Will TASK Orders = Scripted Battles.....???

[Charlie901]

I was wondering since you get task orders during a battle like, "Take out those guns on that hill", during play ....

Will it make the battles in this game totally scripted?

Anotherwords will the A.I. be free to place their units around the map in different locations, randomly... trenches, dug in positions, fortifications etc... ala CM series?

Or is each battle going to be exactly the same and play out the same way every time, with the A.I. units, guns, trenches, fortifications in exactly the same place every time you want to repeat/replay the same battle???

I hope not for it will kill battle replayability.

Anyone know?

[JThorn]

I've been looking for an answer to this question also. Random battles are one of the reasons i've played the CM series for years.

[ww2steel]

Task: get infantry into that house.

...failed.

(Can I have my pizza extra cheesy please?) JK I seriously think that's a killer oversight.

Back on subject, I think it depends just how specific these tasks are, and how strenuous they are on timetables- if at all. It's a fine line between realism (all I do is take orders, dude) and realizing that it's just a game that we play for fun. Given the CMXX series I think they will do well.

Mike

[gunnersman]

I think you will get an argument that its NOT an oversight but a well thought out decision based on the idea that it might seem more clumsy(?), as far as UI goes, to have infantry entering the building right now than not.

[ww2steel]

Yes, certainly something to be addressed (like the hevily masking trees in some screenies IMO). Why not simply make occupied buildings semi transparent like CMXX?

I just think it's REALLY gamey.

"Sarge, shouldn't we get into that stone building?"

"Nah, this open grassy field with a clothesline will do just fine."

Mike

[gunnersman]

Where's that sticky to answer FAQ's? Wasnt somebody suppose to volunteer to put that up or somefink?

Im too damn lazy.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by ww2steel:

Yes, certainly something to be addressed (like the hevily masking trees in some screenies IMO). Why not simply make occupied buildings semi transparent like CMXX?

I just think it's REALLY gamey.

"Sarge, shouldn't we get into that stone building?"

"Nah, this open grassy field with a clothesline will do just fine."

Mike

And the CM handling of buildings wasn't "gamey" (I don't think that's the right word for it)?

"Sarge, shouldn't we get into that stone building?"

"Sure, nevermind looking for the door, let's just walk through the walls."

[ww2steel]

True about the walls thing. Either that or your CM troops would do some semi unpredicted things downtown and get killed for it.

I think you have to admit that walking through walls is less gamey though than not using the best defensive position for hundreds of yards because you can't figure out how to use a door/ how to let your 'human' commander talk to you. (That has to be a run on sentence.)

Mike

[Moon]

Charlie901, the answer is that the missions in TOW are... well, different than in CM. It's actually hard to compare because of the difference in design and scope. TOW is not the kind of "sandbox game" as CM. But it is not "totally scripted" either.

In TOW missions are certainly more scripted than CM, in that each mission will come with a certain number of objectives. But there are random events, somewhat randomized placement, and an adaptive AI which will react to the player actions. The objectives also can change depending on the player's actions.

This means that each mission is similar to the pre-made missions in CM in certain respects, but unlike the Quick Battles of CM.

BTW, "scripted" does not have to always mean more rigid. For example, there are way more ways that the appearance of reinforcements is based on than CM. In a way this creates less predictability of how each mission plays out. Again, it's simply different than in CM, and with nearly 50 maps and the ability to mod missions I don't think that replayability will be much of an issue.

It certainly won't be as "endless" as CM, which has way too much replayability for a game of its price, but it is a lot more than the 10 hours of gameplay you'll get from your average FPS game out there these days if you don't count multiplayer clickfests.

As for buildings, gunnersman is right, especially because as stated previously we don't have any deep urban battles in the game, so considering the effort vs. reward the dev team made the decision to make buildings non-enterable. Game design is always a matter of compromises like this and once you get to play the game you'll notice that it's not hurting the realism nor immersion in the game.

Martin

[ww2steel]

Crud, looks like I'm going to be playing CMBB for a couple more years.

Maybe an expansion might cover urban terrain like Stalingrad or Berlin, or a fictional Moscow, that would post code this ToW. That would be cool. The demo may be awesome enough that I'll still buy it... but the building thing... well, we all know how I feel.

Thanks for listening,

Mike

[Charlie901]

Originally posted by Moon:

Charlie901, the answer is that the missions in TOW are... well, different than in CM. It's actually hard to compare because of the difference in design and scope. TOW is not the kind of "sandbox game" as CM. But it is not "totally scripted" either.

In TOW missions are certainly more scripted than CM, in that each mission will come with a certain number of objectives. But there are random events, somewhat randomized placement, and an adaptive AI which will react to the player actions. The objectives also can change depending on the player's actions.

This means that each mission is similar to the pre-made missions in CM in certain respects, but unlike the Quick Battles of CM.

BTW, "scripted" does not have to always mean more rigid. For example, there are way more ways that the appearance of reinforcements is based on than CM. In a way this creates less predictability of how each mission plays out. Again, it's simply different than in CM, and with nearly 50 maps and the ability to mod missions I don't think that replayability will be much of an issue.

It certainly won't be as "endless" as CM, which has way too much replayability for a game of its price, but it is a lot more than the 10 hours of gameplay you'll get from your average FPS game out there these days if you don't count multiplayer clickfests.

As for buildings, gunnersman is right, especially because as stated previously we don't have any deep urban battles in the game, so considering the effort vs. reward the dev team made the decision to make buildings non-enterable. Game design is always a matter of compromises like this and once you get to play the game you'll notice that it's not hurting the realism nor immersion in the game.

Martin

Martin; Thanks for the reply!

Definately sounds encouraging; especially the "Random Events", "Randomized Placement" and "Changing Objectives based on players actions".

The less Rigid/Scripted the better IMHO.

[BFawlty]

I gotta say this is the one major aspect of this game that I have concerns about. I'm looking forward to the demo for sure.

BF