The argument for time limits in single play

[MikeyD]

Has anyone mentioned ammo resupply yet? Playing H2H, if you've got vehicles tucked away with spare ammo to acquire you can continue the fight. The poor AI doesn't have that option. So playing a long game against the AI approaches 'playing the game engine'. Granted, things are better than they used to be, but its a matter of luck whether a depeleted AI-controlled unit finds itself next to another unit it can 'borrow' ammo off of.

[slysniper]

No time limits (or substanitally longer time limits) is fundamentally unfair to the defender. In the game men, bullets, guns, tanks, and trucks are all resources to be applied and expended in order to achieve objectives. But time is also a resource. The attacker and defender view and use time differently, but for both of them it is a resource, and both must manage it.

It doesn't matter whether you're playing the AI or another person, if the attacker is not resource-limited when it comes to time then he has a massive advantage.

This is the point most of them that hate the clock just dont seem to understand.

They likely play one person games and that normally means they are attacking and they want that huge trump card so they can feel good about their playing ability.

Personnally, any designer will ignore this thread because the present game just will not work well without time limits.

As for features that could change that, they should request away. but it will not be happening in the near future, that is for sure.

Years before we see another engine design from this group, if ever.

[Rambler]

No time limits (or substanitally longer time limits) is fundamentally unfair to the defender. In the game men, bullets, guns, tanks, and trucks are all resources to be applied and expended in order to achieve objectives. But time is also a resource. The attacker and defender view and use time differently, but for both of them it is a resource, and both must manage it.

It doesn't matter whether you're playing the AI or another person, if the attacker is not resource-limited when it comes to time then he has a massive advantage.

Huh? Even without time limits, both sides in a CM battle are resource limited by what each side fields. There's only so many troops, tanks and guns available to them. It's up to each side to effectively use what they have to either a) crush the defender or hold off the attacker by exacting enough casualties he can't continue and cease fires. Defenders can still win without a time limit. See TOW's Polish campaign. What you're really saying in so many words is that you like the ability to game the clock. You like to be able to eke out a draw or win as defender by running down the clock and having the battle *poof* magically end when time runs out. That's perfectly fine, but some of us don't like that. This was my main point; an editor that allows for for both play styles . You can stick to the scenarios where you can game the clock, and I'll stick to the ones where I don't have to worry about it. Everybody's happy.

[Erwin]

And don't forget that one of the best features is the variable ending. I think it's still similar to CM1 where if you have a close game you get extra turns. Hard endings can be gamed.

[Stagler]

Maybe its time to put proper AI into the game.

[Steiner14]

I think one of the problems of time constraints is, that they somehow do feel unnatural.

They simulate something that takes place on the battlefield after the time is up for the player. But we want to know why things were not sufficient. A stopping timer is not really an adequate answer to that question.

Can't be one solution to get rid of time-limits the simulation of arriving reserves after a certain time?

Are there conditions available, if reserves should arrive?

Why not making a company of infantry, a platoon of Tigers arrive, if the objective hasn't been reached?

If in the briefing the player is informed, that a surprising, fast an decisive taking of the objective within a certain time is necessary, because the enemy is expected to have reserves near, why not raising the battle time to 90 mins but let reserves arrive, that will wipe his forces away?

With this method the feeling of the artificial time pressure of a countdown-clock goes away AND the player can see the consequences on the battlefield, of his too slow progress.

And as i have stated earlier:

Another reason, why the clock is so important, because 95% of all battles are trimmed torwards balance. This a priori-knowledge is counter productive to realistic tactics.

It would be much more exciting, if the battles would offer much more uncertainty. You get a briefing, but can you be sure, that the briefing is really correct about the enemy's strenght?

The game time is 90 mins, but the briefing says you have 30 mins? Hm, how do you deal with that? What will happen after your time is up? Will even happen anything?

If scenarios would represent a more realistic range of balanced, unbalanced and impossible missions, then this should also have a big impact on the used tactics.

More courage for unbalanced and frustrating results and unconventional solutions to deal with time constraints, please.

[JonS]

Huh? Even without time limits, both sides in a CM battle are resource limited by what each side fields. There's only so many troops, tanks and guns available to them.

Yes. Quite.

That's probably why I wrote "if the attacker is not resource-limited when it comes to time", don't you think?

Time is a resource, just like everything else. If one side has infinite time, the other side is at a major disadvantage.

