CCM

[Sertorius]

First off, since I'm new let me say that I too love CM. I'm a TacOps player, but CM has struck a real chord in me. I've been following this thread about wanting real-time clicking. One suggestion is to use the solution that TacOps uses. That is to have SOP that at least allows units to have some sort of default reaction in a situation. This first occurred to me when I was following the thread about tanks and trying to get them to do something other than come out and fire until a target is destroyed or until they are destroyed. I haven't tried Fionn's spoiler suggestion/advice yet, but it strikes me that some SOP like fire and reverse, pop smoke if fired upon, or any of the combinations you can get from the TacOps SOP's allows a commander to deal with a variety of situations. Of course, a CM SOP would have to reflect the capabilities and tactics of the WWII environment.

I do like the 60 second battle sequence being out of my hands. Let's face it, have the "constant-click" capability doesn't let you go back and replay the action from a variety of perspectives in another part of the battlefield. This is a capability I really enjoy being able to use.

[MarkEzra]

SS-Pzldr:

To answer your questions: Yes, I own a copy of CC2. Why ,yes, as you mention it it, I have arthritis. Not bad, I get along. As for your comment: "I note that you said I had some valid ideas but then you start talking about things I never said". Why you're right again. Everything I wrote had to do with what BTS has said...It's mission statement. Like you, I wish people would read the post carefully before they respond.

[SS_PanzerLeader]

OK heres another suggestions lets gethte best of all worlds

take real time an pause it kinda like mentioned above

setup begins in an options amt of allotted time

realtime takes over you can redirect units from orders in eral-time fashion but effected by communtication - situation etc.

(control the realtime phase by a time option - up to maybe 5 minutes of real time)

re-order style turn phase to reevaluate the situation

repeat as above this would probably be a great aprroach IMHO

feedback?

SS_PanzerLeader....out

[SS_PanzerLeader]

MArk

I did read your post... it was addressed to me

It seems to me that folks who are CC players want to make Combat Mission a CC game...only better.

well it seems I didnt say this exactly :-P although u didnt quote me in any of this the overall post was towards me( at least it came over that way)

I could go on .....

But anyhow I understand that Having arthritis coud deter you from wanting to play RTS - I think im developing repetitive strain from using the mouse lol-

I dont likemost RtS But as someone pionted out earlier cc was more of a continuous turn

Im not looking for a click fest but having another ww2 style game that is CONTINUOUS TURN - (I likethat better lol) would be a good thing and would bring more players to this arena alot of which would become interested in CM as it is. This would be good for BTS dont you think

What do you think about my last suggestion a blend?

Also the non-reading portion wasnt directed soley at you And the comments made by the other guy were totally inexcusable.

SS_PanzerLeader..out

[Fionn]

Continuous action:

Has ALL the problems of a real-time game (LOS, CPU, poorer AI, number-crunching etc). PLUS it is VERY difficult to make it TCP-IPable (how do you stop one player pausing it for 15 minutes to issue orders every 30 seconds? )

Also, you couldn't do PBEM with your version.

As for CC not being an RTS. I think that's balderdash. It IS an RTS without the resource-gathering etc. Sudden Strike has no resource gathering but it is still an RTS.

CC is an RTS even though it is missing many of the traditional elements of RTSes. It may be an outlier but it is still on the graph

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Sorry Fionn .......

but this time I got to disagree with ya :-P

CC2 was nothing like a regular realtime game- the later in the series did get close to it I agree

You dont mass click multiple units and then go...... attack there. THen watch as they all run at super-speed to attack a set area or individual- at least I never played it that way and surely wouldnt have made it as far up the ladder as I did if I would have

Your reference to no resource gathering or building, indicates to me that you view this as a minor issue which it is not.

Not having to worry about how fast you are advancing technologically wise makes a HUGE difference between the style of games and GREAtly reduces the speed of gameplay. I could see it now... we have to build panzer Factories and Hitler youth training facilities while the allies shell us into oblivion

I've owned lots of realtime games they usually last about 1 day to 4wks max on my hd before I'm utterly bored.

Comand an conquer- deleted 2nd day

Warcraft 2- my first ever comp game so It made it actually through the original release

Age of Empires made it 2 wks until I saw Close_Combat 2

Age of Empires 2 made it a week only cause I like medieval stuff

Star Craft - I was given that an it still sucked

I could go on....but

CLose COMBat 2 made it over 1 yr and 1/2 so there musta been some MAJOR difference in gaming

Sorry but I don't IMHO even really feel they are in the same class - although your points-

LOS, CPU, poorer AI, number-crunching etc). PLUS it is VERY difficult to make it TCP-

are valid this doesnn't mean that BTS coulndt Produce something far better than we've ever seen and if they did produce something that could gain a market hold in this area WITHOUT abandoning CM - what would be the harm?

Also Fionn ou mention above about how would we pause while the other one is still taking there turn or something to that effect. I believe you missed the idea of what I was saying so again

1. set-up phase

2, designated - continuous turn time length-

3 the RTS time length is set for during the gmae and may not be changed after game starts- so the game is not actually 'paused '

it is moved into a turn phase which occurs simoultaeneously

4. after this the game goes back into its preset lenght of rts with the units controlled being limited to more tactical changes ratehr than broad strategical ones

( these having to be over-ridden in the simu-turn phase)

5. repeat the process until the preset over all time constraints is met or the game is lost.

In general... (not directed at anyone in particular)

The more money for BTS the better in my book- Because some of us would like to see a continuous turn style ww2 game also isn't so bad as long as CM is still intact is it?

What gives here with everyone so against it it seems a little selfish to me to expect BTS to do thi and only this an never consider anything else

I conside myself a WW2 nut - I'm not as knowledgeable as some as I'm not a history major, although there are periods of history which I really love. that does'nt lessen me as a wargamer in my book though and I love Cm the way it is and after reading posts @ responding I think CM2 SHOULD becreated inthe same style not RTS............

But would liek to see a new WW2 game done by bts that is AS REALISTIC as they can do in the RTS style that is all- I'm only one but I'm sure I speak for many when I think it would be huge and would help BTS finance EVEN more into the CM series- course just my opinion :-P

SS_PanzerLeader.out]

FIONN I would love to play ya if You have the time

[SS_PanzerLeader]

BTW

sorry its early and......

I Forgot to you se MIcrosoft speeling cheeker

SS_PanzerLeader......out

[Guest Lokesa]

Good Morning SS.

How harsh is this, were we addicted to an RTS game??? nooooooo, say it isn't so

unfortunatly though I have to agree with Fionn, although not like the other RTS games CC2 does belong in that genre. The problem is that RTS is a dirty word that I've associated a lot of negative s**t with. Plus I've spent a fair amount of time mocking RTS players

I bet that after we get TCP/IP going and have timed turns your desire for real time will lesson considerably. Although not smooth action straight through a timer will help simulate the chaos of command to an extant and force people to think on their feet. Plus we'll be able to play a game through in hours rather than days

[Fionn]

SS Panzerleader,

1. I know that the ommission of resource-gathering etc is a big deal. While I may not hugely like RTS games part of my role as a strategy reviewer and sometimes editor at TGN and elsewhere has been to understand what strategy games do and why.

2. I know that CC omits a LOT of the big things which traditionally make RTSes like C&C and Warcraft and TA BUT that doesn't mean it is still an RTS. It is just a specialised "niche" RTS.

3. I, for one, make a major distinction between CC players and people who play exclusively TA or C&C. One is a real-time strategy game which is a wargame (although I must admit CC4's rocket tanks etc I think have pushed it over the edge into a perversion of historical combat more akin to sci-fi than rigidly realistic WW2 combat.) while the other is quite simply a tank rush clickfest.

4. I say what I say because I believe it and not because I think it will be popular or unpopular. This can be seen in the way I deal with issues on this forum and other where I don't mind being the only person saying something ( remember my stance as regards pirating on the ex-gamestats CC forum some time ago).

5. I don't look down on anyone who knows less than I or others about WW2. Not everyone has spent as much time reading as I or some others, it's not a crime, I'm sure you know a lot of things I don't . I just may know more about Ww2 than you . I DO take issue with people who know nothing but think they know everything and get abusive when told they're wrong ( of which I've run into a few ).

6 BTS can make one new game using the CM engine roughly every year. To incorporate RTS issues etc would take some time. Let's say it only took 6 months..

Well, 18 months from now we could have an RTS CM. Then BTS could make EITHER an RTSCM2 or a turn-based CM2.. Either option would take 1 year.

End result your contention that they could make both is way off base. One game per year or 18 months is about the maximum. To change the engine to RTS suitability would take a minimum of 6 months (quite probably more). Once that was done you'd have a choice of making an RTS version or a turn-based version. Whichever choice you make either the RTS or turn-based audience would be left without a variant sequel for 2 to 3 years if you alternated between RTS and turn-based.

For a whole host of technology reasons that's suicide.

7. I think there are a lot of factors people aren't thinking of related to long-term viability and market share and positioning of BTS and potential rivals which people are missing . I don't want to go into it all publicly but I think there's a lot more going on than most realise and it's not simply about technical feasability and possible sales . Enough said .

8. Charles and Steve want to make turn-based games. For just that simple reason it ain't gonna happen .

9. Sure, I'm free.. Not right now though but about Thursday or Friday I'll be free. Since you challenged I get to choose. I'll be the US in Chance Encounter.

