RealTime and WeGo discussion

[panzermartin]

Well for me, CMx1 WeGO was an awesome gaming experience. Maybe the top in computer gaming. I loved it but it now seems a terrible time waster for just a game. RT just seems much more "healthy". I had been addicted playing with my friends lenghty sessions of CMBO/BB/AK TCP/IP. I almost had dreams about maps and hull down positions and we even talked to the phone afterwards discussing about the battle. It had turned into a kind of obsession watching replays, purchasing units, etc. The CM fix..hehe. Realtime is more normal now, it is just a little bit shallow compared to WEGO where you can memorize the names of your Plt Leaders. But now it is just a game not that religious 5 hours experience. I think I prefer it that way. Sometimes it is better to not go that deep in a PC game.

[Steiner14]

Steiner14,

The problem is I have to convince Charles to code stuff that is, as it seems we can all agree to, a gimmick that has no actual gameplay value. It's not like it would take a lot of time to code this, it's just that he doesn't like to be distracted by "WTF?!?" requests like this. I've proposed it before and I got the virtual raised eyebrow, but what the heck... I'll try again.

That's great.

The blue bar with the blanked screen alone ofcourse will not bring all old CMers that have gone back, but as one element in a package of movable waypoints, corrected terrain-destruction in the replay phase, the detailed unit info screen, optional action delays, this could be the psychological icing on the cake to feel like coming home.

Oh, when we are at psychological aspects, may i rise another one? If a summary at the end of a game would give the player a little more feedback than a emotionless stats-window, it would not affect the emotional ties to the product negatively.

[Battlefront.com]

Great discussion guys!

Steiner14,

sure, but you also claimed you 've never been a good CMx1-player.

Er... no, I think I was a very good CMx1 player. But because I didn't play as much as the top guys, they could probably clean my clock. So I'd say I was a better than average player, but if I played against a top guy a bunch of times I'd bet I wouldn't come out the clear winner. Unless we were playing with a time clock and the other player wasn't comfortable with that. In that case I think I'd win easily.

The differences between RT and WEGO therefore are not only of cosmetical nature. I think the kind of player is very different and therefore aspects in one mode must not be valid for the other mode.

Totally agree. This is what I've been saying for years. To extend it out a bit... I am a pretty competent FPS player. When we used to play Quake back in my corporate gaming days, I did better than average most of the time. When we played RTS games, like Warcraft 2 or Red Alert, I also tended to do better than average. But I bet I'd crush most of those same guys in a turn based game. Turn based is where my roots are, but I can hold my own in the "twitch" games quite well.

And that's just it. I really LIKE some elements in the fast paced games. I have good reflexes and I find the challenge of thinking quickly, under pressure, to be a fun challenge. It's a challenge that isn't inherently found in WeGo or other forms of turnbased games. Conversely, the depth and detailed thinking of something like CM is not found in many games that are played in RT. So for me, CMx2 is the best sort of game for me. Depth, tactics, operational thinking, AND the thrill of having to act on instinct and guts instead of getting out the slide ruler and computing 2 dozen different possible positions for one particular unit.

I find it quite funny, that you, as someone i wouldn't call a true WEGO-player, made the best WEGO-game ever.

Not surprising to me, given I payed turn based and WeGo games for almost two decades and realtime ones for only a few years

I hope, that with the second title of CMx2, you will take care a bit more about the very different nature of RT and WEGO players once you've recognized our different perception of the game.

You know, the same can be said of RT play too. If you look at the RT games out there, the super competitive ones, they have some pretty slick features that CMx2 so far lacks. I'd even go so far as to say that those features have far more bearing on gameplay than some of the suggestions WeGoers have made, such as your own "black out the screen instead of blue bar" suggestion. I'm not trying to belittle your request, just trying to get you to put it into perspective of the game as a whole. There's very little difference between the WeGo features of CM:SF now compared to CMx1 games. Especially when you compare CM:SF to other games out there.

The big things missing from the WeGoers' plate are few. TCP/IP WeGo with replay is the king of them all. Other things, like moveable waypoints, aren't WeGo specific but may or may not have more impact for WeGoers. Which is why we are doing our best to get stuff like this into the game as we go along, as well as stuff not found in CMx1.

Lee,

Exactly. As I pointed out before CMII ever came out, other than perhaps in very small battles, where you might be able to get away with it, it's not possible to make the kind of detailed combat decisions that are needed in a sophisticated wargame like CMII in RT.

