Jump to content

The argument for time limits in single play


Recommended Posts

Once again, we are hearing the same plea from a small number of posters here for longer mission times or even unrestricted mission lengths. Since I am responsible for the campaign that is attracting most, if not all of the criticism, I will address this argument and put forward my own philosophy. What follows applies solely to the single-player experience and not to H2H play. Further, it is concerned with when the AI is defending.

A Human Player Defending

First, let's consider what I would probably do when I'm defending against a superior attacking force. I would send forward a few scouts and snipers far forward to garner as much intelligence as I could about the enemy's intentions. Maybe a MG team positioned to cover some open spaces and to deter a bold move by the enemy. As I get a feeling for what my opponent is up to, I will shift forces to cover the threatened sectors, perhaps calling in some artillery on likely jump-off points or in front of his likely avenues of approach. Then, once the enemy commits to his attack, I will throw as much force as I can to counter him, and maybe move a reserve if available to outflank him. And so it goes on. No great surprises there.

The AI Opponent Defending

What can it do? Well, quite a lot actually. In fact, if the AI is controlling a rather small force, say around two platoons with some support for example, I can script it to give it the appearance of doing pretty much everything that I've outlined above. I can also create two or more AI plans that have different objectives. For example, I can script the defending force to offer a very strong challenge to an attacker who attacks down the right flank at the expense of weakening the left flank. And in the second AI plan, I can reverse this situation so that the AI is strong on the left and weak on the right. Or I can even script it to abandon one side altogether and defend one flank exclusively.

Now let's look at what it can't do. The most important thing here is that the AI has absolutely no ability whatsoever to react to the player's moves. None. Period. It cannot react to the player's moves and reposition its forces around to counter a developing threat from the human player. The AI Player cannot be sucker-punched. You cannot fool it into thinking that you are going to attack on the right by making a convincing display of force on that flank while secretly building up on the other flank. If you think that's what youre doing when you play against the AI, you're just fooling yourself.

The AI is locked into its original plan from the moment you hit that START button. It is following one long WEGO plan from which it cannot deviate regardless of the actual situation unfolding before it. For all intents and purposes, it is utterly insentient.

Imagine playing a Chess opponent who slavishly repeats every single move that one Grandmaster made in some game 100 years ago. He'll beat you for sure if you do what his opponent did but if you deviate from the script, he's going to keep on replicating the moves until you beat him. It's rather pathetic really, isn't it? Aren't you going to look a bit silly jumping around on the stage punching the air celebrating your victory against that opponent?

The Time Limit

Now, what is the time limit intended to do? In any mission that I craft, I try to give the player a bit of time at the start to perform some recce to gain intel on enemy positions, devise his plan, call in an artillery strike and then go for it. If his plan is a good one, he outnumbers the AI and so he has a real chance to win. If his plan fails, there is not enough time for him to pull back, call in another artillery strike and then approach the position from a different angle.

The time limit is not there to kill the fun. It is there to even the ground for a supposedly intelligent human player to get some challenge and satisfaction playing against an AI opponent. An opponent can only do what it is scripted to do and nothing more. Some people also expect that if he has been allowed two hours to play a mission that the AI opponent will provide him with a good fight for near enough two hours. When he wins with nearly 40 minutes on the clock, he is disappointed and feels cheated.

No Time Constraints

What does this mean for the human player who is operating under no time pressure? This means that he is free to waltz around in front of the defender's positions gaining valuable intel on its dispositions without committing his force to the battle. This force can skulk quietly out of sight and in absolute safety from any attacks by the AI until he is ready to commit them at a time of his choosing. Then he can deliver his killer blow and claim victory.

While the designer has some limited ability to control what the AI will do when its forces sees an enemy unit, a lot of the time, the AI is going to open fire on the most blatently obvious draw. No intelligent opponent would give away his positions as readily as this. The more time you give a player to 'scout' the more he can uncover for free and with little risk to his forces.

The same goes with the AI use of artillery. It is possible to send out one unit to draw some fire causing the AI to fire off any artillery assets it has on a dummy target. This tactic will work almost 100% of the time.

So, why do we need time constraints? Let's consider a very bizarre

scenario. :D

Mike Tyson v Your Granny

Who is going to win this match up? Why, Mike Tyson every time, at least while he's still in good health. How can we make this situation a little more challenging for Mr Tyson without Grannie packing some heat? Well, perhaps we can insist that he knocks out poor Grannie within 3 seconds. Not much of a challenge I grant you. But even in the worst mismatches, time pressure can be a great leveller. If Grannie can avoid getting hit for 3 seconds, she gets a win.

