aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_tom_w
-
-
OK thenWe are planning on allowing the option to pause single player RealTime games. Multiplayer, or "iron man" type settings, no pausing.I think its great that there will be a multiplayer "ironman" option for RealTime with NO pausing allowed. That sounds like a GREAT option.
I am wondering if that somehow implies that TCP/IP multiplayer is be considered as a feasible option for multiplayer play?
:confused:
-tom w
-
Have you done away with the cover arc??
or is it one of the things that worked well in CMBB an CMAK that will be kept in CMx2??
(or is there something like it but not actually a "cover arc" command?)
just curious
thanks
-tom w
[ November 05, 2005, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Some of this might be interesting take another look at
look at the OLD date, this is from back in Feb 2005 almost 10 months ago
he he
Battlefront.comAdministrator
Member # 42
posted February 02, 2005 01:12 AM
Interesting discussion. The most interesting part about it (no offense) is that this is the same discussion we always have. Well, at least when you boil down the ideas. This is not a slam, rather a painful recognition about how few options there are open to us. To summarize these options, here are some definitions we can put to the different concepts for limiting the God problem (i.e. seeing everything there is to see and acting on that info):
Player as Commander - in this the player can only see and interact with the information his character (Commander) has become aware of through realistic C&C systems.
Positive - Seeks to stop the problems before they start in the most straight forward, realistic, and simplistic way possible. If you can't see it (or talk to someone who can), you can't act on it (or instruct someone else who can).
Negative - very restrictive in terms of traditional gameplay. The player's ability to play the game (traditionally speaking) is now at the mercy of circumstances that may not be within the player's ability to control.
Command Delays - player can see whatever he sees, but can't necessarily act on that information effectively.
Positive - Has the effect of slowing down the player's ability to act on "ill gotten gains" while not interfering with the player's control of units per se.
Negative - it is very difficult to make the desired outcome realistic because the problem (excessive intel) is already present. Since modern (i.e. WWII - present) communications are fairly quick when things go right, limiting reaction times runs the risk of making actions unrealistically slow and/or inflexible.
Fog of Game - game system purposefully hides information from the player that a unit under his control can actually "see" from a simulation standpoint.
Positive - player retains control of his units but does not get information he "shouldn't" have.
Negative - player's orders for the unit are lacking information that unit SHOULD have. Difficult for the player to understand what is known but hidden from the unknown and not yet discovered.
MIA Units - when a unit goes out of C&C it not only stops reporting what it sees, but it is now hidden from the player entirely. It's as if the unit went "poof" and disappeared.
Positive - units no longer can act as eyes and ears without a mouth and listening ears to hear reports. Also eliminates uncertainty because if you can't see your unit you can't see the enemy's units either.
Negative - oh boy... lots of them!! First of all there is the whole issue of units leaving player control at the last second of a turn, being unavailable during the Orders Phase, then 1 second into the next turn suddenly becoming aware. Now all the player can do is watch and hope the unit doesn't get eliminated or lose C&C by the next orders phase. And speaking of that... how is the unit going to behave without the player to guide it? SOPs might help, but that can't substitute for good AI (tactical and slightly higher) which is also hard to do.
Relative Spotting - units can only see what they themselves have spotted. A unit can't shoot or do anything else (directly) to unit/s it isn't directly aware of.
Positive - eliminates many fundamental problems with the current game system, including a host of ones not directly related to this topic. One of which is to make enemy units harder to spot in the first place since less eyeballs in one spot means less chance of spotting.
Negative - when done right the feature has no negatives, though it does have some shortcomings. Players can still get around some of the restrictions (area fire for example) some of the time and Relative Spotting does nothing in terms of limiting the God influence on the enemy intel that is gathered legitimately.
Dedicated Scouts - only certain units have scout like capabilities.
Positives - limits the range of units that can be used for "gamey recon" to those which the designers have chosen.
Negatives - the last bit says it all This does nothing to address the problem, but instead simply narrows down which units can be abused. Players will almost certainly figure out how to use other ones in some ways in some circumstances. On top of that, it most certainly involves unrealistically blinding the rank and file units, which is indefensible from a realism standpoint.
Those are the major groupings as I see them. There are variations on these, but I'd say this is the bulk of them.
So, which work to solve the problems of gamey recon? NONE. Each one of these does not fix the problem because the inherent problem is the Human player can see too much and act in too coordinated a fashion. The Player as Commander concept is the only one that even attempts to simulate the real world restrictions of commanders in the field, but even that doesn't go far enough. The others tend to penalize realistic behavior in the pursuit of curbing unrealistic results. Results that are inherent to the Human player, not the system. Tough challenge.
