RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

dinsdale -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 1:48:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I disagree that people need to 'train' to fight a battle if each person is controlling a company. Whoever 'hosts' the game could assign an overall plan. Objectives, timetables, what have you.

I used to play Rogue Spear a bit with friends, and sometimes with random people on a server. The two experiences are completely different, and to believe that a game requiring combined arms tactics could be anything other than frustrating unless played with people who have developed team work is beyond wishful thinking.

Personally, the idea of PC games for me is to have an opponent who is ready at my command. Otherwise, boardgames offer a better social interaction and ease of play.

quote:

I find the reactionary response interesting.

You seem to have some sort of history with Dorosh, there's no need to attempt to create similar feuds with everyone who might disagree with you.



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 1:49:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

Now, I'll ask again, do you have something constructive to add to this topic of conversation, or don't you? I'd be very interested in your opinion on the matter at hand.

After seeing your first post (for me) under the topic " Best board-game?" i envisioned a ponticficating Troll due to your comments about "focus". Who are you to teach others about their post content?, you just came off as arogant and self-inflated and frankly your posts of superfluous fluff are neither interesting nor productive. Your only purpose seems to be inciting arguments of which apparently your reputation has forewarned people here at the Matrix forums. Ergo i offer something constructive: don't expect to be taken seriously[8|].



madorosh -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 2:09:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

I used to play Rogue Spear a bit with friends, and sometimes with random people on a server. The two experiences are completely different, and to believe that a game requiring combined arms tactics could be anything other than frustrating unless played with people who have developed team work is beyond wishful thinking.

Personally, the idea of PC games for me is to have an opponent who is ready at my command. Otherwise, boardgames offer a better social interaction and ease of play.



Exactly; well stated. I'd also venture to say you represent the majority of PC gamers, both in your outlook on multi player, and on the role of solo play.

Personally, I'd like to see more direct board game translations to the computer for solo play - Sniper, Ambush!, etc., with a programmed AI player.



madorosh -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 2:14:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol
]After seeing your first post (for me) under the topic " Best board-game?" i envisioned a ponticficating Troll due to your comments about "focus". Who are you to teach others about their post content?, you just came off as arogant and self-inflated and frankly your posts of superfluous fluff are neither interesting nor productive. Your only purpose seems to be inciting arguments of which apparently your reputation has forewarned people here at the Matrix forums. Ergo i offer something constructive: don't expect to be taken seriously[8|].



It's unfortunate that you didn't see the value in the points I raised in that thread; if your feelings were hurt I certainly apologize. I don't see the point in chasing me throughout the forum to derail other threads. You're entitled to your opinion, but this thread isn't about me, it's about the subject of multi-player tactical games. If you have an opinion on that topic, it would be of great interest - if you're capable of looking beyond your own private grudges and discussing things dispassionately.

You may want to review what the purpose of a discussion forum is as well. Constructive discussion usually doesn't follow from "post your favourite colour" types of polls. At the very least, they're rarely interesting to me and I don't apologize for not taking them seriously. For what it is worth, there were several people in the thread you reference that took no offence to my comments and in fact contributed some very interesting comments. I'm hoping the same might happen in this thread; so far there has been much good food for thought, whenever we have managed to actually stay on topic.



Yoozername -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 2:22:14 AM)

Yeah that TOW looks like it could be in the future and could allow several players to each command companies.  That seems on topic given the silly name for this thread.



madorosh -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 2:29:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Yeah that TOW looks like it could be in the future and could allow several players to each command companies. That seems on topic given the silly name for this thread.


Sounds to me like you're reading the information wrong. I see reference to players commanding sub-units within the same company - not "commanding companies". So you're making basic assumptions about game scale that simply aren't true, based on the information you just presented us.

There is a big difference between a system where many players command a company's worth of units each - and a system where one company's worth of units are divided up between several players. Seems to me like the TOW system is the latter - which is not company command at all, but platoon command. Why doesn't the reference you cite actually mention "company command"?



Yoozername -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 2:35:20 AM)

So this thread is about what isn't going to be made in the future?  Its about how dorosh defines things from the past, the present and what will be and not be in the future?  jeesh.  And I had thought that dorosh had run out of topics of conversation.



madorosh -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 3:01:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

So this thread is about what isn't going to be made in the future? Its about how dorosh defines things from the past, the present and what will be and not be in the future? jeesh. And I had thought that dorosh had run out of topics of conversation.


