Guest grunto Posted June 3, 2000 Share Posted June 3, 2000 as tough as i've been on the cc series on these threads, it did provide a lot of good gaming hours. it didn't seem though like the developers were passionate about certain areas of the product. i sure played a lot of it though. i would bug a close combat type game from atomic if it were at company level. i would buy one from bts for that matter if it were at company instead of squad level. andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 RMC: "Giving an order to that one company means you can't at the same time give another order to another company." Yeaaaahh.... That can be done in real life...and carried out with great skill, detail and ability by officers, officers and grunts on the sceen. But in a game the player must give EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT long, detailed and MUCH more specific orders (than would be needed in real life). Then on top of that the player has to baby sit the units because you can't trust the AI not to reverse a tank 1/4 of a mile in a charge against defending AT guns, or do something equally stupid. And as for 'The Corp' "agreeing with you"...please. How many turn based games/simulations do they use? How many turn based games/simulations do all the armies of the world use for basic and ADVANCED officer training? The new CC-mod is to be the ONLY 'real time' tool and it is to be used as a BASIC tool, no advanced training is going to be done on it from what I read. Lets not forget the main rason the it was choosen...it is cheap. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 I agree with Scott that CM simulates you taking over the roles of many leaders, not just one. Looking at CC as realistic because you can only give orders to one group at a time ignores the fact that at the same time that you busy telling one squad it's orders, the other squads are assumed to be doing nothing. In otherwords they have no initiative of thier own. CM overcomes this by allowing you to fill the shoes of commanders that have no orders since they would have thought on thier own anyways. If you want to get into the shoes of one commander, wwiionline might fit the bill. However, even there, communications will not be realistic. You will be able to talk to people out of hearing range. In conclusion, if you want to roleplay many positions, only CM allows you to do this. CC assumes that squads without orders have no initiative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 SC, I was not under the impression that the Marines picked CC because it was cheap. The press release talked about a "real time tactical decision model." No simulation that I have played in the Army, and there are only two, is turn-based. BBS (Brigade Battle Simulation) is used to train brigade staffs. You have a couple of folks operating the game and doing a lot of role playing to flesh out the information the game gives you. The maps used to be on big laser discs and now they're done a little differently. The brigade staff and commander react to the information they get from the "training aid" operators. The game feeds casualty reports (tacks individual soldiers and vehicles, though the standard icon is company sized) and the brigade commander fights the battle from his TOC on real paper maps. He and his staff never see the computers. The latest toy I've seen is JCATS (Joint Combined Arms Tactical Simulator) that is again used to train staffs but this time at company and battalion level. The operators get the game info from the screen and pass the normal reports backup the chain. The operator actually place and control each individual soldier and vehicle on the map. The standard is two soldiers per workstation to control the troops and submit the correct reports. Part of the game is seeing how long it takes the info to flow and how long it takes the chain of command to react. Both of these games run in real time and commanders are never eally asked to fulfill more than their role. Real time decision making is extremely important in the military. Turn based games never make the grade. I am not aware of any turn-based training tools used by DOD and I can't figure out why they would want one. These sims are always massively multiplayer and one like CM for a single operator greatly reduces the training benefit and does not develop staffs coordination, reporting procedures and encourages micromanagement which since the advent of email has become a major problem in DOD. The turn-based abstraction in CM is required because of the large (unrealistic) span of control the lone player has. This has been discussed ad infinitum but CM would be unplayable in real-time and I think most here understand and agree with that. I am not claiming the CC is the ultimate tactical game or that its UI is the best there is. I am saying that the real time engine gives a better feel for what command is really like than a turn based game that does not force the player the make decisions quickly. Sir, what are your orders....Sir, what are your orders... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 Funny how a game series like CC, which has been berated on this forum countless times has such an impact on the casual and hardcore gamer. Some are for it here, and some are against it, but I think that almost any wargame that comes out is good for the "CM's" of the world. Why? Well because quite a few ppl have found CM from these games. CC3 was very fun and it is the only one I currently own. I liked the feeling when you renamed a unit and got him safely through the war. Made it more personal for me, and you could use many real world tactics to subdue the enemy. Is it realistic? Yes and no. Does it matter to CM? Yes and no again. Was it fun? Yes for me it was, and all of the hub-bub about how much better CM is to it doesnt help sell CM. Plus, someday (the way the trend is going) you wont have to worry about CC cause there will be so very few ppl making these games that most will move on anyway. Ray ------------------ When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one." MantaRays 5 Pages Hardcore Gamers Daily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 > Turn based games never make the grade. I > am not aware of any turn-based training > tools used by DOD and I can't figure out > why they would want one. Huh? Last time I was down at Fort Knox micro armor WAS the prefered method of teaching ADVANCED C&C and tactics to officers. Same goes from what I have heard out of West Point, ect. Unless there is a new 'real time' micro armor game I don't know about... You seem to have limited your 'survey' to just computer games. Of course those are 'real time'. But you closs over the fact that THOSE simulations you listed are MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER, with players ON THE SAME TEAM. Thus the VERY limitation I am trying to highlight of CC (and all current 'real time' games) is not present in those simulations. No unit in DoD sims will just sits idly by and is blown to bits (unless the officer/NCO totally drops the ball), BUT this is common in CC as units just wait for orders to move to cover instead of trying to catch bullets. All this is because ONE person has to fill the shoes of over a dozen officers/NCOs. IF all you are 'complaining' about is a lack of a time restriction in CM than you should be WITH me in wanting a timer added to CM. I would not mind seeing an optional timer for both on-line and solo play in CM. Would be a nice addition IMO. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 SC, Well, I haven't ever heard of a "real-time" miniatures or board game! ;P The army has three well-developed, non-computer, real-time wargames. Those are run at the NTC, JRTC; and the CMTC. Very big, very expensive and very time-consuming. And you will rarely be asked to assume multiple roles. I don't think I glossed over the mulitplyer aspect of the DOD sims. The have lots of folks involved. But they don't have somebody for every soldeir represented. When I "played" BBS there was 3 officers running the battalion. We executed the order we were given and reacted to the situation as we could while feeding data higher. Back in 94 BBS was still run on Amigas and since I had an Amiga I was able to figure out how to get into the options menu and found one for "show all enemy units." Brigade went nuts when we called in saying we were surrounded by three North Korean SF BATTALIONS! we got a little more training on roleplaying that day. Back to the point...I recognize the CC suffers from the same blurring of roles that CM does. I am just pointing out that in CC time is a resource while in CM it is not. In PBEM this has no impact. "Send me the turn, dammit!" When they get TCP/IP going it will probably become a hot topic. "let's go already, I'm setup." This is where your timer idea comes in, though I don't recall that having been brought up in this thread before now. This was addressed before thogh I can't recall the outcome. For most US players having a time limit in TCP/IP games is a purely academic subject. In europe people are still paying connection charges by the minute so the discussion may take on added emphasis. Many may forego TCP/IP play, but IMO PBEM can't hold a candle to the in-game chats possible in most TCP/IP games. Anyway, units do get taken out because the player isn't watching that part of the screen. In the last exercise a CNN reporter team materialized in the midst of our perimeter and had gotten killed by a combination of enemy action and friendly fire. No one had caught them entering. We only had one guy per workstation each responsible for two platoons' worth of stuff. BTW I wasn't complaining about the lack of realtime restrictions in CM. I realize it is designed around the "one multitasking commander" abstraction. I was just pointing out why I think CC does a better job a capturing the feel, the stress of being a real commander. [This message has been edited by RMC (edited 06-04-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts