Scenario timescales in Real-time versus We-Go

[Chris Ferrous]

In my opinion, it seems reasonable that scenario designers would need to modify the scenario length depending on whether or not it is played in real time or in we-go mode.

Surely far more can get done in a minute of we-go than I'd expect can be done on the fly in real time.

If so, what time scale ratio would players recommend?

Maybe, 50% more time for real time play?

[panzermartin]

Imo even the tiniest scenarios need 1:00 in RT(non pause).

[MengJiao]

In my opinion, it seems reasonable that scenario designers would need to modify the scenario length depending on whether or not it is played in real time or in we-go mode.

Surely far more can get done in a minute of we-go than I'd expect can be done on the fly in real time.

If so, what time scale ratio would players recommend?

Maybe, 50% more time for real time play?

Maybe just add half an hour? So that WEGO is 30 and RT is 1 hour on up to

WEGO is 1:30 and RT is 2:00

[xian]

I raised this issue just after CMBN's release but it was pretty much unanimously dismissed for the reason that players thought that having a short time limit seemed somewhat 'gamey'.

It was reasoned that battles should come to a natural conclusion instead of being cut short due to imposed time constraints.

I still think there is a call for publishing 2 versions of a mission if it is 'time critical'.

[GreenAsJade]

Is it really the case that more can be done we-go? Why is it the case?

Is it because RT players leave units lying around doing nothing because they are too busy to give them orders? If so ... that would seem to suck on the realism front. If not ... then they should be able to get the same amount done. Or even more, because We-go players have to wait till the next minute passes before they can adjust to changing circumstances...

GaJ

[xian]

I think it's a combination of thinking time and plotting moves for units. RT just seems to eat into the clock quickly. In WeGo you have all the time in the world to make your tactical decisions and plot your moves.

I know you can pause the game in RT, but if you pause all the time you might as well play WeGo.

[sburke]

I think it's a combination of thinking time and plotting moves for units. RT just seems to eat into the clock quickly. In WeGo you have all the time in the world to make your tactical decisions and plot your moves.

I know you can pause the game in RT, but if you pause all the time you might as well play WeGo.

But in RT you get to respond to threats immediately versus living with the consequences that you have in WEGO.

That being said, if I were to play RT I would want more time to allow for moving my forces more slowly in order to have some idea what the heck is going on. You just can't see everything and react the same way so (correct me if I am wrong here as I generally avoid RT) I expect RT players in larger battles would limit just how much of their force they will advance into contact in order to manage the consequences of those moves without pausing every 2 seconds.

[womble]

Is it really the case that more can be done we-go? Why is it the case?

Is it because RT players leave units lying around doing nothing because they are too busy to give them orders? If so ... that would seem to suck on the realism front. If not ... then they should be able to get the same amount done. Or even more, because We-go players have to wait till the next minute passes before they can adjust to changing circumstances...

GaJ

I don't play RT, but I can see that, to take reconnaissance, for example, when you've got to pay attention to what your recce units can see, you won't be able to spend as much time bringing your support/strike units forward as your recce units advance as someone playing WeGo would. A WeGo 'minute' can involve some pretty convoluted parallel activity: the scenario I'm playing at the moment, for example, I had 3 tanks doing popup attacks continuously, and each turn that took a lot longer than a minute to plot. All while my infantry were advancing by platoon bounding overwatch on the flank. Now, it's just about conceivable that someone with a much better handle on where 'hull down' is, and who never fluffs the laying down of their waypoints could issue all those orders in the space of a minute, it's much harder to do.

[MengJiao]

Is it really the case that more can be done we-go? Why is it the case?

Is it because RT players leave units lying around doing nothing because they are too busy to give them orders? If so ... that would seem to suck on the realism front. If not ... then they should be able to get the same amount done. Or even more, because We-go players have to wait till the next minute passes before they can adjust to changing circumstances...

GaJ

Essentially you are right: RT players (if they are like me) don't give as many orders. For me that is one of the attractions of RT; you give orders as you see fit. I'm not sure about the realism, but for me it seems more immersive to give orders and watch them play out. Of course eventually, when things get rough, you end up giving a lot of orders and taking a lot more actual time than a WEGO player can at that point. So, in my experience, in RT you spend more battle time to fight a battle (perhaps that is realistic?). It can take roughly an hour and fifteen minutes of game time to get an infantry battalion to take a village against a moderate defense, and that is if all goes well. That's roughly a 500 meter advance against moderate opposition in one hour, which seems about right.

[MengJiao]

But in RT you get to respond to threats immediately versus living with the consequences that you have in WEGO.

That being said, if I were to play RT I would want more time to allow for moving my forces more slowly in order to have some idea what the heck is going on. You just can't see everything and react the same way so (correct me if I am wrong here as I generally avoid RT) I expect RT players in larger battles would limit just how much of their force they will advance into contact in order to manage the consequences of those moves without pausing every 2 seconds.

Yes, I think advance to contact is the trickiest thing to manage in RT and it is essentially what slows down the game. In RT, I hesitate to commit a platoon into an unclear situation since I'm not going to be able to supervise every minute and I usually over-compensate with an extra round of scouting and support fire and that takes time.

[mjkerner]

I play mostly RT and just go into the editor and give myself an extra half hour or so. I realize that in RL, sometimes you need to take that objective NOW! But then there are those times when it's "1400 hours and we need to secure the ville by nightfall, so move slow and deliberate and keep those casualties down..I don't wan't to have to write any letters tonight!"

[Chris Ferrous]

So we don't seem to have reached a concensus on this issue.

For the moment I won't make any adjustments in timings until I've experienced both formats. I usually play in we-go and so overall I find I am able to do less in real time.

For what it's worth, I believe CM1 which had we-go mode only probably permited 3-5 times more to get done in an hour than could be done in real life. I suppose it depends whether playing in real time is more like real life than we-go?

[Sgt Schultz]

The designer can set a variable end time of up to 15 minutes, in 5 minute increments. For a 30 minute battle, that is 50% more time if you are fully engaged and the issue is in doubt.

I would tend to agree that RT players would most likely need more game time on the clock to accomplish what a WEGO player would.

As stated above, it is a trivial exercise to go into the editor and slap a few more minutes on the battle and save, then play. Save it as "battlenameRT", so you have both versions ready.

[xian]

Perhaps scenario designers should make two versions. Should a player really decide how much extra time he needs to complete a mission? Kinda goes against the spirit of the game.

[Sgt Schultz]

You are correct xian. Two versions would be better, to adjust the Plans to the new timeframe.

-

[HardRock]

I play RT exclusively. Just never cared for the WEGO. Either way I like tiny battles which is a lot to command properly in itself.

I need two hours so usually play quick battles. (Didn't think I could edit time in the campaigns so might try that).

Whats nice about RT is you pause to make all your orders and then can get right down to the action of a couple units to watch the glory:) Again pausing when new threats or orders arise. Its a lot of pausing but it still seems to have a good flow. I pause sometimes when I see tracer fire to see where its coming from.

[Invader_Canuck]

I prefer wego, but play RT since I prefer multiplayer.

At the company level in CMx1 I would almost always attack on two axis', in CMx2 I will almost always attack on one. Strictly due to the time constraints and the realities of RT. I can't be jumping between two advances because if you are not paying attention you can lose an entire attacking force at a crucial moment.

You also have to be more deliberate in your movements which takes more time. Setting up most of a company for an assault will take 3-4x longer than it would in wego.

[Chris Ferrous]

As much as 3-4X as long!

That seems a bit extreme. AI plans would need totally re-jigging to extend a scenario that far.

I think I'll work with about a 33% extension for real-time play.

[rwcanuck]

For old farts like me I cannot keep anymore with the AI in real time games. Whereas in Close Combat games I can because of the option to slow the real time speed down. Any chance of an option to slow the real time movements down in CMBN?. With multiple units it is just impossible to keep up with the AI.

[GerryCMBB]

I would vote for this too.

I "complained" about scenario length in another thread. Now I am wondering if scenario length is set so long to give more time to RT players. Someone in the know maybe can tell us.

Thanks,

Gerry

Perhaps scenario designers should make two versions. Should a player really decide how much extra time he needs to complete a mission? Kinda goes against the spirit of the game.

[Praetori]

I play RT most of the time.

Although my approach might be a little bit different or so I've figured.

Giving orders in RT takes a lot more time than in WeGo since I have to pre-plan the battle thoroughly. The inability to modify/move waypoints is a b***h tbh.

When I've gotten my units to where I want them I start with the pause command (with time still running) for the units I'm giving orders to, this enables some sort of synchronization and plays out a bit like it does in real life. After all the orders are given I tell the units to start moving. A simple order to for a platoon to advance, take and defend usually eats up some 5-10 minutes of the scenario time. I don't like to use the time-pause feature as that would stop any other units from doing their stuff in the meantime. I can have one platoon performing orders while I'm issuing new ones for another platoon.

My own observations are that I get much less situational awareness compared to WeGo but a better sense of the flow of the battle. The efficiency is much less than in WeGo as units might be left hanging (which is entirely realistic if they haven't received updated orders) but the ability to influence the combat instantly makes up for that IMO.

In general I don't like the current scenario time constraints at all. I'd much rather have seen point adjustment depending on time used or time dependent objectives or more reinforcements/exits if you fail to meet the mission time parameters.

[LJFHutch]

Typically I play tiny or at most medium in RT, the only time I've had too much happening was when doing a small MP game as attacking US forces. It was a long map and managing 3 advances was a bit much.

When defending or for meeting engagements however I would take the same amount of time in RT as in Wego because there is much less that needs adjusting.

[Wodin]

I don't think the time limits need changing to be honest..I think all scenarios should be very generous with their turn\time limit. Playing against the clock seems wrong to me.

[Erwin]

I agree. I think casualties is a better indicator of how well you are doing/have done than any Victory Level as well.

I figure < 5% friendly casualties is good, >10% friendlies and you have effectively destroyed your own formation for future action (based on what I recall re historical stats).

[Pak40]

So we don't seem to have reached a concensus on this issue.

For the moment I won't make any adjustments in timings until I've experienced both formats. I usually play in we-go and so overall I find I am able to do less in real time.

For what it's worth, I believe CM1 which had we-go mode only probably permited 3-5 times more to get done in an hour than could be done in real life. I suppose it depends whether playing in real time is more like real life than we-go?

I play both WE-GO and RT(single player). I get a LOT more done in real time. I can often complete a scenario's objectives with 20 to 30 minutes to spare. The reason for this is that in WE-GO, you often have units sit around at the end of a turn because they've completed their orders. However, in real time I can pause at any moment and give immediate orders to a unit that is just lying around, therefore keeping him moving.

Obviously this wont work in large battles for RT multiplayer because you can't pause.