Dreaming about the future

[OnFire]

CMANO is a gem and has revolutionised the Naval warfare simulation genre. It is one of my favourite "games" and I am really enjoying it.

Nevertheless, I wondered what the next years might hold from the wizards that call themselves developers:

CMANO 2 - Pre-1945 DB (WWI & II) added

CMANO 3 - Detailed Land-Combat model

CMANO 4 - Multiplayer added

CMANO 5 - 3D graphics ala SH5 introduced

( CMANO 6 - A working refuel logic [;)] )

So, what do you guys think we will see in the next ten or so years in this genre?

[warshipbuilder]

CMANO 2 - Pre-1945 DB (WWI & II) added

How many of you out there remember the old Dos game Great Naval Battles of the North Atlantic? OK so I am old, what can I say. It has been one of my fondest hopes that there would be, for lack of a better term, a re-make of this game. For those of you unfamiliar with that game, it was basically doing convoy protection throughout the war. Oddly enough, it was about protecting the convoys from surface raiders and not U-boats. Still it was a game I really enjoyed and I am thinking CMNAO would be a great starting point.

[GBOATZ]

Hi Warshipbuilder, I actually still have 2 of those Great Naval Battles DOS Games, (North Atlantic and Burning Steel) as well as Dale Brown's Megafortress and several others. I have to keep a fairly old computer to play them on, but I do engage them from time to time, and yes, LOL,. I am old too! Frankly, I preferred that no submarines were involved as it seemed the primary goal in these games was to mix and match SAG's to 1) Protect your bases, 2) take on an opposing adversary or 3) avoid contact altogether and bombard your enemy. My particular favorite was "Operation Hercules" Protecting Malta from being overrun, keeping it supplied and attacking German and Italian Shipping while they were still in port. Mostly it was creating the right timing to sneak your Carriers, battleships and cruisers in late at night or early in the morning, do as much damage as possible or land troops and then get out quickly without either being spotted or getting into a surface battle with an opposing force for once the battle starts, its hard to predict an outcome! I guess my tactics haven't changed much in COMMAND or when I played Harpoon: Use as much deception as possible to preserve your assets while obliterating the enemy. I had great fun with those older games, and my strategy would perhaps be harder with COMMAND with the advent of satellites, better sensors, aircraft and ECM, but its a great challenge and as they say "its hard to teach old dogs new tricks." [:D]

[AdmiralSteve]

I don't see 3D coming to Command. I think that market is wrapped up with Call of Duty and Battlefield which are enormously popular games.

I would like to see land combat worked a bit more. I think it works fine now but it could use some cleaning up in terms of unit movement, patrols, engagements etc. Point of Attack worked land combat well but it had quiet the steep learning curve for me.

A DB beginning with WWI I think would wrap up all of the Steam and Iron players (which is a good game in itself).

I'm getting used to the refueling quwerks in Command. I think its just using it and seeing how to do it.

[Primarchx]

Not sure why 3d is necessary. Might be helpful for taking full advantage of terrain effects but beyond that I don't see the appeal. I like having something analogous to a CIC display.

[NakedWeasel]

3-D is probably not such a difficult thing to achieve, these day. As to it's usefulness, it's fluff/eye candy. That said, if done right, it could generate massive sales, by bringing visually-oriented novices into the game. Particularly in a head to head environment. My brother, (USAF Tsgt. Flying crew-chief on SPECOPS -130s, nearly retired) and I discuss my scenarios for hours on end. But unless there is some sort of visual component for instant gratification, he's uninterested in actually playing it. Army-types are probably even less inclined to play this game, because outside of FBCB2, the ground pounders don't have as much appreciation for the top-down picture that is so common for us NTDS-experienced types. But when you consider games like DCS: Combined Arms, ( http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/e ... /index.php ) and Wargame AirLand Battle, ( www.wargame-rd.com/en/game-ab.html ) the possibilites to ensnare new player ( and market-share) are hugely expanded. I lack the programming knowledge, and the artistic skills required to produce something like that, but I believe that it's almost plug and play with open source engines like Python, these days. I expect it would require some people to upgrade to more powerful systems, though it seems logical to be able to turn the 3-D stuff off, for less GPU-intensive gameplay.

