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

[Rastakyle]

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

Thanks for the explaination. I play cm with a buddy on a gigabit lan, that's really the only time I play. RT LAN just isn't going to work for me.

[Exel]

Originally posted by 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.

Seconded. The chief reason I bought the game was to play my friends on LAN. In turn-based mode. PBEM is a poor substitute for that, and frustrating to use when you could just as well have the data move automatically over the LAN.

[tinjaw]

Originally posted by 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.

Edit:

Please let me clarify something. By "do not recommend" I mean, this version, 1.0x. It is my assumption that after a few updates, I will be recommending it to others.

[Tauschitz]

Well, I hate for my first post since CMAK to be a complaint, but TCP/IP WEGO is, in my view, an absolute necessity! I absolutly hate real-time games, and PBEM takes all of the tension out of going head-to-head. I played all three original games with numerous good friends head to head and I am desperate for TCP/IP WEGO to be implemented for CMSF.

So please, please, pretty please with sugar on top add TCP/IP WEGO in a patch!!!!!!

[BFCElvis]

OK....I understand where all you guys are coming from and I'm gonna try to talk you out of the way you feel but I do have to chime in with some things to consider. Myself and a large number of the testers have been around CM for a very very very long time. In my mind WEGO was the ONLY way to play a tactical level simulation. But after playing CM:sf for a bit RT is the only way I play it (aside from PBEM of course). That is also true with almost every tester (I think there is only one guy that still only plays WEGO). If CMSF feels like a time crunch clickfest to you then you are playing the game wrong and need to change your mental approach to playing the game. Slow and methodical (just like WEGO CM is played) is what wins the day. The clock moving and not stopping while you think about your choices can make you jumpy until you learn to ignore that feeling you will struggle with RT after you let go of that you will find it is liberating. RT is not as time sensitive as you may be thinking. Most battles end long before the time runs out and the ones that don't there is usually "overtime" so the only real rush most of the time is self imposed. If you relax while playing it you will find that even in reat time you have plenty of chance to think your moves out.

Now my personal prefence regarding TCP and any CM. Aside from fears about clickfest here are a couple of things I've read here. "With RT TCP you can't play the really big battles because you can't keep track of everyone on the map". This is true. But for my taste whenever I play a CMx1 TCP game I always look for a small premade scenario I have never played before. I can't stand playing big CMx1 TCP battles. I either feel quilty about making the guy I'm playing wait while I watch everything twice and then plot a large amount of units or I get frustrated sitting in front of the screen waiting while the guy I'm playing watches a couple of times and plots a large amount of units. For that reason I don't play big CMx1 TCP battles anyway so that point for me is moot. Another comment is wanting to have the time to consider your moves between turns. For me it gives the same feelings as the large battle scenario. I don't want to sit for 10-15 during TCP and wait while someone ponders their moves. PBEM fine..live it up...but not while I'm sitting there waiting.

The only thing I see as really missing with RT TCP is the replay. I don't normally replay much but I do replay some so it is missed. Here is what I gain...I can play a entire interesing battle with ebbs and flows in under 1 hour...often under 1/2 hour. Instead of issuing orders for a squad to enter a building and then finding out 10 seconds into the movie that there is an ambush in the building and spending the next 45 seconds watching them get torn apart I can change their orders to something that may save them. Instead of sitting in front of the computer waiting while the guy I'm playing finishes his plotting and watching the turn crunch then file transfer I can play and plot and execute orders. I'm here to tell you that isn't a bad trade off.

Again, I am not pretending that everyone will be happy with this and you're all wrong. WHat I am suggesting is that before you dismiss the idea in broad sweeping strokes you get yourself used to the game and give it a chance. You may still hate it. But you may just be surprised.

[tinjaw]

Elvis,

I understand that you are just making suggestions and that you aren't "against" WEGO. I understand your comment that if it is a clickfest that you aren't playing "proper", using realistic tactics, etc. But I disagree.

