Hamstersss Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 Ah yes, a rehash of an old, evil topic. I have brought this up, thrown my support when it was brought up but have yet to hear anything from BTS (It could be I missed it in the large number of multiplayer related topics I searched through). So, has BTS commented on implementing cooperative multiplayer in CM, CM2, et cetera and if they have not commented, would they? ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 They have commented (BTS's response at the bottom): http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011655-2.html It might be considered for CM2, but definitely not for CMBO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 Cooperative multi-player is possible right now. Thus, no need for BTS to do anything. It's very simple. One player on a team opens the PBEM file as normal and gives orders to his units. He DOES NOT hit the GO button. Instead, he uses ALT-S to save the game as a .cmb file, which he sends to his partner. His partner saves this file in is Saved Games folder and opens it using the "Play Game" option instead of the "Join MP Game" option, and enters orders for his units. When he's done, he hits the GO button, which saves the file as a PBEM text file. He then sends this to one of the players on the other side. They repeat the process and eventually one of them sends a PBEM text file back to the 1st player. All that needs to be done in advance is to decide who's on which team and what units each player controls. If this is a QB, unit assignments are best handled using the same procedure as with turns. That is, the 1st player creates the game, saves it in the set-up phase, sends this to his partner, then they decide who gets what and a general plan of battle. After they decide this, the 1st player sets his stuff up, saves as a .cmb, sends to the 2nd player, who hits GO and sends to the other side. The other side does the same procedure to complete the set-up phase. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 18, 2000 Author Share Posted October 18, 2000 Bullethead, Anyone who has tried that knows that it is too unwieldy to be tenable. This, coupled with the absolute sighting, makes for a flawed solution. Thank you, Schrullenhaft, for pointing me to BTS's comments, that was pretty much what I was looking for. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrano Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 Hmmm...unwieldy? Certainly, untenable? Depends on preferences, I suppose. I've played co-op hotseat games team games much this way and, assuming you ONLY converse when out of the room (I very vividly remember the German team at my house damn near SCREAMING at each other's incompetence ) coordination can get reaaal difficult. I'm still working out single-player e-mail but, I'll tellya, being able to play a game like this cooperatively AT ALL is exceptionally nifty. Then again, mebbe I just got prepped for it with a lot of Sid Meier's Gettysburg! Regards, Cyrano ------------------ "Watching others make friends, as a dog makes friends. I mark the manner of these canine courtesies and say, 'Thank God, here comes another enemy'" -- Rostand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 Elijah said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyone who has tried that knows that it is too unwieldy to be tenable. This, coupled with the absolute sighting, makes for a flawed solution<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whoa, this ain't the Cesspool, so don't be getting so hostile when somebody helpfully offers you an immediate solution to your problem. That said, weildiness is a matter of personal taste. Is it as simple as 1-on-1 PBEM? No. Is it as unweildy as a drunk sumo wrestler? No. In fact, the folks I've tried it with have had no complaints. As to absolute sighting, I don't know what you mean. If you refer to the fact that when 1 CM unit spots an enemy, ALL units on that side have spotted it, this is no different in this method of play than solo vs. the AI. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 19, 2000 Author Share Posted October 19, 2000 By absolute sighting I mean that you and I, playing the same side, see everything, when we should only see what OUR troops see. And I think that 4-player PBEM CM (I've tried it) makes drunken Sumo wrestling look like playing checkers with Uncle Moe. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's very simple. One player on a team opens the PBEM file as normal and gives orders to his units. He DOES NOT hit the GO button. Instead, he uses ALT-S to save the game as a .cmb file, which he sends to his partner. His partner saves this file in is Saved Games folder and opens it using the "Play Game" option instead of the "Join MP Game" option, and enters orders for his units. When he's done, he hits the GO button, which saves the file as a PBEM text file. He then sends this to one of the players on the other side. They repeat the process and eventually one of them sends a PBEM text file back to the 1st player. All that needs to be done in advance is to decide who's on which team and what units each player controls. If this is a QB, unit assignments are best handled using the same procedure as with turns. That is, the 1st player creates the game, saves it in the set-up phase, sends this to his partner, then they decide who gets what and a general plan of battle. After they decide this, the 1st player sets his stuff up, saves as a .cmb, sends to the 2nd player, who hits GO and sends to the other side. The other side does the same procedure to complete the set-up phase.