RTS version of CM ever?

[TopShelfCookieJar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We have no plans to *ever* make a continuous (realtime) game. And we have our next 12 years of development in mind when we say that too... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I feel it would be prudent if someone were to bookmark this thread. Then it can be quickly whipped out to extinguish these *cough* discussions *cough* before they get out of hand.

[Slapdragon]

This one, the national bonus one, the tiger armor one, the optics one, etc.

[deanco]

Spook said:

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

Yes, Michael, continuous-time in CM would ultimately cause for a gamer to lose control of most of his troops, on the likelihood couldn't keep up. But assuming, for a moment, that a C&C orders-delay structure wasn't still in place, then what would prevent a gamer from "jumping" to a critical action point and controlling a unit directly?

That is the continuous-time premise for a game like WNLB or Close Combat. And that MIGHT be the premise some RTS fans may argue for application in CM; let the clock run, but allow direct control of specific units on the fly.

And then it reduces to arcade-level mousesport.

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

Not necessesarily. It really depends how it's implemented in the game. In the Baldur's Gate series, extensive use of the spacebar to pause the game gives players the time they need to carry out complex coordinated attacks or make decisions. The thing is, it's made very clear at the start of the game that the spacebar is critical to full enjoyment of the game. So the player knows to use it. Games like Total Annihilation that are meant to be played real time by the developer put the pause button off to the side somewhere and don't make a big deal out of mentioning it, or disable entirely the ability to give orders while paused.

Another approach which uses real time concepts while avoiding "arcade-level mouse sport" was used in Jagged Alliance 2. Here, the game moves in real time until a unit sees an enemy, after which the game becomes turn based.

A third alternative could be taken from the upcoming game Max Payne. The player is allowed to place the game in 'slo-mo' mode to give him time to make decisions.

I am talking about the underlying design principles here, not the games themselves. All make an attempt to avoid the click fest style of play, yet retain real time features. Whether they could be adapted to CM is another story, and their relative merits SHOULD have been the (original) topic of discussion, not a successful defense in depth with added offboard battleship guns(complete with victory party) of the Official BTS Party Line. Shame.

[Priest]

The first time this was discussed it was discussed. And if you can pause it then it is not RTS. Folks RTS will not work here. Sorry. I have played quite a few RTS's in my day (original Dune all the way to the new Dune and most everything in between) and it sounds like a great idea, but alas it is not. An RTS system will never ever have as much potential for tactical manuever as a WEGO system. This ability to not "cheat" a turn based game yet maintain some order that an RTS game lacks is what makes WEGO beautiful. I see no reason for RTS in CMBO nor would I ever want it. RTS is the dumbed down version of wargaming. It has pretty lights to make all the sloths happy when they nuke something with their invisible guy. Strategy is based on getting enough crystal to upgrade your marine and then rushing a big horde you randomly selected and it works period. In FPS games the same situation holds true if you compare Quake and Rogue Spear. RTS for true wargaming, when compared to a WEGO system, is completely inferior in every way possible. It is amazing to me that in the beginning everyone praised CMBO and it's new wonerful AI. The WEGO system was revolutionary. Now we say the AI sucks and that RTS should be considered. WHATEVER! BTS as always thanks for the game and it will never ever leave my HDD and forever sit beside CM2, CM3.....CM97 and so on and so forth.

[Battlefront.com]

As DeanCo stated, there is room for discussion about making a RT wargame. Close Combat was, after all, just such a game. The arguments about how well it did, or what limitations it ran into, are a different discussion that is not directly relevant here. The point is, RT and wargaming are not by definition incompatble. However, RT and Combat Mission are for a bunch of reasons. Plain and simple.

Sure, we could make a RT game. It might even be BETTER than CM in some ways, but it won't be CM because the WEGO system is the core, the foundation, the absolutely fundamental driving force behind what the game is. Take away WEGO and CM ceases to be CM.

Since we are focused on CM for the time being, RT is totally out of the question. Even when we rewrite the game engine, since the rewrite is intended to make a better CM within its currently defined scope, not to make a totally different game.

