pktaskess Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Wow. How did they goof that one up? Maybe I should have stayed back in 2001. oh well. It is prettier. And 2.0 has a Pause feature so I'll have to get used to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Actually PBEM is better now than in CMx1 games. You don't need email anymore. But it's true that turnbased online games are missing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Wow. How did they goof that one up? Maybe I should have stayed back in 2001. oh well. It is prettier. And 2.0 has a Pause feature so I'll have to get used to it. You can play either real time or turn based. You just have to select turn based when you fire up a scenario. Edited to add that I think I misunderstood your question. No, there is no TCP/IP turn based at the moment. Hopefully it will get added some day - I know that Steve has mentioned on the forums that it is a feature he would like to get in there if they could squeeze it in. The forum activity on this particular subject has been pretty intense in the past so they definitely know that it's a feature players would like to have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pktaskess Posted January 5, 2013 Author Share Posted January 5, 2013 Actually PBEM is better now than in CMx1 games. You don't need email anymore. ??? How so? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collingwood Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 ??? How so? H2HH - uses dropbox to exchange turns. see: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107790 cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 H2HH - uses dropbox to exchange turns. And it's seamless and reliable enough that if you're both at your computers at the same time, you might as well be playing TCP/IP WeGo, functionally, though it might feel a little bit like an IGoYouGo game because there's no parallel orger issuing. So the guy who'd take longest to hit the red button gets a break while the faster guy does their orders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 +1 to the above HTHH and dropbox are definitely the way to go. You can even chat through HTHH as you pass turns. It feels more like a hot seat game than email and you can relax and enjoy it, which for us old farts is a huge plus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 Wow this sounds awesome! I've been playing tcp/ip with my friend and its been awesome but it could be a lot better, reliability/features wise. Although pause is a great addition. You guys are making PBEM with HTHH seem like the dream come true as far as turn based online play with reliability go. I'm gonna have to have him look at this thread. Thanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amizaur Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Well, PBEM is for sure more reliable. But in TCP/IP both players could do some things simultaneously (see the action phase, plot the orders) so there was much less one-player-waiting time... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pktaskess Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 I'll check it out... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Well, PBEM is for sure more reliable. But in TCP/IP both players could do some things simultaneously (see the action phase, plot the orders) so there was much less one-player-waiting time... There are certainly some advantages to TCP IP play especially if you are already interested in RTS play. However it does tie you to playing the game in that particular time slot and to uninterrupted attention. HTHH and dropbox allow you to play while trying to catch up on Game of Thrones through Netflix while your opponent is busy laughing at your latest gaffe because you weren't focused on the game. It also helps when your opponent is on the opposite side of the globe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amizaur Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Well, then I'll chose PBEM when I like to be more time-flexible, but still would like to be able to choose TCP/IP WEGO play at least half of the time 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Direct WEGO play is still top on my desired feature list. I might be able to convince two friends to get the game if it had it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pktaskess Posted January 11, 2013 Author Share Posted January 11, 2013 I agree. When I have a couple hours to kill, it would be great to jump on with another guy and go at it instead of hoping your PBEM opponent will send you his turn. I would love to try an IP game just for the heck of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Wego is preferred, but I like to dabble now and then in RT, as RT is my war gaming roots. I would really go back to gung ho RTS play if the game offered something like 3v3 RTS multiplayer. Unfortunately according to BF they have no plans to expand RTS play in that direction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Just to chime in... we definitely do intend on implementing what we have termed the TCP/IP WeGo Compromise feature. And that is real time WeGo over TCP/IP, but without replay capability. Which we know is a sacrifice to lose the replay, but we're trying to be realistic with our limited development resources. This form of play is not the emphasis of the game and there's reasonable work arounds. It's better for everybody if we don't tie up a few months on any one feature ever, but especially not on a feature that only a fraction of the user base would wind up using. Trust me... nobody hates the fact that we have to make choices like this more than we do. But life ain't too fair, in case any of you haven't figured that out yet. Given the average age of our customers, I tend to doubt many haven't Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 That's good news Steve, thanks. Still, while I understand the nature of the situation regarding development resources, not having replay severely limits the utility of WEGO. First thoughts on the compromise are that, while we would be gaining the ability to comfortably issue commands ala turn-based play, we would be losing the kind of battlefield awareness (and enjoyment of the detail in the game) that is a key aspect of WEGO. So...I dunno. As I ponder it, without replay, I just don't know if it would be worth it. Is the compromise a temporary step towards full capacity TCP/IP WEGO with replay at some point in the future? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 That's good news Steve, thanks. Still, while I understand the nature of the situation regarding development resources, not having replay severely limits the utility of WEGO. Certainly. However, for people that don't want to play RT and want to play quicker (simultaneous orders and review) than they can by PBEM there is still benefit. Probably enough to make it worth doing, but we won't really know until after we've completed it. First thoughts on the compromise are that, while we would be gaining the ability to comfortably issue commands ala turn-based play, we would be losing the kind of battlefield awareness (and enjoyment of the detail in the game) that is a key aspect of WEGO. Yes and no. I'm not sure many of you guys played WeGo TCP/IP in CMx1 without significant time restrictions on reviewing the action of the previous turn. It's inherently a different experience than playing by PBEM, and it didn't appeal to some people because of that. So...I dunno. As I ponder it, without replay, I just don't know if it would be worth it. Is the compromise a temporary step towards full capacity TCP/IP WEGO with replay at some point in the future? Absolutely we are taking this in steps. Absolutely if there were no development headache we would have it in, complete with replay, already. Which means we all agree on the ultimate goal. It's just a question of tradeoffs and if they are in the best interests of the game as a whole. The RT Pause that got implemented for v2.0 is a step towards TCP/IP WeGo. Quite a bit more work that went into that pause feature than you might think and that work was needed before we could do the TCP/IP WeGo Compromise feature. After we get that in and working we can see how much work it would take to have replays and then guess if it is worth the development effort. One thing that's working in everybody's favor here is that computers are getting more resources each year. If we can cache the entire turn in RAM instead of swapping it out to the harddrive this *might* make it more viable to do. Dunno until we get into it more. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Just to chime in... we definitely do intend on implementing what we have termed the TCP/IP WeGo Compromise feature. And that is real time WeGo over TCP/IP, but without replay capability. Which we know is a sacrifice to lose the replay, but we're trying to be realistic with our limited development resources. This form of play is not the emphasis of the game and there's reasonable work arounds. It's better for everybody if we don't tie up a few months on any one feature ever, but especially not on a feature that only a fraction of the user base would wind up using. Trust me... nobody hates the fact that we have to make choices like this more than we do. But life ain't too fair, in case any of you haven't figured that out yet. Given the average age of our customers, I tend to doubt many haven't Steve That sounds unique in that I do not know of another game that has that mode. How do you plan the time?, Like speed chess. 30 sec, or 60 sec alternate order phase, then action phase with no replay? No time limit to make your moves? That could make for a long game if a dude takes a half hour to give all his orders. I am more inclined to 30 sec or 60 sec interval. The pace would still be quick, but not as fast as pure RT. More in between. Perhaps more pure WEGO guys will be less tentative to get into it. I hope one day the concept is realized in something more than 1v1 multiplayer. For me RTS is a team play thing. If you ever do it I think 3v3 ( each player a company, or platoon with a few tanks) with an observer slot per side. Sudden Strike had it this way and it was awesome. What drew me to it was the teamwork aspect of it. The observer slot was used to train, supreme commander games (this person would coordinate the other players (In other words an RTS where you control real intelligent humans), or just for watching as spectator. You have to admit it would be totally cool. Someday I really hope you can do it. I think that would open CM to a different market that it does not hit. Popular RTS games are more team play orientated, where as WEGO PBEM is more 1v1 orientated. There is'nt a former Sudden Striker who wouldn’t be into that game. That game was what we all used to wish Sudden Strike was. I’d get Fireglow’s database, and hit it with emal if you ever get to that direction. Honestly, RTS wise team play is where it is at that draws the player to it. I'm an RTs guy, but play CM much more in WEGO because of the lack of more than 1v1 play. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Thank you for the excellent reply, Steve. Points understood. As long as the ultimate goal is still the whole enchilada (here's hoping that it's worth the investment!!!), I'm a happy camper. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Just to chime in... we definitely do intend on implementing what we have termed the TCP/IP WeGo Compromise feature. And that is real time WeGo over TCP/IP, but without replay capability. If I understand this right that would basically be a TCP/IP RT game with a fixed interval of pauses after x seconds. So CM forces a pause after x seconds and you could not pause earlier and only 'unpause' when both are ready again, right? That mode of play would not interest me very much. Just my opinion of cause. Why don't you keep it file based and make that quasi-simultaneous? NOW (I guess of course): 1) the side that does NOT do the calculations watches the replay and sends his orders for the next turn together with the current replay to the other side. The .ema holds a replay and orders. 2) the side that does the calculations gets to see the replay but of course not the orders from the other side for the next turn. Replay watched and orders given. The .ema holds a replay and orders. 3) the calculations are done with both orders in and replay is generated. The replay for this turn and the order for the next turn are sent to the non-calc side. Again the .ema holds a replay and orders. NEW: 1) both sides buy and set up asynchroneously as now.But the non-calc side only creates an orders file without replay. This is sent to the calc-side. This .ema (*) only holds orders. 2) the calc-side waits until the own orders are finished and the other orders are in. The turn is calculated and sent to the non-calc side. Meanwhile the calc-side can NOT watch the replay. This .ema only holds the replay. 3) the non-calc side gets the replay and sends back a confirmation to the other side. Now both sides can watch the turn. 4) both sides watch and give orders. Non-calc sends his orders to calc. Again this .ema is only orders. Goto 1 (*) .ema as a placeholder for a file exchanged Criticism: - this is not truly synchroneous but as fast as you can order and transfer files - the one with the higher uplink bandwidth should be the calculating side - an external file sharing mechanism is required (unless CM would implement it itself). But honestly I can't imagine playing CM without dropbox anymore. Advantage: - replay is still there - turn lengths could be arbitrarly set - since everything is file based the game could be stopped and resumed at any point Sorry Steve, I know I'm not supposed to tell you how to do things. But this sprang to my mind when I read your post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.