Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Yoozername -> Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/1/2007 6:47:54 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/1/2007 7:17:45 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/1/2007 8:26:33 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/2/2007 4:50:47 AM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/2/2007 5:47:35 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/2/2007 6:30:03 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/2/2007 8:01:19 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/2/2007 8:29:25 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/2/2007 8:49:41 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/2/2007 9:11:58 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/2/2007 9:54:22 PM)

quote:

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/2/2007 11:42:17 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/3/2007 12:00:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

quote:

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/3/2007 12:05:57 AM)

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




ravinhood -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/3/2007 2:32:39 AM)

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.

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

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 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.

Just my 2 cents nickels and dimes. If only I were king. ;)



Neilster -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/3/2007 2:50:05 AM)

quote:

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

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

Cheers, Neilster



Yoozername -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/3/2007 3:14:47 AM)


quote:

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/3/2007 7:18:27 AM)

quote:

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


(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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/3/2007 7:22:14 AM)

I took your suggestion and blocked you.




ilovestrategy -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/3/2007 8:59:36 AM)

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.



ravinhood -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/3/2007 5:19:40 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/6/2007 2:02:12 AM)

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.



Son_of_Montfort -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/6/2007 9:22:28 AM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/6/2007 9:36:07 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/6/2007 11:26:04 PM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/6/2007 11:51:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

quote:

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/7/2007 12:28:38 AM)

quote:

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/7/2007 3:03:18 AM)

Actually my job requires interaction with machines and computers.

Now wargames have something to do with drafting or knitting? 



Son_of_Montfort -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/7/2007 8:18:00 AM)

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 -> RE: Real Time Multiplayer Company Commander: Future of wargaming? (9/7/2007 12:54:49 PM)

quote:


...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.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9492188