I am wondering about who will do well playing in RealTime?

[aka_tom_w]

Will there be an advantage to younger generation "video game" type players (sometimes refered to here as "the twitch crowd") who might be able to click faster then folks oh say over about 40?

I am wondering.

I am over 40 and might like to try playing RealTime, but I am wondering if the tactics will really just boil down to who can move through the interface faster and click buttons and issue commands more quickly?

I am not sure that just clicking buttons faster will actually aid my younger teenaged quick clicking opponent, but in RealTime, I am guessing the situation on the ground in the middle of a fire fight could get completely out of hand for one side or the other quite suddenly.

Since Steve is the only one who has played RealTime against the computer AI, I wonder if he would be up for another AAR ??

How about it Steve?

Any follow up battles since the Last time the Syrian AI knocked out your Styker's and crippled your attack? (did you lose that one to the AI in RealTime IIRC?)

-tom w

[ October 02, 2006, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Lee]

I think real-time will be more or less useless for all but quite small battles. I play FPS's (Quake IV, Battlefield II, Rainbow 6, Counter Strike, etc.) all the time and am very good at them, I certainly don't lack for fast reflexes. But when you are fighting a detailed tactical battle of any size you simply need more time to *think* to consider the situation and issue orders to the various units than is even remotely reasonable in real time.

This means that turn-based we-go, and thus PBEM, is the only practical way to play multi-player in anything other than a small battle for most players (at least those that like to consider the subtleties of the tactical choices available before issuing orders).

[ October 02, 2006, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Lee ]

[Sgt Joch]

I don't see the "twitch" crowd having an advantage in real-time play since the key to CMSF will still be the proper application of tactics.You will also have the tactical AI helping you in picking out and firing at targets.

You will probably see a stretching out of game length though. A scenario that might last 15-20 turns in PBEM might take 2-3 times that long in real-time.

[DavidFields]

If I remember a game like CloseCombat correctly, I doubt RealTime will be a clickfest. Indeed, I suspect the opposite may be the complaint.

As I recall, when a CC battle began, sometimes, if the attack was stealthy, you would see nothing, or do nothing, for large segments of time. (Again, if I recall correctly, after CC3 they cranked up the AI aggressiveness to make it more fun--even if it is smarter for the AI to stay put, more fun to fight off an attack.

I don't think Battlefront received enough credit for the We-Go concept. From a SP perspective, it meant that something was always occuring--either you were planning your moves, or watching the movie. One has total control of the pace.

3d, real-time, may be were everyone thinks they want to go, but it takes some subtle understanding to make a simulation a fun game.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Rankorian:

If I remember a game like CloseCombat correctly, I doubt RealTime will be a clickfest. Indeed, I suspect the opposite may be the complaint.

As I recall, when a CC battle began, sometimes, if the attack was stealthy, you would see nothing, or do nothing, for large segments of time. (Again, if I recall correctly, after CC3 they cranked up the AI aggressiveness to make it more fun--even if it is smarter for the AI to stay put, more fun to fight off an attack.

I don't think Battlefront received enough credit for the We-Go concept. From a SP perspective, it meant that something was always occuring--either you were planning your moves, or watching the movie. One has total control of the pace.

3d, real-time, may be were everyone thinks they want to go, but it takes some subtle understanding to make a simulation a fun game.

Good point, lets see how it actually works when we start playing the demo.

Thanks

-tom w

[SteveP]

One answer to the question of who will do well is in real time play is: the AI. When humans play anything other than a first person shooter, in real-time, they are limited by the practical span-of-control that a human can effectively manage. The computer has almost no such disadvantages. It is possible that this is one reason why real-time games are more popular (as I gather they are). Even a relatively poor AI can feel like a tough opponent simply by being more aware, more quickly, of what's going on around the battlefield.

[MikeyD]

Has anyone mentioned how 'realtime' actually operates in the game? Do we click on whoever we want at any moment in the action and continuously issue new orders? Almost sounds like gameplay would resemble a sheep dog herding sheep!

