CM Multi-Multiplayer concepts. Live DARs!

[Vinnart]

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.

[Waycool]

Would love for these features to be available for mp.

[Endymion]

Awesome idea. Probably won't happen unless Battlefront change their minds about it but a nice one nevertheless

Real time games would finally be manageable in some sort of strategic manner and having to cooperate with others would do much to make the games more interesting. Intel and communication would be crucial, especially if played on "Iron" difficulty where you'd be sure only of your own squads position and would have to "spot" other friendly units.

This would allow for so many possibilities, I just wonder how difficult rewriting the multiplayer code to allow for it would be.

[poesel]

The first step to make this happen would be to have 'freindly but not commandable' 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, ...)

Probably lots of behind the scenes changes necessary plus the obvious ones to the interface.

Next step is to put these troops into other players hands. More interface changes for the editor/OOB screen.

RT: create mechanisms to synchronize more than two players. That sounds difficult. What if one player lags or drops?

Wego: create mechanisms to spread the files to several persons. Easiest option would be to simply use save files for serial play. IMHO enough.

Just a few thoughts and already lots of things to do to make it happen. 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?

More probable for Wego games me thinks. Asynchronous serial order input takes away many problems. Still the same question: would you buy/not buy CM for that feature?

Still - would create some epic games if this ever materializes in whatever form.

[Baneman]

...

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?

...

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.

[Vinnart]

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.

[Vinnart]

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.

[Vinnart]

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.

[poesel]

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.

I meant that the first step would be to teach CM that one side may have more than one commander. The assumption that CM is a 1vs1 game may be very deeply encoded in the program. This could create a lot of problems if you change that. I don't know of course but think it's likely so.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Endymion]

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.

The thing is, you would only need 1 or 1,5 hours to finish a battle in real time. Getting people together , even from different timezones is doable for such a period of time.

It's way different from Wego where I sometimes spend 30 minutes or more on a single turn moving my troops in a huge battle for example, checking different possibilities, waypoints, lines of sight, micromanaging everything. So a Wego battle can take much longer, many hours, though dispersed in time.

[Vinnart]

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.

[Los]

Just to borrow an idea from another great game....but have any of you guys ever played Scourge of War Gettysburg by Norbsoft development? It's a civil war game where the units get down to regiments and batteries )and the AI can certainly run command very well at any level) but has many of the concepts bandied around here. That game can have any number of players and we have often had battles with up to 20-30 players, most commanding brigades with some being division corps and even army commanders. (They have a online campaign mod too)

There are two other interesting features they have that would be applicable here. One is a feature called Headquarters in the Saddle. In that mode you are basically limited to an eyeball view of the commander. In coop mode you can also allow normal views (meaning you can see things from above as in CM, but you are limited to only the units you command up to a certain radius in meters. The other cool feature that is available as an option is couriers only messages. So you have to send a message via courier (you can select from a menu but I think there is also a mod for free text, and the courier has to ride over to wherever you are sending the message.

These features really transform the game experience into a command simulator of that era. So I guess another cool feature would be the various communications options between players. Obviously comms were very much better than in the ACW but certainly were not skype-like by any imagination. It would be neat to impose comms limits as an option, say face to face, wire comms, and some various radio comms, the higher up in command the better the radios. These features can make for a great game experience in SOW.

Los

[Bil Hardenberger]

Los, where have you been? Haven't seen you around here in years.. could be that I just missed your posts though.

How is retirement treating you?

[Los]

Very good Bill, thanks. No loud bangs and I don't have to watch people's hands any more...

Los

[Vinnart]

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.

[Endymion]

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.

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.

[Vinnart]

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.

[Vinnart]

BUILDING THE RT COMMUNITY:

This is what makes a real time game popular or not. The game can be the greatest, but if people can’t find and join real time games easily then it is destined to diminish in popularity with little longevity. This is what happened with “Sudden Strike 3”which became short lived. It’s predecessors system worked SO much better, and were huge successes.

Where is the BF community? It is HERE on this FORUM. Not at Steam, or even the gaming clubs. EVERYONE is here. Not everyone is there.

Is there good support in place for the RT multiplayer community now? I do not think so, but it can be.

