Is pause-able real-time the eventual goal?

[kipanderson]

Is pause-able real-time the eventual goal?

Hi,

First I would like to start with my usual disclaimer that this is in no way a criticism of the CMBO. It is a stunning game in all respects and I regard myself as hugely lucky that a team of the quality of Steve and Charles, and the others, should have produced what is my “dream simulation”. For me, given my age, this means a full computer version of Squad Leader. CMBO is truly breath taking.

However, if we look to the future am I correct in assuming that a pause-able real-time version of CM is the eventual goal?

I am in no way interested in RTS games, not that there is anything wrong with them, just not my interest. What I am after and what CM delivers in bucket loads is a “realistic tactical simulation” of company/battalion V company/battalion level ground combat. What BTS achieve within CMBO with a minimum spec. of P200 is unbelievable and the semi-real time system they use works perfectly, for me anyway. However, also being a fan of Steel Beasts I have experienced the advantages of real-time tactical simulations. There is no denying it does add a welcome element of “stress”. I would not be interested in a real-time tactical simulation that was as realistic as CM unless it was pause-able. The reason is that in any such game one plays the role of battalion commander, company commander, platoon commander and even to some extent squad and tank commander. Clearly if the tactical environment is “realistic” then the workload is totally unmanageable in real-time unless there is the odd pause. Nothing very original in this view.

Looking to the future, in the perfect world, I would like to see a version of CM that is real-time but within which there are pre-planed pauses. In effect what one would be doing is stringing together 3-5 minutes of worth of the current one-minute action movies followed by a 1-3 minute pause. Of course, with the ability to give orders during the 3-5 minute action phases.

Given what I have read about real-time requiring about three times the processing power for a game of similar scale and AI of similar quality, I believe BTS “could”, if they wished, go for real-time with CMII. I should add that this is a very “unqualified” view in the sense that I know nothing about computers, the above is just a guess based on what I have read in this forum.

I know this is not a new topic but we all like to “lobby” for our “number one wish” in future versions of CM.

Thanks for your time,

All the best,

Kip.

[Olle Petersson]

Is it a goal?

No, unless you'll confine yourself to command a single platoon.

With the TCP/IP comes an option for time constraints, and this is as good as it will ever get (when it's there for hotseat and single player too).

Cheers

Olle

[Col Deadmarsh]

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're proposing Kip. You want an orders phase simliar to what we have now during a TCP/IP game and yet you also want to be able to give orders during the game too? I assume whatever orders given during the game are for "minor changes" to the orders you gave at the pauses, correct?

But how would this work? If you pause the game, then your opponent gets to move to, right? And vice versa. Well, where would that end? Each player might be pausing every 15 seconds or so meaning pauses every 7 seconds. I just don't see how this would work.

A game can never truly be "real-time" if you have to pause the game to give orders. I'm afraid that what we have here is the best it will get on this kind of command level. There are just too many units to control, even in a 800 pt. game to make this work in real-time.

[gunnergoz]

Just to add my 2 bits: I like it just the way it is...don't "fix" what's working well, fer cryin' out loud!

[Scooter]

Is pause-able real-time the eventual goal?

God, I hope not! :eek: :eek:

We-go as it is in CM is far, far superior IMO a wargaming method of play. Unhistorical and unrealistic results are what would happen if CM went real-time. I won't ever buy another RT game, no matter what the subject was. Real-time would be a giant step backwards.

To each their own, I say. If someone likes RT, then there are a gazillion RT games out there for them.

Keep CM the way it is, Please.

[Michael Emrys]

I don't think BTS is interested in real-time at all with relation to CM. It would require a fundamental recoding of the entire game engine, I believe, and that is just not in the cards for the foreseeable future. All this got hashed out two or three years ago when the subject first came up.

Col. Deadmarsh has pointed out the difficulties associated with on-line play. I would like to mention one with my own solitaire play. You mention pausing for one minute every 3-5 minutes. At the moment I am playing a reinforced battalion-sized QB. It takes me an hour minimum to figure out what orders I want to give my troops and then give them. It then takes me anywhere up to half an hour to watch the movie and digest what has gone on.

I realize that I am probably an unusually deliberate player, but I cannot believe that a battle of this size can be played enjoyably within the time constraints you propose by a majority of players.