You just quoted the Theatre of War forum and erroneously attempted to use it as an example of a multi-player real time company command game, but Theatre of War is clearly nothing of the sort. I keep asking you very direct questions related directly to the topic, but your confusion with matters of definition and game scale seem to make it hard to keep a conversation going. I also note that Theatre of War has individual soldiers as units, so I'm not sure why you keep mentioning it as an example of multi-player game where players can command companies?

I'll restate my basic premise for the thread. You had suggested that the "future of wargaming" would be in multi-multi player company command wargames in real time. I've stated several times now why I feel this not to be the case. You just posted TOW as an example, I suppose, of how the "future of wargaming" will be in multi-multi player company command - but TOW's multi-player doesn't seem to apply to any of the kinds of things you proposed as being the "future" of wargaming. In fact, as has been discussed by several people now in this thread, what you suggest seems unlikely and unwieldy.

So what was the quote about TOW intended to illustrate then? Because if the future of wargaming is a model where infantry can't enter buildings, or company commanders issue soldiers one man at a time, I don't think that's a vision many people will buy into. TOW multi-player looks promising for those wanting to divide up command of a company of men, but there would need to be some sort of unit-based interface, the way OFP gave you the ability to command entire squads in MP mode.



Yoozername -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 3:11:30 AM)

Real Time Iranian Crab People is not the future of Wargaming



cdbeck -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 3:40:02 AM)

Geez... I meant Montgomery and Rommel I guess, but to be fair, both Patton and Rommel were in the North African campaign during some of the same years.

And yes, don't be arrogant and assume that I have not played Combat Mission or Close Combat, both of which I have played. I was agreeing with you remember... [8|]

The reason I bring up fantasy or sci-fi games (which ARE wargames, regardless of what you might argue) is that this is where the ideas you posited have already been implemented. Look at Massive Assault Network (a strategic level, turned based, online, sci-fi wargame). It incorporates some of what you said needed to apply to company level games. My problem with your main argument, other than your pretentious tone, is that you want to argue about "the future of wargames" in general (as your topic says) then you pigeon-hole discussion into one tiny game design like Close Combat or Combat Mission. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

My main problem with all of this discussion is how logically erroneous it is. The future of wargames doesn't lie in one direction (as you put in Real Time Company Command). That is ONE path wargames might take, but lots of wargamers want grand strategy games, or divisional level games, or theater-wide games. Where the heck did you get that your "future of wargames" was ONLY going to apply to one type and one time-period (which apparently seems to be WWII)? MMOG was mentioned above, and this brought me to talk about Sci-Fi fantasy games because they are the ONLY successful genre's to come out of this type of game (with the slightly spurious exception of Battlefield 1942). If a wargame is to come out in that field, then it will have to follow the examples of Sci-fi and Fantasy games.

And I would venture to say that your comment to Dinsdale is incorrect, his outlook on multiplay is not that of the majority of PC gamers out there. WoW is currently the best selling and most played game, followed by games like Lineage and The Sims. All of these games, except the Sims, provide players with a a world to fight against and other players to compete or cooperate with. What you really need is a wargame that lets players fight each other, fight some sort of persistent world (lets say an Alien Invasion) in which their success or failure in this battle is ranked and compared with other gamers, and where they can cooperate with one another, allying their kingdoms and fighting other players or the AI driven aliens invasion. This would be a wargame that follows the majority of PC gamers preference to multiplay (and follows WoW MMORPG model). Most gamers out there do not substitute PC games for boardgames when they lack human opponents simply because most PC gamers out there do not play boardgames (a niche market to rival wargaming in size).

Pshaw... further you should define what a "wargame" is before you tell me not to mention certain genres or types of games. Because that is a HUGE category... just look at the different types of games Matrix offers and get back to me.

SoM



madorosh -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 3:49:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort
My main problem with all of this discussion is how logically erroneous it is. The future of wargames doesn't lie in one direction (as you put in Real Time Company Command). That is ONE path wargames might take, but lots of wargamers want grand strategy games, or divisional level games, or theater-wide games.



Umm....that is exactly the point I was making. :-/ In fact, I believe my point was that real time company command (whatever that is) is likely not to be of appeal to anyone but a small niche.

quote:

Pshaw... further you should define what a "wargame" is before you tell me not to mention certain genres or types of games. Because that is a HUGE category... just look at the different types of games Matrix offers and get back to me.


Ummm...that was my point as well, and I attempted that definition in post one....

quote:

And I would venture to say that your comment to Dinsdale is incorrect, his outlook on multiplay is not that of the majority of PC gamers out there.

