PBEM in CMx2

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Richie:

[...] Maybe for some of us CMx1 is an old dog that's kept us company for years and we don't want to see it put down, even if the new pup is full of life and promise, bites and chews, like the old dog used to be years ago. We like the old dog, she's become a good friend. [...]

Well said, that.

The good news is: CMx1 will remain on my hard drive anyway! I can still play it even after CMx2 is released. I'll devote all my CMx1 time to PBEM while enjoying the new and improved CMx2.

A win/win case, no?

Cheers

[Folbec]

Rather than whine... try to discuss a workaround

At the simplest level PBEM = hotseat + the capacity to save the game between turns (at the password prompt for exemple).

Imagine now the save game grows a lot, to more than 10Mb (many providers limit attachements to 5Mb to cut down on spam) => no mail possible.

How would you do to play asynchronously ? For techies (personnal ftp server, web server) ? For non techies ?

All suggestions welcomed (specially for the second case).

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

So you do agree that after all these (dog) years you still get more for a copy than the average gaming company around ?

Sure, but you're comparing apples to oranges. Most retail games don't last more than a couple of months. Only the big hits hang around significantly longer than this, and they also tend to protect their price point a lot longer too.

Note also that one of few competitors prices their games significantly higher than us, another competitor slightly higher. There is also a warsim company I can think of charges 3 times as much as we do. So when comparing more or less apples to apples we start out costing less to the consumer.

Not that it matters... even if we charged 3x as much the per hour of entertainment cost to you is ridiculously small.

I just hope we band of brothers have not become the fringe group weighing your down

Not at all. Well, at least so long as we ignore you guys from time to time One of the interesting challenges for us, as designers, is to create a product that appeals to the hardcore gamer and yet also appeals to normal, well balanced, sane people too This is good for everybody.

For us, the creators, it ensures that we can make a living off of what we love doing. It also provides us with enough resources to make the games we think up instead of having to reduce designs to fit within a much smaller budget.

For you, the hardcore wargamer, the cross over appeal brings in fresh blood which in part helps offset the smaller numbers of hardcore wargamers from an economic standpoint. But it does more than that... it keeps the customer base new, fresh, and diverse... which in turn brings in new ideas, new challenges for multi-player, and in general a broader perspective. Also, it keeps us from moving away to more mass-market type games, but better still gives you better games than you would ordinarily get if we were "just scraping by" with a staff of 2 people.

As long as we can figure out how to appeal to both the hardcore and general gamer you guys are all set. We still feel up to that challenge, so no worries

Steve

[dieseltaylor]

I have played a lot of TCP/IP - probably 50+ games from the days of CMBO. Now both my opponent and I are on broadband we have recently started playing a small game 1500 points per evening 2 hours approx. using a 500kb upload it goes quickly with 2 minute orders.

However it is not satisfactory in that with relatively small number of units luck is very important. Personally 2000 points + tends to take out the luck but the number of units etc begins to become unmanageable. As for games other than ME's they are unplayable as the attacker needs precision to attack. The defender with less to do can maximise every units usefulness.

Whilst TCP/iP can be fun it certainly does not translate well for larger battles or complex battles. I assume that not a huge number of posters have played much TCP/IP - if they have nobody has called on it as the way to go for the future.

If it is played with Platoon level orders only etc it could be bearable but not necessarily great fun ......

but it is BFC's baby to do with as they wish.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sure, but you're comparing apples to oranges.

Perhaps. To us mere mortals a game is a game is a game.

As long as we can figure out how to appeal to both the hardcore and general gamer you guys are all set. We still feel up to that challenge, so no worries

OK.

You have made several remarks which allude (directly or indirectly) no actual coding has been done yet. When can we expect roll out ?

[Battlefront.com]

Actually, Charles has been coding CMx2 for over a year now. But all that stuff has been core engine functionality and graphics. The design process is now going on... almost 2 years I think. Wow... time flies. And for those who are paying attention, yes we did start CMx2 before we finished CMAK.

