wildman Apr 13 @ 11:49am
realism
i bought the game and as i'm waiting for download i browsed a few videos and noticed that it's possible to whizz around in the sky and observe the battlefield also you can click on units and order them to attack enemy units instantly.

#1 - what happened to chain of command?

#2 - what dark magic is this levitation trick?

can i turn these features off? is there a realistic game mode that forces players into the postion of a commander who hands orders out to his direct subordinates who in turn pass them down the chain of command?

Although with modern technology it is possible to view the battlefield from direct comm feeds like cameras mounted on aircraft and soldiers helmets and sattelite images etc this is not the same as darting around and zooming in and out and 'telepathically' issuing orders to a particular infantry squad.
Showing 1-15 of 22 comments
< >
ACJCLIGHTNING Apr 13 @ 2:05pm 
this has got to be trolling right?
wildman Apr 13 @ 2:18pm 
Originally posted by ACJCLIGHTNING:
this has got to be trolling right?

what on Earth do you mean by that?

I thought i was buying a wargame simulator, i used to conduct wargames at school and there were some very simple principles involved.

The commander views a representation of the battlefield, either a table with unit counters that can be moved around or a computer screen, he has officers around him who advise him about the situation on the ground, he discusses possible strategies with them then makes his decisions and issues his orders, these officers relay those orders to other officers in the field via THE CHAIN OF COMMAND and the commander awaits further updates.

In this game however as Commander I am able to 'float' above the actual battlefield in a kind of 'out of body' mode and i am also able to telepathically and instantaneously 'order' units that I might happen to see from this unholy vantage point to move and attack at will.

This is not how any 'WARGAME' has ever been conducted in the history of human kind.
Last edited by wildman; Apr 13 @ 2:37pm
Pisolo Apr 13 @ 3:58pm 

Originally posted by wildman:
Originally posted by ACJCLIGHTNING:
this has got to be trolling right?

what on Earth do you mean by that?

I thought i was buying a wargame simulator, i used to conduct wargames at school and there were some very simple principles involved.

The commander views a representation of the battlefield, either a table with unit counters that can be moved around or a computer screen, he has officers around him who advise him about the situation on the ground, he discusses possible strategies with them then makes his decisions and issues his orders, these officers relay those orders to other officers in the field via THE CHAIN OF COMMAND and the commander awaits further updates.

In this game however as Commander I am able to 'float' above the actual battlefield in a kind of 'out of body' mode and i am also able to telepathically and instantaneously 'order' units that I might happen to see from this unholy vantage point to move and attack at will.

This is not how any 'WARGAME' has ever been conducted in the history of human kind.


Ok, you are very smart and everything. This game is not for you. This is not a "wargame simulator" (whatever such a statement could mean). This is an RTS videogame, just some more realistic than, say, World in Conflict and Company of Heroes. In other word this is a game that's meant to PLAYED by people that just want to have FUN. That's it: nothing you can conduct your "advanced warfare chain of command studies" on. Better luck next time.

By the way there are zilions of "games" of the kind you're looking for out there, but not on Steam. Check MatrixGames and suit yourself.
Last edited by Pisolo; Apr 13 @ 4:04pm
Pest Apr 15 @ 4:50am 
Originally posted by wildman:
i bought the game and as i'm waiting for download i browsed a few videos and noticed that it's possible to whizz around in the sky and observe the battlefield also you can click on units and order them to attack enemy units instantly.

#1 - what happened to chain of command?

#2 - what dark magic is this levitation trick?

can i turn these features off? is there a realistic game mode that forces players into the postion of a commander who hands orders out to his direct subordinates who in turn pass them down the chain of command?

Although with modern technology it is possible to view the battlefield from direct comm feeds like cameras mounted on aircraft and soldiers helmets and sattelite images etc this is not the same as darting around and zooming in and out and 'telepathically' issuing orders to a particular infantry squad.
i like you, having such strategy game would make me happy :)
magrathea3 Apr 17 @ 11:04pm 
Originally posted by wildman:
can i turn these features off? is there a realistic game mode that forces players into the postion of a commander who hands orders out to his direct subordinates who in turn pass them down the chain of command?


I'm intrigued. Computers infamously can't speak or read complex English, so what form do you imagine these orders would take?

Say, if you wanted to order a column of tanks to take cover behind a certain tree line on the map, what kind of interface would allow the computer to receive all that information and return all neccessary information to you?


wildman Apr 18 @ 3:57am 
Originally posted by magrathea3:
Originally posted by wildman:
can i turn these features off? is there a realistic game mode that forces players into the postion of a commander who hands orders out to his direct subordinates who in turn pass them down the chain of command?


