TCP/ip WEGO w Replay possibly still for Normandy game!?

[Tactical Wargamer]

I'll restate our positions

1. We are not putting in TCP/IP WeGo with replay any time soon. Absolutely, and without any doubts, it will not show up in Normandy. Not even as a patch later on. There's no chance, and I mean less than zero, that this position will change. We've been clear about this for 2 years now and as we get towards the end of Normandy's development I can say for sure that this absolutely will not change. Period.

2. We are still hoping to get in TCP/IP WeGo without replay for Normandy. Ideally it would be in the initial release. It is still our goal to make this happen, however it is not something that we will allow to hold up the release of Normandy if we find we can't get it into the initial release.

3. We do plan on having a dynamic pause feature for TCP/IP RealTime. The feature will have rules and feature constraints (determined by the players) as to how often and how long pauses can be made. There will be an option, of course, to have no restrictions on this and just let the players sort out for themselves their own rules. We have no specific timeframe for this feature, but personally I would like to see it implemented as soon as possible. At this point "as soon as possible" is Bulge, not Normandy.

4. Eventually we would like to see TCP/IP WeGo with replay. The desire is definitely there. The problem is finding feature requests to sacrifice from our development schedule in order to free up the significant programming and testing resources to make this work. Our schedule is full and will always be full, thanks to the thousands of requests from you guys Therefore, taking a month or so out of our development schedule to get this working correctly (assuming we can) means major sacrifices to the rest of the game. Obviously people who are fanatics about TCP/IP WeGo with Replay might feel that such sacrifices are worth it without even knowing (or caring) what those sacrifices are. However, we think the majority of our customers will not be at all happy with such a development sacrifice. Which is why we currently have no plans on putting in TCP/IP WeGo with replay EVEN THOUGH we definitely (conceptually) want this feature into the game.

Knowing that fighting with reality is a bad idea is step 1 in developer enlightenment. Knowing that a fight with reality can never be won is step 2 in developer enlightenment. We're at step 10 or 11 by now

Steve

Well I guess we will have to wait on #2. I guess I should work on my speed on the keyboard for the initial release. For the life of me I cannot no matter how hard I try and set up the keys have any real tactical control of my units in larger battles. I find even controlling a company in realtime a "click fest". I guess at 35 I'm getting older.....

I take it there is still a PBEM? Would one be able to complete turns simultaneously?

[gibsonm]

Sorry sir what is the ADF version?

Australian Defence Force.

“We” paid BTS / BFC some money to adapt CMAK to cover Crete and some other places and were able to use it as a training tool.

[Battlefront.com]

PBEM will remain a part of CMx2 forever. It's part and parcel with WeGo. We're interested in expanding the ways to play CMx2, not shrinking them

Believe me when I say this... nobody hates the fact we have to make hard choices more than us. There are so many things, TCP/IP with playback included, that we would love to get into the game right away. But the number of things that are competing for "right away" is always depressingly large. We've become quite creative about how to increase our productivity, but no matter how efficient and clever we become the number of ideas competing for our attention will always be in excess of our capacity.

Steve

[Tactical Wargamer]

Understood and thank you Steve for being frank and honest. Not happy with everything you say re #1-#5 but understand and will continue to support your products. Pls though consider the MP's. I think as time goes forward more and more people will be using MP features and to a degree exclusively to SP. We have to get on that "right away" list. Can't wait for option #3.

[noxnoctum]

Sorry to bump this thread from the dead but I just wanted to check again on the status of this since apparently you guys are in beta now (I think I read that somewhere)... it's probably the #1 thing I'm concerned about having in Normandy. I know tcp-ip with replay is not in, but just wanted to make sure tcp-ip without replay is still going in.

[gibsonm]

Sorry to bump this thread from the dead but I just wanted to check again on the status of this since apparently you guys are in beta now (I think I read that somewhere)....

Not yet, sorry.

it's probably the #1 thing I'm concerned about having in Normandy. I know tcp-ip with replay is not in, but just wanted to make sure tcp-ip without replay is still going in.

Well "RT" TCP/IP is "in".

Unsure yet as to "WEGO without replay" in TCP/IP

However if your opponent is "local" (i.e. on a LAN, not the 'net) you can get around this and have "WEGO with Replay" in TCP/IP by using PBEM. Just don't email anyone.

