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

[LongLeftFlank]

Yet more glib, self-pitying exculpation of enormous Nazi crimes.

If the "scorched earth" conditions you are so eager to blame on Stalin were indeed responsible for the starvation of the Red Army POWs in spite of the heartfelt concern of the Wehrmacht, you would expect the same fate to have befallen the Russian and Ukrainian civilian populations in these areas, particularly people in towns and cities. So by that logic, the Red Army would have liberated an empty wasteland. This did not in fact happen, in spite of terrible privations and famines in those areas.

There was food to be had in the "breadbasket of Europe". The Nazi gauleiters maintained the sovkhoz system in place, with the intent of shipping food west (very little actually went). Given a will, the POWs could have been fed, minimally, or allowed to produce their own food. But they were not -- they were systematically and deliberately starved to death en masse by their captors. On explicit orders from the Nazi leaders (including the Army) which are well-documented. Cold. Historical. Fact.

But you are clearly beyond reason.

[Paper Tiger]

Yes, sadly many died but have you ever heard about the severity of the german logistical problems in Russia and why that was?

It was not even possible to supply the own german troops as needed.

Now imagine a crowd of 3.5 million POWs.

Now imagine on his retreat, the enemy destroys EVERYTHING the own people would need to survive. Even the wells were poisoned by throwing dead animals into! The rural people were stripped of their animals they need to survive. You find nothing but a poor country that additionally has been completely devastated. (what a great ally for Mr. Roosevelt...)

All you have for the supply are a few railways and - in case they were not destroyed - they have another size. So you can't use your own trains as long as you have not changed the size.

But you also find no adequate roads.

And your units need every supply they can get.

I think now you can answer your question yourself.

I enjoyed reading your earlier post but this is utterly inexcusable and deeply, deeply offensive.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I hate to see people banned for holding controversial historical viewpoints but I'm also very unappreciative of Steiners consistent line of prattling on about how nice and huggable the Nazi supermen were, happily ignoring the many millions who have died at their murderous hands.

The anti-value of his rantings have become to great for me to ignore or tolerate. So I too ask you toss this noxious loon over the side first at the first excuse he gives you. No last warnings for him please.

[Battlefront.com]

Well Elmar, someone has to be here to remind us that all those Jews, gypsies, Catholics, political opponents, landed gentry, physically unfit, and ethnically "impure" peoples of Europe were killed by Roosevelt. I mean, c'mon... get with reality here... Germany was just doing it's best to be better loved in that mean old Europe and never did anything to deserve any of the rap it got after the Free Masons too over Europe.

Steiner14,

You project a propaganda-tale of a ruling "Übermensch"-idea in Germany into the german soldier as a given fact and then you are making your conclusions from it.

I read a pretty good portion of Mein Kampf long ago. I guess that the little Corporal who wrote it didn't have much influence over the Third Reich's policies?

Now... once again Steiner14 has put on his boots and stomped over a relevant discussion with his neo-Nazi (or Nazi apologist if you prefer) clap trap. And in doing so are distracting this discussion while also neatly side stepping information brought up to challenge his assertions like that only the German Army had flexible leadership, and everybody else had either rigidity or chaos.

Steiner14, there are very few people here that care to hear your political views. Yet you keep dragging them in at every opportunity. It is a pattern with you that is long established. I'm finally going to get serious about keeping it under control. I've issued you with yet another warning. And since you did not get the message the last time, let me be clear:

Keep your neo-Nazi ideology out of any discussion you choose to participate in or you will find yourself banned. And if you don't like it, well... I think the rest of the civilized world would find that irony rather amusing and troubling at the same time.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Steiner14 is still allowed to post, but only just barely. I ask everybody to move on not debate him because it's a complete waste of everybody's time.

Steiner14, don't email me to complain about the infraction points I just gave you. You do that and I'll just go ahead and ban you. Protest in any way, in fact, and I'll ban you.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

For us die hard fans, here is a... uh... historical example of command delays. Note the time it takes to comprehend what they are looking at and come to a decision (compared to how we could do it) heh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q32MrziPoTM

But, I realize that the RT fans just don't understand why we WEGO people much prefer it over RT.

**Some sort of time delays forever!**

Actually, this is a PERFECT example of why CMx1 Delays didn't work very well. I saw no delays in the movie clip at all. As soon as they realized they couldn't stop the tanks coming at them they picked up and ran. There was no delay between when they realized that and when they acted on it.

Delays at the tactical level, as have been talked about MANY times already, are unrealistic. Even Conscripts could act extremely fast when they felt the need for it. But since Conscripts were more prone to pinning and morale problems, they were less likely to react as fast as a well trained, well led, well experienced unit.

So basically we wind up right in the same place we've wound up every time we talk about this. Individual units should have no restrictions on their ability to move PROVIDED they are physically capable of it (Morale, Pinning, etc.) AND they are not taking part in some sort of larger coordinated event. Therefore, the problem is still, as it always has been, in coming up with a system that penalizes units from making coordinated actions in excess of what their level of command, training, cohesion, etc. would allow for.

This is not easy to simulate in a single person game.

