CMC Multiplayer - only Hotseat and PBEM?

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by Sergei:

In TCP/IP play, you and your opponent issue your orders SIMULTANEOUSLY. So, assuming that both you and your opponent need as much time for orders phase, there is no waiting needed.

Not entirely true, but I was unclear; yes they start first but one always finishes first, is this not so? The larger the map or the larger the disparity in forces, the longer it seems to take one player versus another. At least, in my experience with TCP play. Your mileage may vary, according also to whether you are on the attack, defence, etc. Digging in and staying hidden means you issue fewer orders. There are differences in movie viewing habits also; some players need a quick high level scan, others go in close and replay multiple times. I'd suggest it is very rare for two players to continually finish assigning orders/watching movies simultaneously.

[Sergei]

Yes, that is why I included the "assuming..." part.

[Little_Black_Devil]

The cumbersome process of extracting turns from emails is unecessary - if you are able to exchange the same information with TCP/IP.

Call me lazy if you want.

I'm also taking into consideration, that emails do not necessarily arrive within seconds after their transmission. I know my own service provider is, on the whole not too bad - but there are some out there that inadvertently apply a delay of a few minutes before the email is even available for download.

(For reasons unknown to this lamen)

Between that ~potential~ delay, and the process of grabbing the turn from your email - I see the process as unecessarily long and cumbersome, when all of the turn data can (or should be) able to be transmitted by TCP/IP.

The only real wait time, that can't be circumvented is - as Sergei pointed out, is if you finish giving all of your orders first, and are waiting for your opponent to finish his.

It has been my experience that this is not usually very long - but I confess to not having played tons of other players, so take it for what its worth.

As I recall though - you can establish a timer to effectively "control" this as well if you find yourself playing one of those REAL deep thinkers.

The important part, is that we should be able to both sit in game - continuously - and trade turns back and fourth live without having to alt-tab out and constantly tinker with other programs, hope that your email service isn't clogged etc.

I know you can use PBEM to somewhat emulate playing "live" - but why settle for that collectively cumbersome process if both players are available at the same time to play the game - especially when TCP/IP already exists in CMBB?

Cheers

[Renaud]

We would MUCH rather play for a few hours straight, and pick it up again next Saturday as it were - than play piecemeal here and there with PBEM.

I think TCP/IP would work on the CMC operational map until one of the CMC turns resulted in multiple CMBB battles. Then you may be looking at 1-many battles, perhaps 6 or 8 at a time. TCP/IP in CMC then becomes moot. Just finishing one CMBB battle will take hours, even with a 3 minute orders time limit.

AI vs AI CMBB battles is not possible now and won't be with CMC either, so that won't work. Unless you use the CMC resolver, which does not require CMBB at all, times to play the multiple CMBB battles will have to be arranged.

Russophile: The main reason TCP/IP CMBB resolution is faster, is that you can put a timer on the orders phase. Three minute timer means the orders phase is over in 3 minutes regardless of whether you are done or not. PBEM gives the opportunity for a long and tedious chess-like consideration of your moves. I know I spent an hour or more on some of my orders phases in larger and close fought ROW battles.

I much prefer timed TCP/IP because I think it more accurately simulates the time pressures impacting a commander's judgement on the real battlefield. For instance, you may not have time to issue orders to your 3rd platoon in a quiet area because you spend too much time yelling to 1st platoon over the field telephone. Or running up there yourself if the wire's out.

[Ike]

The CMC part should be conducted in PBEM. This gives the opposing "Generals" time to reflect on what they should do. The CM:BB games likewise "should" be conducted via TCP/IP play, precisely because this gives the opposing tactical commanders little or no time to reflect on what they should do. Just like the real thing, eh?

[Max_Dementis]

PBEM is alive and well at Band of Brothers. I am playing about 6 PBEM games of CMBB and CMAK at this time, as do many in BOB. I am still using dial up since I live too far out in the country for DSL or any other fast connection. We have a few players who play some TCP\IP games, but most also play PBEM. We have mortgages, kids, wives, jobs etc. that preclude us from sitting in front of a PC screen for hours, with PBEM we can play anytime we want. This past month I have finished at least six games.

Needless to say, we at BOB are looking forward to this campaign game with great anticipation. We see all kinds of new possibilities for tournaments (we have about ten going right now).

Our site is: http://webandofbrothers.de/index.htm

Go to the message boards and check out all the tournaments we have going.

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by Renaud:

Russophile: The main reason TCP/IP CMBB resolution is faster, is that you can put a timer on the orders phase. Three minute timer means the orders phase is over in 3 minutes regardless of whether you are done or not. PBEM gives the opportunity for a long and tedious chess-like consideration of your moves. I know I spent an hour or more on some of my orders phases in larger and close fought ROW battles.

This is the first good point, IMO, in favour of TCP as a "must have" feature. I've never used the timer and have never had a problem with "slow" opponents, however, can see the utility in this feature and many reasons why others would prefer it. Good point, thanks.

[Little_Black_Devil]

Well - with my understanding of how CMC will work, limited to the Overview/Features advertised on the webpage, and a few tid-bits in this forum - I don't see multiple concurrent battles being an issue for two players who want to play out a game via TCP/IP.

However - I'm making the assumption, that indeed - those "other" battles are AI controlled, and I also assume it is the mechanics from within CMC that will resolve them, without delving into CMBB at all - and I'm okay with that.

AI battles that are not opted into, or controlled by players are in effect - "ambiance" that may have strategic or operational implications.

That unto its self - is pretty cool I think. :cool:

However, how exactly those "other" - AI - battles influence player battles is certainly a relevant question, as it might be directly related to this issue.

I for one don't know the answer to that question because I don't fully understand how it all comes together yet.

What I do know is - that I would much prefer to use TCP/IP when playing someone "live", regardless of whether we're in the CMC or CMBB aspect of the new hybrid game, because Hotseating and PBEM just aren't as practial for "live" play.

As TCP/IP already exists in CMBB, I don't think its that much of a stretch to expect to see it in CMC - but maybe I'm missing something...?

Being a lamen - it all seems so simple from my point of view.

Cheers

[Hunter]

Originally posted by Ike:

The CMC part should be conducted in PBEM. This gives the opposing "Generals" time to reflect on what they should do. The CM:BB games likewise "should" be conducted via TCP/IP play, precisely because this gives the opposing tactical commanders little or no time to reflect on what they should do. Just like the real thing, eh?

Sorry I missed this thread.

Indeed CMC turns are conducted PBEM, not TCP/IP. Each turn requires significant thought, and if there are battles, several hours of gaming to play them out. The Multiplayer host system uses EM to manage the incoming and outgoing files.

For battles that emerge from the campaign, they can be played PBEM, or TCP/IP. As discussed, some people want to play IP so that they can speed the whole thing up.

Hunter

[dieseltaylor]

Russophile/Renaud

I have plenty many battles TCp/IP, LAN and Pbem. I can agree that TCP is very intense and in most ways a better battle experience. It does fallover though with very large battles and where you have offense/defence.

By fallover I do mean it is playable but you cannot do good orders in a reasonable time slot - 3 mins being bearable. Defence is easy peasy to play and attack has to be precise to work well so the stress level is very different. Also the chances of interruption I find mean anything other than a >2000 ME is not a rewarding experience.

As for the hundred or so I have played of PBEM,[64 in the last 15 months], it can be very satisfying not to rush a game. However it is even more fun when using OBEMHelper where every e-mail is two order turns and two movies. If you routinely log in at least every two hours you can complete a 32+ game in 3-5 days without trouble. Very fast but without being tied to you computer for hours on end unable to do anything else. : )

[Shmavis]

While I believe TCP/IP would be the best way to speed tactical battles along, if they're going to be 60+ turns, the players will be fairly frazzled(for lack of a better term) by game's end, especially with a turn timer. I suppose players could agree to take breaks. That type of stress might just be what the hard-core crowd wants.

Incidentally, isn't "serious gamer" an oxymoron?

[Little_Black_Devil]

Originally posted by Hunter:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ike:

The CMC part should be conducted in PBEM. This gives the opposing "Generals" time to reflect on what they should do. The CM:BB games likewise "should" be conducted via TCP/IP play, precisely because this gives the opposing tactical commanders little or no time to reflect on what they should do. Just like the real thing, eh?

Sorry I missed this thread.

Indeed CMC turns are conducted PBEM, not TCP/IP. Each turn requires significant thought, and if there are battles, several hours of gaming to play them out. The Multiplayer host system uses EM to manage the incoming and outgoing files.

For battles that emerge from the campaign, they can be played PBEM, or TCP/IP. As discussed, some people want to play IP so that they can speed the whole thing up.

Hunter </font>

[Philippe]

I would have thought that TCP/IP for CMC campaign turns and PBEM for the resulting CMBB battles would have made more sense.

A CMC campaign turn might generate a dozen engagements, two thirds of which would probably be too trivial to play out (unless you're a hardcore fanatic, but let's not go there yet).

I think there's an increase in realism from playing out those four remaining battles simultaneously. In TCP/IP you would have to play them sequentially, and depending on which you played first the outcome of the earlier battles might influence your behavior in the later ones. In PBEM mode you could at least attempt to play them all at once -- and while your opponent was cranking out his first move on one battle you could be working on your setup for the second one, so the whole process would probably be almost as efficient (and much less exhausting) than a TCP/IP orgy.

Having said that, I rather like the idea of making it possible to play the CMC campaign turn in TCP/IP, because I would imagine that the time pressure would be proportionate to the number of decisions that would need to be made.

Imagine the extreme case -- two divisions throw ten battalions at each other in ten battalion-sized battles that erupt simultaneously. There's no way to play that in TCP/IP without going totally nuts. In PBEM it would take a while, but it could be done. By the same token, unless there's something about CMC that makes it inherently impossible, I don't see why the twenty-odd decisions each side would have to make to set that absurd battle up couldn't take place simultaneously in TCP/IP. The game would be a time sink, but at least you'd save a little time on the front-end.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Philippe:

I would have thought that TCP/IP for CMC campaign turns and PBEM for the resulting CMBB battles would have made more sense.

Hmmh? "Okay guys, let's get together online for 10 minutes to play this one turn, then log out to play the battles through e-mail!"

[NIX]

Originally posted by Ike:

The CMC part should be conducted in PBEM. This gives the opposing "Generals" time to reflect on what they should do. The CM:BB games likewise "should" be conducted via TCP/IP play, precisely because this gives the opposing tactical commanders little or no time to reflect on what they should do. Just like the real thing, eh?

Exactly my thoughts. I have only played TCP/IP games the last few years and would have a hard going back to playing battles PBEM. However, in the grand scheme, the "Generals" should have the time to observe the situation and calculate future moves.

[Renaud]

Exactly my thoughts Sergei.

There's no way to play that in TCP/IP without going totally nuts. In PBEM it would take a while, but it could be done.

It took months for me to finish my five simultaneous ROW games and I turned around orders in 24 hours, sometimes less. For one battle, we both had no life so we sat there swapping emails and finished in a day. But doing it that way was so much slower than TCP/IP. In ROW, no one in their right mind would use TIMED TCP. Except me, but i'm not in my right mind.

I would hope to play timed 1 or 3-minute TCP games. Keep in mind you can save TCP/IP games any time and resume so you could have all of your TCP games going simultaneously just as with PBEM, but based on my experience with both, 5 tcp/ip games are going to be completed faster.

