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

[Vark]

The article from hcrof comes fron FM 22-51 chapter 2 and is itself a brief summary from a larger work about combat stress (cannot remember the books title sorry). If any posters know of it I'd like the full title, so I could get it and put it next to next to Ben Shephard's "War of Nerves".

The problem, I think, about command delays/friction simulations, in a small tactical environment, is the vast number of factors that influence the brain when making decisions. Adding to training, doctrine, battlefield conditions etc are less obvious ones which impact on the decision cycle, namely nutrition, climate, childhood experiences, sexuality, psychological make up etc etc. These factors often influenced individual soldiers to perform actions, that in a typical CM game would be a game changer, ever seen an individual soldier charging a string of HMG's taking out the positions one by one and then beating of a counter attack? It reminds me of the wargames rules that tried to simulate combat, the ones that failed were the ones that tried to anticipate numerous situations since they could never cover all eventualities, conversely, the ones who succeeded, simulated those factors but quite abstractly. Reading the DAR they seem to have pushed the envelope forward once again, both players are struggling and both are moving with caution, in essence imposing their own, far more realistic, command delays.

Lets just get playing the game and thinking where we were 5 years ago, I remember buying the CM trio and loading it up. The first game was a revelation, as a SP nut I found the 3D environment, intimidating and genuinely had sweaty palms playing the training scenario. I'd sit and stare at the screen after giving my commands, not daring to hit the play button! Then, when I'd finally summoned up the courage, I'd watch all my squads like a mother hen, wincing when they were hit and praying they would make it to cover before being spotted. When I saw the image of the dead US soldiers, in the recent CM2 DAR, sprawled in the forest, I got the same sense of anticipation and unease as I had playing the original CM game. I shied of CM SF (not my scene) but am buying a spanking new computer, for the house..ahem!

[moneymaxx]

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.

+1

And in addition to that there is a game related issue as well. Since when the player gives an order to a inexperienced unit he effectively replaces the commander of that unit by a veteran/elite commander (the player). The player prevents them form making mistakes, he tells the bazooka man to wait for a flank shot, he looks for a covered way to get from A to B, orders them to not fire too soon... The player elevates their performance to a point that's far better than one could expect from that unit in RL and in some way or another should be punished for that.

[Battlefront.com]

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.

Oh, absolutely. And I think the report is pretty clear on that. The point, however, is to not assume that cohesion is a universally good thing. Sometimes it isn't. Just like the previous graphic which shows combat effectiveness of hardened veterans eventually start to look more like Green units.

Which means, any system which allows for only one pre-conceived reality is by definition eliminating realistic variances. The systems we put in place are purposefully designed to avoid these sorts of problems. And the Command Delay system we had in CMx1 was too blunt in that regard, but it wasn't that much blunter than the rest of the system. In CMx2, however, it would simply be too out of place "as is".

And in addition to that there is a game related issue as well. Since when the player gives an order to a inexperienced unit he effectively replaces the commander of that unit by a veteran/elite commander (the player). The player prevents them form making mistakes, he tells the bazooka man to wait for a flank shot, he looks for a covered way to get from A to B, orders them to not fire too soon... The player elevates their performance to a point that's far better than one could expect from that unit in RL and in some way or another should be punished for that.

Yes, that is the inherent problem with the player being able to play instead of just sitting back and watching the AI do everything. It's a trade off we're all prepared to accept, even if we don't know we are

Over and over and over again I come back to the primary problem which appears to have no solution. And that is one must differentiate between what a tactical unit should be able to do on its own from what it could only do with proper direction from above. Any system that can not effectively deal with this inherent decision making split is guaranteed to have serious realism problems.

As someone else said, where do we draw the line anyway? Not allowing a Green Bazooka team to target a weak point on a PzIV because he's Green? Why allow a Veteran FO to call down an artillery strike that is too close to his own men? Shouldn't we prevent a Crack tank crew from advancing along the crest of a hill?

The answers are obviously not. Which means we are all willing to accept a certain amount of abstraction and lack of realism. The trick is to find which compromises people are willing to accept, and which they aren't. We don't feel that the CMx1 style Command Delays system has enough support to put it in "as is" since even its supporters IMMEDIATELY grouse about its shortcomings. So we're putting this aside for now and coming back to it later when we have had a chance to figure out a better system which leverages CMx2's new features instead of tries to mimic CMx1's old limitations.

Steve

[dan/california]

Its called co-play.

[stoex]

moneymaxx,

looking at your statement it actually gives me a different perspective:

Since when the player gives an order to a inexperienced unit he effectively replaces the commander of that unit by a veteran/elite commander (the player). The player prevents them form making mistakes, he tells the bazooka man to wait for a flank shot, he looks for a covered way to get from A to B, orders them to not fire too soon... The player elevates their performance to a point that's far better than one could expect from that unit in RL and in some way or another should be punished for that.

Aside from the fact that being each and every officer on the battlefield at once is inherent to the entire game, with all the pros and cons that entails, how about this: Isn't elevating your troops' performance to a point that's better than what could be expected from them exactly what commanders receive medals for? Don't we all want to receive that medal when playing CM? You don't expect the CM engine to prevent players from sacrificing crack or elite units by doing something stupid with them, like running them through an open field in front of a company of tanks - so why do you expect it to prevent them from doing something ingenious that will turn the battle in their favor?

When a player gives an order to any unit he effectively replaces the commander of that unit by a commander of his (the player's) own quality. Of course he does (except for the morale and other modifiers of the respective CO unit). If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be better and worse players. Everyone would play the game equally well, and we might as well take the players out of the equation entirely and have the AI fight out the battles all alone.

Thanks to the engine the way it stands, your green soldiers perform far worse in any given situation than they would if they were elite anyway (i.e. that green Schreck will likely miss the flank shot you set him up for, more likely than a more experienced soldier at least - or be spotted before he got into position)...at least let the player be a smart commander!

The way things stand it will still be the opponent beating you, or being beaten by you (whether he is a player or a scenario designer), rather than real or perceived limitations of the game itself. And it will still be harder for you to perform exceptionally when using low-experience troops than when using high-experience troops. Seems like everything is as it should be to me, but I am maybe extrapolating something from your post that I shouldn't. Dunno, seems right to me.

[Cid250]

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

Michael

I agree.

Command delay is a must for a good WWII era simulation.

[Sloth]

Pardon my ignorance, but do higher quality units do a better job of accurately spotting enemy? If so then some of this other stuff doesn't matter so much.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, spotting is partly a function of Experience. It is also partly a function of opportunity. Soldiers in different positions have different chances of spotting and being spotted, for example. A soldier who is pinned or panicking doesn't spot too well. A unit that is cut off from C2 doesn't report anything to anybody, so a unit that is poorer in equipment is poorer at helping other units. A unit which is improperly kept apart from supporting units is, therefore, less effective at providing information.

Etc.

Steve

[Erwin]

Reading the above discussions, I realized something.

When I step in to issue orders to my CM guys, I don't think that I am roleplaying that NCO. I see myself as getting on the radio, or seeing that NCO about to do a boo boo with his team or squad or vehicle and telling him what I would rather he did to stay alive/accomplish the mission.

To me that is what the time delay is for. The elite well-trained trooper comprehends my instructions immediately and gets going. The Green guys need more hand-holding and advice.

So, what we are discussing is the "style of play" "level of immersion" and "quality of verisimilitude" that each of us enjoy when playing a game.

You all know where I stand on time delays. I think it increases verisimilitude regardless of whether it is realistic or not realistic. In game terms all that matters is verisimilitude.

I thought delays worked well in CM1, it contributed to the phenomenal success of CM1. Yes, it required some tweaking to allow vehicles to move down complex roads without a 90 sec delay... Not because in RL it would take less than 90 secs - it would probably take a lot longer to get a convoy moving - but because delays much over 30-40 secs degraded the FUN.

