CMC Multiplayer - only Hotseat and PBEM?

[Ardem]

Unless your holding a LAN event then it makes perfect sense, as everything is real time.

But regardless it doesn't matter if CMC is PBEM people can open up their emails plot their moves, and send in a lan environment.

Although I do think in a multi environment, that CMC should have a master server on one of the players machines then sends out emails to all competitors which in turn respond back when all emails have returned then the master plots and calculates. Then rinse and repeat.

I hope its not like a daisy chain of emails, as this would add to much delay.

Also I would like to note, that you could not play CMC for 2 hours without stopping and fighting a battle withing 2-3 turns unles syou use auto resolve even then, I would estimate maybe 45 mins worth of TCP/IP before a battle you wanted or about 6-7 emails whcih going off previous fast pbems I done where the person is on the other end about 1 1/2 hours.

But for me CMC is not for a quick game, it about having a good campaign where ever battle would be fought.

[ November 15, 2005, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

[Hunter]

Originally posted by Ardem:

I hope its not like a daisy chain of emails, as this would add to much delay.

No it isn't daisy chained.

[Little_Black_Devil]

1) Any chance TCP/IP will make it in a patch, as it appears that it won't be available in the initial release.

2) Which ever way you slice it - the information sent in PBEM is surely fully capeable of being sent via TCP/IP - after all, its just data.

Whether you are assuming there are just two players, or more - doesn't matter.

The functionality should be there to accomodate choice, and to facilite a more ergonomic and continuous style of gameplay.

Whether you use TCP/IP - or don't - should be up to you.

Those that choose NOT to use TCP/IP - lose nothing, they can still use PBEM.

Those that choose to use TCP/IP - are not denied its benefits.

Ideally, the choice should be there.

That way everybody's happy.

[BlackVoid]

I really hope the battles can be played TCP/IP. I imagine orders are issued in CMC and there are a few days to play out the battles. This should work...

TCP/IP only suited for LAN? YOU gotta be kidding me. I played more than 150 battles using TCP/IP on the internet!!!! And the majority of these on a simple modem!

It is funny that some people who post have absolutely NO IDEA. CM is a WEGO game, there is NO WAITING for your opponent. You can also set a time limit which helps a lot.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

It is funny that some people who post have absolutely NO IDEA. CM is a WEGO game, there is NO WAITING for your opponent. You can also set a time limit which helps a lot.

I think you missed the point of the earlier discussion. If you are playing TCP/IP, you DO have to wait for your opponent or vice versa since no two people will ever finish their order entry simultaneously. The waiting time is neglibible in most cases, though. For really big scenarios in which one side is defending and not entering orders, the wait will be appreciably larger.

Which part of this aren't you getting?

Many players, myself included, prefer no time limits, so some of my opponents will take several minutes - watching movies from multiple angles and pondering moves. I tend to play much quicker (more poorly?) so there are considerable waiting times during which I am restricted from using my computer for anything else (well, on my old PC anyway, haven't tried Alt-Tab during TCP play on my new rig, but see the next sentence also). I also feel a sense of obligation to be at the PC when buddy finishes his turn, lest I keep him waiting. *shrugs*

[Hunter]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

I really hope the battles can be played TCP/IP. I imagine orders are issued in CMC and there are a few days to play out the battles. This should work...

TCP/IP only suited for LAN? YOU gotta be kidding me. I played more than 150 battles using TCP/IP on the internet!!!! And the majority of these on a simple modem!

It is funny that some people who post have absolutely NO IDEA. CM is a WEGO game, there is NO WAITING for your opponent. You can also set a time limit which helps a lot.

The battles can be played TCP/IP. The strategic game cannot be.

[BlackVoid]

There was one poster who was not aware of the WEGO nature. Of course there is some waiting - normally the attacker takes longer to plot and the defender takes longer to set-up.

I played all my online games with a time-limit, otherwise things go very slow.

Of course large battles are better PBEM, but 500-1500 pts quick battles are fine online.

[Kellysheroes]

I perfer PBEM so I have no quibbles about no TSP/IP. Just release the game already so I can get started on my PBEM games.

Hunter already said you can play the tactical games online, just not the strategic one. So just PBEM the strategic part of the game then setup your online tactical battles, simple as that.

[Little_Black_Devil]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

...Hunter already said you can play the tactical games online, just not the strategic one. So just PBEM the strategic part of the game then setup your online tactical battles, simple as that.

I wouldn't say as "simple as that" - but "as awkward as that" by virtue of the clumbsiness of the steps required to piece it alltogether - which inherently disrupts the gameplay experience.

