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

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

I think realtime might make the computer a halfway decenet opponent.

My guess is if they did what they said they would do by including the opportunity for the scenario designer to "guide" or hint or somehow script or program the AI defender (or attacker) I would suggest the AI might be almost unbeatable in RealTime.

I suggest this because if the AI can do all things at all times, then we know it is NOT slow and if it is not limited to any artificial "actions per minute" limitation code, AND it can be hinted or programed to be clever and at least given a fighting chance by the scenario designer, then I would suggest the AI should provide quite a refreshing challenge to most solo players.

-tom w

[Kineas]

Oops, sorry.

My opinion about this that technically it's cheap (well, to an outsider) to allow plotting during pause. So unless the "conceptual integrity" of the design prohibits, it would worth an option in single player.

Originally posted by 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

[athkatla]

My simple observation on realtime human opponents, having played a few RTS games online is that the youths who play this game (and they are mainly young teenagers) are only interested in winning, and in the fastest time possible. Hence 'the rush'!

Almost every game I have played online has seen my opponent race through the techs to get the most powerful units and 'rush' me as soon as possible, most games being over in less than 20 minutes!

This is not the way I like to play, being brought up on CMBO CMBB And CMAK, but this is what you have to face these days if you want to play online.

[aka_tom_w]

I guess that is my point.

I am wondering if young teenagers will be interested in CM:SF?

There are no higher tech levels to get to. There is no building.

Except for maybe reinforcements designed into the scenario you have to go with what you have. I am not so sure the 'rush' in CM:SF will prove to be always the best strategy.

But I am curious.

-tom w

[birdstrike]

Originally posted by Kineas:

Just some additional thoughts:

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

Not in the sense that we need to tell every unit to perform even the most oridinary tasks. First, I don't need to tell every single soldier what to do individually. They move in squads, hence less units means less micro. I think more in terms of the Total War series which is also quite slow paced and with fewer units. I would say that there, high apm-rates are almost useless.

Second, there is no need to keep my units in motion all the time (e.g. no dancing - this takes off a huge load of micro already).

And, with the TacAI performing decently, I don't need to watch each of my units' steps all the time. My guys will know when an enemy enters their cover area and will fire on him if they can kill him. They will not shoot at a tank and give away their position if they wouldn't harm it. An experienced CM player should be able to position his troops and issuing them orders for them to hold themselves for a time.

I think micro-skills will mostly come to play when setting up several waypoint actions for a unit. Then again in the heat of battle there will be probably more "improvisation" than "planning several minutes ahead".

- 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?

Good point, but I'm not quite sure about this. Consider the time it will take the tank to move up to his new position, identify the threat, turn the turret, acquire the target, and fire. There is nothing I, as a player, can click to speed things up. A high sustained apm rate is impossible if there aren't that many apms to perform. I expect the game speed to be too slow to even be able to perform 200 apms even if I want to.

Also it might be foolish to only move a unit, because I can. A situation might require a certain tactical assessment by the player first, or I might end up in an ambush. Quick thinking before quick clicking. Simply rushing in a tank could end with a scrap of burning metal.

And given that tanks in CMSF are not replaceable and short in numbers, they should easily draw all necessary attention to their whereabouts as soon as they show up .

And one more thing: something that comes with the usual hitpoints-system in RTS games is the 100% chance to hit. Often damage is counted as 'damage per second'. HPs and DPS values taken together indicate how long a unit can survive when being attacked by a specific opponent.

An infantryman in CM being hit is gone, right the instant he got shot. A tank hit by an appropriate AT weapon has not much chance to fight on, either. On the other hand not every shot in CM hits its target, or the target is out of sight/reach because of terrain, or visual limitations. In RTS you normally detect all units automatically and can shoot at them as soon as they move into your visual range. Now try to shoot a target through a Humvee blocking LOF in CM.

To sum up, high apm is useful but not necessary. In general, I would expect fast-clicking RTS gamers to play more aggressively and slow-clicking CM gamers more defensively. But no one will win this game only based on apms.

[SteveP]

There's one aspect that I'm not sure has been answered by BFC yet. I've played real-time games in which, when you pause, you are taken out of the game altogether. It's basically a "bathroom break". How will it work in CM2?

Assuming that you are allowed to review the situation on the battlefield while the game in paused, then the play experience may end up being a pretty good trade-off. On the one hand, the battle is still going on around you while you are giving orders -- which is stressful and calls for quick action, which has a realistic element. But at least you could have had a chance to consider your options while the game was paused. Moreover, you have the ability to react to a new development in the battle without having to wait for the next "orders phase". Also, of course, you have the ability to view the entire battlefield from the Olympian heights at any time, unlike a real commander, so that's something of a way of dealing with the span of control problem.

One of the keys to how well this works may be in any improvements that are made to our ability to give "group orders." Right now, that mostly is useful in the very early turns, or when you want everyone firing at the same target, as long as the whole platoon is in close proximity and/or there aren't problems with mortars and other support weapons getting mixed up on commanders. In CM2, the TacAI may have enough new intelligence to make group orders more flexible and useful through more of the battle situations. In that case, the span of control problem is significantly reduced.

My first reaction to the real-time option was "no thanks", but I'm beginning to think that I may well choose this for battles up to reinforced company size. Bigger than that, I don't think it likely to work in any satisfactory way.

[aka_tom_w]

My first question is how many "manouvre elements" are there in a reinforced Company?

3 platoons?

9 Squads?

Plus support elements?

I think that would be plenty for a realtime battle.

-tom w

[birdstrike]

... plus some AFVs... maybe 15-20 units?

I expect the game speed to be too slow to even be able to perform 200 apms even if I want to.

Perhaps I was a little too optimistic there?

Well, there is still the TacAI...

[Kineas]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

Second, there is no need to keep my units in motion all the time (e.g. no dancing - this takes off a huge load of micro already).

The CM equivalent of dancing will be the going hull down and reversing movement on a slope with a tank.

Okay, maybe I'm too sceptical. One thing is sure: if there will be any trick in the system which gives you advantage in exchange for a few extra apms it will be quickly discovered and widely used.

[MikeyD]

This is what we get for demanding radical cutting edge game design for CMx2. You expected it WASN'T going to require heavy-duty processing power to run?

About realtime play.

I suspect the AI is going to be able to relieve us of a good deal of the grunt work. If we're busy working the left side of the map and a tank appears on the right I expect the AI will order the available troops to fire off an AT-4 or LAW or RPG at the threat on its own initiative. I had used the analogy of herding sheep earlier - maybe a more apt analogy would be commanding a pack of wolves. The soldiers will probably be happy to do half the work all on thier own.

[Speedy]

In my opinion the people who will excel at real time are planners. Those that study the map and plan extensively an overall battleplan as well as contingency plans for potential enemy actions before the battle will tend to dominate there opposition.

Just the fact that when situations develop they wont have to waste time thinking of and developing a response will be a significant advantage in a battle.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Speedy:

In my opinion the people who will excel at real time are planners. Those that study the map and plan extensively an overall battleplan as well as contingency plans for potential enemy actions before the battle will tend to dominate there opposition.

Just the fact that when situations develop they wont have to waste time thinking of and developing a response will be a significant advantage in a battle.

So in your opinion apms or fast clicking many actions per minute won't be a decisive factor?

I tend to agree.

if you only have 15-20 (max) units to deal with in real time, FASTER actions per minute won't give you any advantage if you are a poor planner, or have no contingency plans or a good fall back position. I would like to think that quick thinking and the ability to react fast with a good plan or counter tactic, may be more important then simply apms or fast clicking. (or so the theory goes)

-tom w

[ October 04, 2006, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[birdstrike]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

About realtime play.

I suspect the AI is going to be able to relieve us of a good deal of the grunt work. If we're busy working the left side of the map and a tank appears on the right I expect the AI will order the available troops to fire off an AT-4 or LAW or RPG at the threat on its own initiative. I had used the analogy of herding sheep earlier - maybe a more apt analogy would be commanding a pack of wolves. The soldiers will probably be happy to do half the work all on thier own.

Definitely. Compared to CM1 I expect rather some sort of 'NCO-AI' than the 'simple' TacAI we learned to love and hate in CM1.

