Should the game offer a "fast-paced mode"?

[Comcikda]

As I said in the title, I feel that the command cycles in the game are too long, especially when my scouts are charging at the enemy and killing themselves.
I wish the game offered a "fast paced mode" option, it would be nice to reduce the command cycles for both sides to half of what it was, is that possible?

[CapnDarwin]

The whole idea of the game is your place as the commander and not the guy in the tank or scout section. You have to plan out the action, set the SOPs, and deal with what the action deals with you. The AI does a good job of dealing with the minute-to-minute action so you are not micro-managing every detail. I can bring up the issue with the team in the next Dev call and see what they feel about this request. As a question, what do you see as a benefit of a quicker cycle?

[cbelva]

Have you tried setting the game factors that have an effect on the speed of the turn resolution in the User Preferences. Set "Default game delay factor" to "0"; "Hex location flashes" to 3 or less; "Default Animation Speed" to 50. See if that helps the speed of the turn. They won't change the speed a lot, but it will help some.

[CapnDarwin]

Charles, he is looking to issue orders more often via a shorter command cycle.

[Comcikda]

As a question, what do you see as a benefit of a quicker cycle?

I have indeed seen AI make the correct responses in certain situations without my intervention, but not always.
I understand that reducing the command cycle directly to half of its original duration may lead to some other issues. However, having command cycles that take up to 30 minutes can be frustrating at times. A single mistake could result in my troops being virtually wiped out. Additionally, I currently lack a command such as 'engage and freeze', and the 'relocate upon losses' is almost entirely impractical.
Furthermore, the duration of the command cycle also introduces a certain level of "gamification" to the game. For example, towards the end of my command cycle, my troops spot an enemy position that they have been digging in (obviously, the enemy in that position won't set their standard operating procedure as "relocate upon suffering losses"). Since there are still more than ten minutes left until the enemy's next command cycle, I can confidently call in artillery to precisely strike the enemy during the remaining time without wasting a single minute. However, in reality, would the enemy remain indifferent to such a situation?

This FC game is unlikely to abandon the command cycle mechanic throughout its lifecycle, but I believe providing an option for players to make more real-time decisions is not a bad idea. And I have another idea inspired by desktop wargames: during these shorter command cycles, players could be restricted to commanding only a portion of units that pass a 'communication check.'

[Rosseau]

You may already know that you can modify the National Default xls files by-hand within the Data folder, although this is a rather heavy-handed way to do it.

[Bagpipe]

As I said in the title, I feel that the command cycles in the game are too long, especially when my scouts are charging at the enemy and killing themselves.
I wish the game offered a "fast paced mode" option, it would be nice to reduce the command cycles for both sides to half of what it was, is that possible?

To be blunt, if your scouts are charging at the enemy and killing themselves then you are "doing it wrong" and simply need to learn more about the game and irl procedures in general. Obviously things hit the fan and stuff goes awry irl too but this is where your planning and contingencies comes in.

I personally think the essence of the game would suffer if command cycles were shortened even further as part of the "fun" of this game is not being in direct control 100% of the time and having to trust the guys on the ground to make the right call as the situation unfolds, and that's not me being all high and mighty about it, it's just my honest opinion.

[Comcikda]

As I said in the title, I feel that the command cycles in the game are too long, especially when my scouts are charging at the enemy and killing themselves.

To be blunt, if your scouts are charging at the enemy and killing themselves then you are "doing it wrong" and simply need to learn more about the game and irl procedures in general. Obviously things hit the fan and stuff goes awry irl too but this is where your planning and contingencies comes in.

Yes, irl no one will charge at the enemy while relocating, and that hasn't been fixed since I first played this game.
cheers!

