What Order delay speed do you use in 2 person games.

[madmickey]

I will play against the computer until I am relatively good then I plan to play online games. As such I want to know what order delay speed opponents use? So I am able to use this speed in playing against AI. Does everybody use painful? I like realistic.

[Yakstock]

At least realistic - prefer painful...

[Jane Doe]

I prefer realistic, but then, most wargamers are of a masochistic type, so I can say that 90% of my games have been painful...[;)]

[MarkShot]

I only play SP; but I always play "painful".

A long time ago, I had played a few with "none", but it was a very different game.

[Arjuna]

Actually I was talking about the length of delays with Golf33 the other day and I told him that even the painfully realistic delays are not really long enough. Typically, a really good non-mot Inf Bn could mount a quick attack in 2 hours from recepit of order to the first move out to the FUP. A non-mot Bde would typically take 4 hours. Initial playtesting indicated that most players would not like this amount of delay, so we tweaked them down a bit. Maybe in the future we can add a "Bloody Painfullly Realistic" level, hey? [;)]

[Bil H]

Actually I was talking about the length of delays with Golf33 the other day and I told him that even the painfully realistic delays are not really long enough.

Hmmm... I seem to remember one of your most trusted Beta testers telling you that during RDOA testing Dave [;)]

Bil

[MarkShot]

Or maybe "Home in '45"

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
Hmmm... I seem to remember one of your most trusted Beta testers telling you that during RDOA testing Dave [;)]

Bil

Trusted to be forceful and persistent, you mean?![;)]

Hey, We could just leave the number of delay options as is and rescale the values so that the current "painfull" values end up as the "realistic" values. What do you reckon?

[JudgeDredd]

Why not just have realistic as the...erm...realistic order delay?

I don't know if that doesn't make sense?! [&:]

[Tactics]

^^ What he said.

[Bertram]

Though I (of course) agree with Arjuna, I think that sometimes the delays are more "painfull" then "realistic". This is in my opinion due to the fact that the delay does not (enough) take in acount the difficulty of the order issued.

If I order an task force to "take Arnhem", while they are sitting at the XXXth army start line, they wil delay just as much (wel, at least it feels that way) as when I order them to move aside 100 meters so the others can pass. Same problem with the own initiative of the commander. When moving a regiment, and discovering an enemy artillery unit aside the road, it is virtually impossible to engage that unit. You can order one of the passing units to engage, but chances are he will just walk past, and stop only after an hour, to ponder an hour how to solve this problem, and then move back. And if the enemy unit has moved off a few hunderd meters, you can repeat the process....

I don't know the solution, as in the larger picture the delay feels mostly right, and shortening it invites micro management.


Bertram

edit: but the answer the question: I always play with painfulll realistic (though I havent had much timeto get online yet, one more week of heavy study)

[Golf33]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Actually I was talking about the length of delays with Golf33 the other day and I told him that even the painfully realistic delays are not really long enough.

"You" told "me". Yeah, that's what happened all right, boss.

[:D]

[EricGuitarJames]

I always play at 'Painful' nowadays - SP or MP. Went back to 'none' when I got HTTR just so I could check out the changes from RDOA but once I was up to speed I went back.

The only issue I have with the orders delay is that it doesn't encourage you to use the AI to its full potential. When ordering a large attack it's quicker to issue orders at battalion or regimental level rather than brigade or division, okay the attack itself might not co-ordinate quite as well as if the order was issued at a higher level but the benefit of speed overcomes this imho. Since the larger formations take more time to form up and will often re-organise or even re-plan in response to enemy moves the case for issuing orders at a lower level becomes even stronger. This is a 'game' versus 'reality' issue in some respects and I don't have a solution but I just wondered how others felt

[Golf33]

I always play on Painful. Generally I give orders two levels down from the highest HQ on the map. I.e. if it's a Corps scenario, I'll be mostly ordering Bdes around. I find the increase in coordination and combat power is well worth any additional delay. Plus, with the patch, directly commanding too many units can increase your delays across the board.

I go to three levels down for special tasks or minor objectives, so sometimes I'll use two Bns and the Bde HQ for a main effort and the third Bn under my command for a minor task or to secure an FUP or something like that.

Generally I only go right down for very minor issues like establishing a flank screen or keeping the enemy away from my main force. What I do in this instance is give the main force a Defend order with In-Situ formation. Then I order a single company or a group of companies (like the various line-support and engineer units that come directly under Div or Corps HQ) to push out from the main force to a useful blocking position. When they are correctly set, I reattach them to the main body. The In-Situ formation allows me to do this without disturbing units that are already set in a good position or dug-in and reattaching these units means there is less of a load on my main HQ.

Regards
33