RT and WEGO - Same Secnario Different Experiences

[Blackcat]

In the excellent EL Derjine AAR thread an issue has arisen. The campaign designer (Snake-eye) plays in real-time and, not unnaturally, tested his creation using that system. The Vulture, who is writing the cracking AAR, plays WEGO. What seems to have come to light is just how different the experience, and thus expectation, of the deisgner can be from the player.

In various scenarios I have downloaded and played over the past few weeks I have come accross some that seem impossible and some that are very easy. I, therefore, wonder if this real time versus WEGO effect is more widespread than just the El Dejine Campaign.

Playing a scenario, let alone a campaign, entails a significant investment of time. I suspct that all players seek the maximum reurn interms of enjoyment for their investment and games that are either too easy or too hard don't provide that.

I wonder, therefore, would it be a good idea for scenarios/campaigns uploaded to the Repository in the future to be marked with what system they were tested under?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I think it's a bridge too far to assume that the difference in experience is due to Real Time v Turn Based.

If there's one thing I've learned in wargames is that there are many ways to skin a cat. And each approach will result in a different experience. Half the joy in a scenario is doing something batpoop insane that no-one could possibly see coming.

That's not to say RT doesn't play differently then TB. But I reckon it's pretty meaningless. A label on how the game is tested would be of very marginal value.

Might as well put in a warning that goes:

This scenario was tested by players who in the opening moments drive Daimler ACs at full speed in to the enemy ranks for gamey flank/rear shots on way more powerful vehicles who couldn't rotate fast enough

It tells you nothing about the fun to be had.

[Blackcat]

I think it's a bridge too far to assume that the difference in experience is due to Real Time v Turn Based.

If there's one thing I've learned in wargames is that there are many ways to skin a cat. And each approach will result in a different experience. Half the joy in a scenario is doing something batpoop insane that no-one could possibly see coming.

That's not to say RT doesn't play differently then TB. But I reckon it's pretty meaningless. A label on how the game is tested would be of very marginal value.

Might as well put in a warning that goes:

It tells you nothing about the fun to be had.

Point taken. Mind you, what in days of CMBO through CMAK would be labelled as a "gamey jeep rush" now seems to be considered an acceptable way of flushing out ATGMs.

I am curious though that if real time and turn based do play differently, just hw big that difference is. The suggestion from the thread I mentioned is that it is substantial.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Depends if we are talking about multiplayer.

RT multiplayer can get pretty overwhelming, though it's mitigated by the fact that the opponent is equally limited. but again, I think the experience differs more due to the players preference then scenario design. People who get easily overwhelmed by RT multi-player are probably shunning it regardless of scenario design.

For those more comfortable with this mode I reckon there is a pretty sizeable difference. Only so much you can do at once compared to WEGO, so plans get simplified, and mostly depend on having one iron in the fire at any given time. Atleast, that's been my experience.

In solitaire games like the one linked to, the pause function frees up the player to play however he wants and the mode of play is not that relevant.

For my part, I'm less prone to complicated orders in Real Time, even though I'm a big Pause user. But then again, I tend to be pretty 'seat of the pants' in style even in WEGO. So even in WEGO, what you would think would promote a more braniac approach to play, I myself go with the gut instinct nine out of ten times.

Is there a difference? For most people there almost certainly is. But where the difference lies and how big it is would seem to me to entirely up to the habits of the player in question.

[TheVulture]

To be fair, snake_eye and I are about as far apart in preferred game type as possible: he plays no-pausing real time, I play WeGo and often only get 3-4 moves done in an hour (what with watching each replay numerous times to get an overview and enjoy the details, and then thinking about what I'm doing (and getting interrupted by kids and the need to make more tea...)).

Whilst its true that these styles have very different strength and weaknesses, I don't think the overall difficulty of the scenario is vastly different; his end result wasn't all that different from mine. But the feel, detail and pace of the game vary greatly (and at least some of that is due to different approaches rather than mechanics).

But then, I've not really played realtime at all, so I'm not entirely qualified to comment

[panzermartin]

It seems noone has played TCP/IP here. Some scenarios cannot even be played if designed with no pause in mind. Its a different universe attacking a well prepared position in 30 well thought out intervals and the same scenario in 30 min of rolling time. Imo, they should be even different time limits options for each mode.

[MeatEtr]

It seems noone has played TCP/IP here. Some scenarios cannot even be played if designed with no pause in mind. Its a different universe attacking a well prepared position in 30 well thought out intervals and the same scenario in 30 min of rolling time. Imo, they should be even different time limits options for each mode.

I completely agree, this is the number one difference that sometimes gets overlooked IMO. You can usually tell very easily what mode a scenario is designed for or at least tested under.

WeGo tested scenarios have much more time than RT mode tested ones. So a RT tested scenario played by a WeGo'er could be very short on time. RT player playing WeGo tested scenario tend to see loads of extra time left at the end of the battle.

