Tarkus
-
Posts
585 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tarkus
-
-
Le Tondu, you're right, CM is a game, and there are many ways to enjoy it. Speaking for myself, I know I sometime sound like realism is above all other considerations in my book, but it really isn't. I enjoy CMx1 tremendously and really think it's lightyears beyond anything I ever experienced, both as a game and a tacsim. I wish BFC keep it as good as it is, and enhance it as best as they can. Sure I think realism is important, it is a fundamental paradigm of CM, but it is not the only one, as you rightly point out, fun being the other.
I know, because I read it in the bone thread, that keeping this balance between the real thing and a fun game is on BFC's mind constantly. I also understand that they are the challenging type that will not settle with an excellent formula but rather try to expand, enhance, change and move things upside down to get them better done, at the risk of unsetting us freaking crown that always lurk around here to see what they are up to. I am sure, as such, that they are in fact closely concerned with your call: that the game should be, first and foremost, fun, yet they want to move on and try new ideas based on their experience along the aformentionned paradigm of realism that, I'm sure you'll agree with me, is part of the trademark.
That being said, I really like those threads where we suggest ideas and think about what features we feel might be interesting or not (although Steve did tell us to calm down since the time to share and think hasn't come yet). Some have very interesting ideas, some less, and I think both have the merit of at least pushing the thinking ahead. Knowing why an idea suck is almost as interesting as knowing why it doesn't.
All this to say that I am not lobbying for anything. Just toying with ideas. Whatever happens with these aren't me to tell.
In all good fun, cheers.
Tarkus
-
Ahem, just to be perfectly clear here, the real meaning of RTS is Real Time Strategy. My above response was to express my personnal view on this type of game as far as the "strategy" part goes.
Sorry for my unclear answer Tom.
-
Real Time ShooterOriginally posted by aka_tom_w:(RTS what does the S stand for?)
sorry
-
Here's one interesting point right there. I, too, certainly don't want to start assigning targets to each and every individual soldier on the battlefield. It will simple never end. But I think you are pointing out a very nice side effect of the 1:1 representation, that is the tracking of each part of the firepower value.Originally posted by David Chapuis:Well with 1:1 representation, it makes much more sense for a single squad to be able to target mulitiple units. That does not mean I want to be able to control which man shoots at what, but I think it would be good game feature, that is realistic, and could be modeled abstractly but shown in detail with 1:1, where it could not (at least not well) with the CMx1 squad modeling.
True, in CM you have a total value made of from each member of the squad. Yet you can only fire at one or two targets at any given time, by splitting a squad. But if, instead of summing up the total firepower and then applying this number to the target, the CM engine could take these values individually and apply them as such to the target(s), we might end up with some more variables to play with.
A very basic example of this would be to take two squad of the exact same type, but one conscript and one elite, with same armament. The first would perhaps diffuse its fire on multiple targets, react to flanking fire and so on, while the elite group would keep a much tighter fire discipline. The end results would a variable firepower value depending on such factor as experience, moral, weather and so on.
I don't know, it looks like it might be worth discussing.
Cheers.
-
Mupid,
I don't think it's off topic at all, since you're talking about spotting issues.
As for the sound contact generic icon, I was refering to the grey tank/light armor/truck/infantry unit that CM places on the map visually to indicate that something has been heard. I agree that firing on a place that you suspect might be hiding ennemy units (the so called "recon by fire") is a possible way of doing things, and even an efficient one. But to me, this isn't exactly related to sound contact. It is, but as far as CM engine models it. The more you play CM, the more accurate you get at guessing the location of a sound contact, and for this reason alone, I believe that the way a sound contact is represented in the game isn't perfect, since a visual representation of a sound source put the problem in reverse. It is a solution that works pretty good and, in game terms, is easy to grasp, but it could be implemented differently to better effect, if the physics of sound was better modelled, something I can't comment on since I am not exactly sure where we are at, technically speaking, to represent doppler effect, echoes and such. But that is why I was asking, back in the "Bones a plenty" thread, what were the plans @ BFC about sound, since it has a very direct effect on the way the game is played.
For example, if it was possible to successfully implement a way to make the sounds in game relative to the actual position of its source (it is already, but it's basically a volume level, where a firing gun sounds a lot different depending on the position of the one hearing it), it might be possible to make the "sound contact" source position a lot harder to spot, leaving those grey generic "?" markers out entirely. A led on a unit interface might tell the player that something has been heard, and by moving around, the player might get to ear something, but that would be it. He could then guess as to what is going on, who's where and such, but he could not guess, for example, that there is most probably a tank moving at high speed along "X" road because the sound contact icon is moving fast along the same axis, something we regularly do in current CM. I am not saying it is unrealistic, but merely that it is a bit too accurate as it is now, and that it could probably be represented a little differently.
