Small Bone

[metalbrew]

Steve,

Your response is a bit like calling me stupid and then buying me a beer. I'm OK with that, I like beer.

I can take the PBEM bigot comments with a chuckle. I think you're off the mark though to say I'm demanding satisfaction or else. As a consumer, I really only have one vote. For me it's a lot better to voice my opinion right now when it can be heard rather than griping about it when it's too late to fix.

So, as a show of good faith, I'll shut up now and let you have the last word. In exchange, the forum wants a new bone... screenshots...

OK, so you really owe us nothing, but still... screenshots?

[MikeyD]

Field ops looks REAL shooter-gamey from the screenshots. You know what i mean, the kind of game where if you used it for training purposes you'd survive a real-world engagement about 35 seconds. Looks like a good game if you want to get out your aggressions killing things, though.

From Steve's post above it looks like his attitude toward the PBEMers mirrors the attitude of the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff towards Rumsfeld! From a Slate.com excerpt of Woodward's new book -

When the author asked then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers about Rumsfeld:

"Myers put both his arms on the small table and then laid his head down on top of them," writes Woodward. "I could not tell if it was a sign of exasperation or despair or something in between. I had not seen this before—a senior officer cradling his head in his arms."

Of course one difference is the PBEMers aren't BFC's boss

[ October 05, 2006, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Moronic Max]

Field ops looks REAL shooter-gamey from the screenshots. You know what i mean, the kind of game where if you used it for training purposes you'd survive a real-world engagement about 35 seconds. Looks like a good game if you want to get out your aggressions killing things, though.

What I find amusing is the notion that combining fps and rts is new; Battlezone and Uprising did that roughly a decade ago (the former was by far the superior game).

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

...snip...The thing that bothers you, and the rest of the PBEM bigots, is that isn't good enough for you. You want an iron clad, 100%, absolutely under no circumstances will it be any other way guarantee. Since we don't like promising things and then breaking promises, we aren't biting on that. Even if we are 98% sure it will be in we won't bite. Unfortunately, that isn't acceptable to some....snip

This was the ratio decidendi of Battlefront's argument with the original PBEM-in-or-not? thread many moons ago, repeated again here. Nothing has changed. Good. I appreciate consistency and cutting to the chase.

[Battlefront.com]

I'm really not underestimating the importance of PBEM, rather I am emphasizing the importance of the things that made PBEM a possible no-show. That's the thing that I am not seeing enough comprehension from the PBEM 1st crowd (how's that instead of PBEM bigots? ). Meaning, when we chose certain things that could have nixed PBEM we did so knowingly because we saw the possible loss of it to be worth the gain in other areas.

The PBEM 1st crowd is most upset with the fact that we would even consider such a choice in the first place. Since we don't see anything in CMx1 as a Sacred Cow, we don't share that kind of reactionary thinking. Instead we look forward and not backward. Sure, sure, sure... we want to keep as much of the stuff from CMx1 as possible. But if something old is standing in the way of something new whicih on balance makes the game better (for you guys, otherwise it doesn't matter, does it?) then we probably will break with the old for the benefits of the new. Thankfully for you guys, the list of old stuff that you like which won't be in CMx2 is relatively short while the list of new stuff that you're going to drool over is quite huge. The design decisions that put PBEM at possible risk are in large part responsible for this large list of really great new stuff.

Sumac, I don't think you're stupid at all. I just think that you are blinded by your own logic. To you PBEM is the only reason you play the game. It is true for quite a number of you guys out there. However, what is a concern for you is not necessarily a concern for us in the Big Picture. Since the Big Picture is what determines our fate, needless to say we tend to keep the attention on more than one narrow feature.

OtherMeans, we are not concerned about the longevity of CM:SF. Our new strategy allows us to give you guys a stream of games instead of a smattering every 2-3 years. The longevity of CMx2 will come from that more than anything else. PBEM, random generated maps, etc. are nice but the inclusion or lack of inclusion won't matter to us one iota from a sales standpoint.

Steve

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

OtherMeans, we are not concerned about the longevity of CM:SF. Our new strategy allows us to give you guys a stream of games instead of a smattering every 2-3 years. The longevity of CMx2 will come from that more than anything else. PBEM, random generated maps, etc. are nice but the inclusion or lack of inclusion won't matter to us one iota from a sales standpoint.

Steve

All I'm saying is, the guys who play PBEM are the ones who would buy every single module released and every single game that uses the CMx2 engine.

But honestly, all I want now is to buy the damn thing. Hurry up and finish it, be a mate.

[Bruce70]

Hi Steve,

One little question (I hope).

You stated (and I'm paraphrasing):

- RT with orders during pause would be just like a variable turn WeGo

- No order delay in RT

This implies that there will be no order delay in WeGo! Is this a correct conclusion?

I'm also a bit confused about how 'no order delays' fits in with earlier bones about realistic C&C modelling, can you clear this up for me? Does the new C&C system only apply to off-map support?

[aka_tom_w]

I thought it was clear (at least to me) that Steve said there would for sure be a command delay in WeGo as in the past in CMx1, just that there would be NO command delay in RealTime mode.

Or did I miss something?

-tom w

[ October 05, 2006, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

the list of new stuff that you're going to drool over is quite huge. Steve

So give us some more bones and tell us some of them!

[imported_Wildman]

Steve,

Part of the problem in RT developing into a "clickfest" is the need to micromanage units down to the squad level.

Is there any move to send orders to a Platoon leader to:

1. Move to a location

2. Set up defensive locations against a designated compass line.

So I would click the platoon leader, move to platoon orders and click move on the location I wanted. I would then click the waypoint and hit defend with an arc that I wanted them to defend in. The AI would then move the platoon and place them into a good position without my having to do this for every squad and attached MG, TOW, etc out there.

If something like that existed then it would make RT much easier to handle and more realistic.

Is this what your version of RT will be, or something else?

[Moronic Max]

This implies that there will be no order delay in WeGo! Is this a correct conclusion?

It is not; as Steve stated earlier in the thread (er, I think it was this thread), there's no order delay in RT because order delays are inherent in the system--while you're futzing about with one unit, you're giving no input to others. A delay would be redundant.

[Bruce70]

Can we give orders while paused when playing single player?

No. You can move around, check out units, etc. but not change what any unit is doing. This blurs the line between RealTime and WeGo and we think that's not in the best interests of the game. It is, however, something that can be revisited later.

No specific mention of order delay in WeGo, did I miss it somewhere else?

[EDIT]

OK I found where Steve said that there will be command delays in WeGo.

in WeGo we have Command Delays in there so that there is some simulation of the difficulty of getting Commands issued exactly when you want them whever you want them executed. RealTime has this built in as an inherent part of the system.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

So obviously the command delays in WeGo are built on top of the new C&C system. I am still a bit confused about the new C&C model and RT, but since I wont be playing RT I don't really care.

[ October 05, 2006, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

[Lee]

Steve: Please bear in mind that the reason many CM fans are so big on having PBEM in CMII is because it's the only practical way they can even play multi-player in CMII. Which is a huge deal for those that like to play against a real opponent that can think creatively, be highly unpredictable and who actually cares if they win or if you beat them, something an AI, even one as excellent as CMII will have, can never do.

What do I mean by that? Well, let's consider the multi-player options. Obviously, you can play real-time. But for anyone, and this applies to a lot of CM players, that wants to give careful consideration to a complex tactical situation and the nuances of the many tactical options that are available in a game like CMII before issuing orders, this is simply not physically possible to do in anything other than a smaller size battle when you're playing real-time. There just isn't enough time to think in-depth, let alone go around giving all the various waypoints and such to all the units under your command in a medium to larger battle. So that eliminates RT for anything other than smaller battles for many CM players.

Ok, now what? Well, we can play We-Go with 1 minute turns, which is basically just like CM. Ok, great, what ways are there that you can possibly play We-Go? Well, you can play hot-seat, which is fun, but you have to have someone at your house to do that. How many players have a fellow wargamer friend that just happens to live nearby that can come over regularly to play for hours? Not very many, I'm guessing. So that's out for most players.

Hmm, well, you can do a direct connection and play We-Go over the live connection. But the whole point of playing We-Go for many is to have time to think carefully about the complexities of the tactical situation on the battlefield. So that means you need a relatively large amount of time for each turn in medium to large battles. It's hard enough finding a reliable opponent that can consistently send 2-3 full game turns a day via e-mail in CM. How many guys are you going to find that have the time and patience to keep a live internet connection going for hours on end day after day while several turns are played a day (I've been in large complex battles in PBEM CM where it took me a solid hour of non-stop work to assess the situation and issue a full set of complex orders to the many units under my command)? Very very few players like that will you find. So that effectively eliminates that.

What's left then?? We-Go PBEM, that's what. This is effectively the only practical way for a large percentage of CMII players to play CMII against a real opponent in anything other than small battles. That is why PBEM in CMII is so terribly important to so many CM fans. To not have it would be nearly equal to the death of multi-player CMII in most circumstances. Which is a horrible thing to even contemplate.

In light of that, thank God that Steve has indicated, even at this late date when the picture must be becoming almost crystal clear from a programming standpoint, that it's almost certain that PBEM play will work just fine with the CMII engine and will be included in the game!

[Battlefront.com]

Wildman ,

Part of the problem in RT developing into a "clickfest" is the need to micromanage units down to the squad level.

As far as I am concerned "clickfest" is more than just the need to do a lot of clicking. It can be better summarized as "he who clicks fastest wins". This is especially true for the traditional resource gathering/building RTS games. The guy that could manage to fight a battle and keep getting resources and keep producing stuff would likely win regardless of his strategic and/or tactical abilities. This advantage is usually compounded by the well known "tank rush" tactic made famous by Command and Conquer. All a player had to do to win was click really quickly to keep things being built, then group select a mass of tanks, and send them at an enemy's location. If the enemy in question had been instead trying to do crafty tactical stuff instead of brute force things he was more likely to lose in the long run. Hence the guy that clicks the quickest wins the most.

None of us here want a game that values the speed of clicking more than any other aspect of the game. Which is why CM:SF in RealTime is not a "clickfest" in my mind. Sure, if you put two players head to head, the one that can think faster and click faster will have an edge. That's not a bad thing. In fact, it is a realistic thing. One of the reasons why I hated playing boardgames so much is that I tended to play against people that got out the ruler and tried to see what each one of his 50 f'n units could do each individual turn. No gut instinct moves, no faith in his greater plan. Micromanage the Hell out of each move and bore me to tears. Guess what though? I usually won CM:SF RealTime will separate the intuitive players from the micromanagement players for sure. The former will love RealTime, the latter will hate it. Different strokes for different folks.

The #1 reason why CM won't fall into the "tank rush" "clickfest" combo is simple. Try taking a platoon of infantry and have them rush a single MG in the open in CM. No amount of fast clicking is going to overcome the morale, cover, and suppression problems that MG is going to dish out. Heck, the enemy player doesn't even need to be there to micromanage that MG... it's going to cut lose and chop those guys down without any need to be told what to do. In C&C, Warcraft, and other games that wouldn't be the case because units are robots and more robots win almost no matter what. And if you lose some, just build some more. In CM if you lose a platoon you might have lost 1/3rd of your force for the entire game. Not bright.

What this means is that the player that has the better sense of unit capabilities, terrain, and basic tactics will likely win no matter how fast the other guy can click. However, if the other guy has a similar level of knowledge and can click quickly, while you can't, then you are going to be at a disadvantage in some situations. Might be enough to lose the game for you, might not.

So I would click the platoon leader, move to platoon orders and click move on the location I wanted. I would then click the waypoint and hit defend with an arc that I wanted them to defend in. The AI would then move the platoon and place them into a good position without my having to do this for every squad and attached MG, TOW, etc out there.

Not as such. That would involve a massive amount of AI work and we don't have time or money for that (BTW, Bruce70... I don't remember getting an email from you). What does happen, though, is when you order units close to good defensive terrain they will use it even if you didn't explicitly instruct them to. We are also trying to get in some "short cut" stuff that may or may not help.

Moronic Max ,

It is not; as Steve stated earlier in the thread (er, I think it was this thread), there's no order delay in RT because order delays are inherent in the system--while you're futzing about with one unit, you're giving no input to others. A delay would be redundant.

Correct. Thanks for straightening that out To put in something I said earlier, if we allowed infinite pause/command combos then we would HAVE to institute Command Delays in the RealTime Mode. And once we did that we would effectively have WeGo. Since we already have WeGo we don't need a redundant feature.

Guys, keep in mind that one of the big differences between contemporary warfare and WWII warfare is troop density. CM:SF is therefore more or less optimized for a reinforced company vs. a slightly smaller force. Within the timeframe and size of a scenario, that is about right for combat these days. That should work out fine in RealTime. However, for you guys wanting to play a full Battalion on a full Battalion... RealTime is probably not the way to go.

