Who are the better players poll?Pbemers or Tcipers?

[McAuliffe]

Originally posted by NightGauntt:

To CM player:

"People who say TCP is more realistic because you don't have much time in real warfare don't understand what they are talking about....."

wrong.

Micromanaging ends up exploiting the biggest (but understandably unavoidable) flaw in the game. Universal spotting.

If your infantry spot a tank, your tank 1 km away would NOT know about it. Therefore, when you move your tank to take advantage of that situation, you are exploiting a flaw.(...)

Hey, the game is indeed not a perfect sim of battleconditions, but that flaw is compensated by the one minute turn base system that delays your reaction on imminent threads. On the other hand when you speak about micro-management, what about the fact that every unit in real time can decide for itself whether to go in hiding, sneak in that building, look for a hull down positon, while you as a player in CM have to determine what immediate action each unit under your command should take and plot that down in consecutive moves.

I don't spend much time on general strategy, but on the other hand I try to plot extensively when my infantry meets e.g. enemy in the woods. A well plotted deployment can decide on the outcome of that bushfight. And I - as a player-commander need time for that - while in real time conditions, the men would make up their minds for themselves simultaneously.

You make sound it like the player, that is faster with the mouse, is a better CM player, while I guess it was just the goal of CM to avoid that click skills decide on winning or losing.

[Grisha]

NightGauntt,

My issue with ‘timed’ games is that they fly in the face of logic sometimes. If I were to send a platoon towards an area that they knew had an enemy mg nest or infantry gun you can be fairly certain that I would be receiving word of this situation via comms/runners very shortly. Hence, my rushing to make orders that are poorly based on my intelligence picture – since what my subunits spot will be general knowledge in some timely manner – is illogical, and poor leadership. If a platoon under my command sees an enemy position, the rest of the command will be aware of it in time. Certainly not to the degree as it exists in CM now, but it is inevitable. I believe the primary reason for placing a timer for TCP/IP games in CM was because some people are very impatient, and this gave them a means of moving the game along a bit faster.

Another example of a tactical RTS is ‘Close Combat’.

[Atlas_TH]

In my experience TCIPers are, in general, better players.

TCIPer are able to play more games in a given time period, allowing them to learn the game at a faster pace and giving them the advantage over time.

When I played PBEM, I played five or six games at a time that would last for about 2-3 weeks each. When I played TCIP, I played two or three games a night. I learned the game much faster.

Be it Quick Battle, Modified Quick Battle or scenario, I'd bet on the TCIPer every time.

[Combat Opinion Staff]

Points have already been made on who the better players are. Aside from that, for me, TCP/IP ladder games with a timer are more engrossing, exciting, intense, etc. This adds up to maximum enjoyment for me. Others get maximum enjoyment with a different formula.

Swamp

[NightGauntt]

to McAuliffe

"You make sound it like the player, that is faster with the mouse, is a better CM player, while I guess it was just the goal of CM to avoid that click skills decide on winning or losing."

huh?? I make no such statements. Click skills have nothing to do with CM. If you read all 3 of my posts, I have made my opinion very clear that TIME is an important factor in THINKING ability of a player. If you have all day to get a cup of coffee, eat a bagel, etc, you will probably be able to figure out a lot of possible solutions to a problem. If you are playing without that unlimited time ability, you are playing a MUCH MORE DIFFICULT game.

As I also stated, I don't play with time limits set, I know the players I play against play realistically, not analyzing each turn for hours. Therefore, I know if I try to affect their decision making abilities by forcing issues in a game I am playing a possibly effective strategy; vs playing some one who will take an un realistic amount of time to do a turn which in turn limits realistic strategies.

To Grisha:

in your example, if you want to play realistically, DON'T react to any new intel you receive for 3-6 turns. That would be at least some amount of time that units not in direct contact could possibly learn about a new enemy unit in the area.

Because CM is "real time" in other words, you play each real second; you would NOT know information for 3+ turns minimum unless you were in direct contact. And that is being generous. Consider that a coy of infantry would probably have maybe 3 radios total?

Its very simple: The ability to sit and look at a situation for long amounts of time gives you a lot more options.

For someone pushing the pace of combat, trying to force the opponent to make decisions and hopefully make a mistake, the ability for that opponent to spend unrealistic amounts of time looking at the battle removes a realistic tactc.

"If a platoon under my command sees an enemy position, the rest of the command will be aware of it in time. Certainly not to the degree as it exists in CM now, but it is inevitable. "

EXACTLY

Those 3+ minutes are HUGE because:

1. It takes time to react

2. I now have the initiative because you are reatcting

3. I will have moved and you intel will be false.

That little space in between local knowledge and global knowledge is where the battle can be decided.

its kind of off topic, but intelligence is where the battle is usually won/lost. The longer you can look at a map, the more intel you will gather.