We can go on and on with an endless debate about this, as Steiner14 pointed out. It's really not all that productive since every time we do we just keep going around and around the same issues. From your perspective what you say is true, from my perspective what you say is false. What you think is unrealistic in RT I can argue is realistic, what you think is realistic in WeGO I can point out is unrealistic. Because the basic mindset can be inherently opposite, an agreement will never be reached.

Like Steve said in his post, when you are ordering a tank to move, you are in effect in the role of that individual tank commander at that point, deciding exactly where he wants to place his tank for a good shot on the enemy, and that is correct. Now imagine having to make those minute tactical choices for *all* the tanks in your force, and the APC's, and the infantry units, etc., while also making larger strategic choices on how to thwart the enemy's developing battlefield movements. And you're going to do all that while the battle is being played out in RT? Virtually impossible.

For you, not for me Which is why you don't like RT and why I do. I can do this and I can do it very well. I can also micromanage each unit in WeGo very well too. It's just that now that I have a choice, I prefer not to.

And I should point out that in my particular case, this has nothing to do with my not being able to click fast enough or whatever. I play first-person-shooters all the time (Day of Defeat, Counter Strike, Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 2, Rainbow 6, etc.) and I am extremely good at them. And in these games lightning-fast reflexes and split-second thinking are your only chance for survival, far more so than you would need in a wargame or RTS game.

This is a key thing to keep in mind... lighting fast reflexes are about all you need in those games. You don't need to consider the different weapons characteristics of many units at the same time, you don't need to coordinate combined arms tactics (or at least, not very complex ones), etc. etc. This is why I find CM:SF RT so challenging. I have to use fast reflexes for a far more complex environment. Personally, I like doing that. Others do not. As I keep saying, each to his own. Just don't tell me what I can't do based what you can't.

I don't like RT in any CMII game because you simply don't have time to conduct proper tactical analysis and issue orders

Again, a correction. What you should have said is:

"I don't like RT in any CMII game because I simply don't have time I want to conduct proper tactical analysis and issue orders"

I have plenty of time to assess and execute in RT. Sometimes I have to hit PAUSE to help me out, but when I do I generally have it paused less than the average WeGoer does even for a single turn. And yet I win battles with similar results to people who play WeGo. Therefore, just because this isn't something you feel you can do doesn't mean that is true for other people.

This point is really important, which is why I keep making it. WeGoers too often think that because they aren't good at something then nobody else is. It's at the core of the ill feelings between the two communities and really must be put aside.

TheVulture,

I'm very much like Steiner: I have no interest in real time. The enjoyment of the game is precisely in being able to watch the replay over and over, making sure I've seen everything that happened (and even then, I do occasionally get to the next orders phase and discover that the squad I was about to move is half-dead and pinned, and I have no idea why). I view each turn like a puzzle, and the issue is how to get the best result out of each turn. It's not remotely 'realistic', but is what I enjoy.

And enjoy it you should! This is a completely valid way to play and enjoy CM:SF, which is why it is supported and will continue to be supported. As long as the leap isn't made that this is the only "correct" way to play, then I'm 100% behind you in your statement. It's when people mistakenly think that their way is the "correct" way, be it a RTer telling a WeGoer that he's got a mind of mush or a WeGoer that a RTer is a hyper active ADHD case that could never appreciate the subtitles of tactical warfare. Such statements aren't constructive nor accurate.

(BTW am I alone in thinking that a minute in CM:SF is a lot more lethal than a minute in CMx1? I don't ever recall a single squad wiping out a whole platoon caught in a road in under a minute in any CMx1 games - well, except for SMG squads in close range ambushes maybe - which makes me wonder if the turn length should be more or less adjusted for lethality. But there is always a trade off with the fact that in many fights, the high kill-rate action occurs in a pretty small fraction of the total game, and a lot more time is spent just moving around and regrouping, and making that take twice as long wouldn't be great, particularly in PBEM games).

It is true that in WW2 the average squad simply didn't have the volume of fire to wipe out an enemy platoon of infantry. In modern warfare, that is definitely the case. Especially with something as potent as a Marines Squad, with its large headcount and dizzying amount of firepower. But at the end of most CMx1 games the effect was just about the same. Near total annihilation of one side and often a Pyrrhic victory for the other. But that just has to do with the inherently lack of realism in a wargame rather than WeGo vs. RT.

