RTS version of CM ever?

gunnergoz · July 9, 2001

What I like about CM as it currently is implemented is that I get to be the "brains" of my small unit commanders, without having to frantically switch and click all over the map while my units out of sight get rubbed out because I'm not there to tell them to duck or run or fight.

The phased system appeals to me because it gives me a measure of control which I then give up to sit back and enjoy a minute of combat. This combat is depicted with sufficient realism and with sufficient chaos and uncertainty that it becomes very credible. The suspension of disbelief catches me up and I gnaw my fingernails while I wait to see how my troops execute their orders.

So, I get to be the boss, and spectator at the same time. Sort of like a real military commander.

This isn't a very cogent or convincing argument, I'm sure, but it distills why I like this game so much, and why I don't really want it to change except to become grander in scope (of battlefields) and detail of graphics, terrain, weapons, etc.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]

David Aitken · July 9, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Stacheldraht wrote:

The more options the end user has, the better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mentioned core concept. Everyting BTS decides to do or to avoid with the game is affected by their core concept. Every feature is tuned to work with all the others to make the game as true to its concept as possible – and therefore as logical, efficient and enjoyable as possible.

Options are not necessarily good, because changing fundamental features affects the way the game works. It has been discussed here how turn length has been chosen to strike a compromise between allowing the commander an unrealistically fine degree of control, and overstretching the capabilities of the TacAI. Allowing players to change turn length would produce different results, and this would automatically generate demand for fine-tuning of these results. For every option that BTS provides, they have ten, if not a hundred, other interrelated issues to consider. They are left with a choice between providing lots of options and releasing the game as-is, with the door wide open to resultant problems; or spending their time readjusting things to make the new options work, instead of spending their time adding new features or improving on what's there.

CM is a controlled environment. This is the only way to keep it realistic. When you start changing things around, you start getting undesirable results. By deciding which parameters will keep the game truest to their vision, BTS can keep everything tight and ensure that what is there remains excellent, instead of allowing us to play around with the parameters and wreak all sorts of havoc.

Andreas · July 9, 2001

Right, excuse my French, but this whole BS about censorship, and not being allowed to quote BTS is a bit ridiculous and reminds me of why I quit the board a while back. Maybe I should just do so again.

Stacheldraht, make your mind up please. Either you want a community and a discussion (look it up in the dictionary, it can involve people disagreeing, although that maybe a surprise to you), or you want a private channel, where nobody is allowed to quote BTS, because they are the only purveyors of wisdom around here. You can have either/or, but not both.

The rest - I have a reasonable amount of time I spent on this board, and a good memory for what went on here before. Not perfect, mind you, but good enough. Now if somebody comes along as Triumvir did, suggesting a change, what is wrong with me using the knowledge I have and telling him what I recall BTS' answer to be? That was no put-down or whatever, just a quiet reminder that there were reasons beyond what he was looking at for why we have 1min turns. I did not tell him to agree with them, or tell him that those were the Ultimate Truth, just said that the 1min turn length was not conjured out of thin air. I don't think he actually had an issue with that, but I may have the wrong impression there.

No doubt somebody will now come with some crap like 'don't put down the newbies' or 'all views are equally valid'. To avoid having to read it I won't open this thread again.

Night night.

Mannheim Tanker · July 9, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Eric Young:

Two points I don't agree with:

-------------------------------------------

<<1) Could not have the detailed ballistics and armor penetration algorithms going on in real-time. Would take a 2 GHz processor just to keep up.

-------------------------------------------

//Yes, this can be done. And you only need a 400mHz machine to run it well. 3D graphics has more to do with the video card than the CPU.

Actually, it's apparent to me that they can't. Every time you hit that "GO!" button and watch the computer "think" it's going through all of these calculations. If this is true, then how can these possibly be calculated on the fly using a 400Mhz machine when it currently takes several seconds?

Stacheldraht · July 9, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Stacheldraht, make your mind up please. Either you want a community and a discussion (look it up in the dictionary, it can involve people disagreeing, although that maybe a surprise to you), or you want a private channel, where nobody is allowed to quote BTS, because they are the only purveyors of wisdom around here. You can have either/or, but not both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is simply this: I prefer open discussion, and too often people try to put a premature end to discussions here by either quoting BTS or saying it's been discussed before. Again, so what on both counts? Repeating or referring to the developers' opinions if well and good, but often people's opinions are merely dismissed out of hand with a casual, "But BTS said...." An important, oft-overlooked point is that by discussing something, some of us aren't necessarily expecting or even realistically desiring that it bring about a change in the game. People sometimes discuss these things hypothetically, rendering BTS' opinion on such and such an issue less relevant in those particular cases.

Maybe people enjoy discussing these issues, whether or not they've been raised in the past and whether or not BTS has commented on them. If people enjoy discussing, or even aruging about, their favorite game, let them.

I think most of us who've been lurking or participating in this board for some time are quite aware of BTS' stances on different game design and game industry issues, but that shouldn't prevent people from raising the issues again. Someone just might have something new and interesting to say, even if there's no chance of it ever making it into some CM iteration. Perhaps they just have fun discussing it, like some people have fun discussing armor penetration data or the "cess pool."

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Frenchy · July 9, 2001

If CM is ever made into a RTS, I wouldn't buy it. I just don't have the patience nor the time to sit in front of a computer all day and night...

My 2 cents worth...

lcm1947 · July 9, 2001

I don't know who Major Tom is but he couldn't have said it better! Excellent reply to the question and I agree 100%. Now I won't have to try to answer, just re-read Major Tom's reply for mine. Good job Major Tom!

The_Capt · July 9, 2001

OK that had the effect I expected. The zealots are all worked up into a nice lather now. So a couple of things to address the responses.

1) Unless there is an "Admin" next to your handle, you have absolutley no right to tell anybody else to pipe down and shut up. I don't care if the topic has been done to death, ressurected, stuffed and placed on the mantlepiece. Admin has allowed this thread to go 4 pages, so if you want to whine about it's content, go to him. I again re-itterate that the purpose of the forum is the presentation and querying of and for new ideas. It is designed for constructive disscussion about a topic and any and all who are willing to interject are free to do so in a mature manner. Now if you think that this topic is stale and not worth your time..MOVE ALONG. Jumping on people and ideas is equivalent to bullying. It intimidates newbies and generally discourages discussion. Did I miss something here? Are there people out there paying for the space on the forum other than BTS. Now I know there are no shareholders so maybe they have other stake in the company and don't want to see server funds wasted. Anyway, if you don't like the topic do us all a favour and don't read the freakin thing.

2) No as to the real time "booger-man". I am a little startled at the creative constipation I see here. This entire game in it's current form was a long shot. I am pretty sure that a 250k marketing study didn't precede it's creation. Hence to spout off that item A,B or C is a waste of time because no one will play it(small company and limited funds for development, blah, blah, blah), without supporting evidence is a waste of space, re my first point and I did stop reading.

Now to the heart of the issue Real Time.

Oh and thank you for pointing out that screaming and blood are part of warfare, I got that T-shirt already and the PTSD to prove it.

I guess somehow getting the turret speed of the Panther depending on engine RPM was enough realism but "real time" is just too much.

In order for Real Time to work (and I am sorry for not making this clear in my first post) one would have to lose control of the troops. "What..!!?? In the name of all that is holy!! Get my tar and feather kit!!" Oh ya they are screaming now.

OK hear me out. In order to make decisions in real time at the Bn level one has to have the same level of control as a Bn CO in real time. Bn COs do not say "number 4 rifleman move up", well the good ones at least. They do not sight each MG. The give concept and orders to subunits who then carry them out.

A multiplayer version (and is being tried out there already) would work very well in doing this, as all you would see and command is what your sub-units are doing but not with anywhere as much detail as you get now. So there would be no twitching or speed clicking. You may tell a platoon to advance up a hill and a Sp unit to set up a FB over there. The AI (or human player) will do the details.

Now I realise the "realistic" loss of control may not appeal to the more "anal" player and for them a "turn based" option should be available.

OK I know there are going to be problems. "AI can't handle it"..."Coding problems". But it would produce a game which best represents RL, if that is what one is looking for. The uncertainty of what is going on and trying to impose control would be very interesting. Troop quality would take on a whole new value. Oh and I think more than one military in the world may be interested if it was good enough. I realise that the US military is a small market with limited funds but you may just sell a few.

Now it is an idea, if you have something to add please do. If you think it won't work, please come up with something other than "well BTS said" and "in previous threads". Not everybody here was there and the Search Engine sucks. So topics are bound to pop up again and again. BUT different people may participate, who knows someone might come up with an idea which turns to gold. It costs nothing but could pay off. Seems like good business to me.

Jeff Heidman · July 9, 2001

It won't work simply because the game you are describing is not Combat Missions.

It might be a good game, and it might even be a VERY good game. But that is a wholesale departure from the scale and scope of CM.

You are suggesting that BTS combine the current CM game with a completely different game. They are so dissimilar that you might as well just make a new game. Maybe steal some of the CM code if they want to handle some of the behind the scenes work.

But in the end your idea is just not CM. You might as well argue that checkers would be a better game if it was chess. You might be right, but then you wouldn't be playing checkers anymore, now would you?

Jeff Heidman

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Heidman ]

Scipio · July 9, 2001

My two cents abot CM and RTS:

CALL THE MOB

BRING TAR, FEATHERS AND RAILS

Pzman · July 9, 2001

Here is an idea why don't we just have vote on what people like... weather BTS dose it or not is up to them. I personally don't like RTS because of C&C and games like that. There is less realism as far as I can see. From my point of view the current system is like a Commander who sites back and plains the battle. The only difference is that we do it every 60 seconds. I like the idea of having more time between turns because it give even more realisum. After all the commander would give an order and then the Battalion/ company HQ would pass that onto the Platoon hq who would then try to cary out those orders. In RTS games I have played that dosen't seem to happen. Thats just my five cents.

PeterNZer · July 9, 2001

Never.

Jeff Heidman · July 9, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

In order for Real Time to work (and I am sorry for not making this clear in my first post) one would have to lose control of the troops. "What..!!?? In the name of all that is holy!! Get my tar and feather kit!!" Oh ya they are screaming now.

OK hear me out. In order to make decisions in real time at the Bn level one has to have the same level of control as a Bn CO in real time. Bn COs do not say "number 4 rifleman move up", well the good ones at least. They do not sight each MG. The give concept and orders to subunits who then carry them out.

A multiplayer version (and is being tried out there already) would work very well in doing this, as all you would see and command is what your sub-units are doing but not with anywhere as much detail as you get now. So there would be no twitching or speed clicking. You may tell a platoon to advance up a hill and a Sp unit to set up a FB over there. The AI (or human player) will do the details.

Now I realise the "realistic" loss of control may not appeal to the more "anal" player and for them a "turn based" option should be available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW, how far are you going to take this quest for "realism"? I don't mean the snide comments about the unpleasant aspects of war, but more in line with your desire to only control immediate subordinates. SHould CM have an option to ditch the 3D battlefield, to be replaced with 2D, innacurate, not generally updated contour maps with spotty info on unit locations, and status? Would that not be more "realistic" for a WW2 commander?

Would you enjoy playing a game where your winning is only somehwat influenced by your actions, and largely influenced by an AI trying to emulate a subordinate commander?

Should we greatly limit the specifity of orders? Have units attacking the wrong hill? Have some units not receive orders, or receive conflicting orders?

Jeff Heidman

Slapdragon · July 9, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

1) Unless there is an "Admin" next to your handle, you have absolutley no right to tell anybody else to pipe down and shut up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I looked for the Admin by your name and failed to find it. Please direct us to your administration tag line.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

I don't care if the topic has been done to death, ressurected, stuffed and placed on the mantlepiece. Admin has allowed this thread to go 4 pages, so if you want to whine about it's content, go to him. I again re-itterate that the purpose of the forum is the presentation and querying of and for new ideas. It is designed for constructive disscussion about a topic and any and all who are willing to interject are free to do so in a mature manner. Now if you think that this topic is stale and not worth your time..blah blah blah <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, a topic so poorly supported that it cannot stand critique is a looser. Most of the defense of RTS has been whining about how terrible people are to point out its short comings and how horrible it is that anyone but BTS answers the posts. I think the pro-RTS crowd needs to huddle and come up with some original material.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

2) No as to the real time "booger-man". I am a little startled at the creative constipation I see here. This entire game in it's current form was a long shot. I am pretty sure that a 250k marketing study didn't precede it's creation. Hence to spout off that item A,B or C is a waste of time because no one will play it(small company and limited funds for development, blah, blah, blah), without supporting evidence is a waste of space, re my first point and I did stop reading.

Exactly the RTS camp's problem. They read the first line of anything written and then move on to repeat the stale old arguments without any new evidence.

BTS is a small company -- proof: count the number of employees (exercise left to the student.

BTS has limited programming capabilities that must be wisely spent -- proof: the M-16 Half Track did not make the game for lack of time.

BTS core market is wargamers not arcade gamers-- proof: BTS mission statement.

BTS does not do RTS-- proof: 30 posts by Steve (do a search).

RTS supporters do not read the posts of the other side -- proof: look above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

blah blah blah crap

OK hear me out. In order to make decisions in real time at the Bn level one has to have the same level of control as a Bn CO in real time. Bn COs do not say "number 4 rifleman move up", well the good ones at least. They do not sight each MG. The give concept and orders to subunits who then carry them out.

