Time limits

[JoMac]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think it's about things such as artillery spotting and buddy aid happening faster than real life on the lower difficulty levels. Also probably suppression effects clear up much faster than in a real battle, and troop morale state arguably recovers faster.

I think, IanL, actually has a better assessment of the 'Time Compression' factor, but your Statement also has some merit. 

[A Canadian Cat]

8 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

Your Correct in that BFC didn't put a time measure per-say (that # I stated is how I roughly perceived it to be), but rather CM has a 'Time Compression' factor of sorts including the ones you listed. 

Ah got it.  I'm not sure it is something you can put a number on but if it helps how you think of the game then cool.

[womble]

There have been some suggestions in previous threads on this topic as to how a scenario designer can change the VPs allocated to a side dependent on the progression of time in the sole case of AI battles from a given side (they involve having an AI order group in some hard-to kill location move about to garner additional VPs from Touch objectives, so wouldn't work if a human was in charge of that side, whether in Single Player or HvH modes).

I think it's potentially misleading to think of BFC "using Time Compression" in any active way. While combat tempo is accelerated in a CM setting compared to Real Life, it's an entirely emergent outcome from the game environment, and difficult to avoid, that fights progress more rapidly due to improved coordination and reduced concern for injury to the participants. Units don't move drastically faster, and whether they recover "morale damage" faster than real life is a mostly subjective judgement, considering we don't know exactly what each represented Morale state actually represents. It doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable that an infantry element that's been Pinned (i.e. subjected to heavy and persistent-enough incoming fire to lose the ability to conduct observation, let alone offensive operations) might start popping its head up for a cautious look and maybe thinking about shooting back, within about 30s of the incoming relenting; waiting any longer seems like it's more of a risk of one of those previously-suppressing elements scuttling up close and lobbing grenades unopposed... Thinking of "time compression" as a "game mechanic" risks misattributing effects to programming rather than behaviour.

[Bulletpoint]

11 hours ago, womble said:

a scenario designer can change the VPs allocated to a side dependent on the progression of time in the sole case of AI battles from a given side (they involve having an AI order group in some hard-to kill location move about to garner additional VPs from Touch objectives

That's definitely a creative solution, but I think options like these should simply be available to scenario designers in the editor, instead of requiring them to construct such Rube Goldberg contraptions.

[womble]

12 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

That's definitely a creative solution, but I think options like these should simply be available to scenario designers in the editor, instead of requiring them to construct such Rube Goldberg contraptions.

I don't disagree. Just putting it there for people desperate to incorporate it now...

[ForeverAMonk]

I honestly think that the time limits are fair. You're normally taking the role of a squad leader -> Battalion C/O, so there is always someone higher above you. The time limit is there also for realism. Because when commanders give orders to smaller groups (ie; platoon, company, battalion, etc...) they give them a time to complete it. 

[Casus_Belli]

I didn't say it wasn't fair. My complaint is that it's unrealistic and irritating. Commanders might well give junior commanders timelines, but how often are they met? And if they aren't met, what happens? The battle doesn't just stop. It could be easily reflected in the scoring, as someone suggested. And for the 95th time, no-one I've seen is saying there shouldn't be a provision for scenarios to have time limits, only that players and designers should be able to not have them, or to continue playing after they've passed. I'm arguing for a choice, that's all, and I don't believe it's unrealistic, since many battles do not play out the way force commanders would like, and good commanders adapt and persist.

[womble]

8 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

I didn't say it wasn't fair. My complaint is that it's unrealistic and irritating.

Of course it's unrealistic. So are map edges. It's. A. Game. It has to have boundaries. The time limit is the boundary in time, same as the map edges are the boundaries in space. It's only irritating because the rest of the simulation is of such high fidelity. Look at figures games like Flames of War or Bolt Action: they have time limits of six turns. I'll say that again: six turns. But people love to play those games.

8 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

Commanders might well give junior commanders timelines, but how often are they met?

Doesn't matter how often they were met IRL. This is not RL.

8 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

And if they aren't met, what happens? The battle doesn't just stop.

