BF, You Blew It

[noxnoctum]

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

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?

Yes. The reason these high level players are so good is because they adapt to situations very, very rapidly. The difference between Starcraft and Combat Mission is Starcraft is DESIGNED to be played at high speed, while Combat Mission is designed to be played with more time for thought involved---or so I thought. High level players are able to issue orders quickly AND think them through, that's why they're high level players.

And again, I said once they learned the basic mechanics (i.e. a PzII cannot kill an IS-2 from the front, trees provide cover, etc.)

You "wargame only" people aren't as brilliant in comparison to the rest of the populace as you think you are.

Anyways, I'm out for now.

[Buzzsaw]

CM1 + TCP/IP WeGo was some of the best fun I have ever had on a computer. I guess I'll need to give PBEM and/or RT a serious try this time around.

[LemoN]

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.

I can't see how the file-size is a problem as the files have to be transmitted anyway, be it PBEM or TCP/IP.

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.

Judging by this you obviously didn't even play TCP/IP WEGO as you can actually watch each turn to infinity and back again.

TCP/IP WEGO:

1: Issue orders

2: hit ok

3: watch turn 5 times

4: hit ok

Rince and repeat.

PBEM is simply awkward and slow and offers no advantages unless you want to play with a guy living 8 hours away from your timezone.

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.

Where did I ever say the game is flawed?

Just because I think PBEM is horribly outdated and belongs back in the 90's doesn't mean I think the game is flawed.

[Guest]

Yes. The reason these high level players are so good is because they adapt to situations very, very rapidly. The difference between Starcraft and Combat Mission is Starcraft is DESIGNED to be played at high speed, while Combat Mission is designed to be played with more time for thought involved---or so I thought. High level players are able to issue orders quickly AND think them through, that's why they're high level players.

Partly. They can move so fast because in an RTS they can make accurate predictions. They predict based on prior knowledge. They guess your build order because they have memorized the workable build orders and they scout your early game, they know the maps by heart, and they know the races like the backs of their hands. At least the very good players do.

But that isn't CM. In a CM QB (or new scenario) they can't know what you have. The maps are a hell of a lot harder to memorize. And even if they take a bunch of Tigers a handful of capably handled Shermans will knock them out (you can't "dance" with a Tiger). If an APM player learned the mechanics, they *might* get to be very good at a handful of maps. I think a decent CM player would beat them in a random game, though.

And again, I said once they learned the basic mechanics (i.e. a PzII cannot kill an IS-2 from the front, trees provide cover, etc.)

Right. So essentially a big fat strawman. An top-notch APM player who happens to know everything there is to know about military tactics and WW2-era equipment. If there's one in the world, have him send me an email.

You "wargame only" people aren't as brilliant in comparison to the rest of the populace as you think you are.

I think I listed my "credentials". And on top of RTSes I play other types of games. FPSes, third-person shooters, flight sims, puzzle games. Hell, I occasionally fire up MAME for some good old fashioned arcade gaming and break out the Wii controllers to play stuff with my family. I *work* on Combat Mission, but that doesn't mean it's the only, or only kind, of game that I play.

[kulik]

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.

Rune

Big truth in that, but as i was saying. The more features get in the game, the more the fact that you can't have more than a company force multiplayer game without the need to quit the game and sending files around stands out.

Till now we didn't have water, foxholes, ability to split scout teams, AT guns and other goodies (i appreciate the hard work behind all that). Yes there are still things that could be in (movable waypoints, attack armor only arc...) but the game feels complete now, so now when the CM2 engine moved to this high level we feel its time to add features for the players to enjoy all that makes the game good by implementing proper multiplayer mode.

Personally im in for a compromise, the autopause realtime doesn't needs a multiplayer rewrite (i guess i will enjoy the zoomed in action in singleplayer wego) and would make the game enjoyable for a large crowd who find RT too stressfull and PBEM too slow and cumbersome.

[chris talpas]

Add me to the list of people who would like to see some sort of autopause in TCP/IP RT. I've played both PBEM and TCP/IP with the original series and enjoyed both approaches (PBEM for the convenience with regards to scheduling) but when both parties had the time, nothing really beat the enjoyment and immersion of the TCP/IP game since you were able to stay within the moment.

If it is at all possible without too much programming investment, I'd love to see Battlefront implement some type of pause in online real-time. I think most would be willing to forgo the replay feature as a concession.

