RTS version of CM ever?

[Slapdragon]

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

Slapdragon, with all due respect, you're talking utter, arrant nonsense.

CM's scale was, as far as I recall, originally no larger than Myth -- I remember Steve saying that they never expected battles larger than 1500pts to be fought, which is why there is no vehicle command system.

To say that Myth does not attempt to recreate a realistic environment for historical gaming evades the point that even the most realistic environment is an abstraction and both Myth and CM are abstractions. Yes, Myth uses hitpoints etc, so ridiculous results can occur. But that doesn't mean that lessons can't be learnt from it.

Apples and oranges are both fruit.

Your RTS argument is very different from mine; My argument is that you should be able to take an Explorer and convert it if necessary, at will, into an Escort. You can do that with code.

(BTW, isn't comparing code and cars even more outlandish than comparing apples and oranges? You can't change cars on the fly, but you can write code to change itself on the fly.)

I've suggested that the player(s) can set the time between order phases _before the game begins_. Hardly different from the current hard-coded 60 seconds.

As for 1 minute vs 59 seconds, why not 120 seconds? 30 seconds? Why should you have a single minute turn, in other words, when you can do calculations for _any_ granular amount of seconds? If you set the time interval before starting the game, why not allow any amount?

Okay, so you can restrict things to often-used numbers, but the fact remains that there is no privileged reason to stick with 60 seconds a turn.

Honestly, I think you're engaging in ridiculous amounts of kneejerk rhetoric. "It works, don't change it! don't change it! or it'll all go to hell!" sounds to me exactly like some of the traders I've worked with who simply cannot function if one of their graph windows is closed.

Or are you seriously suggesting that one of BTS's core principles is not to allow any kind of turn resolution less than or more than 60 seconds?

Oni like graphics? Ray tracing? Good God in heaven, what is the world coming to, etc. What horrible things for me to ask (not that I've asked for them.)

All I've suggested is that instead of setting a single hard coded value of 60 seconds for calculation, before the game starts you allow the player(s) to agree on the number of seconds between each order phase -- and that you allow the player to set a time limit on order phases.

Please, I'm not a sixteen year old script kiddie who thinks that RTSs are 1337; I'm a programmer who has made a suggestion which on the face of it seems reasonable for BTS to implement without rewriting their engine. I've played wargames for nigh on fifteen years, from Squad Leader (not ASL, which I could never love) to War In Russia. Please don't try to slap the twitchfest label on me (and if you think that RTSs or FPSs are twitchfests, you obviously haven't played enough of them.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except, the game engine is not designed for it, would require a rewrite from the ground up, and all of the changes I mentioned.

If you want that, then call up bungie and ask for Myth WW2. That engine is already RTS. I do not question your ability as a programmer, but I question how many games you have programmed. Do a search, as both Charles and Steve spent ten thousand words explaining why CM could not be a twicth game.

I still question why you want turns length changed. Change just to change is silly. 1 minute works, why make it 1 minute and 18 seconds or whatever.

BTW-- I wrote to the open source forum about my copy of Apache. It does not allow me to play chess. You should be able to swicth a web server into a chess game with just a few random line changes of code -- thats all I want. And I want my Word Processor to be Adobe Photoshop, and my copy of Final Cut Pro into a database server... well you get the picture. Sounds like you want Microsoft Office for gaming with the ability to move from ONI to Steel Panthers with a simple slider. I propose that this would be a difficult and time consuming code change.

Luckily, BTS has already answered this with a strong no, so we can look forward to new wargames rather than poorly thought out RTS ports.

[Triumvir]

Excuse me, but we _are_ talking about a rewrite of the engine.

I have not asked for any changes to the system apart from varying turn length. Why do you insist on bringing other elements into this? I don't want a WW2 Myth -- there already is a WW2 Myth mod.

I also don't see at _all_ how changing the length of a turn makes CM a twitch game. Changing a length of a turn to 2 minutes allows you to think more carefully about what you need to do; to 30 seconds allows you finer control over your men.

Incidentally, I built a conversion of first edition Battletech rules to computer in Turbo Pascal as a school-leaving project when I was 16, but have never gone back to game programming since.

