Time limits

[Casus_Belli]

I know this issue has been discussed many times, but I want to see if I can do something to change the situation. The idea of there being a time limit to battles strikes me as completely nonsensical. Now, I know there's an argument to be made that RL missions will have NLT (no later than) parameters, in which junior commanders are given a certain amount of time to complete their missions, but this doesn't mean the battle simply stops when the time comes. The allies were supposed to take Caen with a few days of landing, but it actually took some weeks. Here, it's as if suddenly someone stood up at the end of the allocated time with a whistle and blew it and yelled "Okay, that's it!", and then everyone goes home for a cuppa tea. It's utterly ridiculous.

OK, if you disagree, and you think it's realistic that everybody simply stops fighting at the appointed hour, hugs and goes home to their families, fair enough, have it your way, and I do see the point, kidding aside. But at least let there be an option for me to turn off the time limit if I want to. This was the reason I stopped playing this game some years ago. It's a fabulous game, but this aspect just completely kills it for me, and I know I'm not the only one. I'm just gaining the upper hand,  having kept my casualties to a minimum and using artillery judiciously, and as I'm about to move in for the kill, someone abruptly tells me I've lost!

Is there a mod or some change I can make that removes this ludicrous limit? Some help, please! And developers, surely it wouldn't be too hard to include an option to have unlimited time in QBs.

[ASL Veteran]

You are right, this has been discussed before.  Your Caen 'example' also sounds familiar.  However, it also is a mischaracterization of the situation represented by time limits in the game to state that the battle suddenly comes to an end.  It just means that you, the player, are unable to continue because you, the player, did not achieve the objectives within the time limit as specified by the scenario designer.  The battle may very well, and more than likely does, continue on after the 'time limit' expires.  That battle continuation is functionally irrelevant though because if the conditions for the determination of victory as specified by the scenario designer (an inherently artificial construct) is not achieved by the player within the time limits that designer specified then the player loses when that time limit has been reached.  The designer determines what victory and defeat mean within the context of the battle he has created and time limit is simply one factor of many.

I understand the desire for players to eliminate time limits and I personally don't care how someone else plays the game.  If you can find a way to eliminate time limits then more power to you.  I don't think trying to make an argument about time limits as being unrealistic is going to move the discussion forward though because, for one thing, the case for time limits being unrealistic isn't necessarily a persuasive one and for another there doesn't seem to be any desire on the part of BFC to include an 'unlimited' time limit option.

[MOS:96B2P]

2 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

Snip -  Is there a mod I can make that removes this ludicrous limit? Some help, please! And developers, surely it wouldn't be too hard to include an option to have unlimited time in QBs.

In a Quick Battle you, the player, set the time limit when you are choosing the various parameters for the QB.  For a scenario (battle) you can open it in the scenario editor and change the time.  I think you can make them four hours long plus the extra time.

[Erwin]

As an entertainment product, the existing time-limits can often be real fun-killers.  However, it seems to be a limitation of the system that the AI, since it has to be programmed by the designer, stops effective tactical actions at the time limit.  At least that seems to be the designers' argument. 

An option to extend a time limit by maybe 10 minutes would be good.  If one is hardcore one can still limit oneself to the designed time limit.  But, sometimes it's very satisfying to have a few extra minutes to experience a complex attack work out to conclusion.  

[A Canadian Cat]

10 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

OK, if you disagree, and you think it's realistic that everybody simply stops fighting at the appointed hour, hugs and goes home to their families, fair enough, have it your way, and I do see the point, kidding aside.

LOL Well that's not the argument against time limits. It is even vaguely insulting. Perhaps that was not your intention

@ASL Veteran already played it out in general terms but I will add that as someone who enjoys the challenge of defending time limits are all you really have. Most scenarios and the points in quick battles give the attacker ample points to destroy the defender the best the defender can do is delay as well as possible. The time limit becomes the most important thing. Frankly when playing other humans time time limits are too long

 

10 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

But at least let there be an option for me to turn off the time limit if I want to.

@MOS:96B2P gave you the way to work around this in the game. I think the max time is four hours if I recall correctly. I think that unless you are simulating meals and sleep that should be enough.

 

10 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

This was the reason I stopped playing this game some years ago. It's a fabulous game, but this aspect just completely kills it for me, and I know I'm not the only one. 

Sounds like someone needs a waaambulance.

Now you know that you can set a super long time limit and play just the way you like. Have fun!

[Warts 'n' all]

I've always felt that for the most part the time limit, unit allocation, and map size, work really well in CM. It is basically, the higher ups giving you the orders, and leaving you to get on with it in the specified time. If you don't, you lose. Fair enough in my book.

[Bulletpoint]

I like time limts for realism and creating tension in a scenario. You need to balance the need to advance with the need for caution.

