Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort
My main problem with all of this discussion is how logically erroneous it is. The future of wargames doesn't lie in one direction (as you put in Real Time Company Command). That is ONE path wargames might take, but lots of wargamers want grand strategy games, or divisional level games, or theater-wide games.

Umm....that is exactly the point I was making. :-/ In fact, I believe my point was that real time company command (whatever that is) is likely not to be of appeal to anyone but a small niche.

Pshaw... further you should define what a "wargame" is before you tell me not to mention certain genres or types of games. Because that is a HUGE category... just look at the different types of games Matrix offers and get back to me.

Ummm...that was my point as well, and I attempted that definition in post one....

And I would venture to say that your comment to Dinsdale is incorrect, his outlook on multiplay is not that of the majority of PC gamers out there.

The majority of PC gamers out there are solo gamers.

If my replies seem short, I apologize for whatever "tone" you choose to read into them, but I simply lack the strength to repeat everything I said in the first page of this thread. I really think you should go back and review the discussion there because it seems you've missed some fundamental points and may simply need to look at it again to have it make sense to you?

[cdbeck]

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
Umm....that is exactly the point I was making. :-/ In fact, I believe my point was that real time company command (whatever that is) is likely not to be of appeal to anyone but a small niche.

As I said, I was agreeing with you. I think the whole argument is flawed. It is like saying the "future of ice cream is chocolate." It is just silly.

Ummm...that was my point as well, and I attempted that definition in post one....

I was being a bit facetious. I don't believe you, or anyone, can come up with an adequate definition of "wargame" as it is rather subjective. I think C&C is a wargame, whereas Ravinhood thinks it is not. I think the Battlefield series is a wargame, many on this forum would disagree.

The majority of PC gamers out there are solo gamers.

An erroneous assumption. First off, it assumes that gamers only play one type of game. Secondly, WoW has 9 million subscribers world-wide (2 million in America, 1.5 million in Europe, 3.5 million in China). That is more than most gaming companies will ever sell. Besides, if a person plays one match of C&C online and then 20 matches solo, does that make them a "solo" gamer, despite the fact they played online once in a while? Whatever it means for the PC gaming business, most people are multiplayer, at least casually.

...it seems you've missed some fundamental points and may simply need to look at it again to have it make sense to you?

There is the tone I was referring to... [8|]

SoM

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

I was being a bit facetious. I don't believe you, or anyone, can come up with an adequate definition of "wargame" as it is rather subjective. I think C&C is a wargame, whereas Ravinhood thinks it is not. I think the Battlefield series is a wargame, many on this forum would disagree.

The people who sell them have pretty good definitions, though. I just go by their definition. Is C&C marketed as a wargame? I'm not including first person shooters or science fiction themes or even vehicle simulations like flight simulators or tank simulators. That may not match everyone's definition, but for purposes of discussion here, at least we'll know what we're talking about amongst ourselves.

An erroneous assumption. First off, it assumes that gamers only play one type of game.

I'm talking about wargames, my fault for not being clear. The majority of those who play tactical wargames in particular are solo. This was true in the days of board games too; even in the 1970s when SPI first started tracking demographics, they found this surprising statistic to be true. The fact that so much attention is paid to programming AIs simply reinforces the fact that game companies know where their bread and butter is. OFP or MOH aren't marketed solely as MP online for very good reasons.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

Now, I'll ask again, do you have something constructive to add to this topic of conversation, or don't you? I'd be very interested in your opinion on the matter at hand.

After seeing your first post (for me) under the topic " Best board-game?" i envisioned a ponticficating Troll due to your comments about "focus". Who are you to teach others about their post content?, you just came off as arogant and self-inflated and frankly your posts of superfluous fluff are neither interesting nor productive. Your only purpose seems to be inciting arguments of which apparently your reputation has forewarned people here at the Matrix forums. Ergo i offer something constructive: don't expect to be taken seriously[8|].

And a very good observation on your part HellPatrol.

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

And a very good observation on your part HellPatrol.

ravinhood, I can't help but make an observation of my own; namely the fact you haven't made a single on-topic comment in this entire thread. Were you going to devote your entire attention to matters of personality - and other matters that don't concern you, in the end - or did you want to join in the conversation in a constructive manner? As indicated, any opinion on the topic at hand you wanted to share would be most welcome. If you feel capable of rendering one.

[ravinhood]

 
Notice how he's throwing the thread  himself with his concern for me? awwww  I think he wants to just  with me. lol

[TheHellPatrol]

[:D]Why would we "add" anything when he's doing a fine job of making an a$$ out of himself ROFL

[Yoozername]

All wargames in the future will be exactly as they are now! Oz has spoken...

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood



Notice how he's throwing the thread himself with his concern for me? awwww I think he wants to just with me. lol

ravinhood, I can't help but notice that your comments are still not on topic and you still haven't rendered an opinion on any of the topics under consideration. Is there a reason for that?

As I stated, any opinion you wished to discuss would be of interest; the only reason to open a discussion is to consider all points of view. I'm not sure I understand why you keep repeatedly posting off-topic insults and barbs - it seems very unproductive.

Were you unclear on what the thread was about? I was reacting to the original assertion that the "future of wargaming" would be in multi-multi-player real time company level simulations. I happen to feel such a game would represent a niche product at best - actually, a niche within a niche, as wargaming, or "true wargaming", is already very much a niche (if one excludes flight simulators, first person shooters, science fiction conflict 'simulation' etc. from the "wargaming" definition).

[ravinhood]

Anyone hear a broken record in here? You know the ones that keep "repeating" the same thing over an over cause the needle gets stuck in their crack? [:D]

[Yoozername]

Is there anything more creepy than a aging single man playing solo boardgames by himself?  And is chocolate flavored bubblegum the niche market future of chewing gum?

[Yoozername]

An erroneous assumption. First off, it assumes that gamers only play one type of game. Secondly, WoW has 9 million subscribers world-wide (2 million in America, 1.5 million in Europe, 3.5 million in China). That is more than most gaming companies will ever sell. Besides, if a person plays one match of C&C online and then 20 matches solo, does that make them a "solo" gamer, despite the fact they played online once in a while? Whatever it means for the PC gaming business, most people are multiplayer, at least casually.

Exactly. I think the isolated world of Dorosh has crept into his logic functions.

When I was playing CM almost exclusively, 90% was social (PBEM) and 10% was actually testing things. Mostly weapons, morale, etc. I rarely played the AI in scenarios after the AI was 'understood'.

The testing that many players did was reported and was fedback to the designers.

But I do not like the slow response of PBEM players who micromanage strings of commands for every 1 man crew, etc. I would prefer a RT multiplayer type game where each player is commanding between 50-200 men (basically broken up into sections and squad type units). To me, a couple hours of that beats the PBEM experience.

[madorosh]

I'm really not sure why it is so hard to remain on topic in this forum, but I'll restate my position in the hopes that someone might have something constructive to say about it.

It was suggested in another thread that the "future of wargaming" is somehow related to massive multiplayer real time. Putting aside the fact that tactical wargaming is only a portion of the wargaming spectrum - which includes games at the grand strategic, stragetic and operational level also (I'm ignoring games such as first person shooters, hardware simulations, and those with science fiction or fantasy themes though arguably they are also wargames - I don't personally include them in that definition however) - it seems to me and apparently there is agreement by anyone who has been brave enough to venture an opinion that wargaming's future will continue to cover tactical subjects in a variety of ways - turn based, real time, and on a variety of scales from "grand tactical" down to the man-to-man level.

Man-to-man level games seem not to have been done well to this point. Computer Ambush was an early start and there have been some other attempts even beyond first person shooters - Avalon Hill's Squad Leader most notably comes to mind as a turn based third person man-to-man game that was a colossal failure, it was based I believe on SSI's "Soldiers at War" (?) title. OFP was a serious first person look at individual combat, but the modelling was very inadequate to such things as modern armour or even hand grenades.

It was also suggested that hybrid games - where games would mix operational level and tactical level combat - might become popular, but the trends don't seem to indicate that being likely.

There seems to be resistance to the idea that most gamers are solo gamers. I am not one of them; when I do get the chance to play CM it is against a human opponent. Don't have time for board gaming anymore either, though if I do play ASL it is via VASL. Yet even in the 1970s, SPI harvested a lot of interesting data from their customers and found that even in an era when solitaire board wargames were a rarity, a large proportion of their customer base was playing games solo. Now that we have computer-controlled opponents, I see no reason for the trend to shift. Battlefront, for one, is convinced the majority of their fanbase are solo players. So I feel any attempt to market multi-multi- player company command games in real time would not likely be all that lucrative. And simply tacking on such a system to an existing game would hardly represent "the future of wargames."

We've seen some good discussion on these points already; if we had anything else to add, I'd be pleased to see it.

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

An erroneous assumption. First off, it assumes that gamers only play one type of game. Secondly, WoW has 9 million subscribers world-wide (2 million in America, 1.5 million in Europe, 3.5 million in China). That is more than most gaming companies will ever sell. Besides, if a person plays one match of C&C online and then 20 matches solo, does that make them a "solo" gamer, despite the fact they played online once in a while? Whatever it means for the PC gaming business, most people are multiplayer, at least casually.

Exactly. I think the isolated world of Dorosh has crept into his logic functions.

When I was playing CM almost exclusively, 90% was social (PBEM) and 10% was actually testing things. Mostly weapons, morale, etc. I rarely played the AI in scenarios after the AI was 'understood'.

The testing that many players did was reported and was fedback to the designers.

But I do not like the slow response of PBEM players who micromanage strings of commands for every 1 man crew, etc. I would prefer a RT multiplayer type game where each player is commanding between 50-200 men (basically broken up into sections and squad type units). To me, a couple hours of that beats the PBEM experience.

But just because you do something doesn't mean the majority prefer to do things the way you do. This is where your logic led you astray in assuming multiplayer games would be "the future". I don't disagree that playing other humans is preferable - I don't play solo games myself.

Your idea of a RT multiplayer game is unworkable on the face of it; if you're talking about commanding an entire company divided into squads, you're missing an entire level of command - that of platoons - which would need to be simulated in abstract terms such as command delays, communications, command friction etc. If you want "each player" to command a company - in real time, yet - you are talking about having a regiment/brigade on the map at the same time. The scale of such a game would defeat the purpose. The map would be huge, and even if the computer didn't choke on the level of detail, a typical regimental/brigade operation would need to be played out over hours, not minutes. I can't see what the point would be. You're talking about a hybrid operational/tactical game and I can't see such a thing being a success.

If you've tried to actually command a company in CM:SF in real time, you'll also get an idea for how difficult that is, even on a small map such as CM:SF is currently supporting. Putting it on a brigade or even divisional front would be lunacy.

[Yoozername]

I see.  70's marketing data is the focus of your thesis.  Very schoolorly.

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I see. 70's marketing data is the focus of your thesis. Very schoolorly.

It's not my thesis, and 70s marketing data isn't the focus of it. Incidentally, what was the focus of your suggestion for an unplayable operational level game fought out in real time with each player commanding 20 or more units a side? I know there is no precedent as far as games already on the market - so what has you convinced it would be a success?

[themattcurtis]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Very schoolorly.

schoolorly[:D]

This is better than Episode III

[Yoozername]

That would make it a futuristic game if there is nothing like it now wouldn't it?

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I see. 70's marketing data is the focus of your thesis. Very schoolorly.

I've never played CM PBEM. Using my sample of one, which is certainly as accurate as your sample of one, I conclude that all CM players play solo.

It's a fallacy to use one's own opinion and claiming it to be fact

---------

ORIGINALLY Michael Dorosh
Personaly, I'd like to see more direct board game translations to the computer for solo play - Sniper, Ambush!, etc., with a programmed AI player.

I agree, but my desires would run along the lines of Gulf Strike, Vietnam and Aegean Strike The PC was once supposed to be the solution to not being able to just start a board game game at will. Unfortunately, it's never lived up to that expectation.

Right now, the killer apps in PC gaming are MMOG and FPS. It would be astonishing to see the sort of investment which would make the MMOG Company Commander, as there's absolutely no audience for it compared to those other types of game. Closest might be WWIIOL, and despite a seemingly patient and mature install base, doesn't seem any closer to implementing some of the strategic layers thrown around as ideas years ago.

I think your points on the subject are accurate and well thought out.

[Yoozername]

I conclude that people are playing PBEM by a forum that shows that they do.  Not from my own PBEM.  By the way, If I PBEM, that means at least two people (me and someone else) are PBEMing?  So I have logically twice as many people?  Hopefully, you can see the silliness in your logic.

Many people bought the game and hardly/never play it.  Try to count them.  And people that play the AI, and lose, are losers. And usually their points are not well thought out.