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's a really simple way of playing!! Why not have 4 player, where 2 players are controlling the infantry, and the other 2 players controlling the armour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiram Sedai Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 Thus far, the only co-op multiplayer game I've done has been Myth II Soulblighter. We would use the system where one person would be captain and decide who would get what. With that game it would be warriors, archers, and dwarves. So, what M. Bates stated makes sense to me inasmuch as one person could be mech, one armor, one arty, etc and the captain could assign squads or platoons to certain players. We each have our strengths and weaknesses i.e. armor vs infantry, so this could be taken into account when we are assigned soldiers/vehicles/tanks etc. Hitting Alt-S would just allow the other teamate to move certain pieces again thus defeating the co-op idea. So, the person who has the file last has the say on what that team really is going to do. thoughts? ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Peng thread? I've apologized for less. -Anonymous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 Hiram - I think the key is to only play co-op games with people you trust to respect your decisions. Obviously there isn't much fun in watching someone continuously countermand your orders. Although I think it might be acceptable for the file to go to the overall commander last, to make sure there's nothing boneheaded/self-destructive going on, ie "hey, is that a King Tiger over there? CHARGE!!!" ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 Elijah said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By absolute sighting I mean that you and I, playing the same side, see everything, when we should only see what OUR troops see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought so. And I say again, this is not a problem unique to cooperative play but is basic feature of how the CM engine works in any type of game. It's based on the irreconcilability of presenting game data in a format suitable to a "god's eye view" player and what each individual unit he owns can see. Because CM shows the player the total picture of what all his units can see, it necessarily follows that all of his units know about all spotted enemy units. So, for example, because you have some grunts within 50m of a woods and they spot some enemy grunts there, one of your tanks 2000m away can shoot at the enemy grunts when perhaps in reality they might not be able to see that target due to distance, despite there technically being an LOS. This of course isn't realistic, but is probably the best compromise available. Plus I think CM ammeliorates the problem by imposing firing delays on units that would have a hard time seeing particular targets. But anyway, you're stuck with this in single player and 1-on-1 games, so it shouldn't surprise you to have it in 2-on-2 games as well. And because it's a basic feature of the CM engine, BTS can't change things just for 2-on-2 games without changing the whole spotting system in all types of games. And if they were going to do that, you'd end up with something like never being able to see the whole situation on the map, but instead having to click on each of your units to see the enemies visible to that particular unit. So even then you wouldn't see enemy units based on ownership. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And I think that 4-player PBEM CM (I've tried it) makes drunken Sumo wrestling look like playing checkers with Uncle Moe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, that's your opinion. I don't agree, but that's my opinion. Still, if you want to do 2-on-2 games now, it's your only option, so either learn to like it or forget it until some indefinite future time when BTS maybe implements a better way of doing it. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 Hiram said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thus far, the only co-op multiplayer game I've done has been Myth II Soulblighter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ain't that a fun game? Folks call it RTS but it's really a tactical wargame more akin to CC or SMG than anything else. I enjoy it so much I make CM scenarios based on Myth and Myth II maps and game types like LMOTH . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hitting Alt-S would just allow the other teamate to move certain pieces again thus defeating the co-op idea. So, the person who has the file last has the say on what that team really is going to do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is true, but isn't the problem in CM that its analog is in Myth. Most Myth games are just pick-up matches with total strangers, many of whom are quite juvenile, so you can't trust them. But you have total control over whom you play a PBEM game with, so you CAN trust these guys to respect your decisions. -BH ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted October 19, 2000 Share Posted October 19, 2000 M. Bates said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's a really simple way of playing!! Why not have 4 player, where 2 players are controlling the infantry, and the other 2 players controlling the armour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The way the guys I play with usually do it is along more historical command lines. For example, each player on a side might take an infantry company and some attached supports. Then we agree on unit boundaries on the map as part of making our combined battle plan. If reinforcements are coming, we usually wait until they arrive before deciding who gets what of them. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts