Vinnart
-
Posts
2,570 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Vinnart
-
-
Some misunderstanding must have occurred. The icons have not changed.. rather it is the data in the UI that has been eliminated from the higher difficulty settings.
Bil
Glad to hear that there are no changes to FoW icons. They really give the feel that one is gathering some real useable intelligence, and are a great aid for especially for the RTS player.
As far as the UI info goes, but not have played with myself yet, not knowing which squad, or platoon number the enemy contact is makes much more sense with this new change. One would not get this info simply from looking.
IMO I want only the info one can really get. FoW icons make sense since obviously one can tell the difference between an enemy gun, tank, or infantry/MG when spotted, or firing. Beyond that I do not mind at all if it shows how many enemy infantry are spotted, and the weapon they are carrying such as in veteran mode. I say this because it saves having to move the camera to the enemy to see the models for ones self. One can get this info regardless of it being in the GUI, or not so I prefer the more convenient method of it just showing up there. It is like getting up to change the T.V. channel vs. using the remote control. The only flaw I see in the veteran system in this regard is that it shows that an enemy is wounded (yellow). I don’t think that info should be known since that would be very hard to tell just from looking.
-
I'd leave that as a setting, since some people (including me) would actually find it fun on "Iron", having to communicate via voice comms on only approximate positions of the friendly battallion. Sound contacts from friendly or enemy units would show as the same icons so you'd never know who that is unless you'd get a positive id - that tank which you hear moving down the road could be friendly or not.
Anyway, the limited awareness, being part of a greater whole but without the knowledge you get if you're the sole commander, and having to coordinate actions between players without full intel would be one of the best things for me in such a mode.
I agree that having the choice of modes gives more options for different experiences. A group of guys that are looking for a more casual game with less restrictions probably would prefer being able to see the entire force as players see it now, while a more cohesive team on voice comms might prefer the more "iron" mode. Lots of guys I am sure would enjoy different modes equally. More options are always best to please the most players.
-
As far as command goes there is the C2 between the units that exist already. There is opportunity to designate a team leader, which would probably be a good idea to coordinate the team. This person most logically would be the player controlling the highest HQ for the force, which would be company HQ, or battalion HQ, or the observer. When I played “Sudden Strike” sometimes we would designate the observer for this role. This really did add an overall commander dimension to the game that improved coordination between the players actually controlling the units.
In regard to the possibility of “iron” mode option that only allows the player to see what his units see rather than the entire force when none of his units are selected perhaps only the player who controls the highest HQ, and the observer could be the only ones to see the entire force. This would create a co-dependency that would require an overall “commander” be designated so the team can coordinate being that most of the players would not be able to see the entire force, and overall picture. This type of play I think will only go smooth if all players are on voice comms, and are an organized team.
As far as ease of play overall, and least frustration I favor the view for all players to be as it is now for single player in all players being able to see the entire force, but only control a part of it.
-
Just the thought of M18's running around at top speed guns blazing just made me drool a little....
actually alot.....
Me too!! The "Hellcat" was my favorite allied armor in CMAK. I always bought a few for QB to run circles around it's nemisis the "Hetzer" which my old army buddy used to always buy when we played. I hope it makes a debut to CMx2 soon.
-
You would at least have some way to designate troops to a certain player. Is there an overall commander who buys or each himself? How are points distributed? Lots of things.
The host would load the scenario, or QB picked units and map. When players join they choose a slot 1 to 6 per side. Slot 1 controls 1st platoon, and the 1st tank of a tank platoon. Slot 2 controls 2nd platoon, and the 2nd tank of a tank platoon ect... This is how players choose what units they will control. Slot 6 is for the observor who can watch the game, but does not control any units. Like I said the only difference here from 1v1 play is that no single player controls the entire force.
Well I can say with a certain authority that 2vs2 Wego does indeed work and actually quite good. DAR upcoming!
When GL comes out we will probably do a 2vs3 but I don't promise a DAR.
I would have more difficulties to get 4 players for RT. Heck, I don't even have one - thus I never played.
Biggest problem is finding the time where everyone can play. Timezones and lifestyle make this hard.Wego OTOH is asynchronous. I can put in my orders whenever I have time.
If you can get 2v2 or more in having a WEGO game go smoothly that is great, but I think that is more the exception than the norm.
Finding players is no problem. I have played RTS multi-multiplayer in other games as I am describing, and it was never a problem finding enough players so I do not think this would be any different as long as it is designed to make it easy to find and join games.
