BF, You Blew It

[Wiggum]

I think they'd be better served building in an email client so PBEM turns can be sent automatically. Wouldn't be quite the same, but it'd make the process quicker.

And why i something not possible ?

While playing Real-Time MP some data has to be send each way.

Now, why is it not possible to have the commands of each player (that are stored in a file with PBEM) send via TCP/IP and loaded automatic by the game, you then can watch the replay and issue new orders...send the next data and wait for the other player to send his data...replay again and...

Why should it not be possible or too much work at all ?

[simmox]

well i too was dissapointed at the lack of a tcp/turn based system like CM1.

however,

most people in the know are on skype thesedays and sending the files via skype is only marginally slower than a straight game connection.

ive managed 2 battles via this option today,no real big deal

in fact i was playing 2 games at once

so i think you need to TTFU a bit:)

lol i crack myself up,man

[Tactical Wargamer]

I agree it'd be nice. The main issue is the last CMBN PBEM I played the turns were 18Mb.

It's a LOT of data to be shunting round. Think of when you make a save, how long it takes, then factor in transmission time plus loading at the other end.

I think they'd be better served building in an email client so PBEM turns can be sent automatically. Wouldn't be quite the same, but it'd make the process quicker.

18 MB wow!! that is large indeed. I don't recal the CMSF games on PBEM being that big.

The last game I played 2 months ago was a normal sized one. 97 turns and it took 2 months to finish! Man PBEM is painful sometimes

[Baneman]

You obviously didn't read my previous post.

PBEM IS crap and horrible (for me and others), but we were aware of this since years and therefore it's nothing too shocking.

Clearly you don't play many battles with people in other vastly removed timezones which makes PBEM a must.

Yes, it's slower than R/T, that doesn't actually make it horrible, just different.

But I was born before 1980, back when the patience-gene still existed

[Magpie_Oz]

For instance, two players with a company each. One person (A) can control a single platoon in detail before he loses view of the amount of info presented, the other person ( can control the entire company in detail. Naturally, person B is much more likely to win as he can quickly click his way through a complex battle plan involving attacks from several sides. Whereas person A will get overrun by the amount of info that he has to process all of a sudden.

No all you have to do is alter your attack/defence plans to account for your organic processing power, victory is not assured.

Here, the player with the quickest clicking/response time will win (sorry old timers, you're at a disadvantage here).

Nah, this is not HALO. It is the quality of the click not how fast you click. Quickly dispensed bad orders will only bring about your demise faster. Again you can pace a battle to suit your own response times, despite being as decrepit as those of us who have been out of school longer than we were in it are.

This might be completely reversed in a wego environment because player A might be a far more proficient player on the defence/offense when he has time to process all the info presented to him. So here, the better player would win (like it should be IMHO).

Better player of the rules in infinite detail when you have all day to contemplate the situation in WEGO but in real time having a good "feel" of how things act, an eye for terrain and the ability to make fast, clear and correct decisions is the one who will win.

The definition of better player depends on the parameters of the game.

To my mind the two styles of play are very different and my preference is for Real Time, others not so.

How cool is it that we have a game that, despite how much we whine about it (those rounds disks stick in my craw) it actually goes a very long way to pleasing us all ?

[Tactical Wargamer]

i feel with the thread starter, i can remember as i had to find out that there is no TCP/IP WEGO in CMSF(was not clearly advertised in my eyes). i also remember steve saying that TCP/IP WEGO will never ever make it in with replay, at least that is the latest news i have. man did i feel cheated in a way.

however, i stick around, also if i could move on compleatly and forgett about CM but at the same time i cant, i had so many great houers with CMx1 and also to some extent with CMSF while i was still thinking TCP/IP WEGO with replay could make it in, i cant let that go no matter how hard i try.

what a sorry state i am in

I hear ya man. When Steve made the annoucement in CMSF and agian for CMBN I was devestated. Love CMBN it is amazing BUT after 10-20 hours playing against a limited AI (as all AI's are!!) it certaily losses its luster. PBEM is like eating tofu.....at a very slow pace

Best we can hope I think is to let Steve and Charles know that sometype of auto pause/variable speed is very important to a larger minority as they may think.

Not supporting battlefront will not get us what we would like. Buy the programs, support their efforts within the BF MP community. IMHO this is the only way to see quality tactical MP wargames.

[easytarget]

Tcp WEGO.

This issue was discussed ad nauseum when CMSF came out.

Bottom line: there are many technical and commercial reasons why it is not included in CMSF and CMBN.

Will it be in a future title ? Who knows, but it is pretty much at the bottom of the wish list.

Your wish list perhaps. BFC's no doubt. But you're out of line assuming this request is not on most players list. And if you're failing to grasp that, don't worry, this thread will keep coming back up to remind you.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Anyone with small children knows that PBEM is the only way to do it. ;-)

[para]

off topic for moment boys sorry...easytarget can you help with me with connecting a 2 player RT game..have sent you a message on steam

[Tactical Wargamer]

Clearly you don't play many battles with people in other vastly removed timezones which makes PBEM a must.

Yes, it's slower than R/T, that doesn't actually make it horrible, just different.

But I was born before 1980, back when the patience-gene still existed

Agreed PBEM is the main option for different timezones. However most consumers of BF I would imagine live in timezones with millions of people in them? I have over 200 million between the two

I have never had a problem finding numerous wargamers in my own timezone for TCP CM1 games.

Hey I was born in 1969 and have been playing computer wargames since the early 80's. PBEM since the early 90s. Granted each to their own but RT (autopause or variable speed games) are in a class of their own.

I have had many PBEM freinds over the years and when they have the time they always prefer some sort of RT combat. Something about waiting in the heat of battle for 20 mins to 96 hours for the next 60 second turn........just a turn off for some. Even for a 60's baby

[Pandur]

Best we can hope I think is to let Steve and Charles know that sometype of auto pause/variable speed is very important to a larger minority as they may think.

Not supporting battlefront will not get us what we would like. Buy the programs, support their efforts within the BF MP community. IMHO this is the only way to see quality tactical MP wargames.

my best hope is for an "semi" automated PBEM process within the game. RT with pause does not give me the replay i so much desire. i love watching the 1 minute movies over and over again from different perspectives and RT can never give me that, only PBEM could in a way. i am friggin stuck.

[Smithers]

I agree that the lack of TCP/IP WEGO is a huge bummer, but we knew this since years so I can't see this to be such a huge shocker.

Yes, PBEM is horrible and RT is way too fast and stressful, but really, the SP is great too!

Seriously, I can't stress the complete and utter crapness of PBEM enough...

What? Did you actually play CM:BO? CM:BB? or CMAK? Played each of them for years pbem and that worked perfectly well. I always like to watch the playback at least 2 times before sending a turn back. That is at least a two min time delay,to then fire off an e-mail adds about an additional min to that so approx every 4-5 min turns are flipped. When there is "nothing" to report or happening the turns go faster.

Stop the "game is fatally flawed" nonsense! It is a fantastic upgrade to the original series. Damn happy I put my $60 down for it. I already want the British expansion pack.

[Johnny Canuck]

Anyone with small children knows that PBEM is the only way to do it. ;-)

Yes, indeed. Even with older kids, I still like the ability to have a choice of PBEM or RT.

On the other hand, 18M files is just ludicrous. What are they including? Graphics? Movies?

The RT, however, should include either (variable speed and/or pausable RT) or (WEGO). Last thing I want is a clickfest.

[noxnoctum]

Nah, this is not HALO. It is the quality of the click not how fast you click. Quickly dispensed bad orders will only bring about your demise faster. Again you can pace a battle to suit your own response times, despite being as decrepit as those of us who have been out of school longer than we were in it are.

Eeeehhhhhh wrong.

I bet you anything a pro Korean Starcraft player could whoop anyone on these forums in a large, say battalion sized RT battle once he learns the mechanics.

Anything larger than a platoon-on-platoon battle speed is of the essence. Yes the "quality of the click" is hugely important but even if say player B is not as "tactically endowed" as player A, but still competent, if he can think significantly faster and pump out orders faster he will win.

That's what many of us don't like.

What's funny to me is all the old timers throwing out these generalizations about people who play ANYTHING ELSE other than wargames (oh the horror!) despite the fact that we're the very ones complaining that RT turns too much into a clickfest/speed contest and gives you no time to actually ENJOY watching the battle unfold. This would be largely remedied by an autopause option, though for battalion size battles I still think wego is necessary. Regardless, I will always miss (and want) the replay option. It's just FUN to watch your tank hit the other tank squarely in the right spot over and over!

If anything, now with 1-1, watching the replay would be even MORE enjoyable, since you can watch individual soldiers reloading and getting picked off. I know I enjoyed watching multiple times my squad leader shred a shrek team with his tommy from different angles .

