Graviteam

https://www.facebook.com/Graviteam/posts/634539829938628

Hi,

I'm not on Facebook but my answer is that I don't play online games it's not something that I personally enjoy.

Kind regards

Aces

Direct connection, only in games that are not clickfests.  A good example is the Command Ops series by Panther games.  It's pace is amenable to real time direct connection.  I suspect it would work well with GTOS.
Otherwise I like PBEM by exchanging files.  It works well in games like Combat Mission.  Don't know if it would work with GT Tactics games.

Direct connect. Please tell me they are inquiring for a future multiplayer Graviteam Tactics.  :o

Seems obvious.  Unless it's some cruel Slavic trick.

They have wanted to do it for awhile.  It was cash woes and the perceived small market stuff that prevented it.  Looks like something changed.

Direct connect is fine with me also  8) :D

What does Graviteam want to do concerning multi player?
I remember a discussion about it a few years ago that if they did go MP it would be for Quick Battles only.
I got my hopes up there for awhile until they said they didn't think it would generate enough income to pay for itself.

If Graviteam is seriously  considering MP,what changed their mind and how would they like to implement it?

I'd like more details please.

I bet a publisher went....this is a GREAT game.  WHAT no MP?   :P

Well it would be hard....although I do not think impossible to pull of an MP campaign.  BUT..... I do not think that many people would play such a thing.  HOWEVER.  An MP scenario....something a bit MORE than simple qb would be quite nice.  But MP and Mius or GTOS.... I think I would be glued into MP. 

Oh I don't care how they introduce MP as long as they do it!
I'd love to share the experience of this game with someone other than the AI and myself.

I'm mainly curious as to why the sudden change of heart.
I was convinced that we would never see MP with this game. :o

If this does become a reality,I'm pretty certain I won't play anything else ;D
This is already my favorite game and MP would make it my only favorite game.

Hopefully this will happen so I can start kicking some human ass in this game! :P ;D :D

Direct connection please and a very big thank you for the rethink on MP.

What Dane said.  MP brings a whole new aspect to a game.  But I do prefer PBEM. You just get your arse kicked in slow time.  Far less painful

It's just a poll for cognitive purposes  :D
But whatever happens - no turn based heresy, no sence to offer, hint or to ask. Goal of the game is a simulation, not chess. Only real-time solutions as in real world.

Any chance this (mp) might find it's way to Steel Armour Blaze of War Andrey?

The rights to this game go back to us, it will happen at the end of the decade. Prior to this early to say anything concrete on any topic.

What I'd like to see is the ability to have a military structure, all staffed by humans.  The overall commander in a battalion sized battle is a Lt. Col.  His company commanders would be Captains.  All would be human player positions.  The platoons and squads could be handled by the ai.  They would have to communicate with each other in a realistic manner over wire, radio or messenger.  This is much like how the Civil War game, Scourge of War-Gettysburg, can be played.  Of course people fudge things and use Team Speak for comms.

You could have an iron man mode wherein, as commander, you can't see anymore of the battlefield than what you can see from your command vehicle, or perhaps a Storch circling above the area.  You would have your maps updated by an ai staff, from reports received from your subordinates.

I'd love to see a 2vs2 or more. I know baby steps.

But still......

Single player only gamer..Unless it's something like Red Orchestra where you can dip in and out whenever you feel like it.

Whichever the normal way game do multi on the list gets my vote, direct connection I guess.

I think most people mean IP4?  Direct connection is LAN?  I want to play Andrey and Dane.  =)

I would like to play Andrey also.
With me as a Russian tank platoon commander and him as a German Infantry company commander :) ;D

Yeah, whatever it is that allows one to play other over the net.

Well, I prepared beforehand groups of tank destroyers and better AT guns for infantry  :D.

Is that the choice?  Direct connect or over the net? Seems like everyone over at the facebook page says direct connect IPv4? What is the correct one for playing over the net? I certainly don't have 2 desktops or any friends real close that play.

!!!!!! Gotcha.

I have always found Men of War /Men of War Assault to have good multiplayer matchmaking.  It uses Gamespy and peer to peer host/client.

Obviously Gamespy is on the way out, but for me if multiplayer is to be successful, there does need to be some kind of lobby system available in-game.

PBEM.  Play only with the person of your choosing and play at your convenience.  Should not in any way affect AI games.  It would also bring attention to the game, and Graviteam in general, on such sites as The Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club.  http://www.theblitz.org/

In addition, the idea of coop play is interesting also.

With all due respect, there will be no turn-based species, nor the classics, nor mutants as WEGO. Only realtime with time control by agreement.

Ah, copy that.  So that being the case, my comment would be that for realtime play an option be considered to allow either players to pause play at any time unilaterally.  You never know when one will spill that beer, the baby starts crying, or worse yet, the wife returns and finds you playing.

And, again, the coop play sounds intriguing.

Sorry for the post about this in two threads, I found this one after I posted to the other.

That is a shame.  The game has so much to offer and very nice graphics and models.  Sometimes missing a good shot or one of your tanks getting blown up is disappointing.  Replaying the turn and watching from different angles lets you enjoy every ounce of the game.  Just my opinion. 

Yes, these are the reasons for which I do not believe in multiplayer gaming with the session more than 15 minutes.  :D

By multiplayer I mean one that does not fails 99% of the time (like MMO). But not that 10 people on the weekends looking for someone to play by entering IP addresses.

And also destroys all germs of realism that there in the game.

You have a very good game and have every right to be proud of it.  With all due respect though, wasn't "realism" destroyed the minute you put a pause and +/- game speed buttons in the game?

Not everyone plays a game the same way.  Watching a replay allows you to be present in every squad and see things from their angle which I rather enjoy.  One other aspect is the taking of screenshots, getting just the right moment and angle.  Having this ability in the game does not take "realism" away from those that do not want to use it, they simply do not use the option.  It does add flexibility to game play for other players. 

I understand this is not my product and I have no say in the matter but I am not new to war games as I have been playing them for 45+ years.    In my opinion there are areas that could be improved, that's all.  Product flexibility equates to added sales.

That's why it's called a game Andrey.   Otherwise it would be real life and we might die.  How about giving choices that people enjoy instead of dictating?

I would never use a replay feature. Now to be totally clear we are talking a bout play back right.  Showing WHAT happened not going back in time like loading a save right?

My simple solution to missing cool things is just PLAY more.  =) 

This is a necessary options, unfortunately. Especially pause. But, all this cant back to the past or cut timeline to discrete chunks. And do not have much influence on realism.


Real world: timeline is incessantly and commander can start order in any time but cant do many orders in one moment.
Take this 3 key points as ethalon for simulators.

WEGO: timeline is discrete and commander can start many orders buf only from 1min/30 sec time chunk.
does not match with the ethalon in any of the items (0 from 3)

Real-time with pause with command bar (as in GTOS): timeline is incessantly and commander can start order in any time but can do limited amount of orders (limits come from command bar) in one moment.
match 2.5 from 3

WEGO has no scope if we are talking about realism.

