TCP/IP...should we care?

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

The time pressure is important for the game. Your ww2 counterparts didnt have 30 minutes to study LOS. The only turn that should get more than 3-5 minutes of time spent on it is Setup (this goes for battles sized the same as in the demo. Obviously a battallion would require more attention)

Also, Its going to be WAY faster, and if you dont finish in one sitting, just save your game, and meet up later.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, this is a standard claim when it comes to the turn-based vs. real-time debate, but it is completely fallacious. You are comparing apples and oranges.

My "real-time counterpart" may not have had five minutes to decide what to do for the next one minute, but he also did not have to decide for more than 3 sub units, at the most. At this level, usually less.

Wargamers want to be able to manage just about all of their assets on the ground. That means that when I play a typical CM scenario, I am battalion commander, three company commanders, 9 platoon leaders, 27 squad leaders, 1-2 AFV platoon commanders, 3-6 track commanders, 3-6 track drivers, 2-3 forward observers, and maybe another 4-8 auxillary squad/team leaders.

Anyone who wants to play like their true "real life counterpart" should play some game where they never give any orders below one level underneath them, and always get orders from someone above them. On the CM scale, that means "A company, you attack along that road. B company, move through those tress to the flank, and C Company, you stay here in reserve. I want some harassing fire on the town, and have the armor supporting in overwatch. Let me know when you are engaged."

Done, for probably the large portion of the fight.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

While I think TCP/IP would be nice, why not just ICQ or some such currently available technology to achieve almost exactly the same thing?

Open a chat, and send the files as they are ready.

Or am I missing something?

Jeff

[Joe Shaw]

Yes, you are missing something The difference is that with TCP/IP you each plot your moves SIMULTANEOUSLY, then you view the movie the same way. So instead of me sending you my move, you sending me yours, me viewing the movie and sending it to you, you view ... you get the idea. It would be substantially quicker and introduce a level of tension with the timers.

It wouldn't be for everyone and I probably would still play PBEM the majority of the time, but it would be a nice alternative.

Joe

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

Compliments appreciated, Questions answered, Death Threats reciprocated.

[Kingfish]

From the what i've read, TCP/IP would be a nice option to have. Just by reading this thread you see there is a demand for it, so why not have it?

Having said that, i will probably not use it. I don't see myself having 3-5 hours of spare time to play out a game, much less reserving that time in order to be on-line with my opponent. Real life has a way of cutting my game time into 10-20 minute chunks a day.

Nevertheless, if by having TCP/IP as an option will get 5-10 more people to order CM, then WTF, put it in

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

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive

[GilaMonster]

I don't know anything about this TCP/IP stuff or computers in general for that matter, but I do enjoy taking my time while moving. The way I figure it is that I'm making the decisions for several platoon leaders, squad leaders, and company commanders. This takes time. I think 10-15 minutes per move is realistic especially since it takes me awhile to maneuver the camera for the "soldier's eye view".

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

Gilamonster

[Erik Rutins]

TCP/IP is a _huge_ deal for me. It's the reason I ordered three copies. I and two friends like to game on my LAN once or twice a week. I tried the CM PBEM system and found it about twice as annoying as any other PBEM system (perhaps apart from the pre-auto defensive fire Battleground games). There's just too much mail being exchanged for too little result, IMHO.

Here are my biggest wishes for v1.02:

1. TCP/IP, ideally with the capability for more than one player per side.

2. A "we trust each other" PBEM mode that removes all the extra anti-cheat e-mail exchanges.

Regards,

- Erik

[PanzerShark]

Erik,

playing tcp/ip games using LAN is slightly different then over the net. When over a LAN you can probably see your human opponent and through pointy sticks at him when it's taking to long.

If you have to wait for your opponent that is hundreds of miles away, throwing sticks is not an option

[aka_tom_w]

PanzerShark boldly states:

"NO one can give orders to over about

50 units in 3 minutes. This means you have to click your butt off turning this game into a...rts"

I would like to humbly disagree....

Yes the opening set up and maybe the first move takes a little longer....

