Command delays

[Visom]

This might have been covered before, but is there a reason a squad starts moving after 33 seconds but it can stop in one second? Why is there a difference and will it be changed in CMBB?

A related question: If you change a waypoint your squad will reach in two minutes, why am I penalized with a command delay for that? Is there a reason or is it a limitation in the engine?

[aka_tom_w]

To the best of my knowledge ("ttbomk" anybody use that abbriviation? NO? didn't think so ), it is not a limitation in the game engine, they made it that way on purpose.

It is an attempt to model delays in communications, and to some degree fog of war.

Units that have more experience move out faster, Those with less experience move out slower.

Some folks here including myself have argued for longer and more variable (unpredictable) command delays combined with lower spotting abilities and MORE fog of war to make a better combat simulation.

BFC made a decision to model the command delays a certian way. I think they might suggest that command delays are being improved in CMBB (I hope)

Hope that helps

-tom w

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Visom:

... a squad starts moving after 33 seconds but it can stop in one second?

Two reasons;

- From a gamers point of view it would be too harsh to not allow units to stop acting immediately between turns.

- From a reasoning point of view it's much easier to issue an order to "stop what you're doing" than it is to issue details about what to actually do.

... change a waypoint ..., why am I penalized with a command delay for that?

Changing the waypoint is to issue a new order. Of course there should be a delay for that!

You may also note that there's no additional delay for repeatedly changing the waypoint until the order has been received.

Cheers

Olle

[Tarquelne]

From a reasoning point of view it's much easier to issue an order to "stop what you're doing" than it is to issue details about what to actually do.

This is because most soldiers are not actually "grognards," unlike many posters on this forum.

I think there should be a "grognard" optional rule for CMBB, though, which makes all the soldiers act like grognards.

A little text/input box could pop up, and you would attempt to justify your orders given the current logisitcal and geopolitical context of the game. The better your argument the lower the time delay... but make a bad argument (In the judgement of that platoon of little CMBB men.) and "Friendly Fire" will become a major part of your life.

Some combats between opposing grognard units would be resolved via a special "Debate" mode. For example, grognard tank crews would compare armor quality, ammo availibility and characteristics, and the fine points of thier tactical SOP. This would sometimes result in one crew Abandoning their tank. But at other times there'd be a berserk flurry of AP and machinegun fire as the crews attempt to "demonstrate" the actual ROF of their main gun and the inferior quality of an opponent's glacis... or moral character.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

... you would attempt to justify your orders given the current logisitcal and geopolitical context of the game. The better your argument the lower the time delay...

... Some combats between opposing grognard units would be resolved via a special "Debate" mode. ...

Seems like a cool idea.

Of course the argument and debate time would be added to the delay...

Cheers

Olle

[imported_argie]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> From a reasoning point of view it's much easier to issue an order to "stop what you're doing" than it is to issue details about what to actually do.

This is because most soldiers are not actually "grognards," unlike many posters on this forum.

I think there should be a "grognard" optional rule for CMBB, though, which makes all the soldiers act like grognards.

A little text/input box could pop up, and you would attempt to justify your orders given the current logisitcal and geopolitical context of the game. The better your argument the lower the time delay... but make a bad argument (In the judgement of that platoon of little CMBB men.) and "Friendly Fire" will become a major part of your life.

Some combats between opposing grognard units would be resolved via a special "Debate" mode. For example, grognard tank crews would compare armor quality, ammo availibility and characteristics, and the fine points of thier tactical SOP. This would sometimes result in one crew Abandoning their tank. But at other times there'd be a berserk flurry of AP and machinegun fire as the crews attempt to "demonstrate" the actual ROF of their main gun and the inferior quality of an opponent's glacis... or moral character.</font>

[Guest PondScum]

Originally posted by argie:

But definitely the most interesting are the grognard games involving Engineer units. They have Flamethrowers!

I must respectfully disagree. It is clearly OBVIOUS to even a Lesser Grog that the use of LMG teams will become far more tactically interesting than that of mere flamethrowers.

After all, now will be able to run - if they can provide two pages of justification of ammo loadouts, sprint times, combat usage, ...

[Visom]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Changing the waypoint is to issue a new order. Of course there should be a delay for that!

Not sure I agree. Orders to my M4: "Move along the road stop at the first intersection (2000 meters)."

If I the next minute change my mind and say "Move along the road and stop at the second intersection (2300 meters)."

Were the tank commanders unable to receive orders while moving? Or, as I'm the one who controls every squad on the battle field, couldn't the tank commanders make decissions while the tank was moving? I could understand if the changes were in the immediate future, but surely it should be possible to change the orders for something that are still 3-4 minutes away(?)