The process being you "email" the WEGO PBEM file to a shared location and your opponent opens it from there.

[Battlefront.com]

The "compromise" solution, which is basically WeGo TCP/IP without Replay, is still on the table for Normandy. However, we do not view this as a "do or die" feature for the initial release. Meaning, if we feel it's overall better to ship the game without the compromise WeGo TCP/IP solution then we will, but we will put it in after. Similar to how CMBO shipped without TCP/IP. It's an important feature, for sure, but it's a feature that only a minority use. Therefore, we must balance the needs of the many vs the needs of the few. Live long and prosper

Steve

[noxnoctum]

Meaning you'd put it in a patch if it's not in release? I could live with that.

Just don't wanna have to wait for the next module.

What about tcp-ip wego with replay? Would that go in for Bulge/Commonwealth or would we have to wait for the Ostfront?

[noxnoctum]

Not yet, sorry.

Well "RT" TCP/IP is "in".

Unsure yet as to "WEGO without replay" in TCP/IP

However if your opponent is "local" (i.e. on a LAN, not the 'net) you can get around this and have "WEGO with Replay" in TCP/IP by using PBEM. Just don't email anyone.

The process being you "email" the WEGO PBEM file to a shared location and your opponent opens it from there.

Yeah not a big fan of RT tcp-ip. Think it sucks actually, just too much going on and you don't have sufficient control over your units. Feels more like an RTS game except in RTS games micro-management is much less important, one major reason being units dont die instantly if a tank shell hits them.

The local thing doesn't work because you still have to take turns, which means you have to sit around and nothing while the other guy plans his move. It's as bad as hotseat in that regard.

Don't underestimate how many people play tcp-ip wego, it's not just people on LANs with friends. I've never played someone over tcp-ip wego in the same house as me. In the competitive (ladder) community for these games a LOT of people play tcp-ip wego.

[gibsonm]

Don't underestimate how many people play tcp-ip wego, it's not just people on LANs with friends. I've never played someone over tcp-ip wego in the same house as me. In the competitive (ladder) community for these games a LOT of people play tcp-ip wego.

Well you don't need to sell me on it.

Using it in a classroom as a training tool (as I do) means that the "quasi PBEM" work around does work and it gives you the "replay" facility for AAR / Lessons Learnt.

But I'm not "the guy".

[Battlefront.com]

noxnoctum,

Don't underestimate how many people play tcp-ip wego

Don't overestimate how many people play TCP-IP WeGo (if it were available, that is)

As I said, it's a significant minority... but definitely a minority. CM is primarily played single player, so on that score all forms of multi-player are minority experiences.

In the competitive (ladder) community for these games a LOT of people play tcp-ip wego.

True. But I'd guess that ladder players account for maybe 1% of our CMx1 customer base. Maybe even less. Definitely less for CM:SF because it doesn't have TCP/IP WeGo. So again, this is a very, very small part of our customer base. Still important despite the tiny size.

To summarize:

The wants/needs of TCP/IP WeGoers generally, and ladder guys specifically, are taken into consideration when we make decisions. I can prove that because if this weren't true we'd not be putting in TCP/IP WeGo in at all But if push comes to shove, we are not going to hold up releasing the game for such a small percentage of players at the expense of such a large percentage.

Steve

[panzermartin]

Will we get an online pause/save for a start?

[noxnoctum]

noxnoctum,

Don't overestimate how many people play TCP-IP WeGo (if it were available, that is)

As I said, it's a significant minority... but definitely a minority. CM is primarily played single player, so on that score all forms of multi-player are minority experiences.

True. But I'd guess that ladder players account for maybe 1% of our CMx1 customer base. Maybe even less. Definitely less for CM:SF because it doesn't have TCP/IP WeGo. So again, this is a very, very small part of our customer base. Still important despite the tiny size.

To summarize:

The wants/needs of TCP/IP WeGoers generally, and ladder guys specifically, are taken into consideration when we make decisions. I can prove that because if this weren't true we'd not be putting in TCP/IP WeGo in at all But if push comes to shove, we are not going to hold up releasing the game for such a small percentage of players at the expense of such a large percentage.

Steve

Maybe the current majority of people play single player, but if you guys want to expand the player base beyond just hard core wargamers (and sell more copies), you gotta play up on multiplayer.