-
One thing is for sure; I know many would like to watch these games just like they like to follow AARs. For this reason the more observer slots available the better. "Sudden Strike" offered 1 observer per side to watch the game. This alone added much to the game from just being able to spectate, to actually helping to coordinate the team being able to see the overall situation with no responsibility of having to control units. We would designate this guy to be “team leader”, and would take turns running the battle directing the team.
-
Are the major questions.
If the answers don't include "a lot more than currently" then I doubt it will ever happen.
It'd be interesting to know the approximate breakdown of customers WEGO-only; WEGO and RT; RT-only though, but I don't know how you'd ever find out.
I feel it would only attract more players to CM. I don't think anyone expects this to happen anytime in the near furture, but it is fun to fantisize about the "what ifs" of such a game. This thread is about exploring the imagination.
All the hard core realist that talk so much aout immersion should be down with it in that this would be the most realistic CM expereince. Real combat is real time, and real forces have many different commanders working together.
-
The first step to make this happen would be to have 'friendly but not commandble' units in the game. These would be like enemy units but your troops don't shoot at them.
These units could get AI plans for which would allow to create new types of scenarios (protect the refugees, support a planned attack, ...)
I think what you are referring to here is CoOp play which is different in that is uses AI controlled as “teammates”. Although that sounds cool I think that would be something that could add a dimension to some single plaay scenarios only. For HvH it is about playing with humans only.
Probably lots of behind the scenes changes necessary plus the obvious ones to the interface.I don’t think many if any changes to the GUI would be needed at all. The only thing that would have to be added is new multiplayer lobby that the host opens up to host the game, and others join. The GUI would be the same, but when you select a teammates unit no orders are available.
Next step is to put these troops into other players hands. More interface changes for the editor/OOB screen.The editor/and QB screens would remain the same as it is the host that puts the game together just as if it were a 1v1. I am sure people would want to see their individual scores, so perhaps a different looking screen for scores in multi-multiplayer games.
RT: create mechanisms to synchronize more than two players. That sounds difficult. What if one player lags or drops?
I don’t know how difficult, but it seems to be apart of many games for many years now so it sound like a standard thing to set up. Lags, and drops have been around forever too, so I would expect the game to act similarly in these situations. Lag is lag and like every other game it would be choppy. Again here there is no difference than 1v1 RT play in that the game will only run as fast as the slowest speed player. In regard to drops here we have a difference to 1v1. If teammate drops another player will arbitrarily inherit control over his units. The fight must go on!
Wego: create mechanisms to spread the files to several persons. Easiest option would be to simply use save files for serial play. IMHO enough.
As I said before wego is geared more toward 1v1 play vs multiple players. It is hard enough to get one guy to send his turns in a timely manner sometimes. Four or Five players will not work at all. This is geared toward REAL TIME only since that type of ply works best multiplayer.
How many would play that type of game? Where do you get that many players to play at the same time for RT? Would the type of players who play this style of game actually buy CM for it?
This is the big question? I think it would attract MANY more players who have never played team based real time games. Once people hear how much fun it is they will eventually give it a try, and be HOOKED on a different CM experience that is the most realistic type of play. Being able to find games easily is critical with many different ways. The key to success is to see how other successful multiplayer games are doing it, and copy what someone else already did the work to figure out. There are all types of ways from built in game finders to external chat rooms. Players would come from the base that is there already, but do not RT because they do ot like controlling so may unit on their own. People will watch games via the ability to observe, and will give it a try. It only takes playing once to get hooked. I played my firt multiplayer “Sudden Strike” game and got hooked to play for years. I played my first CM PBEM and got hooked.
This type of CM experience would be different way of experiencing the game. Most play RT games for along time because of the team aspect that attract them to it. I come from RT gaming roots, and will say I prefer my CM WEGO because it is limited to 1v1. Offering a mutli-multiplayer opens the door to attract new player who are not into WEGO, but prefer the adrenaline of live battle. Do you think the FPS “Battlefield” would be as successful if it did not support many human players, and limited to single player? RT games are similar to FPS games this way. It is about the TEAMWORK that makes it fun and interesting. I think it would attract more new players to CM that are not into WEGO, but prefer RT multi.
