Command Delay. Love it? Hate it? Should it ever return.

[Sequoia]

I know there was some discussion of it in the CMSF thread. I'm guessing it will not return with CMBN. Should it ever? Will it make a bigger difference on the Ostfront?

[panzermartin]

Hmm, it worked well overall in CMx1. In RT it would probably slow down things a bit which is a good thing.

[Migo441]

Personally, I really liked it. I thought it did good job creating friction and making units less responsive which is more realistic.

But I think Battlefront are trying to get away from arbitrary abstractions (where possible) like that.

I think I'll miss the command delay if it never returns. But I should really reserve judgement until I actually play CM:BN.

[Michael Emrys]

If runners have an actual function in the game, they should be a source of built-in command delay as it will take some time for them to go from the officer issuing the order to its intended recipient. Especially if he is being shot at and most especially if he gets hit.

Michael

[ChrisND]

Personally, I really liked it. I thought it did good job creating friction and making units less responsive which is more realistic.

It was realistic in some ways, not so in others. It was a blanket kludge, as I recall. It was fine, even quite realistic, when you were telling a unit to travel a long distance or take a complex path, but not so much if you wanted a unit to adjust its position a little, or worse, get the heck out of dodge. My memory of such things is fuzzy though.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I hated it, at least the way it was implemented. A delay for a complicated order makes sense, but not for a simple command such as drive down that road, make a left at the crossroad, and keep going until you get to the farmhouse.

[Michael Emrys]

...or worse, get the heck out of dodge.

Wasn't there a specific "get out of Dodge" order that had units so ordered to retreat immediately? ISTR that it left them in a disorganized state at the end of their move.

Michael

[silverstars]

Wasn't there a specific "get out of Dodge" order that had units so ordered to retreat immediately? ISTR that it left them in a disorganized state at the end of their move.

Michael

There was. As I recall The units morale took a hit, and I think in the case of MMG/HMGs they also lost ammo. Not to mention that with MMGs/HMGs they still used the same slower movement rate, even if you are telling them to run for their lives from that oncoming tank.

It was nice in theory, but some of its quirks where quite annoying and to be honest I haven't really noticed it being gone all that much.

[Praetori]

I liked/like it. Units not in command range or under heavy arty fire should be wildcards imo. The job of a commander is to keep the subordinates out of hard situations and to work around them should they arise.

That has always been one of the key points with Combat Mission games for me.

Pure exact tactics gets old pretty fast. But problem solving hard situations, due to lack of ammo, armor support, unfit or exhausted units, poor C2 and so forth, on top of the tactical layer is what's amazing about the CM series.

[Wengart]

The problem with the retreat command is that it doesn't cover the number of items that should not be subject to command delay/ subject to a very short command delay. This mostly pertains to situations where the player is putting on the hat of squad leader/fire team leader.

Anyway, I think I recall Steve mentioning that it may make a return as an option.

[Michael Emrys]

It was nice in theory, but some of its quirks where quite annoying and to be honest I haven't really noticed it being gone all that much.

I can't remember ever using it in a game, although I might have set up a test to see how it played. Mostly, I just tried to keep my units out of situations where that would be needed. I would try to keep them in cover in places where they might be fired on, and if they came under heavy fire, have them hide or withdraw using normal movement deeper into cover where they could not be spotted/fired on.

Michael

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Pretty ambivalent about delays now.

I like them well enough then, but I'm not sure I could get used to them now. I think in real time play I might not actually be too fond of them.

And as mentioned, in some situations it didn't feel right. Such as blindingly obvious acts of immediate action to further self preservation. Driving along a winding road was frustratingly prone to massive order delays.

[noxnoctum]

Hmm, it worked well overall in CMx1. In RT it would probably slow down things a bit which is a good thing.

What he said. Plus C&C in WW2 wasn't exactly what it is today so it makes sense.

[Steiner14]

I think the delays were a fantastic innovation:

Approaches had to be planned very carefully - especially with big combined mot./mech forces, when speed after a small breakthrough was crucial! Incredible.

Remember the thrill because of the uncertainty due to syncronization problems, to get the tank platoon with mot. inf. over the bridge, before the smoke screen will vanish? Unreached.

Or the fact, that routes and the complexity of the paths had to be weighted against time! Wonderful.

Achieving a good timing for storm-attacks was an art of itself: the different timing delays of the units had to be syncronized with the last artillery barrage and the suppression of the enemy.

Who doesn't remember about the problems, when precious seconds after the barrage were lost, because of units with big delays? Remember about the challenge to time the last artillery ammunition a few seconds into the next turn, exactly when the time delay of the stromtrooper-units will be over?

Or if the own infantry is in deep problems: "Damn, if i only could get that platoon HQ back, then i could do this and it would allow to do with unit X that. I'm doomed, only because they are reacting so slowly!" And you had to watch the drama unfold, without any chance to help the Pixeltruppen, because of the delays.

Or the difficulties to move TWO tanks in roughly the same second into LOS of an enemy tank?

Or the move backward command for tanks: to avoid slowly turning at the spot before moving, you mostly needed two commands. But that added a few precious seconds - in the case of a firefight, that one delay could be the few seconds too long.

Command delays made unit syncronization and cohesion a real challenge. The more difficult, the better.

[Jonny(FGM)]

Re the withdraw order

It's main advantage was that it would get pinned units to retreat a lot faster than if you used any other movement order.

It was nice for infantry and vehs in open ground, but trying to advance a column down a road was a nightmare trying to time it right to stop traffic jams

[Battlefront.com]

Personally, I'm with the "ambivalent" group. We took a lot of heat for having Command Delays be mandatory in CMx1, so when we went to design CMx2 we did not view the feature as essential to recreate. As others have pointed out, there were a lot of unrealistic and annoying consequences to the original implementation of Command Delays that has caused few people to complain about their absence.

The primary problem with the concept of Command Delays is that they weren't context sensitive enough. There are basically three conditions:

1. Reactionary - taking fire while in the middle of the street? Moving to an adjacent building or back to an alley way should not have much, if any, delay.

2. Tactical - taking fire from the middle of the street might mean having to figure out how to flank and enter the house where the fire is coming from. So while there should be practically no delay to get off the street, there should be some delay involved in attacking to clear out the enemy.

3. Operational - being told to not take out the enemy in that particular house because the entire Company is going to pivot on 3rd Platoon and clear the park next to all the houses so supporting armor can move in and silence the enemy in the houses might involve a LOT of time to get going.

The problem with the CMx1 Command Delays is that they didn't really do any of these three things well. #1 was hamstrung by a basic Delay, #2 was frustrated by waypoint usage, #3 was not scaled well depending on the scope and complexity of the plan change (e.g. in real life it could take 20 minutes just to tell a unit to stop doing what it was doing, not to mention get it coordinated with others).

The real solution for simulating command decision is to have three different systems at work. Reactionary would basically be no artificial delay and instead be based on inherent unit attributes and situational issues (like being pinned). Tactical would be based on conditions specified by a planning overlay, such as unit boundaries, operational waypoints designated ahead of time, etc. The operational layer would simulate the difficulties of changing these plans to the degree of change and communications capabilities.

IMHO this is what we should shoot for. Unfortunately this is a TON of work. Months. So I don't have any clue when we'll have enough time to do it. Until then, we are remaining open about putting in an OPTIONAL CMx1 system (along with all of its shortcomings). But definitely not for CM:BN.

Steve

[Redwolf]

It needed to be smarter. Just for starters, following the curves of a road shouldn't add delay. The first turn should be free of delay.

The way it was implemented in CMBB you would have early war conscript T-34s that you gave an order "move down that road" and they would get a full 3 turns (180 second) delay before they move. That in battles that were around 25 turns since people designed battles with CMBO in mind.

Problem is, if you try to make code smarter by making more and more exceptions for certain situations then that often uncovers more problems, or even introduces new problems.

Unless this could be tuned with intense community feedback I'd vote for not re-introducing it.

[Sequoia]

I don't remember or perhaps never knew if the AI side was affected by command delays.

[Canada Guy]

I really enjoyed the command delays. How else would you simulate the lack of radios in early Soviet tanks. A platoon of BT-5s should be harder to maneuver than a platoon of PZIIIs.

I love the idea that Steve floated but understand the complexity. Having an OPTIONAL CMx1 system perhaps with a little more intelligence (1st command is free if moving into cover etc.) would help to move it a little more into CMx2 territory from CMx1.

I do not think it would make a large difference in CM:BN though as both sides had either similar advantages or disadvantages (though dependent upon skill level). In Ostfront though, it would be a serious drawback to have nothing to simulate this.

