The "tactical pause" option....

[Prankster]

I still want a PAUSE - REWIND option in single play! To be able to PAUSE a game and then REWIND to any point in the scenario would be awesome visually. Especially if you miss some action elsewhere on the battlefield.

[RMC]

Originally posted by 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..

Control it all? Let it go. The game is on an RT engine. Trying to turn it into a turn-based micromanagement frenzy is just dumb. I understand that there are scads of CM players who live in fear of some 13-year-old kid with fast reflexes beating them in a game like this where the big wargaming brain is defeated by unchecked ADD. This isn't going to be Command and Conquer in which mass is everything. Tactics count. Making the right decisions counts. Clicking fast doesn't help much when those clicks are giving bad orders.

And here's a secret for you. That all-encompassing control you have in CM is just an illusion. You can spend all day laying out the most intricate moves for one turn. And then when you hit go, all bets are off. The AI will try to execute the orders you gave but it will react to the changing situation the best it can. Much of the time this means ignoring orders and making decisions you would not have made. And you are powerless to intervene. You wait out your 60 seconds waiting for the next moment in which you can attempt to manage the battle.

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.

Yes, let's just make it a prettier version of CM, because that all people really want. That's the ticket. There can't possibly be a market for a real RT game with historical detail.

If this RT game ain't your cup o'tea, don't buy it.

[Megakill]

No-no-no, please buy it still, but don't play.

We need to buy more vodka to survive Winter. Donations are welcome ))))))))))

[Holien]

Hey RMC if some people want a feature and you feel you don't need it then don't try shouting people down when you could turn that feature off or not use it.

A pause feature is essential IMO for multiplayer as everyone needs a break and if that aint your cup of tea don't use the feature.

I am totally with Moon on this one and as long as he is putting that view forward I just hope it wins through.

You have to bear in mind that in a four player game people have different thought processes and if some people need slightly longer then I would rather have a game that accomedates that so they have a fun game as well.

Now if you set up a game that you don't want to use that feature then fine, just limit the number of people that this will appeal to.

Traditional RTS = ClickFest

Lets hope TOW = NOT A CLICK FEST and steps to a higher level so more people can play and want to play.

H

[RMC]

Originally posted by Holien:

Traditional RTS = ClickFest

Lets hope TOW = NOT A CLICK FEST and steps to a higher level so more people can play and want to play.

Clickfest! Clickfest! Clickfest! The sky is falling! Clickfest! Aaaaaaaahhh!

I hope the thing turns out to be the biggest damn clickfest ever!

Friggin' turn-based troglodytes. Sheesh.

[Holien]

Nice to see such empathy, maturity and understanding.

H

[RMC]

Originally posted by Holien:

Nice to see such empathy, maturity and understanding.

No empathy for the trogs. Down with the trogs. Your game is coming. Keep your slow hands off our game.

[Tarquelne]

A pause feature is essential IMO for multiplayer as everyone needs a break and if that aint your cup of tea don't use the feature.

People always want technical fixes when interpersonal communications skills should suffice.

Rather than relying on the crutch of a pause key, you could:

Use vicious and violent rants to sever all relationships with your family.

Whine pathetically if problems cause a delay at your end. You should be passive aggressively brow-beating your opponents anyway.

Send "OMG! shes got a knife" to your opponents if you need a break. If they continue see above.

Sound out opponents and only play people who can beaten and humiliated quickly.

Just a few suggestions.

PAUSE would come in handy, but I hardly see how it can accurately be called "essential."

[Hortlund]

Hey, not everyone likes to play a computer game like the energizer bunny you know. Especially not a tactical wargame that is supposed to present somewhat more of a challenge beyond "click and drag-select your entire OOB and send them to the victory objective".

So the feck what if I want to pause the game every fifth second when I play? YOU dont have to play against me.

But if you remove the pause feature from the game, you kill the game for me. While if we add the pause feature to the game, you only have to avoid using it not to be bothered by it.

Seems like a pretty obvious desicion to me.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by RMC:

I understand that there are scads of CM players who live in fear of some 13-year-old kid with fast reflexes beating them in a game like this where the big wargaming brain is defeated by unchecked ADD. This isn't going to be Command and Conquer in which mass is everything. Tactics count. Making the right decisions counts. Clicking fast doesn't help much when those clicks are giving bad orders.

That's a strange kind of "logic". Not the comparison with 13year old boys is interesting, but with two equally good players. The one willing to micromanage more, will win - this is as long valid, as long the tac AI is weaker than the player. And the better the players, the bigger the positive effect of micromanaging.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

That's a strange kind of "logic".