-
CM Multi-multiplayer Real Time concepts:
This is a fictional concept game that expands Real Time multiplayer to accommodate perhaps 6v6 games. One reason I think real time play is not as popular as it could be is because it is limited to 1v1 games. Real time play is much more of a team sport with team work being one of it’s attractions, while WEGO is much more of a 1v1 sport. I know Steve mentioned at this point they have no plans to go in this direction with the series, but a creative grog can dream that someday it may happen. Perhaps on their own, or maybe as a joint effort with another company such as Fireglow, the developers of the “Sudden Strike” series which was a ww2 RTS I was involved with. That game was hugely popular, and some of the most fun I have had gaming largely due to the team play. Another reason I hear players say they do not like real time play is many complain that they do not like the clickfest. This concept takes much of that away as players would be controlling a limited amount of units. The clicking, and responsibility is spread out amongst the players to control the entire force. I believe many who have never played a real time game would try this type of multiplayer experience and be hooked on the realism, and team play.
OVERVIEW:
First, there are only a few differences between the 1v1 version, and the multiplayer that would accommodate 2v2 to 6v6. The units would still interact with C2 as they do now, but a single player would not be controlling the whole force. Games would be Company to Battalion size engagements per side, which mainly is how the game is now with force size. Each player would control either a platoon, or company depending on the amount of players, and the size of the overall force. In thinking of armor, and vehicle formation my thought is they should be spread out to the players just as the infantry. For example: Player 1 controls 1st platoon and the 1st Sherman of a tank platoon, 2nd player controls 2nd platoon ect.. 4th player controls weapons platoon with perhaps the HQ tank going to him, or to the 5th player who controls higher HQ, its teams, and odd units such as an attached Engineer platoon. I know some will say “wouldn’t it be more realistic if one player controls all the armor?” Probably, but everyone wants to have some tanks to play with so spreading vehicles, and tanks around is only fair to keep it fun for all the players. The 6th player is strictly an observer who controls no units. He can only move the camera around the map. Nothing good on TV, and like following AARs? Watch a real time CM battle as an observer. In games such as 2v2 the computer would equally divide the force between the players giving control of higher HQ units to one of the players.
DISTINGUISHING ONES OWN UNITS:
Since multiple players controlling a single force will need to be able visually distinguish their units from their teammates two colors will be needed per side for icons. The players units would appear as they do now (example allied green), but the units out of control that are controlled by teammates would be a few shades darker (example darker green). Perhap a single bmp. file of a transparent grey film could be used to go over teammate units so there would be no conflict with mods.
COMMS between players:
Players can communicate with text message, but being able to mark spots on the map is necessary. “Sudden Strike” used a concentric orange color circle graphic that would appear for a few seconds on the map where the player held down a particular key while clicking on the map. The team could see this to communicate areas.
From my experience voice comms between players is best over typing for comms. External programs for teams to use are available, but perhaps the game could have support built in being that my imagination has no limited budget to work with. Good Communication, and teamwork between teammates is the main focus of the game. As stated the C2 between units remains the same, and player will have to coordinate to keep it good. Players will be able to still move through the entire chain of command, and select other players units to see GUI info, but will only be able to look at team units, not control them.
PLAYER VIEW:
The view of each player would be the same as the game has now in that the player can see the whole force, and contacts. He will be able to see his teammates units, and select those units to see it’s GUI info, but will not be able to control the other players units. In Iron mode while a single unit is selected the player would see only what that unit sees, but perhaps another way would be when none of his units are selected he would only see what his units sees, and not the entire force. This type of play would be much tougher, and probably not as practical with frustration in communicating map areas to each other. Only testing and playing would show what works, or not. It must be fun with little frustration in play. Assuming that each player will be selecting their own units most one will really get the feel of contact information being passed along between the units.
HOSTING A GAME:
The host of the game will select either the scenario, or QB units, and map. Once this is done the “LOBBY” screen appears. Here is where the other player will join either the allied, or axis side. Players will also pick there control slot for which formation they will play with (player 1 gets 1st platoon ect..) Once all the game has the desired amount of players the host will
start the game.
FINDING GAMES:
This will either make, or break the success of such a game as this. Players MUST be able to find and join games easily. A system that is built into the game such as the FPS “Battlefield” uses I think is most convenient, and works best. “Sudden Strike 3” tried this type game finding, but it did not work well at all (Stupid!). Thus the game that saw three highly successful predecessors died. The predecessor games used an external chat room where hosts would advertise their game along with the IP address to join. To join the game a player would open the game and plug in the IP address. Once connected to the host the joiner would find themselves in the multiplayer lobby that was built into the game. Once the game was full, or the players wanted to play with less than full the host would start the game.