I cant understand, you want replays or WEGO?

If replays I am agreed (this feature in far far plans), if WEGO - no.

This game is simulator by one half :)
In this case we need to do somthing limits or it will be an arcade game.

Basic important things like scales, control methods and orders must be close to reality as possible.

1) Scales for speeds, distances and sizes must be right - this differs simulator from the arcade.
2) Control should be carried out using the second derivative - this differs "arcade simulator" from the "true hardcore simulator".
3) Continious timeline and correct orders system (as I describe in previous post) - this differs wargame from chess.

From what I understand Combat Missionx3 is also getting rid of the play back for their game also.

Some of these players want both. I personally don't see the need for either.

One thing I've noticed is that CM is trying very hard to turn CM into GTOS,though that may take them years and they will still be playing catch up far into the future.

I am not interested in seeing this game(GTOS or GTMF) turning into the old CMx2 model I came to this series because it wasn't that abomination that CM became.
And it looks to me that CM is now finally starting to see the error of its ways too.

Graviteam is the leader in this arena and needs nothing from the CM model to make this game better.

CM2 (don't think there's a CM3 yet) devs never wanted wego or pbem to be implemented from the beginning.  They reacted to demand from their customer base to put it into the game.  As a result, it was put in after the fact.  CM2 is meant to be played H2H (head to head), therefore wego or pbem play is important because not all people can sit for 1-3 hours to complete a game. 

All I can say is don't knock it until you've tried it and never say never.  I personally think it's pretty cool to have a feature that allows you to reconstruct what happened during a battle.  If it bothers peoples' sense of reality, it can be thought of as debriefing your troops and constructing an AAR of what happened during the battle.  That would be realistic right?  Until we have those kind of reports from the survivors that could be a substitute.

Andrey, do you think debriefing your surviving troops about the details of what happened during the battle in order to construct an AAR is realistic? 

If yes, then a replay feature could be considered as a debrief of your troops.  Until we can have the troops tell us what happened in their sector during the battle the replay is a realistic substitute.  I'm sure all army's reconstruct what happened by interviewing the troops after a battle.

And may be better to do this feature as "debrief of your troops" as is? :)

And I am not against tracks :)

CM3 is suppose to be the new East Front model for CM called Combat Mission Red Thunder.
I've been looking at it over the past couple weeks and can't say I'm too impressed with it compared to GTOS or the soon to be released GTMF.

While BFC is finally starting to move in the right direction it still seems to be a little to little and a little too late.

The graphics are still cartoony and the lack of an operational aspect still leads me to believe that this is just more of the "same ole,same ole" only with a fresh coat of paint to hide the same old flaws.

I don't expect to see BFC  able to produce a quality product like Graviteam for at least 3-5 more years unless some real changes to their staff and customer expectations are made.

As far as I'm concerned it's still the same old dysfunctional game for the same old core dysfunctional players.
Stagnation in catering to the boot licking CM minions has completely undermined any truly innovative concepts emanating from that sector of the tactical wargaming industry.

Playbacks,WEGO,PBM are micro managing tools for micro managers that I hope to never see in this game and am very happy that Graviteam has no interest in them either which is why I gravitated to this series in the 1st place.
You want that stuff BFC makes that game not Graviteam.
Last thing I want is that dysfunctional community getting involved with this game also.
Their community has already ruined one game leave this one alone.

I am SO not a fan of CMx2. Loved CM, hated CM2.

With that said, I myself would love a playback during play even if it was for 30 seconds only. As a matter of fact Id rather have it then even MP. With such a big map with far flung forces it would be great to go to the Events and go back briefly to see what happened. Please don't assume that I'm not the right kind of hardcore gamer because I am. And a huge supporter for the game.

Of course such an awesome feature wouldnt be compulsory. Those that didn't want to see the action wont be required to hit replay.


So it's in for the Mius release!
Yes!

I'm not sure I get what the CM community has to do with a replay feature for GTOS.  I'm also not sure why you'd object to playback for this game, as long as it was an optional feature.  Watching your battle play back as a movie is anything but micromanaging.  But it may work better for a one minute battle, like CM than it would for an game like GTOS.

Andrey:  It's hard to object to a replay feature on realism and simulation grounds, when light amplification night vision is provided for WW2 battlefields, and it is possible to have the dark night lit up like day when you pause during a night battle, and the player can zoom across the battlefield at will, god like.  All those features, while not strictly realistic or a true simulation, are provided to make the game more enjoyable.  It's the same idea with a playback feature that can be paused, reviewed, etc.

If the game were a strict, hard cored, simulation the player would only get an image of a topographical map, colored pencils to mark the map, several radios, and a pair of binoculars.  He also would not be able to see any further than visual range from the spot on which he was located.

I can understand if the feature is too expensive in terms of memory, cpu cycles, programming etc.  To say it's not realistic is not logical in light of the features that I mention above, which are already in the game.

This amplification is used from APK43 in pause or statistic mode (you can enable it in options for pause), yes, of course fo hypotetical tracks it can be used too.

In far far plans  ;D

Andrey, a few posts back you asked if I was asking for replays or WeGo for PBEM.  I was referring to replays as you had previously answered the WeGo/PBEM question.  You also voiced concern of not making this into an arcade game.  Believe me, there is no danger of that.

My question is, since this is an SP only game why does anyone care how another player actually plays their game?  Currently, if I wanted to know the position of every enemy unit I could turn on that option.  Would anyone know or care if I did?  Of course not.  Would that be realistic?  Of course not.  If I were able to replay the last 60 seconds of battle at any time, who would this affect?  No one.  Would that be realistic?  Maybe it would, as it would allow me to be able to see what my commanders are experiencing on the battlefield, at ground level.    

As far as MP, BF is not getting rid of replays.  Currently direct connect play can be played with pause ability.  Replay is not possible via direct connect.  BF is going to introduce WeGo for direct connect play in their upcoming release, again with no replay ability.  WeGo will continue to be available for SP and PBEM, with replay being available.  Not one of these features would, in any fashion, hurt GTOS's "realism", SP game play, etc. if implemented.  To the contrary, having these MP features would increase sales.

IMO, GTOS and CM both have a lot to offer.  Everyone should be careful not to knock one or the other in such a niche market.

Replays not making this game into an arcade game, but WEGO/PBEM moves to more arcadish. In posts above I clarify this moment.


I believe only the archival documents, drawings and phys/math calculations  ;D


Even if abstracting from the fact that the game still simulator, if you just want to play in the arcade, and developers want to do simulation, then there are 2 options: the simulator is only done or both. Obviously the second option, we can not afford, as it is in fact almost two games that should be done and then maintain. And still have enough resources for a quarter of one game.

Yes some "features" what not affect to the game directly and dont need more support can be optional. Markers is one from this set. It present for alied units and simply share to enemies.

I will write again - I do not mind about replays in any forms in any ways.
Please read my post
http://graviteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=11416.msg37987#msg37987

I object to the sampling time, not replays, as in WEGO/PBEM - this is brutal broken reality and not suited for simulators. No more.