Whether or not delays are "realistic" probably should never have become the issue. CM1 delays simply worked well to make the game innovative and interesting and it was a brilliant method of showing the differences between high and low quality troops.

As a govt Prime I played many games that were realistic but they were all horrible to play. For a trainer that's to be expected.

For an entertainment product (and whether CMSF is designed as such is another discussion I suppose) if there is a choice between "realistic" and making something "feel" right and give pleasure to the customer, the latter should always win. Or, the BFC market will be stuck with our tiny niche market of grognards, and that is not economically viable. (For reasons we can discuss elsewhere the chances of getting govt contracts has greatly diminished over the last few years and winning the lottery is not a realistic business plan.)

Oh and btw: I know of many instances where developers in the US were seductively approached by the Australian govt to develop product for them. I know of no one in the US who ever got a penny out of the Australians. I hear that Aussie-based Panther Games recently won a contract to do some sort of "study" I think. But, they've been at it for decades. If they don't have money in hand don't waste your time.

[Sloth]

Great post Erwin, especially the bit about verisimilitude, which supports my own prejudices

I spent about a decade in the Australian Army including some time in Army Office, so your comments about procurement ring true. If approached by them its absolutely worth confirming that the person calling is from an area that has a clear mandate to do this work, as well as the budget. On the plus side the Aussie dollar is strong against the greenback right now, so their capacity to spend will be up a bit.

[Battlefront.com]

Erwin,

For an entertainment product (and whether CMSF is designed as such is another discussion I suppose) if there is a choice between "realistic" and making something "feel" right and give pleasure to the customer, the latter should always win. Or, the BFC market will be stuck with our tiny niche market of grognards, and that is not economically viable.

Well, we're stuck in this niche unless we start putting in power ups, dramatically reduce the variety of units, and basically gut the game mechanics. We have no illusions of appealing to the wider market out there as this is an even bigger pipe dream than landing a government contract. Wargame companies have tried this for 40 years and I can count exactly zero serious wargames that went mainstream. The closest ones out there would be Axis and Allies (board game version) and Panzer General. Both of these are not serious wargames by any of our standards, rather they are "Beer & Pretzels" types. And I suppose you can throw Risk into that mix. Games we would consider wargames, even the most successful, appealed to only a tiny fraction of the game market as a whole. I once saw the sales numbers for Steel Panthers vs. Panzer General... boy wasn't that an eye opener

Combat Mission has always, and will always, appeal to serious gamers nearly exclusively. Of which the Grognards are a significant minority.

One of the interesting things is a lot of the objections to the old CMx1 Command Delays came from the non-Grogs. To them the feature was not fun, it was annoyingly restrictive. So I think it's one of those features that maybe isn't as clear cut as it might appear. Hell, if anything I would say it should appeal to Grogs more because it was trying to force people to play historically instead of just playing. Generally speaking, forcing people to play historically appeals to Grogs more than general gamers.

On the scale of things, I don't think Command Delays were very important to CMx1's appeal and/or sales. The game series' success was a sum of the parts, with the 3D immersion being the overwhelming strongest part. Well, for serious minded gamers. The general game audience thought CMBO, and even CMBB, looked like a bad joke gone wrong.

BTW, we got some money from the Aussie Army years ago. We produced a special version of CMAK for historical studies.

Steve

[Erwin]

"Well, we're stuck in this niche unless we start putting in power ups..."

Oh yes... thanks for reminding me, I was going to ask about power ups and spawning next LOL...

Steve, is that how you see me? I feel... hurt... power seeping away from my circuits...

You know what, I do see what you mean and what you are trying to accomplish. And I know how bloody hard it must have been to have gotten this far. And the CM series is the best wargame series ever, so...

(And congrats re the Aussies. You are the only US outfit I know of to have gotten $ out of them. I was thinking of the 3/4 mil min one (I) would need to develop anything back in the day, never mind these days...)

