Wego and RT - some thoughts and questions

[Sulman]

Hi all,

I know reams have been written about this, but there's a couple of things I'm curious about. I've been thoroughly enjoying CMSF and playing through some of the missions in different play modes - I'm inclined towards wego (since the days of CMBB) but really enjoy the different vibe in real time - there's a tension and atmosphere that is really quite exciting on some maps.

The challenge with RT is one of information processing, and hence reaction time: On a busy mission, such as the fab 'Factory Complex' I can absolutely slaughter the AI on wego (and I'm not a great player, really) and yet playing in real time I can typically barely fight to a draw. There's a little bit more going on here than simple unit management, though (I think). More later...

Generally, a human will make much higher quality decisions than the AI, but will take considerably longer, so even with a relatively dumb plan, the AI can get inside the human's decision-making and therefore continually push the initiative. Computers are designed to process information, so this is a given that they will naturally be excellent at it. The more forces the human has (I think, anything above a company) the more critical this gets. Until the day comes that you can somehow communicate intent, do not have to micro manage down to squad level, and the AI can really look after itself (no small thing), this will always be a challenge.

Now, wego (the mode we all love) entirely removes this disadvantage. As far as the computer is aware (by the the game clock), we are making decisions at the same speed, but a human has a huge qualitative gain; effectively we are robbing the computer of its processing advantage. - we can manage units with total precision, and take as long as we like looking at the battlefield and the cinematic replays. It is one of the joys of the game.

The pause key, of course is a great equaliser and allows one to play real time and 'catch up' on the busier maps. I read the statement on this forum (by Erwin, I think) that if you're pausing you may as well play wego, and I would agree.

However...

I have a hunch (with no real data) that something is different in wego vs ai. Specifically, the AI seems a little more docile, to the extent where it really does feel like I'm playing two different games.

I'm wondering if it is down to the command and replay phase, and this is where I'm not certain about things. Is the AI in wego subject to exactly the same rules as the player? I.e., does it issue orders in the command phase, and have no intervention in the 'playback' phase? If so, that would explain why it does not react quite so dynamically to what is going on - in real time (naturally) all players can issue orders dynamically, you are not in the 60 second 'jail' of wego where you get to pay for your sins in that painful minute with your hands tied.

I don't know how it all works under the hood, but I do feel that even if one negates the disadvantage of reaction time in RT by using pause (and you have to, really on the larger games) the AI still seems a bit punchier in RT mode. I may be completely imagining it, of course

[LongLeftFlank]

Well-written and thoughtful post. Hope to hear much more from you in the future.

I generally play RT with a lot of pausing, although I've come to appreciate WeGo more lately in small PBEM games. The philosophy and the tempo are different, as you say, although I would still say I favour "paused RT" for reasons described below.

As many others have said before, unlike the player who can only be in one place at any given time, in both RT and WeGo the AI exercises simultaneous control over all its units, acting within the limits imposed by the programming:

1. the by-the-clock AI plans programmed by the scenario designer, plus

2. the limited suite of reactive "return fire", "move out of danger" or "go around" TacAI routines that all units -- player or computer controlled -- are wired to execute in response to stimuli like enemy fire or terrain obstacles.

So in answer to one of your questions, no, the computer doesn't benefit from the WeGo interval or play any differently. It's you who are forced to play differently.

In most situations other than static defense, you the human player can't just be the battalion or company CO and let your units fight it out, you have to control every single subunit leader. Absent orders from you, your units will do nothing beyond elementary self-defense. So you're inherently at a disadvantage in RT against a computer opponent with a well-written set of AI plans.

So under those conditions, a certain amount of pausing to issue orders in "RT" is more, not less, realistic.

This is even more true in infantry-heavy fights in complex terrain like cities, where a lot of finesse is called for in tactical movement in order to avoid heavy BLUE losses. In cities you can't depend on precision weapons in overwatch to instantly silence RED positions moments after they open fire, and enemy ambushes generally take place at close ranges where the Kalashnikovs become a lot more lethal.

"Finesse" in CMSF/CMBN tactical infantry movement requires careful positioning of waypoints, plus a lot of fine-tuning of orders, including:

- extensive use of Covered Arcs

- use of Pauses (e.g. pause 5-10 seconds between running up to an unscouted building and entering it).

- use of the unit Face command (that will keep your men closer to available cover, like walls, as opposed to out in the middle of the street).

I have found you can execute most combat drills used by modern armies quite accurately with these tools, but making sure they do it right takes time and attention.

And in larger unit fights, or ones where your forces are widely dispersed on the map, this level of micro can distract you from the "bigger picture" command and threat assessments. That might explain why you feel "caught on the back foot" more often when playing RT.

[LongLeftFlank]

.... Venturing into "wish land", I'd love to see scenario designers allowed to program AI plans for both sides (which you can do now), with the difference being that the human player's units would attempt to execute their preprogrammed AI plans except as otherwise instructed by the player. Presumably the briefing would tell the player what the plans are beforehand, so he has some idea of what his units will be trying to do and when (unless he intervenes).

In a RT environment that would take some of the pressure off you to be everywhere at once, micromanaging. It could also allow you to choose to play the role of a platoon commander within a larger operation. On the other hand, too much intervention could easily expose units to danger as they try to execute their plan with far fewer forces than the designer envisioned (because you've called those units away elsewhere).

[Sulman]

Thanks for your detailed reply, I appreciate it. So it's pretty much as I suspected. I don't think I would have even thought about it had I not tried both styles. Wego is still superb in the big scenarios, too.

This discussion pops up occasionally in Steel Beasts Pro too. There's some excellent missions for that game, where you only need worry about your immediate platoon - everything happens around you, but you can take control if you wish. On the other hand, it's entirely possible to overwhelm yourself, too.

Your comment about the big picture is spot on. I'm occasionally impatient and guilty of that even when I have all the time in the world!

[Erwin]

The ideal would be to have other formations operated by the AI while you can focus on a platoon or so which I think is the max one can handle in RT unless one is pausing every few seconds.

The lat 90's Panzer Elite SE was a terrific game - (probably still competitive) and operated like that. The reason it didn't become a huge success is that it required a (for then) very powerful computer and was buggy as hell. And the other neat thing about PE was that you could occupy tank crew positions as well.

[Sulman]

The ideal would be to have other formations operated by the AI while you can focus on a platoon or so which I think is the max one can handle in RT unless one is pausing every few seconds.

The lat 90's Panzer Elite SE was a terrific game - (probably still competitive) and operated like that. The reason it didn't become a huge success is that it required a (for then) very powerful computer and was buggy as hell. And the other neat thing about PE was that you could occupy tank crew positions as well.

I remember Panzer Elite SE very well. I lost the media when I moved to the US, sadly. That was a hell of a game, and did a great job with the terrain engine. It was memorable for me for being so easy to use the terrain & TC position for situational awareness and finding hull down positions. I also recall - as you say - the crappy performance on my relatively weak system...