Tarquelne

LOL, I wanted to quote it and say "Desk Jockey". </font>

However, I didn't ever seem to end up with AHS games if I took even a little care when shopping. Now I take much more care, buy fewer games and still end up with FAR more games I don't care for. Not much AHS, but plenty of games that, IMO, no one should have bothered making. Part of that is, I'm sure, becoming jaded/more demanding. But I don't think that's all of it. I think a lot of the reason is the graphics. They're relatively expensive to produce, generally raising barriers to entry and making the "suits" more important. Thus giving less control to people more likely to be passionate about the game. Part of it is the increasingly "mainstream" cant of gaming. There's more money involved, the market is more competitive, and so things that are easily translated into higher sales - like graphics - are selected for. After all, it's hard to lie with screen shots, but any game can claim "great AI" or "Deep game play" on the box and in ads. I don't see as many "labors of love." Games just packed with good content, stuff completely unnecessary (Like, say, the flower-delivery option in JA2), but fun nonetheless. I think that's a money problem. If "suits" are funding your game they want you to get it out the door, not tinker with content that could just be put in a sequel or expansion. Or maybe the programmers just feel like eating: Even without the graphics games are still more expensive to produce. (IIRC) And perhaps in the Good Old Days, the whole endevor being new, you were more likely to get people passionate about the games they made. Otherwise they wouldn't have gone out on a limb making a game. And then there's the type of games: I keep trying RTS games and I keep being disappointed. There have been a few I liked, but for the most part I wish the genre would just go away. But RTS is still very "In." (Things seem to be getting better, though.) As a hard-core pen&paper RPGplayer the MMORPG's leave me cold. That's two genre's that were pretty minor years ago that are now very important and getting a lot of resources. Even with FPS - a genre that I think has gotten better - "true" all-the-way-through-the-game co-op is less common. Overall I think it's true to say that newer game releases tend to be "dumbed down." But I think it's probably more accurate to say that the market for games has broadend, and that more mainstream "dumbed down" games are getting a higher proportion of the releases. Because that's where the money is. There are still some Great Games being made: But the market discourages them. And sometimes I wonder if we didn't just get lucky with Microprose: F-19 (yeah, I'm pretty sure it was "19." The sequel was F-117, though.), MoO, X-Com, Civ, etc, etc, etc. All Microprose. They weren't behind all the great games, but they may have helped shape a market that encouraged them.

It's much simpler to pretend that the super technologies require special radiation from Earth's Yellow Sun. And Space, being full of kryptonite, has a suppressive effect. Speaking of kryptonite, I'm just happy DropTeam doesn't have some super-rare mineral or whatnot that for some odd reason controls access to high tech stuff. (Though I assume that he who controls the Spice controls the universe.) The backstory might come to present anti-matter as a limiting resource, but that - thank goodness - isn't the same.

I almost always play smaller LAN games with timed turns. I've chosen to believe CM:SF is getting RT just for me. It's a warm feeling. I think I'll miss guessing where my opponent is at in the replay by watching them wince. (Or, less auspicially, hoot.) But it'll be fun trying to pick up on what the OPFOR's commander is up to and seeing in Real Time. Hmm... or trying to fool him...

Nope. It's got "fins" and "wings" that allow the wearer to decieve up to three viewers up to 20 degrees apart. It's in the specs. Seriously though - the "geometry problem" is a major one, and requires something really spiffy to completely eliminate, but you could still get something pretty usefull short of that. Depends on the angle you're viewing him from. It's not an invisibility suit, but it'd still be pretty good. Because you can't find them. They're wearing super camo suits. Actually, by the time we have really good invisibility suit tech I'm not sure there'll be any place on the battlefield for someone (as opposed to something to wear it.) Right. But disposable F-18's only a few mm across may not have 40mm guns, and that might be exactly what you want. C'mon. If we've got a guy with a super-camo suit skuling about lets go ahead and assume we want him there rather than the equivilent of a squadron of F-18s. Maybe you want him to ID someone. Maybe you want some really picky target selection. Maybe the bad guys will shoot down the F-18 equivilent, or counter-battery fire of some sort would hammer your stand off weapons. Probably. But not if you're fighting sufficiently low-tech (or utterly unprepared) opponents. (And keep in mind that what I was describing wasn't a "Predator" suit - just something I thought would be useful.) [ November 08, 2005, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Are we assuming a heliocentric universe?

