Pausing during a multi-player game

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Turns in tactical games are a crutch.

Battlefield commanders don't get the opportunity to go potty during a firefight, although some occasionally do so in their pants.

But bathroom breaks aren't really what's at issue, here. No, the true desire of some of you folks is to turn the tactical battlefield into a chess match, obsessing over each and every move, and then to conclude the ritual by spending hours on end raving about how REALISTIC it all was.

Excuse me, but that's both conceptually and practically absurd.

You're not Hindenburg in these situations, standing over a map in a chateau somewhere 30 kilometers to the rear. You're a company or battalion commander in the heat of a battle. You've got to assess your situation and make timely decisions under the stress of combat.

The philosophical conflict herein goes back to those stupid-ass tactical boardgames and miniatures rulesets. It's always amazed me as to how someone could wax volumes about the "realism" of ASL or other tactical games (including CM), when they take an hour or more to complete a move in a game played in time increments of a minutes (or less).

Realism? Wargamers can spout all the technical details that they care to about the penetration qualities of ordnance and the slab of metal on the receiving end, but if you wrap it up in a package that rests on a big, fat, phony crutch that TOTALLY distorts the time element, the resultant game is just as much a failure as were the aforementioned tactical boardgames and miniatures rules of years past.

Bah!

PoE

[ August 02, 2006, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: Prince of Eckmühl ]

[RMC]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

The Word

Preach it, my brotha!

[Other Means]

...ummm, no.

You're EVERY person represented in the game. Therefore rather than frantically try and do 120 persons thinking in real time you pause. In that pause you do the thinking for the key actors in the situation and give them reasonable orders. And that's all that's wanted.

It's a fudge, but it's a required fudge due to the nature of the game. If it was a FPS where every person was controlled by one thinking entity in real time then a pause wouldn't make sense.

As it is, it makes perfect sense.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Other Means:

You're EVERY person represented in the game. Therefore rather than frantically try and do 120 persons thinking in real time you pause. In that pause you do the thinking for the key actors in the situation and give them reasonable orders. And that's all that's wanted.

It's only wanted because you want perfect synchronization of all the actors on your side. You want the choreography of Ice Capades: WWII.

With the AI making decisions, you being able to give orders at any time in the process, and not just every 60 seconds, you will have all the control you need to manage the battle. But your little blue movement lines won't all line up.

Even without a pause function, ToW will give you about the same level of real control of your forces as CM does. It won't feel that way, but the net effect is about the same. One system just plays a hell of a lot faster.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Other Means:

As it is, it makes perfect sense.

Respectfully, I don't think it makes sense at all, excepting the possibility of a new title, "The Borg do WW2."

We have computers now, we don't have to do this turn stuff anymore. Continous play, FOW, friendly AI and reasonably accurate modeling of the tactical combat environment are possible in ways that were only a dream when I started playing wargames in the 1960's.

Suspending play for orders/planning/refreshments just isn't gonna cut it on the "realism" front. I don't intend to be cutting or unkind, but that seems a salient, unavoidable truth in these circumstances. It's my understanding, btw, that developers like turn-based games because they are easier to code.

ToW appears to be a step in the right direction.

Time will tell,

PoE

[Other Means]

It's not unresonable to want to command the actors in the game you're playing, this is just a method for ensuring you can give the same consideration to moves that you would do if you were in the situation.

It's not born out of the need to exercise perfect borg like control, that's an unavoidable by-product of the actors being controlled by a single entity.

Nor is it a matter of realism. The realism is inherant in the system because it IS a game. What we have is a situation where you can either apply sentient control of your actors yourself or allow AI control, which will not have the same situational awareness that a real person would have. BTW, saying the AI is excellent is not an answer - I'm sure it is and I'm glad to hear it. But it's not going to be sentient.

If the issue of unreasonable co-ordination is going to be addressed I would prefer it to be via a similar construct to the command delays from CM, rather than using a ticking clock to apply it via a clickfest inducing method.

[Tarquelne]

It's only wanted because you want perfect synchronization of all the actors on your side. You want the choreography of Ice Capades: WWII.

... you will have all the control you need to manage the battle. But your little blue movement lines won't all line up.

Where are the messages where OM discusses his anal retentive tendencies?

Anyway, will you really have all the control you need? It depends on how good the AI is, how many units we have to handle, and how fast the pace of the game is.

I'm guessing the pause function won't be necessary at all but will often be welcome, for both gameplay and realism reasons. (Though I think it'll lean toward gameplay.) Only those who've played the game can know for sure.

Given past games I find the desire for a powerful pause function perfectly reasonable... though statements that the game absolutely requires it are, IMO, also premature.

That upcoming AAR will probably have a lot of info.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Other Means:

It's not unresonable to want to command the actors in the game you're playing, this is just a method for ensuring you can give the same consideration to moves that you would do if you were in the situation.

Sure, it is reasonable to command your forces. You will be able to give them all orders. You just can't do it all at once with perfect synchronicity.

The method ensures you get to give more consideration to the decision than if you were there.

It's not born out of the need to exercise perfect borg like control, that's an unavoidable by-product of the actors being controlled by a single entity.

This is true in a pure TB environment. In CM, command delay and TAC AI inputs counteract this inherent perfection. In RT the inability of the player to be everywhere and everyone at the same time achieves the same net effect.

If the issue of unreasonable co-ordination is going to be addressed I would prefer it to be via a similar construct to the command delays from CM, rather than using a ticking clock to apply it via a clickfest inducing method.

Oh, God, no.

[Tarquelne]

In CM, command delay and TAC AI inputs counteract this inherent perfection. In RT the inability of the player to be everywhere and everyone at the same time achieves the same net effect.

In theory, yes. Does that really happen in TOW?

TOW's AI might be built to reflect it... but otherwise, hmm... the interface degrades if you've got troops with less training/lower morale? Or there's always more such troops and thus less time for you to spend with each... or is it only a similar net effect?

One of my favorite features in CM is the command delays. Not the mechanic, per se, but that the game tries to represent C&C problems. TOW's RT nature might, in itself, go a long way toward reproducing RL C&C problems... or maybe not. A wizz-bang interface, for example, will greatly magnify the player's ability to control.

I think the devil is in the pudding, here. The proof is in the details.

So far as realism goes I see RT as a step forward. At least in principle. It'll depend on how everything in the game is actually implemented.

[Kailes]

Although multiplayer-games should be pausable you should not be able to issue commands while the game is paused, because it is really annoying to constantly wait for another player in RTS-games.

The best way to provide more time for commanding your troops is to decelerate the game. So one second in real life equals half a second in the game, or something like that.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by RMC:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means:

It's not unresonable to want to command the actors in the game you're playing, this is just a method for ensuring you can give the same consideration to moves that you would do if you were in the situation.

Sure, it is reasonable to command your forces. You will be able to give them all orders. You just can't do it all at once with perfect synchronicity.

The method ensures you get to give more consideration to the decision than if you were there.

It's not born out of the need to exercise perfect borg like control, that's an unavoidable by-product of the actors being controlled by a single entity.

This is true in a pure TB environment. In CM, command delay and TAC AI inputs counteract this inherent perfection. In RT the inability of the player to be everywhere and everyone at the same time achieves the same net effect.

If the issue of unreasonable co-ordination is going to be addressed I would prefer it to be via a similar construct to the command delays from CM, rather than using a ticking clock to apply it via a clickfest inducing method.

Oh, God, no. </font>

[RMC]

Originally posted by Other Means:

For a start, it favours younger faster players over older more considerate ones.

This is the crux of the matter as I have said before. The Brain is afraid that the RT engine will let him get beaten by Pinky. This is a canard in the case of ToW and Close Combat. It may hold true for Stracraft and that ilk in which there is neglible tactical AI, the units are all meat shields with health bars, and the rule of the game is gather, build and rush. But you still have to know what the hell you're doing.

ToW has none of that. Clicking faster means nothing if you are making the wrong clicks. Your average RTS fan will not find this game appealing. Mistakes are punished severely and irrevocably. Lose your last sherman and you're SOL. You can't build another one.

I don't want to turn ToW into chess

With you there. The ballistics model in chess is crap.

but I don't want it turn into Counter Strike either.

Have you ever even played Counterstrike?

Sheesh. There is absolutely no chance that this game could ever turn into Counterstrike. C'mon. Get real.

If you want to impose non-co-ordination on the player (which I'm 100% for) then have it take a certain amount of time, by experiance plus a random factor, into account before acting on orders. And hey - we've seen a mechanism similar to that already.

Yeah, and it is in a turn-based engine and serves to counteract the infinite amount of time the player has to plot moves. It is not needed in this game. The RT takes care of it simply and seamlessly.

If you want to limit the pauses to every 60 secs or whatever then fine. But to me a pause is very much needed. We're not all 16 anymore.

There is already a pause. I don't want to see development time and energy wasted on expanding a feature in an attempt this RT game into TB.

[Other Means]

I think we're both after games where the control of forces isn't 100% under the control of the player, in order to simulate the imprecision of battlefield control and vagaries of war.

From what I understand, you think that the best way to do this is to give the player insufficient time to make the moves he wants or to think the situation through (it’s not my position that this would be the situation for most of the time BTW).

Whereas I think there should be a specialised mechanism created to make sure that that control isn’t completely accurate, in whatever way.

And yes, I’ve played CS, Q3, DoD etc and enjoyed them, but it’s not what I’m looking for from this.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by Other Means:

From what I understand, you think that the best way to do this is to give the player insufficient time to make the moves he wants or to think the situation through (it’s not my position that this would be the situation for most of the time BTW).

I realize that this was directed at RMC rather than myself, but I'd like to comment, nonethless.

I believe that the solution lies in a system like that used in Take Command: Second Manassas, one whereby players issue orders to subordinates who then order THEIR subordinates to take particular actions.

In an altercation involving a Confederate division vs a Union Corps, say 16 regiments a piece, plus four batteries, Pinky isn't gonna have a lot of luck clicking his way to victory against Norb Timpko's AI, no matter how many games of Quake he's got under his belt. That game forces players to rely on their subordinates to control segments of the fighting. Sure, you can ride around and Take Command of various units at critical points, but the game tends to get away from you if you TC too many, and little Pinky is by no means immune to the scope of these battles.

Delayed orders as a panacea? CMAK has some really big maps. I never realized how plagued with problems the delayed order system was until I tried to march a column of Panzers down a long, straight road in one of the scenarios. It looked like a Chinese fire drill. The total inability of the AI to coordinate the movement of units belonging to the same parent formation led to chaos. The supposed cure in that case appeared to be worse than the disease.

In closing, I'd encourage the developer to devote their remaining resources to successfully executing their original concept. Wasting time and money on implementing turns into the game sounds like a bastardization of their original design and won't make the game one bit more playable or valid as a simulation.

PoE

[Other Means]

Who's talking about turns? The current game has pause in single player, I just want the same curtesy in multiplayer.

The only experiance I've had with the formation orders to sub-units orders I've had was with PCOWS and it was a real chore.

[Dschugaschwili]

I see three ways of restricting the (ab)use of tactical pauses (meaning pauses that still allow giving orders or otherwise manipulating the game) in multi-player games (combine as you like):

1. Limit the number of tactical pauses each player may invoke during a game.

2. Limit the maximum length of each tactical pause.

3. Enforce a minimum delay between the end of the last tactical pause and the start of a new one (seperately for each player).

If these values could be set as options before starting a game, that would be almost perfect IMHO.

Dschugaschwili

[Redwolf]

I still think a save during multiplayer is actually more critical.

How many times did you have to reload a CM savegame during multiplayer? More than once.

[Dschugaschwili]

*bump*

Any news on this subject?

Dschugaschwili

[Kong]

I think Dschugaschwili (Dwili for short?!?!) has a good point. I was thinking about a 2 tier approach. But have a couple of ideas.

Emergency Pause - can be enacted by either player, LOCKS game, no actions or camera movement can be made during this pause. This is really the reality pause, I have a wife/kids, life, bowel movements, forgot my beverage/snack of choice, etc.

Mutually Agreed Tactical Pause - Player 1 requests pause, Player 2 must agree in order for Pause to take a effect. Pause is ended when both release pause.

Of course you can put conditions on the above mentioned pauses as Dwili mentioned. Both players agree BEFORE game begins as to what or if any pauses are allowed.

[THE Sabot]

****Pausers....sigh....

****The game should begin paused. Once the player(s) analizes the situation, forms groups and issues intial orders...thats it. Thats all that is needed. I very much doubt that ToW will be a "clickfest"...from the movies of gameplay, it seems to play out at a CC-like speed. For any people used to controlling 50-70 vehicles at a time in some of these other RTS, it shouldnt be a problem.

****If you would like to know how some of your "flashbanging" brothers view this topic, please read a few posts into this thread:

http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=108789

lj

[Sammy_Davis_Jnr]

Those that want a pause button..do any of you guys play online? probably not because if you have 4 people pausing during their turns what do think the game turns into?... A BOARD GAME .

I hear people moaning about it being a click fest..well if you have followed the game development this does not seem so. It will not be like c&c were you have tens of units wondering around..you have a certain amount of structure in TOW to play with.

I repeat what many have said...DO YOU THINK A COMMANDER HAD A PAUSE BUTTON?

Private: Sir two panzer 4s have been sighted past the east road.

Captain: Thank you private i'll just get out my trusty pause button and time shall stand still untill i survey the sitution. Thank god those pesky germans cant surprise us!

This is a game that i imagine that should test your appitude in pressure situtions...Having to prioritise your decisions..thinking on your feet.. having to be able be flexible in your ideas.

Having a pause button during play would just destroy the good player who can use speed, time and intellect to win the day.

TIME DOES NOT STAND STILL..WE ARE NOT GODS

but commanders.

Maybe the French wished they had a pause button!

---------------------------------

Blitzkrieg

German for 'lightning war'. A military strategy used by the Germans at the beginning of World War II to achieve victory through a series of quick offensives, especially in Belgium, Holland and France. After an initial bombardment, armour and motorised infantry were mobilised rapidly to break the weakest parts of the enemy line.

[1Cowboy8]

Agreed, I envision Turn-Based (time challenged) proponents as little Golems running around waving their arms up and down and (in your best Golem voice) screaching "CLICKfest"..."CLICKfest"....."CLICKfest". But if they want a pause button then fine have at it but they should at least drop the "its the only realistic way to simulate how a commander had complete control" for f*&^ sake.

Thank God for computers and game evolution...the sky is the limit for creating an ever more realistic and playable 4-D environment.

[Dschugaschwili]

Sammy, not everyone who thinks that having a pause option may be nice cries "clickfest". And while you're right that time doesn't stand still in real life, a real-life commander also doesn't have to give precise orders to every one of his soldiers because each one has his own brain. We'll have to see how well the tactical AI can handle each individual soldier's brain, so it's too early to make definite statements now.

Furthermore, you may have noticed that while I'm advocating the inclusion of a tactical pause, I also want to have restrictions in place that limit the use of this feature. Set everything to zero and you have your desired time-doesn't-stop game. But don't deny people who want a slower game the opportunity to have one, especially in larger battles with multiple engagements happening at once.

[Hitori Kyo]

tb is the way of board games .. not commanders.. has anyone ever played rome total war? .. this is a perfect example of how a tactical rts game works with out pause in multiplayer ...yet it also has a pause button that if pressed by one player, and is agreed by the other player the game pauses to allow (real life issues)... pausing and allowing a player to make plans and orders is absurd in battle no one controlls everything at one time ...

[Earl Grey]

The main problem - for someone like me, at least - is that I don't trust the AI. Not the enemy's, but my own. Dure, in real life there IS no pause button. But inr eal life, you have soldiers that are trained for their job and THINK. They react according TO THE SITUATION. The soldiers in a game act according TO THE PROGRAM CODE. And, in most games until now, the act just plain dumb. FoW and its forerunner had an interesting and good AI. But it had ist weaknesses. LEt me show you an example: 3 enemy guys are attacking my Tiger with their bazookas. They all stand excactly the same distance away from the tank and are firing. The Tiger has enough ammo, isn't damaged etc. But he cannot decide which of the 3 enemies is the most dangerous, because the danger they pose is excactly the same in every case according to the code telling the AI the potential danger level.

Long speech, short conclusion: If the desginers can assure me I don't have to be at every hotspot on the battlefield because I can trust the TacAI to do what real soldiers would in combat, then I don't need a pause button, because I simply don'T have to micromanage every damn unit.