Perhaps my attention span is too short for these kinds of interruptions.

It seems to me far more rational to offer both TCP/IP and PBEM as is currently available in CMBB so that players have the choice to accomodate their preference.

We're just transmitting packets of data here are we not...?

I don't think you can go too wrong with making everbody happy by adding that support, whereas restricting players to the PBEM - TCP/IP hybrid is sure to cause some consternation and frustration.

I presume that the reason TCP/IP support won't make it in the initial release is that to set it up has an inherent resource and or time cost associated.

I'm a lamen - so I admit that I'm wondering just how hard it can really be - especially when it seems half the battle is already won (CMBB's already existing TCP/IP support).

Perhaps there is something FAR too technologically advanced for my unevolved mind to grasp that prevents this alltogether...

I just want to know is there at least any measure of hope that TCP/IP support for CMC will be added in a subsequent patch?

Cheers

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Little_Black_Devil:

I wouldn't say as "simple as that" - but "as awkward as that" by virtue of the clumbsiness of the steps required to piece it alltogether - which inherently disrupts the gameplay experience.

But as already said, it will necessarily be disrupted in CMC when you are forced to go to CMBB.

[Little_Black_Devil]

Well - I don't consider turns or any transition from CMBB to CMC and back an interruption at all.

Once merged both elements are just part of the same game, and were it continuous (which it currently is not) then there wouldn't be an issue.

The problem is - having to drop out to play with PBEM breaks that continuity.

The idea is to remain in-game the whole time, and not be forced to have to get out or even alt-tab out to access other programs (email) to obtain turns, or have to wait for unecessary delays in the transmission of turn data.

I'm sure many of you out there can remember back to the old glory days of "Close Combat 4", which incorporated both a strategic layer and tactical layer to the game.

The transition from moving battlegroups on the main map, to fighting tactical battles and then back to the main map was not dissruptive at all.

On the contrary, it made a continuous gaming experience which is exactly what TCP/IP support for the new merged CMC/CMBB would do.

Cheers

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Little_Black_Devil:

I'm sure many of you out there can remember back to the old glory days of "Close Combat 4", which incorporated both a strategic layer and tactical layer to the game.

But unlike CMC, Close Combat never allowed for more than 2 players.

[Ardem]

But unlike CMC, Close Combat 4 sucked

[Little_Black_Devil]

So what.

If two players is indeed some hard limitation that can't be circumvented for some reason,it doesn't matter as "2 Player TCP/IP" is still a reasonable feature to support.

At least when you would be playing in "two player mode", you wouldn't have your game constantly interuppted when you wanted to have a multi-player (or in this hypothetical case - two player) game.

But thats all senseless speculation. Certainly the technology - even TCP/IP - is capeable of handling many more than two players simultaneously, so I can't in all seriousness see "two player" as some sort of hard limit.

As for the quality of CC4 - heh - it was never one of my favourites, but it served as an effective analogy to illustrate how gameplay should be consistent and uninterrupted.

CC4 Sure has to be one of the best of examples of poor AI pathfinding though - yowza! :eek:

[Kellysheroes]

I just think SOME people are spoilt and want their cake an eat it too in every game they get now. Just because one game has an option every game should have that option isn't the way it works.

I personally don't see any trouble with PBEM strategy and then dropping to the CMBB game to play online. You're going to be playing that CMBB game a longgggg time anyways. (for the most part)

Then you come out and go right back into PBEM mode, man that's such an effort (makes me tired just thinking about it! LOL NOT!)

Quite being fat and lazy work those muscles, hut two hut two hut two.three...four.

Back in MY day we had to do everything with the keyboard, you guys got it so easy today you don't even know what "playing" a game is. Back when you had to use the numbers at the top of the keyboard to move one single unit and then we got numberPAD oh man that was like a gift from heaven, then we just used numPAD to move every single unit. haha

So, quit whinning, learn to "adapt".

[Ike]

Cheer up, all! We could be moving miniatures in 1/285th scale over a table top. Speaking of "back in the day", eh?

[Ardem]

Ike, I loved Napoleonics and having to hand paint them, but all that record keeping on scraps of paper on morale and casualties that was the pain.

[Ike]

Actually, Ardem, the 1/285th stuff I had in mind was Micro-Armor; but yeah, Napoleonics and either paper or card paper tracks, like a board game not to mention those "casualty caps." *laugh*

Sorry; we now return you to the 21st Century, where you're regularly scheduled fuss over an as-yet-unreleased game that promises to be absolutely great is in progress.

Ike