More waypoints = more delay. Realistic?

[pathfinder]

Andreas: hehe, that's my point.

*holds map upside down* Where the heck am I...

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

I like that solution, and in general it should work well to simulate that extra effort required to organise lower quality troops. I can't wait to see it in action in the full game.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

So do I although one should remember that 'lower quality troops' will take longer to orginise them selves as well.

[aka_tom_w]

needs a bump because Steve posted to it with insightful comments a few times.

-tom w

[CMplayer]

I agree that the 'more waypoints more delay' system is silly. This is especially noticeable when you order vehicles to drive down a curvy road. It sucks and I wish it were taken out in the next patch.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by 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!

But that's not what you're doing when you give detailed waypoints. The waypoints represent, not the orders, but what the squad actually does while moving. If they feel exposed they run, when they get to cover, they slow down. You're confusing the levels of command in CM and assuming every command given by the player is equivalent to an order given by the highest commander on the field. But such isn't the case.

Also, conscripts can't assault

[Franko]

Yes.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Posted by Steve in the other thread:

The simple truth is that poor quality troops in CMBO were overly effective, especially in the hands of a veteran gamer.

The main problem is that the old system allowed people to plot unrealistically complex orders (tactically speaking, not in a game sense) without *any* more penalty than asking the unit to move its ass over 10m. How realistic is that? Completely unrealistic. Therefore to say that it "ain't broke" requires overlooking this rather huge issue which can not be argued with.

First off, I question the underlying assumption that green and conscript troops were too good in CMBO. I don't recall this ever being an issue before. My general impression from my own games as well as AARs from well known players like Fionn is that top players tended to gravitate more towards higher end troops. Certainly my own admittedly limited experience with green troops (I never used conscript *shudder*) in CMBO is that I would never willingly choose them for a game I cared about winning. It was like running a race in deep snow

As far as how unrealistic complex orders with no additional command delay are, well, more on that below.

Also, sure in CMBO poor troops took a bit longer to get moving, but giving them a crudload of waypoints meant that effectively they never had to suffer the initial penalty until combat was engaged. So until combat is joined Conscripts are generally tactically equal to Crack troops. That is also silly.

This is true as far as it goes. However, I don't think this has any significant impact on the outcome of a game except perhaps in a meeting engagement where both sides are 'rushing' the flags at the start. As you suggest, when the bullets start flying the differences between the experience levels really start to manifest. This is due in no small part to the fact that command delay is only one thing that is effected by experience. Lower experience troops also have longer arty TOT delays, lower firepower ratings, lower accuracy, poorer spotting and more brittle moral.

If we were to assume for the sake of discussion that low quality troops in CMBO were too good, I would be in favor of balancing things out by tweaking some of the other factors than command delay. The primary reason is realism. For reasons I and others have given, I think adding command delay for lengthy waypoint strings is not realistic most of the time. In my opinion, most of the waypoints plotted in a typical long movement are made necessary by mundane maneuvers around impassible terrain. They are the kind of common sense decision that would usually be made by the unit itself rather than communicated down the chain of command. For example, the platoon leader may order a squad to take up position behind the low ridge just up ahead, but it's doubtful he would need to instruct the squad leader to move around the pond in-between rather than swimming across it. Even a conscript NCO could figure that on his own. Yet, when you plot the move you have to include the waypoints around the pond and you take a command delay hit.

Lastly, I think that the way it has been implemented has not really made lower quality troops more difficult to use compared to regular. Rather, it has made them all more clumsy to some extent. I haven't played enough games to judge this completely, but a quick look at some delay times in CMBO and CMBB shows this:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> CMBO CMBB % increase

Green infantry delay: 33 sec. 42 sec. (4 waypoints) 27%

Regular infantry delay: 20 sec. 29 sec. (4 waypoints) 45%

Green tank: 20 sec. 20 sec. (4 waypoints) none

Regular tank: 13 sec. 14 sec. (4 waypoints) 8%</pre>

[Tarquelne]

The amount of delay increase between CMBO and CMBB troops might not be important - maybe the Regulars were too good in CMBO? The more waypoints given the more the delay times diverge. For example:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">WPts. Reg. Grn. Difference

1 21 31 10 sec

2 27 40 13 sec

3 36 52 16 sec

4 46 67 21 sec

5 69 88 28 sec</pre>

[xerxes]

Green troops were a very good deal in CMBO. An even better deal when defending.

Though the current waypoint delay system is certainly flawed, I think it absolutely prevents a host of gamey abuses. The single biggest objection is the delay for plotting a vehicle going down a road that has turns. This could be fixed (and it would be really nice if it was) by a "follow the road to point A" command.

[flamingknives]

I feel the need to jump in at this juncture.

There's been a few comments about having to make waypoints around impassable terrain, and how you don't have to tell a Real Life person to do this.

Silly people. Plot the move straight across the pond, like it isn't there, and the unit will adjust it's path accordingly, with no extra command delay.

[rant]What you're effectively doing when you polot the move yourself is saying to your senior NCO "walk over to that pond, but 5 metres before it, turn left and walk round it, turning right to keep close to it, then turn left to continue on your original path. If you walk though it, you'll get you're feet wet"

If you said this to a Real Life NCO, he'd probably kill you. I would.[/rant]

I like the command delays. It adds a new dimension to your tactics.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by xerxes:

The single biggest objection is the delay for plotting a vehicle going down a road that has turns. This could be fixed (and it would be really nice if it was) by a "follow the road to point A" command.

This also is my largest concern with the new waypoint delays. But I have one more: The need to make waypoints to change speeds. I may run my squads forward in a straight line but I sure don't need them running through trees and houses, thus becoming tired. Yet, I almost always want them running across open ground. This would be standard. Thus I must command to move through trees, run across the field, and then move again when you enter the building. So it seems, to me at least, that these are things normally not communicated by commands in the heat of battle. It comes down to training.

Other than these, I think the waypoint delay system adds a level of realism that is welcomed by me.

-Sarge

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Plot the move straight across the pond, like it isn't there, and the unit will adjust it's path accordingly, with no extra command delay.

Silly idea.

When you plot moves over impassible terrain the new AI waypoints are usually longer than if you had plotted them yourself, and they frequently will take you in directions you would not have wanted. I have had a number of squads cut to pieces when they wondered out into the middle of a street into LOS of the enemy after I plotted a waypoint a little too close to burning rubble.

[rant]What you're effectively doing when you polot the move yourself is saying to your senior NCO "walk over to that pond, but 5 metres before it, turn left and walk round it, turning right to keep close to it, then turn left to continue on your original path. If you walk though it, you'll get you're feet wet"

If you said this to a Real Life NCO, he'd probably kill you. I would.[/rant]

My point exactly.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

The amount of delay increase between CMBO and CMBB troops might not be important - maybe the Regulars were too good in CMBO?

Perhaps. But Steve said it was the over-effectiveness of low quality troops in CMBO that necessitated the change in CMBB. That's why I think the comparison to CMBO is valid.

The delay times don't even out until you reach the 3 minute delay limit.

Reading back through this thread, I saw a point made by Steve that was interesting:

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.

It's interesting because it doesn't work that way. Every waypoint makes the delay go up. Ironically, if it was that way I would like it a lot more than I do now. If, for example, conscript delay began increasing over the base number on the second waypoint, greens on the third, regs on the fourth, ect, that sounds better. I'd have to play around with it to be sure, but I like the idea.

[Tarquelne]

Perhaps. But Steve said it was the over-effectiveness of low quality troops in CMBO that necessitated the change in CMBB. That's why I think the comparison to CMBO is valid.

Reading over my post I realized that I wasn't at all clear on this point:

It's very true that your chart seems to contradict Steve's point on exactly why the change was made. But I doubt that "Green troops were too effective" is the whole story.

Anyway... a comparison between CMBO and CMBB isn't really relevent to the effects of the new system (more waypoints = more delays) on troops of varying experience levels in CMBB. Your chart shows that CMBB Regulars took a 45% "hit" to thier delay times. That certainly shows that Regulars suffered compared to Greens (27% increase) in CMBB, but I'm don't think it really says much about the new waypoint system - just that troop experience is expressed differently in CMBB even when the new system isn't considered.