I don't want to see this game even remotely resemble CM with anything that would attract that community to this game.Mainly no Micro tools.
Those people have the game they wanted and it's a piece of shit.

Last thing we need is to have them over here asking to turn this game into that idiotic micro managing crap game and all the asshole baggage and stupid flame wars and witch burning bullshit that has turned that forum into the most useless moronic ass kissing boot licking gaming cult on the internet.

I think Graviteam is doing a fine job in managing the limited resources at their disposal while creating one of the most realistic to date gaming experiences I've ever had the pleasure to play and think the replay option is unnecessary.

I can think of dozens of other features that should be implemented to this game to enhance the actual playing of the game as opposed to dumping time and money into an ingame tool that only recounts what you pretty much have already seen and done.

Bandicam is a free software device if you want to watch your game over and you can watch it in 10 min. increments at a time.

I personally do not need to know what every single soldier is doing on the battlefield but I can pause and look around if that desire ever does interest me.

With the limited resources at Graviteams command I would like to see more maps of different areas like the central and northern Russian front and different buildings and terrain features to enhance those new maps.
I would also like to see some things to enhance Quick Battles.
Winter and summer options for some of the older maps we already have.
Different camo schemes for tanks even if they weren't actually on the tanks during the campaign designed for that map.
I would like to have that option anyways for QBs.

And a Goddamn "Panther" Tank!

If Graviteam wants to implement the replay option fine I don't care I have no use for it though,I have other whims I would like to see satisfied first.

Andrey, really appreciate your replies.  It's really good to see active communication from the devs.  I don't always have to agree but at least I see your approach to things.

For what it is worth, the closest to realism I have come on a PC sim is on a flight sim during MP, flying against humans, while connected with comms of other friendly aircraft.  Having all "aids" turned off, no external views, etc. is just part of the "realism" equation.  Being able to fight against humans is another big part as they can surprise you and/or make mistakes that are critical to a win or a loss.  The final piece is being able to coordinate attacks, etc. with other friendly units, usually via Teamspeak.

I could imagine, as I am sure many of you can, something similar to this in GTOS in a co-op mode.  Each player would choose or be assigned to a platoon level, etc., maybe even locked to that unit view (at the option of the host server).  Players on the same side could coordinate their attack/defense over Teamspeak.  I have tried this on ground battle first person shooters but frankly that is not my cup of tea.  With GTOS it would be different due to the scope of units and AI control of the individual soldiers.  No idea what the max players would be, 5 v 5?  Could get very interesting, even if 4 v 2 or even 5 v AI.  Maybe one person would assume the role of overall commander.  Units not controlled directly by a human would fall under their control.  For hosting, someone would set up a co-op to play, choosing the level of complexity, and others would join.  The host would have final say on who joins to keep out problems.

Cheers!

For my two pence worth,
I dont want night vision,
I dont want god like cameras zooming around, or floating above the battle field,
I dont want blue boxes, UI's, unit icons or anything else cluttering my screen,
I dont need to know what every single soldier under my command is doing, (the squad lock is good enough for me to keep an eye on them)
Hell i dont even want pause or play back..........

I want HUGE maps, i want the battles on the Dnieper, i want Cherkassy and the Korsun pocket.
I want the vastness of the Ukraine, i would love Zitadelle! (all that armour! ::))

I WANT REALISM Goddamit  ;D

Scale's wrong for this game Schuck.  GTOS is a battalion or company game.  What you are describing is a division/army/army group game.  That's best played on FITE or TOAW.

Yes the scale is wrong,
But i think the game would work very well with a second much larger strategic map that you could move divisions/ corps around on.
And when contact is made you would revert to the map we have now for company/platoon/squad positioning and choosing the 3x3 battle area.
The only limitation would be time and resourses for making the larger map area. Everything else would be exactly the same as it is now.
If i ever won the lottery, i'd be straight on the phone to Andrey!! ;D

I think Div/Corps would be too much for this game also.

My PC is already struggling with the regimental sized battles.
I've had to scale down my graphics settings to accommodate the larger battles which has really taken away from the immersiveness I look for from this game when playing the campaigns.

Not to mention that trying to manage and keep track of all those units at battalion plus level in those large organizations would seem more like work than fun.

If I was retired or won the lottery I could manage the time required to play something at that scale for this game but that is a luxury I can ill afford right now.

A battalion is about all I wish to command with this game at this present time.
Actually a reinforced company or under strength battalion suits me best.

Andrey, I wouldn't even bring this up again except something important hit me when I went back and read your post about WeGo.  Specifically where you say, "WEGO: timeline is discrete and commander can start many orders buf only from 1min/30 sec time chunk. does not match with the ethalon in any of the items (0 from 3)."

The ability to issue many orders in WeGo is absolutely true of WeGo as it is implemented in other games.  If however in a GTOS WeGo the number of orders that could be given or changed were limited in each time interval, in the same manner as the GTOS Pause mode, would this not essentially help to attain the same realism level as the GTOS Pause mode?

I understand however this does not address your concern about the discrete time interval of WeGo, e.g., 1 minute.  Consider this though.  When I play games that have WeGo, there are times that during the turn execution I want to change the orders of a unit but can't.  What I find in most cases is the time interval is short enough that commands can still be given before disaster strikes or that the AI reaction to events is handled well enough (probably better by GTOS).  In the worst case scenario, I have to except it as a "fog of war" event where orders could not be transmitted which can be frustrating but after all, it is war.  In any of the cases above, very little realism is lost or can be accepted as FOW and is worth it in order to play the game against a human where time zones do not allow direct connect play.

One last but very important thing, any WeGo could be implemented ONLY for PBEM, keeping complete integrity of the SP system.

I only bring this up as I wasn't sure if you had considered WeGo from this implementation fashion.

Yes we can get 0.5 from 3. But discrete time still remain.


Any time chunks is a great retreat from realism, due to violate the base rule of simulation. FOW is only interface thing (for human), not affect to simulation unlike time chunks.
 It makes no sense to do strange, and then started to overcome difficulties. Multiplayer just is not needed, and the more it is not needed by correspondence, if you can not play simultaneously - play with AI. AI always ready to play on your rules.

If we look at the MP games that are out now, the normal multiplayer - big audience + short session. All other options are little use.

No WEGO no more turn-based :)

OK Andrey, thanks for reading through my post.  I do hope you consider the co-op mode for MP as previously mentioned.

GTOS does have a good AI for SP.  SP however will never replace playing a human, we are just too unpredictable.    ;D

S!

No, humans a very predictable. Unpredictable can be theoretically only AI.

Even in the middle of the last century the founder of information theory, Shannon invented an algorithm that helps the computer to guess the player moves. It so-called Shannon's fortune teller (its raw translation, I do not know how it is called in English). For it is easy to make sure that the human is extremely predictable (about 90% if need to select from 2 cases) and there is no way to avoid it for human based intellect.

Using this principle (ie that a human uses some pre-learned rules and do not like to change anything) and now operates context advertising and search engines, and in a sense all sorts of clues that gives us a computers.

In this sense, even the most primitive AI millions of times more unpredictable than the most evil human, because for man to become unpredictable need to make Herculean efforts, and people are inherently lazy, and long to make them will not  ;D.

It was only then that relative computing power of today's computers are 100500 times much lower than the most stupid human, and is approximately equal to the cockroach does not give AI to rule the world  :D

Who made the decisions in the wars you are depicting?  Who is making the decisions in any present conflicts?  It's humans, not ai.  Big Blue beat the Russian chessmaster because almost all the variables of chess could be programmed.  In war, the variables are hugely more numerous.  The variables are very much greater than 2 choices.  If an ai had only 2 choices, it would be highly predictable too.  Any program that cannot think and react to situations outside of the program will be at a disadvantage.  Until wars are run completely by machine intelligence, human vs. human is a more true simulation than player vs. ai.

Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics, electrical engineering, and computer science involving the quantification of information. Information theory was developed by Claude E. Shannon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory


Basics of Information Theory
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Tutorials/Info-Theory/

"It was only then that relative computing power of today's computers are 100500 times much lower than the most stupid human, and is approximately equal to the cockroach does not give AI to rule the world."


"Made the decisions" - how this does not prevent people to be extremely predictable?


Yes its about cockroach level - small ammount of variants - can be enumerated and computed at current AI level.
Some time and car driving will be on AI, and than ... decisions too. And then finally disappear such strange things like MP games. It is inevitable  ;D

Yes, as long as computational power is not enough, I wrote.  But how this does not prevent people to be extremely
predictable?

No, human predictable at ~90%, AI will not. Its real state of things. Please read about Shannons investigations.

My point was that you are making a simulation of WW2 and later battles.  The actual battles were humans pitted against humans.  The best way to simulate that is human vs. human players, not human vs. ai.  An ai that you compare to a cockroach. 
Or am I misunderstanding you?

No, because there were specially trained people from another time - other habits, other knowledge, other worldview. But you play with untrained from nowadays (Let me remind you that recently slavery was normal, and even a little before humans ate other humans. For WWII days the difference is not so obvious, but it is essential). If an AI can theoretically learn and simulate a military leader from the past, the average modern player - no. At least the game developers do not have such opportunities.

But while there is a lack of computing power and a number of unsolved problems with AI, these moments are not appears in the light of some stupidness of AI.

The only thing now as a human player will stand out from the AI ​​- it's a brilliant solution of geometrical problems (in wargames and RTS this one of the main tasks). This is what it bestowed thousands of years of evolution, which was not for the AI​​.

AI may be able to predict human decision outcome 90% of the time however one human cannot predict the outcome of another human 90% of the time and that is why H2H is so enjoyable.  Human vs AI will never have the experience of human vs human because of imperfect factors from both human players that effect the eventual outcome.  A human can be overly cautious and miss opportunities, can take bold risks and be rewarded or devastated, can overlook threats, can just be a bad tactician, etc.  When you pit 2 humans against each other with that mix of uncertainty on both sides, the result will be different than when one side can predict the outcome of the other side 90% of the time. 

One last thing an AI can never replace and that is the social aspect of H2H play.  Many times your human opponent is someone you have known many years.  You can reminisce on past games played and laugh at various aspects.  In a co-op mode there are tactical or strategic decisions over offense or defense that must be discussed amongst the players.  You develop a camaraderie with your teammates.  You get to know their strengths and weaknesses.  You can't talk to the AI.  Playing solely against AI, over time, becomes sterile and impersonal, without any social contact, sort of like old single player arcade games where the only thing you could accomplish is beating your last highest score.  So, even though an AI can be programmed that cannot be beat, AI will never replace a human as the better opponent.

Thanks for pointing out the social aspect StkNRdr.  I neglected to mention that.  I don't get the same sense of satisfaction when I beat the ai as when I complete a game against a human, whether I beat him or not.

You seem to agree with me that at the present time the ai is not equal to humans.  You seem to think that in the future, greater computing power and solving some problems with ai will make it equal or superior.  It seems to me that, if that is true, a player vs. player option is essential for the time being to get the best out of the game.

Yes of course, human is very limited even in basic things.

Sorry, but I dont know any wargame wherever H2H gameplay can be enjoyable or even simple interesting.

But may be chess ...

I dont know any wargame with proper simulation and with AI. Even wargames where the environment is very sketchy and going of the blocks and the units are represented by material points without physics - where the ideal conditions for the creation of AI at this stage - the AI ​​is not present, so to say definitely difficult.

Perhaps you're right, but I'm still of the opinion that the AI ​​is much better together.

All the same can be done for the AI​​, specifically for these stages there are no obstacles in the current level of computing.

This aspect is unimportant. There are lots of any programs, medias and games with which to realize the social aspect - it makes no sense to drag this into wargame.

Well, actually a network mode in wargames gives fail in 90% of cases, due to lack of opponents. What do you say? What is the social aspect can be if a problem with find someone to play with? Let's get back to the real world from the world of fantasy :)

Hi Andrey,

Although my preference is to play offline games vs AI opponents I don't see any reason why the wargaming genre cannot be a social activity. If one wishes to play with/against a good friend online H2H and derives enjoyment from such what is wrong with that?.

Kind regards

Aces

It may be so, but it must meet certain conditions. At begin to start calling things by their names  :D. 2 people playing against each other is not a social element, but anti social. As a closed club with restricted acess.

And when I asked earlier about really social elements, such as made ​​random battles in WOT. All that is said they - will not play. And then it's all about the social elements brings a smile in the context of the fact that the same people terribly indignant about the potential introduction of a social game elements  ;D. So let's define already?

But this is not social, sorry


P.S. Traditional anti social MP mode 1 vs 1 is one of reasons why wargames is not popular. In conjunction with the strange interfaces, bad graphics and high complexity of it all led to what is now.

Sorry Andrey but you are twisting definitions to fit your argument.  This is about the ability to enjoy a game with players of your choosing, not egalitarianism.  I don't think too many people will agree that 1 vs 1 is actually anti-social. 

The very fact that one person is interacting with another makes it a social interaction.  The number is relatively unimportant.  I have no objection if the game allows x vs. x number of players as long as I can define whom those will be.  I actually consider the behavior of large groups of random strangers (WOT for example) to be, potentially, much more anti-social than a 1 vs. 1 set up.

To say that you know of no wargame in which 1 vs. 1 is enjoyable, or even interesting is intriguing.  Isn't that what you are trying to develop your ai to simulate? 

Even more interesting is that you say that the social aspect of gaming is unimportant. 
It's your game but you seem to be dismissing the wants of a fair number of your potential customers because of personal predjudices.

Hi Andrey,

If I go to the pub for a drink and a laugh with a mate is this a social activity? or do I need to invite all my friends along? in order to qaulify as a social creature? :D. I would have thought that playing a game (any game) against a friend is much more "social" than sitting alone playing against a computer which could be easily regarded as a very anti-social, even "nerdy" activity in modern society.

