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

[Battlefront.com]

Michael is correct about two very important points. Let me elaborate...

When you play RT the current state of the map, units, etc. is kept in RAM. The data only needs to be moved back and forth when there is a reason to do so. For example, a crater is made when a shell hits it. That has to be transmitted but does NOT have to be stored onto disk. At least not until the game is saved (see further below for more on that). This means that state changes do not accumulate and therefore can be slipstreamed as they happen.

With a turn based system you can not slipstream anything. The entire map state, changed or unchanged, must be sent each and every turn. So if all that data equals 1MB then even if not a single unit did a single thing you still have a 1MB file on disk. Network activity, on the other hand, would be ZERO (theoretically speaking).

To this basic load comes everything else on top. And again, everything has to be stored to disk whereas with RT you can slipstream the data. At least to a point, then the game slows down. That's a problem for some RT games when things get going thick. But things clog up much quicker for a turn based approach because everything that happens in that 60 seconds must be written down to disk all at once. There are no shortcuts.

The easiest way to prove this is to look at the save game size vs. a PBEM file from the same scenario and roughly the same point in the battle. The PBEM file will likely be 5 times larger. Why? Because the save game only cares about the state the game was in in the last nano second when you saved. A PBEM file cares about every nano-second of a 60 second stretch. The more things that happen in that 60 seconds, the exponentially bigger teh PBEM file becomes. Not so with the save file. It usually doesn't change size very much because it generally has to save the same amount of data no mater what. TCP/IP RealTime is more like the save game file the PBEM file.

The only difference between the play of WeGo in CMx1 is you don't have to sit through an EXTRA period of time while the turn compiles. This saves a ton of time when playing WeGo. The new system, other than that, is identical. As Michael pointed out, you can't rewind in RT.

Steve

[securityguard]

Ok, that makes some sense, but could you add a pause every 60 seconds in real time TCP/IP? No playback, but jeez louise

[securityguard]

Actually, no that still doesn't make sense. Couldn't it just transfer that minute while its happening?

[Battlefront.com]

Securityguard,

While I understand the counter-intuitive nature of the differences between the two play styles, please keep in mind that we do this for a living and we aren't speaking out of ignorance. If there was a way to have small PBEM files you would have them. There isn't, so you don't. That is the end of that and there is no room for discussion.

What I can do is help you understand why you're presumptions about how things work are wrong. For example, the reason why you can't rewind in RealTime is the same reason why it works better (more efficient) than PBEM. It only cares about the now, PBEM cares about everything within 60 seconds. Think about it this way...

When you are playing WeGo and are 25 minutes into a game, can you rewind to 2 minutes and 34 seconds from the start? No, you can not. Why not? Because a turn is 60 seconds and therefore that is all the data that is stored. With RealTime it is the same thing except that a "turn" is a nanosecond, not 60 seconds. Therefore you can no more rewind to data that isn't thre in RT than you can in WeGo.

Hopefully that shows that you're fundamental understanding of this is just, well, not very good. Like I said, it is a bit counter-intuitive so I can understand your confusion about this. But in the end we're right. That's just the way it is.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The lack of a pause in RT is a simple game design decision, so we could put that in. We just didn't see the point in doing it. RT people don't want it and WeGo people generally don't want to play even 10 seconds in a stretch. However, if we see a popular upswell of support for such a thing, it is technically possible for us to add at some point.

I don't get your next question though.

Steve

[gibsonm]

Steve,

When you get a chance can you have a read through my posts on this in the “Skunkworks” forum?

[JonS]

Uh, I've been playing PBEM for the last month-or-so, and the largest file xfer I've had has been around 4MB.

How do I work this magic? Simple: play smaller scens.

[Battlefront.com]

To answer your question about why there is no TCP/IP support for WeGo, it is because it is basically no different than PBEM. Since we felt that PBEM was less than optimal due to the file size, we didn't feel like it was worth a fairly large amount of programming time to code for WeGo TCP/IP. Basically, take any file transfer system you can think of (email, FTP, chat, etc.) and you have yourself a TCP/IP game when combined with PBEM. There are some extra manual steps involved, which are less than desirable I know, but the functionality isn't all that different.

Building a game is all about tradeoffs because there is never enough time to put in everything for everybody. If file transfer sizes were much smaller we might have thought WeGo TCP/IP would be more worth the time to code. But we thought the filesize would turn people off so our audience for WeGo TCP/IP would be smaller than would be worth the effort.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

gibson, M! You got it.