Chris

[LemoN]

Oh come on now, it's quite obvious that of two players with the exact same tactical proficiency the faster one will be scoring a way higher Win-loss ration in RT.

That's simply logical.

[rune]

Nox,

Still waiting for those numbers You didn't answer the question, do you think BFC knows how many they sold and the numbers being played? Since the players of this game tend to be older, with families and lives, I expect the amount of people playing multi-player to be less then a game like Starcraft.

As for IL2, yep, was in an squadron and we player at the higher levels. However, let's be realistic, being played 10 years later doesn't mean more sales. I already have the DVD, I don't need another one to play the game. People play the game cause they like the era and style of game. Ditto for CMBN, either people are going to like it and play, or they aren't. Multi-player isn't going to make a big difference.

However, that being said, doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have multiple players on each side. As I said, I have lobbied for that style of play for years. I will continue to do so. I just realize it may not be high on the list of things to add in asap. Do I want moveable waypoints first or multi-multi player? It is their living on the line, they do wrong, and we don't see anymore games. Since they have outlived most wargame companies, then maybe they know what they are doing?

Rune

[Guest]

Oh come on now, it's quite obvious that of two players with the exact same tactical proficiency the faster one will be scoring a way higher Win-loss ration in RT.

That's simply logical.

Yeah, *that's* logical. Assuming being an expert RTS player somehow makes you tactically proficient at a wargame set in the real world (even assuming mechanical-knowledge parity) is what I take issue with.

[Gryphonne]

All discussions about coop multiplayer, high APM players and everything, while cute, is not what this is about; so, what's the beef with autopause RT? Is it feasible on a short term scale with little resources yes or no? that's what we'd like to know I think.

[Gryphonne]

Yeah, *that's* logical. Assuming being an expert RTS player somehow makes you tactically proficient at a wargame set in the real world (even assuming mechanical-knowledge parity) is what I take issue with.

Well, in all honesty, I consider myself to be an expert RTS player and quite tactically proficient. In fact, I think I could very well best quite a few players here. Add a competitive element, and I will be clicking on that map like you've never seen before But that is not what CM is about, I don't want it to be some spastic experience, I want a good paced, relaxed and intense experience in the sense that it is exciting, not distressing.

[C'Rogers]

Hey, anybody remember when BFC had that posts in the early development stage that CMx2 might not be compatible with PBEM? Remember all the people who said that PBEM was the only way to "really" play the game and that you might as well not have multiplayer at all without PBEM? If I remember correctly, there were even avocations for making a worse game so it could have smaller file sizes to keep PBEM feasible. Ah, if I could go back in time and tell those people that one day there would be complaints that PBEM was the only way to play the game.

From everything I've heard, this is an either/or issue. We can have a very in depth game, or we can have multiplayer WEGO. I'd much rather have the better game, but I've adjusted to real time. I had a similar reaction to the OP, I felt betrayed when CM:SF came out with TC/IP WeGo, but the vast quantity of improvements more than compensated. Maybe the size of the game precludes TC/IP, maybe Charles just suddenly lost his excellent programming capability, but it is not something that will happen to my understanding. Pausable real time maybe (hopefully).

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

While I'd like more MP options, I'm pretty sure there switch to real time was the best method to increase sales.

[Pandur]

Assuming being an expert RTS player somehow makes you tactically proficient at a wargame set in the real world (even assuming mechanical-knowledge parity) is what I take issue with.

i think you make too much difference between these two. a wargame set in a "virtual real world" is a game like any other too where you learn mechanics and start beating "the game". if its a wargame or not doesnt make a tiny difference. you simply apply knowlage about game mechanics and expirience in the game to your play, no matter if wargame or RTS-normalo game.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

All discussions about coop multiplayer, high APM players and everything, while cute, is not what this is about; so, what's the beef with autopause RT? Is it feasible on a short term scale with little resources yes or no? that's what we'd like to know I think.

BFC have indicated in the past that they would like to have it in, but that the technical difficulties mean it is either some compromise solution or will take significant resources to do well.

Hard to say what/when. BFC has been known to surprise us all. But I would not hold my breath.

[aleader]

Also, I think this community is starting to severely show a lack of respect to people voicing their criticism lately (not necessarily related to the above post). I don't know what's up with that, but the fanboyism should be cut, period. There should be room for constructive criticism.

All in all, I'd like to hear Steve's opinion on the possibility of an autopause RT mode within CMBN still.