And because I saw this in another thread here:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001065;p=5

If you look at this pic - it is perhaps a good example of a state-of-the-art RTS game (not involving base building):

I don't know the game - I don't want to judge whether it's good or bad it - but as it seems to differ from what we heard of CM2 so far, I may be so bold as to use it to take a guess about some things:

from what we heard by Steve, we should expect troops in CM2 not be scattered around like this, but to operate in a certain formation, and they should use those boxes and walls as cover (I don't know maybe it would look more like 'Full Spectrum Warrior'?). Firefights could possibly take place over longer distances, and there would most likely sit a sniper up in that church tower .

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks Steve

This was the kind of answer I was looking for in this thread, it was posted last evening in the latest Small Bone thread.

here it is:

posted October 06, 2006 12:24 AM

Wildman ,

quote:

Part of the problem in RT developing into a "clickfest" is the need to micromanage units down to the squad level.

end quote

Steve says:

As far as I am concerned "clickfest" is more than just the need to do a lot of clicking. It can be better summarized as "he who clicks fastest wins". This is especially true for the traditional resource gathering/building RTS games. The guy that could manage to fight a battle and keep getting resources and keep producing stuff would likely win regardless of his strategic and/or tactical abilities. This advantage is usually compounded by the well known "tank rush" tactic made famous by Command and Conquer. All a player had to do to win was click really quickly to keep things being built, then group select a mass of tanks, and send them at an enemy's location. If the enemy in question had been instead trying to do crafty tactical stuff instead of brute force things he was more likely to lose in the long run. Hence the guy that clicks the quickest wins the most.

None of us here want a game that values the speed of clicking more than any other aspect of the game. Which is why CM:SF in RealTime is not a "clickfest" in my mind. Sure, if you put two players head to head, the one that can think faster and click faster will have an edge. That's not a bad thing. In fact, it is a realistic thing. One of the reasons why I hated playing boardgames so much is that I tended to play against people that got out the ruler and tried to see what each one of his 50 f'n units could do each individual turn. No gut instinct moves, no faith in his greater plan. Micromanage the Hell out of each move and bore me to tears. Guess what though? I usually won CM:SF RealTime will separate the intuitive players from the micromanagement players for sure. The former will love RealTime, the latter will hate it. Different strokes for different folks.

The #1 reason why CM won't fall into the "tank rush" "clickfest" combo is simple. Try taking a platoon of infantry and have them rush a single MG in the open in CM. No amount of fast clicking is going to overcome the morale, cover, and suppression problems that MG is going to dish out. Heck, the enemy player doesn't even need to be there to micromanage that MG... it's going to cut lose and chop those guys down without any need to be told what to do. In C&C, Warcraft, and other games that wouldn't be the case because units are robots and more robots win almost no matter what. And if you lose some, just build some more. In CM if you lose a platoon you might have lost 1/3rd of your force for the entire game. Not bright.

What this means is that the player that has the better sense of unit capabilities, terrain, and basic tactics will likely win no matter how fast the other guy can click. However, if the other guy has a similar level of knowledge and can click quickly, while you can't, then you are going to be at a disadvantage in some situations. Might be enough to lose the game for you, might not.

quote:

So I would click the platoon leader, move to platoon orders and click move on the location I wanted. I would then click the waypoint and hit defend with an arc that I wanted them to defend in. The AI would then move the platoon and place them into a good position without my having to do this for every squad and attached MG, TOW, etc out there. end quote

Steve says:

Not as such. That would involve a massive amount of AI work and we don't have time or money for that (BTW, Bruce70... I don't remember getting an email from you). What does happen, though, is when you order units close to good defensive terrain they will use it even if you didn't explicitly instruct them to. We are also trying to get in some "short cut" stuff that may or may not help.

Moronic Max ,

quote:

It is not; as Steve stated earlier in the thread (er, I think it was this thread), there's no order delay in RT because order delays are inherent in the system--while you're futzing about with one unit, you're giving no input to others. A delay would be redundant. end quote

Steve says:

Correct. Thanks for straightening that out To put in something I said earlier, if we allowed infinite pause/command combos then we would HAVE to institute Command Delays in the RealTime Mode. And once we did that we would effectively have WeGo. Since we already have WeGo we don't need a redundant feature.

Guys, keep in mind that one of the big differences between contemporary warfare and WWII warfare is troop density. CM:SF is therefore more or less optimized for a reinforced company vs. a slightly smaller force. Within the timeframe and size of a scenario, that is about right for combat these days. That should work out fine in RealTime. However, for you guys wanting to play a full Battalion on a full Battalion... RealTime is probably not the way to go.

Also keep in mind that the pace of a battle in CM should be SLOWER than what you are used to in CMx1. One of the unrealistic byproducts of turned based gaming is "time compression". Meaning, you have SOOOOO much control that you micromanage and therefore gain far greater efficiencies than you could on the battlefield. What takes you 10 turns (10 minutes) to do in CMx1 WeGo should take you 20 minutes or more to do in CMx2 RealTime and probably 40 minutes in real life. One of the reasons you'll have to go slower is because your forces will sit around while you think. Quick example:

I had one battle where my guys sat around in their jumpoff positions for 5 minutes or more. In real life they might have been there for a lot longer, but in CMx1 they would have been there for about 1 minute tops. When I started my attack (this is the one in the AAR, BTW) I was clumsy and didn't think through the tactics well enough. I got hammered and couldn't extract my forces before they were fully committed. In CMx1 I would have seen my first guy get hammered and then rethink my whole plan for 10 or 20 minutes while my guys were frozen in time waiting for the next turn. That thinking, combined with unrealistic control of everything else on the battlefield, would allow me to adjust my plan radically within seconds of game time, even though it took me 20 minutes to think it up and plan it out. This in turn would allow me to yield an unrealistic result. In RealTime, single player, I can pause and at least get in that long thinking time. But trying to change the plans would be a lot harder than WeGo because while I was changing the plans I would be experiencing the pain of a poor plan executed poorly. And THAT is what is going to make RealTime so damned exciting.

Now, I am not going to go so far as saying that RealTime is for the strong and WeGo for the weak. Not at all. What I am saying is that the two are pitched towards different types of players. The ones that thrive on quick thinking and action will do much better in RealTime than ones that feel they need to be absolutely sure about every little detail all the time, every time. This doesn't mean that the "instinctive" players are better, they are just geared differently than the "academic" players. However, in a real war I'd rather the "instinctive" type who thrives playing CM in RealTime be my unit commander over someone with a perfect record in WeGo who can't stand RealTime. Having said that, since all of you CMers would likely get me killed in the first 1 minute of combat, even if I were in an Abrams, I guess it wouldn't really matter

Steve

[ October 05, 2006, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

That ALL makes sense to me and I am glad to hear it.

-tom w

[ October 06, 2006, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[birdstrike]

I second that. That's what we wanted to hear.

[DavidFields]

It is interesting to me that Battlefront is now a tad harsh on WeGo. As I noted in an earlier post, I certainly like it a lot.

Again thinking back to CC (I don't see CMSF feeling like the current RTSs), clicking "density" will be dependent on the tactical situation. Attackers will likely have more clicking than defenders (unless the attackers move into a critical position, and the defender has to move reserves/forces to counter--the ideal tactic of turning a global attack into a more favorable local defense.)

Indeed, I could see the clicking situation turn into part of the planning of tactical situations, much like real life. If one has to make too many decisions too quickly, one has diminishes control and intelligence. Hence, proceeding with an attack/defense with the appropriate "tempo" will be important.

To be clear, I have no problem with "instinct" play. It is part of acting on incomplete information, dealing with uncertainty, and adding a strong element of prioritization--much like FOW in general. Can be very fun, and quite a skill.

[aka_tom_w]

To be clear, I have no problem with "instinct" play. It is part of acting on incomplete information, dealing with uncertainty, and adding a strong element of prioritization--much like FOW in general. Can be very fun, and quite a skill.

I agree

I am looking forward to playing the demo the first time as the Syrian's in RealTime. My perefence would be to take on a much younger and inexperienced (CM Wise) RealTime 'expert" (read teenager) opponent playing the US side in RealTime, I think that should be managable and enjoyable.

My guess would be that for my aging (NON-teenager) senile brain, the fewer numbers of Syrian units would (presumably) make the RealTime game experience more fun and/or at least managable.

If I was to play against folks or other players with CMx1 experience who I have played CMx1 against in the past I think I would have to take the US in Realtime, or I would prefer good old WeGo.

BUT I am (as an old fan of WeGo!) looking forward to some smoking hot RealTime battles playing the Syrian underdog to bloody the nose of the "clickfest" happy US player. he he

-tom w

[ October 06, 2006, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Let us not forget another potentially enormous advantage of real-time. Games should take a lot less time to play to completion. We as players may find the game a brutal but fast learning curve!

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Let us not forget another potentially enormous advantage of real-time. Games should take a lot less time to play to completion.

YUP

that's a big advantage and for me it is an incentive to get good at REAL time to play more games more often in RealTime.

You could (for instance) practice CM:SF in RealTime sole against the AI and (presumable, but who knows) savour a few lengthy PBEM battles as well. OR (hopefully) connect over TCP/IP and play head to head in RealTime with an opponent who as spare time when you do, and get more time to play quicker battles.

It all sounds good to me!

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Rankorian,

It is interesting to me that Battlefront is now a tad harsh on WeGo.

I'm sorry I came across like that to you, it certainly wasn't intended. What I was trying to do is point out that when WeGo fans go about poking holes in the realism of RealTime they need to remember that the same can be done for WeGo. In both cases they are highly artificial constructs and therefore have abstractions, flaws, and limitations when compared to the real world.

It's perfectly valid to say "I love WeGo, I don't think I'll like RealTime" just as it is to say "I love RealTime, I don't think I'll like WeGo". It comes down to personal likes vs dislikes and finding which system is more to your liking than the other.

So the "harsh" stuff I said about WeGo is not meant to trash talk what is, for sure, a fantastic way to play a wargame. It is simply to remind the WeGo guys that they live in a glass house so they should think twice before casting stones.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, RealTime games will take a LOT less time to complete even though, oddly enough, the elapsed gametime will likely be a lot longer. Meaning, a 20 turn WeGo game (20 minutes of simulated time) might take 2 hours to complete, while the same game played in RealTime might take 40 minutes to play (40 minutes of simualted time) without pauses.

This gets into the "time compression" problem inherent with turn based games (which WeGo is). RealTime also has some time compression problems built in since gamers don't like sitting around while soldiers generally do But the time compression problem is far less pronounced in RealTime than in turn based (WeGo). Meaning, a real life battle might have taken 2 hours to complete. Simualted in RealTime it might take 1 hour, in WeGo it might take 30 minutes (of simulated time).

The bottom line here is expect CMx2 RealTime play to run longer in terms of simulated time, but less in terms of actual minutes spent playing the game compared to WeGo.

Steve

[mav1]

I think real time will take longer for me then wego. I will be clicking the pause button every second to survey the battle area.

[aka_tom_w]

Note to Self: Don't challenge Mav1 to play RealTime.

Will there be an option in two player Realtime to prevent constant pauses in the action?

I don't mean to be too draconian here, but I am wondering if there will be some mutally agreeable setting, to allow two players to play realtime without one player constantly pausing the action, if they can't think/click fast enough?

Just wondering ?

-tom w

[ October 10, 2006, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[MikeyD]

"I will be clicking the pause button every second..."

And I can imagine your online realtime game buddy hopping into his car, driving over to your town, and STRANGLING you for clicking that pause button all the time!

For human against human play I suspect the game pause button (if there is a game pause button) could be the cause of more than a little ill will. Against the AI, I suspect it'd be fine - unless the AI is programmed to hold a grudge.

[Battlefront.com]

At present time we aren't planning on allowing a multi-player game to be paused at all, ever. Mav1 illustrates why better than I ever could

However, I would personally like to implement some sort of "Time Out" feature where each player has a set number of 30 second pauses he can use throughout a game. This is similar to organized sports. Not sure if we can do that for the initial release, or what form it will take, but it is at least being kept in mind.

Steve