A multiplayer version (and is being tried out there already) would work very well in doing this, as all you would see and command is what your sub-units are doing but not with anywhere as much detail as you get now. So there would be no twitching or speed clicking. You may tell a platoon to advance up a hill and a Sp unit to set up a FB over there. The AI (or human player) will do the details.

Now I realise the "realistic" loss of control may not appeal to the more "anal" player and for them a "turn based" option should be available.

OK I know there are going to be problems. "AI can't handle it"..."Coding problems". But it would produce a game which best represents RL, if that is what one is looking for. The uncertainty of what is going on and trying to impose control would be very interesting. Troop quality would take on a whole new value. Oh and I think more than one military in the world may be interested if it was good enough. I realise that the US military is a small market with limited funds but you may just sell a few.

Some of this is good for a future game, or one in develop by another company (GI Combat) but what really impressed me was your contacts into the US Military procurement circles. If you have an inside loop into a posted requirement for a WW2 game in real time for Battalion commanders with a large sales potential it is GOLD, and I hope BTS pays you a fair finders fee.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

BUT different people may participate, who knows someone might come up with an idea which turns to gold. It costs nothing but could pay off. Seems like good business to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, what needs to happen is that the idea needs to be original. Then it has to have a possibility of happening. So far the same argument that has been repeated and ignored applies.

In marketing, you do not assume something is so and run with it. The audience for CM is known, large enough to make a great profit, and is a niche with no real competition (at least at CMs level of quality). So, rather than throwing out a half assed idea and saying prove me wrong, turn it around and prove to BTS that they should stop work on CM2, a known money maker, and start work on CM for Kids, an unknown quantity. Don't just throw out some silly ideas, develop it. We know a WEGO version of CM makes money, and that the next version will also. Now prove that a WEGO is worth abandoning CM2 for (since that is what it would entail). If someone does not believe a RTS shooter would require the abandoning CM2, count the number of programmers working for BTS. I assume even a shoot and twitcher can count that high .

Slapdragon · July 9, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

BTW, how far are you going to take this quest for "realism"? I don't mean the snide comments about the unpleasant aspects of war, but more in line with your desire to only control immediate subordinates. SHould CM have an option to ditch the 3D battlefield, to be replaced with 2D, innacurate, not generally updated contour maps with spotty info on unit locations, and status? Would that not be more "realistic" for a WW2 commander?

Would you enjoy playing a game where your winning is only somehwat influenced by your actions, and largely influenced by an AI trying to emulate a subordinate commander?

Should we greatly limit the specifity of orders? Have units attacking the wrong hill? Have some units not receive orders, or receive conflicting orders?

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very well reasoned Jeff.

The_Capt · July 9, 2001

Dispite yourself Jeff you are an enlightened soul. Kinda like sending Russian troops into the sewer at Stalingrad and maybe having them not come out. Or Russian armour where you give orders and then say bye-bye because they didn't have radios. Wow scary. Sounds like CM2 don't it.

Good point on it being a different game. Yes it would but it could still have the detail and 3D of CM.

Now let's get one thing straight. This is not a BTS bashing idea or "if they don't do it I'll hold my breath.." It is just an idea. If you don't like it..fine, come up with something else.

DanE · July 9, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

If you don't like it..fine, come up with something else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I'd like to see all future Combat Missions use a WEGO system. I do not think it should be very hard to program this into the current code.

And on another note: How can a game claim to be "real time" if it has a pause button/variable time/save game option? None of these are present in real time and therefore make a game using any of them "non-real time."

Hopefully I didn't sound like an "anal" "creatively constipated" "zealot".

Priest · July 9, 2001

Hmm Mr. Eric Young,

The fact that ballistics have to be simulated has nothing at all to do with your video card but your processor. It is slightly scary that you relate the word ballistics to the graphics of the gun shooting. Trajectory and all the math that goes into penetration and such have nothing to do at all with video cards. Here is an experiment, go and buy a Gforce video card and run a 5000pt battle with lots of shooting and movement but only use a 200mhz Pentium. Then do the same with a Voodoo2 with a Gigahertz processor. Hmmm bet there is a big difference. Just an FYI!

Stacheldraht · July 9, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I don't mean the snide comments about the unpleasant aspects of war<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since I believe you're possibly referring to something I wrote, that was not meant to be snide at all, but rather to allude seriously to very real issues in wargame design from the standpoints of aiming for verisimilitude, and the ethical and esthetic issues of portraying real-world violence in a form of entertainment.

Btw, what aspects of war are pleasant? It's rather unfortunate on a human level (as opposed to strictly from the standpoint of entertainment) that wargames tend to divorce abstract tactics from the realities that the people involved had to endure. But that's a whole other 4+ page argument that I'm not going to go into

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

The_Capt · July 9, 2001

And now for Mr Slapdragon,

I have no Admin tag, it would say Admin next to my handle if I was. But you can tell I am a well mannered gentleman by the fact that I don't come crawling out of the woodwork and screech every time a newbie posts something which has been covered before, like they were tap dancing in my new born babe.

In an effort to educate I was trying to point out that people who do this are no better than bullies. They lack the ability to enter into constructive discussion so they bluster and throw old arguments at people. Oh ya and tell them "to do a search".

As to the topic, well it is your opinion that it is poorly supported and a waste of time. Thank you I got that on page one but please feel free to re-state it an slam anybody who says otherwise. It is a free board after all.

At no point am I slamming BTS or demanding a response. That would, like slamming any idea, be entirely rude. It is an idea with merit if done properly. And I for one am interested in discussing it. If you find that offensive please move along to something with more substance..like the Peng threads.

I am not pro RTS, I hate the things in fact. But what I am proposing is not RTS in the classical sense. It would require new tactics and methodology as well as enhance the current aspects of the game towards something truly realistic.

Again, I guess the marketing study has been done. Lord knows wargamers would never want something even more realistic. Something which models loss of communication and control. Whoops, someone had better give the boys a heads up cause they are trying some naughty stuff in CM2 which may just be teetering on the insane. I am sure finacial ruin, selling organs for cheap wine and dumpster cuisine will follow.

Ah yes, well somehow Mr Slapdragons thumb on the pulse of what wargamers want and how best to use the BTS resources lie within his sole opinion. I have not seen one marketing questionaire on this board and as a customer have yet to receive one in the mail. Sniff, I do feel left out. I guess I am the only one who is making a hypothesis and Mr Slapdragon has iron clad numbers and documentation to support his "no one will buy it claim". If that is so I do retract my statement. You are absolutly correct no modern military training Officers and NCOs in the e-battlefield would want an of the shelf product which could do it for them. I guess the effort and money spent so far would not give that indication. The fact that I, as a unit CO would buy a dozen copies also seems to be irrevelant. Oh wait I know at least three other COs who would do the same...nevermind I am sure we are all the exception.

Ah and thank you for that enlightening view of "the business". So I guess that no one else out there could ever try and muscle into this "niche business". Perhaps the exceptional profits of one small company are enough to deter it. New ideas would be bad, in order to stay ahead they should be crushed.

Oh and finally I am sorry, I hadn't realised that "the boys" had dropped everything to chase after my rainbow. I mean I should have, I posted it on this forum and they normally "jump to" the second it lands here. I did not mean to delay CM2 for the month I am sure my posts have costs the company. Please tell them to return to CM2 because my idea is just that an idea. Not a demand or threat. I guess almost everyone out there must be running with it...wait if everyone here chases after my idea it will spread and bring the downfall of Western Civilization...what if Bill Gates gets his hands on it! Oh wait let's not get silly. I had not realized that original thought could be so dangerous, yes we will stop at once. Now let's all discuss how perfect CM is and how "the boys" should keep churning out the same game for the next 25 yrs and keep the greenbacks rolling in.

Pzman · July 9, 2001

Must this type of topic aways turn into a flame war? :confused: Thats why most people tell people to do a search becasue of the endless fames that come with these posts.

David Aitken · July 9, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Jeff Heidman wrote:

You might as well argue that checkers would be a better game if it was chess.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brilliant!

The_Capt · July 9, 2001

I am not sure why it turns into a flame war. I think it has to do with strong loyalty to the current game. I am afraid it has turned into a fear of anything new.

Hell guys I really like this game to and never expect BTS to deviate too far from it. It doesn't mean I cannot entertain new ideas and suggestions. I cannot figure out why this topic raises such ire. Sad really, it is just a game.

As to the Search Engine, I am sorry I have given up on the thing. Way too slow and often I can't find the topics. I guess I am too "twitchy". The search engine should not discourage new discussion anyway. Saying "it's in the Search Engine" is like saying "it's in the Bible" uh thanks but maybe I'll just post. Hell a whole new group might want to pick it up and talk about it. I have never been involved in a RTS discussion that I recall and now I can put in my idea. If BTS et al don't like then don't. We can even discuss rationally why but when cranky old posters come out swinging like this is their personal club, it does get my back up.

Slapdragon · July 10, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

And now for Mr Slapdragon,