How realistic are delays?

[MikeBrough]

How realistic do you feel the delay system is? Is 'painfully realistic' really all that realistic?

I can't issue orders in the way I'd like. Since I can't issue new orders until the first phase is complete, it can take hours for phase 2 to begin.

Until we can issue sequential orders ('first attack here, then hold there until relieved') it feels that having the second tranche of orders take hours is unrealistic. Many commanders on the spot would take the initiative and continue an advance or exploit the situation as they saw it.

I think I read a post somewhere that said that phased orders might be part of the Bulge release. Roll on. Until then, I'm running with No Delay!

[PanzerMax]

No delay would be very unrealistic in any event. What you may gain in terms of being able to phase orders will be more than lost by the fact you can instantly react to surprises. Instant reaction absolutely kills wargames and makes them very unrealistic because warfighting is so information dependent.
 
I tend to believe that the level right below painful is more realistic than painful. It feels like you can begin to have some flow at that level, whereas with painful, it just feels like it takes to long to give basic orders.
 
Part of the problem with the delay in general is ilustrated by the folowing situation I ran into during the tutorial. I was playing as the allies and set my movement point to close to the bridge. I realized this as they approaching but couldn't do anything about it. In reality, I could get on the radio and say STOP. Within 10 minutes, at the most, the whole column could be more or less stopped, especially the armored column. Now there is another element as well in that you as a player likely have better information than a commander in real life would have so that instituting a bit more delay has the effect of simulating the other side of the transaction that is the part of information coming from the field to the commander.

[Arjuna]

I agree that sequential orders would help avoid the occassional doubling up of delays. However, if you order an attack for instance there is only one period of delay imposed at the start for the Move to the FUP, the Reorg at the FUP, the Assault to the objective and then the Final Reorg at the Objective.
 
PanzerMax,
 
Your suggestion to allow the player to stop a force quickly has some merit, but as you say yourself the player does have access to more info than a real commander would. In RL order processing delays were/are even longer than those imposed under the "painfully realistic" setting. However, it's a balancing act. Some people will find the right balance for them plaing on "realistic" delay, others on "painfully realistic" and others again on "none". For me personally I prefer "painfully realistic".

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Your suggestion to allow the player to stop a force quickly has some merit, but as you say yourself the player does have access to more info than a real commander would. In RL order processing delays were/are even longer than those imposed under the "painfully realistic" setting.

Maybe..... but I could imagine something for future sequels:

Something what one could call "mixed order delay":
Let's say the "big plan" is carried out on a Bn or a divisional level. I'm sure that circumstances / encounters on a company level forced Coy commanders to fine-tune their share of the big plan.
Let's assume a division carries out a plan, and, while many things work out as expected, an unexpected enemy threat (a single Coy) appears from the woods on the right flank, threatening the successful progress of that entire right flank.
A good Coy commander would dispatch parts of his company, or even the whole Coy itself to drive off the threat ..... in order to protect the right flank.

That said, a small (or even Zero ?) order delay within a painfully realistic delay environment (on a company level only ! ) would make sense imo, since the game allows for commanding single companies as well.
Coy commanders did have some latitude, back then, and having this rendered in the game would enhance realism, imho. It would be interesting if this type of approach could be examined / discussed.

[Arjuna]

GoodGuy,
 
I agree that it would be nice to facilitate such behaviour - ie the spontaneous commitment of a portion of a force. But care needs to be given to avoid making it too flexible for the all seeing commander. He already has perfect intel of friendly forces. Until we get enough grunt in processing power to manage friendly Fog of War I'd be reluctant to give the player that type of freedom without the orders delay penalty.
 
In part this type of behaviour could be addressed if we allowed the player the option to allow subordinates to initiate attacks. At the moment this is deliberately denied, mainly because we found a long time ago when testing with this option enabled that the AI would often hijack the plan by initiating attacks when it really wasn't apporpriate or by siphoning off enough of the overall force as to cripple it from achieving its main objective. The AI has come a long way since then and it may be time to revisit this option.
 
Another option I have looked at but not yet implemented is to reduce the orders delay for the commitment of a designated reserve group. This would require every plan to consider the need for and to allocate forces to a reserve group within the overall force. The this could be committed either by the AI or the player with signficantly less orders delay. For Moves we could automatically assume that any formation subGroup other than the advance guard could be considered a reserve for this purpose. For other task types we would need to create a special reserveGroup. It needs more thought but what do you think of the concept.

[MikeBrough]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

In part this type of behaviour could be addressed if we allowed the player the option to allow subordinates to initiate attacks. At the moment this is deliberately denied, mainly because we found a long time ago when testing with this option enabled that the AI would often hijack the plan by initiating attacks when it really wasn't apporpriate or by siphoning off enough of the overall force as to cripple it from achieving its main objective.

And what's unrealistic about that? I'd assume that the relevant sub-commander's Aggression and Judgement ratings could be used to determine how likely he is to 'stray from the path'.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

For Moves we could automatically assume that any formation subGroup other than the advance guard could be considered a reserve for this purpose. For other task types we would need to create a special reserveGroup.

It needs more thought but what do you think of the concept.

Excellent posting. I appreciate the feedback.

Thing is, the order delay (painfully realistic) setting is pretty realistic I'd say, but it also causes "misbehaviours" on the player's AI side.
I will explain only some of them below, since adding all of them here would just distract from what we're discussing now.

ReserveGroups would be a brilliant addition (!!!), as the Germans (i don't know much about the respective Allied doctrine back then) were pretty hot for holding reserve groups. It was a vital part of the German doctrine in WW2, and most if not all "traditional" Wehrmacht generals and officers tried to stick to it where possible - 'til 1943/44, in the planning phases at least.
The SS might have had a somewhat different approach there in many operations, but several SS Panzer divisions had to serve in a firefighter role, especially in Russia, and several regular Wehrmacht Hvy Panzer and armoured units (Abteilungen / Divisions) had a similar role.
All these units could be seen as (very) mobile reserves, in addition to the regular Inf Schützen/VG reserves which you might have had in mind.

The ReserveGroups could be a partial solution for the problem (mentioned above), indeed.

Question is:
What would be the scope / general purpose of a ReserveGroup?

Would there be several different approaches included?

Means:

Would it include

• 1) the firefighter approach (the Allies dispatched their Tank groups and para units, e.g. the 101st in the Ardennes, in a similar manner, imo), means holding back tank/panzer units and experienced combat units for that role?
• 2) the low quality / 2nd line reserve groups, often consisting of less trained / experienced / new troops or consisting of troops that had been withdrawn from the field in order to reinforce/resupply.
• 3) decimated groups declared not yet ready for combat and scheduled for transfer to refit (esp. Russia). Such units often remained in the field as reserve or were assembled in Kampfgruppen until displacement units arrived.

Furthermore:

1) Who'd control / call the RGs? Some imaginary RG HQ, div. HQ or supreme HQ?
2) RGs would require a checkbox imho ,(let's say on supreme HQ level) asking whether the player would like the AI to

• call in the RG to handle threats on flanks (only to halt enemy counter-attacks !!!) or
• replace or bolster troops where player attacks had been slowed down / averted

3) Would a RG just rest or perform Rear Guard duties (i'd really love to see those, HQs are often exposed to fire from enemy stragglers or enemy counter-attacks) until called upon to join the frey?

A "mixed order delay" AND ReserveGroups would be perfect, though [:)].

Misbehaviours caused by Order Delay:
The AA series gives the player the chance to simulate commanding troops on several levels, div., Bn level etc., even down to Coy level. All this adds to the sh*tload of realistic features, but one of the most rewarding and handy features (IMHO), to take a coy commander's seat and dispatch / control a single unit (with the idea of a division or Bn sticking to the big plan) gets somewhat spoiled by 2 things:

• A detached unit cannot deal with unexpected threats even if ordered by the player, nor could it track down + hunt routing enemy units in a timely manner, due to the omnipresent order delay, thus deducting some of the great realism which is present in the game
• Also, detaching a unit kills the big plan (often an entire division will have to reorg), where a real division would just keep trying to carry out the existing plan ..... it would not reorg just because ONE single unit had been detached, same with new attachments.[/i]

A review for future sequels (after BFTB, regarding order delay) would make sense, imho.


I recommend to create a new sub-forum in the COTA forum (or in the BFTB forum) where you collect all threads covering major ideas / improvements.
An example would be your questionnaire regarding a battle generator, the idea of Reserve Groups, Order Delay Enhancements, estab editor [;)] j/k, and similar major changes and ideas. Major ideas coming from the wishlist could also go there.
Basically all "political" decisions or questions, where you want to get some community feedback should end up there.
The wishlist's entries are harda track (too many pages at times, and there are mostly minor changes/ideas. Digging for threads like this, or like the battle generator, will take ages after a while.


Last but not least, let me add a comment to this:

....if we allowed the player the option to allow subordinates to initiate attacks. At the moment this is deliberately denied........

I think that's good, because:
An AI initiating (counter-)attacks (I'll call it Initiative-AI -> IAI)on threatened flanks etc. might kill the fun.
When explaining the AA series (and why I love + play it) to buddies (they think it's boring) i use to tell them that HTTR or COTA is like playing chess (3 times better tho [:)]). Both challenge the player's brain, and both need constant thinking about how to deal with new threats and situations. An IAI might take away a good part of the player's job (and fun), ie. a player could just issue an order to the supreme HQ, and could have a beer and just watch.
I'm sure the AA-lovers out there wouldn't need/love that. The feature has a neat ring to it, but I'd love to have a solution for the misbehaviours, caused by the order delay, first.

[Arjuna]

At the moment, as you say, if we detach a unit from a force doing an attack, then the force must replan its attack. The reason for this is because we currently assume everyone involved is vital to the plan. However, with a dedicated reserve, we would know that it's not vital and hence we could code it such that the commited units are subtracted from the forceGroup and the reserve task in the plan, but otherwise keep the plan intact - ie do not do a full replan.
 

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

However, with a dedicated reserve, we would know that it's not vital and hence we could code it such that the commited units are subtracted from the forceGroup and the reserve task in the plan, but otherwise keep the plan intact - ie do not do a full replan.

Excellent. I'd go for it then.

There's still a question coming to my mind.... would the AI use RGs to deal with the threats (described above)? Or would the player use this "pool" to direct units to the threats?
The actual missing flexibility on the Coy level to react/dispatch in a timely manner is a little bit disturbing.

I'd love to see this rendered somehow (if you decide to go for Reserve Groups at all) though, in case the historical OOBs display the existence of RGs :

• 1) the firefighter groups "Alarmeinheit" (might translate to "alarm unit" or emergency unit)
• 2) the low quality / 2nd line reserve groups
• 3) scratch force reserve groups (maybe even platoons only)

[Arjuna]

One thing to remember is that to do this properly you need to incorporate reserves recursively at all levels. So a Bn may have a company in reserve, a Regiment might have a Bn, and a Div a Regt etc. The AI should be able to release/commit reserves just as a human player does.

[Llyranor]

That actually sounds really good. I fully support the idea of ReserveGroups.

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: Llyranor

That actually sounds really good. I fully support the idea of ReserveGroups.

So do I..........

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

At the moment, as you say, if we detach a unit from a force doing an attack, then the force must replan its attack. The reason for this is because we currently assume everyone involved is vital to the plan. However, with a dedicated reserve, we would know that it's not vital and hence we could code it such that the commited units are subtracted from the forceGroup and the reserve task in the plan, but otherwise keep the plan intact - ie do not do a full replan.

I think this is too artificial.

It represents a gaming tactic and not a military tactic.

It is not realistic to expect a batallion commander to set aside one of his companies as a regimental or divisional reserve so that his utilization of his own forces wouldn't be affected if the regiment or division decides they need to draw a company away from his batallion for another mission. He would normally be setting aside one of his companies as a batallion reserve for his own use. Rather than detract from his available force by mandating a higher level reserve out of his force, it would be far, far better if the batallion commander was more effective in utilizing his reserve to deal with surprises on his own without the higher level headquarters having to steal away some of his force for the purpose.

The simple work around for the inability of the headquarters already tasked with a mission to adapt to the changing battlefield by assigning it's organic reserve to deal with that stray enemy company that shows up on it's flank, is to assign a few independent companies to each batallion sized attack. This is similar to the technique I outlined for dealing with orders delays where I recommended assigning a few independent companies attack orders simultaneously with a larger formation such that they start off sooner than the larger formation and pin the enemy for the coming onslaught of the larger, slower to get moving force. If one has a few independant companies running around on the same general battlefield as the committed batallions, these units can be the fire brigades that get the assignemnts to deal with surprises so that the committed forces don't suffer a reorg as a result of detaching units from them to deal with surprises.

I would like nothing better than for the AI to be able to decide to commit a headquarter's organic reserve to deal with a surprise so that I don't have to detach one of it's units to do so or have to keep additional unattached units around for the task. That may be too tall an order for the programmers, but I would rather see their energies directed towards that goal rather than creating an unnatural artifice to achieve the desired end.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

ORIGINAL: PanzerMax
Part of the problem with the delay in general is ilustrated by the folowing situation I ran into during the tutorial. I was playing as the allies and set my movement point to close to the bridge. I realized this as they approaching but couldn't do anything about it. In reality, I could get on the radio and say STOP. Within 10 minutes, at the most, the whole column could be more or less stopped, especially the armored column.

Hi PzMax,
You should have issued a fire order to them. They would stop cold on their tracks, accomplish their fire mission, and switch into defend orders.
Realistic or not, it works like a charm.

Other thing that is vey helpful is to issue orders with multiple waypoints. You can modify those waypoints without forcing a re-planning.

Cheers,


Julio

[PanzerMax]

Ah yes I remember that from httr now. Thanks.

[GoodGuy]

Hello Hans.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


I think this is too artificial.
It represents a gaming tactic and not a military tactic.

Why should this be too artificial? Please explain [:)]

The basic idea was to overcome the situation (a shortcoming imo, I do understand why it happens for sure, tho) where a detachment of forces would trigger a replanning-phase. This is a bit evil if playing with "painfully realistic" order delay.
Dave's idea (in order to keep the current AI-procedures) was to add those Reserve Groups to make up for this shortcoming.

Also, in the 1940s the use of tactical Reserve Groups had gone a long way already, since it was a procedure in German military that had been evolved over a period of around 90-100 yrs (since mid of 19th century if I'm correct), minimum. Basic approaches can be spotted in battles of 17th and 18th century already, when tailing flanks or rear echelons had been used for a decisive push forward.

While the best way would be to revise the plan-making process in COTA, the Reserve Groups would be an excellent temp solution, plus they'd be a realistic and useful addition.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

One thing to remember is that to do this properly you need to incorporate reserves recursively at all levels. So a Bn may have a company in reserve, a Regiment might have a Bn, and a Div a Regt etc. The AI should be able to release/commit reserves just as a human player does.

THIS would be a bit articial, imho, if at all. Having a reserve on each level wouldn't reflect the real procedures back then, i think, maybe even on both sides.
I didn't read / research much here, but I'd say that the Germans used to use Army Group/Korps reserves (division(s)), and divisional reserves (Rgts or Bns). The exact procedures (OOB <- Reserves planned at all? , doctrin?, what levels were involved?) for both Axis and Allies would have to be researched I guess, to keep it realistic for each theater.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Rather than detract from his available force by mandating a higher level reserve out of his force, it would be far, far better if the batallion commander was more effective in utilizing his reserve to deal with surprises on his own without the higher level headquarters having to steal away some of his force for the purpose.

Maybe Dave should clarify the purpose / structure of a ReserveGroup feature.

Thing is, German supreme commanders (division or in many cases Army korps/groups) tended to reserve their (common) right to have the Reserves at their own disposal on many occasions, and this went up through many levels, even up to the OKW and Hitler himself.

Also, German reserves often used to be pulled out of their organic structures (let's say an entire Bn, Rgt. or Division) and put under the temporary command of the unit leading (participating in) a given offensive (Divsion/Korp/Army group) or controlling a certain part of the front lines. These units then had to be supplied and controlled by the commanding group's/unit's structure and resources.

On a lower level, local commanders, like a Bn commander in your example, didn't have to commit troops to a superior reserve group. They might have put aside Coys as their own Bn reserve, but I don't think that this has to be rendered in the game.

[Arjuna]

Well the use of a reserve was a common strategic and tactical principle employed by just every army that I am aware of. No particular nation had a monolopy on the concept or practice. It's just good common sense. You can go back to ancient times and still see commanders like Hanibal and Caesar employing reserves.
&nbsp;
Whether a particular sized force maintains a designated reserve largely depends on the degree of discretion or freedom that the commander has. For instance in WW2 many Soviet Inf Bns rarely maintained a designated reserve because the Bn rarely operated outside the formation of its superior Regiment.
&nbsp;
My thinking is to enable the option for any level of command to create a designated reserve. Where a force is moving in formation with its superior, then the AI may not have such a discretion. But there maybe cases where it should. I haven't thought through that yet and it invariable will be a case of try and see before you rule it in or out. In short there will be a range of factors to consider, including the need for a reserve, the relative need to commit forces to the main task, time and space, commander judgement, relative force ratio ( eg if this is really high in our favour, then reduce probability of creating a reserve ), moveType of force vis a vis terrain etc.

[HansBolter]

I failed to explain my concerns adequately and perhaps in my hasty read I misunderstood the proposal.

As things are structured now, if I give an attack order to a full batallion, it will attack with two companys and hold one in organic reserve. It will typically also hold its gun platoon, if it has one, and it's antitank platoon in reserve, if it has one. This is an accurate reflection of military principles as practiced during the war, at least with regard to the company held in reserve, perhaps not wityh teh gun and antitank platoons.

If what is being proposed is for the parent headquarters of that batallion to be able to raid the batallion an take the batallion's organic reserve for the parent headquarter's use without effecting the planning cycles of the batallion, then I see this as somewhat unrealistic. Many times batallions were sent on missions without component parts that were detached for parent headquarters use. However, the batallion commander usually knew this as he planned his mission. Plucking out a component part of the batallion after the batallion staff has already planned and implemented it's orders would necessitate a replanning. However, if the unit plucked in the middle of the operation by the parent headquarters was one of the companies already assigned to a batallion reserve task, I can see where it is valid to argue that the batallion staff could "replan" around it's reduced force size without affecting the companies already tasked with the attack order.

If what is being proposed, and what I assumed was being proposed from my hasty read, is to create an additional artificial reserve, that the batallion cannot use in it's planning, yet is still under the command of the batallion, then this is what I perceive as completely artificial. If you are going to subtract a company from the batallion for parent headquarters use then it should be removed from the command of the batallion and treated as an independant company. If this is done before the batallion plans its mission then no replanning is forced on the batallion staff. If this is done as an afterthought by the parent headquarters, after the batallion has completed a planning cycle and implemented it's orders, then a replanning should be forced upon it.

I tend to like the orders delays as one of the best parts of the game. Since I am having considerable success with realistic delays I intend to start imposing a tougher challenge on myself by using painfully realistic delays. The entire aspect of the need for reserves is also one of the more challenging aspects of the game for me. Being an old hex boardgamer I have a natural tendency to want to maximize the utilization of every counter every "turn". It sometimes grates against my sensibilities to see a batallion attack wwith only two companies when I could command by companies instead and get every last one into the line. I suppress this urge because the game, as a command simulator, is teaching me to play with more realistic approaches to the use of my units. I often commit every last batallion and end up relying on the few regimental or divisional independant companies to fufill the roles of ready reserves, where if I commanded by regiments they would likely be holding one batallion in regimental reserve. Even by commanding by batallions I am pushing the limits of realism with my old boardgame habits.

One aspect I don't like is that the batallions never seem to use their reserves for anything. I do not know what programming triggers exist in the code for when a batallion decides it needs to commit it's organic reserves. They almost never use their infantry gun or antitank guns. It would be nice if the batallion headquarters could have some situational awareness such that when it is ordered to advance 1000 meters in an attack which will open up it's flank, it has the presence of mind to deploy it's reserve on that flank to both serve as a ready reserve and as an alarm unit covering the open flank. To get a batallion to use it's antitank platoons in this way it is necessary to detach the platoon and command it indendently. If the AI commanders were better at using the reserves they create, we wouldn't have to force a new planning cycle by detaching those reserves to perform the necessary task. That is what I meant by preferring to see the code writers work toward improving the efficacy of the AI commander in using his own reserves.

[Arjuna]

HansBolter,
&nbsp;
Re AI using Reserves. At present the reserve only comes into play if the boss replans - eg A Bn does an attack and allocated A Coy as the reserve. A Coy will defend at the reserveLoc for the duration of the attack. If, however, it decides to replan the attack then odds are A Coy will be committed to the assault and one other companies assigned to the reserve - usually the one most beaten up. However, what I would like to do in the future is exactly what you would like to see - ie the AI committing that reserve during the execution of the attack if the conditions warranted it. The reason this has not been done already is as I explained previously that any change to the forceGroup will force a replan. So we need to make some changes to the planning code to retain the existing plan, but modify the reserve task and if need be add some other task -&nbsp;eg. we deduct A Coy from the reserveTask, create a new additional assaultTask and assign A Coy to it. The destination of this may be to&nbsp;reinforce the faltering main assault or to soak off against some newly detected threat on the flank etc.
&nbsp;

[HansBolter]

Excellent!

Glad I was able to clarify my point sufficiently.

btw: I really need to learn how to spell battalion. I've butchered it several different ways since I started posting here [8|]