What is it that can make the next CM?? better than CMBB?

[Le Tondu]

I know that CMBB isn't out yet and I am NOT using this as an opportunity to complain about anything regarding it. I just wanted to express a good idea that I had.

THE ANSWER:

Having it be so two guys can game against two other guys via a TCP/IP connection OR PBEM.

Instead of beating up your best friend (or having the opposite happen), you'll be able to join forces and fight along side of him AND then beat someone else up (or have the opposite happen). Maybe, (dare I say it?) this could be included in a future patch/ upgrade for CMBB?

Could true Multi-multiplayer gaming be as big and as important to CMBB as TCP/IP gaming (arriving via a patch/ upgrade) was to CMBO? If it is possible to make it happen, I would have to say -definitely yes.

I'm guessing it can happen as more than one person can connect to the same IP address for some sort of web-broadcast and at the same time be able to send typed out questions to the broadcaster to have answered. Maybe all four guys can broadcast and recieve at the same time to fit into the game's way of doing things? (Just a thought.)

Hey, the way that I look at it, its worth it to ask.

[caligula_jones]

what *i* want to see is all 12 guys from my 12-man squad running around.

also, the ability to have more skins per object, and have the ability (automatic or in-game) to manage them. i would just love to have 4 different-looking (same model) PZ-IIIs on the screen at once!

a nice full-length campaign might be cool, too.

shane

[Le Tondu]

caligula_jones,

IIRC, I think that your number one and two would require a more powerful computer than what exists today. I think this was already spoken about somewhere else.

Not sure about number three though.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

caligula_jones,

IIRC, I think that your number one and two would require a more powerful computer than what exists today. I think this was already spoken about somewhere else.

Not sure about number three though.

Think: "Moore's Law"

every 18 months CPU's get TWICE as fast, they still cost about the same but they go twice as fast.

NOW think Mar 2005 for the release date, by then average computers should be between 3 and 4 times more powerful than they are now.

CM II with Open GL which will run under Mac OSX and take advantage of Dual Processors, (which by release in 2005,) which your "average computer user" might well have by then.

CM II should be programmed to do some REALLY COOL stuff!

I would hope!

-tom w

[ July 15, 2002, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Redwolf]

Before the thread gets locked up:

TacOps 4 will do exactly that (multiplayer per side) and is due to release very soon (probably before CMBB).

I have a review "TacOps4 for Combat Mission players" in the works, if anyone would like to beta-test-read it, please mail me. Summary is that WW2 buffs don't need to be ashamed of modern stuff and that this multiplayer mode is a great addition to your regular wargaming (which I expect the reader to continue to do in CM).

[ July 15, 2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Egan]

I love the idea of two human player aside. Just imagine if a way could be implemented so that there was at least limited FOW for players on the same side, Sort of like, you know your sister company was on that hill over there but not 100 percent where.

This would force you to use really good communication between you and your buddy, either that or get into all sorts of friendly fire stuff or get taken apart by a counter attck .

imagine if you could have a team: three people each running a Batt and a guy running the regimental arty and deciding who gets the reinforcements etc).

Now come on, would that not be the most kick *ss team based online game yet?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Egan:

I love the idea of two human player aside. Just imagine if a way could be implemented so that there was at least limited FOW for players on the same side, Sort of like, you know your sister company was on that hill over there but not 100 percent where.

In TacOps 4.x.

This would force you to use really good communication between you and your buddy, either that or get into all sorts of friendly fire stuff or get taken apart by a counter attck .

You better type very fast in IRC. Typically you get a minute for this communication and your actual orders to your units combined.

imagine if you could have a team: three people each running a Batt and a guy running the regimental arty and deciding who gets the reinforcements etc).

Now come on, would that not be the most kick *ss team based online game yet?

Well what can I say, it is just that Usually the fourth person will assume command over the other three and do the arty and air. Believe me, you want a commander with his hands free of units in this mode.

I apologize for the plug, but TacOps is not a replacement for CM, so I hope it's OK. I think CM lovers will get a true kick out of an occasional TacOps 4.x battle between their regular placement inside the 155mm barrages in 3D. As I said, mail me to preview the review.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Before the thread gets locked up:

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely NO sense. This thread doesn't violate anything and it is about Combat Mission. It promotes Combat Mission --which is a good thing.

It also promotes the expression of good ideas which isn't foriegn to Combat Mission.

Tac Ops 4.x is great for those folks that like modern wargaming. I just don't happen to be one of them. I genuinely wish it well and I hope that it sells a LOT of copies.

Maybe it was a dream that I had the other night, but I was sure that CMBB allowed this multi-multiplayer capability. Oh well....

In any event, thank you redwolf, for telling us that it is a reality and that at least it is possible to have it for CM. You give us hope.

So now the discussion moves to when it will it be applied to CM.

OR is this one of those little surpises that will be in CMBB that no one can talk about until 9-20-02. Hmmm, the only reason that I can see to lock up this thread would be that it is one of those little surprises and keeping discussions about it to minimum might seem appropriate. But doing that would only confirm it and want us to talk about it more.

[ July 15, 2002, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

[rune]

CMBB, one player per side

Rune

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by rune:

CMBB, one player per side

Rune

LOL

thanks for the non-NDA clarification Rune !

-tom w

[Brian Rock]

Redwolf got in before me, so all I can do is reiterate what he said. If you want to fight an armored battle with a large number of players per side TacOps 4 you really should pick it up.

Even if you don't know much about modern warfare, or even if you just plain prefer WWII, the multiplayer abilities alone should be reason to add it to your CMBB purchase.

I say this as a long-time CM player and an even longer TacOps player. Both games are just too outstanding not to have the complete set.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

Tac Ops 4.x is great for those folks that like modern wargaming. I just don't happen to be one of them.

I was thinking the same way before the TacOps 4 beta-test.

Hard to describe. The multiplayer aspect is so dominating that you don't really have time to think about all these silly new toys. After all, it's still mainly artillery, tanks, APCs and grunts. You do appreciate the more straightforward order structure of TacOps, though, because you are very short on time.

In any case, TacOps 4 will be a truly good experiment for a multiplayer CM that may come.

[ July 16, 2002, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by rune:

CMBB, one player per side

Rune

Without wanting to sound smart, I have to say:

one player, for now -maybe.

I just don't see BTS or BFC thumbing their noses at us and NOT putting it in -ever. Making CMBB or CM?? have more than one player per side will be as important an addition as TCP/IP play was for CMBO. That cannot be denied.

I'm willing to bet a LOT that they do not think it is a bad idea.

[ July 16, 2002, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

[Sabotai]

Massively multiplayer CM is the ONLY way to overcome the Borg spotting problem in a straight forward manner. IMO....of course.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Le Tondu:

I just don't see BTS or BFC thumbing their noses at us and NOT putting it in -ever. Making CMBB or CM?? have more than one player per side will be as important an addition as TCP/IP play was for CMBO. That cannot be denied.

BFC has confirmed that team play is a planned feature for CM3.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Before the thread gets locked up:

TacOps 4 will do exactly that (multiplayer per side) and is due to release very soon (probably before CMBB).

I have a review "TacOps4 for Combat Mission players" in the works, if anyone would like to beta-test-read it, please mail me. Summary is that WW2 buffs don't need to be ashamed of modern stuff and that this multiplayer mode is a great addition to your regular wargaming (which I expect the reader to continue to do in CM).

I'd love to give it a read. BTW, I'm already planning on buying TacOps once version 4 is released.

[Redwolf]

Marlow, you don't seem to have an email address listed in your profile. Email redwolf@cons.org, please.

[ July 16, 2002, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Marlow]

sullivantm@starpower.net

It is also in my profile.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

BFC has confirmed that team play is a planned feature for CM3.

Cool! So when is the release date??? Since they already have it worked out with Tac Ops 4, it shouldn't be too far away. :eek:

[Incognito]

Sounds funny

Could be cool as I would put it.

Image every player taking a compady and receiving oreders from battalion commander or even better from division or army(group?) commander.

(yés I'm megalomaniac :cool: )

It would be nice to see up to division of men in players command.

How about this: every player takes a division(or something) and there would bee a huge map of europa(and part of africa/asia/whole world )

and it would work like the operation map (or part of it atleast)

It would be the true ww2 online, and if someone would make a movie with best parts captured in then lol, lol ,rolfmao

:cool:

[Le Tondu]

Spacehamster,

You do like to think big. I'll give ya that.

I'll be happy with just two friends against another two.

[imported_Wildman]

Rexford,

Could you send it to me as well.

wesley.netcher@minot.af.mil

Thanks

[Redwolf]

Hate to clutter up the thread, but I have to point out that I am not rexford (the armor physics expert). I mailed you.

[Diceman]

Originally posted by SpaceHamster:

[QB]Sounds funny

Could be cool as I would put it.

Image every player taking a compady and receiving oreders from battalion commander or even better from division or army(group?) commander.

(yés I'm megalomaniac :cool: )

I was thinking something along these lines myself. Here's a rough sketch of how I imagine a future multiplayer Combat Mission:

Each player takes a command position, i.e. platoon, company, battalion.

Each player can only see what his commander on the map can see. I think this would be the ultimate in FOW.

A commander can only control those units in command. (Either LOS or radio for armies with squad level radios such as the walkie-talkie).

If a unit moves out of command, control reverts to the A.I. until it is brought back into command. The possibility that lost squads will march straight to a rallying point once lost would be a nice touch.

Note: radios would be tracked. Private messages, that is to say messages not viewable by the enemy players, could only take place between commanders with functioning radios. Once a HQ looses its radio, it would not be able to communicate, up, down, or laterally across the chain of command in private mode. If a squad looses its radio, control by its HQ would be limited to LOS.

Command above the platoon level would be a real challenge, as in real life. Coordinated attacks beyond the platoon level would be much more difficult than in current one person play, seeing as how company and battalion commanders would be only able to see what's going on by LOS, and what they could decipher by "radio messaging", and battlefield sound and smoke.