Getting back to the earlier point of Stereotyping our way out of the problem. To someone like Steiner14, any notion that the Germans weren't inherently tactically superior, or more specifically that the Americans couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag without artillery or air support, is incorrect. Therefore, if we do anything other than artificially favor German tactical superiority then we are, by definition, biased in favor of the Americans. Likewise, there are people who dispute these claims and therefore anything we do in the other extreme is showing pro-Geman bias. The fact that we could have people accusing us of both in the same threads at the same time back in CMx1 days clearly shows we're not biased.

Our philosophy is that we simulate everything without bias. A German unit with x attributes (Experience, Condition, etc.) is inherently identical to an American unit with the same attributes. Their combat outcomes will be very different due to their inherent equipment, headcount, supporting arms, etc... but inherently there is no difference between any two units with the same attributes. We leave it up to the player to decide if he wants to simulate differences. For example...

Look at the Bulge. Even when the largely inexperienced 106th Infantry Division's sector was surprised to be hit by a force many times it's superior in both numbers and experience, it wasn't a complete cakewalk for the Germans. Sure, there were the huge surrenders that take place when completely surrounded and disorganized (the Germans surrendered plenty of men in the West for this reason), but there were also examples where German attacks were repeatedly repulsed even though the American defenders were out numbered, without air support, and lacking in most everything else compared to the German attackers. A biased system would not allow one or the other to happen in a convincing way.

Basing a Command Delay system on myths is just wrong. Which is why we don't do it.

Steve

[sfhand]

...

Therefore, the problem is still, as it always has been, in coming up with a system that penalizes units from making coordinated actions in excess of what their level of command, training, cohesion, etc. would allow for.

This is not easy to simulate in a single person game.

...

It is when I'm the single person...

I've been playing your CM games from the beginning and I am still the biggest obstacle to unit cohesion with or without command delays. The thing is, I wouldn't have it any other way. For me, the game is about strategy and tactics moreso than systemic tricks that can be adapted to with enough time and familiarity.

I tried to say earlier, probably about another topic, that if one really wanted the "realism" of a Battalion Commander we should scrap the 3d representation and give periodic text updates, some accurate some not, about the situation of the battle. But this game goes so much deeper than that and it is up to me, the player, to decide what level of fidelity I wish to play it at. At some point that's what a game with as many facets as this has to be about, doesn't it?

I have yet to play a CM game where all my movements were like watching synchronized swimming and that's with and without command delays, which I now view as being an arbitrary encumbrance on the player.

[Wiggum]

Reading all this, i just hope that there will be no "tactically superior" side in the WW2 CM games.

These guys, whatever nation they are, may had a diffrent training and diferent weapons (and different amount of material) but in the end there are so many factors that determine the result of a battle.

Remember, we are talking about company size battles !

Forget all those books and movies that tell you what side was superior.

A company size battle could be won by the americans against the germans in 1942 and the same way a german company could beat a american in 1945.

There are more factors then a game like CM can simulate, so i think if Battlefront will just model the different weapons, communication equipment and formations that is enough.

Making any side superior would break the game for me.

Hey, and dont forget the canadians and the brits please.

@ Steiner14

How can you know what the ordinary Landser though about the ordinary GI ?

Sure, veterans of that time (mostly young boys...my grandpa was just 18 when he saw action in normandy) maybe "complain" about the allied air superiority, but a real soldier never will debase his enemy !

A human is a human, no matter what uniform he wears...

Remember the early years of WW2 were the wehrmacht was superior to their enemys (air support, material ect.) ?

Remember the many great actions from polish or dutch forces ?

For example take a look at the Westerplatte or the Battle at the Hague.

@ Battlefront

I know it was not your intension, but some things you wrote in this post could get wrong by a german person, although Steiner14 overreacted for sure.

Our philosophy is that we simulate everything without bias. A German unit with x attributes (Experience, Condition, etc.) is inherently identical to an American unit with the same attributes. Their combat outcomes will be very different due to their inherent equipment, headcount, supporting arms, etc... but inherently there is no difference between any two units with the same attributes. We leave it up to the player to decide if he wants to simulate differences. For example...

Look at the Bulge. Even when the largely inexperienced 106th Infantry Division's sector was surprised to be hit by a force many times it's superior in both numbers and experience, it wasn't a complete cakewalk for the Germans. Sure, there were the huge surrenders that take place when completely surrounded and disorganized (the Germans surrendered plenty of men in the West for this reason), but there were also examples where German attacks were repeatedly repulsed even though the American defenders were out numbered, without air support, and lacking in most everything else compared to the German attackers. A biased system would not allow one or the other to happen in a convincing way.

Basing a Command Delay system on myths is just wrong. Which is why we don't do it.

Steve

Now that sounds great, this is what i would expect from Battlefront as my favorite game designers !

[Erwin]

Clearly we have two markets here. Everything I think boils down to what size game one likes playing. I like the bigger the better. In CM1 that can mean regimental/multi-battalion and in CM2, maybe battalion.

I don't think that size is good for RT play. That's why I like WEGO. Clearly some prefer smaller engagements that can be played easily in RT.

Re MeatEtr's points:

"I'll use another example with the video, let's say that zooka team was given a hide order. Well that zooka shot would of had to wait for the end of the turn to get the order to un-hide for the TacAI to fire. Is that more realistic?"

Well, one would give it a HIDE order with appropriate covered arc so it popped up and shot when the AI felt appropriate during that minute.

"In WEGO the player is forced mostly to rely on the TacAI."

Yes

"Whereas in RT the player takes more control away from the TacAI. But which mode gives more realistic results?"

Depends on what level you like to play. I see myself more as the company or Battalion CO and I try to issue orders that will be "appropriate" throughout the minute while I am busy doing something else, writing reports, yelling at my Exec, whatever... This is simply a personal matter of taste and this is where we probably have to agree to disagree.

"A squad is ordered to run Fast into a enemy occupied building, a blunder no less in any game mode. In WEGO they will keep running towards the building despite taking fire and casualties and eventually getting pinned until the end of the turn."

Yes, but I would NEVER make such a stupid order of course re my points above. I have to issue commands that are "safe' for one minute.

"In RT you can hit the deck immediately upon taking fire by canceling the Fast order and give area fire order."

I understand your point. But, I would have anticipated that outcome and would have already placed a waypoint prior to the building where the unit hit the dirt and piled on TARGET fire (I think they throw grenades) for x seconds PRIOR to entering the building. (Actually, because I am such a brilliant CO I would also have had other supporting units pile on fire prior to any unit being ordered into the building.)

So, from my perspective you are clearly playing at a naive and superficial game level. (That's a dry English-type joke btw before you fire off something at me.)

The point is that the CM enthusiast community likes to play in different ways. And so long as we're all having fun it doesn't matter. Not having delays makes it just a little less fun (for me), but it's not a deal killer. It's just different strokes etc...

[Calibration]

I think the CMx1 command delay system could have been tweaked a bit. If you assume that the delay is related to the complexity of the order you give a unit, then it would be reasonable in the majority of cases to assume that a command stream containing the same order types is less complex than one with different order types. i.e. typically FAST-FAST-FAST-FAST is a less complex order than FAST-FAST-MOVE_to_CONTACT-REVERSE. What you could have done is made the additional delay shorter if a command is the same as the preceding one than if it is different. Thus the first command sequence above, which in the vast majority of the times is what you give to a vehicle ordered to drive down a road, would take less time than the second which is what you might give to a tank to move to a rise and then scout ahead and reverse if it spots something. I think this would have given a better overall experience in the majority of cases where you need to issue multiple command sequences.

Also, imho, lessening the command delay in some circumstances does not significantly weaken the already huge differences between conscript and crack troops as mentioned above.

The system as implemented in CMx1 was frustrating at times but CMx1 would have been a much poorer game without it. I haven't played the new engine yet.

[Battlefront.com]

Reading all this, i just hope that there will be no "tactically superior" side in the WW2 CM games.

No worries there... we'll never give into the argument of making things nationally biased. No matter what the nationality is.

A company size battle could be won by the americans against the germans in 1942 and the same way a german company could beat a american in 1945.

Exactly. And specific to Command Delays, it could easily be that the German Company had very little flexibility and the American had lots of flexibility. It really depends on the specifics of that particular battle.

I know it was not your intension, but some things you wrote in this post could get wrong by a german person, although Steiner14 overreacted for sure.

To be clear, what I spoke of was a generalization about a generalization. The truth is that the Third Reich had a lot of successes in the beginning (and some major defeats too, of course!) and this set certain expectations. This is very normal Human experience in work, sports, personal luck, etc. 1943 was a very bad year for the Third Reich and 1944 was the start of the end. Many definitely knew this. von Rundstedt, the overall commander for the Normandy area, was removed from his position after he demanded peace with the Western Allies. And of course this was when the July Bomb Plot to kill Hitler came about.

So of course many, many Germans (in uniform and not) knew the war wasn't going well at this point. But at the tactical level, I think the Germans still thought of themselves as better than anybody else. Which is why Steiner is correct in the sense that interviews with German soldiers after the war tend to view the American successes as being related only to material advantages. And as you say, the Wehrmacht once had these same advantages and nobody said "the Heer only one battles because of the Luftwaffe and Artillerie"

Clearly we have two markets here. Everything I think boils down to what size game one likes playing. I like the bigger the better. In CM1 that can mean regimental/multi-battalion and in CM2, maybe battalion.

This is an important point relating to Command Delays as well. The higher up one goes, the more higher level decision making becomes a part of the battle. The more that happens, the more cause to interfere with the speed and/or ability to make tactical decisions. Which is why no simulation, or game, should ever attempt to go beyond a certain span of command responsibilities. Well, unless you're talking about 1:1 players with realistic command interference systems in place. CoPlay is one such idea that does that.

The point is that the CM enthusiast community likes to play in different ways. And so long as we're all having fun it doesn't matter. Not having delays makes it just a little less fun (for me), but it's not a deal killer. It's just different strokes etc...

Very true. For us, though, we can't justify spending the time on trying to fit a system designed for a much more abstract game into CMx2 that we know, from the start, is deeply flawed. Love Command Delays or hate them, the implementation in CMx1 is not able to stand up to serious scrutiny. We knew that at the time, but felt it was worth doing. Based on years of player reactions/discussions we think otherwise now.

I think the CMx1 command delay system could have been tweaked a bit.

That's the point of all my posts here... no it couldn't. The entire basis of the idea was flawed from a conceptual standpoint. And your suggestion is equally flawed because it is using the same logic. That logic is that tactical decisions available to the player in the game can somehow be consistently and fairly evaluated as being in/out of the normal tactical initiative capabilities of that particular unit at that particular time. Number of waypoints was one way to gauge this, different types of orders would be another. Neither holds up.