Jon, you are also correct. 14mb is kind on the upper end. I didn't even think to mention that

Steve

[gibsonm]

Steve,

Thanks.

Looks like its back to CMAK then for training.

[Sgt.Rock of Easy Company]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

To answer your question about why there is no TCP/IP support for WeGo, it is because it is basically no different than PBEM. Since we felt that PBEM was less than optimal due to the file size, we didn't feel like it was worth a fairly large amount of programming time to code for WeGo TCP/IP. Basically, take any file transfer system you can think of (email, FTP, chat, etc.) and you have yourself a TCP/IP game when combined with PBEM. There are some extra manual steps involved, which are less than desirable I know, but the functionality isn't all that different.

Building a game is all about tradeoffs because there is never enough time to put in everything for everybody. If file transfer sizes were much smaller we might have thought WeGo TCP/IP would be more worth the time to code. But we thought the filesize would turn people off so our audience for WeGo TCP/IP would be smaller than would be worth the effort.

Steve

So later down the road, when our computers can handle much larger size forces than what would be comfortable with Real-time, could yall add in WEGO Tcp/IP in a patch or module? Right now, even 14mbs would be no problem of an upload for me. It would be maybe a minute transfer for me and my friends and by then, it would make playing battallion level or bigger games much easier, in depth and fun.

It would also keep us from going through the hassle of PBEM and email.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[InvaderCanuck]

Ya, I completely disagree with PBEM being the same functionality as TC/IP WEGO.

They cater to two entirely different crowds. I will never play PBEM. It holds no interest to me. I want to sit down and play an entire game in a 2 or 3 hour block. Not carry out a game over 2 or 3 weeks. I doubt there is much cross over between PBEM supporters and TC/IP players. I can see what the goal was. Give the TC/IP guys RT to play with, and due to the crapstorm over no PBEM get that in.

The problem is, RT isn't WEGO, nor is it even half as enjoyable.

I've been reading these forums for what seems like the better part of two years, and I can't honestly say I recall anyone mentioning that there would be no TC/IP WEGO. I pre-ordered the game for the sole purpose of online play, had I know there would be no WEGO I wouldn't have.

Right now I can't see RT being very enjoyable in anything but the smallest scenarios. Setting up coordinated attacks is difficult when you are managing a single stryker platoon, forget the entire company. By the time you finish giving orders to everyone, the first units have carried theirs out for good or bad.

I don't want to make this sound like a negative post. The game runs great for me. However, RT is no substitute for WEGO.

My style of play is for the most part very conservative, creep up hammering everything that moves with massive fire superiority and then launch a dynamic attack as a KO blow. This is pretty much impossible to achieve in the time alloted when you are dealing with scenarios that feature objectives that suggest a multi pronged attack is key.

Right now I don't know what to think. The game seems adequate enough for single player, but I didn't buy it for single player.

Directly from the features list.

Both RealTime (pausable) or WeGo (turn based) game modes offered

No where does it say that WEGO is limited to single player.

Frankly I feel duped.

[tarball]

Originally posted by Vikkelä:

The reason I wrote that crap was perhaps that every time I see something negative posted about CM:SF I start crying. And that makes me sad and angry.

Sorry pal, the title has PROBLEMS - you'll have to wake up to that reality. All of the rest of us waited 4 years as well - Image that we too are sad and angry. I really liked CMx1 - it is difficult to like CMSF at the moment.

The answers on this particular issue seem reasonable enough, but there is a chorus of issues at the moment and that is hard to ignore.

[ July 27, 2007, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: tarball ]

[Exel]

Well I gotta say I feel ripped off for no WeGo in TCP/IP play. The game was marketed as WeGo, and no matter how cool the single player, the multiplayer WeGo is by far the most hooking aspect in all CM games. So given that the game promised WeGo, I expected WeGo in multiplayer as well. I think that expectation was and still is justified.

I can only hope it will be added to the game via a patch. Heck, even an auto-paused RealTime would do. Come to think of it, why not execute the TCP "WeGo" as RealTime where the game is paused every 60 seconds and where the command interface is disabled when the game is not paused? You wouldn't have replays, but at least you would have a WeGo system - as advertised.

[Hukka]

Yes, it was quite a blow for me too when I saw that WEGO tcp/ip was removed. Best aspect of former CM's were definetely wego tcp/ip games.

