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

[Brian Rock]

I also liked it. Yes it was flawed, but I find the alternative of instant-response is also flawed.

For all of the pain-in-the-assness when it did weird things it still did a much better job of making plans fall apart under fire, which is normally absent in most wargames.

Still, I can see why it was dropped. I appreciate I've always been a minority on this sort of issue.

[GreenAsJade]

What is "Borg Reaction Time"?

GaJ

[LJFHutch]

Personally I'm against it, sure it makes sense when a commander is changing plans mid-battle, but a lot of the orders you give are those that wouldn't be given by you, but just done by the unit themselves, eg: an MG team discovers a flanking squad and you tell them to reposition.

[norvandave]

I'm for command delays. Even some of the simplist commands take time to communicate down the line, then react. The receiver of the command acknowledges the command, may ask a question, doesn't hear properly, etc. Instant response to a command seems less realistic to me.

[SlowMotion]

If CMx1 command delays have been ruled out, what if there was another kind of delay option? When starting the battle players could set a limit that during a turn's planning phase you could give only N amount of commands? So if this limit was 10, you could give 10 new commands. During setup of course you could give unlimited amount of commands. So this would limit the speed at which you can change your plans, but individual changes were still done quickly.

[Petrus58]

If CMx1 command delays have been ruled out, what if there was another kind of delay option? When starting the battle players could set a limit that during a turn's planning phase you could give only N amount of commands? So if this limit was 10, you could give 10 new commands. During setup of course you could give unlimited amount of commands. So this would limit the speed at which you can change your plans, but individual changes were still done quickly.

I like this idea, though even if it is not possible, there is nothing stopping the player using house rules re command and control?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

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.

no optional CMx1 system for CMBN?

[Michael Emrys]

If CMx1 command delays have been ruled out, what if there was another kind of delay option? When starting the battle players could set a limit that during a turn's planning phase you could give only N amount of commands? So if this limit was 10, you could give 10 new commands. During setup of course you could give unlimited amount of commands. So this would limit the speed at which you can change your plans, but individual changes were still done quickly.

I don't know. That seems way too arbitrary and "non-organic" to me. I don't know the answer to the problem yet, but I think we need a different approach.

If the Tac AI reaches a sufficient level of sophistication, maybe it would be possible for it to throw in a delay or hesitation before executing a new order based on the state of the unit at the time (exhaustion; casualty induced low morale; training and experience level; etc.) and the situation it finds itself in (receiving fire; surrounded; low on ammo; etc.), plus maybe a small random factor to add some extra unpredictability.

Michael

[Lt Belenko]

The command delays got to me was in a road convoy situation at the start of a scenario. You would need to make sure that there was always an extra command or two for the leaders at the end of the road trip to bumper car mayhem.

[c3k]

Two situations:

1. A squad, poorly led with no C&C links to HQ is alone in a small house. The enemy is approaching with 3 squads, one of which has a flamethrower (hey, we can hope). Would the squad just sit there? Would they run out the back door? Should the player, assuming many roles, in this case squad leader, HAVE to wait before the squad could run?

2. A platoon with poor leadership is positioned on a flank to defend against a possible enemy move. In game, it becomes apparent to the player that the platoon is positioned for a swift penetration into a momentary gap in the enemy's line. Should a platoon like that be able to execute a plan with that much aggressive initiative? Does a Stalinesque "stay here and defend" order prevent such an opportunistic movement?

How do you balance low level reactions with higher level paralysis or rigidity? I don't think a straight time delay is the way to do it.

Off hand thought: tie the delay, yes that would be needed, to the total command chain distance. If a squad, platoon, company, battalion are all very close, the squad would have a minimal delay to execute its movement. (I would not institute any delay for firing or other non-movement actions.) If the platoon is way off on a flank, I would think its ability to execute initiative would be reduced. In that case, all squads moving beyond a certain small range of the platoon HQ would incur a penalty. The platoon HQ, being beyond close range of the company HQ, would incur a penalty to its movement.

I have not thought this through too thoroughly, but it would have the benefit of allowing the player to determine how responsive he wants his force to be: keep them tightly grouped and you get minimal delay; spread them out and you induce paralysis.

The determining factor would be the distance each unit has to its parent HQ and then the distance that parent HQ has to the overall force HQ. (An overall onboard force HQ would need to be defined.)

Edited to add: The level of command, close, far, voice, radio, as well as the hierarchy should be accounted for, as well. Here's a rough diagramatic illustration:

Batt HQ --(link A)--> Company HQ --(link --> Platoon HQ --(link C)--> Squad

If link C is close voice, then the squad would have no delay moving anywhere a short distance from its present location. The delay that gets incurred increases with the distance of the move. E.g., moving 10 meters, no delay. Moving 100 meters, delay. Moving 1,000 meters, BIG delay. If link C is far, then the squad gets a larger delay for every distance moved. Let's make up some numbers.

If close, voice then distance/delays are: 10m/0sec;- 100m/10sec; 1,000m/100sec

If far,--------- then distance/delays are: 10m/15sec; 100m/20sec; 1,000m/200sec

Again, those are just numbers thrown up to illustrate a concept, not to define actual delays.

For the Platoon HQ to move, it looks at link B. Close, voice and a short move? No delay. The delay magnitude is determined by the command link and the distance of the move. That precludes having to pre-determine an HQ's command ability for every position on the map. You merely check the command status of the unit at the time you give it an order. So, it's advantageous to be close, voice. However, even being close, voice does not give carte blanche, since the delay is calculated based on the TWO issues: command status AND distance of move.

The expected effect would be that low level units, regardless of training, experience, or status would have minimal to no delay for tactical decisions. The greater autonomy a unit seeks, without command and control being robust, the worse off they are. So, that platoon HQ would really want to be near the Company HQ, as would the other platoons.

So, let's see how this would work. You start with a company in front of a ridge. Everyone is close, voice. You order 1st Platoon HQ to advance 500 meters over the ridge (the distance to the movement order's endpoint). It's far, but 1st platoon is starting close to, and in the command of, it's higher HQ. Let's say a 500m move means a delay of 50 seconds - just for argument's sake. So, 50 seconds later, the platoon HQ starts moving. (You're not incompetent, so you ordered 1st platoon's squads to follow the same movement order.) All of 1st platoon completes the move some time later. Your endpoints for the initial movement order kept all the squads close to the 1st platoon HQ. There they sit, 500m away over a ridge. The platoon's squads can move normally, with regard to the platoon HQ, over there. They move, dig in, fight, whatever. But, you want to move 1st platoon over to its right some 100m. Well, THAT will take some time. It's link to Company HQ is broken (or poor), so all delays are exacerbated. The platoon HQ can move, but it will be delayed. A lot.

Meanwhile, you ordered 2nd platoon forward 100m (with its squads). They had almost no delay. (That's the difference between, "Hey, lieutenant. Move your platoon over by that tree over there" and "Lieutenant, let's look at the map. I want your platoon to take up a forward position 1/2 a klick over that ridge. Let's review support procedures and 'what if' what I expect from you and your men over there." The first option is clear cut. The second takes some preparation, hence the delay.)

2nd platoon decides to move. Their link is better than 1st platoon's, but not as good as 3rd platoon's. They can move, but there'll be an intermediate delay (compared to the other two platoons).

The tactical effect of this system would be good for a fixed defense, but a very rigid system for attack. Kind of like the Soviet army, huh?

End of edit.

Thoughts?

Ken

[silverstars]

What is "Borg Reaction Time"?

GaJ

It's a sort of reference to "Borg Spotting", which was the phenomenon of CMX1 games where if one unit was able to see an enemy, then automatically everyone else who had a LOF would see it and attack immediately. It was very disconcerting and hive-mind like, much like the Borg.

[Steiner14]

I find it interesting, how someone can be against the idea of OPTIONAL command delays, only because he doesn't like it - or being against the quite interesting idea of limited number of actions/turn.

I doubt you have ever played a CMx1 battle with the IRON MAN rules...

It would be great to have several options the opponents can agree upon. If not, then the standard rules are applied.

Think about the possibility for the scenario designers to suggest certain rule-profiles ("This scenario is played best with the Iron Man-rules-profile, which is included").

For gentleman's agreements, like in CMx1, you need a very well known and therefore trustworthy oponent - and not even then you can be sure, he doesn't "blink" before he will lose his last Tiger. Someone doesn't need to be a bad person, to do that.

Therefore optional rules, that are locked during the battle would be a very interesting feature, especially for the players, that like it harder and more difficult than the average player.

* Lock to several levels of map-oversight.

* Block movement on the map - be locked to your units (and then play an attack during fog and/or muddy terrain and you cannot escape the rules, because the engine blocks you. )

* Allow certain units have higher oversight levels.

* Restrict the amount of map-overviews/movement on the map someone can consume (i.e. 2 times level 4, 5 times level 3, movement-range: 2000m).

* Lock the number of allowed actions/turn and/or inf/tank/vehicle-category.

* Or give the scenario designer the possibility to restrict one side more than the other (that way highly unbalanced scenarios could be balanced in the outcome, while the much stronger force is locked to certain rules, while the weak side has more freedom).

Uswusf.

[Lanzfeld]

I like the idea of a delay again.

The only idea I have is to go back to the original system but maybe cut the delay times down by half? I dont know.

Edit: C3K has an interesting approach. Would need some deep testing though.

[Ron]

Yeah, I think the command delay in CMx1 added much more to the gameplay than it ever detracted. The inconvenience or unrealistic situations arising because of multiple waypoints were a fart in the wind compared to NOT having command delays at all. To be honest, I'm surprised this has been 'dropped' so readily. In my mind, some form of command delay would be a core requirement in any WWII simulation whether for C2 or training/experience.

[Michael Emrys]

The determining factor would be the distance each unit has to its parent HQ and then the distance that parent HQ has to the overall force HQ. (An overall onboard force HQ would need to be defined.)

I like this part.

Edited to add: The level of command, close, far, voice, radio, as well as the hierarchy should be accounted for, as well.

Don't forget field phone. Troops occupying a position for any length of time would get wired in as soon as possible. Field phones were generally more reliable (except when the wire was cut by hand or artillery) and less likely to be intercepted.

The delay that gets incurred increases with the distance of the move. E.g., moving 10 meters, no delay. Moving 100 meters, delay. Moving 1,000 meters, BIG delay. If link C is far, then the squad gets a larger delay for every distance moved.

This part I have reservations about. In practice the order for a longer move is not automatically more complicated and harder to communicate than a short one. I think the delay should be geared to the complexity of the order that would have to come from HQ.

A large part of the problem stems from the fact that the player is representing two or three echelons of command. If the order necessarily comes from battalion, it is likely to take more time to formulate and communicate than from, say, a platoon leader. In game terms, an order from a squad sergeant would be virtually instantaneous. The difficulty is in sorting out in game terms where an order originates. Until that conundrum is resolved, I am doubtful that much progress can be made on this issue.

Michael

[Erwin]

Maybe the issue is mute since my personal bias is that WEGO is the better way to play IF you like the "realism" of command delay.

While I can understand some of the above comments re when command delay may be less than realistic, the fact is that if you want to have an emergency reaction to an event just have NO command delay for the FIRST move (only). And I thought the WITHDRAW command in CM1 handled that rather well anyhow.

But, when you have multiple waypoints, having NO command delay just seems wrong - playing as if all troops are linked by satellite communications and computer like (almost) they do today. We have the privilege of "God-view" and the game should be mitigating that, not the opposite.

If you are into wrist twitch games (and why not if that's what you enjoy) and prefer playing in a more exciting RT mode then yes I can see that command delays are irritating.

[Other Means]

Don't forget command delays for Area Fire Steve, while you're there

[Battlefront.com]

heh. Well, this thread once again shows why putting in CMx1's Command Delays system isn't a "no brainer". Even the people saying "YEAH! Put it back in" quickly add "except don't do it like the last time. Try this instead. Or perhaps that" only to see a follow up that says "but that won't work, how about this" which then leads to "but that sucks, how about this instead". Which is exactly why we decided not to try forcing the CMx1 system, known flaws and all, into a new environment without the time to specifically focus on it.

As I said, until we have a chance to see what we can do with leveraging the current CMx2 C2 system, Relative Spotting, and other features CMx1 lacked, we think it's on balance better to not have Command Delays. For now, at least.

Steve

[Vark]

Would it be possible to borrow some systems used by other games, ie the SOP system from TacOps? The options allowed would be dependant on the doctrine, morale and training level of the units, so if the squad saw the platoon advancing they might have an SOP saying retreat 100m (to a convenient piece of cover) or if fanatical, fight to the last man (it might be available to troops with low morale but would lead to the squad fleeing in panic, after the first exchange of fire). Orders could then be given but once they had been carried out then the unit would rely on its SOP until new orders were given.

For all those people thinking a lack of a delay will penalise the Germans v's Russians look at this training film about a Panzer Grenadier led counter attack. It's propaganda, the Russians are just there to die, but look how coreographed this ideal situation is and with longer games now available (the DAR being fought on the Normandy page is 1 hour 20 minutes) such situations can be easily simulated.

These clips will be familiar to CM veterans but they had been recently removed. It illustrates the complexity of coordinating and moving even a small force, all with radio equiped vehicles and how a C3 system is simulating more than "Take that objective, now take this one etc.

Final point, why do i have to log on 5-6 times before I can send a message?

[Moon]

Final point, why do i have to log on 5-6 times before I can send a message?

You don't have to. See Knowledgebase Article "Login Troubles?"

[sfhand]

Hopefully any implimentation of Command Delays will be optional in WEGO and locked into RT...

All joking aside, both sides in a 2 player game play by the same rules so I see no unfair advantage in any of this [edit: as currently implimented with no command delay]. In wego, if something dire happens in the first few seconds, there is a built in time delay and if it happens at the end of the turn there is none. To add a time delay to this situation seems nuts to me.

[Battlefront.com]

Vark,

SOPs are a black hole feature which we want to stay far, far, far away from. There's been a ton of discussions about the pros and cons of SOP systems in the CM:SF Forum. If you're curious why we want to avoid it like the plague, I'm sure you'll find it there.

Sfhand,

Thanks for reminding me of yet another reason people griped about the CMx1 system. Indeed, you ALWAYS have a 60 second "Command Delay" in WeGo, like it or not. If something critical, and totally local, happened in the first second of the Action Phase you would have to wait 59 seconds + the Command Delay. If it happened on the 60th second of the Action Phase then it was 1 second + the Command Delay. An inherent flaw that we never figured out an answer to.

Steve

[c3k]

Just addressing these with no deep thought.

...This part I have reservations about. In practice the order for a longer move is not automatically more complicated and harder to communicate than a short one. I think the delay should be geared to the complexity of the order that would have to come from HQ.

...

A delay could be based on three parameters: the total distance the movement order enpoint is from the startpoint; the total length of the movement path (The difference between the two highlighted by a unit moving in a straight line or a unit moving in a sweep, like a letter "C".) The last parameter could be the number of waypoints.

There are pros and cons to each of the three approaches. (Note that I don't know if only one of the three should be used, or if the delay should be based on ALL three.)

Next up...

...

A large part of the problem stems from the fact that the player is representing two or three echelons of command. If the order necessarily comes from battalion, it is likely to take more time to formulate and communicate than from, say, a platoon leader. In game terms, an order from a squad sergeant would be virtually instantaneous. The difficulty is in sorting out in game terms where an order originates. Until that conundrum is resolved, I am doubtful that much progress can be made on this issue.

Michael

That's why I think each subordinate unit should have its delay "factor" based on its link with its superior echelon. If the squad is in close command of the platoon HQ and isn't trying to do something too complex/far away, then no delay. The same applies to the platoon HQ with regards to the company HQ, etc.

Certainly nothing more than an initial cut at the complex issue of appropriate delay. However, how do we differentiate between German and Soviet delays? (For a concrete example of forces.) A national differences coefficient?

If nothing else, this is an interesting idea to try to work through.

Ken

[Michael Emrys]

A delay could be based on three parameters: the total distance the movement order enpoint is from the startpoint...

I still don't see the reasoning for this. If the company commander tells a lieutenant to take his platoon and "sneak over to the crest of that hill and let me know what you see" the command is just the same and takes as long to communicate whether that crest is 100 meters away or two kilometers. The only thing a command delay should be based on is how long it takes to formulate the command, relay it to the subordinate unit(s), and put it into action. And to my mind that is a problem too complex for the game system to solve with consistent accuracy at the present time.

Michael

[undead reindeer cavalry]

I still don't see the reasoning for this. If the company commander tells a lieutenant to take his platoon and "sneak over to the crest of that hill and let me know what you see" the command is just the same and takes as long to communicate whether that crest is 100 meters away or two kilometers. The only thing a command delay should be based on is how long it takes to formulate the command, relay it to the subordinate unit(s), and put it into action. And to my mind that is a problem too complex for the game system to solve with consistent accuracy at the present time.

it doesn't make such a difference to the platoon in question, but it is likely to make a difference to the parent formations and their other subunits, especially if the action is not just recon. you need to create new support plans, notify greater number of units etc.

i'd dare to propose (propose in this theoretical discussion, not propose as in CM feature) that the delay per meter value would double by every certain distance (it itself also doubling by every step) as to simulate in abstracted way the messing up of higher and higher level of planning in the chain of command (causing exponential delays at each new step), instead of just linear increase. the game would probably calculate the distance not only from the current position of the unit, but in relation to the initial position (or better yet, the position of the waypoints of intial "round 0" orders). the further away you get from your original plan the harder it gets to make the moves.

delay would also increase exponentially per angle to the direction of the sector, so that forward-backward movement would cause less delays than left-right movement (angle comparison by the original facing of the unit's sector or preferrably by that of the initial waypoints). this would make the typical bizarre cross-boundary/sector movements (or even worse the zig-zag and back in a circle movements) of CM battles more difficult to execute when they aren't planned on "round 0".