Will it be possible to exploit the RT game system?

[Bruce70]

Before I start, this is not an attacke on RT since it is also possible to exploit the WeGo system, just thought it might be good to brainstorm some possible exploits in the hope that they can be easily remedied.

Steve has stated (roughly) that the types of exploits commonly found in RTS games will not be possible in CMx2. The added complexity of the game and the soundness of the simulation will make such things as "tank rushes" impossible or ineffective, instead the player that uses sound tactics will likely win out over a player that uses click speed in an attempt to overwhelm their opponent.

To a large extent I think I agree with him (especially since he is in a far better position to know than I am), but I am still a little bit concerned about gamey tactics designed to exploit the fact that the opponent can only concentrate on one part of the map at a time.

The problem is that the AI can only execute the most basic of orders (rotate, fire, take cover) autonomously.

For example:

You have prepared a strong dfensive position, but your tank destroyer is positioned just a little too far back and dosen't quite cover one possible overwatch position. The attacker sees this and feigns an attack on another part of the line and then positions some armour in that position, knowing that he will be quite safe until you realise the problem and come back to move the TD forward a few feet. In the meantime, your HMGs were pinned and his infantry was able to advance.

What other exploits might be possible, and are there any simple counter measures that could be incorporated in the game?

[flammenwerfer]

The attacker sees this and feigns an attack on another part of the line and then positions some armour in that position, knowing that he will be quite safe until you realise the problem and come back to move the TD forward a few feet. [/QB]

Are you forgetting FOW?

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Flammenwerfer:

Are you forgetting FOW?

Are you forgetting recon?

FoW does help though.

[aka_tom_w]

My guess would be that one of the 'strengths' of most RealTime games is the build cycle. After MASSIVELY harvesting resources you build units as FAST as you can and build up a technological superiority as fast as you can.

Then overwhelm the defender with both your numbers and your superior tech. A classic RealTime strategy.

BUT in CM:SF there is NO production cycle and No resource harvesting. I am every bit as concerned about the Realtime fast clicking exploits as the rest of you, but as Steve as told us, simply clicking fast or sending all your tanks in the classic tank rush is simply not going get it done in CM:SF because there is no build cycle to replace your losses. That fact alone takes away a HUGE Realtime fast clicking "exploit". (Some might say in RealTime games like Warcraft it is simply SOP or a well known tactic that should not really be considered an exploit.

There should be some advantage to thinking FAST and clicking fast, but wise use of your available units should be the first consideration, and any foolish player that thinks a massive crazy suicide tank rush will lead to victory will soon be disappointed depending on how skilled his oppenent is.

I am curious about the RealTime Exploits as well.

But one thing we should all remember Steve and BFC hate cheesy/gamey exploits as much as the rest of us and I think we can count on them for a patch if the gamey exploit is reported to them and perceived by the design team as an exploitation of the game system in a way they had not expected or intended.

Just look at the evolution of the MG and HMG "protocol" in the CMx1 series,from CMBO to CMBB they removed so much opportunity for gamey exploitation (around MG's and suppression) of the game system, that some people REALLY disliked it, but it did make the simulation more realistic.

(as intended in the first place)

They are shooting for max realism in their military simulations, so I am guessing if a really glaring exploit or gamey tactic crops up they can deal with it in a patch if they don't catch it in beta testing, in the first place.

(IMHO)

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

FoW means that you never know what you don't know. And that is a dangerous thing Recon is dangerous, time consuming work. Players hardly use it in CMx1, especially because Absolute Spotting makes real life recon overkill in most situations.

The other thing you've got to keep in mind is that you never know what the player is or isn't paying attention to. When you are off trying to be sneaky, perhaps he is already on that side of the map and you get your ass handed to you there quickly and YOU get sucked in instead. I've had it happen to me in RT games where I'm off doing something "brilliant" only to come back and find my base overrun. So it cuts both ways.

Since you really don't know where the other player is, or isn't, such "exploitations" are not assured nor are they risk free.

Mind you, I'm not saying there aren't potential was to abuse the system. I just don't worry too much about this particular one.

Steve

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Since you really don't know where the other player is, or isn't, such "exploitations" are not assured nor are they risk free.

Somehow I hope you are not writing about CMx2 ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[tar]

Not to mention the question of where you will find the time to make precise measurements of the location of the tank destroyer, then move to another part of the map and organize a feint, and then return to exploit the problem in the defense. That would be a rather tall order.

Now, the interesting question is really what sort of reports or alerts will be made available to the player/commander in real-time mode. In real life, hard-pressed units will not generally wait quietly to be overwhelmed, but rather they are likely to be screaming for help. Will the player also get such reports and requests?

Of course, also in real life such reports are likely to be a bit exaggerated in their urgency. And units that are really heavily engaged may have more pressing matters[1] than reporting their sorry situation to higher headquarters.

[1] Example of a more pressing matter: Just staying alive!

[Kineas]

In the small bone topic I listed possible exploits in the RT system. If game experience will prove me wrong I'll be happy about that.

Nevertheless I'll play wego. I spend the most time with reviewing the turn animations. I like to know what happens on every section of the front. You'll surely miss that in RT. (Well, that's the challenge).

Consider it in an abstract way. Better micro can never be a disadvantage. Players can only gain on that. The game design can minimize this gain, but the micro difference could be potentially infinite. (Average 30 apm compared to 100-200 apms). So the gain itself can still be huge.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Kineas:

You'll surely miss that in RT. (Well, that's the challenge).

Well, not necessarily. That is not a requirement for real-time.

The ideal real-time interface would allow you to pause at any time, move around both in space and in time, i.e. watch past action anywhere you want. Additionally, it should be possible to issue complex orders in pause mode.

That would be a killer RTS.

It is, however, obviously not what BFC wants to (or has the resources to) provide. Not necessarily a bad thing either, because it means an earlier release of the game (one has to think positively)!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by tar:

Not to mention the question of where you will find the time to make precise measurements of the location of the tank destroyer,

This leads to another point I was going to make. As in RL the attacker has certian advantages. One of those is that, to a large extent, he controls the pace of the battle. So if the attacker wants to take the time to do some careful recon, then reposition his forces for a feint, he can (time limit allowing of course). Steve has already said that RT will play slower than WeGo.

So I really don't see the defender being able to exploit the RT system, maybe it will be rare that the attacker will be able to as well. Just thought I'd toss it out there.

Incidently will this this mean that the turn limit for WeGo, will be different to the time limit for RT?

[Battlefront.com]

Bruce70,

I can tell you from first hand that as the attacker in RealTime I feel a LOT less pressure to attack quickly. Or perhaps it is that I fear attacking too quickly In WeGo I'd never let my forces sit behind a berm for 5-10 minutes while I made sure various thing were tidy and that I was fully ready. Or in the case of the AAR, maybe I should have spent 20 minutes before launching the attack

The defender in a RT game is going to feel even more angst about the pace of the battle than in WeGo. In some WG games the defender sits there for 5-10 turns without knowing much, if anything, about what the enemy is up to. In terms of real world time that probably means 15-30 minutes spent on doing nothing. Especially frustrating for PBEM. Therefore, the defender is tempted to do SOMETHING just to get the battle going.

This temptation will be there in RT as well, however although I think the angst level will be cranked up a notch, I think the fear of getting caught in the middle of something will be much higher. So, as the defender I think most people will find it easier to sit and wait for the attacker to show his intentions. It should also take less real world time.

As for the differences in ending the game in WeGo vs. RealTime... we haven't made a final decision on that yet. In CMx1 we had a suggested number of turns plus Global Morale where the game would decide for itself when things were over. In CMx2 there can be time based objectives, which will means if you don't do something by x time you don't get credit for it (or as much credit for it, depending). We're also thinking of having something similar to Global Morale, which because it is measuring force capabilities time doesn't matter. If a force is slaughtered it's slaughtered, whether that is on Turn 15 or 40 minutes into a RT game.