But, getting back on topic, the two styles of play do create somewhat different requirements for the UI, if not for the actual game mechanics. In RT you need to put more emphasis on making the mechanics of issuing commands as quick and painless as possible, particularly for the people who like to play without pausing at all (gimboid alien freaks though they may be...). In WeGo you can live with a slightly more convoluted interface, and more command options, if it gives you greater flexibility. I'm tempted to say you 'need' more options, although you don't really in the sense that it is a level playing field and your opponent has the same limitations that you do.

True. Although may wargamers think they "need" 101 different commands at their fingertips, even if they would use 80 of them one time every 30 games. It's a typical problem for wargame designers, trust me!

The problem with removing micromanagement constraints is that most gamers don't like the results. They find that too many options is confusing, burdensome, annoying, or some other negative reaction. It's traditionally very much of "I asked for it, I got it, but I don't like it" situation. It's definitely the most difficult aspect of designing wargames, so no slight on anybody. We all tend to picture more control being better, until we get it and then realize sometimes less is better.

I'm pretty sure there is no way to make that interface usuable in RT

I would argue, and have since the days of CMBO Beta Demo, that there's no way to make that interface useable for WeGo either At least not in a way that would avoid sending most people screaming away from the game. Remember, one of the strongest sources of support for CMx1 was that it did not go down the micromanagement route and resisted calls for it to do so. As it was, the UI was more complex and confusing than most gamers (note I'm not saying WARgamer here) could handle, so most were turned off by the fairly minimal UI by wargaming standards.

Would it be remotely possible to put in two UIs though.

Yes, and we sort of have that now. But having entirely different functions for WeGo vs. RT... I don't think that's a wise path to go down. First of all because I can't think of anything that a WeGoer really needs that a RT wouldn't also benefit from, and coincidentally vice versa. For example...

One thing that didn't make the cut for CM:SF was the notion of "groups", where you dynamically assign units to a single key (or key combo) so that you can switch to that group with one hit. This is something that would greatly benefit RT play, IMHO, but it would also be very useful for some WeGoers. It wouldn't have the same sort of effect on gameplay, since in RT it might make the difference between "life and death" and for WeGo it would just be a very nice shortcut to move around the battlefield. So why make it only available for RTers? No reason.

Steve

[jenrick]

I've tried WEGO in CM:SF and it drives me batty. If I'm going to micromanage every element of my force, it feels incredibly limited and difficult to execute orders that any self respecting solider should be able to accomplish after graduating from his MOS school. I shouldn't have to lay out convoluted way points and timing orders to get a tank to shoot and scoot, or spend 20 minutes trying to figure out where to place my waypoint to let my tanks go hull down when they get to a hill crest. A whole plethora of other titles have handled these issues much better and in RT, Steel Beasts for instance has a very very good orders/routes system. It's very detailed, allows you to be very thoughtful with you're orders. M1A2 tank platoon had battle drills for contact. Tacops 4 has postures and ROE. Where the heck is this stuff in CMSF?! Currently my tanks can drive forward till they make contact with an enemy and then either: 1) keep driving 2) stop driving. Call me crazy but there are several other immediate tactical choices I can think of. I don't need the complexity of SB necessarily, but something a little more diverse would be nice. I whole heartedly agree with theVulture that WEGO needs more commands/interface options.

salwon's example of thinking of RT as being in charge of a company with a bunch of moron lt's is dead on for me in all regards of the game. The problem I have with WEGO is that I know have up to a minute of forced inactivity from the time I spot my Lt's being moron's till I can try to get them out of trouble. If I had the ability to issue more carefully scripted/plotted orders it wouldn't be nearly as bad.

"Lt, your orders are to move down this road using your fire teams in bounding overwatch. If you make contact with an enemy who appears to be a serious threat fall back to the nearest position of cover and establish a base of fire, if they are not press forward." With a real infantry platoon, I should just be able to give them the order to "advance down that road but keep your platoon intact." I can still handle working with a moron Lt though as it forces me to be explicit about my intent the mission.

I'm sure there is a way to get the AI to do that if I messed with it enough. Having a separate speed/movement type and reaction options would go a long way. What I end up with now is that my platoon will either stop at the first round fired its way by a lone vehicle crew member, or it will continue to assault towards an entrenched HMG with a clear line of fire.