Semantics aside, I share Tanker's view that the genre is a niche one and hardly likely to attract players via an online lobby type approach but a 1 vs 1 human game between two human military strategy enthusiasts sharing a common interest could be a very interesting scenario especially if this had the option to extended over a campaign.

Kind regards

Aces
 

Maybe you don't.  There are many that do.  Here is an online club for playing H2H for many different wargames: http://www.theblitz.org/

There are over 5000 registered members.  I am sure some members are more active than others but they all have one thing in common.  They all like playing wargames and they all like to play them against one another.

EDIT:  The 5000 is just a subset of the universe of H2H players that decided to join that specific club.  The number of H2H players is probably much higher.



AI, and a very good AI, is necessary to handle the individual troops on the ground in GTOS or any other PC squad level wargame.  Their ability to advance at the right intervals, assault in correct fashion, react to an ambush, etc. must be handled well.  AI is not necessary to instruct unit movement from point A to point B, when to assault, etc., a human can handle this against another human.  Obviously AI must handle all aspects well for SP.



I can think of 5000 reasons why.  Many of them potential sales.  I can only speak for myself.  I bought this game while on sale at 50% off.   Had it been full price I would never have purchased it because of the lack of MP.  I will play GTOS to fill the voids of when I am not in a H2H game with a player, which isn't very often.

EDIT:  To say that H2H, or any game play, be it in person or over the net, between 2 or more players is anti-social is a real twist of logic.  Playing a game solely against a computer algorithm, by yourself is the quintessential definition of anti-social, not that there is anything wrong with that.    



I can think of 5000 reasons why you are not correct.  Some have been members of that club for 14 years.  I have been playing wargames for many decades.  PC wargames are nothing more than an extension and refinement of the board games of 40 years ago, which were played across the table from one of those pesky humans.  I personally have friends that play many different wargames against humans H2H online.  They were interested in GTOS when I brought it to their attention but specifically did NOT buy it because it lacked MP.  Direct quote from one, "With that level of detail I wonder why they didn't make it multiplayer off the bat."  Go figure.  

Well guys,
While i do not believe 1v1 is in anyway anti-social, quite the opposite in fact.
In my experience this type of MP doesnt last, well at least not for long.
The thing with humans is they dont like to be beaten, certainly not over and over again, this soon leads to a situation where you cannot find an opponent to play.
The joy of AI is its always there, when you get home from work, early in the morning, week ends, anytime you want.
You can beat his ass a 1000 times and he's always back for more.
So while MP sounds good in theory, In practice, i dont think it would work for this style of game.
I havent played WOT, so i cannot comment.
I personally think the time and resourses needed to develope MP would be better used instead to improve the game and AI further.
But please dont crucify me for saying so, its just my opinion.

I agree in part with what you're saying, of course, dare I say it :) we could have BOTH styles of play available and that would suit both prefernces at any time. :D.

Regards

Aces

Apparently we somehow have different understandings of the term social. I do not know how to lead a discussion, if you do not use words according to their purpose, but as you like.
If you like to call black as white, good   :D. I have no objection, the problem is that this not be a constructive discussion.


AI in our game at the moment is not a key feature. It ensures functioning of the game in any settings, and makes a variety of it. This is largely a forced necessity, because the game mechanics. No more.

In the direction of the AI​​ (not that usually mean instead of AI - script processor, pathfinding) - this still has not seriously was doing and will not know when..


Absolutly. We are surrounded by numerous social networks and any other tailored programs (and even special sucking money social games), it makes no sense to drag it to where it is not needed.

We have no goal to sell our game to anyone at any costs, only those to whom it is interesting. I understand that this approach is not in high esteem  ;D.

Okay.

Many games and only 5000 members?
Each of our games have more buyers (and they are extremely unpopular and not well known).


No, it's the number of registrations. According to the statistics of active players in the best case is 10% of this number (this is for a very well-known and popular genres).
I understand that you like to play in MP games and Tanker too, but do not engage in wishful thinking.

This is so, because people did not really evolution for many thousands of years, and sooner or later it will overtake the AI. And in abstract worlds such as mathematics or chess has already surpassed. Sooner or later it (AI) will come to the real world.
Games is more abstract world than real. It will happen soon.

But all this listed it is not AI. AI is the decision-making, and not about the mechanistic function.


Yes of course - all aspects, and it can handle all aspects better, for example more like a military leader of WWII than averaged modern human. It theoretically possible, but train to do the same a sufficient number of players and get them to play in the desired time for you - not.

No, in best case 500 (more realistic is 50), sorry its statistic.
Our games without MP buys a lot more people even more than 5000.

1 DLC get more.

You all measures the on their own. This is a dead end road, it never gives the right results.

Yes AI vs Human adn 1 Human vs 1 Human - is both anti-social. But I unlike you do not say that 1st case is socially. That's the whole difference  :D.

Its 5000 registrations - pure virtuals not interesting. You are confusing the real with the virtual, it's bad.

But suppose hypothetically that this is so ;D. Here are all the 5000 real players who rush to play our game as soon as it appears MP mode. Here is such an abstract ideal world  :D.

The problem is that this amount is insufficient to game based by MP, ie just a not enough, even in the best case.
Just look at the number of registrations in the "clubs" of successful MMO - there are hundreds of thousands and even millions. And not in 14 years, as you have written here, but for months, better days (for example WOT on consoles - 70K from week!). And here is a socially and here it makes sense in terms of money. 5000 - alas no, and 50 to be real, do not.

If every time in a different pub and with different ... then yes.

Sociality is about the interaction of the masses of people. And not 2 people many times. Well, imagine a social network where you can communicate with only one person? And to change it once a month. Nobody is not call a social? And why the games differently somehow?


1H vs 1H and 1H vs 1AI - both anti-social.

Yes I am share this view too  ;D.
With two amendments:
1) Now this is not social.
2) Need to fight the causes of why it happened (unpopular genre) - make the game more friendly, beautiful and attractive., but not the WEGO, PBEM, IP4 with friend  :D and other crutches, which further exacerbate the problem.

Here, figuratively of course. Antisocial this is robbery or murder for example. Here is the view "not socially".

Thanks for your understanding and emphasizing the main problem.
AI have an absolute advantage in the fact that he is always ready to play on your rules.

AI is not going to work, not sleep, not go on a binge, do not go on vacation, he has no wife, children and dogs  ;D. Finally, for each player has its own AI.

P.S. I do not understand how anyone could not want to play with such great opponent, but instead look for some weird humans, enters a strange set of 4 numbers in the hope that someone will respond  ;D.

Some math for MP players from "Wargamers club 5000"

"The most users online at one time was 387 on 06-18-2012 at 06:32 AM"

This is the maximum number of players that were present simultaneously. Ie on this day, one could hope to choose from 387 players with whom to play (not from 5000!). Its better result from years.

