Jump to content

Wargamer has interview with BFC Steve


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Seems they couldn't pry anything new out of Steve. Nice screenshots though, some I haven't seen before, though I might have just missed them elsewhere.

Unrelated, but in the comments someone mentioned that PC:O is half off and freshly patched...must resist...who am I kidding, time to scratch that East Front itch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems they couldn't pry anything new out of Steve. Nice screenshots though, some I haven't seen before, though I might have just missed them elsewhere.

Well, there was this; "We haven't 100% nailed down the Commonwealth forces yet, but for sure Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will be in the first module." I hadn't seen that mentioned before.

Mord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was also this update about CoPlay:

"CoPlay (cooperative play) is years away, if ever. The effort needed to make that happen is nothing short of massive and the demand for it somewhat questionable (especially compared to the other hundreds of significant features people ask for). Even if we thought there was a massive demand for CoPlay, we'd still hesitate."

I hope they'll consider it even as turn based game mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people want Cooperative Play. This to me would be a big waste of valuable programming time. Single players already have many distinct advantages vs the AI. Two players vs the AI would be even worse since players will be able to pause and discuss tactics. PvP is where multiplayer shines anyway.

I'd much rather have BF develop the AI, map navigation, designer, and general features like flame units, UI, etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK CoPlay is NOT 2 human players vs AI, but let's say H2H with 2 human players on both sides. Since there is not one player controlling all units, it would take fog of war to new level and you'd see much more these things that really happen when all people do not have the same idea of what should be done etc. Just like PvP is much more interesting than playing against the AI, I think CoPlay would be a equally big step forward.

But I guess BF has studied this "how many people are interested in feature X" quite throroughly, so I understand they have more important features to implement first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since there is not one player controlling all units, it would take fog of war to new level and you'd see much more these things that really happen when all people do not have the same idea of what should be done etc.

I think there might be a distinct uptick in the homicide rate between computer game players.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there was this; "We haven't 100% nailed down the Commonwealth forces yet, but for sure Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand will be in the first module." I hadn't seen that mentioned before.

Interesting, I am not aware of Australian Army involvement in any aspect of Italy, though am prepared to stand corrected if anybody has superior information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, I am not aware of Australian Army involvement in any aspect of Italy, though am prepared to stand corrected if anybody has superior information.

Not army, but there were formed units of Aussies in Italy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._454_Squadron_RAAF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._3_Squadron_RAAF

http://www.awm.gov.au/units/unit_11143.asp

I wonder it "Australia" was a typo (moutho?) for "India"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK CoPlay is NOT 2 human players vs AI, but let's say H2H with 2 human players on both sides. Since there is not one player controlling all units, it would take fog of war to new level and you'd see much more these things that really happen when all people do not have the same idea of what should be done etc. Just like PvP is much more interesting than playing against the AI, I think CoPlay would be a equally big step forward.

But I guess BF has studied this "how many people are interested in feature X" quite throroughly, so I understand they have more important features to implement first.

Well, wargames have been historically about 1v1. The meeting of two opposing tactical minds to see who comes out on top. I'm not saying that 2v2 wouldn't be fun or shouldn't be designed, it just doesn't seem to belong in the realistic wargame genre. Maybe one day it will be done but I don't think it will be worth the time to code for the many reasons listed above. I also don't think it would be a widely used feature unless a game lobby were implemented into the software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, wargames have been historically about 1v1. The meeting of two opposing tactical minds to see who comes out on top. I'm not saying that 2v2 wouldn't be fun or shouldn't be designed, it just doesn't seem to belong in the realistic wargame genre. Maybe one day it will be done but I don't think it will be worth the time to code for the many reasons listed above. I also don't think it would be a widely used feature unless a game lobby were implemented into the software.

Maybe *some* wargames have been 1v1, but some others, like flight sims, have had Many vs Many mode for a long time. In those other games there can be dozens of people on both sides and still mission goals are reached and so on. I've played those other games quite a bit and even though gameplay isn't as well organized as when you command AI units, it is the game mode that interests me most. When there are more than one kind of minds with different skills (just like CM units have skill levels from Green to Crack), all sorts of interesting, unpredictable things happen. And this is what realistic WARS (not wargames) are like. A higher level officer may give order and it is executed by soldiers that may think differently, know different things about what is happening and so on.

Agree about game lobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not forget one aspect: if coop would exist we would have 'friendly, not commandable' units. Which could be controlled by other players or the AI. These could be military units or civilians. Which opens up a lot of new possible scenarios (evacuating a village, freeing/escorting prisoners).

Multiplayer campaigns would also greatly benefit from Coop. Pincer operations with 2v1 are currently (nearly) impossible.

Coop is not a mainstream feature but IMHO more than just icing on the cake. Sometimes new ways are more interesting than new things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Other forces, such as Allied Italians, will likely work their way into the game in Packs (more unit focused than Modules)."

BF is going into DLC now? I preferred the module/expansion pack method more myself.

Not as such. 'Modules' are thematic entities, eg. Commonwealth forces. 'Packs' are more like collections of additional bits and pieces that are not necessarily related in any way, just new vehicles, formations, kitchen sink etc.

In CMBN terms this could mean for example French tanks for Germans and Ranger battalion for the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people take these games more seriously than othes :) I'm 100% sure CoPlay would produce awesome turn movies. Drama that pure AI just cannot produce.

Are you thinking of game play movies or the web cam footage while the players argue about how messed up the plan and whose mother wears army boots. There could be some good footage there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe *some* wargames have been 1v1, but some others, like flight sims, have had Many vs Many mode for a long time. In those other games there can be dozens of people on both sides and still mission goals are reached and so on. I've played those other games quite a bit and even though gameplay isn't as well organized as when you command AI units, it is the game mode that interests me most. When there are more than one kind of minds with different skills (just like CM units have skill levels from Green to Crack), all sorts of interesting, unpredictable things happen. And this is what realistic WARS (not wargames) are like. A higher level officer may give order and it is executed by soldiers that may think differently, know different things about what is happening and so on.

Agree about game lobby.

True, but just to be clear, when I say 'wargames' I mean the traditional Grognard term, i.e. hex tiled boardgames with rulebooks thicker than War and Peace :), which I consider CM to be a direct descendant of.

Flight sims and games like ARMA 2 can certainly be realistic but they're a totally different class of game than a wargame. Then there are a million RTS games which depict war but I would never classify them as a wargame just for the fact that they're not even trying to be realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...