Option to turn the timer off in campaigns pls

[Destraex1]

A lot of people do not like the timer at all (not me). Well I should qualify by just saying one of my friends

I don't think this would be hard to do as an option and it would help newbs a lot.

[womble]

More helpful to them would be to explain that it's okay to get beat by the timer, since that means you weren't beat by the AI. Explaining that it's okay to lose because you're only learning and the point of the game is to be able to operate under the constraints you're given.

Not to mention that the AI depends entirely on timing for anything dynamic it's going to do (to try and make the battle interesting), and if you're behind the clock by too much, the game could be very straightforward as the AI executes a series of unharrassed withdrawals.

[jep]

More helpful to them would be to explain that it's okay to get beat by the timer, since that means you weren't beat by the AI. Explaining that it's okay to lose because you're only learning and the point of the game is to be able to operate under the constraints you're given.

Not to mention that the AI depends entirely on timing for anything dynamic it's going to do (to try and make the battle interesting), and if you're behind the clock by too much, the game could be very straightforward as the AI executes a series of unharrassed withdrawals.

Artificial time limits prevent sensible tactics and gives feeling that I am only playing to solve puzzless. Well, I play real time games.

[sburke]

Artificial time limits prevent sensible tactics and gives feeling that I am only playing to solve puzzless. Well, I play real time games.

Perhaps we need to define artificial. The allotted game time plays a couple functions. One is to help you understand the AI plan is only going to handle a set period of time. You can edit a scenario to change that, but now you have effectively hamstrung the AI.

secondly it forces you to act. This is the only way to give the AI a chance. Once you have overrun the timer, you now have complete liberty to act knowing the AI has no further plans.

third - WW2 commanders (actually commanders in any era) rarely had the luxury of deciding when to act. They were given objectives and a time to meet those objectives. For some reason gamers seem to think a low level military commander gets to decide to take all the time they want to meet an objective. THAT is unrealistic. Even higher level commanders have timed objectives - closing a pocket on enemy troops for example doesn't work real well if one pincer takes it's good sweet time about doing so.

On the other hand deciding how long it should take to achieve X is a really really difficult proposition for a scenario designer. Is the audience playing RT vs WeGO, are they a cautious player, are they expereinced.. there are so many variables that affect how the AI plan will interact with a player's decisons to make a challenging, realistic and fun scenario that it is frankly very intimidating to create them. I know it has scared me off so far as the user response is all over the map and no one seems to appreciate that their opinion is completely counter to others.

[George MC]

Jeezo - search function. This one has been done to death umpteen times...

[womble]

Artificial time limits prevent sensible tactics...

Well hey, that must mean we're all not using sensible tactics if we don't edit all scenario times to 4 hours. Or your argument is meaningless. I know which my money is on.

What "artificial time limits" do is force you to execute those sensible tactics, rather than sit around running out of ammo reconning by fire for 5 minutes at every hedgerow.

...and gives feeling that I am only playing to solve puzzless....

In essence, that's all you are doing. Every contact is a tactical puzzle which you need to unlock. Those puzzles sum together to make the whole battle a puzzle.

Well, I play real time games.

So? That just means you have to rely on the TacAI more.

It's vital that you recognise that getting "total victory" in every scenario isn't necessary. Sometimes you just have to settle for what you can get.

As sburke, says, chopping the time limit can hamstring the AI, and is unrealistic. That position you're assaulting would certainly receive more reinforcements if you hang about for 3 hours before making your move.

[MikeyD]

A scenario without sufficient time to maneuver is a poorly designed scenario. But a properly designed AI orders set needs to be based on certain assumptions. That the human opponent will press the attack, will take one of several routes, will probably arrive at point X by time Y. If the player is just going to start a scenario then walk away while the clock's running it becomes impossible for the scenario designer to anticipate events.

[sburke]

A scenario without sufficient time to maneuver is a poorly designed scenario. But a properly designed AI orders set needs to be based on certain assumptions. That the human opponent will press the attack, will take one of several routes, will probably arrive at point X by time Y. If the player is just going to start a scenario then walk away while the clock's running it becomes impossible for the scenario designer to anticipate events.

And a scenario that can anticipate a human's actions and create a credible defensive action (much less those that simply have occasional unit movement to create the feel of an active opponent) is truly an art to appreciate.