CM LIVE CHAT ROOM:

Whether CM ever goes multi-multiplayer, or always stays 1v1 RT what I would like to propose would put the basic support in place to improve the finding, and joining of RT games. As the forum is it does not work well for RT game finding support, as the desire to play RT is SPONTANEUS. One has an hour NOW, and wants to play NOW. Starting a thread to make a game does not work well for RT. Too much scheduling involved to get a game. The forum works great for WEGO game starting, but not RT. Drawing from what I know works from my experience with “Sudden Strike” the answer is simple: A CM LIVE CHAT ROOM found at the TOP of the CMx2 Forum page. Putting access to it at the top will make it easily seen by the most CMx2 players. Optimal placement here, where everyone comes is essential for success in popularity of use. Perhaps it could open in a separate window similar to how facebook’s chat window works. In this way a person can have the RT chat window open while waiting for others who want to play at that moment. This way players can still browse the forum while keeping the chat window open.

The room would be a place where players can advertise hosting a game in real time, and where players looking for a game can find one in real time. Even if one is not looking to play RT anyone can hang out and shoot the breeze to chat about whatever in live time. In design the room needs two main boxes each having a smaller box at the bottom to enter messages. One main box is to advertise hosted games. A player would open CM and set up the MP game. Once they get the IP, and port info they will enter that info along with a description in to this box in the chat room. There should also be a way to delete the game hosting “ads” once the game is full and ready to start.

SAMPLE:

IP: 175-249-784 Port: 7402 - Small force size ME, each pick force. [Delete]

The second main box of the room would be the general chat area. With the ease, and convenience of this tool a necessary base of support would be in place to support multiplayer real time. This alone should be a great value to those currently wanting to play this way even with the 1v1 limit.

If it were implemented today I do not think it would be anywhere as crowded as it could be. This is because of the current shortcomings in ease of play for playing CM in real time vs. WEGO making that style of play not as popular at this point. Improving it’s shortcomings even as a 1v1 RT game will increase the amount of players wanting that experience, and enjoying it.

THE GROWTH OF ORGANZED TEAMS:

Assuming the game goes multi-multiplayer the emergence of organized teams (commonly called “clans” in the gaming world) is inevitable. Then you have organized team vs organized team almost like the NFL or any other organized team sport league. Player will find this to be the funnest aspect of multi-multiplayer, and really is the core of sustained interest in playing. When I was involved with “Sudden Strike” I played in a clan that had over 40 members. Not all of us played at the same time, but we always played together vs. others, or in inner clan games. We were well organized; with a 24 hr voice chat room open to the members, which was great feature that attracted others to want to join. This always made being cohesive during battle much easier, and sometimes we would just hang and BS about whatever. I seriously doubt I would not have played “Sudden Strike” for about 6 years if I had not joined my team. Involvement in organized teams doesn’t only improve playing together (we won A LOT), but it becomes more than that. It is about the camaraderie, and the friends you make. My clan was international so I made friends all around the world that I would not have made otherwise. All of this gives a game much more dimesion in more ways.

[Vinnart]

RT REPLAYS & LIVE DAR’s and MOVIE AAR’s:

One common thing I hear from players is they prefer WEGO because of the replay. I think the replay is one of WEGO style plays greatest attractions for that experience. This will always be something unique exclusive about WEGO that would never be part of RT play. This is one great aspect that we all enjoy, but there other equally great experiences that RT can only exclusively offer. These are:

* Being able to watch as a spectator a real time game as it unfolds.

· Being able to record, and watch a replay of an entire game straight through. In essence a Live AAR’s that is more like a movie rather than a slide show. Players can record multiplayer games, and upload for others to download and watch.

Both of these features were part of “Sudden Strike”. Observer slots during games enable people to just watch a real time game as a spectator. The REPLAY was another GREAT aspect. One was able to record it in it’s entirety and watch it later. During replay one could maintain the view of the camera to follow the camera moves that were done during the actual game that were actually done by the player, OR could free the camera to move freely around the map. Both were GREAT features unique to RT play.

I know both of these aspects can be done as I have seen it in the other game. I do not know how hard to implement in CM as “Sudden Strike” was a 2D game. Both being able to record and watch latter, or watch it live as it unfolds as a spectator would add much to the appeal, and interest of RT as there is much interest here in AAR’s.

[Vinnart]

Just to borrow an idea from another great game....but have any of you guys ever played Scourge of War Gettysburg by Norbsoft development?

Los, Thanks for pointing out the ACW game. I checked it out, and it looks like a game with great depth albeit with very dated graphics (looks like CMx1). I have been meaning to comment on it, and I think it is always good to see what other games are doing for ideas. To be honest I had not thought of the option originally to have TEAM FoW till you pointed that out as a feature of that game so thanks for your input in brainstorming with this concept.