We're not talking about random line changes of code. We're not asking for graphics capability in word processors. You're clouding the issue with billows of electronic ink because you don't like the idea of changing this.

Grud, but your dogmatic wankel rotary engine emulation is annoying me.

I moot that changing a turn length is _not_ a "difficult and time consuming code change" and frankly, unless Charles speaks up for himself or through Steve, I don't think you can say with any certainty that it is or isn't.

Would you please pull the cork out and stop trying to knee me?

[OGSF]

Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but I offer the following comments -

1) If you want an RTS game, go and buy one. And while Sudden Strike is a lot of fun, it ain't no CM.

2) The suggestions about changing the orders phase from one minute to something else, I got to agree with Slappy on that. Why change for change sake? One minute seems to work pretty well.

3) If you want to up the adrenelin rush, play TCP and limit the order giving phase to one minute or less.

RTS is good fun, but it is not how I want to play a tactical wargame. Others of course will think differently.

OGSF

[Tanaka]

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

Has it ever been considered to do a RTS version of CM? One in which a minute is a minute and there is no time to debate the next "move"? Personally I think that would increase "realism" more than any other changes...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How much did "they" pay you to come here and say a thing like that ? :eek:

Go away, go to your RTS game and be happy, but don't come here disturb our virtual reality...

This game will NEVER, read well, NEVER become a RTS game, got that ? Now go the highway direction please... thank you, thank you

:cool:

[Andreas]

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

Okay, so you can restrict things to often-used numbers, but the fact remains that there is no privileged reason to stick with 60 seconds a turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, not quite correct. There is a reason not to make it longer, IIRC. It would tax the Tac AI too much. Do a search, there are official statements to that effect.

Also, for larger battles computation would take a longer, and depending on how long you go, that could be a problem for lower-end machines.

Also, I don't know how good the high-level AIs would function with longer turns.

So there are three good reasons not to extend the turn length.

Now for shortening it, I guess that it comes down to how much micro-management and chaos of war you would like to see. 60secs gives you a nice effect in that your men do stuff that you don't expect them to do, based on the Tac AI acting semi-independently of your orders. Would that work with 45secs? Maybe. 30secs? Probably not as well. That is a design decision, but contrary to what you are saying, there may well be good reasons for it.

Doesn't mean it can not be done, but it may mean that given the constraints of the vision governing CM, and those of current computing power, there are 'priviledged' reasons to stick with 60secs.

edited because I am a moron...

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[Slapdragon]

Ok, so you are not trying for an RTS game, your posting is very confusing because it starts out sounding liek that then moves back. You merely want different length turns.

Well great. The question is, why? You and an opponent will get together and decide that a 1 minute and 8 second turn is far superior to a 1 minute turn. Gee, makes a lot of sense. Well worth the month Charles spent on it.

Is there a good reason to include this change (ie game playability, historical modelling). Nope, none that you have talked about. Why should WW2 combat be modelled in 1 minte and 26 second increments rather than 1 minute increments? Especially when it means a change to how the engine builds game turns and how much memory the game will consume.

This is no knee jerk reaction. This same subject and the RTS subject have come up 30 times, each time Steve gives the same answer. For RTS, it is that the game is not an RTS game. Want RTS -- buy a different game. Your Myth mod may be just the ticket for a little fast and furious clicking. For you turn length proposal, maybe it could be done, but why waste coding time on it? Especially when every other game in existence that uses turns has to set a time base for playing.

Many people, you included, thing BTS pulled this game out of their ass, that Charles and Steve were up one night playing monopoly when they decided to make the turns 1 minuet long. Heck, why not admit that Steve and Charles are idiots and got nothing right in the game, it was all juust random luck that Steve put Charles behind a Power Macintosh for 3 weeks and Charles just happened to code the game right out of his ass. Might as well of had a monkey do the coding.

One minute was chosen for a reason, it works, changing it represents a lot of work. Changing by a small amount (1 minuute and 30 seconds) would be easier because the basic tactical assumptions of the game would not change that much, but why do all that work for what has no real purpose, a variable no one needs. Changing by a lot would make some sense, but then you are talking about a new engine to drive unit behavior on the assumption that the human wont be back for a while. More behavior branches, more engine work, bigger movie files, and all of that.