Besides part of the tension of the game is to know you are going to have to take some risks. The issue then becomes how to lessen the risk by using better tactics, not simply by taking more time (however going slow is definitely a must).

@George MC - we need SOMETHING to kill time waiting for CMFI while at work...

[MG TOW]

"Time Appreciation" is a military term, and a necessary requirement in the real world. Abstractions aside, it has its place in this simulation just as it has in history.

[Destraex1]

The campaign is what makes it hard to edit the timer. It involves extracting the scenario and then editing every single mission and then figuring out how to repack it and recreate some of the text files that bind the mission together.

The fact is that some people do not want a timer in real time. Its that simple. I understand that time is a resource and I do consider it realistic. However some of my other friends think that attacks are not called off simply because they are behind schedule especially if they are making progress. One just has to look at the massive delays a lot of attacks suffered in ww2 to realise this. Some battles raged for days longer than intended.

Where is the referee to blow the whistle and tell you its full time?

I personally enjoy the timer because I am a naturally aggressive player. However some like to relax, take their time or are just plain slow with managing it all. They don't like to pause, they like to let things run while they are doing anything. Relax and play their uber detailed battle game.

I argued with him about all the things the battle timer could represent realistically. He never moved from the simple fact that an attack or defence can take as long as it likes regardless of everything else. He has not really played his investment since failing the first mission a few times. Saying that for a realistic game that hard coded feature is sure unrealistic and annoying.

[womble]

The campaign is what makes it hard to edit the timer. It involves extracting the scenario and then editing every single mission and then figuring out how to repack it and recreate some of the text files that bind the mission together.

Well, tough.

The fact is that some people do not want a timer in real time. Its that simple.

Simple. You may be on to something there.

...some of my other friends think that attacks are not called off simply because they are behind schedule especially if they are making progress.

Oh, they're probably right, but what they're missing, and this is especially true in the case of campaigns, is that this is a game, with a score, and an end point, and a context that is limited by the prescience of the game's designers. Sure, an attack might not get called off, but the circumstances in which it might continue are beyond the scope of the scenario. If you modify the time, you need to modify the chances of reinforcements turning up (for both sides), and you might as well throw any assessment of victory out of the window.

The timing is part of the narrative, and why the devil are they playing a campaign if they don't want narrative.

One just has to look at the massive delays a lot of attacks suffered in ww2 to realise this. Some battles raged for days longer than intended.

And they were different to the "scenario" the attacker had in mind when they began preparations.

However some like to relax, take their time or are just plain slow with managing it all.

Then they should play WeGo.

I argued with him about all the things the battle timer could represent realistically. He never moved from the simple fact that an attack or defence can take as long as it likes regardless of everything else. He has not really played his investment since failing the first mission a few times. Saying that for a realistic game that hard coded feature is sure unrealistic and annoying.

Rubbish. He failed, so he quit. An attack that doesn't get home in time is, "realistically" a failure. Seems he doesn't want realism, he wants to win, regardless.

[MikeyD]

I do have concernes about newbie players who jump into campaigns with both feet before getting enough battle experience. That seems to have been the source of a lot of 'game is broken' comments in the past. I spot their posts "I just downloaded the game, started up the campaign and... " and I think "NOOOOOO!!! Not the campaign first!!!" Later module campaigns, like the the CMSF NATO campaign, are often designed to be murderously difficult. The assumption is that module purchasers will most likely have months of gameplay under ther belts. You can take off the padded gloves and start brawling bare-knuckled.

[Paper Tiger]

There you go. There's a lot of reading in this thread.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=103215

FWIW, I am going to develop the solution I came up with to make the Scottish Corridor campaign playable for folks at all difficulty levels in my next campaign. It should keep the 'no time-limits' players very happy indeed. Further, when I revise 'The Scottish Corridor' campaign, it will also have this new solution.

[umlaut]

I agree with most of the points Womble made in his post above.

However, if some people want to play without a time limit (or just an extended one), I say: Let them have that option (if it is not too resource consuming for BFC to alter the game - I have no idea about that part).

Personally, I don´t think the time limits are a problem and thus I would never play that way. But each to his own.

