Which way do you prefer to play multiplayer games?

[andrey12345]

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

[Dane49]

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.

[Missouri_Rebel]

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.

If replays I am agreed (this feature is nearly complete),

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

[Tanker]

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'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.

[Tanker]

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.

[andrey12345]

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.

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.

[andrey12345]

If replays I am agreed (this feature is nearly complete),

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

In far far plans 

[StkNRdr]

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.

[andrey12345]

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.  

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

Believe me, there is no danger of that.

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

My question is, since this is an SP only game why does anyone care how another player actually plays their game?

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.

 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?  

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.

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?  

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.

[Dane49]

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.

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.

[StkNRdr]

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!

[Schuck]

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 

[Tanker]

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.

[Schuck]

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!!

[Dane49]

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.

[StkNRdr]

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.

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.

[andrey12345]

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

No WEGO no more turn-based

[StkNRdr]

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.   

S!

[andrey12345]

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

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  .

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 

[Tanker]

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.