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

[Steiner14]

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.

Can anyone imagine such kind of doctrine in an army, where the mass of the soldiers couldn't even read or write?

They are also instructive movies, because they demonstrate in minutes why the german soldier could only be overwhelmed by tenfold material and ressources.

[Lethaface]

Since we are able to command every last soldier in the game, command delays seem very strange to me.

If I order any tank commander to button up he will do it immediately, but when I order him to rotate he will wait x seconds ?

I can see how it could be fun if delays are only introduced when giving orders from a higher up unit. For that to be interesting the available commands for lower troops should be restricted though. But at the moment it isn't even possible to give a command FROM one unit TO the other.

Unless someone comes up with a genius idea, I feel that these delays can always be gamey exploited and / or feel unnatural. In RT you can't be everywhere at the same time so a sort of natural command delay is introduced (unless pausing every second). In WeGo you have the 60 second delay already.

I think I would be one of the persons turning it of. Don't have problems with it if it can be turned off though

[Michael Emrys]

Unless someone comes up with a genius idea, I feel that these delays can always be gamey exploited and / or feel unnatural.

I agree. The whole problem is as I wrote earlier too complicated to be implemented in a manner that won't produce wonky side effects in the current state of programming. It's no wonder to me that BFC dropped the whole thing for now rather than spend another year or more wrestling with it. Maybe in ten years CMx3 will be able to handle it. And believe me, I would like to see this feature as much as anyone who has posted in this thread.

It's one more example of how hard it is to model tactical combat in a thoroughly convincing manner. Combat at higher levels is equally complicated, but a lot of the factors average out and can be satisfactorily dealt with by abstractions. But the whole idea of tactical games is to show how those complexities interact to produce outcomes. This is not so easy to do.

Michael

[Erwin]

Anyone who claims that they can order someone to simply drive down the road and take a few simple turns with no time delay please come and demonstrate that with my (two degrees and senior executive) wife.

Please...

[Pvt. Ryan]

Maybe she needs a GPS.

[Michael Emrys]

Maybe she needs a chauffeur.

Michael

[BlackMoria]

The key issue in my mind is how do you differentiate between activities ordered by higher headquarters and local orders.

Case to illustrate.

Higher HQ wants the forward section to advance and occupy a house and move out of the open. Yes, should be a command delay to simulate the time interval of higher HQ formulating this plan of action and passing it by radio, or runner to the section commander and then for the section commander to order his men accordingly.

Now, the other shoe. Section commander orders his men to occupy the nearby house and move out from the open. Shouldn't be a command delay because he is right there with the men.

Issue: How do you differentiate one from the other when the player action with the mouse and keyboard is exactly the same to implement either action?

Edit: Clairification - I am opposed to a mandatory command delay. If a worthwhile optional system can be done for those who love this sort of thing, let they have it.

Further illustration of inherent flaws. Order a tank down a road. Order could be 'advance slowly up the road to the crossroads'. Now, for a straight road, this is most likely just a one leg waypoint. Little to none command delay. Now make the road a winding one and you accumulate command delays for each 'leg' of waypoints. The only difference is how straight is the road yet under one you have almost no command delay to lots of delay due to the curves in the road. Bogus.

Unless this can be addressed (if it can be addressed), I am opposed to command delays because they are not 'command delays' - they are action delays. The more actions and waypoints you issue a unit, the more delay you incur.

Action/Waypoints (actions inputted by player) =/= 'Commands' (actions ordered by unit / higher commanders to subordinate units). That is the crux of this issue, IMHO.

Clarification - I am opposed to a mandatory command delay system. Obviously, some people want one so if a worthwhile 'optional' system can be done, let those who like that have it.

[Lethaface]

Good illustration.

Perhaps the execution of given orders could be messed with in some way for units with bad or no c2. If the Tac AI would be a lot better, perhaps that could be fun and realistic at the same time. But I don't see the tac-ai becoming a lot better soon?

[dan/california]

The only real solution to this problem is co-play with several people per side. If each of those people is locked into what they level of command they are playing knows in terms of FOW,the problem solves its self.