[ASL Veteran]

Time limits really only do one thing in the game ... force the attacker to move. If there were no time limits it would have no effect on the defender because he would just sit there and get bored since he has nothing to do. Now some may think time limits are unrealistic .... perhaps, but then you could also think of the time limits as General Montgomery visiting your headquarters and wondering aloud "This battalion commander sure lacks fighting spirit. The battalion to his left and right have both advanced 500 yards but this guy is still drinking tea and hasn't moved an inch in a full hour. Maybe he has seen too much battle and needs to have a desk job in London instead of a field command. Soldier, you have thirty minutes to get off your duff and capture that church or I'll find someone with some fighting spirit who can give me some results." It's certainly not unheard of for a subordinate commander to have pressure put upon them by their superior to stick with an attack timetable so I don't know why there are so many people who think a time limit in a scenario is 'unrealistic' or 'artificial'.

[prlugo]

Time limit is moddable http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=101313&highlight=time+limit. This easy modification can increase your time but about AI i don't know if it works well after the regular 4 hours.

[bodkin]

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.

PT,

I don't think anyone is seriously asking for no time constraints, it's just that your CW scenario designs seem to have taken a step towards the other extreme. I've played and enjoyed most of your other campaigns right back to Hasrabit but can't remember them ever been this tight for time, making the clock much more of a gameplay factor.

[sburke]

PT,

I don't think anyone is seriously asking for no time constraints, it's just that your CW scenario designs seem to have taken a step towards the other extreme. I've played and enjoyed most of your other campaigns right back to Hasrabit but can't remember them ever been this tight for time, making the clock much more of a gameplay factor.

I think he gets that, the problem is we have a bunch of players all with varying opinions of what that limit should be. What is PT supposed to do with that? We are either asking him to double or triple his workload designing a Campaign to suit varying players preferences or even worse asking him to do multiple versions for varying skill levels.

So we all have to ask ourselves - what would you prefer - 9 campaigns from PT or one campaign with 9 variations? I personally figure if they are hard they will challenge me to improve my skills. If they are too easy I will be bored of them. If I find I just don't enjoy them at that difficulty level then download that program that breaks up a campaign into individual scenarios and then adjust the time for each of them....and if I want then rebuild them back into a campaign that now has 4 hour time limits.

Basically it comes down to this, we can keep crying at PT to make what he enjoys doing 3x as hard or we can take a little time of our own and learn how to change what he made into what we prefer. So let's get off our lazy couch potato a**es and put a little effort in of our own.

Seriously I don't think it is all that hard and it might be worth the time of one of the guys who does create these to put a little how to guide on what it takes to do this. I'd consider trying to do it myself, but I am a few thousand miles from my CM PC and will be for a few more weeks.

[Steiner14]

Time limits really only do one thing in the game ... force the attacker to move.

What happens in reality, AFTER the available time is up and a CM-battle ends?

What is the reason, to make the attacker move under time pressure?

Because after the given timespan, the surprise effect is gone and it becomes harder for the attacker to achieve his goal.

Why does it become harder?

Because the defender is becoming better prepared. Either by rebalancing his available forces (the AI can't do that), or company, battalion, regimental or divisional reserves are beginning to arrive. Even whole tank regiments of army groups or Panzerabteilungen could theoretically arrive within 30 minutes, if they are close by chance.

But in CM nothing of this is simulated by the designers, everything is abstracted by the artificial clock. I'm convinced this could be changed.

I would suggest that scenario designers try to get rid of this unrealism and instead try to SIMULATE DURING THE BATTLE THE CLOSING WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ATTACKER.

If a player wants to advance more slowly, let him!

But if the designer wants so, he will have to pay a certain price for it. Trade slowlyness against a stronger enemy. From a slightly stronger enemy up to missions that could turn into impossible ones.

The current capabilities of the engine should allow quite a lot in that regard.

But ofcourse with a NEW FEATURE like scripted messages in an update of CM, the designer could determine even the amount of information that is given to the other side, i.e. about the reinforcements about to arrive or which have arrived.

Another positive aspect would be, instead of putting all info into the briefing, more info could be given during the battle.

Another NEW FEATURE that would help to substitute for the unrealistic victory-timer would be, that the highest HQ can not only call in arty or air support, but also request reinforcements. In combination with optional conditions for these reinforcements (i.e. tank losses must be > x for availability), optional victory point-reductions, optional time-delays, this would not only give the defending AI a more flexible appearance, but could be even more thrilling for H2H battles.

The briefing tells you, you must be quick and decisive within 30 minutes but you prefer to ignore it, because you see 2 hours battle time? Fine!

And suddenly after 30 minutes you receive the first message, that reinforcements for the enemy were on their way... This would get avery attacker moving. But instead of the unrealistcal timer, everything would happen on the field and the consequences are not abstracted, but played out.