I'll second this post. I'm growing especially tired of the beta-testers coming on here and trying to make people feel stupid because they have opinions. Need to get out and socialize with real people a little more as this type of behaviour would not be tolerated face-to-face (cue flames...).

Think of the last time you returned something to a store with a complaint\criticism. What was the response you received from the store? Probably an apology and a full refund. Likely not a sarcastic lecture about how wrong you are for not liking certain aspects of their product.

We're all fans but in the end this is a product like any other and our praise and criticisms are our right. Last time I checked BF wasn't giving their games away...

And in the spirit of sticking to the original post, I don't have the time these days for online gaming so I'm stuck playing PBEM, but if I did play multiplayer I wouldn't want to play this game in RT either.

[herkybird]

most of my games are PBEM, because of having 4 of us playing each other at the same time, along with real life issues. But have to agree that a 60 auto pause for changing orders, scouting terrain for best possible usage against a changing battlefield would be nice. However, this is a great start to the old WW2 BF games.. There will be changes, and improvements... Great Job BF.. And thanks for bring back the root games....

SALUTE!!!

[LemoN]

From everything I've heard, this is an either/or issue. We can have a very in depth game, or we can have multiplayer WEGO. I'd much rather have the better game, but I've adjusted to real time.

I'd be really interested why having TCP/IP WEGO would be a problem. The game has to transmit the same amount of data anyway, be it PBEM or TCP/IP.

[C'Rogers]

What was the response you received from the store? Probably an apology and a full refund.

The difference here is whether something is 'broken' or fails to do what is advertised. If you expect a product to do something it wasn't intended to do, then your chance of a refund is drastically lower.

A person is of course entitled to their opinion. My opinion is that BFC made the right decision in their priorities. We have as much right to criticize your criticisms to indicate to BFC that we like the direction they're going. Would the game be better with TC/IP WeGo? Yes. Is it more important than other changes (multi-multiplayer for instance)? No. Not even close.

[panzermartin]

Auto pause would be great. Playing something bigger than a tiny scenario online isnt fun. The game simply wasnt designed to be played that way. Even if you are fast enough to study the terrain, the treeline that will hide your tank, the hull down positions, the cover arcs, the ammo count, the ammo types, etc etc and win, you will ultimately have LOST all the fun that CM is about.

What is CM without the numerous small combat vignettes, the little stories and the lovely details? The squads advancing in the wheatfields under a low afternoon sun, the first contact and the sporadic exchanging rifle shots, the melees with the grenades flying..or watching a PAK hidden under the shadows of a tree, reloading and firing round after round from first person perspective..All that is lost in a non stop game environment where you barely have the time to go lower.

I guess its time for a new sig line

[sburke]

I'll second this post. I'm growing especially tired of the beta-testers coming on here and trying to make people feel stupid because they have opinions. Need to get out and socialize with real people a little more as this type of behaviour would not be tolerated face-to-face (cue flames...).

Patience on all sides would probably be a very good thing. Titling a thread "BF you blew it" is sure to incite a reaction and probably blew from the start any ability to have a calm reasonable discussion unfortunately. Respect goes both ways, if you want the beta testers to be reasonable then don't just spit in their faces and act like they have no cause to feel slighted. We are all human here.

While I don't have as much interest in RT (though due to some of the posts an AARs I have been trying it, I just really love going back over a turn and watching the drama unfold) I can understand there are a large community who do and pausing would facilitate their enjoyment of the game. Case closed - a reasonable request based on a way to enhance their enjoyment of the product. Whether it is actually capable of being programmed I haven't the foggiest notion. What I did do is a search on the forum (because that is my pet peeve, very few people think to look up what has already been said- what a buddy of mine refers to as the 15 second rule - why spend the time if it only takes me 15 seconds to ask you...I hate it.) to see if I could find a post that would clarify from BFs viewpoint why it was not included in a succinct manner. I am sure something is out there and if anyone knows the link it would be greatly appreciated as it would add a rational presentation to what has become an increasingly irrational thread.

What I did find and has me chuckling away is the following. Yes it is off topic, but it is enlightening to see the kinds of reactions BF has to deal with in responding to some of our more um heated discussions.

Heh... this is the funniest "I Hate Change" thread I have seen so far. I mean I was literally laughing as I read this. It's been a long time since I've done that. Nowhere, at any time in the history of CM, has the method of behind-the-scenes calculations ever entered into the definition of WeGo. That's because it has no bearing on it since it is a method of play.