[NightGauntt]

btw i think i said it before, but to re itterate.

I don't think that players playing with some sort of time are better.

i think they are playing a more difficult game

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

People who say TCP is more realistic because you don't have much time in real warfare don't understand what they are talking about...

I didn't read the whole thread, so if anyone else brought up this OBVIOUS answer to the question then I'm glad someone else is sensible.

If you were foolish enough to read the whole thread you would find that yes it has been raised before but some people just don't get it.

Anyway because I like a good debate I will continue to try and make the point...

Just because your infantry see the tank, your tank 2 kms away doesn't immediatly know its there and turn to get that perfect hull down position on where the enemy tank is heading to.

You have hundreds of soldiers to see things, but this is WW2, you have maybe 4 soldiers in a coy that can communicate anything. And out of those 4, maybe 1 can communicate with the person you need a minute or 2 after you spot something. Not immediatly.

In CM you can only issue orders at the end of a turn (up to one minute delay) further there is an order delay depending on command etc. This simulates imperfect communication, you don't need to simulate it again (if you think the order delay needs to be extended that is another issue). Furthermore a RL tank commander is intelligent enough to know where a threat is likely to come from and will act accordingly without the OIC doing ANYTHING.

And also if you find while playing your IP game that your infantry have spotted a tank do you ignore that information for units on the other side of the map?

Neither IP or PBEM is going to give you a RL experience (On that I am sure we all agree). The best you can hope for is that the outcome will be comparable to the outcome that you would expect IRL. IMO playing without an unreasonable time limit gives you the best chance to produce realistic results.

By Atlas:

TCIPer are able to play more games in a given time period, allowing them to learn the game at a faster pace and giving them the advantage over time.

This is a very valid point that has been made before and I tentatively agree with this. Why tentatively? Because it remains to be seen whether people who choose to play IP as opposed to PBEM are better players (experience is no substitute for common sense), and because it remains to be seen whether being a good IP player makes you a better PBEM player or vice versa.

P.S. A general comment (not specific to this thread):

I get a little sick of people saying things like "Don't raise this again just read the post 2 years ago" and "Don't stir up trouble" or "this thread is getting out of hand" etc. There is nothing wrong with rehashing old posts and since most threads have poor subject headings it is difficult to find anything using a search. Also if you are bored with a thread don't read it. As long as a thread doesn't become offensive or personal (and only 1 or 2 posts in this thread have been) there is no need to stop a discussion that some people are enjoying.

[NightGauntt]

"In CM you can only issue orders at the end of a turn (up to one minute delay) further there is an order delay depending on command etc. This simulates imperfect communication, you don't need to simulate it again (if you think the order delay needs to be extended that is another issue)."

Ah but this delay is really only between the local platoon CO and his troops. Not another level up which is what would be required at LEAST to communicate between a tank and a squad of inf.

"Furthermore a RL tank commander is intelligent enough to know where a threat is likely to come from and will act accordingly without the OIC doing ANYTHING."

only if he knew the tank was there. I am saying he would not.

"And also if you find while playing your IP game that your infantry have spotted a tank do you ignore that information for units on the other side of the map?"

yes i do. What i don't do is spend extravegant amounts of time contemplating possible moves in a turn. THAT is the difference that having some sort of TIME is all about. Limiting how long you can sit around and THINK about possible solutions.

It is a very real difference that no one can deny, if you only have limited amounts of time, you cannot sit around and think of unlimited possible solutions and then weigh those solutions for another unlimited amount of time until you finally make your decision.

If you can do that, then you are playing a MUCH easier game.

[Guest Mike]

yap yap yap - strewth what a load of cobblers this thread has turned into.

let's get it back on track eh?

The best player is <big><big>ME</big></big>

[freaky ol'man w/very long wings]

Ok.

You are TC/IP.(Too Caught/In Time?)

You are PBEM. (Possibly Brodding Extensibly Much?)

TCIP is set up and has ordered everyone to attack and is ready in less than 2 minuts.

PBEM, who is defending, (let's say, we don't know how much he takes to set up).

The "Go" order is about to be reached by the mouse of both contenders, one fast, the other slow.

But for some motive in time, maybe a "bug", it started raining. Rain pours like hell and the only

thing you get is lightning, even though it can be called FoW.

The attacker cannot give a step without slipping in the mud. The defender has only to look at the choppy water in the foxholes to know that it would be better to stay in the higher ground.

