My biggest gripe: the timer!!

[sburke]

I also hate the timer as well. They should give us the option to use it or not that way we are all satisfied.

I can't speak for anyone else,but if you are expecting unlimited timers in scenarios you will find me creating them without AI plans. Why bother if the player doesn't care if there is at all an AI with a fighting chance. I'll just make all static scenarios and give the AI more units. Certainly makes it easier for me.

[Macisle]

...This is a very good example, but it glosses one important aspect. As the defender in that game I'd be highly annoyed if the attacker arbitrarily demanded an extra 5 turns. As defender I'm resourced for five turns, not 10. If the attacker can't get his A into G in the five turns available, then yay me! I win. The attacker shouldn't get a do over now that I've run out of everything.

Yes, more time favors the attacker and the poor AI can't complain now, can it?

Really, I think the arguments here boil down to this:

Side A:

In order for a game to be such, it must have rules that define gameplay, victory and loss, and an end-state. The rules should seek to create the most enjoyable arc of play (setup, play, end). One vital element to be facilitated by the rules is the addition of an enjoyable state of tension. It is on this which a game thrives.

In the real world, time limits are an ever-present and integral aspect of the performance of military functions. Time limits reflect what is happening "off-map." Further, in order to avoid boredom and compensate for the fact that the player has much greater situational awareness and ability to quickly issue orders than any real-world commander does, game time must be "compressed" to greater or lesser degrees to compensate. This does not fundamentally detract from the realism of the game, if it is done well.

Side B:

I want to achieve a subjective level of victory using my current level of performance and do not enjoy the state of tension resulting from a time rule that establishes endgame and challenges that. To me, that just doesn't feel realistic.

Therefore, the time rule should be suspended so that I can achieve my desired end results. Further, I don't want to feel like I am lesser of a player than others for doing this, so please everyone, let's agree that it's fine to strip the game of the rule that establishes its end. You know, the one that is critical for tying together the victory conditions and scenario parameters in an objectively quantifiable end-state.

[MikeyD]

Oops! [edit]

[Peregrine]

The timer does feel artificial but it simply has to exist to put some pressure on a human player versus the AI. A well designed scenario should give you enough time to achieve your objectives.

While everyone has felt robbed by the clock at different times the reality is the AI does not usually punish bad attacks effectively enough.

Also part of the trick of CM is knowing when to be moving quickly and when to be careful.

If you are losing scenarios due to time, your troops are in good order and the scenario appears balanced it can help to mentally picture one of these things happening to account for your loss:

(1) My attack was too slow, appeared not to make progress and the CO called it off.

(2) My attack was too slow and gets shredded by artillery. Typically in-game artillery doesn't account for enough casualties and slow moving attacks are obviously more vulnerable.

(3) My attack was too slow, looked threatening but took so long a pile of enemy reinforcements turned up. Remember in CM you aren't really given un-winnable situations but in reality bad slow moving attacks could be countered by a defense they could not overcome.

(4) My attack was too slow, looked threatening but wasn't decisive at pinning the enemy. Getting terrain is one thing and destroying the enemy is another. In CM not many scenarios are set-up in a way that the enemy melts away. I have no doubt triggers will give some clear flow to AI movements which will make battles look a lot more real.

(5) My attack was too slow, didn't actually look that threatening and the units off-map on my flanks (which are entirely secure by the way) copped a belting for one of the above reasons instead of me. So the company still had a bad day I just didn't see it.

The above five things are very tricky to or aren't simulated in CM very well.

It is a long way from a perfect or totally accurate example but a fairly accessible example of the important of speed on attack is the Foy episode in Band of Brothers.

While everyone from the top of the chain down probably wants more time to prepare for an attack, more arty in the pre-barrage, more fire support etc I doubt once the shooting has started that the actual riflemen at the pointy end thinking are "I hope this battle goes for as long as possible to give us the best chance of winning." So another way to think of the timer is as morale gauge. Given the current state of your troops and situation the timer is as long as they are prepared to fight. You don't make it in time your guys pack it in or your CO pulls the plug for you.