If At First You Don't Succeed...

This has been a long post so I'll conclude quickly. The time limits are designed to allow the player to devise and carry out his plan for better or for worse without forcing him to do anything rash. He will get one good shot at the title. If his plan is a good one, he may well succeed. If it is a bad one, then he will probably lose because he won't have time to regroup his forces and try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All well and good LLF... (And you know I love your work.)

I think the issues arise from the designer's "style" of design. I suspect that the time problems arise in the first 25% of the time allowed.

Some designers set nasty ambushes that will spring when your units move the first few meters. It goes all the way to the other extreme where the player has to move halfway across the map before encountering the enemy.

In the first instance, a fast recon can lead to nasty casualties very quickly. In the second, a careful recon can take up 25%+ of the time before you see anything... and then there's a mad rush to complete the game in the time allowed.

I think that is what is being experienced here, and what is behind the frustrations behind time limits.

Sometimes briefings try and persuade you that you must "move quickly" for whatever reason. But, having been fooled many times before by misleading briefings, I am in the camp that expects an ambush in the first few meters and therefore tend to move slowly and cautiously from the start. If it was my life on the line, that's what I would do, and I treat my pixeltruppen with as much care as if it were me and my mother and beloved cat (especially the cat) on the map (usually).

So, in my case, it seems that my initial caution and recon efforts are taking too much time, as you seem to be the sort of designer that keeps the enemy way back and one can take greater chances at moving quickly at the start.

The odd thing is that I have never before experienced time problems with your previous designs PT. So, not sure what has changed with your CMBN works of art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much what Erwin says...

A clear proof of that is when I replay a scenario (even with several AI plans) I now know fairly much where the enemy line of defence are, so I can move good speed to the enemy, and from there start scouting like hell. Normally I always win the scenario

In the first go I scout as hell from the first 10 meters. and doing bounding overwatch, Hunt etc takes time, time we are not given. And that means that in the end I'm bloody short of time and have to rush when I'm actually in contact...

A Very simple solution to this is give the player some GOOD intel. Write in the briefing that patrols been out during the night and located the forward enemy screen at Grid XXX/YYY or along road X/Y.

Then you as player know that you can move fairly safe (Fairly, enemy situation can always change, you can bump into a counterattack, a enemy patrol etc) and start scouting from right place instead of the djump off point.

This point is very important with the CW module, the British infantry's organic lack of firepower means you have to build it up over a long time. and that also means that anytime they are opened fired on they start out in great sh*t.

I can live with short timespan if I have at least a fair clue of where to begin searching for the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good and concise but i take from it, that there should be made two versions of scenarios/campaigns: one adjusted for playing AI and one for playing H2H.

Is there a reason why this isn't done?

I can imagine it could be much more difficult and time consuming for designers to squeeze both versions into one scenario instead of creating two versions with less compromises each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good way to deal with the problem of whether to move cautiously and risk wasting time (Plan A) or move aggressively and risk having a significant force ambushed (Plan B) is to just quick move a suicide scout team forward while everyone else watches. If they die, you know you have opposition and you then proceed with Plan A. If not, you know that ground is safe and you go with Plan B. The AI is not clever enough to let the suicide scout survive and then whack the main force (although humans of course are so don't try this in a real game).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good read.. speaking of which, can you make the missions in your road to montebourg campaign longer? (I Kid!)

I would throw my hat into having the good intel.. but I also realize that in war, having good intel (probably more so in WW2) was an absolute rarity.

If there is one criticism I have with the "Road to Montebourg" campaign which I could think deals with the mission time limits, (and I must say its more of an asthetic one because I've absoutely loved playing it!!!), its in the tactical breifing.. the tactical map. The vanilla game gives us a battle map and possible locations of enemy forces, either marked with a soldier icon, or just question marks if something MAY be there and the geographical layout is pretty close to the actual in game play. You've choosen to show a b/w screenshot of the objective in the battle in question and of course I don't know the layout until i hit the start button. Maybe this has actually enhanced my game playing experience since I have no idea where the enemy is or coming from but at the same time makes for some frustrating first turns as I try to "guess" where he might be. As in example.. I think its the second mission in the campaign, Ecoqueneuville.. no idea where german strongpoints are located or even where to direct artillery assets. I have two avenues of approach, go along the paved road or blast my way through the hedgerows to get to the villiage. Maybe this forces me to use scout teams more, but like chainsaw stated.. maybe patrols sent out before the battle or during the night could have located possible positions. What this leads me to do is I send out a few scout teams to some point... if I don't come under fire, then I move the bulk of my forces up, then send the scout teams forward again, if its all clear then I move everyone up.. wash, rinse and repeat. Maybe this is how it was done in real life during the battles, I don't know I'm not a military expert by any means. My thinking, and maybe this would dumb-down the game, but would be to have map markers or something indicating that a scout team heard or saw something in a certain location or area during a previous patrol. Just my thoughts and would take no offense if anyone wants to shoot these down in flames

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good and concise but i take from it, that there should be made two versions of scenarios/campaigns: one adjusted for playing AI and one for playing H2H.

I think there should be three versions: H2H, AI on Defensive, AI on Offensive. I think that is the only way you can deal with the limitations of the AI and still have interesting battles in any configuration (plus limiting perfect intel if you play against the AI a second time from the other side).

However, there seems to be a strong bias against this sort of arrangement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an AI builder perspective, every additional 5 minutes increases the number of human player options you're obliged to plan for. A nice tight scenario with a time contraint means you can be assured the player will advance with some haste along one of a couple logical routes. You can reasonably plan your assault, withdrawal, secondary positions with a good chance the movement will appear logical. An open-ended scenario could find the player taking an hour hugging the map edges, or simply waiting out the AI clock to guarantee a static defense. In other words playing the game engine, not the situation. If the player's options are entirely unconstrained then the AI designer is reduced to the most generic QB-style movement orders. The difference scenario-wise between a sportscar and a do-everything station wagon.

That being said, in building my old CMSF scenarios I'd invariably start short then would add more and more time to them as I tested. 20 minutes not working at all, 30 minutes much improved, 50 minutes? Perfect! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always start by opening the scenario and setting a time limit of 4 hours.

This may lead to worse AI plans but I hate losing my pixeltruppen because of an arbitrary sense of urgency.

Most of the time I finish under the time limit anyway, it's just that I can't bear to have the clock ticking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Time Limit

If his plan is a good one, he outnumbers the AI and so he has a real chance to win. If his plan fails, there is not enough time for him to pull back, call in another artillery strike and then approach the position from a different angle.

I"m not so keen on this design method, it means your doomed to failure if your first plan of attack is ineffective. I prefer to have the flexibility to still be able to get a decent result if you have to change your tactics mid battle.

On the time issue, as a WEGO player I feel I need more time than a RT player, so these tight timeframes really make it hard to use good tactics. There are plenty of turns where you put a unit into action like the hunt command then find they sit idle for 45 seconds because they see a enemy unit on the other side of the map. I've been caught out a couple of times where a banzai charge is needed to get to the objective before the time ends.

I don't want to turn this into an RT vs WEGO thread but more time for WEGO players would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not two versions? one adjusted for playing AI and one for playing H2H.

I think there should be three versions: H2H, AI on Defensive, AI on Offensive.

I don't want to turn this into an RT vs WEGO thread but more time for WEGO players would be nice.

So now we’re up to six versions of each scenario? H2H WEGO, H2H RT, AI of defence WEGO, AI on defence RT, AI on offence RT, AI on offence WEGO.

Or was it 12 - H2H WEGO (long time limit), H2H RT (long time limit), AI on defence WEGO (long time limit), AI on defence RT (long time limit), AI on offence RT (long time limit), AI on offence WEGO (long time limit), H2H WEGO (shorter time limit), H2H RT (shorter time limit), AI on defence WEGO (shorter time limit), AI on defence RT (shorter time limit), AI on offence RT (shorter time limit), AI on offence WEGO (shorter time limit)?

But luckily for everybody Steiner has the answer!

I can imagine it could be much more difficult and time consuming for designers to squeeze both versions into one scenario instead of creating two versions with less compromises each.

So, there we go! Easy as pie! Every scenario designer since CMBO has just been wasting their time trying to shoehorn everything into a single scen, because making six – or 12! - different scenarios is much easier and faster than making one!

However, there seems to be a strong bias against this sort of arrangement.