[Battlefront.com]

I think Ali-Baba does have a point. Scale and timeframe can have a pretty significant impact on the ease of play. RealTime games tend to take far less real world time to play than a WeGo game, however in game time I think RealTime often takes longer. The reason is that RealTimers can't optimize actions to the degree WeGoers can, therefore actions carried out in RealTime tend to be "less efficient" than in WeGo.

You RealTimers out there... how often have you just sat and watched the action unfold for a few minutes without actually do much in the way of issuing Commands? In a minute of play how frequently do you issue a Command to the majority of your units? You WeGoers out there... how often do you end a turn without issuing any Commands? For each turn, how often do you issue Commands to most of your units? Having played my fair share of both, I do feel there is a significant difference for me at least.

It's also true that the number of units, or complexity of the mission, makes RealTime (without pausing) a harder way to play vs. RT (with pausing) and WeGo. This is just about ergonomics of commanding too many units in too many distinctly different portions of the map doing distinctly different things.

Otherwise I'd say there is little-to-no difference in the balancing.

Steve

[c3k]

To me, it's scale: RT is only playable at a very low unit density/map size. Anything too large and too many men die. I can't be squad leader for 20 squads in real time. WeGo is playable at large scale. The tradeoff is once I give orders in WeGo, I totally lose the ability to influence the unit until the turn is over.

Consider ordering a squad down a street and they get ambushed. In RT, I can immediately order them to stop, return fire, and seek cover. In WeGo, I've got to sit there and watch what happens. To me, RT=control; WeGo=relinquished control. I prefer less control.

Ken

[Lethaface]

I almost exclusively play RT and there are a lot of minutes without orders! Although afterwards I always freak out 'why I wasn't doing anything' and hastily get on with my hassle.

[SSG Grymm]

To me, it's scale: RT is only playable at a very low unit density/map size. Anything too large and too many men die. I can't be squad leader for 20 squads in real time. WeGo is playable at large scale. The tradeoff is once I give orders in WeGo, I totally lose the ability to influence the unit until the turn is over.

I agree with this. I think that way I prefer the smaller scenerios. As a RT player if it gets too massive I can't control all my units as I want them to go. I get tunnel vision on a certain small unit action and tend to let the rest of the battle go with to little to no supervision.

[Pandur]

i think there is a big difference. it starts right at the beginning when gathering information, i am a replay junky one could say. if a unit pops up somewhere i am sure to check out wich direction they go. in RT you verry well dont get these info half the time, you spot em for 5 seconds and they vanish into a questionmark.

now building up on this intel in WEGO and making the best possible out out ever command phase you have, becouse you got nothing else, makes me at least insanely fast. i reached the timelimit in campain scenarios and single scenarios only a handfull of time since the game was released. its not rare to have 30 to 60 turns left when the syrians surrender, especially since they surrend so early after the 1.20 patch. i think this patch was it that changed that.

ofcourse the game is no race, but its a race for perfection in WEGO, no time wasted no oppurtunety unseen. this is what WEGO is about in my eyes.

[panzermartin]

It is a problem with quick battes too. When i choose tiny/small I get something like 20:00 limit which is crazy for a non pausing online session. Sometimes when I was playing some super crucial turns in CMx1 TCP/IP my opponent and I needed that time for a single game minute!

And CMSF demands even more attention to details with the 1:1 and laser weapons. Plus, I'm getting older

[bodkin]

It is a problem with quick battes too. When i choose tiny/small I get something like 20:00 limit which is crazy for a non pausing online session.

I really hope they allow for user set time limits in QB's when the overhaul the system.

[MarkEzra]

I really hope they allow for user set time limits in QB's when the overhaul the system.

Me too...But please keep in mind that current QB battles are time variable battles That 20 minutes can easily go to 45 min...

[tyrspawn]

It seems noone has played TCP/IP here. Some scenarios cannot even be played if designed with no pause in mind. Its a different universe attacking a well prepared position in 30 well thought out intervals and the same scenario in 30 min of rolling time. Imo, they should be even different time limits options for each mode.

I only play in real time and I HAVE played real time TCP/IP. The latter is a true test of skill and on your feet thinking.

RE: c3k

It's simple, you just set up overwatch and then only manuver with one platoon/company at a time. Just playing with a zoomed out view and proper NATO icons make it very easy to micromanage larger areas. I uploaded a complete walkthrough of the campaign on YouTube and you can see how its possible: http://www.youtube.com/user/tanit

[LukeFF]

Having just played through the "Breaking the Bank" scenario the first time, it's become readily apparent to me how difficult it can be to play a scenario like this in RT. Long story short, instead of executing a coordinated flank attack like I intended to, I ended up focused too much on one portion of the attack and left other units idling for far too long. Scenarios like this one were definitely meant to be played more in WeGo style.

[snake_eye]

Since that thread emerged after my remarks to The VULTURE for its fantastic AAR on the El Derjine Campaign, I have to explain them.

