Turn timelimit.

[Ligur]

Playing a lot of TCP/IP during the last... 6 months or so prompted me to ask.

How much time do you'sa people need to finish your 60 second turn?

Of course its dependent on the 1) force size 2) map size 3) mission (attack, static defence etc.)

But take a force of 3000 points and a ME on a small map quick battle and in the heat of the action. How long does it take? 30 minutes? 5?

[Olle Petersson]

For me, mostly less than 5 minutes with occasional 15 minute activity.

Cheers

Olle

[aka_tom_w]

3000 pts worth? (with some armour)

average move (AFTER set-up) no longer than 5-7 minutes I think

-tom w

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

For me, mostly less than 5 minutes with occasional 15 minute activity.

Cheers

Olle

Yeah, you have to mean the rounds when your enemy can say "ok, he took 10 minutes more then usual, major attack commensing"

[Agua]

Ya, after setup, that sounds about right; 5-7 mins. I LOATHE games utilizing the timer though. It's just a distraction to me and makes me feel as if I'm under a constraint even though my orders will be completed within the time limit.

[Frenchy]

I usually go around 5 minutes...for some odd ball reason I seem to play better under the time constraint. Not much time to think...pbem I end up usually second-guessing my moves!

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Agua:

Ya, after setup, that sounds about right; 5-7 mins. I LOATHE games utilizing the timer though. It's just a distraction to me and makes me feel as if I'm under a constraint even though my orders will be completed within the time limit.

I really prefer the timer because then I know my opponent will not be "doddling" and/or just goofing off, I prefer to be under the time constraint and am generally more content knowing the same time constraint in TCP/IP is on my opponent. (5-7 minutes is good!)

I like the adrenaline rush of the timer, but then again I think RTS gamers like Age of Empires and Warcraft and Myth are fun too !

-tom w

[Ligur]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I really prefer the timer because then I know my opponent will not be "doddling" and/or just goofing off, I prefer to be under the time constraint and am generally more content knowing the same time constraint in TCP/IP is on my opponent. (5-7 minutes is good!)

I like the adrenaline rush of the timer...

-tom w

Likewise, it CAN'T take that long unless you are micromanaging like hell, and hey, the TacAI is there so we can avoid it.

Also managing a larger force with 10 minutes to spare (say, 5000 pts of inf and armor) will make you act on instinct and doesn't leave time to second guess... We have enough control over the troops just as well.

[ June 07, 2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[Walker]

You guys are joking, right? Five minutes to command a bat of inf, several FOs, HWs, a bunch of AFVs...AND watch the movie too! Macromanagement par excellence - I must try it once. Should be hilarious !

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Walker:

You guys are joking, right? Five minutes to command a bat of inf, several FOs, HWs, a bunch of AFVs...AND watch the movie too! Macromanagement par excellence - I must try it once. Should be hilarious !

No I prefer that 5-7 minutes after the movie.

Thats why 7 minutes on the timer is good for me.

Watch the movie once or twice (twice at the most)

and plot the move for 5 minutes, and do it quickly!

Makes the game go by faster and I find it more of a Rush

-tom w

[Thomas Goetz]

I find that 5-10 minutes, depending on scenario size, mission, etc., generally works well, and certainly prevents any micro-managing. I do occasionally find I've forgotten to give orders for the last ten turns to some poor unit I've sent on a flanking move, but hey, that sort of thing can happen in the heat of combat.

I also feel that a time limit on TCP/IP games is probably the most realistic way to play Combat Mission - against another sneaky and devious human, and without the unlimited time to craft the perfect solution offered by PBEM games. After all, in the middle of combat the battalion commander usually doesn't have the option of testing multiple movement paths or assessing firepower lanes. He just has to make his best decision based on limited (maybe even wrong) information, and go with it.

The "search for the perfect solution" sort of micro-management while playing seems to me to be distorting the very essence of what a tactical wargame is all about. That would be kind of like calling a 10 minute strategy time out every two minutes during a basketball game.

Just my two cents worth.

[Agua]

Re: PBEM - second guessing

Ya. Agree completely here. I never play pbem because of this: too much trying to outwit yourself and obsessing with minutae.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Thomas Goetz:

I find that 5-10 minutes, depending on scenario size, mission, etc., generally works well, and certainly prevents any micro-managing. I do occasionally find I've forgotten to give orders for the last ten turns to some poor unit I've sent on a flanking move, but hey, that sort of thing can happen in the heat of combat.

I also feel that a time limit on TCP/IP games is probably the most realistic way to play Combat Mission - against another sneaky and devious human, and without the unlimited time to craft the perfect solution offered by PBEM games. After all, in the middle of combat the battalion commander usually doesn't have the option of testing multiple movement paths or assessing firepower lanes. He just has to make his best decision based on limited (maybe even wrong) information, and go with it.

The "search for the perfect solution" sort of micro-management while playing seems to me to be distorting the very essence of what a tactical wargame is all about. That would be kind of like calling a 10 minute strategy time out every two minutes during a basketball game.

Just my two cents worth.

Yes YES!!

I agree with this completely

Well put Thomas (that's my real name when I'm not aka_tom_w )

" After all, in the middle of combat the battalion commander usually doesn't have the option of testing multiple movement paths or assessing firepower lanes. He just has to make his best decision based on limited (maybe even wrong) information, and go with it."

Perfect!

That is why I prefer TCP/IP games when I have the time, PBEM is better because you can invest small amounts of time here and there and still play, BUT the real joy for me is 3-4 FREE hours of TCP/IP on the timer with someone who I know can beat me or give me a REALLY good game

-tom w

[karch]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Thomas Goetz:....

Yes YES!!

I agree with this completely...