Why? Wargamers see RTS games as "twitch" games for "twitch" kiddies. No higher brain function required. Wargamers, many of whom suffer from shortages in the "twitch" department, fear a realistic wargame on an RT engine in which brainpower counts for less than "twitching" and that they will be beaten by a "twitch" kiddie who has no idea when WWII was fought, why it was fought and by whom. It's just too horrible to contemplate.

with two equally good players. The one willing to micromanage more, will win - this is as long valid, as long the tac AI is weaker than the player. And the better the players, the bigger the positive effect of micromanaging.

Micromanaging does pay off in these artificial gaming environments with one player directing all his forces in an organized fashion. It is however, decidedly unrealistic. In actual military organizations micromanagment is a counterproductive force.

In any case, the game already has a pause function. What I object to is any delay of the game's production schedule to add more and better pause modalities to appease those players who are predisposed to dislike RT games in general and who are looking at this game as a tasty snack to tide them over until the second coming of Christ, er, CMx2 WWII - Water to Whine.

[Joe98]

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

it can still be a strategy game.

I thought it is a tactical game.

[Mord]

Originally posted by Megakill:

No-no-no, please buy it still, but don't play.

We need to buy more vodka to survive Winter. Donations are welcome ))))))))))

LMAO! You ROCK bro!

Mord.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Joe98:

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

it can still be a strategy game.

I thought it is a tactical game. </font>

[Canuck]

I think the problem is that people are equating RTS games with clickfest and there's not necessarily a corollation there. For example Warcraft and Starcraft are clickfests. It's all about speed, and tank rushes. Close Combat on the other hand was amazingly slow. I had ample time to make any decision I wanted to. Sometimes it was too slow! I would yell at my men to hurry up and get their asses over to that hedgerow! That's one thing about CM-even without the pauses that game is slow as molasses!!! It takes forever for your men to get anywhere. In other words it's realistic. Apparently, TOW is also realistic which tells me that movement rates and scale will be appropriate. Someone mentioned a four player game (four players? this is news to me!) and if I was playing a four player game and everybody wanted to pause (tactical pause not going to the washroom pause) at a different time then I would get frustrated as hell.

Whew! Now with all that said, if it doesn't detract from work on other areas of gameplay and if there is a setting that you can check at the begining of multiplayer set up to allow it or disallow it (tactical pauses as opposed to the regular pause) then I say to the developers go for it! People can state in the opponents forum whether or not they will play with tactical pause function enabled and those who do will play with each other and those who don't will play with each other. If you don't agree then I guess you won't play with each other! I suspect though, that since it is an RTS game by design, the group that will only play with tactical pauses will be relatively small compared to the true RTS group. But if that's a limitation you're willing to accept then I won't try to keep you from it!

[Frenchy]

I will give the demo a try but my reflexes ain't what they used to be. I admit that the game looks nice; however, for me, managing every unit in the game in real time is a bit daunting. It's why I have stayed away from them. I prefer having time to plot my moves.

[Mord]

Originally posted by Frenchy:

I prefer having time to plot my moves.

The pause button will allow that I'd imagine.

Mord.

[Megakill]

1. This game has a pace of CC series - more or less. Real time, but not very fast.

2. You can pause the game at any time and give out orders while paused.

So this is NOT a clickfest. I hate RTS games myself and stopped playing them a while ago, as I can't keep up with the speed. Give me 3-4 units, slow motion and I will micromanage the hell out of them

[Prankster]

Originally posted by Megakill:

1. This game has a pace of CC series - more or less. Real time, but not very fast.

I'm a wargammer who like's to sit back and plan strategies also, hence not being a big fan of fast RTS games.

CC on the other hand moved at a great pace that allowed startegy to develop without overwhelming the gamer. In saying that, CC maps are a lot smaller than TOW appear to be.

[ August 02, 2006, 02:54 AM: Message edited by: Prankster ]

[Moon]

Having played both CC back in its time and now TOW, the pace is indeed comparable. If anything, because of the bigger maps and the AI and event scripting in TOW, the pace is even more flexible and seems to adjust even more to whatever the player is doing.

Martin

[Megakill]

Originally posted by Moon:

Having played both CC back in its time and now TOW, the pace is indeed comparable. If anything, because of the bigger maps and the AI and event scripting in TOW, the pace is even more flexible and seems to adjust even more to whatever the player is doing.

Martin

+1

[syaped]

People rant and whine about realism and historical accuracy but won't play the game unless it's turn-based or has pauses? How many WW2 commanders could pause the world and take a birds eye view to get their bearings?

I'm not sure how the pause works but I'd think it lets you issue and stack commands. This is as good turnbased or 60 second phases because you can pause and take as many turns as you like!

I think a pause for multiplayer, unless severly limted, would be a big mistake. It'd get annoying fast having the game contantly interuppted by your opponents pauses, especially if there a four players.