BUT if the timer is implemented, I plan to play against opponents who are happy to have the orders phase last no longer than 5-7 minutes. I do beleive it is do-able and I feel strongly that it is more fun when there is a time element to increase the tension and rush of combat... It should be a big adrenaline rush, you can sort of get it now against the AI but it is really lacking in the PBEM now as both parties take as long as they want to get the turn back in e-mail. I appreciate that some players will want to continue to do this, (take their time on the orders phase and watch the movie over and over again), but I would prefer not to play against those players, (nothing personal just my choice of playing style, kind of like "run and gun" if I may use a U.S. Football phrase)

I have played Myth and Myth II both are Brilliant (no resource harvesting, fight only with what you start with and some reinforcments like CM) 3D, RTS, strategy games, and there is strategy in real time, I truly believe that. Age of Empires is indeed strategy in real time (but there is resource harvesting there), and I liek that gme too.

So back to CM yes I would like to see TCP/IP with short turns to make my opponent make the same snap decisions that I have to under time pressure, I would love to see a timer counting down the time left to issue orders and then when times up, whether you are done or not, the GO button gets automatically clicked, STOP turn OVER!

But its just one way of playing. Some of us prefer it, some want no timer, some want longer turns.

My point is the Timer should be highly user definable to keep all happy. The timer should go as short as one minute for the orders phase, and as long as you want, and you can turn it off completly. I would prefer a different timer for the Movie phase.

The timer has also been suggested to be one single timer for both movie and orders phase, so that the player can watch the movie for as long or short as they want and use the remaining time for planning orders. If that timer was set to say 10 minutes then could watch the movie for 9 minutes and plan orders for 1 minute if you are in a good position and do not need to issue any new orders. I think we have been in a position (especially on defence) when all that is required of the order phase is to possibly re-target a few units and run a few LOS checks, then hit GO.

But those are just my thoughts

And Of course I'm still happy waiting until some time in August or Sept. for this new feature to be fully implemented. (hint hint I would love to be one of the beta testers for that new patch )

-tom w

P.S. If it is pressumed I am a youngster because I like RTS I would like to state I was playing Avalon Hill board games like Tactics II and Panzer Leader, Tobruk, Africa Corps and Third Reich more than twenty five years ago BEFORE pong was fun on TV

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-21-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

I agree with everything Jeff said about one player playing the roles of almost every officer, NCO and driver in the game. This would be impossible to do realistically in 'real time'. This is my main beef with the entire "real time is real" argument. 'Real time' can only be "real" for first person games IMO.

BUT, I also agree with what Tom is saying. I would like an optional timer and would most likely use it quite often. Five minutes to plot movement for a single 60sec turn sounds reasonable to me. It would be VERY NICE to allow longer plots for setup and the first turn. But if the players can choose from 1-15 minutes for their gaming session, then "so be it". Let the players decide what they like.

A timer does not equal 'real time' IMO.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 06-21-2000).]

[killmore]

I care. I want TCP!!! I need TCP !!!

[Guest Patrik]

TCP/IP why not

But what I realy want is some kind of PBEM server version of the game engine, it would speed up PBEM games alot if both players just maild the a server and then got mails back to watch a movie and then start another turn.

While I'm at it, it could also keep track of the results for some kind of ladder thing, get you started with a random player or whatever.....

But for now I just want my game...............

[Guest MantaRay]

Personally, I don't really care about if they cancel this and wait till CM2. I think, since I have the game that some of you folks are forgetting 2 things here.

#1.) When you get into a big battle, and some of you guys are on slow computers with slow connections, it is going to be a slow and choppy experience! For those of you with out the game, load up the map editor and make the biggest one possible, then preview it and see how it takes up the resources. Now add the net, and woah, then you are going to be pissed that you are lagging.

#2.) When a patch like this comes out, it runs the risk of breaking other things. And getting netcode optimized is not going to be easy, and I have a feeling it is going to take them longer than 2 months to get it done.

Also, I don't like the fact that there is a time limit. Again, some of the big scenarios are going to take more than 5, or 10 mins to play out.

Just my opinion.

Ray

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

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

MantaRays 5 Pages

Hardcore Gamers Daily

[TZEENCH]

TCP/IP is a must, What about some of us freaks who have lanpartys every weekend- TCP/IP games would rock. There isnt any choice (PUT IT IN)

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Time limit WILL be optional if it is included guys...OPTIONAL.

As for play-back being 'choppy', why should it be? This is not real time. Both players should plot at the same time. But both players should NOT be viewing the same file on playback.