I think the worry about battle results of one game affecting the next isn't a problem. All CMBB battle results are returned to CMC at the same time (meaning after all battles are resolved), which then handles the results and displays them on the Op map at the same time. Whether you are using PBEM or TCP/IP is immaterial to this.

At least I THINK that's they way it will work.

[Little_Black_Devil]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Philippe:

I would have thought that TCP/IP for CMC campaign turns and PBEM for the resulting CMBB battles would have made more sense.

Hmmh? "Okay guys, let's get together online for 10 minutes to play this one turn, then log out to play the battles through e-mail!" </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Little_Black_Devil:

It is exactly that continuous and uninterrupted "style" of gameplay that players who favour a "live" games are looking for.

Cheers

But you don't seem to give enough consideration to that the play of CMC would be continously interrupted by the tactical battles. Maybe not every turn all of the time, but still, quite often. This can still work in a 1 on 1 game, but add more players, and it doesn't work. Therefore I do consider that TCP/IP would be a "nice but impractical" type of feature for CMC, and as adding network code to a game is not just a trivial workload (let's not forget how long it took to add in CMBO), I'd much prefer the precious programming resources to be spent on the game itself.

[Little_Black_Devil]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Little_Black_Devil:

It is exactly that continuous and uninterrupted "style" of gameplay that players who favour a "live" games are looking for.

Cheers

But you don't seem to give enough consideration to that the play of CMC would be continously interrupted by the tactical battles. Maybe not every turn all of the time, but still, quite often. This can still work in a 1 on 1 game, but add more players, and it doesn't work. Therefore I do consider that TCP/IP would be a "nice but impractical" type of feature for CMC, and as adding network code to a game is not just a trivial workload (let's not forget how long it took to add in CMBO), I'd much prefer the precious programming resources to be spent on the game itself. </font>

[Bruceov]

So is Tcp-ip supported or not

[86smopuim]

play most turns the TCP, save game, then PBEM the last few.

not optimal but problem is solved.

[mrpwase]

Originally posted by Sergei:

You're in a minority anyway, as hardly anyone plays CMBB using TCP/IP.

Ahem. Don't make generalisations like that. PBEM bores me to death.

[Little_Black_Devil]

So - any chance TCP/IP might make it in a future patch at least - or should be abandon all hope?

[Tactical Wargamer]

No TCP/IP and forget it not worth buying the product............IMHO.

[Renaud]

But for the reasons already stated, TCP/IP for CMC Op turns makes no sense. To paraphrase Russophile, "lets log on and play a 2-hour CMC turn, then log off and spend weeks playing the resulting tactical battles via tcp/ip or PBEM's...then log into the CMC tcp/ip feature for our next 2-hour Op turn".

There is no issue regarding simultaneous resolution: whether you are using IP, PBEM or a mix of the 2 is immaterial. I'm pretty sure all tactical CMBB battles must be completed before any results are returned to CMC for the next Op turn.

Also, the CMBB battles can be UP TO 60 turns. They will not all be 60 turns, or 60+ turns. If I understand correctly, the length of the CMBB battle is determined by how quickly the first combatants arrive in the same CMC Op map square (2x2). So if the first 2 enemy forces arrive after 35 minutes of travel on the Op map or whatever, the CMBB battle would be 25 turns max, with late-arriving forces coming in as reinforcements at the appropriate CMBB turns.

By fallover I do mean it is playable but you cannot do good orders in a reasonable time slot - 3 mins being bearable. Defence is easy peasy to play and attack has to be precise to work well so the stress level is very different. Also the chances of interruption I find mean anything other than a >2000 ME is not a rewarding experience.

Definitely agree. Larger attack/defense battles using CMBB tcp/ip are unwieldy unless you want to use lengthy timers, or no timer...too hard for the attacker relative to the defender, and any tcp/ip game which lasts over 4 hours is impractical for most of us, certainly for me.