I gotta admit I completely don't understand BFC's priorities. They want to "move forward" into the future with 1-1 and RT and all that jazz which is fine, yet they neglect multiplayer which is a KEY COMPONENT to any modern game (other than story based shooters, adventure games, RPGs and the like)!

[Tactical Wargamer]

Anyone with small children knows that PBEM is the only way to do it. ;-)

Haha I have a 4 year old. Every Saturday my wife allows me to do my TCP CM1 for 3-4 hours

Just have to pay her back later in the week......maybe a back massage or two and I'm good to hit the hedgerows!!

[Pandur]

I bet you anything a pro Korean Starcraft player could whoop anyone on these forums in a large, say battalion sized RT battle once he learns the mechanics.

this is as sure as the amen in church. and they will do it with the dirtiest of tricks driving the "oh so realistic" gameplay ad absurdum, while taunting you over TS that you are such a noob and dont know how to play this game

i can imagine this very good

[MikeyD]

People could make a laundry list of what the game isn't and doesn't do. No FPS through-the-scope shooting, no flight-sim-style vehicle control. No progressing through levels earning points. No online multiplayer WeGo. And you can't create your own virtual family like in the Sims. The game is what it is. And what it is, its very good at.

[noxnoctum]

People could make a laundry list of what the game isn't and doesn't do. No FPS through-the-scope shooting, no flight-sim-style vehicle control. No progressing through levels earning points. No online multiplayer WeGo. And you can't create your own virtual family like in the Sims. The game is what it is. And what it is, its very good at.

[Tactical Wargamer]

People could make a laundry list of what the game isn't and doesn't do. No FPS through-the-scope shooting, no flight-sim-style vehicle control. No progressing through levels earning points. No online multiplayer WeGo. And you can't create your own virtual family like in the Sims. The game is what it is. And what it is, its very good at.

Agreed.

I love playing FPS's and I am pretty decent for a 41 year old.

That being said I have played numerous RT CMSF games. You really have to know your keys no doubt, but SPEED is certainly a must. You have to react....mind you intelligently FAST

[Guest]

this is as sure as the amen in church. and they will do it with the dirtiest of tricks driving the "oh so realistic" gameplay ad absurdum, while taunting you over TS that you are such a noob and dont know how to play this game

I think this is wrong. I've played my fair share of RTSes (DoW, DoW2, CoH, and yes even some SC) and I have an idea of the kinds of players you're talking about.

When an APM player gets caught in his first MG42 crossfire and realizes his troops WON'T advance no matter how fast he clicks, he's screwed. Actions per minute do not equal decent tactics or a grasp on morale and terrain. Now a tactical genius and WW2 buff who *also* happens to be a high-APM Starcraft 2 player might be very, very good at keeping track of things in RT, but even that's not going to matter when he makes his first mistake.

[noxnoctum]

The problem is Mike brought up a bunch of ridiculous things that have no place in a wargame. People here are asking for something that was in a game released a decade ago.

Or fail that, a kind of "durh" multiplayer feature to go with realtime.

I agree though, it's very good at simulating platoon on platoon firefights in real time vs a human.

[rune]

OK, I will call you on this. Give me the numbers of people who want multi-player vs the number of people who will only play single player. While you gather the numbers, I will submit this.

BFC is a company who knows how many they sold and how the game is played. They determined the time to code, test, and recode multiplayer, and determined there are higher priorities to get in the game before multi-player.

They also know what would be required, if it was easy to code [as spoken by those who do not code, not aimed at you] it would have been in. Since it isn't then maybe, just maybe, it would NOT be easy to get in. Since Steve wanted multi-player and per side multiplayer in the game, and then lowered the priority of doing it, maybe there is a reason other then "they blew it?" [Again, not aimed at you]

Trust me, it is something I have pushed for for a long time, and will continue to do so. The rhetoric is ridiculous however.

Rune

Eeeehhhhhh wrong.

I bet you anything a pro Korean Starcraft player could whoop anyone on these forums in a large, say battalion sized RT battle once he learns the mechanics.

Anything larger than a platoon-on-platoon battle speed is of the essence. Yes the "quality of the click" is hugely important but even if say player B is not as "tactically endowed" as player A, but still competent, if he can think significantly faster and pump out orders faster he will win.

That's what many of us don't like.

What's funny to me is all the old timers throwing out these generalizations about people who play ANYTHING ELSE other than wargames (oh the horror!) despite the fact that we're the very ones complaining that RT turns too much into a clickfest/speed contest and gives you no time to actually ENJOY watching the battle unfold. This would be largely remedied by an autopause option, though for battalion size battles I still think wego is necessary. Regardless, I will always miss (and want) the replay option. It's just FUN to watch your tank hit the other tank squarely in the right spot over and over!

If anything, now with 1-1, watching the replay would be even MORE enjoyable, since you can watch individual soldiers reloading and getting picked off. I know I enjoyed watching multiple times my squad leader shred a shrek team with his tommy from different angles .

I gotta admit I completely don't understand BFC's priorities. They want to "move forward" into the future with 1-1 and RT and all that jazz which is fine, yet they neglect multiplayer which is a KEY COMPONENT to any modern game (other than story based shooters, adventure games, RPGs and the like)!

[noxnoctum]

I think this is wrong. I've played my fair share of RTSes (DoW, DoW2, CoH, and yes even some SC) and I have an idea of the kinds of players you're talking about.

When an APM player gets caught in his first MG42 crossfire and realizes his troops WON'T advance no matter how fast he clicks, he's screwed. Actions per minute do not equal decent tactics or a grasp on morale and terrain. Now a tactical genius and WW2 buff who *also* happens to be a high-APM Starcraft 2 player might be very, very good at keeping track of things in RT, but even that's not going to matter when he makes his first mistake.

And you don't seem to get that the people who play RTS games at a high level (not necessarily getting paid for it but GOOD) employ tactics like flanking, overwatch, diversionary attacks, etc. all the time. It's just with 4 legged aliens with giant mouths, not guys with K98s. Same principles though.

Just like any decent Starcraft player knows not to rush an enemy with a bunch of siege tanks set up on a cliff, he would know not to rush people in front of MGs. Most people DO know what a machine gun is you know.

And like I said, they would whoop anyone here once they learned the basic mechanics (controls + unit capabilities).

[Guest]

And you don't seem to get that the people who play RTS games at a high level (not necessarily getting paid for it but GOOD) employ tactics like flanking, overwatch, diversionary attacks, etc. all the time.

Yep, and I've seen them do it on arbitrary, made-up battlefields with no real thought for cover, LOS, or terrain features.

Just like any decent Starcraft player knows not to rush an enemy with a bunch of siege tanks set up on a cliff, he would know not to rush people in front of MGs. Most people DO know what a machine gun is you know.

And if he doesn't know where the MG is? Good RTS play is based on prediction. I would wager that the average CM battlefield is far more unpredictable (and harder to negotiate mentally) than the average RTS map. The average RTS map is MADE to be played on. The average CM map is designed to look and act like the real world. If you threw an RTS player into a new map every time he played, do you think he would play as optimally?

[noxnoctum]

OK, I will call you on this. Give me the numbers of people who want multi-player vs the number of people who will only play single player. While you gather the numbers, I will submit this.

BFC is a company who knows how many they sold and how the game is played. They determined the time to code, test, and recode multiplayer, and determined there are higher priorities to get in the game before multi-player.

They also know what would be required, if it was easy to code [as spoken by those who do not code, not aimed at you] it would have been in. Since it isn't then maybe, just maybe, it would NOT be easy to get in. Since Steve wanted multi-player and per side multiplayer in the game, and then lowered the priority of doing it, maybe there is a reason other then "they blew it?" [Again, not aimed at you]

Trust me, it is something I have pushed for for a long time, and will continue to do so. The rhetoric is ridiculous however.

Rune

You're right, if they continue to neglect multiplayer I'm sure far more people WILL be playing singleplayer! It's a vicious cycle .

They could draw in a lot more sales I'm sure if they boosted the MP capability.

Take a game like IL-2 Sturmovik for instance. Completely different genre, but I think you'd agree that it has a serious learning curve, if you've played it (at least for full real settings). (if you haven't well... just take my word for it).

Even now, a decade later, it is still getting played online, usually with 400-500 people on at any moment in a user-made lobby by a guy who just made it for free because Oleg and co. didn't bother to put in a multiplayer lobby.

The game would not have anywhere NEAR the amount of activity and continued sales if the guy who made HyperLobby had not shown up. (example: I fly regularly 3x a week with my squadron in big 80+ person battles with pre-assigned missions etc. for each flight... this would be flat out impossible or EXTREMELY difficult to coordinate if it were not for HyperLobby) Why? Because the AI sucks relative to any good human pilot.