RealTime and WeGo discussion

[Other Means]

Using the same logic I'd like command delays in area fire - dependent on C2, unit perception etc within a total upper limit. The passing of info is already modelled, including within voice range passing to nearby units. We should build on that to create a proper use of the CoC and proper sighting of support units.

Why can my MG's/tanks/mortars across the map be brought to bear on unspotted (by them) enemies at will? It should simulate the call for support going up and down the CoC.

The only thing it wouldn't do well is recon by fire. But in recon by fire we're setting the pace anyway so the delay wouldn't matter.

Although this is far from the RT/WEGO in the thread title - maybe I'll open another thread for it?

[Steiner14]

The one thing that annoys me with wego at the moment is the replays showing already destroyed terrain and buildings.Once that is sorted I'll be a very happy camper. Did the ammo counts not rolling back get sorted? I can't remember.

A serious showstopper for me. I just creates the feeling, that something is broken and it doesn't feel like CM.

I was just now thinking of a work-around for this problem. Could you instead place an option in the game where when playing WeGo (PBEM or internet) you can click an option box that will tell the game to make the screen go black (nothing visible) and cut all sound while the 60 seconds of real time combat is being calculated? Everything is still being calculated in RT just as before, but you just can't see or hear anything while it's being calculated.

That's another little aspect, that has a huge psychological impact for me and why i can't stand CMSF'S WEGO.

I had suggested the blanking of the screen long ago, but maybe, after the biggest problems had been solved, Steve will find the time, to analyze, how he could get some of the gone old WEGOers, without losing a single new customer...

ps: Important: although if that would be implemented, the blue bar option should be activated in the game out of the box, to give us old WEGOers a psychologically correct impression to play good ol' CM-quality.

[Malaspina]

Hi everyone,

going back to the topic of this thread...

I've been a happy user of WeGo with CMx1 for quite a while now and didn't find anything amiss with it even when I bought CMSF (after 1.08). After a while I got curious and started a few scenarios in RT, one of which was Webwing's (great!) campaign "In Search of a Ghost", which is made up of 3 scenarios.

I found it was pretty easy to handle the first two battles in RT, where not more than a couple of platoons were involved. Problems arose in the third which

*

*

*

*

*

****POSSIBLE SPOILER***

*

*

*

*

*

has you attacking a small town from the four corners of the map and you have to keep under control maybe more than 50 units. Trying to get all of them to converge towards the town simultaneously was a nightmare. A couple of minutes into the battle I started pausing the game every 2 seconds or so to try to keep track of things, but then I became totally disoriented frantically jumping from one side of the map to the other, so much so that I gave up in frustration!

No knock of course is intended for Webwing, whose efforts and designing genius I wholly appreciate. I just can't understand how a battle like that can ever be handled in RT :confused:.

RT Players! Do you happen to have 12 fingers, 6 eyes and 2 brains :eek:? Are there any (secret) tricks you might want to share with us?

Or, more seriously,

- Could you please tell me how you handle that kind of battle (i.e. without pausing every 2 seconds)?

- Do you give an order to unit A and wait till it is fully carried out before you move to unit B?

- Do you use any special shortcut keys?

- Do you usually play from an eagle's eye POV?

- I understand the philosophy is different, does this mean you give orders to various units simultaneously and simply take the battle as it comes, not worrying if your units are spotted in open terrain and mauled?

I would be very thankful if anyone took the pains to draw up some sort of "RT Tutorial for Control-Freak WeGo-ers"!

Thank you

enrico

[Steiner14]

Malaspina,

you gave the answer implicitly yourself: that's why a certain amount of stubborn CM-players refuses to play RT and insists on the best possible WEGO-implementation, to play tactically challenging battles.

[Tread Head]

I can't stand RT. It all comes down to who is best at the mouse. I find myself getting lost on the map and missing key parts of the battle.

I love the 1 min movies and they are the reason I have been hooked in Cm since BO. I tried ToW and hated it. I love the graphics and such but it wasn't for me.

I'd love 30 sec. movie option as well.

[MikeyD]

"RT Players! Do you happen to have 12 fingers, 6 eyes and 2 brains? "

Yes, yes we do.

Playing Realtime is like talking on the celphone and driving at the same time. Everybody can do it with varying degrees of success, though your chances of dying in a horrible fiery crash do go up somewhat. Realtime players think of the consequences of juggling too many units as part of the fog of war. I've adjusted my gameplay accordingly, letting the guys on the left side of the board find cover and rest while I run my guys on the right side to new positions, then once they're in place switching back to the left side again.

