Orders Delay opinions asked for...

[Grognard]

Finished Historical Eindhoven as the Allies (Realistic Orders Delay) and realized I never gave a single attack order (not counting secure obj.).... Did it all with Move (or Move to Defend) orders. Less fatigue, loss of cohesion and casualties... Same (if not better) results. I almost have to because I play at the company/battery level. Maximum micromanagement. About the only time I give Bn level orders is for safe movement over longish distances or armour in overruns. Only when I have established long term defensive positions do I do all the tedious reattaching to somewhat relieve the obscene orders delay.....

So my exact question is: With battalion command level as a given, how ahistorical is it if I choose to play with less than Realistic order delay? Is that the tradeoff between micro and macromanagement? Given that we're all single players emulating an entire chain of command my head hurts wondering exactly where those wacky orders are coming from.

Probably won't play another scenario until this gets thrashed out.

Thanks for your input guys...

[wodin]

If you micro manage to much I feel you defeat the object of the game.

You should rely on you officers as a real commnader would. That way you get more of a feeling of being the top man. Getting let down and also impressed by other commanders beneath you.

Some micro management is needed i.e. just to make sure that a company is right at the edge of a wood for instance.....just enough to compensate as the AI will not be perfect. IF I know a commander would def move the company a little to the right I will do it myself. But I try not to intrude to much. I like to see my commanders form the units up and luanch an attack etc.

Also its not a historiacl in anyway if you use the lower the order delay.

Enjoy the game and watch it more dont fuss about to much. Your the top man and you have to rely on others. Thats the purpose of this game.

What you are doing is turning the game into an arcade style game rather than a war simulation.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Grognard


Probably won't play another scenario until this gets thrashed out.

Thanks for your input guys...

Nothing needs sorting out here. I think your missing the point of this game. Havent heard anyone complaining about this before. This is what its supposed to be like.

This game isnt really for control freaks (no harm intended). You need to control your control urge and watch things pan out like a real commander.

This isnt to say micro mangement isnt needed it is. Really to compensate for the AI. But try and limit it to its minimum. You might not get as high a score but you played the game from a real commanders perspective.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Grognard
So my exact question is: With battalion command level as a given, how ahistorical is it if I choose to play with less than Realistic order delay? Is that the tradeoff between micro and macromanagement? Given that we're all single players emulating an entire chain of command my head hurts wondering exactly where those wacky orders are coming from.

Grognard,

Welcome to HTTR.

I appreciate where you are coming from. I too spent many years micromanaging each and every unit in a wargame. This approach gives you absolute control but at the expense of realism. HTTR is designed to allow this style of play if you so wish. I would, however, recommend doing so with no orders delay. If you attempt to play like this with orders delay your suprior unit ( ie the on-map boss ) will become way overloaded and the delay for each and every order will be excessive.

I do encourage you to wargame "on the wild side". HTTR really shines when you command like a real commander does, using the command structure, issuing orders, trusting that your subordinates will do a reasonable job, thinking ahead and focusing on the BIG issues rather than the minutae. It is different to micromanaging. That is for sure. But IMO its a whole lot more fun. Give it a go. All the best, [:)]

[Cage]

I enjoy the AI's ability to coordinate groups, I know I could do better but it's a more enjoyable game when played with painfully realistic settings. As long as you understand the order parameters the Ai will pretty much do what you want efficiently.

I agree the "move" order is a proficient form of attack. It ends up being a more flexible formation when faced with the unknown.

Cage.

[marc420]

Yeah, as a newbie I've learned to go to the Cmnd tab of my senior commander and look at Command Capacity (CAP) versus Command Load (Load). If I've read the manual correctly, if Load starts to greatly exceed Capacity, then the delay in orders starts to climb. At least that makes sense as you'd be seeing the division level staff and commander start to get information overload.

Currently I'm playing the 82nd Airborne's historical scenario. I'm trying to keep orders at a battalion level to keep that load down. I tend to have most if not all of my artillery and mortars under my control. And the objectives / needs of the division are such that I'm giving a lot of battalion level orders. But I'm trying not to give company orders too often as my Division command is running just below capacity. So far I haven't got any places where I could give a command to an entire Regt/Bdge, but my assault on Nimegen (sic) may get to that point. Right now I've got 2 Battalions up there and I may add some reinforcements. So that may become an area where I can give one higher level order and control a bunch of battalions that way.

[Golf33]

ORIGINAL: marc420

Yeah, as a newbie I've learned to go to the Cmnd tab of my senior commander and look at Command Capacity (CAP) versus Command Load (Load). If I've read the manual correctly, if Load starts to greatly exceed Capacity, then the delay in orders starts to climb. At least that makes sense as you'd be seeing the division level staff and commander start to get information overload.

Yes, that's a good way to do it. If I find my senior commanders are starting to get overloaded, usually it's because I've detached too many units on individual tasks. This can be corrected by reattaching some of the units, if necessary using in-situ type orders as mentioned above.

Regards
33