A tactical unit should be able to plot as many waypoints, in as many different styles of Commands, as it sees fit to achieve it's tactical needs. If I order a Squad to slowly crawl to the edge of a road, then run over it, then go back to crawling along a low hedge, popping up occasionally to take shots at a specific house, then crawling around to the other side of the hedge to then assault the house... there should be no delays other than the time it takes to actually execute the Commands given the terrain, enemy action, physical Condition, etc.

Think about it this way. Does a Squad Leader need to be told by ANY level of Command to crawl, then run, then crawl, then shoot with an Arc, then Assault? No. The Company Commander was told to "secure area x", the Platoon Commander was told to "secure this portion of area x in this sort of general way", and the Squad Leader was told "take out that MG in the house". By the time the Squad Leader takes his squad to get into that house, the other levels of command have nothing to do with it. Even the Platoon level communications would be near instant, and arguably the Squad Leader probably would have done what he did even if he didn't have an explicit order from the Platoon Leader.

Steve

[Calibration]

That's the point of all my posts here... no it couldn't. The entire basis of the idea was flawed from a conceptual standpoint. And your suggestion is equally flawed because it is using the same logic. That logic is that tactical decisions available to the player in the game can somehow be consistently and fairly evaluated as being in/out of the normal tactical initiative capabilities of that particular unit at that particular time. Number of waypoints was one way to gauge this, different types of orders would be another. Neither holds up.

A tactical unit should be able to plot as many waypoints, in as many different styles of Commands, as it sees fit to achieve it's tactical needs. If I order a Squad to slowly crawl to the edge of a road, then run over it, then go back to crawling along a low hedge, popping up occasionally to take shots at a specific house, then crawling around to the other side of the hedge to then assault the house... there should be no delays other than the time it takes to actually execute the Commands given the terrain, enemy action, physical Condition, etc.

Think about it this way. Does a Squad Leader need to be told by ANY level of Command to crawl, then run, then crawl, then shoot with an Arc, then Assault? No. The Company Commander was told to "secure area x", the Platoon Commander was told to "secure this portion of area x in this sort of general way", and the Squad Leader was told "take out that MG in the house". By the time the Squad Leader takes his squad to get into that house, the other levels of command have nothing to do with it. Even the Platoon level communications would be near instant, and arguably the Squad Leader probably would have done what he did even if he didn't have an explicit order from the Platoon Leader.

Steve

But the command delay system was meant to in part represent the time taken to interpret the chain of commands from the highest level trickling down to the individual unit as well as the interpretation of those commands by the unit was it not? Whilst your argument accounts for the latter to some extent it doesn't account for the former. No problem. I apologise if someone else has mentioned it in this thread (I have read it but I may have missed it) but would I be far off the mark if I said that one philosophical difference between CMx1 and CM:BN appears to be that in former the player firmly represents the overall commander and in the latter he essentially becomes each unit as he selects them?

[YankeeDog]

The player has always taken on the role of both the overall commander, and the individual team/squad leaders in CM series. The details of the game mechanics and user interface have changed, but overall, this is pretty much the same in CMx1 as it is in CMx2.

A 3D tactical game where the player is the Company/Battalion commander *only* won't be possible until the computer AI is good enough that it can pick its own covered routes, defensive positions, etc. once given a general objective and/or location. You can't tell a platoon to just "Clear that patch of woods of all enemy and then hold against possible counterattack" and have the AI take care of all the details of such an action in CMx1 any more than you can in CMx2. In both games, in addition to being the Company Commander who decides that a certain terrain feature should be the objective of a given platoon, you have to micromanage the movement and actions of individual teams yourself; as you click on the units and issue orders, you are becoming the individual section leaders, in turn. Indeed, even if the AI were capable of it, I'm not sure the game would be very fun if you were effectively the Company/Battalion Commander (depending on the size of the scenario) *only*.

There are substantial differences in the way you do all of the squad and section level micromanagement CMx2 vs. CMx1, but the essential paradigm is still the same.

Cheers,

YD

[Canada Guy]

1. Steiner14

While I would say that in some posts he is close to an apologist (though I have only read a few), having political views that are not the same as yours is something that should be valued not admonished. Time and place though is everything. Discussions about slaves and materials available does not seem relevant to a discussion about Command delays. Having discussed the war a little with a former Stuka pilot from eastern front, did not give me the impression that every German soldier was a card carrying Nazi. Just as I believe that not everyone from the Western Allies was a true believer in Democracy. Just look at the propaganda from the allies when fighting Japan. We are all bastards under the skin defending our own belief systems and trying to justify our system of society and how it is inherently better than the other guys. Just not in these forums when all we want is some fun in our day to day lives.

2. Command Delays

You had mentioned that there might be a possibility of adding this as an option in its old form (or something akin to it). Is this still a possibility?

I had an idea but am sure that it will be shot down as gamey. Each side has so many command points (based upon HQ experience, scenario design, # of HQs) and then you spend these (each turn in WEGO or have them slowly regenerate in RT). commanding a Veteran unit takes a small amount of points with adjustable waypoints and a conscript unit takes a larger amount and with non-adjustable waypoints. Again, it is gamey but...