[Tread Head]

I'd like to see more independent thought given to units in WEGO games. This is represented in allowing the player to micro-manage units with experience and value. Just pretend that the player is acting as the brain of these units and allowing them to make battlefield decisions. There should be some limits to this but over all I think in an abstract way it works out great.

Units with low moral, poor value (conscripts, green) should only be allowed to be given changes in orders if they are in command range, have the appropriate moral, or with huge delays.

There should also always be a self-preservation trigger (like in the board-game Ambush!) that will not allow the player to order those units if in curtain circumstances. Unless they are fanatic or elite.

Radios and commanders: Unless a unit is radio controlled or in command range of a commander, they should never be allowed to be given new orders. Their self-preservation mode should kick in and they should follow that script.

[Tread Head]

letting the guys on the left side of the board find cover and rest while I run my guys on the right side to new positions, then once they're in place switching back to the left side again.

That is not realistic either... RT is no more "realistic" then WEGO.

[Thomm]

That is not realistic either... RT is no more "realistic" then WEGO.

Of course it is not. After having witnessed dozens of these discussions, I am inclined to advice to leave the subject of "realism" out of this discussion.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Tread Head]

Of course it is not. After having witnessed dozens of these discussions, I am inclined to advice to leave the subject of "realism" out of this discussion.

Best regards,

Thomm

Sorry, I didn't mean to re-open that can.. I just blurted out my thoughts.

[Scipio]

I must say that I'm very pleased that command delays are neither in RT nor in WeGo, and I really hope they will never make it back. The whole concept is in my opinion just adscititious, and Steve has perfectly written down why:

... Is it realistic for you to order a tank to shift position to get a better shot after observing its current position is sub optimal? Yes, obviously. Is it realistic to do this the instant your brain realizes this? Yes, since your brain is in the CVC helmet of the tank commander at that particular moment. Is it realistic to impose some sort of arbitrary delay on that decision because... well... just because? No. So inherently Command Delays in RT are inherently unrealistic ...

Steve

Adding a command delay means simulating the chain of command from the player to the unit - but the player is not just the commander on the battlefield, he must compensate what the unit can not do, cause no computer can simulate it: make independent decissions. Beside that: even if I can do much more micromanagement in WeGo, I have other disadvantages - once my orders are given and the action button is hit, I have no chance to intervene like I would have in RT. So adding a command delay for WeGo, but not for RT, would mean to add an artificial disadvantage for WeGo.

BTW, just for the files: I prefer Wego. I don't have a problem with RT in general, but since I love to play PBEM and also love to replay turns, RT is just not my thing.

So I really would be very pleased if Steve and Charles use their time to iron out the PBEM bugs (such as the vehicels-dive-into-earth-at-the-start-of PBEM-replay-problem) and waste no second for command delays

[panzermartin]

I think RT is fine as it is in single player. I mean how difficult is to pause and issue some orders every now and then. A timer option for not overusing pauses might come handy (i like what Cpl Steiner's idea with those "command points"). But RT in TCP/IP needs some more care imo. No pausing and no delays means big games end up in sudden strike fashion and barely playable. A well thought restricted pause feature is going to be added, hopefully for Normandy(please!). I think command delays might prove usefull only in RT TCP/IP for preventing overuse of recon with super tanks, zigzaging SPWs deep in enemy lines and things like ruining well thought ambuses with instant input from the player. (eg a tank is trapped between two flanking enemies ready for the perfect shot. The tank itself hasnt spotted any of them but a sniper on the hill has. The player bypasses the relative spotting penalty by intanstly ordering the tank to reverse into safety).

[Patrocles]

I can't stand RT. It all comes down to who is best at the mouse. I find myself getting lost on the map and missing key parts of the battle.

I love the 1 min movies and they are the reason I have been hooked in Cm since BO. I tried ToW and hated it. I love the graphics and such but it wasn't for me.

I'd love 30 sec. movie option as well.

+1 I suck at RTS and FPS games (low-twitch factor!).

I wonder if the following has any influence on L33t RTS players!? LOL

http://gizmodo.com/5060687/scientists-find-gene-that-makes-you-good-at-halo-also-makes-you-a-premature-ejaculator

Scientist Find That Gene That Makes You Good At HALO Also Makes You A Premature Ejaculator

After a study of 200 Dutch men, scientists found that those with a premature ejaculation problem all had a version of a gene that controls the release of serotonin. And, unfortunately for all of you awesome Call of Duty players out there, those affected seem to "have very quick reflexes. They may be excellent at playing tennis or computer games, for example." Oh, cruel fate!