[womble]

I tend to find that the absolute timer is my ammo. If I futz about suppressing every bush for too long, I run out of ammo before I run out of time. If things are looking a bit pressured, getting another couple of SAWs onto the firing step can hurry things up, but I'll run out of ammo sooner. Spending a couple of extra turns on recon at each "bound" saves me ammo (especially mortar and arty) at the cost of that time, since I don't have to suppress every bush before carrying on if I've a good view of the opposition's dispositions. Target Briefly has become my New Best Friend...

I can say too that lives are similar; it's just rare that I find myself running short of bodies before I find those bodies don't have the bullets to make it worth putting them in harm's way.

[Fizou]

I play real time... It's impossible to advance on multiple flanks. Tried but doesn't work, even a bogged vehicle requires my attention (or should I say especially a bogged vehicle. There's no worse way to lose a tank like this!). Let alone hearing an explosion, saw my tank blew up and wondering WTF! Therefore I generally advance on one side, when they're far enough ahead and in overwatch, I divert attention to the other flank.

This unavoidably takes more time. I can easily imagine WeGo being much much more time efficient. I could try it but... perhaps not yet.

I started out playing x2 in realtime as well. In some ways it suits singelplay better and with the bugs/problems CMSF had in the begining, realtime made things much better.

I constantly had problems taking all objectives in scenarios because of time. Mostly because I just couldent handle my force effectiveley. Only attacking one flank etc as I was not able to focus well enough on a two axis attack.

Id recommend trying some wego. I makes it so much easier to mange time and your force. It also opens up this beautiful world of the replay. With all the goodies in v3 its just a must if you ask me. I also think that with just a litle practice one overcomes the situations that can create frustration in wego (ex. not being able to stop a vehicle and reverse it instantly when danger apperas). One starts to act a litle more carefully.

I don't know the underlying game mechanism, but multiple repetitive experience has led me to believe: If a vehicle's bogged with a movement order, it always immobilizes. But, if I cancel the command when it's bogged, issue something else like reverse or a normal move, 9 outta 10 times it drives out.

Dunno, maybe it's the Fast movement command i'm usually using causing the bog -> immobile, but I'm close to ruling luck out.

This is my experience as well, from way back in x1. Not sure if its true or its just believing that makes it so . I'll keep isuing new orders to have my units unbogg!

[Macisle]

...Target Briefly has become my New Best Friend...

Hear, hear. I LOVE that command and use it constantly. I like to have a number of fire teams suppress with all but one or two using Target Briefly. Once the full group has suppressed for 15 seconds, the one or two using regular Target can maintain the suppression while the others take on new tasks or free up to engage new threats.

And, of course, combined with short movement commands, Target Briefly is great for having your AFV Support engage multiple targets during a turn.

Yes, ammo often leaps ahead of time as my main concern (especially with CW infantry for me). That's another great reason to split your squads and keep your SMG teams offline unless the task at hand really needs them.

[slysniper]

If a vehicle's bogged with a movement order, it always immobilizes. But, if I cancel the command when it's bogged, issue something else like reverse or a normal move, 9 outta 10 times it drives out.

Dunno, maybe it's the Fast movement command i'm usually using causing the bog -> immobile, but I'm close to ruling luck out.

I have not tested this either. But I do similar

I stop the tank, I then either reverse back out, or try a slow move in a new direction. I agree, it seems if you catch the unit early, the success rate for getting free seems very high.

So I think it is programmd, but like I said I have not bothered to test it, to prove it to myself. I just do it because I think it works.

[Skwabie]

So I think it is programmd, but like I said I have not bothered to test it, to prove it to myself. I just do it because I think it works.

Samo... at first I thought it was my superstition tho:D

[A Canadian Cat]

I can categorically refute that belief. Playing Road to Nijmegen at the moment, and I've had 4 instances that I can think of, in the two scenarios where I've had vehicles, that I've noticed bogged vehicles unbog themselves without any intervention on my part. And that's with setting long moves and ignoring them for a couple of minutes; there could have been "Bogged" moments that I never saw. That compares to 2 vehicles actually Immobilised in the same span.

