Order delays - I just realized this!

[MarkShot]

I recently posted a discussion on the www.wargamer.com.

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/tm.asp?m=170963

While writing that post and comparing continuous time and WEGO engine types, I realized the stroke of genious that PG achieved by including order delays in the AA engine. (Originally, introduced in RDOA after the release via a patch.)

I feel WEGO does a very good job of capturing the real world sense (like in Birth of America) of the hands off detachment a commander/manager has when decisions have been made and now things must be left to proceed forward on their own.

Without the inclusion of a serious and comprehensive implementation of order delays in the AA engine, I think the series would have suffered from one of the major short comings of the continuous time model --- too much hands on control in the actions of subordinate forces which are really quite removed due to time, space, communications technology, and layers of command.

The inclusion of order delays along with ability to pause and issue orders has provided the AA engine with the best game play features of both basic engine models. Until now, I only saw order delays simply as an attempt to better model real world behavior. However, I now realize that it was also a stroke of genious in terms of resolving what might have been a major game play shortcoming. Okay, so it only took me five years to figure this out! I am not the fastest kid on the block.

* Disclosure statement: I am also a beta tester for AGEOD; Birth of America and beyond.

[Banquet]

It's a good point you raise. Knowing that events are out of your hands beyond a certain level make a wargame that much more exciting - and realistic.

Make all the ingenious plans and then watch, helpless, as they fall apart (only speaking from personal experience here!) With the PG system it's so easy to fall prey to just reacting to the enemy and lose the initiative.

I'm gonna start doing the lottery just so if I win I can give it all to Dave so he can hire a hundred programmers and make dozens of wargames, from squad to division level, all on this system.

[jungelsj_slith]

You've definately covered the more positive points of the orders delay system and I definately agree that it represents the reality of what commanders had to face better than any other wargame that I've played.

I think it's important to note that order delays also put a tremendous burden on the game in terms of AI. Order delays in effect remove the player's ability to correct silly AI mistakes, and it can be quite infuriating to see an obvious mistake but have no real ability to correct it. In certain cases, the player can lose important battles without ever having done anything 'wrong' in terms of gameplay decisions. This is one of the primary reasons why I can only stomach so much of a game like "combat mission" (which removes my ability to correct AI mistakes for a full minute) whereas I played a game like "close combat" (which never removes my ability to correct mistakes) to death. Players want to be in control of what's going on.

So I think it's important to weigh these things, and one can start to understand why "simpler" wargames may be just as enjoyable as a simulation. I'm glad that this series of games is experimenting with this type of stuff, and I hope that order delays continue to be used, but by no means do I consider order delays to be some sort of magic feature that should be included with every future wargame.

[Agema]

I think one of the good things about Combat Mission and Panther Games is that the AI is sufficiently capable that they never do anything with your troops that is ludicrously stupid; I've lost battles in either by 'unlucky' events such as my tanks missing when the opponents have not. What glitches there may be are in their own way 'realistic': misunderstood orders, misjudgement of the officer, and so on.

I think a lot of strategy gamers want to be more God than commanding officer: an expectation that troops do exactly what they order them to do. It's a different style more than anything, and there's plenty of room for both to exist.

[ravinhood]

I tend to agree with the statement "Players want to be in control of what is going on". I'm an old timer wargamer though and turn based is the way I was brought up playing wargames and that's the way I like them best still. It's the difference in me buying a game retail or waiting (besides the price like WITP) for the bargain bin as well. Like AGW I bought as soon as it was released (great game btw). HTTR I bought for $17.99 not too long ago and now just noticed it's down to $9.99 (dammit) lol I bought "Tin Soldiers Caesar" retail, but, got EYSA for .99 cents. I bought every Close Combat game for $4.99 or less, played a couple of times and it's just not my style of play.

It just mostly boils down to preference and the size base of the wargaming population that buys your games (developers). If you are making money there's no need to change because well when you change the way a game engine has been working and selling well for another approach while it might sell more copies it makes you look like a $$ grubber and snub your nose at your hardcore base of fans who got you where you are to begin with. Like Creative Assembly did their hardcore base of fans from STW/MTW and made that craptastic RTW for RTS kiddie click fester eye-candy babies who want an easy game with pitiful crappy easy ai and other crappy features that don't even come close to their previous games.

Basically for me as long as designers like Meier, Gary, Joel, Tiller, Dockal, Iain and a couple of others I'm not too worried about not getting a wargame I want to play. 20 years from now there will be people saying the same about Panther game designers and Battlefront designers of the Combat Mission series, perhaps even Creative Assembly if they get back to their roots of making a game before the graphics. Things change and life changes and 20-40 years from now there will be another wargame idea that you that like wego/continous time will scream about is craptastic compared to the way you are "used" to playing.

[MarkShot]

I'll be happy if I am still around in 40 years and able to play computer games. Although I bet I am going to have trouble getting COTA to run on a computer and OS of the year 2050. I had enough trouble getting AOD [DOS, 1994] and SH1 [DOS, 1997] to run on a 2002 PC with Windows XP. Maybe I better save this system I have now and box it up well with a note "Don't reboot until 01/01/50".

[ravinhood]

Not just the OS causes issues with older dos games, but, processor speed as well. Moslo doesn't even put a dent in my system now to be able to play the old dos games that used real time elements while you played like some of the Ultima rpg series games. Turn based once again has no issues with any speed systems. That's another reason to like turn based games over continous/real time games. Wego wouldn't have an effect on older games either I don't believe. I can't play "Starflight or Starflight II" on my system I have now because it uses a real time element clock while you are playing the game. ;( Unless someones got some ideas how to turn the real time clock elements off that I don't know about? )

[jeffthewookiee]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Not just the OS causes issues with older dos games, but, processor speed as well. Moslo doesn't even put a dent in my system now to be able to play the old dos games that used real time elements while you played like some of the Ultima rpg series games. Turn based once again has no issues with any speed systems. That's another reason to like turn based games over continous/real time games. Wego wouldn't have an effect on older games either I don't believe. I can't play "Starflight or Starflight II" on my system I have now because it uses a real time element clock while you are playing the game. ;( Unless someones got some ideas how to turn the real time clock elements off that I don't know about? )

Starflight 1 & 2! What wonderful games those were!

I actually had some success getting those to run in DosBox at the appropriate speed. Although, I think part of what made it work was that I ran DosBox on a Mac, which is naturally a lot slower than the X86 version anyways.

However, I did notice in DosBox that there's a setting you can put into a dosbox config file that will tell it not to run x86 code natively. Since x86 code will run faster natively than as an emulation, that could be part of why it's so hard to slow down games. I'll look up the setting for you, if you'd like.

[MarkShot]

What version of Mo'Slo are you using?

I have been using Mo'Slo 4Biz 3.3. I used it to fix scrolling speeds with the CC series and SMG/SMA/WNLB/ANGV.

I am using DosBox 0.63 with Aces of the Deep.

[James Sterrett]

Orders delays also force you to conduct real planning: visualize, describe, direct.

Because your forces won't turn on a dime, effective real-world and HTTR commanders must visualize the future state of the battlefield - where forces will be hours or days in the future and what they'll be doing.

Then you must translate that into missions for your subordinates: Unit A goes Here to do This while unit B goes There to do That because it prepares the ground for unit C to accomplish The Other Task, and so on. You describe your intended future outcome to the subordinates in terms of missions, tasks, and intents.

Then you must direct proceedings: maintaining awareness of the situation, and constantly asking three questions:

1) Is the plan still valid [is my intended method for defeating the enemy still workable?]

2) Are my units doing what the plan expects?

3) Is the enemy doing what I expected?

When the answer to any of these is "no", you may have a problem you need to solve. A friendly force may need reinforcement or more artillery support. You may need to commit a reserve to deal with an unexpected enemy action. You may need to re-evaluate the entire concept of operations if things go too far out of joint.

Moreover, you need to be thinking about the future state of whatever the enemy and your own forces are doing, in regard to those three questions. If you have a reserve waiting to counterattack, but it will take 2 hours to move out, you want to figure out that the line will break 2 or more hours before the enemy arrives in any chosen engagement area for your counterattack.

Banquet comments that in HTTR, one side or the other soon becomes reactive. That side has lost the battle, and only enemy stupidity is going to let them win. That said, maintaining the presence of mind to stay in a proactive stance, even as things go sour around you; and mre so, regaining a proactive stance after losing it, is a very real real-world challenge.


So you might say I'm a bit of a fan of the orders delay. [:)]


That said, in the real world, *some* of the planning/orders delay can be shaved off by preparing courses of action and contingency planning -- but not all of it. Just because the staff knows which order to issue doesn't mean Pvt Snuffy and Lt Trouble are ready to execute it instantly. [:)]

[Banquet]

Well said James..

That's why I find HttR so challenging. Sure, it can be annoying to not be able to immediately step in and change something - but the delay is enjoyable to me, because I know it's realistic and it feels right.

You have to really concentrate to not lose the initiative. You have to try and read not just what the enemy are doing now - but what are they going to be doing in the next few hours/days.. what are they planning? You have to do this in any good wargame but the orders delay really focuses the mind.

[JeF]

ORIGINAL: Banquet
That's why I find HttR so challenging. Sure, it can be annoying to not be able to immediately step in and change something - but the delay is enjoyable to me, because I know it's realistic and it feels right.

If it annoys you, there is always the possibility to turn off order delays. Now I always play with order delays (most of the time set to "realistic") because, as you said, it feels just right. For me at least.

JeF.

[MarkShot]

What makes it feel so realistic management-wise is the severe penalty it imposes on constantly messing with the plan - you have to make a plan, commit to it, and then let it run its course.

This is how the real world is. I have run lots of software development projects, I cannot begin to imagine the disruption I would have caused if every time someone reported a result to me I said, "That's it! I am changing the design again". Try that with COTA on max order delays and there will be a trail of bodies leading right to the door of your CP.

JeF, now that you are part of the inner circle don't you think you should start playing with Order Delays = Painfully Realistic? When it comes to the DDT/Beta Team ... !Sommos muy macho!

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot
JeF, now that you are part of the inner circle don't you think you should start playing with Order Delays = Painfully Realistic? When it comes to the DDT/Beta Team ... !Sommos muy macho!

@MarkShot : shame on you for trying to lure another poor innocent, unsuspecting soul into your "painfully realistic" web - it took me months to free myself from that mental slavery.

@JeF : this is the first stage of an elaborate hoax, next he'll tell you we play it with one hand tied to our backs, then he'll say we play it blindfolded, on multiple machines concurrently, while composing Haiku poetry. It's all total nonsense, meant to rattle your chain a bit - all of us beta bunnies play it with the Double-Super-Secret setting of "Very easy" reachable through the Alt-F4 key in the beta version. [:D]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[JeF]

[:D]

Thanks for the advice Eddy.
BTW, Alt-F4 makes the game CTD on my system. Dave, please fix or do something.
[:)]

JeF.

[RayWolfe]

JeF, I test on "Realistic" as well. Painful only appeals to a certain masochistic breed of Americans. Europeans don't have to prove anything ... [;)]
Eddy, this is the public forum ... your agreement says you will have to give up one of the dogs for revealing the secret of Alt-F4
Ray

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

JeF, now that you are part of the inner circle don't you think you should start playing with Order Delays = Painfully Realistic? When it comes to the DDT/Beta Team ... !Sommos muy macho!

 
But Mark, haven't we suffered enough pain already? [:D]
 
I flip flop between them, some days when you get home from work you just want to play and orders delay = none is just the ticket for "I'm too tired to think that much".
 
Ray

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I flip flop between them, some days when you get home from work you just want to play and orders delay = none is just the ticket for "I'm too tired to think that much".

 
I would post a "me too" reply if I wasn't so tired of working today [:D]
 
Greetz,
 
Eddy Sterckx
 

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
JeF, I test on "Realistic" as well. Painful only appeals to a certain masochistic breed of Americans. Europeans don't have to prove anything ... [;)]

 
Exactly [;)]
 

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
Eddy, this is the public forum ... your agreement says you will have to give up one of the dogs for revealing the secret of Alt-F4

 
Belgium doesn't have an extradition treaty with Oz so they're safe.
Also, Arjuna just changed the documentation : he now lists the Alt-F4 key as the "special, with great difficulty programmed quick exit key" [;)]
 
Greetz,
 
Eddy Sterckx
 

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: sterckxe
Belgium doesn't have an extradition treaty with Oz so they're safe.

Just checked. Oh yes they do.
 
http://beta.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1986/24.html