Look at how well multiplayer only games like World of Warcraft or Left 4 Dead are doing (not a fan of WoW but I do enjoy L4D a lot).

Obviously less people are interested in wargaming, but I think if you expand multiplayer you will get a lot of those borderline people from games like Red Orchestra for example, which has a lot of realism nuts in the community who would probably be playing Combat Mission if they knew about it. Or the IL-2 Sturmovik community.

The fact is a computer opponent is NEVER as good as a human opponent, ESPECIALLY when it comes to something as complex as wargaming, and a lot of people just do not play single player strategy games anymore.

[Le Tondu]

As a long time CMx1 player, I am anxiously waiting for CM: Normandy to be released (-and to see what features it is released with.) Its been a long wait indeed since CMAK, but I have no desire to play any modern era games at all -ever.

With that said, I for one will not be playing CM: Normandy as a single player. I look forward to (hopefully) someday again spending my Saturday mornings gaming against my best friend who lives 2600+ miles away.

BFC, I've supported you for quite a while, but if you will not return to WeGo, I just cannot see how I can even buy your product. (My apologies.)

IMO, RTS sucks. It always has. I don't want to waste my time trying to rush around a battlefield -trying to make sure that I remembered all of my forces -and then find out that the one crutial unit I should have moved, I didn't move. If I want more pressure in my life, I'd stay at work 24 hours a day. Gaming is a way to relax, have fun, and make friends.

You guys made important inroads with WeGo. The pause at the end of the turn makes BIG sense. Please don't throw that away.

[Berto]

Will we get an online pause/save for a start?

+1

online pause and save please

[ASL Veteran]

BFC, I've supported you for quite a while, but if you will not return to WeGo, I just cannot see how I can even buy your product. (My apologies.)

You guys made important inroads with WeGo. The pause at the end of the turn makes BIG sense. Please don't throw that away.

He didn't say that there was never ever going to be a TCP/IP "WeGo" function included in CM:N. All he said was that it will probably not be included in the initial release.

Just focus on this part:

posted by Steve

The "compromise" solution, which is basically WeGo TCP/IP without Replay, is still on the table for Normandy. However, we do not view this as a "do or die" feature for the initial release. Meaning, if we feel it's overall better to ship the game without the compromise WeGo TCP/IP solution then we will, but we will put it in after.

and ignore this part:

posted by Steve

The wants/needs of TCP/IP WeGoers generally, and ladder guys specifically, are taken into consideration when we make decisions. I can prove that because if this weren't true we'd not be putting in TCP/IP WeGo in at all But if push comes to shove, we are not going to hold up releasing the game for such a small percentage of players at the expense of such a large percentage.

You (and I, because I want that feature too) may not get it right away, but you will get it eventually. If it's a make or break feature for you then just wait until that feature is released before you buy the game. Problem solved . What is the saying? Patience is a virtue?

[sfhand]

Merely out of curiosity...

What are the technological challenges that prevent replay in a tcp/ip wego situation vs a pbem situation?

From my perspective, a sneakernet or lan system of manually transferring files is preferable to the proposed setup that doesn't include replay.

As always, thanks for the information you have already provided.

[Battlefront.com]

ASL Vet has it right BUT forgot to stress one point:

You (and I, because I want that feature too) may not get it right away, but you will get it eventually. If it's a make or break feature for you then just wait until that feature is released before you buy the game. Problem solved . What is the saying? Patience is a virtue?

Actually, patience has nothing to do with it because if it takes Y time to make the game without the TCP/IP WeGo compromise, and X time to make just that feature, then the soonest you'll get it is Y+X=Z. If we release the game at stage Y, and someone wants to wait until it's at stage Z, then for them there's absolutely no difference if we release the game with or without TCP/IP in terms of when they actually get their hands on it. But for everybody else... they get it at Y time and don't have to wait until Z.

Put another way, delaying the game's initial release to ensure we have the TCP/IP WeGo feature does nothing, and I mean nothing, more than delay the game for everybody. Including the vast majority who DO want to play it single player and/or and/or PBEM and/or TCP/IP RealTime. Which is why it's really a no-brainer to ship without TCP/IP WeGo if we feel that makes the most amount of sense from our perspective.

sfhand,

What are the technological challenges that prevent replay in a tcp/ip wego situation vs a pbem situation?