Well, at least now you have an excuse, both for your lousy performance in the sack and your awesome performance on Xbox Live. The only problem is that now you can expect a whole new barrage of insults coming over your headset every time you take down an opponent.

So what's this mean for you in the long run, my prematurely ejaculating, headshotting friend? Maybe a drug that'll let you last longer without buying those condoms with numbing juice in the tip. However, if you had the option of taking a pill that would make you a stallion in the sack but make you suck at video games, would you do it? Talk about your tough decisions. [bBC]

[Secondbrooks]

RT Players! Do you happen to have 12 fingers, 6 eyes and 2 brains :eek:? Are there any (secret) tricks you might want to share with us?

Or, more seriously,

- Could you please tell me how you handle that kind of battle (i.e. without pausing every 2 seconds)?

- Do you give an order to unit A and wait till it is fully carried out before you move to unit B?

- Do you use any special shortcut keys?

- Do you usually play from an eagle's eye POV?

- I understand the philosophy is different, does this mean you give orders to various units simultaneously and simply take the battle as it comes, not worrying if your units are spotted in open terrain and mauled?

I would be very thankful if anyone took the pains to draw up some sort of "RT Tutorial for Control-Freak WeGo-ers"!

Thank you

enrico

I'm relatively stupid, but i'd say you need to relax.

When i was at my best beak in CMSF (while playing it's campaign thru), i was ice. I didn't do this each time i heard sounds of gunfire:

-panic

-pause

-forget my masterplan.

Instead i did this:

-Keep focuesed on manuver. Didnt' swet for minor gunfire.

-Try to not use Pause too often, basically when issuing orders to large formations.

-Only if unit(s) in stationary element (not manuvering) are about to be slaughtered i might broke my focus from manuver.

-keep large picture of action. So no zooming to look what kind niiice kit Marine/sOLDIER has and has beard been shaved.

-If seeing that there is trackers flying, it's better to play cool and ignore than start to play goose-mommy (which is synomyme in our language for overprotective behaviour). It might be reasonable to be quickly checking what they are up against and is there heavy casualities. Then again this might push me to micromanaging: "i just save these 4 innocent blokes"... while my manuvering platoon gets killed.

Close Combat was first game to teach me this: Do one manuver at time. Because you can focus only on one at time... Well as i said i'm stupid, so maybe normal smart guy can keep track of even two assaults or manuvers at time, but i can't. Another usually ends up in slaugther or atleat it's result is not optimal outcome (dependant of enemy resistance).

On Marines campaign i wasn't ice but goose-mommy and all i need to do now it to open my veins and let Syrians come to pick me up. Softness is sickness, as wisemen says.

So there.

Ps. My post seems to be bit like vomit of sunday morning. So i try to cut loose out of it: Main suggestion of mine would be to limit pausing to minimum. And plan and execute so that you can do this, too much is just too much... I'd say managing platoon as manuvering element is pretty much best force size in size/effectivity axis when it comes to command and control manuvering unit under fire. Rest of units should just consentrate on shooting and overwatching.

[ChrisND]

Scientist Find That Gene That Makes You Good At HALO Also Makes You A Premature Ejaculator

After a study of 200 Dutch men, scientists found that those with a premature ejaculation problem all had a version of a gene that controls the release of serotonin. And, unfortunately for all of you awesome Call of Duty players out there, those affected seem to "have very quick reflexes. They may be excellent at playing tennis or computer games, for example." Oh, cruel fate!

Well, at least now you have an excuse, both for your lousy performance in the sack and your awesome performance on Xbox Live. The only problem is that now you can expect a whole new barrage of insults coming over your headset every time you take down an opponent.

So what's this mean for you in the long run, my prematurely ejaculating, headshotting friend? Maybe a drug that'll let you last longer without buying those condoms with numbing juice in the tip. However, if you had the option of taking a pill that would make you a stallion in the sack but make you suck at video games, would you do it? Talk about your tough decisions. [bBC]

It's good to see that news coverage of science is as stupid as ever.

[Steiner14]

+1 I suck at RTS and FPS games (low-twitch factor!).

