Matrix Games Forums

I'll place here the question I've placed in COTA forum, since I noticed that this forum seems to be more active now.

For some players, playing a wargame is a lot of fun even when no challenge is present. I mean, some will feel good just by reproducing a conflict studied by him previously. Some will just want to watch a 'simulation' of the conflict and some will feel happy playing hotseat and dealing with a loved subject.
For me, a game is a game, and I need the intelectual challenge. I need this feel of loosing a scenario and having to think deeply about what I have to do to win, to deal with the battles I wasn't able to deal with when first playing the scenario.
The problem is that I don't know any AI able of producing such a challenge and I've read plenty o reviews that, even if praising COTA AI, when compared to others, assert that the strategic AI is easy to beat. Well, it wouldn't be a flaw, since I don't know of any game with good strategic AI.
Here I come to the point. I don't have the time to play for hours ininterruptly, so that PBEM was always the way to go (playing a human was always the only way to be challenged in a wargame). A real time game doesn't allow for PBEM, but if we consider that games like Combat mission can be, more or less, real time game with specific phases (one can't assign orders in real time, but the engine implements the orders when running in real time). Please, don't take the term 'real time' litterally here. Wouldn't it be feasible to run a game like COTA using in two modes: real time and wego? The implementation of a resolution phase based on a agreed time lapse by the players would be enough. The game would run for, let's say, 20 simulated minutes (this would depend on players agreement based on scenario length and complexity), and then players should adjust orders. PBEM would be possible then and the only change in the game mechanics would be the impossibility of players to change orders during the established time lapse.

There have been discussions about this before (though I don't remember the conclusions). It's a good point and some players would certainly benefit from it, but I don't think it's a high priority. Conceptually, though, one could argue that PBEM would go against AA's design philosophy. The beauty of the engine and interface is how *flexible* the command structure is. You set out all your plans in advance, then only interfere again when you want to make modifications to it, or when you anticipate something from the enemy. Sometimes you'll be issuing new orders every few minutes, other times you'll be spending hours without a single order. Going PBEM and segmenting the game into set periods of time, while *doable*, would work against this design.

More so than PBEM, the next multiplayer I'd be really really interested in would be co-op (which I may or may not have emphasized in numerous threads! [:D]).

For the moment, I guess, I'm content with the status quo. I'm just happy I managed to convert one of my gaming buddies onto the system, so we can duke it out in PvP. We'll even go visit Arnhem later this year!

Thanks Llyranor for the answer. Yet, I'm not suggesting that the game focus should be changed. Just adding a 'resolve' phase would only add flexibility, I think. One could use it or not, so that the game wouldn't change. Most people like to play against other humans and don't have the time to stop all activities to do it during a long lapse of time. Even if not ideal, it could be a solution for those who want to play the game this way. I'm not a programmer, but it doesn't seem to be a difficult task. In fact, it seems it is already possible to do it pausing the game at pre determined (by players, based on scenario) points, setting orders and pressing play. The problem here is that, without a 'resolve' command made for such a purpose, players would have to be trustworthy since cheating would be easy.

I think (though I seldom play PvP) that CotA allows you to hook up with someone and play until one of you is bored...at that stage, you stop the game and "save" your progress.

I can't be certain because as I said, I seldom play against real players in any game (I prefer to have my ego dented by a bad AI than a cheating human) but I'm pretty sure that's how it works. In other words, you don't have to sit and play a scenario from start to finish...the controlling player decides when to speed up, slow down and stop resulting in a save (I think)

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

(I prefer to have my ego dented by a bad AI than a cheating human).

Cheating? You mean in FPS?
Play me in COTA, there are no cheats for cota. [:D]
You still owe me a beer *cough*
How about swapping it for a COTA match? [;)]

...the controlling player decides when to speed up, slow down and stop resulting in a save (I think)

The host saves the game, but the speed can be controlled by both.
Usually, Command Ops players agree on a particular speed, using either ingame chat or voice com. If nothing happens for a while I use to ask my opponent if we can turn up the game speed a bit - say if our units move to their FUP or if they are in marching formation, then - if all hell breaks loose and the fighting begins - we go back to normal speed or even pause the game, to give new orders.

ORIGINAL: COTA Ref Manual

"In a multi-player game, the game will run at the slowest speed chosen by both players. So if you choose
Fast but your opponent chooses Normal, the game will run at the Normal speed. In such a case, you will see the Fast button depressed but the Normal button highlighted.
Whenever one player selects the Pause button or presses the bar, the game will pause for both players until that player sets another run speed."

For me the whole thing brawls itself here on the allround prised AI inteligence. Wich is not as briliant as people hovering it to be. Its good. But even If it gives you a game sometimes, its particular actions are often dubtious in a matter of realistics.
So the PvP is a base for max COTA expierience.
PBEM issue is also a good to be added - but not necessary in my opinion.