The ability to continuously give orders would have some benefit when armor appears. How often in CMx1 have you issued a complex series of order to your tank only to have an enemy Tiger pop up 8 seconds into the next turn! Those 52 remaining seconds before you're able to issue new orders can feel like forever!

[Cpl Steiner]

I must admit I am a bit scared of how real-time will play. Having played games like "Rome Total War" I often end up just group-selecting units and ordering them to attack the nearest threat. Within seconds my carefully arranged cohorts become a disorderly mass of screaming and hacking soldiers, and victory often just comes down to numbers.

For CM:SF to be effective it will have to have a number of things in its favour compared to games like RTW.

</font>

• Very Intelligent "junior officer" AI, so that units don't have to be micromanaged at all in most situations.</font>
• Very good pre-battle planning facilities - almost "if-then-else" style scripting - for each unit under the player's command.</font>

It might make the pre-battle phase a lot longer than in CMx1 because a lot of this planning is effectively abstracted in CMx1 by allowing the player to make lightning-fast decisions in the heat of battle. Personally though, I think this might be a good thing. I liked the "Rainbow Six" games for precisely this reason.

Originally posted by SteveP:

Even a relatively poor AI can feel like a tough opponent simply by being more aware, more quickly, of what's going on around the battlefield.

This is a good point and it may be necessary for the computer opponent to be forced to decide most of its battle-plan in advance and only allow it to make minor changes during the battle.

[ October 03, 2006, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[aka_tom_w]

well here's a hint about how Real Time will play:

NO command delays!

One practical issue is that there are no Command Delays in RealTime Mode. So a Pause would allow you a completely unimaginable amount of precision control over what happens, even more so than WeGo. So if we are going to allow Commands during a Pause in RT we are also going to have to put Command Delays in place for the entire RT environment. We don't think that is a wise idea.

I'll head off this likely response..."WHAT? No Command Delays in RealTime Mode? Are you insane?" Nope, logical. Think about it... in WeGo we have Command Delays in there so that there is some simulation of the difficulty of getting Commands issued exactly when you want them whever you want them executed. RealTime has this built in as an inherent part of the system. The fact that the game continues as you move around checking on things and what not means that there is already plenty of delay happening. So adding MORE delays would be a bad thing as would unlimited ability to plot without any delays.

[Kineas]

Realtime games have a macro management (strategy, tactics) and micro management aspects. More clicks means better micro. You can't compensate for your lack of micro over a certain degree.

Newer RTS games put strong emphasis on avoiding the clickfest but they can't really remove this factor. I see only one solution: limiting the actions per second from the engine itself.

You don't want to know how fast the pro RTS gamers click

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Kineas:

Realtime games have a macro management (strategy, tactics) and micro management aspects. More clicks means better micro. You can't compensate for your lack of micro over a certain degree.

Newer RTS games put strong emphasis on avoiding the clickfest but they can't really remove this factor. I see only one solution: limiting the actions per second from the engine itself.

You don't want to know how fast the pro RTS gamers click

If I had to guess, it would be my guess that there is NO Way in hell that BFC would ever intentionally limit the actions per second a human player could issue. I would suggest that the "clickfest" is just simply part of the whole RTS paradigm.

But that is JUST me guessing :cool:

-tom w

[Sergei]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

If I had to guess, it would be my guess that there is NO Way in hell that BFC would ever intentionally limit the actions per second a human player could issue.

That's not what he was talking about. It's just that while in an RTS a human player can keep his eye on one location OR another, and issue orders there, the AI can issue orders here AND over there AND that way AND behind the hill, MEANWHILE keeping an eye on the enemy. The AI sees everywhere, and can react all the time; human can't.

[Kineas]

It's not that simple. If you average around 20-30 apm (action per minute = click per minute) and a guy comes with 120 apm sustained knowing this he will attack you on 2 or 3 sides of the map simultaneously. You just won't be able to keep up with this and there you go your fronts collapse. It's a perfectly valid RTS strategy.

[imported_Wildman]

I believe that is what joint doctrine calls "getting inside his decision cycle." The current endstate for command and control

[Lee]

What Kineas describes is precisely what I don't ever want to play like in a realistic wargame. It's one of the reasons I tend not to like RTS games that much. Even though the game itself might be fun, in order to be competitive against anyone who's at all good in the game, you have to fly all over the map issuing orders as fast as you can to keep up with what he's doing.

This not only doesn't allow time for consideration of the kind of tactical nuances that CM is famous for (which in itself would be a game killer in a CM type of wargame for me), it also means you don't even have time to sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the battles in front of you on the screen, because you have keep moving around like crazy issuing more orders to get ready for the next battle somewhere else on the map. It's just not fun.

If I want to play a clickfest where fast reaction time and split second timing are important, I'll just play some more Day of Defeat or Counter Strike. I play tactical wargames because I want to *plan, strategize and think* about the subtleties, details and nuances of the tactical choices available in the battle. You simply can't do that in serious depth in real-time in anything other than a very small battle. So I'll be playing almost all my multi-player CMII games in We-Go PBEM, where you can take your time and issue proper detailed orders for all the units under your command.

[ October 03, 2006, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Lee ]

[birdstrike]

I am quite certain we don't have to fear CM real time. In RTS games, I'd say it all boils down to three things: basic gameplay, tactics and gamespeed.

To make my point:

in essence gameplay considerations in 'classic' RTS are limited to

- "resource gathering" (or energy or victory points or whatever, to buy new units)

- "building" (when do I build what unit, what building, etc?)

- "teching" (when do I upgrade my units?)

- and "attacking" (when and where do I attack?)

Luckily, none of the above (apart from "attacking") is something we CM players should care about )

As for game speed and combat tactics:

many RTS games are played at ridiculous high speeds. Units move, shoot, act faster than they would in reality. This is mostly possible because there is only little tactics (as we know them) involved in RTS combat. From a CM gamer's perspecitve, fighting in RTS games looks like big 'brawls' where all units involved gather in a very limited area. It comes down to selecting one unit to attack a specific other unit as quickly as possible, while keeping ranged units away from close-combat units (that's what they call "dancing" ). Any player with good micro-skills and high reflexes, and who knows what units are most effective against their enemy counterparts, will have the upper hand in these fights without knowing anything about things like supression fire or cover and concealment.

To illustrate what I just said:

CM players worry over "ground pressure" and "sloping armor", RTS gamers are more interested in "time to build" and "damage per second".

Some games like "Company of Heroes" consider certain terrain effects or include some sort of damage/morale models, etc. But they cannot simulate those things in detail, simply because the gamespeed does limit the amount of information a player can deal with and react to.

Thereby, most RTS games lack the tacical depth of games like CM, as they keep many simplyfing RTS features to appeal to the action-craving game-crowd (did I mention Hitpoints? ).

On the other hand, we know from experience how important things like terrain, morale, etc. are in CM.

CM1, and from what we've heard CM2 also, aims at simulating actual combat in great detail.

If CM1 is any reference, gameplay in CMSF should be faaaar more slowly than in common RTS games.

For instance, units in RTS games might cover whole maps in less than a minute and portable rocket launchers will fire every few seconds, while in CM1 Soldiers running across 100m of open ground would already need about half a minute and reloading a bazooka would take quite some time as well. This should give the player at least some time to breathe now and then.

Micro should be less of an issue as the TacAI will presumably perform basic tasks like using cover and selecting appropriate targets.

Also, fighting will most likely occur over relatively long distances (compared to common RTS games) and units will probably be more scattered over the map, i.e. fire-fights may occur between isolated elements instead of all units crowded in a small area. The main difficulty with this will probably be, to keep an eye on all your units and issue orders to them at the right time, that's why I think situational awareness and tactical flexibility will be much more important than clickspeed.

And if everything fails, we still got our old WeGo. But I dare to predict even very experienced RTS gamers will get their rear-ends kicked by the AI when they start playing CMSF.

[aka_tom_w]

If CM1 is any reference, gameplay in CMSF should be faaaar more slowly than in common RTS games.

For instance, units in RTS games might cover whole maps in less than a minute and portable rocket launchers will fire every few seconds, while in CM1 Soldiers running across 100m of open ground would already need about half a minute and reloading a bazooka would take quite some time as well. This should give the player at least some time to breathe now and then.

This makes sense

I am not convinced the RTS "pro" player who can click 3-4-5 times faster then his not so RTS savy opponent will have a real advantage.

One factor not mentioned here is the number of units and the size of the battle. In what might be considered a really big scenario on a large map, perhaps the RTS savy (quick clicker) will have an advantage. But my guess is that in any average scenario, ANY non RTS, (average to good) CMx1 player should do very well playing EITHER the US or the Syrian's against a non CMx1 RTS "pro" youngster (under say 20 years).

On a larger map for reasons outlined by Kineas may be more evident....

"It's not that simple. If you average around 20-30 apm (action per minute = click per minute) and a guy comes with 120 apm sustained knowing this he will attack you on 2 or 3 sides of the map simultaneously. You just won't be able to keep up with this and there you go your fronts collapse. It's a perfectly valid RTS strategy."

The faster clicker may be in a better position, however a strong NON RTS CMx1 player should be able to hold his own playing the Syrian's quite easily against the RTS player with less experience commanding the US forces. FWIW IMHO

-tom w

[Moronic Max]

You don't want to know how fast the pro RTS gamers click

Heh. One of those pro-RTS types (in the top 100 for Warcraft 3, IIRC) was a friend of mine's roomie for a year. Yes, they seem to have move-by-wire reflexes; however, they are most emphatically not representative of the average RTS player. The whole reason they're pro is because they can sustain the 120 apm thing for an hour.

Most RTS players can't even hit that tempo (or anything near it), much less sustain it.

[aka_tom_w]

quick search:

I've tried to play sc:bw again time after time time... but my apm is like 120 compared to the pros 400 average... so I get slaughtered and all the cool classic ums's are gone.

Every sc player here should go test their APM. Pros are at 400, although there is a very famous korean pro whos apm is like 180 or something but he uses insane strats.

web page RTS and apm notes

APM and what it means to you

TheGoodEvil posted in New Posts on September 12th, 2005

I am not so big on huge sustained APMs (APM = actions per minute, how many action you perform in the game world with hotkeys or mouse clicks), its not that it’s bad to have a sustained APM of 200-240 but how useful is it to have such a high APM and in what games does such an APM matter?

In Starcraft and Warcraft 3 APM is almost as ego lifting as penis size. The higher your APM in tactical RTS games the better you generally handle your armies, because tactical games depend less on empire building and more on building to fight. Micro is very important in any RTS game but in tactical RTS games micro is basically the game winner. You can be the most strategic player on earth but if you can’t handle your troops as well as your enemy then your strategy will turn to garbage in seconds.

In games like Starcraft and Warcraft 3 you can’t afford to lose units and since 80% of the game is fighting you need to really be moving fast to dance troops in and out of combat without losing any of them. This is where high APM pays off the most, if you have a 240 APM then you are generally considered a decent player, not because you know the game more or are smarter but because you can save your units before they are killed off at the same time as killing enemy units.

In historical RTS games like Age of Kings and Rise of Nations APM isn’t as much a factor unless you are just kind of wasting time clicking randomly. Since there is more of an economy base APM is lower, most combat is macro management because losing 1 unit isn’t nearly as bad as losing 1 unit in WC3. If you have a high sustained APM in most historical RTS games it usually revolves around hitting control groups then hitting building keys then repeating, some times just setting a waypoint 8 times instead of 1 time is used to keep APM high.

A 150 APM could be looked at in a wrong light but there are a lot of times a 150 APM will beat a 240 APM player. All a 150 APM player is is a player that may neglect the extra waypoint clicks or the extra move clicks, believe it or not those extra clicks don’t really make you any better. If a 60 APM player bursts into a 200-250 APM battle then they are still playing at a 200-250 APM level they just aren’t sustaining it. So a 150 APM isn’t as bad as some people think. As long as you are doing the majority of mouse work on your troop movement then you are still playing as well as a sustained 240 APMer.

If you are running a 60 APM for economy management and a 240 APM for troop management then you are playing at 150 APM, to sustain the 240 you need to add to your clicking which is when the way pointing and multi click moving comes in, just to keep that 240.

This is why I don’t care about my APM, as long as I’m not losing because I am too slow when I need to be fast than I am good to go. Once I start losing more units than I am killing because I can’t keep up with the other player’s micro then I will start working on my troop handling more in that particular game which in the end will raise my APM.

So don’t be discouraged if you are playing at 150 APM average, as long as you are winning than you are ok, and remember that when you are facing a 240 APM player and lose that it might not be because of his 240 APM but maybe because he is either more experienced in that game, smarter when he needed to be, or over all a better player. Once you start getting to the point you are playing 240 APM players you are at a high point in the ratings and should remember that a player’s unit control > player’s sustained clicking. I can randomly click all around the map for 20 minutes and have a 300 APM but unless I’m using it on what I need to then I am doing just that… randomly clicking.

TGE

[Kineas]

Just some additional thoughts:

- when I played Rise of Legends I was happy when I reached the 40 apm range. Hitting hotkeys with left hand while using the mouse with the right. You can download the demo and measure your speed.

- CM has a slow combat speed, but doesn't include building or teching. So the importance of the micro is still there.

- Let me give you a CM example. You have the decisive battle on the left side of the map. It fully engages you but your opponent has some free apms ("time share") to manage a single tank on the right side. That tank will rampage against your tacai, with predictable results. Will you ignore the tank or risk the decisive battle?

- That's why I said earlier a choosable apm limit would remove this issue entirely. I'd choose something around 30.

- Realtime mode is good, probably will help to sell more copies and make more wargame fans, but I'll play wego.

[Thomm]

And I want to play real-time with all the comfort and the options that I know from the turn-based interface ...

... and I do not understand why artificial constraints should be placed on this desire of mine, now that this functionality obviously exists and is well in place already in the turn-based mode!

But that's just me!

Best regards,

Thomm

[C'Rogers]

I think realtime might make the computer a halfway decenet opponent. Otherwise I don't plan to play it against real people. I don't think it will be like other RTS at all, but just not what I would be looking for.

I do think it can increse the use of swarm tactics by the attacker. Attack multiple points at one point to effectively throw the command center (player) into disarray about how to respond.

[Kineas]

If you mean the apm-limit it was just a suggestion for an option. Of course the nolimit option would be still there, I thought of just another battle parameter like the battle points or the game length. No constraints intended at all.

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

... and I do not understand why artificial constraints should be placed on this desire of mine, now that this functionality obviously exists and is well in place already in the turn-based mode!

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Kineas

I think Rollstoy is requesting the "issue orders while paused" in RealTime feature which they have said is not currently an option in the game at this time but they said they would maybe look at it.

My understanding of the "artificial restraint" Rollstoy is refering to is the one about how you cannot issue orders while paused in RealTime mode.

-tom w

[Thomm]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Kineas, I did not want to mess with you at all!

Actually I think I should stop bothering everybody with my posts on the subject, but I get really emotional when the chance to create the "perfect" user interface (as far as I can see ) apparently is slipping away!

For multiplayer, BFC, just implement it any way you want, but for single player I would like to enjoy the benefits of real-time gameplay and the convenient CM order system all wrapped into one nice hybrid package!

One could even keep the delays for orders that are given during pauses, if that was an acceptable compromise.

Best regards,

Thomm