That is why I prefer TCP/IP games when I have the time, PBEM is better because you can invest small amounts of time here and there and still play, BUT the real joy for me is 3-4 FREE hours of TCP/IP on the timer with someone who I know can beat me or give me a REALLY good game

-tom w[/QB]</font>

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

When I TCPIP, I have the adreniline rush going and get frustrated when my opponent takes a huge amount of time plotting his turn. I found out that some actually get up and do some things while I'm at my end waiting and sweating. I have to drink twice as much to deal with the adrenaline, so my judgement is sorely impaired. Not that I play that much better sober.

[Walker]

Originally posted by Thomas Goetz:

... After all, in the middle of combat the battalion commander usually doesn't have the option of testing multiple movement paths or assessing firepower lanes. He just has to make his best decision based on limited (maybe even wrong) information, and go with it...

But he does have teams of company and platoon headquarters, all the individual tank and weapons commanders etc. - it's not as if everyone on the battlefield just stands around kicking the ground with the toes of their boots until orders filter down from batallion HQ.

But I can see the attraction of a frantic 3-hour real-time battle - sounds like a whole new ball game. I think I will give it a try. Maybe with 1500 points to start with, though.

[karch]

My friend and I like to keep the time somewhere around 5-7 min for games up to 2000 points to keep things moving. We make it a rule to always allow time extensions for any reason, and we don't abuse it.

Sometimes it's because I have some extra movements to handle before an attack, sometimes it's because my son woke up and I have to change a diaper at 1am.

keeping the time short keeps the game more exciting for us AND keeps it moving along so we may get 2 games in instead of 1. VERY IMPORTANT.

[Black Five]

Hell a friend and I have found that using a TWO MINUTE shot clock for battles of any size is great. We recently played a 7000 point game with a 2 min timer and it was awesome. There is no time to screw around and it simulates the chaos of battle. You have to prioritize. I love to play on a tight clock.

[Ligur]

LORRR~~ I like to play 10k games with 1.3 minute timelimit it takez reflex. Yarr.

Durr durr.

[Ligur]

Hmmm we seem to have ourselves a school here, the reponse was exactly what I was looking for when I posted the thread.

I agree with about everything said this far, tho Black Five is maybe taking it to an extreme I'm not sure I'd be ready for

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Hiram Sedai:

When I TCPIP, I have the adreniline rush going and get frustrated when my opponent takes a huge amount of time plotting his turn. I found out that some actually get up and do some things while I'm at my end waiting and sweating. I have to drink twice as much to deal with the adrenaline, so my judgement is sorely impaired. Not that I play that much better sober.

I'm convinced I play better when slightly drunk! I get more relaxed and stop second guessing myself. No wonder officers are a bunch of drunks, deciding about the lives of your pixel men is far easier when semi-plastered with a case of beer. Also, you don't shoot yourself in the teeth when you fumble horribly

[McAuliffe]

Guess it depends a bit on your preferences, but I like big scenarios with at least battalion-size infantry forces and company size armor units, big maps with several options of tactics or approach.

I need at least half an hour for the set-up (By that time the tcp/ip connection already crashed twice) then I need probably an hour to finish the first turn plotting, as I plot for each unit the whole stretch from start to their final target.

I use a lot of waypoints in order to be flexible in making changes afterwards. (Then, when I hit go, I usually discover that the other guy has already dissapeared)

When finally the games picks up, I just alter slightly the waypoints or adjust speed.

So, a good solution would be, I start the game in PBEM and after the initial turns you switch to TCP/IP.

But most of the people prefer to play either PBEM or TCP/IP

[Ligur]

Indeed some players apparently plot the whole battle during the first turns, which irks me to no extent if trying to TCP/IP. I also fail to see many huge gains, since you probaply have no idea about the enemy and he will alter your plans. No plan survives contact and contact can be rather severe.

Of course I don't mind changing from TCP/IP to PBEM and back if someone feels he needs to plot 900 waypoints at once.

Lets take the enemy into the pictur. Say, you had plotted turns 1 to 20. But during turn 10 the game changes drastically and there is no way to continue with the set waypoints.

Do you scracth them and then plot turns all new 10 - 20 again? Do you have to have the whole battle plotted at all times?

I'm trying to find out how people go on playing Combat Mission outside of the in-game tactics and styles (don't ask why). At some point I think I spotted two distinctive styles, which I feel like calling The Plotter and Captain Reflex today (not unlike 60s superheroes). I surely am the side-kick of Capn Reflex The Reflex Boy and I have reason to suspect Black Five is the Captain himself.

I was introduced to the game by a Plotter btw.

[ June 08, 2002, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Ligur ]

[Ligur]

Originally posted by McAuliffe:

When finally the games picks up, I just alter slightly the waypoints or adjust speed.

So, a good solution would be, I start the game in PBEM and after the initial turns you switch to TCP/IP.

But most of the people prefer to play either PBEM or TCP/IP

I absolutely have to try that soon. I suspect my overall planning is so vague and simple (determine objetctive, simple course of action and then going at it turn by turn) it will not succeed well but hey, it'll be fun.

[Agua]

Originally posted by McAuliffe:

I need at least half an hour for the set-up (By that time the tcp/ip connection already crashed twice) then I need probably an hour to finish the first turn plotting, as I plot for each unit the whole stretch from start to their final target.

I use a lot of waypoints in order to be flexible in making changes afterwards. (Then, when I hit go, I usually discover that the other guy has already dissapeared)

Yeah, the initial setup and plotting for the initial turn take quite a bit of time for me as well. Most espeically if I am playing defense in a QB.

[edited because I thought it my be nice to add some commentary rather than simply quote McAuliffe .. doh!!]

[ June 08, 2002, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Agua ]