The future of Command Ops

[z1812]

Judging by the preceding posts, it seems immersion is found to be lacking. I agree with this. The OP mentioned in the first post that he believed there was not enough happening organizationally or graphically to draw players in. I also agree with this.

The game needs some graphic work on the maps and unit chits. Especially the maps.

Start work on a turn based option so PBEM can be done. I think that would be a great marketing point. Have the game listed at the Blitz. I think it would be popular.

I bought the original RDoA, then HTTR, and after that Conquest of the Aegean. From HTTR to COTA the theatre changed but to me the feel was very much the same. So I have not bought the Bulge or the upgrades from the previous titles. The maps have not improved very much graphically and virtually everything looks and feels very much the same.

It is a shame as the engine seems very good and the system is excellent. It is the overlay, the shell that is lacking. That and multilayer being only online.

My priorities would be.

1. Play by email.

2. Maps made to be more attractive.

3. More Small and mid size Scenarios.

4. More attractive units.

If funds are a problem perhaps kickstarter would be an option.

[Werewolf13]

ORIGINAL: z1812

1. Play by email.

A niche following but sure couldn't hurt.

ORIGINAL: z18122. Maps made to be more attractive.

3d??? or Perhaps maps that look like actual military topo maps.

ORIGINAL: z18123. More Small and mid size Scenarios.

Yes. YES! YES!!!

ORIGINAL: z18122. 4. More attractive units.

Define more attractive. 3d units - no way. 3d counters maybe that look like boardgame counters?

ORIGINAL: z18122.If funds are a problem perhaps kickstarter would be an option.

Maybe - saw a story on the news this morning about Kickstarter. A guy raised over $10 million in less than a month to raise capital to make smart watches. Then again if you use Kickstarter are the people that provide funds considered investors? How exactly does that work?
[/quote]

[CaptCarnage]

Www.kickstarter.com

[z1812]

In my view PBEM would be quite attractive to many. Mostly all of the very successful classic wargames offer it. I believe that is a good part of their success.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: z1812

In my view PBEM would be quite attractive to many. Mostly all of the very successful classic wargames offer it. I believe that is a good part of their success.

+1

I certainly agree.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: z1812

In my view PBEM would be quite attractive to many. Mostly all of the very successful classic wargames offer it. I believe that is a good part of their success.

I agree it would be good.
I think 30 minute turns would be a good start, as that's the average command delay of most detached Company's.
Maybe there can be an option on the fly to alter the duration of a turn, by agreement of both players.

[z1812]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

ORIGINAL: z1812

In my view PBEM would be quite attractive to many. Mostly all of the very successful classic wargames offer it. I believe that is a good part of their success.

I agree it would be good.
I think 30 minute turns would be a good start, as that's the average command delay of most detached Company's.
Maybe there can be an option on the fly to alter the duration of a turn, by agreement of both players.

If a battle were 10 hours at 30 minute turns it would only be 20 turns. I would think 10 minute turns would be fine. At 10 hours that would be 60 turns. Not very much back and forth for wego PBEM.

I would agree that adjustable timing would be best.

[dazkaz15]

I don't know of any scenarios that are only 10 hours long?
Or are you referring to real time?
I was talking about in game time, where battles (scenarios) last for up to 12 days.
That's a lot of turns [;)]

[Perturabo]

I like the look of maps. Making scenarios is way too time consuming for me, though. Some sort of random scenario generator would be nice.
In Armored Brigade creating a new scenario lasts literally a few to several minutes.

It could use force organization charts in estabs, and ability to simply pick a few unit types (for example armoured division, two infantry divisions and an artillery brigade), quickly apply force quality and pre-attrition and start a scenario. In less than 10 minutes.

So, for now I'm stuck playing Armored Brigade despite that it has much worse AI.

[Jafele]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Some sort of random scenario generator would be nice.

Agreed. Furthermore, with a powerful AI like this that would be really cool (and unique). [:)]

[ulisin]

ORIGINAL: z1812

In my view PBEM would be quite attractive to many. Mostly all of the very successful classic wargames offer it. I believe that is a good part of their success.

I disagree
I DISAGREE!!

pbem will be the death of Command ops system

Let's try to play LAN, instead of asking pbem!

[:)]

[pekische]

I have the same opinion... all processes in real time is the main feature of Command ops... I would like to see more comfortable UI for online playing rather than PBEM. Online playing could attract more players but PBEM really kills CO specificity.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: ulisin

ORIGINAL: z1812

In my view PBEM would be quite attractive to many. Mostly all of the very successful classic wargames offer it. I believe that is a good part of their success.

I disagree
I DISAGREE!!

pbem will be the death of Command ops system

Let's try to play LAN, instead of asking pbem!

[:)]

I think this issue must depend on your play style then.
I don't like playing in real time over the internet as it ties me to my computer, and I'm not a fast thinker.
It also feels to much like an RTS when played like this, and doesn't give me enough time to think out my moves like PBEM would.

I don't know how you envision PBEM to be, but I imagine it would just be like playing a game like you do now, only you would have to allocate all your orders in 30 min (or however long both opponents agree to) cycles.
Once you have issued your orders you would then submit your package via email.
When both players have submitted their turns, you can then watch the next 30 min play out at whatever speed you like, and also watch replays of it.
You then assess the enemy moves, and adjust your new orders accordingly, in your own time, and submit it when your good and ready.

I have no idea how difficult this would be to implement, but I don't see why it couldn't be another option, and method of play, not instead of LAN but as well as.

One thing I do know is that not many people seem to play multiplayer at the moment.
Its the least active sub forum in the Command Ops forum group.
Quite a few of us have mentioned that we prefer the slower pace, and the much more convenient method of play, that PBEM would allow however.

[Werewolf13]

ORIGINAL: ulisin

ORIGINAL: z1812

In my view PBEM would be quite attractive to many. Mostly all of the very successful classic wargames offer it. I believe that is a good part of their success.

I disagree
I DISAGREE!!

pbem will be the death of Command ops system

Let's try to play LAN, instead of asking pbem!

[:)]

^^^^^
This!

It is the real time, top down orders structure that makes Command OPs what it is. Order a regiment or a division or even (rarely for me) a whole corps and watch the battle unfold. Jump in as necessary when your AI commanders drop the ball.

IMO PBEM would destroy the uniqueness of CO.

That said: I see no reason why both modes couldn't be made available to players to use as they see fit.

[Jafele]

PBEM games is an interesting option, some people like it some people not. I don´t see the way it would destroy the spirit of CO.

[z1812]

Having a wego turn based option for those that wish to use PBEM, as an alternate to RT multiplayer, will not in any way ruin the game system.

Quite the opposite. Having that option may well enhance the game.

[pekische]

yeah, WEGO could be the way for multiplayer...

[Phoenix100]

Don't understand the need for turn based. When you play MP you can stop it whenever you want (it runs at the slowest speed selected by either player, including paused)and take as long as you want (subject to your opponent getting bored) to plan things. I agree that the RT nature of it is important. Why not PBEM too? Well, only because the devs are pushed getting anything out given the time/funding constraints and if you add PBEM it will have to be maintained etc. It will take up dev time.

For me the difficulty of MP is that the scenarios take AGES. And I love that they take ages - that's the level the game simulates - but more often than not when I go H2H what happens on a larger scenario is that the windows for both of us hooking up are too short to actually get it moving along much. For this reason (and others), though MP is great fun, I think this game is really best played against the AI. I understand, however, that that can get dull (no social contact - what's the point, ultimately, of playing a machine?), but I think the way to go to make it meaningful is to put some time into developing the story-telling. I think when people post AARs that makes a game against the AI much more interesting. If you're going to post an AAR then it's much more fascinating as you play, knowing that you are telling the story to yourself, because you will then tell it to others. I would like to see some changes, in CO2, to make this easier. Command graphics, snapshot capabilities, the kind of integrated editing tools (to edit the picture, I mean) that would allow me to more easily produce an AAR that people might wish to read. At present it's a hassle to make an AAR.

Just a thought.

Peter

[ulisin]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

Don't understand the need for turn based. When you play MP you can stop it whenever you want (it runs at the slowest speed selected by either player, including paused)and take as long as you want (subject to your opponent getting bored) to plan things. I agree that the RT nature of it is important. Why not PBEM too? Well, only because the devs are pushed getting anything out given the time/funding constraints and if you add PBEM it will have to be maintained etc. It will take up dev time.

exactly!!


I add some thought

1
If you will play CO pbem (Igoyougo or wego doesnt' matter), you will see 30 minutes turns, for example. And you will have 48 turns for a day, and about 70-100 turns for most of scenarios!
Feeling will be very different from now!
A very boring game!!!

2.
30 minutes turn isn't enough, in most cases.
So - if you will have 10 minutes turns, let's say - you will have 72 turns for 12 hours of daylight, let's say
And you've done only 1 day
Most of scenarios have 2-3-4 days of combat, and more
= 200-300 400 turns
aaassssgggghhhhhh
Very very very boring!!!

3.
During MP you can stop and think, but you have to consider your opponent!
So you don't think too much, and this is very realistic!!
Thinking a lot, as we do with pbem, is not realistic, not at all!!!


Please, Arjuna, no PBEM!!

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

but more often than not when I go H2H what happens on a larger scenario is that the windows for both of us hooking up are too short to actually get it moving along much.

Peter

I imagine this is the reason that most don't play multiplayer Peter, and is exactly the factor that PBEM would go some way to alleviate.