Variable order delay

[SenorBeef]

My third topic of the evening, but what else am I going to do at 4:30am?

Here goes, a proposal for CM2.

I've been thinking that having orders, regardless of their complexity, take the exact same amount of time to start implementing isn't realistic. Whether its worth it or not to implement a system to remove some of the abstraction for its perceived gameplay value is completely up to debate. The current system is good, just could be worked on.

Anyway, the meat of it is..

Whether you issue an order to move, 10 meters, to the edge of a treeline, or whether you move up to the road, then left for 100 feet, then forward for another 200, then crawl to the right for a few hundred feet, ect, both orders take the same amount of time to get moving.

Clearly, an order of "Sargeant, get your men to the end of that woodline" or "sargeant, go here, then there, then here, then crawl here.." would take different amounts of time to implement. So perhaps a system could be implemented by which command delay is based on the complexity of the order.

This could be as simple as adding an extra second or two for every waypoint on a trip, or more nebulous, taking into account amount of distance moved, whether they can see their destination ect.

Anyway, this is just a suggestion for a rather minor abstraction, and so it is in no way very important to CM2.. but it could add a little something.

Comments are welcome.

[KiwiJoe]

This could be a good way to implement the Soviet command problems of the time. Reg infantry would have the standard 20 sec command delay for the 1st order and then 5 extra secs for each order issued that turn. Thus a simple move forward 100m would take 20 secs, as per normal. But a fast move to a tree line then a couple of sneak orders threw the trees would have a 30 sec delay. This would ultimatly cause the soviets to be slower in advance and less organised.

[JasonC]

I don't have a problem with an extra 1 sec per waypoint. Only downside I see is it might increase micromanagement, as players tweaked out each unnecessary waypoint to save split seconds, instead of just putting them down wherever they wanted. Tons of waypoints do give more flexibility in use of halts and deletes, though, so that might not be bad.

The main effect of command delay is just to penalize continual changes of plan. If any unit sticks to a plan, the one-off initial cost is tiny compared to the time it spends executing. It is a "flexibility tax". Losing 15 or 20 seconds for a 3 minute plan is nothing, but losing that much every turn is a big hit.

So, I wouldn't want to see the added cost go too high. The total delay from a typical order ought to be some fraction of a 60 second turn. But generally less than half of it. The first 3-5 waypoints should probably be "included" in the present cost, not just the first, if something like this were done. And the added cost per waypoint or action should not be high - 1 sec, not 5.

[Username]

Not a bad idea. I think that BTS has said that sov armor platoons will be limited like this.

I think that canceling orders should also have some extra delay added to " add-ons".

Example:

I give incredibly detailed moves in the hope that no enemy opens up. These extra orders will allow me to be all set for a breakthrough without delay.

Unfortunately, An enemy HMG opens up and I cancel some moves in the open. If I then give these same units a new move type order, there is an additional time penalty added. There is a chance that the units that get canceled are pinned also. Withdraw is the same as usual.

This would channel the players actions into more realistic behaviour without forcing him to be a robot.

There should also be a maximum distance that a move order can be drag-editted (where you do little mods to the move waypoints). This should be based on troops quality etc. I have never read what this simulates in the game from anyone from BTS. I think it should still be in the game but maybe expanded upon. To me, its the troops ability to respond AS A UNIT to changing circumstances. It seems to be a constant now for all units no matter what the quality, circumstances, etc.

Lewis

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

So, I wouldn't want to see the added cost go too high. The total delay from a typical order ought to be some fraction of a 60 second turn. But generally less than half of it. The first 3-5 waypoints should probably be "included" in the present cost, not just the first, if something like this were done. And the added cost per waypoint or action should not be high - 1 sec, not 5.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the 13-second day (or whatever it might be) is an abstraction for being a middling time from which both quick and complex orders are simulated. Its not (I assume) the low-end number representing the minimum time an order will take to implement.

Meaning, orders don't NEED to have a 'base' of 13 seconds (regular infantry) or whatever it may be. That time can actually be cut in regards to simple orders. A quick order to move 20 meters ahead to the end of the tree line might only take 6 or 7 seconds to implement, for example.

So it wouldn't be only a time delay penalty, but it could be a reward for simpler orders.

EDIT: Btw, Lewis, I think the system already does work like that, with higher quality units being more 'flexible'.

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

[Michael Emrys]

While I don't think that your suggestion is entirely without merit, SenorBeef, there is one point that needs to be held in mind. And that is that the movement orders given in CM are usually somewhat more complex than the ones that would be given by a real life platoon leader in the same situation. That is because the TacAI is not yet sufficiently sophisticated to duplicate the initiative of an experienced squad in using terrain in its movement. Therefore, a little more micromanagement on the player's part is called for and should not be unduly taxed. For the moment though, something on the order of one extra second per waypoint doesn't strike me as excessive.

Michael

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

While I don't think that your suggestion is entirely without merit, SenorBeef, there is one point that needs to be held in mind. And that is that the movement orders given in CM are usually somewhat more complex than the ones that would be given by a real life platoon leader in the same situation. That is because the TacAI is not yet sufficiently sophisticated to duplicate the initiative of an experienced squad in using terrain in its movement. Therefore, a little more micromanagement on the player's part is called for and should not be unduly taxed. For the moment though, something on the order of one extra second per waypoint doesn't strike me as excessive.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a good observation, and I agree to it to an extent. I don't see this as a critical flaw or anything like that, in CM, its perfectly workable. I think it just might add another layer by worrying about coordinating your units, those with complex orders, and those with simple supporting orders. It would just add an extra layer of realism and consideration. Nothing major, but I was just offering this as food for thought.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SenorBeef:

EDIT: Btw, Lewis, I think the system already does work like that, with higher quality units being more 'flexible'.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that it doesnt. Lets say you give a move order that extends beyond a turn so that there is a "leftover". The distance this old waypoint can be moved (edited) seems about the same for all units. It isnt a circle by the way but an ellipse of sorts. Perhaps based upon the direction that the unit is traveling.

Dont take my word on it. Try it yourself. Believe me, if you want to win; give plenty of orders. It doesnt cost anything to cancel and if it ends up being needed then theres no delay. Never give one move order but one every few meters. A long move order that ends far away can only be edited so far. Be gamey like me and use this method.

I agree that units within close command control and given "short" orders should benefit as you say. Giving a unit orders to destinations beyond both the HQ and units LOS should be penalized. Experience effects this as always.

Lewis

[ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

Giving a unit orders to destinations beyond both the HQ and units LOS should be penalized.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This makes a certain amount of sense too.

Michael