[Paper Tiger]

My only experience of WW2 combat comes from movies and tv shows. In both, combat at the level that it is represented in the CMx2 games, is seemingly quite quick. For example, that 'Band of Brother's episode when they attack Hoy, that's a short, sharp and very bloody action, much shorter than any CMx2 mission that I'm aware of. I've no doubt it took a lot longer to fight in real life but basically, CMx2 is more suited to TV-style WW2 battles against the AI than real life ones as everything in the game happens so quickly. Your pixeltruppen are just too heroic, too good at their jobs under fire compared with their real life counterparts are because real people don't want to get hurt. They will do things that beggar belief for their friends but these actions are usually short adrenaline-fueled events that leave them utterly spent. They're not four hour actions at all.

[Destraex1]

I do agree with most of what you say Womble.

However some people such as my friend just want to enjoy the game and the narrative without believing in an artificial timer. They do not play to win but for the experience. They may not be the brightest or the most skillfull, but I am not an elitist either.. they enjoy the fine detail of a game like this. But do not want the stress. We have an "easy" level so why not add a timer tick box?

For a lot of people WEGO is something that should be for Strategic layers. It is too slow and too abstract. I agree is is good for those who like to control every detail. But pausing can just as easily do this in a pinch. But even then the pressure of a timer is still too much for some.

I agree that he failed the game in its intended time. However there is no incentive for him to play even on the easiest level if he is to be cut off at the knees when the timer runs out.

He would eventually move to timed missions, however the game has to be fun for him first at its easiest level. He does not care if the AI will be hobbled by his decision as long as he can have fun.

Realism in a lot of cases is not determined by what the scenario designer "intended". Best laid plans? British attacks especially are not known for their speed and it is the commonwealth scenario (first in the campaign) that he was playing. That mission can be very tough if your men have a hard time spotting AT guns I must say. For a novice like him I think it was a night mare.

[Destraex1]

My only experience of WW2 combat comes from movies and tv shows. In both, combat at the level that it is represented in the CMx2 games, is seemingly quite quick. For example, that 'Band of Brother's episode when they attack Hoy, that's a short, sharp and very bloody action, much shorter than any CMx2 mission that I'm aware of. I've no doubt it took a lot longer to fight in real life but basically, CMx2 is more suited to TV-style WW2 battles against the AI than real life ones as everything in the game happens so quickly. Your pixeltruppen are just too heroic, too good at their jobs under fire compared with their real life counterparts are because real people don't want to get hurt. They will do things that beggar belief for their friends but these actions are usually short adrenaline-fueled events that leave them utterly spent. They're not four hour actions at all.

Fighting may be short and sharp. However a lot of battles for a town say, did go on for hours. the action may be dispersed at intervals between that time however.

[JonS]

I do agree with most of what you say Womble.

However some people such as my friend just want to enjoy the game and the narrative without believing in an artificial timer.

Well, there's your - or rather his - basic problem. There is nothing "artificial" about the timer.

Believing that it's ok to give the human player an unlimited quantity of some particular resource? Now that's artificial.

They do not play to win but for the experience.

Encourage him to play H2H then. And, for H2H I don't see a major problem with ditching time limits ... as long as pretty much all the victory conditions are ditched too, and the players determine the victory conditions between themselves either before starting or after the game is over.

... WEGO is ... too slow and too abstract. I agree is is good for those who like to control every detail.

'Slow" and "abstract" are matters of taste, but it's definitely the real-time pause-monkeys who are the ones that want to control every detail. WEGO players are quite happy to trust in their plan and leave everything else to chance. It's the pause-monkeys that can't stand to see something going wrong without being able to step in immediately, or to see a fleeting opportunity pass without leaping on it immediately.

there is no incentive for him to play even on the easiest level if he is to be cut off at the knees when the timer runs out.

Time is a resource. Just like a platoon of tanks, or a company of infantry, or 100 off-map artillery rounds. They are all resources and the player has to manage them all to succeed.

Imagine that argument reframed as "there is no incentive for him to play even on the easiest level if he is to be cut off at the knees when the off-map artillery rounds run out - why can't he just keep firing?" or "there is no incentive for him to play even on the easiest level if he is to be cut off at the knees when his tanks are all dead - why can't replacements just keep appearing at the map edge?" Do you begin to see why the argument is not welcomed with open arms?

...it is the commonwealth scenario (first in the campaign) that he was playing. That mission can be very tough if your men have a hard time spotting AT guns I must say. For a novice like him I think it was a night mare.

Get him to play 18 Platoon as UK. That's a pretty gentle introduction to the British forces.