My experience mirrors @womble. The actual bogged vehicle I leave alone. However, bogging nearly always creates the need for order management. Just because it will totally mess up either the convoy - massive bunching issues behind the bogged vehicle or coordination issues - it is not a good idea to go rushing forward when your overwatch partner is not in a position to cover you.

So, I agree bogging vehicles immediately require attention be paid to the other vehicles in the area.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

If you really feel that strongly that the time allocated to you for a scenario by the scenario designer is too little (or indeed too much) there is nothing stopping yo from going int the scenario editor, loading the scenario data file, selecting the data option under mission and simply changing the length of battle o what you think the duration of the battle should be. If you are only playing the AI there is really no problem.

My personal view however is that your mission is being conducted in co-orsdination with those of other units off your map. If you fail to accomplish your objectives by the time specifed by the scenario designer (in the role of your superior officer) that is going to have a severely negative impact on the wider battle plan. Just like what happens in the work place when someone fails to meet a deadline. Someone else was depending on that piece of work to do their job and since they now do not have the information they needed they now cannot do your job. Similarly your battlegroup failed to clear the position you were supposed to clear in the scenario on time and took heavier losses than anticipated. Brigade and Division battle plans are now badly screwed up and they might well have to commit reserves to do the job you were supposed to have done. Which means hose units cannot now lay their part in the wider battle plan as orginally intended.

[Erwin]

The time issue is more critical in campaigns when one has to practice economy of ammo and preservation of forces.

I can understand both POV's here. What puzzles me is why not make the friendly casualties cost more to discourage the unrealistic use of troops as cannon fodder. That would "encourage" more realistically cautious play, and in turn allow for more time being required and allowed for.

Obviously there are scenarios based on RL situations where a "mad dash" is required. However, those were and should be very much the minority of scenarios.

[Jock Tamson]

If you really feel that strongly that the time allocated to you for a scenario by the scenario designer is too little (or indeed too much) there is nothing stopping yo from going int the scenario editor, loading the scenario data file, selecting the data option under mission and simply changing the length of battle o what you think the duration of the battle should be. If you are only playing the AI there is really no problem.

There is one problem. The AI plans are based around time, so if the player gives himself more time he may well not have progressed to areas of the map that the scenario designer had estimated he would be in at that point.

[womble]

There is one problem. The AI plans are based around time, so if the player gives himself more time he may well not have progressed to areas of the map that the scenario designer had estimated he would be in at that point.

Indeed, but that doesn't matter once you start changing the framework anyway. And it doesn't matter so much when the defensive plan is static anyway. It only really matters when the AI plan is dynamic (as it must be on the attack, and may be when defending).

[Combatintman]

Interesting discussion - I am a plodder and have knocked a few scenarios together myself. As a scenario designer it is bloody hard to work out how your scenario is going to be played and I have been surprised by some of the feedback I've had about how people have played the scenario.

One of my CMSF scenarios I probably spent the equivalent of a two days tinkering around with timings - a mission I wanted to last an hour ended up being a 3 hour mission with extra time added. In all of my playtests (and there were lots) I struggled to hit the objectives.

Feedback from one player went along the lines of ... I'm an hour in and I've secured all of the objectives ... difficult ain't it?

[Apocal]

One of my CMSF scenarios I probably spent the equivalent of a two days tinkering around with timings - a mission I wanted to last an hour ended up being a 3 hour mission with extra time added. In all of my playtests (and there were lots) I struggled to hit the objectives.

Feedback from one player went along the lines of ... I'm an hour in and I've secured all of the objectives ... difficult ain't it?

In CMSF especially, you could do very well time-wise by being aggressive Thunder Run-style tactics, i.e. keep your men under armor and buttoned-up, roll under a barrage of your own airbursting arty/mortars, break into the defense and fight from an unexpected (by the scenario designer) position.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

There is one problem. The AI plans are based around time, so if the player gives himself more time he may well not have progressed to areas of the map that the scenario designer had estimated he would be in at that point.