The majority of PC gamers out there are solo gamers.

If my replies seem short, I apologize for whatever "tone" you choose to read into them, but I simply lack the strength to repeat everything I said in the first page of this thread. I really think you should go back and review the discussion there because it seems you've missed some fundamental points and may simply need to look at it again to have it make sense to you?



cdbeck -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 4:11:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
Umm....that is exactly the point I was making. :-/ In fact, I believe my point was that real time company command (whatever that is) is likely not to be of appeal to anyone but a small niche.


As I said, I was agreeing with you. I think the whole argument is flawed. It is like saying the "future of ice cream is chocolate." It is just silly.

quote:

Ummm...that was my point as well, and I attempted that definition in post one....


I was being a bit facetious. I don't believe you, or anyone, can come up with an adequate definition of "wargame" as it is rather subjective. I think C&C is a wargame, whereas Ravinhood thinks it is not. I think the Battlefield series is a wargame, many on this forum would disagree.

quote:


The majority of PC gamers out there are solo gamers.


An erroneous assumption. First off, it assumes that gamers only play one type of game. Secondly, WoW has 9 million subscribers world-wide (2 million in America, 1.5 million in Europe, 3.5 million in China). That is more than most gaming companies will ever sell. Besides, if a person plays one match of C&C online and then 20 matches solo, does that make them a "solo" gamer, despite the fact they played online once in a while? Whatever it means for the PC gaming business, most people are multiplayer, at least casually.

quote:


...it seems you've missed some fundamental points and may simply need to look at it again to have it make sense to you?


There is the tone I was referring to... [8|]

SoM



madorosh -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 4:17:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

I was being a bit facetious. I don't believe you, or anyone, can come up with an adequate definition of "wargame" as it is rather subjective. I think C&C is a wargame, whereas Ravinhood thinks it is not. I think the Battlefield series is a wargame, many on this forum would disagree.


The people who sell them have pretty good definitions, though. I just go by their definition. Is C&C marketed as a wargame? I'm not including first person shooters or science fiction themes or even vehicle simulations like flight simulators or tank simulators. That may not match everyone's definition, but for purposes of discussion here, at least we'll know what we're talking about amongst ourselves.

quote:


An erroneous assumption. First off, it assumes that gamers only play one type of game.


I'm talking about wargames, my fault for not being clear. The majority of those who play tactical wargames in particular are solo. This was true in the days of board games too; even in the 1970s when SPI first started tracking demographics, they found this surprising statistic to be true. The fact that so much attention is paid to programming AIs simply reinforces the fact that game companies know where their bread and butter is. OFP or MOH aren't marketed solely as MP online for very good reasons.




ravinhood -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 4:45:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

Now, I'll ask again, do you have something constructive to add to this topic of conversation, or don't you? I'd be very interested in your opinion on the matter at hand.

After seeing your first post (for me) under the topic " Best board-game?" i envisioned a ponticficating Troll due to your comments about "focus". Who are you to teach others about their post content?, you just came off as arogant and self-inflated and frankly your posts of superfluous fluff are neither interesting nor productive. Your only purpose seems to be inciting arguments of which apparently your reputation has forewarned people here at the Matrix forums. Ergo i offer something constructive: don't expect to be taken seriously[8|].



And a very good observation on your part HellPatrol.



madorosh -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 4:48:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

And a very good observation on your part HellPatrol.


ravinhood, I can't help but make an observation of my own; namely the fact you haven't made a single on-topic comment in this entire thread. Were you going to devote your entire attention to matters of personality - and other matters that don't concern you, in the end - or did you want to join in the conversation in a constructive manner? As indicated, any opinion on the topic at hand you wanted to share would be most welcome. If you feel capable of rendering one.



ravinhood -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 4:54:01 AM)

[sm=00000939.gif][sm=00000729.gif][sm=00000939.gif][sm=00000734.gif][sm=00000007.gif]

Notice how he's throwing the thread [sm=sign0006.gif] himself with his concern for me? awwww  I think he wants to just [sm=00000016.gif] with me. lol



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 5:40:04 AM)

[:D]Why would we "add" anything when he's doing a fine job of making an a$$ out of himself ROFL[sm=sign0003.gif][sm=happy0065.gif]



Yoozername -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 6:06:49 AM)

All wargames in the future will be exactly as they are now! Oz has spoken...



madorosh -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 6:12:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

[sm=00000939.gif][sm=00000729.gif][sm=00000939.gif][sm=00000734.gif][sm=00000007.gif]

Notice how he's throwing the thread [sm=sign0006.gif] himself with his concern for me? awwww I think he wants to just [sm=00000016.gif] with me. lol


ravinhood, I can't help but notice that your comments are still not on topic and you still haven't rendered an opinion on any of the topics under consideration. Is there a reason for that?

