Louie the Toad Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 legend42, Could it be that your equating of 'split second timing' and battlefield realism comes from "Hollywood research" ? Such as The Dirty Dozen? Curious Toad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge MC Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 I thing IP is better because is for player's that like to thing fast and is far more realistic, players are giving orders in the heat of the battle like real life and can still enjoy the game, and yes i thing PBEM is gamey and i still like to play those.. dont take it personal PPL [ August 10, 2002, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Jorge MC ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge MC Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 [ August 10, 2002, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Jorge MC ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cull Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Ok.....great.... back to Command and Conquer with you! [ August 10, 2002, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Jack Arilliac ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Originally posted by Elvis: OK..I'll chime in here. My feeling is that a TCP player is a better player than a PBEM only player. Decisions on the battlefield happened quickly. I rarely play TCP with the timer on but you still have the internal timer on because you know someone is on the other end of the connection waiting for you. I have heard of people taking 1/2 hour to an hour to plot a PBEM file. Unless you are playing some kind of HUGE game that amount of time is silly. So to complete my thought the TCP player has to have a better "feel" for the game and tactics needed in battle whereas a PBEM only player is a gamey looking at every nook and crany kinda player. Both the realistic and game playing aspects are being exploited to make up for what is lacking in natural knowledge and instinct of the battle being played.Makes sense but i disagree...i myself have played both, just recently started playing Pbem games as well. Here is my 2 cents, I never took too long plotting my moves in TCP/IP games, honestly what took me the most or same amount of time was watching the turns unfold. I beleive that is where a big part of the beauty of the game is. I happen to enjoy Pbem games alot more since i've tried them, and i take the same amount of time taking my Pbem turns as i did my TCP/IP turns. I tried that T-House ladder, made it up to rank of 19 or 20 or something at one point but it meant nothing to me. There were some fun games and opponents to play, but i found the majority of TCP/IP gamers to be overly competitive wich took alot of the joy from the game for me;being that it is after all a game ;there in lies my point, thats only me. If alot of people prefer that style of gameplay, fantastic, to each their own. Getting back to the question of wich player is "better" neither of the 2 choices presented applies. The great thing about this game is anyone can win a battle against anyone on any given day. When i lose i don't figure it was my mistakes that cost me the battle, i give credit where it is due, to the victor, for we all make mistakes in wins and losses. [ August 10, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shatter Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Originally posted by Gaylord Focker: honestly what took me the most or same amount of time was watching the turns unfold. I beleive that is where a big part of the beauty of the game is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with ya there. I on average watch a turn 3-4 times from a different angle or from a differnet unit or vehicle view. He what I got for, personally I have played both quite extensivley. Probably a little more on the IP side (but never with timer), but it still pretty close. I have been playing CM geeez a month shy of 2 years now. I find the challenge is the same whether it IP or PBEM. Now I will agree that IP gives me more of a oh $hit oh F*&* feeling, or ya take that you ba$tard. I would not call myself excellent at CM but I would say better than average. So I would say if a player is good at CM he is good whether its IP or PBEM. Hey its nice to be back around the old forum, been in lurker mode for quite some time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talenn Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 FWIW, I dont think one group or the other is necessarily 'better', but I think TCP/IP games give a more 'realistic' feel if kept on a reasonable time limit. CM might be criticized for have 'too much action' within the timespan of the scenario, but a LOT of that derives from perfect coordination of forces and perfect deployment and movement. These are items that occur when a player has unlimited time to plot and plan. You dont have to worry about not giving explicit orders to each unit or running out of time before you can plot the perfect movement path when playing PBEM. Often in a TCP/IP game, you have to focus on one area and really spend time there one turn and spend another turn fleshing out orders for another part of the battle. This strikes me as closer to reality where distant troop movements were not 100% coordinated. Company-sized envelopment out of LOS of the other platoons is a piece of cake in CM if you have unlimited time, but in Real Life and in timed play, its not always that easy. Anyways, I think TCP/IP players will have a different skill set than PBEM players and the ability to think on your feet and make SOME sort of decision quickly is closer to the reality of a company/battalion commander. The PBEM players skill set might more closely resemble a regimental/division commander's mindset for planning and execution. Given that CM models the lower level, I'd say that that give the slight nod to the TCP/IP player. Just $.02 Talenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce70 Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Originally posted by legend42: its just my opinion that the best tcip players will beat the best pbemers 8 out of 10 times in any format.I'm not the greatest PBEM player (never player TCP/IP) but I'll challenge you to a game (QB of your choice) and since the format doesn't matter, lets make it PBEM 1 turn per day. You may impose a time limit on your turns if you wish. Now having said that I personally believe that PBEM is not less realistic since having unlimited time and more situational awareness compensates the player for all the advantages that a real life commander has. For example a RL commander has: - A better feel for the terrain since they are there. - intelligent subordinates - feedback from subordniates - no restriction on when orders may be given - no ned to issue orders to every single unit - probably a lot more A TCP/IP game with an unreasonable time limit changes it from a simulation into C&C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wodasini88 Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 muhaha…...everyone is gunna hate me for this...but PBEM games are gamey! TCP IP is more realistic cause you dont have that much time to think about orders in real warfare:P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wodasini88 Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 muhaha…...everyone is gunna hate me for this...but PBEM games are gamey! TCP IP is more realistic cause you dont have that much time to think about orders in real warfare:P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hensworth Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 I'm surprised not to find Hiram and his bag of pop corn in here yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Hunter Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 posted August 09, 2002 08:19 PM by V Good players win games. No matter how they are played! Nah, lucky players win games. Skill only helps to improve luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou2000 Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Never played TCP/IP so cant really comment on that one. However I disagree with the view that PBEM is "gamey" ... its no more gamey than tcp/ip ... in what war/battle was a commander ever given a set number of seconds to make his move ? Whilst IP'ers may be better against the clock ... PBEM'ers probably make better use of terrain. PBEM or TCP/IP ... both commanders have the same advantages & disadvantages ... therefore No advantage ! Just a damn good game If people want to experience "real war" the only way to do it is with a gun in your had and the knowledge that you may soon be dead ! ... and yeah I have ! Lou2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Originally posted by legend42: thanks for all your valued opinons, im not trying to insult anybody, its just my opinion that the best tcip players will beat the best pbemers 8 out of 10 times in any format. I knew this would stir the pot!Do you tailgate a lot in traffic, and flip-off people who drive more slowly than you do? I notice that 'pot-stirrers' seem to have some serious issues about their virility. It seems that if they can get people arguing about 'who's the best player', they can shut down the voices in their head asking them to get the tape measure out again and try measuring it from a slightly different angle. I'm after thinking you spend too much time worrying that yours isn't big enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 ROFL..... (Pop corn all over the floor).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naja Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 After the first 30 seconds of looking at the map I begin to form a plan. I suppose like Steve said a long time back It is all made up on the first move...After that either my plan works out or not. One thing missing in this poll is Attack or Defense one will take more time for a set up and pay in the end the other you can't afford to be reckless. I'm real curious after years of play in both situations is "luck coded". I find I can go with an attack or hold a turn or two on the "luck". I find the TH guys to be very straight forward and understand the game unlike some games I have "picked up".... Oh well the best player who knows.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Legend42, I'd like to point out, if it hasn't been said already, that TCP/IP play on the defense isn't very time challenging. Maybe in the setup phase, but that's it. Once play begins the defender only needs to make a few commands per turn, typically. The attacker is the one who is usually under the gun. It sounds like you play a lot of meeting engagements where both sides would be pressed for time. The problem is that meeting engagements weren't as common in WWII as they are in CM. In the vast majority of historical battles there is an attacker and a defender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend42 Posted August 10, 2002 Author Share Posted August 10, 2002 thats correct, my opinion only applies to both players in a meeting engagement and the attacker in a attck/def game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend42 Posted August 10, 2002 Author Share Posted August 10, 2002 hey seanachai thank you for your valued opinion,you have added so much to this topic that I really look forward with great anticipation to all your future comments. your one of those guys who puts up a topic and gets 0 responses arent you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 No, Seanachai is one of those people who starts a topic and generates hundreds of 300 post threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Originally posted by legend42: thats correct, my member only applies to both players in a measuring engagement and the attacker in a attck/def game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tanklord Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 If you want speed go play a RTS or even better a FPS. I'm sure some counter-strike player on crack can plot his turns faster than you can say "timer". Would that make him the best CM player? Not to mention that when the timlimit/turn gets real low (1 sec or less) a monkey would be equal with anyone else. So Timelimit --> 0, Good Player --> Monkey. So bascially youre saying that TCP/IP players, under time constraint, are more monkey like... So, whos youre MONKEY?!? [ August 10, 2002, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: The Tanklord ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Originally posted by The Tanklord: If you want speed go play a RTS or even better a FPS. I'm sure some counter-strike player on crack can plot his turns faster than you can say "timer". Would that make him the best CM player? Not to mention that when the timlimit/turn gets real low (1 sec or less) a monkey would be equal with anyone else. So Timelimit --> 0, Good Player --> Monkey. So bascially youre saying that TCP/IP players, under time constraint, are more monkey like... So, whos you're MONKEY?!?Well obviously!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 so silly. [ August 10, 2002, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: xerxes ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_Hiram Sedai Posted August 10, 2002 Share Posted August 10, 2002 Thanks, Schrullenhaft! I now have new sig material. hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts