CMX2 Multi-play

[Zemke]

Am I wrong, but would not a multi-player CMX2 appeal to a larger market, particularly the younger players. I mean given the number of multi-play sims, and FPS out there that are predominately played by teens and young adults, this generation expects a multi-player feature. As I have said in the past SPWAW had a good starting point on how this could be done. Also FOW aspects could be included like Allied player A could not see Allied player B's soldiers unless he had LOS. This would make coordination critical to winning. Think of the possibilities, all players giving orders, when everyone hits go, you see your troops, and maybe some of your ajecent units, you hear fire from a distance...who got hit.... You could have larger battles, done faster, with all the real confusion that several personnalites interacting would create!! You could have a recon commander, two manuver commanders, perhaps a FSO (Fire Support Officer), each responsible for their part of the mission. An overal battle Commander feature could be part of it. The possibilities are there.

Other games have done it, and do it well. Rome Total War comes to mind, al bet somewhat unreliably. SPWAW had the feature, but online or LAN play never seemed to work, as the games could not be saved, (they may have fixed this by now (CM came out and I never looked back). I am not a programer, but I have been playing wargames for over 25 years and I am an Infantry Officer, and I know in my heart that good wargames don't have to be stale looking and be realistic, they can be both now, and multi-play will add the final touch for a tactical simulation to go that next level and reach many more prospective buyers.

[Zemke]

Am I wrong, but would not a multi-player CMX2 appeal to a larger market, particularly the younger players. I mean given the number of multi-play sims, and FPS out there that are predominately played by teens and young adults, this generation expects a multi-player feature. As I have said in the past SPWAW had a good starting point on how this could be done. Also FOW aspects could be included like Allied player A could not see Allied player B's soldiers unless he had LOS. This would make coordination critical to winning. Think of the possibilities, all players giving orders, when everyone hits go, you see your troops, and maybe some of your ajecent units, you hear fire from a distance...who got hit.... You could have larger battles, done faster, with all the real confusion that several personnalites interacting would create!! You could have a recon commander, two manuver commanders, perhaps a FSO (Fire Support Officer), each responsible for their part of the mission. An overal battle Commander feature could be part of it. The possibilities are there.

Other games have done it, and do it well. Rome Total War comes to mind, al bet somewhat unreliably. SPWAW had the feature, but online or LAN play never seemed to work, as the games could not be saved, (they may have fixed this by now (CM came out and I never looked back). I am not a programer, but I have been playing wargames for over 25 years and I am an Infantry Officer, and I know in my heart that good wargames don't have to be stale looking and be realistic, they can be both now, and multi-play will add the final touch for a tactical simulation to go that next level and reach many more prospective buyers.

[Soddball]

Can you explain why, in your opinion, multi-multi play (which I assume is what you meant), would broaden the game's appeal?

Without wishing to denigrate the 'junior CM Player team', targetting a younger market with a game which requires patience and brainpower is unlikely to be a financial goldmine.

[Soddball]

Can you explain why, in your opinion, multi-multi play (which I assume is what you meant), would broaden the game's appeal?

Without wishing to denigrate the 'junior CM Player team', targetting a younger market with a game which requires patience and brainpower is unlikely to be a financial goldmine.

[securityguard]

I personally don't think Multi-Multi play will encourage people who don't dig the games premise to dig it more. However I do believe multi-multi play to be a great idea. It's one thing I love about Tac Ops and wish was in Combat Mission.

[securityguard]

I personally don't think Multi-Multi play will encourage people who don't dig the games premise to dig it more. However I do believe multi-multi play to be a great idea. It's one thing I love about Tac Ops and wish was in Combat Mission.

[GJK]

You'll alienate the old-guard and there's no appeal with this genre of game to the fast-twitchers already, so you accomplish nothing.

You can already play CM co-op via pbem. It's just like playing CM with just one other person except you have even fewer forces to control and the half that you don't are off doing their own thing. Think of playing chess with 4 players. I'll stick to two players personally.

[GJK]

You'll alienate the old-guard and there's no appeal with this genre of game to the fast-twitchers already, so you accomplish nothing.

