GoodGuy
Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hertston
The first is that it really is what a large number of potential purchasers actually want.. even when they are perfecltly well aware of the alternatives, and not usually as hostile to them as ravinhood ..............[ ] At the tactical level the form is pretty much dying out to be replaced by games such as CC, CM, PC, Armored Task Force, CotA, etc but the Airborne Assault series really takes that as far up the scale ladder as it can go (its largest scenario is just about equatable to TAOW's smallest).
The recent AA title (COTA) features 40km x 50km scenarios max.
While it might focus on the Bn level, you can still issue orders on a divisional level, but u can even control things down to single Coys as well. The game factors in many real world issues (e.g. fatigue, supplies, vehicle movement, type of terrain, LOS, terrain levels (altitude layers)), and although it's 2D and still uses counters, it feels and plays rather like a military simulation, then a game, or boardgame. You might be right, indeed, these types of games may prevail eventually.
The majority of wargames is still hot for turn-based games though, for reasons I wouldn't get. One of the most interesting challenges in real-time games (I do like the term "continious play" here) is the fact that you have to react / adapt to the AI's or the human opponent's tactical decisions in real time.... the real world wouldn't allow for a coffee break either, would it? hehe
That's been one reason for me thinking that turn-based games lack realism, and for hex-games not working for me, in general.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
The very sight of grogs arguing in mile long threads about penetration of some gun vs some armored vehicle, while *completely* ignoring the fact that game gives you *unlimited* time to think for your next turn - how very funny and symptomatic of "grog disease" 
lol... I agree there :D
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sarge
With the absences of real word physics in a continues time engine, how is any level of realism achieved. After all wouldn’t you think this element would take the lead in development on this so-called quest of realism.
Well........ while Company of Heroes can be seen as commercial entertainment thingy for the masses, it features real world physics in a real time environment. PaKs would hit fences, trees, or telegraph poles, if placed inaccurately, most of the environment (houses, trees, tank barriers, hedgerows, etc.) can be destroyed/passed, and shells/bullets are computed with real world physic modules running in the background (havok engine). Soldiers/squads cover behind barricades/objects, and obstacles would hinder the movement of light vehicles, or even tanks.
Ok, it still has the typical unrealistic RTS-approach, you spawn/build troopers and it features that darn resource management, but engines like this (using havok physics) may be the future, and it would be interesting to see some more serious (realistic) games like that. There might appear games that would deserve the term "battlefield simulation" eventually.
On a sidenote, recent FPS games, e.g. Call of Duty 1/2, MoHAA, are somewhat realistic regarding the presentation. They manage to create somewhat realistic battle experiences (closer to reality than any other type of game at least), acoustically and visually.
The CoH 3D-approach, coupled with CoD acoustics and visuals (explosions/textures), may be the future .... due to today's technical limitations, these kinda approaches may only feature squad-based games, but with the technical progress there might be some games featuring a bigger/different scale in let's say 10 or 15 yrs.
Although CoH is a darn commercial approach, and a frickin' RTS clickfest, it might point to a new (or additional) general direction for future wargaming, in terms of presenting and using an environment.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sarge
Substituted with a quick jab at the intelligence of the turn base player..........[]
Well, I wouldn't say turn-based players are dumb .... but i do tend to think that they're are lazy, or let's say that it looks like some of them can't cope with a real-time evironment.
A gamer mastering a clickfest-RTS might rather put up a simple neuromuscular skill, with him having minimal grasp for analytical, tactical and strategical approaches in most cases, but mastering a serious continous-play simulation, where the player has to adapt to the opponent's (be it an AI or a human opponent) moves and decisions in real time, will seperate the wheat from the chaff, like we say...that's where versatile/bright ppl, or true military buffs, will stand out, imho.
Although I liked games like Steel Panthers to some extent, any turn-based game will remain a joke for me, if it comes to the task to render battle environments.
I liked the Close Combat Series, because, although being limited in many ways, they featured many real world factors a turn-based hex game would never include, no matter how many "accurate" penetration/armour values and what not such a hex-game would carry on its (given) fat feature list.
EDIT: I wonder when there'll be a (war) game that features speech recognition.... dunno, let's say in 10 or 15 years. Instead of being a clickfest, a given game would accept spoken orders via speech recognition .... it could simulate a commander giving commands via radio  , would be a neat gimmick. 
< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 11/4/2006 9:46:23 PM >
_____________________________
"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
|
Printable Version
RE: advanced squad leader - 
+
= 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread