RT and how it has hurt WEGO and single player/AI. (not anti-RT)

[Percopius]

cid250,

Buy POA2. It will spend 10 minutes pathing if you let it. Turns can take 30 minutes to run 60 sec of realtime. You should love that.

[Steiner14]

Cid250

It's a shame that earlier products had a true WEGO design, that provides all the quality of gameplay that a wargamer wants to see with much bigger CPU exclusive time for the TAC-AI... and CMSF, only does a realtime auto-pause... nothing more!.

Do you have any insight into the game mechanics?

I think you don't even have a clue about programming.

From what i have observed, the AI in CMx1 is only active for a very short period at the beginning of turn calculation and it is the StratAI. The moving blue bar was only the calculation of the plotted turns - no StratAI anymore involved, only TacAI parallel to the gaphics calculation.

Now to the aspect, that there would be not enough time, or less time for the AI in CMSF:

How do you think such things are coded?

Even in chess things are the same: the functions are called as long as they are allowed to. Restricted by a counter or by time. The level of chess game is determinded by shortening the calculation time artificially and then the best of the found moves are taken.

In CMSF things are defiunately a bit different, siunce it is raltime capable, but not to much: the AI acts, whenever something happens that triggers a necessity for it to do something. This function continues, either until it has finsished, or until a timeout interrupts it.

Simply increasing the timeout would already give better results.

But i'm sure, the AI calculations are not restricted due to a simple conclusion: the AI is not superior to the player. You restrict it only - like in chess - to make it weaker.

So i'm sure, the AI has all the time it needs to calculate.

Now to the aspect, that in WEGO it were in principle better.

Also an assumption that doesn't hold. In 60s WEGO the AI has the same problem as a human player: looking 60s into the future. Much worse for the AI. And i'm sure, it didn't even look into the future. I'm sure, the StratAI in CMx1 used an analyzation of the current situation only. And then calculated it's moves for roughly 60+ seconds.

But what happens, when the StratAI-calcs are done in CMx1? Then the blue bar starts to move! And then the battle is solved - not in realtime, but much faster - the difference to CMSF? Not a big one i guess, except that in CMSF things are slowed down to realtime. So in CMx1 the TacAI reacts exactly the same way, as it does in CMSF: whenever something happens, that calls it, it will do something. Be i within the moving blue bar in CMx1 or in RT.

So the only difference that stays is the StratAI. And that was removed and is part of scenario design, since the StratAI in CMx1 sucked big time anyway.

You see, WEGO in CMx1 is nothing else, then WEGO in CMSF: in CMx1 the TacAI calculates at the moment things happen on the battlefield, in CMSF the AI calculates at the moment things happen - in CMx1 there is no realtime clock and therefore things are calculated much faster and the blue bar rushes, in CMSF things are calculated with the progression of time or even slower.

[Battlefront.com]

Heh... this is the funniest "I Hate Change" thread I have seen so far. I mean I was literally laughing as I read this. It's been a long time since I've done that. Nowhere, at any time in the history of CM, has the method of behind-the-scenes calculations ever entered into the definition of WeGo. That's because it has no bearing on it since it is a method of play.

DEFINITION - One person plots his moves in special phase designed for that purpose. No moves are executed at that time, unlike IGOUGO where resolution is instantaneous. When the first person has completed his moves control passes over to the other player who does the same. Upon completion of the second player's turn the two turns are combined and jointly resolved, with both players seeing the results but not being able to interfere with them.

The length of time simulated, the method by which the numbers are crunched, and probably most other things people could come up with are irrelevant. Including the ability to replay the resolution. The reason? Because what does WeGo stand for? "I do my turn, you do your turn, and they are resolved together". That is *all* it is. Nothing more.

Now, like any other system ever invented, there are variations. Same was true for IGOUGO. But that doesn't change the basic structure. Adding the ability to PAUSE doesn't make a RealTime game not RealTime, for example. IGOUGO with special rules to allow the other side's guys to react (like Steel Panthers) doesn't make the game any less than IGOUGO. And having all the turn's resolution carried out in realtime instead of recompiled does not mean CM:SF is no longer WeGo. The notion is ridiculous to the extreme and is just another way to try and find fault with something because you don't like other aspects of it.

Let's face it, you WeGo guys (on the whole) are both jealous and scared of the RT aspect of CM:SF. Jealous because now there it's not completely your game any more. People can play it an entirely different way, and that bothers you. Especially if people LIKE playing it that way. Scared because you think that if too many people like the RealTime play then WeGo will go away completely and forever. The jealousy thing is understandable since we experienced that already by the Close Combat crowd as they watched interest in their game get challenged by a "stupid turn based game with bad graphics". The fear thing is also understandable, though I can't say enough that we will not drop support for WeGo ever. There is no reason for us to do that since we see the value in it. A large publisher... well, they never would have made CMBO in the first place so that's kind of irrelevant.

I can understand better, though not necessarily agree with, the argument that we did not offer a full set of ancillary features to CM:SF that you had in CMx1 games. But that has no bearing on the definition of WeGo. It is untouchable and not subject to reinterpretation simply because it suits a particular narrow line of argument. WeGo is in CM:SF, fully. Argue all you want about how well/complete it is implemented, but don't make the mistake of sounding foolish by saying it isn't in there. It is, no ifs ands or buts about it.

Steve

[lassner.1]

Steve,

With all respect, I think that there is some amount of tension between the statements:

"The fear thing is also understandable, though I can't say enough that we will not drop support for WeGo ever. "

and

"I can understand better, though not necessarily agree with, the argument that we did not offer a full set of ancillary features to CM:SF"

The fact that TCP/IP WEGO was not included strikes me as dropping some level of support for WEGO. I know that some supporters of WEGO have been unreasonably savage on the boards , and I know that you have been convinced by the RT format . But I wish that some respect would be shown to those of us who are strictly turn based players, and who want to see, most especially, TCP/IP WEGO implemented.

We are not some sort of fringe, but, rather, a mainstay of support for hard core wargames such as those you have created.

The thing that keeps frustrating me especially is this assertion that I keep reading some people make on these that "if WEGO lovers only played RT they would like it." I can assure you that most of us have tried RT and there are good and sound reasons *not* to like it, as a matter of preference in wargames.

I cannot stress enough how much a desire CM:SF to have the possibility of TCP/IP WEGO. I hope that when you have made the other fixes you deem more important, you will restore this to the game.

[Pandur]

WeGo is in CM:SF, fully.

fully, but not in TCP/ip!?

would that mean 90% is maximum now :confused:

[Cavtroop]

Steve

WEGO is there, but it's barely more functional than pausable RealTime. Where are my ambush markers? Why is chaining commands more of a PIA than previously? Where is the AI that defends itself (in RealTime, this is less critical, as you can pause and make the stryker pop smoke and reverse. The AI won't do that in WEGO)? Also, TCPIP WEGO?

These are all patchable, fixable things that us WEGO people need and want in a 'Combat Mission' branded game, but didn't get. I hope they are coming in a patch in the future, as CMSF shows promise. Us WEGO guys are just a bit jaded right now, thats all.

[ August 03, 2007, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Cavtroop ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Let's face it, you WeGo guys (on the whole) are both jealous and scared of the RT aspect of CM:SF. Jealous because now there it's not completely your game any more. People can play it an entirely different way, and that bothers you.

What a bunch of rubbish. Steve, you seem to be very fond of doing sweeping generalisations and patronizing statements lately. I cant possible see what you want to achive with this.

[Pandur]

for me, personaly(what eles)

WEGO is there, but it's barely more functional than pausable RealTime.

i would be more than happy with a TCP/ip mode "realtime" with auto pause after either 30 or 60 sekonds. that its like RT for the engine, no files need to be transfered and it is WEGO by definition.

the ambush stuff etc, is thing of the tacAI, if they would unhide when and enemy come into an arc(preferably 2 arcs for armor and inf), the ambushes would work better, but now an arc is overruled by hide. but that can be tweaked as oposed to the TCPip wego mode wich currently isnt there.