You always mention and I agree that national characteristics should not be hardcoded, but without another attribute (call it flexibility or initiative) to reflect differences in national training over the coarse of the war, and reflecting this in command delays, it gives an unfair advantage to less well trained armies. I guess it depends upon how you see this game. I see it as being the company or BN commander and not the individual soldier. Individually, I act as I need to act in a given situation. As Company commander, I would expect that less well trained troops would not follow my orders with the same rapidity as veterans.

3. A Poll

While it may not change your mind, conducting a poll may be informative to BF. I read the FAQ about creating a poll but could not see how to build one. While we might not be a total representative sample, it may be helpful for you.

-Want command delays exactly as in CMx1

-Want command delays as an option

-Want command delays but would be willing to wait for a revamp using better paradigm

-Hate command delays and no one should have that option

or pick 1 of 5 choices on our wishlist that you feel is worth putting in resources into

-Command delays

-Moveable waypoints

-Damage decals

-Detailed armour location hits and penetration spreadsheets

-Space lobsters vs leprechauns armour formations

This is just an example as I have no idea of what your wishlist is composed of. It also might stop this incessant talk as it does not seem to be getting us anywhere.

[Michael Emrys]

The player has always taken on the role of both the overall commander, and the individual team/squad leaders in CM series. The details of the game mechanics and user interface have changed, but overall, this is pretty much the same in CMx1 as it is in CMx2.

A 3D tactical game where the player is the Company/Battalion commander *only* won't be possible until the computer AI is good enough that it can pick its own covered routes, defensive positions, etc. once given a general objective and/or location. You can't tell a platoon to just "Clear that patch of woods of all enemy and then hold against possible counterattack" and have the AI take care of all the details of such an action in CMx1 any more than you can in CMx2. In both games, in addition to being the Company Commander who decides that a certain terrain feature should be the objective of a given platoon, you have to micromanage the movement and actions of individual teams yourself; as you click on the units and issue orders, you are becoming the individual section leaders, in turn. Indeed, even if the AI were capable of it, I'm not sure the game would be very fun if you were effectively the Company/Battalion Commander (depending on the size of the scenario) *only*.

YD is right on. Listen to the man.

Michael

[Erwin]

Am fully aware that this is all a futile exercise since the big decision has been made, but for the record I (and clearly a significant number of others) do agree with Calibration's points.

When BF said: If I order a Squad to slowly crawl to the edge of a road, then run over it, then go back to crawling along a low hedge, popping up occasionally to take shots at a specific house, then crawling around to the other side of the hedge to then assault the house... there should be no delays other than the time it takes to actually execute the Commands given the terrain, enemy action, physical Condition, etc."

I totally disagree.

A GREEN (or stupid) unit would NOT know how to do all this as well or as quickly as an elite unit. That's what makes a unit elite, they know what to do and have a faster decision loop than a lesser trained/experienced troop.

That is what made the delay feature so brilliant in CMx1. It accentuated the difference in troop quality far better than them simply not being to aim as well or whatever the other differences are. It's what made CMx1 unique in wargames at the time, and one reason why many are still passionate about it, and it's still around even without support.

[BlackMoria]

When BF said: If I order a Squad to slowly crawl to the edge of a road, then run over it, then go back to crawling along a low hedge, popping up occasionally to take shots at a specific house, then crawling around to the other side of the hedge to then assault the house... there should be no delays other than the time it takes to actually execute the Commands given the terrain, enemy action, physical Condition, etc."

I totally disagree.

A GREEN (or stupid) unit would NOT know how to do all this as well or as quickly as an elite unit. That's what makes a unit elite, they know what to do and have a faster decision loop than a lesser trained/experienced troop.

I disagree.

Green troops or conscripts lack experience. That is all.

Green troops know how to clean their weapons, load weapons, fire weapons, how to march, how to run and how to crawl, etc.

That doesn't mean better trained troops could run faster or crawl faster or further. Or shoot more accurately.

A green unit doesn't know the travails of combat and will individuals will hesitate or not fire their weapons. Individuals will freeze in place while experienced individuals know that moving is the best thing to do at the moment because the area he is in is a kill zone and he has got to get the hell out of it, even if it means moving while the MG42 is firing in your direction.

Fighting a few battles doesn't mean that individuals suddenly become better marksmen or can run or crawl with a field pack better than green troops.

Fighting a few battles means the green troops have experience the terror of combat and know what to expect and how to react better to the crucible of warfare. They are now more inclined to fire their weapon rather than cower, to advance in the face of fire because their Sgt screams at them to do so rather than lay there in terror not doing anything.

This is in CMx2 already. Green troops don't fire as often and are more inclined to rout when under fire than experienced troops. I don't see a command delay system really contributing meaningfully in a huge way to the game.

Elite troops are NOT supermen, tearing the tracks off tanks with their bare hands. They are troops who experience has taught how to move and survive on the battlefield and are more likely to do something remarkable under fire than keep their heads down and wish they were back in bootcamp.

[Battlefront.com]

1. Steiner14

While I would say that in some posts he is close to an apologist (though I have only read a few), having political views that are not the same as yours is something that should be valued not admonished. Time and place though is everything. Discussions about slaves and materials

There comes a point where a line has to be drawn. Otherwise you get stuck in a fruitless discussion that detracts from everything else. If you've ever had a discussion with someone who believes the Jews faked the Holocaust or that Cheney orchestrated 9/11 you should know what I'm talking about. It's jut pointless because someone with that extreme point of view has already ignored mountains of information and common sense to get to that point. A couple of posts on a Forum aren't going to make a difference.