If there was a way to issue realistic orders and have them carried out in a realistic manner w/o needing to micromanage the interface, WEGO would probably be my favorite way to play. I love eye candy as much as the next person. However WEGO for me currently is nothing more then 1 minute blocks of watching my intentions and orders turn into a shambles where even a platoon of freshman ROTC cadets could have responded better. I don't mind micromanaging my units, it's having to micromanage the interface that drives me nuts.

-Jenrick

[Battlefront.com]

Ali-Baba,

I also agree with the point that a benefit (to some!) of RT is that a game can be played in one sitting without losing feeling to the bum So for some it's great that one can play more battles over an extended period of time than a WeGoer can. But if that isn't something that rocks your world, then it clearly isn't a benefit. It could even be seen as a negative. So we're right back to the "to each his own" philosophy.

Steiner14,

The blue bar with the blanked screen alone ofcourse will not bring all old CMers that have gone back, but as one element in a package of movable waypoints, corrected terrain-destruction in the replay phase, the detailed unit info screen, optional action delays, this could be the psychological icing on the cake to feel like coming home.

Oh, when we are at psychological aspects, may i rise another one? If a summary at the end of a game would give the player a little more feedback than a emotionless stats-window, it would not affect the emotional ties to the product negatively.

Note that none of these things you mentioned, other than the remaining replay issues, are WeGo specific. In fact, RTers want a Replay function, so if we were magically able to give them the same one WeGoers have then even the replay things you mentioned wouldn't be WeGo specific since RTers would also want the same things fixed.

Good news is that we've got some nice changes in store for you all, WeGoers and RTers both.

Steve

[Lee]

Steve: My "virtually impossible" statement was in the context of what I was describing, which was a detailed analysis of the tactical situation. If I wanted to, could I hurriedly issue orders to my units in RT to get them, in a general sense, to do what I want them to do? Sure, I could do that, and probably quite well (I can think fast on my feet and such), and I'm sure you can to, but the difference is in the depth of thought that can applied in RT vs WeGo.

I've been in highly complex tactical situations in CM where only a very careful analysis of the current situation, as well as anticipated future moves by my PBEM opponent, would allow me to set up my very clever and intricate trap. This simply could not be done in real time, if takes too much time to go through all that stuff. To paraphrase your earlier statement, what you are giving up is depth and detailed thinking (as it pertains to plans too complex to be gone through in real time). A wargame against a real opponent is a battle of wits, and I enjoy that mental chess match that goes on and the detailed planning it requires. It's so much deeper than playing a FPS (which is also fun, but in a very different way) and I like to take the time to get into the details of it, RT would force me to gloss over too many of the fine details. And CMII has sooo many cool little details that have an affect on the battle.

Now, I grant you that this is a preference of how to play the game. If someone wants to play a game of CMII with reinforced battalions on each side in RT and is willing to give up the aforementioned very detailed planning, then that's fine by me, I might even try it just for kicks. All I'm saying is that WeGo should be set up to allow the full enjoyment of that playing mode. Such as being able to pause and rewind the combat video without having to see (it can still be calculated as it is now, just don't display it) everything that happens in the full minute of combat in advance, etc.

I suppose that you could approximate the ability to plan in depth when playing RT against an opponent, if you paused the game every minute or so and for considerable length when the situation called for it. But how many opponents that want to play RT in the first place are going to want to wait around for you to plan out your very complex counter attack while the game is paused? Probably not very many, therefore you might as well play WeGo.

[Chelco]

In fact, RTers want a Replay function, so if we were magically able to give them the same one WeGoers have then even the replay things you mentioned wouldn't be WeGo specific since RTers would also want the same things fixed.

Good news is that we've got some nice changes in store for you all, WeGoers and RTers both.

Steve

Oh, an instant replay of at least 30 seconds back would be great.

I play RT because I actually like the freedom of chiming in with orders when I find it adequate rather than waiting for the clock for that. I pause frequently, but sometimes something happens and I cannot see it.

[Huntarr]

Until the C2 gets completely squared away and/or much more useful, I see no reason to add command delays to either WEGO or RT. The C2 network, if properly implemented, could be the solution to alot of the command delay questions. I certainly don't see any reason to add another artifical limitation to WEGO. Since it is the exact same game as RT. With the exception you have a set 60 minute "delay" built in. The bonus to WEGO is you have replay.

If we were to add a command delay to WEGO and not to RT, that would probably be the last time I would play WEGO and since I only play/test WEGO well.....