What I am saying is, programming experience or no programming experience, you are asking for a change that affects every level of the game. Especially when it wont make the game better (at least your logic so far has not blown any doors off.).

One suggestion: write up a sample coding and some flow charts on how it would be easy, estimate the time it would take, then volunteer to do the coding yourself for the change. May be you will get turned down because the code is not open source, but if it is so easy you could whip it out in a day or two and offer it as a CM revision should BTS accept your offer.

[Triumvir]

1)But I _don't_ want a "RTS".

2)I want a CM which lets me plot my orders and stand even further back from the action. If each turn is even two minutes long, let alone five, each player has to really really think about what the objectives are before hitting go. With longer turns, you can't back out of bad orders, and if siht happens, it _happens_.

Conversely, with shorter turns, you are forgiven bad orders more easily.

Besides, I don't want to replace minute long turns; I want the option of having differing turn lengths.

3) I want the opposite of an adrenalin rush -- or more precisely, I want the option to adjust the amount of adrenalin I want.

I think the word RTS is deeply prejudicial to this discussion, because everyone here seems to think that I want to turn CM into some abortion like Sudden Strike.

BTS could do worse than taking a look at Steel Beasts' waypoint system which (I know -- it's not the same scale, it's pushing no polygons, it's real-time not CTB, it's blah blah blah not CM blah blah blah really not CM blah blah) has the most beautiful selection of orders that you could want as a wargamer.

I don't suggest that they use that system because it's clearly not geared towards CM and it would make programming the AI utter hell. But it does give a glimpse of the granularity possible in giving orders.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Triumvir, have if you are looking for a more *realistic* wargaming experience (which is an oxymoron in itself...a game can never realistically portray war or the true feel of command), how is changing the time limit going to affect this? Command delays already range over 15 seconds in many cases (as they should). Anything under 60 seconds is just begging for micromanagement. I already know of many guys that take eons to do their TCP/IP turns because they feel the need to micromanage routes over every anthill and crater. Decreasing the turn length is just going to exacerbate this...

Some people may actually want to micromanage the game. Many of us don't. If it was easy to make the change as an optional setting, then I say BTS should go for it. Since it would apparently be a bear, then I say they should leave well enough alone and work on more important issues (it's a long list!).

[Triumvir]

Germanboy:

Could you give me a sample search statement which doesn't cause UBB to time out? A simple "ai turn length" and variations forthwith doesn't work; do you have a timeframe by which I can search?

As for shortening it, again; it does come down to preferences. I stress -- I'm not looking to _replace_ 1 minute turns, I'm looking to _supplement_ them.

If a 30 second or a five minute turn -- which incidentally, will be correspondingly (at least!) longer to process -- fits my needs better than a 1 minute turn, shouldn't I be able to go to them as necessary?

(By the by, I still stand by my statement that a CM that's programmed for granular turns can produce CM as we know it as a special case)

As for privileged, I meant that -- and should have said, obviously -- in the sense that there is no reason from the code point of view to go with 60 seconds. Apologies for not making myself clear.

Slapdragon:

<sigh>

The point is moot. If you think that I think Charles and Steve are the infinite monkeys, there really isn't much point in talking to you, since what I'm saying is not filtering through. I think that CM is one of the best works that a single programmer has ever made.

Still, once more unto the breach.

From what I understand from reading the forum, the TacAI has no memory. It decides what happens based on its current state. That explains the occasional "turn away from the Firefly that drove behind that hill and start hammering the PIAT team at 300m" behaviour.

I fail to see how this will be affected by a change in the turn length as each TacAI decision is presumably calculated on the fly.

For higher-level AI, I can definitely see that more processing is necessary to handle decisions. As I understand it, the AI decides its options based on the conditions at the start of the turn. This is difficult to do when each turn is longer than 1 minute.

This is a problem that can be circumvented by playing the higher AI at 1 minute turns and human opponents at 3 minute turns.

