Commando: On the Front Line

[handihoc]

Great program. Thanks for posting that Cpl Steiner and Zwobot. Left me full of admiration for those young soldiers, and proud to be a Brit.

Looks like the next episode is going to be a toughie though.

Still on the melting away theme, I think that could be a nice addition to SF - the ability for the enemy to retreat off map, without the other side necessarily being aware.

[RT North Dakota]

I think another factor that CMSF cannot and probably never can simulate is just how long it takes to get things done under fire. You always have someone asking what's going on or jamming the net with casevac or just trying to grip the platoon. The old Prussian called it friction.

CMSF gives you a C2 "situational awareness" - dam silly phrase - that reality can never match, thus things IRL take a heck or a lot longer.

[aka_tom_w]

"Still on the melting away theme, I think that could be a nice addition to SF - the ability for the enemy to retreat off map, without the other side necessarily being aware. "

THAT would be totally awsome!

if it would include some form (I have NO idea how this would actually work) of victory points allocaded to the forces that effectively melt away off the edge of the map undetected.

FOR sure that would be a first for a video game if I am not mistaken....

stunning in its execution if the AI editor could be programmed for such assymetrical tactical "slight of hand"!

cheers!

[handihoc]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

if it would include some form (I have NO idea how this would actually work) of victory points allocaded to the forces that effectively melt away off the edge of the map undetected.

Yes, I can imagine situations, particularly in single play, where the AI could set up an ambush, forcing the attacker to slow and go into cautious defensive mode, hence delaying it's approach on objectives. After a skirmish or two, AI (if significantly outnumbered) could secretly withdraw some or all of its forces in the hope that the attacker would now advance so cautiously as to not achieve all victory conditions.

Or something along those lines.

Of course, this is just my imagination at work. From a programmer's or designer's pov I have no notion of how feasible this is.

This is possibly one of those situations where frustration in battle for one player can actually add to the enjoyment of the game experience. I mean, it'd be damned annoying to finally reach your goal only to find no one there, but annoying in the sense that you would actually appreciate the enemy and in-game tactics used.

From the defender's pov, of course, secretly withdrawing in order to both slow the attacker's advance and live to fight another day, makes perfect sense.

[ November 01, 2007, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: handihoc ]

[SgtMuhammed]

I don't think you will ever be able to recreate something like this in CMSF. I mean in terms of time taken and casualties recieved and inflicted. I say this not from a programing point of view but purely from gameplay. If you made game battles the same as real battles no one would want to play.

The board would be full of threads like:

"Why did my guys surrender after only losing 1 dead and 5 wounded?"

"Why isn't there any action?"

"Why can't my guys hit anything?"

"Why do my guys keep running away when no one has even been hit."

A buddy I served with was in Panama with the 82nd and told me about taking hours to just set up a building entry. Combat just doesn't happen in ways that people would find to be entertaining, there is just too much at stake.

[handihoc]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

[QB]

"Why did my guys surrender after only losing 1 dead and 5 wounded?" ---- It wouldn't be a surrender, but a tactical withdrawal, with points possible gained for its effectiveness. And your guys would withdraw only if ordered to by you.

"Why isn't there any action?" ---- in the type of situation I described, there would be action, at least at first. An effective ambush, with at least snipers, atgm's left in place for some time, would maintain the action and tension. High and frequent mobility would also be an essential factor, as it is in the tv program. What that prog shows is that staying in one place, even in a fortified position, is lethal.

"Why can't my guys hit anything?" --- they would, potentially, if they could see it.

"Why do my guys keep running away when no one has even been hit." --- as with point 1, they wouldn't unless you gave them the order or they'd routed.

I do realise, though, that this is probably asking a hell of a lot of a computer game, no matter how good it is. But I remember CC where, in campaigns, troops could exit the map and then reappear in the next battle.