Wasn't the charm of CM that you could carefully plan your turns....

[Freyland]

and then see your efforts carried out on the battlefield? Did we not all "ooh" and "ahh" about watching the films over and over again, just to see that cool explosion, or figure out how FOW just screwed us, or just to admire the reactions of the Tac AI? How many of you spent huge amounts of time making the "perfect setup"? Using TCP takes away all of that. Okay, yes you can start your game as a PBEM to allow the requisite time to setup your troops. But *none* of the other joys of CM can be enjoyed as thoroughly. If I have two areas of combat occurring, I can only really watch one of them. Or I can stay in a high-vantage point and watch everything, but at the expense of all those other wonderful camera angles. I certainly am unable to appreciate the nuances of any situation I am not directly watching during my 60sec of film. (yes, I can watch the film again, but then I lose valuable time I need to make tactical decisions, another one of those things that make Turn-based games so enjoyable). The bottom line to me, is that TCP play in CM is no different than a simple RTS game where you just throw wads of troops at each other without any deep strategy. It all comes down to who has the biggest or most guns in a given conflict. Make the timer longer, you say? Then why not just go back to playing rapid-fire PBEM games with ICQ or IM? My point is to remind everyone why we fell in love with CM in the first place, and that the well-received TCP patch may actually be a step backwards from the game's achievements that make it stand out in the wargaming genre.

Your Humble Servant

Jonathan

[OGSF]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freyland:

My point is to remind everyone why we fell in love with CM in the first place, and that the well-received TCP patch may actually be a step backwards from the game's achievements that make it stand out in the wargaming genre.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am playing so many PBEM games, that fitting a TCP/IP game in will be an exception rather than a new pursuit. Some folks have wanted this for a long time, and for things like LAN parties it's a great leap forward from Hotseat play. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

It's great to have the choice tho!

I kinda like the other fixes and enhancements that came along with TCP/IP in the patch.

OberGrupenStompinFuhrer

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

OGSF will be happy to know that he pointed out a nice little bug with bazookas hitting the back doors of bunkers. No idea when this stopped working, but the fix was rather easy. It will be in 1.1.

- Steve

[Freyland]

I agree with you regarding the fixes, which are almost always a good thing in a game. I am just specifically referring to TCP.

Jonathan

[Peterk]

Hi Freyland,

It's also nice to be able to play a substantial # of turns in a few hours with a good opponent.

Even though the timer is there and a lot of people are playing faster games you can still turn off the timer completely to be able to watch the movies a few times and still get the moves in. I played 2 games tonight - one with no timer and the other with a 15 minute timer and there was no need to rush at all.

Just have to find similar minded opponents I guess.

p.

[Toad]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freyland:

and then see your efforts carried out on the battlefield? Did we not all "ooh" and "ahh" about watching the films over and over again, just to see that cool explosion, or figure out how FOW just screwed us, or just to admire the reactions of the Tac AI? How many of you spent huge amounts of time making the "perfect setup"? Using TCP takes away all of that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Not that the outstanding work that BTS and company put into this is for naught. I applaud their efforts and say, "Knock 'em dead!" to everyone who wants to play the TCP/IP way. But I would miss not being able to review every angle of that perfect tank kill.

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

--

Toad

Ontario, Canada

[Guest Big Time Software]

While I agree to some degree, there is room for different styles of play. If I have 2 hours and want to beat someone into submission... TCP/IP is the ONLY way to go. Even Hotseat at home takes longer. Which brings me to the BIGGEST benefit of TCP/IP -> simultaneous turn plotting. Which is the answer to this question:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Make the timer longer, you say? Then why not just go back to playing rapid-fire PBEM games with ICQ or IM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because most of the time I do not want, nor need, to watch a turn from every angle. I also, even when playing against the AI or PBEM, am VERY quick to make my orders. I plan my attack/defense before the first turn starts and, usually, only need to do small corrections for most of the game with only periodic major changes in strategy and tactics. Therefore, I usually don't spend more than 10 minutes on a turn (medium sized game) even when there is no pressure. And I enjoy it that way.

In any case, if I have NO clock running with another player we can both play just like we would against the AI and still save a LOT of time and effort swapping files. So that 2 hour game with a timer takes 3 hours without one. Far better than the 4-5 weeks it sometimes takes me to finish off a rather small game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point is to remind everyone why we fell in love with CM in the first place, and that the well-received TCP patch may actually be a step backwards from the game's achievements that make it stand out in the wargaming genre.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally disagree. It is a step forward for sure. Because of all the flexibility built into playing options, the addition of TCP/IP takes absolutely NOTHING away from what CM was before the 1.1 patch. But on the other hand it adds so much more for so many people.

It is a win-win situation, no matter how I look at it.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-30-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ooo... forgot to address this point from John:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The bottom line to me, is that TCP play in CM is no different than a simple RTS game where you just throw wads of troops at each other without any deep strategy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many TCP/IP games have you played? I haven't played many, but I have found that neither myself or my opponants have played the game any differently than single player or PBEM. In fact, the Combat Mission game system frowns VERY hard at players who don't use sound tactics. And since the system doesn't cut anybody any breaks for playing using a timer and TCP/IP, anybody using CM like an RTS will get their ass kicked just as hard as if they tried to do that while playing single player.

So me thinks the Anti-TCP/IP feeling is missplaced and rather unsupportable from a rational viewpoint. If you play with 2 minute turns and a huge battle, sure... but I for one would never play such a game with anybody (nobody sane would ), so what difference does that possibility make if I don't use it?

Note that people can play CM with Fog of War off, which "ruins" much of what we carefully designed Combat Mission to be. I should know But I don't see ANYBODY stating that CM is worse off for including this feature even though it has a far more profound impact on what CM is "supposed" to be than TCP/IP ever could.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-30-2000).]

[Simon Fox]

Don't worry Jon, the TCP/IP evangalists (aka Elvis) may be braying loudly at the moment because it's just come out but I am sure there are plenty of people who see the tweaks and bug fixes of the 1.1patch as significant and the TCP/IP feature as a bonus.

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

"Labrat, you're a genius"- Madbot

[Chupacabra]

Er, I haven't played a TCP/IP game yet, but IIRC there is an 'unlimited' timer option.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Vanir]

I think it has a lot to do with the size of the game you're playing. Platoon and company sized engagements (500-1500 pts) are where TCP/IP shines, where you can see everything important in one or maybe 2 playbacks and you don't have too many units to keep track of. Right now I'm playing a battalion level (3000 pt) QB against the AI on a large map and I can't imagine doing this over TCP/IP unless we both had the whole day to spend on it.

PBEM still has it's place.

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

You mean my Java coded Real Time Bar Fight Simulator Madmatt Mission: Beyond BiteMe ISN'T going to be published?!?

Madmatt

[deanco]

My take on TCP/IP so far:

1) I want to turn freyland's argument around. I've played and enjoyed RTS titles before, and I've always thought that the one thing MISSING from CM was this sense of urgency, this heart pounding desire to click on everything quickly enough. Now, not only is CM the deepest, most kick ass tactics game ever made, but I get an RTS buzz off of it as well!

But it doesn't stop there. In other RTS titles, the amount of "speed" or "urgency" is built into the game and is a set value. If events are happening too quickly, you will get discouraged; if the action is to slow, you will get bored.

But by using the timer and force size judiciously, CM now allows you to "dial-in" the amount of urgency and heart pounding action you want : a lot, a little, or none at all. BTS has given us a "tension" knob to play with. A true innovation in gaming.

2) This is gonna sound funny coming from me but here goes: I think TCP/IP makes Combat Mission MORE REALISTIC. You can't tell me that a Commander, in mortal danger on a battlefield , is gonna have the time to give the kind of super-detailed orders that you might work out in a PBEM or against the AI. "Squad A! Advance 62.721 meters north, then crawl an additional 22.806 meters north north east until your line of sight extends exactly 186.5 meters out of the woods! Here's a ruler, now GET MOVING!!"

Now don't get me wrong, I like playing like that too, I think it's fun. I'm just saying that a realistic WWII game should have some adrenaline and uncertainty mixed in with it, to reproduce as closely as possible the actual condition of the soldier on the battlefield.

I hope I've made myself clear.

DeanCo--

[This message has been edited by deanco (edited 11-30-2000).]

[Hawk]

What really makes the game for me, is the fact that you can choose! And what a set of choices....!

On a side note, I tride setting up a LAN game between two of my PCs at home, and it workede like a blast. Now, I have a standard ISDN connection to the internet, but I still get an IP starting with 192.168.0 ... (on both PCs).

I thought I wouldn't be able to set up a game (only connect) with that type of IP address, or did I misunderstand the readme? Anyway, playing solo aginst myself on two computers was ... an interesting experience!

Hawk

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

Our's is not to reason why, our's is but to do and die!

[Airborne]

I disagree with this post, to a certain extent. I DO agree that it is great to be able to explore the wonderful visions this game offers by replaying turns--and not missing out on anything. But, I played 3 games the first day 11/29 and had a blast. The timer was set for 3 and 4 minutes which made me feel much more immersed in a "real world" situation. I agree with Deanco here.

Most of my pbem games take quite a while to finish--weeks instead of hours. However, I will still play pbem games because I may not always have the time for tcp/ip. The feature of switching back and forth between the 2 methods will be great--haven't tried this yet.

