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

[Battlefront.com]

Now, back on topic!

Sorry... forgot who posted this..

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?

It is not that simple, from a code standpoint. The game has to be locked down and freed up as well. An enforced Pause every 60 seconds means you can manipulate things in RealTime inbetween, which is not what WeGo is about.

However, this is probably the likely approach we'd take to add TCP/IP WeGo multiplayer. We'll give it careful consideration, as we always do. We'll also keep you informed about decisions, as we also do.

Steve

[tinjaw]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

AND on top of that we have to send the entire save state from the previous turn so the deltas have their correct context.

Not arguing. I'm just curious. Maybe something that saves me from coding myself into the corner at some future date.

Why do you need to send the entire saved state from the previous turn? That information is known by both ends at the end of the previous turn, so save it, and then, once again, you only need the deltas. And on turn zero, the both have the same saved game, and if not, then just require that the players get the save game via some conventional means before starting the session?

And as for the deltas, I can't see how they can be enough to come remotely close to exceeding the bandwidth of a DSL line, let alone a GB LAN.

Again, just curious. Don't feel obligated to answer.

[Tauschitz]

I agree Steve that the subject of RT vs. WEGO is not what this thread should be about. I just wish you would not then throw in the "but I think RT is more realistic" as this will just stoke the fire.

Whatever the merits of RT, for me the point is (and this is subjective I agree) I hate RT and will not play RT. I bought the first three CMs not just because of the period (WWII), but because the WEGO system was an innovative adaptation of turn based *head to head* play. I want that head to head WEGO thrill back again, and not against the darned AI, but against all my friends who live around the country.

What I am most sorry about is that Steve and some of the others here, whose posts I have been reading for years while lurking, are being seduced by the RT movement that has turned many of my favorite turn based games in to RT.

I hope, Steve, that WEGO TCP/IP will come back, and that some accomodation can be made for those of us hard core turn based fans of the series.

[ July 28, 2007, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Tauschitz ]

[gibsonm]

Steve,

I’m not sure if the “RT pause every 60 sec” option is ideal, as this would not provide the “replay” feature that normal WEGO currently provides.

[Cheeba]

I think it's a fair compromise, as it looks like using the full WEGO system in TCP/IP play simply isn't going to be practical. Another potential plus would be that it's going to make for speedier games, as you're not going to get people looking through their replays with a fine-tooth comb before making their next move. Whether you like that or not's a matter of personal taste, but I'd certainly be a lot happier having a system like that in place compared with what we have now.

[gibsonm]

But I’ve used the replay as a “review” tool within an instructional setting.

We also use the X secs per time limit as a means of adding pressure. No WEGO, means no turns per se.

Removing these means we either stay with CMAK (which has issues because of the timeframe used) or we look at another product. Hotseat WEGO which seems the last simple option is far from ideal as currently the two players are physically separated (so that their situational awareness is limited to what they see on the screen).

In addition, a number of my local CM opponents do not like RT - period and they all believe that removing this functionality is a backward step (not sure if its such a backward step that they will not buy the product).

We have conducted a quick and dirty trial here and all reported that they did not like RT as the only TCP/IP option.

My only hope is that enough people register their concern and BTS/BFC implements it in a later build along similar lines to PBEM where it was made clear that here is the feature but don’t complain if it creates huge PBEM files. If it was implemented with a caveat that said “here is TCP/IP WEGO but we can’t assure that you will have good performance” then those in a teaching / local environment (with good bandwidth) could use it and those on the “greater Internet” with varying connection speeds would be aware that there may well be limitations.

[Lee]

Steve: We back you 100% on the PBEM file sizes, just as we said we would. Because of the greater complexity of the calculations taking place under the hood in CMII, we knew the file sizes were going to be much larger for CMII than any earlier CM game. I'm sure Charles made the file sizes as small and efficient as he could. And if that's how big they need to be for a CMII game, then so be it. I have no complaints at all.

The fact is that if you want to play CMII (either WeGo PBEM, or WeGo direct connect, if they can get that working, too), these are the kind of file sizes that are *required* for a wargame this complex. Remember, even if you have a direct connect WeGo play option, those files still need to be sent back and forth. You just won't have to e-mail them, they'll be sent straight over the direct connection instead. If you're having problems with a limitation on how big of a file you can send as an e-mail attachment, then use ICQ (a free program) instead, it has a built-in function that allows you to send large files directly to the other player.

[BFCElvis]

Tauschitz, I may have been misunderstood. I have been playing turn based war games longer that 25 years and never liked the thought of real time. It is not that I "wish to move to RT games". What I am saying is that this game, CM:SF, after several months of playing has become MUCH more enjoyable to play in RT and that virtually everyone (except gibsom) that has played it for more than the 1 day that it has been out has also come to feel that way too. So what I was saying was perhaps before too many people end up feeling wronged and ripped off by BFC they should adjust to the different game and learn how it is played and..... perhaps.....not for sure but maybe...will feel differently. That's all I'm saying.

And not for nuttin but if :

"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."

If WEGO TCP is ever added you won't need to put me on your dance card. I'd lose what little mind I have if I was sitting here for a considerable amount of time waiting for my opponant to finsh their turn.

[Tauschitz]

Elvis,

"If WEGO TCP is ever added you won't need to put me on your dance card. I'd lose what little mind I have if I was sitting here for a considerable amount of time waiting for my opponant to finsh their turn."

And that is fine.

I am certainly not asking that people who prefer RT gaming, or "slow" style RT (as it is being put here) adjust to my friends and my desire to play by turns.

I just *want* to able to play in turns, while avoiding PBEM.

I am not trying to bandy about my 25 yrs as proof of anything other than that I am not some simple-minded tyro who doesn't know what is good for himself. I - and I suspect many others - simply don't want a RT game. Period.

[Mace]

Originally posted by securityguard:

You honestly cannot play this game with more than a platoon of infantry in real-time because the tacAI constantly makes adjustments every moment.

Err that's in your honest opinion you mean. I don't want you speaking on my behalf.

I've had no problem playing the bigger scenarios in Elite Real Time, and over the term of the beta test I've come to prefer this mode of game play.

And I am someone who detests RTS and avoid them like the plague.

But really it's different strokes for different blokes.

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The entire map state, changed or unchanged, must be sent each and every turn.

I disagree. By way of comparison, data collections systems don't record the current temperature (for example) every second - they only record something when it changes. So record and send the deltas - this way the _first_ turn would be large, not the subsequent ones. You just have to keep the first turn available.

[dynaman200]

If you do add in TCP/IP WEGO please allow it to be rewindable. One of the things I love best about the CM series is the ability to view the battle from different viewpoints. The lack of this feature means I'll be sticking to PBEM for now.

[Battlefront.com]

Quick responses...

Gibsonm makes VERY good points. We would lose the replay feature if we just "WeGo'd" the RT play by simply enforcing pauses and disallowing moves. It might, however, be the best short term solution. It could also work out to be a 3rd way of playing via TCP/IP. Meaning, we might have RT, RT/WeGo, and WeGo. We'll see what we can do.

acrashb,

I disagree. By way of comparison, data collections systems don't record the current temperature (for example) every second - they only record something when it changes. So record and send the deltas - this way the _first_ turn would be large, not the subsequent ones. You just have to keep the first turn available.

Yes, that is a possible way to do it. However, I actually made a mistake in my previous explaination of why it is so large. The map data, and basic unit data, is actually quite small. Often under 50k in size. The other things that bloat the file size are the briefing images. I'm sure Charles is not passing that info back and forth, but maybe he is. I check.

The point, guys, is that no matter what a PBEM file size is based on the size of the map, the complexity of the terrain, the number of units, and the action they are engaged in. The more of these things, the larger the files. There isn't a clever way around this that we know of. We had a discussion about this a week or so ago (and dozens of discussion in the past). It just isn't going to get back down to CMx1 size.

Steve

[Tauschitz]

Steve,

I think (and I hope I am not putting words in people's mouths) that we all understand the problem of file size. I am sure that if you were to implement a TCP/IP WEGO you would do what you could to restrict size and then c'est la vie ....

Is it possible that there is some underestimation of just what kind of computers some/many of your players have these days. The six people I play with, as well as myself, have high speed cable modem connections and AMD (64) 3400+ processors with solid video cards (ATI RADEON x800 series) and plenty of RAM. So file sizes up to 20 or 30 mgb are really no problem.

I do realize that for others this is a problem, I am just noting that in the years since CMBO, CMBB and CMAK a number of us have upgraded significantly.

[securityguard]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Quick responses...

Gibsonm makes VERY good points. We would lose the replay feature if we just "WeGo'd" the RT play by simply enforcing pauses and disallowing moves. It might, however, be the best short term solution. It could also work out to be a 3rd way of playing via TCP/IP. Meaning, we might have RT, RT/WeGo, and WeGo. We'll see what we can do.

Any form of pause & play would help tremendously, as right now tcp/ip is pretty much impossible to handle. I'm glad you guys are considering it.

[Flanker15]

Well as I see it WEGO over TCP/IP net is a bit hard because of the file size but what about WEGO over LAN? 14mb is chump change for a LAN connection and it doesn't use download quotas either.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by securityguard:

Any form of pause & play would help tremendously, as right now tcp/ip is pretty much impossible to handle. I'm glad you guys are considering it.

