The road ahead... a recap

[Cpl Steiner]

If a rewind function was added for RT play, perhaps we could have the option to jump back into the game during the replay and change the outcome? I know some would not like such a feature as they would think it was cheating but I think a lot of players would love it.

[Steiner14]

Steve,

it's great to hear, that you are planning to make both modes better. That is economically very wise, because that way, you cover two market-segments.

But as a WEGO-player i want to point you to a completely different perception, to the one you described as being the main difference between WEGO & RT - imo you underestimate the psychological differences: it is the restriction in WEGO, that can only be compensated by careful planning and forethinking in conjunction with the remaining uncertainty, that awaits you, when you decide to end the planning phase.

For me it's psychologically a completely different game, if i know, i can withdraw units at every time, if i.e. an artillery barrage starts, or if i have to integrate the impossibility of fast user reaction into the whole tactical approach.

IMO this difference will become bigger in the WWII releases, where i.e. tank-battles are not decided mostly by the very first shot even at driving forward. Recon with a Tiger? Immediate reaction of the player, if a threat appears, could be a well working tactic. The result will be completely different tactics compared to a tactical approach, where the tank has to be used that way, that he surely survives 60 seconds without user interaction.

[panzermartin]

Steiner, you have a good point. To counter this in RT, command delay penalties could be re-introduced maybe? I was playing a TCP/IP game last night but due to the huge size we had some lag and I had to wait 10-15 secs to see my orders executed. I had to think twice before placing an order because I knew I couldnt intervene if something wrong happened. It felt much more tactical but at the same time it kept adrenaline high and the game flowing. First time I find lag adding something to a game (unfortunately the host didnt lag so I was always a step behind heh)

[panzermartin]

Unfortunately since I played RT, I simply cant go back to WEGO anymore. Sometimes it is a fabulous experience but other times a frustrating waste of hours of nothing. If BFC can find the mid solution with rolling replays, pausable TCP/IP and maybe even command delays to counter gamey tactics I think there will be no more need to split gamers to separate camps.

[Battlefront.com]

Steiner14,

For me it's psychologically a completely different game, if i know, i can withdraw units at every time, if i.e. an artillery barrage starts, or if i have to integrate the impossibility of fast user reaction into the whole tactical approach.

Oh, I completely agree that it's each is a psychologically different experience. There is time pressure in RT, not in WeGo. That right there really changes the game. But to counter your point, in RT you are more likely to "forget" units or to "under manage" units. So it's not that one is more realistic than the other, since both are arguably unrealistic. It's just that each is more/less realistic in different ways.

I remember the debates I had with the Close Combat guys way back in the early CM days. They argued that WeGo was inherently unrealistic because of the degree of micromanagement and precision that players could be assured of getting out of their units. Even with CM's Command Delays. While it is true that this is the case, it is not true that the opposite (i.e. RT) is inherently more realistic. Yes, combat in real life is done in "real time", however it is also done with several hundred brains simultaneous at work instead of one dude with two hands. So to say that simply because a game is RealTime it is more realistic than WeGo is nuts. Never accepted that line of thinking, never will.

Ali-Baba... I sympathize I'll keep supporting the inclusion and enhancement of WeGo, but I'm going to have to keep relying on or WeGo testers to provide feedback. I'm totally hooked on RT.

Steve

[MarkEzra]

Ali-Baba... I sympathize I'll keep supporting the inclusion and enhancement of WeGo, but I'm going to have to keep relying on or WeGo testers to provide feedback. I'm totally hooked on RT.

Steve

Not to worry Steve!

[istari]

Totally agree with Steiner's point, I was thinking the same thing myself. That part of the challenge (and drama!) in WEGO is placing your bets each turn and then biting your lip in the hopes that the plan comes together during that 60 seconds. Much more drama (for me) than RT, but as Steve said, "to each their own", and no reason to force one or the other.

For RT, I'm particularly intrigued by the suggestion of adding command delays for RT troops. That's a great idea. If I could have RT with TiVo style replay and command delays, that would really offer the best of both worlds.

Yeah yeah, I know how easy is it is to ASK for features, and how hard it can be to actually CODE them :>, but here's a vote for TiVO+Command Delays for future RT releases.

Chris

P.S. Of course, Command Delays should be optional, so that existing players who like quick response in RT aren't being asked to sacrifice anything to us WEGO types :>.

