to say.

For my part, I can imagine a situation in which near simultaneous attacks could occur by two tanks on separate prongs of a pincer. A german tank is spotted in a field, with woods on either side- but there are numerous dirt roads through these woods. Assuming an allied tank is in the woods on either side of the field, and both have been notified of the german's position, then it is possible that they could coordinate with each other to emerge from the woods at nearly the same moment. Imagine their conversation. "How far are you from the field?" .. "About 60m and you?" ... "About 50- I can see the end of the path ahead." "Ok, then I'll tell you when I've gone 10m and you start forward as well- we can hit him two at once- see you in hell!"

They two tank commanders above may not get it exactly right. They may under- or over- estimate. As players, we are faced with the same problem. We don't know the exact rate at which the distance will be covered, especially over different types of terrain (uphill, light trees, open, etc) and with different vehicle speeds.

But at least we are making the real-life decisions those commanders did. What more can you ask from a game than this level of realistic emersion? Your racing pulse as the two tanks enter the field exactly as you planned it. Great stuff- and why we play wargames.

Remember I said 'possible'- not 'every time.' The inherent variables of terrain, etc., are enough obstacle for me- without an *arbitrary* overlay of a 15 second pause increment that can only be implemented at the beginning of a turn.

Homba

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Homba:

Abbot, I would request some reasoning or examples on why you disagree. Your reasons may be good, bad or indifferent- but the single word "Not" doesn't really contribute anything to the marketplace of ideas. I for one hold your opinions in some esteem, and I'd like to hear what you have to say.

For my part, I can imagine a situation in which near simultaneous attacks could occur by two tanks on separate prongs of a pincer. A german tank is spotted in a field, with woods on either side- but there are numerous dirt roads through these woods. Assuming an allied tank is in the woods on either side of the field, and both have been notified of the german's position, then it is possible that they could coordinate with each other to emerge from the woods at nearly the same moment. Imagine their conversation. "How far are you from the field?" .. "About 60m and you?" ... "About 50- I can see the end of the path ahead." "Ok, then I'll tell you when I've gone 10m and you start forward as well- we can hit him two at once- see you in hell!"

They two tank commanders above may not get it exactly right. They may under- or over- estimate. As players, we are faced with the same problem. We don't know the exact rate at which the distance will be covered, especially over different types of terrain (uphill, light trees, open, etc) and with different vehicle speeds.

But at least we are making the real-life decisions those commanders did. What more can you ask from a game than this level of realistic emersion? Your racing pulse as the two tanks enter the field exactly as you planned it. Great stuff- and why we play wargames.

Remember I said 'possible'- not 'every time.' The inherent variables of terrain, etc., are enough obstacle for me- without an *arbitrary* overlay of a 15 second pause increment that can only be implemented at the beginning of a turn.

Homba

Hiya Homba,

It just doesn’t work so tidy in the field. I have not been in combat aboard an MBT but I have drilled with them many times. Five seconds is not even enough time to get one rolling very far or to stop one. Bringing a main gun to bear, orienting a heavy turret, communicating up and down the chain of command all contribute to tactical effectiveness and take moments of time.

A platoon assumes a roll in the operation at hand to cover/advance, what have you, over ground they are ordered to occupy or travel. It is the TC's job, to fight his crew and his tank inside the platoon structure. Inside the vehicle itself several things can happen in a five second period. Reacting to movement or fire orders in such a short period of time and trying to coordinate all that with a second vehicle is a task loaded with variables that all take seconds. Spotting reports, engagement reports, and commands to the driver, loader or gunner all are conveyed over the intercom, then individuals react to them. Think for a moment how quickly 5 seconds really is. Receiving a command and acting upon that command by a soldier, then the vehicle reacting to the crewman’s actions and so on.

P.S. You were correct, a one word answer added nothing to the discussion. I was preoccupied with working between visits to the forum. I was not intending to be rude, my apologies.

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-29-2001).]

[JoePrivate]

Originally posted by Homba:

JoePrivate, I disagree: BTS has given us the ability to micromanage down to giving 20 waypoints to a move order, interspersing various hunt/move/other orders, changing waypoint orders in mid-move, etc, etc. The battles are NOT fought in 2-5 minute segments, however much you'd like to imagine it that way. Neither is the player's perspective purely that of a company commander! BTS has given us the ability to 'take over' for each tank commander, squad, and team leader. I thank them for that, because without it, the game would be much less fun- and I think most people would agree with that statement. CM is a GAME, albeit a very realistic one. It is (obviously) not meant to be a simulation of the experience of a particular company commander- and your argument for that position fails because there is just too much fun micromanagement made available to the player.

All we are asking for is a little more control. Control is fun. What are you afraid of? If you have no problem now, you won't have a problem in the future. If you like the realism now, you'll like it better when a tank CAN top a ridge, look around for 10 seconds, and back down in the same turn. This is just an extension of 'taking over' for the tank commander- an ability which is already undeniably present in the game. We just want it better represented. Assuming tanks are in radio communication, it would be possible IRL to coordinate a pincer attack from two directions with a pretty good chance of both tanks achieving LOS and opening fire within 5 seconds of each other.

The ability to be the tank commander is already there- it just needs some fine tuning to increase the fun. Why throw a wet blanket over that? You're missing the mark when you say CM only attempts to replicate a company commander's experience.

Homba

Sure, BTS designed CM the way it is at present. Was it an arbitrary decision to have 15s pauses instead of 5s? Was it an oversight to only allow pauses at the beginning of a turn instead throughout it? Think for a moment(5s ) why CM isn't like your way of thinking right now?

I only offered my opinion not an argument. Read what I said again, no where did I claim CM was somehow more than a game or that the player is simulating a company commander's experience only, when obviously the player has many different roles. I'm not throwing a wet blanket on anything, I simply offered a differing description of how CM could be viewed. It isn't my imagination because that's *how* I think every time I sit down to play, ie in platoons and companys and large blocks of time.

And now back to the regular program...

[NightGaunt]

i'll be short a give an example people against shorter pauses have no argument:

i have a bunch of tanks that i want to move up a road. i obviously want them to space out so that they don't run into each other.

that cannot EASILY or REALISTICALLY be done right now. what would happen in real life: 1 tank would move, the next in line would wait 5 seconds to get a cushion of space and then would follow.

what happens in cm: usually i try to give phony move orders so that the follow tanks get some extra room, ie i move 1 a little to the left then back on the road, i move the next a little to the right and so forth. this of coarse sucks and i usually end up with a cluster f* of a traffick jam that 1 zook can massacre.

[Homba]

That's good info, Abbot, and about what I'd expected you'd say. I had the notion (or the actual knowledge) that you were a tanker from some of your other posts. I will relent on the 5 second increment. I agree with another writer that the 15 sec delay is due to the time it takes infantry to disembark (13 sec delay?)

Maybe 15 secs is the minimum time it takes to get something meaningful done on a WWII tank. I am done debating the correct amount of the increment. (If I was god, it would be a 10 sec minimum with an additional increment of 2 secs, up to whatever you wanted.) But the relevance of the exact pause length is beginning to escape me.

What I do continue to insist on is that a Pause of 'appropriae' length should be available *at any point* during the move. Repeat after me: "Life ain't played in turns." CM replicates life in a game of 1 minute turns, and does a damn good job- so good I sometimes almost forget it's not real-time.

So, BTS: please continue to enhance the suspension of our disbelief, and don’t arbitrarily limit our Pauses to the beginning of a turn. Everything in this game is an effort to enhance realism IN SPITE OF the ‘necessity’ of a turn-based format. So why force us into gamey manoooovering (destroying our suspension of disbelief) to achieve a result that could be elegantly and simply achieved (and duplicating the actions of the real-life vehicle commander) with a Pause usable at any point in a turn ?

For anyone who says BTS "already considered it"- very lame answer. Patches 1.01-1.12 indicate that BTS is not ready to call the project perfect, and there is ample room for fresh ideas, constructive criticism, and change for the better.

The Pause issue spans every future edition of CM, not just CMBO. It is worthy of a second and third look.

Homba