2. Command Delays

You had mentioned that there might be a possibility of adding this as an option in its old form (or something akin to it). Is this still a possibility?

No. The old system would require quite a lot of time and adjustment to get working in the CMx2 environment. Because we have no faith in it we don't see it as a good use of our time. We would much rather come up with something else.

I had an idea but am sure that it will be shot down as gamey. Each side has so many command points (based upon HQ experience, scenario design, # of HQs) and then you spend these (each turn in WEGO or have them slowly regenerate in RT). commanding a Veteran unit takes a small amount of points with adjustable waypoints and a conscript unit takes a larger amount and with non-adjustable waypoints. Again, it is gamey but...

We considered such a feature back when we were making CMBO. It's similar to what other games have done and we don't think it's viable because, again, it doesn't address the primary issue which is there is no way to differentiate from legitimate low level actions from things which require thought and/or communications.

You always mention and I agree that national characteristics should not be hardcoded, but without another attribute (call it flexibility or initiative) to reflect differences in national training over the coarse of the war, and reflecting this in command delays, it gives an unfair advantage to less well trained armies.

Not as much as one would think. The tactical and operational effectiveness of any force is a sum of its parts. If your forces are poorly trained and motivated, you're not going to have the same success with complex and risky moves as someone with a very well trained and motivated set of units. Similarly, a force with excellent equipment in the right conditions is going to have an inherent historical advantage over a side that has poorer equipment in less ideal conditions. This is the old thing about a King Tiger in the woods being worth practically nothing, but on an open field it rules like a...er... king

Therefore, the most important thing for the game to have is the "soft factors" like Experience, Morale, Condition, etc. and for those effects to be blended into a realistic natural setting with accurately detailed equipment. As long as bias is kept out of this then realistic effects should be the result even without a system to handle command issues.

That being said, a command interference system enhances all of these other things, therefore it's not completely redundant.

3. A Poll...This is just an example as I have no idea of what your wishlist is composed of. It also might stop this incessant talk as it does not seem to be getting us anywhere.

We don't like polls because they tend to ask the wrong questions.

A GREEN (or stupid) unit would NOT know how to do all this as well or as quickly as an elite unit. That's what makes a unit elite, they know what to do and have a faster decision loop than a lesser trained/experienced troop.

Ah, but this gets into a different issue. And that is a unit should not being able to perform functions PERIOD. Either because it doesn't know how to do it or because it's too scared to try it. Command Delays do absolutely nothing in this regard. All they do is make it take a few seconds longer to get it started, but it does nothing to affect the overall outcome. In theory, at least.

In reality things (thankfully) don't work that way in the game. If you take a crappy unit and try to do something bold with it, usually something goes wrong. Frequently horribly wrong. Conscripts don't move quietly, they freak out easily when under fire, they may not have the physical stamina to do what you ask of it, etc.

After having this bite you in the butt a few times you NATURALLY adjust your tactics to better fit reality. Anybody who has played CM:SF on the Red side knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about. No Command Delays involved, but there's nobody here who can say that they play Red exactly as they do Blue. And if they do, ask them how well it works for them playing Red

That is what made the delay feature so brilliant in CMx1. It accentuated the difference in troop quality far better than them simply not being to aim as well or whatever the other differences are. It's what made CMx1 unique in wargames at the time, and one reason why many are still passionate about it, and it's still around even without support.

It is one reason, true. But there are a hundred other reasons in there as well. So we can't attach too much importance to any one feature because it's the sum of the parts that make the whole such a good game. And CMx2 has far more parts with far more detail than CMx1, so we're quite satisfied that no-Command Delays isn't a problem we need to be overly concerned about.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... BlackMoria and I posted the same thing at the same time

Steve

[Sequoia]

I think this is a good time to repost this article from another thread:

The Green Soldier During the first time in battle for soldiers, their combat performance is usually lower than it was in precombat training. The novice soldiers are also at relatively high risk of being killed or wounded. This is partly because they have not yet learned to identify and respond automatically to the true dangers (such as the specific sounds of incoming artillery or mortar rounds). Under extreme stress, they may experience difficulty with focusing their attention and remembering what they were taught in training. Their ineffectiveness may also be caused by fear induced fatigue. First-battle soldiers are at high risk of becoming battle fatigue casualties. Soldiers in their first time under fire are likely to experience high anxiety (the stages of alarm). Poor showing on first exposure to real battle can be reduced by providing tough, realistic training (especially battle drills under high stress), but it cannot be totally prevented.

The Experienced Veteran. If the soldier does not become a casualty in the first battle, his combat skills will improve quickly over the next few days. His skills continue to improve gradually over the next weeks until he is as good as he can get. An experienced soldier gains confidence in his skill, comrades, and leaders. For him, the stage of alarm is mostly in anticipation. He responds selectively and automatically to the truly dangerous sounds and cues of the battlefield. When the action starts, he immediately achieves the stage of resistance and is remarkably calm as he focuses on his job. However, the veteran is likely to have a considerable rebound of arousal and anxiety when the fight is over. Not all veteran soldiers ever achieve the state of really low fear in action. Some drop to mid levels, yet still perform their duties effectively.

The Overstressed Veteran. If the unit suffers many casualties, however, and the chance of surviving a long war seems poor, the experienced soldier's combat performance begins to decline. It can occur after 14 to 21 days of cumulative combat or even after only a few days of extremely heavy losses. The overstressed veteran becomes more careful, loses initiative, and may be indecisive when he needs to act quickly. The anxiety pattern of an overstressed soldier is doubting his chances of survival -- there were too many close calls in the last battle; too many of his friends were killed (slowly over time or quickly). Under such stress, he feels his own skills are slipping, and it is just a matter of time before he, too, will surely be killed or maimed. Unless he is given the opportunity and help to reduce arousal level and regain some hope, he will soon fail.

No source unfortunately. I just pulled it off the internet in a hurry a few years ago. If anyone wants the full document PM me

[Battlefront.com]

Good point. I forgot to mention that assumptions that better units universally perform better is false. There's actually a study in the US Army, recently, which showed that highly cohesive units were sometimes the ones most likely to under perform. It's what happens when the bond between the soldiers of a small unit becomes stronger than the bonds to the greater force or even nation.

Cohesion Study

Here is an abstract (one line emphasized by me):

Janis (1983) argued that under some conditions, high social cohesion actually undermines the effectiveness of group decision-making processes, promoting a state of ‘groupthink’. According to Janis, the probability of groupthink is stronger “when high cohesiveness is based primarily on the rewards of being in a pleasant ‘clubby’ atmosphere or of gaining prestige from being a member of an elite group than when it is based primarily on the opportunity to function competently on work tasks with effective co-workers” (p. 247). A recent meta-analysis of nine studies of groupthink (Mullen et al., in press) supported the prediction that social cohesion promotes groupthink; interestingly, task cohesion appeared to prevent it from occurring.

High social cohesion can also result in excessive socializing that interferes with task performance (see review by Lott and Lott, 1965; Zaccaro and Lowe, 1988). Davis (1969, p. 79) noted that the “pleasure from interaction itself, in cohesive groups, sometimes exceeds the task- specific motivation, and greater energy is devoted to interpersonal relations than to overcoming the task obstacles. Hence performance suffers.” According to Steiner (1972, p. 126), “people who flock together because they find one another attractive may or may not be inclined to work hard on a joint task. Perhaps they will be content merely to savor the joys of intimate companionship, or be reluctant to mix business with pleasure. Sociability does not necessarily breed productivity.”

To argue that high social cohesion sometimes undermines performance should not be taken to imply that low social cohesion is actually desirable; it isn’t. Janis (1983, p. 248) proposes that “for most groups, optimal functioning in decision-making tasks may prove to be at a moderate level of cohesiveness” [emphasis added]. The same principle seems likely to be true for other types of tasks.

Several authors have argued that the relationship between cohesion and productivity is moderated by the goal adopted by the group (Bass, 1981; Berkowitz, 1954; Davis, 1969; Greene, 1989; Mudrack, 1989b; Schachter et al., 1951; Shaw, 1976; Stogdill, 1972). According to Shaw (1976, p. 205), “the problem often is that groups do not set the same goals for themselves that outside agencies...set for them. Hence a cohesive group may achieve its own goals, but be relatively unproductive with regard to the goals of the researcher.” Describing one such example, Shaw (1976) noted that “the more cohesive groups set social activity as their goal, and they apparently achieved this goal!” Davis (1969, p. 79) argued that “... [an] increase in cohesiveness results in an increase in pressures to uniformity. If uniformity of response can be achieved more easily on a wrong or low-quality response, overall performance will decline while satisfactory interpersonal relations may be preserved.” According to Bion (quoted in Beeber and Schmitt, 1986), “a highly cohesive group will successfully complete whatever goals are inherent to its culture without regard for the desirability of the goals to the superstructure surrounding the group.” Two early cohesion experiments (Berkowitz, 1954; Schachter et al., 1951) demonstrated this process by experimentally varying groups’ cohesion levels and performance standards; they found a positive cohesion-performance effect when groups operated under high performance standards, but a negative effect when groups operated under low performance standards.

In the field of organizational behavior, a common example of this phenomenon is rate-busting--an agreement among workers, either tacitly or explicitly, to maintain low levels of performance (see Bass, 1981; Janis, 1983; Seashore, 1954; Stogdill, 1972). In the military context, there are many more serious examples involving drug use, insubordination, or mutiny (Ingraham, 1984; Marlowe, personal communication, April 6, 1993; Savage and Gabriel, 1976; Wesbrook, 1980). Ingraham (1984) describes the “anti-Army norm” that was prevalent in barracks life during his research in the 1970s. He suggests that a shared disdain for the organization might have actually bound units together socially. High cohesion can even create some problems in elite, high-performance units. Manning (1985, p. 15) notes that among the “minuses of unit cohesion” in the U.S. Army’s Special Forces “A- team” is the fact that “the ability of the teams to operate as independent units leads to strong resentment of attempts at control by higher headquarters as well as other failures to recognize them as special.”

Yet another example of why making assumptions about force capabilities runs into trouble with reality.

In CMx2 you can simulate these sorts of cohesion problems by decreasing the Leadership Bonus, reducing Morale, and/or lowering Physical Condition.

Steve

[Erwin]

Sounds like Janis is talking about us lot lol.