You can already play CM co-op via pbem. It's just like playing CM with just one other person except you have even fewer forces to control and the half that you don't are off doing their own thing. Think of playing chess with 4 players. I'll stick to two players personally.

[Blutzeit]

Hi Zemke!

Yup, massive-multiplayer real-time realistic and good-looking tactical simulation is exactly my kind of game. I hope some day somewhere someone will make it.

[Blutzeit]

Hi Zemke!

Yup, massive-multiplayer real-time realistic and good-looking tactical simulation is exactly my kind of game. I hope some day somewhere someone will make it.

[stikkypixie]

This has been asked for a long time, and BFC will try to put it in.

But don't forget the drawbacks, you could end up with playing only 5 minutes of a 30 min game, or having a minimal role, because he/she commands for example the support weapons. So you need to make very good arrangements before playing.

Plus it's not because you put multi-player that suddenly you will have a larger fan-base. I doubt Ip supported attracted more people to CMBB or CMAK.

As for RTS, don't the other RTS game supports more than 2 players in multiplay?

[stikkypixie]

This has been asked for a long time, and BFC will try to put it in.

But don't forget the drawbacks, you could end up with playing only 5 minutes of a 30 min game, or having a minimal role, because he/she commands for example the support weapons. So you need to make very good arrangements before playing.

Plus it's not because you put multi-player that suddenly you will have a larger fan-base. I doubt Ip supported attracted more people to CMBB or CMAK.

As for RTS, don't the other RTS game supports more than 2 players in multiplay?

[Tarkus]

There are really two points in Zemke post.

Originally posted by Soddball:

[snipp] targetting a younger market with a game which requires patience and brainpower is unlikely to be a financial goldmine.

Well put. IMO, the best that could perhaps be achieved along these lines would be to allow for some sort a cooperative tutorials, where more experienced players could share with newer players directly on the field. Not quite a sales pitch, but a nice side effect.

I do think that coop multiplay, as a game feature, holds some nice promises.

Cheers.

[Tarkus]

There are really two points in Zemke post.

Originally posted by Soddball:

[snipp] targetting a younger market with a game which requires patience and brainpower is unlikely to be a financial goldmine.

Well put. IMO, the best that could perhaps be achieved along these lines would be to allow for some sort a cooperative tutorials, where more experienced players could share with newer players directly on the field. Not quite a sales pitch, but a nice side effect.

I do think that coop multiplay, as a game feature, holds some nice promises.

Cheers.

[Schrullenhaft]

Steve has mentioned in some recent posts to the forum that 'multi-multi-player' will almost certainly not make it into the upcoming game based on the new CMx2 engine. There apparently is quite a bit of work to be done with the new engine and adding on multi-multi-player would add at least another 6 months to the initial release. Instead it is planned (I guess) that the second game based on CMx2 will have the multi-multi-player feature.

There's definitely a desire from both the players and the developers to include this feature. However as others have pointed out, I doubt that it would drastically change the sales picture for CM. It could potentially convince those other wargaming diehards that CM is worth checking out, but it should have next to no effect on those who desire the FPS-like gaming experience.

[Schrullenhaft]

Steve has mentioned in some recent posts to the forum that 'multi-multi-player' will almost certainly not make it into the upcoming game based on the new CMx2 engine. There apparently is quite a bit of work to be done with the new engine and adding on multi-multi-player would add at least another 6 months to the initial release. Instead it is planned (I guess) that the second game based on CMx2 will have the multi-multi-player feature.

There's definitely a desire from both the players and the developers to include this feature. However as others have pointed out, I doubt that it would drastically change the sales picture for CM. It could potentially convince those other wargaming diehards that CM is worth checking out, but it should have next to no effect on those who desire the FPS-like gaming experience.