First of all, I hate RT clickfests. No, hate isn't strong enough a word. But, despite my personal distaste for the *mechanics* of RT, and my dislike of the need to physically operate the computer keyboard and mouse at ungodly rates, I have another objection to RT. *It is not realistic.* Nothing you say will convince me that a company of soldiers, highly trained soldiers, soldiers that have battle drills and TTPS, think at the same rate as a single game player constrained by a 19" monitor, a keyboard, and a mouse.

So, if I *really* want to play the game using realistic tactics, I need WEGO (and an unbelievably excellent cooperative AI, but that is a different thread.) and all the time I need to plan the next minute of combat.

Just another opinion from the masses. You can please some of the people.......

[Exel]

I don't see anyone complaining about RT being there as an option. What people, myself included, are complaining about is that WeGo is no longer there as an option. Basically all that is needed is a mandated pause to the RT game at fixed intervals to give commands in. That's not too much to ask, is it?

I guess it wouldn't be such a big of an issue if the game hadn't promised both RealTime and WeGo functionality. Some of us paid for the game before learning otherwise (pre-ordered) and feel being cheated for it. Being one of those people I can't say it would be an unjustified feeling. But still we don't come here asking for our money back but to ask the game to be improved - because we know BFC has a habit of listening to its customers and supporting its products years after release. Any other company and the criticism might be less constructive and less polite. But we all want CMSF to be the great game it has potential to be. So we keep asking, and suggesting.

I'm willing to give RT a chance. Maybe I'll even stick with it. But I want my WeGo to go along with it.

[Tauschitz]

Elvis (and those of this view),

I respect your wish to move to RT games. However, for me this not about giving the game a chance - I have been playing turn based wargames for almost 25 years, and I know quite well what I like and what I do not like.

I do not like RT precisely for the reasons that you state you do seem to like it. I want the clock stopped (completely) so that I can carefully and slowly consider my moves - and depending on the size of the game, that can be a considerable amount of time - and so that I can go over the replay numerous times, from numerous angles.

PBEM allows some of this with WEGO. But WEGO TCP/IP permitted, in my view the best of two worlds: one could take all the time one wanted (or add a turn time limit if you were so inclined), but one still was connected to one's opponent and thus, the game retained the visceral excitement after you did finally hit the "go" button and watch the fecal matter hit the fan, while messaging or talking with your opponent.

So, I once again beg Steve and Charles to reconsider and to implement WEGO TCP/IP as soon as possible. I know that I am not the only one to feel this way, and I do not want to give up on one of the best game series I have played up to this point. I only wish I could have eliminated RT from the whole development cycle entirely!

[rlg85]

Originally posted by Tauschitz:

So, I once again beg Steve and Charles to reconsider and to implement WEGO TCP/IP as soon as possible. I know that I am not the only one to feel this way, and I do not want to give up on one of the best game series I have played up to this point. I only wish I could have eliminated RT from the whole development cycle entirely!

Seconded

[InvaderCanuck]

My problem with RT is that you don't have the control in larger battles.

Take for example the official campaign. Which mission is it, 2? Where you are given a Styker Company + MGS support and you are to assault an air field.

You have 3 targets, one platoon for each.

I defy anyone to claim they can play such a scenario in multi player and not lose complete control of what is going on in short order.

You can only issue orders one unit at a time. By the time you get to the last squad or stryker, the first units may have already accomplished their objective, or they might have failed miserably.

Simultaneously you have an objective a kilometer away that you need to take, so you move to that platoon, and while you are issuing orders you have no idea if your first platoon needs support.

The gameplay of this game is slow and deliberate, you HAVE to be there paying attention or you will have no idea what is going on.

[magomar]

Hi folks

I strongly support a WEGO TCPIP mode

I think most of us would like to have a WEGO TCPIP mode even if it means having no replay option, that's a secondary matter.

Well, if adding a pause in RT mode would so easy, as Steve has suggested, then a WEGO TCPIP mode could be implemented just by keeping the game paused until both players hit the GO button, right?

I think somebody else has pointed to the very same idea though using other words...

[ July 28, 2007, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: magomar ]

[aka_tom_w]

wow

I am not against WEGO at all, I would lobby for TCP/IP Wego too.