"social cohesion can also result in excessive socializing that interferes with task performance"

Like excessive posting about the game stopping me from playing the dam game.

Heh.

[vincere]

Good point. I forgot to mention that assumptions that better units universally perform better is false. There's actually a study in the US Army, recently, which showed that highly cohesive units were sometimes the ones most likely to under perform. It's what happens when the bond between the soldiers of a small unit becomes stronger than the bonds to the greater force or even nation.

Cohesion Study

Here is an abstract (one line emphasized by me):

Yet another example of why making assumptions about force capabilities runs into trouble with reality.

In CMx2 you can simulate these sorts of cohesion problems by decreasing the Leadership Bonus, reducing Morale, and/or lowering Physical Condition.

Steve

There are risks with this type of research. Can some of these be exceptions that prove a rule. Also value of high cohesion < when their task doesnt match the higher organisation- bringing them together is good leadership.

The tasks and conditions in theatres are so diverse that some of it sounds like a generalisation from the particular (which is bad logic. Meta study of 9 is not large).

My bias- a history of coming across some poo sociology and psycholgy research

Not that I think the above is poo. Have come across it before and it has value. Just, for me, I wouldn't generalise this to all or most high cohesive units. That said, it's been some years since I looked at this in depth.

[MeatEtr]

Re MeatEtr's points:

Well, one would give it a HIDE order with appropriate covered arc so it popped up and shot when the AI felt appropriate during that minute.

Depends on what level you like to play. I see myself more as the company or Battalion CO and I try to issue orders that will be "appropriate" throughout the minute while I am busy doing something else, writing reports, yelling at my Exec, whatever... This is simply a personal matter of taste and this is where we probably have to agree to disagree.

Yes, but I would NEVER make such a stupid order of course re my points above. I have to issue commands that are "safe' for one minute.

I understand your point. But, I would have anticipated that outcome and would have already placed a waypoint prior to the building where the unit hit the dirt and piled on TARGET fire (I think they throw grenades) for x seconds PRIOR to entering the building. (Actually, because I am such a brilliant CO I would also have had other supporting units pile on fire prior to any unit being ordered into the building.)

So, from my perspective you are clearly playing at a naive and superficial game level. (That's a dry English-type joke btw before you fire off something at me.)

The point is that the CM enthusiast community likes to play in different ways. And so long as we're all having fun it doesn't matter. Not having delays makes it just a little less fun (for me), but it's not a deal killer. It's just different strokes etc...

Erwin, the point of my simplistic examples was not to challenge your tactical skills. But to show you the unrealistic results from the restrictions of playing in WEGO. Sure a clever and tactically smart WEGOer can get around it, sometimes. But even the most well thought out plan in WEGO can go to hell in a hand basket real quick. Then your at the mercy of the TacAI for the rest of the turn. Which certainly can result in very unrealistic results.

Bottom line, there is no right or wrong way to play CMx2, it's personal taste. But I see more WEGOers beating the drum that it's more realistic or historical(which you appeared to be doing). Which is just not the case.

However, it is more difficult and less forgiving on the player, no debating that. You can certainly wear that badge of honor. But also playing largish battles in RT is very tough, so we got that badge to wear too.

P.S. I'm a bit of both RTer and WEGOer as I still play CMBB PBEM and CMSF PBEM. But for AI battles in CMSF, I'm almost always RT.

[Sloth]

Not as much as one would think. The tactical and operational effectiveness of any force is a sum of its parts. If your forces are poorly trained and motivated, you're not going to have the same success with complex and risky moves as someone with a very well trained and motivated set of units. Similarly, a force with excellent equipment in the right conditions is going to have an inherent historical advantage over a side that has poorer equipment in less ideal conditions. This is the old thing about a King Tiger in the woods being worth practically nothing, but on an open field it rules like a...er... king

Therefore, the most important thing for the game to have is the "soft factors" like Experience, Morale, Condition, etc. and for those effects to be blended into a realistic natural setting with accurately detailed equipment. As long as bias is kept out of this then realistic effects should be the result even without a system to handle command issues.

That being said, a command interference system enhances all of these other things, therefore it's not completely redundant.

Steve

This seems to be the nub of the discussion. Better trained & experienced troops operate better on the battlefield & troop quality is vitally important. The game already simulates this to some extent with less experienced troops less likely to fire and more likely to rout. However less well trained troops DO take longer to assess what's happening and react. A better trained group WILL be better at seizing fleeting opportunities and moving quickly, not because they are faster runners etc. but simply because they are better at understanding what's going on around them and operating appropriately as a team.

I do struggle to understand those folks who argue that this isn't a factor in battle but can absolutely see that the time/effort required to implement a system could be too great. Having something along the lines of having no delay on orders for the highest quality troops and a small amount (say 8 secs) for the worst quality, would be a significant gain - especially for real time gaming where delays of this length could have a significant impact. This might not be historically accurate but would be more accurate in modelling the impact of troop quality than not having something like this. (note I am talking about small unit quality not higher HQ command delay here).

Given this discussion is really about game improvement tradeoffs, I suspect it would help if, in the fullness of time, Steve could give some advice around the tradeoffs (i.e. "guys, you can have a command/experience delay system, or you can have A,B & C - which do you think is more important?").

Having now stated something that has probably been covered in many other threads, I'll shut up.