My Only Somewhat Major Issue With CMSF

[massive1974]

So I've been playing v1.04 and I think it's a major improvement over earlier versions. With my crappy old Radeon 9600 I get framerates over the ceiling. Almost.

And I wanted to congratulate BFC and etc. and my 60 bucks weren't wasted. I never said they were, even with the 1.00 version.

But what actually bugs me (and this issue may have been addressed elsewhere, I just can't remember the thread) is the time limit. In RT.

I constantly feel that it's almost impossible to meet the goals of a given scenario within the timeframe. If I actually try to plan carefully with nice arty preparation and coordinated movements I always get this anticlimactic feel where half a squad of Syrians pounded into oblivion laughs me in the face because I just couldn't get to the darn objective in time.

So my solution is that I use the last couple of minutes to soviethumanwave whatever last metres I need to take which looks and feels kind of ridiculous. and totally unrealistic.

That's my gripe. Realism. I can understand the fact the American firepower needs to be compensated with something and I'm not sure this is why time-limits are so restrictive but looking at a Discovery documentary the other day where a company tasked with taking a cemetery in Falujjah took two days and I'm expected to take a whole town in an hour???

Maybe I'm slow. But I feel confused. :confused:

[thewood]

This is actually why I brought up the tank rider issue in another thread.

In one QB I got dumped with some low-level Syrian infantry almost 1km from the objective. I ended up canning the scenario because by the time I marched my troops close enough, the scenario would have been 3/4 over, plus they would probably been exhausted.

I know its a rare occeurence, but it does show how the artificial time constriants can be a problem.

[JohnO]

It's being looked at, can't say if it will be changed, but were discusing it at the skunkworks.

JohnO

[massive1974]

Ok, it's good to know that it's an issue for others as well and what's more it's being discussed internally. Would be nice to change it if possible. Troop management in RT is a challenge in itself so a couple of extra minutes wouldn't hurt.

[Dennis50]

I agree. I don't want to play "Beat the Clock" or speed chess. Just like to take my time and get my arse kicked slowly

Regards,

Gunz

[aka_tom_w]

rest assured, its an issue.

Some folks who design scenarios (and other folks who play them) feel that the hard limit of 2 hrs MAX time needs to be expanded to allow more flexibility in the design and playing of the scenario.

(at this time there is a 2 hr. hard limit on the longest scenario time)

[handihoc]

Problem is, with unlimited time, scenarious can become ridiculously easy for the US to win, with their vastly superior long range firepower.

For me, having the time limit, forces me to play better and harder. The fact that it makes the scenario tougher to win is usually a major plus.

[massive1974]

handihoc

I see your point, I also had the feeling that this is how long-range firepower is compensated for. However it seems a somewhat crude way of making up for it and it's at the detriment of realism seems to me. In real life the US technological edge is as it is and still they can get bogged down both tactically and strategically. I'm sure there are other ways of compensating for this in scenario design or game design (I mean I guess there are ways because I'm neither a programmer nor have I ever made more than two scenarios, oops). So I just hope there are other ways.

[thewood]

handiloc definitely has a point, but no one forces you to go more than two hours. That is the scenario designers choice or your choice. If you look at the scenario editor, there are many different ways to moot the firepower of the US. For example, limit collateral damage own casualties.

To me putting an artificial limit in defeats the purpose of all the great new features of the editor.

[Stirling]

Why was so much taken out of our control in QBs?

I know why no random maps, but why no ability to pick a particular one?

I know the reason for no any-unit pick-and-choose, but why no direct control to pick even proper formations?

There can't possibly be a reason to forbid us from setting a turn limit.

Are these a product of the forced release problem and presumably fixable? Or are they permanent design choices? Inquiring minds want to know.

[handihoc]

I also don't see why a time limit is necessarily an artificial constraint. I've never served in the forces but surely there must be many realworld combat situations where time is short and critical e.g. at X.00 hours your divisional assets are due to be assigned elsewhere; if you haven't taken that village/town/crossroads etc by X.00 hrs the enemy will have brought up enough supplies/reinforcements to make them virtually impossible to dislodge; you must secure that objective by X.00 hrs to enable another friendly force to advance unhindered.

I'm kind've speculating here, but it feels authentic enough to me.

[thewood]

I don't think time limits are bad, I think what some are saying is that a lot of scenarios artificially shorten the time and have no flexibility.

[Omenowl]

The time frame bugs me to. Unless there is a specific reason where a victory is obtained based upon the time (IE the defenders job is to hold for x amount of time) the time should not be the enemy.

[Battlefront.com]

This is a bit surprising to us to see a discussion such as this. Not that it makes it bad or anything, just surprising I say this because CMx1 had time limits that were, in many ways, more restrictive than in CMx2, but I really can't recall any significant discussion about getting rid of them for any of the CMx1 games. Again, I'm not saying this means we shouldn't get rid of them, or alter how they work. We are looking into it. I'm just surprised to be having this discussion

Steve

[Stirling]

With the new large QB maps (several spread out objectives), time is suddenly more of an issue with smaller forces (mandatory fewer turns).

[Wisbech_lad]

Also what I am finding is that with CMSF RT vs CMX1 WEGO, my control span is reduced. To co-ordinate a RT platoon attack often means the rest of the company is parked - or if I am being generous "placed in overwatch" - until the crisis is passed. This contributes to the increased time pressure.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I also think that RT vs WEGO game types have a great different impact on time consuming during a scenario.

In fact I designed a scenario some time ago. And got some backups about the gameplay.

Some people with wego game style stated the map was too short, while I designed it for a RT game type.

I'm not sure but seems to me that designing a scenario must keep considering the type of gameplay. Surely different player will play different ways disregarding the gameplay type, but still I feel some differences between the time used in RT vs WEGO

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This is a bit surprising to us to see a discussion such as this. Not that it makes it bad or anything, just surprising I say this because CMx1 had time limits that were, in many ways, more restrictive than in CMx2, but I really can't recall any significant discussion about getting rid of them for any of the CMx1 games. Again, I'm not saying this means we shouldn't get rid of them, or alter how they work. We are looking into it. I'm just surprised to be having this discussion

Steve

I'm surprised that you are surprised, Steve. It has been an old wish for CMx1 to make the timeframes larger, to allow the german attacker to follow german doctrine.

It's also an old wish, to have an option to switch the timeframe off completely and allow games like "destroy enemy forces". Or why was that done with CMx2, if that wasn't a wish ever since?

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

I'm surprised that you are surprised, Steve. It has been an old wish for CMx1 to make the timeframes larger, to allow the german attacker to follow german doctrine.

It's also an old wish, to have an option to switch the timeframe off completely and allow games like "destroy enemy forces". Or why was that done with CMx2, if that wasn't a wish ever since?

Agreed. For what it's worth, I abhorred the time limits in CM1 - it created some unrealistic gamey tactics at the end of scenarios. Soldiers do not rush to their deaths because some arbitrary "time limit" is running out.

Unfortunatey the only real way to simulate time based concerns is operationally - ie, "I have to capture the dominating terrain here quickly, because I know enemy reinforcements are coming soon."

[DarthJames]

I agree in principle, but disagree in the context of, say, the main campaign. The context of those missions are a quick thrust through the center of the country where time is critical, therefore the timelimits represent the sense of urgency in the campaign not to get bogged down.

And yes, from a game balance point of view the time limit forces to US player to be less cautious than he usually would, which compensates for his superiour forces. The longer a scenario lasts, the easier it will be for the US.

[massive1974]

This is a bit surprising to us to see a discussion such as this. Not that it makes it bad or anything, just surprising [big Grin] I say this because CMx1 had time limits that were, in many ways, more restrictive than in CMx2, but I really can't recall any significant discussion about getting rid of them for any of the CMx1 games. Again, I'm not saying this means we shouldn't get rid of them, or alter how they work. We are looking into it. I'm just surprised to be having this discussion [big Grin]

Steve

Steve, when I started this thread (not in my wildest dreams did I imagine that it would get more than two replies ) I just voiced a small gripy and wasn't too sure that it's just not my incompetence, tactical or otherwise. I'm not a veteran of the forums, not much a vet of the game either. But I have played CMx1.

After much selfbashing I guess I need to argue for the initial point (I'm not gonna retract it just yet) :

For me the basic difference between CMx1 and CMx2 that makes this issue and issue is exactly the BIG DIFFERENCE: Real Time with capitals.

With CMx1 I could make every fraction of a second count (well, actually no cause I'm not that good), pondering and re-pondering and perusing the situation. It really mattered that I could hypermicromanage for ever and then blow it all to bits in 60 seconds.

In Cmx2 there's is just no chance for that, it's on the go and that's what I actually prefer. I like CMx2 better than CMx1. Feels more realistic. It's just that with these time-limits its infinitely more difficult to get things done for me when so much is going on instantly. I think RT makes the difference.

[Huntarr]

This has been discussed since day 1.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002062#000000

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000206#000014

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002884#000001

Search is your friend

[Pandur]

i, somehow, like the time limit. i mean i play WEGO only, so i dont loose time by doing nothing, and the timelimit is the end of the battle...simple as that. without time limit you could deinstall almost any defense with verry little amount of man/vehicles, with an unlimited amount of time in the game.

let alone the scenarios where a side has to fight a delaying action(the syrians quiet all the time).

its acually like a cheat viewed from that prespective.

i personally would like to boost the max possible time from two to two and a half or even three houers, this allows for bigger scenarios or someone can up the time for a battle he cant win in RT play. but unlimmited time isnt an option i would say.

[thewood]

We are not asking BFC to make time only unlimited. I may not use it, for goodness sakes, it would only be an option in scenario editing.

[massive1974]

I have used search and didn't find that thread. damn.

I never asked for unlimited time either, just for a little more flexibility there.