Honestly, I love the game as an uber-realistic NTDS simulator, and will for a very long time- but I wouldn't hate being able to see my fighters and bombers blowing the crap out of 3-d ships in Google maps. Try not to flame me, but I am a "cake and eat it too" sort of fellow.

[Primarchx]

No flames from me. You have a valid point about the market space. I will say my quadcore i7 Alienware laptop can be challenged by the game engine even now, with minimal graphics requirements. Granted it's not using the video card at all...

[Meroka37]

I vote for detailed land combat model...

[Primarchx]

Meroka37 - sounds a lot easier said than done. How do you model cover and concealment from ground level on a global scale in tune with the air/naval game? Perhaps designer-specified 'zones' using something like RPs designating basic terrain types like urban, wooded, clear, etc?

ORIGINAL: Meroka37

I vote for detailed land combat model...

[ParachuteProne]

ORIGINAL: Meroka37

I vote for detailed land combat model...

Me too, along with the ability to load/unload and transport ground forces.

[NakedWeasel]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

Meroka37 - sounds a lot easier said than done. How do you model cover and concealment from ground level on a global scale in tune with the air/naval game? Perhaps designer-specified 'zones' using something like RPs designating basic terrain types like urban, wooded, clear, etc?

ORIGINAL: Meroka37

I vote for detailed land combat model...

I think this would be the most obvious course.

[Primarchx]

I suppose that would resemble a real-time version of TacOps to some degree, then?

[Feltan]

I think it would appear similar to TACOPS, but on a larger scale  -- operational not tactical.  Additionally, for ground-ground combat, the designers might want to get away from the engagement profile that CMANO uses for ship-v-air and air-v-air and air-v-ship.  It would kill performance to try and model all the weapons and weapon types one could engage with in a brigade vs. brigade size fight.  They'll probably need to move to a Lanchester or Lanchester-type algorithm (http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/wdj/_fil ... s-eqns.pdf)   to resolve ground vs. ground combat.  It will be slightly more abstract, but have the advantage of actually allowing the simulator to run without chugging to a halt during ground combat.
 
Regards,
Feltan

[NakedWeasel]

Could that algorithm be applied to the naval combat aspects of CMANO, in the hopes of improving the navigation pathfinding?

[hellfish6]

Of course there's room in the market for a 3D version of CMNAO. Why wouldn't there be? Because Call of Duty exists?

Janes Fleet Command had a 3D interface and while it wasn't the greatest naval game of all time, you gotta admit that 3D view was really damn attractive.

I'd love to see a 3D version of Command, but I don't know if it would be worth the effort (would it bring in that many new customers to justify the immense workload?). Even if it was, it's not a priority as far as I'm concerned. It's a "nice to have."

I'd like the land warfare segment enhanced over time - especially the ability to add/paint types of terrain on the map that affect sensors and lines of sight. Enhanced logistics would be nice as well, in order to simulate campaigns better.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

Could that algorithm be applied to the naval combat aspects of CMANO, in the hopes of improving the navigation pathfinding?

NakedWeasel,

In a word, no. That isn't a proper application of the algorithm. Think of land forces, two blobs approaching one another.

The Lanchester equations allow you to have a framework for attrition among the two blobs.

This is an entirely different approach than naval combat. What you save is the CPU time to adjudicate every weapon in a ground unit firing.

It is an abstract way of resolving land combat.

Regards,
Feltan

[NakedWeasel]

Ah. I appreciate the clarification. Thank you.

[Tancrede]

Apart from generating more sales, 3-D features are also very good to immerse a player into the simulation and eventually
they can help some people to stick to it as the can visualize what they are doing.

I still do remember when playing DW the th 3-D window adds some spices to the action.