-
Hmm, that would actually be nice. The reason I never play RT is because that would simply be a waste of time in battalion sized battles which I like playing with other people. Heck, you'll probably not be very effective controlling anything above a company and even then it'd be a struggle with lots of randomness and "forgotten" units left on their own for extended periods of time.
I think it depends on the individual player as to what they can handle, but for CM I do not see players wanting to control more than a company, and a few tanks in a battalion size battle. A platoon with perhaps a team, or two, with perhaps a tank, or a vehicle would be a minimum force I think most could handle fine. I say it is up to the individual because I have controlled regiment size forces ok that were all individuals (no squads) when I used to play a game called “Sudden Strike”. Talk about chaos in keeping tabs on a force that size on your own, but I was rather good at it.
I will put my thoughts together in how I see such a multiplayer game working for a discussion in a new thread as it is off topic from this one.
We can all brainstorm our imaginations there for multi-multiplayer RT.
-
So what are some of the ideas you thought of this week that you might get around to in 2028? Besides the beer next to your retirement rocker?
CM holographic brain implant?
Besides the M46 containment, beverage, Guinness concept
my thoughts these days have been on two other concepts/ features for the game that are not new, but have feedback in how I could see them working.1. “Follow” command. Surely I am not inventing the wheel with proposing such a command, but I do see it working a certain way for CM as opposed to how I seen in work in other games. I can think of no other command that would streamline logistics in moving columns, which I found I do much of especially in CMBN.
2. Multi-multiplayer for RT. I feel this is key for widely successful RTS games, and one of the reasons RT play is not as popular as WEGO is here. WEGO is a 1v1 sport, and RT is best played as a TEAM sport. My thoughts for such play are that each player controls either one of the platoons or companies in battalion size battles. Emphasis is on teamwork, and the units would act as they do for single player in that good C2 would be important. I would love to see this also contain some observer slots for each side so people could watch the game RT. Being that AAR’s are so popular here I think many would enjoy watching live battles. Lots of potential here in many ways.
-
Good ideas, but not new ones I actually remember the original Vinnart thread. One of the better proposals I've seen. Steve
Thanks Steve. As I told you once before great minds think a like. If only the imagination did not have to contend with the reality of a budget to add all the features everyone would like. If there is anything there in how I imagined such a tool as the “Roster” to work that you would want to incorporate in your design you have been working on please feel free to use any of my feedback if it helps.
-
Interesting also that many of the concerns described in this thread such as getting too many notifications I have troubleshot already with the “Roster” design. In the way I show it changing events with units are done in a subtle manner for events that change rapidly back and forth such as “contact”, or C2 status. Other events like “Casualties” that do not change rapidly back and forth are given more emphasis in the notification with the unit on the “Roster” temporarily highlighted. Even though one gets the flickering icon now in the game to show a casualty is taken, which is great, this can only be seen if that unit is in camera view. Also, remember that there is NO replay in RT play so events like this can be missed. The “Roster” addresses all these needs in an unobtrusive, easy to follow way.
-
[*] A simplistic way of linking order waypoints, so one movement orders don't get triggered (i.e. a Pause command is inserted) until another unit has achieved a waypoint.
This sounds how I imagine a "Follow" command working. Unit B is told to follow unit A, and is 10m away from unit A when the order is given. Unit A is then given a move order with several waypoints. Unit B will move to where A started, as it's first waypoint, and will follow the path plotted for unit A. When unit A stops unit B will stop 10m behind unit A maintaining the initial interval of 10m when the "follow" order was given. In this way a player could move the entire force in column along the path of the point unit while maintaining a desired interval between units. One would simply give the following units the “follow” order to the unit in front, and would only have to plot orders for the point unit instead of having to plot move orders for each individual unit as it is now.
-
Check out the "Roster" concept. It is like a visual radio for the player that links the player to the force giving the most important notifications in an easy to read way, and gives overall info one would only get if each unit was selected individually. It also allows the player to be zoomed in with the camera in one area while not missing what it is out of camera view. The final designs are toward the end of the thread. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=104982
-
Can you restock grenades?
+ 1 for wishing we could, and as always wishing for more availability of 45cal to be more balanced against the over abundance of 9mm the Germans have for their smg.