Technically? No challenge at all. It's simply a matter of a lot of grunt work and tons of testing with an inevitable pile of things that have to be fixed, retested, and perhaps fixed some more. It's like QuickBattles... conceptually easy to grasp, technically very straight forward, but still time consuming.

Contrast this with TCP/IP WeGo *with* replay. There are major technical hurdles to make that happen. Or not. We have no idea until we sit down and put in a lot of time and effort into it.

Some of you will remember long ago with CMBO we had a super fast TCP/IP implementation that made playing over even the slowest modem connection (most people did not have broadband back then) really fast. The problem was Intel had a rounding error bug in some of their processors which made the system we coded completely useless because we could not reliably predict which CPUs had the bugs or not (which, I think, was yet another bug!). The result was we had to rip out that code and rewrite new code. We lost a lot of time because of that. If we had started that before CMBO was released you guys would have had to all wait about 3-4 months for us to sort all that out instead of happily playing the game single player and PBEM.

Steve

[Le Tondu]

ASL Vet has it right BUT forgot to stress one point:

Actually, patience has nothing to do with it because if it takes Y time to make the game without the TCP/IP WeGo compromise, and X time to make just that feature, then the soonest you'll get it is Y+X=Z. If we release the game at stage Y, and someone wants to wait until it's at stage Z, then for them there's absolutely no difference if we release the game with or without TCP/IP in terms of when they actually get their hands on it. But for everybody else... they get it at Y time and don't have to wait until Z.

Put another way, delaying the game's initial release to ensure we have the TCP/IP WeGo feature does nothing, and I mean nothing, more than delay the game for everybody. Including the vast majority who DO want to play it single player and/or and/or PBEM and/or TCP/IP RealTime. Which is why it's really a no-brainer to ship without TCP/IP WeGo if we feel that makes the most amount of sense from our perspective. ..........

Steve

If Y, X, and Z happens, that will be nice.

IMO, it will have everything to do with patience because as you have said, TCP/IP WeGo compromise won't be released initially. (Yeah, that was a real nice time for CMBO when TCP/IP play was released. I will never forget it.) I've waited this long. I can wait some more. No problem there. I am not saying the game should be delayed. Not at all.

The point being is If Y happens and X never happens, the reason why I would want to buy the game will sadly not exist.

It is the social aspects that go with wargaming that I like. I can do lots of stuff on my own. Say, this brings back a lyric from a Yes song from the 70s that goes something like, "Don't surround yourself with yourself."

The whole idea behind my post was that I respectfully submit you are under-estimating the desire for this feature (and over-estimating the lack of desire for it.)

If folks don't speak up, how can anyone really know for certain?

[noxnoctum]

The point being is If Y happens and X never happens, the reason why I would want to buy the game will sadly not exist.

If folks don't speak up, how can anyone really know for certain?

Aye that's what I'm worried about.

I can deal with it not being included initially, and yes I'd rather have the game come out without it then wait a few months for it to make it in, but for me, and many others it's THE #1 way to play and I would not buy it in the first place if I knew it would not come in later.

[Le Tondu]

I'm with you noxnoctum.

BFC, don't get me wrong. Single player mode has plenty of value. I see it as a way to prepare the gamer for playing against other gamers. Nothing more.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys, I really can't say it any clearer than I already did:

Meaning, if we feel it's overall better to ship the game without the compromise WeGo TCP/IP solution then we will, but we will put it in after.

"Speaking up" about it won't make it happen any faster, nor will staying quiet risk it being dropped from our plates. This is an important feature to support, even though it is used by a fairly small number of people within our entire customer base. It will happen.

I don't see how our position can possibly be any more clear or favorable to those who want TCP/IP WeGo.

Steve

[noxnoctum]

Fair enuff.

At 21 years old, I'm not some old fogey complaining about too fast RTS gameplay I just think wargaming is better in the turn based environment especially when it's wego (and not yougoigo which has many issues)

[Battlefront.com]

And there are MANY like you who agree about WeGo vs. RT. There's just not many who think the only way to play is TCP/IP WeGo, with single player and PBEM categorically ruled out as being of interest.

Steve

[Berto]

I think we already have a good RT TPC/IP system in CMSF .

It is only to be improved with some minor additions:

1) ability to save games;

2) auto-save in case of disconnection;

3) a mechanism to call pause with the possibility of giving orders (no replay).

I do not write code, and then I do not know how difficult it is to implement :confused:.