However, it could be nice if we could make time limits more flexible, so instead of ending the battle at a set time, you would start to lose victory points after a certain time limit is reached. So if you need just 5 more minutes to take the objective, you could do that, but it would cost you points.

Maybe make the points cost escalate so that the first extra minute is cheap, then aditional minutes become more and more costly. At some point you would need to decide to fight on or cease fire before you lost too many points

[A Canadian Cat]

Extra time eroding points is a good suggestion. The issue with that is it would mean changes to how the game ends. In player vs the AI when you are the attacker it would work on as now. But as the defender you can end the game when you want which might not be the best for the AI. With head to head cease fired are currently by agreement so that suggtion would not work there either.

What game ending changes would you recommend for your points erosion idea to work?

[StieliAlpha]

What people tend to forget: CM is a simulation and can as such only simulate certain aspects of real life. How long would you like to extend the battles?

Until your troops are sent to Sicily for rest? Would you want to take care of supplies during "dolce vita"? Or shall we extend until they are sent home for retirement? And then see how they fare in civil life? 

[StieliAlpha]

12 minutes ago, IanL said:

Extra time eroding points is a good suggestion. The issue with that is it would mean changes to how the game ends. In player vs the AI when you are the attacker it would work on as now. But as the defender you can end the game when you want which might not be the best for the AI. With head to head cease fired are currently by agreement so that suggtion would not work there either.

What game ending changes would you recommend for your points erosion idea to work?

With less polemic and following bulletpoints idea: After a certain time limit, one could start to deduct from earned victory points, until all are gone. But then: Who sets the deduction, based on what? What happens to points gained in between? And then we are back to my previous post.

[A Canadian Cat]

6 minutes ago, StieliAlpha said:

With less polemic 

You read that as an attack? I had to look up polemic that's how non atack that was. The OP deserved some scorn IMHO but @Bulletpoint did not. So, that was not my intent in any way.

I was simply pointing out that a change like that needs some additional changes to support it. And I wondered if he had some thoughts on that.

[Erwin]

My point is that there is nothing to stop the purists from keeping to the designer's time limits.  However, there are often situations that are very interesting and where an extra 10 or so turns would be fun and fascinating. 

This suggestion isn't forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to.  It would simply give the option to those who would appreciate the option.  As most play vs the AI, that's what am thinking of.  H2H is a different issue.

[StieliAlpha]

2 hours ago, IanL said:

You read that as an attack? I had to look up polemic that's how non atack that was. The OP deserved some scorn IMHO but @Bulletpoint did not. So, that was not my intent in any way.

I was simply pointing out that a change like that needs some additional changes to support it. And I wondered if he had some thoughts on that.

Nono, don't worry. I replied to my earlier post, which was a little polemic.

Bulletpoints idea was pretty good, indeed. But it is not solving the question of the OP. What ever refinements you introduce, you have  to stop somewhere. And each end point is pretty arbritary. Why not continue the simulation eternally? But then, I want you to simulate how I scratch my back. I assure you, not everybody wants to see that. ?

So, my conclusion: Keep CM as it is. Any addition to this micro tactical game will come out pretty awkward.

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

What game ending changes would you recommend for your points erosion idea to work?

None, it should simply be another option for the scenario designer to use where it makes sense.

If designing a defensive mission, the designer could choose not to use this option, and go with the hard time limit instead. Same goes for scenarios for two players.

[A Canadian Cat]

15 minutes ago, StieliAlpha said:

Nono, don't worry. I replied to my earlier post, which was a little polemic

Oh OK good got it

[John Kettler]

For a look at how this time limit stuff played out in a real battle, may I suggest reading Ken Ford's Assault on Germany: The Battle for Geilenkirchen for how these things work on the sharp end? There are numerous examples showing the various triggers, if you will, that bring combat to a halt. It's a simply tremendous book and utterly deserves its rating.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited September 25, 2016 by John Kettler

[Casus_Belli]

Okay, time to back-pedal. Please, everyone, excuse my overblown and, yes, polemical first post. It was not intended as insulting, except in a kidding-around kind of way, so I hope no-one is too offended.

I do get, as I said, why the time limits exist, and I appreciate that there are good arguments for keeping them, but there's no reason why people shouldn't keep them. Nobody is suggesting they should be disallowed, only that there should be an option to not have them, or to cancel them in scenarios. Also, they're very short. In quick battles, two hours is the limit. It took them at least four hours to get of the beach and up the cliffs at Omaha, for example, and many other battles lasted for days at a time. Perhaps you can get into the editor and change it, and thanks very much for the tip, but even then it's only up to four hours. You know whether you've won or lost when all your men are dead or have fled the field, or if you're in possession of the field. If you're defending, you know you're doing okay as long as your men are still in position. You don't need an egg-timer to tell you these things. Anyway, the point is there should be an option.

Now don't get me started on the artillery system...

