corp historical delay in multiplayer

[mitra]

Iplayed with Berthier and Lechi a team match in multiplayer, as you all know in multi you have the direct control also on corps commander (1 player take the CiC and own part of corps), so you can move directly the HQ corp. JUst to now I always thought the orders given in this modality to corps are directly taken so without the messangers delay only with internal corp delay, because you have the direct control of entity (and you have also the POV in the fow of corps commanders). But Berthier noted that in reality to orders given own corps have the messangers delay in their global delay. I did some test and in effect it is present a reception time for the order and the total delay of a corp change if the CiC go far from him. This generate a incoherence at least logically: you have the POV of corps commander but you can give order as you are a second CiC. Is this a temporary situation in waiting time of the activation of direct corp command in the AIvsAI battle?

[AJ]

Mitra, in my experience you are correct in your analysis, the length of  "Order Delay" is dependent upon the proximity of the CinC because it is the CinC who is issuing the Order, even though a player is in charge of the Corp.  This applies to "Deploy, Defend & Diversion" because they are orders which have great tactical importance and as part of the overall battle plan, probably would have originated from the CinC.

Some orders have no delay because they would probably have originated from the Corp Commander e.g.  orders to individual units "Attack, Scout etc..." and Corp "Halt for Bombardment",  would all have been locally initiated orders from the Corp commander, without any Order Delay.

I know that this order system is not entirely historically correct, many Corps Commanders did a lot of things on their own initiative but JMM has to draw a line somewhere.  I think the way he has it set up is a good balance.

If you want the Corp Commanders to have more control in MP, play with "Orders - Immediate".  I presume that would work for AI vs AI as well.

[mitra]

Mitra, in my experience you are correct in your analysis, the length of  "Order Delay" is dependent upon the proximity of the CinC because it is the CinC who is issuing the Order, even though a player is in charge of the Corp.  This applies to "Deploy, Defend & Diversion" because they are orders which have great tactical importance and as part of the overall battle plan, probably would have originated from the CinC.

Some orders have no delay because they would probably have originated from the Corp Commander e.g.  orders to individual units "Attack, Scout etc..." and Corp "Halt for Bombardment",  would all have been locally initiated orders from the Corp commander, without any Order Delay.

I know that this order system is not entirely historically correct, many Corps Commanders did a lot of things on their own initiative but JMM has to draw a line somewhere.  I think the way he has it set up is a good balance.

If you want the Corp Commanders to have more control in MP, play with "Orders - Immediate".  I presume that would work for AI vs AI as well.

Hi AJ

I supposed this myself also, and I don't want play with orders immediate (the game lost half of is appeal if played like a arcade real time, because with this you will lost also the delay of corp concentration). The problem is that in multi teams with this logic you lost the sensation of chain of command: if you take the command of a corp\s and another player take the CiC,  in my point of view the strategic orders must be sent only by CiC player using layer, also because we will add the delay of layer sending to delay to implement the strategic order with messanger (example space 20 minutes, CC time for corp concentration 40 minutes, it will made 80 minutes not 60 minutes). I would prefer a situation where  1 player can take only the CiC and it is the only one which can give the corps orders to all the corps with the full space+time delay, and the corps commanders are the only ones which can give orders directly  to units.

[mitra]

and of course with the limited point of vue fixed over the corp commander not the CIC when you have one

[AJ]

I would prefer a situation where  1 player can take only the CiC and it is the only one which can give the corps orders to all the corps with the full space+time delay, and the corps commanders are the only ones which can give orders directly  to units.

Hi Mitra,
That would be a really good idea.  It could be listed in the "Options" for MP battles - "Orders from CinC Only".  With this option selected the CinC would be the only one who could give Deploy, Divert, Defend and Link orders but the Corp Commander could still give "Local Orders", including Division/Brigade when introduced.
It's worth bringing up to JMM

[Gunner24]

Hold on a minute, that would make MP a 1v1 game ?........if you have three players on each side, but only ONE person each side can give Corps orders, the other two will be sitting around not doing much, OR, they will be using ALL individual orders and thereby abusing the Corps orders delay - I don't think that is a great idea.

For me, what we have now is ideal.

Anything that encourages people to play it like a TW game giving every single unit individual INSTANT orders should be avoided.

[L.A. Berthier]

Hold on a minute, that would make MP a 1v1 game ?........if you have three players on each side, but only ONE person each side can give Corps orders, the other two will be sitting around not doing much, OR, they will be using ALL individual orders and thereby abusing the Corps orders delay - I don't think that is a great idea.

For me, what we have now is ideal.

Anything that encourages people to play it like a TW game giving every single unit individual INSTANT orders should be avoided.

I  think you understood the question!

Multiplayer manual F9 : "The engine takes into consideration the distance between the sender and the
receiver(s); the dispatches will be viewed by their recipients only after the delay
needed for their transport by the aide-de-camp (military assistant)."

Now why in multiplayer  I did some test and in effect it is present a reception time (again)  for the order in the global corp delay.

 So the reception time is counted twice: one in the sender and receiver multiplayer interface F9 and one in total Corp orders delay.

[mitra]

Hold on a minute, that would make MP a 1v1 game ?........if you have three players on each side, but only ONE person each side can give Corps orders, the other two will be sitting around not doing much, OR, they will be using ALL individual orders and thereby abusing the Corps orders delay - I don't think that is a great idea.

For me, what we have now is ideal.

Anything that encourages people to play it like a TW game giving every single unit individual INSTANT orders should be avoided.

Hi Gunner

If you are a corps commander of course your rapport with the units is different respect that of CiC, this is clear also from the different set of commands; you have deploy for the corps level not attack like for the regiment. So for me is clear the CiC must manage the operational level not the micromanagement, at the same time why the CC must start to detach units when not necessary (aka before the contact with the enemy)? Of course I don't want the game becomes a TW style, but is a fact of reality, in a true field of battle, that the commanders near the troops act and react with more "realtime" respect the CiC, sometime against the CiC. Exactly because I think LG has the potential to become one of better simulator of command of ever, I did this proposal; actually what we have in multi is a maximum of 4 CiC with the fow of CCs.

I don't like report comparisons with other games especially if differents in the substance, but I started to play at SOW with some of Legio's clan (i think you know some of them) at the maximum realism, and it is one of more intense experience of simulation I had. The order transmission, the commands, the FOW respect the hierarchy of OOB in the field, and this is important in the perspective of a team battle in multi.

Of course actually JMM, whose work and dedication have my complete admiration, in this moment has more important things to complete and implement, but because I like this game I want it better and more appreciated,  I think a more complete team multi, where the roles in the chain of command are more determined, will help it greatly.