Cheers.
[ January 20, 2005, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]
-
Earlier versions of DoD were more realistic on that count. IIRC, only machinegunners and snipers had them. Now everyone carries one, for gameplay reasons.
Regulations tends to vary from one army to the next, and in the case of WWII, from one month/year to the next. I'd say the official distribution of handguns was restricted to officers, MP and crews, while picking one up on the battlefield was common practice. Bringing a personnal pistol/revolver is also a common occurence, like 101st troopers prior to D-Day.
For specific TO&E though, which is what your question is all about, I can't say
.Cheers
-
I like the sounds of this. Of course it may means a lot that I don't get, but the general idea suggest planning and control of the chain of command along the lines of our most recent discussion.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:[...]
One way to make turn length rather irrelevant is to put more restrictions on plan changing. If you issue an order that can't be changed for 5 minutes, what difference does it make if the turns are 1 minute, 30 seconds, or 2 minutes? In that instance that unit is locked down for several turns no matter what. Now... is this realistic or good from a game standpoint? Depends on how it is done. And that is always the tough part
[...]
You're right, the seek hull down order isn't that useful. I made quite a few mistake trying to use it because I thought it was a "generic order" that was the equal of "move" or "Fast move" in CMBO. In other word I thought the order would take care of everything provided I put the waypoint.Originally posted by Bigduke6:The "hull-down" command can't do that as well. This is one of the reasons the A/I has trouble in the attack; it is using a relatively dumb brain to choose hull-down positions - at least against most human opponents. (That's my impression of the A/I anyway.)
Yet when you think about it, seek hull down is really a fine tuning order (not perfect, but it can be useful provided you still eyeball the ground and do not use it on uncertain LOS ground like scattered trees and such.) and that was one interesting point between BO and BB: the inclusion of more specific orders, or variations on a movement order. From "move" to "move-to-contact" with an arc, I like better the later because I feel the troops receiving this order, expecting contact, are more prepared for it. It may not be the case mechanically within the game, but my point is that I feel refining orders, if it is to provide the player with flexibility to translate his intent into action, are desirable.
While I would not necessary say that the hull down order create stupid unit behavior (Talking stricly for myself, it's probably better to assume the problem lay in my early stupid understanding, and improper use of) I agree with you that the orders available must be carefully laid out. That is yet another point in favor of SOPs because the way I see it, it gives the player a chance to adjust some feature inherent to a unit (like it stance, its expected reaction upon certain contingencies, etc) permanently, while leaving some other actions out (movements, fire, mainly). To me this looks like increased flexibility, yet even more realistic control, because it will not prevent me from blundering a lot and get it real bad every now and then as of now, but give a more elaborate way of translating my idea of what should be done in to proper moves and actions.Originally posted by Bigduke6:My worry, therefore, is that attempts to impose more limitations in order-giving, unit responses etc. will translate to, in practical terms, a bigger orders menu with commands similar in utility to "hull-down." The result might be, I fear, stupid unit behaviour.
Cheers
[ January 20, 2005, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]
-
I don't understand this part. Sound contacts, even as it is in the game already, can be wildly off the generic marker, so area shooting a sound contact is the least possible effective treatment. But maybe I'm missing your point ?Originally posted by Mupid:In the case of relative spotting in my opinion you should also be able to target e.g. sound contacts without the staticness of area fire - meaning that if the sound-contact moves your fire adjusts automatically.
-
Although I did say 30 second turns might be fun to play, I am perfectly content with the 60 we currently have and I do not need more or less. But since the idea was raised, might as well discuss it's worth.
Game wise it could be fun, especially for tiny-size action. But as far as realism goes, it is true that 30 secs imply tighter control.
Cheers
[ January 19, 2005, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]
-
Linking this with the command thread, having a 1:1 representation may also change the way we see HQs. In CMx1, a HQ is basically an officer with from 2 to 8 lives and corresponding firepower. I suppose a 1:1 representation could be more realist on that count. Looking for 2iC, reforming badly mauled squads and platoons, reoginizing one's force between battle would get pretty interesting IMO.Originally posted by YankeeDog:[...] the model could be further refined with the ability to actually track who gets hit. I would wager, for example, that a tank with a badly wounded driver acts very differently than a tank with a badly wounded gunner [...]