In regard to TEAM FoW I think it will add realism that many players will like, and will add in the function of the "team leader". As far as this goes I think having this as a setting to have either all team mates have full view of the force (what one experiences now in single player), or TEAM FoW which would only allow players to see what their units sees except for the player controlling the highest HQ unit, and the observers. These should be able to see the entire force to be able to “command” the team without making it frustrating and to simulate the highest HQ has more info of overall picture. Observers must see the entire force if just watching as a spectator so they can see the whole show from an entertainment perspective. Having these two settings strictly for multi-multiplayer separate than the difficulty settings would allow the most flexibility for games. This would allow players to have games in any difficulty setting while having the choice to have TEAM FoW ,or not. Even “iron” difficulty allows the showing of the entire force when a specific unit is not selected so the TEAM FoW is something different. Players can play in “iron” difficulty with or without TEAM FoW, or Warrior with, or with out TEAM Fow, or Veteran ect…

[Vinnart]

THE MOST REAL SIMULATION, AND IMMERSION OF REAL COMBAT CM CAN OFFER:

So you like, and want the most realism, and immersion do you?

You want a closer experience to what it is like to be a REAL platoon leader, or a company commander in the realist combat simulation CM can offer?

This is it!

Here is why -

Real Time Battle:

Well, real combat happens in real time rather than turn based. The quicker pace better duplicates the adrenaline rush that being in real combat produces.

Real Time Decision Making:

General Eisenhower I am sure had a day to think over a move, but your average field grade officer does not have that luxury. He must think on his feet, assess the situation, and issue his orders quickly. He also does not have a pause button to rely on. However, CM is a game that is more tactical, and slower paced than most RT games. “Sudden Strike” was a much faster pace then CM. It was much faster, and much more chaotic. Being that the platoon leaders in this concept will only have to control a platoon most should be able to handle this without feeling over burdened.

Real Simulation of Command:

In reality one commands men, not pixeltroops. With the TEAM FoW option one player (The one who controls Coy HQ) will be able to see the entire force, while the other players can only see what their units see, and the FoW info that has been passed amongst the units he controls. Since this player is the eyes of the team he is in the best position to pass intel, and help coordinate the other players much like the Coy HQ he controls. The team will rely on him, and he will rely on them to do most of the fighting. Most of the units he controls are not at the tip of the spear, so he can concentrate more on his role for the team in the management of HUMANS. This role should appeal most to WEGO guys who want to get in on RT without the least amount of chaos, and clicking. Imagine an RT that you do not have to click a unit to move somewhere, but rather tell another person to move the units. Imagine a game that allows you to “lead” real men in battle. I use the term “command”, and “Leader” loosely, as if one is the type to bark orders like we are back in the military you may not be too popular to play with. Act as a team with all players having input to solve problems, and all will have a GREAT time. All should get the chance to “lead”, and to have this new experience that will have more of a WEGO feel.

Real Combat requires Real Teamwork:

Real companies, and battalions have different leaders that work together as team. It is not a 1v1 affair. Just as the units in the game have different leaders with different qualities, so it will be with the different players on the team.

So if you want the most REAL feel of immersive, simulated combat that CM could give this is for you.

REAl WORLD MILITARY APPLICATIONS:

All of the above gives CM more dimension as a tool for real world military training. Instructors can be "on" the battlefield next to the students while the students learn and practice basic tactical concepts, and team building exercises in the classroom setting. Of course this is most applicable in a modern war setting like CMSF. With the overlay function reconnaissance photos along with topographical maps can be used to make mock ups in 3D of actual mission area objectives making for a planning tool with much more capability than “sandbox” presentations. In this way soldiers can have a dry run in going over the mission as a team. Perspective OPFOR, and likely ambush areas could be played by other soldiers to practice different scenarios that could happen during the actual mission along with paths to, and from the mission objective. All this makes CM a more appealing tool for real military consideration.

[Los]

Just reread this excellent thread and thought I would post here so as not to the things up in the other thread, what with all the angst wegos feel about the RT experience. Just a few thoughts:

Giving future commands:

In RT one would want to be able to set a hold order, give commands past that hold order, and release them when he wants,. This allows prior planning and coordinated action while awaiting a art strike to complete or another platoon to finish suppressing a tgt. Similar to he hold icon already in place but it effects all units under one's command (or a group selection) So we can be hunkered down behind a hedgerow and I give a frag order to the platoon and then say either go on my command or in five minutes, whatever. This helps mitigate peoples feeling of a click fest esp with more units.