Club supports 10+ games, with long MP story (CMx2, OAW, PC, SP, etc). Ie All these 387 players were divided into 10 games (we assume uniformly) - we have 38 players to each.
Imagine for a moment that there is a new previously unknown game with the MP mode. What part of the players will play it? I put on not more 10 on holydays and weekends? Who are more?  ;D

Andrey, I don't understand why this thread exists.  It was put here by a company moderator to find out how we would prefer MP.  In addition there is also related info on your Facebook page asking the same question.  Yet, every single response to anyone that wishes to see MP implemented and the specific manner in which they might like to see it, there is a complete denial of a desire to implement MP in GTOS because who would ever want to play with anything other than the wonderful AI?   And it is not only a denial, it is often a denigration of those individuals' ability to assess what they really wished the product contained, including twisting their words and the facts to try to make a point.  Pretty soon this thread will be debating what the definition of "is" is.  If you didn't want to know what the customers thought then why ask?  Enough has been said, you obviously had your mind made up prior to the thread ever being posted and do not wish to hear anything from other than those that post 100% in agreement with you.  Sound familiar?

I had my hopes up for MP also,but not World of Tanks or European Escalation type MP.
1 on 1 would have been nice.

The response though seems to indicate neither.
At this point I don't really care anymore. :(

I'm not giving up all hope though but it seems MP is out for the near future and it's just becoming a pointless merry go round asking about it or discussing it any further.

I'm a little perturbed also as to why this thread was even started.
I had the initial impression that Graviteam had changed their mind concerning MP after years of saying no MP.
So what was the point in even asking us.

I disagree Schuck, because of my long, and enjoyable experience in playing CM against other humans in pbem and tcp/ip games as well as the Command Ops games in the same way.  The Blitz Wargaming Club is a prime example of people playing this type of game, win or lose, they keep coming back for more.  MP is the missing link for this game.

Again you are misinterpreting facts and figures.  Players do not have to be online in the forums in order to participate in MP sessions in the games you mention.  The games are not played on line on a server.  Participants may connect by direct ip or by pbem.   Therefore your 387 does not reflect the number of potential opponents, it only shows the number of club members on the forum at that particular time.  If I, as a club member posted a request for a game, I would have plenty of offers in a short while. 

Honestly Andrey, the best solution is to have both options available.  With the state of today's ai and computing power, an ai opponent is definitely inferior to a human, in my estimation.

+10 mate!

Unfortunately I feel that you are doing exactly that yourself.  To satisfy yourself, ask a cross section of English speakers if an interaction between two individuals, such as a conversation or a card game is anti-social.  I don't believe I am the one confusing the colors.

In any event it is a moot point.  It does not matter what we call it.  I think the first post asked what form of mp we preferred to play.  I wouldn't prefer to play with total strangers that I will probably never play another session with again.  They have no incentive, to behave correctly and in a responsible way in a gaming sense.  Members of the Blitz Club, which you lightly dismiss, play thousands of games and for the most part there is little of the disruptive behavior seen on WOT, BF3 servers that we so often see with hacks and general hooliganism (like that old soviet era term?  ;D)  I'd say the situation that you describe as social actually has much more potential for anti-social behavior than a direct ip connection between folks that know each other and have an online reputation to protect.

Yes of course in the technical aspects. But no one bothers to express any private views ;D.

You speek MP, I am speek SP, Aces speeks Both  ;D. It is good and we can evaluate different options.
But it is always worth to remember that the game will be made on the basis of objective criteria but not one private opinion, no matter whose opinion - andrey12345 or Tanker or Aces.


I never said that. I say that AI is potentially better than the other human as opponent, and many times brought why:
1) No fails
2) Always ready to play
3) Always plays on your rules
4) Potentially plays better than the average player (this is in general to be tested in future)
This is all :). What modes will be in our games is irrelevant. Please, do not need to attribute the words I did not say.




I'm a customer like everyone else, in this case. Why do you think that my point of view (which by the way has always argued) - has no right to life?
I did not denigrate, try to be objective. For it can not be guided by their opinion - just statistics. Statistics tells us that out of 100% registered in the best case we get 10% of the players, typically 1-3%. That's it.

Simple math says 
5000 - 100%
x - 10% (1-3%)

x = 5000 / 100 * 10 (1-3%) = 500 ( 150-50) = best (realistic) case = no money from MP feature.

I do not deny these, may be this 500-50 can be the most loyal fans of our game. But the argument about money and earnings in this sense does not apply.

No subjectives or opinions - simple math.

In this case its totally nitche feature w/o perspectives.


We "changed" their opinion long ago, in our first game was the MP with different modes, we make training complexes what based on MP, etc. All our employees play in MP games, some for long, even some in wargames  ;D. They imagine how things are now. Some (mostly ~75% ) really want MP in our game  :D. But let's be realistic - it makes no sense to produce such feature (MP too) an implementation in which no audience with whom to play - that fails in most times.

Hi Andrey so let's forget MP, what about 1 vs 1 Human players, that doesn't mean MP (multiple players) on each side.

Regards

Aces

But how did they find anyone to play with, if in most wargames connection is through IP entry, without any advanced search mechanisms in the game? All of these people do not go to work and do not sleep and are always ready to play?
I think you're wrong  ;)

Sorry, dont understand.
I think 2 players is multiple too.

It already has consequences. So to say the level of sociality.

P.S. Okay, I give up!  ;D
2 players is most social than 70K-1000K in WOT.

P.P.S "hooliganism" is an British Empire term, Hooligan name of English Lord from XVIII century who robbed near London. Sorry you are miss :) If you want Russian term is "gopnik". Extended from GOP - Government institutions of public charity - is from 20s of XX century.

Sigh, okay, I surrender, 2 player is multiple, the world is flat and the Tooth Fairy exists!! :) I think if you ask virtually anyone in the gaming community for a definition of multi-player they'd answer that "multiple" means many rather than just two players, often considerably more than two if you add massive to multiple in the definition.

In the meantime here's a picture of someone trying to split hairs with a razor blade  :)

(http://images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/488/800/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_329135.jpg)

Speaking the language of math more than 1 is a multiple (many).

For "masses in MP" have common call - MMO.

Ie MMO is a special case of MP, MP is a common term.

But as in the case of social anyone can call it whatever he like  ;D

Somthimes it is needed and lead to beautiful things  ;D

(http://err404.ru/images/2012/mikrominiatjury-Nikolaja-Aldunina-foto-podkovannaja-bloha-001.jpg)
(http://err404.ru/images/2012/mikrominiatjury-Nikolaja-Aldunina-foto-podkovannaja-bloha-029.jpg)
(http://err404.ru/images/2012/mikrominiatjury-Nikolaja-Aldunina-foto-podkovannaja-bloha-031.jpg)
(http://err404.ru/images/2012/mikrominiatjury-Nikolaja-Aldunina-foto-podkovannaja-bloha-045.jpg)
(http://err404.ru/images/2012/mikrominiatjury-Nikolaja-Aldunina-foto-podkovannaja-bloha-046.jpg)

(http://pdxretro.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/arte_johnson_laugh-in.jpg)

Very interesting :D

Never mind "Honey I shrank the kids!", more like "Моя люба, я стиснувся Т-34!" Not sure about the gold camo scheme.

