Tiger Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 with tcp/ip won't you still have to wait for your opponent to finish his turn before you can do anything? -john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darwin Posted October 15, 2000 Share Posted October 15, 2000 OMG I am so going to be kicking all your asses Good new Steve, thanks for the update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 great news just a buy bump for those new to the BBS -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Several weeks eh? That'll be just in time for Christmas. ------------------ Pair-O-Dice "Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinCheng+ Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Good news BTS. When the beta is out, I would love to try. ------------------ "+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USGrant Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hey, Inspite of initial delays due to the first batch of patches and poorly documented APIs, things are going very well. At the moment all the underlying technology needed is in there and working well. This means establishing connections, handling dropped players, etc. Preliminary real data swapping (i.e. a turn and not just test packets) is in and working. ...clip... Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A while back I asked a question about the "lag" in TCP/IP. I don't mean ping times, but rather the fact that the current data structure generates film files that typically run anywhere from 100k to 1mb. Playing by email with both players online can involve 20+ mins. per turn of just uploading and downloading over dialup connections. This heavy load of data transfer after both players hit the GO button could be a real drag in TCP/IP. So how is TCP/IP looking wrt this issue? Are you implementing an approach that reduces that the data transfer load, perhaps by designating one player a host? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boogie Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Thanks BTS, great news. Really looking forward to it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 What features are being implemented? 1. Simultaneous two-player game? Obviously... 2. Simultameous multi-player game? With more than one player a side, would be very nice... 3. On-line communication between players while giving orders and/or watching the movie? And if so, text and/or sound? TIA Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Steve - Thanks for the update. Personally I don't see the advantage of TCP/IP over PBEM for two player games. However, multi-player TCP/IP would be a real thrill! Is that what's in store? ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Clark Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Oh man! I would actually be INTERESTED in TCP\IP play if you could get more than two people in there! That would rock! Never even considered that possibility... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 No, no multiplayer. There's a huge difference between PBEM and TCP/IP for two players. A match will be over in half an evening! You rarely have to wait more than one minute for your opponent. ------------------ Sten Keep your whisky on the rocks and your tanks on the roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Sten - Is that the official BTS line - no multi-player TCP/IP? You must play really fast. It takes me 10-30 minutes per move for a moderately sized scenario. Longer for big scenarios and/or sticky situations. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 damn, remind me not to play you PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 PeterNZer - If you can move a couple of companies of infantry through wooded terrain, maintain command control, cover the flanks, keep important assets like anti-tank teams positioned well, place spotters in good locations, scout/recon for enemy positions, move a platoon or more of AFV's in a coordinated manner, etc., etc., in a very short time, then I tip my hat to you. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Don't often play games with multiple companies. You must play 2000pts up eh? Most folks I play tend to like 1500pts or less.. so i guess that explains your time delay thing PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 PeterNZer - Yea, most of the games I play are 2000+ points. I just finished one in which the defender (my opponent) had 3000 points and, IIRC, I had 4200. Games like that require a lot of time per move. Certainly not well suited for TCP/IP. But I see your point. Smaller scenarios would move much faster. I hope that BTS will allow multi-player TCP/IP at some point. Teaming with another player, where one commands the infantry and another commands the AFV assets would be great! ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Yeah and options like, word-limits for messages to send each other so you could get command mistakes.. and the inability of command to see and be everywhere.. resulting in perhaps some commanders having to interpret or operate on their own initiative.. for good or bad! (perhaps option to disable alt+tab so people can't use ICQ or whatever...) Anyway.. ouch, not sure I've ever played such a big battle! Make my head ache. PeterNZ ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hamsters Wrote: PeterNZ: He hasn’t proven to be particularly valiant but I think he’d make a good doorman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 PeterNZer - Coordinating a large attack is a real challenge. Assaulting from various angles and making a simultaneous final drive from all fronts is tough to do. But sooo rewarding when done right! And yes, it can make your head ache. Multi-player communication limitations is an interesting point. It can make all the difference in how things turn out. As an example, the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union did so well because their communications were far better than the numerically superior Soviet forces. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: ... Instead of waiting for it to be rock solid perfect, we are going to release it to people if they want to give it a try. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I.E., NO PISSING AND MOANING IF YOUR GAME BLOWS UP! Great job, BTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Panic Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Why not just release the beta and call it final? ...Oh wait, you're not Microsoft Never mind. ------------------ Two Rules to Live By: 1. Never Get Out of the Boat. 2. Charlie Doesn't Surf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Thank you sirs. ------------------ Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb -Priest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by General Panic: Why not just release the beta and call it final? ...Oh wait, you're not Microsoft Never mind. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL. Hey, its software. If you actually want it to work correctly, that costs extra. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dirkd1976 Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Most of my games are 1200 pts or smaller, so TCP/IP is going to be great for me!! Can't wait BTS!! Thanks for the update. ------------------ Never mistake motion for action - Ernest Hemingway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Snake Eyes, Peter Deadman and others..BTS stated a while ago the CM will never include the ability for more than two players. So don't get all cranked up folks about issues like both players on the same side being able to talk to each other covertly via ICQ and things of that sort. If I wasn't such a lazy slacker I would do a search for the thread. They would probably have to recode the whole game. I would however be curious about how fast the practice TCP/IP games are going for BTS and things like that. Most turn file exchanges with AIM are in the 1-2 minute range which isn't too bad if there are mutual exchanges and then whatever time each player gets to watch the movies and plot.Maybe some details on how the whole works. And Peter that monstrosity we're playing has got to be about 5000 points each...talk about headaches. ------------------ "To conquer death you only have to die" JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 USGrant wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So how is TCP/IP looking wrt this issue? Are you implementing an approach that reduces that the data transfer load, perhaps by designating one player a host?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Funny enough, Charles just solved this problem today. By synching up the random number "seeds" much of the data does not have to be sent over at the end of the turn. Think of it like file compression or short hand. If the other side knows how to understand what it sees, and then translate it into the full deal, there is no need to send things over uncompressed/longhand. More details later, but for now take heart that turn swapping will be much quicker for TCP/IP games than PBEM. Not sure if this can be retrofitted into PBEM, but if it can it will probably happen for CM2. SnakeEyes, Sten and Elvis are correct. For now, anyway. Multi-multi-player is something we would like to do in the future, but it is a rather daunting task at the moment. So short term it is not even being thought about. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts