CMBN 2.0 patch is here

[undercovergeek]

you need a hand let me know

[DoctorQuest]

No thanks.

[Yskonyn]

Well in the real War the sides couldn't take their leisurely time either.
The time constraits give a sense of urgency apart from keeping the balance as discussed before.
Still, I find that you mostly have more than enough time to be patient with your maneuvering. But just camping somewhere or playing the turtle doesn't work in CM games, just like it wouldn't have worked in real life.

If you look at the excellent Armchair General hosted videos here you can see how well the game actually works using real life tactics.

This, at the same time, is also the thing that makes CM a hard game. You really need to know what you're doing and most Command and Conquer RTS game tactical won't work. :)

It has been a hurdle to take for quite some time for me as well, so I can identify with your sentiments. But I am making progress.
It just is a different type of game.

[JudgeDredd]

With all due respect Yskonyn - it is a game. I'm not really that bothered if it really mimics real life or not...I just want to play a game and I don't want to be forced to play it "their way".

I've never liked time limits in games...ANY genre of game.

I'm not asking for it to be dumbed down for all the die hards that want time constraints and for it to reflect the pressures commanders were under back in the day - I just want the option to NOT have the time constraint forced onto me - I want to play it my way - not their way.

Nuff said...you enjoy it your way and I guess in the end I'll do what I normally do - play at a pace I'm comfortable with, realise I've got less time than required to take the objectives and fail...only to try again then quit and look at the icon longlingly for months on end.

And thanks for the link. I have seen those videos - they are excellent but I lost the link sometime past.

[jomni]

Do you play RT or Turn based?  You can save a lot of time doing RT.  I never played CMBN but CMSF seems time have more time. And you can actually win by inflicting casualties instead the enemy will hand over the objectives to you when the game ends via surrender.

[JudgeDredd]

I always play real time.

I used to love WEGO in the original games but CMx2 changed all that and it's totally suited imo to real time.

What Yskonyn said has alot of truth in it - I don't play the games well...but I as Zulu said - it's not really about winning either...I just don't like time constraints.

[Yskonyn]

I didn't mean it in a disrespectful way, but I am sure many of us are playing CM 'the wrong way'. In light of this discussion.
CM is just a hard core game which punishes you brutally when you fail to command properly.
I loose more battles than I win and the ones I do win are mostly not in a pretty way.
The point I am trying to make though, is that CM is not a game for the casual RTS crowd but a game for people enjoying realism to its fullest.
It's no shame that it might not be for everyone, but if you're getting fed up with it time and again then perhaps you should just accept this might not be in your alley.
Again with all due respect.

Having that said, or written more like, I see no problem with at least giving to option for unlimited time to those who might want it. Good point.

[JudgeDredd]

I didn't think you meant it disrespectfully

Maybe in it's current format it isn't the game for me...but everything about the game (how it plays, how it looks, the scale) is right up my alley and suggests to me the game IS for me - I just do not want to be forced to play it a way in which I don't feel comfortable playing it. As you say - and option wouldn't hurt anyone - everyone would be a winner.

I haven't ever bought Witp:AE because it's a theatre I'm unfamiliar with and therefore not really one I like to game in, it's way too in depth, the scale is too big, it's a micro managers dream and the UI is not pleasant. Totally polar opposite to Combat Mission - there's a slight niggle with CMx2 - and unfortunately that niggle stops me playing it as often as I'd like.

I guess if I'm throwing good money after bad (by buying their next iteration/patch/mod) and then not playing because the same thing is there - then I'm not really sending them the message I want them to get. So I only have myself to blame...

But I love the games and just about everything about the games - I hate the time element.

[Yskonyn]

Upping the time limit to 4 hours in the scenario editor might alleviate your problem.
As noted above, it won't work with the Campaign, but in regular scenarios it does. And who knows, perhaps you'll find it becomes much more enjoyable because you can take your time, as a result become a better player and as a secondary result don't mind the time limit as much anymore afterwards! :P  ;D

[JudgeDredd]

That does seem the way to go - I hadn't known about editing the scenarios before undercovergeek had mentioned it.

I'm not sure upping the time limit in scenarios is going to teach me to play well...as I'd likely go in the campaign wanting to play the way I did in the edited scenarios - but still at least I'd get some play time.

[Yskonyn]

Yes, but what I meant was that perhaps by not feeling the time constraint in the regular scenarios you are more at ease, resulting in more focus on your gameplay, making you a better player over time in turn.
;D

Highly theoretical of course, but hey, you already paid for the game, no?  :)

[MengJiao]

Well I've never gone into the editor...but as Zulu said - a limitless scenario could be an option. If I run about the internet bitching about how easy the AI is because I beat it in a 12 hour scenario - then I think alot of people would understand there isn't really a problem.

Besides - like I said, there could be more defenders to balance it...give me an extra hour or two and throw in another company or two or armoured support or artillery. I don't really care how they balance it - but imo forcing the player to meet a deadline is pants...some people like it - I don't. If I did, I'd probably play alot more RTS games. I don't like pressure in real life and I definitely don't like it in my gaming.

I didn't know you could edit the scenarios and I will do that - thanks. Pity about the campaigns though.

You can take the campaigns apart and edit them too.

Lately I've just been taking quick battle maps and doing small battles on those.  Ie using the map with its objectives and what not and then editting in whatever I want.

[Sir Slash]

The thing I would like to see is being that you score vic. points for inflicting losses on the enemy and avoiding your own losses in many scenarios, a running tally of losses as the scenario progresses so you know where you stand. Maybe beyond the game's capability and totally unrealistic at least for your enemy but even a message that you've incurred more than the 10% limit or whatever would be a help. It's impossible for me to try to count up my losses as I play and I could know if it's worth it to try to "Medic" my wounded or not. On a related note, the OTHER site(Wargamer) has an AAR video of the CMFI American campaign that's pretty interesting. If only the narrator would shut-up about the war and talk about the game some. 8)

[Boggit]

Whilst I can see in some real life situations there would have been pressure of time mostly the guys doing the fighting would have taken as long as it needed to keep themselves alive. Personally I always open up the scenario and edit it to increase the time to the maximum. Unfortunate you cant do that with the campaign scenarios but I find 4+ hours long enough for most of the situations represented. Why battlefront cant just add a "no time limit" setting is a mystery to me

It's an interesting idea. I can think of some battles when I could have done with that option. Have you suggested it to Battlefront? I reckon it would be a good feature.

[Bison]

One of the features I'd like to see is a shorter turn.  Maybe a 30 second option in addition to the 60 second turn.