More waypoints = more delay. Realistic?

[tecumseh]

In CMBB, the more waypoints you give a unit the greater the initial delay.

This means that intelligent and responsible infantry ordering (using combinations of move, run and sneak as the terrain and LOS changes - aka redwolf style) is being punished. Also vehicles using curves or following a road are equally punished. I assume now it will not be possible to order a tank to follow a long winding road without getting a 100 second + delay (despite the real-life order being simply "drive down that road, now").

Similarly does "run over to the town" really take a lot less time to say than "run over to the town, but be careful going through all the clumps of trees"? Or "Go around the swamp but avoid the open terrain". Or "move carefully behind those tanks and attack them from the rear" To get this type of simple, common-sense behaviour in CM you need to use a lot of waypoints. The orders themselves are not complex though.

Most good players don't use lots of waypoints to give complicated orders - ie. long-winded descriptions of what that unit should do over the next 15 turns. Most good players just use lots of waypoints to make sure the unit's behaviour over the next few turns is responsible and realistic. A jeep would nervously slow down as it rounds a corner, then move around the corner in a smooth curve, speed up and race for the next bit of cover. This is not a complicated real-life order IMO that warrarnts a big delay.

Am I getting this right? Do you folks think it will make CM more realistic? I am going to wait until I've played the full version a bit before passing judgement, but I am skeptical at the moment.

Not whining, just curious.

[Battlefront.com]

tecumseh,

This was something we discussed quite a bit and played around with a lot more during testing. It is a tradeoff decision, and it was one we felt had to be made if we even hoped to simulate the Eastern Front semi-accurately.

Is this system perfect? No. But it does a very good job of simulating the reality of "clumsy" control the Soviets (and to some extent Axis Minor nations) had as a limiting factor on the battlefield. Regular and above units really shouldn't experience much, if any, extra delays for even moderately intricate orders.

Also, we do feel that people overuse waypoints. I have seen some of the paths you guys make and they are unnecessarily complex sometimes

It is true that waypoints in and of themselves aren't related to complexity of planning, but often times they are. In fact, most of the times they are. What we did was figure out what a reasonable number of waypoints was for each Experience level, and then how fast/slow the increases should go beyond that.

What you will see, once you play around with this a bit more, is that the number of waypoints a unit is allowed before the delays increase depends on the quality of the unit. You will also notice that the number of waypoints does not evenly increase the amount of delay. Instead, each Experience level has a different level of modeling with different numbers of waypoints adding up the delays quicker/slower than other unit Experience levels.

Steve

[Cameroon]

Well, from where I sit it won't make much of a difference. I don't give long series of orders because the tactical situation usually changes much too quickly (for me anyway). Add that troops seem to tire a bit more easily in CMBB and suppress much more easily (yay) and I think long series of movement orders become much less profitable.

I'm cautious about agreeing on the turns/curves aspect. If you watch carefully, the tanks "slew" around their turns without appearing to slow down much. As in, it seems that a lot of the reason to use multiple waypoints to complete a turn may have disappeared. I want to make a concerted test of this, to see how much angle you can get before you'd really need another waypoint. If it turns out that the technique of CMBO is still required, then I guess I'll sigh and be a bit put-out

It strikes me that at least part of the new waypoint system would be to curtail the plotting of excessive waypoints in order to quickly change the behavior of a unit without having a command delay.

Everything considered, CMBB is designed such that the pace of combat is slowed significantly. I'm not saying that slowing combat was a major goal, it's just what happened.

[edit]

Heh, darn, my post didn't make it before BTS At least my guess about the excessive waypoints was right.

[ September 10, 2002, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Also, we do feel that people overuse waypoints. I have seen some of the paths you guys make and they are unnecessarily complex sometimes

Yeah, I prided myself on them! Any eventuality was taken care of. My turns looked like a scorsese movie.

Thanks for the reply Steve. I post a query to BFC and Major H on the TacOps forum and in both cases I get a verbose reply straight away.

[Cameroon]

After a short and decidely unscientific test, I am of the belief that vehicular turning in CMBB has been improved. A straight-off ninety degree turn still requires a big ol' slow down, but it isn't the stop & pivot I remember from CMBO. Other turn radii seem reasonable as well.

I think the only time it will really show itself is when you've got to choose the faster overall path (min 3 waypoints) vs the smallest start delay (min 2 waypoints) for a ninety degree turn. The rest of the turn radii seem entirely fine to me.

