Find this a tad disturbing...

[Battlefront.com]

And I guess what makes the game so good is that different people find so many different aspects to be *crucial*. Good luck with the release!

Thanks! And you are correct that one of the best features of Combat Mission is also one of the most frustrating for people. And that is the game DOES try to please a great many player types as best we can. The problem is it will never do so evenly or thoroughly. Which means that despite our best and honest intentions, someone is always going to be feeling like they are on the outside looking in.

Steve

[Gromit]

So then to sum up- you guys are arguing about having unfettered control during a combat situation. I mean, isn't that what all this back and forth really boils down to at the bottom of the CM pot? If you are insisting that replay is a must have, what you are essentially saying is: 'I am uncomfortable not having control of knowing what happened to my men. This game won't let me see what I want to see in order to feel in control.'

In defense of replay, I always thought it was a cool gimmick of CMBO that allowed me to witness a local combat event from a first-person viewpoint or wherever as many times as I liked. It was truly a lot of fun. However, I never felt that it was very fair or realistic if you are honest about things. Yes, yes, I know... who cares about honest?! I'm here to have fun! MY WAY!! Right?

Well, yeah, so are all of us at some level. Personally I found that I could be comfortable with the role that I think Battlefront intended for all of us to assume- that of the overall commander for a given action. It seems that many here are much more interested in total control of as much as possible that goes on during a battle, no matter how big or small.

People are funny about stuff like this, you know? Well, so I suppose now when CM:BN comes out, I have to find a spot to hang out to watch what happens in an area. The larger the battle, the less you know about what the majority of your troops are doing. To me it seems this is a fair and realistic trade-off for the role I am to play, whether realtime or wego.

Maybe I am the wacko here for saying this, but that puts me in the boots of a Battalion or Company commander far more convincingly than if I know every event, all the results, who spotted what when and where, etc.

Of course, to each his own. While I won't tell you guys how you should play, I will say that it comes off as being rather childish. Of course that has never stopped anybody in the forums before! (GSX anyone?) Sort of like my (short) visits to dailytech.com- no matter what the subject, the posting deteriorates into a big "my dad can beat up your dad" shouting match, or oooh!- even better, the tried and true "well I'll just take my toys and go home!" ploy. Quite the classic!

Relax and just repeat to yourself, "It's only a game... it's only a game..."

[gibsonm]

Well actually I think you have more "control" in RT than you have in WEGO.

Part way though an assualt in RT if someone fires on you from an unexpected location you can react almost instantaneously with a few mouse clicks and stop the assault or re-orientate to the unexpected threat.

Now while that is certainly understandable for a Section or even Platoon commander, this is far more control than a Coy or Bn commander has is real life after he crosses the LD.

WEGO on the other had commits you to a course of action that remains valid for 60 secs. After that you can adjust accordingly but by then the ambush or whatever may have done its job.

Having said that, I think there is room for both options.

Person A likes RT, great they pick RT.

Person B likes WEGO, then they are catered for too.

The replay issue is a different issue and again I don't think it has much to do with "control" apart from getting feedback / knowledge which might allow you to make more informed decisions for the next turn.

For larger battles it arguable gives you more knowledge as it lets you review the entire turn from multiple perspectives (so you know what happened on say both flanks).

RT gives you that knowledge earlier if you like but depending on where your attention is you may only have SA on a flank and not know what is happening "over there" until you go to look.

I also have a longer term / wider issue with WEGO with no replay and that is as a training tool.

Sometime ago a colleague at Army Simulation Wing was able to persuade the ADF to license CMAK for Officer training and professional developement. Part of this was the ability to "replay" a trainee's turn and point out where they did well or where there was possible room for improvement.

This was good but limited to a historical perspective.

I have been quielty showing some people CM:SF NATO as a possible replacement for "current" training. For this I've used the PBEM WEGO "work around" as detailed above.

Now while I'm sure the ADF might pay $X to have Australian soldiers and equipment modelled and use the existing engine (say CMX3 or whatever the next iteration is), I'm not sure they'd pay $Y more to have the replay feature added "just for them".

We don't have a bottomless bucket of cash and I'm sure they'd prefer to license CM:SF2 (to pick a name) with "TCP/IP WEGO with replay" built in as a proven feature than pay for both.

Certainly a demonstration that goes along the lines of "see we can use this existing feature but with Aust equipment" is much more likely to generate interest than "we'll if you spend $Y we can put this in and then if you are happy with it you can spend $X to Australianise it".

[sfhand]

Good luck getting those who think wego players are more inclined to control than rt players to alter their view. They don't understand that giving orders and then watching them unfold without an ability to intercede is letting go.

And if I'm going to give orders and then have no ability to intercede I would very much like to know how things went prior to issuing new orders. For it to be any other way would make the graphical representation of the game meaningless.

I'm quite sure I'll love the game regardless of the situation with wego tcp/ip. But I will never use it. I would be excited about its inclusion if I thought it was an evolutionary step toward wego tcp/ip with replay, a feature I would use, but alas it isn't. Who knows, it may be an evolutionary step toward rt tcp/ip with user controlled pauses, which is something I would at least be open to trying. But, as I've said ad nauseum, situational awareness is the most important part of the game, otherwise bring on the black box and save a bunch of development time.

[Battlefront.com]

Correct. WeGo and RealTime are separate from Playback. If I had to guess I'd say 99.9% of RealTime players would like some form of Playback as well. Some have even said "I would play RealTime if there were Playback". So for some Playback is more important than the method of play.

What is surprising is that so far the WeGo players have said that they won't play WeGo TCP/IP at all unless there is Replay. There's plenty of people playing RealTime without Replay, though they want it, so it seemed logical to think that WeGoers would do the same. But apparently not.

Steve

[sfhand]

For me the reason for this is simple, I can play pbem or hotseat and get the replay (the payoff of replay far outweighs the "hassle" of file management with pbem for me). So when given a choice of playing with situational awareness or without I will choose with every time.

[Ron]

Once you've gone playback, you'll never go back.

[Battlefront.com]

Good luck getting those who think wego players are more inclined to control than rt players to alter their view. They don't understand that giving orders and then watching them unfold without an ability to intercede is letting go.

No, it's not Playing RT means having to NOT micromanage your forces. Sure, you can micromanage a couple of units far more than you can in WeGo, but overall... no way. On top of that the actions issued to those units are far less optimized. You simply don't have time to get down to ground level and check out every possible this or that variable. You have to go with your gut at (usually) a more detached level of viewing. Plus, you can't know what you haven't seen when it happened since there is no Replay, which in turn means you have to go on leaps of faith very frequently.

And if I'm going to give orders and then have no ability to intercede I would very much like to know how things went prior to issuing new orders.

In RT you never know what is going on with all your units all the time because you simply can't. Yet RT players can deal with that just fine, though they do want the ability to check out something specific (either because it's cool or because there is a question mark).

For it to be any other way would make the graphical representation of the game meaningless.

You forgot to say "in your humble opinion"

The most consistent element of any RT vs. WeGo debate is WeGoers continually insisting that the game can not be played effectively, not to mention enjoyed, in RT. Yet there is probably no RT gamer that would make the same statement about WeGo.

But, as I've said ad nauseum, situational awareness the the most important part of the game, otherwise bring on the black box and save a bunch of development time.

Again, this is a matter of personal opinion that many wargamers (myself included) have disagreed with long before there was ever a term "RealTime" to kick around. Yup, I'm talking about a difference in perspective going back to the days of paper and dice. But we don't really need to go back that far to prove my point:

CMx1 was WeGo w/replay only. It had a TCP/IP option with Replay. It also had an optional Turn timer. How this feature was used indicates what type of player you are. And boy... weren't there heated debates between these to camps way back when!

If you played with long or no time limits then you are most likely the type that can't let go. Everything has to be checked, double checked, ordered, counter ordered, etc. until each 60 second slice of time is optimized. Replays would also be looked at many times from many different angles.

Players that opted for very short timers didn't have the time to either optimize every unit's orders or look at Replay more than once. That's the way they wanted it and the timer ensured they wouldn't be tempted to micromanage just because they could.

The type that hated timers are almost certainly the type that hate RT. The type that loved timers are more likely the type that embraced RT.

Eventually CMx2's multiplayer audience will fracture into four camps after we get in all the H2H options we want in:

1. Micromanagement WeGoers who don't want to be rushed

2. WeGoers who don't want to micromanage too much, but do want to watch Replays

3. RT players who want to play by skin of their teeth, however want the option to Replay.

4. RT players who only want to play by the skin of their teeth, playing for the moments to come and not the moments that have already passed.

And I can promise you that each of these four groups will say that their way is the most realistic way to play. I also suspect only one of these four groups will tell the other three that there's only one way to have fun.

Crystal ball mode off

Steve

[sfhand]

I was pretty sure that no one, and I mean no one, here thought I was expressing opinions or views for anyone but myself

One doesn't have to look far in these forums to find rt players who hit pause, yes in single player, everytime a gunshot goes off that they can't see. One doesn't have to look far to find players in these forums who play rt who say that as soon as they hear the sound of an atgm they hit pause, find the targetted vehicle and back it out of harms way.

The part about the black box and graphical representation wasn't in response to wego vs rt, btw, it was in response to someone insinuating that playing as a battalion comander was the purest form of play.