[thelmia]

Uh, I'd leave command delays for RT optional. Sounds like a good and realistic idea, but actually playing an RT game where units simply ignore orders is innately frustrating. It would feel buggy and wrong, even if working as intended. I can imagine banging on the keyboard and yelling at the stupid tank to back up.

In WEGO, that's just part of the game. It works. In RT, not so much.

It seems to me the big advantage of WEGO is scale. You can manage much larger battles. In RT every player eventually hits their limit. Mine's about 1 infantry company with support vehicles. Beyond that, units tend to sit idle. With WEGO, anyone can manage any size given enough time.

And is there TCP/IP WEGO yet? Sorry, but I just dropped by after many months and I haven't read up.

Again, great patch, made me play again.

[Smaragdadler]

RT: nice for a litte fast game, when I don't have much time. (fast-food)

WEGO: If I want to enjoy the banquet...

[Steiner14]

Steiner, you have a good point. To counter this in RT, command delay penalties could be re-introduced maybe?

That sounds like a very interesting solution!

Uh, I'd leave command delays for RT optional.

Absolutely. Would be great, to have that option.

Sounds like a good and realistic idea, but actually playing an RT game where units simply ignore orders is innately frustrating. It would feel buggy and wrong, even if working as intended. I can imagine banging on the keyboard and yelling at the stupid tank to back up.

In WEGO, that's just part of the game. It works. In RT, not so much.

A very good point and i'm afraid, you are right, that it just wouldn't feel correct.

So what could Steve do, that such a delay would feel correct in the context and enhance the tension, instead of feeling just plain wrong?

What about a situation dependent delay?

Maybe a check before the RT-execution could be done? - If some kind of threat to the unit exists and the threat is already visibe to the player, a delay is introduced (after getting used to it, maybe it could feel like realistic seconds of finding a solution to the threat. Depending on the unit's quality (and other factors), the amount of delaytime could also be varied.

The amount of the delay could even be made user definable, so that players preferring faster (or no) reaction times, could use a lower factor, while WEGO-fans could even decide for action dependent delays up to a minute.

[Battlefront.com]

I've moved the discussion of RT/WeGo features to this thread because it is its own topic and an interesting one we haven't discussed in a long while. Please post follow ups to comments here in that thread and keep this one open to more general discussions about where CMx2 is going from here.

Steve

[The Tanklord]

Thankfully, the WeGoers who screamed at us to get rid of RealTime (this call started long before CM:SF was out, which says something ) have largely quieted down.

Yes, that seems to be the logical thing to do, before SF was out there was still a possibility that things might change and after the release they let you know how wrong they think you are. Obviously nothing lasts forever and they have at the very least made their point heard.

Some have even admitted that RT is their primary method of play!

And some (lots?) have left...

So the occasional person who still tries to claim that there is something inherently wrong with RT can be ignored since it is obviously an emotional position rather than a rational one.

From a computer science perspective RT inherently comes with limitations , there are hard deadlines that needs to be met which will limit you in other ways. If you want the best possible pathfinding, TacAI, stratAI and so on, WeGo (or any type of offline resolution engine) is the way to go. RT can at the very best only come up to par with WeGo in these areas and this is (imho) only under unrealistically optimal conditions.

I'm not saying that RT isn't good for CM, although I don't care for it (I've only played the demos though), but the tradeoff is there and taking the other side would still be rational.

[Battlefront.com]

The Tanklord,

Yes, that seems to be the logical thing to do, before SF was out there was still a possibility that things might change and after the release they let you know how wrong they think you are. Obviously nothing lasts forever and they have at the very least made their point heard.

True, and that's fine. But it would be nice, though unexpected, if people could just make an opinion know without acknowledging that it is just an opinion. But I understand why this doesn't happen. When someone is really arguing to have their way, and only their way, be paid attention to... then smear tactics are used to distort the record. Just like in politics.

And some (lots?) have left...

Sure, and lots of new people have come onboard too. Battlefront.com is not a cult which forces people to stay even when they start to question what's going on. We made changes we knew would upset some people, so obviously there have been departures. We predicted that years ago, as we've discussed many times before. The people most bothered by it are the ones who left, which makes sense.

From a computer science perspective RT inherently comes with limitations , there are hard deadlines that needs to be met which will limit you in other ways. If you want the best possible pathfinding, TacAI, stratAI and so on, WeGo (or any type of offline resolution engine) is the way to go. RT can at the very best only come up to par with WeGo in these areas and this is (imho) only under unrealistically optimal conditions.

That is only true if the requirements outstrip the ability for the computer to keep up. Tic-Tac-Toe works just as well on a 1960s computer as it does the latest and greatest, does it not? As it is CMx2 is doing far more than CMx1 could have ever dreamed of doing in WeGo, but it is doing it in RealTime. We don't have time to make a Deep Blue AI for CM anyway, therefore the endless CPU cycles we would need for it aren't relevant.

Plus, when a programmer knows he has unlimited CPU time he tends to code less efficiently than when he knows he doesn't. The US Big Three auto makers keep telling us that it isn't possible to design radically more efficient cars, yet somehow the Japanese and Europeans are able to do it. Bad engineering and poor management is the reason why the Big Three suck so badly, not because it physically isn't possible to make improvements.

I'm not saying that RT isn't good for CM, although I don't care for it (I've only played the demos though), but the tradeoff is there and taking the other side would still be rational.

The tradeoff can only be argued for if it exists. It doesn't, so in reality there is no problem. Plus, trying to tell the world that CMx2's RealTime is "broken" or a "click fest" isn't that line of argument. It's an opinion tarted up to appear like fact, despite the evidence to show that it is wrong.

Steve

[The Tanklord]

We predicted that years ago, as we've discussed many times before. The people most bothered by it are the ones who left, which makes sense.

Yes, as it should be. What I find disturbing is the whole "those guys don't get "it"" and "the idiots even started complaining before CMSF was out" and then showing some recent re-converts as if they prove anything.

I think a couple of people that are bothered by it might still hang around to see what you will make of the WW2 release, and I think that we (or I if its only me ) have heard enough about how little we "get" or how little of the vision we saw. The hotheads that you might be targeting with this have already left.

That is only true if the requirements outstrip the ability for the computer to keep up. Tic-Tac-Toe works just as well on a 1960s computer as it does the latest and greatest, does it not?

That's true. But comparing any part of CMSF with Tic-Tac-Toe is deeply flawed, the pathfinding for the smallest possible unit over a small distance is much more expensive than solving the whole tic-tac-toe game.

Take chess, 8x8 grid, 32 units, and very limited movement possibilities for each piece. Compared to CMSF it's still stupidly simple, but here you need very powerful computers and precalculated endgames and whatnot to give the best players in the world a run for their money. Impose some hard ("RT") time constraints and I doubt that computers would perform nearly as well. And chess could be seen as a much simplified problem of StratAI for CMSF.

Add layers of imperfect information, C3 and so on...

As it is CMx2 is doing far more than CMx1 could have ever dreamed of doing in WeGo, but it is doing it in RealTime.

Computers keeps improving at a rapid pace yes, but my argument is about how much more could have been done if it wasn't RT not about how it compares with an older game from many hardware generations ago.

We don't have time to make a Deep Blue AI for CM anyway, therefore the endless CPU cycles we would need for it aren't relevant.

Looking at other forum posts, there are threads about pathfinding, LOS and TacAI behaving strangely or not at all. Pathfinding and LOS are theoretically simple problems, but expensive to compute. The mention of "tweaking" suggests changing timelimits, searchdepth, pruning and so on and if you are not computing the complete solution more time (or power) will in the right/wrong circumstance improve the results. Or in another way, if you calculate the optimal answer you can't tweak the algorithm for a better one.

Not to mention that the human player surely could use as much AI-assistance as possible when trying to organize his/her forces in RT.

Plus, when a programmer knows he has unlimited CPU time he tends to code less efficiently than when he knows he doesn't.

That might have some truth to it, but then there is the state the game was released in and the many patches since then, I doubt there has been enough time for the really hardcore optimizations. And to quote Donald Knuth "premature optimization is the root of all evil".

Not to mention that it takes more of the programmers time to do things for RT.

But to get back on track. I'm not saying these things are bad now (since I don't own the game I have to wait for the demos and the right mood), I'm saying that RT brings with it a tradeoff and that some areas could have been better without the RT constraints.

If the tradeoff was worth it, history and your balance sheet will show that but saying it's not an issue that doesn't impact gameplay to some degree is simply not true.

The tradeoff can only be argued for if it exists. It doesn't, so in reality there is no problem. Plus, trying to tell the world that CMx2's RealTime is "broken" or a "click fest" isn't that line of argument. It's an opinion tarted up to appear like fact, despite the evidence to show that it is wrong.

Well, it does exist considering all the complex stuff CMSF must do and the limitations of modern computers. The impact can be discussed and is subjective, but the tradeoff is there. I'm not saying the game or its design is broken, it's a choice with pros and cons, but some of these pros and cons are technical by nature. (although I can't think of a technical pro(?) right now).

And regarding RT and the "click fest", back in the day I played Red Alert competitively so that part is not an issue and I don't agree that CMSF is a click fest anyway. I just feel that WeGo was the way to go for CM with all its imo added benefits. But this, as I'm well aware, is just one mans opinion. And it's even possible that CM2:ww2 might be able to change my opinion on that.

[Steiner14]

The Tanklord,

good comments, but look at it from the positive side: if they wouldn't have gone realtime, they most probably wouldn't have such a success. And this success was the necessity to get CMx2 WWII.

So, i'm with you, that the RT constraints definately force certain optimizations, and the faster computers become, the more severe the restrictions are compared to the possiblities in a pure WEGO game, tweaked for highest simulation accuracy, but such a hypothetical WEGO game can't be played at all, because BFC can't afford to make it.

[MeatEtr]

I'd like to put in a tiny request, perhaps my very first. Could the sniper icon be changed to a scope or target to indicate the unit as a sniper team? As it is now it has the same infantry icon as the rest. Quite often I have to click around to find my sniper team. I figured since HQ, HMG, and FOs get thier own icons, sniper teams should too.

[The Tanklord]

Steiner14, that is a very valid point and obviously BFC should go the way they feel is right, imo one of the biggest mistakes for a gaming company is listening too much to the vocal part of their forum. On the other hand it's good to keep them from getting hubris too, memento mori and all that.

As long as BFC is in business there is still the possibility that "the next game" might be just right, although beating their first games might be impossible.

Regarding the design decisions I'm just saying that a couple of them are wrong from the-best-possible-game-for-me-perspective. They might be very right in more general terms.

I'm not so sure about the smaller "slices" of ww2, losing the good old QB or losing the point system either, but I feel the points against those decisions has been made well enough.

The technical aspects are less about opinions and more about facts. Steve has been saying the same things regarding RT vs WeGo and the calculation aspect since the game was launched (and before?) and I find the technical reasoning fundamentally flawed (the NO difference at all part).

Now that the forum seems rather calm (ie no major fires that might explode from extra gasoline) and with a perfect thread to post it in to boot I felt that it was time to correct Steve .

(These could be my famous "last words")

edit: The time limited edit function is really annoying too!!!

[Gromit]

Steve:

Yes, definitely just like old times. Incredible to think it's been over nine years (!) since the first CM1 phenomenon took place. Feeling a bit nostalgic myself... *sniff*

I'd even threaten to start a "scotch" thread except that Charles might stop programming to contribute.

I am glad to see the new release format working for you guys and am eagerly awaiting the CM:Normandy release. I am happy that both RT and Wego are integral parts of CM now and even some of us old farts have learned to play in RT style (CoH for me). Shocking, isn't it?!

I'd like to change the subject slightly Steve if you could take a crack at answering a tech question for me. I had to rebuild my PC this summer due to a bad motherboard and decided to build-in some future flexiblility by making it dual boot with Vista 64-bit and XP Pro.

My questions are regarding 32 and 64-bit operation system support in the CMx2 engine.

• What are the company's plans regarding migration to the upcoming 64-bit standard?
  
• Does a move to 64-bit help alleviate some of the RAM-oriented address issues you guys have faced for years, or is that more of a VRAM issue?
  
• I am looking at investing in a 1GB RAM ATi 4700 series videocard and I am curious if CMx2 titles would take advantage of the doubling of VRAM under both 32-bit and 64-bit?

Thanks for being so responsive on the forums Steve- it's good to see things in full swing again!

Best of luck! :cool:

[Battlefront.com]

The Tanklord,

A thoughtful, strong, and constructive counter post. Just what I like and what I so rarely get when talking about something like this. I hope we can continue with it!

Yes, as it should be. What I find disturbing is the whole "those guys don't get "it"" and "the idiots even started complaining before CMSF was out" and then showing some recent re-converts as if they prove anything.... The hotheads that you might be targeting with this have already left.