The delay times don't even out until you reach the 3 minute delay limit.

Yeah, that was (IIRC) 8 or 9 waypoints in my test.

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.It's interesting because it doesn't work that way.

Yeah, I wonder just what he meant - I took that to mean that experinced units got some of the first few waypoints for "free". It's true that the delay time increase for a Crack squad for 2 waypoints is only about 1/2 the increase for a Green squad (in my test), but "1/2 the delay" seems pretty far off from units being "allowed" waypoints before a delay.

/Erroneous pragraph removed/

(Personally, I'm perfectly satisfied with the new system (or what I thought it was, at the very least) but I'd certainly like to understand what's going on and why!)

[ October 26, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Ben Galanti]

I'm curious as to why this is such a problem? Why does it really matter if there is a longer delay? If nothing else, it slows down the pace of the game, which a lot of people thought was too fast for CMBO. In general, make a game 5 or so turns longer then you would have made it in CMBO and it kinda evens out.

I guess I've barely even noticed there's a difference. When does it become so critical that a few seconds here or there is that important?

Ben

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

I'm curious as to why this is such a problem?

It's not a HUGE problem. It's just that CMBB is such a fine product that there aren't that many things to bitch about. So the few there are get more attention, I guess

Why does it really matter if there is a longer delay? If nothing else, it slows down the pace of the game, which a lot of people thought was too fast for CMBO. In general, make a game 5 or so turns longer then you would have made it in CMBO and it kinda evens out.

If the game is slower as a side effect of increased realism, that's generally fine, within reasonable limits. Slower for the sake of slower is not something to aspire to. I'm simply not entirely convinced that the new delays are any more realistic than the old static model.

But don't lose sleep over it. I'm not

[Ben Galanti]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

It's not a HUGE problem. It's just that CMBB is such a fine product that there aren't that many things to bitch about. So the few there are get more attention, I guess

Heh heh, fair enough. Don't get me started on guys not trying to break LOS when fired on...

If the game is slower as a side effect of increased realism, that's generally fine, within reasonable limits. Slower for the sake of slower is not something to aspire to. I'm simply not entirely convinced that the new delays are any more realistic than the old static model.

But don't lose sleep over it. I'm not

I guess I just see it as coming from the flip side. I generally agree that more way-points should be more time, but I can see how this can somewhat break with reality when going around impassible terrain. On the balance, I think that this gives a bit better feel then the static number from CMBO. Of course, this is just a subjective opinion, but I think helps the whole pace of the game.

It's probably just a factor of my playing style that my orders are rarely more then 2 way-points anyway... I played that way even in CMBO. For someone with a differenty playing style, I can see how it would be a bigger issue.

Ben

[Battlefront.com]

Ben wrote:

Yeah, I wonder just what he meant - I took that to mean that experinced units got some of the first few waypoints for "free".

That is what I meant to say. We played around with a bunch of different ways of doing it and decided to LOWER the initial delay (say, 1 or 2 waypoints) so that you would get a faster response time for ONE waypoint (and *only* one) than you would otherwise have received.

So what I said is correct, but not exactly the way I described. The basic point, though, is that poorer quality troops have a more accelerated curve for additional waypoints vs. more experienced ones.

I also would like to put forward the suggestion that PART of the reason some of you don't like the new system is that you have a habit of using too many waypoints in general. I rarely issue more than a 2-3 waypoints for any of my units, including vehicles, once combat has been joined. Strategic moves I issue a ton of orders sometimes, but in such situations the initial delay presents no problem for me. Which is why I respond to Vanir's point below as I do:

It's interesting because it doesn't work that way. Every waypoint makes the delay go up. Ironically, if it was that way I would like it a lot more than I do now. If, for example, conscript delay began increasing over the base number on the second waypoint, greens on the third, regs on the fourth, ect, that sounds better. I'd have to play around with it to be sure, but I like the idea.

