Would love to have a "no time" option avalible -

[meade95]

Playing RT......and trying to control / oversee all the aspects of what is going on (current firefights, staging, reinforements, etc, etc, etc).....clearly becomes quite burdensome.......especially when a timeframe is involved.

It would be great (and not take anything away from the hardcore aspect of CMSF) if this could be turned off (for those that wish so) during the campagin mode.....

[Barricade]

+1

I completly agree, unfortunatly this is the 1 reason i stoppe dplaying, i found i wanted to take time carefully planning/executing the missions but with ime constraints felt myself rushing everything.

would love to see this option put in!

[Spindry69]

I agree, I think the ability to take you time to carefully clear areas to keep casulties to a minimum would be more realistic than you have this set time to achieve X. Unless there is a valid reason for a time constraint, such as rescue this ambushed unit, ect.

[JSB]

I feel the same frustration, because most of the scenarios are probably designed to be played in WEGO, where the player can optimize all his units behaviour at the same time.

There are several ways to minimize this problem: the "pause" when playing against the AI (doesn't work in RT multiplayer, but RT multiplayer, by my experience, doesn't work fine for the moment...).

You can also edit the scenario duration, up to 2 hours, which is better than nothing!

It would be a cool editor option to be able to go beyond 2 hours, and to edit different durations for WEGO and RT.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I feel the same frustration, because most of the scenarios are probably designed to be played in WEGO, where the player can optimize all his units behaviour at the same time.

Hahaha, you'll find lots of other people complaining that the game was designed to be played in RT!

I just use pause. A lot. Which I don't think is unrealistic, given that I'm doing all of the squad and platoon leaders' work in addition to the company/battalion commanders'. I found this to be a big problem at first, but once I got into it I rarely have problems with running out of time any more.

[The_Red_Rage]

Yeah pause button is a friend. I usually press it every 3-6 seconds no maintain coherent control.

But I agree that time limit should be increased to whatever scenario designer feels like or set to unlimited. There are maps, which i like to savour by spending more than 2 hours on them. Don't see such an option as a big deal to add either.

[meade95]

Agree - With the notion that allowing players to play maps / missions with unlimited time.....Should not be such a big issue.......BFC should simply allow for this option (at the players choice).......

[JSB]

Hahaha, you'll find lots of other people complaining that the game was designed to be played in RT!

I wasn't talking about the game, but about the scenarios!

I never use the pause (only when the phone rings!), because I consider playing against AI as a training for multiplayer game, (which will hopefully work soon) which made me buy this game and the older CMs.

[Northman]

Clearly, the time given for most of the missions is very unrealistic, but then again, the pace in SF isn't very realistic either(it's way too fast). This is probably the way BF want it to be(unfortunately), so I doubt we will see much change here.

[Northman]

Yeah pause button is a friend. I usually press it every 3-6 seconds no maintain coherent control.

Most people who play RT seem to play it this way, which is odd, since the main reason for making the game RT was that it forced the player to think while time was passing, and thus making the game more realistic...

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Most people who play RT seem to play it this way, which is odd, since the main reason for making the game RT was that it forced the player to think while time was passing, and thus making the game more realistic...

I play RT because I don't think the AI is at the point where I can trust them to do the right thing for a whole minute (which can be a pretty long time in a battle). This may change with the TacAI updates in 1.10, but I think I'll keep playing RT because it seems the most bug-free, un-annoying way to play.

BTW, I think it is realistic to be pausing frequently, because as I noted in my earlier post, you're doing the squad and platoon commanders' work as well as the company/battalion commanders'.

[Combatintman]

Well the answer is simple ... play WEGO.

Or ...

'Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action has arrived, stop thinking and go in'.

Napoleon Bonaparte

[medlinke]

I like the constraint imposed by the time to be honest.

I feel like having that time crunch forces me to make more efficient decisions. It also let's me think about how I might do things a bit different to save time / execute the mission quicker.

While I can certainly see the validity of this argument, I just thought I'd share the opposing thought.

[meade95]

I like the constraint imposed by the time to be honest.

I feel like having that time crunch forces me to make more efficient decisions. It also let's me think about how I might do things a bit different to save time / execute the mission quicker.

While I can certainly see the validity of this argument, I just thought I'd share the opposing thought.

But that is the point.......It really isn't the constraint imposed by the "time" varible....it is the constraint posed by not being able to oversee 4, 5, 6 things at once varible......(and thus the imposed time factor only furthers this problem).

I don't see the time constraint having anything to do with realism (in fact, it does the opposite). In some FPS games (like original R6/GR) time constraints on some missions made sense and added to the realism........ That is not the case here...

The option to turn off "time constraints" should be there.......Just as an option. Who does it harm.....

[fireship4]

I agree that it should be an option. Hard to add?

[Combatintman]

Time is always a constraint or at least a factor in any military operation - so you manage it basically. In this case you have a max 2 hour limit ... manage it.

[The_Red_Rage]

But 2 hours is a very unrealistic time constraint. For example a company advancing 2km through enemy territory will take significantly more than 2 hours, so will taking even a smallest village or town.

When i play the AI (Red on Red almost exclusively), i have force preservation as my primary objective, and I'd like to think that it is a realistic way to play (intact units are usually worth more than a peice of ground). I like to run recce screens, have my units spot for a while before making any major moves, and generally take things slow. Conducting a recce TAKES TIME. Properly and meticolously executed, recon can take over an hour, and i would love to have that hour without feeling pressured to advance.