Care to make a public AAR of it?

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Wild Bill Wilder]

My oh my, pretty heated issues here. I only want to say after seeing numerous scenarios on this game and testing quite a number, my personal opinion is to leave it as is.

If you want realtime (in case you do), you have the CC series.

The focus of CM is on the company or battalion commander. He gives orders. As the battle develops and untoward situations occur, commanders on the line change orders.

These were unanticipated events after general orders were given. Is that realistic?

In my mind, indeed it is! Do commanders under fire make the wrong decisions? Yes they do. Did they historically? Yes they did!

Example. I am testing a campaign. I have flanked the German line. I am on a hill overlooking two pillboxes with a Sherman M4a3, two Stuarts and two Greyhounds. I can pound those pillboxes and they can't shoot back.

I order them to advance cautiously to the crest of the hill (hunt) and target the pillboxes (one has an 88).

They start, then I watch them slam their vehicles in reverse and back down the hill.

After 60 seconds, I call each armor commander into the HQ and ream him a new one.

"I don't care what you think. I said advance and take out those pillboxes. They are killing the guys in the valley."

They start again. Same thing again. This goes on for four turns. I am so frustrated, I want to court-martial the lot of them.

Ah, but then two things happen. A 50mm AT guns opens up from some distant woods, and a German rifle platoon pops up in to my right.

It is complete with panzerfausts and a panzershreck (an extrememely ugly weapon in this game! I hate it!). My guys on the line were more aware of what was happening than I was.

Though frustrating, I found it very realistic. I could hear the guys in the armored vehicles arguing with their orders (in my mind).

My point is that considering the focus of this game, it should be left alone.

------------------

Dirctor of Scenario Design,

The Gamers Net

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Hi Fionn

Sorry if you got the impression I thought you were looking down on me that is not what i meant at all I was merely making a statement that I was as avid a wargaming nut as those that know much more than I.

I understand that currently with the given situation that it would be impossible for two people to make two wargames

so it would be my contention that in the future there would be a need for expansion- im sure there are others out there that are sick of making crappy games - hell hopefully when I'm done with school those people will still be around

what did you think of the actual idea for gameplay i didn't see you respond to that do you think this is a viable option to bridge the gap in the future?

As for the game sure AAR is fine I look forward to the meeting

Wild Bill............ I think CM is much more realistic in relation to realtime - its just that realtime for ww2 has proven to be alot of fun in CC2 -( notthat CM isnt I love it-just a different feel to the game) I think the knowlege generated by the mkaing of CM could actually make the most realisitic realtime - or semi real-time (as described above) game ever- this would only do good things for BTS in my book - It is nice to finish a game in a few hours as well as more major games that take a few days or more( as with CM) I'm in no way suggesting one over the other -hehe hire more people (after they get off the ground) do both lol :-P

SS_PanzerLeader...........out

[Veer]

A good RTS game which has rotational camera views, excelent maps and fairly realistic combat is Sid Meyers Antiem (sp). Neither does it have a mini-map (though it does have a 'battle overview' map.

It is by no means a click-fest.

CM can go Real-Time and still give players an exteremly realistic game, with enough time to manage/order all their units comfortably.

However I think BTS has done a great job with the game sofar. Making a game CM into a real-time game would probaly require rather high system requirements too.

All in all a good idea, but not necessary to make it a better game.

[killmore]

My 2 cents:

Make it real time! But allow me to slow down the game.

For 2 players - let them agree on speed setting before the game

[erich]

I, for one, have no desire whatsoever to see BTS produce a continuous time wargame (I really hate the use of the term real time in this context...it's just not.) I play, and enjoy, Close Combat (not 4) against human opponents, but I'm glad I can play either as the whim takes me. I think BTS has expressed its opinion on the subject quite eloquently and clearly in its mission statement, and I'd be disappointed to see any deviation from it without an extremely good reason. I don't think arguments about economic reasons to go continuous hold up; BTS is targeting a small market in an intelligent manner, fully aware of its limitations, and producing the best product they can for that market. Other companies will take care of the continuous time thing, which I'm sure will be 3D (like Myth, perhaps, but ww2 tactical combat?) in time. Sure, it'd be nice if these companies (are you listening Atomic? I didn't think so) gave as much attention to realism as BTS does, but it's an imperfect world. And besides, if BTS went continuous, who'd be there to make a game like CM at all?

------------------

Eric

[SS_PanzerLeader]

I see we got someone not reading again

QUOTE:

I don't think arguments about economic reasons to go continuous hold up;

--I didnt suggest they soley go continuous

QUOTE:

BTS is targeting a small market in an intelligent manner, fully aware of its limitations,

Arrghhh. do you really think they don't have the capability to do a continuous game with all they've proven so far? I think you are grossly underestimating these guys don't you?

As far as the manifesto goes- I dont see anywhere in there where they say we only want to sell turn-based wargames ..but maybe I'm missing something.. i do see where they say htey want to produce realistic stuff and good quality games - but I dont see anywhere NO_realtime

QUOTE:

And besides, if BTS went continuous, who'd be there to make a game like CM at all?

I didnt suggest they abandon CM or change CM

SS_PanzerLeader.....out

[erich]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I didnt suggest they soley go continuous<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has been established that BTS hasn't got the resources to produce multiple games on this subject in a given year. Therefore, if they were to decide to produce a continuous time version of CM, it would mean no CM2 as we know it. I think your idea for a continuous time, pausable CM has merit, but I don't think BTS is the company to do it any time soon. Perhaps under a different business plan, but not as it stands now. So yes, you are suggesting that BTS go solely continuous.

And I think they have stated that they won't do RT ("...no desire to cater to the twitch crowd." I'm paraphrasing here.)

------------------

Eric

[Fionn]

SS Panzerleader,

The ONLY form of real-time (as opposed to continuous time) which I could see working would be something akin to Space Hulk ( based on the W40K franchise) wherein the game ran in real time but could be paused at any time and orders issued while paused.

The catch was that there was only a finite amount of time the game could be paused for. When that time ran out the game reverted to real-time and there was nothing you could do until enough time had passed so that your "pause time bar" had refilled and you could pause and issue orders again for maybe 20 seconds.

You got VERY practiced in very quickly givinng lots of orders since the person who could give orders quickly while paused and effectively would win.

Problem: NO PBEM POSSIBLE ! TCP/IP would also be hugely weird cause you'd have to lock one player out from giving orders when the other paused the game to issue orders.

A good system for a game like that but not for CM.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[SS_PanzerLeader]

FIONN;

I dont understand why any player has to be 'locked out' why could you not have a simulturn just like we will have for CM - ( the turn lasts for example 5 minutes of orders) then the game instead of going to video mode goes into realtime mode.

As Far as PBEm goe s why would we want it it isnt CM - it would be a new style of WW2 game - there was no PBEM in CC2 it isnt something that I would expect - That is why I suggested leave CM as it is - and work on something else too.

erich

Quote:

It has been established that BTS hasn't got the resources to produce multiple games on this subject in a given year.

I had already established this fact in my statemnt - I said maybe this could be something they pursued in the future I never said it had to be done right now or withing any time limit - I t was jsut a suggestion for once they had gotten off the ground that is all .. no more no less.

SS_PanzerLeader...out

[Dar]

I think "Sid Meier's Gettysburg" has shown that it's quite possible to make a feasible RT wargame. However, that era in which large formations lined up and shot at each other en masse lends itself quite well to the game, preventing it from becoming the "click-fest" that so many other RT games become.

The CC series (ahistorical fantasy aside) seems to work well, too, because the scale is limited to a few hundred meters.

How would you expect to port such a system as CM over to RT without it becoming a click-fest or becoming terribly abstract? Or without delegating so much decision making to subordinate AI commanders that the fun and challenge is gone?

Dar

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, there is *no* need for this issue to be heated. There is nothing wrong with RT games, but we certainly aren't going to change CM into RT. The simple reason is IT WILL NOT WORK! To have RT you not only have to reduce the scope of the game not only so you can actually have some degree of control, but also to have enough CPU cycles left over so that a fast system doesn't crawl.

One thing you have to remember is that ONCE you go to RT the game system becomes a SLAVE to CPU cycles. On a fast system one 60 second turn take MORE than 60 seconds to compile when the battle is at its height. So... imagine playing your RT version of CM on a P3 500 and having it slow down to something SLOWER than RT. Frustrating to say the least, but also unplayable. Unlike framerates, the system can not skip anything to keep the speed flowing in RT. So if there are 2 minutes of calculations needed, either the game slows to sub RT or we have to gut the realism to make sure that there won't be too many calculations.

And sorry, pausing is a cop out that will be used so often in a CM sized battle that you might as well not have RT in the first place (dumbing down, as listed above, would still have to happen!!). I played one the first "continuous time" games way back in 1994 (Pax Imperia). It had the "realtime with pause" feature, and it was a joke. There was too much stuff going on to have it unpaused for more than a partial minutes at a time, with LONG periods of being paused. And as stated, this system does NOT work well for multiplayer.

In short, we have nothing against RealTime, just as we have nothing against FirstPerson Shooter, FlightSims, RPGs, arcade twitch games, or whatever you can think of. But we DO have a problem trying to make one system fit with another simply because. CM will *never* be realtime because of all the practical problems associated with it. So although it might still be fun to talk about it, it will NOT happen.

Steve