True, if you've got several things happening at once needing your attention it just lets you know there's more happening than you can handle. But if the events are spaced out more you won't have to waste time checking up where nothing's happening. ("Street with red house.... still nothing. Street with factory... still nothing... now back to the fun...") Alternatively, you could settle down to give a string of commands to one group without risking remaining uninformed about major developments around another group. I don't think it's a "fix" for RT problems, but I think it's likely to be helpful. I dunno... it could be that the pace of CM:SF will generally be so slow, and the in-game IT so high, that notifications would just be redundant. And with a sufficiently small scenario we may even have much of the "borg" problem even in RT... I think that's a really important point. There's nothing that's going to completely "fix" playing a detailed military simulation as a single-player game. Well, nothing short of a really good AI. Things like notifications may reduce or eliminate some problems, while possibly introducing others. But compared to the co-ordination and information allowed by WEGO, I think the RT problems will usually be pretty minor. For scenarios where RT would be worse than WEGO, you can use WEGO.

Lapses: Don't get me wrong - I think the occasional lapses thing is more realistic than "Borging," and not necessarily unrealistic at all. But there will be times when it isn't realistic either: If there's inaction only because the player is currently wearing the hat of the commander of a different group and isn't aware there's a job for another one of the player's hats, or doesn't have time to don it. Hmm... imagine a Co-play game where there are not only realistic chain-of-command type delays built into the sharing of information, but also the players aren't allowed to communicate at all. A company commander with a sudden need for help would just have to hope his commander will, on his own initiative and for no particular reason, look in on his situation before it's too late. The "zip your POV around the map" ability in CM makes looking around easy. But the larger or more intense the scenario played RT, the less useful that ability is for acquiring information in a timely manner. At some point players will start unrealistically missing information, information that a real commander would gain via units submitting reports. Notification system: Super. Given that, the scale of CM:SF and some other factors (including the TacAI) I think this lack-of-information/time thing will be more nuisance than flaw, and certainly it won't be of "Borg thinking" proportions. The game won't often move so quickly that you won't be able to check in with each group as about as fast - or faster - than it could realistically get "actionable" messages to you. (With a little luck the audible signals of something happening - gunfire, men running around yelling - will be enough.) OTOH, checking up on everyone all over the map just to confirm there's nothing happening doesn't sound very fun. Primarily that could just be taken as a sign that the map should be played WEGO. But it'd be nice if you could concentrate on the action, secure in the knowledge that if something comes up the TacAI will let you know there's now something to see elsewhere. As tom_w said, something "subtle and appropriate." When something significant comes up I assume real staff officers/messengers don't just slip the report in at the bottom of an "In" box, but also somehow call attention to it. New contact icons on the RPDA in SF might flash a couple of times, for example. Or a formation that's quickly plunged in morale/cohesion might, after the appropriate delay, have it's ID appear in red for a moment somewhere in the UI. (Alternatively, a simulated "Oh god, oh god, we're all going to die!" radio call has it's own attractions.) [ November 08, 2005, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Which is where the TacAI comes into play. Without it even WeGo would be unplayable. Sure, you could issue orders in CMx1 without any pressure to hurry up, but once you hit GO! your unit's were in the hands of the TacAI.</font>

I don't think the geometry problem is that bad in many situations. Not if you've got, for example, a small mob of networked micro-UAVs monitoring the terrain, most likely LOSs and feeding that info to your camo suit, a suit with an effective number of screens expressed as something like a polygon count. The computers will also supply you with a path least likely to result in your being seen. It's not a "Predator" suit, but it'd be pretty good. Too bad the enemy's sniffers have picked up on some of the signature molecules from your organics and a round from an automated mortar is already on the way... OTOH, I don't think chameleon "Make me look similar to whatever's right behind me." camo is all that distant. Impractical versions, at least. [ November 07, 2005, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Or Tinkerbell dies, yes?

I wonder if your units will volunteer information on sightings or enemy actions. While you're paying attention to platoon B will platoon A keep you informed, or will you have to scroll over there and check on 'em? If the situation arises will a little "Hey, Cap, lookatthat. They do have some T-72s." text-box pop up, or will you have to just go check when you hear the shelling start?

A real-time mode could make co-play/coop much more interesting. (Or, at least, supply a really compelling reason for adding another "commander".) Hmm... And a FPS mode could be a ball in a coop situation. Someone else directs the battle and you, you direct a single soldier.

Sounds good... CM: Beyond Hammer's Bolos of Sparta? CM: The Stainless Steel Armor? CM: Berserker to Noise? (Or "CM: The Book of Signals"?) That's enough of that. Military sci-fi by Niven, as opposed to set in Known Space? I don't remember any... errr... more than 1. I suppose you could consider "The Soft Weapon" a military story, too: You could make a game with a secret option that wipes the hard drive. Hmm.... "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex"? Not that it's military, but surley an such an imaginative group of guys could come up with an interesting game based on that? 5 stars for "Originality" in every review. Hype, IPO, selectively quote reviews, and cash out! It's a bit different from your present business model, I grant you...

Steve , I know I was a bit out of line and I thank you for your graciousness. I did not post anything I do not personally believe. I felt that someone needed to speak up in defense of our great nation. With respect, Nick Abbott </font>

I think that'd be fun.

You could have some other aliens (or a faction of the attacking aliens) trying to use humans to fight a proxy war. Or a "French and Indians" war sort of set up. It'd take either carefull fiddling with the backstory, or a very sketchy backstory. (One that doesn't supply enough rope to hang itself, so to speak.) But then, if you're talking "Space Lobsters", is "realistic" really a concern? There's nothing funny about air burst shrimps!

Abbott didn't answer how many children he'd kill to get SH - Hof asked about the quantity of "terrible sh*t", not it's existance - and good for him: As a collision between the ethical and the practical that's an utterly political question. Whose kids? What's the probabilities? What's the cost in lives? Whose lives? Do we have enough money? Do they? There are other forums for that. Stop tempting us. [ October 25, 2005, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Good question. The answer is "Maybe." I agree that's a major problem. Actually, I imagine that it is "the" major problem, in that communication problems are more common than idiocrisy. (I was disapointed to realize that "sensationalistic" isn't made up, so there's one.) I'll just add that given a long enough posting history the likelyhood of a given person merely being a poor communicator as opposed to "an idiot" becomes insignificant. Or perhaps just unimportant.

Yes. But some of them are right. There's a lot to be said for that. Then again, you need not always just assume... And yet, let's be frank, making that assumption can be such a great time saver. We also have a very diversified media (read "often partisan and sensationalistic"), so people can be both "well informed" (for a given value of "well" and "informed")AND ignorant. (This is an excellent example of the power of supply and demand in a free market, btw.) The problem isn't everyone thinking everyone else is an idiot. The problem is the actual idiots not realizing they're idiots. (If not selfish bastards.) Heck, it's the basic problem of government. Solve that and we'll all be eating off gold plates! [ October 25, 2005, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

I was going to put in an anti-proton/lawyer joke, but God told me not to.

Given my druthers it'd be far-future, but not space opera. Of course, Space Lobsters sounds pretty space-operaish, if not outright pulp. Eh, the gameplay is what's important. With a wholly fictional setting I'd hope for something very unlike WWII. (Like, even more so than CM:SF.) But even WWII with a twist or two would probably be a hoot. Maybe Space Lobsters will be set underwater? And the largest "vehicles" will be the X-Lobsters themselves, at something less than 2' long? That'd be different. Can we have cyborg starfish? [ October 24, 2005, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

How much AM would a DropTeam vehicle need to carry?

Thanks guys. And, come to think of it, there are probably a lot of tricks possible in the DropTeam universe involving such things.

"Eminently credible and convincing?" That sounds like a rather high standard. And perhaps ignores the fact that BFC has stated it will flesh out the backstory more. While I find the proposed story quite unlikely, I think it not much more unlikely than, well, than the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq was several years ago. Stuff happens. More to the point, I find the possibility of another unilateral, non-UN backed invasion in 2007 quite incredible, and the proposed backstory easier to believe. That may just be me... but I've yet to be convinced that BFC's scenario is really so unlikely, or that a the UISFNDR scenario is at all likely. ("suggesting as worse than", yes?) On the matter of people either not reading the proposed backstory or just not believing it and imposing their own objectionable backstory (objectionable by their own standards)... I think that's simply not BFC's problem. I do appreciate that many are trying to convince BFC to switch to a backstory they think better. But, short of that, if you don't like the backstory it should either be ignored or filled in with a better one. I see no compelling reason to replace a backstory you don't believe with one you don't like. OTOH, I suppose BFC may find that way too many people will only see the game as an exercise in "neocon fascism", as one poster put it. That they refuse to suspend their disbelief enough to accept the hypothetical scenario making up the backstory. But I think that'd indicate be a failure on the part of an overly-sensitive public, not BFC. I suspect there are people that only play the "good guys" in the CM games, and who can only enjoy a wargame that allows them to fight a war that's well known for being a "Just" War. If everyone were like that the world would be a better place. But I figure if most of us can handle raining down 81mm mortar fire on a bunch of random conscripts - US, German, whatever - in a CM game, we can handle quite a bit. Including a CMSF backstory that seems less than inevitable.