I wonder if the following has any influence on L33t RTS players!? LOL

http://gizmodo.com/5060687/scientists-find-gene-that-makes-you-good-at-halo-also-makes-you-a-premature-ejaculator

Scientist Find That Gene That Makes You Good At HALO Also Makes You A Premature Ejaculator

After a study of 200 Dutch men, scientists found that those with a premature ejaculation problem all had a version of a gene that controls the release of serotonin. And, unfortunately for all of you awesome Call of Duty players out there, those affected seem to "have very quick reflexes. They may be excellent at playing tennis or computer games, for example." Oh, cruel fate!

Well, at least now you have an excuse, both for your lousy performance in the sack and your awesome performance on Xbox Live. The only problem is that now you can expect a whole new barrage of insults coming over your headset every time you take down an opponent.

So what's this mean for you in the long run, my prematurely ejaculating, headshotting friend? Maybe a drug that'll let you last longer without buying those condoms with numbing juice in the tip. However, if you had the option of taking a pill that would make you a stallion in the sack but make you suck at video games, would you do it? Talk about your tough decisions. [bBC]

ROFL!

I'm relatively stupid, but i'd say you need to relax.

When i was at my best beak in CMSF (while playing it's campaign thru), i was ice. I didn't do this each time i heard sounds of gunfire:

-panic

-pause

-forget my masterplan.

Instead i did this:

-Keep focuesed on manuver. Didnt' swet for minor gunfire.

-Try to not use Pause too often, basically when issuing orders to large formations.

-Only if unit(s) in stationary element (not manuvering) are about to be slaughtered i might broke my focus from manuver.

-keep large picture of action. So no zooming to look what kind niiice kit Marine/sOLDIER has and has beard been shaved.

-If seeing that there is trackers flying, it's better to play cool and ignore than start to play goose-mommy (which is synomyme in our language for overprotective behaviour). It might be reasonable to be quickly checking what they are up against and is there heavy casualities. Then again this might push me to micromanaging: "i just save these 4 innocent blokes"... while my manuvering platoon gets killed.

You describe quite well my thoughts and why i can't stand RT: i see absolutely no sense in playing such a game by using units without doing the best possible action to achieve the goal. It contradicts my empathy with each single unit and the will, to achieve the best result with a minimum of losses. I think i'm just too old and have too less spare time, to be fascinated by action games. I need a deeper motivation.

I will never be able to be fascinated by a "tank battle", if i can not search and find the best possible route and plan to react, because it is not a simulation of a tank-battle for me, it is only action without any ties to the thoughts of the commanders of the real unit.

Playing RT for me is like wasting time, that could be wasted much better. But when i play chess, it is not wasted time, it has depth. And the same feeling gave me CMx1-WEGO.

There's a completely different psychology behind it compared to RT-action.

[salwon]

Or, more seriously,

- Could you please tell me how you handle that kind of battle (i.e. without pausing every 2 seconds)?

- Do you give an order to unit A and wait till it is fully carried out before you move to unit B?

- Do you use any special shortcut keys?

- Do you usually play from an eagle's eye POV?

- I understand the philosophy is different, does this mean you give orders to various units simultaneously and simply take the battle as it comes, not worrying if your units are spotted in open terrain and mauled?

Think of it like this: you're in charge of the company. Your lieutenants are idiots, but you can trust your sergeants. The platoons will need to be hand held to their objectives, but you don't need to worry about any individual squad trying to either play Rambo or forget what their rifles are for. Set out the plan for the platoons, and let the squad leaders take care of keeping their men alive and taking out the enemy.

In game terms, what this means is this:

1) Set up your overwatch carefully. Use MGs and Strykers (don't try to advance the Strykers closer than 300-400m or so, or one RPG will ruin your day), and give them cover arcs over suspected positions. If you have snipers, keep them elevated, give them a facing command and let them go wild. Don't try to give anyone too many targets yourself, they can find things to shoot at on their own.

2) Advance squads long distance in HUNT until contact is made. This stops the unit, but it effectively means that anyone who dares take a popshot at your men will be answered with an insane volume of fire, from them and the overwatch. If you think you're facing a concentrated position (say, a whole platoon in one building), send one team out 50m ahead of the rest, make contact, and drop the building. Don't get your men killed over an apartment complex - you can always build another one.

3) Once you make contact, use QUICK to go from cover to cover until you make the objective. Go one squad at a time in short bursts. You should have enough firepower to overwhelm anyone you see, and if not, drop some arty on them first.

