Guest kevi Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 but I have had this idea a while for computer wargames. The idea comes from chess where there is a time limit to make moves. (In tournaments anyway.) In wargames, especially tactical ones, it seems nuts to plan say 30 mins for a 1 min real time turn. I think having a built-in time clock so players could agree on the time limit for turns in email or online battles might be interesting. So say in CM your playing an email game and you have (in agreement with the other guy) 5 mins per turn to plot all units. This would add tension as you think and plan as the clock ticks away. When the time limit is up - no more plotting - you have to send the file as is. Anyway is a built-in time clock crazy? Waiting for CM in NJ - Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 Nope not at all I think it is essential. It is highly unrealistic to have an hour to plot a 1 minute turn IMHO. I also believe view of the map should have an optional control that prevents us from moving the camera past our actual front line as we would really be unable to get right up evaluate the terrain that is past our current control ( unless we had had units there prior) ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigAlMoho Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 " In wargames, especially tactical ones, it seems nuts to plan say 30 mins for a 1 min real time turn. " I disagree... If you have 30 units and you put yourself in each one's place to give them orders then one minute per unit is not unreasonable at all... It seems that alot of people think that, in a game like this, they are the overall commander, when in reality they are the leader of each and every small unit... The role of the higher level leader is abstract and secondary... Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 I put an optional turn timer into TacOps. Making it work properly required hundreds of lines of code scattered throughout the program. Every time I added something new I had to check and make sure that it did not screw up the optional turn timer. Almost no one used the feature. Therefore it was largely a waste of my development time and sweat. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 So, you would feel that "gentleman's agreements" regarding time per turn are the way to go Major H? ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 Big Al said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I disagree... If you have 30 units and you put yourself in each one's place to give them orders then one minute per unit is not unreasonable at all... It seems that alot of people think that, in a game like this, they are the overall commander, when in reality they are the leader of each and every small unit... The role of the higher level leader is abstract and secondary...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Couldn't agree more. This is why using realtime completely scuppers realistic tactics. Realtime places a totally unrealistic command burden on the player, forcing him to ignore some units and tankrush others. A thousand curses on Close Combat! Kudos to BTS for having the courage to stand against the tide of realtime madness . So in a similar vein, we have time limits on turn-based cogitation. The whole point of stopping the flow of time is to give the player a chance to think about what he's doing, so he can keep his units realistically coordinated. And remember that in CM, you need time not only to order units, but to watch the movie from several directions (and probably several times), if for no other reason than to marvel at the coolness of the spectacle . So while it's courteous in ICQ games to do your orders fairly quickly, I don't see time limits adding anything to the game. On the contrary, I see the negative effect of causing tactics to degenerate into mob warfare a la the RTS genre. -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 Sorry Major But for playability and realism a line should be drawn somewhere and a timer would allow an agreement that is unbreakable between teh opponents. I personnaly donot want to play a competitive style game against an opponent that takes an hour a turn, I dont have that kind of time to burn. Also your analogy is shortsighted do to the magnitude of this game, if you have 200 units per side and you spend a minute + per unit, cmon that is a bit much ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kevi Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 Al - Yes I see your point and I concidered that. The time clock may not work in all situations and large scenarios require more planning time. Alloting 1 min of decision making per unit may be a bit much. That would mean for a 30 unit 30 turn scenario the actual real time is 60 mins. 30 mins decision + 30 mins action. I do not think this is intended. I ask someone more familiar with CM if my math adds up. Is the decision making process(orders)included or excluded from each 1 min turn? I think of a clock as an option to add tension as agreed to by the players. It may also add replay value. Once terrian, LOS and fire and movement lanes are well known, the time allotment could be decreased. I think it may work best for online play to keep the game moving. Both players can agree to a generous allotment, but as time the clock ticks it adds tension. However the Majors comment about few people using the clock in TACOPS and trouble with coding has me thinking if its worth the trouble. I thought it would be a snap to code. - Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kevi Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 On further reflection I answered my own question (I think). Since CM is not a real-time sim, then the decision process IS excluded from the one min turn. However, on player