Real Time Only?

[kevinkin]

Does anyone remember any CMx2 battles recommended for real time only? I believe turn based remains the overall - perhaps overwhelming - favorite. However, in a wayward post over in RT, Steve mentioned he only plays real time. So I said: "Perhaps there is some unplowed but fertile ground here ..."

Kevin

[Vinnart]

If you want to get into real time play I suggest playing anything with smaller forces to start out with. As for CMBS IanL's "Opportunity Knocks" comes to mind as a good scenario to play real time. When I want to play real time I usually set up a quick battle meeting engagement fight on a tiny to small map with tiny to small force size. To get it going quick I will set it to: infantry only computer generated force selection. This usually puts together a relatively balanced force, and INF only is a bit easier to control if you are new to RT play.

 

If you really want to control the game in real time with fluidity having a mouse with many programmable buttons is a big help. Additionally using a Nostromo speedpad like i use will have you controlling the game very fast. If you do not have either, you can make a special keyboard set up for optimal real time control by making a copy of the "hotkey" file. The way to do this is to hotkey most common used commands only for the left hand with the rest accessed with the space bar menu. I suggest top row starting with Q button for MOVE commands fast to slow. COMBAT for the second row starting with A button. Some SPECIAL and CAMERA on bottom row starting with Z key. You will be surprised how fast you can control the game in either Real Time or WEGO with the set ups, and equipment I described.

[kevinkin]

Vinnart

I am interested in designing scenarios for any CMx2 targeting real time play. Sort of like when the designer specifies "best as" or "play only as" one nation or another. Would design techniques (map OOB AI) be different? I would think playing real time would help the AI (a lot?). Just seeing if there is a potential niche market.

Kevin

[Vinnart]

There is nothing such as best played as Real Time, or WEGO as far as scenario AI goes. It is up to the player which way they want to play. "Best played as" deals more with optimal play as either RED or BLUE in the way the AI for the scenario is set up. The AI is the same whether it is played RT or WEGO. Like I said above, as Combat Mission is right now smaller scenarios are easier to control if one wants to play Real Time in "real" Real Time in that you're not pausing every other second. If one pauses a lot it is not as hard to control a larger force. There is no one way to play CM. There is only the way you like to play.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Vinnart

[kevinkin]

Do you think when designers recco a best played as they consider both real time and wego? I was thinking playing real time would start making playing the AI tougher all else being equal. And I certainly agree with smaller battles for real time.

Kevin

[sburke]

Do you think when designers recco a best played as they consider both real time and wego? I was thinking playing real time would start making playing the AI tougher all else being equal. And I certainly agree with smaller battles for real time.

Kevin

I don't think so, but I do know designers appreciate feedback in both styles to  make sure they haven't missed anything.  I tried real time once...and then I wanted to see what had happened in this one scene again and I never again played real time.

 

I think Steve just wants to avoid seeing too graphically how he leads his pixeltruppen into disastrous encounters time after time.

[kevinkin]

Now Now ... I am sure its totally based on CMs depth of tactical realism that only Steve could understand.

Anyway, I find real time refreshing at times if the battles are manageable. You do miss the minute to minute replays.

I guess you can record the outcome with external software but the real time views are all you will keep.

Kevin

PS: has there been a recent poll on how folks are playing CM? ie H2H vs AI; real time vs turn?

[Combatintman]

I play RT more than WEGO however I play it how I like and by that I mean if I want to hit ESC in RT to pause then I will which seems to be a bit of a taboo among members of the community. 

 

Every scenario I have designed and released has been tested (badly at times) by me in RT but I know from feedback that WEGO players have played them. I have also done some testing here and there in RT and seen the comments of others who have played WEGO for the same scenarios and apart from differences of opinion, the general trend is that my experience of how a scenario plays out is not hugely different than those who have tested it in WEGO. If a scenario works in one mode it should work in another.

[ASL Veteran]

The only difference I've noticed is that real time players seem to need more time to complete a scenario as opposed to We Go players.  By time I mean the overall length of time for the scenario within the game not the actual time the player spends playing the scenario.  However, adding too much time can make a scenario too easy for a We Go player so you probably don't want to get too crazy with it.  Keeping your scenario time lengths crazy short though will probably cause problems for real time players more so than with We Go players.

