WeGo missions need less time than RealTime

[xian]

In comparison to CM1:

So far I have never felt any pressure from the mission time constraints when playing the attacker in WeGo mode. I remember having to push forward in CM1 (despite my reservations - I'm a naturally cautious player) in order to complete a mission in time. This added to the drama of a some missions. It especially made sense if the mission was designed to be 'time critical'.

I get the feeling that scenario designers have based the length of a CMBN mission on what makes sense for playing in RealTime (where thinking time rapidly eats into the the clock).

Are other players finding that they can complete all objectives and still have loads of time left in WeGo mode?

Are we going to see scenario designers creating missions specifically for each mode of play?

Thoughts, anyone?

[ChrisND]

I get the feeling that scenario designers have based the length of a CMBN mission on what makes sense for playing in RealTime (where thinking time rapidly eats into the the clock).

I highly doubt that is the case. I sure wasn't taking any mode into account when I made my missions.

[zukkov]

no offense mate, but speak for yourself. some of us need the time! :-p

[Phoenix]

Yah, no kidding. I personally hate short time constraints. Always felt it was artificial.

[Cull]

Not sure about intentional design (or how much times differ vs Cmx1) but yeah, I like having enough time. Gives chances for regrouping, calming fragile psyches, etc, and it feels more real---I like seeing the natural lulls in the fight.

Speaking of: I just played my first ever real-time CM battle and, as a genuine hater of RTS play, I.....I enjoyed it. I just might get used to it (wishing, of course, that replay was available).

I found that while the RTS aspect did sometimes makes things hectic, there was always the handy pause button to allow me to regroup my own fragile psyche , and figure out what the hell I was doing.

And I kind of liked seeing orders get executed instantly, and not having to wait through a full minute when I realized I'd made a terrible blunder.

I do think I'd have considerable trouble enjoying real-time in a battle much bigger than company sized, but for that and smaller, it's pretty nifty.

[lookeylou]

Yah, no kidding. I personally hate short time constraints. Always felt it was artificial.

For me time constraints feel more real world. It may not be fun. but its more accurate. Anyone who have served in any force knows about "hurry up and wait". Time constraints are artificially imposed in the real world most of the time. But other times it isn't. Eg. needing to secure a LZ or a bridge before its wired to blow etc etc

[YankeeDog]

I think the thing about time constraints is that the scenario needs to give a plausible reason why the attack needs to succeed or fail in X minutes. Company-level tactical engagements don't happen in a vacuum, and there's plenty of plausible reasons why an attack might need to succeed on a certain timetable.

Example:

The big picture is that the defender is trying to complete a fighting withdrawal, and needs to hold the objectives on this map for X minutes to give the Division's support formations (artillery, supply, etc.) time to cross a bridge. This gives a reason why the defender wants to achieve the objective quickly -- if he does so, he gains a piece of high ground from which there is LOS to the bridge, so he can call down artillery on the retreating enemy. But if the attack takes too long, it's too late and the bulk of the enemy forces have escaped.

But arbitrary, "this battle will last x minutes because that's what's balanced" can feel kind of weird. Just a few sentences in in the briefing can go a long way towards making a time limit seem "real".

[Phoenix]

Well, I dunno. Have never been in combat, but I doubt there's a timer running, or even orders that say "Guys, you have 35 minutes to complete this mission".

Agreed with YankeeDog. If the designer makes a compelling reason for a time limit I can buy in. But just randomly making it short to make it harder, no. That sucks.

[Wodin]

I'm happy with the time set by the scenario makers....cutting it will be more of a disadvantage to some than any percieved advantage to others.

[SNAFU]

I've actually found myself with plenty of time at a scenarios end. I think the question originally posted, "Are we going to see scenario designers creating missions specifically for each mode of play?" is a good one and interesting to ponder. It's somthing I'll be thinking about when I set out to build scenarios.

[YankeeDog]

Well, I dunno. Have never been in combat, but I doubt there's a timer running, or even orders that say "Guys, you have 35 minutes to complete this mission".

Actually, the plans for military operations are full of timetables. Unit 1 is tasked to seize objective A by 0830 so that Unit B can safely cross the river to attack objective B at 0845, etc.

Of course, the old "no plan survives contact with the enemy" holds for timetables too. But in general, military planners are very concerned with timing, and what is often referred to as "Operational Tempo." There's often a lot of pressure on lower-level tactical commanders from higher-ups to seize objectives quickly, so that some larger operational objective can be achieved before the enemy is able to react and move to counter, or whatever.

[Migo441]

I guess I take an agnostic view of time limits. They are a tool or lever for the scenario designer to adjust just like the terrain, the numbers and qualities of the opposing forces, etc... I do agree that an explanation of unusually short time limits helps with the immersion.

I agree with the OP that performing similar movements/tasks seems to take longer in real time seems as compared to we-go. Not necessarily longer in elapsed real-life time (although that can be the case too), but longer in elapsed game time due to an accumulation of "wasted" time spent thinking while the clock is running or periods of non-productivity for some units as they hold in place with the player's attention elsewhere. Liberal doses of the pause feature can, of course, greatly limit the lost game time. But it seems that liberal doses of the pause feature also take the "real" out of real-time and, at some point, you may as well play turn based and gain the rich replay features, etc...

In any case, I think it's cool that CMx2 supports both real time and we-go. To each their own!

[Blackcat]

... "Are we going to see scenario designers creating missions specifically for each mode of play?" ...

I raised a similar point back in CMSF having found that some scenarios designed and tested under RT played very differently in WEGO (this was more to do with the AI actions which, in the absence of triggers, are sometimes time based) and visa versa, of course. I got shouted down in no small measure, but I remain convinced my basic point was valid. Some, maybe most, scenarios do give a different experience depending on the mode of play chosen.

[xian]

I highly doubt that is the case. I sure wasn't taking any mode into account when I made my missions.

I didn't mean that those scenarios already created took account of mode of play, I was merely wondering if it might be something designers such as yourself take into account in the future.