The "tactical pause" option....

[RSColonel_131st]

...from what I gather, this will be a RTS but with the option to pause and give orders anytime you want, if the action is getting too fast.

Any chance you guys could allow us to select our own automatic intervals for these pauses...say...like 60 seconds?

[Moon]

Hehe... it's not automatic, and once you play it, you will notice that it's not needed. You can pause by hitting the Space key, and issue orders during the pause.

Martin

[Zalgiris 1410]

Not automaticly set pause intervals, that sounds hard for two-player, even H2H?

[Hortlund]

My guess is that they will do it the same as Paradox has done it. If one player in MP pauses, both players are paused. There is a 10 second "lock" where it is impossible for the other player to unpause, but after that, anyone can unpause the game, and the clock continues.

Sounds like a reasonable solution to the MP-problem to me.

[Steiner14]

Hm, wouldn't that allow the one player who likes to micromanage, to pause as often as he wants?

Two solutions come to mind:

A Pause counter. If you've used all your pause-credits, you can't pause anymore.

The counter could additionally be clock dependent, so that the credits are slowly increased over time.

Additionally the pause intervall could be timed. After that period, the game continues.

[joesnuffy03]

Why not still give the option for 60 sec pause.. even if some wont use it? I love that about CM.. puts alot of strat into the game.. I dont see how you can plan all your moves in RTS the same..

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Hm, wouldn't that allow the one player who likes to micromanage, to pause as often as he wants?

Yes?

Two solutions come to mind:

A Pause counter. If you've used all your pause-credits, you can't pause anymore.

The counter could additionally be clock dependent, so that the credits are slowly increased over time.

Additionally the pause intervall could be timed. After that period, the game continues.

Apparently you see someone pausing alot as a problem? If you see that as a problem, the simple solution to that is to not play with someone who you think pauses too often.

Your ideas to limit the number of allowed pauses is bound to create enormous frustration when a player is unable to pause during a critical moment in the game.

[GJK]

Originally posted by Hortlund:

My guess is that they will do it the same as Paradox has done it. If one player in MP pauses, both players are paused. There is a 10 second "lock" where it is impossible for the other player to unpause, but after that, anyone can unpause the game, and the clock continues.

Sounds like a reasonable solution to the MP-problem to me.

Sounds like a cluster-f*** to me.

Me: [pause]

You: (after 10 seconds) ok, you're done [unpause]

Me: Uh, no I'm not! [pause]

You: (after 10 seconds) Come on already! [unpause]

Granted, I haven't played a Paradox RTS game online so I'm not a first hand witness as to how it works, but if it's as you describe, yech!

[Hortlund]

Usually, you dont unpause when someone else has paused. Ive never seen a game where there was a problem like the one you are describing. And in those games you usually have 6-10 players.

I suppose it could be a problem if you are playing with a bunch of retarded teenagers, but otherwise a gentlemans agreement not to unpause when someone else has paused works just fine.

[GJK]

I assume that we're all speculating as to how it works in this game as I haven't seen an "official" post yet about it, but I would think that a gentlemans agreement as to when a pause would occur would work best - but then you're getting into what CM does already.

I'll be most curious to see how the demo works, provided that there will be a demo - any word on that yet (obviously I haven't gone through all the posts here)?

Edit: Just searched and saw Madmatt's reference to a demo, so that answers that.

[Hortlund]

Word is there will be a demo, yes.

Rumor seems to be that it might be an old CMBO-scenario re-used.

[joesnuffy03]

Why not just add the 60 sec pause feature for those that would use it.. everyone else can turn it off.. leave it as an option..

[Darren J Pierson]

Just a wild guess, but I imagine they would say why program such a thing into the game when you can do it yourself. Or maybe they will say that it is a wonderful idea and let a player set automatic pauses at specific intervals.

[RMC]

All you old guys and your need for nap time. LOL.

[joesnuffy03]

Even if they dont Im sure i could always write script to hit the spacebar (pause button) at an interval.. but for those that dont know how to write .bat files it would be nice to add it into interface

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Hortlund:

Usually, you dont unpause when someone else has paused. Ive never seen a game where there was a problem like the one you are describing. And in those games you usually have 6-10 players.

I suppose it could be a problem if you are playing with a bunch of retarded teenagers, but otherwise a gentlemans agreement not to unpause when someone else has paused works just fine.

Come on. Have you never played PBEM against unkown oponents? When someone really wants to win, he will pause all the time and micromanage the hell out of the pixelsoldiers. That's labour, not fun.

To prevent from this, such options that can be switched on before the game starts, can eliminate a lot of frustration.

Gentlemen agreements are good, options in the software are way better.

With a user-definable pause-number and such things, the players would have to think twice, when to use it. The player receives a bonus for using pause. So it's a good thing, if it can be given a "price".