[franz]

ahhrgggggh ! NO TCP/IP WEGO !!!!

Battlefront had a winning forumla with the CM series. It netted them huge bucks. SO WHY GO CHANGE IT !!!

What is this fascination with hideous real time play that some people have.

Impossible to play the game properly and enjoy it at the same time.

I HATE clickfests and madly issuing orders just to keep up with things.

[Cid250]

What about some of us that have a Gigabit Local conection of 1000Mb/s bandwith, (yes 1Gb/s). And we want to play WEGO by TCP?.

[Member # 16622]

Originally posted by Exel:

I can only hope it will be added to the game via a patch. Heck, even an auto-paused RealTime would do. Come to think of it, why not execute the TCP "WeGo" as RealTime where the game is paused every 60 seconds and where the command interface is disabled when the game is not paused? You wouldn't have replays, but at least you would have a WeGo system - as advertised.

Indeed!

[Derfel]

I must say I agree with Exel on this point. The lack of TCP WeGo is pretty much a dealbreaker for me. I still play CMx1 quite a lot and always via LAN; perhaps there's to few of us who do that to matter, but over a LAN the filesize wouldn't matter much (Well, within reason, if the filesize gets upwards of 500 mb it might slow things down a bit.)

I truly hope Battlefront reconsiders this issue. WeGo via LAN or high speed Internet connnection does seem doable.

[Pandur]

hm, i acually was convinced to get it after playing the demo.

but without TCP/IP WeGo i wont. thats all i did with CMBB/AK.

all my friends i could possible play CMSF with, have a minimum of 30kb/s and a maximum of about 65kb/s upload. so it wouldnt take more time than comuting a large CM scenario for 1-3 minutes...

hope there is a chance to include this "priceless" feature.

[Panzer76]

This is a BIG letdown. Ive also been reading these forums daily, and NOWHERE has it been stated that there would be no WEGO with TCP IP battles.

[DocMcJansen]

What the...??

Only RealTime TCP/IP??? Come on guys..

okay Shock Force ist not a bad game but without decent QBs and no WeGo in mulitplayer it is dead to me for multiplayer (yes I am this type of guy who wants to have time for his decisions! loved CM QBs..*sigh*)

[tinjaw]

Battlefront has made a very bad decision. TCP/IP does not mean the Internet exclusively. I have several friends that would love to play over a LAN. In fact, I would say 90%-95% of my "TCP/IP" play is over a Gigabit LAN and *not* over the Internet.

Secondly, I am not looking to get in a technical argument with you. I have no way of knowing all of the specifics of this particular piece of software or the issues surrounding its development. However, I too do this for a living as well, and sending only the delta for each nanosecond would suffice. I see no reason to send the entire state of the world. If this is your "excuse" for no multiplayer WEGO, it is a very sad one. As I said, I am not looking for an argument, and I have no way of knowing the particulars of this software, but from an educated outsider's perspective it sounds like very poor design as many many COTS games (not to mention military simulations) do it well.

I did pre-order my copy, and have only about three hours of game time under my belt, but this issue of no multi-player WEGO has rubbed me the wrong way. I would say that between the no multiplayer WEGO and the virtually complete abandonment of a highly successful GUI metaphore, CMSF is starting out as a disappointment and a "do not recommend" and will take a lot to change my mind. It may do so, as I said, I have only played it for three hours, but let me give you an example: The whole reason I am here posting to this thread is because I am on the second scenario in the tutorial campaign (which isn't a tutorial because there is no tutoring, no instruction, and is merely a limited sandbox.) and cannot figure out why I cannot fire the Javelin against the bunkers in the same manner as I can against a tank. So I am searching the forums for that answer and stumbled upon this thread. KISS. Why need they be different?

Back to my search.

[Redwolf]

I spare you my "I want it too". Too obvious

But think about this: what is the life expectancy of this game? CMx1 is still going strong 7 years after the CMBO release, 5 years after the CMBB release. How much did bandwidth increase in that time?

One of the more aggravating design mishaps in CMx1 was the entirely artificial restriction to not support any resolution larger than 1600x1200. Now, at the time nobody might have played in larger resolutions. But way, way into the lifetime of the product became displays and graphics cards to drive these displays at higher resolutions available.

Please don't make the same mistake. Just because you estimate that in 2007 people won't wait for the turns to transfer doesn't mean the situation is the same in 2009.

But it is today, in 2007, that you lay the foundation for the community for your game that will carry you over into 2009.