Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming?

[Yoozername]

Since the fanbois used their typical noise-to-posts ratio to drown out any discussion in the TOW thread; perhaps the issue of the future of wargaming can continue here.

I believe that a multiplayer environment, where each player controls no more than a company of squad/section sized units is the future of CM/PC type games.

The popularity of something like Red Orchestra can be combined with the aspects of RT, such that a crossover hit can truly capture the RTS crowd and the Wargamer genre.

The limiting aspect of something like CM:SF or TOW, in my opinion, is that it reaches a saturation point of the number of units that can be 'coddled'. The enjoyment is replaced by busy work. Having 1:1 modeling means nothing if the player is unable to handle that level of detail. Since the computer is not UI limited, it should have some advantage when it comes to coordinating its units. But that's another issue.

[Yoozername]

I would imagine having someone start out at a lower level may suck-in the RTS crowd.  Perhaps controlling just a squad at first and being able to use the squad leaders own weapon to satisfy the BANG_BANG crowd.  There would be a FPS view then.

Squad commands could be directing the squad automatic or LMG (designating targets and such).  Simple fire and movement drills that might wean the RTS guy away from his self-possessed world of directing firepower at his own targets.

[ravinhood]

If the command control can be in a stop action play mode using the MOUSE instead of the keyboard or keypad. I loathe games that you have to press pause start pause start pause start on the keyboard and then use the mouse to move around and do other things. I would like to see a mouse made with some added buttons and the right mouse button is the pause and start feature of it. I've asked for this before. Since I use a mouse backwards I have a lot of open space for keypadlike buttons and that would be great for playing real time action games that allow stop action play.
 
But, the main problem I have with real time is it is not in real time. It's some abstracted real time made up that is too fast and much faster than a commander would have to think to carry out missions. That is if he is playing the commander and not the grunts or sgt's. etc. The futher one goes down in  command rank the more one has to contend with during a battle. Captain having to really do the most and in a real time game like they make nowadays it's just not reasonable to play real time that way.
 
I still though prefer turn based or wego/simultanious, but, for me real time without major adjustments to the time elements of them just won't fly. I feel you lose the tactical and strategic flavor of the scenario/battle by having to jerk your wrist all over the place, scroll the screen miles wide up and down and you don't get to play the game you game the game. If that makes sense? I want to think about the situation and I want that time to think in a reasonable manner. Not 1 second = 1 hour  of ingame time. lol

[old man of the sea]

the future of wargaming is here, well at Fort Benning, Georgia anyway
 
http://www.thebayonet.com/articles/2007/08/29/news/top_stories/top03.txt
 
When you see it in actoin with all the simulators running in the same environment it is beyound cool
 
E

[Yoozername]

The ultimate FPS.  Really a simulator more than a game.  But its really a squad type training device.  When I was in the army, you might get a BFD to play with.  If no BFD, then we yealled 'bang-bang'.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Yup…I agree that live multi-player/team play of a game such as Combat Mission is as good as it is ever likely to get in wargaming.

The only real way to model FOW and the more realistic chaos we all crave is to remove the “single-controlling mind” by having a number of players on each side. Each only able to see/spot what their own units can see in terms of both enemy and friendly units.

However… when PCs provide enough horse power I see no reason why one could not have somewhat larger games than a company on each side. I am a great fan of the larger CM scenarios. With half a dozen players on each side this will in fact become even more do-able than with just one player struggling with all the units on one side.

I think the future is very bright… CMSF de-bugged and then Panzer Commander developed some more should both provide fine games.

BTW… the other form of wargaming that in many ways is in my view the true “ultimate” is the games such as CMMC (Combat Mission Meta Campaign). When a large multiplayer environment is developed to play out the operational game with the contact battles resolved by using games like CM. When these work… as the Normandy version of CMMC did about three to four yeas back… they really are unequalled.

Marrying a digital Squad Leader/ Combat Mission with a quality operational game. The true ultimate.

All very good fun,
All the best,
Kip.

[Yoozername]

The funny thing would be that the side with the least amount of players is actually modeling better C&C.

So a German side where there are 2 companies, one infantry and one tank company, each commanded by one 'German' player respectively vs. a Soviet 'side' where there are 9 Soviet players each commanding a platoon sized unit, would hinder the Soviet player more.  If the Soviet side had limited abilty to interact with each other (limited to chat lets say), the German side would kick butt in RT play

[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.

[Yoozername]

I believe its a function of scale.  The smaller the units involved, the more realistic is is to model this in RealTime.  games that deal with Divisions, Corps and Armies are probably the 'turn' arena.

Most battles in WWII are marked by very intense actions.  Troops usually will not fight for more than a few actions in a day, each one lasting 30 minutes to maybe a couple of hours.  The coordination, planning, communication, medical evacuation, etc.  is typically not modeled.

Turns were a consequence of board games and miniatures. They are not needed if a computer can present a viable alternative.

[Yoozername]

I believe the Battalion Commander (in real life) is much too removed from the action (typically) since he and his staff are the 'management' that is needed to coordinate reserves, heavy weapons, support, medical, ammunition, food/water, liason with higher command, etc.

The Company Commander is the focal point (IMO) for a great tactical wargame.  He is usually executing a planned mission for specific objectives.  A game based around this concept puts the player in the role of the company commanding officer/staff and the platoon leaders including senior NCOs.  It does not give him the ability to micromanage individual soldiers even if they ARE represented 1:1.

[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.

[ravinhood]

So you are talking about a simulation and not a warGAME. That's fine as I said make your kiddy simulations but leave my wargaming genre out of it. I don't care to really ever have to think in a "simulated" real time because it is never accurate. Now, if you want to make a simulation with real time like real seconds, real minutes and real hours I might try that an accept that type of game. But, where a minute of game time equals 10 minutes or 30 minutes or one hour no that won't do. I think Mad Minute probably comes the closest I've ever seen to modeling the time to real time vs a real time click fest. I can pan around and enjoy the battle from many views and still be in the action commanding my regiment of men or brigade. Though of course the higher I go up in command the more I have to involve myself in the whole battle and that's when it turns into a scrolling clickfest. All real time games turn into that and thus require the PAUSE feature which is nothing more than making it a TURN when you pause so you might as well make it a turn based game to begin with. But, we've been down this path before. lol

To model real time to be decently playable there must be a maxium amont of units that the average person can deal with in a normal time frame. To make it clickfesty for some 13 year old is not going to please someone that is 40 years old. (a normal 40 year old not some kid in a 40 year old body).

Of course I'm not saying real time <cough> wargames might not surpass turn based wargaming, but, I am saying I won't be part of the change or movement and of course I will strike my influence around the web and in public to keep what is in favor of what might be for as long as I can. After I'm dead and gone I dont' really care where the wargame market goes, it just won't matter then will it?

[Yoozername]

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.

There are always reactionary types in any argument. But to me, turns and toy soldiers and dice and such are things of the past. The charm of the WEGO system was that it was a 'real-time-segment' resolution of combat. Both players plotted orders, moves, etc. but the computer 'ticked' that all off with the info from both players. It isn't a bad system.

In WWII companies did fight in real time. The only thing 'wargamey' they did was the pre-planned tactics, objectives, etc. before the battle. During a 30-45 minute firefight, the whole of the company is fought by the commander. He and his leaders within the company conduct the fight.

I sense a bit of the reactionary tail-wagging-the-dog here. But I will respect that there are always some that like the way things are.

[Yoozername]

The whole panning around the map thing is a bit out of hand in these games.&nbsp; I personally like a jump mode where you can just jump to units.&nbsp; If its a squad/section type unit, you can only move the camera a short distance away and are limited in 'height' mode.&nbsp; The higher up the chain of command, the higher the camera 'over-view' you can enjoy.&nbsp; A bit of an abstraction but something to limit the map-pilots out there.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[ravinhood]

As I said I'm not denying the future is probably real time wargaming. Understand it is the real time of todays real time socalled wargames I am not in agreement with. It's the "time" factor more than anything. I'll play a good real time game with the best of them if the "time" elements are reasonable. Like Paradox games have a slowest setting that I can play them at and feel comfortable. Madminutes already been mentioned. Kohan series is another and Sacrifice, even Medieval TW and M2TW have a feel of real time battle I can deal with although those two are what I would call extreme in my case. Also the wego system is fine as long as I get a "turn AND time" to give the orders I wish to give. I can live with "time delays" in giving orders like the wego system as long as it's organized time delays. I just have issues with games that have "PAUSE FEATURES" because it's almost contradicting itself when it has this in a socalled real time or continous time game.
&nbsp;
See people say they didn't have turns during a war or battle in reality, well they didn't have a pause button either. lol Oh Hilter baby can we pause for about five minutes so I can figure out what I want to do and give my units orders everything is flying by so fast. Hitler: But, of course and let's sit down for uh spot uh tea while we're at it and some crumpets and discusss this fine materpiece of a war before we continue. lol
&nbsp;
The pure clickfest crowd comes under this: My general/commander can click faster than your general/commander and bring up more forces than you can fastest, thus our motto: He who gets there with the mostest the fastest winnest the mostest. lol It wouldn't matter if it came down to 1 unit&nbsp;v 1 unit, it would still come down to he who got there with the best weapons faster than the other and hiding behind a tree or in some brush and ambushing the other...game over. When you have a clickfest, it's remains a clickfest and speed of eye and hand cordination takes more away from strategy and tactics than it should.
&nbsp;
Just my 2 cents nickels and dimes. If only I were king.

[Neilster]

a normal 40 year old not some kid in a 40 year old body

Hey! I'm 36, man. [:D]

Cheers, Neilster

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: kipanderson

Hi,

Yup…I agree that live multi-player/team play of a game such as Combat Mission is as good as it is ever likely to get in wargaming.

The only real way to model FOW and the more realistic chaos we all crave is to remove the “single-controlling mind” by having a number of players on each side. Each only able to see/spot what their own units can see in terms of both enemy and friendly units.

However… when PCs provide enough horse power I see no reason why one could not have somewhat larger games than a company on each side. I am a great fan of the larger CM scenarios. With half a dozen players on each side this will in fact become even more do-able than with just one player struggling with all the units on one side.

I think the future is very bright… CMSF de-bugged and then Panzer Commander developed some more should both provide fine games.

BTW… the other form of wargaming that in many ways is in my view the true “ultimate” is the games such as CMMC (Combat Mission Meta Campaign). When a large multiplayer environment is developed to play out the operational game with the contact battles resolved by using games like CM. When these work… as the Normandy version of CMMC did about three to four yeas back… they really are unequalled.

Marrying a digital Squad Leader/ Combat Mission with a quality operational game. The true ultimate.

All very good fun,
All the best,
Kip.

I hope others feel the same.

Multiplayer would bring many aspects of realistic warfare into the game. One, as you mention, is the fog of war about 'other friendlies'. Perhaps gray ? may denote unknown elements out there (un identified infantry or vehicles). Should we area fire at them? Are they 'ours'? Good stuff, to me. There could even be flare signals, something not modeled in most games. Seeing a flare, one must interpret it. Is it on the daily-routine? Is it an enemy flare? Who the hell is over to my right so soon? Inquiring minds want to know.

After years of playing tehse tactical level games; it has become clear to me (and others) that WE are the gamey-bits. WE have a angelic view of the battlefield and can divine great amounts of coordination.

We are also a somewhat social and fun-loving lot and having a team approach might actually solve the PENG thing. No more waiting for turns from a drunkard that needs to post minutia about his silly life instead of getting online and playing.

[ravinhood]

No more waiting for turns from a drunkard that needs to post minutia about his silly life instead of getting online and playing.

&nbsp;
(taking a gupl of my home brew crown & coke with ameretta and a splash of grenidiene) Did I ever tell yo9u the stoyr about tha time I one a gam of monopoly with jus tha yellow prpoties?

[Yoozername]

I took your suggestion and blocked you.

[ilovestrategy]

Turn based is for me. Being married with a teenage kid and 2 jobs, I have no time to play online, or even RTS, since the wife always has me on call. And besides, after a hard days work I enjoy relaxing with a slow paced turn based game.
Nothing wrong with multiplayer, it's just not for me.