Securitygaurd if you remember the CMBO release and the weeks and months after youll remember how much the input from you guys helped direct the continued development of the product and how much we do try to work towards solutions to make everyone happy . Thats one thing I have always enjoyed about our development process and one of the bonuses of being a smaller team, we we have much more flexibility after release to continue to evolve our engine.

Of course we cant always find solutions for everyones woes, but hopefully we can here.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This is about a feature that the WeGo people feel is lacking. Discussing RT vs WeGo is beside the point. We support both --

And THAT is the only thing we are asking. That you would indeed support both, as you promised. Not having WeGo in online play is not supporting it. We're not asking to remove RealTime, we're just asking to be able to play WeGo as well. Do that for us and we'll be happy.

Losing replays for WeGo in online play with "paused RT" is a minor nuisance over not having WeGo at all. In fact, I'd personally consider not having replays in online games only a big plus, for not having to wait for the other guy to finish watching his replay..

[Derfel]

Just to keep this one alive a bit longer:

My impressions of the thoughts expressed in this thread. (leaving out the stupid "realism" debate)

1. There are a number of people who are disappointed that TCP WeGo is not available.

2. Most of us feel that BF didn't exactly make this clear beforehand, thus there is an extra bit of annoyance. (In contrast to the PBEM issue where Steve and others told people loud and clear that the filesizes would be large)

3. The main problem seems to be the large file sizes to be transferred, for this reason the designers assumed it wouldn't be a desirable feature to spend time on.

4. Several people have made the point that they play via LAN, which presumably could handle the filetransfers without trouble. I haven't seen BF adress this yet.

5. BF has not completely shut the door on some form of TCP WeGo in future patches or releases.

I guess the question to be resolved really is how many people do play via LAN or high speed internet connections. If there is a significant number who do, it might be worth the effort to re-instate TCP WeGo.

Alternatively Charles might have a brainwave and solve the entire thing so the the file size shrinks to less than 50 kb... but somehow I doubt it...

I am pleased the the door isn't completely shut on this issue, looking forward to developements.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Derfel:

Several people have made the point that they play via LAN, which presumably could handle the filetransfers without trouble. I haven't seen BF adress this yet.

I guess the question to be resolved really is how many people do play via LAN or high speed internet connections. If there is a significant number who do, it might be worth the effort to re-instate TCP WeGo.

If WeGo is implemented by force-pausing the RealTime game, filesizes shouldn't be an issue (the only thing you need to relay are the commands) even outside LAN games. "Full" WeGo with replays and all could be added later if necessary for LAN/High Speed connections, but I don't see anything but some game code standing in the way of RealTime/WeGo.

[Rastakyle]

Originally posted by Cheeba:

I think it's a fair compromise, as it looks like using the full WEGO system in TCP/IP play simply isn't going to be practical. Another potential plus would be that it's going to make for speedier games, as you're not going to get people looking through their replays with a fine-tooth comb before making their next move. Whether you like that or not's a matter of personal taste, but I'd certainly be a lot happier having a system like that in place compared with what we have now.

Why wouldn't it be practical on a LAN?

edit: oops, flanker15 already said this. Sorry. I agree though.

[BFCElvis]

securityguard, while I understand your desire for TCP WEGO you are very wrong in saying " as right now tcp/ip is pretty much impossible to handle." It is not even close to impossible to handle and there are people who have been handling it well for months. So please, it isn't helpful to make untrue statements it gives people stopping in this thread who haven't tried it themselves yet the wrong idea.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Elvis:

securityguard, while I understand your desire for TCP WEGO you are very wrong in saying " as right now tcp/ip is pretty much impossible to handle." It is not even close to impossible to handle and there are people who have been handling it well for months. So please, it isn't helpful to make untrue statements it gives people stopping in this thread who haven't tried it themselves yet the wrong idea.

Sorry but I have played the game in RealTime and as long as controls are still ones designed for a turn-based game, I have to agree with him. But the suitability of the controls for RT is another topic for another thread so let's not start that debate here. This about getting a WeGo mode as promised, not about how great or bad the RT mode is.

[BFCElvis]

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?

[Tauschitz]

I am not trying to speak for others here, but what I think that securityguard and others like myself are getting at is that while it may be literally true that you can play the game RT, it is not true that for lovers of turn based games it is "playable." This is a preference issue at root.

The game RT is not the same game as TB, pure and simple (and as I am sure that you would agree); and while you may feel that you are gaining things in RT play, we feel we are losing everything in RT. Once again, to my mind this is an issue of preference and style of play.