Think about it: FOW would dictate that both players will view files separately. Not to mention, this will remove the possible 'choppy' effect when one PC is slower than the other.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[pford]

It looks to me that most favor TCP/IP. It appears to me to be an improvement over hotseat in a LAN. The setting of a timer bothers me. I don't what to get into a point and click fest. While I like Myth II, there is always a rush to get the move done in time. If there is going to be a timer, I like to see a chess timer option, e.g. so many moves in so many minutes, like 40 in 2.5 hours for chess(after set-up) with two clocks showing how much time is left per person. If a player wanted to take 30 minutes at a particular point he/she could do it and the game would not degenerate who can move their mouse the fastest. A defending player may be fairly static while the attacker may need the time to coordinate artilery, etc. This would allow the tempo of the game to be a factor but not the deciding factor.

[RMC]

Guys, I think the point is that lack of TCP/IP is not a game killer. It would be nice to have for many folks but it's not critical.

I'm no expert but the whole TCP/IP thing is rather complicated. Most TCP/IP games are "real time" and the server and client are constantly sending each other packets of data. Here we'll have a span of several minutes where most of those packets are containing only timer data (if that). The plotted turn is sent from the client to the host (as there will be no server) where the turn will be calculated and then sent back to the client to be viewed. This would be like the PBEM turn data but coming over the open connection. The player of the host computer will be able to see the movie before the client and possibly start plotting moves which could interfere with the timer concept. The code should have some way of autosaving so that a game that gets interrupted by a bad connection can be restarted.

The idea of a LAN party for CM "rocking" boggles me. TFC, Q3 maybe but not CM...

I can't see a timer coming anywhere near a much ballyhooed and maligned "clickfest." I wouldn't want to be the opponent of the guy who decided that he was going to need 30 minutes for the turn. How am I supposed to know? I'll be waiting for some indication. I don't think a player will even know how much time he will need on a given turn. Imagine VOT. The German player doesn't need to do much of anything for several turns while the American has lots to do. Spending lots of time on the net waiting for the other guy to end his turn is not my idea of fun. In PBEM you are not staring at the screen waiting for it to go 10 minutes after you click go.

[weasel]

I think timers are a good idea; they would add a new dimension to the game (quite seperately from TCP/IP support). Think blitz chess. Not chess, but it can be a hoot.

Since, however, I fully expect to be exploring the first several dimensions of this game for months to come, I don't think BTS needs to be in any hurry to add this.

btw, I'd second the earlier suggestion for a chess-style clock. In fact, why not use the ICS method: a timer is defined by an initial time limit and an increment which is added after each completed turn. So to model a standard chess clock with 30 minutes, you use an initial limit of 30 minutes and an increment of zero. To model a "no single turn may take more than 5 minutes" system, initial limit is 5 minutes and increment is 5 minutes. The combinations are endless.

[Fred]

Hmm,

it looks as if some people here do not realize what CM is.

It is not:

- a RTS game (and I doubt the "S" in this abbr.) with turns

- a kind of "blitzchess" (rediculous!)

- a rpg simulation of "being a Company Commander in WW2 with only a Micheling roadmap in his hands"

It is a turn-based orders phase/simultaneous execution phase WARGAME. This is the way Steve and Charles (and all of us that are here for over a year now) wanted it.

All these artificial constrains and limits (timer...a good lough on this! ...lanparties...) to mutate(cripple) this beautiful wargame into something it was NEVER meant for (clickfeast, or playing go and rush) shows me, that some people are obviously looking for another game.

And Steve and Charles are smart enough to not move in this direction for a couple of more sales.

And, btw, TCP/IP WILL be in. Charles said it. No need to ask him every day.

All IMO; other opinions could differ.

Fred

[Chris Merchant]

Just wondering if BTS could confirm they will be using tcp datagrams instead of udp datagrams?

[gibsonm]

I'm looking forward to TCP/IP so that I can play on a mixed LAN with my Wintel mates.

I'm not sure if this is currently possible (CM hasn't made it to Sydney yet) but in any case it will be good to get some time up before crossing the FEBA against a real opponent.

Based on what's happened to date I'm sure the boys will deliver and it will work fine.