[JoMac]

Casuas Belli

What you are suggesting actually works better using a Multi-Battle Campaign and not a Single Battle.

Also, to keep things into perspective, CM uses Time Compression to simulate Battles that could last several hours...a 15 minute turn in CM could equal an Hour of Combat in RL (that's BF's reasoning anyways). 

Combat in CM is a lot more deadlier then in RL, and your Omaha example would have All Troops on one side Dead in an hour. 

Joe

Edited September 26, 2016 by JoMc67

[John Kettler]

Casus_Belli,

Welcome aboard!

As the saying goes, if you wanted our attention, you've got it. So far, you're doing a fine job living up to your moniker.

Speaking as someone with far more experience defending than attacking (defending being more easily done when learning the ropes), if time limits are set aside or even increased, the Defender is screwed. As it is, going into deep OT is the stuff of nightmares. The only way I can see the Defender' surviving is if reinforcements are provided. Speaking as the veteran of many a grim dogged defensive action going clear back to CMx1's CMBO, by the time the clock runs out, unless the attacker was criminally stupid, horribly, horribly unlucky, or both, the Defender's force will be hanging on by fingernails--if it's lucky. If you add in more game clock, the exhausted, quite likely ammo depleted force will collapse in the face of the more numerous attackers, who almost certainly will not be in dire ammo straits and won't be down to a handful of shooters, either. Time is the eternal enemy in war, and for want of a start line's being captured timely by, say, a company, an entire Army might be stuck in place. The big pieces can't move until the little ones move first. Warfare runs off schedules, and if the schedules aren't met, things start falling apart. Late fire support leaves exposed infantry, results in butchered infantry, which results in stalled advance, etc. Objectives must be seized before dawn or taken before dusk. the bridge must be seized before the enemy blows it up. A key road junction must be captured before the enemy gets there.  Tanks slithering in the mud to the rear mean either the infantry goes in unsupported, or everything has to wait until the tanks finally arrive--in time for action the next day, not today.

If you wish to wage CM war sans game clock, by all means, but I find the game is quite the handful as it is, especially vs. human. We have members who dance between the raindrops vs the AI and wipe the floor when playing against it, but humans are a lot smarter and more devious than the AI. To my knowledge, the Defender is allocated forces not just at a fixed ratio vs the Attacker, but based on the anticipated scale of combat within the defined time frame. Remove the time constraint, and the odds are extremely high the Defender will be ultimately reduced to military puree, helpless to do anything.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Casus_Belli]

Dear John,

Again, I beg pardon for the tone of my first post. It was meant to be more histrionic and amusing than really sarcastic or insulting, but I should know by now that tone is hard to convey in text.

As I've said several times, I do see the point of time limits, I just find that it kills the enjoyment of the game for me. I could engage a number of the points you've made regarding both real war and the game, but that is not my purpose. You say "If you wish to wage CM war sans game clock, by all means..." but that's exactly my complaint: I can't. There's no option for me to do that.

Yours in conciliatory tone.

[Casus_Belli]

Just to leave it on a high note, I do find the game extremely enjoyable and a remarkable achievement by the developers. I've been playing them since the very first one and 'wasted' many a happy hour on them. If I didn't think the game was so great, I wouldn't bother complaining.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Casus_Belli

[A Canadian Cat]

8 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Also, to keep things into perspective, CM uses Time Compression to simulate Battles that could last several hours...a 15 minute turn in CM could equal an Hour of Combat in RL (that's BF's reasoning anyways). 

? I don't recall reading that. It has been discussed before that we play the game at a faster pace that real life due to a combination of better ability to coordinate units and basic aggressiveness because our lives are not on the line. I do not recall BFC putting a mesure on it though.

[A Canadian Cat]

4 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

If I didn't think the game was so great, I wouldn't bother complaining.

That is true enough. Welcome to the forum!

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, IanL said:

10 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Also, to keep things into perspective, CM uses Time Compression to simulate Battles that could last several hours...a 15 minute turn in CM could equal an Hour of Combat in RL (that's BF's reasoning anyways). 

? I don't recall reading that. It has been discussed before that we play the game at a faster pace that real life due to a combination of better ability to coordinate units and basic aggressiveness because our lives are not on the line. I do not recall BFC putting a mesure on it though.

I think it's about things such as artillery spotting and buddy aid happening faster than real life on the lower difficulty levels. Also probably suppression effects clear up much faster than in a real battle, and troop morale state arguably recovers faster.

[JoMac]

5 hours ago, IanL said:

? I don't recall reading that. It has been discussed before that we play the game at a faster pace that real life due to a combination of better ability to coordinate units and basic aggressiveness because our lives are not on the line. I do not recall BFC putting a mesure on it though.

Your Correct in that BFC didn't put a time measure per-say (that # I stated is how I roughly perceived it to be), but rather CM has a 'Time Compression' factor of sorts including the ones you listed.