[ASL Veteran]

Steiner, you aren't making any sense to me. You are proposing a lot of things that might enhance the concept of time running out in a scenario. Why not just stick to time running out? Why make it more complicated than it needs to be? Adding all the extra bells and whistles adds nothing to the fact that time just ran out. It just makes you feel better about it running out.

[Steiner14]

ASL,

because we players are not logical machines. Therefore CM shows fire or explosions instead of text messages.

The complaints about time limits are a fact.

Using a victory-timer is an abstraction, but not a simulation of the window of opportunity closing.

What do you think would feel more natural:

To know to run out of a displayed time and rush units forwards in the last minutes, or to get informed in the briefing about a timeframe but experience a battle that becomes tougher because of time constraints?

[ASL Veteran]

ASL,

because we players are not logical machines. Therefore CM shows fire or explosions instead of text messages.

The complaints about time limits are a fact.

Using a victory-timer is an abstraction, but not a simulation of the window of opportunity closing.

What do you think would feel more natural:

To know to run out of a displayed time and rush units forwards in the last minutes, or to get informed in the briefing about a timeframe but experience a battle that becomes tougher because of time constraints?

Making a battle get tougher as the scenario goes on is already possible. I can just keep adding reinforcement groups every thirty minutes until I run out of reinforcement groups available in the editor. At some point though the scenario has to end wouldn't you agree? What's tough for one player may not be tough for another, so while you might be defeated by the first reinforcement group maybe the next player can fight through eight reinforcement groups and still be ready for more. There has to be an end because a scenario isn't real life. It's a scenario and this is a game.

It's also good to keep in mind what the definition of a scenario is. Paper Tiger has presented you, the gamer, with a scenario and it's up to you to meet the challenge that Paper Tiger has presented to you within the context of the scenario he has created. Once you start altering Paper Tiger's scenario it's no longer a scenario that Paper Tiger created for you but a scenario that you have created for yourself and which suits your needs. How many of 'you' are playing this game and how many of your individual needs can be met by one scenario. At some point it becomes impossible to meet everyone's needs so players tend to gravitate towards designers that they prefer. Scenario designers do the best they can within the constraints of the editor, but a scenario designer can't be all things to all people.

[Steiner14]

I'm asking myself, if you have even read my suggestions, because what you are writing about reinforcements is what i was writing about.

The additional features i suggested, are aimed to turn reinforcements from a massive hammer into a mighty surgery tool for designers to deal with force balance and/or time pressure during a battle in a semi-intelligent way.

If i imagine that a mighty reinforcement-system would be combined with various kinds of triggers, designers should be able to do marvelous things and boost CM-scenarios to a whole new level.

[SlowMotion]

I agree with Steiner14 that many of these new reinforcement features would be useful.

I'd like to see a couple of small tweaks to scenario end conditions, to make current reinforcement stuff more usable:

-when a touch objective is touched or

-number of units drops below a limit

game ends

This way you could have a long playing time, reinforcements coming in waves, but once the attacker reaches some objective, players don't have to wait for the remaining time.

Similar thing about the limit of remaining units. THen you wouldn't have to continue playing when there's say 10 soldiers left.

[Erwin]

This may or may not be applicable to this discussion, but I experimented with Cease-firing at various points in a scenario to see what sort of result I would get based on progress.

I found that the game can go very quickly from awarding me a defeat to Total Victory. It seemed like the difference could sometimes be as little as a few extra enemy units killed or surrendering.

Ever since CM2 came out there has been this "instability" in the scoriing that results in extreme results very easily.

The reason that I mention this in a discussion about time limits, is that the difference between winning the mission and losing it within time constraints can be as thin as a cat's whisker (apologies for the mixed metaphors).

The other question I have is why do we not see more variable ending missions/scenarios? That would go a long way to satisfying the issues with some of the current missions' short time constraints. If the game is close, and the result can rest on a very small change, the player has earned the extra time. This is after all a game, and we're talking about gameplay enjoyment - not training us to be tough enuff to experience the real thing.

Full disclosure notice: All my comments assume playing vs the AI, primarily in Campaigns, and using WEGO.

[sburke]

But in CM nothing of this is simulated by the designers, everything is abstracted by the artificial clock. I'm convinced this could be changed.

I would suggest that scenario designers try to get rid of this unrealism and instead try to SIMULATE DURING THE BATTLE THE CLOSING WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ATTACKER.