That, obviously, depends. When XXX Corps missed their time objective, the Rhine crossing was stymied and the British 1st Airborne badly damaged. When Lieutenant Rupert's patrol hasn't cleared out the farmhouse by 11:00, Captain Nobb probably calls in some 25lbers to rubble it. Or Lieutenant Carruthers' platoon has scouted a gap to go round it, or Lancer Giles' stray Sherman V hooks up with Rupert and gives the pesky determined farmhouse defenders the 75mm HE good news. Or maybe they just disengage and have a brew. However, what happens outside the context of the scenario as presented is irrelevant, because it's unknown and unknowable. 

8 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

It could be easily reflected in the scoring, as someone suggested.

And there would still be time limits. They'd be "softer" but if you're going to want "flexible" time limits, unless they're reflected in scoring, you have to pretty much ignore the scoring scheme; as has been said, often the defender is so overmatched, the only thing they have that allows them to "win" is to hold out for "long enough". 

8 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

And for the 95th time, no-one I've seen is saying there shouldn't be a provision for scenarios to have time limits, only that players and designers should be able to not have them, or to continue playing after they've passed. I'm arguing for a choice, that's all, and I don't believe it's unrealistic, since many battles do not play out the way force commanders would like, and good commanders adapt and persist.

The maximum available length of scenarios and QBs as it stands tends, IMO, pretty much towards infinity for the game in its current form. If a designer doesn't want a time limit, he can pick a four hour battle, and the player can be as dilatory and indecisive as they like for two game-hours,  and still have 2 hours to actually get onto the objectives. That might be a push with a Brigade scale action, but I'm not sure I've got the stamina for several battalions for 4 game hours, and I like large, long games. If you're still fighting a QB after 2 hours, someone has spent far too long on the approach phase. QBs are a particular problem. If you're playing them against the AI, their scripted plan cannot be arbitrarily stretched if you suddenly decide you want 20 more minutes on a 90 minute fight. It is limited as to how it can adapt at the moment to the difference between a 20 minute and a 2 hour fight. If you're playing against a human, and you care about the points, how can it possibly develop some "overtime penalty" that will match game length and type and remain fair (where "fair" is the assumed quality of the current scoring process for QBs)?

Designers use time limits for numerous reasons, including narrative tension and game balance. And you can still go into all the scenarios ever produced and up their time limit to 4 hours. The only scenarios you can't extend using provided tools are Campaign scenarios, and there, the context of each battle is even more tightly prescribed than an arbitrary standalone scenario, and "interfering" with the time limits imposed by the designer starts to verge on making a mockery of their efforts at storytelling.

[The Steppenwulf]

The OP's complaint might be taken more seriously if the community had ever heard of single instance of a player reaching the 4 hour time limit, least of all one who felt that the limit, having been met, had frustrated their game. Perhaps the OP is the first player to have experienced this? 

Nonetheless, I cannot imagine playing for 4 hours; in real time I wouldn't be able to walk for week afterwards, and in WeGo it would be a life long commitment. In the latter case, it would the only CM game I would ever get to play. And in the former it would be the last CM game I would probably ever want to play 

Life's just too short I'm afraid - too short to play a game for more than four hours and too short to complain about the limit!!

Edited October 1, 2016 by The Steppenwulf

[Casus_Belli]

Apparently life is not too short for snooty schoolyard put-downs. 'The OP' has experienced reaching the time limits on a scenario while in the midst of intense and indecisive fighting many times, which was the cause of the problem in the first place.

I accept almost everything womble says except that, to change the time limits on existing scenarios, you have to go into the editor, which is not too difficult as long as you know that (but you have to know it, and many people are not particularly interested in editing scenarios). But even then, a four hour limit might seem like a lot, but I could certainly imagine playing a game like that. I play EUIV and many other games that go on for weeks or even years at a time. Love 'em. If some people cannot imagine such a thing, perhaps it's the imagination that's deficient.

In QBs the limit is only two hours (again, unless you know about the editor), and I would like to know how many engagements in Normandy in 1944 lasted for less than two hours. From my understanding, it was pretty much continuous fighting for months. There's no particular reason why the attackers have to be always overwhelmingly larger than the defenders, and many a force has been expended entirely attempting to break a defensive line. All I'm saying, once again, is that it should be easy to cancel or play through time limits if players choose to do so. Nobody is suggesting they should be banned for those who like them. More options, that's all that's being called for, by me at least. It is indeed a game, not a training or testing exercise for professionals. I'm not particularly interested in scores, or in passing tests, or in rankings. I'm interested in playing out scenarios to their conclusions.