Basic stuff, but the Hunt+Quick combo seems to be the best for RT. You need to watch your squads to make sure they didn't walk into an ambush, but you don't need to pause immediately every single time contact is made. Don't be afraid to let your squads sit and shoot for a little while - trust your sergeants (the TacAI), they can find targets when they're available, and they can find cover when they need to. You can handle a company nicely with this technique, and you should only have to pause once all of your platoons have had their Hunt orders canceled. Then pause, give them bounding quick orders (have the overwatch squads pause while the maneuver team is getting into position), and let them get back to work.

As far as managing all this, the only management necessary is making sure you don't run into anything too big. Play zoomed out so you can see everything, and get used to ctrl-clicking the ground to jump around the map. Don't be afraid to pause, but remember if you set up your movements correctly, with plenty of overwatch, you don't need to pause every time a new enemy pops up.

Oh, and you're going to get slaughtered the first few times out. Remember, they're not real men

Edit: A few folks up there got there before me, and got to the main point quicker than I - don't panic.

[MikeyD]

One disadvantage to RT that I'll admit to. Last night I was playing a large campaign scenario, advancing on objective Pooh rather nicely when I looked back and saw four of my MTVR armored trucks blazing away at the far corner of the map! I thought "Did I remember to dismount those Marine squads?" I may have lost 30 or more men at once without ever realizing it! :eek:

[Steiner14]

As far as managing all this, the only management necessary is making sure you don't run into anything too big. Play zoomed out so you can see everything, and get used to ctrl-clicking the ground to jump around the map. Don't be afraid to pause, but remember if you set up your movements correctly, with plenty of overwatch, you don't need to pause every time a new enemy pops up.

This is not Combat Mission. This has nothing to do with a highly realistic tank battle, nothing to do with important single undulations or objects in the terrain, that can decide about sucess or defeat.

You describe exactly, why i can't stand RT. It has nothing to do with the tactical thinking of the individual unit in reality.

[Battlefront.com]

Lanzfeld,

I never considered that for some people the blue bar calculation took the same amount of time as the turn itself due to slower computers. I am lucky enough to have a fairly faster computer and I play smaller battles so my blue bar in CMAK/CMBB was, at most, about 10 seconds. I see your point now. Thanks for the explanation.

Then you didn't have an "average" system when CMBO first came out Sure, the turn calcs for CMx1 are super fast now, even for the biggest battles. The framerate is also liquid on even the slowest computer put out in the last few years. But that's because we wrote the bulk of the code in 1998 when CPUs were mostly Pentium 1s in the 166MHz range with 4MB video cards. As the hardware got faster, so did the game because nothing new was being added. The same thing will happen for CM:SF v1.10 when someone boots it up in 10 years

z1812,

I wonder if Wego time segments could be shortened to 30 seconds.

Yes, they can be. Perhaps we'll experiment with a toggle to allow the user to determine turn length. However, in our opinion 60 seconds is optimal.

Steiner14,

That's another little aspect, that has a huge psychological impact for me and why i can't stand CMSF'S WEGO.

I had suggested the blanking of the screen long ago, but maybe, after the biggest problems had been solved, Steve will find the time, to analyze, how he could get some of the gone old WEGOers, without losing a single new customer...

The problem is I have to convince Charles to code stuff that is, as it seems we can all agree to, a gimmick that has no actual gameplay value. It's not like it would take a lot of time to code this, it's just that he doesn't like to be distracted by "WTF?!?" requests like this. I've proposed it before and I got the virtual raised eyebrow, but what the heck... I'll try again.

Malaspina,

No knock of course is intended for Webwing, whose efforts and designing genius I wholly appreciate. I just can't understand how a battle like that can ever be handled in RT

It takes a different mentality. I have no problems with a battle like that, but I know that isn't true for everybody. It has a lot to do with one's personal comfort level with hands off management. It is a true thing to say that most people tend to feel that chance of success is proportional to the amount of control one has. This is why there are very few entrepreneurs in business, science, medicine, etc. out there in the world today. The reason is that one has to have a strong sense that control does not necessarily result in success since the more one blazes a new trail the less control one has.

This is not a slight on anybody... just a statement that there are different ways of viewing the world, and wargaming, and some of those ways are more suited to WeGo and others are better suited to RealTime. Which is why we insist on supporting both methods of play.

Tread Head,

I'd like to see more independent thought given to units in WEGO games. This is represented in allowing the player to micro-manage units with experience and value. Just pretend that the player is acting as the brain of these units and allowing them to make battlefield decisions. There should be some limits to this but over all I think in an abstract way it works out great.