[Paper Tiger]

However a lot of battles for a town say, did go on for hours. the action may be dispersed at intervals between that time however.

Agreed. And it's possible to do this in CMx2 campaigns as well by having several linked battles covering the fighting over several days. The individual missions focus on the highlights of the battle for that town, perhaps the short but bloody firefight for the Post Office or somesuch building.

SL/ASL missions were designed in exactly the same way. They largely focussed on the action that decided the battle, those crucial 5-10 minutes that saw the fate of the battle decided. SL/ASL, in particular the modules such as Red Barricades, have been a real inspiration to me when I have been developing campaigns.

[Paper Tiger]

He does not care if the AI will be hobbled by his decision as long as he can have fun.

Realism in a lot of cases is not determined by what the scenario designer "intended". Best laid plans? British attacks especially are not known for their speed and it is the commonwealth scenario (first in the campaign) that he was playing. That mission can be very tough if your men have a hard time spotting AT guns I must say. For a novice like him I think it was a night mare.

What I'm getting from this is that losing is not fun? f you can't win the mission, then it's not fun, right? I have had lots of fun playing missions that I've lost in the past. In fact, they're usually the most fun, especially when you beat them. MikeyD said it best when he suggested that you cut your teeth and learn the game playing the stand-alones and training campaigns first before moving onto the campaigns.

FWIW, you don't get thrown out of the campaign for losing that mission. If you lose it, ouch, bad luck. Either try again or accept your loss and move on to the next mission. That's how I play campaigns. It's only unfair if losing these missions ejects you from the campaign.

[MikeyD]

What's that old description of war? Long stretches of boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror.

I've played my fair share of 'More is always better'-style scenarios. The game starts and you find yourself in the far corner of a huge map. Ugh. Time to go 'walkabout'. So you set up your movement orders and your men walk, and they walk, and they walk. You finally make contact with the enemy and the battle begins, and keeps going, and keeps going. Your ammo run low, your mortars and artillery are depleted, both side become so traumatized by the carnage they're unresponsive to commands. If one side doesn't surrender outright issuing orders to the survivors starts to resemble herding cats. In cases of quality gameplay more is not necessarily a synonym for better.

[womble]

They do not play to win but for the experience.

The timer is part of the experience. If they don't play to win, when the timer ticks over and says "Sorry, you lost. Better luck next time," what's the problem?

...they enjoy the fine detail of a game like this. But do not want the stress.

So hit pause while you're trying to think what to do. Or let it run while you think, then hit paise while you issue commands. Issuing commands (and getting the interface to do what you want it to) can take a lot longer than the Bttn CO getting on the blower and telling Easy Company to alter their axis of attack, so why let the timer push you? Not using the way to take the pressure off is just contrary.

We have an "easy" level so why not add a timer tick box?

Because the "easy" level has little to do with how hard it is to beat the AI.

For a lot of people WEGO is something that should be for Strategic layers.

Doesn't make their opinion correct. WeGo is "just" a way of avoiding YouGoIGo. A very good way. Doesn't matter a jot whether the turn bound is 1 minute or 1 month or an entire season (like Diplomacy/Machiavelli), the idea is to not give an artificial advantage to either the first mover or the second mover.

It is too slow and too abstract.

It's only as slow as you make it. I play reallly slowly. I obsess over details. There's no need to do that though. You can, if you want, just watch the replay once from a high viewpoint, click on a few units you think need their orders changing and hit the red button.

But pausing can just as easily do this in a pinch. But even then the pressure of a timer is still too much for some.

I'm sorry, but this is boggling. Really. If your friend wants all the time in the world, the pause button gives them that. If they don't care whether they win or lose, where's the "pressure"? So the game's over. Start another one. Or restart that one and see if you can get further this time. There's no cash money prize on the table. No one's life or livelihood, or even their smallest asset is on the line.

I agree that he failed the game in its intended time. However there is no incentive for him to play even on the easiest level if he is to be cut off at the knees when the timer runs out.

Again, "cut off at the knees" portraying "not winning" as a Bad Thing. Doesn't matter whether you win or lose. This is a difficult game if you're not well versed in tactics, the materiel of the era and the way it's represented in the interface and game. Those things only come with learning, either through research or practice. If you're a tyro at any one of the three, you're going to get your ass handed to you. Extending the timer won't change that, since it's just moving the goalposts because you're losing, which is, frankly, bad sportsmanship.

There is no incentive except what you make for yourself. If the only incentive is a "Victory" screen every game, then your friend is, frankly, playing the wrong game.

...the game has to be fun for him first at its easiest level...

The easiest level is a QB defending against the AI. The best thing about that, from your friend's POV, is that they can set the game to be 4 hours long, and the AI will keep hurling its disintegrating units against the defense until there aren't any left. And about an hour into the game, it will surrender. Assuming your friend has any idea about choke points and interlocking fields of fire. Absent any tactical nouse, they may get overrun in 25 minutes.

They can always give the attackers a smaller than usual force size to make sure they win, though.

Realism in a lot of cases is not determined by what the scenario designer "intended".

Actually, in the case of a scenario, realism is defined by what the designer intended. In the vast majority of cases, scenarios with short time limits have the reason for those time limits explained in the briefing. That's the "reality" within which you are playing the scenario. It's one of the parameters that defines whether you win or lose. Without the time limit, it's a meaningless exercise on the part of the designer. If you've got a hard objective and a short time limit, you've probably got more troops than you would have if you had all day, and the "Friendly Casualties" parameter is probably more forgiving.

Best laid plans? British attacks especially are not known for their speed and it is the commonwealth scenario (first in the campaign) that he was playing.

I don't know the campaign in question, but how much fun would it be to start a scenario, wait 3 hours for the "Go" order that should have been issued in turn 1 and then get started? Operational concerns such as delayed attacks are emphatically not reflected in the gameplay of CM. They may be referred to in the Briefing, and might even be why you're on a short timer: an attack that was supposed to start at midnight is now hours late, but you still need to be at this objective before dawn, for example. Campaigns reflect some operational issues, but the timer in the game isn't from some notional General Staff "T-time", it's from when you start maneuvering against potential opposition.

That mission can be very tough if your men have a hard time spotting AT guns I must say. For a novice like him I think it was a night mare.

Lots of scenarios are tough. Most of them, for my money, can only be played once before the FoW gets degraded too far for fun. So your friend should learn the trade in QBs, where he gets to set as long a timer as he likes, and can massage force levels to the point where he's having whatever it is he considers fun.

As has been said, expansion campaigns are written for vets, and even the base game campaigns (Courage and Fortitude and Panzers Marsch are the ones I've played through) are tough, forcing you, on occasion, to take a draw at the clock expiry just to continue with your force preserved.

One way the game could be greatly improved would be for more information on a given scenario to be visible before you start the scenario.

[MG TOW]

In multi player ... sure why not, wasn't clear it was for multiplayer reasons in the OP. In singleplayer..... well better hope for a looping AI.

[Destraex1]

Its not for multiplayer.

There is also no point this guy playing multi if he is that horrible at single.

I actually find it amusing that people are saying, hey its a game and then arguing that things are not realistic in the same post or a subsequent reply.

The fact remains that my mate would like it and so I am asking, realistic or gamey. Does not matter.

[womble]

Its not for multiplayer.

There is also no point this guy playing multi if he is that horrible at single.

I actually find it amusing that people are saying, hey its a game and then arguing that things are not realistic in the same post or a subsequent reply.

Read again. You offer (?your friend's?) argument that "time limits aren't realistic; battles could, historically, go on for hours," and then complain that the argument is countered. As you say, it's a game, and realism or otherwise is a matter of taste. However, if you introduce realism as a specious reason for something, expect it to be thrown back in your face. Also, arguing that it's a game isn't arguing against realism. It's arguing for recognising the boundaries and context of the game/simulation and how they affect the gameplay.

You've been told: your friend isn't going to get the designed fun out of campaigns. He should be playing easier missions (though it's dashed difficult to know which ones are easy), or QBs to learn how to get along in a "realistic" (in the context of the game's limitations and scope) situation. If your friend doesn't like realism, why does he like the detail?

Why in Ifni's spangled depths would BFC waste any development time on this, when it completely sidesteps the context of the game and can, in your friend's case, be entirely solved by the liberal use of the ESC key? Because he doesn't like to pause? I.e. he doesn't like to use the functions of the game to play the game? It's an asinine request to keep making in the face of the reasons why it's not needed.

Anyway, you've had enough from me. I'm not going to be adding anything, so if you want you get the last word. Just please try and read what has been written, and don't read any more than I wrote into what I've written.