I would dearly love to see the flow of the AI at the moment, even if in pseudocode (and who uses flow-charts?) I would even more dearly love to work with the code. But as far as I know, BTS does _not_ want more programmers (though I would jump at the chance to help out in the development.)

I haven't presented my arguments well. This is obvious, because you're still disagreeing with me. 8)

But honestly, from now on, if I refrain from adjectives such as "obviously", "privileged" or "clearly", will you likewise refrain from jumping to either end of the distribution in picking (or creating) datapoints for your argument?

For one, I _deeply_ resent your implications about my opinions on Steve and Charles. You sound like Steve when he's been harassed out of his wits, with far less justification.

I've been a lurker for the past year and I'm well aware of the arguments for and against making CM an "RTS" game, not to mention the depth of effort that Steve and Charles (and now Kwazydog and Matt) have put into the whole enterprise.

Mannheim:

I make exactly your point in a previous post -- that a game can only approach command because it's an abstraction.

I think, again, that the words RTS are poisoning the discussion because I don't want shorter turns -- I want longer turns.

[Slapdragon]

Well, since this and other subject has been done to death on the board, my suggestion stands: write some sample code and a flow chart of what you want the game to do. E-Mail said code to BTS. Include justification for N length turns that discusses historical, game play, and AI issues. Offer to work for free coding the revision as an option.

Maybe you will strike out, but CM2 and 3 wont be delayed any by the strike out. 1 minutes turns were adopted for a reason, but maybe you can convince BTS that n length turns have merit.

The reason why every other person is concerned about this is that RTS, longer turn length, and the rest are offered up something like every 18 days, mostly by people who CM to be something else.

[PzKpfw 1]

Here's a new idea, concerning all the hype Triumvir has stirred up by (egads) voiceing his opinion (the nerve) on what would make CM better in his eyes (blasphemy).

For once let Steve or Charles or Matt etc, answer, his posts. To many times I see ppl here giveing 'definative' answers in tones that sugest they speak officialy for BTS or have secret decoder rings that allow them so speak directly to & answe for Charles, & Steve etc .

Now before someone runs off to pull up the board search engine to post this or that quote from Steve etc, as a refrence, save yourself the time & just let BTS answer Triumvir, themselves if they feel a need to adress his sugestions, they will.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Jimmy 4 Eyes]

Personally, I like CM for the fact that is is a turn based game. I like to sit and think about my strategy and view the landscape. I enjoy replaying the turns and viewing them from different angles. (Especially when I have a particularly good turn).

CM is a great break from the other real time games that I play and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Just my 2 cents.

[Triumvir]

Thanks, John; I was beginning to feel a bit pressed by Slapdragon.

BTS, if any of you guys are reading this, I would be more than happy to devote my time, gratis, to helping you code any portion of a new CM engine.

I have and am running a programming team (and one that telecommutes, no less), so I do understand how difficult it is to work with multiple programmers -- a single programmer can tie things together far more efficiently than multiple programmers because he has the vision of what his code should be.

Nonetheless, I'd be more than glad to help work on any code; I've been coding off and on for about the past fifteen years, starting with Basic on the Trash-80, through to 8080 assembler on up. Most of my work in the past three years has been finance related, but I'm more than willing to do work for you if you're so inclined.

Slapdragon:

It would be pointless for me to slap together pseudocode for what I think a turn resolution should be without seeing what BTS's approach currently is. If I don't know their approach, there is no way I can usefully integrate my ideas with their code -- assuming they're willing to let me do so.

I suspect you have this well in mind, thus neatly solving an awkward situation by redirection.

I've already laid out my rationale for adjustable length turns: turns that take less than a minute allow the player more micromanagement and those that take more than a minute force more thought. At no time should these adjustable length turns supplant the current minute long turns; they are wholly supplementary.

Again, you continue to exercise hyperbole; I _strongly_ doubt -- again, I stress that I have been reading the board this past year -- that anyone has raised longer turn lengths in the past 18 days, or any multiple thereof less than 10.

As for changes to CM, is it not evident that any changes made to CM will make CM be something else? Which implies that CM is at the peak of perfection, which is obviously false, since CMBB will be different from CMBO.