BUT I TOTALLY agree with Elvis, I have been testing TCP/IP Realtime with him in the beta test since before it was actually playable. Elvis and I have had many many PBEM and maybe 1 or 2 WeGo TCP IP battles in CMx1 over the internet. We both have families and young kids and very little time to "goof off". So we both discovered we could play MORE and wait less in TCP/IP realtime, the action is instant and gratification immediate.

For the record I support the lobby for somekind of technical miracle or breakthrough that would permit WeGo TCP/IP that would be great.

BUT

in the meantime why not try a RealTime TCP/IP battle? You will find (if you relax and get over the time deadline angst or anxiety, (chances are your opponent has the same problem/issue)) that you will be not doing much of anything in the first few minutes except waiting....

You will play more and wait less.

I am not here to suggest it is anymore realistic to play realtime then to play WeGo, no arguement there, (its a video game for crying out loud, both are artificial in different ways).

Battlefront is commited to customer support and further patches will be forth coming.

(Its hard to tell if this is a real big issue, or if a VERY vocal and loud minority are making noise about something the majority of players could not care less about? :confused:

I don't know the answer to that so I let Steve and Charles figure that out.

In the meantime just give TCP/IP realtime a chance since its there and it works, WITH the first release. (If anyone cares to remember we had to wait for a few months and a couple of patchs IIRC for TCP/IP when CBMO was first released, as a point of reference.)

Have Fun!

Play the game!

Its a Blast!

[Sgt.Rock of Easy Company]

I second the WEGO TCP/IP idea.

As many of us have stated before in this thread, we are willing to compromise. If having WEGO TCP/IP can't mean that its essentially PBEM but automated (letting you stay in game to chat as well as having replays), then we are willing to have a WEGO that is RT (no replays, but still no controls during the 60 seconds) and pauses every minute to give a new set of orders. In this way, we bypass yalls huge packets size problem, and we get WEGO TCP/IP (giving us control over over large battles, either in field or force) .

[Percopius]

WEGO is un-realistic. Commanders in reality can only give one order at a time (in this game you can give orders to multiple wiht Shift-Drag by the way) and can be overloaded with information. This can only be abstracty simultated in WEGO. This is already the reality of RT. WEGO is a gaming contrivence and as such, makes it a game, not a simulation. I am glad CM:SF is less abstract. I love abstract games, but I prefer simulations.

[Percopius]

Now, what would be the ideal situation is one player per platoon, per side RT.

[rlg85]

Originally posted by Percopius:

WEGO is un-realistic. Commanders in reality can only give one order at a time (in this game you can give orders to multiple wiht Shift-Drag by the way) and can be overloaded with information. This can only be abstracty simultated in WEGO. This is already the reality of RT. WEGO is a gaming contrivence and as such, makes it a game, not a simulation. I am glad CM:SF is less abstract. I love abstract games, but I prefer simulations.

Yep, never should have had those damn CMBO, CMBB and CMAK games because WEGO is unrealistic. Im glad I can see that now..

Which by the way.. this IS a game, unless of course I signed up for the military and didn't realize it.

And by the way, the tacAI is pretty good, but if real soldiers had the same (lack of) intelligence as it and needed as much babysitting, well, lets just say they'd be in trouble. So don't bring reality into it.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Percopius:

Now, what would be the ideal situation is one player per platoon, per side RT.

So the next step for you is one player for each soldier and you stuck in a dark tent listening to radio reports and getting **** all over you and eating crappy food.

[magomar]

Originally posted by Percopius:

WEGO is un-realistic. Commanders in reality can only give one order at a time (in this game you can give orders to multiple wiht Shift-Drag by the way) and can be overloaded with information. This can only be abstracty simultated in WEGO. This is already the reality of RT. WEGO is a gaming contrivence and as such, makes it a game, not a simulation. I am glad CM:SF is less abstract. I love abstract games, but I prefer simulations.

Well, in reality you have a chain of command and many "commanders" receiving and giving orders simultaneously but at different echelons, while here you have a single player in charge of everyting. Having RT doesn't mean the game would be more reallistic. Perhaps RT is funny, perhaps many people end up preferring RT, but I think the argument of realism is not really against the WEGO approach.

[Thunderbird]

Originally posted by Percopius:

WEGO is un-realistic. Commanders in reality can only give one order at a time (in this game you can give orders to multiple wiht Shift-Drag by the way) and can be overloaded with information. This can only be abstracty simultated in WEGO. This is already the reality of RT. WEGO is a gaming contrivence and as such, makes it a game, not a simulation. I am glad CM:SF is less abstract. I love abstract games, but I prefer simulations.

Neither WEGO or RT is even remotely "realistic." The question is one of game design. RT, without a VASTLY superior TACAI, trivializes C2 issues do to the inability to monitor all the action, while WEGO leads to equally unrealistic outcomes because of the inability to intervene when unrealistic actions occur.

The question is, what is "FUN?" Clearly many old players do not find real time fun at all...this is not surprising, since most people that CURRENTLY play the game and are invested enough to post here, are hard core war gamers who generally (not exclusively) like more contemplative games. Clearly, Battlefront made a conscious decision to embrace RT play.

A more interesting question is why did Battlefront turn toward RT gaming in the first place? To crack a much bigger market of course.....Only time will tell if this will be a commercial success for them. I respect that it is their decision, and I will continue to play the game, but can only hope that the general outcry here on the boards is heard and a return to an emphasis on the WEGO system they pioneered is implemented. I think this is inevitable, as in my personal opinion, neither traditional RT players nor traditional war gamers will be happy with the current hybrid system. The traditional RT players will not adopt the game in mass, leaving only us grogs left.

[ July 28, 2007, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Thunderbird ]

[Exel]

Originally posted by Percopius:

WEGO is un-realistic. Commanders in reality can only give one order at a time (in this game you can give orders to multiple wiht Shift-Drag by the way) and can be overloaded with information. This can only be abstracty simultated in WEGO. This is already the reality of RT. WEGO is a gaming contrivence and as such, makes it a game, not a simulation. I am glad CM:SF is less abstract. I love abstract games, but I prefer simulations.

You are honestly saying that the way you command units in RT is realistic? The realism argument doesn't work either way here. Both WeGo and RT are abstractions in their own way. In reality a Company CO would order a platoon to "Go there, accomplish that" but in CM we need to set waypoints, determine the speed and stance of the unit, where it faces, what it targets, etc. In CM the player is not just the the company or platoon commander, but also the commander of each individual vehicle and squad - all at the same time. So be it in real-time or in turns, it's unrealistic all the same.

Originally posted by Percopius:

Now, what would be the ideal situation is one player per platoon, per side RT.

That'd be a different game altogether. A game called 'World in Conflict' to be more precise.

[tinjaw]

Originally posted by Percopius:

WEGO is un-realistic. Commanders in reality can only give one order at a time...

Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no other way to put this then, you are 100% incorrect. I don't know where you get this idea other than the movies.

The reality is that commanders have staffs and each subordinate unit has their commanders as well. Hundreds of decisions are made every second, from commander down to private on the line. Commanders approve an operational order developed by their staff.

If you want to get nitpicky an talk about a tank company commander, then, yes the "staff" is much smaller, but there are rolls that are filled by the troops in the company like S2, S3, etc. The company commander does not make decisions in a vacuum. The commander does not make decisions on their own. Many people are doing many things and filtering, analyzing, confirming, and recommending things to the commander.

Unless you are controlling a single soldier, there is absolutely no way to run anything larger in realtime and be "realistic". Semi-Automated Forces are a very long way away from being viable and Fully-Automated Forces are a pipedream for the foreseeable future.

Edit to add:

TeeHee Didn't mean to pileon, but when I started this there were no replies to Percopius. But when I clicked the post button I found about five people in line ahead of me.

[securityguard]

Originally posted by InvaderCanuck:

My problem with RT is that you don't have the control in larger battles.

Take for example the official campaign. Which mission is it, 2? Where you are given a Styker Company + MGS support and you are to assault an air field.

You have 3 targets, one platoon for each.