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

Whats wrong with 1 minute turns?

AND simultaneous combat resolution

This system Works GREAT

Maybe it actually is RTS with a pause every minute, its all just a matter of perspective.

-tom w

[K_Tiger]

The "pause" style he means, i would like to see in games like close combat in a larger scale. I know what he mean, he would play and not sit back and show a hollywood movie..

Its a good idea, i hade it long time before and hope someone made such a game. Not changing CM, but for a hole new one. Not only a pause button, also a stepless speedcustomizer to slow down the game insteed to stop it complete to save the "Battleatmosphere".

[Fred]

Steve said it again and again,

CM will NEVER go real time. Never. Neither pausable nor anything else.

Thank you Steve.

Fred

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

...At the moment I am playing a reinforced battalion-sized QB. It takes me an hour minimum to figure out what orders I want to give my troops and then give them. It then takes me anywhere up to half an hour to watch the movie and digest what has gone on.

I realize that I am probably an unusually deliberate player, but I cannot believe that a battle of this size can be played enjoyably within the time constraints you propose by a majority of players.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is precisely the reason I don't play TCP/IP. It's too much like playing real time and frankly, you lose some nice things about the game when you play that style. For one, you can't plot your moves and then re-think them over in your mind because there's no time to do that.

I look at CM as a WWII 21st Century chess game. So, I revel in the fact that I get to take my time when moving, making sure I have my strategy right before sending out the turn.

I also love to spend 10-20 minutes watching the movie. You can't do that on TCP/IP either.

I've learned to love these aspects of the game that you can't get with real-time, instead of comparing the two to try to find out which one's better.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Wow! RT is not popular amongst CM fans. Strangely, as I say in my post, it is not popular with me either. The only computer games I play are CM and Steel Beasts. That is because I rate them as serious tactical simulations, and of course, they are fun.

But for those that say realistic RT war games are not possible Steel Beasts shows that they are even at the scale of battalion V battalion which is how I like to play Steel Beasts.

The US Army has bought 1100 copies of SB for use at West Point and a new version is on its way. I subscribe to the US Army’s own “in house” magazine Armor and in there the review of SB raves about the game for training purposes.

The reason I am going on about SB so much is to reinforce the point that RT games can produce a “more realistic” environment than non-RT games, if done properly. This is certainly the view of the US Army. RT can add to the stress factor in a semi-realistic manner.

In the system I advocated, and others have before me, players would have the option before each game to pre-set the length of the action moves and the length of the pauses. So if someone wished they could play the game with one-minute action moves and a maximum of one-hour pauses if that was their preference. The only difference would be that players could also give orders during the action moves.

Anyway I am quite happy with CM as it is; I am as big a fan as anyone is. When the demo came out I posted my praises under the title “Hype justified”. But if CMII is to have a minimum system requirement of say, P800, and is not to be RT what will all the processor power be used for? I can think of quite a few new features and more AFVs in a game, of course. However, it seems to me there will still be spare processing power there if it does not go RT. Steve and Charles will have there plans; I am just very curious to know what they are.

I will have to wait like everyone else.

All the best,

Kip.

[Triumvir]

COL Deadmarsh, I actually have the opposite reason for playing TCP/IP at company or sub-company levels. It forces you to think on the fly, like a commander would. It allows you to seize initiative from the other player by cutting into their decision cycle.

Of course, I play exclusively speed chess, and prefer 2 minute games...

With an unlimited setup time, I find that I can plan the conduct of the entire game and then continue with my plans on 2 minute turns.

Of course, this continuation usually leaves my tanks burning on the ridgelines and my infantry slaughtered in the open, but hey, friction happens, right? 8)

[Michael Emrys]

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

Hi,

Wow! RT is not popular amongst CM fans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not necessarily the case. If I could pause the game anywhere for as long as I want, I could get into that. But I can't think of any way to make that usable for the people who like to play against live opponents.

The other way to make real time workable for all players is to design a new game that presents the battle entirely from the point of view of one character, presumably some level of commander. This becomes more of a sim than a strategy game, unless you are playing on the level of division level or above and can watch the situation develop on your maps for hours before you have to give orders, or hop in your jeep to personally observe some part of the battle (but be careful you don't get shelled or captured!).

Michael

[Olle Petersson]

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

But if CMII is to have a minimum system requirement of say, P800, and is not to be RT what will all the processor power be used for?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's no problem to "hit the ceiling" as it is.

I've got a PIII/800 (with 256MB RAM) and it typically takes 5-10 minutes to calculate all data for a single turn in one of the medium sized battles I've created.

What really bogs down the computer is those about 15 tanks and a dozen towed guns having a shoot out while some 20 transport vehicles move around, all visible the entire turn.

I guess that Steel Beasts use som much simplified algorithms to calculate gunnery and other stuff.

Cheers

Olle

[Scooter]

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

Steve said it again and again,

CM will NEVER go real time. Never. Neither pausable nor anything else.

Thank you Steve.

Fred<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Thank you Steve.

[Gen-x87]

You can already set time limits on TCP games. Sometimes I like it in smaller battles where you can manange your turns in 5 mins. But these are never above 2000 point games.

I once played a 1250 point ME in TCP that had a time limit set to 2 mins. It sucked raw donkey ballz. I was running around like I was in Starcraft all over again. I did not like it at all.

5 mins is perfect for me and most of my opponents. It usually helps make sure the game actually gets finished in 1 night

Gen

[Triumvir]

Recon-pull is great on an operational scale. But for company level games, i.e. anything less than 1000 pts, you can pretty much tell where everything is going to happen during setup by careful observance of terrain.

So long as setup time is unlimited, you can prepare your course of action exactly like a commander would; then you have to react only half as quickly, with n-times more recon as he can.

(Incidentally, bookmarkable points is something I'd like to see in CMII -- being able to jump from one location to another instantaneously so that you can, for example, coordinate a company assault on one hill, while the armoured element sneaks through the cracks in the woods)

This also gives you the opportunity to overtake your opponent's decision cycle and force a decision on him; if you can think faster and prepare faster, you can hammer your opponent.

I don't agree that 2 minute turns are like Starcraft - throughout Starcraft you constantly have to manage the resource battle, something that you don't need to worry about in CM.

Conversely, though, for anything more than a company strength battle (i.e. 1250 or more points) I'd rather see unlimited turn limits. One man can juggle a company in his head in its entirety; it's a bit harder once it goes beyond that.

[SMERSH]

Testing out my new ID.....

Anyway, At first what I thought kip was proposing was along the lines of what's possible in Baldur's Gate. BG and BGII are real-time RPGs, but playing them as such would be murder. So at anytime you can pause the action, issue orders, and then unpause and have your character and party carry them out. Of course, your only controlling about 5 people. And while this method of play would work well in single play, it would be almost impossible in TCP/IP games

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: SMERSH ]

[JasonC]

No.

Short and simple.

Strategy games have turns so that the decisions made by the rival commanders, and the interaction between them, will determine the outcome of the game.

Strategy game design is not sim design. It is harder, and an art not an engineering problem.

Making a sim is easy, making a good strategy game is hard. Chess and Go are good strategy games, but simulate nothing. First person shooters are "sims" at least in a fantasy, action movie sense, but are lousy strategy games. So are RT"S" games, which have less depth of game-play than checkers. I am not kidding. Try beating an expert checker player your first time out.

Continual revision of decisions equals practically no consequence to intellectual mistakes in orders. Or, it can only produce consequences if the player loses control of his forces generally, which is boring and reduces to a movie.

Some increment of action must depend on past decisions of the players, without being able to take them back. For example, in chess, if you touch a piece you must move it. A chess game in which each player took back his moves after seeing the opponent's response would be a lousy game. "Oh, someone shot at me. Hit pause. Now let's tweak every order for a hour, then allow another 5 ticks off the clock". That is not strategy.

"Real time" "strategy" is a contradiction in terms. And there is, incidentally, nothing "real" about it either. A player is not 25 seperate officers and sergeants making decisions in parallel, and is never going to be.

Everyone who knows nothing about game design is forever trying to turn strategy games into sims. To choreograph the moves of units. To reduce player control to the nullity that any single man's decisions actually are in the middle of an enourmous battle. To substitute programming and eye candy for game design skill and depth of play. This is why most of the computer wargames ever made have fallen far short of the old board game genre in game play.