As I stated, any opinion you wished to discuss would be of interest; the only reason to open a discussion is to consider all points of view. I'm not sure I understand why you keep repeatedly posting off-topic insults and barbs - it seems very unproductive.

Were you unclear on what the thread was about? I was reacting to the original assertion that the "future of wargaming" would be in multi-multi-player real time company level simulations. I happen to feel such a game would represent a niche product at best - actually, a niche within a niche, as wargaming, or "true wargaming", is already very much a niche (if one excludes flight simulators, first person shooters, science fiction conflict 'simulation' etc. from the "wargaming" definition).



ravinhood -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 1:53:17 PM)

Anyone hear a broken record in here? You know the ones that keep "repeating" the same thing over an over cause the needle gets stuck in their crack? [:D]



Yoozername -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 3:19:02 PM)

Is there anything more creepy than a aging single man playing solo boardgames by himself?  And is chocolate flavored bubblegum the niche market future of chewing gum?



Yoozername -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 4:09:39 PM)

quote:

An erroneous assumption. First off, it assumes that gamers only play one type of game. Secondly, WoW has 9 million subscribers world-wide (2 million in America, 1.5 million in Europe, 3.5 million in China). That is more than most gaming companies will ever sell. Besides, if a person plays one match of C&C online and then 20 matches solo, does that make them a "solo" gamer, despite the fact they played online once in a while? Whatever it means for the PC gaming business, most people are multiplayer, at least casually.


Exactly. I think the isolated world of Dorosh has crept into his logic functions.

When I was playing CM almost exclusively, 90% was social (PBEM) and 10% was actually testing things. Mostly weapons, morale, etc. I rarely played the AI in scenarios after the AI was 'understood'.

The testing that many players did was reported and was fedback to the designers.

But I do not like the slow response of PBEM players who micromanage strings of commands for every 1 man crew, etc. I would prefer a RT multiplayer type game where each player is commanding between 50-200 men (basically broken up into sections and squad type units). To me, a couple hours of that beats the PBEM experience.




madorosh -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 4:10:58 PM)

I'm really not sure why it is so hard to remain on topic in this forum, but I'll restate my position in the hopes that someone might have something constructive to say about it.

It was suggested in another thread that the "future of wargaming" is somehow related to massive multiplayer real time. Putting aside the fact that tactical wargaming is only a portion of the wargaming spectrum - which includes games at the grand strategic, stragetic and operational level also (I'm ignoring games such as first person shooters, hardware simulations, and those with science fiction or fantasy themes though arguably they are also wargames - I don't personally include them in that definition however) - it seems to me and apparently there is agreement by anyone who has been brave enough to venture an opinion that wargaming's future will continue to cover tactical subjects in a variety of ways - turn based, real time, and on a variety of scales from "grand tactical" down to the man-to-man level.

Man-to-man level games seem not to have been done well to this point. Computer Ambush was an early start and there have been some other attempts even beyond first person shooters - Avalon Hill's Squad Leader most notably comes to mind as a turn based third person man-to-man game that was a colossal failure, it was based I believe on SSI's "Soldiers at War" (?) title. OFP was a serious first person look at individual combat, but the modelling was very inadequate to such things as modern armour or even hand grenades.

It was also suggested that hybrid games - where games would mix operational level and tactical level combat - might become popular, but the trends don't seem to indicate that being likely.

There seems to be resistance to the idea that most gamers are solo gamers. I am not one of them; when I do get the chance to play CM it is against a human opponent. Don't have time for board gaming anymore either, though if I do play ASL it is via VASL. Yet even in the 1970s, SPI harvested a lot of interesting data from their customers and found that even in an era when solitaire board wargames were a rarity, a large proportion of their customer base was playing games solo. Now that we have computer-controlled opponents, I see no reason for the trend to shift. Battlefront, for one, is convinced the majority of their fanbase are solo players. So I feel any attempt to market multi-multi- player company command games in real time would not likely be all that lucrative. And simply tacking on such a system to an existing game would hardly represent "the future of wargames."

We've seen some good discussion on these points already; if we had anything else to add, I'd be pleased to see it.



madorosh -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/4/2007 4:18:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

quote:

An erroneous assumption. First off, it assumes that gamers only play one type of game. Secondly, WoW has 9 million subscribers world-wide (2 million in America, 1.5 million in Europe, 3.5 million in China). That is more than most gaming companies will ever sell. Besides, if a person plays one match of C&C online and then 20 matches solo, does that make them a "solo" gamer, despite the fact they played online once in a while? Whatever it means for the PC gaming business, most people are multiplayer, at least casually.


Exactly. I think the isolated world of Dorosh has crept into his logic functions.

When I was playing CM almost exclusively, 90% was social (PBEM) and 10% was actually testing things. Mostly weapons, morale, etc. I rarely played the AI in scenarios after the AI was 'understood'.

The testing that many players did was reported and was fedback to the designers.

But I do not like the slow response of PBEM players who micromanage strings of commands for every 1 man crew, etc. I would prefer a RT multiplayer type game where each player is commanding between 50-200 men (basically broken up into sections and squad type units). To me, a couple hours of that beats the PBEM experience.




But just because you do something doesn't mean the majority prefer to do things the way you do. This is where your logic led you astray in assuming multiplayer games would be "the future". I don't disagree that playing other humans is preferable - I don't play solo games myself.

Your idea of a RT multiplayer game is unworkable on the face of it; if you're talking about commanding an entire company divided into squads, you're missing an entire level of command - that of platoons - which would need to be simulated in abstract terms such as command delays, communications, command friction etc. If you want "each player" to command a company - in real time, yet - you are talking about having a regiment/brigade on the map at the same time. The scale of such a game would defeat the purpose. The map would be huge, and even if the computer didn't choke on the level of detail, a typical regimental/brigade operation would need to be played out over hours, not minutes. I can't see what the point would be. You're talking about a hybrid operational/tactical game and I can't see such a thing being a success.

If you've tried to actually command a company in CM:SF in real time, you'll also get an idea for how difficult that is, even on a small map such as CM:SF is currently supporting. Putting it on a brigade or even divisional front would be lunacy.



Yoozername -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/5/2007 12:47:15 AM)

I see.  70's marketing data is the focus of your thesis.  Very schoolorly.



madorosh -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/5/2007 1:43:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I see. 70's marketing data is the focus of your thesis. Very schoolorly.


It's not my thesis, and 70s marketing data isn't the focus of it. Incidentally, what was the focus of your suggestion for an unplayable operational level game fought out in real time with each player commanding 20 or more units a side? I know there is no precedent as far as games already on the market - so what has you convinced it would be a success?



themattcurtis -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/5/2007 2:03:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Very schoolorly.

schoolorly[:D]

This is better than Episode III
[sm=sterb029.gif]



Yoozername -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/5/2007 2:07:44 AM)

That would make it a futuristic game if there is nothing like it now wouldn't it?



dinsdale -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/5/2007 4:28:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I see. 70's marketing data is the focus of your thesis. Very schoolorly.

I've never played CM PBEM. Using my sample of one, which is certainly as accurate as your sample of one, I conclude that all CM players play solo.

It's a fallacy to use one's own opinion and claiming it to be fact

---------

quote:

ORIGINALLY Michael Dorosh
Personaly, I'd like to see more direct board game translations to the computer for solo play - Sniper, Ambush!, etc., with a programmed AI player.

I agree, but my desires would run along the lines of Gulf Strike, Vietnam and Aegean Strike :) The PC was once supposed to be the solution to not being able to just start a board game game at will. Unfortunately, it's never lived up to that expectation.

Right now, the killer apps in PC gaming are MMOG and FPS. It would be astonishing to see the sort of investment which would make the MMOG Company Commander, as there's absolutely no audience for it compared to those other types of game. Closest might be WWIIOL, and despite a seemingly patient and mature install base, doesn't seem any closer to implementing some of the strategic layers thrown around as ideas years ago.

I think your points on the subject are accurate and well thought out.



Yoozername -> RE: Real Time Company Command is not the future of wargaming (9/5/2007 5:01:35 AM)

I conclude that people are playing PBEM by a forum that shows that they do.  Not from my own PBEM.  By the way, If I PBEM, that means at least two people (me and someone else) are PBEMing?  So I have logically twice as many people?  Hopefully, you can see the silliness in your logic.

Many people bought the game and hardly/never play it.  Try to count them.  And people that play the AI, and lose, are losers. And usually their points are not well thought out.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.125