I have the same problem with mortars and MGs who sometimes are left behind in a quick attack. Those are easier to understand as I guess it's harder to move with a lot of equipment on your back than commanding a tank, but it's still a fact that I'm acting as the leader for each individual squad. To extend a waypoint you will reach in a few minutes shouldn't IMHO be penalized as hard as it is. I'd like to see the same penalty for 'Stop right here right now' and adding a waypoint that is more than 2 minutes away (maybe different for different experience and 'suppression' levels).

Or another way to put it: 'Stop 100 meters before the last waypoint' versus 'Continue 100 meters further after the last waypoint'. Is the difference really that big so that one should have no penalty and the other full penalty? Assume last waypoint is 100, 500 or 1000 meters away and have the second last waypoint 100 meter before that.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Visom:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Changing the waypoint is to issue a new order. Of course there should be a delay for that!

Not sure I agree. Orders to my M4: "Move along the road stop at the first intersection (2000 meters)."

If I the next minute change my mind and say "Move along the road and stop at the second intersection (2300 meters)."

Were the tank commanders unable to receive orders while moving? Or, as I'm the one who controls every squad on the battle field, couldn't the tank commanders make decissions while the tank was moving? I could understand if the changes were in the immediate future, but surely it should be possible to change the orders for something that are still 3-4 minutes away(?)

I have the same problem with mortars and MGs who sometimes are left behind in a quick attack. Those are easier to understand as I guess it's harder to move with a lot of equipment on your back than commanding a tank, but it's still a fact that I'm acting as the leader for each individual squad. To extend a waypoint you will reach in a few minutes shouldn't IMHO be penalized as hard as it is. I'd like to see the same penalty for 'Stop right here right now' and adding a waypoint that is more than 2 minutes away (maybe different for different experience and 'suppression' levels).

Or another way to put it: 'Stop 100 meters before the last waypoint' versus 'Continue 100 meters further after the last waypoint'. Is the difference really that big so that one should have no penalty and the other full penalty? Assume last waypoint is 100, 500 or 1000 meters away and have the second last waypoint 100 meter before that.</font>

[imported_argie]

Originally posted by PondScum:

I must respectfully disagree. It is clearly OBVIOUS to even a Lesser Grog that the use of LMG teams will become far more tactically interesting than that of mere flamethrowers.

After all, now will be able to run - if they can provide two pages of justification of ammo loadouts, sprint times, combat usage, ...

Bah! I will respectfully call you a pondscum...ummm... Ok, I will cotinue with my argument until I found something more disgusting to call you...

It's EVIDENT that with the Grog Delay a Run order will have in LMG teams, it's worthless to code in, unless you find fun into see Heer units being reclassified as Volksturm just when they starts to run.

Hey! That may be funny. With all the Dressing Doll Grogs arguments on fabric quality and the like...

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

Rotflmao.

But don´t forget heavy fighting breaking out between the British and American beachheads about who has more gadgets/better doctrine. Plus American in-sniping about who correctly defines 'sniper'.

[CMplayer]

Not sure what you mean by 'changing a waypoint' but there isn't any delay if you drag waypoints, or convert them from one type of movement to another.

[Tarquelne]

But don´t forget heavy fighting breaking out between the British and American beachheads about who has more gadgets/better doctrine.

I'd like to apologize, btw, to those who actually want to discuss the command delay.

Why don't you go find another thread.

[Visom]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

Not sure what you mean by 'changing a waypoint' but there isn't any delay if you drag waypoints, or convert them from one type of movement to another.

I mean changing more than you can drag it. Should have stated that more clearly.

Tom, good points regarding the relative spotting, but I'm not sure they are VERY different. It might not be very clear, but my issue is mostly not about the command delay but the (as I think) inconsistency in it. Add a waypoint - suffer the delay. Remove a waypoint - all is well. Move it 15 meters (or however long you can drag it) - all is well. Move it 16 meters - suffer the (full) delay.

I'm not against the idea to totally lose control of units outside C&C, it's an interesting path to explore, but I think it's outside the scope of my issue. What I want is a (possibly) small adjustment of the engine, that relative spotting requires a new engine I would imagine.

[Austrian Strategist]

Originally posted by Visom:

I'm not against the idea to totally lose control of units outside C&C,...

Or make the delay increase steeper. In fact, I´d prefer a delay between Batallion/Company and Platoon as well. As is, we are playing the role of all Platoon Commanders, and they are telepathically connected.