CMN: No WeGo TCP/IP with Replay

KG_Jag

KG Vice Kommandir
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
180
Location
New Braunfels, TX/Reno, NV
Country
llUnited States
Steve's BF forum post #20 from yesterday:

"I'll restate our positions

1. We are not putting in TCP/IP WeGo with replay any time soon. Absolutely, and without any doubts, it will not show up in Normandy. Not even as a patch later on. There's no chance, and I mean less than zero, that this position will change. We've been clear about this for 2 years now and as we get towards the end of Normandy's development I can say for sure that this absolutely will not change. Period.

2. We are still hoping to get in TCP/IP WeGo without replay for Normandy. Ideally it would be in the initial release. It is still our goal to make this happen, however it is not something that we will allow to hold up the release of Normandy if we find we can't get it into the initial release.

3. We do plan on having a dynamic pause feature for TCP/IP RealTime. The feature will have rules and feature constraints (determined by the players) as to how often and how long pauses can be made. There will be an option, of course, to have no restrictions on this and just let the players sort out for themselves their own rules. We have no specific timeframe for this feature, but personally I would like to see it implemented as soon as possible. At this point "as soon as possible" is Bulge, not Normandy.

4. Eventually we would like to see TCP/IP WeGo with replay. The desire is definitely there. The problem is finding feature requests to sacrifice from our development schedule in order to free up the significant programming and testing resources to make this work. Our schedule is full and will always be full, thanks to the thousands of requests from you guys Therefore, taking a month or so out of our development schedule to get this working correctly (assuming we can) means major sacrifices to the rest of the game. Obviously people who are fanatics about TCP/IP WeGo with Replay might feel that such sacrifices are worth it without even knowing (or caring) what those sacrifices are. However, we think the majority of our customers will not be at all happy with such a development sacrifice. Which is why we currently have no plans on putting in TCP/IP WeGo with replay EVEN THOUGH we definitely (conceptually) want this feature into the game.

Knowing that fighting with reality is a bad idea is step 1 in developer enlightenment. Knowing that a fight with reality can never be won is step 2 in developer enlightenment. We're at step 10 or 11 by now

Steve"

Link:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84138&page=2
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
To quote (in the same tone) as Clint Eastwood's character from "A fistful of dollars" at Steve,
"Are you makin' some kind of joke?"

:mad:
 

KG_Jag

KG Vice Kommandir
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
180
Location
New Braunfels, TX/Reno, NV
Country
llUnited States
No reason to doubt that WeGo (in the current watered down and comprised CMSF version to fit as second fiddle to RT) will be in CMN. It just won't have the replay feature in TCP/IP that CM x 1 did.

It is another CM x 1 feature lost or watered down after (what will be) 2 1/2 years and running of CM x 2.

P.S. "Developer enlightment" must be at least a 100 step process.
 
Last edited:

Palantir

Member #86
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
1,620
Location
The Heartland
Country
llUnited States
BFC: :paperbag:
CM:N- smaller, fewer features, fewer options, fewer units... :toilet:

:hmmm: Can someone remind me what was the "new & improved" part of CMx2 I was supposed to be excited about again? :argh:

Can't simply be graphic's, by the time it comes out they will be a generation behind.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
61
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
But TCP/IP's been hamstrung ever since CMSF right? So leaving it hamstrung for CMN doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

-dale
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
WEGO is better now than it was and to be honest TCP players really do make up a very small portion of players I think. I dont think ive had more than 20 TCP games of CM in all my time playing it.

SF has several good things going for it, not least is the Mouse control for moving and zooming, its far far better than CM-1.

If Im being honest I think that CMSF edges it for me overall in the ease of playability for me. There are many features in it that aid play, and believe it or not, for smaller games RT is very much more responsive and I find that for company sized scenarios I am not turning anything into a click fest.

So no TCP WEGO isnt really a problem for me as I havent even played an RT TCP game yet. PBEM is better though as you get to view/plot every turn.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
In my book the replay is a very important feature in a game like CM.

These games are supposed to be played with realistic tactics, and that means simultaneous action in different spots on the map. You can't see what is happening all over the map at once. For better or worse, you directly command multiple disjoint units in these games.

There are exception such as TacOps, which doesn't have replay (outside the whole-game replay, which CMx1 should have had, too). But in TacOps compbat is strictly linear, things happen one after another, nothing simultaneous and the viewpoint optionally jumps to where weapons are fired.

In RTSes you usually have unrealistic compressed maps or you have very sharp mission focus on a single point of the map, or both, all of which solves this problem, too.
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
BFC: :paperbag:
CM:N- smaller, fewer features, fewer options, fewer units... :toilet:

:hmmm: Can someone remind me what was the "new & improved" part of CMx2 I was supposed to be excited about again? :argh:

Can't simply be graphic's, by the time it comes out they will be a generation behind.
ballistic modeling
1:1 representation
graphics

I'm sure there are many other features that escape my feeble mind.
 

mOBIUS

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
650
Reaction score
4
Location
Kalifornia
ballistic modeling
"Are you makin' some kind of joke?"

