My Only Somewhat Major Issue With CMSF

[B00M$LANG]

Although I'm posting more details in the Skunkworks, I think there should be an "unlimited" option for time, or, at the very least, up to 12 hours.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

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."

Bringing back Operations would be a neat way to do that then, wouldn't it?

Instead of massively stupid 12 hour scenarios, the smart thing to do is design "breaks" so that each side can resupply in between rounds of combat.

Otherwise, if you are taking more than 2 hours in a CM scenario, either the player doesn't know what he's doing, or the scenario designer has no idea what Combat Mission is supposed to be about.

Arbitrary time limits are not unrealistic. If you are doing stuff in the last turns, consider yourself to have lost.

How about variable time limits that have the ability to shut down a scenario early? That might avoid some gamey last minute rushes.

[Dennis50]

"Arbitrary time limits are not unrealistic. If you are doing stuff in the last turns, consider yourself to have lost."

I lose a lot ...

Regards,

Gunz

[Huntarr]

Michael D's suggestion of a variable time limit is an interesting option for the "mad dash" some use at the end of scenario.

My opinion which is further discussed in skunkworks is that the time limit should be left to the scenario design. Yes more than 120 min could be allowed for future expansion of the engine.

[Pete Wenman]

Reinforcement slots after 60 minutes would be good also.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Bringing back Operations would be a neat way to do that then, wouldn't it?

I was thinking of something more like CMC, actually. I don't think the player will fully appreciate a sense of urgency in any situation unless he's the one actually executing the operational moves - having an understanding of the larger picture, not just having it presented to you in text in a scenario briefing. The dynamic campaign may tell me to be quick about things, but it just doesn't matter that much to me - the time limits to me are still just arbitrary, random.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Arbitrary time limits are not unrealistic. If you are doing stuff in the last turns, consider yourself to have lost.

Not necessarily. Say I'm in an operational context where I know enemy reinforcements are arriving in 60 minutes, I have several options -

a) Move hastily, taking losses, but securing the bridge before enemy reinforcements arrive. (ie, CM's "time limit.")

Moving slowly and methodically, destroying everything in front of me but preserving my own forces, therefore maintaining the ability to take on any additional enemy forces that arrive. (Not taking objectives by the end of CM's "time limit.)

"A" is the only option you ever have in CM scenarios - whereas there would be literally dozens of options open to a player with operational control. Option C - don't attack but defend, defeat any enemy forces that arrive, then take the bridge afterwards. Option D - forget the bridge alltogether. Go around, or find another bridge. It goes on and on. All we get in CM is an aribtrary number of minutes to put friendly forces inside of a green box, or else we fail - completely unrealistic.

[thewood]

In CM1 the time limits made sense because objectives were limited. You have many more options for objectives in CMSF. Having an arbitrary limit of 2 hours max removes a lot of the flexibity for scenario designers.

In a perfect world you would penalize the player for going past a limit, but continue to play. Maybe even graduate the score based on how far over the limit. But to absolutely end the scenario is inflexibility at the other extreme.

[rune]

Billy,

You said the key word, that is an operational decision. CMSF as well as the CMX1 games are tactical games. The decision not to take the other bridge and to beat the reinforcement to the bridge has already been decided. You have to deal with the tactical situation. As you said, you want CMC built into the game, well, you want two games in one...not going to happen any time soon.

Discussions are ongoing behind the doors. lenghtening the games can run into other troubles...ammo, fuel, loiter times.

needless to say, things have to be considered.

Rune

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by rune:

You said the key word, that is an operational decision. CMSF as well as the CMX1 games are tactical games. The decision not to take the other bridge and to beat the reinforcement to the bridge has already been decided. You have to deal with the tactical situation.

Point being, with restrictive time limits in every scenario, the tactical situation is always the same, and rarely interesting. Players don't appreciate the meaning behind an arbitrary time limit without real operational context.

As you said, you want CMC built into the game, well, you want two games in one...not going to happen any time soon.

Spoken like a stern farther to a delinquent son! I've never understood the usefulness of that type of language in this setting, it's not necessary or appropriate.

