What is more realistic?

[johndoesecond]

So, I was wondering: which is more realistic order delay: realistic or painfully realistic?

Which one is closer to the real thing? And what approximately is the difference in terms of time delay?

Thanks.

[Pergite!]

I would say that they both are equally realistic. The "painfull" part IMO just presents a more friction based realism, where luck is scarce and everything sucks. My experience says that both worlds exists, and that it requires alot more effort in the thought process to be able to succed in the latter due to that your mistakes will cost you alot more.

[johndoesecond]

Hi Pergite!, thanks.

I suppose that the actual delay accounts for the conditions on the ground (terrain, distances, training, commanding skills, etc.), all this influenced by some sort of randomisation that has, so to say, some sort of probability distribution,.
So, I assume, based on the random factors, you can get more or less "lucky" within the same order delay settings, be it realistic or painfully so.

If these assumptions of mine are correct, then the difference between the two is where they set the mean value of that probability distribution. And therefore, the question is legitimate: which mean is more realistic (e.g. probable) in the world BftB is trying to simulate here.

[wodin]

I use realistic as apparently that was how the game was designed to be played...

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I use realistic as apparently that was how the game was designed to be played...

I play that way as well, I think it is the best combination of realism and fun. The scenarios that I tested and balanced were played with the realistic setting.

[johndoesecond]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

ORIGINAL: wodin

I use realistic as apparently that was how the game was designed to be played...

I play that way as well, I think it is the best combination of realism and fun. The scenarios that I tested and balanced were played with the realistic setting.

Hi Wodin and Simovitch,

Thank you for your replies.

The fact the scenarios were designed and tested with "realistic" mode in mind of course is an important point you two are making. And I myself also find it more fun, while still challenging in the true spirit of BftB, to play in "realistic" mode.

But that's exactly why the initial question came to my mind: not what is more fun, but what is more realistic? Do we have some historical records, background information or military studies that give us some idea what the delays where? And based on that information (of course coherently and taking into account all the levels and expedients of abstration in BftB), can we come to a reasonable conclusion about which setting is more realistic?

Cheers.

[johndoesecond]

[oops, mistake, you can delete this one]

[simovitch]

I believe the intent is that painfully realistic is in fact the most realistic.

[PaulWRoberts]

Quick question, because I've never been sure:

Do the order delay settings apply to the AI as well as the player? Does making it painful for you make it painful for the AI too?

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts

Quick question, because I've never been sure:

Do the order delay settings apply to the AI as well as the player? Does making it painful for you make it painful for the AI too?

Yes it does apply to the AI too.

[PaulWRoberts]

I wonder if it might be a good idea to allow different order delay settings for the two sides.

This would allow players to give the AI a significant but not unrealistic advantage. It might also allow simulation of different command conditions (such as surprise).

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts

I wonder if it might be a good idea to allow different order delay settings for the two sides.

This would allow players to give the AI a significant but not unrealistic advantage. It might also allow simulation of different command conditions (such as surprise).

Thank you Paul Roberts!

I've been suggesting this since COTA and you're the only other person to say the same thing. Surely there must be others who see the logic in this...

Regards,

Rob.

[johndoesecond]

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader

ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts

I wonder if it might be a good idea to allow different order delay settings for the two sides.

This would allow players to give the AI a significant but not unrealistic advantage. It might also allow simulation of different command conditions (such as surprise).

Thank you Paul Roberts!

I've been suggesting this since COTA and you're the only other person to say the same thing. Surely there must be others who see the logic in this...

Regards,

Rob.

Hm, I'm not sure about one of the reasons you give for that feature.

I can see (though not too convinced of) it, if the reason to have differential order delay is to give more advantage to one side.

However, this doesn't seem to be the way to model the surprise. In fact, the surprise effect IS already modelled in many scenarios by greater initial order delay (gravitating to normal within initial several hours) of one side. Indeed, the scenario editor allows you just that: to set higher initial order delay to account for the effect of surprise. But after that initial period (whatever it is, the scenario designer can set it to any length she holds appropriate, even several days), you would expect the forces eventually "get used" to the attack and get organised enough to fall back to the standard order delay.

So, to sum up, there is no need for differential order delay in game settings if that's suppose to model the surprise or greater initial disorganisation of one side, for that can perfectly be modelled in the scenario, as it is appropriate.

[Deathtreader]

Hi,

Good points........ I was thinking more along the line of play balancing between 2 players or the AI. As it stands now the only way to do this is to alter the reinforcement and/or supply schedules to give the less experienced player a better chance.

Rob.