How many times do you need to calculate the trajectory of an 88mm APHE shell? One time.
You can do it right now then save the data in a table. I have a ballistics program designed for that and it takes about 25 seconds to run the 88mm. Then save it to a table and it takes nano seconds to lookup.
 

KG_Jag

KG Vice Kommandir
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
180
Location
New Braunfels, TX/Reno, NV
Country
llUnited States
1:1 representation
Man--that's a can of worms that has been much discussed here and elsewhere.

In short--useless in RT; no individual control of each soldier in WeGo (or RT). It seems to distract from the game in terms of realism and produces strange results/actions of units as it is presently modeled in game.

I do like the extra end of move command that can be added in CM x 2. But overall the interface and commands avialable have been sacrificed for ease of play in RT.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I also cannot agree on these CMx2 advantages.

The new armor penetration ballistics might be better, or not. Since the values are exposed in no way for all we know BFC put Panzer General's penetration model in there. I am also not convinced that the hit model based on 3D model is that much better than the point-based model in CMx1. The 3D model exposes you more to errors in TacAI. It would be much better if the crew had individual points of looking out, which would for example enable turret-down positioning, but this hasn't been done.

Clearly, 1:1 is only an improvement in that it got rid of the graphical oddity of showing less men than modeled and move them in unison. The price we pay in positioning problems is very high, though.
 

Palantir

Member #86
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
1,620
Location
The Heartland
Country
llUnited States
Hmmm, ok then:

ballistic modeling
Didn't see it before so I don't care how they do it now as long as it makes sense.

1:1 representation
For an undersized company MAX, but with several Battalions running around on the map & armor assets & Arty units- no way.

But wait, will we even be able to have a scenario with several Batt's running around on it in CM:N? So how many men would that realistically be? 2000+ individual men running helter-shelter across the map because I can't control 2000 men individually & tactically realistically in RT? And if I have to pause the game every 1 second to control my guys how is that "RT" anyway?

Not as high on my list as playability. This is starting to seem more like a revamped real-time "Call of Duty" with a third person view-point & hands on support-unit control (if you can click a lot) than CM.
 

British Tommy

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
737
Reaction score
9
Location
mission control, UK
Country
ll
We can talk about this all day but so far, all we have seen is a still photo of a Tiger tank. If they are in advanced stages with the game, surely by now they would have posted a few 'bones'. Maybe there's some major headaches which are now showing up?
Palantir has a good point concerning the amount of infantry running about the map. Will this restrict scenario designers to say just a few platoons to make it manageable for the players? How will this affect historical made scenario's? Will the scenario designer end up telling the players in the briefing that they will have to imagine they are in command of a company when in fact all they have is two infantry platoons? So many questions left unanswered and little to base our comments on. I'm starting to get slightly worried about CMN.
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
"Are you makin' some kind of joke?"

How many times do you need to calculate the trajectory of an 88mm APHE shell? One time.
You can do it right now then save the data in a table. I have a ballistics program designed for that and it takes about 25 seconds to run the 88mm. Then save it to a table and it takes nano seconds to lookup.
Didn't they say that CM2 models the shell ballistics of every single shell in the game? from rifles, mortars, up to 88mm?
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
We can talk about this all day but so far, all we have seen is a still photo of a Tiger tank. If they are in advanced stages with the game, surely by now they would have posted a few 'bones'. Maybe there's some major headaches which are now showing up?
Palantir has a good point concerning the amount of infantry running about the map. Will this restrict scenario designers to say just a few platoons to make it manageable for the players? How will this affect historical made scenario's? Will the scenario designer end up telling the players in the briefing that they will have to imagine they are in command of a company when in fact all they have is two infantry platoons? So many questions left unanswered and little to base our comments on. I'm starting to get slightly worried about CMN.
The battles now work Ok. The good designers tend to tell you how it should be played, RT or WEGO depending on the size. If the map is smaller, then RT is the way to go (you can still pause in RT to move around and give orders), if the map is larger with more forces (say Company+) then you play WEGO.

Sometimes I even try and play the larger ones RT as it gives much more opportunity to be flexible. You can stop that tank rather than have it run into an ambush youve just noticed etc. But as I said, it depends on the situation.

So to answer your question, its no! CMN will be able to be played in the same way and with the same amount of troops as CM-1, if thats the way you want it to.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
Let's not forget that all things equal CMx2:WW2 will be better than CMx2:normal.

Reason being that the maps are too small to play realistic tactics with modern weapons (TacOps and Steel Beasts players know what I'm talking about).
 

avl90

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
251
Reaction score
2
Location
The Clouds
No problems running TCP/IP games? I haven't had much luck with them, even with 1.2. A friend and I couldn't get it to work, the game would get out of sync or something and hang after only a minute or so of play.
 
Top