Playing real time almost 99% of the time, using only WeGo for analysing or rather take detailed shots and having played TCP/IP all I can say is that these are three different way of playing a scenario.

That is the main difference for Real Time and WeGo, as for the result it is somehow slightly the same for the AAR. For that I agree with the VULTURE and STEVE.

We could say that there is the Real Time school and the WeGo one. At the end of it, you get the same degree, somehow you don’t get the same play sensation (or awareness –specially in Real Time) in each one of them.

In one school you can watch over and over your 1 minute fight. In the other you have to go forward and even with the Pause button, you can not go backward to understand how your tracks have been suddenly set afire. At the end that won’t change that many things. Especially if these tracks have been blown up during that 1 minute of WeGO. You won’t be able to correct these loses,but just able to look at them happening..

In TCP/IP The only problem I have encountered, was that I could not communicate with my opponent easily, but by the keyboard and or by Email.

For that experience the choice of either the Red and or Blue was primordial, the result depending more on the scenario played, than on the player skill.

I was, usually, for a specific scenario, defeated by the Red A.I and while playing the Red in TCP/IP, I was defeated by my Blue opponent. For that game I think that playing it By Email (Wego) would have brought different result.

For my taste, I rather play real Time, since I don’t have that much time to spend. In WeGO, I have the feeling to be brought back to Combat Missions. At the time; I did not have the choice and I did with it. It took time to play and I was unable to react to whatever happened during 1 minute of my schedule move and or fire plan.

So, It is rather a personal choice to play either way. I just hope that while doing a scenario with quite a lot a troops going around, that the player please with Real Time, won’t get his feet in the carpet while playing it, being unable to control all the units. If that happen, he can play WeGO. That’s fair enough, No ?

Cheers

[Blackcat]

Playing WEGO or Real Time is of course a personal choice and I don't think that anyone would try and argue that one system is objectively superior to the other.

Snake Eye is, of course, correct in saying that in WEGO you cannot change the fact that one or more of your units was destroyed you can only watch it happen. The thing is by watching it happen it is quite often possible to determine the type of weapon hat caused the loss and direction the fire came from (and sometimes even the exact location) Such information can be used to inform the next move. The fact that this is possible can encourage a different style of play (it does in me and has done since CMBO), not least where more emphasis is placed on recce before "big pieces" are moved forward.

It would seem reasonable that a different style of play can produce a different result. I note here Snake Eye's comment above that playing a scenario by WEGO would have produced a different result. I would suggest that even if one used exactly the same basic plan and tactics the additional information available under WEGO would influence a player's moves and produce more kills, or different kills or kills in a different order. Then the effect would snowball and the game could actually play out quite differently.

Now, my hypothesis is that games designed and tested under one system can play very differently under the other. If the scenario designer tweaks the AI setup, plans, arcs of fire etc. to provide a good, challenging game and proves that to be the case by testing in, say, real time is it not conceivable that the intended result will not be reproduced when the scenario is played under WEGO?

Leaving aside for the moment the issues of quality of basic design (not all scenario designers are created equal) and the effect of patches on old scenarios in my, admittedly limited, experience some scenarios have proved to be nigh on impossible and some ridiculously easy. Could the design and test method be a significant factor in that experience? I don't know, but I would like to find out.

[SlowMotion]

Since playing RT takes more time, I wonder if the player who selects the scenario/QB could add more time to scenario length when starting? Let's say some scenario might have been designed for turn based mode and time would be 30 minutes. If you want to play this as H2H RT game, you might add something like 20 minutes.

I think with an option like this more scenarios would be playble both in RT and turn based modes.

[theFightingSeabee]

I'm a time complainer and an RT player. I often let time slip by in what feels natural for me (when attacking). I do pause a lot (and still wish for an on-screen pause button), but time does slip by when I'm in the zone.

[snake_eye]

It would seem reasonable that a different style of play can produce a different result. I note here Snake Eye's comment above that playing a scenario by WEGO would have produced a different result.

Hi, Blackcat

These comments were for TCP/IP, here follows what I wrote :

In TCP/IP The only problem I have encountered, was that I could not communicate with my opponent easily, but by the keyboard and or by Email.

For that experience the choice of either the Red and or Blue was primordial, the result depending more on the scenario played, than on the player skill.

I was, usually, for a specific scenario, defeated by the Red A.I and while playing the Red in TCP/IP, I was defeated by my Blue opponent. For that game I think that playing it By Email (Wego) would have brought different result.

I wrote that because, that specific scenario could not afford me, against a Human player, a possible victory while playing TCP/IP (or real time if you want) . In WegGo, the time you can take playing it back will have help me.

However still against, that Human player, the end result would have been changed. But, I should have wrote more precisely that the end issue unfortunately could not have been too far from the one that arose initially.

That because the troops levels, tracks and tanks were on a high level set up on one side and on a lower one in the other.

For the rest I am in adequation with what you wrote.

Cheers