|
sepp3gd -> RE: Hello, from a new member! (8/11/2015 7:45:19 AM)
|
First things first: one thing you can assume about me that I am confirming now:
I have no skill in building computer games but I love to play Close Combat. (If I had the time, resources, and skill to build
my perfect Close Combat, this is what it would be like. Maybe someone out there with the time, resources, and skill to build
my perfect version of Close Combat will read this, and it will resonate with them [8|]. )
Just for fun I am sharing this, and with a small hope that it will plant a seed. [:D]
Close Combat is my favorite game ever, and in my opinion the best. The fact that the graphics are not in the same ballpark as
XBOX One or PS4 does not cheapen the experience one bit. Essentially, when a game has such great realism in it's gameplay,
it's very exciting to imagine what if the graphics were in the same ballpark as XBOX One or PS4? I can best describe this logic by paraphrasing something which Steve has posted in another thread:
'A chance always exists that, when an AT Team attacks a tank, a critical hit can be achieved. Meaning a round hits the tank without actually penetrating the armor and the crew believing the damage to be much worse than in reality, bails out of the tank in panic. This can happen when a damage occurs to a turret ring.'
Such intense and thorough thought that has been put into the engine for this game to make it realistic with regard to the psychology of soldiers, the weapons being used, armor, physics, geometry, angles, line of sight, etc. I could
go on and on about what makes this game great with regard to realism, but I am assuming that readers have played this game,
rendering such a lengthy explanation superfluous.
Instead I will begin to write about my dream version of Close Combat.
I will reference the graphics of Battlefield on XBOX One or PS4 to describe my imaginative game when played in first
person perspective. Two modes exist: 1.) the traditional top down view in the exact manner as seen in The Gateway to Caen
using beautiful hand-drawn maps and 2.) the first person view as done in many first person games, such as for one example the Battlefield video game series. I am not referring to Battlefield nor to any other similar First Person Shooter to ascribe that style of gameplay to the style of gameplay I imagine my new version of CC, but am only referencing the style of the first person perspective in Battlefield in the literal context, ie: visual perspective FPP (First person perspective), not to be confused with the style of gameplay in Battlefield and common to other similar titles, known as FPS (First Person Shooters)
Moving from first person perspective to the traditional top-down perspective
I imagine a beautiful transition and I reference the film "Run All Night" with Lliam Neeson,
where this sort of transition is used to move from one scene to another, as the camera pulls out from a kitchen in
Manhattan to reveal and expanding wide view of the city from overhead, and then travels over to Brooklyn showing people, cars, streets, and skyscrapers passing by in sight underneath, then stops over Central Park and then zooms back down to a man standing by a pond.
And so the entire scene continues in real-time uninterrupted and the continuity of the story is sold from the use of this perspective (Google
Earth is technically the same only less polished).
Now I imagine that all of the tactical command is to be done from the top down view exactly the same as it always has been. That being so, the only change is accomplished with the exception that you have now
the ability to enter into first person mode with any soldier in the battle at any time. The soldier will behave the same as
before, ie: his psychology will not be under my command but may be influenced as it always has been. So when under heavy fire he will keep his head down to preserve his life and may disobey and order to assault an MG position from head on if he believes that there is little to no chance of success. (Perhaps one of the greatest achievements in the CC Series is the element of human psychology in AI.) So if you give an order for a rifle team to move across a field under heavy fire from the top-down view and then switch into the first person view of a soldier of this same squad, you will only spectate as he moves across the field with his team. And when he decides to hit the dirt and begin to crawl back to cover you will have no control. If you move back to the top-down to reissue the command, your orders may not be followed still. Changing the order to now fire at the enemy instead of moving may also be disobeyed, so issuing a fire order then switching to the first person view you will also be a spectator and unless the soldier "feels" like obeying the fire order then you will not be able to target enemies and fire at them. However, if the soldier does indeed follow the order and decide to fire back at the targeted enemy, you will be able to pick out individual targets within the line of sight at a target area. If the fire order was issued to shoot an enemy rifle team in a two story apartment home, you will be able to fire at the apartment home as well as any targets of that rifle team within the immediate vicinity of the apartment home and within the line of sight. You will not be able to turn around completely and fire at an enemy to your rear, nor will you be able to fire at an enemy to your sides, and you will not be able to switch targets within your field of fire and will be extremely limited to only targets within a very narrow line of sight focused upon the designated targeted enemy rifle team within the two story apartment home.
However, if operating in the first person view an MG42 and as the gunner, you will be able to choose targets within a wide field of fire, mostly eliminating the need to switch back to top-down view to issue/reissue a fire orders. In this situation and while firing the MG42 at a target, your focus will become very narrow, as tunnel vision almost. Meaning in order to recover your attention back to your entire field of fire would require you to cease firing. If a heavy mount is being used, this would also mean having to remove your eye from the telescopic sight in order to scan your field of fire thus losing much detail, and hidden enemies will be difficult or impossible to spot. If you choose to scan your field of fire through your scope, you will gain more detail but again, you will be very limited to the amount of space you can observe in a short time, and thus become much more susceptible to danger stemming from enemy fire and movement (the exception to this rule would be if you are in a prepared position in ambush, or in a prepared position in defend at the start of battle, and the enemy has not spotted you yet and you have not opened fire yet.) If you are a spotter for an MG42 your field of fire will be 360 degrees (as a spotter you will be able to view the entire surrounding terrain through field glasses or naked eye and perhaps fire at enemies with your rifle, but issuing the order to fire at targets not currently in the field of fire for the HMG would require the breakdown and reassembly of the HMG, and thus a significant amount of time and exposure to danger, rendering this an more extreme order at the tactical level). Thus as a spotter you will be able to detect enemy movement with greater efficiency than compared to any other member of the weapon squad, fire your rifle at targets (perhaps throw grenades and smoke as the situation demands) and relay all pertinent information such as enemy movement, strength, and location to the gunner in real time which in turn would increase the overall combat effectiveness of the individual gunner, and to whatever extent thereof the team. Scanning the area with the naked eye would not be recommended in all situations nor would scanning the area with field glasses, as each would have it's own strengths as the situation merits, and such tactical decisions would be made by the player based upon experience. Like viewing enemies through a scope, field glasses will enable the player to scan sectors in greater detail, but unlike viewing through a scope the field of vision will not be nearly as limited, and thus a greater amount of space in a greater amount of time can be covered.
These first person firing rules not only apply to machine guns, but to most crew served weapons. Armor would essentially follow the same rules, but fields of fire would be much more limited even yet unless the commander, driver, or bow gunner is operating the tank with the hatches open, which would only be feasible in ambush position (assuming the enemy has not yet spotted you) and in defend position at the start of battle (assuming the enemy has not yet spotted you and you have not yet opened fire at the enemy). If under fire or moving through areas that have come under heavy fire and are known to contain enemies or are suspected of containing enemies, soldiers in tanks will button up the hatches and have a very limited field of fire.
Following this style of gameplay, a likely scenario might play at out as follows:
When an MG Squad enters into a building, you the player could click them and select the gunner to enter into first person view and essentially "become"
the gunner operating the MG42. As there, as the first person view of the gunner, you would spectate as he sets up the machine gun and prepares it to fire and once done, be able to fire at targets within your field of fire (assuming that he/"you" has not come under heavy fire or been distracted by some other reason, gun jam, concussion, etc). As the battle unfolds and the situation dictates, you could make another click and pan out
into a smooth transition across the battlefield and then back into a Panther Tank to operate the bow MG34 and travel across waypoints as you now sit inside and ride along at the bow MG to attack a hedgerow and suppress a suspected enemy rifle team.
Dungeon Keeper is a great game that uses this style of gameplay.
|
|
|
|