Sophistry is a good skill, but you might want to brush up on it a bit more.

[Slapdragon]

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

Thanks, John; I was beginning to feel a bit pressed by Slapdragon.

BTS, if any of you guys are reading this, I would be more than happy to devote my time, gratis, to helping you code any portion of a new CM engine.

I have and am running a programming team (and one that telecommutes, no less), so I do understand how difficult it is to work with multiple programmers -- a single programmer can tie things together far more efficiently than multiple programmers because he has the vision of what his code should be.

Nonetheless, I'd be more than glad to help work on any code; I've been coding off and on for about the past fifteen years, starting with Basic on the Trash-80, through to 8080 assembler on up. Most of my work in the past three years has been finance related, but I'm more than willing to do work for you if you're so inclined.

Slapdragon:

It would be pointless for me to slap together pseudocode for what I think a turn resolution should be without seeing what BTS's approach currently is. If I don't know their approach, there is no way I can usefully integrate my ideas with their code -- assuming they're willing to let me do so.

I suspect you have this well in mind, thus neatly solving an awkward situation by redirection.

I've already laid out my rationale for adjustable length turns: turns that take less than a minute allow the player more micromanagement and those that take more than a minute force more thought. At no time should these adjustable length turns supplant the current minute long turns; they are wholly supplementary.

Again, you continue to exercise hyperbole; I _strongly_ doubt -- again, I stress that I have been reading the board this past year -- that anyone has raised longer turn lengths in the past 18 days, or any multiple thereof less than 10.

As for changes to CM, is it not evident that any changes made to CM will make CM be something else? Which implies that CM is at the peak of perfection, which is obviously false, since CMBB will be different from CMBO.

Sophistry is a good skill, but you might want to brush up on it a bit more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks John for protecting poor Triumvir, he was feeling quite pressed as you can see.

No sophistry in my comments at all T. A quick example code would prove to BTS that you could code, and then your outline as a direction you wanted to travel. Again, BTS has already weighed in on this, so likely they will say, no need for this, but you can try. Better to make a serious proposal by e-mail than what you are doing here.

I can say your supporting argument is extremely weak. You will need to come up with more reason for the added code than it would be cool -- even if you are doing the cross platform Macintosh and PC coding yourself (which is a good way to tackle changes like this).

John, since this brings the number of RTS requests into the dozens, why can't anyone point out that BTS is not making an RTS?

I do have a suggestion for you T, take it for what it is worth. If you want 2 minute turns, why not plan out and mark down extended commands and then not touch your settings except every other turn. What 5 minutes? Do that every 5 turnss instead. That way you can play your own version of the game and no one needs worry about the code (and play testing -- your next step would be to sell this to the guys who have to play test the added turn length and the new AI engine).

[PzKpfw 1]

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

John, since this brings the number of RTS requests into the dozens, why can't anyone point out that BTS is not making an RTS?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They can & have repeatedly . I hadn't realised a request for a variable time limit was an exclusive feature of an RTS

Regards, John Waters

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

They can & have repeatedly . I hadn't realised a request for a variable time limit was an exclusive feature of an RTS

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but that does not make variable timed turns worth all the effort in the game, especially when he can play variable timed turns in increments of one minute right now, using the game engine as it stands.

This is not an issue like closer modelling of squads, which will add to the game, this is just a side issue thrown into a post that, if you will note the title, is about starting a real time shooter version of CM.

So my question, if his argument is so fragile that it cannot sustain debate on the forum, what good is it? And if he has a really great idea anyway that he does not want to debate, why not right it up like a publication submission and send it in?

I realize that having people poke at your ideas is difficult, but if they are that bad, do they really belong on the forum?

[Beltfed]

Nomex on!

Well things in this thread have become more about a turns time measurements and such and I know that BTS is not likely to make CM(2) RTS anytime soon. But I would like to see it sometime. Maybe combining some of the strengths of the Close Combat series with CMs. Yes it may be CPU intensive but that may not be an issue for long. It was reported somewhere that Intel has postulated chip speeds of 20 gigahertz by 2003! Sheesh! So it may be possible to compute ballistics on the fly while the 3d card takes on the graphics engine. Now it would not necessarily be easy to design an elegant solution to some of the problems like clickfests and such but it might not be impossible.

Later

[Gen-x87H]

What would we gain from this game being a RTS?

I honestly can not think of a single thing.

But here are some things that I think why RTS should never makes its way into CM.

1. The realism would be gone. Honestly though I would laugh because anybody playing the AI in a battalion level game would be crying not fair due to the micro management the Computer can do while the human brain can not. This IMHO is the reason this game is turn based. With the wide variety of units, terrain, and LOS. We as humans would require this game to be on the platoon level to make it really fair and manageable. Personally I do not find that appealing.

2. RTS are usually much more simple. You are usually limited to a shortened list of units. Around 20. Each have unit on the opponents side that can take that it out. Gee why is that? Oh ya that is because the game designers decided to build a game that is fair. BTS designed a tactical war simulation around real life data.

Most RTSs are based on a player starting with nothing building up forces and then fighting. It is usually a calculated risk on your build plan. I played SC for a few years and it got boring just making it into a click fest.

Personally I think this game being a RTS would be a ruin it. Luckily BTS has already stated on many occasion that it will not happen

Gen

[Grisha]

My personal slant in RTS games is that while they can be very entertaining, they do not simulate reality, and are more game than wargame. The reason is simple: one mind cannot be expected to function as many minds in many places in realtime. Only by implementing a planning phase that is timed to allow one mind to act as many minds in many places can realism be simulated. While good RTS players are able to make quick decisions in many places over a given time, in the RL rushing into anything is usually fraught with peril unless sufficient thought is given to the situation.

[deanco]

Slapdragon said,

"If you want 2 minute turns, why not plan out and mark down extended commands and then not touch your settings except every other turn."

This gave me a good laugh. It reminded me of the guy who told me if I wanted to give my men medals for heroic duty, then I should keep track of their stats in a little book and stick little colored badges in it. There is a basic lack of comprehension about gaming between wargamers and.... well, pretty much everybody else who is a gamer.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to alt.catholic.discussion...

(edited for dyslexia)

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: deanco ]

[Goanna]

Actually deanco, while what Slapdragon proposed appears flippant, he actually has a very good point that does allow the CM engine to do what it appears is desired, i.e. make turns longer.

In my experience of playing TCP/IP matches with anything larger than about 1000 pts worth of troops and a short time limit (of say 3 min), you have to get used to being able to plot only about 1/2 of your forces moves for each turn. This forces you to make several waypoint plots for each unit, assuming you won't be able to get back to it until the turn after next.

So, if you applied this system always (and could trust your opponent to do the same) you would have the 2 or 3, etc. length turns without the need to recode anything.

Personally, I can make enough mistakes in a minute and have no desire to lengthen the turn and quite like the game as is. I don't think lengthening the turn or shortening it to the point of a RTS would make the simulation any more realistic or fun.

[Andreas]

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

Germanboy:

Could you give me a sample search statement which doesn't cause UBB to time out? A simple "ai turn length" and variations forthwith doesn't work; do you have a timeframe by which I can search?

As for shortening it, again; it does come down to preferences. I stress -- I'm not looking to _replace_ 1 minute turns, I'm looking to _supplement_ them.

If a 30 second or a five minute turn -- which incidentally, will be correspondingly (at least!) longer to process -- fits my needs better than a 1 minute turn, shouldn't I be able to go to them as necessary?

(By the by, I still stand by my statement that a CM that's programmed for granular turns can produce CM as we know it as a special case)

As for privileged, I meant that -- and should have said, obviously -- in the sense that there is no reason from the code point of view to go with 60 seconds. Apologies for not making myself clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Triumvir, I don't know how to make searches work anymore. They seem to work for David Aitken, but for me they time out too. I think there maybe a reference to this in the links that he provided on page one of this thread. Sorry to not be able to help you there. It must have been about 3-6 months back, at the vey least.

I think there are really two lines of argument here. I agree with you that there is no reason on the face of it that you could not code CM in a way to allow for variable turns. This may then be toggled, according to the needs of individual gamers. I can see the design principle, and while I am no programmer, I am sure it can be done in some way. No argument there.

I think the second line of argument is whether it would work as well once you have done the code change. BTS have said in the past that >1min is to hard for the TacAI to cope with and would make the game very frustrating to play because of increasingly erratic behaviour. I think a lot of people would agree that despite its weaknesses, CMBO has a damn good AI. So any improvement to it would be hard to achieve and take a long time to code. At some point you would also hit a limit. Whether that would be at 1.5mins or 3mins in anyones guess. As I said, shortening (and I am 90% sure there was a BTS statement about this as well) would reduce the 'chaos of war' aspect of CM and introduce more player control. This is purely a design decision. One that to me works fine, but it is ultimately a matter of taste. I think I would come down on the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' side of things.

So in closing, based on my memory, longer turns are currently not possible because of the AI. Shorter terms are not in keeping with the design philosophy, as I recall it. That is all from memory, in the absence of a working search function.

[Priest]

Okay I feel that I have to check in here. First off on the RTS issue, CM in any form should never ever be an RTS. The reason is simple, tactics and strategy. Simply put an RTS is to CM what an average FPS is to the Rainbow Six series. I am sure a lot of people would think that the Rainbow Six series needs some power armor and the Plasmatron Gerbil Thrower 3000 in it to make it a better game. That is fine but they should realize very quickly that they are in the minority and wrong in their assumption considering the goal of the game. As far as variable turns go the question I would ask is why? I see know reason. You say it is for adrenaline but how does 15 seconds less or 2 minutes more help that. NONE! More than likely it also hearts gameplay and takes away from the multiplayer experience. Not a good design or marketing decision. The WEGO system is revelutionary in this application. There is a reason that many game sites and magazines rated X-COM (which has a similiar styled system) as the greatest game ever. Also there is a reason for all the awards that CMBO has recieved. And not once has one of these reviews ever stated that they wished CMBO was an RTS. I will leave you with this, how many times did you try to run your siege tank around the flank to attack that Hydralisk? Probably never because it really does not matter at all. That is the problem. (I believe ASL is RTS and did you read those wonderful reviews).

All the suggestions made should be answered not with stats and quotes but with simple reasons. Variable length turns and RTS design are bad marketing, identity, playability, and development (based on the time already invested in WEGO) decisions that would not be backed by the core audience that is the target of the project anyway.

If you want more adrenaline then get into a meta-campaign game or find more challenging opponents in multi-player.

[jKMkIII]

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

2)I want a CM which lets me plot my orders and stand even further back from the action. If each turn is even two minutes long, let alone five, each player has to really really think about what the objectives are before hitting go. With longer turns, you can't back out of bad orders, and if siht happens, it _happens_.

Conversely, with shorter turns, you are forgiven bad orders more easily.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you play with crack etc. troops with few sec command delays you can change your plan every turn if you want, but try playing with green units.. with them you really have to plan forward because command delay will be pretty long

But making turn length much longer than 1min would require at least TacAI that would know how to react to new situations better.. for example I have already screamed to my MGs to stop their area firing when enemy assaulted over open ground from different direction.

And ability to set up pauses between commands, certainly it would be nice even with current turn lengths, but with longer turns it would be mandatory.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

3) I want the opposite of an adrenalin rush -- or more precisely, I want the option to adjust the amount of adrenalin I want.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One way to get extra action in TCP/IP is to set time you can use to give commands to something limited.

And for PBEM limitin turn length isn't really nice option.. 30s turns would double emails sent per game.

And again without enhancing AI and having ways to give more detailed orders I do not believe it is wise to make turns much longer (and why change little because it doesn't change things much, it would be change just for change)

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: jKMkIII ]

[Slapdragon]

It is not flippant at all to suggest workable alternative to recoding the game.

If 2-5 minutes turns are the objective, using longer planned action is the answer. Technically speaking, it would just require you to cycle through the movie segments and then skip the orders phase. If this is not possible, then longer turns would not work either.