View Full Version : Next-Gen CTI
CTI has been around for some time now, and has done wonders with the original OFP game engine. With the updated engine, and the new capabilities (command interface, VD, high amount of players & AI), and the fact that the 'gamey' style of CTI has turned many off it's large appeal - I propose a discussion of what would take the best aspects of CTI's gameplay, and shift it into a more realistic method, ingame.
We (at least) need to reasonably define:
1. The best parts of CTI we wish to keep.
2. The 'game' elements that are not realistic and want to get rid of.
3. Methods of employing the 'game' elements in a more realistic way.
4. Everything else I missed http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
*kickoff*
1. IMHO, I like the ordering of battle, the leading my squad into the important attacks. And working with other players to coordinate efforts.
2. I don't like the buying of troops, and the scattered way territories are captured. (kinda like AI driven Capture the Flag)
3. Correcting the buying of troops... not sure.
Holding captured territories: Have a neutral group present in territory to work with or defeat (roleplay?) and have a minimum of troops to hold (like maybe 6 as a number to thow out?), or it goes back to neutral and neutral troops start building up their numbers and fighting with the players units. something like that, anyway..
Next please http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
(p.s. thanks heatseeker for the inspiration)
gandalf the white
Dec 3 2005, 21:20
Playing CTI over an area "the size of all OFP:r islands combined" sounds pretty interesting to me...
1. The best parts of CTI we wish to keep.
1. Mass warfare, thought about infrastruture,
2. The 'game' elements that are not realistic and want to get rid of.
none, really.
3. Methods of employing the 'game' elements in a more realistic way.
see below.
4. Everything else I missed http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
I'd like to be able to "steal" enemy technology.
---------
+ You can buy "propaganda vehicles" , that clear towns of resistance (or prevents them from spawning)
+A new (changed?) way to get supplies is per boat or plane! The routes could be mapped out by the commander.
Via a GUI you could load up choppers, planes and LCAC's in thesame way you load up a soldier: X soldiers? well that leaves X ammount of space free, more soldiers? or put in a vehicle? The type of transport determines the price, depending on capacity and "peed of delivery". If you have purchased blackhawks/chinooks you can also order them to be available for "ferry service", releaving the economic stress of your side.
Air Delivery could be made with stuff varying from a blackhawk, Chinook, C130. For the east this could be a MI8 , MI26 , or Antonov 124 (hey! russians have more experience with air cargo!http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Infantry could be dropped via plane (fast)
small vehicles could be paradropped or plane lands and unloads (still fast)
tanks would have to be delivered by (for instance) a LCAC. (slow and vonurable)
When infantry has landed,or the armour has arrived (both have to be delivered within 500M of the base) they get switched to your command.
Canukausiuka
Dec 3 2005, 21:42
1. The best parts of CTI we wish to keep.
- Large scale unscripted warfare
- Combined operations
2. The 'game' elements that are not realistic and want to get rid of.
- (This is my personal opinion on the type of CTI I'd like)
- "Buying" and "Upgrading" units
- Resistance in towns
- Money
3. Methods of employing the 'game' elements in a more realistic way.
- Limited force pool for both sides.
- Limited weapon pool for both sides.
- Limited "requisition points" - if you've played CC2, you know what I mean
- "requesition points" replenish slowly over time
4. Everything else I missed http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
- Better movement control system (look at CE2)
- Artillery and Indirect Fires
- Improved AI Cooperation
One of the main new things that might be possible with the new JIP stuff is the ability to keep a battle going longer.
This could lead to a 30 vs 30 player battle being possible. With 12 AI in each group that'd be 720 units.
That should give lots of action even over a larger area. That might make it possible to decrease some of the importance of holding towns.
Without the towns and income currently it's just a matter of being able to move the front forward. Which in real war is suicide unless you are able to secure the land behind you also.
Perhaps the towns should be replaced with some sort of area of influence instead.
One thing to remember is that money is not a major part of the CTI game itself. It's just a way to punish a defensive enemy and reward an agressive one, one who tries to win.
Spending an entire game on defence and then making one lucky/rambo attack against the enemy base should not lead to a victory. If you don't have any way to secure the land you are fighting in victory is impossible.
VerySolidSnake
Dec 3 2005, 23:11
I think when towns are captured you should have the option of "Buying a Stronghold" for it, which once purchased, will place walls around the town, machinegun nests, mortars, the works. The defense will be ran by an AI team , making towns MUCH harder to take, and MUCH harder to lose.
Antichrist
Dec 4 2005, 01:26
I definitely want to see artillery support. Before you can use artillery you need to spend requisition points on it and after it is delivered place it on the map. Enemy can raid your artillery and destroy it. You can do the same with their artillery. Improved accuracy with LD etc. Limited ammo that you have to get with requistion points.
No more buying of vehicles and them randomly spawning on your base. Make transport planes for both sides, and make them either paradrop cargo at a specific location or land and unload it at the airport. Air units can fly in from outside the map.
Strategic interface for the commander (I am not sure if there is one yet, since I haven't played CTI for ages).
I might add several more things later.
Now keep in mind some of you, the point is to move this to a more realistic type of game. You want to dig in and make sandbag bunkers? You would probably have to get your AI on it (maybe use 'work' type animations and spawn an appropriate sandbag structure after a time limit or enough AI put 'Work Points' into it).
You want reinforcements? Maybe secure a harbor, or clear an LZ and get your convoys established. Not sure how many units can be in-game at once, but if it's even 100 MP+AI and there is an escort command for a unit to guard a vehicle, it could get pretty interesting. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
The point (I believe) most of the realism crowd wants to make, correct me if I'm wrong here, is that if you want something, you have to work for it, no tanks magically rolling off the assembly line after slotting your credit card - it may take some time. If transports are used, then a built in realism factor would be that they can come under attack by the enemy. Maybe if you get your c-130's shot down you don't get reinforcements that way. (transportation points?)
keep 'em coming. I hope to make a list in a week or so and update the first post. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Edit: Sorry to repeat what's been posted. it's late and the mind is fuzzy.. good ideas all
Ex-RoNiN
Dec 4 2005, 09:01
Securing the captured land sounds like a very good idea. Maybe the Resistance Army that has been driven out of a city would set up camp near that lost city and keep attacking it until their new base has been destroyed as well.
Infantry reinforcements should be delivered to the main base only - they then need to be transported to the front line, being vulnerable to attacks in transit. There should be an "emergency backup" option that paradrops units into a hot LZ, but depending on scripting commands possible, this option should only be available to units currently under fire. It should also be very limited.
Reinforcements in general should be sent to purpose-built areas - I can live with paradrops of infantry (bigger reinforcements at airports?) but for vehicle supplies, they should come to airports (APCs, transport vehicles) and ports (tanks).
I like the idea of propaganda vehicles, they could turn the population against the holding resistance - if you help them, they join your army, if you don't help them, they will attack you once you got rid of the Resistance.
Another thing we should consider introducing - the need for ammo and food. Food will most likely have to be scripted, but ammo is definitely doable. I know you can just pick up weapons from the dead enemy, but I am not talking about small arms only, I also mean mines, RPG/LAWs, laser dets etc. Maybe the commander gets to hear what each unit wants, then the requested material is sent to the front.
Hardcode JIP for commanders.
I think that CTI might already be implemented into Armed Assult becuase in the press release it says "Game modes which havent been found in any other game before" it could mean CTI? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Espectro
Dec 4 2005, 10:10
More intelligent AI and combat theory:
I think that as soon as you capture a city, frendly AI should spawn in it, to defend the city. Its too easy to steal cities as it is now especially late game.
This will also help when building a persistant battle, because games will be longer.
Also, there should be more zones instead of just towns. You should be able to conquer territory as well.. But that shall work as defence instead of income. So when you have captured an area, AIs will spawn witch will stay and defend in that are. It will move like a front, so that the defence is concentrated in the areas which is longest away from homebase.
This means that you will have front lines, which is hard to pass through, but with stealth etc. You should be able to move small forces through the front line without being noticed. When capturing an enemy frontline, AIs will spawn near the borders to the new frontline. So you are actually pushing the frontline towards the enemy.
The commander shouldnt be able to controll the AI defences directly, but can assign points to the different zones. So if the commander think that an ongoing attack will take place in zone D5 for example, he will assign double points to it. The AIs will now automatically in realtime send reinforcements to the area. The AIs are vulnerable under transport, so be careful not to move around with the points too often.
Base building:
As other people have allready said - we need more logistics in the game and make it more dynamic. That will work great with persistant world by JIP.
First of all, I think infantry building and light vehicle buildings works great as it is. But i do think that you should be able to buy a barracks in major cities, so you can train infantry in them.
Heavier vehicles like the big tanks should be send in via helicoper or transport plane and then paradropped. Maybe you can make some bonus areas on the map, for example if you own the Air strip, you automatically get the large air technology.
Alot of good ideas i've read in here ! But i'll add something.... How about second Commander slot ( Executive Officer ) , because 200 sq. killometers can burn out one of them, and theres always the second to help out and make the life easier for the first.
I think it would be a nice idea to hire a few civilians in towns to join the army for a while and work for your team. Their skill level would be lower, but also would be cheaper than requesting soldiers in form of paradrop or something.
And instead of resistance, different towns would be hold by police or terrorist groups. And police would cooperate with US, terrorists would cooperate with Russians, making town conquering easier in a way, but terrorists'd shoot US soldiers, and cops'd shoot Russians.
60+ players and 200km2 island is very impresive and I would like ArmA in February 2006 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif
Metal Heart
Dec 4 2005, 12:27
Where'd this 200km^2 bs come from? That'd be "only" 14.1km x 14.1 km.
Quote[/b] ]New huge sized battlefield (landmass exceeds that of all islands from Flashpoint & Resistance combined)
Quote[/b] ]Ex-RoNiN Posted on Dec. 04 2005,05:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infantry reinforcements should be delivered to the main base only - they then need to be transported to the front line, being vulnerable to attacks in transit.
Reinforcements in general should be sent to purpose-built areas - I can live with paradrops of infantry (bigger reinforcements at airports?) but for vehicle supplies, they should come to airports (APCs, transport vehicles) and ports (tanks).
Wow, good point. Not having an actual facility for reinforcements means you still are in a beach-head situation and can only get troops and material in a hap-hazard way. Meaning you can't necessarily commit massive amounts of troops, and need to change your fighting style to suit.
Nice.... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Guerilla resupply anyone?
Quote[/b] ]More intelligent AI and combat theory:
I think that as soon as you capture a city, frendly AI should spawn in it, to defend the city. Its too easy to steal cities as it is now especially late game.
This will also help when building a persistant battle, because games will be longer.
Would better intelligence help with this? Maybe have better troop descriptions or reporting from your scouts?
Me, I think the realism crowd should be mostly ignored in this.
They're after something they never can have. They won't like playing 'logistics guy' all day.
It's game, it has to be fun. COOPs are better for them.
Espectro
Dec 4 2005, 19:37
thats why i write that the AI will handle this.
LtUlrich
Dec 4 2005, 19:59
I wouldn't mind playing 'logistics guy' all day.
Or 'medical support guy' all day... Perhaps medics should be restricted to players only. They would have a seperate base and their capabilities could be increased from a field hospital with a jeep to an m113 ambulance to a blackhawk. If nobody wants to head up the medical support team, then there will be no medical support in that game.
I would play 'repair guy' all day, too.
EDIT: Or I guess 'repair and salvage' guy would fit best.
Or 'recon guy', flying the A10 on limited-fuel unarmed sorties to try to locate enemy positions. Any positions located aren't reported until a successful landing is accomplished.
And yes I would play 'mess guy' all day too; delivering MREs to various posts, depending on the soldiers who occupy those posts to get me in and out safely.
Maybe 'mail guy' - for extended deployments... If a mail call gets to your post you and your men recieve a morale boost.
Just some thoughts. I really like the logistics stuff. CTI always bothered me (Where the hell did this soldier come from? Where was he fifteen minutes ago? In the womb? The ground?) with the command-and-conquer style instant generation of forces in the middle of Everon. I would say that this is an excellent opportunity to use something that was thoughtfully included in OFP but shamefully ignored: Logistics support.
Commando84
Dec 4 2005, 20:25
i think cti is decent as it is, if there would be logistic support then it should be able to be votable before or ingame wich kind of cti rules should apply. I remember cti's where you had to buy 'em support vehicles to build say defensive structures like stationary guns , AA launchers. sandbags and stuff.
the Support vehicles could also be driven away and combined with a few tanks you got a battle group that can repair , refuel, rearm , heal whatever trucks you brought with you. And handled by skilled personnel and people that communicate maybe you can work your way through the lands http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif I really would like to transport vehicles in transport ships and or C130's antonovs , mi26 or chinooks. I once played a cti where theere was capturable grounds on smal islands outside the main land and the enemies had moved there base to one such small island..
Oh if it was to be really Cnc like then when you have built the repair depot you could build , buy , order , ship another command vehicle http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif so if one gets destroyed you got a backup and it also makes building buildings go a few secs faster the more of the command vehicles you own.
as it is now in mfcti and i think also crcti there is only be able to have one command vehicle and when its destroyed you can pretty much be done for the day usually http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
But i still like the idea if a skilled member or team goes behind enemy lines and plant satchel charges or do some hit & run tactics on the enemy base and enemy troop movements they can stall a foe that has much more cities under control and more tanks, choppers moving around.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif
another thing that i also like is that from a soldiers perspective it can take time to find a enemy base but if travelling with chopper or tank you just backtrack the red dots on the radar and you got the base located. But that usually works best on enemies that have many vehicles moving around. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
One thing that's annoying me is the problem to remove "move" squares, Target diamonds and all these sorts of help options. Should be simple, but isn't.
One thing that's annoying me is the problem to remove "move" squares, Target diamonds and all these sorts of help options. Should be simple, but isn't.
What's not simple about it? You just change a 1 to a 0 in the server config and you get rid of them.