Time pressure becomes even more annoying during Red on Red scenarios, with more fragile troops and equipment, when one simply can't park an Abrams on top of the tallest hill and expect to get away with it. Positioning and maneuvring is crucial, and again - it takes time. Tbh, with some of PaperTiger's scenarious i could spend 4-7 hours to play them the way i want.

[meade95]

Time is always a constraint or at least a factor in any military operation - so you manage it basically. In this case you have a max 2 hour limit ... manage it.

But you don't really have 2 hours to direct towards simply taking care of business related to conducting the operation.......As you have ten's of minutes used up simply trying to look around the battlefield.....or trying to find what unit is taking fire, etc, etc......

For those that want to place a time limit.....That is fine.....For those who would rather not....it seems that option should be avaliable to.

[meade95]

But 2 hours is a very unrealistic time constraint. For example a company advancing 2km through enemy territory will take significantly more than 2 hours, so will taking even a smallest village or town.

When i play the AI (Red on Red almost exclusively), i have force preservation as my primary objective, and I'd like to think that it is a realistic way to play (intact units are usually worth more than a peice of ground). I like to run recce screens, have my units spot for a while before making any major moves, and generally take things slow. Conducting a recce TAKES TIME. Properly and meticolously executed, recon can take over an hour, and i would love to have that hour without feeling pressured to advance.

Time pressure becomes even more annoying during Red on Red scenarios, with more fragile troops and equipment, when one simply can't park an Abrams on top of the tallest hill and expect to get away with it. Positioning and maneuvring is crucial, and again - it takes time. Tbh, with some of PaperTiger's scenarious i could spend 4-7 hours to play them the way i want.

+1 - Agree completely.......

[Combatintman]

The Red Rage

You state yourself that you have force preservation as your primary objective. That is an unnecessary constraint you are placing upon yourself unless the scenario/orders demand it. On the other hand you know that you have a maximum of 2 hours to complete the task yet refuse to abide by it.

Personally I'd rather see longer battles myself but the whole art is working within the constraints and coming up with the best solution within your means - by adding your own constraints you aren't doing that.

I've had my backside handed to me on a number of scenarios through either taking too long initially or through pushing on - I'm over it and learnt from it.

[19Kyle72]

Another vote from me in favor of adding an option of increasing the time limit for all of the reasons expressed above.

[medlinke]

I think given the nature of unconventional warfare you'd be inviting trouble IRL in a BLUEFOR vs. OPFOR/UNCON scenario.

Look at what happened in Mogadishu, Fallujah, Sadr City. The more time you give UNCON the more they reinforce, entrench, and set ambushes. In that sense, you want some real force and swiftness behind your tactical engagements.

Now...from an OPFOR/UNCON perspective...I can certainly see the value in time for the stated reasons. Given the fragile nature of both the troops,weapons, and equipment I see exactly why you want unlimited time.

OPTION is the key word I guess and I think a scenario designer should have final say on that, but it definitely makes sense now that I read your perspective.

[Barricade]

hhhmmmmmmm

My main problem with the time constraint is for example the first mission of the campaign.

Personally the way I like to play is setup my units cafefully, move out and start clearing with each unit covering each other, slow and steady to minimize casualty's, as most times if you burn in with a squad in a stryker more times than not a good RPG hit takes it all out, or suppresive machingun fire pins your men and ends up wiping them out, for me i like to plan carefully then move in clearing areas and suppressing others, unfortunatly this takes alot of time, especially when half way through you get re-enforced, u then need to take time to position new units in the field.

I don't see the harm in allowing an option for time limit on/off.

my thoughts

[Paper Tiger]

This has come up before and I don't think you'll see any changes anytime soon. A bit of a shame as I would be happy with an extra 30 minutes maximum.

However, I have to say that I don't think there's anything wrong with a bit of time pressure in a mission, especially in a dynamic campaign. The first mission in my new campaign challenges the player to clear the road through a small town of enemy forces and there will only be 45 minutes (WHAT?!) with some extra time given to do this. This is because there are consequences to failure here. The entire mission's timetable will be delayed and as a result, enemy resistance in subsequent missions will be better prepared. (Think Operation Market Garden here)

Playtesting often reveals the best time limit for a mission too. I was playtesting a new mission yesterday where your forces have to attack on both sides of the board simultaneously which is very challenging in Real Time. While I was focussed on one front, I let the other front rest up, buddy aid for ammo and then got them moving again. I was just able to complete the entire mission in 1 hour 45 minutes with this halting approach so that's MORE than enough time for the rest of you, especially you WEGo players who can co-ordinate everything more efficiently.

[meade95]

The notion that in some missions / scenario's "time" factors may be useful and desired isn't the point....... I think the point is...there isn't an option to NOT have such "Time factors"...for those missions that some want to create.....

Have both options avaliable. That is it. That would clearly be the best case for CMSF owners.........For those that want to use time-factors...so be it.....For those who don't....Don't need to.

And again, even for those cases where some think "time factors" should be part of a mission....."time" really isn't the problem (for actually conducting the mission)....In that CMSF is not a FPS....where you control basically the only one unit (or squad). What takes up so much time in CMSF is just getting around the map......Keeping up with whole battlions and what is going on.....