Find this a tad disturbing...

[Derfel]

@Blackcat: Well, people with even half a life will tell you that playing wargames is a waste of time and energy, so what's a little more waste? ;-)

@sand digger: Tantrum throwing, though it seems to be an Olympic sport these days, is not what I mean with a calm and reasonable manner, I would for instance never argue for the delay of the game in order to include a particular feature, as long as the game works. I seem to recall that CMBO was at v 1.12 before TCP/IP play was implemented and that was ok by me.

I will wait and see how the new game works out and every now and then I might write a gentle reminder that there are at least a few customers (as I said above, I rather think we're more than a few) that would like to see full WEGO multiplayer.

Remember Cato's "Kartago Delenda Est" and remember what finally happened to Carthage... ;-)

[Pandur]

It would appear that CM:BN is not the next iteration of BF's unique series of games, it is, in fact, a completely new game. Therefore nothing has been dropped.

but why they dare to call it CM then? it could be called "Real Time Mission: Battle for the Clicks" which would be more accurate then combat mission

[Battlefront.com]

Just to chime in again:

1. The feature wasn't ever dropped, it's simply not added yet. The original CMBO did not ship with WeGo TCP/IP either for the same reasons it's not in CM:BN (or CM:SF). It's a minority interest feature which is extremely intensive to add from a development, testing, and support standpoint. With all the other things that we needed to do, things which aren't optional (like Bocage, WW2 weapons physics, AT Guns, etc.), this feature was an obvious candidate to keep off our plates so we could actually ship something before people died of old age.

2. Lobbying for the feature is a waste of time. We know people want it, we want it, and so it will get added as soon as it makes development sense. Not before, not after. Lobbying, therefore, serves no purpose since it won't influence anything. Whatever effect lobbying might have has already taken place.

3. TCP/IP WeGo with Playback is not something we are actively considering at this point. When we get to implementing TCP/IP WeGo we will, of course, explore the possibility a little more and see if perhaps it isn't as daunting as we currently think it is. If it isn't as big a deal to add as we fear, we will add it. However, we will go ahead with TCP/IP WeGo regardless of having Playback or not. People who want to make this into a "do it with Playback or don't do it at all" aren't thinking this through very clearly. Because if that is the choice we face then the choice is simple... no TCP/IP WeGo. Therefore, it would be a very bad idea to convince us that Playback is mandatory

Steve

[panzermartin]

If playback is not an option why just not add a forced time out feature with no data transfer etc? RT is fun, you can adjust orders on the fly and prevent pathfinding errors, the only thing missing is a pause where you can take a breath and coordinate some more complex moves. Unless you are talking about something like that and not the classic blue bar WeGo.

[gunnersman]

I'm starting to get the impression there will be no tcp/ip wego, flamethrowers, flames or nonprolific/rare/exotic tanks. Did I miss anything? This is getting old.

[mjkerner]

Ali Baba, and I missing something? In CM:SF and all its progeny, I play RT only, and pause the game alot in order to collect my thoughts and issue orders, etc. I haven't played in about 6 weeks, but I'm sure my memory is still working (although I am having more "Senior Moments" lately) and I can pause the game at will. (Escape button,I think--I'm at work and can't check it..

[Derfel]

Thanks for the input, Steve.

The position I'm advocating here is a gentle encouragement towards full WEGO TCP/IP which in no way should be understood as a some sort of ultimatum (it would be a fairly pathetic one wouldn't it?) No, I think most of us will buy the game, play the game and probably enjoy it greatly even without that one feature that we feel so greatly elevated the last one. And keep hoping that one day you'll find a way to put it in, while applauding every step that takes us closer.

Now, you will of course say what you just stated; you know we want it, you guys want it and some version will hopefully appear eventually. However as any one advancing a minority interest knows, the task is to keep your particular interest as near the top of the agenda as possible without incurring (too much) wrath from the powers that be.

Considering the shower of malcontents that always surface when you guys put out a new product I feel that a gentle reminder of our particular hobby-horse might not be a bad idea if we're not to be drowned in the clamor for running Bren tripods or intercontinental ballistic missiles or whatever.