Cheers
-
Good point.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:It seems to me—and until Charles says otherwise—that the turn length is fundamental to all the other game functions. To make that an option might be like saying program three or four different games and put them on the disk so that we can pick the one we want to play.
Not necessarily. A 30 secs turns might be more intense and fun to play in a TCP/IP environnment, but a longer turn more interesting for a PBEM. Now, imaging if one could vary the turn lenght during a game. Ealy turns gets by the couple of minutes, and big action phases get segmented for fuller control.Originally posted by aka_tom_w:I do think the guys that want 30 sec turns do indeed want more precision. (That is one logical outcome of the 30 sec turn time)
Yet as Emrys point out, there are some very serious implementation problems with this idea.
Cheers
-
I think there are some good points here. (EDIT: and almost all written at the same time
) The MIA feature may be of use, that or some generic markers, in which case I suppose AI would take over and try to bring the lost unit back (RV points would then be of use, as would be a planning tool. More on that later). Once back, what the unit have seen might be made available, althought I don't know how exactly. I'm talking specifically about crews and "residual" troops on the map that aren't within the organic structure of the command the player is in charge of. Getting them out alive should be related to points, but they should not be seen as a asset as they are now.
Yet again this is still encouraging Hoolaman idea about command zones IMO, because with this feature, the player can see roughly where lay his control, and as someone say, already in CM, mostly from BB, getting out of control is not a good idea but quite realistic and avoidable. Making things less easy isn't bad at all. Making them too complicated is. The real problem is to find a way out of these simulation problems without forcing the player to read 450 pages of detailed battle drill and comm protocol.
I suppose some form of communication ressources could be represented/abstracted. Sending a Puma with long range transmission equipment behind ennemy lines is worth something because it is assumed to have the means to transmit what it sees. Not so from a bailed out crew with one main goal in mind: survive and get back home in one piece. Setting OP posts, listening posts, patrols and such could be very useful and fully compatible with CM realism intent, and even quite fun to play and manage IMO. And again, Hoolaman idea about command zone is one interesting answer worth exploring. I venture to suggest, at the risk of preaching for my own idea, that a planning tool (see Tarkus post in Hoolaman thread ) integrated in the setup/first turn phase could be very well integrated in these ideas since it would allow the player/overall commander to illustrate is intent and have its troops informed of them prior to moving out. See it as a form of abstracted staff work, and a healthy compromise between a command game, which is not wanted, and a simulation. Planning ahead isn't bad is it ? Having the tool to do it effectively would be great.
For the "sniper problem" (single operator with recce as a priority task) I offer the following: there are other means to communicate, and CM could model partial HQ contact. A trained soldier can transmit some important info by hand signals, so a visual contact can be ok. On the other hand, while an officer can give some rough orders from a good distance, like "advance", "fall back" and so on, detailed plans for attack must be dealt with and transmitted in a more substantial way. Having a variable order menu depending on the distance could help. For example, you could give a 14 waypoints, 3 movement type order to a unit standing next to you, yet only order a one waypoint "advance" order to a unit walking 45 meters away. And this could vary from experience of both the one giving the order and the one receiving it.
All this to say although I see that modelling exact radio comm isn't solving the problem, maybe some more abstraction of various communications on a battlefied may help reduces the problems we are refering to.
Cheers
[ January 19, 2005, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]
-
I bow respectfully before one that knows while I don't, but I dont get your point here. Isn't the whole communication model suppose to "interfere" between the player ordering his squad to do anything or learn anything from his troops ? Perhaps what really interfere is the way CM is using abstraction to model not the radio comm in itself but its effect, like delay in order ? This in turns would mean that instead of getting into the hassle of trying to model radio network and functions (as Michael stated, this might not be to the taste of everyone), just try to create some realistic abstraction of its effect, like increased misidentification, delayed spotted units apperance on the map, variable delay before a unit starts to move, etc.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Radio net simulation doesn't solve anything relating to Borg or God issues in and of itself. It is nothing more than a fundamental building block to be used by other designs to simulate C&C. Think about it... picture CMAK with a full on radio net simulated. Will that suddenly stop you from ordering a beat up squad from running up and over a hill to see what is on the other side and getting that information to you? No. Will it magically simulate the disruption that the loss of leadership brings to subordinate units, especially ones with inherently less initiative? Nope. So on and so on.
