Delayed commitment

[RGA]

What's the thinking behind this setting. Control aggressiveness ? It seems to reduce the chances of combat by decreasing the dice roll required to commit to battle. I did a small test on the Tannenberg scenario with Rennenkamf and his 1st army (attack posture) marching into Gumminben which had a small German corps.

The following is from the battle log.

Small Delay setting
12:49:33 (Reporting) Battle in 211 Gumbinnen Day: 6 Round: 0
12:49:33 (Reporting) Commit Chance 1001183 1-ya Armeskii 30 %, Rolled: 73 Not commited
12:49:33 (Reporting) Commit Chance 1001183 1-ya Armeskii 30 %, Rolled: 55 Not commited

Large delay setting
13:28:52 (Reporting) Battle in 211 Gumbinnen Day: 6 Round: 0
13:28:52 (Reporting) Commit Chance 1001183 1-ya Armeskii 10 %, Rolled: 44 Not commited
13:28:52 (Reporting) Commit Chance 1001183 1-ya Armeskii 10 %, Rolled: 1 Commited

How is the commit chance arrived at and why do you get two rolls ?

[Kensai]

By design. I think a higher delayed commitment makes march-to-the-sound-of-guns maneuvers more difficult to coordinate. In essence, you will have fewer chances to see them engaging.

[Merlin]

By design. I think a higher delayed commitment makes march-to-the-sound-of-guns maneuvers more difficult to coordinate. In essence, you will have fewer chances to see them engaging.

That's generally been my experience across two games.

[John Sedgwick]

Is there any consensus as to the best option for realism/playability? I typically use medium or long delay, but would a shorter delay better replicate the difficulty of achieving a breakthrough against a defensive line in this period?

[Merlin]

In my opinion, the longer the delay the greater the unpredictability of the system, and that encompasses the majority of commitment function. At least for me, the short delay has resulted in a system where I tend towards spoiling attacks that generally don't result in much more than a constant stream of casualties, mostly in the 5,000-10,000 range.

[Lynxyonok]

Is there any consensus as to the best option for realism/playability? I typically use medium or long delay, but would a shorter delay better replicate the difficulty of achieving a breakthrough against a defensive line in this period?

I always play no delay, to mimic the carnage of the war. And when other stacks jump in to help, each battle becomes an entire operation.

[H Gilmer3]

Delayed commitment actually helped me once. I had several units attacking and they were due to get to the target region in 6 days, and then I had more formations coming from somewhere else and they were due to get there at 7 days. Well, with delayed commitment, the battle started on something like the 11th day and by that time all my formations were in the region and could attack all at once.

WHEW!!! I was a little afraid about that one, let me tell you.

[Kensai]

I think Medium is the ideal setting regarding realism. Not too high, not too low probability. But it's up to the player, I guess. In AJE I could set it to Large because I want to abstract the ancient armies' worse communication lines. Perhaps in a post-WW1 title we could set it to Small. A modern or fantasy title, potentially None.

[RGA]

From what I am seeing I think I prefer the large delay. Battles develop more slowly and re-enforcements take time to arrive, also it seems the better the Generals strategic rating the more likely he is to send his corps as a re-enforcement.