The defender, even when slow, figures out that in this rain the attack just won't come. No recon, no proves, the battle is suspended for the day.

And to add to all this non-sense, I'm Participant of the Thread. a PoT, although on the lower ladder, and I was wondering what my fellow participants were up to.

Since, shamefully, I had to admit, I've been away from the forum for a couple or so nights, I was wondering what had caused a ten page thread that I wasn't aware of?

I believe that time is really "crushing" us all, no matter if you are fast or slow. This, I really believe, is what "moves" this thread.

And to make things more appealing, the thread can have more of a "variety":

"He lived a fast-life, die young, but enjoyed".

"He lived long, thus, he's decadent".

"Are we "Romantcs"? Or, Are we "Classics"?

BTW, I had a new cmbo cd laying on my desk. I don't wan't to install just because I have to start and plan my moves. Never mind fast connection or e-mail. Since this is a game, you can always find a friend to play with or the AI (Notice another "variable" of discussion).

For those who like to think fast, Thinking is what is all about. Experience had laid everything you have to think of. So, it is "thinking" or just mechanical reflexes?

For those who are thoughtfull of their moves, well, that's toughtfull of you. So, does this enhances your perspective of life and time or you are being just "thoughtfull"?

Maybe time, which "flies", already had already provided a philosopher who "thought", we should do all our "thinking" when lying flat on our backs.

Myself, am the exception, I have to do it in the air, being this the only way I really could lay flat on my back. (Notice Long Wings).

This said, it certainly will beat hanging out all day, munching in coffee and bagels to solve problems.

Diogenes, when asked what would be worst, to be married or to be single? he answered; "Both, you will regret".

[Bruce70]

Now I know why you are called "freaky".

[CMplayer]

TCIPer are able to play more games in a given time period, allowing them to learn the game at a faster pace and giving them the advantage over time.

[/QB]

Playing more games does not necessarily make you a better player. I play tournement level Go, and have been through the entire fast game/slow game debate there and have seen how the difference pans out for player strength there. What is vital, for becoming stronger, is to go through your games afterwards and study your mistakes, ideally together with someone stronger than you. Playing many games and then forgetting them the day after doesn't lead to improvement past a certain middling level.

For this, PBEM is supreme since you have a game record to review. TCIP turns are not saved and you have to rely only on memory.

[Grisha]

NightGauntt,

The fact that both players would have the same time to decide what to do more or less evens it out, whether playing under a timed constraint or not. Since information is never complete for a good portion of the game, a bit of thought is required in determining possible enemy dispositions and intentions, so having a large time factor to give orders does not necessarily confer a greater advantage - though it probably allows one to act on one's hunches more completely.

Another thing to think about is the actual issuing of orders. It’s one thing to call on the radio/land-line/runner and have a platoon ‘secure the treeline on the right’, and another thing to actually make the moves necessary in CM to execute that order, or even a phase of that order. As units multiply in larger games the amount of micromanagement needed to actual conduct the execution of the most basic orders increases. How much time is needed for that? Should there be two timers, one for orders and one for moves? This could get complicated.

I’m not convinced that rushing players into finishing their turns as quickly as possible is realistic wrt CM. You state that by rushing to finish orders one makes up for the universal spotting effect as well as insufficient command delay. I contend that by rushing orders you do not allow your subunits to act/react as fully as they would be able to. Go your way and we have a game that results in overall poorer subunit conduct, go my way and the commanders have too much control over the battle.

In traditional wargames, while it was always fun to win (okay, more than fun), the main reason many people participated in this hobby was to try and learn more of the conflict in question, so as to understand just how events or impressions came to pass. The interest was military history and military art, not winning or difficulty of play. Winning in games is fun, but if that’s all you’re interested in, why bother with wargames?

[CMplayer]

Another disadvantage of playing CM tcip with short time limits is that you don't have time to watch the movie several times from different angles. Watching the movie is one the the main sources of enjoyment of the game. That's where a good part of the the fun is.

[CMplayer]

Exactly.

Forcing a player to 'rush' is NOT an adequate correction for universal spotting. It is just forcing a player to rush.

Let me try once more with an example of realistic micromanagement. A squad is firing on a target and also receiving tank fire. It's possible to move it a few meters to be defiladed from the tank, but still able to engage its target. You MUST do this. The squad leader who didn't do this would soon be leading a dead squad. There are many similar situations all over the board.

Get it?

These decisions are being taken and executed simultaneously, but the player must click one after another. This takes time.

It is legitimate to say that you prefer to play with a time limit, but it is NAIVE AND OVERSIMPLIFIED to assert that that is more 'realistic', even if you could really sort out what realism means in the context of wargaming (which I haven't seen anyone on this thread do.)

Also, comparing CM time limits to chess is entirely useless. Why? Because in chess, after you are done thinking, executing your move takes about one second. In CM, after you are done thinking, you have to physically click on the units that are to be moved. This can take a varying amount of time depending on how many units you have. An infantry heavy force is PENALIZED by a time limit, compared to an armored force, through having more units to control. That is unfair.

So again, if you prefer fast games, that's fine. But the arguments that it is more realistic, or will make you a better player are both RUBBISH.

[ August 13, 2002, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by freaky ol'man w/very long wings:

For those who are thoughtfull of their moves, well, that's toughtfull of you. So, does this enhances your perspective of life and time or you are being just "thoughtfull"?

Thoughtful game playing creates pleasure in itself. It also exercises the mind, which according to the BBC can help protect you against Alzheimers in the long run.

CM is a kind of a combination of Poker, Backgamon, Billiards,Chess and Trivial Pursuit. It gets them neurons firing in every cobwebby corner of the brain. How couldn't that improve our perspective of life and time?

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

CM is a kind of a combination of Poker, Backgamon, Billiards,Chess and Trivial Pursuit.

Not to mention golf (the hazardous and frustrating part of it)

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

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

CM is a kind of a combination of Poker, Backgamon, Billiards,Chess and Trivial Pursuit.

Not to mention golf (the hazardous and frustrating part of it)</font>

[Bruno Weiss]

The real question is; would Tiger Woods be better at TCP/IP, or PBEM?

[ParaBellum]

Boy oh boy, what an absolute senseless discussion...

Makes me long for a 'can HMGs run' thread...

[NightGauntt]

Originally posted by Grisha:

"The fact that both players would have the same time to decide what to do more or less evens it out, whether playing under a timed constraint or not."

no, it means that the person who is better able to think under pressure will be able to use that ability. It adds another factor, it definitly does not even out.

and once again, it is not about time issuing actual orders, ie clicking on units. As I said before, i don't even play with actual set time constraints.

It is the ability to spend unlimited amounts of time contemplating possibilities that is unrealistic.

I don't care if it take two hours to actually implement the moves you want to do, what I care about is how long you take to DECIDE what you are going to do.

I know the opponents that I play against do not take extravegant/unrealistic amounts of time trying to plan/contemplate/decide on their moves, therefore they are playing a game where TIME is in play.

Because TIME is a factor, i can use a realistic factor such as trying to force decisions. When TIME is not a factor, realistic tactics such as the one above are not available because with unlimited time you can disect a problem forever and probably find a better solution.

[NightGauntt]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

Another disadvantage of playing CM tcip with short time limits is that you don't have time to watch the movie several times from different angles. Watching the movie is one the the main sources of enjoyment of the game. That's where a good part of the the fun is.

somewhat true, however, sometimes i don't watch the movie at all.

Its all about where you get your fun from. For me it is the competion. Usually I only watch the movie once skipping forward and occasionally rewind to look for specific things.

And then there are the times when a real kick ass turn happens and you have to watch it 5 or 6 times

and in case your other post was for me:

I don't think games where time is a factor make better players

I think they are playing a more difficult game.

I do think it is a more realistic simulation, because time as I define it in the posts on this thread is a very real factor in combat.

[ August 13, 2002, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: NightGauntt ]

[Marlow]

Bunch of amateurs. Everyone knows that the best players play full contact CM. Unless you play using the following rules, you suck.

1. Always use view 1.

2. Play the audio to the opening scene to SPR on your headphones, with the volume set to “11.”

3. At random intervals, have your wife come down the stairs, shout “Incoming,” and dump the laundry basket on your head.

4. Take some ex-lax, and use sandpaper during your “potty breaks” (simulates the trots and army issue TP quite well).

5. Give the kids dart guns and put a target on your forehead.

6. Skip giving orders on random turns (the runner just got shot, and the damn radio is out again).

7. Put on leaky boots and play with your feet in a bucket of ice water.

8. Periodically set off fireworks around your desk.

9. Every time a tank gets hit, put a can on your head and hit it with a hammer.

[ August 13, 2002, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Guest Mike]

None of which will actually simulate the gut wrenching fear of getting shot at....

You should really play the game outside the street hangout of the local group that hates you the most wearing a placard saying all their mothers cohabited with you last night.

[Dirtweasle]

Aftr reading most of page 1 of this thread I though I had an opinion and could express it in a clear if not cogent fashion... now after page 5 I simply am baffled why I opened the thread and have a slightly dull headache.