I'm intrigued. Computers infamously can't speak or read complex English, so what form do you imagine these orders would take?

Say, if you wanted to order a column of tanks to take cover behind a certain tree line on the map, what kind of interface would allow the computer to receive all that information and return all neccessary information to you?

in a wargame like those conducted in military academies or indeed by the actual military on a regular basis, the commander would never instruct anyone to take cover behind a treeline, the commander wouldn't even know there was a treeline there to take cover behind and commanders are not there to guide each unit step by step through a battle, that is a job for captains, liuetenants and NCO's

The commander would outline an over arching strategy, his captains would then formulate their tactics according to their own objectives.

This could be handled in many ways.

#1 AI controlled Officers and NCO's - it would need to be very good AI something which many games struggle with. Orders could be very simple 'Take postion A' 'Hold postion A' 'Wait for resupply' 'Recon area C' etc etc etc

#2 Human players take up the roles, This would be great and would be a far more immersive and realistic experience.

The battlefeild should be rendered in 3D but the commander should only be able to view as much as a commander could in real life. This would depend on the period the game happens to be set in. If we were making a WW2 wargame then no live feeds at all, only verbal reports and first hand visuals.

If, as in wargame now we are talking modern warfare then there are a few more options.

Generals first person view depending on the location of his mobile HQ of course, he should be free to roam the battlefield but should he die or be captured the game is lost.

Satelite images.

live feeds from vehicle mounted cameras including aircraft and drones.

Infantryman helmet mounted cameras.

He should have a bank of monitors and be able to switch between views.

A representation of the whole battlefield also, a tabletop map with counters or a computer screen, this will give him an accurate overview on the state of play.

Lets say the mission is take an enemy stronghold.

the commander would initially organise the deck and issue each platoon leader with a set of instructions. The battle would begin and as it unfolds and situations occur then the commander would adapt his strategy and try to out think and out manouevre the enemy in order to successfully achieve his objectives.
Last edited by wildman; Apr 18 @ 4:04am
magrathea3 Apr 18 @ 8:23am 
Originally posted by wildman:
#1 AI controlled Officers and NCO's - it would need to be very good AI something which many games struggle with. Orders could be very simple 'Take postion A' 'Hold postion A' 'Wait for resupply' 'Recon area C' etc etc etc

#2 Human players take up the roles, This would be great and would be a far more immersive and realistic experience.

#1 Just to poke a possible hole in your concept - can I, as commander, ask my captain AI any question I want about his situation or am I limited to a list? Would the AI tell me things that were unexpected but important just like a human player would? I don't think this is possible.

To say many games struggle with good ai is an understatement. An ai that would be any kind of replacement for another player's judgment (ie. the ai had information you didn't and would select correctly what to tell you even if it was unexpected) would be way, way beyond what we have in games presently.

#2 sounds like fun - but at that lower level, the captain would be ordering units across an actual real time map.ie he would be playing something quite similar to a wargame match?


Originally posted by wildman:
The battlefeild should be rendered in 3D but the commander should only be able to view as much as a commander could in real life. This would depend on the period the game happens to be set in. If we were making a WW2 wargame then no live feeds at all, only verbal reports and first hand visuals.

But then how do we simulate the possibility to interogate the captain regarding arbitrary detail about his precise situation or observations? This task couldn't be done by an AI, but without this ability, it leaves so little role or information for the commander it would make the gameplay trivial.

The answer games like wargame give to this question is: we give the commander the same info as the captain and fire the captain; hence an updated map with all the information available to your imaginary AI men, available to you. The player, being the only one capable of making any actual decision based on info, gets to make all the decisions.

One day maybe many decades from now what you describe in terms of a selective communication chain between ai and a human player would make sense; at present I don't think it does.


Originally posted by wildman:
Generals first person view depending on the location of his mobile HQ of course, he should be free to roam the battlefield but should he die or be captured the game is lost.

I don't think that's a bad idea at all.

One scale related limit I do regret in wargame is that because of the battlefield's small size, there is little opportunity to say, fall back and regroup. Once one side's defences start falling apart somewhere, that tends to signal the end of the game - not much (enough) strategic depth. This is unfortunate, but it's just that the limit of computing tech and the limit of human attention sets the scale and nature of the game.


Originally posted by wildman:
the commander would initially organise the deck and issue each platoon leader with a set of instructions. The battle would begin and as it unfolds and situations occur then the commander would adapt his strategy and try to out think and out manouevre the enemy in order to successfully achieve his objectives.

Yes - I see what you are suggesting now. It's an attractive concept that IMO would be impossible to do with present tech in a way that made it interesting (assuming ai players). A commander relies on the judgment of his subordinates to bring him pertinent information, this information passes upwards through a chain of command, with each layer only informing the layer above of the information that may change the decision making above them. AI can't do this at all or anything even close. Presently, the game concept would work only for set, scripted scenarios, or as multiplayer humans doing all the roles. I'm not saying this would be crap at all - the idea sounds fun, but unless you can get pretty dedicated players who wont just abandon the game if they get bored following orders, it isn't going to be feasible

I think some highly organised and dedicated areas of The Arma (Arma2 & Arma3) community try to achieve this. Arma is a first person simulation, so each player can only see what they would be able to see in reality. information between players is echanged verbally through a simulated radio system. The level of participation and co-operation needed between players is very large



crackz12 Apr 19 @ 7:35am 
id take a look at achtung panzer for gritty realism historical and best AI available..thats probably more what you are looking for.this game is a decent rts mainly aimed at MP..but one of the first posts got it wrong by saying its just a game like world in conflict or CoH. a lot of research has gone into the units involved in this game.
Chief Squanto Apr 19 @ 9:29am 
I've got a friend that plays this game (I think he still does). Is it better or worse that a game like Company of Heroes of American Conquest?
wildman Apr 20 @ 5:16pm 
Originally posted by crackz12:
id take a look at achtung panzer for gritty realism historical and best AI available..thats probably more what you are looking for.this game is a decent rts mainly aimed at MP..but one of the first posts got it wrong by saying its just a game like world in conflict or CoH. a lot of research has gone into the units involved in this game.

On your recommendation I bought Achtung Panzer and it is indeed far more realistic and immersive and much closer to what i would consider a serious and in depth war game.

It's my new favourite game, i played it for 7 hour straight today and could play another 7 if i didn't need sleep.

My only regret is i didn't discover it sooner, but at least i have it now, thanks to you.


Originally posted by Chief Squanto:
I've got a friend that plays this game (I think he still does). Is it better or worse that a game like Company of Heroes of American Conquest?

it's better than CoH by a long way but if you were my real life friend i wouldn't recommend you buy it, buy Achtung panzer instead, if you are looking for realism there is no better game I know of.
crackz12 Apr 21 @ 12:01am 
Yes Achtung Panzer:operation star is a brilliant game.if your looking for a historically true and realistic ww2 eastern front experience.no building bases or rushing to take over other points..this is the real deal !!.the maps are huge and taken from actual maps of the time.all units and armour are from that time too.no units there that came later etc. the guys who make it are a small polish or russian company.and they did release achtung:panzer kharkow 1943 through deep silver i think it was.but had a lot of problems.so,decided to go it alone.with operation star.so,thats why it hasnt had the advertising the other games get...but its amazing how many people try it and love the game!!. and because the maps are huge.and the AI is adaptive.you always get a challenge.and no 2 games ever play the same.there are dlc.that cover other areas and conflicts in the area...as i said in a earlier post. this is the best ww2 game out there.

there is a demo out.. and the company is called Graviteam check there site out.
magrathea3 Apr 23 @ 11:37am 
Originally posted by crackz12:
id take a look at achtung panzer for gritty realism historical and best AI available..thats probably more what you are looking for.this game is a decent rts mainly aimed at MP..but one of the first posts got it wrong by saying its just a game like world in conflict or CoH. a lot of research has gone into the units involved in this game.

Thanks. well recommended. I took a look at AP and got lost on the eastern front for ten hours before a realised was geting totally sucked into the game. This is really, really good, real, gritty game - only downside is it takes effort to get into
][G][ The Cure Apr 23 @ 8:32pm 
Originally posted by ACJCLIGHTNING:
this has got to be trolling right?
It is, you should see him in the Rome II forums.
aeroson Apr 24 @ 3:57am 
@wildman: What you want sounds exactly like BF2:PR or ShackTac ARMA 2 community
wildman Apr 24 @ 4:49am 
Originally posted by aeroson:
@wildman: What you want sounds exactly like BF2:PR or ShackTac ARMA 2 community
i play with shacktac, and yes that is the way i like to play, obviously that is more FPS than RTS though.
Showing 1-15 of 22 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50