Comms in coop:

As stated up above players could communicate with a spectrum of all on teamspeak in realtime to "Ironman mode". Some ideas about this more restrictive mode. First its important to have the ability to limit intel on friendly forces. Iron man already does this. Now just to add a few things. If your sub units are out of radio or visual range, you have to send a runner (a delay). Now for player comms if there's a voice chat that would be great, but in iron man mode without wire or radio Comms you have to send a runner to players too, and it has to be written text.

When a player enters a coop game he is tied to a specific unit on the ground eg a plt HQ squad. His ability to speak and communicate is tied with this unit. If this unit is wiped out there is a delay while command passes to whatever the next unit in the chain of command is (eg 1stSL)

Now using colored smoke, and flares, in signalling were a common aspect of ww2 combat. So this could be added as a hot key to the coop player. Pop a colored smoke or flare. The color of which could be prearranged to mean things like "enemy attack" or "I am here at this phase line" etc. This helps mitigate command delays.

It is implied that in this kind of game a pre-game phase takes on greater importance. A single player has the ability to pull his entire plan out of his fourth point of contact at any time during the game. With restrictive comms and multiple players this is not so. It would be good to support a little map planning just as mentioned above by Vinnart. The overall command or others should be able to mark points on the map or even view an overall map and discuss the plan, which of course serves as an effective basis for change once things go live. I'll use an example from another game. Has ever played Steel Beast (Which is a realistic Tank simulator/wargame used by many armies for training)? They have a very strong community like ours and often fight multiplayer battles with dozens of players with up to brigade vs division battles. You can spend up to 30-45 minutes in Teamspeak getting the oporder from the commander including maps and graphics before the battle even starts. The side that does its pre-battle planning effectively usually wins.

Los

I know its all pie in the sky but still it's fun to imagine.

Los

[Vinnart]

In RT one would want to be able to set a hold order, give commands past that hold order, and release them when he wants,. This allows prior planning and coordinated action while awaiting a art strike to complete or another platoon to finish suppressing a tgt. Similar to he hold icon already in place but it effects all units under one's command (or a group selection) So we can be hunkered down behind a hedgerow and I give a frag order to the platoon and then say either go on my command or in five minutes, whatever. This helps mitigate peoples feeling of a click fest esp with more units.

This sounds like you can do this now by giving an indefinite pause order first. I do it much more in RT, and it helps to give more of a WEGO feel of giving orders. I found a way to give the order as a hotkey so it is easier to give the order first rather than having to click in the GUI. After the indefinite pause is issued I then issue orders, check LOS, move waypoints ect.. Then I release the pause when I want the unit to move. To do this for a platoon I double click to select and issue, then release pause to get them to all to move at once. It is a great way to coordinate movements, and lets one relax for moment to think about the moves before committing.

As far as communication between teammates goes for mission planning, and communicating map areas “Sudden Strike” had a great, easy to use system that if adapted to CM multi HvH would work just as well. In Sudden Strike players can hold a hotkey while clicking on the mini map leaving a small orange marker on the map for a couple of seconds then it would disappear. In this way players could put a few markers in a row to “draw” lines, curves, or pinpoint a single spot. CM does not have a mini map, nor does it need one (just press 8, or 9 camera level), so the marker would appear on the regular map. For CM I could see holding the alt key + another key on the map to create a marker that appears for a few seconds then disappears. Perhaps it could be a colored smoke plume that shoots up and disappears in a few seconds, or a vertical arrow graphic that appears for a few seconds then disappears. The flare idea sounds good too. All the team would be able to see the markers even though they may have unit FoW if playing in "iron" mode. This user-friendly system would allow players to plan during the set up phase, and communicate visually during the game. For example the team leader would like 1st platoon to set up along a road so he clicks along the road leaving the markers “drawing” a line to convey this to the team.

FASTER RT SETUP TIME!

Another big advantage to multi HvH play is that set up would be much, much faster. If each player has only a platoon of the company to set up then games will get started very quickly vs a single person doing all the set up themselves.

[Vinnart]

I know its all pie in the sky but still it's fun to imagine.

Yes, it certainly is.