To be clear - I'm not demanding a product, or a feature. I'm giving understanding to a problem that people have run into, a reason as to why any time limit seems odd, or out of place, or frustrating. If at some point there's real operational context to a CM game, these tactical scenarios would be infinitely deeper and more enjoyable.

[rune]

LOL type of language? I didn't say anything, i typed a simple response...you read into it what you will, but the bottom line still remains it will not be done anytime soon.

The drawback of unrestricted time limits are a possible liability. however, the scenarios I design are always longer and I would not mind more time...but the possibility of breaking things has to be considered and evaluated...which it is being done.

Rune

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

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

Spoken like a stern farther to a delinquent son! I've never understood the usefulness of that type of language in this setting, it's not necessary or appropriate. </font>

I think you read way more into that than what was there.

This would be more like it...

[thewood]

I come back to giving the scenario builder a little more flexibility. They don't have to use it. If it breaks a scenario, no one will play it and lesson learned by the designer.

I think you would find many scenario designers using it as one more tool in the tool kit and not slavishly using it on every scenario.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by rune:

LOL type of language? I didn't say anything, i typed a simple response...you read into it what you will, but the bottom line still remains it will not be done anytime soon.

Exactly - "bottom line still remains it will not be done anytime soon." I didn't ask for or demand anything!

[Omenowl]

I think this is more a complaint about the scenario designers than the game. I do agree with rune about operational concerns if it is too long, but CMSF should encourage realistic tactics and timelines. It may take me 5-10 minutes to properly clear a building and if there are multiple objectives with a fair number of troops I should be allowed for a reasonable amount of time to do so.

2 hours for most scenarios is fine, but it feels like most of the scenarios in the operations are about 15-20 minutes too short. Bad scenario design.

Still upto 3 hours would be better with for a scenario and 2 hours for each part of an operation. Unless there is a particular reason for a short scenario (take bridge by a certain time or destroy Anti aircraft battery, etc) a realistic time frame should be the goal.

I think what most of us are asking is for a scenario designer to be given a greater flexibility for a time frame.

[massive1974]

Let's not piss them off because then they won't even consider changing it

What Rune says makes sense, I mean the fact that such a change may create a bunch of other problems and then it's just not worth it.But more flexibility in the editor would probably less of a hassle.

I don't know how much an operational context would make a difference for me even if I had to manage it. Wouldn't that still leave the same scenario structures limited by time? That's where the real action is, that's where we actually play.

[Mr Byte]

For a no 'time limit' to work in the current game enviroment, spotting has to be altered.

mostly when I start a scenario there is a bunch of ? appear as soon as I get LOS to the objective and this can be from waaaaaay off :eek: .

for a 'no limit' time scenario only positive sightings should be shown thus forcing a player to approach and investigate ....carfully, rather than blast from distance those pesky ?'s

I realise that not all the ?'s are actual units but I really not need a ? to make me wary that there is something there, I know there is thats why i'm playing the game!! at some of the ranges of the ?'s appearing I couldn't possibly have any kind of positive sighting.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Mr Byte:

For a no 'time limit' to work in the current game enviroment, spotting has to be altered.

mostly when I start a scenario there is a bunch of ? appear as soon as I get LOS to the objective and this can be from waaaaaay off :eek: .

for a 'no limit' time scenario only positive sightings should be shown thus forcing a player to approach and investigate ....carfully, rather than blast from distance those pesky ?'s

I realise that not all the ?'s are actual units but I really not need a ? to make me wary that there is something there, I know there is thats why i'm playing the game!! at some of the ranges of the ?'s appearing I couldn't possibly have any kind of positive sighting.

Welcome to modern warfare, right? Nearly every soldier (US at least) has optics available to them, as does every vehicle.

[aka_tom_w]

The idea of more flexibility with respect to time has not gone unnoticed.

I think in this thread both Huntarr and Rune have said its being discussed.

I would suggest you could now interpret that as

Heard

Understood

AND

Acknowleged

HUA!

So I will say it again, the issue has gone up the chain of command all the way to the TOP, so therefore I would suggest an appropriate solution and response is being formulated.