The length of time simulated, the method by which the numbers are crunched, and probably most other things people could come up with are irrelevant. Including the ability to replay the resolution. The reason? Because what does WeGo stand for? "I do my turn, you do your turn, and they are resolved together". That is *all* it is. Nothing more.

Now, like any other system ever invented, there are variations. Same was true for IGOUGO. But that doesn't change the basic structure. Adding the ability to PAUSE doesn't make a RealTime game not RealTime, for example. IGOUGO with special rules to allow the other side's guys to react (like Steel Panthers) doesn't make the game any less than IGOUGO. And having all the turn's resolution carried out in realtime instead of recompiled does not mean CM:SF is no longer WeGo. The notion is ridiculous to the extreme and is just another way to try and find fault with something because you don't like other aspects of it.

Let's face it, you WeGo guys (on the whole) are both jealous and scared of the RT aspect of CM:SF. Jealous because now there it's not completely your game any more. People can play it an entirely different way, and that bothers you. Especially if people LIKE playing it that way. Scared because you think that if too many people like the RealTime play then WeGo will go away completely and forever. The jealousy thing is understandable since we experienced that already by the Close Combat crowd as they watched interest in their game get challenged by a "stupid turn based game with bad graphics". The fear thing is also understandable, though I can't say enough that we will not drop support for WeGo ever. There is no reason for us to do that since we see the value in it. A large publisher... well, they never would have made CMBO in the first place so that's kind of irrelevant.

I can understand better, though not necessarily agree with, the argument that we did not offer a full set of ancillary features to CM:SF that you had in CMx1 games. But that has no bearing on the definition of WeGo. It is untouchable and not subject to reinterpretation simply because it suits a particular narrow line of argument. WeGo is in CM:SF, fully. Argue all you want about how well/complete it is implemented, but don't make the mistake of sounding foolish by saying it isn't in there. It is, no ifs ands or buts about it.

Steve

[Hiram Sedai]

Auto pause would be great. Playing something bigger than a tiny scenario online isnt fun. The game simply wasnt designed to be played that way. Even if you are fast enough to study the terrain, the treeline that will hide your tank, the hull down positions, the cover arcs, the ammo count, the ammo types, etc etc and win, you will ultimately have LOST all the fun that CM is about.

What is CM without the numerous small combat vignettes, the little stories and the lovely details? The squads advancing in the wheatfields under a low afternoon sun, the first contact and the sporadic exchanging rifle shots, the melees with the grenades flying..or watching a PAK hidden under the shadows of a tree, reloading and firing round after round from first person perspective..All that is lost in a non stop game environment where you barely have the time to go lower.

I guess its time for a new sig line

well said. I've played many RTS games and so many times, it was twitch speed that mattered. I use some of my awe inspiring strategery in CM games where the gamey rush worked well with the Starcraft/Warcraft/Supreme Commander games. With CM, its the AI that is gamey when I don't win.

[TBlaster]

Was the decision not to add a pause feature in RT play a technical one or by design?

If it is game engine related, then that's a huge oversight when programming it. If it's by design, then that's rather arrogant.

I would respectfully request an update on Battlefront's road map in regrads to multiplayer.

[panzermartin]

Got to add that the terrain and the models look so beautiful when in close up. Can we play RT online and also have the priviledge of admiring all the hard work of the BFC artists at the same time?

[TBlaster]

Patience on all sides would probably be a very good thing. Titling a thread "BF you blew it" is sure to incite a reaction and probably blew from the start any ability to have a calm reasonable discussion unfortunately.

You know - I tried that a few days ago in a thread titled "Multiplayer Issues" (or similar) and i had 3-4 responses to basically the same issue. Chances are Battlefront didn't even see it. There's a much better chance getting attention using a controverisal title.

[aleader]

The difference here is whether something is 'broken' or fails to do what is advertised. If you expect a product to do something it wasn't intended to do, then your chance of a refund is drastically lower.

A person is of course entitled to their opinion. My opinion is that BFC made the right decision in their priorities. We have as much right to criticize your criticisms to indicate to BFC that we like the direction they're going. Would the game be better with TC/IP WeGo? Yes. Is it more important than other changes (multi-multiplayer for instance)? No. Not even close.

Absolutely. And I'm not a 'fanboy' either way. If you like RTS, play it. But we don't need the sarcasm that we're seeing from 'some' of the posters on here, especially from the beta testers. And I can return anything to Costco anytime, no matter how stupid my reason may be. That's the beauty of Costco ;-)