[Battlefront.com]

Cameroon,

Yeah, I forgot about the "waypoint adjustment" loophole. You are correct that part of the new system does indeed close up the "I'll make 400 plots and then adjust accordingly so I can avoid C&C delays". We knew this would happen back in CMBO Alpha days, but it wasn't a major drawback even after release. Well, not compared to the realism benefits of being able to make orders tweaks.

And yes, we did do a couple of things to slow down combat. Most wargames, CMBB included, have a time compression problem to some degree or another. Its main root is the fact that the player has WAY too much information and control compared to the historical counterparts. All wargames suffer from this to some degree. Sticking in Extreme Fog of War, some more C&C changes, tweaks to various orders, improved fatigue modeling, etc. all do their bit to slow things down compared to CMBO.

tecumseh,

Pleasure

Steve

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

Well, from where I sit it won't make much of a difference. I don't give long series of orders because the tactical situation usually changes much too quickly (for me anyway).

Me neither. An example: an infantry platoon leaves the cover of thick trees, crosses a small open area containing a couple of light buildings, and assaults a heavy buidling. The distance is 75m or so. A tank moves carefully around the heavy trees to provide cover.

For me I would use A LOT of waypoints for that. But this is not planning far in advance, this is just one or two turns max. Small sections of sneak, run, move for the infantry, and hunt and fast for the tank.

The real life order I would have given the troops is "attack that big building, but be careful!!"

Of course if I said that to green soviets - which is Steve's point - they would human wave with one waypoint. So it takes time to explain to them how to do it right.

[ September 10, 2002, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

I don't give long series of orders because the tactical situation usually changes much too quickly (for me anyway). Add that troops seem to tire a bit more easily in CMBB and suppress much more easily (yay) and I think long series of movement orders become much less profitable.

Same with me. Even in BO I seldom gave more than two turns worth of orders to a unit. There were a couple of reasons for this. One was that I often had troops dashing from cover to cover and wanted to give them a break to get their wind back. Looks like this will be even more important in BB, especially with troops who are less than fit. Then too, I would want take a turn or two to see what if any reaction my movement had provoked. I didn't like to have my troops just marching mechanically into a potentially disasterous situation.

The second reason was that I liked to use fire and movement with overwatch. As a result, I had squads, and sometimes platoons, leapfrogging each other.

Michael

[Berlichtingen]

You will find yourself plotting for much shorter distances in CMBB than CMBO. Advance from this bit of cover to that bit of cover rarely requires more than 2 waypoints and more often only require one. I have yet to run intoa situation were the delay has caused any trouble. The increase in need to be careful on the attack has made long, complicated orders self defeating anyway... even if there was no delay.

[MikeyD]

Back in the 'dim time' people on the board were calling for the option of VERY green conscript Russian troop in order to simulate the German's cake-walk advance up to the gates of Moscow in the summer of '41. Think of the waypoint delay as a step in this direction. You now cannot give conscript troops complex instructions without suffering a penalty. If you're instructing a squad of illiterate farmboys who have never held a gun before it's best if you keep it simple!

[Chad Harrison]

I am sure that this was stated above, but imagaine trying to tell a green/consrcipt squad to do the following: go 113m's to the edge of those trees, then go 53m's to that building at a running pace, then go 17m's to that building assaulting . . . and so on. Boy, it would take me 50 seconds to have it explained to me and to be prepared to execute it!

Chad

[Andrew H.]

I like the concept of waypoint delay quite a bit. And remember that the delay is not just the time it takes to explain to the troops to run to the woods, advance through the woods, sneak across the open to a building, and then move through the building and take up firing positions on the far side. The delay also includes the time it takes the squad leaders and platoon NCOs to gather up the troops after they've run to the woods to prepare them to advance through the woods. And then the time it takes to reorganize them after advancing through the woods to prepare to sneak across to the building. And then they have to be formed up and given direction on how to move through the building, etc. IMO, this is where most of the delay really comes from, and this is why inexperienced troops will have much more of a delay than vets - the vets will probably already know what formation they'll need to advance through the woods, etc.

Even advancing on a curved road is going to be slower than advancing on a straight road, in many cases, because even though the command might be the same - follow the road - the LOS changes on a curvy road might make troops more cautious as they round a bend in the road. It is probably true, though, that the delay caused by this would be much less than the delay caused by the need to gather and reform the troops after they've moved through the woods.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

And remember that the delay is not just the time it takes to explain to the troops to run to the woods, advance through the woods, sneak across the open to a building, and then move through the building and take up firing positions on the far side. The delay also includes the time it takes the squad leaders and platoon NCOs to gather up the troops after they've run to the woods to prepare them to advance through the woods. And then the time it takes to reorganize them after advancing through the woods to prepare to sneak across to the building. And then they have to be formed up and given direction on how to move through the building, etc.