[Zemke]

I wrote the above post with my 15 year old son in mind, and the future of our hobby in general. Remember in the 1980s when you could walk into a computer game store and all the games were "Wargames", now there are none, or very few. If I want a wargame I have to order from online. Why, because the market has gotten so small, thats why, supply and demand. And to agrue that "twitch gamers would never play anyway", seems the type of attitude that will certainly doom our hobby in the long run. You can have realism and good graphics, you can have PBEM and multi-multi-play all in the same game! It has been done and is being done right now. Oh, and for for those who wouldn't want the hassel of dealing with other players on their side, then don't, play alone. But in the real Army and in real life, subordinate commanders have to work together, cross-talk, coordinate, to ensure the mission is executed. Multi-Multi play would open that OPTION up. I just see the possibilities of greatness. Organized groups (Clans) pitting tactical decision making against each other. Campaign games that don't take longer than the real war took to complete, while still making the "old guard" happy, as they can still be the squad leader, platoon leader, company commander, and study every fold in the ground, and check every LOS from every where before they send their PBEM file to their buddy. Everyone is happy!! As for the development time, I would gladly pay the extra money, and wait the extra time for CMX2 with multi-multi play capability. If it cost me $100 for the game, and it was what I wanted, I would buy it, period. Wargaming is what I love to do, so money is not the issue, (IF THE GAME IS GOOD). I have spent far more on other things, and had less fun than I do playing Combat Mission!!

[Zemke]

I wrote the above post with my 15 year old son in mind, and the future of our hobby in general. Remember in the 1980s when you could walk into a computer game store and all the games were "Wargames", now there are none, or very few. If I want a wargame I have to order from online. Why, because the market has gotten so small, thats why, supply and demand. And to agrue that "twitch gamers would never play anyway", seems the type of attitude that will certainly doom our hobby in the long run. You can have realism and good graphics, you can have PBEM and multi-multi-play all in the same game! It has been done and is being done right now. Oh, and for for those who wouldn't want the hassel of dealing with other players on their side, then don't, play alone. But in the real Army and in real life, subordinate commanders have to work together, cross-talk, coordinate, to ensure the mission is executed. Multi-Multi play would open that OPTION up. I just see the possibilities of greatness. Organized groups (Clans) pitting tactical decision making against each other. Campaign games that don't take longer than the real war took to complete, while still making the "old guard" happy, as they can still be the squad leader, platoon leader, company commander, and study every fold in the ground, and check every LOS from every where before they send their PBEM file to their buddy. Everyone is happy!! As for the development time, I would gladly pay the extra money, and wait the extra time for CMX2 with multi-multi play capability. If it cost me $100 for the game, and it was what I wanted, I would buy it, period. Wargaming is what I love to do, so money is not the issue, (IF THE GAME IS GOOD). I have spent far more on other things, and had less fun than I do playing Combat Mission!!

[GJK]

That's just my point of view. I grew up with hexes and cardboard wargames because a) that's all there was for the genre and I was fortunate to have a friend who shared the same interests and happened upon A/H's Luftwaffe in a 5&10 store. I still enjoy wargames almost as much for its trivial aspects of youth as I do for the enjoyment of the subject.

Today's kids grow up on HL2 and other FPS games. I just don't see them opting for a turn-based strategy wargame over HL-2 (for example) unless they have a deep interest in the subject matter or are bided to play by someone else. Yes, there are always exceptions.

Anyways, this is no great revealation. If BFC were to include a MMP type feature to the game, I wouldn't scoff. I probably wouldn't play it as such, but I wouldn't scoff. I don't think it should be a high priority though, especially if it were to introduce any delays as Schrullenhaft mentions above.

[GJK]

That's just my point of view. I grew up with hexes and cardboard wargames because a) that's all there was for the genre and I was fortunate to have a friend who shared the same interests and happened upon A/H's Luftwaffe in a 5&10 store. I still enjoy wargames almost as much for its trivial aspects of youth as I do for the enjoyment of the subject.

Today's kids grow up on HL2 and other FPS games. I just don't see them opting for a turn-based strategy wargame over HL-2 (for example) unless they have a deep interest in the subject matter or are bided to play by someone else. Yes, there are always exceptions.

Anyways, this is no great revealation. If BFC were to include a MMP type feature to the game, I wouldn't scoff. I probably wouldn't play it as such, but I wouldn't scoff. I don't think it should be a high priority though, especially if it were to introduce any delays as Schrullenhaft mentions above.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by GJK:

You'll alienate the old-guard and there's no appeal with this genre of game to the fast-twitchers already, so you accomplish nothing.

Nonsense. How can you alienate anybody by including more -options-?

As mentioned, the first game wont have multi multi, but perhaps the second? I for one would love to see it!

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by GJK:

You'll alienate the old-guard and there's no appeal with this genre of game to the fast-twitchers already, so you accomplish nothing.

Nonsense. How can you alienate anybody by including more -options-?

As mentioned, the first game wont have multi multi, but perhaps the second? I for one would love to see it!

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Zemke:

I wrote the above post with my 15 year old son in mind, and the future of our hobby in general. Remember in the 1980s when you could walk into a computer game store and all the games were "Wargames", now there are none, or very few. If I want a wargame I have to order from online. Why, because the market has gotten so small, thats why, supply and demand. And to agrue that "twitch gamers would never play anyway", seems the type of attitude that will certainly doom our hobby in the long run. You can have realism and good graphics, you can have PBEM and multi-multi-play all in the same game! It has been done and is being done right now. Oh, and for for those who wouldn't want the hassel of dealing with other players on their side, then don't, play alone. But in the real Army and in real life, subordinate commanders have to work together, cross-talk, coordinate, to ensure the mission is executed. Multi-Multi play would open that OPTION up. I just see the possibilities of greatness. Organized groups (Clans) pitting tactical decision making against each other. Campaign games that don't take longer than the real war took to complete, while still making the "old guard" happy, as they can still be the squad leader, platoon leader, company commander, and study every fold in the ground, and check every LOS from every where before they send their PBEM file to their buddy. Everyone is happy!! As for the development time, I would gladly pay the extra money, and wait the extra time for CMX2 with multi-multi play capability. If it cost me $100 for the game, and it was what I wanted, I would buy it, period. Wargaming is what I love to do, so money is not the issue, (IF THE GAME IS GOOD). I have spent far more on other things, and had less fun than I do playing Combat Mission!!

Computers weren't as common in 1980 as they were now. Other "types" of people owned pc's.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Zemke:

I wrote the above post with my 15 year old son in mind, and the future of our hobby in general. Remember in the 1980s when you could walk into a computer game store and all the games were "Wargames", now there are none, or very few. If I want a wargame I have to order from online. Why, because the market has gotten so small, thats why, supply and demand. And to agrue that "twitch gamers would never play anyway", seems the type of attitude that will certainly doom our hobby in the long run. You can have realism and good graphics, you can have PBEM and multi-multi-play all in the same game! It has been done and is being done right now. Oh, and for for those who wouldn't want the hassel of dealing with other players on their side, then don't, play alone. But in the real Army and in real life, subordinate commanders have to work together, cross-talk, coordinate, to ensure the mission is executed. Multi-Multi play would open that OPTION up. I just see the possibilities of greatness. Organized groups (Clans) pitting tactical decision making against each other. Campaign games that don't take longer than the real war took to complete, while still making the "old guard" happy, as they can still be the squad leader, platoon leader, company commander, and study every fold in the ground, and check every LOS from every where before they send their PBEM file to their buddy. Everyone is happy!! As for the development time, I would gladly pay the extra money, and wait the extra time for CMX2 with multi-multi play capability. If it cost me $100 for the game, and it was what I wanted, I would buy it, period. Wargaming is what I love to do, so money is not the issue, (IF THE GAME IS GOOD). I have spent far more on other things, and had less fun than I do playing Combat Mission!!

Computers weren't as common in 1980 as they were now. Other "types" of people owned pc's.

[tar]

I suppose one could always ask Major Holderidge's advice on the subject. His TacOps game has massive multiplayer features in it.

The general impression I have from the massive multi-player games are that there is a limited audience appeal because of the need to commit a fair chunk of time to the game. Dropping out during play tends to be a bit disruptive, especially because...

...you often need to have some fairly strict time limits on the orders phase to make this work. It isn't any fun for 10 people to sit twiddling their thumbs for 10 minutes waiting for the last guy to finish up his finely crafted and meticulously choreographed orders. So, having everyone on-line and active reduces the potential audience and makes it important not to have many dropouts, either as personal decisions or as the result of technical glitches.

I'm not sure how well a PBEM system would work unless there were a dedicated host system that managed the interactions.