[kevinkin]

ASL

I agree with that assessment re: scenario length. The RT player needs a bit more to coordinate things given the faster mouse clicking needed. There is no golden rule but I find a 30 min wego plays comfortably at 40 min RT where quick decisions need to be made with time for a bit on thought.

This begs the age old question: releasing specific files of the same battle eg. best played as allied vs AI

best played as axis vs AI, one for RT, one for H2H etc. All optimized for balance. I hate to see great maps and historical battles not reach their potential if released without thought given to all forms of gameplay. Not saying today we have a problem with current scenarios - more of a alternate design approach. Having different files might alleviate some time consuming balancing and compromises. I would be surprised if this is new, I been away for many years.

Kevin

[Erwin]

Strange... I always thought the exact opposite.  In WEGO you can't make any changes for one minute, whereas in RT you can pause and instantly change the orders for every single unit on the map at any time and as often as you want.  I think WEGO players need MORE time than RT for that reason. 

[kevinkin]

That could be true. I guess the idea is to pause as little as possible in RT. Else use wego and all the replay has to offer

Kevin

[ASL Veteran]

Strange... I always thought the exact opposite.  In WEGO you can't make any changes for one minute, whereas in RT you can pause and instantly change the orders for every single unit on the map at any time and as often as you want.  I think WEGO players need MORE time than RT for that reason. 

The reason Real Time players generally need more time is because they have to order their units sequentially during each 'minute' of game time while the game clock is still running (unless they pause the game).  A We Go player places the orders for all the units at the same time and so no time is lost when issuing orders as opposed to the real time player (who doesn't pause every ten seconds) who bleeds time by the simple act of locating other units and issuing new orders for them.  If someone is playing real time without much pausing it will usually take them a little longer in terms of game time in order to accomplish what they are doing.  If you play real time and pause every ten seconds then it may make your units more responsive, but in terms of how much game time is consumed through the actual use of the game interface to issue orders real time will never be quicker than We Go.  Real Time can only be equal to or slower than We Go because by definition the game clock is stopped while the We Go player is issuing orders.

Edited June 27, 2015 by ASL Veteran

[Erwin]

Yes, I get the impression that RT players stop the clock every time something happens and then issue new orders - effectively instant communications with every unit in the scenario - something not possible even today.  If players can play RT all the way thru without regularly pausing, my hat is off to them.

[ASL Veteran]

Yes, I get the impression that RT players stop the clock every time something happens and then issue new orders - effectively instant communications with every unit in the scenario - something not possible even today.  If players can play RT all the way thru without regularly pausing, my hat is off to them.

There are some who play almost continuous real time.  Some of them might even look down upon someone who has to pause a lot as not being a 'true' real time player.   I think there are a few You Tube videos of players playing like that.  I'm We Go all the way though so I'm only going by what others request or tell me. 

[kevinkin]

Erwin

I am experimenting with infantry company sized QBs and that size seems right for me so far with the battle length at 45 mins. These are meeting engagements (WW2 - I posted here since the OP deals with any CB title). The action gets really hot 1/2 way through and the "endgame" slows down into a recollection of forces and holding gains. I only need to stop the clock to rest my eyes grab a drink etc. The middle game, due to the amount of lead being tossed around, is still manageable since you can't maneuver into the hail of bullets. You can pull squads out of fire and maneuver for an end run which is fun. I am not a first person shooter guy so company sized works.

Kevin

[IICptMillerII]

I've found that playing the game real time for me is more enjoyable, but it is less efficient. When playing real time, I'll tend to disregard some of my forces which leads to a chunk of my units just sitting around doing nothing for a while. Playing turn based gives you more of a chance to plan out everything for all of your forces in a structured way, so I find it to be overall more efficient for me. However I still prefer playing real time. It just feels better to me.

[Erwin]

When CM1 first came out I was a big RT proponent.  But, as the size of scenarios grew, WEGO became the only practical method and became far more satisfying.  But, I can see the fun of playing RT if you have maybe a reinforced platoon-sized scenario.  Even handling a company in RT sounds like a lot of stress. 

 

I enjoy large scenarios, but am realizing that the huge CM1 scenarios (which I still play) are not practical in CM2 due to the far greater micromanagement that CM2 demands.

[Lacroix]

Erwin

I am experimenting with infantry company sized QBs and that size seems right for me so far with the battle length at 45 mins. These are meeting engagements (WW2 - I posted here since the OP deals with any CB title). The action gets really hot 1/2 way through and the "endgame" slows down into a recollection of forces and holding gains. I only need to stop the clock to rest my eyes grab a drink etc. The middle game, due to the amount of lead being tossed around, is still manageable since you can't maneuver into the hail of bullets. You can pull squads out of fire and maneuver for an end run which is fun. I am not a first person shooter guy so company sized works.

Kevin

leme know if you are interested in Real time multiplayer

[Erwin]

Thank you for the offer.  But, I am very short on time these days, so vs AI is all I can manage and not much of that either. 

[Apocal]

Yes, I get the impression that RT players stop the clock every time something happens and then issue new orders - effectively instant communications with every unit in the scenario - something not possible even today.  If players can play RT all the way thru without regularly pausing, my hat is off to them.

 

I usually only pause to go to the bathroom or answer the phone. It isn't hard once you develop a rhythmn.

[Vinnart]

The only difference I've noticed is that real time players seem to need more time to complete a scenario as opposed to We Go players.  By time I mean the overall length of time for the scenario within the game not the actual time the player spends playing the scenario.  However, adding too much time can make a scenario too easy for a We Go player so you probably don't want to get too crazy with it.  Keeping your scenario time lengths crazy short though will probably cause problems for real time players more so than with We Go players.

 

This is very true since the clock is ticking while issuing orders, and thinking unlike WEGO where the time is paused to do this. Of course the real time player can pause when ever they want, but I think most real time players pause sparingly, otherwise it kind of defeats the purpose of playing real time IMO. I seem to take one or two pauses a game to access things mostly in the middle game, if I'm really getting hammered, or if I got to take a leak, answer phone, or whatever.

[Vinnart]

ASL

I agree with that assessment re: scenario length. The RT player needs a bit more to coordinate things given the faster mouse clicking needed. There is no golden rule but I find a 30 min wego plays comfortably at 40 min RT where quick decisions need to be made with time for a bit on thought.

This begs the age old question: releasing specific files of the same battle eg. best played as allied vs AI

best played as axis vs AI, one for RT, one for H2H etc. All optimized for balance. I hate to see great maps and historical battles not reach their potential if released without thought given to all forms of gameplay. Not saying today we have a problem with current scenarios - more of a alternate design approach. Having different files might alleviate some time consuming balancing and compromises. I would be surprised if this is new, I been away for many years.

Kevin

 

Spot on with time. My comment is almost identical above.

 

As far as releasing different versions optimized for different types of play that is up to the scenario designer. One can always take a scenario into the editor and make variations of made scenarios suited to ones own taste. Most of the time the time in testing it is enough work for the designer/map makers to get a scenario to work best either from RED, BLUE or both sides with WEGO in mind as it is more popular. As far as what is going to be something to play in real time I go by the size of the force involved. Company, or less is my preference, but I usually play QB's real time instead of scenarios.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Vinnart

[Vinnart]

Erwin

I am experimenting with infantry company sized QBs and that size seems right for me so far with the battle length at 45 mins. These are meeting engagements (WW2 - I posted here since the OP deals with any CB title). The action gets really hot 1/2 way through and the "endgame" slows down into a recollection of forces and holding gains. I only need to stop the clock to rest my eyes grab a drink etc. The middle game, due to the amount of lead being tossed around, is still manageable since you can't maneuver into the hail of bullets. You can pull squads out of fire and maneuver for an end run which is fun. I am not a first person shooter guy so company sized works.

Kevin

 

Kevin, That is basically what I play real time too. The points are better in ww2 which usually gives each player approx a Coy each for a tiny battle. For CMBS the points are set too high for tiny which usually gives USA a Coy, but RUS gets a Bat. + which is more units than most want to play with real time.

 

Jersey boy huh, Same time zone so I will put you on the list of possible opponents for those trying to get HvH multiplayer real time QB. There is no real time chat to make it easier to get a real time game going, so PM and threads will have to do.

[Stagler]

I usually only pause to go to the bathroom or answer the phone. It isn't hard once you develop a rhythmn.

 

Aye you spend 80% of the time at full zoom monitoring your forces, only going in when contact is made or  you need to test and adjust your approach.