[hoolaman]

That's great.

The blue bar with the blanked screen alone ofcourse will not bring all old CMers that have gone back, but as one element in a package of movable waypoints, corrected terrain-destruction in the replay phase, the detailed unit info screen, optional action delays, this could be the psychological icing on the cake to feel like coming home.

Oh, when we are at psychological aspects, may i rise another one? If a summary at the end of a game would give the player a little more feedback than a emotionless stats-window, it would not affect the emotional ties to the product negatively.

You could black the screen and instead of showing a 60 second timer you could have a blue bar to count up the time. That ought to give people a warm glow inside .

[Sgt Joch]

I think we all agree that command delays are a bit of a hack, but unless we can get C&C actually working, I do not see how else to simulate battlefield confusion.

Without command delays, the player can coordinate the actions of his forces to a degree which is impossible in real life. That is maybe less of a problem for contemporary US forces, but in WW2, units getting lost, not moving or moving late was the norm, not the exception.

command delays make it a bit harder for the player to turn all his forces around on a dime and unless Steve can come up with another solution, I think the game is more realistic with command delays than without them. I presume we can also tweak them up to CMx2 standards.

I would also like to have command delays on area target fire, but I will take what I can get.

hopefully, it will be optional, so all players, (especially gunny Huntarr ), will be happy.

[JonS]

... moveable waypoints, aren't WeGo specific but may or may not have more impact for WeGoers. Which is why we are doing our best to get stuff like this into the game ...

FWIW, IMO, movable waypoints aren't important unless and until command delays are (re)introduced. At that point they become very important.

Disclosure: I only play WEGO.

[JonS]

Without command delays, the player can still coordinate the actions of his forces to a degree which is impossible in real life.

To be fair here, even with command delays* you can coordinate the actions of your forces to a degree which is impossible in real life, you just have to play a bit further into the future.

Jon

* Command delays as they existed in CMx1, at least. A different type of command delay might make coordination truly like herding cats. For example, perhaps the CD is randomly variable between zero and the maximum for that number of waypoints. So some units will move out immediately, while others take some amount of time - in the case of CMx1 up to 90seconds? - to get going. The player could use pauses to get everyone synchronised again, but only after they'd started moving ... which would nicely model the importance of concealed and protected FUPs and LDs. The variability of the CD might be reduced by some combination of

• command status,
  
• proximity to HQs,
  
• chain of command,
  
• morale status,
  
• suppression status,
  
• training,
  
• experience,
  
• proximity to other units,
  
• proximity to enemy units,
  
• terrain, and
  
• complexity of orders.
  

For example.

[hoolaman]

Now that we have relative spotting and friendly relative spotting, it might be possible to tie command delays in part to whether a unit has contact with its platoon mates.

For example if you are supposed to advance 2nd squad and keep 3rd squad in sight, if you lose sight of friendly units you might give a higher delay to that squad.

Or something.

[hoolaman]

FWIW, IMO, movable waypoints aren't important unless and until command delays are (re)introduced. At that point they become very important.

Disclosure: I only play WEGO.

They are important simply from a UI perspective too. I mean when you initially plot them, it can be very tedious tweaking them if you put a waypoint in the wrong spot.

Obviously in CMx1 moving them after they are locked in has a game effect too, but even ignoring that it would be nice to have them.

[Sgt Joch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Joch

Without command delays, the player can still coordinate the actions of his forces to a degree which is impossible in real life.

To be fair here, even with command delays* you can coordinate the actions of your forces to a degree which is impossible in real life, you just have to play a bit further into the future.

I am not saying command delays solve the problem, only that it lessens the problem and therefore is a step in the right direction.

obviously, the best solution would be a realistic command & control system, but I do not think we will ever get that.

[Sgt Joch]

Jon

* Command delays as they existed in CMx1, at least. A different type of command delay might make coordination truly like herding cats. For example, perhaps the CD is randomly variable between zero and the maximum for that number of waypoints. So some units will move out immediately, while others take some amount of time - in the case of CMx1 up to 90seconds? - to get going. The player could use pauses to get everyone synchronised again, but only after they'd started moving ... which would nicely model the importance of concealed and protected FUPs and LDs. The variability of the CD might be reduced by some combination of

• command status,
  
• proximity to HQs,
  
• chain of command,
  
• morale status,
  
• suppression status,
  
• training,
  
• experience,
  
• proximity to other units,
  
• proximity to enemy units,
  
• terrain, and
  
• complexity of orders.