I agree with you Jock which is wht I, perasonally would be cautious about changing the battlev duration. Plus of course the wider issues of realism given your superiors require that you complete your missin within a given time frame.

It might be your plan that is at fault (perhaps you are much more cautios than the scenario designer thought you would be. Or perhaps the scenario designer is at fault in not allowing sufficient time. In whixch case the AI plans also need reconsidering.

[Erwin]

Steve has said in future versions we should have triggers which will make scenario design easier (hopefully) and more realistic/challenging for players vs the AI.

[ASL Veteran]

One of the biggest areas to influence scenario time is the size of the map. This is especially true if the attacking force is primarily on foot. It takes time for infantrymen to walk across the map and you have to allow the player some time for fighting mixed in there as well. A fully mechanized attacking force can cross a lot of real estate in a relatively short time and in those cases it can be more difficult to estimate where the player will be at any given time. Different players have different playing styles too. You can have two players play the same scenario and one guy gets a total victory in thirty minutes and the next guy gets a total defeat in two hours.

There are certainly cases where the designer has given the average player insufficient time to achieve the objectives. At the same time it's not really practical for the designer to give the player an unlimited time to achieve the objectives. As in all things related to scenario design it is a balancing act that has to be performed by the designer. It's not really possible for a scenario designer to create a scenario that is all things to all players. Most players will get a good feel for the way a specific designer generally operates and they can then stick to scenarios that designer creates.

[John Kettler]

necramonium,

War exists in a framework of time. If a company doesn't seize its objective by a specified time, it can unhinge an entire offensive. That may sound insane, but there are plenty of accounts of such things happening, especially when that unit has to capture the very ground from which the main attack will commence! Fail to synchronize fire support and movement and feel the scourge of your own artillery shelling your troops. If the reinforcement routes to the landing beaches aren't blocked before the defenders can react and counterattack, an entire invasion can fail. Guns must be knocked out by first light or heavy casualties will result.

In war, once the shooting starts, there is never enough time, and the timer reflects that. The tides are not negotiable, and they determine when an invasion can occur. Similarly, illumination is often key to military operation, and it, too, is driven by time, be that illumination lunar or solar. If conducting a raid, strict time sychronized plans must be employed, both to land the raiding party and extract it. The naval force from which come the landing craft may, for example, simply not be able to operate in daylight because of heavy air threat, so it's in, hit and get out quickly or quite likely lose the raiding force. If it's not on the beach when the retrieval phase occurs, then at best it'll be POW cages for the surviving raiders. These are but a few examples of how important time is in war. CMx2 is a sim, so time MUST be represented there as a discrete element.

I never thought of the timer in terms of the need to have it in order to have the AI work properly. To me, it's simply a constraint which must ever be considered.

Is the timer a form of pressure and strain on the gamer? Absolutely. But consider what the gamer isn't having to deal with. Ever present threat of wounds and death. Losses of close friends. Nerves at the breaking point. Sleep deprivation. Adverse weather. Lousy food/little food/no food. Unhygienic conditions. Loneliness. Lice. Disease. Supply problems. Leadership problems. And on it goes.

Given the above, a timer is a nothing as constraints go. The single biggest problem I have with the timer is that I wish it went forward rather than backward. In CMx1, it went forward. To me, the present method is counterintuitive and awkward. Wonder if there's a fix for this?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Erwin]

"the present method is counterintuitive and awkward."

+1 It's surprising that this hasn't been an issue much before. I guess we got used to it.

[womble]

While the timer goes backward, the clock in the "compass" (now there's a thing that's counterintuitive and awkward) ticks ever on. Being aware of the time is much more immersive than being aware it's T+x minutes...

[Baneman]

...the "compass" (now there's a thing that's counterintuitive and awkward) ...

True, but ever since Marco Bergman made his excellent mod for the compass, I've never thought about it again.