The frustration I sensed in this thread was, IMHO, because some people did not wish to take the word of people who have seen us debate this before (many times in fact). While we don't like people speaking for us as if they are sitting in on all the inside workings of what we do, it is perfectly acceptable for someone to restate a position that we have CLEARLY made in the past and have it accepted as fact. If the person in question gets it wrong, history shows us that someone will come along and correct the misinformation very quickly. Sometimes I even do it myself Since we can't answer every thread every time all the time, the passing on of our previous answers via second hands is just fine with us.

Steve

[Kingfish]

Some advantages to RTS games:

The intensity of non-stop action, the tension of split second decisions, the triumph of watching it all come together, the agony of watching it all fall apart, the heart racing, blood pumping, sweat pouring, mind bending exitement that comes from continuous combat!

One advantage to turn-based games:

The ability to sit back and enjoy, I mean really enjoy that...Ice...Cold...Beer

Guess where my next $45 is going to go.

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Guess where my next $45 is going to go. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More beer

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Stacheldraht]

double post

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeeves wrote:

I feel it would be prudent if someone were to bookmark this thread. Then it can be quickly whipped out to extinguish these *cough* discussions *cough* before they get out of hand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly what a number of us have been doing in this thread, and in every other thread which turns into the hundredth argument on a given subject. It makes no difference.

A long time ago someone made the observation, that every couple of months a point of contention such as this resurfaces, and people chip in with exactly the same arguments that were offered last time, and people start claiming they know what BTS can and can't do, just like they did last time, and the argument will never end until BTS takes the time to lay out their point of view for the hundredth time.

No matter that other forum members have directed people towards the previous discussions on the same subject, or said exactly what BTS's position is. No-one cares, they just claim they have the right to argue, when in reality they're hoping that everyone will become convinced of their argument and BTS will cave in and do the impossible.

It reminds me of an occasion I read about where a journalist was interviewing Sean Connery's double, and someone appeared and started taking photographs of him. The lookalike, in his native English accent, asked the photographer to stop, but he took no notice. Then the lookalike put on his Sean Connery impersonation, and the photographer immediately apologised and disappeared.

People won't listen to the facts until they hear them straight from the mighty Charles or Steve, regardless of the fact that BTS are busy on CM2 and don't have the time to trawl through every single thread on this forum.

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No-one cares, they just claim they have the right to argue, when in reality they're hoping that everyone will become convinced of their argument and BTS will cave in and do the impossible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many people like to discuss (not necessarily argue about) all sorts of issues repeatedly on this forum, regardless of whether they've been raised before or what BTS has said. These heated discussions are a form of socialization and entertainment in themselves for many people, and many of us, as I noted earlier, harbor no illusions about BTS making certain changes, nor do we necessarily want them to make a change, when we broach an issue. BTS will go about their merry way--as they should--regardless of these pissing matches, if you'll pardon the metaphor.

Discussions and arguments very often have little if anything to do with making progress, ascertaining the truth, spreading a belief, and so forth. Some of us could care less whether the other people reading this come to our view. (I play devil's advocate quite frequently for the sake of discussion, and don't even necessarily believe half of what I type here, for that matter.)

In other words, don't sweat it if people don't want to listen to reason, to BTS, to whatever. It's not hurting anything but people's egos, at worst, and that's only because they make the decsion to take this all too seriously.

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Eric Young]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not all they are doing. My bet is that rendering the 1 minute of combat is most of the time it is chugging through. They do a minute of combat and then show you what happened. The AI is thinking for a lot of that time as well. It is apples and apples for running it in real time. I know, I'm doing it.

E

[Battlefront.com]

Kingfish wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The ability to sit back and enjoy, I mean really enjoy that...Ice...Cold...Beer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HAHA!!! When we used to have our Friday night food & Beer RTS/FPS slugfests back at Impressions there were always 3/4 full beer bottles scattered around the office, ESPECIALLY if it was a Quake night. Hard to rack up the frags when slugging down the brewskies

Steve

[Pzman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

HAHA!!! When we used to have our Friday night food & Beer RTS/FPS slugfests back at Impressions there were always 3/4 full beer bottles scattered around the office, ESPECIALLY if it was a Quake night. Hard to rack up the frags when slugging down the brewskies

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So thats why CM1 toke so long to come out

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[The_Capt]

And he just couldn't let it go.

Steve, I don't know about anybody else but I think the frustration on my part raged over the "stomping on ideas" without even considering the idea being put forward. You say "RTS" and the blinders go up and the rhetoric comes out. What I was suggesting didn't even resemble Dune or the other bushel of RTS games.

I was speaking about modeling CCC realistically. And was trying to open a discussion on it. But that was pretty much immpossible. I think one person read what I had to say while the rest just made noise. I can tell you it was very dissappointing to see the blind bullying which resulted.

BTS position is clear, which is fine by me. You guys have a good product and are sticking to it. Now someone else can try if they choose. And perhaps I should have moved my comments to the General Forum.

I only post this because I think this thread has ended on a note which encourages this type of behaviour in the future. I saw a lot of backpatting and "we told ya so". There is nothing to be proud here IMO.

Where is this forum going if the tone is "nothing new here" and "tow the party line". Now I'll admit to stirring things up and probably sparking a lot but the "blind party line" was pretty bad.

Anyway last word from me.

[Slapdragon]

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

And he just couldn't let it go.

Steve, I don't know about anybody else but I think the frustration on my part raged over the "stomping on ideas" without even considering the idea being put forward. You say "RTS" and the blinders go up and the rhetoric comes out. What I was suggesting didn't even resemble Dune or the other bushel of RTS games.

I was speaking about modeling CCC realistically. And was trying to open a discussion on it. But that was pretty much immpossible. I think one person read what I had to say while the rest just made noise. I can tell you it was very dissappointing to see the blind bullying which resulted.

BTS position is clear, which is fine by me. You guys have a good product and are sticking to it. Now someone else can try if they choose. And perhaps I should have moved my comments to the General Forum.

I only post this because I think this thread has ended on a note which encourages this type of behaviour in the future. I saw a lot of backpatting and "we told ya so". There is nothing to be proud here IMO.

Where is this forum going if the tone is "nothing new here" and "tow the party line". Now I'll admit to stirring things up and probably sparking a lot but the "blind party line" was pretty bad.

Anyway last word from me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, if you read the discussion, there was an attempt by Rune, germanboy, et el. to debate the issue by presenting the findings of previous debates and BTS reasoning. What they were doing was saying, yeah yeah, but if you want to debate the direction of CM, here is the status as it was left in the last thread. They were not believed, and the censors with the knives crawled out and said they had no right to post what was previously said.

From then on the debate was meaningless, because no new ideas were brought to the table and the "peer review" process that new ideas usually go through was cut short. Note the number of posts which say essentially, "you cannot argue with us, only Charles and Steve can argue with us." That was when some of the longest running posters dropped out -- no need presenting fact to deaf ears, leaving just a few of us to make sure that the RTS tidal wave was at least refuted, even if the censorship committee did not want to read the first very detailed problems with RTS presented by the above mentioned people, and thus short circuited the whole process.

If this had cropped up in the General area as a what if, I for one would have not even posted. Wheel spinning is ok, and the General forum is a great place for off topic suggestions (off topic because RTS wont happen).

In addition, you had the odd situation where RTS and variable turns were being debated at the same time, with the RTS gang grabbing the variable turn gangs arguments and vice versa and using them interchangeably, making it very confusing to figure out what was being discussed in many posts.

What people should take away from this is how not to present an argument.

[The_Capt]

No what people should take away is "where" not to present an arguement. I'll take that point, I obviously dropped the idea into the middle of an old debate and it got lost in the static.

What I will take away from this is a good line I heard somewhere. "A person is smart, people are stupid". An otherwise intelligent human being can become extremely narrow and stunted when dropped into a mob. I take issue with the "mob mentality" shown here and I also think there is not a lot I can do about it.