For example.

those all sound like great suggestions!

[JonS]

They are important simply from a UI perspective too. I mean when you initially plot them, it can be very tedious tweaking them if you put a waypoint in the wrong spot.

Sure. I just don't think they're all that important for this ...

... in CMx1 moving them after they are locked in has a game effect too, ...

... reason. I'm sure if it got in I'd appreciate it, but I just don't feel I need it till CDs are in.

As I said, I play WEGO so replotting doesn't have any negative game impact. For me. Maybe it does for RT. I guess it would, but I don't know.

[CogNative]

CM is an entertainment for me. I do not normally have time for lengthy WeGo deliberations. RT is fast and fun and becoming my favorite game mode. I like having both modes but a RT Replay function would land me in the 95% RT camp.

CogNative

[Battlefront.com]

JonS,

Yeah, you're right that from a game mechanics standpoint moveable waypoints don't mean squat without Command Delays. It's one reason we didn't prioritize coding moveable waypoints. However, from a UI standpoint it is much nicer to be able to scoot a waypoint in the middle somewhere instead of having to delete a bunch of stuff and start over again. Or, in RealTime, stop a unit from moving to redo its Commands instead of just nudging the waypoint and keeping it on the move.

Yup, Command Delays don't really make the game any more realistic on balance. The bit of realism it adds is countered by unrealistic situations where internal unit initiative should be able to kick in without a delay. Having said that, I do think that Command Delays are important for simulating the clunky maneuverability of poor quality troops.

I remember more than a few battles as the Soviets in CMBB where I basically chose to sit there and take my chances instead of trying to maneuver. Or once I was maneuvering having to decide between keeping the current orders (which weren't looking so hot) or cancel completely and probably get pounded wherever I stopped. Without Command Delays this would not have been nearly as acute.

Having said that, since playing CM:SF without Command Delays... I definitely don't want them to be mandatory. ANd it's not just because I like to see Huntarr's ugly mug around the beta testing area either

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

When movable waypoints are implemented will we also be able to change the type of movement order, as in CMx1?

Also, I would like to add that if command delays are going to be made optional I would prefer them to be a toggleable option for any mode rather than tied to iron man mode exclusively.

As to the blue bar controversy, I understand the reason people want it back, but it seems to me an easy work-around is to hit the go button and then just get up and leave the room for a minute. Stretch your legs, get a drink, ect.

[Battlefront.com]

Vanir,

When movable waypoints are implemented will we also be able to change the type of movement order, as in CMx1?

Sure, because you already can do that right now

Also, I would like to add that if command delays are going to be made optional I would prefer them to be a toggleable option for any mode rather than tied to iron man mode exclusively.

Yeah, I agree. I gave it a think after I suggested that and saw how many people were happy to not have it in the game. So I'll have to convince Charles that he's finally got to knuckle down and make a variable options screen instead of having everything hardwired. Not sure if I'll get it, but I'll ask!

As to the blue bar controversy, I understand the reason people want it back, but it seems to me an easy work-around is to hit the go button and then just get up and leave the room for a minute. Stretch your legs, get a drink, ect.

I just played a large game using WeGo tonight to remind myself what it's like. I had a lot of fun with it and once again have remembered why replay is so great. Still, I'll stick with RealTime for the most part since that's the way I prefer to play (I did a RT game right after just to confirm this ). Remember, I never, ever, in a billion years said that I don't like WeGo; I just prefer RealTime. Personally, I love being able to choose.

Steve

[TheVulture]

Discussing 'realism' in regards to command delays is about as meaningful as discussion 'realism' in terms of WeGo vs RT (or IGoUGo for that matter...).

No command delays break realism by enabling complex, instantaneously executed responses to events outside the knowledge of the units in question. Having command delays breaks realism by preventing simple, immediate responses by units that would be perfectly capable of it (AT gun? Think I'll reverse back around the corner. But I have to wait 20 seconds for the order to come through, 'cos I'm a bit stupid. And apparently also a bit dead now too...). Both break realism by still being able to co-ordinate troops overall far better than in real life, and in that units are still acting in response to information they just don't have. In an ideal world, the tacAI ought to handle the 'unit reacting to what's under it's nose' side of thing, like getting the hell away from a serious threat. As always, there will be inevitable complaints of the "you didn't read my mind correctly" type (see the driving on/off the road example from earlier in the thread). (And I wouldn't be sad to see the introduction of some kind of general 'stance' setting, of just how much emphasis it places on self preservation vs trying to get a shot off because it know it is the only unit you've got with a chance of killing a tiger).