agreement, using a time clock will help prevent a tactical scenario from becoming an analytical exercise. Descisions in battle are often rushed. I understand the command burden imposed by real-time. But it's interesting to concidered the effect of limiting decision time on wargames, especially tactial ones. I would never mandate limits, just an option. - Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 I have played chess games without a timer where the other player just decided he was not going to move. Granted, CM community would probably included less people like that. The setup phase requires the most time. I can't see why a turn should require more than 10 min(and that's alot)..15 for an extreme max.At 10 min, I'm including the fact that you will watch the movie about 4 times. I have played enjoyable chess games that I limited the *total* time to 20min. I agree with BigAlMoho about the fact that we are simulating every squad leader position in the game so 1 min is not enough. [This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 01-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxm2 Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 If it's not fun, it doesn't matter how realistic (or "reasonable") it is, unless you're using the software for training purposes. What's fun to one gamer is tedious to another. Options and/or agreements are obviously the way to go, but since practical design questions limit options, someone won't get what they want in that area. The ultimate answer is to have a game which is completely "command/viewpoint customizable" in the sense that you can decide if you want to be an individual grunt in real time (a la Doom) or turn-based, with all levels of realism from (for example) unlimited ammo to realistic supply.....all the way up to a "realistic" Theatre of Operations commander who has nothing but actual maps, intelligence reports, advisors, and political constraints and operates in real time (would require fast foward option for dead time)--or the unrealistic commander who has the "God's eye" view of what's actually happening everywhere at once, and can send direct commands to every unit on the map. ------------------ Max Molinaro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 > So, you would feel that "gentleman's agreements" regarding > time per turn are the way to go Major H? Yep - that and a chess style timer. I am almost always in favor of letting the person who paid money for something (i.e. the user) make as many decisions as possible. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 > Sorry Major But for playability and realism a line should be > drawn somewhere and a timer would allow an agreement that > is unbreakable between the opponents. I personnaly do not > want to play a competitive style game against an opponent > that takes an hour a turn, I dont have that kind of time to > burn. Not disagreening ... just passing on my experience. > Also your analogy is shortsighted do to the magnitude of > this game, if you have 200 units per side and you spend a > minute + per unit, cmon that is a bit much That was not my analogy . Besides I wear glasses so my vision is excellent thank you. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 _ [This message has been edited by MajorH (edited 01-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 >However the Majors comment about >few people using the clock in TACOPS >and trouble with coding has me thinking >if its worth the trouble. I thought it >would be a snap to code. Here is the reason that it is not a snap to code. If the intended purpose of a game timer is to strictly force the player to leave the orders phase then every routine and window/dialog in the program that is used by the player to do some activity during the orders phase is going to have to include code that provides a smooth exit path from whatever it is that the user is doing when the timer kicks in. Well written programs give the impression that one can easily jump from one activity to another but at the code level things usually pretty much follow an A to Z (and back) path. You typically can not just jump out of the middle of a complex routine/user interface activity by simply branching to a return statement - usually stuff has to be cleaned up and reset on the way out. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 MY humblest apologies MAjor H that was meant for BIG Al seems I was scrolling a little to fast off to the Russian front for me ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Nothing to apologize for. I seldom take anything that I read on forums personally. If a developer can't handle public review and criticism unemotionally then how is he going to improve his product? Besides ... commercial wargaming is supposed to be a recreational activity. Can't have fun if one is constantly getting upset about trivia . ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TOBRUK Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 It seems to me that time limits are both impractical and unenforceable. I am currently playing an opponent in Italy (I'm in the US). Because of the time differences there are sometimes large delays in exchanges (we each have to sleep, for example ). This gives either player the opportunity to "review" past files and to develope a running analysis and strategy. The time constraints would only make you close the 'current' file but by then you should have anticipated most moves and developed responses. And since I'm thinking out loud; I sort of enjoy the leisure to analze the game as it developes. Maybe that's why I don't like RTS. Just some thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 I guess I was one of the few people who seemed to use the timer feature in TacOps. Maybe the only one... Although I accept the argument that