[RMC]

How about a "Pause Bank?" The player can accumulate a finite amount of pause time. For x amount of time he gets y amount of pause. He can use the pause feature as long as he has time in the bank.

FPS shooters with gimmicks use this. Max Payne had the matrix-like bullet time effect that a player could use to slow things down. FEAR had the same kind of thing.

IIRC the first game that had this kind of feature was Space Hulk.

I suspect, however, that the game is more or less feature complete as this stage.

[joesnuffy03]

Bump ... Did we ever get an answer to this question .. of a feature of anykind being implemented in the multiplayer aspect of the game to allow more strategy. The "Bank" Idea sounds great.. or even a set number like every 2 min the game pauses ie Combat Mission. Doesnt have to be every 15 seconds or anything.. what would be even better is a user defined time.. so we could set it to every 3 min.. but still be able to change controls on the fly as the battle rages.. and then every 3 min make sure we have all the troops in the mix. I know alot has been said that it doesnt need a pause function because its not as fast pased as other clickfest games.. but how can it not get hard to control if you have a 5000 point buy system like in Combat Mission. You can buy alot of stuff with that.. and there is no way to control that fully without a pause feature

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Needs software options, including unlimited pause. Phones ring, babies cry, things happen. Sometimes you're afk whether you want to or not.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

Needs software options, including unlimited pause. Phones ring, babies cry, things happen. Sometimes you're afk whether you want to or not.

Sometimes wives nag. I used to have fun sitting next to my wife watching something on TV while my valient troopers battled for some worthless piece of pixelated terrain in Close Combat 2.

She thought I had finished, but she could hear the faint sounds of battle from the PC. She asks, "what is that noise?"

"What noise?"

"Sounds like a war movie."

"Oh, that. My toops are still fighting."

"What? Don't they need you?"

"No, they're fine. I'll check on them in a bit."

"Can't you get headphones for that thing?"

[joesnuffy03]

my thing is there is no way you could control a huge amoutn of untis without some sort of pause.. I know they may have great AI and all but still. When the .... hits the fan I would like to be able to tell my men to run voer and cut off an advancing group of enemies.. The maps are huge and I could see it being somewhat of a problem if the map is full of infantry and tanks etc.. FOr some of the smaller battle you may want to turn pausing off.. but give us the option so that when we go into larger battles we can pause and decide what we want the troops to do

[RMC]

Originally posted by joesnuffy03:

my thing is there is no way you could control a huge amoutn of untis without some sort of pause..

Give up the need for total control. Take a step back and intervene where necessary. In RT you can't be everywhere at once, so don't agitate yourself by trying. Act more like a real commander. Based on the comments about the AI so far, I think you can play this way.

[joesnuffy03]

Then it doesnt become a strat game.. all it will be is who has the better untis.. good planning can overcome some obstacles.. Whats the point in controling half the squad you chose when with a feature that could be used you could control it all.. Hearing people say who cares about pause is rather frustrating.. having the feature wont hurt or distract from your game in any way.. if you cxan turn it off that is.. For those of us that would like to see it used I think it would be great to be able to command such as CM.. Now I know what people will say.. its not CM!! and I agree but if you see something that has worked wonderfully in the past why not implement it into another game like it? esp if alot of fanbase would like to see it.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by joesnuffy03:

[QB] Then it doesnt become a strat game..

It's a matter of degree.

With lots of units needing lots of guidance you've got a classic clickfest.

When you've got lots of time - either because of few units, slow player, or turn-based play, then you can have a strategy game.

Those are the two extremes. Unless TOW has too many units, or things move along too quickly, it can still be a strategy game. But it'll be one that rewards - or maybe requires - quick thinking, not just deep thinking.

If time is so limited or control so complex that manual dexterity becomes important we're back to clickfest.

Whats the point in controling half the squad you chose when with a feature that could be used you could control it all..

Realism could be a strong reason to have limited control. Some games alow total or mico-management, and that can be good and fun. But C&C/FOW considerations mean a lack of control in a wargame can be a feature rather than a flaw.

That's not a reason NOT to have pause, but it's a reason not to make pausing a higher priority.

Personally, I'd like to see all sorts of pause options. But they're not going to make the difference between TOW being a strategy game or not.

(Ok, well, unless the action is so frantic/AI so bad you do need to pause for decent control.)

[Moon]

One of the things which puts me off from other RTS games is that it always ends up being a clickfest, meaning that usually the person wins who can gather the most units at one point in the quickest time.

This is definitely not the case in TOW. Since units behave a lot more realistically than in other RTS games (no hitpoints for tanks, very good infantry modelling etc.) this approach will fail. I can even see how some people who are used to play RTS will need some time for re-adjustment before they will be able to beat the AI.

Pause or no, you will have to do some planning if you want to win at this game, even against the AI. If you storm unsupported against an enemy trench, it will be over before you know it. My upcoming AAR (look for it at simhq this week) will show a little of that (well, I tried to at least).

Martin