Remove the time limit in Normandy?

[phil stanbridge]

After playing the Kursk demo I realised one of the reasons I like it so much is because there doesn't appear to be a time limit for some of the missions. This got me thinking - one thing I do not like about Shock Force is the structure introduced by limiting the missions to a certain amount of time. It tends to ruin the immersion factor for me, even if it is realistic. Could this be a removable 'feature' in Normandy?

[George MC]

Currently the AI Plans will only run for whatever time the designer has created em for. Remove the time limit you can bust the scenario. Currently the time limit is for four hours - surely enough time? I think this whole issue has been discussed at depth in earlier and I can't see how this can chnage without addressing all the issues previously raised e.g. ammo, AI Plans, player having all the time in the world which they might not have in RL etc etc. Currently you can always go into a scenario before playing it, change the time to the max four hours and there ya go. Can't see the ammo lasting for four hours of sustained combat!

[George MC]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=87017&highlight=time+limit

Just some of the arguments against unlimited time.

[ChrisND]

After playing the Kursk demo I realised one of the reasons I like it so much is because there doesn't appear to be a time limit for some of the missions. This got me thinking - one thing I do not like about Shock Force is the structure introduced by limiting the missions to a certain amount of time. It tends to ruin the immersion factor for me, even if it is realistic. Could this be a removable 'feature' in Normandy?

A non-issue. Very few players would want to play a scenario past four hours long, and even fewer scenario designers would want to make one that would last over four hours. Anyways, if we did then we would have to start simulating more logistics, because everything would be running out of ammo. That in turn would take the game out of its intended scope.

[phil stanbridge]

Thanks for the replies chaps. Okay I should have done a search but it didn't enter my head, sorry about that. I can understand that 4 hours could be considered 'too long' and ammunition would obviously run out etc etc, but I'm not on about 4 hours of constant fighting. I like to spend time planning the mission. Not just guessing what I think the scenario briefing means. All I would say, it seems to work in Kursk, curiously!

Thanks for the link to the threads I'll go have a look.

[meade95]

I'm all in favor of the no-time-limit (option). And that is the key, it would be an option for individual customers.....Nothing more, nothing less. It would not effect/affect PEBM games, nor any issues of head to head (unless agreed upon prior).

It would basically, simply allow, a customer additoinal options (at not cost) for him to use when designing his own missions (or tweaking already created ones) ...and allow him to go about dealing with the supply issues (there are several ways that could be worked around).

[YankeeDog]

It's not just ammo supply -- the game already simulates this pretty well, at least for infantry (vehicles are another matter). Once you start looking tactical conflicts >4 hours long, you'd really need to represent all sorts of other factors to have a realistic representation of tactical combat.

One of the most basic is water supply. Soldiers can carry enough in their canteens for a couple of hours of combat, but beyond this, they'd need resupply. On a warm day, infantry cut off from resupply might start to degrade and take casualties due to dehydration and heat stroke, even if they hadn't done anything more than a strenuous hike.

And, of course, with vehicles once you start talking about 4+ hour engagements, fuel supply is going to start to become a factor.

Then you get into the less tangible stuff, like pervasive fatigue. Even being in the general proximity of guns and bombs going off (let alone actually shooting, or being shot at) tends to get the adrenaline flowing. This produces increased energy and heightened awareness, for a while. But there's only so long a body can run on adrenaline; eventually, the adrenaline wears off and there's a "let down" -- period of extreme fatigue. Basically, there's only so long soldiers can stand "on the line," before fatigue sets in and combat capability starts to degrade, even if they're not actually getting shot at. Obviously, other factors like weather can be a come into play here, too.

Ideally, for tactical engagements hours long, units on "combat alert" should slowly degrade in fitness, and there should be some kind of "stand down" order that you could issue to troops in quiet areas, that would tell a unit to come off of combat-ready status, and rest themselves for later. The trade-off would be reduced situational awareness and some kind of "stand up" delay before they were combat ready again.

And then there are the larger, grand tactical factors that should come into play in an engagement that long -- variable reinforcements dependent upon the course of action, availability of fire and air support, etc. A skilled scenario designer can sometimes find creative ways to simulate this stuff to a degree. But it's still pushing the engine far beyond what it's really designed to do.

So I just don't see how a 4+ hour engagement in CMx2 is in any way realistic. As noted, extending a scenario this long when you're playing a designed scenario, or even a QB with an AI plan, is basically cheating -- you're waiting out the AI, and then pushing forward at a point when the AI no longer has any plan as to what to do.

This said, I don't really care if the time limit is removed. So assuming it's not a difficult thing to change (and I can't see how it would be), I say go ahead and remove it for the people who want to play this way. In the end, it's just a game and there's certainly no law against playing it the way you want to. We all have our little "cheats" we do for enjoyment, myself included -- extending a scenario time limit indefinitely so you can pick apart the enemy at leisure is really no more "unrealistic" than reverting to a saved game when you screw up, which is something I think we've all done at one point or another...

Cheers,

YD

[SlowMotion]

I think there's more problem in CMSF's fixed 20 minute QB time limit. Usually there's some extra time, but it would be real nice to have some user selectable time in QBs as well.

[Uedel]

well for adrenaline i can say it lasts way longer then 4 hrs.

I work as a nurse in a operation ward at the Heart-surgery, when i have stand-by duty and we get to operate a emergency Operation the Adrenaline allways goes up and it stays high and holds you fit for as long as you active, no matter if it is 2 or 8 hrs. I Did it and i feelt it, after the Operation when the Adrenaline flows of, you feel the fatique but not inbetween when u activley working hard and under stress.

But for all the arguements against an open Timelimit, well i still argue against em.

1.) "Player open´s Scenario editor to give him more time..." Well who cares? its his Game and if he feels like he needs to Cheat or set it to his liking who does realy care? he has to live with it if the AI Stops playing right because the plan ended. But if a scenario designer decides he makes a very long scenario that is slowly pacing and there are people out there who like to play it so long why limit them?

2.) "all kind of supply issues" well again there are many examples out there in the real world where no supply was aviable, nor water no medic an no ammo or anything like that, in that situation no Super-Senior Gamemaster came down from heaven and told the guys on the ground slugging it out that they have to stop fighting because the supply is empty and it is unfair now.

I for one dont request that ALL scenarios are open Time, but give the Scenario designers the OPTION to let it run even longer is what i call good decision, then the Scenario Designer has to make his head about a realistic resupply (Bcause it is allready possible at least for infantry to get resupply via the APC´s for ammunition, not hard to say to abstract that there is allso some water stored also.

just my 2cents

[MikeyD]

Has anybody here designed and built a 4 hour scenario? How did it play? What problems cropped up with design? How many people were willing to play it? Arguing for extended play without having built a few extended scenarios is just speculation.

[GonzoAttacker]

I can see that qbS with only 20 minutes/moves could be a challenge. tiny/small maps probably enough time. but maps bigger than that you will probably need more time.

Old CM players ran the gambit but 40 minutes was usually max for playable scenarios with a variable ending.

As a designer it would be quite a challenge to design a four hour scenario. All i can think that would work is a Blue Assault against a classic Germain Defense in depth.

Michael "Gonzo" Gonzalez

[Paper Tiger]

Well, I'm rather hoping we'll see a host of new scenarios for WW2 that play in less than an hour, ideally in 30-40 minutes. Honestly guys, this is a non-issue. You can already adapt any scenario in the editor to play for 4 hours with up to 15 minutes of extra time.

[phil stanbridge]

Yep that's all fair enough - I just found the lack of time limit an interesting concept in the Kursk demo. It means you can really work out a plan - and spend time micro-managing every last aspect of it before committing the troops. Seems to work well.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

l'll repeat my request on this isue:

A "Play On" option after the results screen.

That way the player is still stimulated to get a move on, as he should, but can play for as long as he likes too. best of both worlds IMHO.

[c3k]

+1 to Elmar Bijlsma's post, above.

(For editors, adding a penalty for each extra minute used to achieve a geographic objective? That way the player has to try to balance force preservation against time?)

(For QB's, a selectable time limit would be a boon...)

Ken

[YankeeDog]

(For editors, adding a penalty for each extra minute used to achieve a geographic objective? That way the player has to try to balance force preservation against time?)

I would love to see this as a scenario design option. Maintaining operational tempo is often a critical part of successful offense. There should be some way of rewarding attackers for taking objectives quickly, and conversely rewarding defenders for delaying as long as possible.

It would be great to have scenarios where an objective was worth, say, 250 points if captured within 30minutes, and then lost value at a rate of 5 points/minute thereafter, or something like that.

[ChrisND]

l'll repeat my request on this isue:

A "Play On" option after the results screen.

That way the player is still stimulated to get a move on, as he should, but can play for as long as he likes too. best of both worlds IMHO.

I like this. A good compromise. It's like the "just one more turn...." option in Civ .

I would love to see this as a scenario design option. Maintaining operational tempo is often a critical part of successful offense. There should be some way of rewarding attackers for taking objectives quickly, and conversely rewarding defenders for delaying as long as possible.

It would be great to have scenarios where an objective was worth, say, 250 points if captured within 30minutes, and then lost value at a rate of 5 points/minute thereafter, or something like that.

Also an excellent idea, and I'm ashamed for having never come up with it. Time-sensitive objectives (flagged specifically for that of course) would be great for specific scenarios.

[souldierz]

Those ideas sound good.The majority of us, just want to continue on and play the map to the fullest without having everyone pack up,calling it a day, and going home taking their bullets and guns with them when the time expires.

You can also categorize me in the 'please no time limit' crowd(and please beta testers hold your kicks and punch's), but I understand why it's there.I was also just wondering though if the CMSF developers will eventually look to drop the time limit as they journey further down the road as they look to create and release new titles.To be fair this game is great and I praised it enough times and will continue to do so, but i think most of us out there would really like to see the game evolve and get past the time limit.

Having an open ended play style is what most people fiend for.So they can approach a situation any which way they like.It gives them the most creativity and allows them to use their imagination further.With all that said though,I'm sure the creators get it and understand our wish's on the time limit affair,The old saying "easier said then done" comes into play in this topic and I think they would have to redesign the whole game engine and start over if they were to leave the time limit out.Can't exactly rub a genie lamp and then poof, the BFC genie makes it happen, but having no time limit would be one BFC genie wish.

[Paper Tiger]

Ah, don't worry yourself. I have no objections to BFC adding an option to remove the time limit as long as it's an option. I honestly can't understand why people think that 4 hours +15 minutes isn't enough time to play any mission.

[souldierz]

I honestly can't understand why people think that 4 hours +15 minutes isn't enough time to play any mission.

That's what I thought to until I played your 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum' scenario:).I could have used another 30mins.:DMaybe I was just to cautious and I think I also forgot to give myself the extra 15 mins.

I later realized I accidentally deleted the pics to that AAR to.It was only 2 pics, but what a bummer anyways.

[MikeyD]

l'll repeat my request on this isue:

A "Play On" option after the results screen.

I'd prefer a small change from that, a 'play on' option BEFORE the results screen. No checking that 80% of the enemy is dead before deciding to rush forward. And perhaps the ability of the scenario designer to disable the play-on option if he choses to keep players from using the gamey tactic of simply waiting out the AI movement orders