I think I get it now.
I never quite though about such an evidence, yet now that it is put plainly like this, it really make sense. The radio net in itself would probably be a burden not worth designing, yet part of the reality it shows might be worth looking at, both as an interesting reality of the battlefield and a communication tool, maybe for coop multiplaying.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:[...]A simulation must be seen as having parts that are individually fairly meaningless, but when combined together create something much bigger. That is why we are attacking this thing from the top down as we did with CMx1 and as AEB did with his game. CMx1 is great because it is result orientated. We gave the simulation a vastly detailed basis and then figured out what kind of things we wanted the player to experience with all that otherwise meaningless data.
At any rate, this is what Sirocco meant I suppose when refering to what works and what doesn't in simulating the battlefield, from a gaming stand point. Result orented, from the player perspective... what we want the player to experience. Now this is really food for thought as far as the present discussion is concerned. At the risk of sounding just like Tom...
INTERESTING...
-
Phew ! you guys ain't wastin' no time !
As for turn lenght, leaving the option from 30 - 45 - 60 - 75 secs could already pull some nice effects and give some flexibility to the rythme of a game, it's groooove :cool:
My guess is that people would go for 30 - 45 secs turn in TCP/IP, while going 60 - 75 for PBEM. IMO even such a small variation means a big deal in terms of gameplay.
That is absolutely right. I am running almost solely on PBEM these days. Things are running rather smoothly though, I dunno what I might want to change apart from the import map/troops I'm fussing people with these days. This feature is soooo cool it really should be closely examined.Originally posted by Hoolaman:I think PBEM has been forgotten a bit in this discussion. I would think that it is still the primary multiplay vehicle.
Cheers.
-
There are some real nice ideas up there John! It kind of sums up the recent what we want threads. I particularly like your "reaction check" idea. Perhaps that would justify another thread to expand on it ? From here it looks as if it might add some random results within a realistic frame...
Any idea about how a comm net might be implemented ? I'm interested in these questions as well, but I know no games that tried this, let alone succeeded.
All of this is quite interesting. I guess we're not yet to the point of flooding these poor guys with our zillion suggestions (yeah, like we did not already
) but I feel we can brace ourselves for that moment. Maybe it's time to resurrect that old CMx2 suggestion thread. Or prepare a summary to be launched the very first day the CMx2 forum will be on. EDIT: I volunteer to set it up. Best
[ January 18, 2005, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]
-
It is notorious that coding a realistic, intelligent AI is one of the biggest challenge in the world of computer, for many reasons that are stated here. If creating a chess player is so complex, and chess, however marvelous the game is, still is a game of strict contingency, it's really not that hard to understand how complicated an opposing AI, with way more options on his hand, not the least of which is appraising the relative efficiency of the tool at his disposal, must be. To keep the comparison with chess, a Queen is a Queen (you do not, AFAIK, have a Queen A1, a Queen A3E8 HVSS, etc) and yield the same results every time: it moves in a certain way, and kill all the time. A Sherman, on the other hand, is very useful in some instances, and pretty useless in some others, and many times, it depends on how you deploy it in accordances to terrain, friendly forces, intelligence, ennemy equipment and deployment, etc.
That is why I thought a way to import human imput in the tacAI might be an interesting addition. Supposing this could be toggled on and off, one could play against the intended plan prepared by a human designer, perhaps download and play against other plans for the same scenario, or against the AI we know and love
, or against a human player. I suppose it could simply boils down to allowing the designer to plan ahead, and I already forsee some big problems with that approache, but still, I'd be curious to hear what the people that knows think about that. Sort of a scripted, optionnal, modular AI.EDIT: Of course, this idea does nothing to help a tank commander to decide on his own, during a turn, to smartly react to a spotted threat, which is yet another side of the whole AI equation, but still...
Cheers
[ January 18, 2005, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]
-
As for AI controlled friendly units, IIRC in the what we want thread there was this idea of using this feature as a potential counter to the table-top effect of map edges, like the map would be bigger with assets a player doesn't have any control on but that are set by the scenario designer to simulate neighbor forces, ready to defend. I guess that would be a feature to be cautious with...
-
Eheh, being the company and the game designers that you are, I kind of figured that one out.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:teams of players that don't work together will likely fail together.