I defy anyone to claim they can play such a scenario in multi player and not lose complete control of what is going on in short order.

You can only issue orders one unit at a time. By the time you get to the last squad or stryker, the first units may have already accomplished their objective, or they might have failed miserably.

Simultaneously you have an objective a kilometer away that you need to take, so you move to that platoon, and while you are issuing orders you have no idea if your first platoon needs support.

The gameplay of this game is slow and deliberate, you HAVE to be there paying attention or you will have no idea what is going on.

This is an understatement. You honestly cannot play this game with more than a platoon of infantry in real-time because the tacAI constantly makes adjustments every moment. Most real time games don't even have a tacAI model, and the ones that do (such as close combat series) the amount of rethinking initial orders isn't nearly as drastic.

In single player you can at least counter this by pausing the game, taking a breather and jumping in when ready. You cannot do this in multiplayer. As far as I'm concerned, this game has no internet play because it is, frankly, completely unplayable.

[Battlefront.com]

Tinjaw,

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.

Yes, that is what it is doing. It is only sending the deltas for each nanosecond, just like for RealTime. The thing is that adds up AND on top of that we have to send the entire save state from the previous turn so the deltas have their correct context. And that means file sizes of a few MBs or 10MB+ for larger, more intense battles. So again, it is what it is because it has to be that way.

Steve

[InvaderCanuck]

Originally posted by Percopius:

WEGO is un-realistic. Commanders in reality can only give one order at a time (in this game you can give orders to multiple wiht Shift-Drag by the way) and can be overloaded with information. This can only be abstracty simultated in WEGO. This is already the reality of RT. WEGO is a gaming contrivence and as such, makes it a game, not a simulation. I am glad CM:SF is less abstract. I love abstract games, but I prefer simulations.

I disagree.

Commanders can have a plan of attack or defense drawn up ready to go.

When you are assaulting a position in real life, the commander doesn't tell each squad commander individually when to attack and how to attack.

Everyone knows ahead of schedule roughly what they are going to be doing. Then they act. Once the fire fight begins then you might have a more "one at a time" approach.

RT doesn't simulate this. Yes, I have noticed you can give orders to groups of units, but unless I am missing something, you are giving the exact same orders to the entire group. Their end position is directly affected by their starting position in relation to the main unit.

If you have 3 infantry platoons and you select them all and then give orders to the lot, they are all going to finish in roughly the same configuration that they were initially deployed in.

[Battlefront.com]

This discussion is getting off track. This is about a feature that the WeGo people feel is lacking. Discussing RT vs WeGo is beside the point. We support both, so who cares what one person likes vs. another person? If we didn't find value in WeGo we would have dropped it, if we didn't find RT valuable we wouldn't have added it. So... simple as that, both have their pros and cons. I just hope that the WeGo people understand that they aren't using the superior, more realistic part of Combat Mission.

Arguing about which is more realistic or less realistic is just silly. It's like arguing about which romatic comedy out this summer is a better action flick The point is that Combat Mission is a game and it is inherently not realistic. Over the years I have listed dozens of reasons why this is the case. The fear of death being removed is just a starting point. But I digress...

What I ask the WeGo community to do is not cop an attitude that how they like to play is somehow superior to the way another person likes to play. Personally, as the game designer of both WeGo and RealTime, as well as the WeGo only version of the previous three Combat Missions, my opinion is that RealTime OVERALL is more realistic than WeGo as presented in Combat Mission (other games are irrelevant). But that is only true for certain circumstances and it does involve a certain amount of hand-eye coordination to be true. Meaning, someone with poor hand-eye coordination can not play RT realistically simply because they can't function as a commander (hmmm... actually, that could be realistic ).

Yes, yes, yes... I know all the arguments about why this or that part of the simulation is more or less realistic in one versus the other. I did design the game, you know I am also the one that defended CMx1 against the Close Combat bigots who said that our game couldn't be realistic because it was turn based. So dismissing my opinion is going to be a weeeee bit hard to justify. Because if I have it wrong, then how sure are you that WeGo is realistic too? Afterall, I designed it

Steve