Overall it is the same problem that came up in discussing area fire, where there are qualitative differences between 'valid' area fire a unit might put down on a suspected position to cover a move, vs 'invalid' area fire in the exact same spot because some entirely unconnected unit has spotted enemy there. (The problem which ultimately comes down to the fact that, as has been said many times, the player is not playing one role in the game, but it being variously the squad leader, platoon HQ, Co. commander and a whole lot of other roles too).

Expecting the program to be able to decide which role is the one you are issuing orders from, and assigning commands delays based on that, is obviously a non-starter. Sure, it could be done, but no way I think it can be done in a way that would drive people insane from the number of times it was clearly wrong and got half your men killed.

One proto-workaround thought: don't automatically lock the fog of war view to the selected unit. When I have a tank selected, I can chose to view the battlefield from the view of that unit, or any of its parent formation (platoon HQ, company HQ, battalion HQ). I select the view which gives me the information I need to decide on the orders for that unit, and the command delay is determined by the information level I am working it. Not workable of course, since nothing stops you from going up to the highest level, seeing everything you can, working out your plans, and then going back down to the lowest level to send orders with no delays. So it would be an entirely voluntary system (although one that avoids the worst 'realism' problems of delays vs no delays).

A far more complex development of this, which I'm pretty sure is outside the scope of anything that is going to be done with this engine, is something akin to relative spotting of terrain. Limit the view of the map to more or less what the unit can see, with vague (and possibly) incorrect low resolution terrain beyond that. So it simply isn't possible to issue orders about points outside the unit's LoS without moving up to a higher command level, because there isn't anywhere to reliably place waypoints or target orders.

But again, how much is it worth doing this. You will still be able to 'beat the system' in some or many cases, and still be able to co-ordinate everything to an unrealistic degree, and it is a lot of work for a fairly marginal increase in command delay realism in the 20% of cases where it does work as intended :S

[Steiner14]

As to the blue bar controversy, I understand the reason people want it back, but it seems to me an easy work-around is to hit the go button and then just get up and leave the room for a minute. Stretch your legs, get a drink, ect.

Judging like a machine, there is even no difference between a barely readable text and a beautiful font, that fits to the whole concept, if only the information matters.

Humans are not machines. A player is playing a game, because of the imagination and feelings it creates. Therefore IMO the psychological impact is huge, if you have to switch off the monitor, turn the loudspeakers off, or even leave the room, to get rid of information you don't want to receive that way - compared to a solid concept, that seems to be made of one finished piece for that kind of useage. Therefore product design is so important.

[c3k]

Thinking about RT command delays (take this from a dedicated WeGo-er): Command Delays are, IMO, very important to model certain forces. The player has a lot of extra power compared to the real commander.

Why not variable command delays based on the players current perspective?

Two different thoughts on that subject: the first bases the delay on the chain of command; the second on the viewpoint.

If I double click the platoon HQ and select a movement point for my entire platoon, then add a certain delay to my sub-element. If, instead, I select the squad, eliminate the delay. Add more delay the higher up the chain I go. This forces delays based on how many units the player selects. If you want to tweak every single squad, well, they'll move or shoot when you say, but it'll take you a lot of time to get to each unit. If you like lassoing a lot of units, then the delay gets added.

My other thought regards viewpoint; if I am at the lowest camera elevation, then no delay; add successively more delay the higher I go. This simulates chain of command delays as you utilize the bigger picture to make your decisions.

Of course, the amount of delay is based on unit experience, training, doctrine, etc.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Ken

[MikeyD]

The old CMx1 command delay structure was simple enough. Bad commanders in the chain of command slowed everything down, Elite commanders in the chain of command sped (speeded?) everything up. Currently in CMx2 such variables as command advantage and spotting abilities are just too subtle for me (with the obvious exception of 1 minute mortar response times instead of 3). Its not them, its me. Sometimes you have to club me over the head before I recognize a 'cool feature' going on. Perhaps BFC could be a bit more ham-fisted in distinguishing chain-of-command advantages. Rebuilding-in a bit of a 'bad commander' delay would be one way of doing it. If you're linked to Company HQ, and the Company commander is a drooling moron, then you take a command delay hit.