They have generally had greater playability, there only saving point. But the number of real successes can be counted on the fingers. More successful wargame designs appeared in a typical year in board form in the heyday of the late 70s through late 80s, than successful computer wargames ever.

BTS figured this out a long time ago, with TacOps among others. The simul-plotted move system was proven from board wargames, especially for tactical combat (air, ships, and individual man ground combat).

Essentially every successful computer wargame has used systems previously proven in game-design terms. The machine allows bookkeeping functions of various kinds to the handled more easily and vastly improves playability and "immersive" feel. But it is not a substitute for good game-system design and never will be.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I am a veteran of the broad games of the 70s, remember the great operational games by SPI, and I agree with 90% of what has been said by those that do not want to see CM go RT. However, I do not agree 100%.

Clearly this is all just personal opinion, but for me CM is a simulation. I mean simulation in the sense that it sets out to deliver as realistic an environment as possible and to present the player with realistic tactical problems and a realistic set of options for dealing with the problems. i.e. a modern version, set in the 1990s, “could” be used for tactical training by the military. Having seen the games the US military use I believe this to be the case.

I agree that up to and including CM all computer wargames that have come close to being of acceptable standard have been turn based. However, I believe the reason for this is nothing in the inherent superiority of turn based games, it is simply a computer power question. Until very recently computers did not have the power to handle RT, realistic wargames. This is the reason why quality wargames have all been turn based, in my view, however little that may be worth.

We have “just” reached the stage at which this is no longer the case. Steel Beasts does deliver a “realistic” RT wargame at a scale very similar to CM. The AI is not nearly as “full” or “complete” as in CM and there are many reasons why I can see that a RT version of CM would require vastly more processing power than SB does.

If one had the “option” of the ability to give orders during the action movies, and the “option” to pre-set at the start of a game that each action movie should last, say, five minutes instead of one minute I feel CM would become more realistic.

We are all agreed that “if” CM were RT it would have to be pause-able because in a realistic tactical environment one player could not cope with an entire battalion without pauses. However I agree with the military that RT does add to the “reality” of a wargame in that it does deliver semi-realistic stress that is otherwise missing.

I would not wish to remove any features from CM in order to have the option of RT play. But one day when computers can handle it, I believe the option to play CM in RT would be a plus.

Presently I only play CM and Steel Beasts and will be adding TacOps to that with version 4, when it comes out.

CM is a stunning game as it is and for those of us that enjoy realistic wargames these are good times with or without a RT version of CM.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. I would also like to see CMII deal with modern warfare, 1970s followed by present day, but that will not happen either. We cannot all have what we want, and that includes me!

[Mannheim Tanker]

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

The "pause" style he means, i would like to see in games like close combat in a larger scale. I know what he mean, he would play and not sit back and show a hollywood movie..

Its a good idea, i hade it long time before and hope someone made such a game. Not changing CM, but for a hole new one. Not only a pause button, also a stepless speedcustomizer to slow down the game insteed to stop it complete to save the "Battleatmosphere".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The old Microprose strategy Crusade series (eg Crusade in Europe) used this very setup. You commanded entire armies by giving orders at the division/brigade level. The units followed your orders in accelerated real time, but the orders weren't immediately executed (like changing orders in CM). If things got too hectic, you could always pause the game (it was accelerated time after all). On a C64 at that! It was a great strategy game all around for its time.

TOAW was a great game, but it would have benefited immensely had they implemented the accelerated RT gameplay. It completely elimintated the artificial "breaks" in gameplay that even CM has. For games at the scale of CM, accerated RT is unacceptable, however.

Good comparisons and contrasts, Jason.

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]

[Zulu]

The marketplace will decide if WWII RTS games are viable.

For what it's worth WWII Online is in late beta testing and is supposed to be out fairly soon. So we will have WWII based on the individual soldier. I know I would like to see CM 7 with true multiplayer functionality.

And GI Combat is not dead. This will give us CC in 3D

Will they be good? Who knows. Are they a good thing? Yes. Because I'm sure that even BTS will admit that competition is a good thing. The more people we get interested in our niche area, the better.