We've had huge discussions about things like this way back when we first introduced people to Command Delays. The short of it is... there is no system that works very well. Command Delays are the least invasive and have the least amount of potential for adverse results. At least that's the conclusion we kept coming to before we made Command Delays and after engaging in a large debate with CM gamers.

Thomm,

Of course it is not. After having witnessed dozens of these discussions, I am inclined to advice to leave the subject of "realism" out of this discussion.

I agree If realism gets brought into the discussion it should be honest and examine the pros/cons of both systems, not as a way to try and weight a discussion in favor of one or the other method of play. That's the sort of debates we had with the Close Combat guys and it really sucked. It also sucked to have similar discussions with the IGOYOUGO Steel Panthers guys, who insisted that their preferred method of play was superior to WeGo.

Scipio,

Adding a command delay means simulating the chain of command from the player to the unit - but the player is not just the commander on the battlefield, he must compensate what the unit can not do, cause no computer can simulate it: make independent decissions. Beside that: even if I can do much more micromanagement in WeGo, I have other disadvantages - once my orders are given and the action button is hit, I have no chance to intervene like I would have in RT. So adding a command delay for WeGo, but not for RT, would mean to add an artificial disadvantage for WeGo.

Well put, and exactly why we left Command Delays out of CM:SF thus far. However, putting it back in as an optional method of play should make some people happy without making others upset.

So I really would be very pleased if Steve and Charles use their time to iron out the PBEM bugs (such as the vehicels-dive-into-earth-at-the-start-of PBEM-replay-problem) and waste no second for command delays

The U-Boat Commander Bug has been fixed already.

Patrocles,

Scientist Find That Gene That Makes You Good At HALO Also Makes You A Premature Ejaculator

Too funny! On a serious note, it is no exaggeration to presume that our individual genetic makeup has a lot to do with liking or disliking either RT or WeGo. They both rely on heavy cognitive higher level functions. It is established scientific fact that genetics, as well as environment, shape the way we think. Therefore, if a game requires thinking, and we are predisposed to thinking differently, then it is rather simple to conclude that is a fundamental reason why some people can't stand one or the other methods of play.

Secondbrooks,

-Keep focuesed on manuver. Didnt' swet for minor gunfire.

-Try to not use Pause too often, basically when issuing orders to large formations.

-Only if unit(s) in stationary element (not manuvering) are about to be slaughtered i might broke my focus from manuver.

-keep large picture of action. So no zooming to look what kind niiice kit Marine/sOLDIER has and has beard been shaved.

-If seeing that there is trackers flying, it's better to play cool and ignore than start to play goose-mommy (which is synomyme in our language for overprotective behaviour). It might be reasonable to be quickly checking what they are up against and is there heavy casualities. Then again this might push me to micromanaging: "i just save these 4 innocent blokes"... while my manuvering platoon gets killed.

An excellent suggestion. Sometimes I'm reminded of the Lieutenant in Aliens 2. If he was presented with a simulation he did pretty well, but when he did a real drop and things moved outside of his comfort zone...he panicked and seized up. Hicks and Vasquez did not. If one freezes up in an RT game that's pretty much it. However, if one goes around shooting off explosive rounds inside a "shake and bake" facility, well... the outcome might be just as bad

Steiner14,

This is not Combat Mission. This has nothing to do with a highly realistic tank battle, nothing to do with important single undulations or objects in the terrain, that can decide about sucess or defeat.

You describe exactly, why i can't stand RT. It has nothing to do with the tactical thinking of the individual unit in reality.

I play CM:SF the same way I play CMx1, and that is closer to Salwon described than the way you did. I've never been one to micromanage and instead have been one that likes to focus on the bigger issues. This is not surprising to me since before I started working on CMBO tactical wargaming was a minor part of my wargaming play. I'm more of an operational and strategic level gamer. Or I guess it can be safely said I used to be!

Another way of looking at it is some CMx1 people couldn't stand playing multiplayer with time limits (or at least not the really restrictive one) while others hated playing with unrestricted time. I was one of those who wanted the shortest time possible since I make my decisions quickly and implement them without constant reevaluation and reconsideration. Having to sit around for 10 minutes while my opponent changes around his plans for the upteenth time just isn't fun.

Steve

[ChrisND]

An excellent suggestion. Sometimes I'm reminded of the Lieutenant in Aliens 2. If he was presented with a simulation he did pretty well, but when he did a real drop and things moved outside of his comfort zone...he panicked and seized up. Hicks and Vasquez did not. If one freezes up in an RT game that's pretty much it. However, if one goes around shooting off explosive rounds inside a "shake and bake" facility, well... the outcome might be just as bad

And then there's the preferred way to deal with a tough nut. Dust off, and nuke the site from orbit. Only way to be sure.

[Secondbrooks]

I will never be able to be fascinated by a "tank battle", if i can not search and find the best possible route and plan to react, because it is not a simulation of a tank-battle for me, it is only action without any ties to the thoughts of the commanders of the real unit.

I have become more intrested of mechanics behind of tactics and what makes them workable in general. Maybe that is reason why i personally like RT: As if it could give me more proper picture of commander's job with it's traps and demandments. To find that proper level of leadership and be able to keep there.

I dont' know, needs sleep.

[Steiner14]

Steve,

sure, but you also claimed you 've never been a good CMx1-player.

Probably it would be more correct to say you were not such a good WEGO-player:

In CMx1 there was only one kind of gameplay - everyone was "forced" into WEGO, although you are obviously more the RT-character - while other players like me, liked to dive deeply into the map, slept over possible setups and tactics, continued to analyze everything during the whole battle and watched each movie at least three times, not to miss the slightest information in it.

This is where WEGO truly - and only WEGO - shines for such kind of players.

Such players have other expectations and focus on other things, than RT-players.

The differences between RT and WEGO therefore are not only of cosmetical nature. I think the kind of player is very different and therefore aspects in one mode must not be valid for the other mode.

I find it quite funny, that you, as someone i wouldn't call a true WEGO-player, made the best WEGO-game ever.

I hope, that with the second title of CMx2, you will take care a bit more about the very different nature of RT and WEGO players once you've recognized our different perception of the game.

Discussions about realism therefore will never come to the same conslusions and in fact they hide the reasons, WHY those two types of players, have to come to different perceptions of realism in CM.

[Lee]

Steiner14: Exactly. As I pointed out before CMII ever came out, other than perhaps in very small battles, where you might be able to get away with it, it's not possible to make the kind of detailed combat decisions that are needed in a sophisticated wargame like CMII in RT.

The player is in effect given the task of doing the thinking that would normally be done by all the sergeants and officers in his force, and in a medium to large size battle you simply can't do that in real time. You are being asked by the game to be involved in *far* more detailed thinking and direct control over your units than a real battalion commander would have to do (because he has real men that are well trained and capable of making complex tactical decisions dynamically taking into account a huge number of variables while carrying out his orders). And if the player is being asked to do all this thinking, then he needs to have the time to actually do it. You simply need more time than that to think through the complex tactical implications of your orders. And this is especially true in highly detailed and realistic wargame like CMII, where even small tactical errors can lead to disaster for your units.

Which is why WeGo is the only practical way to play multi-player for medium to large battles, if you actually want to play with any sort of realistic detailed tactical command decisions being made by your units, which is the whole point of a wargame like CMII.

Like Steve said in his post, when you are ordering a tank to move, you are in effect in the role of that individual tank commander at that point, deciding exactly where he wants to place his tank for a good shot on the enemy, and that is correct. Now imagine having to make those minute tactical choices for *all* the tanks in your force, and the APC's, and the infantry units, etc., while also making larger strategic choices on how to thwart the enemy's developing battlefield movements. And you're going to do all that while the battle is being played out in RT? Virtually impossible. Which is why it's critical that WeGo in CMII be fully featured and functional like it is in CM, since it's the only way you can actually play the game the way it's always been intended to be played in anything other than small battles.

And I should point out that in my particular case, this has nothing to do with my not being able to click fast enough or whatever. I play first-person-shooters all the time (Day of Defeat, Counter Strike, Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 2, Rainbow 6, etc.) and I am extremely good at them. And in these games lightning-fast reflexes and split-second thinking are your only chance for survival, far more so than you would need in a wargame or RTS game.

But for many other very good skilled wargame players, who don't play FPS games like me for thousands of hours, it may well be difficult for them to fly all over the map trying to give orders in a rushed manner, just in terms of reflexes and hand-eye coordination. I don't like RT in any CMII game because you simply don't have time to conduct proper tactical analysis and issue orders (FPS games are very shallow and simple compared to the complexity of a good wargame, but they require extreme mental and physical agility to play well). Whereas a player without fast reflexes and good hand-eye coordination, not only doesn't have time to think about and issue proper tactical orders (which is bad enough), but he also has a very hard time just keeping up with his mouse as to what is going on in the battle. This makes it even worse for them. And since most serious wargamers probably aren't known for their FPS skills, I'm guessing this affects a large number of CMII players.

