Why micromanagement in a company-level game is not desirable

[dalem]

I think Command is one of the funnest things to simulate , and totally non-fun , such as playing a miniatures game with teams and you can only communicate with other team members with hand written notes .

That's "non-fun" to you? Some of the most awesome games I've ever been a part of were double-blinds with referees and written orders based on maps.

"What do you mean he went over there? I told him to go over here!"

Hugemendous fun!

-dale

 

[Rocket-Man]

That's "non-fun" to you? Some of the most awesome games I've ever been a part of were double-blinds with referees and written orders based on maps.

"What do you mean he went over there? I told him to go over here!"

Hugemendous fun!

-dale

That could be fun in a group environment where you have other people to interact with. But when the computer is the only thing you have to interact with it probably would not be as much fun.

 

[dalem]

That could be fun in a group environment where you have other people to interact with. But when the computer is the only thing you have to interact with it probably would not be as much fun.

Good point.

We've used a modified version of this for 3 WWII scenarios and had tons of fun each time. Conceptually it's simple - 3 maps, 3 rooms, 3 groups (allies, Germans, refs) and tons of prep time.

Agreed it could be tough with just an AI, although the concept of FOW is still valid even down to misplaced or misread orders, I think.

-dale

 

[CMant]

"What do you mean he went over there? I told him to go over here!"

Hugemendous fun!

-dale

Well of course , you are correct

That could be fun in a group environment where you have other people to interact with. But when the computer is the only thing you have to interact with it probably would not be as much
fun.

For CM , it would be neat to be able to send a turn to a team mate(s) before it is sent to an opponent .

Team play over the computer could be fun

 

[Redwolf]

Talonsoft used to have an option like this in their Civil War games. Instead of micromanaging every regiment you could just give orders to your brigade commanders and the AI would then control their subordinate units. Unfortunately the AI just wasn't up to controlling the units with any kind of finesse.

The Airborne Assault game actually implements this well.

And if you don't like an individual sub-units course you can control it directly while the rest of the bigger unit follows the order you gave the HQ.

I don't think this is practical in a CM like game, though.

 

[CMant]

We've used a modified version of this for 3 WWII scenarios and had tons of fun each time. Conceptually it's simple - 3 maps, 3 rooms, 3 groups (allies, Germans, refs) and tons of prep time.

-dale

What game were you using ?

The Airborne Assault game actually implements this well

Airborne Assault ?

 

[Rocket-Man]

Good point.

We've used a modified version of this for 3 WWII scenarios and had tons of fun each time. Conceptually it's simple - 3 maps, 3 rooms, 3 groups (allies, Germans, refs) and tons of prep time.

Agreed it could be tough with just an AI, although the concept of FOW is still valid even down to misplaced or misread orders, I think.

-dale

I would have a hard enough time scaring up three friends, much less three roomfulls of friends! :laugh:

 

[Rocket-Man]

Well of course , you are correct

For CM , it would be neat to be able to send a turn to a team mate(s) before it is sent to an opponent .

Team play over the computer could be fun

Actually what would be nice is to have a server where a team of players could send their turns so the game could be played in parallel rather than serially.

 

[Geordie]

Actually what would be nice is to have a server where a team of players could send their turns so the game could be played in parallel rather than serially.

Your talking about co-play, which BF wont be putting in unless the military comes on board.

It would be a very nice feature, but obviously far too expensive and time consuming for them for the very few of us that would use this feature.

 

[Rocket-Man]

Your talking about co-play, which BF wont be putting in unless the military comes on board.

It would be a very nice feature, but obviously far too expensive and time consuming for them for the very few of us that would use this feature.

Not real time, but turn based. One player could act as the server where everybody uploads their turns to his computer, or even just email them to the person with the server, and then the server could execute the turn and send the files back to the players. This could be done either manually or automatically. This is not as complicated as co-play, but I agree it is still something Battlefront will never do.

 

[[hirr]Leto]

Does CMAK or CMBB save plots so that you can make moves and then send to another player who then makes his and then can advance the game turn?

If it does, people should be able to play multi command games in CMAK or CMBB with two-three players per side for larger games.

Cheers!

Leto

 

[Sirocco]

The last I heard, co play was on the schedule for being added, just not too far up it.

You can do a crude co play with CMx1, in whatever combination you'd like. It's actually interesting to co op on the same side, even against the AI as you combine on a pre arranged plan.

 

[Rocket-Man]

Does CMAK or CMBB save plots so that you can make moves and then send to another player who then makes his and then can advance the game turn?

If it does, people should be able to play multi command games in CMAK or CMBB with two-three players per side for larger games.

Cheers!

Leto

Yes it is possible to save a PBEM turn and send it to another player before sending it to an opponent. But it is completely serial and of course there is no limitations to what each player can do while he is playing the turn.

 

[dalem]

What game were you using ?

We were using a heavily-modified version of the WWII rules on that Kriegspiel site. I was a player/commander during the first two games and a ref the third time, so I'd imagine that by the time I saw any of the nuts & bolts it was pretty far afield from the original rules.

But really you don't need someone else's rules to recreate a refereed map exercise, just the physical separation and an ump's room to keep track of things. Then it's a simple matter of letting the players twist themselves in knots. It's especially entertaining to watch the meltdown of someone used to only board or computer games.

q: "How many tanks is it?!?!?"
a: "The OP said 'many tanks'."
q: "What kind?"
a: "Unknown."
q: "How can he not know?!? I need to know what kind!"
a: "He can't see them, he can only hear them."
q: "What do you mean 'he can only hear them'? How does he know they're tanks?"
a: "'Sounds like tanks, lots of 'em' is what he reported, sir."

Man, it's fun. And gave me the teensiest sliver of near-comprehension of what running an actual battle might be like. Screw having a better gun or camo smock, I want knowledge of the battle/ops area, ANY knowledge at all.

-dale

 

[thewood]

Speaking of micormanagement...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=85927&page=4

DOes this remind anyone of the blue bar arguements from Steve. His logic is almost irrational at this point. I think he is misunderstanding C3K on purpose. C3K's design seems pretty elegant to me. I only know a little coding in C+, but what he is suggesting makes sense.

 

[Redwolf]

Speaking of micormanagement...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=85927&page=4

DOes this remind anyone of the blue bar arguements from Steve. His logic is almost irrational at this point. I think he is misunderstanding C3K on purpose. C3K's design seems pretty elegant to me. I only know a little coding in C+, but what he is suggesting makes sense.

TacOps does it that way if I scanned c3k's suggestion correctly.

Of course TacOps is published by BFC

 

[Sirocco]

you guys should stick to identifying the needs and we'll worry about how to make it happen if possible.

Translation: We'll tell you how unreasonable you're being asking for something that's not possible, too time consuming etc., when you just don't get how great how we do it now is.

 

[dalem]

Looks like a classic thread is building up there. Steve has been drawn into discussing the nuts and bolts of his game, and that's always bad. From what I've seen over the years, when things like this happen, Steve (with all good intentions) essentially initiates or joins a development "roundtable". People feel welcome and people believe their participation carries weight with, hoody-hoo!, the game designer.

In the past, I think this might have even been true. After all, look at the community-driven changes in grenades, some smallarms behavior, and even armor/ammo interaction for certain platforms that occurred during the very early days of CM:BO and the Golden Beta.

But at some point, arbitrarily I'll pick "as soon as CM:BB was announced", that "door" closed. Which is perfectly fine. But still and all, threads like the one pointed out continue to sprout, and every once in a while Steve provides the fuel, and they -WHOOM!- take off and go nuts. Because, come on, Steve's not gonna listen to C3K or Slaphappy or any of them, and in his position who can say that he should? But I think it's a little disengenuous for him to take part in such discussions in the manner in which he does.

It gives the appearance that he's open to opinions and ideas when he's really not, and does neither his image nor BFC's any good.

On a completely different note, speaking of BFC, do Kwazydog or Madmatt ever post anymore? I'm curious.

-dale

 

[Redwolf]

It gives the appearance that he's open to opinions and ideas when he's really not, and does neither his image nor BFC's any good.

No, he's just out of his depth when it comes to programming details. Charles has several times implemented exactly what people on the forum wanted while Steve said it's not possible or will make a mess.

 

[thewood]

No, he's just out of his depth when it comes to programming details. Charles has several times implemented exactly what people on the forum wanted while Steve said it's not possible or will make a mess.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Thats why I mentioned the blue bar thing. In a month, we will suddenly have a hold for weapons and Steve will say that he wanted to do this all along.

btw, no one has mentioned how in CM1 your asked if you want to use the main gun on sift targets. How would this be much different. POA2 had this feature in spades.