And I'm sure you wouldn't recall our earlier discussions on this as I am just another mostly silent voice here, but I'm a wego player that doesn't micromanage to the extent you seem to think is popular. I have asked for moveable waypoints so I can take advantage of terrain in a realistic manner, but I don't plan and have my units perform elaborate movement and targetting orders like one can find in the tips and tactics sub forum. So it's hard for me to relate to your representation of wego players since it doesn't fit my playstyle. But I do like to know how the squad I sent in that building got fried, if for no other reason than I'm the guy who sent them there...

[Battlefront.com]

You're WeGo play style is probably pretty similar to mine. The difference between us, I think, is I don't have a problem playing RT without Replay or without hitting Pause all the time. The other difference is I prefer to play RT single player.

My points above do stand as stated. There are WeGoers who can't bring themselves to hit GO! until they have probably fiddled with every unit, even the stationary ones. You know, just in case There are RT guys who never hit pause and don't miss Replay. And there are everything inbetween.

What I object to in discussions like this is when someone insists that the game can't be played and enjoyed a particular way simply because that individual can't play or enjoy it that way. I also like to point out flawed arguments about control and realism when I see them, regardless of what play style is being discussed.

Replay is a valued feature, no doubt about it. Even RT players want it to some extent. But the lack of Replay doesn't negate a particular form of play in any sort of absolute way. For an individual? Sure. No problem understanding that.

Steve

[noxnoctum]

Correct. WeGo and RealTime are separate from Playback. If I had to guess I'd say 99.9% of RealTime players would like some form of Playback as well. Some have even said "I would play RealTime if there were Playback". So for some Playback is more important than the method of play.

What is surprising is that so far the WeGo players have said that they won't play WeGo TCP/IP at all unless there is Replay. There's plenty of people playing RealTime without Replay, though they want it, so it seemed logical to think that WeGoers would do the same. But apparently not.

Steve

Not all of "us" feel that way . I would be more than happy with wego w/out replay.

Can you comment on the idea that's been put forward many times about having an auto pause feature during H2H RT every 60 seconds? This would essentially be wego w/out replay and I'm guessing (since I'm no programmer), easier to implement since pause is already in...

I think that the level of control in wego is more realistic than the level of control in RT. DEFINITELY in WW2. In RT as you said you can instantly stop a platoon from walking into an ambush or whatever. The chain of command and C&C were far worse back then. I think RT unrealistically potrays this... you shouldn't be able to "instantly" react and change orders. IRL, a platoon that walked into an ambush would probably just hit the dirt and panic... or decide a course of action on their own because they couldn't hear their lieutenant/captain over the gunfire. Maybe one squad would assault through the ambush, and another would just panic and run for it, while the other two would hit the dirt and start firing wildly. Certainly the platoon wouldn't instantly change course as is possible in RT. In WW2 at least you just couldn't issue orders and have your troops react to them that fast.

However, on the other side of the coin, I also think RT is unrealistic (at least for larger than company sized battles) because normally you'd of course have subordinates watching over each unit down the line, from company commander to fire team leader. As it is, you have to basically baby sit your units to make sure no one gets hit. Either you baby sit one company and ignore the other or split your attention and have your tanks not in hull down positions because you don't have time to zoom in and position them correctly and they won't do it on their own. I wouldn't call this being a control freak... it's just... basic tactics 101. Until we're at a point where AI is really REALLY good (and I think that's a ways off)... it's a serious issue. Much less of one in CMSF and its modules because the tanks and ATGMs are basically all one shot one kill (on the blue side at least). Still an issue though in my illustration a few pages back. Not so in WW2 of course.

No fault of BFC, it's impossible to have AI that replicates human behavior perfectly (or anywhere close to it). But in WEGO, at least I get to SIMULATE having that chain of command, where not a single person has to be *directly* responsible for every single squad/vehicle on the battlefield. At the same time though, it allows for the (I feel) pretty realistic feature of not being able to micromanage your troops for an entire minute... I think this is a good abstraction of the inferiority of C&C/comms and therefore response time during WW2.

Obviously though we disagree on these points.

What I really want to know is again, can you comment on the idea that's been put forward many times about having an auto pause feature during H2H RT every 60 seconds?

[Battlefront.com]

I've commented on this many times already, but of course not everybody sees it The idea of RT with an enforced pause is exactly what the Compromise system is. Each player is prevented from making changes to Commands for 60 seconds, then there is an enforced pause of x amount of time (whereby x is defined by the guy setting up the game).

