Perturabo
Posts: 2614
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
I take it you don't like any of the Close Combat series then?
As a fun but stale pop-tactical game that allows to lead some little dudes against other little dudes and watch them kill each other and is easily moddable (i.e. something like Command & Conquer series)?
Yes, I find it quite enjoyable.
As a game that pretends to accurately depict tactical warfare and it's challenges?
Not really.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
The only sort of "real time" game I can think of that might match the quality of no "magical" knowledge of every friendly unit would probably be a first person shooter where you basically experience the battlefield in the first person perspective. After-all first person is the only way any of us truly experience the world.
FPS games are nothing like reality - the main problem is that human functioning is based on synergy - there are many senses, various ways of communication, that allow to perceive the world and communicate in a reasonable manner - in FPS games you're just a floating camera with a microphone.
Human functioning in FPS games is greatly impaired.
I tried various flight simulations, I tried Operation Flashpoint...
Both terrain orientation and command and control are usually horrible and nothing like in real life.
So, trying to emulate the "real" FPP perspective without some sort of Matrix-style virtual reality is futile.
What would be much more effective would be isolating units (so that they wouldn't act like a hive-mind) and layering information.
Any sharing of knowledge would require an act of communication.
There could be three basic layers - main map where the player moves as a commander, with a CC-style map with fog of war reducing the view to his sensory input - pitch black for the places that weren't seen by the player and translucent to simulate memory.
Player could be able to roughly locate sounds, see things in vision cone, etc. - all the sensory input would be presented on this map.
Second layer - a plan - pre-battle recon data, given during briefing or something like that. Sometimes it can be non-existant or grossly inaccurate. Your objectives may be marked on it.
Third layer - data received during the battle - map where units and reported/perceived events are placed. It would be vague and unclear - for example, you send a recon team to check what is there - they go and you lose them from your sight - on that "map", they are marked as an icon that whose destination x meters east.
They don't have radio, so you don't receive any data from them.
If they get attacked, you hear shots and a combat event icon is placed in that direction.
If they return, they'll describe the terrain and it will appear on the third layer map and would enable giving more specific orders.
Of course, some data you get may be inaccurate and lead to mistakes. It would be probably based on skill-checks.
The point is to avoid both the godlike knowledge and the unrealistic limitations of FPP games.
Now, there would be a problem of Command & Control and communication in general - if you are supported by tanks, you can't just magically order them - you have to communicate your intent, which can be a problem if you don't have a radio contact with them.
Different armies and units would give you different levels of flexibility and different types of C&C.
Sometimes one would use radio (which could get broken), sometimes runners, etc.
I like military history and it's interesting to read how different armies are facing different challenges
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Some games, like Close Combat, are basically set up where you are practically viewing the battlefield as though from an observation plane that can't be shot down or something.
I would rather say, that everyone is a part of an ultra-fast, ultra-efficient communication network where everyone has a camera.
Something like a Land Warrior system.
Actually, one could as well add powered armour and XM-29 for everyone, at least weapons would be on similar tech level as communications.
_____________________________
People shouldn't ask themselves why schools get shoot up.
They should ask themselves why people who finish schools burned out due to mobbing aren't receiving high enough compensations to not seek vengeance.
|
Printable Version
Grand Campaign vs Smaller Campaigns - 
I find I tend to get so much more from the games by playing the "before understanding any damned thing" stage followed by the "ahhhh now that makes sense at last stage" Its almost like getting two games for the price of one. 
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