That's exactly what I meant when I said "We predicted that years ago, as we've discussed many times before. The people most bothered by it are the ones who left, which makes sense." I made that in response to your comment that "some (lots?) have left." So I guess I don't understand your point.

That's true. But comparing any part of CMSF with Tic-Tac-Toe is deeply flawed, the pathfinding for the smallest possible unit over a small distance is much more expensive than solving the whole tic-tac-toe game.

Obviously My point is that some things do not benefit from more computing resources because they don't need more resources. In respect to LOS/LOF and Pathfinding, of course these are things which require every increasing amounts of computing resources to achieve ever diminishing returns. So one can take these things so far that the computer would basically sit around for a half hour computing nothing but LOS/LOF for a few seconds of gameplay.

Computers keeps improving at a rapid pace yes, but my argument is about how much more could have been done if it wasn't RT not about how it compares with an older game from many hardware generations ago.

And my argument is that it isn't practically as much as you think it is. CMBO/BB/AK had tons of shortcuts and other "tricks" to get it to compute a turn in a reasonable timeframe. Larger battles were only for the incredibly patient because sitting around for 10 minutes for a single 1 minute turn (IIRC the record on my system was set by Rune's "Battle of the Bulge - The Movie" scenario at about 20 minutes and the framerate was about 1fps) was more than the player would stand for.

What I'm doing here is not disagreeing with your core argument, I'm just saying that in practical terms it doesn't mean much. Sure, in theory there are nearly unlimited resources at our disposal if we go with WeGo, but in reality there are other considerations that do indeed impose limits. The other one is...

Looking at other forum posts, there are threads about pathfinding, LOS and TacAI behaving strangely or not at all. Pathfinding and LOS are theoretically simple problems, but expensive to compute.

Correction... they are theoretically simple problems that are expensive to compute AND difficult to make work with complex environments. Especially when there are realistic limitations, such as how long someone is willing to wait for "perfect" results. Even if we had CMx2 be WeGo only, there would be pathing issues. I guarantee it. There were plenty of pathing issues with CMx1, even in its final version (though obviously not nearly as much as earlier).

The mention of "tweaking" suggests changing timelimits, searchdepth, pruning and so on and if you are not computing the complete solution more time (or power) will in the right/wrong circumstance improve the results. Or in another way, if you calculate the optimal answer you can't tweak the algorithm for a better one.

Not true. CMx2 is a complex environment with lots and lots of variables. Unless those variables are correctly accounted for in the algorithm, then there will be behaviors that result from unanticipated situations. Not to mention that the more complex any algorithm is the more potential there is for a straight up "bug" (i.e. a mistake in the implementation of the code, not in the logic of the code).

That might have some truth to it, but then there is the state the game was released in and the many patches since then, I doubt there has been enough time for the really hardcore optimizations. And to quote Donald Knuth "premature optimization is the root of all evil".

It depends on what you mean by optimization. If you mean designing something, not testing it adequately, then optimizing it before the basic results are known to be sound... absolutely, that quote is dead on. If you mean that having no "budget" in mind when designing something means you'll have the most efficient basic structure in place to start with is not a good argument to make.

Put another way, if I gave you $1000 and said "spend it on anything you want, including food" how much might you spend on food? If I instead say "here's $100 to spend on food, that's all you have for the week", don't you think the way you approached your food shopping would differ in a fundamental way? I hope so!

But to get back on track. I'm not saying these things are bad now (since I don't own the game I have to wait for the demos and the right mood), I'm saying that RT brings with it a tradeoff and that some areas could have been better without the RT constraints.

No argument there with the theory. The difference is that in reality I don't believe it's very relevant to CMx2.

If the tradeoff was worth it, history and your balance sheet will show that but saying it's not an issue that doesn't impact gameplay to some degree is simply not true.

Sure, to "some degree". I agree with that. Just like going with WeGo imposes tradeoffs that impact the gameplay to "some degree" as well. The best example of this is in CMx1. Sometimes a shot would pass through a building and impact a unit behind it. From a physics and gameplay standpoint, this did not put smiles on people's faces. The reason for this was that we didn't track things in RealTime within the game engine and therefore there was no way to account for the movement of the unit after the shot was launched. Or put another way, real trajectories were not possible because it required a degree of tracking that simply did not exist because the system was inherently based on discrete time increments instead of continuous time.

By moving to a true continuous time game engine we eliminated problems like trajectories, artillery shells landing after the 60th second, and lots and lots of other subtle stuff. If we had stuck with pure turn based environment those issues would still remain.

Each system, from a coding standpoint and from a gameplay standpoint, has its pros and cons. For us we found that the pros of a true continuous time game engine was the way to go. We absolutely, 100%, feel that was the right way to go. And because of that, much of this discussion is just academic since we're not going to throw out what we know is a superior system to go back to something a small number of people perceive is a superior system, but is in fact just a more comfortable one for them.

Well, it does exist considering all the complex stuff CMSF must do and the limitations of modern computers. The impact can be discussed and is subjective, but the tradeoff is there. I'm not saying the game or its design is broken, it's a choice with pros and cons, but some of these pros and cons are technical by nature. (although I can't think of a technical pro(?) right now).

What I'm saying is that it isn't a tradeoff in the way you say. You're arguing that a turn based system has no cons, only pros. That's simply not the case. Both have cons, both have pros. We feel that, on balance, the pros of the current system (inherently continuous time based) outweigh the pros of the old system (inherently turn based). Therefore, we didn't have to tradeoff anything significant when the whole is examined.

And regarding RT and the "click fest", back in the day I played Red Alert competitively so that part is not an issue and I don't agree that CMSF is a click fest anyway. I just feel that WeGo was the way to go for CM with all its imo added benefits. But this, as I'm well aware, is just one mans opinion. And it's even possible that CM2:ww2 might be able to change my opinion on that.

Well said.

Jumping ahead to your comments about Steiner14's post:

Steiner14, that is a very valid point and obviously BFC should go the way they feel is right, imo one of the biggest mistakes for a gaming company is listening too much to the vocal part of their forum. On the other hand it's good to keep them from getting hubris too, memento mori and all that.

Absolutely. I think the track record of what is in the patches since CM:SF came out really underscores our ability to deal with both of these issues. We didn't throw out 3 years worth of coding, as some suggested we should, yet we spent many months not only fixing what was broken but also adding in new features that people requested we put in. And for some of those things which we agree with, but are not practical right now, we've said we'll get to them as soon as we can (committing to a timeframe for some, not for others). Since the early days we've been accused by people of not listening to our customers... it's never been true, and never will be. What is true is that we don't listen to the customers that would wind up putting us in the unemployment line

As long as BFC is in business there is still the possibility that "the next game" might be just right, although beating their first games might be impossible.

It will always come down to personal opinion. For example, I loved Close Combat 2. All kinds of problems with it, for sure, but I got way more than my money's worth out of it. I thought CC1 wasn't very good and I had no interest in playing CC3 and beyond. Many people who even like the later ones agree that CC2 was the best of the bunch, though some disagree quite strongly. Same with CMx1... I think CMBB is my favorite of the three, but it didn't come close to matching the sales of CMBO and was far more effort for return than CMAK was.

I'm not so sure about the smaller "slices" of ww2, losing the good old QB or losing the point system either, but I feel the points against those decisions has been made well enough.

And none of them have anything to do with the RT nature, just to point that out QBs are getting a massive overhaul and, I think, will wind up being far superior to what was in CMx1.

The technical aspects are less about opinions and more about facts. Steve has been saying the same things regarding RT vs WeGo and the calculation aspect since the game was launched (and before?) and I find the technical reasoning fundamentally flawed (the NO difference at all part).

No, it's about an opinion and which set of facts one chooses to display in support of that opinion. Your position about the tradeoffs of RT vs. WeGo is an opinion. It is one that we disagree with, though perhaps not for the same technical reasons that your opinion is based on. Hopefully the bulk of this response will show you that it is a fallacy to think that you're not expressing an opinion since I've been able to disagree with your facts with other facts.

Now that the forum seems rather calm (ie no major fires that might explode from extra gasoline) and with a perfect thread to post it in to boot I felt that it was time to correct Steve .

(These could be my famous "last words")

Hopefully not your "last words" because this has been enjoyable! I hate it when people post an opinion and then run away from the debate that follows. It seems the more strong the opinion, the more likely that is to happen. In our case we really don't disagree much in a fundamental sense. We simply disagree in what it actually means in reality.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Steiner14,

good comments, but look at it from the positive side: if they wouldn't have gone realtime, they most probably wouldn't have such a success. And this success was the necessity to get CMx2 WWII.