The Compromise system involves relatively little new code and (hopefully) not too much in the way of extra testing. But it still is a chunk of work and when you are already ruling out features based on minutes to implement (that's what happens when you have thousands of ideas floated!)... well... something that takes a significant amount of time to do will mean lots of little stuff not getting in.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

The Compromise system involves relatively little new code and (hopefully) not too much in the way of extra testing. But it still is a chunk of work and when you are already ruling out features based on minutes to implement (that's what happens when you have thousands of ideas floated!)... well... something that takes a significant amount of time to do will mean lots of little stuff not getting in.

Steve

Wait a minute, did I miss something? (long winded thread and all)

Compromise system for RT?

[noxnoctum]

I've commented on this many times already, but of course not everybody sees it The idea of RT with an enforced pause is exactly what the Compromise system is. Each player is prevented from making changes to Commands for 60 seconds, then there is an enforced pause of x amount of time (whereby x is defined by the guy setting up the game).

The Compromise system involves relatively little new code and (hopefully) not too much in the way of extra testing. But it still is a chunk of work and when you are already ruling out features based on minutes to implement (that's what happens when you have thousands of ideas floated!)... well... something that takes a significant amount of time to do will mean lots of little stuff not getting in.

Steve

Ya I never saw anything sorry . And whoah a little confused here, are you saying it's ALREADY in Normandy, or will possibly be added into it later?

[panzermartin]

Steve, please consider adding the pause in RT(with perhaps, control over units when action unfolds) for a patch or something. It will nicely fill the gap till you hopefully decide that its time for WeGo&replay to come back. Players who are afraid of a non stop game will give it a try, players who like RT will just love it for the ability to get into the situation more.

I'm generally in favor of a hybrid RT with pause. My guess is that this is what most people play in single. Enforced pause but with the ability to interact with your forces in RT. Now, the ideal would be a timer, time points for each player and a human enforced pause but this will require 10x times testing and coding to make it fair, so I understand if it never makes it in.

[Berto]

Steve, please consider adding the pause in RT(with perhaps, control over units when action unfolds) for a patch or something. ........

+1

And please adding in TCP/IP the ability to save games.

[panzermartin]

Yes, save game is a must. An autosave maybe. Two PCs and two connections..sometimes one of them goes wrong and your nice gaming afternoon evaporates

[Lethaface]

Personally I'm very much in favour of the compromise, however without preventing players to give commands during this 60 seconds. I want to be able to give orders in realtime AND setup larger plans during the pause. Perhaps that could a toggleable option?

In fact, that would not be a compromise for me. It would be THE solution

TCP/IP RT with forced pauses which duration can be defined by the host. That is all the goodness of RT and it's only flaw (imo; larger and or MOUT battles are too difficult to manage without pauses) is negated by the enforced pauses.

[panzermartin]

THE solution for me too. Why take away the fun of RT? And sometimes orders go horribly silly in WeGo and with 1:1 you have to adjust pathfinding issues, like a squad deciding to march outside a trench instead of inside or just forgetting your arty falling on the wrong spot at the wrong moment.

[sfhand]

Careful guys, you're undermining Steve's hypothesis that WEGO players are the control freaks in the room...

[panzermartin]

Heh, I thought about that too. But isnt the same when you play RT with pause in single player?

Ultimately its not about more control, its about the fun and lively feel of Real time. I wouldnt want to miss that.

[noxnoctum]

+1 RT with auto pause! I would, however, like these other guys, like to be able to control my units during the 60 seconds. 1-1 brings with it a lot of things you gotta keep an eye on if you don't want your units to die over some silly glitch/AI reaction.

[Battlefront.com]

Ya I never saw anything sorry . And whoah a little confused here, are you saying it's ALREADY in Normandy, or will possibly be added into it later?

Not in CM:BN, planned on being added later. What is "later"? I don't know. I had hoped we would get it into CM:BN's initial release, but we had to cut it months ago due to other things taking way more time to do than expected.

Our basic philosophy is if something can be extended, without causing additional technical liabilities/headaches, then we are open to it provided there seems to be value in doing so. In this case I don't see any reason why we couldn't give RT players the option to have an enforced Pause as well as WeGoers. I personally don't see too much value in that, but I can see how it could be appealing to some.

Steve

[Martin Krejcirik]

If there is ever enforced RT pause (I hope so!), than PLEASE make the length of a turn as well as max. length of a pause USER SELECTABLE. Thank You ;-)

[sfhand]

Two things I've learned about CMSF in the last 24 hours as a direct result of replay.

1) in twilight/dusk conditions British troops will launch AT weapons at their own misidentified vehicles. (strange behavior because it sees the unit with a blue icon, perhaps a bug?)

2) Syrian rpgs sometimes shoot duds. (I'm sure my opponent hopes this is a bug as well...)

I wouldn't know either of these facts had I not had replay. (this post more about the value of replay than CMSF which is why I'm posting it here)