Go on the forum.  Post that you wish to play a game.  State your preferences.  Some other person who also wishes a game then posts, accepting your invitation.  You arrange a time to meet for a real time ip game or send the first move of a pbem game.  If ip game, set up the game, give your ip to your opponent, he connects with it, the game begins.  Both CM and Command Ops have very fine mechanisms for setting up an ip game.   No "advanced" search mechanism needed.

It's really not rocket science Andrey.  You seem like a smart fellow, I'm sure you can understand the concept, if you really want to that is. ;)
 
Since I've done it dozens, if not hundreds of times, if I'm wrong then it means I am either a liar or an imbecile.  I can assure you, neither case is correct.

PS. Hooligans is the term always used in the English translation of Izvestia articles about any anti Soviet activists during the USSR era.  I have no idea if it was an accurate translation of the Russian.  Obiviously I know it is an English word and not Russian but it has that curiously stilted, ill fitting feeling that was associated with Stalin, Breshnev, Andropov, and Chernenko.

Guys,
Whilst i understand what you are saying, i personally have no issue with 1v1.
It is how it how it would be implemented to the satisfaction of all that worries me.
I dont know how large Graviteam is, but my concern is that by using the time and resourses available to add MP to the game it would but back the release date for MIUS,
possibly by many months.
And although this thread has been viewed over 1000 times, there are only 15 different people that have posted. (Plus Andrey!)
In fact only 118 on Facebook, Its not a massive audience.
I can see what the original topic was, but this seems to have wandered slightly off track.
Would the effort not be better directed to finishing MIUS first, then worry about MP?

That's Andrey's call isn't it?  I'm sure he'll do what he feels is best for his company.

Most people don't voice their opinion on a subject for various reasons.  That doesn't mean that they don't have an opinion or that they won't act on that opinion, either in the "privacy of the voting booth" or in game purchases.

But you says that not need active on forum, at now "Go on the forum"?  How to understand it? ;D


I have gray dynamic IP at home computer, that changed by providers NAT every 5-30 minutes. What to do? Update messages on forum every 10th minutes?
Fine mechanisms, really?  ;D

But why in wargames not present favorite list or lobby servers and you need to found opponents in archaic way through forums and IP4?
"Not rocket science" really?  ;D


P.S. All this sounds as at the level of the Stone Age in IT. Sorry. I would very much not like to play in our MP was just as bad. Although a high probability this will happen of course its sad :(

Still four mans. MP (not MMO of course) still in the plans, after the basic functionality.
While we wondering how it will theoretically look. What now is in wargames in this aspect strongly not like  :D

I think first it will be - predefined missions through IP4 (for uncompromising wargamers  ;D) and somthing like simple lobby+fav list for others.

Tanker,
Im sure he will anyway!
It just seems MP is alot of effort for very little return, On a game that has a very small market.
I think the original post on Facebook, was just dipping a toe in the water to test the temperature, not anything set in stone.

Andrey,
Seriously, only four people?
Thats impressive!

Well that answers that then, "its in the plans" ;)

Fortunately we give a help from modders and fans.
Especially in QA, models, docs from archives, community etc.

Just because something is newer does not necessarily mean it is better.  If I wish to play a game against one person and that person is Missouri Rebel, then ip connection is perfect and a lobby with a search and match making routine is overkill.  We've said time and time again that GT games are different from WOT and GT games do not require the same type of lobby, and match making system that WOT does.

But we expected that will play in the game not only you. Do you think Missouri Rebel can play simultaneously with everyone?  ;D

Here again, you see only from their own perspective.

Let's imagine that you have a regular player and GTMF bought on sale, and you not have a friend with whom you can play now.
You (regular player) click in menu MP mode, and in this moment game will prompt you to enter a 4 strange obscure numbers...
Thats all - game fails from this players perspective. Such an implementation can not be called fine, but not even satisfactory - it is a glitch.
We try not add glitches to the game. Turns out badly, but we are working hard.

Now I write a fine way - as it should be:
1) Click in menu MP mode
2) You select conditions: time/side/other rules or restrictions
3) You have 2 filtered by conditions not empty lists: favorites and ready to play
4) You select opponent from any list
5) You play at any time at any date at any conditions

Forums/IP/waitings/meetings/mailings/repeat more times each - is worst way


Lobby style and here it is in WOT is two different things, not necessarily automatically select players, it can be done manually.

Seems nice the way you are explaining it. :)

But if Missouri Reb and I wished to play, we'd still have to arrange to be in the opponent list at the same time correct?

Yes, but game directly shows ready or not (w/o forums or mailings) and trying to offer an alternate opponents.

P.S. One should not interpret this as we will soon in the our game  :D, it's an example of how I believe it should look like a fine implementation.

That's what I thought.

No MP planned for the near future.
This whole thread has basically been an exercise in futility. >:(

Dane, we learned one thing.  Debating with Ukranian devs is like a knife fight in a dark phone booth, in a fog bank.  It's mass confusion and misdirection until you find your way out of the booth and you don't know why you ever went in.

:o
And GTMF not planned for near future too.
How to MP mode will appear w/o the game?

In the meantime we always have...............

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Di1HzTLtBlM/R2V_svvq_II/AAAAAAAACPc/Esle14vsxgg/s400/rock-paper-scissors-hand-game.jpg) :D

Cheers

Aces

Well this thread was a weird and wonderful introduction to the forum, the game and the dev.

First off I would just like to compliment Andrey on the amazing job he and his team have done with this game and it is a relief to get away from the excessive micromanagement of other wargames.
That said I have been really surprised at some of Andrey's comments re multiplayer and AI.

I purchased the game because it was on offer, I wasn't sure if I would like it and the lack of multiplayer were definitely negatives that prevented me from paying full price previously. Well I needn't of worried too much because the lack of multiplayer has obviously meant the devs have concentrated all resources on the single player experience and where AI often lets many games down it is sufficient here not to have a negative impact on the game.
That said I would still love a multplayer option because despite what Andrey states, there is simply no substitution for playing against another human player.
Andrey you don't seem to understand human nature very well at all which can be summed up perfectly by your premise that multiplayer will be obsolete once AI is smart enough to always beat the player - talk about missing the point?
That would make multiplayer imperative because nobody wants to play a game they cannot win and that being the case the devs would have to introduce human flaws into the AI logic - kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?
It is all about human interaction, AI does not have emotions, AI does not have psychology, AI doesn't care if it wins or loses and frankly I don't much care if I win or lose against AI - there is not the same motivation, it isn't human, do you see?
Why not just have AI v AI battles and leave out humans altogether? Ah, I guess that would cut into the sales base somewhat?
Seriously though, there is one financial part of the equation you neglected to look at re multiplayer - you can not play someone else (ie friends) who do not also have a copy of the game - caching! (Surely you must wonder at night why all these devs go tot he trouble to make their games such TW so multiplayer friendly when, as you insist, multiplayer is sniffed at by the war gaming community?)