[monkeezgob]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Let's face it, you WeGo guys (on the whole) are both jealous and scared of the RT aspect of CM:SF. Jealous because now there it's not completely your game any more. People can play it an entirely different way, and that bothers you.

What a bunch of rubbish. Steve, you seem to be very fond of doing sweeping generalisations and patronizing statements lately. I cant possible see what you want to achive with this. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

lassner,

You're missing the point of my post. The two things are not the same. One can argue that we didn't fully support WeGo, but one can not make the claim that we don't have WeGo at all. The first argument is the one you are making, not the second argument which is the one I was responding to.

As for the WeGo TCP/IP support... I freely admit that we foresee leaving it out as a big deal. It will be a LOT of work to get it included and it is, effectively, the same as PBEM. I understand that it isn't exactly the same, but it is similar enough that with the thousands of things we had to do over the last 4 years to complete CM, things that were fully or partially redundant were given a lower priority.

TCP/IP WeGo was therefore put on the back burner. If it is to come onto the front burner, something else has to get pushed off to make room for it. In the immediate term that is not going to happen. Mid-long term? No firm decision has been made either way yet.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Cavtroop,

WEGO is there, but it's barely more functional than pausable RealTime.

If you understand that WeGo is in the game, then my post was not aimed at you. Read back here guys... people are saying, in no uncertain terms, that WeGo does not exist in CM:SF. That is factually incorrect and that is the point of my post. Don't get the lines of argument confused.

Where are my ambush markers?

We got rid of those with CMBB when we did CoverArcs, so do you mean to say that CMBB and CMAK were hobbled WeGo games?

Why is chaining commands more of a PIA than previously?

This is a matter of opinion, not a fact.

Where is the AI that defends itself (in RealTime, this is less critical, as you can pause and make the stryker pop smoke and reverse. The AI won't do that in WEGO)?

This affects RT as well as WeGo, which therefore is a different line of argument. It is also something that will be fixed for BOTH WeGo and RealTime.

Also, TCPIP WEGO?

Already explained above. Again, the presence or absence of this feature does not make the game any more or less WeGo. The original CMBO did not have TCP/IP, so does that mean CMBO wasn't WeGo?

Steve

[Pandur]

whats against 30 or 60 sekonds autopause in realtime!?

i cant see why that so hard to do!?

[Battlefront.com]

Panzer76,

What a bunch of rubbish. Steve, you seem to be very fond of doing sweeping generalisations and patronizing statements lately. I cant possible see what you want to achive with this.

And your comments throughout this week have been what, exactly? Open minded and calm? You have been one of the most emotional posters on this Forum since we released the game.

I've got to deal with hundreds of people here. I can not tailor statements to each individual, so yes... I have to make some generalizations. And I stand by them. I saw the same reaction from the Steel Panthers and Close Combat people when CMBO came out. Fear is not a word I use lightly. It may not apply to you, but it is part of the overall reaction to RealTime. This thread is yet another example of it.

Pandur,

i would be more than happy with a TCP/ip mode "realtime" with auto pause after either 30 or 60 sekonds. that its like RT for the engine, no files need to be transfered and it is WEGO by definition.

We are looking into it because, as you say, by definition it is WeGo. The problem is there would be no Replay, which is an important feature of WeGo that people would miss. However, TCP/IP WeGo w/o Replay is far easier for us to implement so we might be able to swing that sooner than a full TCP/IP solution. We do not consider one necessarily ruling out the other, so nobody should worry.

the ambush stuff etc, is thing of the tacAI, if they would unhide when and enemy come into an arc(preferably 2 arcs for armor and inf), the ambushes would work better, but now an arc is overruled by hide. but that can be tweaked as oposed to the TCPip wego mode wich currently isnt there.

Correct. That is why people need to keep the issues straight. There may be things you don't like about the current implementation of WeGo, but that isn't the same as saying it isn't there at all.

monkeezgob,

Agreed. Steve, that's really patronizing, insulting and really not worthy of you.

It was not patronizing nor was it insulting, it was simply an observation of what is driving the over-the-top emotional responses here. There is a LOT of psychology involved in getting people to come up with the notion that there is no WeGo in CM:SF when the facts are clearly to the contrary. It is absolutely true that some people are afraid of RT and what might happen if we decide to pick one form of gameplay that we will pick RealTime and kill off WeGo. Some are claiming we already have, which again is just ridiculous.

I can't put this more clearly. The people that are saying "I wish a certain feature were in the game and not missing" I have no problem with at all. There are TONS of things gamers want to see in our games that aren't there, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with expressing that as long as it is done constructively. Some are too emotional and can not do that. Instead they are lashing out, like Panzer76 has been doing, and are making factually incorrect claims, as some people have in this thread, to support a line of reason that is illogical. There are reasons for the emotional response and there are reasons for the way it is expressed here. It is patronizing and insulting to suggest that none of that is happening here. You might not be reacting that way, but for sure others are. And those others are the loudest and most vocal, so I have directed most of my points at them with clarification for those who are not behaving that way.

Steve

[lassner.1]

Steve,

I do understand the difference between the first two arguements, I was simply pointing out - as you correctly surmised - that there was a decreased level of support in CM:SF for turn based players.

I also realize that there are other priorities now than putting in TCP/IP WEGO, but I do think that, long term, it is necessary. I am no longer playing CM:SF, though I will return to it someday if TCP/IP WEGO is added.

I even went so far as to *re-purchase* CMBB and CMAK (my copies were destroyed during my last move here in Montgomery) so that I do have a wargame to play in the meantime.

I might also add that I disagree with your characterization of BPEM as "similar enough" to TCP/IP WEGO that TCP/IP WEGO is not even on the mid-long term horizon for being added. In my view (and I am sure that others agree with me here) there is a real and significant difference between the two modes.

That said if TCP/IP WEGO is abandoned altogether for future CM games, then I guess that it will be the time to look elsewhere for WWII turn based games, and I would be sorry to do that, as I have enjoyed CM very much up to now, and I love the implementation of relative spotting!

[Battlefront.com]

Pandur,

whats against 30 or 60 sekonds autopause in realtime!?

i cant see why that so hard to do!?

Unfortunately, computer code doesn't think the way gamers do. It is realtively "easy" for us to have TCP/IP WeGo without Replay, it is extremely difficult for us to have it with Replay. It doesn't matter if you understand it or not, because that is the way it is.

The problem is that even adding TCP/IP WeGo without Replay involves a lot of coding and testing time. We have other things that are more important to tackle right now because they affect everybody.

Steve

[Cavtroop]

We got rid of those with CMBB when we did CoverArcs, so do you mean to say that CMBB and CMAK were hobbled WeGo games?

Your arguing semantics here. Ambush marker/cover arc (armor and inf) are the same mechanic basically. My point is, there is no way to ambush properly, if at all, in WEGO. Its a missing feature.

And I'm very happy to hear that AI pathing and self-preservation are on the fix list.

TCPIP WEGO is not a concern of mine personally (I don't do multiplayer), but is for a lot of people. Thats not a missing feature, its core to WEGO for lots of people (yes, even though CMBO didn't ship with TCPIP). I hope this makes it in a patch, also (similar to TCPIP in CMBO).

[Pandur]

We are looking into it because, as you say, by definition it is WeGo. The problem is there would be no Replay, which is an important feature of WeGo that people would miss. However, TCP/IP WeGo w/o Replay is far easier for us to implement so we might be able to swing that sooner than a full TCP/IP solution. We do not consider one necessarily ruling out the other, so nobody should worry.

that made me verry happy

now, that it is said that TCPip wego with replay "may" make it in, in the future, i would be even more happy with 30 or 60 sekonds pause without replay, as substitute

primary i like wego becouse the game doesnt "run" without my order and its essentially real time when it plays out between command phases where you can endlessly tihnk and refine.

i also dont have to be constantly at the PC like in RT multiplayer games where i cant get some food becouse iam beeing overruned.

secondery is for me the replay, its exellent to have it, helps to clarify things and keept the situational awareness of the player to an maximum.

however i could let that go for some month

as long as there is, at least, a slight chance it comes in at some point

thanks

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Let's face it, you WeGo guys (on the whole) are both jealous and scared of the RT aspect of CM:SF.

That's insulting, and I don't think it adds to the debate.

Yes, it's a WeGo system. No, it doesn't work well, and no, it isn't a patch issue - since the pathing, tac-ai, etc. are constrained by the 60-second limit. Certainly there is the ability to spend more or less time under the covers by adjusting the frame rate, but there is an upper limit that we think is artificially and harmfully low.

[Becket]

Originally posted by acrashb:

since the pathing, tac-ai, etc. are constrained by the 60-second limit

Can anyone prove that these are connected? To me they just sound like the comments on xbox.com that such and such game bricked someone's 360. Those would fly fast and furious with every game release, and then it turns out that they were completely untrue (because the problem was the hardware ).

[Childress]

Maybe the Battlefront guys felt that RT was the future because they, being grogs, realized that WEGO is intrinsically unrealistic. Think about it: a 60 second turn is followed by a planning phase that, in PBEM, can consume several days. And this in a TACTICAL setting, where commanders are presumably called on to think on their feet.

IMO, WEGO works more plausibly on the strategic level as in, say, AGEOD's pre-20th century games. There you don't get the gross asymmetry between planning and execution.

[thewood]

I would agree wit you at the squad level or even the platoon level as a stretch, but anything above that and you very quickly lose situational awareness. In RL you have officers and NCOs managing the details of deployment, facing, threat evaluation, etc. You get SITREPS and other intel. CMSF does not have that. You have to be Captain, LT, sarge, and even grunt sometimes. Whats happening to the rest of you force while you are trying to get that M2 into hull down for 5 minutes.

[thewood]

btw, to the original topic. I don't thing BFC intentionally sacrifide WEGO to the altar of RT. But, they would have had a lot more resources and time if CMSF had been only WEGO. Not saying that's wrong, but I would assume CMSF would have either come out earlier, or different.

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Where is the AI that defends itself (in RealTime, this is less critical, as you can pause and make the stryker pop smoke and reverse. The AI won't do that in WEGO)?

This affects RT as well as WeGo, which therefore is a different line of argument. It is also something that will be fixed for BOTH WeGo and RealTime.

Also, TCPIP WEGO?

Already explained above. Again, the presence or absence of this feature does not make the game any more or less WeGo. The original CMBO did not have TCP/IP, so does that mean CMBO wasn't WeGo?

Steve [/QB]</font>

[monkeezgob]

Originally posted by Cavtroop:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We got rid of those with CMBB when we did CoverArcs, so do you mean to say that CMBB and CMAK were hobbled WeGo games?

Your arguing semantics here. Ambush marker/cover arc (armor and inf) are the same mechanic basically. My point is, there is no way to ambush properly, if at all, in WEGO. Its a missing feature.

And I'm very happy to hear that AI pathing and self-preservation are on the fix list.

TCPIP WEGO is not a concern of mine personally (I don't do multiplayer), but is for a lot of people. Thats not a missing feature, its core to WEGO for lots of people (yes, even though CMBO didn't ship with TCPIP). I hope this makes it in a patch, also (similar to TCPIP in CMBO). </font>

[Grumbling Grognard]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You're missing the point of my post. The two things are not the same. One can argue that we didn't fully support WeGo, but one can not make the claim that we don't have WeGo at all...

Steve

So you are saying that a game has WEGO if it has a realtime engine that forces the players to stop at predetermined intervals and give orders. Heck you even stated that the replay is not required for WEGO. Is that 'really' what you are saying?

If that is so, what exactly is the 'advantage' of WEGO over pausable realtime i.e. a system where the PLAYER can not only pick their own intervals, they can change them on the fly?

Let me help you on this one: THERE IS NO ADVANTAGE. And if/when the AI gets up to snuff I will surely be using RT (but I will miss the replay quite a bit)...assuming I get over my "fear" of that big bad scary "Real time" you guys just introduced me too!

(See being patronizing is quite easy. It's just that most adults know better than to do it while we are at work, to their clients and customers :eek: )