Steve

[DavidFields]

My prediction, let's see what you think about it: When the game first comes out, people will complain about an imbalance for the defender--if the scenarios have been play-tested by some skilled players--or that some objectives are just too hard. This will be because learning to coordinate units on an attack in RealTime will be quite a skill. In particular, I'll bet people will have to learn to "exploit" (in a positive sense) the indirect/air resources. (That is my personal concern, since I am not familiar with modern warfare, and I will bet that blindly trying to figure out which of my assets can call in what with what munitions in what amount of time will not be a winning RealTime strategy. Study and memorize beforehand?)

Then, suddenly, when people start learning the system, the same scenarios will be derided as being too easy for the attacker, or to achieve the objective. Demands will then be made for modifications or new scenarios.

But, as a game designer, you must know that you can never please everyone all the time.

[tar]

These last posts have opened up some intriguing possibilities.

About the pace of battle, this is perhaps one area where you really can get an advantage for the attacker. Since the attacker generally controls the pace of the action, the attacker can take the time to setup a hopefully coordinated set of movements and orders, whereas the defender will have to wait to see what develops before doing the same thing.

This will make defense a bit more dicey, since there won't be time to analyze everything. It also makes it more likely that feints can be used, since the defender will often have to react (or not) without the luxury of a careful analysis of both where the action is, and also the other "quiet" parts of the front.

Although perhaps not too likely in a game setting, a real time system may also provide some incentives to pull back on the attack and reorganize that are lacking in the current game, because you can pretty effectively reorganize while in contact, since you can provide orders to everyone at the same time. It will probably slow the pace down somewhat because it will now take a more realistic amount of time to provide orders to everyone.

(I'm not saying that I like it, just that there may be some interesting effects and I'd like to keep an open mind.)

Now, what about reports from the field?

It would be a shame to have RT without the benefit of a staff to handle some of the communications issues, and alert you to what is happening in other parts of the game.

[DavidFields]

Interesting ideas, Tar. But, as I noted above, my guess would be that the RealTime, real-time, time pressures would generally be on the attacker, because with FOW he/she will not be able to extensively plan an attack ahead of time, but will have to adapt to events on the fly. The attacker tends to have more assets to manage, and tends to need to be more mobile--movement, with FOW, always a potentially very deadly activity. (of course, one can design scenarios which are the exceptions to this.)

Unless there is some sort of time-limit for set-up, the defense can usually ("usually") meticulously plot out terrain features and kill zones for its fixed units. Whereas trying to get all the attackers units to make a cooridinated advance while finding the best cover will either require quick hands, perhaps,

or superb tac-AI.

Except: If one plays, or the correct scenario strategy is, for the Russian-style: plan the attack, bring overwhelming force to bear, and let the thing role. Historically, and actually, not always a bad strategy/tactic. In real life, one does not want "balance". But as a game....

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

... In CMx2 there can be time based objectives, which will means if you don't do something by x time you don't get credit for it (or as much credit for it, depending). ...

Steve

Is that a new bone or bonette?

My experience is that a lot of games that have this sort of scheme place unreasonable / unrealistic time based objectives for the player to do something.

The name of the game escapes me at the moment, but IIRC you had very little chance of making the objectives in what seemed like a realistic way to move units.

I imagine this sort of rush effect is largely dependent on scenario design, and rightly in some scenarios you have to move with haste, and modern battle appers to be an up tempo affair, anyways, I hope you guys spend as much time as practical to fine tune this sort of thing.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, the time based Objectives are but one thing to play around with. There actually can be a variety of things within a scenario. For example, you need to take x location by y time *and* take out z enemy units. At the end of the game you will be judged on how well you did overall. So it might be that you lose the battle completely for not getting the objective no matter how many units you take out, or perhaps you just get a peg lower in the victory score.

Basically.... it's a WHOLE LOT more variable, detailed, and flexible than CMx1's straightforward flag and casualty calculation.

Steve