Bradley Dick Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I dunno... we might try something like this in the future, but if we do it will probably coincide with having CoPlay (multiplayer team play). That's where the big bang for the buck is in terms of whacking the God aspect upside the head. How so? Because with CoPlay you now break down the battlefield into more than one overall commander. Steve I can't be the only person who thinks this would be amazing if implemented. Multiplayer cooperative play. It just sounds great. For realism, it would add in the human factor like no amount of command delays could ever do. You could simply tell your fellow commander what to do with his troops, and he would follow those orders how he best saw fit. Or not at all. You could coordinate massive, complicated maneuvers.... in real time. All the communication and command features that are featured in CM:SF would really come into play with this system. The status of friendly forces that you weren't in contact with could not be determined by just clicking on the ground. The scales of battles could be increased. Right now, as in all CM games, the larger scale battles can be kind of daunting. Especially if you use real time. But imagine a Brigade Combat Team sized meeting engagement, in real time, with multiple commanders on each side. New features could be added to ease cooperative play. Voice communication software such as is available in other games would help. Another helpful tool would be an interactive FBCB2(is that the right acronym?). You could bring it up, using the display to help illustrate orders on the map. You could see all friendly units which have GPS on the display. You could relay spot reports through the system, showing areas where you've seen the enemy on the display. This could have potential problems as well. For one, there aren't that many of us wargamers out there. We might have a great new feature, but nobody to play with. I think PBEM would become and amazingly lengthy procedure. It would require both sides having all commanders complete their turns before the next turn could pass. But, this could go smoothly with the right people. Could the increase in players on a map greatly affect the latency of the game ? Could you allow units to be attached to units not in their chain of command (for example, a batallion CO loaning out AT teams for the use of a seperate batallion. With the attached teams being completely under the control of the second player.)? IMHO this is the wave of the future. I would wholeheartedly support any effort in this direction. Even if it barely worked, it would be a revolutionary step forward. I would buy an expansion pack, or new game, that had this without second thought. Anyone else got any ideas or comments about this ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 You could coordinate massive, complicated maneuvers.... in real time. you can do allready, in WEGo wich is sort of RT you can do allready alone... i, personaly, cant care less about co play mode. imagine COplay in PBEM, how many files are needed to compleat a single turn per person!? in tcpip wego i would buy it, but its not there currently. in the end it sounds nice but has not much to offer for me and most other people i think. to get 3 guys to play at the same time is harder than to get just 1(i dont count in yourself!). so mostly it wont happen unless you plan a battle days in advance. so, when i want coplay i go play tacops there are 19 players and an umpire possible in COplay in wego mode. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I think it's upto bandwitch, CM:SF seems to be very heavy already in batallion scale (atleast my computer drops to it's knees and ask for mercy or relieving bullet), how well it performs in largescale multiplayer scenarions as in RT it should be, or i don't see point in this whole thing. But personally i would be happy to lead platoon sized force aswell, as long as it's has about 6-10 subunits (teams, squads, vehicles). so even 8-12 players company vs. company would be intresting... Requesting mortarfire and airstrikes to my CO's neck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertston Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Co-op WEGO would be completely pointless IMHO. I just can't see anybody bothering. RT co-op, on the other hand, would have sold CMSF to an awful lot of doubters had it been included. There will/would be plenty of players IF a server browser and matching service is built in. Without that, it wouldn't be worth the time spend coding it in view of the single-figure numbers likely to be playing it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Yep, I can see it now, Company CO, Mark Ezra, relieved of command for insubordination, dereliction of duty and plan ass battlefield stupidity....sign me up! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I think Co-Play sounds freaking awesome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 It should be very good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelco Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Man, I would play such a thing! I wonder how much troops the game can handle, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradley Dick Posted August 24, 2007 Author Share Posted August 24, 2007 Originally posted by AdamL: The AI isn't good enough to make co-op interesting, for me. The value in co-play is in learning together. I don't think that is there yet. I'm not saying two players vs an AI enemy. I'm saying two players(or more) on each side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 I can't be the only person who thinks this would be amazing if implemented. Multiplayer cooperative play. It just sounds great. Yes, you are the only one who ever mentioned it. Coplay, whazzat? Seriously glad it is getting mentioned but from what Steve has said in the past is that it is unlikely to even make it in by WWII (it used to be, in by WWII we hope, now I think it is "soon after WWII we hope). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelmia Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 Uh, it can't support TWO people on TCP/IP right now. They need to fix the lag before this will work. I'd love to see it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Hi, Steve posted… “but if we do it will probably coincide with having CoPlay (multiplayer team play). That's where the big bang for the buck is in terms of whacking the God aspect upside the head.” Exactly… the problem with all the other fixes to the God problem is that they tend to be very distorted, very artificial. The only real way to recreate the chaos of war or some of it anyway, is to have more people in the one game. If you had a US infantry battalion with three different company commanders each only able to see what their own troops could see perfect coordination will never happen . All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.