I was refering to the nuts and bolts of the system but it is obviously too early to discuss it. With all this recrudescence of bones all over the place, I tend to get over enthusiastic about where all this is going and hope for still more details all the time. Thanks for letting us in a bit. It's really nice to get a glimpse of where you guys are going.
Best
-
Right. I think we can safely assume by now that CM will not be a command game.Originally posted by Hoolaman:So in a command-style game where you play the role of battalion HQ, your role is not that of one man, but the role of 4 or more HQ groups that have worked out and enacted plans in cooperation with each other.
But this still carries the question as to how successfully place 2 -or 13 players on the same side and have them manipulate units and coordinate their efforts, communicate, etc. Beside, although co-op multiplay was presented as a potential solution for borg-spotting, I was more refering to it simply as a game feature. I think it could yield very interesting possibilities, but I wonder how the problem, apparently on Steve's list, is conceptualized and what is the implementation intent.
-
Steve, how do you see the co-op multiplaying (I'd propose "Complay") being implemented ? Now that I think about it, and judging from Sirocco comment on what works and what doesn't, it raises some questions about way of making this work effectively and interestingly.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:[...] So while 4 people controlling a Battalion is more realistic than 1 person in charge, it is still a rather big abstraction. Having 4 people controlling a Company is much better.
So, while it would be neat to have OPTIONAL multi-multi-player support where each player controlls a company or platoon, the basic simulation will still be compromised in terms of realistic command decision making.
For example, the coop multiplayer feature can be integrated in various organic or systemic fashions.
Case A, horizontal cooperation: all players gets a purchase screen and pick units they want, roughly like a superposition of QBs on a map in simultaneous time, fighting side by side and cooperating as they wish while pursuing their own objectives. Might be an option to consider for those who might want to try limited cooperation while keeping control on their own things.
Case B, vertical cooperation: players fill positions within one main force along the organic structure of the command. X would play the battalion commander, Y coy A commander, Z coy B and so on. I suppose it could look like a game hosted with slots (commands) to be filled by joining players. Soon enough we would see whole armies forming up and competing against each other. A player joining a game would take over all units under his command.
This call for effective definition of HQ role and responsabilities in the game even though the co-op multiplaying wont be in the first time around.
How does a battalion commander act differently than a coy commander ? What would be the advantage of filling this seat rather than another ? As it was pointed out earlier, in CM1 there is little differences between a platoon HQ and a battalion HQ. But in theory, the battalion commander has overall command, and thus it must take effect at some point.
Another question is whether to separate complay between commands along doctrinal lines to further simulate those doctrinal differences (combining infantry and armor or keeping them separated for example) or to make one generic setup. I suppose the latter is more effective from a gameplay stand point.
Cheers
[ January 17, 2005, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]
-
Kip is right. Option is really a keyword, as there are already many different ways to enjoy CM. An enhanced import troops/map feature could also be of help for a larger contextual vision.
It would be tempting to suggest that allowing co-op multiplaying as an option would tackle the command problem somehow, but this is where the experience and knowledge of how a game like CM is developped and put on the market override everything else. Is it worth the effort, dollar wise ?
I, for one, haven't the faintest idea.
-
It's very interesting to get insight from professionnal designers about the practical and theorical challenges they face. And I found it quite cool to open the topic for discussion like this.
I really get your point of balancing these four. It all makes good sense. But assuming that keeping the best possible balance on these factors is a top priority from a design stand point, don't you feel interactions and decisions is where the commanding issue is most influenced ?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:1. Entities
2. Environments
3. Interactions
4. Decisions
In relation to the earlier statement about focusing on element 3 and 4, I would say that lower level games are best suited for single player because of the "limited" interactions and decisions involved. FPS rarely has any form of complex interaction with other entities except in a scripted world, or for annihilating them. CM is quite the contrary, since the player is acting on the battlefield essentially via other entities. That is also why, on the other hand as you point out, battalion level game must really be a nightmare to properly balance since interaction and decisons must present itself almost like a maze. So I guess getting back to defining these elements may perhaps be of help.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:What this all means is that the smaller scope, lower level games (first person shooters for example) are better suited to single players.
From my limited knowledge, I'd be tempted to suggest it boils down to situationnal awareness and command & control features. Situationnal awareness, made from the player own perceptions and what his units sees (and report), as many implications has Steve mentionned in the other thread:
From this, I understand that the way the information is presented to the player as the basis of his situationnal awareness is where most of the evolution could be done in the great march toward a realistic-yet-fun tactical milsim. If you can successfully simulate uncertainty (while keeping it entertainingOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:Think about all the assumptions and reassurances one has with the current system. [...] picture all the things decisions you would make and note how many of them involve KNOWING something that shouldn't be known. Now think about the same situation assuming a more realistic knowledge and reaction system, then see how that might affect your decisions.
