CMC Multiplayer - only Hotseat and PBEM?

[Little_Black_Devil]

Sorry if I missed this somewhere, but from everything that I can find it appears that Hotseat and PBEM are the ONLY multi-player modes for CMC.

Is this correct? - Will there be no support for TCP/IP?

Thanks

[securityguard]

I was assuming that comment meant PBEM and Hotseat were support alongside TCP\IP. I mean the battles themselves should be played like any other CMBB battle...

[Sergei]

CMC itself probably doesn't have TCP/IP, or it'd be mentioned.

[Little_Black_Devil]

Thats what I'm afraid of Sergei - but I was just hoping for some official confirmation.

If TCP/IP is not to be offered in the initial release, then I wonder if there is any possibility of it making its way into a subsequent patch?

This isn't a show stopper for me, but it sure does complicate the way I normally prefer to enjoy multi-player.

Cheers

[Tactical Wargamer]

Wow no TCP/IP?? You have to be kidding??

I thought you could have even multiple players ie teams during battles. Kinda a Cooperative play especially in large battles as these will be.

Such an advanced program surely can't have 1990's MP support as PBEM and hot-seating???

[Tactical Wargamer]

"Multi-Multiplay support that allows for numerous human players against either the AI or other people or a combination of both."

I read this from the game features to include "obvious" TCP/IP and coop players?

Are we wrong?

[Steiner14]

From the CMC-site:

CMC can be played single player against one or more AI opponents (or subordinates), or multiplayer versus several other human opponents. PBEM and Hotseat multiplay modes are supported.

[Tactical Wargamer]

Ahhh good we can relax

[Sergei]

Originally posted by RCMP:

Wow no TCP/IP?? You have to be kidding??

I thought you could have even multiple players ie teams during battles. Kinda a Cooperative play especially in large battles as these will be.

Such an advanced program surely can't have 1990's MP support as PBEM and hot-seating???

I don't see how TCP/IP would make any sense here. Let's say that you have four players and two of them are fighting a battle - would YOU be interested to wait idly for two or three hours until you'd be able to issue orders again? You're in a minority anyway, as hardly anyone plays CMBB using TCP/IP.

[Peterk]

TCP/IP might become more popular considering how many battles it will require to finish a campaign.

Slow PBEM isn't going to cut it with this, unless CMC allows battles in different sectors being fought in paralell.

[securityguard]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Gee, I wonder why they decided on having a new PBEM-unfriendly engine then? TCP/IP is not the minority. Maybe on these forums it is.

RCMP, read the entire thread very carefully. The campaign is co-opertive, but the battles aren't. The battles can be played in TCP/IP mode (from what I gather - hunter, correct me on that) but the campaign is PBEM or hotseat only.

Precisely. PBEM campaign with PBEM battles? I've only played one PBEM battle to completion in my life time and it took me two weeks. I can't fanthom how long a campaign would take, years probably. TCP/IP allows for a single battle in just an hour or so, it will be way more popular and functional in this sense.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Peterk:

TCP/IP might become more popular considering how many battles it will require to finish a campaign.

Slow PBEM isn't going to cut it with this, unless CMC allows battles in different sectors being fought in paralell.

I expect that battles taking place on the same hour can be played simultaneously. TCP/IP might be a faster option for the battles (although it would require all players to be from within the same time zone and either be unemployed or retired), but it would not be of any use in the campaign play itself.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by securityguard:

Gee, I wonder why they decided on having a new PBEM-unfriendly engine then? TCP/IP is not the minority. Maybe on these forums it is.

According to the poll on The Proving Grounds, 35% prefer play vs. AI, 13% via TCP/IP and 44% by e-mail. So yes, TCP/IP is a minority (within a minority, if Steve is to be believed in that most players play against AI only), no matter how you cut it. I think this is because it is better suited for twitch-type clickfests, not for real wargames.

The reason why CMx2 might not have PBEM has to do with file size, but that doesn't mean that PBEM will be dropped out. Actually, Steve has been quite optimistic about this.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by securityguard:

TCP/IP allows for a single battle in just an hour or so

Maybe for a smallish 25 turn meeting engagement, which is what I imagine online players mostly be playing. You wouldn't finish a 60-turn multiple battalion battle within that time, and as most of the time one player would be defending and another attacking, the defender could mostly roll his thumbs waiting for the attacker to give movement orders to all his units. Trust me, I've done that - playing a huge operation in TCP/IP as the defender. While in PBEM all the underdog would need to do is press 'go' and send the file back.

[Jasper 2x]

I always play TCP/IP but your right CMs TCP/IP is kind of bare bones and is only really good for lan play.

[Renaud]

Between 2003 and 2004 I played a large campaign with a friend in England in which we went through the entire eastern front at the rate of 1 battle per war-month (48 total battles), 1 battle every other weekend or so. We played exclusively TCP/IP, generally 3 minute turns, paused for setup. We typically finished a game inside of 3 hours. We both got very good at ordering large numbers of troops with limited time.

Both have their advantages, but I prefer TCP/IP as it's faster and requires decision making under pressure which I think is more realistic than the chess-like consideration of orders in PBEM.

Here's the link to the AAR's and other info on the campaign:

http://www.thefogofwar.net/ostfrontAARS.html

[Little_Black_Devil]

Well - I for one 'am not really interested in three or more players with respect to TCP/IP - but I would like the option to use TCP/IP when playing against one other human player.

[securityguard]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

TCP/IP allows for a single battle in just an hour or so

Maybe for a smallish 25 turn meeting engagement, which is what I imagine online players mostly be playing. You wouldn't finish a 60-turn multiple battalion battle within that time, and as most of the time one player would be defending and another attacking, the defender could mostly roll his thumbs waiting for the attacker to give movement orders to all his units. Trust me, I've done that - playing a huge operation in TCP/IP as the defender. While in PBEM all the underdog would need to do is press 'go' and send the file back. </font>

[Shmavis]

Securityguard, if you'll excuse my asking, do you work for Amana? Heehee. I'm not too keen on this PBEM stuff either.

[Little_Black_Devil]

Still no official word on whether TCP/IP is or is not going to see the light of day in CMC?

[Renaud]

TCP/IP makes no sense to me given the scope of this game.

On a CMC turn in which operational moves generate large numbers of battles, the battles will be distributed to the ME commanders who will then have to arrange times to play TCP/IP or PBEM's to resolve the battles. Possibly multiple CMBB games per human player per CMC turn. We're talking about weeks of real time between each CMC turn for a regimental combat team size campaign.

Hunter, Moon, do I understand this correctly?

[General Bolt]

I think you have it right, unless the tactical level is being handled 100% AI, then TCP/IP for the operational level would be acceptable.

[Little_Black_Devil]

The scenario where I see TCP/IP being the most desirous mode of multi-play is like this;

A friend of mine and I want to play each other.

The accepted idea is - that we are going to play on a relatively regular basis, and have no illusions about completing whole campaigns in one sitting.

Instead, we'll play for a few hours continuously - and then shut it down to pick it up again another day and repeat the process until I've tought him a few lessons.

We would MUCH rather play for a few hours straight, and pick it up again next Saturday as it were - than play piecemeal here and there with PBEM.

We also tend to enjoy the comeraderie and banter that can go on in the middle of a continuous game.

Anyone who used to play those ancient table top games from many moons ago, can probably appreciate that.

To accomodate this end, we use a 3rd Party Voice Communication Program (Team Speak) concurrently with Combat Mission while we play.

Its not practical for us to hotseat, as we live a few thousand kilometers apart.

As for PBEM...well it is...in my opinion...."old technology".

It seems like an awfully ineffiecient way of doing things.

Its only real redeeming qualities are that;

1) It accomodates players who can't play each other at the exact same point in time and,

2) A new or other more flexible means of accomplishing the same thing are not practical here because of the costs associated in devloping them.

So, the bottom line for me is; for my friend and I, when we play - we want play the game "live". We do not want all of the unecessary wait time inherently associated with trying to use PBEM to conduct a "live" game.

Hotseating is not practical (for us), and PBEM falls short as an effective means of delivering what TCP/IP Can deliver - for a "live" game.

As CMBB already has TCP/IP - it doesn't seem to me like such a stretch to include TCP/IP in CMC as well.

In fact - I would on that basis, assume that CMC inherently DOES support TCP/IP - but obviously, I want to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak.

Or at least hear that we can expect it in a subsequent patch to CMC after its initial release.

To me - TCP/IP is the only reasonable means of conducting a live game without having to re-invent the wheel.

In any event - as cool as CMC is, without TCP/IP, or a means to reasonably play CMC/CMBB "live" I see little use for its multi-play aspect.

Thus - what could have been a "great game" for me (enhanced by playing an human opponent) becomes a "good" game, where I'm effectively limited to just playing against the computer.

Thats why I want TCP/IP - or to have its existence in CMC confirmed or denied.

Cheers

[PzKpfwIII]

I've always been of the opinion that PBEM can conceivably be no different than TCP play given the proviso that both opponents commit to staying in the same places for the same length of time. The amount of time spent alt-tabbing out of CM and sending a PBEM file (or even better, using PBEM helper) seems negligible, and comparable to the amount of time spent waiting for your TCP buddy to finish his turn (and vice versa). In fact, given the latter case, PBEM is preferable as you can carry on with other projects while waiting for turns.

The factors at play, I suppose, are limits on inbox size and computer processing speed; these can be fixed in anticipation of PBEM play as a pseudo TCP play, in the same way that computer hardware can be fixed in anticipation of the new CM engine.

Little_Black _Devil, am I missing something that rules out PBEM as an emulation of TCP other than the merely technical?

[Sergei]

In TCP/IP play, you and your opponent issue your orders SIMULTANEOUSLY. So, assuming that both you and your opponent need as much time for orders phase, there is no waiting needed.