-
What does "Conscript" mean in CM terms?
It usually means he will be on point as cannon fodder for recon by death tactics.
In a side note I just found out my pops has a Hitler youth knife that one of his uncles brought back from the war. He was watching “Saving Pvt. Ryan” and recognized it as the same knife so he never knew what exactly the type of military knife it is. The scene is when they are mopping up on the beach, and Vin Deisal hands it to his Jewish Ranger buddy. Unfortunately, it is missing the swastika from the hilt and is in rough shape, but still VERY sharp. I thought that was rather cool finding my family had a little piece of history I never knew of before.
-
Thanks for taking the time to post these ND. Kudos to all the graphic artist at BF. Great work!
-
So, your gonna take the shot GaJ. Boldness can certainly pay off at times (along with a little luck), and it certainly makes for more drama for a cliff hanger. Will it hit? Will it not? Stay tuned all you Batfans out there to find out!
Good luck.
-
I vote go with the clock. It is the only thing you can just look at while you are watching and taking screen shots. Going by file numbers or memory or some other cheat sheet means further record keeping but going from the clock can always be checked (it is right there in each screen shot).
+ 1. The clock is what I would do for AAR presentation as it seems the easiest thing to remember chronologicaly as it is in the screen shot. I also like how it gives the viewer's reference he would get if he were playing himself keeping track of how much time is left in the game.
-
Bil, I think the inclusion of the SITMAP for each turn is a good idea since it gives a clear overview to follow. Infact I wish it were SOP for all AARs. Are the contour lines accurate to the lay of the actual map?
-
Taking that shot on the Elefant certainly is a dilemma. The range looks far so what are the chances of a hit with penetration through all those trees? Tough call. I can’t say I would take it or not without more experience of ATG vs Elefant, and better situational awareness of the map. Perhaps I would leave it to the ATG AI to fire or not.
-
Heh heh - I don't think Bil has a gamey bone in his body, he's a Military Man. Heck, he comes up the centre every battle, spurning the obvious gamey benefits of the flanks
I am a military man, and find nothing “gamey” about using the flanks as it simulates flanking. The reality of this combat is there is an edge that will never go away no matter how big the map, and in reality someone is always on the furthest edge of the contact otherwise there would be nothing known as flanking. I say adapt to the unique combat of this arena as an MMA fighter learns to adapt to the unique hand to hand combat environment of the octagon. Adapt to it, as it will never adapt to you. If the attacker uses the edge to try to flank, learn to use the edge of the arena to advantage in defense to counter the strategy. When water goes into a cup it becomes the cup. When a strategist goes into Combat Mission, he becomes Combat Mission. Don’t think it politically incorrect to move troops near the edge as there always is an edge unless infinity.
GaJ, Enjoying this AAR like episodes of a good show to follow. Good luck in the battle.
-
I am surprised that AT gun didn't spot you first too. Good cliff hanger. Will the AT gun get a shot off, and get a kill, or does Bil hit with a second shot?
Biggest problem is finding the time where everyone can play. Timezones and lifestyle make this hard.
my thoughts these days have been on two other concepts/ features for the game that are not new, but have feedback in how I could see them working.
Single player , turn based or real time?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I prefer my single play WEGO because it is best suited right now for the game, but dabble around in RT because I see much more potential for the game for RT play. RT shines most, and is best played multi-multiplayer. CM is limited to 1v1 Real time. In regard to missing things in RT the game does seem to making steps to improve the RT experience. The added FoW icons, and adjustable waypoints do help, but there is more that I am sure BF has ahead to improve it further. In every explanation that I read in this thread as why one prefers WEGO play vs. RT there is a solution to make it more enjoyable to attract more to RT play. Once they do, I encourage all to try both types of play for different experiences. You can definitely enjoy playing both. One has a cliffhanger appeal, while the other is more of an adrenaline rush. Which style more realistically simulates the immersive feel of real combat? Since real combat happens in real time the answer is RT play.
The funny thing is my roots in wargaming are in real time play. I played only that with a friend bugging for some time to try CM. I was closed minded to turn based being only into the rush of real time games. When the game I was into finally died out I opened my mind to give WEGO a try. I was hooked after my first PBEM. Having played both styles of play I can say they both are equally fun, but are different experiences to be enjoyed. As it stands right now it is real time play, and it's support that could use the most work in improving.