We're still aiming for winter 2005/2006 for the first release of CMx2.

Steve

[melb_will]

Lets' face it people are only whinging about PBEM for two reasons.

1. The AI in CMx1 sucked. I'm sorry BF but it's true. The AI was alright for a few quick battles if you put it as defender and gave it a big experience boost. But otherwise the AI wasn't at the same level as the rest of the game. Sure this is true of most games but i'm just telling the reasons.

2. PBEM was the only personal contact that most of the members of this board had in their otherwise drab meaningless little lives PBEM is social that's what makes it so good, those sarcastic comments attached with turns, the misdirection capable, ie oh no you shot my King Tiger (hehe only a Mark IV)

Cheers

Will

[Gpig]

1. Well, there will never be an A.I. that will measure up to humans in OUR lifetimes. So in my opinion, the A.I. is pretty good.

2. Agreed.

Gpig

[Salkin]

Originally posted by melb_will:

Lets' face it people are only whinging about PBEM for two reasons.

1. The AI in CMx1 sucked. I'm sorry BF but it's true. The AI was alright for a few quick battles if you put it as defender and gave it a big experience boost. But otherwise the AI wasn't at the same level as the rest of the game. Sure this is true of most games but i'm just telling the reasons.

2. PBEM was the only personal contact that most of the members of this board had in their otherwise drab meaningless little lives PBEM is social that's what makes it so good, those sarcastic comments attached with turns, the misdirection capable, ie oh no you shot my King Tiger (hehe only a Mark IV)

Cheers

Will

1. The AI wasn't bad in any way. It's a very time consuming advanced process coding an AI for a game like CM.

Steve has replied to this many many times .

//Salkin

Superlurker

[BFCElvis]

Wow......winter 2005/2006. Didn't expect to hear that kind of timetable. If memory serves, with CMBO we had some screen shots by now and if I'm not mistaken it would be about this time that the Fionn/Martin AAR came out....Not for nuttin...just throwing that out there...chewing the fat...diverting the pestering to a new area......

[Battlefront.com]

CM's AI sucked... compared to a Human. That's true. But compared to other AI in similarly complex games? Pretty damned good. CM's AI is like a CD compared to other people's 8 Track Tapes

The reason why you aren't getting any screenshots is because... well... we rushed out shots for CMBO to disuade people from thinking it was just vaporware. We'd have rather kept out of the limelight for a lot longer, especially because we grossly underestimated how long it was going to take to complete (mostly because we couldn't stop making improvements ). This time 'round we're being a lot more deliberate about what we do and not do. Screenshots and the like won't be coming for a little while longer.

Steve

[melb_will]

Oops probably didn't make that clear enough. Yes as was mentioned above the AI sucked compared to a human, not when compared to other games.

Cheers

Will

[K_Tiger]

Hi,

isnt it possible to create a programm like a common messenger with abilitys to send and recive automaticaly files? Maybe as implementation for icq or other programms?

[Erwin Rommel]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

Hi,

isnt it possible to create a programm like a common messenger with abilitys to send and recive automaticaly files? Maybe as implementation for icq or other programms?

That would definately solve the PBEM issue if PBEM was found to be unusable.

You save the file and send it by an IM type program(maybe built into the game)to whoever you are playing against.This way you are not stuck to having only TCP/IP to use or hotseating and can still play against others like you do using PBEM.Maybe the program could hold a list of the names of your opponents who you have played against so you can keep track of what turn you are on other information like that.It could use the TCP/IP connection to send the file so size would be a non issue in this case.Dont know how difficult it would be to implement such a system but it would definately be worth a look into.

[PAEZ]

Wow, I would really hope, that Pbem makes the game. I have nothing against the AI on either of the three games. But CM against humans is super, and it complements the AI in ways that not other War game does. I can only image how difficult it would be to make this work again But it is a formula that works ummm for me any ways

[Haohmaru]

I reckon there's a very good chance battlefront will set up their online server for the next combat mission game, and that should make things a lot easier for finding opponents. After all, they are already setting up something of this nature for DIF which is delaying the release significantly, do you think they would go to all this trouble just for one game? I reckon that's going to be a trial run for when the next big game gets released. If they set up their own server with possibilities for instantly joining games and finding opponents, and possibly saving games and returning to them later, at least that will be some compensation for losing pbem, if that happens.

[Andreas]

I don't agree that the current AI sucks. There are things is does better than others, that much is true. Also, it depends on what you are using it for. QB ME, forget it. Scenario designed for against-AI play, a whole different story. I played one of my own (unpublished - ME, Ai forces slight advantage in numbers but will arrive at objective last) scenarios last weekend, and the AI gave me a real run for my money. That was because I had not played for so long against it that I had quite forgotten how it behaves, and therefore I was acting with no regard for its behaviour.

Game ended with a major victory for me, and the AI executed a human wave attack in the end (which was very fitting though), but that overstates the real success. I had lost about one-third of my forces, my main support weapons, and everybody was low on ammo. IOW - there was no way my guys could have held on to the objective.

I was pretty pleased with that. The high point was when the AI executed a pincer attack on my flank platoon, wiping it out completely.

[Tero]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

Hi,

isnt it possible to create a programm like a common messenger with abilitys to send and recive automaticaly files? Maybe as implementation for icq or other programms?

Forget messenger. Using it is an open invitation to take over your machine. IIRC the latest version of Skype has a file transfer function added to it.

Not that I would prefer it over a common FTP transfer for obvious safety reasons.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I don't agree that the current AI sucks. [snip] Scenario designed for against-AI play, a whole different story.

Speaking as someone who has still done no better than a draw in Cemetery Hill vs. the AI, I have to say that the AI can be quite a challenge in properly designed scenarios. Or, put another way, the sucky player in CH is not the AI.

I find it *decent* in probes with + 50%, too.

[British Tommy]

I play CM via PBEM 95% of the time. If the new game comes out without a PBEM option then sorry, I wont buy it.

Why? Simple, a human player is far superior than any AI you could come out with. You could play the same scenario against a human player and come out with different results.Against the AI you know what it will do and where it will attack.

[Battlefront.com]

Against the AI you know what it will do and where it will attack.

Against the CMx1 AI, yes... not true for the CMx2 AI. Whether the challenge will be enough to satisfy "Human only" players or not, no way to tell at this point. But CMx2's AI will be quite different in any case.

Steve

[Mace]

Originally posted by melb_will:

1. The AI in CMx1 sucked.

That's really a matter of personal opinion.

An AI is normally predictable and less prone in taking risks than a human opponent, but IMHO the CM series AI did the job OK and was far better that that of equivalent tactical level wargames.

Mace

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Mace:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by melb_will:

1. The AI in CMx1 sucked.

That's really a matter of personal opinion.

An AI is normally predictable and less prone in taking risks than a human opponent, but IMHO the CM series AI did the job OK and was far better that that of equivalent tactical level wargames.

Mace </font>

[kipanderson]

Hi,

When it comes to the AI, I think Steve may underrate his own product

The Strategic AI does have problems, too aggressive for its own good in defence would be one example. It ambushes very well, but tries to be too cunning by counter-attacking and then just runs onto the guns of the attacker.

However, the TacAI, the AI controlling the behaviour of the individual units, I think is outstanding. Given the orders units have, given the prevailing situation and given the extreme stress the real world men in the units would be under, I am constantly stunned by how realistically the virtual men behave.

Remember, due to stress and confusion in the real world tragic and seemingly stupid mistakes will be quite frequent. Squads running into houses for cover when they should have run jumped into the ditch, freezing in place when they should have run into a house … and so on.

It is important that there is some “random error” in the AI controlling the individual units. It’s more realistic .

All the best,

Kip.

PS. I do agree that human v human is certainly the way to play CM. In fact the better you know someone, the more fun it is to slaughter their men

[Sergei]

I suppose you've never seen the 'chicken dance of death'?