So; [Arnold voice] We'll be back... [\Arnold voice]

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Ali Baba, and I missing something? In CM:SF and all its progeny, I play RT only, and pause the game alot in order to collect my thoughts and issue orders, etc. I haven't played in about 6 weeks, but I'm sure my memory is still working (although I am having more "Senior Moments" lately) and I can pause the game at will. (Escape button,I think--I'm at work and can't check it..

Not in TCP/IP multiplayer; that's why they're lobbying for TCP/IP WEGO.

[sfhand]

I'd rather see features like tank riding infantry and moveable waypoints than tcp wego without playback. In fact, as one who only plays wego, I'd be more inclined to play tcp rt over tcp wego without playback because both would have the same level of situational awareness yet one would offer a chance to stop/reduce the damage sooner should I manage to notice it. In all reality I'll stick to pbem rather than play the other ways because watching all of what is happening is part of my enjoyment of the game.

[finalcut]

Someone said earlier that the game will not make us Flapjacks in the morning.This is a deal breaker for me.

[7thGalaxy]

Steve, I think you ought to write a little program which basically drops that comment into every thread where TCP/IP is mentioned - would save you much time and energy as yet another person starts moaning

[Blackcat]

Thanks for the input, Steve.

... we're not to be drowned in the clamor for running Bren tripods

Frankly, if its a choice between Bren gun tripods and TCP/IP WEGO without replay I'll take the tripods as the former isn't worth a pitcher of cold spit (to me).

[Pandur]

i honestly have to say that TCP/IP WEGO with replay was my personal pet peeve No.1 !

now that i know for sure it will not be in for a long long time if ever, i can say as many others, forgett about TCP/IP WEGO without replay. it has no point.

dont do it if you dont plan to put in a replay at some point. its a waste of time.

now, personally i was never interested in Cooperative playing as there was no TCP/IP WEGOwRp to begin with, but now that i know it wont make it and probably never will, Co play is THE next best thing to do. when you can break down input load on more then one player per side, you can have larger "meaningfull" battles in realtime without the players resorting to lassoing units too much.

like for example, a company having 3 controlling players. one player per platoon and the best player per side controls the Co HQ and the attached units in addition. this spits load on 3 players and the battle is easily playable without pause. pause in realtime is a joke anyways.

but whatever you do, dont do TCP/IP WEGOwoRp, its a waste of time!

[ChrisND]

i honestly have to say that TCP/IP WEGO with replay was my personal pet peeve No.1 !

now that i know for sure it will not be in for a long long time if ever, i can say as many others, forgett about TCP/IP WEGO without replay. it has no point.

dont do it if you dont plan to put in a replay at some point. its a waste of time.

now, personally i was never interested in Cooperative playing as there was no TCP/IP WEGOwRp to begin with, but now that i know it wont make it and probably never will, Co play is THE next best thing to do. when you can break down input load on more then one player per side, you can have larger "meaningfull" battles in realtime without the players resorting to lassoing units too much.

like for example, a company having 3 controlling players. one player per platoon and the best player per side controls the Co HQ and the attached units in addition. this spits load on 3 players and the battle is easily playable without pause. pause in realtime is a joke anyways.

but whatever you do, dont do TCP/IP WEGOwoRp, its a waste of time!

Reverse psychology, eh?

[Pandur]

Reverse psychology, eh?

well actually i am 90% straight. i was following my plan that i sit by the river until TCP/IP WEGOwRp comes floating down towards me. but since yesterday i know it wont happen and i wasted 3 good years waiting.

so after a lot of frustration and a little thinking yesterday, i in fact reversed my point of view. my new plan is to go on the offensive, hone my "will be" 1337 click skillz in RT battles and sooner or later i pawn the enemy at his own (RT)game. its just like i totally suck on RT anything right now, but i will work on that. i am already perfect in theory but i need to get practice.

and that is only to 10% a joke :cool:

