time limit ruins the games reality

[dog6880]

Ok why must there be a time limit. i was playing a twenty turn limit game and i had an american and german tank dualing it out in a town at about 100m. then i had a german platon and british platoon in close combat in the middle of the woods. and i won a senario because i ran a platoon across an open feild during my last minuet to grab a vitory location...

so what happens both comanders are like. o look its tea time lets all pull back and stop shooting. i personaly want every last nazi dead before i finish, and what if i want ot fight to the last man, and lose. i was once surrounded in a small town and had four german tanks pounding my men wiht their infantry moving in. but NO! time rean out so we al went home. i hope if i ever see combat their is a time limit.

[Jumbo]

dog6880,

I hear what you are saying. There is no time limit in war. I believe that 60 minutes is the extreme limit for a scenario. Yet, most games can be over quite quickly. The longest one that I played went to 19 turns. I had to surrender due to being out of ammo. (The German player had lots with ammo, so I didn't want a slow death.)

It seems that the tactical situations represented in the CM scale don't need a lot of time. I guess you can stretch it out as long as possible, but your opponent will eventually find you and aggressively try to smash you. afterall is said and done, its controlling the victory locations that is the prize in CM. Its better to get there first with the most.

Jumbo

[L.Tankersley]

I think the time limit is necessary for play balance in QBs, too, at least in attack scenarios. If the attacker doesn't have a time limit keeping the pressure on, he can be very deliberate about his attack and that often spells doom for the defender.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

There is no time limit in war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strictly speaking, that is not precisely true. There are many factors that can limit the time a commander has available to achieve his mission. He may have to coördinate his actions with the rest of the battle of which he is a part or his mission will be a failure. Night or weather may intervene. The supply situation that you mention may apply, and be harsher for one side than the other.

It would though be nice to have some random factor thrown in to avoid the situation that dog6880 brings up. That is, after a game length has been decided on, the program could randomly lengthen or shorten it by 1-5 turns, say, and not tell the player(s). You would only know when the game would end when it announced that the game was over. This would obviate the gaminess of a last-minute rush to the goal line. You could still make an all-out effort late in the game, but you couldn't be sure that your opponent would not be able to reply.

Otherwise, Jumbo, I like the rest of your post.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 12-31-2000).]

[GI Tom]

Also, let's not forget, would you want to chase the AI around who has one Sharpshooter, with no ammo, hiding in the back right hand corner of the map in deep woods? It's CM Hell, the game that never ends. You'd start a game in 2000 and finish it in 2004 becuase you just can't find that last one man...imagine the PBEM possibilities!!

Grandkids: Grampa, Grampa!! Teach us how to play a PBEM game on CM 5!! It's 2010 and you said this would be the year you'd teach us!

Me: I can't kiddies, back in 01 I started a PBEM against Berli, jeez, I know he only has a squad with one man left, but I can't catch him, I have to spend my day looking for him, but once I do, I'll teach ya's.

But seriously dog, there HAS to be a time limit. Look at it as an abstraction of a deadline given to you to take the VL's. If you don't make that deadline, it's not that the battle ended, it will continue, it's just that you've been replaced as commander. That's just one of many ways to look at it.

GI Tom

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

To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich.

[Jumbo]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Strictly speaking, that is not precisely true. There are many factors that can limit the time a commander has available to achieve his mission. He may have to coördinate his actions with the rest of the battle of which he is a part or his mission will be a failure. Night or weather may intervene. The supply situation that you mention may apply, and be harsher for one side than the other.

Michael,

Yes I agree with you. Wars can (and have) gone on seemingly indefinately for decades.

Yet, on today's highly technological battlefield with the use of non-lethal weapons and such, war could be even quicker. I guess there is no hard & fast rule.

Jumbo

[Phoenix]

First off this isn't reall war. It's a computer game. There's all sorts of things about the game that aren't "real". How about being able to fly around the battle field watching everything and making decisions based on that? Not real.

Some things are in the game for gameplay sake.

[dog6880]

great replies thank you. but especially in operations where your troops carry over i find time limits anoying. i was playing the whittman operation and i had thatinfantry platoon in teh town. i left them there and they got surrounded by tanks. after the first battle they appeard out of hte town and in the woods. at least deem them captured.

i understand the lone sharpshoot problem but i mean proximity. i hat to see closecombat ending due to timelimit. i want ot wipe out that platoon so they dont carry over into the next map to hassel me.in close combat(the game not the situation) the battle wouldnt end if troops were too cloe together. i think LOS and proximity should apply. if you can see them and they can see you and some one is shooting at a target the battle should go on.

[This message has been edited by dog6880 (edited 12-31-2000).]

[Major Tom]

The one thing that gets me about the way that CM turns are run, is, that sometimes the 60 second turn ends either at the RIGHT time, or at the WRONG time, depending who you are. In many games I have sent along a Tank to creep up and catch an enemy before they saw me. I sneak up to them, and target them but the turn ends. This enables my PBEM opponent to manually select MY tank as a target even though their tank would not see it (If it were buttoned and/or facing in a different direction) until the 1st or 2nd shell flew by or hit/killed the sucker.

I know that this can't really be fixed, as, the turn has to end sometime, I just find it annoying when it happens. Although when it does happen to me in my favour I do feel relieved! So, since it doesn't really cause an inherent problem for just ONE player, it isn't such a gamey thing.

The gamey flag rush at the end rarely happens in my PBEM games, as, usually the enemy is routed, I am routed, or it is an immovable stalemate. Hunting down remnants at the end, is only fun if you are playing a game against the AI just to see how much damage you can inflict. In my PBEM games I would be more than happy to win a slim Marginal Victory. A victory is a victory.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Just to quote myself because I think this is an idea that deserves consideration and I don't believe I'm the one who thought it up. I can't recall who the originator was or when he posted it, some few months ago.

Michael

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

It would though be nice to have some random factor thrown in to avoid the situation that dog6880 brings up. That is, after a game length has been decided on, the program could randomly lengthen or shorten it by 1-5 turns, say, and not tell the player(s). You would only know when the game would end when it announced that the game was over. This would obviate the gaminess of a last-minute rush to the goal line. You could still make an all-out effort late in the game, but you couldn't be sure that your opponent would not be able to reply.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Fatmac]

I played a TCP/IP game last night and my opponent certainly appreciated the extra time (30 turns). By about turn 15 I decimated all of his tanks and halftracks and he was left with a few squads running around the map. I chased those squads down, but not before he took out 3 of my 4 remaing tanks.

The game was seemingly over, but those extra turns cost me a major victory.

[CaSCa]

Michael,

I don't know who posted that originally either, but it is the way that Panzer General (by SSI, I do believe)worked and it worked quite well. Added alot of suspense to the end game when you didn't know whether your last desperate plan would have time to bear fruit. It would also make the last minute crew rush less rewarding since there would be time to counter-attack.

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

The time limit improves gmae play. In CC, you could be moving and directing your troops at the top of the map while all your troops at the bottom of the map are being chopped to little teensy bits from MG42 and mortar fire.

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

No bastard has ever won a war by dying for his country. They won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

[Guest Rob/1]

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

dog6880,

I hear what you are saying. There is no time limit in war. I believe that 60 minutes is the extreme limit for a scenario. Yet, most games can be over quite quickly. The longest one that I played went to 19 turns. I had to surrender due to being out of ammo. (The German player had lots with ammo, so I didn't want a slow death.)

It seems that the tactical situations represented in the CM scale don't need a lot of time. I guess you can stretch it out as long as possible, but your opponent will eventually find you and aggressively try to smash you. afterall is said and done, its controlling the victory locations that is the prize in CM. Its better to get there first with the most.

Jumbo

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actul you can have up to 120 turns, Jumbo. I playered a 90 turn battle and gess what it needed more to be won by ethere side. As for running out of amo thats what renfrocments are for.

[Henri]

If there were no time limit, some players would play the game by hiding in a corner and wait to bushwack the other player (a tactic known as camping in other online games); in real war, an officer has orders, and he does not have the option of disregarding them and playing the camper.

Henri

[MadmaN]

make it a setup option. if you know your opponent, turn off timed game. but if you dont know them keep it on to prevent them from setting up tent. And yeah it is really annoying. Should be an option in single player too. Id lik to just beat the hell out of some AI for about 2 - 3 hours with HUGE masses of infantry in dense woods! MUHAh "slaughter in the sticks"

[dog6880]

ok i see the needs for time limits but i still see the needs for no limit or at least what was a great idea: an unknown limit. it just stinks when troops in the same building just stop the fight. i want to see who wins and i want to either retreat my own troops or hunt the opponent till the last man. sure the victory locations are needed and if it is just bout taking the hill and it is not an operation i guess it is fine to end a game wiht a time limit. but if the possiblillity of having to face those troops in the next battle is there then one should be allowed to fight it out. one can always surrender. and if it is the lone sniper in the woods and you know it then the winner should surrender and say "i know i won and i wont ever be playing you ever again good bye"

PS anyone want ot play a newbie?

[Monte99]

Time limits are absolutely necessary for purposes of the game, and they are not inherently unrealistic. Taking two hours to occupy a strategic location that needed to be taken 15 minutes into a battle isn't quite good enough.

In CM, you have to play with the mindset that you're part of a much larger operation and that you are entrusted with one particular objective in that operation.

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

"Arms are my ornaments, warfare my repose." - Don Quixote

[dog6880]

ok granted but in an operation. say you need to take the victory location in 15 mins. now on the 16th turn you dont have the hill. new objective is to withdraw all your troops as fast as possible. asuming this is an operation this can be a new mission but you cant replace troops or you can to a min. say there is still figthing going on. then those troops in contact will remain in contact and continue to fight. new objective is for the winner of the last battle who took the hill to hnt down the loser. the loser needs to regroup for another attempt at something different.

My problem is why must tehre always be a time limit?

[curih]

First, I'd like to say that i think a time limit is necessary to prevent the ammoless hiding sniper tactic. It is also needed to simulate the limited time you would have to take an objective.

That being said, I can see your point. I don't personally like to hunt down eey last man, but if both players still have significant forces fighting over a VL (it's till in the ? state ) I'd like to be able to see who would eventually win. Taking the VL 5 minutes late is better than not taking it at all.

The solution seems simple, at least for scenerios. A lot of games I've played would declare a victor when preset conditions were met, but offer the option to continue play. When the time runs out, the players could be given the basic AAR with the options End and Continue. If one or both chooses End, then the get the after action map view with everything visible. If the both choose continue, the battle goes on until a cease fire or surrender. Alternativley the continue option could tack on say 5 or 10 turns at the end of which continue would again be an option.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dog6880:

My problem is why must tehre always be a time limit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because this is a game, it's not real life. I wonder if some of you forget that sometimes. We, the armchair batallion commanders, don't have all day to play one lousy game.

Also, don't forget that many units were on a timetable when they attacked. They had to attack at a certain time and had a limited amount of time to get the job done. They had to keep this timetable otherwise other friendly attacking units might have an exposed flank. The time limit is in the game to simulate this.

[dog6880]

time table or non what is five or ten mins in taking a hill nothing gos according ot play in really life and nothing gets done on the min. i like the continue or end option. if there is still a fight to be fought then let it be settled. if some one has a limited amount of real world time then let it be known. "i have to end this game its been going on for too long, i got stuff to do"

the option should be present for those who like to do or die.

[This message has been edited by dog6880 (edited 01-01-2001).]

[ASL Veteran]

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

That being said, I can see your point. I don't personally like to hunt down eey last man, but if both players still have significant forces fighting over a VL (it's till in the ? state ) I'd like to be able to see who would eventually win. Taking the VL 5 minutes late is better than not taking it at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who would eventually win ... well, the person who won is the person who acheived the victory objective within the stated time limit. If the victory objective has not been taken by then, the attacker has failed.

This is a game, and a game has victory conditions. War is not a game, and there are no conditions for 'victory'. A person wins at chess when you have achieved a 'check mate'. In CM you win when the victory conditions for that scenario have been met within the time provided. In war, you take hill 'x' but what does that really mean? You go out and attack hill 'y' tomorrow. Each day is just a continuation of that war that you are participating in. The war doesn't end until the enemy nation surrenders. There is no end ... or shall I say 'victory condition' to a battle where you can just wrap it up and call it a 'war' when you have taken hill 'x'.

A victory condition is an artificial means of giving a gamer purpose - a reason for playing a certain scenario. The victory flags themselves are artificial means of giving a gamer 'purpose' for what he is doing. A time limit is part of the artificial equation that gives the gamer purpose. Without victory conditions, then the game would devolve into games of annihilation only. Sure, some may like games of annihilation, but I personally feel that a little variety every once in a while would be nice.

[Major Tom]

This is the third posting about proposing removing turn limitations. The vast majority of people are for retaining CM's current system of turns, or possibly asking for a randon 1-2 turn difference (5 turns is a bit much!). The elimination of an end turn (I think that this will be the THIRD time I stated this!) is that the attacker can spend ALL of the time that they wanted to prepare their assault, they will not be pressured to rush their attack (like many in history were!). Each of these small battles were dependent on other small engagements. Possibly if this hill isn't secured in 15 minutes then another unit will be cut off, have their flank exposed, or worse.

Without a time limit the defender will gain absolutely nothing in setting up forward defences to delay the attacker. The ONLY goal of the game will be total annihilation. RARELY on a tactical battlefield was annihilation of the enemy the primary desire (Not including Vientam, which proved that this tactic wasn't going to win a war). The goal of a mission was to secure a certain piece of territory within a specific deadline, the tactical annihilation on the battlefield was secondary. Many games can be won by the defender suffering heavy losses, but, denying the VP areas to the attacker. This would mean that the only way a defender could win was to annihilate his enemy (hard to do with only 50% of the attackers points!).