The person commanding the second infantry platoon could act in a perfectly rational way based on what he knows, and completely bollox up the plan of the person playing the company commander in the process. This would bear a great resemblance to real life. The ultimate would be to enforce C2 links so the people in question could only chat if they were in C2. Maybe that would be iron man rules?

Imagine having to communicate with your FO team this way, Imagine getting the assault timing a little off.

[Battlefront.com]

I really hope the people heavily in favor of Command Delays can see why they aren't in. I think the majority of people, even supporters of Command Delays (and I count myself in that group), would have to admit that they don't like the CMx1 system "as is". They might prefer it to nothing, but I really think that most people found significant fault with it. People who are not in favor of CMx1 Command Delays obviously feel that fault outweighs it's potential benefits. I'm in that camp as well. Good in theory, but in practice it needs to be better than it was.

As pointed out above, you can order a unit to do things like preemptively button up based on something the tank isn't aware of, you can coordinate fire in very complex ways, a unit with 50 Waypoints can be stopped instantly where it is, etc. without ANY Command Delay in CMx1. Yet to try and move around a tight curve in a road you get a bunch of delay. It doesn't make logical sense.

Steve

[Erwin]

I have always rationalized command delays as a part of trying to stay alive. All units are close to the enemy in the CM games so if I were the tank CO, I would slow down/stop a lot at those corners just to be sure I didn't get an 88mm welcome basket.

And just because one orders someone to move to a location one would expect there would be a few secs thought/discussion on how best to do that, plus picking up weapons, checking everything etc.

Agreed that when one had a lot - say a dozen or more waypoints, the amount of time delay started to go up exponentially - and that seemed to be the primary source of complaints.

If one or two orders had only a few seconds delay, and the delays didn't go up exponentially the more waypoints one used, I suspect there wouldn't be so much concern or controversy about this.

It's also what level of command does the player imagine himself to be at. Since the units have pretty good game AI I always saw the player role as Battalion or Company CO, so one would expect delays in execution of orders. And taking that command chain into account was part of the fun.

I have been quite surprised to find that other CM players want to take on the role of every single NCO in the game and therefore it's ok for all units to move immediately in perfect concert like clockwork.

Nothing wrong with either approach, just different strokes... Obviously, one camp is going to be disappointed.

[Michael Emrys]

I have always rationalized command delays as a part of trying to stay alive. All units are close to the enemy in the CM games so if I were the tank CO, I would slow down/stop a lot at those corners just to be sure I didn't get an 88mm welcome basket.

...

Agreed that when one had a lot - say a dozen or more waypoints, the amount of time delay started to go up exponentially - and that seemed to be the primary source of complaints.

For me, the thing that stuck in my craw was not that units paused cautiously at corners or other changes of terrain that might expose them to deadly fire. They didn't do that. The things is that as waypoints were added, it took longer and longer for them to begin to get rolling. That didn't make any sense at all.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I have been quite surprised to find that other CM players want to take on the role of every single NCO in the game...

But to some extent we have to. If the Tac AI ever gets perfected to the point that all the player has to do is assign overall objectives and then sit back and only intervene now and then (and even then only to make gross and not detailed changes) while the AI takes on the roles of the subordinate officers and NCOs, then we can confine ourselves to the role of overall commander. But that day is not here.

Michael

[undead reindeer cavalry]

The key issue in my mind is how do you differentiate between activities ordered by higher headquarters and local orders.

it's very complicated and time consuming when you try it out even just in a game like CM. some time ago (a year ago?) someone posted about his experiments about using runners on CMBB forum. i have played some battles experimenting with the idea and it's quite hard. my own house rules are something like this:

- you get German infantry company. add two tank hunter teams to represent company commander's runners (if you want to make it easier, give each platoon hq a runner as well). add some artillery (e.g. one or two medium or light batteries) or if you want it easier add a vehicle or two.

- mission is to attack against Soviet infantry-only force. you can try with 300 points tiny/small/medium map setting, but it's going to be almost impossible if you let AI choose units. if you choose enemy units, choose only a reinforced platoon or so. mission duration 60 minutes or more.