Then change it - make a scenario. That isn't meant to be snarky, seriously make a scenario and let's see how this works. If it gets the reaction you hope and expect then maybe folks will consider it as an option in others they create.

[Steiner14]

Then change it - make a scenario. That isn't meant to be snarky, seriously make a scenario and let's see how this works. If it gets the reaction you hope and expect then maybe folks will consider it as an option in others they create.

My problem is, i don't know where to take the time. I'm glad if i can play a scenario from time to time. For months i don't even have time to play PBEMs. And now spring is coming and the additional labour begins. So the only thing i can do is to make suggestions. But you are correct, if nobody wants to hear them, i will have to do it on my own and try to convince with hard facts somehow someday.

[ridethe415]

It's certainly not unheard of for a subordinate commander to have pressure put upon them by their superior to stick with an attack timetable so I don't know why there are so many people who think a time limit in a scenario is 'unrealistic' or 'artificial'.

I agree, how many commanders, at any level of command, were fired for a "lack of aggressive spirit"?

Perhaps one way to work around this is to give a long time frame, but reward those who achieve goals earlier and increase the difficulty for those choose to move slower. (It would be great if one of the rewards was having your senior commander in the campaign get promoted...)

One simple way would be to code time related actions. If the attacker does not reach touchzone X by Y time, then the defender receives Z units. This could be detailed in the briefing. So if you move quickly, you fight one battle, move slower, fight a different battle. Which IMHO seems realistic.

[theFightingSeabee]

The problem with that is it screws up the victory condition specifying percentage of killed and wounded. The attacker would have to kill a lot more of the defenders quicker if he were to reach that percentage to get those points. So finishing quicker before you get the chance to add casualties to the defenders reinforcements actually hurts you. You may destroy 25% of the units currently on the map, but only 15% of the overall number of units involved with the scenario. If the victory points are set at 20%, you're screwed out of those points.

Once BFC add triggers to the editor, scenarios and campaigns will take on a whole new set of options as far as AI programming. Larger time limits will be less of a problem when you trigger an event by doing something, because you could trigger it 10 minutes in or 2 hours in. The designer wouldn't have to make a continuous 4 hour plan that may or may not have anything to do with what the player is doing.

[Erwin]

I suppose if one is not penalized re victory levels for losses and they are replaced in subsequent campaign missions one can afford to be very aggressive.

The heavy friendly losses may not be such a big issue in individual scenarios. However, imo campaigns are the best way to enjoy any CM game as the future exists and it matters what state your units are in and their ammo levels at the end of every mission but the final one.

CMSF did a great job training us to be very conservative of friendly losses (compared to CM1) AND conserving ammo as well. I recall that it was quite common to have to restart CMSF campaigns if one took too many casualties as future missions became impossible. I recall even being "kicked out" of a campaign by the system cos I didn't have enuff units left.

This may be why it's hard to accept heavy friendly losses in CMBN - even tho' the designer said a player would never get kicked out of Scottish Corridor campaign for losing. Hopefully, he has provided sufficient reinforcements so that one has a reasonable chance of winning future missions. The worst non-fun experience is having to restart a campaign and replay missions just to ensure sufficient units to have a fun game further into the campaign.

However, tight time limits for the Brits seems counter-intuitive compared to the US, since it tends to increase the friendly losses and the Brits were far more likely to worry about their irreplaceable inf losses than the US. That was an important reason Monty was rather slow and cautious. Now, I may be imagining it, but it certainly feels like the time constraints became tougher in CW compared to base CMBN. I dont recall time being an issue in the base game as much.

(Also, in Scottish Corridor, I was surprised how little arty the Brits had in the first missions. Again, I thought they relied on arty more than anyone to reduce losses.)

[SlowMotion]

The problem with that is it screws up the victory condition specifying percentage of killed and wounded. The attacker would have to kill a lot more of the defenders quicker if he were to reach that percentage to get those points. So finishing quicker before you get the chance to add casualties to the defenders reinforcements actually hurts you. You may destroy 25% of the units currently on the map, but only 15% of the overall number of units involved with the scenario. If the victory points are set at 20%, you're screwed out of those points.

If you look at my post on previous page, that would remove much of the percentage calculation problem. If a scenario could end once a spot target is reached, then unit percentage calculation would be done based on units that have entered the map already. "Future reinforcements" would be left out of those calculations.

[theFightingSeabee]

Yes, it's fun to think of what could be. But I think the argument right now is about how to make the better missions the way we have it now. It could be years before a new ai and editor are available.

Your idea seems like a good one, though. Hopefully we'll have that much freedom in designing scenarios in the future.