Only to say that it stifles new ideas. I wouldn't be surprised (and as someone mentioned did) had the idea of "we-go" been presented on an old-fashion turn based wargame forum, a mob would have formed with a bunch of seemingly good arguements as to why it shouldn't be made. I think this forum has become that which it has despised and the Veterans want to stay that way. It has become a personal club to some and that is counter-productive.

Now that is my last on this, because I am getting the feeling I am raging at windmills here. One can only point out a problem to those who are willing to see it.

[Slapdragon]

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

No what people should take away is "where" not to present an arguement. I'll take that point, I obviously dropped the idea into the middle of an old debate and it got lost in the static.

What I will take away from this is a good line I heard somewhere. "A person is smart, people are stupid". An otherwise intelligent human being can become extremely narrow and stunted when dropped into a mob. I take issue with the "mob mentality" shown here and I also think there is not a lot I can do about it.

Only to say that it stifles new ideas. I wouldn't be surprised (and as someone mentioned did) had the idea of "we-go" been presented on an old-fashion turn based wargame forum, a mob would have formed with a bunch of seemingly good arguements as to why it shouldn't be made. I think this forum has become that which it has despised and the Veterans want to stay that way. It has become a personal club to some and that is counter-productive.

Now that is my last on this, because I am getting the feeling I am raging at windmills here. One can only point out a problem to those who are willing to see it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two nights ago I attended a Midlands gun control advocacy group as an opposing voice. There arguments were the same as yours. 1) They only want to present a new idea (gun control) but they keep being drowned out by the people who are unwilling to listen to them. 2) What has previously been presented by right to bear arms advocates is not appreciated and they have no place in a discussion designed to prove gun control is the correct solution to violence on the streets. 3) They are tired of hear the old saw that the consitution gives the right to bear arms because it is meaningless in face of creating a situation of gun control.

Needless to say their argument resembled your argument. They hold a public meeting, then get offended when people show up to debate. They claim we are the voice of the past and they of the future. They claim that no great society change would have ever occurred because we have the gaul to debate their point, and they claim that our falling back on a seminal document as defense is wrong.

There is no great raging at windmills dramatic defense of free exchange of ideas here. It is one side that wants another side to shut up so they can "improve the game" without peer review by adding national modifiers, RTS, variable turns. In each case, what has been said before is dismissed.

This is because the arguments for each of these is so weak it cannot stand in the face previous discussions and debate. I would suggest that if an original idea was presented, things would be different.

Do not whine about censorship while espousing it.

(I should also add that last month I went to a Women Against Handgun Violence group and they had some great ideas on how to keep from banning handguns, while reducing illegal use of them, and they were very willing to debate, listen to the arguments already in circulation, and find ways to modify or disprove even some of our arguments. A great group which wanted to hear what the other side was saying. Captain, may I place this model forward as a method of discussing these ideas.)

[PzKpfw 1]

Both sides of a debate have their own opinions on the merits of their case Ie, Slap may think his opinion is the correct one & he showed his rightness in the debate while, joe blow on the oposing side may think his opinon was correct & he showed his rightness as well, as its all the debater's individual POV, Ie, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him put on a batheing suit. & I'll bet both sides walked away feeling they got their points across.

It's much like this board when a debate goes on forever, with ppl repeating the same argument over & over, it shows the inibility of either side to present their case in a deciseive way, that the other side understands & finaly accepts, which would end the debate quickly & quietly. Basicly when a debate drags on & on neither side has proven their point, except in their own minds.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[deanco]

Well, let's just hope your arguments against gun control are deeper than, 'The First Amendmant says so'.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco:

Well, let's just hope your arguments against gun control are deeper than, 'The First Amendmant says so'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turn it around, lets just hope that you do not dismiss the bill of rights just the way you dismissed BTS's previous comments on the subject of RTS. In terms of CM, BTS has a bill of rights describing what their company does, why is it so hard to communicate that?

And yes, we have many other arguments in support of gun control, but people like you Deanco who scoff at the Bill of Rights (which is your right of course) fail to see that it is the dam holding back some pretty destructive things in American society. So you can scoff at the Bill of Rights (or whatever the French document protecting human rights is governing in the fifth republic), but for me, it remains a foundation of any discussion on the subject in the United States .

It is stupid and counterproductive to start an argument against gun control Deanco by saying, "let's ignore the Bill of Rights". Likewise, it would be stupid as an advocate of the right to carry guns to accept your argument and discard what is the definition of how our society works. It is stupid in these discussion to just sit down and let revisionist say, "who cares what BTS says, this is what the game should be." Especially when they have, as I have said, arguments that are so weak they cannot stand debate in an open forum.

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

And yes, we have many other arguments in support of gun control, but people like you Deanco who scoff at the Bill of Rights (which is your right of course) fail to see that it is the dam holding back some pretty destructive things in American society. So you can scoff at the Bill of Rights (or whatever the French document protecting human rights is governing in the fifth republic), but for me, it remains a foundation of any discussion on the subject in the United States .

It is stupid and counterproductive to start an argument against gun control Deanco by saying, "let's ignore the Bill of Rights". Likewise, it would be stupid as an advocate of the right to carry guns to accept your argument and discard what is the definition of how our society works. It is stupid in these discussion to just sit down and let revisionist say, "who cares what BTS says, this is what the game should be." Especially when they have, as I have said, arguments that are so weak they cannot stand debate in an open forum.

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Slap, as a balancing view, I don't think that deanco "scoffed" at the Bill of Rights in sum; just "the right to keep & bear arms" (the Second Amendment?). And constitutional amendments are not above reproach, though recognizably the Bill of Rights were responsive to core principles on an individual's liberties. Other following amendments, like the 18th, were later repealed as failures.

Part of the gun control argument has been the interpretation of "the right to keep & bear arms," and whether or not the Bill of Rights was truly trying to protect gun ownership as an individual's liberty. Some gun control advocates are firm of the mind that open-ended gun ownership is not definitely guarded by the second amendment, rather that guns should be available to "militias" in a time of crisis.

(I don't agree with this theory, though, and thus needn't belabor this loose thread further with you.)

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

Well, Slap, as a balancing view, I don't think that deanco "scoffed" at the Bill of Rights in sum; just "the right to keep & bear arms" (the Second Amendment?). And constitutional amendments are not above reproach, though recognizably the Bill of Rights were responsive to core principles on an individual's liberties. Other following amendments, like the 18th, were later repealed as failures.

Part of the gun control argument has been the interpretation of "the right to keep & bear arms," and whether or not the Bill of Rights was truly trying to protect gun ownership as an individual's liberty. Some gun control advocates are firm of the mind that open-ended gun ownership is not definitely guarded by the second amendment, rather that guns should be available to "militias" in a time of crisis.

(I don't agree with this theory, though, and thus needn't belabor this loose thread further with you.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you, although in my consitutional law class they were pretty accepting of the meaning to the founders of the second amendment and its subsequent case law.

The issue as relating to debates of this sort is: can we just throw away a body of thought on a wim. Sure, the Bill of Rights can be wrong, and changing it is certainly an option when it falls hopelessly out of sync with society, but those changes should not be whims, they should be debated, and you cannot just dismiss the reasoning of the Bill of Rights.

In other words, BTS has a "Bill of Rights." We have all heard it. Maybe BTS will change its Bill of Rights, but it takes a bit more than "wouldn't it be cool if..." to make the change, and you cannot start out your position by first dismissing the basic, seminal thought. You have to present evidence that this thought may not be the way to go, and you have to take on each counterargument with something more than a dismissive hand.

Changing something minor is easier, like adding a new type of map tile, than changing something major, even if that major thing should be changed.

[Spook]

The issue as relating to debates of this sort is: can we just throw away a body of thought on a wim. Sure, the Bill of Rights can be wrong, and changing it is certainly an option when it falls hopelessly out of sync with society, but those changes should not be whims, they should be debated, and you cannot just dismiss the reasoning of the Bill of Rights.

Agreed.