- basic idea: you are the company HQ. you see only what the HQ sees. you give orders to subunits only either directly with the HQ (distance to subunit max 20 m, or if it's firing/taking fire/pinned less than 10 m) or with runners (same distance rules apply). subunits within a formation (e.g. squads in a platoon) can pass orders to sister subunits (like "advance in line formation" etc) when it's realistic. you can move the Coy HQ freely.

- so if you want to give orders to some platoon, you have a runner (tank hunter team) next to you and make that runner pass the order to the platoon hq (plot route as seems most realistic). note: you can only give orders if there's a reason to give them from the company hq viewpoint. if some platoon is being gunned by enemy MG and you (coy hq) can't see it, you have to go see what's happening or send a runner to find out (note: the runner needs to return back to coy HQ to tell what it was).

- orders can be generic but simplistics. for example "advance into those trees, take positions on treeline towards those buildings and wait for further instructions" or "start advancing towards that treeline when artillery barrage begins" or "follow me" or "advance in line on my left". "suppress that mg if it opens up again", "call barrage on those buildings after 5 minutes has passed, use the last 1/4 of rounds on those woods" etc. "advance into those trees, then advance towards those buildings starting at turn 15, when you have taken the buildings advance towards that hill when barrage on it ends" and such complex orders are OK as well, but you most likely wont be using them after the first attempt (if anything changes you/runner needs to go to cancel the orders etc).

-platoon hq can send runner (attached tank hunter team or half-squad) to coy hq to report about some important event.

- platoon hq can change subunit targets or hide/unhide them, but only with the above mentioned distance rule. platoon hq can also withdraw the platoon to the previous position.

- you can role-play squads etc when it seems realistic (e.g. they are in open next to house, taking fire - yes you can move them into the building).

- note that if you (the coy hq) can't see a runner hasn't yet passed the message to receiving unit (for example becaue it took fire and got routed), you don't know about it. likewise when the runner returns it supposes the coy hq is where it was when it left, unless you told it otherwise. etc etc

- if you want it extra-realistic, allow the coy hq (or other similar unit) to give and receive information for only some seconds per turn. the idea is that if the transmission of information would realistically take 2 minutes face-to-face, the coy hq can't do it during the build-in delay period of the game. for bonux extra realism make it so that you have to formulate the orders in your head during the 60 seconds of the playback sequence - if you don't know what to do after it has passed just press "GO" (after adjusting subunits per situation demands).

- you can try it with the addition of imaginary flare signals, if you are familiar with their usage.

- etc

it's of course horribly masochistic but the battles are a bit more realistic and will force the change of playstyle/tactics. and most importantly it underlines how much of normal CMx1 battles are based on stuff that couldn't be executed in reality (at least the way it happens in the game). doing this might work better in CMx2 because it's easier to tell what a unit can see (removed borg spotting) and because of resupply (one of the things that break it in CMx1, together with "dance of death", is that units burn their ammo far too quickly).

[Kanonier Reichmann]

A possible solution to introducing friction to improve realism is where you have a historically flexible force (such as the German army, especially early in the war) up against a historically inflexible force (such as the early war Russians & the French). With the current CMx2 system not allowing moveable waypoints at this point in time, when it comes to releasing the eastern front version of the game how about retaining the inflexibility for the early war Russians while the German side has access to such flexibility.

Naturally, as the time frame progresses (or regresses depending on the module released), the inflexibility of waypoints changes so that by 1944 (say) the Russians are on par with the German side and possibly even overtake them in terms of greater flexibility of moveable waypoints if it's a late war situation. This, to me, seems to be a neat way to distinguish between various forces so that the Germans can still have a chance to do well in early war battles despite their often inferior equipment. PzIIIH & Pz38t vs T34 anyone?

All this is predicated on Battlefront being able to implement flexible waypoints by the time the eastern front version of the series is released but I'm assuming it wont be an insurmountable problem based on my complete laymans knowledge of software programming. i.e. virtually none.

Regards

KR

[Battlefront.com]

Agreed that when one had a lot - say a dozen or more waypoints, the amount of time delay started to go up exponentially - and that seemed to be the primary source of complaints.

If one or two orders had only a few seconds delay, and the delays didn't go up exponentially the more waypoints one used, I suspect there wouldn't be so much concern or controversy about this.

But then the feature would be effectively eliminated. A few seconds delay means nothing, so starting with that and then capping it means there's really nothing going on.

Remember, the purpose of the system is to penalize poor units from behaving like good units and rewarding good units for being good. Part of that is also punishing players who lose their C2 and rewarding those who preserve them. A system that doesn't have a pretty significant distinction between these two is a system that will fail to be what it sets out to be.

I have been quite surprised to find that other CM players want to take on the role of every single NCO in the game

But they have to because there is no AI for anything other than reactive behavior. And even that is extremely limited in terms of moving. Now, this doesn't mean players have to micromanage each and every unit to the nth degree every single turn... but to say players can opt not to be NCOs to some degree is just wrong.

And because have to be NCOs then they should have the realistic abilities to react as NCOs do. Unfortunately, this creates problems with trying to impose restrictions.

Nothing wrong with either approach, just different strokes... Obviously, one camp is going to be disappointed.

There are three camps, actually:

1. Gamey Delay - don't care about the realism of the feature or its playability issues. They like it, they want it, they don't understand why they can't have it.

2. Gamey Control - don't care about the realism of micromanaging every little detail to the nth degree. They like it, they want it, they don't understand why they can't have it.

3. Realistic Control Delay - don't want unrealistic restrictions or freedoms. They don't want either system, but they will favor one or the other depending on how bad the specifics of the Delay system play out.

I'm firmly in the 3rd camp. I was the one that designed the original Command Delay system and I was never fully happy with it. You should have seen the system I designed instead of the one implemented to know why The system I designed was far more realistic, but was very difficult to program and portray to the user. Especially with CMx1's cruder C2 system.

After years and years of debates/discussions I've become convinced that even the system I wanted to have for CMx1 wasn't all that good. So until we come up with something better, going with no Delays is the best path IMHO. It makes Groups 2 and 3 happy. Plus, even Group 1 complains about the specifics

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

All this is predicated on Battlefront being able to implement flexible waypoints ...

Actually it is predicated on Battlefront supporting the notion of National Modifiers, which is something we've said for 12 years now that we'll never buy into. Perpetuating gross generalizations and stereotypes is not something we are even remotely interested in.

Plus, this once again overlooks the problems with separating the command levels from each other. Soviets had AWESOME Strategic planning, at times, even in the opening days of Barbarossa. In fact, their strategic planning was superior to the Germans. The Germans went into the Soviet Union with the same warplan the Coalition went into Iraq with... invade and come home. Both forgot the small part inbetween. But I digress

Variables such as Experience, Leadership, Morale, Condition, C2, etc. should determine how well things go. It's silly to think that a conscript unit with poor attributes should behave the same as an excellent unit with great attributes just because they have a Red Star on their hats or can do a mean goosestep in front of Goebbels' propaganda cameras. Which is why we'll never NEED to fall back on old, tired, and unsupportable stereotypes.

Steve

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Actually it is predicated on Battlefront supporting the notion of National Modifiers, which is something we've said for 12 years now that we'll never buy into. Perpetuating gross generalizations and stereotypes is not something we are even remotely interested in.

...SNIP...

Which is why we'll never NEED to fall back on old, tired, and unsupportable stereotypes.

Steve

A touch of hypocrisy here surely. In CMBB you designed this so called "old, tired and unsupported stereotype" into the game when you imposed much longer command delays on pre 1943 (from memory) Soviet units compared with their faster reacting German counterparts. How does that mesh with your above statement?

I was simply trying to suggest a way to insert a similar concept with the yet to be designed and released eastern front game, using the current game engine design philosophy.

Regards

KR

[stikkypixie]

A touch of hypocrisy here surely. In CMBB you designed this so called "old, tired and unsupported stereotype" into the game when you imposed much longer command delays on pre 1943 (from memory) Soviet units compared with their faster reacting German counterparts. How does that mesh with your above statement?

I was simply trying to suggest a way to insert a similar concept with the yet to be designed and released eastern front game, using the current game engine design philosophy.

Regards

KR

There was probably more proof that the leadership of the Red Army at the lower levels was not on par with that of the Germans, then say the existence über-Hans or über-Ivan. Although a broad generalization was a tad over, but you have to remember there was no way to separate command delays from experience.

[Canada Guy]

I am firmly in the #3 camp but would be happy with the #1 camp if that is all that you have time to implement. It is better than nothing. Making it optional until you have time to implement a more realistic system should satisfy most people (though there was one guy that did not want me to even have that option )

There is something though that is only inherent in training systems that is outside of the current experience, leadership, C3 paradigm (please forgive me from using that word). Early War (1940-44?) Germans did allow their lower level leaders greater flexibility in tactical decision making when they had the time to train their NCOs etc properly. Soviets did not have this time until later in the war when they had fought for some breathing room. Even later in the war lack of available motivated men took this away from the Germans but experience and an ability to not follow higher level leaders due to tactical situations gave it to the Soviets.

It is hard to describe but it is something different from Leadership and experience but more akin to Flexibility. Maybe giving the HQs and leaders another attribute called flexibility could encompass this idea. Earl Soviets (by and large) had some good leaders and some experience but did not have the flexible trailing that the Germans had. The early Americans had flexibility and some leadership but did not gain the experience until after North Africa.

Flexibility would also come into play for Command delays. Greater flexibility results in the ability to make greater changes on the fly, less creates greater delays. Is this a national characteristic? To some degree but it is something that other nations can and did acquire (or lose) as time went on. So no, the Germans just by being Germans did not possess a greater ability to have greater flexibility but their training did give them a tactical advantage until well into WWII. Other nations learned form this though and adopted (or adapted) it as time progressed.

In the CMBN time period, I do not think though that this is something critical. Maybe not even in the 1st family of Ostfront (1944). It is something that should be modeled in the early war (pre-43) families though as it would have an impact upon how we will (and to be realistic should) play the game.

[Steiner14]

Soviets had AWESOME Strategic planning, at times, even in the opening days of Barbarossa.

Therefore they lost 2400 fighters within the first 24 hours of Barbarossa and 3.5 million soldiers within the first six weeks?

In fact, their strategic planning was superior to the Germans.

And therefore they needed a Land and Lease act, that alone helped the Soviets to survive?

Take the US-deliveries away and the Red Army wouldn't even had shoes to walk in. Or without the US-vehicles they would have been practically immobilized...

Wheat, steel, aluminium - in tremendous quantities for one of the biggest and ressource richest countries in the world! Because the strategic planning of the USSR was that great. Come on.

I find it always again very interesting, that even people with much detail knowledge about WWII have absolutely no knowledge (and feeling) about the REAL dimensions of the enemy forces the germans had to fight. There is absolutely no feeling for the overwhelming material wave, that buried the german army. The USSR had alone more T34 than all german tanks together. Look at the globe and the ressources of the USA, the USSR and the Commonwealth and it's colonies at that time to get an impression.

And only that forces COMBINED could defeat the German army.

Great strategic planning! Incredible.

Take only the USA out of the equation and the USSR would have not survived 1942: The eight red armys at Stalingrad were FULLY supplied from the "neutral" USA. Every idiot thinks he knows it better than Hitler, while the same idiot claims Stalingrad being a "glorious victory" or "great victory" of the Red Army - with losses of over 1 million! 30% of all german military losses as a glorious victory! How cynical or perverted or disinformed is that?

The Germans went into the Soviet Union with the same warplan the Coalition went into Iraq with... invade and come home.

It's good you are making a tactical game...

The Germans attacked the Soviet Union, because they had been encircled and no alternative: their time was running out, with Stalin to prepare to conquer Europe and with the huge and always increasing military output and expenses of the USSR in his back (IIRC 36% of the BNP already BEFORE war!), against the quite tiny Germany compared to the USSR, the Commonwealth and the USA and without any ressources except coal, being fully dependant on the oil from Romania, that was heavily threatened by the USSR, while Germany itself was even bound in the West, was still facing the bombardements of it's cities, after the air superiority over Britain's coast couldn't be as easily gained as necessary for a fast invasion - before Stalin was ready.

And Hitler knew it's not wise to wait for the Soviet attack like a lamb, as long as there was the threat of the western front after an invasion. So what was the alternative? Throw the strongest down first, before the others can react!

When the campaign in northern France was finished, and after all german peace-offers had been rejected or were not even answered by Britain's Churchill, Hitler knew, at least Churchill and the forces behind him (the financial centres of London and New York) wanted the destruction of Germany at all costs (the new german world-trade barter-system locked the international bankers out).

What was Germany's alternative?

They didn't take the German offer during the polish war, of immediate ceasefire and an international peace-delegation and full reparation payments from Germany, if the problem of Danzig and the suppressed Germans is solved.

They didn't take the generous offer, after France was defeated.

Churchill didn't stop to bomb german cities, even after Hitler warned him, that he will start bombing british cities, too.

So what was the alternative for Germany, facing such a hateful and foolish crusader in the west on his isle, while the red giant in the east was preparing for his jump?

If you can answer me that question, i'd be thrilled to hear the alternatives for Germany.

So what was the only realistical solution for Germany to avoid a two-frontier war?

Throw the continent-sword, the USSR, of the freemasons Churchill and Roosevelt, out of their hands, before London and New York were ready to invade Europe.

It's well known and most probably correct, that Hitler himself stated, that the invasion of Russia was the hardest decision in his whole life. Guess why. Not really because he believed it would become an easy in and out...

[Michael Emrys]

It is hard to describe but it is something different from Leadership and experience but more akin to Flexibility.

If I understand you correctly, the word more commonly used is 'initiative'. It describes the ability of commanders at whatever level of command they occupy to respond on the spot to situations that were not anticipated in their orders. An important point that is often overlooked in discussions about initiative is that it is important not only for NCOs and junior officers to have it, their commanders must also be able to respond to the new situations that their juniors have created by using their initiative. So yes, the whole command structure must have a certain amount of flexibility built into it. The Germans had recognized this and trained for it before the war, while most of the armies that opposed them had to learn it on the fly...if they ever did. Paradoxically, as you allude, while most everybody else was starting to allow more initiative in the lower levels, the German army became more rigid towards the end. This was mostly due to a reduction in the time available to teach the necessary habits of thought and response, but it was also due to increasing distrust at the highest levels of the men in the field.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

A touch of hypocrisy here surely. In CMBB you designed this so called "old, tired and unsupported stereotype" into the game when you imposed much longer command delays on pre 1943 (from memory) Soviet units compared with their faster reacting German counterparts. How does that mesh with your above statement?

I honestly don't remember if the Soviets were inherently slower than the Germans. But that wouldn't be the prime difference anyway. A historically correct average portrayal of a 1941 battle would have the Soviets with very poorly trained, but perhaps well motivated (perhaps not), units while the Germans generally had a lot of successful combat experience and extremely high morale (certain exceptions). Therefore, in a 1941 battle one would expect the Soviets to perform more poorly at the tactical level than the Germans simply because of fairly quantifiable variables for a specific battle.

But even if we did have differences in the base Command Delays, I think that is supportable given the well documented tactical rigidity of the Soviet doctrine. And it's yet another problem with Command Delays since tactical rigidity is not the same as Command Delays. The player should actually be PREVENTED from making moves, not just having them delayed. The Soviets got more flexible with this as the war went on, but it's something they never completely got rid of. And towards the end of the war the Germans were starting to suffer from "we were told to take this and we had better or there's a firing squad waiting for me if we don't".

I was simply trying to suggest a way to insert a similar concept with the yet to be designed and released eastern front game, using the current game engine design philosophy.

Well, as I said the concept is itself flawed since it is arbitrary, inflexible, and really unsupportable from a historical standpoint. Any sort of command restriction system should be nationality neutral.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Steiner14,

You now have an infraction. We're all pretty tired of your political views coming into threads where they have no position being. Not to mention how badly your understanding of history is warped to conform to your view of the world, instead of the other way around.

I'll let a similar baiting in another thread go without a warning as I think one should be enough.

Don't test my patience or you're out of here.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

So what was the only realistical solution for Germany to avoid a two-frontier war?

Not to start one.

Michael