Multiplayer Idea for CMx!

[Steiner14]

I couldn't find any forum discussions dealing with the idea i had today and when not now, is the time, to bring up ideas for the next engine?

Today i loaded for the very first time 'To the Volga' and was totally impressed.

I never before saw such a monster-battle.

Choosen one side and only looking at the masses of the units from view level one gives an exciting experience.

And my next thought was, that it must be even more fun, to play such a battle, if one player would control only one platoon of infantry or maybe even only one single tank!

So here is the rough-idea, how it could be implemented:

BTW: no special multiplayer-scenarios will be needed. Every single scenario/operation from the upcoming CMx could be used as multiplayer!

4 or 6 players in Combat Mission battles as a dream? Bah! Peanuts! With the following idea we would get the possibility of (almost) unlimited players with one turn per email and a faster advancing game than ever before!

The game is set-up and run from a master 'host' which receives the turns (PBEM) of all players. All action is calculated on the GameMaster's Computer.

Before a battle starts, the players have to decide about the usual things: who wants to control which units. After that is done, all players send their password to the GM.

The GM now set's up the battle:

in CM's multiplayer-setup, he loads the desired (completely normal!) scenario and gives CM-the data, to prevent players, giving orders to units they aren't allowed to control:

he picks the unit(s) for each player (maybe even from an abstract table of equipment) and assigns them the password from the player. He should also be able to change the names of the units, especially of the HQs, that the friendly players will be able to identify which friendly units are controlled by which HQ-player from the community.

After the setup is done, CM calculates one single multiplayer file.

Now the GM sends this file to every player.

Each player receives the file, enters his PW and sees everything as usual but with one difference: he can only control his own units.

After he's done, he sends the file back to the GM.

All single files are added by CM to the resulting move.

The movie is made and the next turn follows (btw: 1 turn per email!).

Very important is, that CM can ignore missing files:

i.e. if a player doesn't send his turn until the agreed time (i.e. Mon & Wed & Fri until 8pm), the next turn can become calculated anyway (CM treats the units as if they received no new commands), and therefore single players can't delay the whole game.

Reinforcements:

CM asks the GM, who should control the newly arrived units:

either the game-master can enter new passwords for additional players, or he assigns already existing passwords to the units.

Losses:

Ofcourse! **** happens. If the controlling HQ is killed, the according player is eliminated and any higher ranked HQ should be assigned to control the units directly.

Pro's:

1. multiplayer is lot's of fun - even more, if you know, that the running fugitives on your right side, are commanded by Michael Dorosh...

2. huge battles would take only a very small amount of time from each player. It only depends on how many players will be allowed to participate.

Finally people with only few time will get the possibility to play even the hugest battles and operations, because they control only as many troops as they want/their time allows.

3. the chaos on the battlefield will make you sometimes really cry and sometimes maybe you'ld like to kiss forum-members, for helping your men out and even rescueing your HQ from becoming eliminated...

Sometimes you'd like to curse your commander, for giving your platoon/tank/whatever the decoy-part, while others are assigned to collect the merites.

You control only one single PSW and you receive the order to drive ahead?

That could become a very short battle for you...

4. what makes multilplayer even more fun is, you can share your feelings and experiences with others. For many people, this is the real fun of multiplayer.

Playing solo against one oponent, can't offer that: he will never be really happy, if your PIAT-team knocked out a Kingtiger, that was going to decimate the whole company.

With this kind of multiplayer, you enter the IRC-chatroom of your side, and everyone will really share your feelings.

Or what a poor bastard you are, if you fail...

5. especially in battles with many players, where each player controls only a handful of units, the responsibility-feeling would be completely different and often enough conflicts between the given tasks and saving the own men (especially in operations), will apear.

6. discussing the tactics on IRC, while the highest ranked commander on the battlefield should finally have the last word. He could issue the orders in a private chat or by email, so that the enemy can't listen...

Additionally the IRC chatroom could be made password protected.

7. CM keeps it's pure tactical scale and the suggested multiplayer-mode wouldn't too heavily touch CM's internal structure and it works completely independent from all internal spotting-solutions the new engine will have.

Each player sees as much as he would see if he'd play his side solo.

[ December 13, 2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[BulletRat]

Barring LAN play, I'm thinking it would be hard to get even say... 6 people together to play such a game. Especially one of any decent length.

Having said that, I'd love to see this style of play implemented - and allowing spectators.

[Sergei]

They have revealed that multi-multi is on their list. Allowing that for PBEM (like in to-be-released Battlefields which is to have a comparable system) would be great.

[Thin Red Line]

Definitely a great idea.

[Gpig]

I love it!

Of course, the "low-tech" version of this system was used with early CMBO "Rumbles."

I partook in the 2nd Team Rumble and it was a blast. We did all you described above, but we (all the players) recieved only one file from the game master (Gordon Molek) twice a week. And we did NOT send files, just written orders. (Gordon entered ALL the written orders for all the units for both sides, in his single copy of the scenario - then sent us the movie files to watch.)

One of your notes about the ADVANCED rumble system you describe is;

quote

7. CM keeps it's pure tactical scale and the suggested multiplayer-mode wouldn't too heavily touch CM's internal structure and it works completely independent from all internal spotting-solutions the new engine will have.

Each player sees as much as he would see if he'd play his side solo.

This is the ONLY problem I see with what you propose. How will you limit players from "walking" around the battlefield? Will they be limited to a locked camera (like Franko's True Combat Rules)? Or are you proposing that the new engine limits what the player sees to LOS only?

Very interesting . . . and you are right, It would be a total HOOT!

Gpig

[Lou2000]

Originally posted by Gpig:

I love it!

Of course, the "low-tech" version of this system was used with early CMBO "Rumbles."

I partook in the 2nd Team Rumble and it was a blast. We did all you described above, but we (all the players) recieved only one file from the game master (Gordon Molek) twice a week. And we did NOT send files, just written orders. (Gordon entered ALL the written orders for all the units for both sides, in his single copy of the scenario - then sent us the movie files to watch.)

.....SNIP..............

Gpig

I like the idea of that low tech 'rumble'....

I've never hear of it before - is that becuase it was difficult to coordinate ... Were there any major problems with it ?

Is anybody interested in giving it a go in BB or AK ?

Lou2000

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by BulletRat:

Barring LAN play, I'm thinking it would be hard to get even say... 6 people together to play such a game. Especially one of any decent length.

Having said that, I'd love to see this style of play implemented - and allowing spectators.

Actually, it happens quite often.

Back in the past (10 years ago!) I wrote a play-by-email server for a game called "Firetop Mountain".

It originally was conceived as a duel between two mages, but a later person added to my code multi-multi capability. People loved it, and they still (10 years later!) play melees. The most I've seen is a 20-player brawl. With strict rules about what happens if people don't submit orders in time it chugs along just fine.

I'm sure that if BFC come out with multi-multi PBEM support, someone will quickly produce game-moderator software. Heck, I might even.

GaJ.

(If you go and look at Firetop Mountain, please remember that it is 10 years old, none of the original contributors (myself included) play anymore or maintain it... so its nothing fancy, but its still going strong! I guess 'cause its a simple, fun, challenging game...)

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by BulletRat:

Barring LAN play, I'm thinking it would be hard to get even say... 6 people together to play such a game. Especially one of any decent length.

Have you ever heard about the meta-campaigns running since BO? They are much more time consuming and work, too.

The oposite is the case, i think:

it would be very easy for everyone to participate, as long as he can send the moves of his (few!) units until the agreed time.

And if someone can't joint the chat, he'll receive his orders from his commander via email.

Shouldn't be to much work, to read an email, before plotting the moves.

If the task stays the same, even no message is needed. Players proceed to follow their orders, until they receive new ones, or until they decide on their own - with all possible consequences, even losing the command and leaving the game.

And to continue the game until the end, will be no problem, too because PBEM works, too and no one leaves.

Also any just disappearing member would be well known in the community.

And as last point, the higher ranked officers can tell the GameMaster they want to take command of PlatoonX and the password of the former commander should be deleted and the units assigned to the new password.

And whoe would really leave a battle, that develops magically, all friendly units act in an intelligent human way, while every player just controls his few units?

No one would leave this thrill freely!

BTW: the GameMaster priciple offers exciting possibilities.

I.e. the GM could announce a GMMP-game here in the oponent-finder foum and give only as much information out, as he wants.

And if the GM even uses a newly developed scenario, no one will be able to take a look at the other side, even if some players want to do so.

[ December 12, 2003, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Gpig:

This is the ONLY problem I see with what you propose. How will you limit players from "walking" around the battlefield? Will they be limited to a locked camera (like Franko's True Combat Rules)? Or are you proposing that the new engine limits what the player sees to LOS only?

Well this should be limited like in a solo game. Whatever BTS decides to implement (mabye some true-combat mode, who knows?). It would offer exactly the same with only one restriction:

the units a player can control are not the whole friendly site, but only those units, that are assigned to his password (from the GM).

There's no principal problem, if people fly around on the battlefield like now.

It would be even very exciting, to watch the movies from different perspectives to see, how comrades are doing and if finally the support weapons are on their way, before your platoon will become eliminated.

Hell, when will the bastard Steiner finally come up with his tank?

And in the IRC-chat (or by email) you can request urgent support from your commander, but after the discussion he tells you, that in a few minutes, one tank will come - maybe...

Or did i overlook something? Feel free to add your suggestions.

Hopefully BTS reads this thread.

IMO the strenght of this system would be (besides the tremendous fun and enourmous learning effects, by watching others how they do certain tasks), that it should be possible to implement GMMP within a decent time-frame and manhours without writing a complete new 2nd engine for multiplayer and the number of participating players isn't fixed, but free.

[ December 12, 2003, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Mark Gallear]

Schoerner asked me to look at this post. I remember doing a multiplayer game with CMBO each side, used one password for players on one side and saved rather than pressed go, which you only do when it is time to hand over to the enemy. I am involved in a large campaign using CMBB in which such features would make life easier for the umpires and players. (Tigers and Bears)

From the design point of view, I don't see any need to change how LOS and spotting works. Just extra password options that allow a player to move only the troops allocated to him.

Umpires could be given extra editing tools (to allow continuation of games, with damaged tanks etc, not seeing each others troops at end of a game (I keep messing that one up!) that are limited to these games and password protected. This would not reduce the trust element in normal two player games.

THERE IS DEMAND FOR THESE FEATURES! :cool:

I put my vote for it here - for what that's worth.

[ December 13, 2003, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[Schoerner]

Hi Mark,

I thought you'd like that idea. Me too!

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

From the design point of view, I don't see any need to change how LOS and spotting works. Just extra password options that allow a player to move only the troops allocated to him.

I do. Or to put it differently, it would be great. It would eliminate some of the Borg Spotting issue. Think for example if in a scenario the tanks and infantry of the attacker were controlled by different players who would see only what their own units can see. Preferably also uncontrolled friendly units would be hidden unless they were seen by own men, that way you would have to communicate better to avoid ordering fire onto woods where there are friendlies.

Anyway, soon Steve will enter this thread and tell that their project will be a word processing program or something, and multi-multi play won't be in.

[BigCat]

Hello

I'm the umpire of Tigers versus Bears a campaign using CMBB as game engine.

Just to say that I am writting a Strategic level program to handle larger battles. This will keep log on all the details I find extremely difficult to deal with in my campaign and allow the players to give orders in a CM fashion rather than send written orders, which I know they hate to do.

Still the umpire will have to prepare battle files etc...However, if CM2 would at last allow for transfer of troops across maps, that would become quite easy!

My program is called Stratege Campaign Headquarters. Contact me for details, if you are interested.

And I am looking for an umpire assistant on the Soviet side! Any volunteer just step forward and yell! Thank you!

[John Osborne]

Originally posted by BigCat:

I'm the umpire of Tigers versus Bears a campaign using CMBB as game engine.

My program is called Stratege Campaign Headquarters. Contact me for details, if you are interested.

Hi BigCat,

Is there any chance in the works for a CMAK campaign using CMAK as game engine? Or do you know of anybody who is working on one.

[BigCat]

Sorry, I don't. I need to finish my own campaign before starting on another one. So not from me either!

Stratege will allow to create any campaign using any kind of game engine. Version 2 will allow for combined ops.

[Kitty]

Originally posted by BigCat:

Sorry, I don't. I need to finish my own campaign before starting on another one. So not from me either!

Stratege will allow to create any campaign using any kind of game engine. Version 2 will allow for combined ops.

Hi, BigCat. =)

Kitty

[BigCat]

Meowww... to you too!