[ChrisND]

well actually i am 90% straight. i was following my plan that i sit by the river until TCP/IP WEGOwRp comes floating down towards me. but since yesterday i know it wont happen.

so after a lot of frustration and a little thinking yesterday, i in fact reversed my point of view. my new plan is to go on the offensive, hone my "will be" 1337 click skillz in RT battles and sooner or later i pawn the enemy at his own (RT)game. its just like i totally suck on RT anything right now, but i will work on that. i am already perfect in theory but i need to get practice.

and that is only to 10% a joke :cool:

I'll give you a tip I've learned from CM:BN. Be sure to build factories as quickly as possible to churn out Panthers by the dozens, and make sure you have three resource teams per crystal node, no more, no less!

[Pandur]

wait and see, the player that gets more input in less time through to his man will win any RT game.

Sun Tsu said that already long time ago

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i'm sure third parties will develop tools to make PBEM WEGO as close to TCPIP WEGO as possible, if the game is that good. unless of course scenario start up times are still what they were during the early days of CMSF.

BTW i recall there was some talk that CMBN would have enhanced C&C features, like command delays. if so, i think there's a possibility that RT could be much more tactically stimulating than it was with CMSF.

[gibsonm]

i'm sure third parties will develop tools to make PBEM WEGO as close to TCPIP WEGO as possible, if the game is that good. unless of course scenario start up times are still what they were during the early days of CMSF.

Well it hasn't happened in the X years CM:SF has been out.

Poor old Adam Smith has a lot to answer for.

[tyrspawn]

Yeah, we know the lobbying will never stop. But it is also completely unnecessary. We know it's an important feature to a fair number of people and we're not going to forget that. Lobbying won't make it happen any quicker just as not lobbying will make it happen any later. It will get in when we feel we can get it in, no sooner and no later.

BTW, we have no plans to even attempt TCP/IP WeGo with playback. We would like to do it with playback, of course, so it is on our minds. But unlike TCP/IP WeGo without playback, it's not on a ToDo List.

Steve

So how would TCP/IP WeGo without playback even work? You press end turn... then your view teleports to a minute later with half of your vehicles dead and you have no idea what happened? Lol

Seems quite strange.

[Battlefront.com]

Hey, I'd be more than happy to tell Charles "don't bother with TCP/IP WeGo if there is no replay". It would be one less major task for him and we could fill the month or so for that feature with lots of other interesting things. But I'm pretty sure that won't put the issue to rest and I'm also sure that people saying it isn't good enough aren't really thinking it through clearly.

TCP/IP WeGo in CMx1 offers two things that TCP/IP RealTime in CMx2 doesn't offer:

1. WeGo play without having to mess around with PBEM files

2. Replay of the action

For those who don't want to play RT the compromise solution addresses the biggest problem, which is the method of play. It does not, obviously, provide the replay capability. Of the two the replay is the less important feature, as desirable as it might be.

So while lobbying for us to get in TCP/IP WeGo sooner than we can won't change anything, if enough of you TCP/IP WeGoers complain you could convince us to not put in the compromise solution. Therefore, I am advising you guys to be careful for what you ask for.

Steve

[tyrspawn]

I'm not complaining I just don't understand how the gameplay would work.

You issue order, then press end turn - and then wait, then you just see the outcome of all of your orders or something, without seeing them move/fire etc?

[panzermartin]

I'm not complaining I just don't understand how the gameplay would work.

You issue order, then press end turn - and then wait, then you just see the outcome of all of your orders or something, without seeing them move/fire etc?

Huh? Action will unfold, you just wont be able to rewind it and watch it again.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You still get to see the action, it's just not stored so you cannot hit rewind and watch again.

Which sounds strange to me because if I watched the damn thing, it's on my PC in some form somewhere, isn't it? So why no playback? But then I know nothing.

[tyrspawn]

Huh? Action will unfold, you just wont be able to rewind it and watch it again.

Oh. Whats the big hullabaloo about then? Yes, I'm bringing back 18th century vocab.