What was the reasoning about TCP/IP being real time only?

[InvaderCanuck]

Originally posted by Elvis:

If you agree with him that the game is impossible to play using RT (either TCP or solo) then you are both wrong and are giving the wrong impression to others. You may not like it and it may not be for you but it is FAR from imposssible. Myself and others have been doing it for months. Using the T and Y keys to move between order menus and choosing ordsers and the mouse for camera control and unit selection the game becomes almost second nature once you've done it for a little bit. It still might be your bag and I'm not trying to convince you that it will be but please stop making false assertions about the playability of the game. There is a very big difference between "I have been trying this for a couple of days and don't feel comfortable with it and don't think I ever will" or "I hate RT somuch I'm not even going to try TCP RT" and "it is close to impossible to play this". Know what I meen?

Please explain to me how you could possibly manage a scenario like the second mission in the campaign.

I'd watch you, wait for you to start actively issuing orders in one location, and then bushwack you at another spot.

When you have multiple forces spread out over several objectives that are not close to each other you cannot tell me with a straight face that you are capable of simultaneously managing them all adequately.

If anyone believes that it is possible, I've got formerly the longest floating bridge in the world i'd like to sell you.

[Michael Dorosh]

Elvis, even in our last TCP game - the MOUT demo which didn't make the cut - I found it challenging to watch my two-pronged attack in RT, and it was only two platoons. I eventually had action in four or five separate locations. My MGS got nailed and I didn't even see it. The house-to-house stuff with your HQ unit I missed (not being able to peer into the building didn't help). I have to agree that there are some pretty steep challenges in RTS when using non-conventional tactics.

If a scenario is predicated on the idea that all attacks are frontal assaults, its not a game worth playing. Fire and maneuver is key.

[ July 29, 2007, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[BFCElvis]

I played Speedy TCP the other day in Dagger Fight and in that both of us had units on the opposite sides of the map. I heard no complaints from him about being able to handle it and it was his first TCP game..he was not a tester.

That being said I agree with what you are saying. And as I said in my first post I don't play huge TCP battles in CMx1 or 2. Andkeeping ack of units spread all over can be very very hard. All I was trying to say is that it is patently no true that CMSF RT (single player or TCP) in close to impossible to play. That's all. I was taking eception to the "impossible" part. I never said I could or would enjoy playing any scenario you could name RT TCP.

[BFCElvis]

Tauschitz, I completely understand and I am not trying to convertanyone. You can like whatever you like. I'm mearly saying that almost everyone who has had the game for a significant period of time changed their opinions (and not because we were guided to or asked..I don't think Steve and Co. give a damn which mode people like to play as long as they play it). And most (myself included) were deeply entrenched turn based players. It my not sound like it from my post but I was resistant and outraged by even the idea that CM was going to be made real time. Pissed me off more than hearing it wasn't going to be WW2. But like they have done in the past in their games they are rarely wrong about what is entertaining to play.

[Michael Dorosh]

I think an acceptable compromise would be to have RTS with mandatory pauses every 60 seconds. Then you could have the same kind of thoughtful planning you have in WEGO, but without the playback feature. You still couldn't watch the whole map, but at least you could move around and see the after effects of what is going on. Would be a sort of WEGO/RT hybrid. Might work? Might make the TCP crowd happ(ier)?

[dynaman200]

> think an acceptable compromise would be to have RTS with mandatory pauses every 60 seconds.

It still would not work for larger missions with multiple hotspots. The player would be forced to either watch from the God level view (in which case all the graphical goodness of the game is wasted) or they are going to miss important details.

[Exel]

Originally posted by dynaman200:

> think an acceptable compromise would be to have RTS with mandatory pauses every 60 seconds.

It still would not work for larger missions with multiple hotspots. The player would be forced to either watch from the God level view (in which case all the graphical goodness of the game is wasted) or they are going to miss important details.

Which is a lot less of a problem than not having WeGo at all.

[Steiner14]

I don't understand, why it is such a problem for the WEGO-TCP/IP lobbyists, to use an instant messenger and play a PBEM battle. When a turn is finished, just send it over with the messenger or via email and inform the oponent about it?

[ July 29, 2007, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[dynaman200]

> Which is a lot less of a problem than not having WeGo at all.

For me, persoanally, having wego without the ability to to replay the action is a marginal improvement at best. I do not enjoy top down strategy games on computer, for that I have board wargames. I do understand that YMMV.

> I don't understand, why it is such a problem for the WEGO-TCP/IP lobbyists, to use an instant messenger

I hate IM personally and nerver load them, it is also not a seemless way to play the game like the original CMx1 had. That said I plan to do something just like this, without IM if possible.

[Redwolf]

So, the problem is that the VCR replay capability requires:

</font>

• Lots of Charles work</font>
• Huge amounts of data, instead of the tiny bits floating for TCP/RT now we'd get the same amounts as in PBEM</font>
• (A real solution for the PBEM amounts would be a reorg of the game to not always transmit everything, but that's out of the question for workload reasons)</font>

Now, what do we want from WEGO in TCP, apart from pauses?
</font>

• We need to find out what happened in the corner we didn't watch.</font>

A possible solution is a message log. The game Panzer Command had it. There's a small window where messages like "tank foo firing at <bar>", "unit baz hit by ...". Then, during the pause you can at least review the the message log. Each friendly unit could have a message filter that when the unit is selected onto those unit's messages are shown.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

I don't understand, why it is such a problem for the WEGO-TCP/IP lobbyists, to use an instant messenger and play a PBEM battle. When a turn is finished, just send it over with the messenger or via email and inform the oponent about it?

Because:

</font>

• People without dual-display can't easily have a messenger on the side.</font>
• The above plan means that you have to do a full restart of the game every time, including a reload of the map etc. That is much slower than what you get with TCP/WEGO.</font>
• You lose the ability to plot at the same time.</font>

How much are these games going to last? I had a lot of 6-hour CM fights. With the above, in particular the last point, you can easily end up with twice that time.

[tinjaw]

Let me summarize things as I see them.

Multiplayer WEGO was not included for perceived technical limitations by the developer.

Many folks, myself included, want multiplayer WEGO as it was in CMx1. We have Gigabit LANs and fast computers, and we dont' believe that/understand why a "new and improved" engine cannot do what the "old and proven" engine could.

The argument isn't about file sizes at all. The argument is that we want what we thought we were buying, specifically multiplayer WEGO as it existed in CMx1.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

I don't understand, why it is such a problem for the WEGO-TCP/IP lobbyists, to use an instant messenger and play a PBEM battle. When a turn is finished, just send it over with the messenger or via email and inform the oponent about it?

Well for starters I need to setup a mail server in the room and give everyone email software and accounts.

Then you have all the other issues of loading the new turn / file from scratch every time, etc.

[Cheeba]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

A possible solution is a message log. The game Panzer Command had it. There's a small window where messages like "tank foo firing at <bar>", "unit baz hit by ...". Then, during the pause you can at least review the the message log. Each friendly unit could have a message filter that when the unit is selected onto those unit's messages are shown.

I'd like to second this as a great idea, I could see it being a great help for all kinds of play.

[Tauschitz]

Redwolf stated:

"Because:

People without dual-display can't easily have a messenger on the side.

The above plan means that you have to do a full restart of the game every time, including a reload of the map etc. That is much slower than what you get with TCP/WEGO.

You lose the ability to plot at the same time.

How much are these games going to last? I had a lot of 6-hour CM fights. With the above, in particular the last point, you can easily end up with twice that time. "

Let me second his points.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Well for starters I need to setup a mail server in the room and give everyone email software and accounts.

Then you have all the other issues of loading the new turn / file from scratch every time, etc.

Good points, especially the first one.

[Xipe66]

I'm hoping you were sarcastic there, Steiner.

Seriously, the distribution of turns is not a problem to anyone living in the western world in the 21st century.

The fact that you have to quit to menu and then reload the scenario when you get your turn is a problem as far as a comparisons to WEGO under TCP/IP goes.

[Rastakyle]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Steiner14:

I don't understand, why it is such a problem for the WEGO-TCP/IP lobbyists, to use an instant messenger and play a PBEM battle. When a turn is finished, just send it over with the messenger or via email and inform the oponent about it?

Well for starters I need to setup a mail server in the room and give everyone email software and accounts.

Then you have all the other issues of loading the new turn / file from scratch every time, etc. </font>

[lassner.1]

In my view of the matter, the WEGO system is much more exciting than that of PBEM; I'm surprised at how many people are trying to suggest that PBEM and TCP/IP WEGO are sufficently similar that those of us who love TCP/IP WEGO should just accept the loss of our favorite mode of play against another human opponent not in the smae location (which, in my case, is *all* of my opponents).

I too am appealing to Steve and Charles to implement TCP/IP WEGO as soon as possible whatever changes have to be made to make it work.

I played and loved all of the CM series in TCP/IP WEGO mode, and I hate not having it available now!

[Darren J Pierson]

Not that it matters, but everytime I think about buying the game, I read a really foolish post and decide to keep my credit card in my pocket. These boards are always quite emotional around release times, but the silly "if you disagree with the God that is Shock Force" mentality is quite a turn off. It isn't any worse than the childish rants of the flamers complaining about changes. I know that BFC will listen to well reasoned comments and requests, but it is getting old dealing with hyperbole from both the complainers and sycophants.

I'll just send some Matildas across the desert and play Civ IV for a while. Doesn't hurt to save money.

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, that is a possible way to do it.

Thanks Steve - that makes sense. I'm not worried about the size of PBEM files as there are a lot of ways to send large files now.

[aka_tom_w]

bump of an old thread about this issue

[aka_tom_w]

oops

double post

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by lassner.1:

In my view of the matter, the WEGO system is much more exciting than that of PBEM; I'm surprised at how many people are trying to suggest that PBEM and TCP/IP WEGO are sufficently similar that those of us who love TCP/IP WEGO should just accept the loss of our favorite mode of play against another human opponent not in the smae location (which, in my case, is *all* of my opponents).

I too am appealing to Steve and Charles to implement TCP/IP WEGO as soon as possible whatever changes have to be made to make it work.

I played and loved all of the CM series in TCP/IP WEGO mode, and I hate not having it available now!

right on

sounds good to me!

[Flenser]

[ August 20, 2007, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Flenser ]