Mmmhmm. Why do you think that might be? Off the top of my head, I can think of four good reasons. How many can you come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) There are different levels of difficulty ("realism") options for each player to choose.

2) There are different styles of play for each player to choose. Real time or turn-based.

3) Why the hell is there not an adjustable time limit option for each player to choose vs. A.I.?

Design your mission any fricking way you want and simply state in notes what time limit is optimal for said mission, simple. The massive size of some of these battles (micro-management headache) is simply not enjoyable with certain time restrictions.

Most of the time I don't want my gaming experience to be "work" and rushing frantically around the battlefield, I'd rather chill the f-ck out and have some fun, but thats currently not an option especially with some of these contrived maps and ego designs.

Adjustable time would be an excellent optional feature, minimize frustration, and enhance replayable gaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now let's look at what it can't do. The most important thing here is that the AI has absolutely no ability whatsoever to react to the player's moves. None. Period. It cannot react to the player's moves and reposition its forces around to counter a developing threat from the human player.

If BFC ever adds triggers to AI scripting then the AI will be able to react to a players moves. This will add a whole new dimension to the game. Maybe we will see this in CM:EF .....

As it is today, the AI is already ridiculously easy to defeat so I fully understand why time limits are there.

For those who think you should have unlimited time to execute a plan should keep in mind that in almost ever case real world commanders were given time constraints. The reason for this is that ever level of command is on a schedule during an operation.

Plt Ldrs have to work within the time constraints of the COY, Company CO is under the time constraints of BN, BN CO is under the time constraints of Regt. and so on ...

I can speak from personal experience when I say that once a plan was in place and troops were on the move, there was some but not much time to re-work the plan on the fly. I would guess this was especially true in 1944 as good communication was a challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) There are different levels of difficulty ("realism") options for each player to choose.

2) There are different styles of play for each player to choose. Real time or turn-based.

3) Why the hell is there not an adjustable time limit option for each player to choose vs. A.I.?

Giving you the ability to adjust time would be just giving you an easier setting. If you want to play on an easier setting you already have that ability ... Have you tried playing on basic? This might resolve the problems you are having.

With that said you can already change the time limits on any scenario or QB by going into the editor making the change then saving. The only thing you can't do this on is the campaigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmmhmm. Why do you think that might be? Off the top of my head, I can think of four good reasons. How many can you come up with.

Having designed three scenarios, I would not try to design one that could be played either direction against the AI or H2H. Programming the AI is difficult and time consuming enough without having to worry about whether I am making it too easy for the Player if he decided to play that side himself. I also prefer to play scenarios that have been designed for play against the AI in one direction only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PT have you pulled all your hair out yet or just most of it?

Nah. I'm 52 and I still have a nice thick head of hair and nothing that happens here is going to change that. :D What I am doing is learning about communicating with people on the Internet. It's a whole new ball game with its own rules and I'm trying to avoid the 'not communicating' approach :)

And, yup, MikeyD is always reminding us to add time to our missions. Trouble is that we do and then they ship and some guys still complain that there is not enough time. "Fifty minutes to do all that!? Boo!" :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I"m not so keen on this design method, it means your doomed to failure if your first plan of attack is ineffective. I prefer to have the flexibility to still be able to get a decent result if you have to change your tactics mid battle.

This is interesting. The player does have enough time to adjust his plan if it's working out. What he doesn't have enough time to do is to regroup and redeploy his forces to attack on the other flank. Further, it implies that losing is not an option. Missions should never be lost, ever! I honestly can't get to grips with that attitude. I like it when a mission kicks my butt and I am more than willing to return to it and try something different if necessary. Frankly, if I play something and I win it first time, I'm disappointed. Where's the value for my money? I want to win but I don't want it to be easy, at least all the time.

This reminds me of something that happened when I designed ''Montebourg. There was one mission, 'Ecausseville', where the 2/8 INF got ambushed and murdered by a small German force. That mission was intended to be gruelling and so I followed it up with a nice easy mission, 'The Farmhouse'. It was a fictional action that was absolutely designed solely to allow the US player to relax, sit back and exact his revenge on the AI player after the last mission. And when it was released, folks complained that it was too easy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! I just remembered something from my wargaming past. A while before I flew off to Indonesia to work I played an operational wargame called GD- Mtsensk, (somthing like that I think) one of a series of games that covered the actions of the GD division on the Eastern Front. What was unique about that game system was that the player had to draw up proper military-style plans before he started a mission and was honour-bound to move his units on the board in an attempt to carry out those orders. If he needed to change plans half way through, he had to redraft those orders and there were penalties involved in doing this. I thought that was fairly authentic. Perhaps that game has utterly misled me into thinking that real life military operations (WW2 or Modern Era) were planned in this way. I had no idea that it was all being done on the fly. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good attempt PT to open up a discussion about scenario design :)

It did allow the two hobby horses lack of time; multiple scenarios designed for specific play to be trotted again (can you ride a hobby horse on a saopbox ;)).

In response to comments about secenarios designed for this play or that play or max out the time.

Me? I'm pretty happy that my design standpoint will be designing for single player play against AI. That's how I spend most of my playing time and I primarily design scenarios I find interesting etc. Playing H2H is a spin off. Nice if it happens.

The whole issue with H2H scenarios and has been mentioned umpteen times is playtesting. It takes ages to run through one scenario PBEM. How many play throughs constitute 'testing'. Look at the fuss over Huzzar and Carbide Carbide. Both played extensively after release and both had option divided about whether balanced or not. It's a no win situation I feel as players will have their own opinions.

I agree PT about your comments with time in scenarios. Players should also consider (as you rightly point out) if playing against the AI that the AI Plans are set to run for a particular time. If players want scenarios to max out on time (or they do that) then at some point the AI will just stay put. Then you can walk right over the AI. To me that's a very, very odd way to play. Guranteed win? I'm all for giving the AI a chance.

Creating scenarios takes a long long time. Good ones take longer. If players want scenarios to do partcicular things I'd suggest they get cracking and start designing :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been one to crack PT's balls about the time... and he has added more time to many of the scenarios (including variable limits that go beyond the stated time).

But this is WW-flippin'-2 we're talking about! These guys didn't have all day to plot and use perfect tactics. They had to make a plan and execute it. Many of these plans ended in tragedy, walking into ambushes or being bombarded by artillery, or running half your men into interlocking enemy machine guns.

Some of these missions should damn well have short time limits, while others I'd like to have a bit more time with due to the large maps and extremely well placed AI defenders. For the most part, I think The Scottish Corridor is pretty close to what it should be, although I might extend the time on two or three missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! I just remembered something from my wargaming past. A while before I flew off to Indonesia to work I played an operational wargame called GD- Mtsensk, (somthing like that I think) one of a series of games that covered the actions of the GD division on the Eastern Front. What was unique about that game system was that the player had to draw up proper military-style plans before he started a mission and was honour-bound to move his units on the board in an attempt to carry out those orders. If he needed to change plans half way through, he had to redraft those orders and there were penalties involved in doing this. I thought that was fairly authentic. Perhaps that game has utterly misled me into thinking that real life military operations (WW2 or Modern Era) were planned in this way. I had no idea that it was all being done on the fly. :D

I believe you are referring to The Gamers GD '41 from the TCS series. Loved that concept. One of their other releases was the source I was working from to create a map for Schmidt that I did end up tossing onto the repository. They did a pretty good job of showing how much work it would take to shift plans in the midst of battle and what the likelihood was of complete failure. Still think their games are some of the best to work an op layer from both for scale and making the player create a battle plan. For those interested they do have a game for MG - Screaming Eagles that is available on Vassal.

From the game description

The system’s emphasis is on command and combined arms effects, with a relatively simple set of combat and movement systems. Designed to simulate the experience of combat command without burdening a player with cumbersome detail. The command rules impose realistic limits on the player’s ability to rapidly change missions.[/I]

On a side note, when did board games start getting so darned expensive? If you combine MMPs 2 Grand tactical games to cover all of MG - it runs around $350. CMBN and all it's modules is going to run me maybe $160 and it covers Normandy and all NW Europe up to the fall of 1944. Man this is a better deal than I thought.

I think your question about whether it is okay to lose is kind of pointed. I think I have lost far more than I have won in HTH and yet I keep playing the same opponents. Hopefully sooner or later I will learn enough to start turning the tables and yet honestly I don't really care. The battles have been a lot of fun and very interesting. I suspect most of us can handle that against a human opponent, but not the AI. If as has been noted in BFC's statements most players only play against the AI, doesn't it reduce the interest and challenge in the game to never lose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...