players have to play a number of roles throughout the chain of command, I still think time limits add to a simulation's accuracy. It adds a greater chance of things going wrong, which gives more realistic outcomes. Currently the chain of command always has perfect comms - time limits are one way to simulate the delays, missed orders, etc. Bear in mind that the time limits don't have to be 1:1 either, nor the same for both players. A two or five or fifteen minute turn might be an approptiate time given the level of experience being simulated. Personally I like putting in time limits to add additional pressure to the command process. This is something I find challenging, although clearly many people hate it. It was nice to have an option, although I never used it exclusively. It did give the game a different character. The other situation where I like time limits is when playing online or on a LAN. I once played a TacOps scenario where the Blue player was taking 15-20 minutes a turn while on the defense. It drove me nuts. As for the coding problems, I didn't realise how much was involved in programming this. I wondered why it seemed to disappear. Now I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Wow... programming is like magic to me (especially when I see Charles doing it), and I am amazed often how something that seems so easy can end up being so difficult to realise. Makes me appreciate many things I see in Combat Mission and TacOps 3.0 even more. I personally like time limits (being the quicker intuitive player myself rather than the micromanager), but I don't see why planning times couldn't simply be agreed on by the players. No problem coding it and at the same time no magic cutoff while you're in the middle of processing that last order. Just an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kevi Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Everyone: Happy to see folks evolved in the discussion. I saw a post this morning that the BBS was getting dull so I posed this general idea about wargames, not just CM. I do not think turn based games should have time limits for turns as default. However, the option to allow players to select limits seems interesting. How do you think it would affect the play of our games? I can see some positive things - like the tension and replay value I mentioned above. Scenario designers could suggest a time limit based on playtest results. For example, a small meeting engagement could have shorter limits than a large set-piece attack on a bunker complex - fast and furious vs slow and plodding. I mentioned "analytical exercise" above. Combat command is an analytical process that leads to decisions and orders. That goes w/o saying. However one can analyze a turn like a geometry proof given enough time. The time limit option in wargames seems like a addition or maybe compliment to "fog of war". As Al mentioned, we can and should be allowed to be the squad leader of each unit in our control - by default. Would a time limit option, if used correctly, allow us to simulate a commander having allocate their time to key areas of the battlefield and leave other areas to fight based on less attention? I do not think it would result in a mob attack if used properly. That's the crux of my question and it's related to wargaimg in general not just CM. - Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The time constraints would only make you close the 'current' file<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very interesting TOBRUK. So PBEM game timers can be manipulated. You run the game to view and review at your leisure and if the timer runs out, you run the file again and again. When you are ready, you run the 'real' file. However internet games,(my preference), could not be manipulated that way. I think timers are more important to the player that wants to spend an evening gaming. PBEM is more for people in different time zones with different scheduals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 I think a timer is essential for on-line play ------------------ ------------------ CCJ BLITZ_Force My HomePage -----> www.geocities.com/coolcolj/ Check out my Tweaked Textures for the CM Beta Demo! Oh Yeah - listen to my music too (mp3)!! [This message has been edited by CoolColJ (edited 01-16-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TOBRUK Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Hi John M, Thanks for the input. I didn't mean (and I'm sure you didn't) to make it seem as if PBEM gameplay was sinister. It's just that it allows one to ponder moves and their consequences. Often some cogitation festering in the back of my mind forces itself to the forefront, and I actually have to go to the computer and run through a test scenario; you know, what if that tank went there? or that squad sneaked over there? could the flank be defended thus-and-so. Haven't you, like, saved a game at turn 15, say, and run it out one way then go back to turn 15 and run it out another way? A lot can be learned this way. I guess the underlying understanding is that it's a game of strategy, and sometimes the beauty of good strategy needs ferreting out. Anyway, that's what makes it enjoyable for me. That, and being able to exchange views with good comrads like you. Thanks for listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kevi Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Replaying PBEM files is a cheat as old as modems. A timer would only be a convenience to the players willing to "play by the rules". Sure after playing a scenario from both sides straight through I have played the "what if" game and branched off at certain points. It saves a lot of time and speeds up learning. That's why a timer should not control play by default. - Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts