(CM:SF = optional RTS ) Had your Coffee yet?? check this out major news of the day..

[aka_tom_w]

Ron Meier

Member

Member # 506

posted November 04, 2005 10:31 AM

Here is the RTS quote...

"The new engine will boast not merely the hybrid turn-based/real-time system Combat Mission is known for, but an option for pure real-time play."

Thanks Ron

this one deserves its OWN thread.

This is a quote from the current Computer Games magazine article....

So what do you think?

-tom w

[ November 04, 2005, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[YankeeDog]

Depends on exactly what it means. . .

I can't imagine the present orders system working in real time. But Steve has already said that the new orders system is radically different.

I'm also curious to know how this works with all the complicated ballistics, LOS calcs, etc. that CMX1 crunches inbetween turns. I know computer technology has come a long way since the CMBO release, but is the new engine really capable of doing all this stuff "on the fly?"

[hellfish]

Whatever the implications, it's still only an option. Let's sit back and see how many people overlook that fact and get their panties in a bunch.

Edit - Tom, don't you think your subject title is a bit misleading? CMSF doesn't equal RTS. CMSF = RTS OPTION.

[aka_tom_w]

I'm also curious to know how this works with all the complicated ballistics, LOS calcs, etc. that CMX1 crunches inbetween turns. I know computer technology has come a long way since the CMBO release, but is the new engine really capable of doing all this stuff "on the fly?"

:confused:

GOOD question

I have been giving that some thought myself.

"How does it work?"

-tom w

[Thomm]

"The new engine ..." does not mean it will actually be used for CM:SF!

[Battlefront.com]

The RealTime option is available for CM:SF

Steve

[mazex]

Argh! Not another one! Well, as long as the "real" orders system is in NO way dumbed down to allow this I'm in... OK, I get the thought: "let's make the engine as flexible as possible", but with the size of the team - is it really worth the effort?

/Mazex

[panzermartin]

As long as the game retains its depth, thats fine

with me. I just hope that this doesnt mean the

death of turn-based on-line play (via TCP)

[ng cavscout]

I have 3 guys in my platoon here that have seen me playing CMAK and CMBB, and are planning on buying the games. Another guy looked at it and said "umm, do you have anything a little more fast paced?" I directed him to my gunner who was over on the other side of the tent playing World of Warcraft or some other eye candy click fest.

Maybe the new game will draw both crowds? Maybe show some of the latter the good points of the former?

[ November 04, 2005, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: NG cavscout ]

[hellfish]

Honestly, I don't think RTS is necessarily a bad thing. Just don't compare it to the crappy RTS games out there (like Starcraft of Command & Conquer that're like strategy games for the twitch crowd). I think more favorable comparisons to BFC's RTS version are games like Close Combat and Firefight - where they're not exacly twitch games and well paced for even the slowest of tactical minds.

I might actually be able to persuade some of my Operation Flashpoint friends to get CM:SF now - they loved the setting, but were immediately turned off when they read "turn-based." I think they equate turn-based to boardgames - to old fashioned to be any good.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The RealTime option is available for CM:SF

Next thing you guys will tell us that a FPS option is also available ... would not even surprise me anymore, having seen the models and the real time option! :eek:

Cannot wait to surf again tomorrow for the latest news ...

Gute Nacht,

Thomm

[Tarquelne]

Next thing you guys will tell us that a FPS option is also available ...

A real-time mode could make co-play/coop much more interesting. (Or, at least, supply a really compelling reason for adding another "commander".)

Hmm... And a FPS mode could be a ball in a coop situation. Someone else directs the battle and you, you direct a single soldier.

[Liebchen]

Or direct a single soldier who directs his squad, perhaps, ala Brothers in Arms?

[Battlefront.com]

A real-time mode could make co-play/coop much more interesting.

I can tell you that is exactly what I am looking forward to the most

One thing for you guys to keep in mind is that RT is really an option. RT and WG (We Go) have been designed together since the very beginning of the CMx2 design. The only difference between the two is that there are no turns for one

When you think about it, from a conceptual game standpoint ecen CMx1 was mostly a RealTime game with enforced pauses every 60 seconds. Some hardware limitations and inherently turn based conventions made true RT impossible for CMx1. However, things are very different now. First of all, we were planning on ditching the turn based conventions anyway, thus making the game engine truely continuous time. Secondly, the hardware today is so vastly superior to what we started out with that it is now viable.

When CMx2 is played in RT mode there is no equal to it. There is no game out there that offers the player the scope of command and depth of realism that CMx2 does. Just like CMx1's WeGo system broke the mold, we expect CMx2's RT system to bust another one.

Best of all... for you turn based guys... you aren't being left behind. In fact, the game is even BETTER than it would be had we made it turn based only. Reason? Since real life happens without artificial pauses, a game system that is based on this concept has an inherent advantage over one that thinks of life in slices of time. The RT option forces us to make a more realistic game environment which WG can take advantage of as well. It's a win-win.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Cavscout,

Yeah, the cross over is obviously one of the reasons for offering a RT option. This kills another bird with the same stone because the military is rather stuck on the concept of games having to be RT. At least it is an easier sell than turn based. Mostly though... that CoPlay option in RT... it is something I've been longing for since I first realized tht the computer could do a convincing 3D environment.

I've been into "CoPlay" gaming since the old arcade days. Given a choice between a game that required teamwork and one that had head to head competition, I'd always go with teamwork. Gauntlet, Rampage, numberous side scrollers, and my all time favorite Front Line. OK, the latter was single player, but I just love that one too much to not name it

Anyway, my point is that most of do like RT type games. The difference between us and the "twitchers" out there is that we want a thinking experience as well as one that is fast paced. Some of you really don't want this, and that's fine... since we're designing this with both in mind nobody has to lose out.

Steve

[BFCElvis]

Dearest Steve,

Will the replay/rewind feature be available for both RT and WG?

Love,

Elvis

[pad152]

98% of RTS games are all the same, then again computer Harpoon(one of the best war games of all time)was RTS!

I don't think we'll see CM: SF as a Command & Conquer clone!

[Mord]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ok this part confuses me a tad. You guys have both RT and WEGO in CMSF but plan on getting rid of WEGO in the future?

[mazex]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Mostly though... that CoPlay option in RT... it is something I've been longing for since I first realized tht the computer could do a convincing 3D environment.

Well, I didn't really think of co-op as the eliminator of the caos that ruins most RTS games but the more I think of it, the more I like the idea. RTS games that don't allow you to build new units are actually quite OK, like "Panzers". A friend of mine is CEO for Massive Entertainment that makes the Ground Control series. The first GC was one of the first fully 3D RTS and you could not buy units. That one was actually quite cool (even though it's futuristic and such). I did a massive campaign trying to convince him of implementing WeGo as an option in Ground Control 2 but the devs didn't have time. The next game they are doing I won't take no for an answer! I just don't get it why more RTS game developers don't do the opposite of what you are doing, ie implement turn based as an option... Look at "Panzers" - with more realism and WeGo as an option it would really be quite good! The graphics engine is simply one of the best looking WWII engines out there. And the effort wouldn't be that big! I guess Steve is not that interested in the others companies doing that so lets finish here

/Mazex

[panzermartin]

I suppose the command interface will be simplified to catch up the RTS mode pace right?

I dont mean that it will be simplistic but for instance, would you be able to move your units with a single right click without issuing any order or waypoint? Some basic commands like "move" or "fire" can be handled that way

without even keyboard shortcuts for those emergency RTS situations I guess.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The RealTime option is available for CM:SF

Hang on a sec here. If you are playing RT, can you give orders while the game is paused, or will it be like that damnable Close Combat?

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Ok this part confuses me a tad. You guys have both RT and WEGO in CMSF but plan on getting rid of WEGO in the future?

Yeah, I can see how I could have confused you guys Let me try again...

In CMx1 the game was WeGo through and through. The stuff behind the curtain was coded assuming that every 60 seconds, and only every 60 seconds, there would be a pause, player interaction, turn crunching, and then a largely hands off "movie" resolution phase. Requests for going continuous time, changing turn length, etc. couldn't be done because the game was coded specifically in the way I just described.

CMx2 is coded behind the scenes as a simulation of continuous time. There are no assumptions about turns because, as far as the basic code goes, there are no such thing as turns. From a player standpoint no turns is no problem because the game can be paused. This allows enforced times when the player can, or can't, do something. To the player there is no difference between this and CMx1's turn concept, however from a code standpoint the two share nothing in common.

The small details have yet to be hammered out, but on the surface the game experience (phases, general concepts, etc.) for the player should be the same for CMx2 as they were for CMx1. The stuff beneath the surface makes the simulation more realistic and capable of doing RealTime, but those are separate things.

It is not yet known how many requested WeGo improvements (like recording all turns as a single movie) can be incorporated, nor if it is possible for RealTime to borrow some of the WeGo features. Generally we see the WeGo stuff as being built on top of RealTime, not the other way around.

I suppose the command interface will be simplified to catch up the RTS mode pace right?

You betcha Sometime this weekend I'll detail the movement system for you guys so you can see how we made it easier, quicker, and oddly enough FAR more powerful than in CMx1.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Okay. While I don't oppose this, right away I can see one problem that will have to be addressed. In continuous time games that I am familiar with (important caveat there), the player can respond instantaneously to a changed circumstance in the game. One of the advantages of WeGo, I always thought, was that it forced at least some kind of realistic delay on the player before he could respond to an event on the map that corresponded to the command cycle.

Of course, it only roughly corresponded, since in real life, it would often take much longer for a commanding officer to become aware of an event, evaluate it, decide what he wanted his troops to do about it, issue the necessary orders, and have those reach the troops who would be the ones to carry them out...maybe. Now, even with command delays in CMx1, that was still only a crude approximation of the real thing. Perhaps the new engine will allow more flexibility in putting in delays that more closely approximate the real McCoy. But as I say, it is a problem that I foresee will need to be addressed.

Keeping my fingers crossed,

Michael

[mazex]

I FULLY agree with you Michael, if the game is played in WeGo mode it is important that you cannot constanlty go around changing orders for you units. OK, it would eliminate some of the frustration with the TacAI - but let's face it, that's maybe what makes CMx1 so good? You issue your orders and then anxiously watch your units trying to perform them... "What's the problem with that Tiger commander? Is he out of his ******* mind?" Yes those phrases have probably been screamed by commanding officers with binoculars many times too, but they could not instantly stop the tank from turning the turret in the wrong direction or whatever "stupid" thing they where doing without the whole picture from above!

/Mazex

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by mazex:

OK, it would eliminate some of the frustration with the TacAI - but let's face it, that's maybe what makes CMx1 so good?

Agreed. That would be exactly what some players have always wanted, but it turns the game into a fantasy trip that has nothing to do with tactical command realities.

Michael