Also keep in mind that the pace of a battle in CM should be SLOWER than what you are used to in CMx1. One of the unrealistic byproducts of turned based gaming is "time compression". Meaning, you have SOOOOO much control that you micromanage and therefore gain far greater efficiencies than you could on the battlefield. What takes you 10 turns (10 minutes) to do in CMx1 WeGo should take you 20 minutes or more to do in CMx2 RealTime and probably 40 minutes in real life. One of the reasons you'll have to go slower is because your forces will sit around while you think. Quick example:

I had one battle where my guys sat around in their jumpoff positions for 5 minutes or more. In real life they might have been there for a lot longer, but in CMx1 they would have been there for about 1 minute tops. When I started my attack (this is the one in the AAR, BTW) I was clumsy and didn't think through the tactics well enough. I got hammered and couldn't extract my forces before they were fully committed. In CMx1 I would have seen my first guy get hammered and then rethink my whole plan for 10 or 20 minutes while my guys were frozen in time waiting for the next turn. That thinking, combined with unrealistic control of everything else on the battlefield, would allow me to adjust my plan radically within seconds of game time, even though it took me 20 minutes to think it up and plan it out. This in turn would allow me to yield an unrealistic result. In RealTime, single player, I can pause and at least get in that long thinking time. But trying to change the plans would be a lot harder than WeGo because while I was changing the plans I would be experiencing the pain of a poor plan executed poorly. And THAT is what is going to make RealTime so damned exciting.

Now, I am not going to go so far as saying that RealTime is for the strong and WeGo for the weak. Not at all. What I am saying is that the two are pitched towards different types of players. The ones that thrive on quick thinking and action will do much better in RealTime than ones that feel they need to be absolutely sure about every little detail all the time, every time. This doesn't mean that the "instinctive" players are better, they are just geared differently than the "academic" players. However, in a real war I'd rather the "instinctive" type who thrives playing CM in RealTime be my unit commander over someone with a perfect record in WeGo who can't stand RealTime. Having said that, since all of you CMers would likely get me killed in the first 1 minute of combat, even if I were in an Abrams, I guess it wouldn't really matter

Steve

[ October 05, 2006, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Lee, all valid stuff that was brought up in the earlier discussions. However, it doesn't change anything that I've said because I've never, ever said that PBEM wasn't a good and valuable feature. I just said that on balance, even including the stuff you brought up, it isn't the most important thing for the game and its audience on the whole.

Steve

[Imperial Grunt]

Steve, how bout tossing some really big bones now?

[Thomm]

Steve,

do you think it would be possible to include orders in the set-up phase of the real-time mode?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Kineas]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So I would click the platoon leader, move to platoon orders and click move on the location I wanted. I would then click the waypoint and hit defend with an arc that I wanted them to defend in. The AI would then move the platoon and place them into a good position without my having to do this for every squad and attached MG, TOW, etc out there.

Not as such. That would involve a massive amount of AI work and we don't have time or money for that

</font>

[Cpl Steiner]

Some more questions on real-time multiplayer CM:SF.

</font>

• Will I be able to play against total strangers like in FPS multiplayer games such as "Call of Duty"? For this to be possible CM:SF would need some sort of lobby where you could see other players ready to play. This would be a big advantage for me as my main opponent at the moment is in a different time zone.</font>
• If a squad comes under fire in the open due to an unexpected threat materializing whilst I'm looking the other way, will the AI order the squad (or what's left of it) to get behind the nearest cover or at least hit the dirt? This might save the squad until I notice that something bad has just happened to it whilst I was doing something else.</font>

I think a lot of PBEM fans are concerned that they won't be able to find opponents if they have to play real-time, because their regular opponents won't be able to spare the time to play. If we had some sort of player lobby built into the game I think it would please a lot of PBEM devotees and sway them to try real-time.

[Sergei]

I think there's enough lobbying going on in these forums already.

[aka_tom_w]

Steve already said (about a million times) don't waste your time/bandwidth/energy lobbying for PBEM because it won't make any difference to them.

He said if you read his posts, (about a million times) PBEM is not a 'sacred cow' and if we have to leave it behind to move to RealTime and other cool features in CMx2... "SO BE IT"

(Meaning they plan to generate more sales offering a RealTime Game then they will lose by disappointing hard core fans with no PBEM available, and that makes sense to me from a purely profit motivation standpoint. For which I respect and appreciate their logic, and clear focus and shrewd business sense )

Since it looks like some form of PBEM will be in anyway I wouldn't worry about it. IMHO

-tom w

[ October 06, 2006, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

undead reindeer cavalry

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />sounds like fun!

Which is why you'll probably only play the game in WeGo. Some people simply don't like RealTime... that's fine. Don't forget that a lot of people don't like WeGo. Probably more people hate turns than hate realtime play, BTW. We're including both so neither should be unhappy.</font>

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i just fear that no-commands-when-paused creates artificial limitation that players will have to counter with repeated pausing.

If people are going to pause for a think, go back in and do some clicking, then pause for a think again, then BFC might consider being really evil and having a big blank screen with "game paused" written on it when you hit that pause key. If you can't pause the game on a particular camera view then it will be even less useful for planning purposes.

[Battlefront.com]

Thomm,

do you think it would be possible to include orders in the set-up phase of the real-time mode?

I don't know, we'll have to see. In theory there should be no difference in the setup phases between the two modes of play.

Kineas ,

It's the Highway to the Reich operational level wargame, which has this feature. E.g. you instruct a leader to attack to a point on a 2000m wide front, and the leader AI will micromanage hundreds of subordinate units for you. (Of course you too can micromanage them). Even the command interface is handy.

Or Airborne Assault, which was the first game and was sold here for a while Making AI for tactical level wargames is a lot harder than operational or strategic. The reasons should be obvious... in tactical every meter, tree, rock, etc. can make the difference between a good position and a suicidal one because there is no abstraction of either unit or terrain attributes. As soon as you bump up a level (even to, say, Avalon Hill's PanzerBlitz level) most of these problems go away. If you go up another level, like to Highway to the Reich, most of all the remaining problems disappear. Going up another level from that is only a little bit easier than the one below it because so much has already been abstracted.

Curiously, I realized that I prefer the conventional method...the difference is not just a new feature but the entire gameplay.

This is a conversation we've had here many, many times before. Some people really like a more hands off approach, others don't. We call the hands off game style "Command Level" and we personally don't have any desire to go that route, even if we could. As I said, the amount of AI and the expectations placed on it are way out of the league of a commercial wargame like CM.

Cpl Steiner ,

? Will I be able to play against total strangers like in FPS multiplayer games such as "Call of Duty"? For this to be possible CM:SF would need some sort of lobby where you could see other players ready to play. This would be a big advantage for me as my main opponent at the moment is in a different time zone.

We will get a feature like that into the CMx2 engine for sure, but we are not sure when. It's a lot of work.

? If a squad comes under fire in the open due to an unexpected threat materializing whilst I'm looking the other way, will the AI order the squad (or what's left of it) to get behind the nearest cover or at least hit the dirt? This might save the squad until I notice that something bad has just happened to it whilst I was doing something else.

Yes, even CMx1 had that. It was limited and had various issues due to the linkage between Morale and Suppression that made it not as good as we would have liked it. The separation of Morale and Suppression in CMx2 means we can do a lot better with it this time around.

undead reindeer cavalry ,

i think i will enjoy the realtime more than wego if AI can take reasonable care of the units when i am not directly overseeing them. probably i will not pause the game at all as i enjoy certain lack of control what comes to these kind of games.

Well, the great thing about it is you can try it and decide for yourself which way you like playing For me, I think I will play both very regularly.

i agree that in general more people dislike turns than realtime. i just fear that no-commands-when-paused creates artificial limitation that players will have to counter with repeated pausing. a good number of those players will be annoyed.

The whole thing is artificial Well, most RT games that I know of don't allow you to issue commands when paused, so it isn't like we are doing something new. Also, CM is not a game as much as it is a simulation. This means we have to pay attention to things that other RT games don't. I suspect that the type of player that would be put off by the lack of commands during pause won't be a big fan of CM anyway. No hitpoints

Steve

[imported_Wildman]

Cpl Steiner ,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

? Will I be able to play against total strangers like in FPS multiplayer games such as "Call of Duty"? For this to be possible CM:SF would need some sort of lobby where you could see other players ready to play. This would be a big advantage for me as my main opponent at the moment is in a different time zone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We will get a feature like that into the CMx2 engine for sure, but we are not sure when. It's a lot of work.

</font>