[Wengart]

The problem with free move into cover is well what is cover for one and then people just jumping from cover to cover.

[moneymaxx]

There are basically three conditions:

1. Reactionary - taking fire while in the middle of the street? Moving to an adjacent building or back to an alley way should not have much, if any, delay.

2. Tactical - taking fire from the middle of the street might mean having to figure out how to flank and enter the house where the fire is coming from. So while there should be practically no delay to get off the street, there should be some delay involved in attacking to clear out the enemy.

3. Operational - being told to not take out the enemy in that particular house because the entire Company is going to pivot on 3rd Platoon and clear the park next to all the houses so supporting armor can move in and silence the enemy in the houses might involve a LOT of time to get going.

I liked the old system, maybe it can be adapted?

1) This could be handled by the TacAI (in the way unarmoured vehicles backed up in Cmx1 when they encounter a tank). Even if the result of the TacAi´s decision was disastrous, I could live with that blaming it on the circumstances.

2) I always interpreted the command delay either as the time it would take the unit itself to come up with a plan or to get a plan to the unit. Somehow I found the implementation of the command delay counter-intuitive though. IIRC the delay went up the more waypoints there were leading to the problem of the "winding road" delay. I think it should have been the opposite way. A longer time delay for the first order reflecting the time it takes to form a basic plan/get the plan to the unit and much smaller (fixed?) delays for consecutive waypoints. (IMHO a small delay for cancelling orders should be considered).

I do wonder though if a lot of time should be invested in a a more complex system that leads to more realistic delays, which then have to be toned down a lot because otherwise nobody wanted to play that way.

[Erwin]

Command delay was one of the features that made CM feel "real" and not just a video game. I have missed it in CM2. Even in the age of computers etc., it still takes time for instructions to register esp in a combat situation with noise and other "distractions."

The comments earlier from BF make one think that in the effort to make things more "realistic" exactly the opposite effect is being achieved.

[Battlefront.com]

The comments earlier from BF make one think that in the effort to make things more "realistic" exactly the opposite effect is being achieved.

Er... but Command Delays weren't very realistic. Just read the last few posts to see why. Dropping Command Delays was a very, very good and sound decision. This coming from the guy who originally designed the CMBB/AK Command Delays system Was the old system fun? For some, yes. For others it was annoying as hell. And for nobody was it really realistic.

Plus, no system can be viewed based on one or two components. To judge if CMx2 is on the whole more realistic than CMx1 *all* features have to be looked at in aggregate. CMx1 can't hold a candle to CMx2 on most individual points of comparison, not to mention when added together. And as I said, on balance I don't think of the CMx1 implementation of Command Delays as very realistic. It was a decent stab at a very thorny problem, but we don't wish to repeat that particular implementation.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I liked the old system, maybe it can be adapted?

Sure, but we've probably kicked around improvement ideas for the old system hundreds of times. Our conclusion, after years of use and user suggestions, is that the we were better off just getting rid of it.

I do wonder though if a lot of time should be invested in a a more complex system that leads to more realistic delays, which then have to be toned down a lot because otherwise nobody wanted to play that way.

You also realize this is an argument against any sort of Command Delay system, right? Plenty of people did not like the implementation in CMBB/AK and wanted an option to play without it. Some because they didn't like any interface with their ability to micro-manage, others because they felt the system was unrealistic.

Which is to say that any system we implement, gamey or realistic, will have its detractors. We'd rather invest in a system that at least would not have people turning it off because it was unrealistic.

Steve

[moneymaxx]

You also realize this is an argument against any sort of Command Delay system, right?

The argument was against spending A LOT of time. I would happily take a very elaborate delay system. But given the long To Do list I'd rather see that time invested in other areas.

I do however think that a WWII setting without any kind of delay is undesirable. Much time has been spend to eliminate Borg spotting but Borg reaction time has been introduced. Therefore I argued for a quick fix to what I (and maybe only I) think is a problem.

I would also like to add that "command delay" is one of the few areas where I think that the strive for realism yields negative returns after a while. If they are absent it's unrealistic, if they are a 100% realistic the game becomes no fun/unplayable.

To go back to the topic:

Love it? No, but they are necessary.

Hate it? No, but they do have/had their problems.

Should it ever return? As quickly as possible