Ok, so how are we going to fix gamey recon (which is just a part of the God problem)? We aren't. There is no way we can. However, by using a combo of concepts, carefully measured, we do expect to come up with a system that greatly reduces the effectiveness of acting on information that shouldn't be there in the first place. Relative Spotting is the #1 part of that plan, but of course there is a lot more to it than that.
Just my thoughts
Steve
AND
Battlefront.com
Administrator
Member # 42
posted February 02, 2005 08:18 PM
As for bailed out crews... they already are less likely to spot, more likely to route, and are easier to kill than any other unit. But that doesn't make much of a difference sometimes
One way to fix this is to apply a MIA UNITS feature to Panicked/Routed units. This is, IMHO, a legitimate possibility. Close Combat had something similar, though you never lost sight of the guys. It is something that is being considered, though there are large implications that need to be considered once some other elements of the game have been finalized.
Yes, CoPlay (co-op play) eliminates all sorts of Intel problems through very hard nosed restriction of intel sharing. Unfortunately, that creates another set of challenges for us since players will need some way of sharing intel. And that is why it isn't happening for CMx2's first release
Importance of HQs in CMx2 will be much more realistic because we will have a full bore simulation of Command and Control. That in turn is made possible by Relative Spotting, since without it there is little we can do to make HQs realistic. Can't say more than that at this point.
I will remind you all again... we are very much against implementing any system that can not be defended from a realism standpoint. Command delays that are not somehow related to realistic command delays are not up for consideation. Delaying spotting information even one second from the unit that spotted it is also completely out of the question. Both of these things have very large potential for gameplay problems that are worse than the problem they seek to fix (cure worse than disease sort of thing).
One has to remember that the overall realism of the game is important. Hobble one aspect of realism and you almost certainly cause something else to be unrealistic. Usually quite a lot of things, sometimes quite small and only noticable in certain circumstances. Then we spend tons of time trying to fix the side effects, which likely cause other side effects, and that requires more time for fixing, etc., etc. Therefore, any game design element which we know to be inherently unrealistic is not up for consideration.
Steve
-
I think Steve has sort of defined a "command game" as some form of text only game paradigm where you simulate the role of only one level of command and send text orders one command level down and wait for a text message back from that level of command without ever seeing the battlefield or the other actual units.
Within that definition Steve was talking about CM:SF is not technically a "command game" (one level) because the player can play the role of all levels of command.
AS you said:
This implies a different "kind" of game more like a (and I dont' think this is the name Steve called it) combat simulator rather then a "command level" game.This game is exactly a platoon/company/troop/battalion commander simulatorSorry I did not mean to split hairs
somewhere there is a very lengthy post by Steve about what a "command game" is and how they are not interested in developing command level games. (or something)
-tom w
-
I would guess Steve may be asking us for a show of faith that the new Command and Control system, combined with the new extreme fog of war options AND relative spotting will have a somewhat cumulative impact that should reduce just about anything "instantaneous" in the game, BUT I am just guessing.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:Can you give us some idea, Steve, of what will be in place while we wait for CoPlay to address this issue of instantaneous commands?
Michael
-tom w
[ November 05, 2005, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
WOW!
Great
Many thanks
the rest of my family JUST can't understand why I can't let my powwerbook out of my sight now for more a minute for fear of missing more news worthy posts and staying up-to-date with all the latest news!
My head is spinning
(in a good way)
-tom w
-
This MUST surely qualify as the VERY first CM:SF mod!
-tom w
-
Agreed. That would be exactly what some players have always wanted, but it turns the game into a fantasy trip that has nothing to do with tactical command realities.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mazex:
OK, it would eliminate some of the frustration with the TacAI - but let's face it, that's maybe what makes CMx1 so good?
Michael </font>
-
I think this should cover it
from the new Magazine article in the new Magazine thread.
Ron MeierMember
Member # 506
posted November 04, 2005 09:51 AM
OK here is another potential quote you might be interested in...
"Want a tank entering a city to move its turret left at one intersection, right at the next, and then button up at the next -- without having to issue a whole new set of orders each time? No problem. Now you'll get to issue up to three commands per waypoint."
-
That was a very informative article Ray posted.
Just so my first post is not misinterpretted, I have NO problem what so ever with women in combat roles as longer as they REALLY want to be there and volunteer for that duty or service.
No problem there
.My previous rant was a self servering plea NOT to over complicate the CM:SF game, and possibly DELAY its release by requesting YET another model and another set of animations for female units.
Just keep the game simple and leave the women out of the game so that we can play the game sooner and let them release it without any additional delay!
(please)
-tom w
-
:confused:I'm also curious to know how this works with all the complicated ballistics, LOS calcs, etc. that CMX1 crunches inbetween turns. I know computer technology has come a long way since the CMBO release, but is the new engine really capable of doing all this stuff "on the fly?"GOOD question
I have been giving that some thought myself.
"How does it work?"
