TankDawg Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Hi, Need some clarity here. What is the big deal about TCP/IP? This game is not real-time. If you want to play the game against a human opponent quickly, just do what I do: My PBEM (Hi Paul, MAJ Carnes, Andre' and Dave) opponents and I know when we are at our computers. We complete a turn, email it, wait 10 minutes or so, get the return email, and play. Hours at time! TCP/IP would maybe shave what, 2 minutes off this turn-around time. Or what if you are playing TCP/IP and your opponent needs/wants to watch the replay 10+ times. That would be even slower than PBEM. Someone please explain what I am missing. Thanks, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Hi Jeff, as I understand it, the TCP/IP patch would do a couple of things. First both players would be plotting simultaneously (and at the same time too) and watching the movie simultaneously. Theoretically that would cut the time in half all by itself. Second, the plans are for there to be timers for both order phases and movie phases, so you can adjust how long it would take to do a single turn. Finally, having a real time connection would diminish the wait for an email to show up. Now there are still issues, will there be the ability for real time chat? Will there be an "auto save" feature in case of disconnects? How long should the timers be and will they be different for each phase? All of these have been discussed and I'm sure BTS is working on them. The bottom line is that it will allow another, different way to play the game that many of the group really want. I will probably play some TCP/IP, but it's not that critical right now for me. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankDawg Posted August 10, 2000 Author Share Posted August 10, 2000 Hi Joe, Thanks for your thourough reply. Those are good points. I agree that TCP/IP will be an improvement. I just don't understand why people are so completely worked up about it. But realtime taunting, er, chat would be fun! Thanks again, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanE Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Hello Jeff, It may be the fear that for some reason it will not get added to the game. IIRC, TCP/IP was supposed to be shipped with the game. However, because the inclusion of TCP/IP would cause the release of CM to be pushed back a couple/several months, it was decided that it would be added via a patch. I am not planning on using TCP/IP, so this is not a big deal for me. However, for those out here that want TCP/IP and were promised that TCP/IP would be added, I can see why they get worked up when the masses start mumbuling that TCP/IP is not needed right now, that so-and-so is a much better feature that should be added first. I think the people that want TCP/IP are just making sure that BTS knows that they are still out here. ------------------ Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemo2 Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 I suppose it's a matter of personal preference, so if you don't think TCP/IP is a big deal, I doubt any explanation could change your mind. I want it because I feel it will save much more time on turn around than you suggest, not to mention the simple convenience of not having to open/close mail program and save files, etc. If you're opponent is watching the replay several times, that would make the delay for receiving a PBEM file just as long, correct? I guess the best explanation I can give, is that this is the way I wish to play this game in a multiplayer mode. It's quick, simple, and foolproof. (Assuming it works.) With the realtime chat mentioned, I think it is worth looking at Teamsound or Battlecom. Both are pretty good, free, and available now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasj Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 One very interesting thing I am looking forward to that the TCP/IP patch will add is that direct play. Some of us American or not are stationed overseas where is cost every second/unit/click you are dialed into your ISP, and instead of waiting and waiting with our email open to see a PBEM file come in you can coodinate a date and time with another player and get online to play via TCP/IP. Then there is the advantage of being able to process more turns in one setting verses PBEM. Just my positive looks at it. I can't wait for my Cable-modem or ADSL connection to come but that won't be until DEC or maybe even next March. Phone rates in Europe suck. No offense to anyone, but I would love to be able to dial in like back home and sit on the net for hours and not worry about a $500 phone bill for doing it. Bottom line, local calls in Europe are timed and cost, that cost does varying though on the time of day you are online. [This message has been edited by thomasj (edited 08-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 two words Turn Timers Like in Chess some one here is playing ten minute turns thats great, but many of us have to wait longer than that for turns to come back by e-mail. we are looking for immediate gratification and time limits on turns I can't wait -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 Yeah turn times will be good. Kinda represents the stress and time limitation factors of real war. 15 mins is all you should need for a turn (around 1500 points or less) apart from the setup phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingMikeH Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 Tank, I think what some are missing here is the network gaming potential of tcp/ip. I agree that online play would be greatly sped up but also it would provide a far better option than hotseat for those in the same location. Fortunately for me my business partner is also my lifelong ASL opponent and we are collectively dying to get this patch. I played quite alot of CC2 online and it was fun, but, it never had the tension and continuity that playing the grand campaign in CC2 had played head to head on a network. (It went 50 battles to a german victory) That kind of personal, extended engagement is why we haven't played any battles multiplayer since the demo. We're saving all that play for tcp/ip. (Please let it show soon!) I sincerely hope Steve and Charles don't get the idea that it isn't necessary, as I don't think my heart could take it! Just my 2 cents.... KingMikeH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Stone Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 I would love online taunting!! Does anyone know if a chat option will be included? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toad Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TankDawg: Hi, Need some clarity here. What is the big deal about TCP/IP? This game is not real-time. If you want to play the game against a human opponent quickly, just do what I do: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with TankDawg. I don't see the big deal with live network play in an turn-based game like Combat Mission. You have to wait for your opponent to finish his moves, and he has to wait for you. What's the difference if you're connected live to each other, or if you're exchanging turns via e-mail? Maybe I can see value if both opponents will be able to plot their orders simutaneously and watch the resulting movie at the same time. But one of the players will always finish his moves before the other and need to wait. And the movie contains a wealth of information that often needs to be re-played over different views of the battlefield. You need way more time than 60 seconds to learn everything you need from it. More waiting for the other guy. (Or him waiting for you.) Where's the fun or value in keeping an Internet connection going with the other side just to wait and wait? ... I say just sent 'em an e-mail then get up go have a sandwich ... ------------------ -- Toad Ontario, Canada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 I happen to see the need for TCP/IP. One big reason: Wrong files sent to right person or right file sent to wrong person. It's paper work, tedious. You also loose the atmosphere. Like having to put on a condom during sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 Putting on flamegear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 Dig a deep trench iggi ------------------ 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...
Sabrewolf Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 The timer thing seem to be a really good idea, I think that most order phase require porbably only 3 to 6 min at most. I am not a computer expert, but with the addition of TCP/IP can program like Gamespy Arcade be used as a meeting place? Probably CM need to add the use of command line so that player can go straight to the TCP/IP screen when lauching the game. Can anyone verify if this is possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 Toad, you just scared me to death. All along I have assumed that with TCP/IP we would be plotting and watching the turns at the same time. Nah...they have to set it up where simultaneous turns are taken, right? As far as the timer goes aside from the setup phase a good timer idea I saw on the board before was not a timer for plot and another for movie watching but one timer. Like you have ten minutes to watch the movie as much as you want and plot your moves. If you spend 8 minutes watching the movie than you have 2 left to plot with. The big attraction with TCP/IP for me is that a TCP/IP game should take about as long to play as a game vs the AI takes you AND the flow and continuity of the game is not broken up creating more immersion. ------------------ "To conquer death you only have to die" JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Party Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 How fast a tcp/ip game takes to play will depend on how fast the humans play it. I would guess it won't be much faster than icq. The nice thing about the AI is it is bloody quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabrewolf Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 One advantage over ICQ is that you dont have to create much contact list. This is fine if you only have one friend who play with you but when you have more your ICQ will be filled and its tedious work remembering all these people with all the nicknames. I don't know how far the tcp/ip patch goes but if they indeed include simultaneous order phase than the game would generally be quicker. If they implement the timer then it is even much better unless you got opponent who take only 1 min on the order phase on PBEM games then its pretty much the same. [This message has been edited by Sabrewolf (edited 08-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 NP, I disagree big time. You are right about the human aspect. As an example I will use myself and MrPeng. We play turns in about the same amount of time. So I would expect to be able to play an entire TCP/IP in the same amount of time it takes me or him to play against the AI because we both move at the same pace. I have heard people on this board say that they take 30 minutes or 60 minutes to play one complete turn. For someone who plays at that speed TCP/IP against me would be a waste of time because I would spend as much time waiting for the other player to finish as I would with an email game. An ICQ or AIM would HAVE to(once again assuming simutaneous plotting and movie watching)take twice as long to play because one person would always be waiting for a file to be sent. ------------------ "To conquer death you only have to die" JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS wrote 05-23-2000: Doug is pretty much right on the money there. Both players do their Orders Phase at the same time. There will be an optional timer with different time settings. When both players have hit GO!, or have timed out, then the turn is crunched and the Action Phase begins. What we are not sure about yet is how to handle the playback in terms of time. There are two ways and we will see which one works the best in practice: 1. Have a seperate timer for watching the playback. For example, a 1 minute timer would only allow you to watch the thing once through, 2 minutes two times or once through and another minute for replays. You get the idea. 2. No special timer but it just chews up your turn timer. So if you are set up for 5 minute turns and you replay the movie 5 times, you won't have any time left to issue orders. The benefits and drawbacks of each should be pretty obvious. Personally, I think #1 is better simply because it avoids the potential "whhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa, I forgot and replayed too many times and now I don't have any orders. No fair! Start over" kind of problem We will most likely have a different Timer for the Setup Phase since this should require more time to do up right. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If this is the way it is done, I think that would speed up play considerably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uedel Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 Joe, i would prefer method 2. Why ? Ok as the Defender u often sit arround watching your enemy come and dont have to do Orders, so u can spend time study your opponents march up your position several times and get a cloue what he plans to do. So u spend the time in watch and study. As Attacker u get a plan and give orders and as long as u have no contact your plan will seldom change so u use your time for giving orders to acomplish your plan and not watching the other do anything you have enough time to see where he is to give orders and dont have to look that much on films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEF BUNGIS Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 Does anyone know if BTS plans on hosting a game server for chat and TCP/IP? ------------------ Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 As I remember they are. If not I am sure someone will. ------------------ "To conquer death you only have to die" JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Warrior Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 The chess timer offers a whole new dimension in play. If you set it for a short turn it might add a bit more realism to the game in that the practice of micro managing your units would be penalized. If BTS implements this feature so that different length time values can be set for each player then the timer could be used as another way of balancing play. Also, it could be used to simulate the effects of training, leadership, communications ,etc capability in that the side with better training/comm, etc gets a little longer timer setting. This could be one way of modeling the difference between the Germans and the Russians in CM2. For example if a tank has radios this gives the palyer a little longer timer setting than if it doesn't have radios so that the player without the radios must do simplier tactics simply because he doesn't have time to do otherwise. ------------------ March To The Sound Of The Guns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 Neat idea but it sounds like it would be a lot more programong than it would be worth. ------------------ "To conquer death you only have to die" JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts