Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming?

[ravinhood]

Excellent other reasons for turn based games ilovestrategy. We certainly don't need to see BF42 come into the niche wargaming genre anytime soon. Might be fun for the kiddies, but, I would think most aged wargamers still want to push counters and take their time thinking out a turn. And we had several multiplayer turn based games of many of the old board games without things having to move in real time. I don't much care for these games that take away the ability to be part of it all instead of just a command and letting once again the AI play the game instead of the player.

[Yoozername]

One of the multi-player modes I would like to see is having my own company, the AI controlling another friendly company vs. the AI controlled enemy forces.  The overall attack plan is pre-game arranged by me and the friendly AI does its best.

[cdbeck]

You know, I don't play C&C for the same reasons I play, GG:WAW, GoA or even CotA. C&C is kinda like those "tower defense" games, where you build a bunch of defenses to try to stop an endless onslaught of enemies (a pretty common genre of java game these days). I play C&C for visceral action. I play the more "hardcore" wargames to be able to think things through, plan, check exact unit strengths, and so on.

I disagree that the CM:SF style game is going in the way Yoozername suggests. This might be an "option" for some of those games (along with LAN or PBEM) but I believe the core game will stay solo and WEGO, Turn-based, or Real-time with pause. The demographic just isn't there for detailed Real-Time multiplayer wargames. Look at Take Command, where you technically, within a multiplay setting, could do the things you are arguing (players could take control of various command levels, get orders from superiors, leading brigades, divisions, and whole armies. It was well recieved by the wargaming community and critics, but games last hours... many many hours even if solo, and I wouldn't say it was a financial success.

To use TOW as an example of an effective genre that will spawn an "innovative" mix between simulation and game is a bit off as well. TOW is lackluster at best, and its own development is plagued by setbacks and bugs. Think of incorporating a complex mutliplayer engine, as posited, within the already complex system of TOW.

I have no doubt that this method will be looked into by developers, and possibly used. But I think RH got some of it right. Most people are looking for a GAME not a simulation. In a situation where your fun factor relies upon other people online to cooperate with the company you lead, you find that this quickly breaks down when people lose hours to a "griefer" or just a bad player. In a learning situation, at a job (like being enrolled in the armed forces) you worry less about this stuff. In a game, which competes with other games and real life, not having a way to keep players on task or to properly match players would really throw a wrench into the game.

SoM

[Yoozername]

Glad that the management finally blocked that other thread.
 
I do see soem part of the future in multiplayer type tactical wargames.  To me, its a natural extension.

[carnifex]

The future of "wargaming" is a cable running into the back of your skull while you sit there, mouth slightly open, and stare sightlessly at the wall in front of you.   That's really about as definite as you can get because wargaming can't even be defined properly.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I wish I could figure out why some people are enthralled with  "real time". It's like you want a godmode kiddy game and not a strategy warGAME. Wargames are meant to be played in turns of some sort. Organized pauses. The GAME aspect should be turns. Now if you want kiddy godmode games that's fine, but, not in my wargame genre please.

The type of game Yoozername suggests would not be "kiddy godmode" IMHO, or anything like it. It could be really cool in practice. You are crossing the boundaries of 'game' and 'simulation', and real-life isn't turn based and doesn't have pauses. But with each player taking on particular roles in the command structure under simulated C2 conditions, which I assume is the idea, there would be no godlike perceptions nor any need for frantic clicking. CMSF is actually a pretty good test bed; you have plenty of time (and I am far from an RTS whizzkid) with forces up to company size (no higher). CMSF is also a pretty good indicator that it will be a while before the hardware can comfortably handle such a game while retaining anything like the same degree of realism.

Real life doesn't require interaction with a machine, a keyboard and a mouse to make things happen. That's why games trying to depict real time action without the ability to pause so the machine interaction required for human direction of the action can occur will never be anything more than kiddie clickfests. Strangely....very, very strangely....I have to agree with Ravinhood on this one. What makes the real time action of the Airborne Assault game engine viable is the ability to pause it to issue orders.

Seventeen years ago my profession (architecture) began an exodus away from the tradition of hand drafting on paper and started the inevitible move towrd computer drafting. Initial input to draw something on the computer is actually slower than hand drafting on paper. I don't have issue a command to my hand to draw a line from point A to point B. Where the computer excels is in manipulation of what has already been drawn. I can move, stretch, rotate and copy already drawn elements with the computer in a way I could never have done drawing by hand on paper.

The point I make with the paragraph above is that until computers are hardwired or radio signal linked to our brains so that what we think happens without exterior mechanical action to implement it, real time simulations, without pauses, will never truly be viable.

[ravinhood]

Strangely....very, very strangely....I have to agree with Ravinhood on this one.

I'm glad people are starting to see things thru my eyes. But, I don't doubt kiddy clickfests will continue into the future. But, until someone comes up with a way that makes real time play as easy as turn based play where a person doesn't miss ANY of the action and still has time to think then turn based an/or Wego will still be viable choices as well. Afterall some of the kids playing BOARD wargames of today could very well be the programmers and developers of tomorrow

One thing I will add before we have to stick electrical wiring in our head that I've yet to see anyone build a wargame that I know of that works on voice commands. Now I might could get into more real time if there were voice commands I could give without having to jerk my mouse around or scroll and click and push and shift+alt+ctrl+ a key (hehe try that sometime). A simple voice command an A for squad A attack enemy at point Hex square area B, whatever. Streamlined so quick and simple commands can send the battle squad, platoon or company into the fray. Now that would be some command decision type game there.

[Yoozername]

Actually my job requires interaction with machines and computers.
 
Now wargames have something to do with drafting or knitting? 

[cdbeck]

Actually RH, I once had a Microsoft Sidewinder headset that allowed for voice commands (poorly, I might add). You could say "shotgun" and your guy would pull out a shotgun (after you assigned the macro). I once programmed it to play C&C:Generals so that I could say "Group 1" to select 1 and "attack" to use the move attack key. It was fun at first, but you will realize that you can actually click faster than speak (and faster than that machine could read).

I like the idea of though controlled games, but is that realistic, as far as wargames go? For all of its flaws, RTS do model the idea that a commander (unaltered human anyway) can not possibly see the whole battlefield, control all of the action, or respond to every hot point. I like COTA's system because it models this as well (although the pausing does kill a bit of the realism, it does allow for time to think), and I like that even when you give an order, there is a slight delay before it takes effect.

The real problem in RTS isn't really the control scheme or missing things on the field, it is the way damage is modeled. From your past comments RH, I know which RTS you like and which you don't. You like Take Command, you hate C&C. You tolerate M:TW2, and probably hate Starcraft. What is the difference between these? Well, C&C models high damage and low life for units. Tanks blow up fast, faster than one can respond. Infantry gets insta-killed by being run over or snipered. TC2:Man is polar opposite. Damage is very low. It takes a long time to kill a unit, and even a long time to break their moral. You have plenty of time to react, tweak, etc. Same with M:TW2. Those knights can shock the lowest peasant group, but other types can resist long enough to get your reaction. It really isn't the "click" part of "click fests" that is a problem, it is the speed in which units die and the amount of time one gets to react in a battle.

Thus, for future RTS wargames, there needs to be a thin line between not drawing out a match for hours (particularly if the future is "online" as groups of people tend to have less time together as a unit) and allowing plenty of reaction time in a battle. It is a tough distinction.

Now it still boggles my mind why you hate COTA. That has the same type of damage modeling as TC:MAN and the pausability of M:TW2. Maybe you just hate the interface?

SoM

[JudgeDredd]

...After I'm dead and gone...

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Once again he gets his knickers in a twist. But I say let him live in his little turn based world. He's wrapped the turn based blanket over his knees and he happy, sipping Dandylion and Burdock. By his own admition, pausible is "a turn", ergo, it could be construed as turn based, just at your behest rather than at the computers...I suppose no-one will be able to remove his blinkers.

Well, good on him...I'm glad he's keeping turn based up and running on his own.

I, on the other hand, have a much deeper and broader gaming experience because I let turn based, pausible continuous and real time into my life.

On the topic of Real Time Company Commander, it's a great idea.......but realistically? As someone mentioned (in this thread or the last), you would need dedicated players (clans) to be able to pull it off. Just logging onto a random server, selecting one and jumping in wouldn't work as it does for FPS games.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Actually my job requires interaction with machines and computers.

Now wargames have something to do with drafting or knitting? 

It's called an ANALOGY........and yes COMPUTER wargames have a lot to do with COMPUTER drafting.....to those intelligent enough to understand the analogy!

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

...After I'm dead and gone...

On the topic of Real Time Company Commander, it's a great idea.......but realistically? As someone mentioned (in this thread or the last), you would need dedicated players (clans) to be able to pull it off. Just logging onto a random server, selecting one and jumping in wouldn't work as it does for FPS games.

For about an 8 year stretch I was heavily into MMORGs based on the medeival character role playing genre (Ultima online for 4 years and Dark Age of Camelot for 4 more).

DAOC has a team based PVP combat oriented structure based on groups of 8 players (in esence a squad) with capalibilties for chat groups for larger forces of combined squads.

The very things you allude to occurred in that game. Dedicated squads who ran and trained together on a nightly basis dominated the landscape, guilds with multiple dedicated squads dominated the large battles and led the larger pick-up group forces of their respective realms as huge battles were fought during sieges of castles.

The average casual player never stood a chance for real success on the battlefield but could still find a way to have an enjoyable time. Implementatins of team based real time combat online will almost always have a wide spread of levels of participation and dedication which will result in great disparities in performance and capabilities which, in turn, results in a mixed bag as far as overall success of the game's implementation is concerned.

[ravinhood]

Guild Wars 2 is implementing the clan warfare huge PVP area like DAOC from what I've read. But, it also says even the lowliest casual solo can contribute to the war effort in their pvp system for GW2. From guarding supply lines to castle sieges just like you described Hans. Plus GW2 is going to be "No Subcription Fee", so basically after you buy the retail version it will be free to play afterwards. I look for a lot of people to play that when it releases around end of 2009 or mid 2010. The pvp system they use now is a bit too organized and repetitive and not much for goals except for faction experience you can trade in for skills, but, skills you can buy for $40 so then you have nothing to use your faction for. GW2 should eliminate that and give good reason and constant goals for playing any of the organized pvp outside of GvG wars.

[Yoozername]

I think people are going a little coocoo with the computer analogy thing. 
 
How about a commander has to run in place, with his virtual reality helmet on, to move about the battlefield?  Otherwise he has to just use maps?  If nothing else, it would get some exercise going for these flabby wargamers?
 
Real-Time-Runner-Commander. 
 
I hope people realize that drafting, which is sitting on your butt drawing, has very little in common with being a soldier/commander on a real battlefield.  A real commander at the company level is a dynamic physical and mental position.  I use to make maps, I also did VLSI and also some CAD.  I don't recall busting a sweat ever doing that stuff.

[ravinhood]

I took mechanical drawing in highschool and it was always hot and humid in that classroom and we busted a sweat everyday until winter.

[Yoozername]

Sure you weren't in home economics baking a cake?

[ravinhood]

Lol caught yah thought you had me green dotted. lol Caught yah I caughty yah. roflmao Nobody can resist reading Ravinhoods comments. hahahahahah

And just to make sure you don't try to backtrack and edit your post:

Yoozername
Matrix Hero





Posts: 411
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: online I took your suggestion and blocked you.



< Message edited by Yoozername -- 9/3/2007 12:41:13 PM >

Edit: BTW I took Home economics also, any idiot knows that's where all the girls were and took in highschool. There were 3 guys and 28 girls. Let's just say I did a lot of shaking and baking in that class.

The other idiot dudes took PE where they could get all hot and sweaty and naked with each other. I was smarter than that.

[simovitch]

I believe the future of wargaming will gravitate toward what the market demand is. Unfortunately the demand is not going to carry our hobby to where we want it to go.

At some point in the near future (15+ years) A large majority of the hobby's most talented developer's will retire or move on to more lucrative ventures. I just don't think the computer wargame market will be able to financially keep pace with the fast-paced development of hardware. The first decade of the 21st century will be the zenith, I fear, of commercially available computerized conflict simulations.

Realtime-internet play is problematic due to time zones and real life schedules. It will never be economically viable enough to warrant an investment in a high quality engine that takes advantage of the stunning graphic and combat modelling facilitated by ever-more powerful CPU's and GPU's that we will expect or hope for. PBEM is frustratingly slow. A powerful AI is the key to the future - but who is going to develop it, and marry it to a state of the art graphics engine?

A significant portion of today's wargame development comes from volunteers willing to join a team and put in some serious hours of their own time with NO PAY to help realize their own dream or for a few moments of recognition. My feeling is that the majority of this 'slave labor' is comprised of the older, 70's era boardgamers (like me) who, along with their hair-line, are slowly thinning out. There is simply not enough interest in the 80's and 90's generation to keep this kind of dedication going. It will have to come from a real job market.

So, unless a major corporation or Government invests in this 'virtual company commander' idea, or any idea more advanced than what we currently have to purchase (i.e. WW2 online, etc), we are stuck with half-baked dreams of what our idea of the ideal wargame should be.

[ravinhood]

Very good obseravtion Simovitch.

[Yoozername]

I like half baked clams