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... what I'm actually saying is you aren't a mass market customer any more than anybody else who is here. None of you are. Sure, we get a minor smattering of them with every major release, but they usually either become serious gamers after or they never play CM ever again. I figure the latter is more likely.

The thing that makes Combat Mission work is the fact that we know what we can be and what we can't be. Our entire reason for creating Battlefront.com, long before pretty much anybody even thought of this, was to make sure that we could make the games we wanted instead of making something watered down enough for the masses to swallow.

Therefore, as long as we're happy with the sales we get from the market we have access to, then all is well. Chasing fantasy audiences, be it the common gamer or the military, is not a good idea. Thankfully, all is well and we're not interested in changing that for the worse

Steve

[Erwin]

"...we know what we can be and what we can't be."

Quite correct and sensible and a major reason you guys have made it while so many others have packed up.

My continued astonishment and admiration that you have the time to personally answer so many of the posts here. Oh wait... maybe it's a post-answering program... that would explain the singlemindedness.

[Battlefront.com]

Could be

The success of Battlefront was that Charles and I already knew what was needed to survive before we started. I had a company long ago that was killed off by the retail monster, then I worked for one of the largest came companies (at the time) in the world. Charles, on the other hand, was living in an isolated environment that had been really good (Avalon Hill), but was falling apart around him because of fighting the wrong battles with the wrong products. While neither of us knew what to expect from going independent, we knew what we should not try to be before we started. That, in turn, indicated what we should be. So far, so good

Steve

[DaveyJJ]

My continued astonishment and admiration that you have the time to personally answer so many of the posts here.

Oh come on. Steve's constant helpfulness, answers, time on the forum, consideration of the smallest details, intelligence etc etc with us plebs ... are the very bloody reason this game has taken so many years to get done.

Stop chatting on the forums and get back to work, Steve!

[Erwin]

Impressed you guys came out of Avalon Hill and other game cos. Good to know.

For some reason the legend is that "One day Steve and Charles got bored playing tiddlywinks/dominos and decided to sit down, learn to program, and design something you wanted to play."

Otherwise , i agree with wot DaveyJJ said...

[Sequoia]

I think Charles did the Air strategy game Over the Reich or do I remember wrong? Too lazy to google.

[sawomi]

It's all here:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1005&Itemid=257

[Battlefront.com]

Impressed you guys came out of Avalon Hill and other game cos. Good to know.

For some reason the legend is that "One day Steve and Charles got bored playing tiddlywinks/dominos and decided to sit down, learn to program, and design something you wanted to play."

Otherwise , i agree with wot DaveyJJ said...

Well, that's pretty much how it went I tried programming, but it wasn't for me. So I hired programmers and stuck to the design and business side of things. I self published until various criminal activities (i.e. retail related standard operating procedures) put me out of business. Charles got lucky and his first game was picked up by Avalon Hill before he found out how horrible publishing was. When Avalon Hill started to fall apart I convinced him to jump ship and NOT go to another publisher. At first he played the field to see what options were out there and found out I wasn't kidding when I told him they were all terrible. IIRC he even flew out to SSI. Remember them? After seeing for himself how selfish and counter productive the publishing world was (I was working in it right before then, so I told him some real fun stories) he agreed with me that the only viable long term chance was to risk going solo on the Internet. Neither of us were very sure it was going to work, we were just sure that it was less likely to fail than going with a publishing partner. Fortunately, it worked out juuuuuust fine.

Steve

[Hukka]

Great story! Now, could we make some pre-orders of the next masterpiece?

[panzermartin]

Great story. Thank God for the internet, BFC would not have existed without it. Its nice to see that in uber capitalist america, there is a small team working in the "anarchist" sharing profit way AND doing well..

[Michael Emrys]

I think Charles did the Air strategy game Over the Reich or do I remember wrong? Too lazy to google.

He did another, modern, one before that. And right afterwards, using basically the same game system as Over the Reich he did Achtung Spitfire!. I'm not entirely sure, but I think Steve was aboard by that time as well and they were already calling themselves Big Time Software.

Michael