), could it possibly help in tackling the problem ? It would shift some of the game "winning contingency" (forgive my total lack of appropriate wording, by that I mean the average playing conduct to win the game) from proper coordination of offensive ressources (already in CM1 but sometime based on not-so-realistic intelligence) to proper coordination of information gathering means (not quite in as of now). I, of course, loose myself in trying to envision the implication of such a change upon gameplay... I guess we can then look at control (how the player can act and influence the course of his battle via his orders and own actions) as the other part of the problem. Hoolaman idea was mainly focused on this point IIRC. The idea he suggest on the current post also concern itself mainly with the control issue. But then again, the most challenging aspect of it all is to keep it fun.
Could modelling communications somehow be of help ? Or something as simple as not allowing players to be aware of the exact delay before a unit start implementing its assigned orders could be a step toward realism.
Yet this is anything but a change of paradigm.
Now that I come to think of it, reading Steve's view of the whole question, making a super realistic tactical simulator OR an award wining arcade wargame is a lot "easier" than making a realistic-and-fun sim like CM.
Cheers
[ January 17, 2005, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]
-
Reread it last night. That was an interesting thread, and still is, now that Steve is tuning us in a little more about the way the team sees the whole equation...
-
The game is going on and it is every bit up to our expectations. We are still in the first battle, but we both agree that thinking ahead for later battles/reinforcements really spice things up, but it also feed our think tank big time, so I throw in some more ideas since CMx2 is in the boiler. If any of this can help and inspire new ideas and further discussion about what should or should not be, all the better.
So I'm taking some stuff from the bones thread and keeping this thread up for people to suggest ideas along these line.
I was discussing this very topic with some people these days. Even without considering the experience gathering process, if only to keep names, casualties and kills along various battles, this would yield some great possibilities, which in turn could be seen as some sort of "on the fly" operation/campaign tool.Originally posted by Other Means:If state is going to be passed from one battle to the next then hopefully there will be a troop import/export tool. That will help a great deal with any community developed meta campaign.
Another related topic has to do with what kind of unit might be available for purchase and part the game format. I believe this question was raised recently.
For example, as it is now, starting a QB means that you choose between meeting, probe, attack and assault, which in turn imply how points are distributed between players and unit categories. (i.e. no fortification units in a meeting).
Yet with the troops import feature,you can now simulate a battle that rages for days on the same spot by playing its multiple engagements. That means that even though you generally are on the offense on the larger intent of winning the QB serie, yet at some point/place in the game, you may decide to act rather defensively ("right flank dig in, prepare for defensive battle, shifting some ressources to my left flank for assault on village X"). As it is now, either your are wholly defensive (purchase points wise), or you are not.
What would be great is to imagine a way to enable people to buy digging points and second-line material that IMO would have their place in this longer, deeper battle. If players could choose by mutual consent how much time separate one QB to the next (from "immediatly" to "X minutes" to "Y days"), this could have effects on certain aspects of the material available to the players. For example, if the players decide by mutual consent that the second battle of a QB import serie occurs 24 hours after the first one, that could "unlock" some equipment that simply would not be available immediately after the first battle. Example of this could be "digging points". One would import troops, and instead of spending his point assests solely in troops (assuming the second QB is still set on ME), he could spend it in digging points, or field telephone wiring, or mines, or forward area supply dump, etc.
All this certainly sounds complicated, but it is rather my poor syntax that is to blame, since it really all boils down to this: the guy who lauches the first QB have two additionnal options:
- First, a check box "QB serie" that, if checked, would toggle on a data field ("how many battles?"). This would lock the final map screen of the first four (keeping them along the fifth for a full review of the evolution of the serie in the last battle with some per-battle stats). And from there, a whole new purchase configuration along the above lines could be devised.
- Then, upon launching the next battle of the serie, a data field or drop down or whatever would allow player to determine how long this battle occurs after the preceding one, with impact on units available and supply of forward troops ("immediately" would results in forward troops NOT being resupplied with ammo, for example.)
I don't know if any of this make sense to you, but I really feel there is a simple way to enhance the QB engine.
Cheers
CMx2 SOP Bone Spotted in latest New Bones Thread
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Cheers.