Uh, I don't think so. If what you are saying was the case, the delays would be incurred at each waypoint. In the game they all occur at the beginning of movement. Personally, I happen to like your idea just fine and I hope that's how it will be in the engine rewrite. But that's not how it is in the present game, so far as I know.

Michael

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Uh, I don't think so. If what you are saying was the case, the delays would be incurred at each waypoint. In the game they all occur at the beginning of movement. Personally, I happen to like your idea just fine and I hope that's how it will be in the engine rewrite. But that's not how it is in the present game, so far as I know.

Michael

Oh, I think you're right. That's too bad; I kind of like my idea.

[tecumseh]

No player gives a huge long series of orders to cover a number of turns that results in "troops just marching mechanically into a potentially disasterous situation". No one who has played CMBO longer than a week uses lots of waypoints for this purpose. Lots of waypoints are used in CMBO for the opposite reason, to keep your units safe. Hence the extra sneak command near the edge of woods, or "curve-reversing" to keep tanks safe, or the mixing of move/sneak in woods so the infantry behave realistically when they meet something. Players who just use sneak will see their infantry wander past enemy without firing. Players who just use move will find their infantry keep marching into heavy fire.

Nor is there a very strong relationship, IMHO, between the complexity of the order, and the number of waypoints required to carry it out.

I just gave an extrememly complex order to my soviet forces in yelina. It involved platoons moving out at evenly staggered intervals, smoke dropped at the same time, tanks moving at the same time, MGs providing covering fire, certain squads stopping early for covering fire, HQs held back, units aiming for single craters in a sea of other "non-protective' ones etc... It would have taken me a long time in RL to co-ordinate this with soviet green troops. However because each unit had one or two waypoints, I got a very small delay.

On the other hand, If I told some green soviets in RL "move carefully up to those trees, following the valley" and to the tanks "loop behind the infantry and wait between those two buildings", these are simple orders, but would require a large number of waypoints to re-create realistically in the game. They would also take the same time to come out my mouth if I was talking to greens or veterans.

I am happy with steve's reply that it is an imperfect fudge to make eastern front combat on the whole more real. Also because of the great new order types in CMBB and arcs and things, waypoint overkill is not so necessary. I just wanted to clarify why lots of waypoints are used in practice, which has nothing to do with complicated orders or planning far in advance.

[ September 10, 2002, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

[pathfinder]

It takes the platoon leader awhile to properly orient the map...

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Oh, I think you're right. That's too bad; I kind of like my idea.

I do too. If the order type is the same (ie. two reverses, or two moves) there is no delay between them, otherwise there is a "rallying delay" or something. This would give travelling down roads or using curves no delay, and would delay other mixed-orders in a more realistic way than currently.

[ September 10, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

[xerxes]

I'm guilty. I've abused waypoints in CMBO. Excessive plotting, tweaking orders, changing hunts to reverses, etc, etc.

At least CMBB will finally get me to kick the habit.

I think the new system makes sense. I'm very glad it's couple with the move to contact orders!

[Battlefront.com]

techumesh,

Nor is there a very strong relationship, IMHO, between the complexity of the order, and the number of waypoints required to carry it out.

True, but what is the alternative? How can the system tell what is a "complicated" set of orders and what is brain dead simple? Even when we "thought outside the box", which meant in theory we could add entirely new features/data, we STILL couldn't figure out a good way for the system to figure out what is what.

We beat ourselves to death trying to come up with a way to simulate what is basically not possible to simulate. This was by far the best system we came up with. I don't think you guys would like some of the reject ideas, one of which was actually coded (and stunk ).

On the other hand, If I told some green soviets in RL "move carefully up to those trees, following the valley" and to the tanks "loop behind the infantry and wait between those two buildings", these are simple orders, but would require a large number of waypoints to re-create realistically in the game. They would also take the same time to come out my mouth if I was talking to greens or veterans.

Ironically, is one example that *does* illustrate why the waypoint delay system works. In concept this is perhaps easy. And to a bunch of Vets, it would be (remember, Experience plays a HUGE role here!!). But so too is instructing Army Group North to take Lenningrand, Center to take Moscow, and South to take Stalingrad. Do you really think that Hitler just barked out those orders and millions of men and equipment started moving instantly? No, it took thousands of officers many months just to come up with the plan, not to mention the logisitics that needed to be brought to bear before the attack was launched.

