More waypoints = more delay. Realistic?

[Guest Mike]

Bump - 'cos it's still relevant IMO

[Battlefront.com]

Bump - 'cos it's still relevant IMO

Yeah, but nothing is going to change

The bottom line here is that the current system is not perfect. Unfortunately, we couldn't come up with anything better. The need to penalize overly complicated orders outweighs the complaints about overly complex orders.

As for 1km road movements... I am not sympathetic. I have not seen anybody complain about excessive penalties OR real problems getting troops to do reasonably complicated orders in game.

Again, the current system is not perfect. That means people can, rightly, have a beef with it. But it is better than any alternative we came up with or anything that has been suggested. So it will stay as is.

Steve

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The bottom line here is that the current system is not perfect. Unfortunately, we couldn't come up with anything better. The need to penalize overly complicated orders outweighs the complaints about overly complex orders.

Personally I never saw the need in the first place.

What was it that was happening that required this change??

As for 1km road movements... I am not sympathetic. I have not seen anybody complain about excessive penalties OR real problems getting troops to do reasonably complicated orders in game.

Huh?? Waht do you think is posted all through this thread????????

Again, the current system is not perfect. That means people can, rightly, have a beef with it. But it is better than any alternative we came up with or anything that has been suggested. So it will stay as is.

How about a better evaluation of the need for any penalty at all?

Or a system based upon distance from current position for each waypoint?

Or even a simple asumption that orders issued on Turn 1 have been given prior to the game and incur no penalty - the same way programmed fires can?

[Guest Mike]

bump

[WWB]

Or even a simple asumption that orders issued on Turn 1 have been given prior to the game and incur no penalty - the same way programmed fires can?

That is not a half bad idea actually.

WWB

[Moon]

What was it that was happening that required this change??

The change was needed in order to simulate the command & control procedures of the various nations (and their development through 5 years of war), and in order to incorporate an efficient C&C system for tank platoons. Using the number of waypoints as a grade for the complexity of an order passed down to a unit allows us to simulate inflexible command structures, where simple orders and fairly static combat can be carried out without much penalty, but where large scale flankign maneuvers, deep recon raids by inidividual units etc. are discouraged. Not impossible, but tagged with a price - a high command delay.

Huh?? Waht do you think is posted all through this thread????????

After a quick scan, I see a few complains by a small number of people that do not seem to understand that the game system has been designed in a specific way, to encourage certain (realistic) behaviour, and discourage the opposite. This is not an RTS game. There is no need to plot an order down a road from one map and to the other. The unit in question will not move off the road while you are looking at another part of the map and the game keeps running. Once you realize that the C&C system encourages a certain behaviour (plot shorter movement orders with fewer waypoints) and that there is a reason for it (see above), it might be easier to understand the why. As Steve said, though, it is NOT a perfect system, nor is it entirely realistic. The benefits for the overall simulation by far outweight the few limitations, however.

How about a better evaluation of the need for any penalty at all?

Or a system based upon distance from current position for each waypoint?

Or even a simple asumption that orders issued on Turn 1 have been given prior to the game and incur no penalty - the same way programmed fires can?

Basing orders on distance is not any better than the current system. In fact, it is a lot weaker in a number of situations. When I shout "move up 500 meters", that is an easy to understand and simple order, and the command delay should not be high. And why should it be higher when I say "move up 600 meters"?

Yet, a distance based system would allow units to perform all sorts of zig-zag maneuvers in a small radius without an added penalty (the most extreme example would be 100 MOVE and 100 REVERSE waypoints on an area of 10 square meters).

As for the "no command delay on turn 1" suggestion - yep, great, except that again the disadvantages outweigh the advantages when you think about it. What about small scenarios (ie. small maps)? Should the attacker get a "free turn" to storm forward before the defender is even able to see the attacking force? Imagine a fast recon vehicle ordered to FAST forward down a 400 meter map - he'd reach the end of the map before the defender could really open fire due to the non existing command delay. The current system forces players to define proper assembly and setup zones, and evens the odds, so to speak. As long as you don't insist to a) plot movement paths down the entire map (the C&C system is designed to discourage just that on purpose!) and plot those movements for vehicles which are in open view of the enemy on turn 1, it will work realistically in 99% of the combat situations you'll ever encounter in CM.

Martin

[Guest Mike]

All very impressive Martin but:

1/ On a small map I'd expect the forming up etc to have been done already - you're already in combat effectively, and so many of the orders should have been already given.