Having stated my case several times now. I will not expose myself further to pre-emptive ostracism from self-appointed representatives of 'the community'.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Casus_Belli

[Casus_Belli]

Actually, sorry, on re-reading womble's post, I have to say I don't accept a good deal of it, especially the supercilious and condescending parts. Just because you haven't "got the stamina for several battalions for 4 game hours" that doesn't mean that no-one has. Anyway, I can't be bothered arguing further with this oh-so-superior nonsense. These posts are absolutely amazing.

[womble]

2 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

Apparently life is not too short for snooty schoolyard put-downs. 'The OP' has experienced reaching the time limits on a scenario while in the midst of intense and indecisive fighting many times, which was the cause of the problem in the first place.

And if those were standalone scenarios you could have set the time limit to 4 hours. Most scenarios get playtested. All the ones BFC put in with their modules do. Some people play slow and cautious. Some people play fast-and-loose. For there to be a scoring system, there has to be an end point, where scoring counts. It's that simple.

2 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

I accept almost everything womble says except that, to change the time limits on existing scenarios, you have to go into the editor, which is not too difficult as long as you know that (but you have to know it, and many people are not particularly interested in editing scenarios). But even then, a four hour limit might seem like a lot, but I could certainly imagine playing a game like that. I play EUIV and many other games that go on for weeks or even years at a time. Love 'em. If some people cannot imagine such a thing, perhaps it's the imagination that's deficient.

Four hours isn't "a lot" if you've got enough units to keep fighting for that long. HvH, though, you're looking at 8 months to completion, and that's if you both manage to get your turn in every day. And it'd take a lot of reinforcements to keep it going that long, the way we, the players, end up smashing them together, cos the engine would struggle to have them on map ab initio. For any "official" scenario against the AI, you're basically a) spending a lot of game time unproductively, and 1) making the potentially carefully-crafted 90 minute AI plan mostly irrelevant.

2 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

In QBs the limit is only two hours (again, unless you know about the editor), and I would like to know how many engagements in Normandy in 1944 lasted for less than two hours.

How many QBs actually go to a 2 hour limit? None IMO. Contact is made, and the CM meat grinder generally produces a result within 30 minutes of that time. So, if you want to spend 90 minutes groping for recce information that was complete within 30, you might hit the limit.

2 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

From my understanding, it was pretty much continuous fighting for months. There's no particular reason why the attackers have to be always overwhelmingly larger than the defenders, and many a force has been expended entirely attempting to break a defensive line.

The reason there seems largely to be the point ratios of QBs; even Probes give the attacker sufficient matierial advantage that it's relatively straightforward to generate overwhelming local superiority in order to dislocate a defensive scheme. That and what might be deemed "acceptable" force match-ups. There has been much discussion about "asymmetric" battles, largely focused on how to make an untenable defender's position "palatable" for the general player, and the general consensus appears to be that while technically possible, the interest-base in fighting an impossible situation "well enough" to score some weighted VP scheme high enough to beat the superior force. Same arguments apply to "understrength" attacks. 

2 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

All I'm saying, once again, is that it should be easy to cancel or play through time limits if players choose to do so. Nobody is suggesting they should be banned for those who like them. More options, that's all that's being called for, by me at least. It is indeed a game, not a training or testing exercise for professionals. I'm not particularly interested in scores, or in passing tests, or in rankings. I'm interested in playing out scenarios to their conclusions.

So go into every scenario before you play it and bang the time limit up to 4 hours. Oh, and recognise that the conclusion you draw, especially against the AI, will largely be artificially skewed one way or another because of the extended time line. The reasons not to make it a "standard option" are pretty clear: it's not how the game or its scenarios are designed.

2 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

Having stated my case several times now. I will not expose myself further to pre-emptive ostracism from self-appointed representatives of 'the community'.

Stating your case repeatedly doesn't fill the holes in it.

[Wicky]

Bring back Timeless Tests ;-) or even bring on Timeless T20s QBs!