When I want to take in the beauty of a new mod, I fire up a small QB and have a go.

TCP/IP is wonderful, and doesn't take away from the other options , IMHO.

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

"If it bleeds..we can kill it."

[sbg2112]

BTS,

Had an idle thought while reading your responses to this.

How 'bout Steve and Charles duke it out and post an AAR for all of us to enjoy?

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco:

My take on TCP/IP so far:

1) I want to turn freyland's argument around. I've played and enjoyed RTS titles before, and I've always thought that the one thing MISSING from CM was this sense of urgency, this heart pounding desire to click on everything quickly enough. Now, not only is CM the deepest, most kick ass tactics game ever made, but I get an RTS buzz off of it as well!

But it doesn't stop there. In other RTS titles, the amount of "speed" or "urgency" is built into the game and is a set value. If events are happening too quickly, you will get discouraged; if the action is to slow, you will get bored.

But by using the timer and force size judiciously, CM now allows you to "dial-in" the amount of urgency and heart pounding action you want : a lot, a little, or none at all. BTS has given us a "tension" knob to play with. A true innovation in gaming.

2) This is gonna sound funny coming from me but here goes: I think TCP/IP makes Combat Mission MORE REALISTIC. You can't tell me that a Commander, in mortal danger on a battlefield , is gonna have the time to give the kind of super-detailed orders that you might work out in a PBEM or against the AI. "Squad A! Advance 62.721 meters north, then crawl an additional 22.806 meters north north east until your line of sight extends exactly 186.5 meters out of the woods! Here's a ruler, now GET MOVING!!"

Now don't get me wrong, I like playing like that too, I think it's fun. I'm just saying that a realistic WWII game should have some adrenaline and uncertainty mixed in with it, to reproduce as closely as possible the actual condition of the soldier on the battlefield.

I hope I've made myself clear.

DeanCo--

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree

I agree completely and FULLY support EVERYTHING Deanco said.

Worth repeating:

"But by using the timer and force size judiciously, CM now allows you to "dial-in" the amount of urgency and heart pounding action you want : a lot, a little, or none at all. BTS has given us a "tension" knob to play with. A true innovation in gaming."

PERFECT!

I could not have said it any better.

Steve is also absolutely correct the v1.1 TCP/IP patch takes NOTHING at all away from the slow enjoyment of plotting very detailed tactics if that is your preference.

BUT, some of us have been waiting patiently for this game to give us a timer and simulated sense of urgency, provided only with a time constraint that would (in my opinion) simulate "more" accurately the tension and arlendalin rush of command decisions required under "combat" conditions.

Thanks BTS!!!!

Very cool.

( I got beat again last Night by Epee, I think someone needs to challenge this guy and KICK is Brazilian Butt )

I have found v1.1 remarkably stable.

-tom w

[jclassey]

Great idea.

[gaffertape]

I like SBG2112's idea.

GAFF

[Jadayne]

Gaff!

where the hell have you been? And where the hell's my file?!

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

"I'm the Quarterback. I make the plays. You back the plays I make." -Harvey Keitel to his adopted son in the movie "Dusk til Dawn" (about 3 hours before they're both ripped apart and eaten alive by vampires)

[Mr. Clark]

I was one of those who could have cared less about TCP/IP. I was eagerly awaiting the patch only for all the tweaks and minor bug fixes.

I got in a quick game of TCP/IP yesterday. 3 minute turns, playing the TUTORIAL mission, just as a quick test (we were both in a hurry).

I thought it was a BLAST. It was great to be able to get in several turns of CM in one sitting, instead of the day long turn around I'm used to.

However, next time I would CERTAINLY want the turns timer to be MUCH longer (at least 10 minutes... I'm a plotter).

I totally disagree with those that say that "real time" makes wargames more realistic, unless you are only commanding a platoon. Anything more and a "real time" situation requires far too many decisions for one individual. It seems no one takes into account the command structure when making statements like this. Sure, there is great urgency in war, but each leader only has so many decisions to make... in a wargame, you are making EVERYONES decisions.

For me TCP/IP seems like it will be great fun for 500 point battles set at 5 - 10 minute turns. This is MUCH more use from the TCP/IP option than I thought I would be getting.

My overall point is that TCP/IP does add another option to the game, and thus only makes it better. Add to that the option to switch a game between TCP/IP and PBeM, and that makes it even better still! Turn off the timer and you have the equivelant of a "PBeM" or "Hotseat" game that plays out quicker (with simultaneous turns, as Steve said.)

Some people never play PBeM games of CM. There will be those who never play TCP/IP games too. However, having the option (several options actually) certainly can only make for a better game.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freyland:

I certainly am unable to appreciate the nuances of any situation I am not directly watching during my 60sec of film. (yes, I can watch the film again, but then I lose valuable time I need to make tactical decisions, another one of those things that make Turn-based games so enjoyable).

Jonathan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So don't play against people who insist on using a timer. What's the big deal?

PBEM is good but it is so fragmented because you generally only play one turn per day (depending on you and your oppenents schedule). There is no fluidity to a PBEM game unless you do the rapid fire PBEM method. TCP/IP helps you feel like the all of the turns you are playing is ONE entire game, not just a bunch of fragmented turns spread out over 20-30 days.

Close Combat with its real time engine had that feeling of fluidity which gave it a feeling of reality; but, as you stated, real time wargames are only possible when dealing with a platoon+ size force.

TCP/IP is definitly a step forward for CM. It gives you the option of using the timer and it gives you the option of converting back to PBEM. What more could you ask for?

[Hemo2]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freyland:

and then see your efforts carried out on the battlefield? Did we not all "ooh" and "ahh" about watching the films over and over again, just to see that cool explosion, or figure out how FOW just screwed us, or just to admire the reactions of the Tac AI? How many of you spent huge amounts of time making the "perfect setup"? Using TCP takes away all of that. Okay, yes you can start your game as a PBEM to allow the requisite time to setup your troops. But *none* of the other joys of CM can be enjoyed as thoroughly. If I have two areas of combat occurring, I can only really watch one of them. Or I can stay in a high-vantage point and watch everything, but at the expense of all those other wonderful camera angles. I certainly am unable to appreciate the nuances of any situation I am not directly watching during my 60sec of film. (yes, I can watch the film again, but then I lose valuable time I need to make tactical decisions, another one of those things that make Turn-based games so enjoyable). The bottom line to me, is that TCP play in CM is no different than a simple RTS game where you just throw wads of troops at each other without any deep strategy. It all comes down to who has the biggest or most guns in a given conflict. Make the timer longer, you say? Then why not just go back to playing rapid-fire PBEM games with ICQ or IM? My point is to remind everyone why we fell in love with CM in the first place, and that the well-received TCP patch may actually be a step backwards from the game's achievements that make it stand out in the wargaming genre.

Your Humble Servant

Jonathan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you say 'we' I hope you're not speaking for me. I disagree with just about everything you've said. I neither have the spare time nor desire to spend countless hours reviewing films, plotting moves, or enjoying explosions. TCP/IP is a god send for me and is the only way I'd ever consider playing this game against another opponent.

If you don't like it, don't use it.

[Juardis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sbg2112:

How 'bout Steve and Charles duke it out and post an AAR for all of us to enjoy?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent idea. Make it so number 1.

Better yet, save the full game movie and post it for all of us to enjoy. Ooops, wrong thread

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

Jeff Abbott

[Vergeltungswaffe]

If only it was easy to watch an entire game movie after it ended, it would be a perfect world. Fast play with TCP/IP and the ability to enjoy again and again from every angle. Coming soon, I'm sure.

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

So don't play against people who insist on using a timer. What's the big deal?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah John, what's your problem!?!

Wait a minute..what am I saying? I was his opponent.

Ok, here's my take on TCP/IP. Definetly adds a whole new twist to an excellent game. If you're looking to bang out a quick 20-30, 700-1250 pt game, then TCP/IP is the way to go. Freyland and I managed to get in two games last night in about three hours, which is a hell of alot faster than any other method. However, of the two games, the first played out better and I think I know why...

The first game was a converted PBEM game, so there was no time restrictions during (IMO) the most important phase of the battle - the strategy planning and setup phase. Once the battle began the timer did add a nice touch to the way the game progressed.

The second game was the same size as the first (1000 pts) but we chose a three minute timer, which worked out to 6 minutes of setup. Even with that much time we both felt rushed and our strategy suffered from it. I'd much rather have unlimited time for setup and then kick in the timer.

I guess the way to go is to start the game up as a PBEM, do your setup, and then switch to TCP/IP.

I think in our next game we'll give PeterK's suggestion a try and play without the timer. Who knows, Freyland might even win this time

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

Frag Hanoi Jane

[Maximus]

Steve, what I think Freyland is trying to say is that there is a subliminal sense of urgency when playing over TCP/IP. Even if you're using an unlimited timer.

Kinda like the way I got myself into my life-changing accident. Had to make a left hand turn from the fast lane on a four-lane road with no median. Although there was no traffic behind me, I felt rushed (subliminally) and I made my turn without thoroughly checking for on-coming traffic and WHAMMO!--Result cervical spinal injury.

While playing CM in TCP you feel rushed to complete your orders/setup and it makes you feel like, "Oh, did I really do the right thing?" when you hit GO!

[This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 11-30-2000).]