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

Regards,

Mark:-{)

Anxiously awaiting the G4 PowerBook

[Lee]

TCP/IP will be a nice addition to CM. I certainly hope there will

be separate turn timers for setup and regular turns, as setup tends to

take much longer than your average turn. I think many people are under

the false assumption that one player has to sit staring at the screen

the whole time they are waiting for their opponent to finish his turn.

You can easily go grab a Coke, or fix yourself a sandwich while

you wait. And there should also be an option to have no timer limits.

Which brings me to one other critical feature for TCP/IP play, an optional

audio warning that your opponent has finished his turn. Let's suppose

that the two of you have agreed on 10 minute turns. You plot your move

and then go to grab something to eat. You made your moves pretty fast

and the other guy still has 8 minutes of time left. But as it turns

out he plots his moves faster than usual and is done just 1 minute after

you leave your computer. When he submits his turn to you and the file

transfer is complete, it would be great to have an optional sound warning

play on the PC. Something like "Opponent turn completed". This would

be a standard .wav file that you could replace with whatever you like.

This way, you could crank up the sound loud enough that you could hear

it way down the hall as you are preparing a snack and thus get right

back to your PC as soon as you know the other player is ready.

This would be a great option that will keep you informed of when your

opponent is finished issuing orders, even if you're out of the room at

the time. Of course, if you prefer, you could have no sound play.

[RMC]

Lee,

You bring out one of the problems with this proposed timer issue. How do I know how long the other player will need? How does he know how much time I will need? What happens if I go to get a coke or make a sandwich because I expect that he will take a bit more time and I come back to find the execution running already for 30 seconds? I get to rewind and watch again. Does this count against me in my timed turn? Will the timer only run after both sides click "done" for the movie?

I don't mean to say that this TCP/IP thing won't work, I just see it as a lot more complicated than other poster seem to. What happens when the connection is broken after you've spent 28 minutes studying the situation and giving orders? That would get very frustrating.

UDP vs TCP/IP. I think they could easily do both, though TCP/IP is more stable (and slower - speed not being a consideration for CM). CC3 used UDP and lots of people reporting being unable to play games online.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is a turn-based orders phase/simultaneous execution phase WARGAME. This is the way Steve and Charles (and all of us that are here for over a year now) wanted it.

All these artificial constrains and limits (timer...a good lough on this! ...lanparties...) to mutate(cripple) this beautiful wargame into something it was NEVER meant for (clickfeast, or playing go and rush) shows me, that some people are obviously looking for another game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the designers want this game to be a "play by the seat of your pants" kind of game, which is one of the reasons they didnt include a detailed troop inventory screen.

And if you spend 20 minutes looking at every 1 minute turn, you are probably overanalyzing it. I seem to remember Fionn saying that he takes only a minute or so to decide what to do every turn. (IIRC)

I agree with the concept of multiple responsibilities requiring more time, especially in the first few turns, but like anything else, you can take it to extremes. And most reasonable people would realise when they are "thinking too hard" about it.

Personally I am not in favor of making anyone use a timer. I dont feel disadvantaged if my opponent takes forever, If anything it hinders his own immersion into the game....

I will just harrass him via ICQ, that is my only enforcement.

Now it is up to you how you play Combat Mission, and certainly there is no-one who wants to FORCE people into playing fast.

[PanzerShark]

Cpt. Foobar,

I also need just 1 minute to know what to do but giving my units orders in 1 minute is not possible and could indeed mean it will take 20 minutes.

When the battle is progressing and most enemy-spots are located then it will be indeed small "thinking"-turns.

But when i decide to push my tiny tank down the road with hills surrounding it and not knowing what is around the corner....i like to make sure how the LOS is and how i could get away IF i get in trouble.

That part takes some time.

Aah well....everyone has it's own playingstyle so tcp/ip should/could be included for the people who really need it.

I however will never play CM that way.

Think we had a nice "old-fashioned" discussion here...think i start another one...ehm what about "Do we really need PBEM?"

[thomasj]

Bring on the TCP/IP! PBEM is nice but its not as robust as TCP/IP. Heck maybe the TCP/IP patch will even be out before I recieve my copy. *Stares towards mailbox* (SIGH!)

Timer or no timer, Fred said it best, this is a TBS game, not an RTS. If there is a timer then it should be an option and one that both parties have to agree on before starting. I for one though would never agree to a timed game. Think of the consequences that LAG could have on a timed game, or trying to get that contrary indirect fire line to lock on!