The point of the new system is to simulate (as best we can) the time necessary to get everybody on the same page, figuring out what exactly should be done, and answering questions from Cpl. Dingelschmo, who on a good day can actually get his boots on the correct feet So while your example is in THEORY simple, it is an oversimplification and assumes competent troops are being commanded.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by tecumseh:

No player gives a huge long series of orders to cover a number of turns that results in "troops just marching mechanically into a potentially disasterous situation". No one who has played CMBO longer than a week uses lots of waypoints for this purpose.

I wasn't clear. It is certainly possible, and even likely, that in a large game with many units you would give them extensive orders with many waypoints carrying over several turns. Then a turn or two further on the tactical situation changes. You meant to alter the orders of several units, but in the press of time or confusion forgot to. Now your obedient units in following your now-outdated orders "march mechanically into a disaster".

Now, I am prepared to believe that you, tecumsah, are a careful player who would never do this, but a lot of us are rather more fallible and arrive at forehead slapping time a bit earlier than we had hoped.

Michael

[ September 10, 2002, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We beat ourselves to death trying to come up with a way to simulate what is basically not possible to simulate. This was by far the best system we came up with. I don't think you guys would like some of the reject ideas, one of which was actually coded (and stunk ).

Hi Steve. I understand there must have been a lot of thought gone into this change. The pros and cons list is very long, and you're right - coz the overall effect seems (in the demo) more realistic. It is related to the question asked on this forum a long time ago: "Why will I use the soviets in an historically accurate way (human waves, clumsy stuff etc..) when I can continue to use the careful, intelligent combined arms approach I use in CMBO?" The answer: because you've simulated the clumsiness for us!

So far I seem to be the only person bothered (mildly) by having my control taken away, so I'll concede it's better for CM as a whole and I'm a gamey gamey gamey bastard.

[ September 11, 2002, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by tecumseh:

No player gives a huge long series of orders to cover a number of turns that results in "troops just marching mechanically into a potentially disasterous situation". No one who has played CMBO longer than a week uses lots of waypoints for this purpose. Lots of waypoints are used in CMBO for the opposite reason, to keep your units safe. Hence the extra sneak command near the edge of woods, or "curve-reversing" to keep tanks safe, or the mixing of move/sneak in woods so the infantry behave realistically when they meet something. Players who just use sneak will see their infantry wander past enemy without firing. Players who just use move will find their infantry keep marching into heavy fire....

With the new "Move to Contact" order we would seem to have a way to avoid the dozens of tiny move/sneak waypoints needed to cross a forest.

[Battlefront.com]

Tecumeseh,

So far I seem to be the only person bothered (mildly) by having my control taken away, so I'll concede it's better for CM as a whole and I'm a gamey gamey gamey bastard.

Dear gamey gamey gamey bastard

Have no fear, because if you play with Regular units you won't notice much (if any) difference between CMBB and CMBO. The majority of the penalties fall on Green and Conscript units. Regular units, who use fairly moderate numbers of orders, won't feel the pinch much (if any). Vets and higher have less concerns with even complicated paths.

The thing about the Eastern Front is that some of the units portrayed are, technically, very good in terms of headcount, firepower, and support weapons. Early war Soviets, Italians, and some Romanian units come to mind as being rather "powerful" when their basic stats are examined. However, realistically they were generally undertrained, poorly lead, and badly motivated. They were also saddled with doctrine and other factors that just didn't work in practice. Some of this (like artillery) we can simulate, some of which is much harder to do because of CM's small scope.

The point here is that if we DIDN'T make Conscript and Green troops adequately hard to utilize, their generally good stats could create a historical inbalance. The Germans did as well as they did in 1941 because of their superior training, experience, leadership (not at the highest levels mind you!!), and attention to detail that got them as far as they did. If the Soviets aren't all that much different, then the Germans are pretty much screwed. Which is why we did so much to ensure that didn't happen

Steve

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The thing about the Eastern Front is that some of the units portrayed are, technically, very good in terms of headcount, firepower, and support weapons. Early war Soviets, Italians, and some Romanian units come to mind as being rather "powerful" when their basic stats are examined. However, realistically they were generally undertrained, poorly lead, and badly motivated. They were also saddled with doctrine and other factors that just didn't work in practice.

Yeah I can imagine that would be the problem with making an eastern front computer game that doesn't end on June 23. My plan was to always give the less experienced player the soviet side! But your way is OK too.

Thanks for the replys. Oh yeah, and 18 months of fun. And counting.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by pathfinder:

It takes the platoon leader awhile to properly orient the map...

Not if he is an NCO.