This was my original design for the revised waypoint penalty system (i.e. the 2nd coding attempt after the first one was trashed after sound rejection by core internal team). It was coded this way. It worked as designed. It failed miserably to acheive what we wanted. Why?

1. As I stated above, it is very easy to play the game, and play it effectively, with few waypoints. So for someone like me, who does NOT use a lot of waypoints, this system had no practical effect at all.

2. It prevented us from allowing one waypoint to be used without too much delay. Any unit, regardless of Experience, should be able to make ONE move without too much delay. So all first waypoint movement delays are fairly low for all units. From there each goes up at different rates. This, ironically, favors more experienced troops. They can turn on a dime provided they do it simply. With the freebie system we would have to weight the initial delay based on what many waypoints could achieve instead of just one.

So this system, after being played with FOR REAL (not just in text on this BBS) was rejected as being worse than the CMBO system, or at best no better. Since better was what we were trying to achieve, it was rejected.

Vanir wrote;

If the game is slower as a side effect of increased realism, that's generally fine, within reasonable limits. Slower for the sake of slower is not something to aspire to.

It is when the current (CMBO) pace of the game is unrealistically fast And yes, it was. That means better realism was achieved through slowing down the action rather than the action being slowed down accidentally due to a different realism change.

Yup... the new system was purposefully intended to slow the game down. Especially for poor quality troops. CMBO suffered from "time compression" problems, just like every other wargame. Part of our design goal of CMBB was to reduce the time compression problem. Especially for poor quality troops, but in general for ALL troops. This was, we think, acheived to some degree through the following:

1. Changes/Additions to Movement Orders - The big one being Run is now used exceptionally instead of exclusively during attacks. The overuse of Run made the game go too fast with too few negative consequences, especially vs. defensive fire (i.e. automatic small arms).

2. Inclusion of Fitness rating - Units are much more prone to needing rest stops, especially if below Fit, moving in bad terrain, moving in bad weather, and/or overusing highly energy intensive orders.

3. Changes to MG modeling - In combo with #1, the new capabilities of MGs makes it much more difficult to go dashing about without serious risk of being spanked badly. Coupled with #2 it becomes even more risky, even suicidal.

4. Order restrictions - Crappy troops have a less full choice of orders, making it difficult sometimes to mount an assault or rally. Difficult, but not impossible with propper time allocateed (if possible under circumstances). In CMBO you could march dingbats through the woods and have them instanly launch a coordinated assault. Not so in CMBB unless you have been VERY careful about unit cohesion during the move up to the jump off locations. And unit cohesion comes at the expense of time.

5. Order waypoints - like it or not, complex real world orders are portrayed through waypoints. Sure, waypoints also serve as expressions of simple instructions. I will pick up on this point after a summary below...

To sum up the above...

CMBO had time compression problems. This was most evident when using poor quality troops. Generally people didn't use poor quality troops in QBs because they weren't obligated to. In CMBB the use of poor quality troops is an obligation to some extent, or at least it is strongly encouraged. That means whatever problems were in CMBO they would be enhanced in CMBB and completely screw up 1941 and 1942 combat between average Axis and Soviet forces of the time period. Which brings me to revisit #5 above...

What I see here is a near total denial that waypoints are the *only* means of simulating complex orders. All I hear is the argument about them simulating reasonable directing of simplistic orders. This is a totally false position to take because it runs completely contrary to the facts. This means we had to deal with the following problem or CMBB would likely come up rather short on realism:

-> If waypoints are the only way to illustrate complex orders, and the major difference between German/Finnish tactical superiority in 1941/42 was their ability to handle far more complex tactical orders than the Soviets, the degree we failed/succeeded making this as realistical as possible would determine the overal realism of CMBB.

As I stated many times before, we went over and over and over the tools at our disposal to figure out how we could realistically simulate the tactical differences between national forces as fielded. We had only three interrelated tools at our disposal:

1. Experience

2. C&C Delays

3. # of Waypoints

So we played around with all three and came up with the best possible solution to the VERY REAL dilema we faced.

I would be curious to see if anybody could come up with a better way to work around the problem. So far I have only seen a sort of denial that there was even a problem that needed to be solved. Seeing as we know the CM system better than anybody, and apparently none of you (seriously) question our understanding of history and ability to simulate it, me thinks it would be good to assume that we probably have a point

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Quick question in case people don't want to read the whole post above

Question - If you were us, how would you simulate the differences between simple orders ("Charge that House") and complex ones ("Walk 453m in a zigzagging path through dense woods, switch into a more cautious form of movement, take a windy road another 58m, crawl behind a wall you will find there for 16m, and then charge the House over 67m of open ground using zig zagging moves")?

Answers need to simple enough to be practical (programming/UI), deep enough to be flexible, and thorough enough to prevent gamey abuses (to large extent). If you describe elements not already in CMBO, that is OK, but understand that the sky is not the limit

Steve

[Treeburst155]

I would first define "simple orders" and "complex orders" by the number of waypoints plotted. Four or less would be simple orders, and more than that would be defined as complex. I would have no waypoint delays for the simple orders. The complex orders could have waypoint delays just like they do now, starting with the second waypoint. Beyond four waypoints I don't care what added delay there is because I seldom plot more than four waypoints. A complex order like you have described above I would rarely give.

Four waypoints is enough to plot around objects/terrain that hinder movement speed. It is also enough waypoints to plot movement around enemy LOS/LOF to some degree. City fighting comes to mind here. One needs more waypoints in cities IMO. I like to plot movement between buildings sometimes. Also, it takes three waypoints just to tell a squad to move to the wall-sharing heavy building next door. If you plot straight the squad would likely run out the dangerous side of the building, not the safer "rear" side.

Thanks to your posts on this subject, I understand your reasoning behind the waypoint delays. I would just like to see them relaxed a bit for simple orders. Four or less waypoints, no added delays. Five or more is complex and the the added delays could take affect on waypoint two as it is now.

Gimme a couple freebie waypoints or somefink. Pleeeaasssee??

Treeburst155 out.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Question - If you were us, how would you simulate the differences between simple orders ("Charge that House") and complex ones ("Walk 453m in a zigzagging path through dense woods, switch into a more cautious form of movement, take a windy road another 58m, crawl behind a wall you will find there for 16m, and then charge the House over 67m of open ground using zig zagging moves")?

The question is based on mistaken assumptions The issue is that a lot of the time the use of many waypoints does not represent complex orders of the sort you describe. This has been repeated again and again. When giving orders in CM we are a kind of combined commander and squad NCO. If I order even a conscript squad to run over the open patches, crawl behind the wall and walk in cover, this is not something they are _verbally ordered_ to do before they start. They just follow their NCO who is carrying out the simple order to 'go cautiously to point B'. Similarly, if I order a tank to 'drive down the road', it can turn, and adjust speed on it's own along the way. Again, waypoints are needed to decide between what in SL was called 'obstacle bypass movement' and actually moving through the house, patch of woods or whatever. This is a very simple order to give, but can require 3-4 waypoints to convey the idea 'don't enter the woods'.

This becomes serious for various reasons, some of which are:

In columns of vehicles, terrible traffic jams arise in CM. To avoid this requires giving extremely carefully timed and coordinated waypoint orders. This is a pain in the butt, caused by the lack of a column movement command and the sub-par routing AI, which means that tanks don't slow down in anticipation of running into a snarl until the last second, then they all start rerouting independent of each other making things worse. This is a blemish on the game. To avoid this requires that the player use waypoints, but they have nothing to do with complex orders. They are just to try to get the tanks to behave like any normal driven vehicle. In addition, if the column is going around a bend or two, and some members of the column are of different levels of experience, getting the timing right so that they don't snarl is made even more difficult by the waypoint delay system. So the waypoint delay system undermines one of the ways players can 'take control' and overcome a serious weakness in the fundamental structure of the game.

Also, you have mentioned wanting to reduce the ability of players to plot extra waypoints for the sake of editing later to avoid command delays, as though this were gamey. Misdirection of effort. Editing waypoints is another one of the ways a player can compensate for the often bizarre behaviors the tac AI displays when troops come under fire. You are, in effect, reducing player control, but not replacing it with effective enough computer control—putting players more and more at the mercy of the tacAI and the routing routines. Until those are more sophisticated, though, I believe you'd be better off leaving players able to intervene.