[Phoenix100]

I also think that shorter cycles would be an excellent option and I'm afraid this is just because there's too long spent watching the AI. The way the game is coded seems to increase the waiting because only one counter moves at a time. It's not really like a real-time playback in this respect. It's nice, of course, as a mechanism for making sure you can see what happens to each counter, but I find that moves take ages, even with everything speeded up. I would like to have an option to issue orders every five minutes or so, to maintain my interest through the playbacks. I realise this isn't a very 'hard-core' thing to say, and I suspect people might think I'm utterly missing the point of the game, but all I can say in my defence is I've bought all your games and played them for years now, so I am definitely a fan. For some reason the command cycles in SS seem to take way longer than they did in RS. And I think the wait between action might not be such a good selling point as the target for the game surely has to be people who usually play counter-based I-go-you-go games, where there is not so much waiting (assuming you can zip through the opposition turn). Playing SS when things go wrong I sometimes find myself on the receiving end of 40 minute cycles and then it really is a bit slow, I think, to watch all the moves without being able to do anything. So this is definitely a 'game' point - a selling point, an entertainment point - not a 'realism' point.

[IronMikeGolf]

As I said in the title, I feel that the command cycles in the game are too long, especially when my scouts are charging at the enemy and killing themselves.
I wish the game offered a "fast paced mode" option, it would be nice to reduce the command cycles for both sides to half of what it was, is that possible?

What you describe is really a different game. And I'll stab my bayonet in the ground, stand athwart it and demand "NO!" if this ever comes up in our Developer meetings.

Why?

I have lived the frustration of being in a Command Post and thinking, "If those guys would only do this..."

And that friction and frustration is an essential part of warfighting.

And then, there is the fact that our asymmetric WEGO is a significant differentiator from other games. So let me hurl another bayonet beside the first one. Why give up the complex terrain?

Besides, I'd much rather work on adding better fidelity than burning any time in this direction.

OK, so let me put the grumpy old squad leader on the back burner and speak as a game designer. We, as a team, have chosen to make a player experience that tries to give a feel for command at the Battalion/Brigade/Regiment level. Every time we look at a new feature to be built, we take a hard look at how that stacks up at that immersive experience.

Now, that isn't to say we don't make compromises that respond to the realities of game play. For example we've chosen to provide a ton more info during turn resolution than what is available to the commander and staff in a real battle? Why? So players, both commercial and professional have confidence that results are reasonable. That helps in immersion into the experience. So, when someone asks about something being reasonable, we take a very hard look at things.

So, given that, making a "fast play" by way of a shorter Command Cycle is completely opposite of what we work so hard at building. I do hope you understand my resistance to that.

[Phoenix100]

Understood, yes. Thanks. But really, in real life, you cannot give any orders to any of your men for 40 minutes at a time (and then 30 minutes worth of 'orders delay' on top of that sometimes (in game, I mean - this can easily happen in game))? I had not realised that's how it was. And, even if that's 'accurate', you wouldn't, in real life, shorten that total orders delay by moving the decision-maker closer to key fights every now and then, for example?

Now, remember when you see this, that I don't know anything about it in real life. Nothing. No experience. Just a game player who does something else entirely in real life. I'm just asking. (And I do, really, like the game.)

[pullg]

Oh, yes! Not necessarily because you can't talk to anyone (although that happens sometimes), but because it takes 40 minutes...or an hour...or more...to get a clear enough picture to figure out what you want to do next and issue coherent orders. What we see on the map display is far and away more detailed and updated more rapidly than what's even available today in most ground operations centers, and way, way, way more information than we had in '80s and '90s versions of the same, when the "displays" were plastic-covered maps on which the ops and intel staffs moved markers around and made notes in grease pencil based on written (or sometimes voice) reports coming back from the field. For higher HQ, the level of detail was more like you see on the ops and intel estimate displays in FCSS than on the real-time display. Even now, information coming in and orders going out from higher HQs tends to be at set intervals or pre-determined decision points -- give the troops the objectives and the plan, and let them work out the details. What you describe as "moving the decision-maker closer to key fights" -- basically higher HQ taking command of a tactical fight -- can happen, but the cost is that commander is no longer minding the larger fight...he loses situational awareness and the larger command cycle slows down.

Keep in mind, too, that in real life there's no command cycle pause. You take your hour-old information and figure out what to do next while events keep moving...you hope when you issue orders, the reality on the ground hasn't changed too much.

IMO, there's not a hobby wargame out there that adequately represents the fog of war and the uncertainties that commanders cope with, particularly and the operational and strategic levels, probably because people would find them very frustrating to play.

[Phoenix100]

Interesting! Thanks for the info.

[CapnDarwin]

pullg, you are spot on with assessing the fog and friction of the real world. We try to toe the line between realism and playability with our game engine. We have discussed adding some other items like bad reports, incorrect locations, units falling off the command net, spoofed radio traffic, etc. Some of that may find its way into the game as an option for those wanting the "full" commander's TOC experience.

[pullg]

The full TOC experience comes with a staff to deal with all those ugly details, though. Part of the difficulty of most unmoderated wargames is the "commander" has to be his own staff -- the more details you add, the more the play shifts from "command" to "staff work", and the game becomes less fun (or less educational). And you have to program the AI to be subject to the same detailed mayhem. Sometimes you're just better off with an aggregate, like the command cycle.

I think the key is presenting the varying levels of certainty in the commander's display, just as the staff would present it -- what's certain, what's dated, what's estimated. We used to change the colors of unit markers -- both red and blue -- based on how long since they'd been observed or reported in...for instance, if a red marker was an enemy unit we were in contact with or had recent observation or solid intelligence on, a pale red marker was an enemy unit no one had seen or heard from for awhile, and its location an estimate. For some things, we'd put in error ellipses or sketch in expected movement vectors. Nothing came off the board unless it was proven destroyed or the last information was so old as to be useless, and even then someone kept a tally of enemy units we'd lost contact with. That's a programming challenge, though, especially for a commercial game.

[blackcloud6]

The full TOC experience comes with a staff to deal with all those ugly details, though. Part of the difficulty of most unmoderated wargames is the "commander" has to be his own staff -- the more details you add, the more the play shifts from "command" to "staff work", and the game becomes less fun (or less educational).

I participated in all the CPXs of this game at Origins this year hosted by Armchair Dragoons. This was a great experience and showed the strength of this game. And the realism of staff dynamics, and command came out. Of course, we were cobbling together a staff without much training, and some had no experience in doing this staff work. But over the three days, for those of us who played in all of them, we could see the staff coming together.

As to the OP, no I don't think reducing the command cycle is warranted and I think it would change this game much, if not ruin it. One of the problems I see that many have, including myself, is we charge into battle a bit too quick and don't develop the situation well enough before combat commitment. A rule of thumb is once units are committed, consider them lost for follow on operations. You must have a reserve and plan for contingencies.

[Comcikda]

Some of that may find its way into the game as an option for those wanting the "full" commander's TOC experience.

I think we've been waiting for the next update for a long time, but hearing news about the update is always exciting. Regarding IronMikeGolf's idea, I completely understand him. However, I didn't say that such a "fast-paced mode" should be enforced for everyone. Besides, aren't there already "newbie buttons" like Emergency Resupply and Fog of War toggle in the current game?

In fact, I just read another post on the forum about relocation, and most of the opinions(like pr-planed relocate position) have been debated since last November, but they haven't been fully resolved until now. Since these vague "purpose-oriented commands" aren't available temporarily, wouldn't it be feasible to add a "newbie button" as a temporary solution to the issue? Adding a 0.5x correction to various calculation formulas for delay times would likely be simpler and more practical than implementing something else that might take a long time to achieve. Isn't it true that impractical relocation is a common complaint?

Since the current "purpose-oriented commands" are unavailable, let players take matters into their own hands to address issues like the lack of intelligence in relocation. I appreciate blackcloud6's suggestion about operation plans. I certainly don't want to micromanage, but I find myself having to do so in the game. As a player, I would prefer a game to be playable and enjoyable right now, and I'm not too concerned about the game's future at the moment. That's the fundamental reason I made this feature request. Or can you provide an exact date for resolving these issues? I will come back to play this game after that date.