(so maybe just give it some time, because what ever they decide will have to be tested to see if some beta tester or beta scenario designer (more importantly ) can break it, abuse it, or find some gamey exploit )

[Cpl Steiner]

One option I don't think has been mentioned is a "Continue Battle" option in the Debriefing screen. You get the results of the battle once the scenario time limit has expired but if you wish you can elect to play on from there. Each time this option is selected adds 15 minutes to the time limit. And of course, victory or defeat is calculated afresh each time the Debriefing screen appears.

This would allow you to play the game any way you want. For instance, if you prefer time limits, you will obviously treat the first Debriefing as being the only valid one, and will only play on for fun to see what would have happened if you'd had more time. However, if you prefer unlimited time, you will treat every Debriefing screen seen as valid.

The above would work "as is" for stand-alone battles. For campaigns, I would just have a setting in the options screen that says "Unlimited Time in Campaign Battles, Yes/No". If you select "Yes", then playing on affects the result of that battle. If you select "No", playing on is just for fun.

P.S. - From a game design point of view it would probably also make sense to reset the countdown clock to 15:00 each time you elect to play on.

[ October 07, 2007, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[Mr Byte]

posted 07 October, 2007 04:28

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Mr Byte:

For a no 'time limit' to work in the current game enviroment, spotting has to be altered.

mostly when I start a scenario there is a bunch of ? appear as soon as I get LOS to the objective and this can be from waaaaaay off .

for a 'no limit' time scenario only positive sightings should be shown thus forcing a player to approach and investigate ....carfully, rather than blast from distance those pesky ?'s

I realise that not all the ?'s are actual units but I really not need a ? to make me wary that there is something there, I know there is thats why i'm playing the game!! at some of the ranges of the ?'s appearing I couldn't possibly have any kind of positive sighting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to modern warfare, right? Nearly every soldier (US at least) has optics available to them, as does every vehicle.

Wow I didn't realise they could see through houses or distinguish between innocent and insurgent....makes you wonder why the war in iraq and afgahinstan is still going

[molotov_billy]

Wow I didn't realise they could see through houses or distinguish between innocent and insurgent....makes you wonder why the war in iraq and afgahinstan is still going

Neither of which have anything to do with seeing full squads of armed men moving about - that phase in Iraq has come and gone a long time ago, word is that it didn't work too well for the insurgents.

The issue in Afghanistan may have something to do with tasking a couple of battallions of armed men to patrol an entire country - though again in cases which armed squads of men have moved about anywhere near US forces, they haven't lasted very long, have they?

[massive1974]

I fully support Cpl Steiner's idea!

[rune]

Actually it would not work for the same reason I stated earlier. Doesn't matter if it is 15 minute increments, or 60 minute increments, unlimited time is going to possibally break the system. You are NOT taking into consideration:

1. Ammo and ammo resupply

2. Fuel, how much fuel does an M1 burn?

3. Loiter times. Those ? you see at the start of a scenario? They are completely set by the scenario author, on how much intel the player has gotten. It could be an hour old photo from a predator, or human intel.

4. WATER. The military types onbaord tell us they no longer carry the water on the outside. Dehydration is definitely a factor, as would be fatique. Refereeing 5 1.5 games this Saturday in 88 degree heat, I was fried by the end. Now add combat gear, a weapon, fear, and a host of other factors, and you may break the game. Not counting 88 is a cool day depending on time of year.

So, there is a lot to consider. We are discussing it.

Billy,

Again you are reading into things. All i mean is it won't be worked on soon. Not ruling it out completely, but there is too much other things that are higher priority. Remember guys, typed words don't have a tone to them, no insult was intended.

Rune

[massive1974]

Hm,

I never thought there were so much problems with these small pixelated patriots. You should model this axiom in the game: "Only time you worry about a soldier is when he stops bitching." Then we'd be racing towards the objective. And we'd be calling it sth else, C&C or sth.

Anyways, I did catch that message earlier on. Since it is a simulation, you'd obviously have to simulate those extra 15 or 60 or whatever minutes. Fair enough. You know what's got priority so it's up to you guys, really.