[TheVulture]

I'm very much like Steiner: I have no interest in real time. The enjoyment of the game is precisely in being able to watch the replay over and over, making sure I've seen everything that happened (and even then, I do occasionally get to the next orders phase and discover that the squad I was about to move is half-dead and pinned, and I have no idea why). I view each turn like a puzzle, and the issue is how to get the best result out of each turn. It's not remotely 'realistic', but is what I enjoy.

To be honest, I never would have found CM if it hadn't been a turn-based game. I love turn-based, and have truly loathed every RTS-type game I've ever tried. (Although to be fair, I suspect that the more sedate pace of CM:SF compared to typical twitch RTS games might be more to my liking). I was looking for a new TBS wargame, and CM:BB came to my attention. I always viewed it as a TBS game which just happened to go to great lengths to create a dynamic representation of what happened in the turn, rather than a continuous simulation which happened to stop every minute for orders.

(BTW am I alone in thinking that a minute in CM:SF is a lot more lethal than a minute in CMx1? I don't ever recall a single squad wiping out a whole platoon caught in a road in under a minute in any CMx1 games - well, except for SMG squads in close range ambushes maybe - which makes me wonder if the turn length should be more or less adjusted for lethality. But there is always a trade off with the fact that in many fights, the high kill-rate action occurs in a pretty small fraction of the total game, and a lot more time is spent just moving around and regrouping, and making that take twice as long wouldn't be great, particularly in PBEM games).

But, getting back on topic, the two styles of play do create somewhat different requirements for the UI, if not for the actual game mechanics. In RT you need to put more emphasis on making the mechanics of issuing commands as quick and painless as possible, particularly for the people who like to play without pausing at all (gimboid alien freaks though they may be...). In WeGo you can live with a slightly more convoluted interface, and more command options, if it gives you greater flexibility. I'm tempted to say you 'need' more options, although you don't really in the sense that it is a level playing field and your opponent has the same limitations that you do.

Again, in a WeGo situation - particularly in PBEM where I tend to spend two or three times more time per turn than in AI games - the more anal players (looks at Cpl Steiner innocently) would probably want many more options. I mentioned in another thread a while ago about separating move speed from move logic. Select your speed (slow, move, quick, fast), your reaction to contact (keep moving regardless; stop, return fire and cancel move; stop fire, and continue when contact lost; go back to where you came from), and other triggers (stop when have LoS / hulldown to a specific point for example). Or being able to assign covered arcs with various conditions (kill anything, infantry only, armour only) - toggles for what weapons should be used, setting covered areas (fixed on the map as the unit moves, rather than arcs moving with the unit) . A whole heap of things that could be useful (even if only once a blue moon , and which give you greater flexibility in giving your units sensible reactions during the middle of a minute that has just gone disastrously wrong. Of course, much of this decision making is offloaded to the tacAI at the moment, and it does pretty damn well (I've just seen a unit given orders to target a BMP decide that while the RPG guy is doing that, the rest of them can turn around and shoot at another infantry unit nearby, since they haven't got anything better to do right now).

I'm pretty sure there is no way to make that interface usuable in RT - and likely no need to either, since for the elements you are actively monitoring you can do it all by hand quite easily. All you need is move speeds and the ability to stop automatically upon contact really - which is what you've got. Obviously the usability in RT is something that has to be taken into account, as long as the same UI is used in both. Possibly this hurts (slightly) the WeGo experience, by virtue of limiting the options, but to be fair, the current commands are enough in 95+% of cases, and it's a pretty sensible solution.

Would it be remotely possible to put in two UIs though. Not necessarily one for each - I don't think going down the path of branching the code into two lines for the two styles of play is a good idea: once you open that can of worms it can be easy to slip into having essentially two separate games being maintained. But the option to toggle between a 'full' and 'streamlined' interface, with the streamlined one obviously just including the most common commands. Mind you, the current interface is pretty streamlined once you've set up the hotkeys file. I never use the on-screen menus any more, except for one or two commands (splitting off assault or AT teams, marking mines, that sort of thing) that I use so rarely that I can't remember the key.

Since I am no longer sure if I have a point or you are just getting my train of thought on a subject inspired by the thread title, I think I'll stop now...