A timeless Test is a match of Test cricket played under no limitation of time, which means the match is played until one side wins or the match is tied, with theoretically no possibility of a draw. The format means that it is not possible to play defensively for a draw when the allotted time runs out, and delays due to bad weather will not prevent the match ending with a positive result. It also means that there is far less reason for a side to declare an innings, since time pressure should not affect the chances of winning the game.

Although the format should guarantee a result, it was ultimately abandoned as it was impossible to predict with any certainty when a match would be finished, making scheduling and commercial aspects difficult. In the modern era teams often play back-to-back tests in consecutive weeks, something that would be impossible without the five day limit.

The last ever timeless Test was the fifth Test between England and South Africa at Durban in 1939, which was abandoned as a draw after nine days of play spread over twelve days, otherwise the England team would have missed the boat for home. This match had started on 3 March. South Africa had set a target of 696 for England to win. By the time England had to leave to catch their boat home, on 14 March, England had reached 654 for 5 (the highest ever first-class fourth innings score).  This is the longest Test cricket match on record.

[sttp]

Casus-Belli, I like your suggestion for improvement. I've often wanted to play on beyond when the AI surrenders, too. Just to mop things up a little more.... (You know, maybe see that nebelwerfer mission you've waited 8 turns for finally come through. Happened to me yesterday in Diedenhove.) Nothing wrong with offering the player more options.

And I wouldn't think that the programming required for this addition would be that involved? Though... perhaps? The issue of use of limited programming & testing resources, when there are much higher priorities, may be part of some of the friction you're receiving.

Still, even if a majority of players don't get or don't use the no-time-limit (or extend-time-limit) option, who cares. Many would enjoy it. And we're each allowed to use the program in personal and novel ways, right? I'm sure that 90% of all players wouldn't get how anyone could derive 'fun' from some of the things I do within the editor or with my QB's vs. the AI... but, hey, it's fun for me.

Edited October 1, 2016 by sttp

[Erwin]

Am completely puzzled why it is so controversial to give players the OPTION of extending a scenario.  No one is saying that a player MUST extend if they don't want to.  I can't understand this discussion thread at all.

Threads where simply asking for an OPTION to do something in the game results in such "out of proportion" negative responses reveals some personality issues that might fascinate a shrink.

[womble]

18 hours ago, Erwin said:

Am completely puzzled why it is so controversial to give players the OPTION of extending a scenario.  No one is saying that a player MUST extend if they don't want to.  I can't understand this discussion thread at all.

Threads where simply asking for an OPTION to do something in the game results in such "out of proportion" negative responses reveals some personality issues that might fascinate a shrink.

Because the option already exists and a massive chunk of the arguments as to why development effort should be expended on this feature rather than something more useful are fallacious. As well as the option existing having ramifications beyond what the proposers recognise. Options are more complicated than "wouldn't it be nice if...".

[Casus_Belli]

Thank heavens for some support. To me it sounds like I've raised a heresy in the sect and must be persecuted, ostracized and damned for my sinful thoughts. That's how it comes across. There are no holes in my argument, because there is no logical argument, just a wish to have an extra option in the game that makes it less restrictive. There's no logic to the resistance either, just defence of cherished orthodoxy. Hence the tendentious creation of 'a community' from which one may be banished.

[Warts 'n' all]

Dismissing reasoned argument from forum members who come from a variety of age groups and social backgrounds as "snooty schoolyard put-downs" isn't exactly helping your case.  

[A Canadian Cat]

Yeah, exactly. You didn't just make a perfectly reasonable feature request you dressed it up with snarkiness and defended it with more. I feel slightly bad that your first post was met with snarky replies but not to bad . Around here you reap what you sew.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

@Casus_Belli I think the idea to turn off the clock has some very valid reasons in a battle against a human opponent. The other person can make the smart decision for themselves as to when the battle is truly lost and end it, no matter how long it takes, 2 hours, 4 hours or 12 hours into the battle. I have often fought to the end of the clock and wished for a some extra time to keep the fun we have had going a little bit longer. I really like this idea.