I don't mean to knock the game by saying (as I've said before) that many parts of the tacAI are really not up to the best standards we could hope for, and are based on some rather unimaginative conceptualizations of the problems. I think this is just a result of time and money limitations, and I am very happy that the game exists, works, and can function as a platform for future development. It also kicks butt on every other tacAI I've ever seen. But if it still has weak points, you shouldn't introduce changes that reduce our ability to go in and compensate manually, as the players, to get things working more smoothly.

[Cameroon]

Ironically CMPlayer, the fact that extra waypoints increase the delay time actually GIVES the playler much more timing and routing control.

If I want to move a column of vehicles in CMBO, I have to hope that experience delay + some combination of 15 second delays will add up to something useable. More often than not, this just doesn't work.

However, in CMBB, since adding waypoints adds delay, then I can add two waypoints were there was once only 1 to increase my margin of error on the timing or orchestrate an even larger ballet.

Furthermore, it is no longer (usually) necessary to plot more than two waypoints to accomplish a turn (one to the turn, and one away). Vehicles no longer slow to absolutely ridiculous speeds when performing such a manuever

As a somewhat amusing aside, the removal of control (though, as I think I pointed out, this is perhaps not always true) is one thing that there is a vocal clamoring for with regards to instantly respond to threats anywhere on the map, or with regards to relative spotting. I believe this is an instance that BFC can point to reinforce the "see, be careful what you ask for, you may get it"

Personally, I have absolutely never run into a problem that the addition of delay based on waypoints has caused. In fact, I have used it to SOLVE problems, such as traffic routing.

Regarding what might be a creative or useful approach for a new waypoint system:

What are people's thoughts on maintaining the system more or less as is (i.e. you can plot all your waypoints), BUT with the addition of a "Go here, use this SOP" waypoint system.

My thoughts are this: You can choose to plot out your units waypoints. This would incur delay as it does now but it ensures that YOUR orders are followed as closely as possible. OR you could choose to plot a waypoint to some objective (say the other side of a pond) and select two "settings", for instance "Move to Contact" and "Use Cover", or "Run" and "Quickiest Route", or "Hunt" & "Remain on road". The two settings aren't locked together, though some combinations might not be available.

In the second way to plot your waypoint, you plot it at the destination and let the AI plot the waypoints. HOWEVER, in order to avoid gamey abuse, those waypoints are not visible, or at the least not editable. This way you could choose to be particular about exactly where you unit goes and incure a penalty for exacting orders. Or you could allow the pathing AI to do the work. If you choose the pathing AI, you get no delay but you have to let it (the NCO, for instance) do the work.

I realize that system would require the pathing AI to improve, but I think it would really allow you to remove a lot of the grunt work UNLESS you needed/wanted it.

I do think that there might be some consternation about the not being able to edit the AIs waypoints if you choose the second method. But you essentially do that with the "Seek Hulldown" right now. Personally I think the compromise would be exactly right, since you COULD choose to plot the waypoints yourself.

Anyway, food for thought.

[Edit]

And if BFC wants me to come work for them to build the pathing AI to do that...

[ October 27, 2002, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

However, in CMBB, since adding waypoints adds delay, then I can add two waypoints were there was once only 1 to increase my margin of error on the timing or orchestrate an even larger ballet.

Heh heh. Yeah, inserting a spurious waypoint can give more fine grained order delays than the 10 seconds avail in the orders menu.

Neat idea.

But now it's starting to get pretty Ptolemaic don't you think?

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cameroon:

However, in CMBB, since adding waypoints adds delay, then I can add two waypoints were there was once only 1 to increase my margin of error on the timing or orchestrate an even larger ballet.

Heh heh. Yeah, inserting a spurious waypoint can give more fine grained order delays than the 10 seconds avail in the orders menu.

Neat idea.

But now it's starting to get pretty Ptolemaic don't you think?</font>