Why do people play coop mode on multiplayer against AI rather than on their own? Because they are playing with another human which makes it more fun.
Yes Andrey, "fun", it is not a dirty word and games, for this is a game, are supposed to be fun. (sure, the realism and the simulation elements add to the immersion and the fun but if they detracted from it nobody would buy your game)
We like that our human opponents surprise us, are not flawless, that they panic, get angry, make mistakes or even when they make us do all those things because of their superior strategy/tactics/gameplay we still enjoy it more because we have revenge to look forward to (a rematch in a fun competitive way).
Besting AI is still an empty experience and it is the suspension of disbelief that one is playing a computer that makes it any fun at all - not the other way around!
Now it may be that financially or as far as resources go MP is not considered a priority, okay I get it, but dismissing multiplayer on a whim would surely be a mistake as well?
Certainly it is your game and I am just another opinion but I can imagine so many ways this game would be amazing in MP.

PS
One way to allow for any necessary micromanagement would be to give the option of a limited number of timeouts to each player/team of say 30/60 seconds. Of course the other side would have the same pause to assess battle conditions and reassess tactics/strategy. Naturally, as with all these things, the more flexibility you can build in the better as players can customise games to suit but I understand you do not want to make several games instead of just one and resources are limited.

Oh, Hi all!

PPS

Andrey all your pro AI list was perfectly valid but nobody is suggesting there should not be the option to have human V AI battles as well.

Hi and welcome to the game and the forum.

IMHO you make several good points, it is a "GAME" (a very good one at that) and it has to be "FUN" if it wasn't then it would be a masochistic pastime wouldn't it :). Also I agree when you mention that nobody here is proposing that AI vs Human should be scrapped in favour of Human vs Human but rather why is it not possible to have BOTH styles of gameplay?!.

Have FUN,

Kind regards

Aces

Again! Oh no :)


Exactly, when AI is smart enough, you just can not distinguish it from a human (in the game through game interface of course). Yes, it will not be soon.


You look on the wrong side completely. No need to compare a hypothetical AI and some abstract human themselves. Be compared through the game interface. But all through the game interface is what you wrote and then allegedly do not the AI,​can be implemented for AI.

Thus we have all the advantages of game with AI (which will never be in the game with a human), I already listed them many times, and added advantages of the gameplay with a human. In any case, future prospects for AI only. MP mode is a temporary. Sorry its real state of things.

If one of these AI will fund the development we'll make this mode too :)


All this theoretically can do AI too.


I have already cited statistics about MPs. Opinions of individuals (It does not matter who it is andrey12345 or Mucka) in this matter is uninteresting.

MP in best case feature for 10-15% players. In real world the best cases are rarely so 3-5%
Averaged DLC is feature for 15-30% players thus implemented with much greater and predictable result rather than MP.
As I mentioned, most of our team plays mostly in MP games and want terrible to do MP in our game  :D. But thoughtless approach is not based on common sense is not our way. Therefore, the MP will do only after features that are made for 10%+ of the players. Not before.

LOL  :D ;D

One month and one day later, I should answer, isn't it ? All I can say is that, I don't play online so much...except Red Orchestra 2, Total War series, and cRPG Mod for Mount & Blade BUT, I had so much fun to play human vs human with the SSI license, Close Combat ! IF Graviteam Tactics become ONLINE, you'll make my DAY. So, direct online is a good choice. More virtual quidam I kill, more happy I will !  :D


May the force be with you ! ;)

Although I like the idea of playing multiplayer, with a good lobby system etc, I wouldn't want OP to lose its main appeal for me - the AI.  The AI in Combat Mission is poor by comparison, and OP is offering the best WW2 tactical single player experience.  It would be a shame if OP became another game where the single player is experience is not the core part of the game.

Of course.  I think it is simply people want their cake and to eat it too.  If simple sticking in a IP address could be done with minimal effort and work I would be ok with that.  I know few would use such, but those on this board would use it I am sure.  Going with lobby's and all that is not a small matter.  PIggy backing on an already used peer to peer lobby system might work ok.  Like steams.  But that is a lot of cash and time.  Baby just baby steps? 

First pretender
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnUH6f_Mv8o

I'd love to play this game with or against other humans in various ways.

Versus - 1 v 1 or maybe multiple users on each side 2 v 2, 4 v 4 etc

Coop - 2 v AI

Maybe have drop in battles like the TW series did with Shogun, so if you are playing a solo campaign other random or invited players can take control of AI armies for battles.

Full Campaign also in coop and Vs modes.

Maybe one day.

So far though, Andrey isn't convinced that enough people would be interested that would make the initial financial commitment profitable enough to pay for itself.

that is sad to hear, this is the most enjoyable RTS game I have ever played, i only found out about this game a couple of days ago and it surprises me that i hadn't heard about it sooner.

there must be thousands of people out there that would love this game as much as we do if only they knew about it, why is there no money? the gaming world is full of crappy games and sequels with ridiculous budgets and this gem, this wonderfully realised work of genius has no cash? It makes me so sad.

There is no doubt for me that buried inside this beautiful little game an absolute cracker of a franchise just waiting to break out, i hope the publishers or developers don't give up on this because it is the kind of game that could become a genre defining classic, it is unique.

Steam is a step in the right direction, and hopefully it will generate more interest in this game.
 
Another thing is Graviteam self publishes this series and has a small budget that mainly goes into development with little or no money left over for marketing.

I think self publishing is a good idea at least from a creative control standpoint, otherwise we would probably be looking at another one of those simple arcade like childrens version of war that most publishers demand before investing the big development bucks that always seems to fall short of delivering a professional quality adult gaming experience.

I do not think this sort of game ever has a shot at selling 2 million copy's.  On the flip side I do think it can sell well enough.  As Andrey loves to say, only 10 percent of gamers will ever play online.  Which is true.  Only a small percentage of player of this would ever actually play online.  BUT!  The word of mouth buzz of people on forums talking about playing on line is just another way to spread word of mouth.  I hope some day we do get some sort of MP.  But unless a way is found to do it on the cheap or some money falls from the sky, what can you do?

I like thoughts of Andrey.

I don't like social games. I turned off the chat in WOT since years... The MP or MMOs are full of stupid guys, bots, cheaters, insults... I don't think a human can discover a lot of good friends through WOT... Transform a simulator into a MP game is impossible, because of reasons given by Andrey.

Maybe I can find it unfortunate the lack of 1 vs 1 or 2 vs AI in SABOW for the minority of time I would play to the game without AI or in coop. I played a lot time to SABOW vs AI. If MP was implemented, I know that I didn't like the majority of these games because of the opponent (stupid/bot/cheater...) IF I found a human to play with...

Conversely, I would like to play WOT without human. Ultimately, by playing it without chat, I play WOT like human vs AI. I think the qualities of WOT are the graphics and the number of maps. I would prefer to play SABOW a ten of hours per week if a lot of maps were created. NOT if MP is implemented to SABOW.

I would like replays to make video from different point of view (of the player side), create a nice movies and send them to Youtube (maybe the way to socialize SABOW?). I would like to run AI vs AI game instead of playing or watching a bad Hollywood movie.

This personal view isn't important, I think Andrey is right.