Using the Delay Action

[Tzar007]

I rarely used the Delay action, but I decided to use it in the Mook Right Hook scenario, as playing the Germans. I fixed 5 delay waypoints, from Mook (where I was) up north to Nijmegen. I positioned the delay waypoints roughly along the highway.

What happened though was unexpected. Without even waiting to reach the first delay waypoints, I get a message saying that the unit has passed its loss threshold for the first delay point and is now falling back to the next waypoint. I though to myself, "OK, I guess I was too optimistic believing they could hold to this first waypoint".

But then, not long after, I got another message saying the unit has passed its loss threshold again, and that now, the unit is falling back to the second delay point. And it goes on like that until there is only one remaining delay point.

The problem I have with this is that the unit never waited for reaching its delay point before telling me it could not hold and had to fall back to the next delay point. In fact, when it told me they were finally falling back to the last delay point, the unit in fact had not even reached the first original waypoint ! I was like, "could you at least get your asses to the first delay point and try to hold on there before deciding to cancel this delay point and already fall back on the next one!"

Anybody had an experience similar to this? I should say that this unit was under heavy enemy fire and forced to retreat, but still, I would have expected them to at least stop at the third or fourth delay point. I could understand they were not willing to hold on much to the first 2 delay points since they were under fire, but the other delay points were far from the enemy so I don't get it why they did not wait reaching those before calling it quits.

[MarkShot]

I haven't used it myself, but have always been curious about it. Could it have something to do with your AGGRO setting?

You can mount your own delaying actions with just the defend command, but I suppose if you can use the delay command, then you should get more timely falling back as it would be managed by the AI without delays.

[KNac007]

My experience is that for it to be usefull it must reach the first position w/o opposition. Then the delay action it's very worthfull really (place the waypoints in different covered positions long the desired path).

And play with the Loses from Low to High to get the desired resistance.

P.S: you can move the waypoints w/o incuring too much delay , and place new waypoints. So you can tweak it at your own taste.

[MarkShot]

KNac077,

Ah, that moving waypoint thing is a very good tip, I forgot about that in this context.

So, when combined with adjusting AGGRO does that effectively give almost realtime capability to fallback to to a hastily selected position?

I, myself, have been using single unit roadblocks and weak lines under direct command to delay the enemy. Usually, the more forward ones buy time for the more rearward ones to dig-in. I tend to sacrifice the blocking units despite the high local losses, since the net result is reduction of global losses. Additionally, a vastly outnumbered blocking unit has their fire power magnified by the on-call arty support which it can summon. Finally, in quite a few combat games I play, I find disengaging from the enemy and pulling back to be one of the hardest tasks. Usually, it results in disasterous losses while pulling back. So, I often tend to think it is more prudent to stand and fight doing what damage you can.

[Tzar007]

ORIGINAL: KNac007

My experience is that for it to be usefull it must reach the first position w/o opposition. Then the delay action it's very worthfull really (place the waypoints in different covered positions long the desired path).

Ok, that might have been the problem. They were indeed under heavy fire and retreating before reaching the first delay point.

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Finally, in quite a few combat games I play, I find disengaging from the enemy and pulling back to be one of the hardest tasks. Usually, it results in disasterous losses while pulling back. So, I often tend to think it is more prudent to stand and fight doing what damage you can.

This is very much true. Asking overwhelmed units to disengage usually results in a big mess or completely suppressed units that are not going anywhere, especially in open ground. I tend to forget to use the Withdraw action in these cases though, it's certainly much better than Move since you get somebody to cover the withdrawal.

[JeF]

I'll add my 2 cents to the debate.

I also find that the units with delay orders have a too high tendency to fallback to the next blocking position.
Check the manual : the force will also withdraw if it is bypassed or overwhelmed. It has some advantage as you'll not sacrifice your force in vain. On the other hand they are very likely to fallback.

Some tricks you can use :
- set high aggro and losses
- space the fallback positions or, by the time the units gets there, the ennemy will be too close.

Dutch delay at Deest is perfect to test the delay order.

If the goal was to block a road, then Defend order (maybe in-situ) is the best, with low losses potentially, but high aggro. With In-situ, when the unit retreats, it will not try to go back to an undefendable position.
That's usually what I do, but I don't play with painfully insane orders delay, as others. [;)] So I still gets time to move my units around after they retreat ...

Cheers,

JeF.

[KNac007]

I just use dely when I have good withdrwal to the next position covered path. If it's the case they disengage well w/o much problem.

lso as they will retreat before they are routed or much supressed they will withdraw well in a more ordered fashion.

It's also possible, but that will have to be confirmed by developers, that delay ction ahs in great part "withdrwal" ction code included, so a rear party will help disenganging w/o much loses. So when they retreat to next position, it isn't like "move" order but more like "withdrw" order.

"So, when combined with adjusting AGGRO does that effectively give almost realtime capability to fallback to to a hastily selected position?" I would say yes.