2/ you can still do exactly that - plot your fast recon element to move off the end of the board and leave the AI to sort out the waypoints. If the circumstances are right then it will do a reasonable job and you still avoid the delay so it becomes a matter of luck rather than skill.

This is how I now order my infantry into pre-battle positions on large maps - in straight lines with no delay and let the AI sort out the path.

On small maps it isn't important because the infantry isn't going to move that far anyway.

3/ I've never played CC, nor any other RTS war game apart from MTW and that only recently, so I don't understand your allusions there.

4/ As you say - it IS quite possible to give a simple order to cover a lot of ground - but not in CMBB if there's a few curves in the road or buildings or other imppassible terain in the way (for vehicles for example)

5/ the number of people complaining isn't all that indicitive - I don't recall a large number of people complaining about the initial problem either - in fact I can't remember any complaints about it at all.

6/ we are not only issuing orders when we plot a path. We are also pre-interpretting teh orders on behalf of the little pixellated men we are "ordering about".

If we want a tank to move to the other side of a building we can plot a direct line and have the AI decide which side it goes, or we can make that decision for the tank and choose one.

That doesn't mean we've issued an order to move around the left or right of the house - it can equally meant we've issued an order to move to the other side of the house, nd then, as the tank commander, we've decided which side we want to move around.

But if the AI plays the tank commander then we're a few seconds better off - I can't see a good reason why this should be so - even giving an order to "move around the left of the house house to the other side" doesn't take that much longer.

7/ No a distance based system does not have to allow an infinite number of waypoints - you can still tag delay to waypoints but with varying values depending upon teh distance. Eg 1 second if the waypint is within 10m, 5 if it is within 100, 10 if within 500, 20 if within 1km, 30 if further.

Limited to a maximum of 2 seconds if the waypoint and all previous movemet since the the previous waypoint are along a road.

It's not difficult to imagine such a system.

As you say, the system isn't perfect, and I think it can be better, and I've made suggestions that on the surface do not deserve the scorn you have poured on them.

Perhaps you could put some thought to them or otehr methods of improving the system instead - I presume you'd rather have a better system?

[ November 26, 2002, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[demoss]

It seems like you're ignoring the winding road issue. It takes an excessive command delay to get a vehicle moving over a reasonable distance (I consider 500 m quite reasonable) on a winding road. Sure, sometimes, you can let the TacAI take care of it, but you just can't afford to do that if the ground conditions are bad or if you need the speed boost of being on the road. It seems to me that making on-road waypoints not count (or count as a fraction of a waypoint) would be a dramatic improvement with little drawback.

[ November 26, 2002, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: demoss ]

[Battlefront.com]

Mike,

Personally I never saw the need in the first place.

Which explains well why you don't like the new system

Combat Mission is a simulation. It is designed to simulate real world combat as closely as possible. It is not designed, inherently, to be a '"game". A "game" is not a simulation since it does not put realism as a primary concern. So...

In real life issuing complicated orders is very difficult. It is time consuming at best, often impossible. CMBO did not have any controls over this besides the initial C&C delay. This was adequate for CMBO because most people didn't play with crappy troops. But with CMBB, crappy troops are the norm for much of the game and are "required" by anybody playing QBs without rulling out variable experience levels.

Not addressing this issue would artificially make crappy troops tactically similar to great troops. This is historically incorrect and would have serious ramifications for early war battles in particular. The German's ability to win battles was largely due to their greater ability to handle complicated tactical situations with timely action.

This should be pretty obvious to you if you stopped fighting the concept and actually thought about it for a bit.

We tried two other systems:

1. Distance Based Delay - as Martin said, it sucked. It didn't do what it was supposed to do and unreasonably penalized good quality units.

2. Limited Waypoints - this is something I am sure you would have hated even more Heck, we hated it too, so it was quickly removed.

Like I said, the current system is not perfect but it makes the game far more realistic than if we had left it as CMBO. We are not going to change the system at all because it would appear to work out OK, we have no substitute/tweaks in waiting, and probably 98% of gamers don't have a problem with this system in any meaningful way. Some do bitch about it at some time here and there, but not nearly to the extent you are.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

demoss,

It seems like you're ignoring the winding road issue.

We aren't ignoring anything. We are saying that on balance this problem pales in comparison with what would happen if we simply removed the new delay penalties. Plus, I think people are totally blowing this "problem" out of proportion just like so many issues. I have never experienced a problem and I play very well.

It takes an excessive command delay to get a vehicle moving over a reasonable distance (I consider 500 m quite reasonable) on a winding road.

What is excessive? 10 seconds longer? 20 seconds? I have said many times before, and will again, that CM is overly *FAR* too forgiving when it comes to delays. So the argument of "excessive" is largely at odds with realism. The simple truth is that players can order units to move assuredly far too easily with far too few limitations.

Again, "the system is not perfect" means that there are some behaviors that are "not perfect". But to date, we don't have any idea how to make the system better overall.

I will also say again...

We are NOT CHANGING ANYTHING

Just in case people missed this point

Steve

[demoss]

We aren't ignoring anything. We are saying that on balance this problem pales in comparison with what would happen if we simply removed the new delay penalties. Plus, I think people are totally blowing this "problem" out of proportion just like so many issues. I have never experienced a problem and I play very well.

I agree, simply removing the delay penalties would be a bad idea. There exists, however, one good example that I have seen where it breaks down - that of a winding road.

What is excessive? 10 seconds longer? 20 seconds? I have said many times before, and will again, that CM is overly *FAR* too forgiving when it comes to delays. So the argument of "excessive" is largely at odds with realism. The simple truth is that players can order units to move assuredly far too easily with far too few limitations.

Again, "the system is not perfect" means that there are some behaviors that are "not perfect". But to date, we don't have any idea how to make the system better overall.

"Excessive" is relative to everything else in-system. When you order the infantry to get moving 500 m thataway, and it takes them 20 seconds, and you order a vehicle to get moving 500 m thataway, but STAY ON THE ROAD BECAUSE YOU'LL FRIGGIN' BOG OTHERWISE it can take 2 minutes. That difference is what's excessive - the actual order isn't dramatically more complex, but its representation in the game is, and the unit is penalized based on that representation. I wouldn't have a problem with making the infantry take just as much command delay. Another aspect of the problem is that roads may be unrealistically winding, because of the grid limitations imposed by the game.

Of course, if you added a "stay on road" SOP it would all work just peachy. Or you could make waypoints on roads count as, say, about 1/4 waypoint for delay purposes (ideally, with an exception near intersections). How can those not count as ideas to make the system better overall?

[Battlefront.com]

I shudder to see what kind of orders you guys are issuing to come up with 2 minute turn delays.

15 orders for a Vet unit came up with 66 seconds of delay. 10 orders only made a 32 second delay.

I think people are just overusing waypoints and/or are issuing far too many orders at once to overcome delays later on. And since this system was designed to combat the latter, I have no sympathy for those people As for overusing waypoints, I am sure that some people are. All the time? No, but in previous discussions I saw some VERY silly paths laid out.

Steve

[WWB]

Well, I know that the minds are made up, but there is a logical fallicy in Martin's reasoning against zero-delay turn 1 waypoints:

As for the "no command delay on turn 1" suggestion - yep, great, except that again the disadvantages outweigh the advantages when you think about it. What about small scenarios (ie. small maps)? Should the attacker get a "free turn" to storm forward before the defender is even able to see the attacking force? Imagine a fast recon vehicle ordered to FAST forward down a 400 meter map - he'd reach the end of the map before the defender could really open fire due to the non existing command delay. The current system forces players to define proper assembly and setup zones, and evens the odds, so to speak. As long as you don't insist to a) plot movement paths down the entire map (the C&C system is designed to discourage just that on purpose!) and plot those movements for vehicles which are in open view of the enemy on turn 1, it will work realistically in 99% of the combat situations you'll ever encounter in CM.

The thing is there is no delay for fire orders, meaning that charging A/C can still find the ATG the hard way if it was delayed to turn 2 or not.

I do agree it is a major mistake to start with units in LOS, but I don't think that letting them move without delay is an altogether bad thing on the first turn.

Moreover, letting people plot full movement on the first turn would better simulate infelxible command by encouraging some to plot long movements for poor troops. Then things change and they will be forced to either stick with the bad decision or repolot at the price of delays.

WWB

[Moon]

1/ On a small map I'd expect the forming up etc to have been done already - you're already in combat effectively, and so many of the orders should have been already given.

True, BUT - not only for the attacker, but also for the defender. That means if you allow the attacker to plot penalty free turn 1 movements, you need to allow the defender to plot defensive fires. This is impossible when the defender is able to spot the attacker on said turn. You see, the game has to start at some point

There MIGHT be a solution here, by allowing both sides more options during the setup phase (mind you, not turn 1), and we're exploring this for the engine rewrite. But the current engine is limited to what we got.

This is how I now order my infantry into pre-battle positions on large maps - in straight lines with no delay and let the AI sort out the path.

Which is exactly one of the ways CM is intended to be played. The game system is designed to present the player with a decision - micro-management of individual units vs. command delays. I'll explain the reason why this is, and why it is a good thing for the simulation, a little further below.

3/ I've never played CC, nor any other RTS war game apart from MTW and that only recently, so I don't understand your allusions there.

No allusions intended, just a try to explain why the hybrid turn/real time system of CM is different from a classic RTS game, which I assumed most people here would be familiar with.

4/ As you say - it IS quite possible to give a simple order to cover a lot of ground - but not in CMBB if there's a few curves in the road or buildings or other imppassible terain in the way (for vehicles for example)

Put yourself in the shoes of a tank commander at one end of a long winded road, where the other end isn't visible because of buildings and other impassable terrain. How is that tank commander able to issue a movement order when he can't even see the end of the road? Or doesn't know from his initial starting point which terrain is passable and which is not? You, as the player, have a godlike view on the battlefield, and you would be able to order that tank to race down the road, full speed, to aid you in winning the battle. This would be totally unrealistic behaviour. The current system prevents this. It enforces limitations on the ability of the player to micromanage his troops, using his godlike knowledge of the battle to his advantage. With the current system, it will take you more time to move down that road, you are forced to plot several orders for shorter stretches, and that is a good thing for the simulation as a whole. The elegant thing about the system is that it does not artifically prohibit certain things, but presents a trade-off situation to the player. More micromanagement vs. higher command delays, as I mentioned above.

5/ the number of people complaining isn't all that indicitive - I don't recall a large number of people complaining about the initial problem either - in fact I can't remember any complaints about it at all.

Of course not, since there was no CMBB, there were no Russian and Hungarian and Romanian troops, and the whole time period covered in CMBO was less than 1 year. CMBB simulates five years, with many developments and improvements (particularly on the Soviet side) in the way command & control was implemented.

But if the AI plays the tank commander then we're a few seconds better off - I can't see a good reason why this should be so - even giving an order to "move around the left of the house house to the other side" doesn't take that much longer.

See my comments about the game system and the trade-off for the player. A simulation cannot live without abstractions, and the 60 second "turns" of CM are on such abstraction. In order to arrive at a better overall simulation of combat, certain "artificial" restrictions have to be made, at least as long as one player is able to lead and order around an entire battalion.

7/ No a distance based system does not have to allow an infinite number of waypoints - you can still tag delay to waypoints but with varying values depending upon teh distance. Eg 1 second if the waypint is within 10m, 5 if it is within 100, 10 if within 500, 20 if within 1km, 30 if further.

Sure, but what makes this system more realistic than what we have currently? The penalty from such a system for a movement order of 1 km length with one waypoint would be higher than what it is currently for most regular units. Yet, you could order the tank to perform all sorts of maneuvers in between some patches of soft ground, around five buildings and through a ford with as little as 3 or 4 seconds delay at the end of this 1 km journey?

It's not difficult to imagine such a system.

Nope, but it's an entirely different matter to code them.

As you say, the system isn't perfect, and I think it can be better, and I've made suggestions that on the surface do not deserve the scorn you have poured on them.

Sorry if you perceive what I was saying as scorn, it wasn't intended that way at all. I am only trying to explain why the current system is the best balance between playability and realism that we have found in developing this game so far - and that is after several years of discussing this.

Perhaps you could put some thought to them or otehr methods of improving the system instead - I presume you'd rather have a better system?

There can always be improvements, and there will be, without a doubt, for the new engine in the future. Relative spotting will go a long way in allowing a less abstracted way of simulating command delays for example. But until then, as Steve said, the current engine is stuck with the current system. Not perfect, but working as advertised within the context of the simulation.

Martin

PS. Edited to correct some typos...

[ November 26, 2002, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Moon ]

[Battlefront.com]

WWB,

The thing is there is no delay for fire orders, meaning that charging A/C can still find the ATG the hard way if it was delayed to turn 2 or not.

The fact that there are no delays on firing is a two way street that doesn't inherently benefit either side from game to game. For example, on first turn you could spot that ATG and beat the crap out of it before it managed to get one shot off. Or you might spot a defending AFV sitting in a street that and get a shot off on it first. Etc.

So I'd say this is a wash for the most part. Even in QBs I rarely come under fire on the first turn. But the first turn freebie move is solidly a benefit to the attacker.

Now, I am not saying it is totally unreasonable to argue for a first turn freebie move. I once argued for this with Charles during CMBO development. But he convinced me that it wasn't a good idea when taken as a whole. Since this discussion was over two years ago I can't remember the details, but if I back down from an idea it is always for a good reason

Steve

[Moon]

Hehe, Steve, how about this for a reason: what if it's not an A/C charging, but two platoons of Panthers and a whole battalion of infantry, moving out without any delay? The defender has no time to react to this massive human and metal wave at all, even though he certainly should have seen this thing forming up if the game map only was a hundred meters longer... besides a rather dull gaming experience (at least after you tried it once) and a quick way to kill competitive head to head play on small maps, it is not more realistic as a whole than what is in place now.

Martin

[Battlefront.com]

Mike,

I just noticed this comment by you:

Perhaps you could put some thought to them or otehr methods of improving the system instead - I presume you'd rather have a better system?

This is as insulting as it is horribly illinformed. Have you read this thread and previous ones? Do you really think we just slapped this together because we are mentally lazy? If you do think this, look at previous comments made where I said we implemented at least one (limited waypoints) other movement system and it failed miserably. We had a third one (distance) and that one was too difficult to make work. When we got into the details it simply was too complicated and brittle. There were countless other attempts at systems that failed for any one of a number of reasons before they were fully fleshed out.

Think about it folks... how creative and ingenous do you think we are compared to other game developers? Hopefully our clear record would lead you to score us highly. If not, I will have to ask you to step outside So if we are saying this is the best we can offer for CMBB, why can you just accept that and deal with the way the game is instead of a pining for a way it will never be?

Steve

P.S. Martin... yeah, that rings a big bell

[ November 26, 2002, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[WWB]

I shall now put away the whip and quit beating the dead horse. I might beat other dead horses from time to time (HOTKEYS IN THE EDITOR!) but this one is kind of a wash. Would be cool, but not a game killer.

WWB

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

I shall now put away the whip and quit beating the dead horse.

I guess so.

Steve - I'm sorry you choose to feel insulted - but I'm not a mind reader, nor was a I a Beta tester, so how am I supposed to know exactly what you'd been through and thought?

And claiming infallibility because you've done some really neat stuff is a crock I'm afraid - doing a zillion neat things doesn't mean you can't make one bad thing. To start to claim infallibility is a short step from arrogance and you guys have been wonderful at NOT doing any of that stuff.

Martin - OK - so the old system was no better than it is now.

That's not relevant IMO.

The only thing that is relevant is how much better is the new system than the old? If it's an improvement then fine - but it isn't for me - I'd never encountered the old problem and I encounter the new one in a lot of games.

Whatever system you use there are going to be @rseholes who punch the biggest holes in it they can - had I known of the problem early enough and/or had been in a position to make suggestions then I'd probably have suggested that the answer to the small map rush problem lay in map size.

But yep, it's too late now - let's look forward to the new engine

Keep up the good work guys - ther's lots of it and the occasional stuff up (IMO) like the delay system isn't a game killer.

[Battlefront.com]

Mike,

Steve - I'm sorry you choose to feel insulted - but I'm not a mind reader, nor was a I a Beta tester, so how am I supposed to know exactly what you'd been through and thought?

Just a little common sense is all that is needed. First of all, you know very well how innovative CM is compared to other games. You also know how very concerned we are with getting things to be the best they can be (practical issues of course ruin perfection). And should also know that criticism is easy for someone who doesn't have to do the actual work to make whatever it is function correctly. But above all else, you should see in this thread and in previous ones (if you read them, that is) how much time we have spent on this issue. Especially considering that I stated we coded up something and ripped it out and replaced it with the current system. How many times have people here seen me say this? Not many because usually our first try is better than good enough.

So taking all this into consideration, don't you think you could give us a BIT of credit and think "gee... this must be a much more difficult problem to solve than I thought. Obviously BTS aren't a bunch of idiots, they clearly listen to other people's ideas, they have admitted the system isn't perfect, but yet they still say they can't make any improvements. Gee... perhaps I should just agree with them that it isn't perfect and learn to live with it since it clearly isn't going to change"? How hard would that be to do?

And claiming infallibility because you've done some really neat stuff is a crock I'm afraid - doing a zillion neat things doesn't mean you can't make one bad thing. To start to claim infallibility is a short step from arrogance and you guys have been wonderful at NOT doing any of that stuff.

Kindly point out where I even implied that we are infalliable and I will print out the pages of this thread and literally eat them. However, if instead you see where I said the system isn't perfect, we have knocked ourselves out fiinding a solution, and have clearly stated (logically and rationally) why other people's ideas won't work... I will ask you to do the eating instead. Deal?

The only thing that is relevant is how much better is the new system than the old? If it's an improvement then fine - but it isn't for me -

Which is fine, but you need to adjust your arguments accordingly. There are some people here that want to still rush VG SMG troops at MGs with unrealistically low negative consequences like in CMBO. Like them, you just have to come to grips with the fact that we can not make every feature in CM please every player or their chosen style of play. As long as issues like this only bother a few people, or even a decent number occasionally, that is the best we can do. Since CM has always been about striving for realism, we are actually pleased at how few people we have left by the wayside along the way.

Whatever system you use there are going to be @rseholes who punch the biggest holes in it they can

True, and we have plenty of those guys on our testing team But finding a "hole" doesn't mean that it is a in fact a hole in the bigger picture of the game. Sure, excessive amounts of micromangement of units will cause initially large C&C delays. But after that? Unrealistically flawless execution of the move order string without any hesitation or further delays (barring enemy contact, of course). The irony here is that you want us to fix the lesser of the two problems.

had I known of the problem early enough and/or had been in a position to make suggestions then I'd probably have suggested that the answer to the small map rush problem lay in map size.

Even if you had, we would still have the existing system. It is the best solution anybody has come up with thus far. As stated a 100 times, it isn't perfect but it is very far from being broken. Perhaps broken to some styles of play, but not to the majority. That means it isn't something that we should spend inordinate amounts of time on trying to fix. There are other issues that would benefit more people with the same amount of time invested.

But yep, it's too late now - let's look forward to the new engine

This implies that had you tested the game that things would be different. Knowing what the testers we had said, I very much doubt that. Having a "pet issue" means nothing if there isn't a practical way to address without causing bigger problems for the system to handle.

Like I said above, we spent more time on this issue than I care to think about. The fact that we didn't come up with something doesn't mean we are perfect and there is no solution, rather it *should* emphasize how monumental this issue is and no amount of wishing will make it be otherwise.

Keep up the good work guys - ther's lots of it and the occasional stuff up (IMO) like the delay system isn't a game killer.

Thank you. While you might have got my hackles up, and I still think you don't really understand how difficult this issue is, feedback is appreciated. But at some point we need to put issues to rest that are obviously going nowhere. If we didn't, we wouldn't have any time or energy left to discuss things that we CAN change.

Steve

[ November 26, 2002, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[thewood]

Mike,

I am putting things in Steve's mouth, but before blows are thrown, accept some constructive criticism from someone who has been following this thread, as well as a couple of other dead horse threads (does sneaking/exhaustian or IS-2 ring a bell?).

If you had read every post in this thread, Steve did a good job of explaining the development history, at a high level, of why the delay system is what it is. In summation, Steve has pretty clearly stated that this is how the system is implemented and how it is going to stay. I have followed CM since it was still associated with Avalon Hill and I have seen Steve and Charles alter direction based upon user feedback numerous times.

The CM engine is at the end of its useful lifecycle and I can't imagine that anyone is going to convince BFC to make major investments in areas that only effect very limited situations when getting models completed and fixing things that are actually broken and can't be compensated for by tactics or player intervention.

I think it is great that CM fans have this much passion about making CM better. I personnaly encounter things evey time I play CM that make me say "I don't think that would happen in real life", but for each one of those, I see ten things that make me say "Wow, that TacAI reacts very realistically". I try not to dwell on the one thing, unless I can't rationalize it or compensate for it. But, at some point, we need to do the honorable thing and go look for a battle we can win.

btw, has anyone noticed the sneaking/exhaustion thread seems to have died down. (knock on wood quietly)

[aka_tom_w]

this way point delay system is "sort of" the same for each side is it not?

