Linked games

Linked games (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

CSO_Talorgan -> Linked games (8/25/2009 11:27:21 PM)
Has there ever in the history of computer gaming been an instance of two games being successfully linked? What I mean is, say, one game handling land combat while another deals with air or naval combat. Another would be one game handling tactical combat while operational matters are dealt with by another. The only instance I can think of is Combat Mission Campaigns. ... and yet before the computer came along we used to do this all the time.

V22 Osprey -> RE: Linked games (8/25/2009 11:33:48 PM)
I think that with the power of modern day computers, we can have it all in one game.For example Crown of Glory, Total War Series, Forge of Freedom, and For Libery! play in a Operational Strategic map, but when 2 armies(or navies) clash you can play it at Tactical battle scale.These games don't need a 2 different games to handle both operational and battles.

Lützow -> RE: Linked games (8/26/2009 12:01:28 AM)
Victoria was linked to HoI 2 in a way that you could take over your savegame, but afaik this didn't work well.

Southernland -> RE: Linked games (8/26/2009 1:51:34 AM)
I seem to recall one where you could fight either as an ASW destroyer or submarine but they were two distinct games[&:]

Gommer -> RE: Linked games (8/26/2009 2:25:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Southern_land I seem to recall one where you could fight either as an ASW destroyer or submarine but they were two distinct games[&:] I believe that was Silent Hunter II and Destroyer Commander, and while I dimly remember those coming out I wasn't 'into' that genre at the time and never got either. From what I've read here, by those that did try it, the remarks haven't been favorable. To the OP: I'd just posted a very nearly identical question in the thread titled "Does this exsist?" As the first reply there mentioned, the games I was thinking of (Breach 3 and Rules of Engagement) were part of what was called the Interlocking Game System, but they never completed the planned set.

spellir74 -> RE: Linked games (8/26/2009 4:15:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CSO_Talorgan Has there ever in the history of computer gaming been an instance of two games being successfully linked? What I mean is, say, one game handling land combat while another deals with air or naval combat. Another would be one game handling tactical combat while operational matters are dealt with by another. The only instance I can think of is Combat Mission Campaigns. ... and yet before the computer came along we used to do this all the time. Not that I know of. We need operational scale and tactical scale to be linked, with the operational being effected by the outcome of the tactical (and vice versa). As a default, the operational scale needs to handle all the tactical engagements abstractly --just like it does now[CoTA/Kharkov] --_unless the player chooses to zoom in to a small locale_. Tactical locale should be 3D (while operational is 2D 'General's map'). It is the Next Evolution. I'm surprised this hasn't been attempted already; Surprised there aren't both real time versions and turn based types already. [EG CotA down to ClsComb; and 'Kharkov' down to PzC:Kharkov.] The 3D tactical scale should be "combat command"/"Kampfgruppe" [mission-based vehicle and inf small rgt or btn] down to platoon and squad deployment. The tactical scale will be dependent on operational arti and supply/refit etc. You know. The player already wears many hats in a 'war game'. In this type he is --along with those other posts --Gruppe command down to CC/KG [major-colonel), then down to platoon [or weapon section] command. Also continuing down to some 'hot seat 'shooter' ability; like an MG nest or vehicle view. (BUT NOT FPS like where you pick up your magic bazooka and run to Berlin with it.) [Is it called 'hot seat'?] All this must be hard. ------- Link to another thread's post: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2219008

V22 Osprey -> RE: Linked games (8/26/2009 4:16:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spellir74 quote: ORIGINAL: CSO_Talorgan Has there ever in the history of computer gaming been an instance of two games being successfully linked? What I mean is, say, one game handling land combat while another deals with air or naval combat. Another would be one game handling tactical combat while operational matters are dealt with by another. The only instance I can think of is Combat Mission Campaigns. ... and yet before the computer came along we used to do this all the time. Not that I know of. We need operational scale and tactical scale to be linked, with the operational being effected by the outcome of the tactical (and vice versa). As a default, the operational scale needs to handle all the tactical engagements abstractly --just like it does now[CoTA/Kharkov] --_unless the player chooses to zoom in to a small locale_. Tactical locale should be 3D (while operational is 2D 'General's map'). It is the Next Evolution. I'm surprised this hasn't been attempted already; Surprised there aren't both real time versions and turn based types already. The 3D tactical scale should be "combat command"/"Kampfgruppe" [mission-based vehicle and inf small rgt or btn] down to platoon and squad deployment. The tactial scale will be dependent on operational arti and supply/refit etc. You know. The player already wears many hats in a 'war game'. In this type he is --along with those other posts --Gruppe command down to CC/KG [major-colonel), then down to platoon [weapon section] command. Also continuing down to some 'hot seat 'shooter' ability; like an MG nest or vehicle view. (BUT NOT FPS like where you pick up your magic bazooka and run to Berlin with it.) [Is it called 'hot seat'?] All this must be hard. Ah, Hello??? Crown of Glory Emperor's Edition and Forge of Freedom have a big 2D operational map, and tactical battles...

spellir74 -> RE: Linked games (8/26/2009 4:19:21 AM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: spellir74 to osprey ... All this [tact to operat link] must be hard. Ah, Hello??? Crown of Glory Emperor's Edition and Forge of Freedom have a big 2D operational map, and tactical battles... WWII with 3D tactical, I specifically meant. But (assuming they are what I mean) that's a start: It means the skill is there.

spellir74 -> RE: Linked games (8/26/2009 4:29:25 AM)
BoB-- published (maybe even exclusively hosted) here at matrix, hidden somewhere-- does something like this I thought. Player plans large scale sorties or defenses, but then also does pilot simulation in some combat. ---- That CoG EmpEd is a classy looking game. And the era is true Grognard.

CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Linked games (8/27/2009 10:06:25 PM)
Thank you for all the replies. I definitely agree that this is a direction game development should head in.

Hertston -> RE: Linked games (8/27/2009 10:20:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spellir74 I'm surprised this hasn't been attempted already; Surprised there aren't both real time versions and turn based types already. [EG CotA down to ClsComb; and 'Kharkov' down to PzC:Kharkov. I've got a couple of worries with this. Firstly, I just don't think a decent game needs it; CotA certainly doesn't. It would just interrupt the flow of the game at best and at worst (the 'ClsComb' element was not at least as good as CC) it would be a major annoyance. The same criticisms would apply to Decisive Battles. Of course it might be optional, but if nobody is using it why bother? Secondly, I don't have much faith in the play value of an endless stream of what must be randomly generated scenarios, albeit with certain parameters regarding terrain and force composition dictated by the operational situation. In my experience, while several tactical games have random generators the best fun is always to be had with designed scenarios, and a well designed scenario is a true joy. Personally I rather just spend the time playing those in Squad Battles or CMSF, or playing purely '1-tier' operational games clipping along without the interruptions.

Arjuna -> RE: Linked games (8/28/2009 12:22:43 AM)
The military "federate" ( ie link ) various sims together. On a project I undertook back in 2007 we had a 1980s dinasour operational warfare sim called JSAF federated with VBS2 ( Bohemia's military successor to their very popular Flashpoint FPS ). JSAF controlled the naval and air assets and the missile systems. VBS controlled the comamnders helo and certain ground assets. To have this work the apps run on a federated backbone or network which uses standard protocols for communicating data between them. It required a huge investment of time and resources to work properly.

spellir74 -> RE: Linked games (8/28/2009 2:05:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arjuna The military "federate" ( ie link ) various sims together. On a project I undertook back in 2007 we had a 1980s dinasour operational warfare sim called JSAF federated with VBS2 ( Bohemia's military successor to their very popular Flashpoint FPS ). JSAF controlled the naval and air assets and the missile systems. VBS controlled the comamnders helo and certain ground assets. To have this work the apps run on a federated backbone or network which uses standard protocols for communicating data between them. It required a huge investment of time and resources to work properly. Yes I started thinking that multiple players have been doing this for a while in 'leagues'. They use different games and link them themselves out side the Computer environment --doing their own tabulation and reconciling. Military would do it big and right for the most part. There must be amateur leagues too. The computer world could try to do that vibe all internally.

spellir74 -> RE: Linked games (8/28/2009 2:12:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hertston quote: ORIGINAL: spellir74 I'm surprised this hasn't been attempted already; Surprised there aren't both real time versions and turn based types already. [EG CotA down to ClsComb; and 'Kharkov' down to PzC:Kharkov. I've got a couple of worries with this. Firstly, I just don't think a decent game needs it; CotA certainly doesn't. It would just interrupt the flow of the game at best and at worst (the 'ClsComb' element was not at least as good as CC) it would be a major annoyance. The same criticisms would apply to Decisive Battles. Of course it might be optional, but if nobody is using it why bother? Secondly, I don't have much faith in the play value of an endless stream of what must be randomly generated scenarios, albeit with certain parameters regarding terrain and force composition dictated by the operational situation. In my experience, while several tactical games have random generators the best fun is always to be had with designed scenarios, and a well designed scenario is a true joy. Personally I rather just spend the time playing those in Squad Battles or CMSF, or playing purely '1-tier' operational games clipping along without the interruptions. I'm not crazy about ClCt either. SqLdr is probably better. As far as ruing the game flow of games one is used to now. Yes. But 1) zooming down to tactical would only happen if one chose (and people would choose to 'go up to the front' occasionally). If tactical playthrough is not choosing in a situation, the game engine would tabulate and resolve as it does now in an operational game. And number 2) Leagues could use the game system maybe. But true, like some one said above (and I agreed saying "it must be hard"), this seems good on the drawing board but might be no good in practice.

CSO_Talorgan -> RE: Linked games (9/6/2009 9:35:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arjuna To have this work the apps run on a federated backbone or network which uses standard protocols for communicating data between them. Interesting So it is technically possible. quote: ORIGINAL: Arjuna It required a huge investment of time and resources to work properly. This'll be the drawback.

Wallenstein -> RE: Linked games (9/7/2009 8:18:43 PM)
Maybe not quite popular outside of europe, but EAs´s FIFA / Football Manager series do qualify...

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875