That is indeed part of the upside to our decision As much as the WeGoers want to think that they can support us forever, we don't think that's the case. And since we're the ones betting our professional lives, and the money that comes from that, on which road to take... only our opinion matters. The marketplace will correct us if we're wrong, not a couple of curmudgeon Grognards They've never, ever, since the beginning of time been able to keep a game company in business. At least not for long.

So, i'm with you, that the RT constraints definately force certain optimizations, and the faster computers become, the more severe the restrictions are compared to the possiblities in a pure WEGO game, tweaked for highest simulation accuracy, but such a hypothetical WEGO game can't be played at all, because BFC can't afford to make it.

As I said to Tanklord, there are actually limitations with WeGo as well. I mean, honestly... if I said you could have LOS/LOF that was accurate to .00001 of a meter, but it would take 60 minutes for a 60 second turn to compute, you wouldn't be all that happy about it, would you? Exactly So not only could we not afford to make it, but you wouldn't want to play it either.

Gromit,

Yes, definitely just like old times. Incredible to think it's been over nine years (!) since the first CM1 phenomenon took place. Feeling a bit nostalgic myself... *sniff*

I'd even threaten to start a "scotch" thread except that Charles might stop programming to contribute.

Yeah, that would really slow things down!

I am glad to see the new release format working for you guys and am eagerly awaiting the CM:Normandy release. I am happy that both RT and Wego are integral parts of CM now and even some of us old farts have learned to play in RT style (CoH for me). Shocking, isn't it?!

Yup (I mean about you being an old far, not that I'm shocked you learned something new )

The WeGo feature comes "almost for free" for us since all WeGo is, truly, is a forced pause and simultaneous execution of action for a specified period of time. Everything else is just an extension of this basic fact. Replay, for example, is an extension of WeGo, not WeGo in and of itself. The quick test is that you can play a WeGo game without ever watching a turn more than once, right? I'm not saying that's the best way to do it (clearly, since we have Replays), I'm just saying that WeGo stand alone without it from a technical standpoint.

I said "almost for free" because we do have odd things crop up that are specific to features which are extensions of WeGo, though not specific to it in most cases. The majority have to do with Replay since RealTime doesn't have a Replay feature and it involves special coding to make it work. Fortunately, we are committed to continuing to support WeGo since it doesn't interfere with our ability to innovate and remain in business.

Honestly, we don't know what it will take to do the migration until we try it. *The standard way to approach things like this is to not try it until we either feel we have to or because we see a clear advantage to doing it. *Right now we don't see the clear advantage since it will be some time before everybody is using 64bit OSes (well, except for you Mac guys <g>), which also means we're not forced to find out how tough it will be.

As for the RAM, in theory it would be beneficial. *In reality, probably not. *CM currently doesn't use a full GB of 3D graphics data at any one time, therefore having more than GB available doesn't offer us anything we don't already have. *At some point, however, we'll probably need the extra room. But we don't see that being necessary in the near future.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oops... overlooked MeatEtr's request for more "floating icon" types. I want to see more as well, so there will be. I'm not sure if I'll get as many as I would like (I didn't the first time around ), but I'm definitely advocating for more!

Steve

[thelmia]

Steiner14, that is a very valid point and obviously BFC should go the way they feel is right, imo one of the biggest mistakes for a gaming company is listening too much to the vocal part of their forum.

Yes. Vocal and repetitive =/= right. So many games are ruined by people who post more than they play. This forum is pretty good about that. And yes, the people who are really unhappy just leave.

I loved CMBO when it came out, and I loved RT for Shock Force. Nothing wrong with either. RT Shock Force is not a normal RTS because it's closely based on real units, not some made up rock/paper/scissors. It's a good game for people who want more realism but don't want a traditional wargame. Why not broaden the hobby a bit? Some of those people will get drawn in. It's win-win.

[TempV]

Just make Head-to-Head RT featuring smooth play without lags and I'll forget about WeGo. However I've found PBEM very interesing but somewhat easier to my mind.

[Battlefront.com]

TempV,

Have you tried TCP/IP with v1.10? It should be pretty darned smooth now.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

Oops... overlooked MeatEtr's request for more "floating icon" types. I want to see more as well, so there will be. I'm not sure if I'll get as many as I would like (I didn't the first time around ), but I'm definitely advocating for more!

Steve

This is great to hear, thanks for the response Steve.