-tom w
-
I have done my VERY best not to contribute to this thread....
However I feel I must now say something that may seem somewhat out of character for me.....
[rant on]
ITS JUST A GAME!
How many other games of this nature, have women in them?
None?
Does BFC really need to be ground breaking on this front as well?
I think NOT.
How about keeping it simple.
The market for this game is mostly male dominated. (Does that mean is should have "chicks" in it?? I don't think so.)
How about this motto...
"CM:SF Made by men for MEN and its about modern male combat soldiers in modern combat, chicks need not apply."
[/rant off]
-
-
there was a HUGE thread on this some time ago
Let me try to search the link
the bottom line is they don't know yet or have not said anything about the details of this issue, except for a few comments about what WON'T happen in the game.
For instance players cannot try to kill save or Move their WIA men that can no longer move on there own.
there is a BIG thread on this one you should read
The original link was located and bumped
it contains this suggestion in it which is being considered by Steve and Charles as an abstraction that is possibly workable:
I think some form of abstracted suggestion like this will work FINE in the game....quote:
Originally posted by Other Means:
Steve, can I reiterate my suggestion, which is abstracted enough to be do-able (IMHO and ready to be corrected) while enough to add the WIA/POW dynamic people seem to want?
State 1) When a soldier is wounded, they become immobile & broken. They are still targetable etc but cannot be moved or controlled by the player.
They are in this state for X time, say 3 mins. If they are still within command radius after this they become an "evac'ed" icon and are treated as recovered.
Recovered will mean they have Z chance of death vs WIA in the AAR/next battle.
State 2) If after X time they are outside of command radius but within Y distance of enemies, they become captured and are treated as now, i.e. able to move to the enemies rear. Or possibly change them to a captured icon.
State 3) If after X time they are out of command radius but are not within Y of enemies, they are treated as recovered, i.e. turn to an "evac'ed" icon, but now have a much greater chance of death vs recovery in the AAR/next battle.
ISTM that that will simulate as closely as possible the correct behaviour without over complicating it. This does not take into account the possible state where a WIA and solider are trying to occupy the same space, but I was thinking the live soldier would automatically displace the wounded in the terrain feature.
(I hope)
-tom w
[ November 04, 2005, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Thanks RonRon MeierMember
Member # 506
posted November 04, 2005 10:31 AM
Here is the RTS quote...
"The new engine will boast not merely the hybrid turn-based/real-time system Combat Mission is known for, but an option for pure real-time play."
this one deserves its OWN thread.
This is a quote from the current Computer Games magazine article....
So what do you think?
-tom w
[ November 04, 2005, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
they say its out now for subscribers see the other magazine thread
[ November 04, 2005, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
no no .. the game code should work on both intel and IBM G5 processors
if I understand this whole issue correctly :confused:
-tom w
-
Apple web link on game development...
more news for BFC to ponder...Bringing Games to Intel Based Macs..
When Apple made the announcement that future Macintosh computers would use Intel processors and that developers must convert their applications to universal binaries, Aspyr's developers immediately began thinking about what they would need to do to get their games ready.
Their first task was to decide how to prioritize titles for the conversion to universal binaries. Aspyr's products include many of the most popular in the Mac game market, and their large library of games—each with its own, often fanatical, user base—has been built over several years of Mac software and hardware releases. There was a lot they needed to consider in prioritizing and creating their transition plan.
Aspyr has always understood the benefits of keeping up with Apple's ongoing hardware and software improvements, so their response to the move to Intel-based Macintosh computers and universal binaries wasn't surprising.
As Director of Development Glenda Adams explains, “We have to be able to ship games in 2006 and beyond as universal binaries. We need to update some older games to run natively on Intel, so switching to Xcode, making the effort to build universal binaries, and then testing on both platforms is vital.”
With their commitment to the platform and clear understanding of the technologies, Adams and her developers began setting their transition priorities. They looked at a variety of criteria: the resources they had available, the revenue they forecast from the sales of each title, and finally, the time required to update each title. Another key factor was the release date of the game. The newest games were generally the highest priority, and there were some older games that could clearly be assigned a lower priority. The games in the "in-between" category were the hardest to prioritize. These they examined on a game-by-game basis, and prioritized by looking at each product's details.
Creating the First Universal Binaries
In general, it was the most recently released games that Aspyr has focused on first. These are not only among the most important to Aspyr as products, they also tend to require tremendous processor and system resources. These games had to be transitioned to universal binaries as soon as possible in order to be playable at top speed on Intel-based as well as on PowerPC-based Macintosh computers. The Aspyr team got a few Developer Transition Systems from the Apple Developer Connection transitionkit.html link and set to work.
The development system has the preview release of Mac OS X Tiger on Intel pre-installed, allowing you to run, verify, and debug your Universal Binary application.
web pageUsing MacDX (Direct-X® Interface for Mac OS) you can bring your product to the Mac OS platform without having to totally redevelop it.With plenty of information and published documentation available, the Direct-X® interface is one of the most popular interfaces around. Simply compile your product source with your choice of Mac OS development environment, link in the MacDX - now you have your Mac OS version.
The MacDX interface has been specially developed to support a wide selection of machine types and OS versions. MacDX provides the key to your timely and efficient DirectX to Mac OS development.
this is interesting:
How animated building blocks work to make PC to Mac Game code transition really simple... web page to see animated blocks move around to suggest game code is EASY to migrate
your thoughts?
-tom w
[ November 03, 2005, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Yes I agree with MikeyD
1:1 representation WILL BE A BIG DEAL in CM:SF
-tom w
-
Oh yes
I have just set up and old Mac G4 for CMAK and I am enjoying that.
CMAK in the ETO is still FUN!
And yes I must have you and those battles confused with someone else.
I think I remember the 105 MM howitzer battle because that damn gun hurt me good.
The thing about PBEM is that the MAC needs to run in OS 9 (somewhat akin to Windows 95) and I would have to reboot into OS X (Operating System 10) to pick up e-mail, then reboot the computer into OS 9 to play for every e-mail on every turn. If the timing worked out TCP/IP would be better, but I can't host because I have a dynamic IP on the back side of an Apple Airport router
So mostly I still play against the AI which just like getting a quick and simple Combat Mission fix. (sort of like Chinese food, leaves you hungry later, but tastes good initially).
-tom w
-
Hello Abbott
Long time
As I recall you and I did (simulated) battle one time, A LONG time ago in CMBO. The first time I think I was the American's and you may have under estimated me and I pulled off a very decisive ambush or sneak attack on your flank.. (or something) and I think I won that one and you were surprised and grumbled our something
.Then another time we met in a tourement (or somthing) and I was on defence and you TOTALLY creamed me. ( I think I was defending with an American units) and your blitzkrieg attack completedly overwhelmed my defensive position.
or Something like that?
I quess we will have to give it another go when CM:SF comes out, its just hard for me to imagine a balanced scenario in that game and I am NOT one of those guys on this board who keeps saying "Oh hell, give me the Syrian's and I will show you all the glory of vicotory over those Yanky imperialist invaders".
It might be a while before I can play the game on my Mac though
so you might have to wait for the Mac release for me. -tom w
-
Perhaps due to irreconcilable political differences?I also believe it would be in our best interest not to have that discussion on these boards.-tom w
-
this thing?Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:Yep, I am buying this one without a demo- not my standard practice, I am just confident that this will be a hit. Plus I can use it as a training tool (as long as they include Avenger) Are they in?
AVENGER MISSILE SYSTEMSERVICES: Army and Marine Corps
DESCRIPTION: A mobile battery of eight Stinger missiles in two reloadable pods.
FEATURES:
The Avenger is an air defense missile system consisting of a pedestal mounted "Stinger" missile battery that operates from a High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) chassis (See HMMWV Fact Sheet). The system consists of eight heat-seeking Stinger missiles in two quickly reloadable pods and a .50-caliber machine gun for self-defense. Avenger provides protection to rear echelon units and command posts against low-altitude and high-speed airplanes and helicopters.
BACKGROUND:
The first Army unit was equipped with the Avenger in FY89. The Army has 281 systems in its inventory and has been authorized an additional 1,498.
-
"What happens though, when they realize that by many accounts, the US has no force to spare to invade them, and even if it did, many would say that it lacks the will."Originally posted by NG cavscout:If we are able to rein in the Syrians, without military force, so much the better.
What happens though, when they realize that by many accounts, the US has no force to spare to invade them, and even if it did, many would say that it lacks the will. Does the international community really think that the threat of economic sanctions is enough to bring the Syrians to heel? If not, does anyone really think that the major Western powers with uncommited military forces, ie the French and Germans, would actually use those forces?
Yes
" Does the international community really think that the threat of economic sanctions is enough to bring the Syrians to heel?"
Probably yes but they are all just politically correct yellow belly diplomats with no clue anyways and they are wrong.
" If not, does anyone really think that the major Western powers with uncommited military forces, ie the French and Germans, would actually use those forces?"
Not likely
I suspect Syria will take advantage of the situation, try to "act" proper, (enjoying a free ride) and keep their collective heads down and come out ahead in the long run without any real fear of actual military intervention by anyone, except maybe the Israeli's (perhaps?). If not Israel who else could do it? (military invasion I mean?)
-tom w
(CM:SF = optional RTS ) Had your Coffee yet?? check this out major news of the day..
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Oh YEAH
Good thinking!
Thats probably a factor, or at the very least something for Charles to think about.-tom w
[ November 06, 2005, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]