[CriticalMass]

Some tricks you can use :
- set high aggro and losses
- space the fallback positions or, by the time the units gets there, the ennemy will be too close.

Reading the strategy guide I've come away with the impression that setting the level of losses has no consequences other than informing the player that a particular unit has reached a loss tollerence limit, at which point the player can then amend orders; the AI takes no action.

Is this so, or are there circumstances where setting loss levels cause an AI action?

TANX
Andrew

[Panther Paul]

Loss level affects:

Affects when a Probe will be called off and the force "bunker down". i.e. how much they press the attack before calling it off.

Affects when a delaying force will pull back. High losses will have them holding out longer.

Also feeds into determining when a unit will retreat/rout. A unit told to bug out if they start taking casualties will [:D].

For the AI it affects decisions to "withdraw" and "bunker down".

[CriticalMass]

ORIGINAL: Panther Paul

Loss level affects:

Affects when a Probe will be called off and the force "bunker down". i.e. how much they press the attack before calling it off.

Affects when a delaying force will pull back. High losses will have them holding out longer.

Also feeds into determining when a unit will retreat/rout. A unit told to bug out if they start taking casualties will [:D].

For the AI it affects decisions to "withdraw" and "bunker down".

Please check "Using the Losses Setting", Strategy Guide pp. 78!

[KNac007]

Well, as I said (and if I haven't I will do now), tewaking Loses in Delay action has a big effect on the resitence your units will put.

If you use Low, after 5 casualties (or less, even 2) they will retreat to next blocking position, but if you use High they will withstand a lot more.

However this all is suppeditted to unit quality, which at the end, allows units getting more casualties w/o retreating or routing.

[Tzar007]

I got an interesting reaction here using the delay action. Look at the picture below. I am playing the Arnhem historical campaign as the Germans, and I have assigned KG Krafft (highlighted on the image) to three delay positions. I just got a message stating that Krafft is falling back to the other delay position. Now, as you will noticed, there are no enemy units around, they aren't being attacked either by ground units, although they got bombarded earlier by enemy arty, but nothing major. Now, the settings I am using for the delay action are High Aggro, Rapid ROF and High Losses, so I certainly don't agree with Krafft's decision to fall back ! What a damn coward is he, he is not even under heavy attack !

What do you guys think? Any idea why this is happening ?

[KNac007]

No idea. Plus KG Kraft it's a good quality unit, so it is even more strange...

However, move the firstd elay waypoint original position and then add a new one, that should work to hold them were they are w/o much delay.

[EricGuitarJames]

Like JeF I don't use delay very often and also use the 'in-situ' order when seeking to block/cover road junctions etc. etc. I found the 'delay' order useful when playing as the Allies in the 'Mook Right Hook' allowing the Paras to make a 'fighting withdrawal' back from the northern villages just east of the canal.

Tzar, looking at those little black squares I just wonder whether they've suffered some kind of slow attrition leading to the decision to fall back.

[Bil H]

What was their fatigue level? Morale? I wouldn;t worry about why he fell back early, perhaps they just got nervous. It happens. If it worked perfectly everytime then this game would be boring.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

One thing I want to throw in is that the current Delay Order is not exactly historically accurate. What should happen is that half of the delaying force should be at the first delaying position and the other half should be at the second position. They will then leapfrog back as they are forced to pull back. This is on the list to be re-worked in a future game.

TACTICAL TIP: You can do that now in HTTR by splitting the delaying force in two and giving each force delay orders... this will assure you that as your force displaces it will be covered and it will have more time to setup in it's next position (and hopefully even dig in).

If you want your forces to behave more realistically, give orders so they look like this (x is the first half of the unit, y is the second half of the unit):

DP 1-----------DP 3---------------DP 5-------DP 6 (both forces converge at the final delay position)
...X.................X.........................X.............X
...........Y......................Y...........................Y
-------DP 2--------------DP 4------------------DP 6

note: I would put the HQ with the 2d force, and place the arty back far enough so it can support the force without having to displace, preferably throughout the delaying action.
.

Works well for me, but I'd be interested to hear any feedback if anybody tries it in game.

Regards,
Bil

[Jaws]

Works well for me, but I'd be interested to hear any feedback if anybody tries it in game.

Being new to HTTR I took Jefs' suggestion and played the Dutch Delay scenario last week for the first time and tried using delay orders. And it happened that I used exactly the procedure Bil H described, staggering the drop back delay positions with the three units available.

Unfortunately, before the lead units of the enemy force even got close, my forward unit was falling back to the next delay position. I checked the log for this unit and it wasn't even fired on. Also I set the losses to max for all the units and it didn't make a difference. IIRC, 4 out of 5 times my most forward unit would pull back without being fired upon. Talk about not being perfect.

Needless to say, the defend order with in-situ formation works 100% of the time, and that's all I use for now. I would like to see the delay order “fixed” and a losses command that did something other then just give you a warning.

Thanks