However, The AI system has limits and must be programmed to follow those limits. Even with the inclusion of triggers, the AI must still follow some sort of timetable to mount an effective fight against you. Without the limits of time, designing a fun and enjoyable scenario would be very difficult. Once a scenario has reached the end of the time limit imposed by the scenario designer, the AI is effectively brainless. Yes, the TACAI is still functioning and units will shoot at what they can see, but other than running away, they will not move. So the fun battle you have been enjoying and wish to have five more minutes or hours of will cease to exist, and instead will become a glorified turkey shoot. To me, turning the clock off against the AI is almost like cheating, the AI has no more moves "brains" and will only react in self-defence. 

Don't believe what I am saying? Here is the scenario Lonsdale's Block from the Market Garden module. I have modified it to have 4 hours and up to 15 minutes of extra time, the maximum available in the scenario editor. The AI plans are designed to last for 1 hour, so there should be a minimum of 3 hours available to you after AI plans end.  I suggest playing the battle and trying to win in the one hour you have been given. I then suggest you pay extra attention for the next 3 hours to see if it is as fun as the battle you played while the AI still had "brains". I don't think you will have as much fun playing the battle after the AI plan runs out as you did while the AI still had "brains".

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7d9jshngu873rtw/MG Lonsdale's Block 4 hours.btt?dl=0

[Casus_Belli]

Now that makes sense. Thank you. I'd just like to add that I was never arguing that scenarios shouldn't have time limits, only that there should be an easy option for everyday players to override them. What you say is quite right, though.

15 hours ago, IanL said:

Yeah, exactly. You didn't just make a perfectly reasonable feature request you dressed it up with snarkiness and defended it with more. I feel slightly bad that your first post was met with snarky replies but not to bad . Around here you reap what you sew.

I'm perfectly willing to concede this point, as I have above, and if I could rewrite the original post, I would. Once again, it was meant in jocular fashion. The later ones, maybe not so much. Anyway, the fact is I'm really not like this most of the time. I loathe confrontation and snarkiness as a rule, and I unilaterally regret participating in it. I generally try to be as reasoned and friendly as possible. Regrettably, I don't always succeed.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Casus_Belli

[A Canadian Cat]

7 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

I loathe confrontation and snarkiness as a rule, and I unilaterally regret participating in it.

Same here

7 hours ago, Casus_Belli said:

I generally try to be as reasoned and friendly as possible. Regrettably, I don't always succeed.

Same here

[Erwin]

Maybe the best use of extra time is to complete a particularly interesting situation - one in which the AI doesn't have to do anything except defend.  I can see that extra time when the AI is attacking may not be that useful.  However, from a learning/training perspective it is frustrating to have a scenario end abruptly just when one is about to try out some new idea.  It's also frustrating that the AI often abruptly surrenders when the player is anticipating a fun final act to the scenario. 

The issue is not about winning or losing or how many points one gets - it's about the fun of completing a maneuver or attack plan to an emotionally satisfying conclusion.  A button to get an extra few minutes would be wonderful for that.  (Yes, going into the editor and changing the scenario length parameters is possible - but what an irritating PITA - and how many of us would do that?)

For that reason I also like variable endings. 

Womble makes a good point about where BF should commit precious resources.  But, unless we know for sure how many programming-hours something is going to take, that's not a useful argument.  That is totally a BF decision.  We consumers simply come up with ideas and requests.  There is no reason why simply coming up with new ideas/requests should elicit negative responses on these forums.  Presumably, the more that customers request a feature, the more seriously BF will consider it. 

I hope that adding the "Ammo Dumps" feature didn't cost BF more than 10 minutes programming time.  Many folks were asking for that.  But, aside from one or two scenarios that BF created to showcase the Ammo Dump feature, I have not seen it used again.

[Casus_Belli]

Couldn't have said it better.

[JonS]

On 26/09/2016 at 2:24 AM, Warts 'n' all said:

It is basically, the higher ups giving you the orders, and leaving you to get on with it in the specified time.

Yep. Aside from the completely valid gameplay reasons, in real life commanders give subordinates tasks/missions/objectives on the one hand, and assets/resources on the other. Time is a resource, just like a platoon of tanks or a battery of artillery are resources.

In fact, mission statements are given in the format of

Quote

[who] is to [do what][where] no later than [time] in order to [link in with some other action]

Time constraints are an inevitable part of military operations.

 

Edited October 4, 2016 by JonS