How isTCP/IP play?

[Der Kuenstler]

I've exclusively played PBEM so far but was wondering if you guys thought TCP/IP was better and why. Is it significantly faster? Don't you feel strapped to your chair until the game is over? What size and type battles is it best for?

[Gpig]

You get more immediate pay-back with TCP/IP. Which can be nice.

But the crunch-time between turns is just as long. And depending on your opponent, set-up times can be LONG. PBEM allows you to choose forces, set-up and plan your first moves at your leisure. TCP/IP has a constant clock going.

You are strapped to your chair during a TCP/IP game. It's quite fun. But you can save the game at any time and quit (after agreeing to do so with your opponent) anytime. THen resume the game another night if you'd like.

It's great for ANY type battle. Even operations. But the larger they are point-wise, the harder it's going to be to manage your turns. Especially if you've agreed to a time-limit between turns.

Gpig

[Carl Puppchen]

I have found that smaller battles (meeting engagements) are better for TCP/IP and leave the long, involved games for PBEM.

Usually when we play head to head lots of alcohol is involved so the games are fun but I wouldn't exactly try to play something that involved lots of subtle moves. Also you want to play something w/action for both sides that is kind of short, don't want one side sitting around for 20 turns while the enemy closes in doing nothing.

Also don't forget to taunt the opponent throughout the battle!

[Bonxa]

I usually setup and do first turn moves in PBEM and then move to TCP/IP. It just involves saving the game and then opening it with another play method. That way you can work out a plan with no concern for time.

[PLM]

Most people dont play with the clock, I find it insulting personally, it makes me nervous and I feel rushed.

I usually take my time, and usually my opponent will say to do it if I didnt already. Out of maybe 100 games I had 1 person (few days ago) be a complete ass about rushing me among other cons like making me british with an armoured mix vs his unrestricted defence of almost entirely guns and MGs. I spent all my damn support on mortars and I got 4 but that guy seemed new to the concept of mulitplayer overall :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

TCP/IP I'd recommend over PBEM, I'd never play a PBEM. Its just not the same when you're not making the moves and doing it instantly. Worst of all is doing a PBEM in real time, whats the point? You can always save and reload if you need a break and most of the time if you have a couple hours you can get most size battles in. I guess some people cant do it because they dont like playing constantly for hours but PBEM isnt something I could ever do after TCP/IP.

Usually for boring defences or other things I'll have something else to do. I frequently jump back to windows and browse the internet or chat or read.

[securityguard]

PBEM takes weeks to complete, from what I've seen. Even with fast opponents. Something always comes up. I'm not totally innocent, I've abandoned PBEM's before, but I have yet to successfully complete an entire game over e-mail.

TCP/IP only takes around one hour for a single battle. It keeps you focused the entire time. Almost no one uses the 'turn clock'. No, you are not pressured in any way to do turns. Some of my bigger battles take several minutes per turn - this is why there is a 'save' function so you can return to these huge battles.

TCP/IP is the way to play and I'm not quite sure why people defend PBEM so much (It's probably not being included in CM2, thus the complaints). I realize a lot of people don't have time on their hands, but there are people that do and saving games then returning to them is no problem. I'd rather split up a TCP/IP game over 3 days than play a PBEM over a month.

[Der Kuenstler]

Yeah I just tried a TCP/IP gme and it was pretty fun although it was a lot more action and less thinking and I ended up staying awake until 2:00 AM. Depends on what mood you are in I guess.