Does it create an unfair advantage for one player over the other?

It is my opinion that "something" had to be done to simulate Russian tanks without radios and conscript infantry. So the new delay waypoint system is sort of an approximation or a compromise. I think it slows down the game and like the more "brittle" infantry model if you play a few games of CMBB you can get used to it and accomodate.

The way point delay system sort of does what they intended and makes movement more complicated. less predictable and more difficult to co-ordinate, I think this is a good attempt to simulate poor co-ordination in command-communication and control systems on the Eastern Front.

This aspect of the game does not bother me all that much really.

-tom w

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

this way point delay system is "sort of" the same for each side is it not?

Depends - IMO it's not nearly as bad for infantry as for vehicles, so the Russians are less likely to be badly affected than the Germans.

Also IMO it gtreatly depends upon terrain - is you're lucky you jsut won't have to gofar to the positions yuo want to occupy.

And lastly of course it affects attacking sides more than defending ones!!

It is my opinion that "something" had to be done to simulate Russian tanks without radios and conscript infantry.

I thought that was handled by changing the general delay times for tanks without radios and for conscripts?

I know I've had out-of-control T34's with delay times of a minute or more - I've got no problems with that 'cos tehy aren't in a position to receive orders.

Although I'm not sure how accurate it is, 'cos, I mean like how is an order going to be transmitted across 2-300m without a radio unless someone leaves a tank?? I'm not sure those dinky wee flags they had would be all that visible at long range!!

IMO a better thin here would've been to require subordinate vehicles to remain within "x" distance and sight of their commander.

Dear "TheWood" - it isn't Steve's explainations in this thread I was referring to - it was the process by which BTS has determined that the current system is the best.

Unfortunately I don't think the existing system was really tested by the demo scenarios - they lacked roads or any need to plot long moves. Which I can now see as a bit of a gap - c'est la vie tho'.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the votes of support

Mike,

I thought that was handled by changing the general delay times for tanks without radios and for conscripts?

No, that more or less is just simulating C&C between units, not within units. Think of infantry modeling. A Squad has its own in command and out of command delay depending on Experience. This also determines how quickly additional waypoints start to add time to the initial delay. Two different aspects of the same system.

Although I'm not sure how accurate it is, 'cos, I mean like how is an order going to be transmitted across 2-300m without a radio unless someone leaves a tank?? I'm not sure those dinky wee flags they had would be all that visible at long range!!

The do have binoculars ya know

IMO a better thin here would've been to require subordinate vehicles to remain within "x" distance and sight of their commander.

I don't understand. What would that simulate? In real life there is nothing that says the tanks MUST stay with their HQs. It is just wise to do so. And although the player is certainly allowed too much flexibility here, welcome to the game part of Combat Mission. There are tons of things players can do that no real world commander, crew, or soldier would ever do. All we can do is make excesses penalized as much as possible without making the penalties themselves unrealistic.

Dear "TheWood" - it isn't Steve's explainations in this thread I was referring to - it was the process by which BTS has determined that the current system is the best.

Er... so because you don't happen to like our very detailed explaination and sound logic, you feel that this is a reason to call into question the very process by which we make games. Kinda like not liking the color of a sign in a bank and wondering how well your money is guarded.

Unfortunately I don't think the existing system was really tested by the demo scenarios - they lacked roads or any need to plot long moves. Which I can now see as a bit of a gap - c'est la vie tho'.

What does the demo have to do with anything? We tested CMBB with a rather large testing group for almost a year. Now I will have to check my notes, and confer with the other testers, but I am *pretty sure* they played at least one or two games with roads on them. I'm sure they did in fact. I mean, somebody made the 60 scenarios that are on the CD and the picture I posted above came from one of those scenarios. I'm sure they must have actually played at least those 60 scenarios at least once. So gee... I guess maybe you are just not thinking before you speak again?

Steve

[thewood]

What impresses me the most about this thread is the member numbers. I find it interesting that people have been following CM for so long and are still discussing these types of details. In my mind it is a testament to BFC's fan base and the fan's commitment to CM. Other than Falcon 4.0 and Harpoon, I have seen no ther place with this much passionate, and yet intelligent, discussion happening.

I think these types of dicussions for F4, Harpoon, and CM show the great expections placed upon these systems. Discussions always center around real-world tactics. In other forums, like GIC and SPWAW, it centers around game limitations, not tactics.