Attack Delay...design philosophy

[Jazumir]

I was thinking, one could do some sort of ´petition´-thread, where the idea is presented in detail in the OP and only posters who agree are asked to post once, so that the post-count would resemble a number of signitures. Discussion and nay-sayers would have to be directed to other threads. Of course, posters could add or comment on to the suggested idea, but they would have to agree to having it implemented as the OP discribes it (e.g. think its an improvement) and keep editing their sole post in the thread, if they want to add to what they said previously...

If such a thread would get, say, 1000 posts that would show, how much the change would be appreciated by the audience...

 

[Chromos]

I was thinking, one could do some sort of ´petition´-thread, where the idea is presented in detail in the OP and only posters who agree are asked to post once, so that the post-count would resemble a number of signitures. Discussion and nay-sayers would have to be directed to other threads. Of course, posters could add or comment on to the suggested idea, but they would have to agree to having it implemented as the OP discribes it (e.g. think its an improvement) and keep editing their sole post in the thread, if they want to add to what they said previously...

If such a thread would get, say, 1000 posts that would show, how much the change would be appreciated by the audience...

go go go..


Best regards,
Chromos

 

[RDG]

I am not sure I understand this thread. Please help me. When I want to Blitzkrieg the enemy, I simply hold down the Shift button and issue the attack order by then rightclicking several provinces in a row that my attacking unit should march through one after another. There is no delay then. They march until completely tired by battles. So I dont really see the problem with the attack delay.

 

[Raptor83]

I am not sure I understand this thread. Please help me. When I want to Blitzkrieg the enemy, I simply hold down the Shift button and issue the attack order by then rightclicking several provinces in a row that my attacking unit should march through one after another. There is no delay then. They march until completely tired by battles. So I dont really see the problem with the attack delay.

Its worked this way in early HoI3 (pre 1.02 patch IIRC) - currently your units will always have attack delay after battle (unless battle takes several days to resolve).

 

[ltccone]

Its worked this way in early HoI3 (pre 1.02 patch IIRC) - currently your units will always have attack delay after battle (unless battle takes several days to resolve).

And that is what bugs me about attack delay. If you fight a battle long enough, there is no attack delay. But if you fight a one or two hour battle against a HQ unit, it will take you several days to "recover." It should be just the opposite.

 

[unmerged(207443)]

Been away for a while, so I hope this does not cover ground previously discussed.
There are two primary drivers of delay in a units movement in either the attack or retrograde. The first is command and control. This is best modeled by the unit ORG. A unit should be still able to move up to zero ORG as long as the original movement order called for movement past the location of the battle and the attack was successful. This would account for the planning and operational techs as well as the radio techs. All of these appear to be modeled in the game. The second is the operational limits of supply. While modeled, this continues to be a weakness in some cases but overall seems to work well. The model forces mature supply structure prior to large scale attacks. While not perfect, at the army and higher level the modeling seems to work pretty realistically. The attack delay could improve a bit, but I think that part of our collective frustration is that we are modern. Think of how impossibly difficult it would have been to issue new orders, change supply routes, coordinate artillery etc, for a corps back in 1939-1944 using paper, couriers and wire field phones. In my professional opinion, HOI3 gets it pretty close to accurate.

 

[TankFist]

This was the main 'feature' that made me ragequit HOI3 when it first came out. Now I finally come back, and it still hasn't been fixed...

are there any mods that fix this?

 

[Pugmak]

Haven't read the whole thread so if this has been mentioned, just consider it another vote if not, well then, I get to be unique

What ever you grand wizards of theory and game design come up with, I'd like to see training level (from laws), unit experience and the skill level of the commanding officer play a much much larger role in both org regain/loss and delay times.

Experienced units rally faster, have experienced NCOs and officers that are experienced at such things as impact both org and delay. They've practiced a lot under real conditions. That's what experience is.
Units with more invested into their initial training and officer/nco selection processes will be better geared toward adjusting quicker to the unusual events that might crop up from time to time on a battlefield. Events such as having to get their crap back into one bag after a battle, or not getting lost on the march.
Higher skilled commanders would tend to be less tolerant of incompetents and/or slackers in the chain beneath themselves. Soooo...

PS. I'd also like to see experience removed from the training laws. I know it's too late to do that but for next game...
Experience is only gained by doing the thing in the real. Morale, elan, esprit and all that sort of thing can be gained by training the hell out of troops and stricter selection protocols for officers and nco's is what should be mimicked. No matter how tough the training, the first go in the real is still a shocker for all involved. Experience fixes that over time. Hard and long training makes that first go in the real a bit more survivable though.

So, I'd prefer it if training laws provided a modifier on shatter tolerance and possibly casualties/str loss rates and some impact on org regain/loss and delay issues. Experience should only be gained through doing. The impact of experience would be heavier toward org loss/regain and less toward str loss mitigation.

 

[No idea]

And that is what bugs me about attack delay. If you fight a battle long enough, there is no attack delay. But if you fight a one or two hour battle against a HQ unit, it will take you several days to "recover." It should be just the opposite.

Yes, this is totally counterintuitive and, I think, unrealistic. And I think PI guys are totally aware, but the system is currently as it is merely because of balance issues, IMHO. Changing it would require a lot of rebalancing.