Metal Heart
Dec 5 2005, 08:58
I think in KICTI the reinforcements arrive by air transports, I tried to play it once but only got a bunch of noobs joining in, disconnecting 2 minutes from start. Also the armies are much bigger.
http://www.ofpec.com/yabbse....d=23097 (http://www.ofpec.com/yabbse/index.php?board=23;action=display;threadid=23097)
Espectro
Dec 5 2005, 09:42
Never tried that, but sounds interesting.
I still think that "front lines" will work great... it will be cool knowing that you are in "enemy territory" maybe with ai-patrolls etc.
Metal Heart, sounds like this LaKing guy has it down... I'm going to try and invite him to listen and maybe take some requests, if that's even necessary.. He seems quite on top of it. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Me and Karrillion have designed a larger scale CTI style mission called RWS (real war simulator). It currently uses the AEC island (all 3 stock islands in 1).
Towns must be taken in order, so to prevent the rambos from flying across the map and taking 3/4 of the island by themselves.
Resources are limited. Each side has a inventory list, when a column is empty, that unit is depleted.
Towns are taken by supply trucks, which must be escourted into the towns and protected while a fictional AI squad breeches and clears the towns HQ.
Capturing certain towns gives you access to certain units.
Units are not "BOUGHT" they are "DEPLOYED". No need in gathering money, b.c there is none.
Secondary objective are on each island (ie: Radio Tower, and Radar Station). Radio tower gives you the ability to scramble aircraft at the islands airfield, and enables the spy satalite. Radar lets you see all incoming aircraft surrounding your sides island.
Roles are assigned. Choose the role of infantry and gain access to all infantry soldiers and equipment. Choose Tanker and rule the land.
The Commander assigns each person a role, and gives them deployment power or not. (ie: Joe1212 keeps deploying tanks, but your inventory is running low. Just click, and now he cant deploy a thing unless you want him too).
Forced accelerated time.
A large list of ships to choose from, for kick ass navy battles.
It is 99% complete, I am just trying to see if we can drop the the number of addons down. Or create 1 .pbo with all addons in it and release it together.
cain2001
Dec 5 2005, 17:34
If we make CTI to uber realisitc everyone will get bored playing it, action is good in a way its controlled. Too much remakes of CTI with everyones own little opinion will only ruin the community.
The CTI today is good, alot of features made for it. Only way to make realisitc CTI is to remove the PvP and go Coop style on them. Any other way will
Quote[/b] ]only ruin the community.
I got many ideas for CTI but i guess its easier to just by Civ4 or AoE. Tetris is good too http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/nener.gif
KaRRiLLioN
Dec 5 2005, 23:14
Cam51, regarding RWS, the only addons in it are the naval vehicles from Korax and MrZig's CNC mod. ATM they're all combined into the CNC.pbo which is pretty large, but it probably wouldn't be too hard to extract them from it.
The cargo ship (used to transport up to 50 vehicles from one island to another), the battleship, AA ship, Assault ship and Fast Attack boat are the only ones, if I remember correctly.
All other vehicles are default versions.
The only problem with RWS is it takes so much teamwork that people don't like to play it as often, but I think it's fun when people actually act as a team.
Also, I wouldn't term this as a version if CTI, rather it's a much stricter version of RTS-3. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Espectro
Dec 6 2005, 06:11
Me and Karrillion have designed a larger scale CTI style mission called RWS (real war simulator). It currently uses the AEC island (all 3 stock islands in 1).
Towns must be taken in order, so to prevent the rambos from flying across the map and taking 3/4 of the island by themselves.
Resources are limited. Each side has a inventory list, when a column is empty, that unit is depleted.
Towns are taken by supply trucks, which must be escourted into the towns and protected while a fictional AI squad breeches and clears the towns HQ.
Capturing certain towns gives you access to certain units.
Units are not "BOUGHT" they are "DEPLOYED". No need in gathering money, b.c there is none.
Secondary objective are on each island (ie: Radio Tower, and Radar Station). Radio tower gives you the ability to scramble aircraft at the islands airfield, and enables the spy satalite. Radar lets you see all incoming aircraft surrounding your sides island.
Roles are assigned. Choose the role of infantry and gain access to all infantry soldiers and equipment. Choose Tanker and rule the land.
The Commander assigns each person a role, and gives them deployment power or not. (ie: Joe1212 keeps deploying tanks, but your inventory is running low. Just click, and now he cant deploy a thing unless you want him too).
Forced accelerated time.
A large list of ships to choose from, for kick ass navy battles.
It is 99% complete, I am just trying to see if we can drop the the number of addons down. Or create 1 .pbo with all addons in it and release it together.
I love it!
Hurry m8s!
KaRRiLLioN
Dec 6 2005, 15:15
Actually it's done and working and has been for a while. There are some other features that we were thinking of adding, but the core of the gameplay is all there and mostly bug free.
I guess the only thing would be to make it so someone wouldn't have to dload the entire CNC pack for the naval units.
Hey KaRRiLLioN! Good to hear from you, it's been a while since I played your RTS, this sounds alot like what all the hardcore simmers wanted. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif Thanks!
@<hidden> Cain: The reason why I started this thread was for the 'realism' portion of the community to express what they wanted for the new engine, define it so it may be made reasonable (trying to make one or two versions instead of many),and see if somebody with skills would take up the torch. If we define it *cough* RWS *cough* then people will know if they like it, and use it or not. Believe it or not, the community IS divided - at least into those who like the current type of RTS, and those who don't. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
In my personal opinion, while realism is obviously a big part of the game, it shouldn't hinder gameplay. Driving a fuel truck back and forth across an island isn't really what I'm looking for in the game, but I can understand that is what some want, and the beauty of OFP is that we aren't limited to 1 type of gameplay, and everyone can make their own missions.
I've been playing CTI for ages, pretty much since it first came out, and while it has changed, the basic foundation has been pretty much the same. I'm sure there will be new and different CTI's coming out, but you'll probably see me playing the "current style" CTI's, as I've gotten comfortable with the gameplay, and I love it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif .
But, with the ability to handle (we'll see) lots of players on a MP Server, I think it would be cool to add multiple commander rolls. Since the islands sound so big, it could be broken down into Theatre Command. With multiple bases in different sectors, you could choose which sector you want to fight in, and push forward to others. Multiple Commanders + Multiple Bases + Sector Warfare + 60 players = tons of action http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Batukhan
Dec 6 2005, 16:30
What does CTI stand for? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif
Capture The Island http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Some good some bad in it, imho. Money concept shouldn't be in a OFP mission, with current no-JiP and games lasting for hours, servers end up blocked by a few for too long, but they love it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Not sure I'd base a "persistant" type of mission on CTI gameplay, tbh
Actually, it's Conquer the Island http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Oooops!
* blushes *
My bad http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif
I think it would be nice if the AI actually did infrastructure and called if they see the enemy or finish. Convoys, resupply, setting up firebases, etc. Wouldn't it be nice to have a couple of engineering crews working for ya? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Edit: didn't quite say what I was thinking... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
V Yea, what Whisper says below... V
Exactly what I was thinking. 1 of the commander should also be in charge of supplies, but AI would handle the actual work, calling for help in case of problem (attacked, etc...) and 1 or more player could handle it if they want to be sure of convoy security
Cyberpunk
Dec 6 2005, 17:04
go to http://cr-ofp.dyndns.org/
Download movies and you will see how much enjoyable and fun you get with CTI style missions.
Batukhan
Dec 6 2005, 17:12
Do you have to have many human-players with the current CTI missions? Or could you do 1-on-1 and let the AI do the rest of the work(kinda like c&c only that you also run around...)?
imported_bör
Dec 6 2005, 17:21
How about using some convoy system inland? If you conquer a town, convoys regularly depart from your base to the town. If the convoys come through regularly, you can spawn in the towns. Or you and your squad could spawn into some convoy on the way to the town. Commanders could research "convoy guarding", so that your convoy-trucks are guarded by some BMPs and AI-Inf.
edit: You could also buy/detach AI-forces for guarding specific convoy routes.
Then we would be able to ambush some enemy convoy, while your team assaults an important enemy town or stronghold.
Comments?
rundll.exe
Dec 6 2005, 17:24
That is totally your own choice (in crCTI alteast)
You can have verry good games versus a total AI team. Wich I most times lose http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
You can even watch a AI vs AI game! (quite amusing when youre tired)
Also Commander vs Commander games are popular. YOu let the AI do the town taking, and go build a base yourself.
edit: typo
armandobronca
Dec 6 2005, 17:48
Problems with actual mfcti:
- 3 min long games because of mhq hunt.. (probably solved with the size of the islands in arma http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif ).
- Ammo bugs (this isn't a big problem since usually there is a player using ammo bug fix option).
- Mhq tk, with a good script this can be solved, sometimes a player tk the mhq and then disconnect, a script can delete the destroyed mhq and set up a new one (with a vote menu for the enemy team commander for example).
- Sometimes a player start building structures from a repair truck in the places for spawn the vehicles from the buildings, commander must be allowed to undo that...
Suggestions:
- What about a "barracks truck", so u can move the truck near a town and spawn infantry units near. With a limit, for example 20/30 units for each player. Or a option from the repair truck, to build a tent able to spawn infantry with a limit too..
A important thing:
Quote[/b] ]
Air Delivery could be made with stuff varying from a blackhawk, Chinook, C130. For the east this could be a MI8 , MI26 , or Antonov 124 (hey! russians have more experience with air cargo!http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
About this, since the collision system is fixed, do you think now we can have true transport vehicles?, i mean, load vehicles without using scripts...(open gate, load vehicle/s, close gate, fly/sail)
That would be awesome...
i will update with more ideas
jantenner
Dec 6 2005, 18:00
you should definately check out KICTI
it has many cool improvements to the whole cti style, but sadly there is no singleplayer coop
kicti has:
very cool looking base templates with regular incoming choppers that bring the resources (man) and (equipment)
base feels actually like a "living" military installment
insane amount of maximum troops available
one player doesnt control 12 single ai soldiers, instead he controls 12 ai squad commanders, which each can have a complete 12 man squad with them. the player can select the "meta" formation of the 12 squads, set their combat behaviour and send them as a whole or individually to different tasks, all with the klick of a single button.
so that kicti has many things improved that you should see before thinking about further improvement of this gametype.
link to kicti:
http://www.ofpec.com/yabbse....d=23097 (http://www.ofpec.com/yabbse/index.php?board=23;action=display;threadid=23097)
What I would like to see with CTI based games is more realism. I know myself and a few friends are going to make a CTI version that has these sort of options when ArmA comes out.
Simple Economy - based off of how many towns you have captured.
Chain of Command - Commander can build spawn points (for troops, armor, or vehicles) at any captured town for a cost. Squad leaders direct squad actions and can build base defenses.
Tactical Warfare - Each town may have different tactical advatages. One town may have a military base that already can spawn tanks, or a barricks that can spawn troops. If the town has a bus station it can be used to "warp" or transport players to another city that has a bus stop and is under your sides controll. Some towns have fuel stations and spawn fuel trucks. Some towns maybe worth more money then other towns, etc.
Armored units have accelerated fuel usage, a tank can only make it 1/4 the way accross the map before running out of fuel, making fuel trucks and fuel locatoins key.
Predefind roles - (limited number of each type so everyone cant be a sniper or air etc) When you join a game you select the type of role you want. Air, Armor, Assault, Spec ops, sniper, or support.
Air can buy aircraft, choppers, etc.
Armor can buy tanks
Infantry can buy jeeps, trucks or ACP's
Spec ops can buy jeeps or motorcycles
Sniper can buy jeeps
Teamwork - Medics can revive or heal teammates, can also build mobile spawn points that can be placed anywhere on the map, but can only have one active spawn location per medic. Support players can spawn fuel, ammo, repair trucks at any captured fuel station, can also repair buildings. Spec ops can destroy fuel stations, bus stops, etc.
I should also add that we are making more of a town by town capture instead of a free for all. That way there is a front line where all the fighting is.
Hence town A is captured now all town b's can be captured but town C cannot be captured. and so on.
Anyway, that is just some of the idea we have floating around right now, and if we actually do it is still up in the air depending on how much time we have to work on this. I see some people not wanting all the realism but I think if we make it where you select your role at the begining and depending on how JIP is going to work where you can select any role you want as long as there are slots left it should give everyone a chance to play the role that they want to play.
Feel free to use any of these ideas if you want or if you might like to help make this type of CTI let me know, we could always use the help.
Edited to add some other info.
Robert(UK)
Dec 6 2005, 18:18
What I would like to see with CTI based games is more realism. I know myself and a few friends are going to make a CTI version that has these sort of options when ArmA comes out.
Simple Economy - based off of how many towns you have captured.
Chain of Command - Commander can build spawn points (for troops, armor, or vehicles) at any captured town for a cost. Squad leaders direct squad actions and can build base defenses.
Tactical Warfare - Each town may have different tactical advatages. One town may have a military base that already can spawn tanks, or a barricks that can spawn troops. If the town has a bus station it can be used to "warp" or transport players to another city that has a bus stop and is under your sides controll. Some towns have fuel stations and spawn fuel trucks. Some towns maybe worth more money then other towns, etc.
Armored units have accelerated fuel usage, a tank can only make it 1/4 the way accross the map before running out of fuel, making fuel trucks and fuel locatoins key.
Predefind roles - (limited number of each type so everyone cant be a sniper or air etc) When you join a game you select the type of role you want. Air, Armor, Assault, Spec ops, sniper, or support.
Air can buy aircraft, choppers, etc.
Armor can buy tanks
Infantry can buy jeeps, trucks or ACP's
Spec ops can buy jeeps or motorcycles
Sniper can buy jeeps
Teamwork - Medics can revive or heal teammates, can also build mobile spawn points that can be placed anywhere on the map, but can only have one active spawn location per medic. Support players can spawn fuel, ammo, repair trucks at any captured fuel station, can also repair buildings. Spec ops can destroy fuel stations, bus stops, etc.
I should also add that we are making more of a town by town capture instead of a free for all. That way there is a front line where all the fighting is.
Hence town A is captured now all town b's can be captured but town C cannot be captured. and so on.
Anyway, that is just some of the idea we have floating around right now, and if we actually do it is still up in the air depending on how much time we have to work on this. I see some people not wanting all the realism but I think if we make it where you select your role at the begining and depending on how JIP is going to work where you can select any role you want as long as there are slots left it should give everyone a chance to play the role that they want to play.
Feel free to use any of these ideas if you want or if you might like to help make this type of CTI let me know, we could always use the help.
Edited to add some other info.
Nice, keep us informed about that one, as I'll certainly play if you make it!!! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
jantenner
Dec 6 2005, 18:20
your chain of command and tactical warfare sounds good
fuel usage is only good when the refueling is totally automated. nothing is as boring as to babysit run out of fuel tanks
the medic thing, moving spawn locations and reviving i would let out too. it would be too much of a battlefield copy, and doesnt fit the fragging ofp has.
/ **General disclaimer to keep thread focused** http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
This thread is not for OFP limitations, this is for ArmA and for a more realistic game. Trying to get likes and dislikes into an understandable format and balance it against the new capabilities in the ArmA engine as information comes out.
A compilation will be posted on the first page every (I hope http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif ) friday.
Edit: corrected some mis-understood items
your chain of command and tactical warfare sounds good
fuel usage is only good when the refueling is totally automated. nothing is as boring as to babysit run out of fuel tanks
the medic thing, moving spawn locations and reviving i would let out too. it would be too much of a battlefield copy, and doesnt fit the fragging ofp has.
Thanks for the comments, here is our thinking on your concerns.
Fuel usage, this just helps the commander decide what is the best town to take and adds to the tactical side of things, a good commander would keep an eye on how far his tanks are moving to attack and he may want to take a town closer to get the fuel station before taking an assult on a further away town. If a town has a fuel station a tank can just pull up and fuel up, no need for support to be there. But if a squad of tanks is out in a field and running low on fuel or ammo, the support guys can spawn the appropriate trucks and come to the rescue.
The medic thing is something we are still working on. We might have it so instead of a mobile spawn point, its more of a revive point. When a medic revives a fallen squad mate he is transported to the mobile Medic tent. And the tent can easily be destroyed by a few hand grenades, chopper what ever so by no means is it a replacement for the spawn point that the commanders can build.
BTW, scrub, hope you dont mind me adding this stuff to your thread.
Not at all, please do. I'd like to have enough good ideas here so somebody (you, Karrillion whomever? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif ) will think it's too good to leave out of the next version.
bit bout the units to use, idea sounds kinda odd for ALOT of people ( i am sure in that ) but maybe we should kind of forget about units balance ? in real war there is no such thing as balance ,like "Abrams kills T80 in 1 shot but it takes 2 shots to kill an abrams !!!" ( just an example P.S. statement not true )
Would get pretty realistic from my point of view.
We'll have to see about a new damage model in Arma, won't we? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
(read: don't know what will happen there)
rundll.exe
Dec 6 2005, 20:32
one small note to the fueling:
It gets boring pretty fast!!
In maxims Yugo crCTI, the fuel is accelerated too, but its anoying if you cant fly with your chopper around the isle http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif
Bit thats just my opinion.
Good Ideas all! Some are hard to put in current OFP, but I hope ArmA will be more flexible http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
This is just hillarious. (But what can you expect from a thread made for people that don`t like CTI to make suggestions on it?)
All that talk about making CTI more realistic and then you hear suggestion like making it impossible to take backlaying towns withouth taking the frontal towns first. LOL. Ye thats real realistim. And Market Garden never happened, right? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
And then another fresh one; adding fuel consumption. Because there is truly a huge possibility of a tank (which generaly have ranges of several hundred kilometres) running out of fuel on a 15 km long island? Haha! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
Not to mention the food suggestion. Really important, yes. Because soldiers are generaly mama`s boys and can`t function if they don`t get to eat something during a 3 hour(!! ) battle.
Just taking Suggestions.. Even yours....
It's called brainstorming. You don't stop someone's idea even if it won't work, you try to guide the idea into a frame that makes sense and DOES work (not all do). This thread is only for redefining CTI, not berating the ideas of others, please. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Using the AEC island for our RWS mission, I wanted to add a accerated fuel script for aircraft only. Test it yourself. Download AEC and get in a a10 and you can fly around ALLLL day long. Atleast have the aircraft land, speed = 0, then fuel and ammo automatically start pumping/loading. Then once its full take off and go back to work.
A few missions we've played people just hover over the enemy island, they see a red square on their radar, tab, fire, tab, fire, tab, fire.
No matter how realistic we try and make it, people always want to find a way around the rules.
I wanted to add a accerated fuel script for aircraft only.
No matter how realistic we try and make it, people always want to find a way around the rules.
Some logic. You want realism so you add accelarated fuel consumption!
It seems to me you are not after realism then, but after the appearance of realism.
Quote[/b] ]
Zerg Posted on Dec. 06 2005,17:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me you are not after realism then, but after the appearance of realism.
Close enough, I think you get it. It is a game. you can't 'get realistic'. It's not possible. We just want to have some of the challenges of RL, in addition to those things we CAN make to real standards (ballistics, speeds, armor/penetration values)
Now, if you have anything constructive to add, please do. If not, move along.
jantenner
Dec 6 2005, 21:44
Fuel usage, this just helps the commander decide what is the best town to take and adds to the tactical side of things, a good commander would keep an eye on how far his tanks are moving to attack and he may want to take a town closer to get the fuel station before taking an assult on a further away town. If a town has a fuel station a tank can just pull up and fuel up, no need for support to be there. But if a squad of tanks is out in a field and running low on fuel or ammo, the support guys can spawn the appropriate trucks and come to the rescue.
ok, but do you really need fuel to be taken into account when making strategical decisions? i just think that the fuel issue is for land vehicles not really worth the effort you have to put in to make it work without upcoming boringness.
and scrub why do you say no ofp talk? the thing is cti was invented on ofp, and all current forms of cti run on ofp, so if you look for ways to improve cti you have to look at ofp cti versions.
and btw cti was the thing that blowed me away again after the original ofp release 2001 by its possible gameplay potential. so yes this is certainly a gamemod with a big future.
Close enough, I think you get it. It is a game. you can't 'get realistic'. It's not possible. We just want to have some of the challenges of RL, in addition to those things we CAN make to real standards (ballistics, speeds, armor/penetration values)
Going about making a game look more realistic by acctually making it less realistic is a ridicilous contradiction (as all contradictions are). RL Helicopters have a combat range of over 400km. Live with it. Or don`t claim the mantle of realism for yourself and yourself only.
Now, if you have anything constructive to add, please do. If not, move along.
I suggest you adjust your tone. You are in no better position to decide on what is constructive and what is not than I am. Not to mention you have no authority to order me anything.
Quote[/b] ]jantenner Posted on Dec. 06 2005,17:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and scrub why do you say no ofp talkk? the thing is cti was invented on ofp, and all current forms of cti run on ofp, so if you look for ways to improve cti you have to look at ofp cti versions.
Sorry for the mis-communication, OFP is ok, but the focus will be on making it for ARMA.. Not a problem to talk about, just don't limit it by the limitations of OFP http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Go ahead, discuss, discuss! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
well, I guess when we came up with the ideas that we were planning on implementing they were designed around what type of game play we wanted to see. This was the original list of core ideas that we wanted to build off of.
Teamwork
- Organization
- specific roles for each player/squad
Strategy
- Mini battle strategy (squad leaders Focus)
- War Strategy (commanders Focus)
- strategic maps that can effect commanders decisions
So the ideas we have decided to implement into the game were based off our core game play type that we wanted to see. We wanted to get away from base building for the commander and concentrate on map conquest. Squad leaders we want to concentrate on tactical engagements and defensive positions, and move away from the "just attack here".
Have any Ideas on how we can achieve these core elements?
I think the other part with the fuel wont be as bad as people think it will. Remember we want to keep a front where lots of the battle is going to take place. A chopper might be able to make it accross the map to attack something but they are not going to have the fuel to just hover over an area for a long time.
Just for example maybe an assault chopper would have enough fuel to fly for 10 minutes before refueling, transport chopper has enough fuel for 20 minutes and a scout chopper might have enough for 30 minutes of flight. That way an assault chopper needs to know where the enemys general location is before he takes off, thats where the scout choppers come in, and the transport choppers have enough fuel to drop troops, anywhere on the map and not have to be precise with where they are going.
Maybe this is a bad idea to build off of, and maybe people wont like it, but its just one of the ways that we want to achieve our cole elements unless we can come up with other alternatives.
What are some of the communities core gameplay elements for multiplayer? Maybe the type of CTI we are trying to make is off base with the core elements others would like to see?
Close enough, I think you get it. It is a game. you can't 'get realistic'. It's not possible. We just want to have some of the challenges of RL, in addition to those things we CAN make to real standards (ballistics, speeds, armor/penetration values)
Going about making a game look more realistic by acctually making it less realistic is a ridicilous contradiction (as all contradictions are). RL Helicopters have a combat range of over 400km. Live with it. Or don`t claim the mantle of realism for yourself and yourself only.
Now, if you have anything constructive to add, please do. If not, move along.
I suggest you adjust your tone. You are in no better position to decide on what is constructive and what is not than I am. Not to mention you have no authority to order me anything.
If this discussion annoys you so much, why do you take the time to read and post in it?
Its a matter of time and size Zerg. We dont have time or the distance to run an aircraft 400km+, and for the sake of gameplay, you add these feature that we are discussing to accelerate the realism factors.
We are trying to make the game/missions more realistic by adding features that occur during real life situations.
LtUlrich
Dec 7 2005, 00:29
Don't bother explaining. There's always someone like Zurg. He can't think of ideas on his own so he spends his time trying to cut down everyone else's. He'll get bored with this thread soon, so I suggest you just ignore him until he does.
BTW, BIS integrated logistics for a reason. Medical care, ammo, fuel... everything up to the availablilty of forces all fall under this category. Would you expect that, if you run out of mags, that an ammo crate should just spawn in front of you? Do you think medics should be able to 'beam' to your location to heal you? Why should forces be able to spawn in captured towns? In reality, unless reinforcements can get to that town in a hurry, it is all but lost.
Food and mail were my suggestions and they may be stupid but if time acceleration is used or if its a perpetual capaign, soldiers should not be left in the field without MREs or a social connection. Without these things the soldiers' effectiveness will decrease.
Those of us with a little imagination know that although OFP units don't get hungry, they don't really get injured, either. As a matter of fact, they're not even real. Still we find it important to have medics available.
If this discussion annoys you so much, why do you take the time to read and post in it?
Perhaps exactly because they annoy me so much?
Its a matter of time and size Zerg. We dont have time or the distance to run an aircraft 400km+, and for the sake of gameplay, you add these feature that we are discussing to accelerate the realism factors.
Thats all nice and dandy. But I`m sure you realise that there is a huge amount of hypocray involved when you proclaim that CTI not realistic enough and then go about making a supposedly more realistic version of it by acctually introducing more of the artificial and acctually when compared to RL not realistic limitations at all, just to make it look more realistic (to you at least).
We are trying to make the game/missions more realistic by adding features that occur during real life situations.
The accelarated fuel consuption is in its logic a no different limitation that i.e. exaggarated ballistics curve, but few would argue that having CTFs with weapons with extremley exaggarated drops (since its rarely played on maps to make regular drops of any facotor and so to give CTF players an opportunity to experience the real life occurance of shot drops) would make it more realistic rather than less.
There's always someone like Zurg. He can't think of ideas on his own so he spends his time trying to cut down everyone else's.
I certainly know better than to make suggestions in a topic of such a to CTI negative wibe, esspecialy when I can make em in a much more to current CTI liking enviroment on the many sites of the creators of existing CTIs. I mean for God`s sake the topic starting post acctually thanks for inspiration posts of poster from another thread that said among other (harsher) things:
Quote[/b] ]http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif CTI
BTW, BIS integrated logistics for a reason. Medical care, ammo, fuel... everything up to the availablilty of forces all fall under this category. Would you expect that, if you run out of mags, that an ammo crate should just spawn in front of you? Do you think medics should be able to 'beam' to your location to heal you? Why should forces be able to spawn in captured towns? In reality, unless reinforcements can get to that town in a hurry, it is all but lost.
It seems to me you don`t know what youre talking about. Rearming in current CTIs is done via resupply truck, not magicaly appearing ammo crates. Medics in CTIs don`t beam up to anywhere they travel by foot or vehicles. And requested forces don`t spawn in captured towns but in your base. >> Considering your apparant ignorance do I dare suggest you should perhaps acctually play some more CTI then before you go on to make more of such dramatic suggestions?
LtUlrich
Dec 7 2005, 11:08
I admit I've only played MFCTI v1.16. But the paragraph you quoted was in regards to ideas in this thread (such as forces spawning in captured towns). What I was meaning to say is that, just like you don't expect an ammo crate to magically appear in front of you, you wouldn't expect an entire squad to do the same.
I understand your point about accelerating fuel consumption and how it amounts to reducing realism in order to create the illusion of realism. But aside from starting all vehicles with 0.1 fuel or accelerating fuel burn, can you think of a better way to take advantage of BIS's thoughtful inclusion of this and other logistical features? We would all love to have continent-sized TOEs but currently that's impossible. I'd be willing to bet that a discussion much like this one took place during development: Do we set fuel capacities and usage to their actual values or do we scale it to the islands so that it's actually useable in-game? Apparently they chose to allow us to choose.
Quote[/b] ]I certainly know better than to make suggestions in a topic of such a to CTI negative wibe, esspecialy when I can make em in a much more to current CTI liking enviroment on the many sites of the creators of existing CTIs. I mean for God`s sake the topic starting post acctually thanks for inspiration posts of poster from another thread that said among other (harsher) things:
Not entirely sure what you meant to say here, but I only meant that, rather than ideas, all we've heard from you is criticism of other peoples' ideas.
Quote[/b] ]This is just hillarious. (But what can you expect from a thread made for people that don`t like CTI to make suggestions on it?)
All that talk about making CTI more realistic and then you hear suggestion like making it impossible to take backlaying towns withouth taking the frontal towns first. LOL. Ye thats real realistim. And Market Garden never happened, right?
And then another fresh one; adding fuel consumption. Because there is truly a huge possibility of a tank (which generaly have ranges of several hundred kilometres) running out of fuel on a 15 km long island? Haha!
Not to mention the food suggestion. Really important, yes. Because soldiers are generaly mama`s boys and can`t function if they don`t get to eat something during a 3 hour(!! ) battle.
This post isn't about how we feel about CTI so much as it's about suggesting different ideas as to where to take it in the future. I didn't like CTI when I played it because it fell short of my expectations. I contributed to this thread because I understand the implications of a CTI-type game as it relates to a highly realistic war simulation and was relieved to see that discussion is ongoing as to enhancing this basic, underdeveloped gameplay style into something that takes advantage of everything OFP has to offer.
You have to admit that there's always a pessimistic, counter-productive poster who pokes his head into idealistic threads to do nothing but discount peoples' ideas, flamebait, and try to show how much they know. We've all seen it a thousand times.
No hard feelings mate but if you can't contribute your own ideas, you should probably hold your tongue when it comes to others'.
Also some of the neatest ideas I've ever heard for OFP have come from people who have never played it, or have only a little experience with it, so it's not about how much you know or how much you've played, it's about thinking outside the box and having the guts to speak up.
EDIT: In all fairness, the resupply truck is a step in the right direction.
Robert(UK)
Dec 7 2005, 11:25
I think the other part with the fuel wont be as bad as people think it will. Remember we want to keep a front where lots of the battle is going to take place. A chopper might be able to make it accross the map to attack something but they are not going to have the fuel to just hover over an area for a long time.
Just for example maybe an assault chopper would have enough fuel to fly for 10 minutes before refueling, transport chopper has enough fuel for 20 minutes and a scout chopper might have enough for 30 minutes of flight. That way an assault chopper needs to know where the enemys general location is before he takes off, thats where the scout choppers come in, and the transport choppers have enough fuel to drop troops, anywhere on the map and not have to be precise with where they are going.
Maybe this is a bad idea to build off of, and maybe people wont like it, but its just one of the ways that we want to achieve our cole elements unless we can come up with other alternatives.
What are some of the communities core gameplay elements for multiplayer? Maybe the type of CTI we are trying to make is off base with the core elements others would like to see?
I like the idea about the different fuel levels for different choppers. As far as land vehicles go, I would be more than happy to be the one driving the fuel truck back and forth across the battlefield to resupply friendly units. Or the food truck, or mail truck, or whatever. The more things there are for you to do in a game, the more fun, and to be honest, I think a lot of people put things like these into games with their imaginations if the things aren't already there. Of course, forcing people to do it is bad, but if the option is there to do it, then I would quite happily consider it. It is awesome when you are driving a vehicle in a game, and you actually have to keep an eye on the fuel tank, just like in RL I suppose... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
KaRRiLLioN
Dec 7 2005, 15:34
Fuel consumption is one area where Cam and I have disagreed in RWS. I wouldn't mind making it an option at the start and for Air only, but I built in other balancing factors to somewhat offset air superiority.
Firstly, I agree that it is very annoying to build up a large fleet of tanks, get them all loaded on the cargo ship and transport them to the enemy island, unload them and then have them destroyed within 1 minute by an A10 or Cobra, etc. especially since there's a limit on the number of heavy and light tanks you can have.
The AA boats can help a great deal with that by having them escort your ship and of course interspersing your heavies with shilkas or vulcans helps, but insofar as coding in a balance, I simply limited the number of combat aircraft to 3 and added in a bomber class which I limited to 3 and I think it works out fine.
Usually one team or the other doesn't maintain discipline and gets all their combat air shot down within the first hour, and if you've played your cards right, you'll have the upper hand since you can use ground and air to beat the enemy back.
Things like fuel consumption are fine, but I'd much rather have the balance decided on the battlefield rather than the supply depot.
Maybe if ArmA allows more options in the description.ext then the game can be a lot more customizeable for the players on the server because everyone has a different level of comfort when it comes to game realism.
You simply cannot please everyone all of the time. Speaking of the T80 vs M1A1 issue, I hear a lot of people bitch about how the T80 is no match for the M1 (the BIS versions), so Korax and MrZig came out with the CNC mod which essentially completely balances all units so the East tanks and West tanks, for example, have an equal chance of killing each other.
Now we have a lot of people who bitch about how they're all the same and it's no fun having them balanced.
You can't win on most of this stuff so it's best to strike a median or at least come up with options that will make it more enjoyable for those who like it differently.
Espectro
Dec 7 2005, 15:51
This is what I have in mind:
http://www.arma.dk/images/everon.jpg
This would be the view an "observer" would see. Both sides a visible - the enemy land will of course be hidden in the fog of war.
This is what i mean by having "battlefronts". The capturing isnt limited to cities anymore, but also land. Land won't give you any money - but will give you men. And will continue to do so throughout the game with a max of course. This means that if you capture an area, it might give you 7 men (AI with own leader). These 7 men will automatically defend the area they "belong" to. If one of them is killed, he will respawn after a period of time (say 10 minutes), unless the area is captured to the enemy.
The commander CAN move around with the AIs defending the various areas. He will be able to give all the different zones "points" - so that if you are the commander of west, and you expect an attack near montinac - you will assign more points to the areas and the frontline around montinac. The AI in sorrounding zones will automatically send reinforcements to the zones defending it and setting up defence. You can also use this to support an attack on an enemy - be aware that the AIs are vulnerable under transport, and that the zones they leave will also be left with less defence.
The commander can allways see how much defence present in all the zones, by looking at how "green" or "red" it is (look at image). The more units present, the more labels will be added to the map, making the area appear darker.
As we can see on the map, west have decided to defend all its area throughout the battlefront except in the south-west part, where he doesnt suspect an attack.
East commander have decided to split his troops between a battlefront, but have also decided to have some defence near some of the cities (fx Figari).
As said, he can use these troops as he wishes but shall be careful not to leave certain areas too open. During it like this, will cause AI troops to patrol lots of places in the land you have conquired, making it harder to conquier it from you. This will result in a more persistent world.
It will also make the scenario more dynamic. Imagine being in enemy territory hiding in a forest, while you spot AI transports (Trucks and a few tanks) go nort from various areas. You then tell you commander to strengthen the defence in the north.
The blue dots, "Special capture" - can be airfactory, base and harbour (in this coincident).
Air fac gives you more technology, harbour lets you built better boats and the "base" near levie will enable you to build men there (an extra barracks).
Zerg, for God's sake, what's wrong with you? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif WE (in this thread) want to alter what's out there.. If it already exists GREAT! These are only suggestions, they may or may not be included, but will eventually be involved in a vote to see what the community wants.. Even THAT doesn't mean it will be put in as the actual makers will choose that. This is talk. This is getting ideas going. And this is MY thread. If anyone knows the direction that this topic should take it's me. Everyone here but you are doing wonderfully, moving the idea to where they all want it. And not ragging on others like a child. Nothing is set, nothing is determined. Ideas are flowing.. That's it. I'm not going to argue with you, Placebo has been notified. I will ignore all further hostile input by you, and hope you can calm down and add your view of what you WANT to see.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Or another suggestion, start your own thread and prepare to deal with people like you. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Have a good day
-LtUlrich, and KaRRiLLioN, I like your golden rule. BTW, on the aircraft accelerated fuel consumption, what is the expected time limit? 15, 20 min? That value might be enough to alter how long they loiter over a battlefield, and -in a small timeframe- give the land lubbers opportunity to move ahead (or force the air groups to coordinate flights)
-Espectro, are you hinting at a layered defense? THAT would be fantastic for a commander to be able to layout. Much more difficult to get behind enemy lines.
Robert(UK)
Dec 7 2005, 16:08
Hehe, yeah. I'd love to be the one hiding in the forest, doing recce for my team, reporting back enemy movements and numbers to them. That's my idea of a fun game! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Well, if I get a chance to get online tonight, I'll log onto your TS server karr, and maybe if you want we can organzie a .pbo file and post the mission on here for people to try.
And maybe post it on ofp.gamezone.cz or www.ofpec.com to let everyone else try it out too. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif
**Note for you guys that want to try it. Please read the briefing before jumping right in http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif it clears up a lot of info about the mission.
SCRUB, for accelerated fuel, plan was for fuel to last long enough to make a flight across the channel (AEC's ocean that seperates everon from malden), conduct your mission for about 6-7 mins, then get back to your airfield intime to refuel.
It would have to be tested, but something along those line.
ALSO, Karr... the reason I favor the fuel option, is b.c of the power of some of the aircraft (ie: the V80) i think it has over 12 radar guided missiles. And since the mission type forces you work together, once they find your group, they have 12 missile that they can fire off in a matter of 12 seconds. Just a thought.
Cam51, with 60+ players and AI, can AAA ( both vehicle and shoulder types), smoke and jamming be used used properly? Also, are the helos targeting times and flight/fight characteristics (lockon and fire while moving) proper? If not can the makers adjust? Is there a RL time lag we can put in while the tgt computer acquires a new lock on? I agree, helos are as dangerous as it comes. Heck, A-10's at least have to flyover or divert and acquire on the next pass.
Just some unlearned questions.. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Scrub: For a mission with stock addons, all that stuff would be far to much work.
Now, if we converted the stock units over to WGL units, then all those things are possible. I don't know if you have tried the WGL mod, but that was the mod and units I had planned to use with RWS from the get-go. But we can alway change a few scripts so that the WGL units get used instead of stock BIS addons.
Oooooo... cant wait for mortar attacks on enemy towns http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif mmmmm
rundll.exe
Dec 7 2005, 18:44
I only wanna say: 80% of what you guys have said is already in crCTI (and even MF) or a modded CTI version.
I suggest like zerg, that you play the missions first before you try to invent the wheel for the second time.
(CR-OFP (http://cr-ofp.dyndns.org))
-rundll.exe: Which one has the 80%?
rundll.exe
Dec 7 2005, 19:17
newest crCTI has lot of the features mentioned
See the link in my previous post... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/goodnight.gif
Zerg, for God's sake, what's wrong with you? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif WE (in this thread) want to alter what's out there.. If it already exists GREAT! These are only suggestions, they may or may not be included, but will eventually be involved in a vote to see what the community wants.. Even THAT doesn't mean it will be put in as the actual makers will choose that. This is talk. This is getting ideas going. And this is MY thread. If anyone knows the direction that this topic should take it's me. Everyone here but you are doing wonderfully, moving the idea to where they all want it. And not ragging on others like a child. Nothing is set, nothing is determined. Ideas are flowing.. That's it. I'm not going to argue with you, Placebo has been notified. ....
....
You jet have to make a post in which you would respond to any of the points I`ve made. Instead you consistently in all of your posts go solely after me as a persona. If that is not flaming I then I don`t know what it is. Therefore unless you have any arguments to offer to refute my writtings I would greatly appreaciate it if you would in the future leave me out of your posts.
newest crCTI has lot of the features mentioned
See the link in my previous post... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/goodnight.gif
OFP CTI mods are great, That is one of the reasons OFP has been on my hard drive ever since it came out. I know the main reason I want changes to the current CTI fomats is to take advantage of the 60+ players.
I would like to see a squad leader have a squad of actual people instead of AI. Or when I call in for ammo, fuel, repairs, a human controlled player shows up. Something that i have not found in current versions of CTI.
If we were talking about plain old ofp cti styles I wouldnt change a thing, but im thinking ahead to the possibilities that ArmA CTI may offer.
Getting back on topic, CTi with Arma will kick ass!
Can't wait for the JIP (join in progress) with a few new rules to make the war last longer. You wouldnt even have to accelerate the time http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif just have the map constantly running day after day. Heck, it would be like a modern day versions of PlanetSide http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif
@<hidden>: Downloaded it from a German site, and I unfortunately don't 'sprecken deutch' (spelling?) I'm at work, so can't dive in now but definately will.
For the benefit of all here, if you have it in english, would you please copy the feature list? It looks very nice!
And we are not trying to re-invent what other great modders have done, just trying to get ideas together for ARMA and what the dis-affected players want to see in CTI. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Do you see anything wrong with talking about this subject?
After the collection I'll put up a vote on all the mentioned topics and we'll see what the majority wants to see. Again, not saying any mod will use the info.. It's totally up to them
Karrllion, Cam51, and others (I'm sorry, forgotten the 2 others ATM) who've made respected CTI's seem to be using this as a sounding board, so something is going on that's working..
Scrub
rundll.exe
Dec 7 2005, 21:00
For the benefit of all here, if you have it in english, would you please copy the feature list? It looks very nice!
sorry I have to repeat myself... But you have to play 20+ games before you can understand all the possiblities It has...
I suggest you come back If you tried the crCTI 0.84 or higher http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
And the site is in pure english... I seen no german there.
gandalf the white
Dec 7 2005, 21:06
If possible, I'd like to see the Resistance controllable aswell. It would start with control of all towns, but cannot built a base. Instead, they have a number (five?) of "small camps", that can be moved.
They cannot buy tanks, planes, nor choppers, only infantry, BUT they'd have some uber sand-wall technology, wich enables them to... well, dig in on just about any spot imaginable.
they'd have a "specialised RPG" too , that has damage values good enough to disable a BMP or T72, but not destroy it. That way the resistance would be able to get their hands on armour.
Not realistic, but hey! gameplay gameplay!!
Quote[/b] ]rundll.exe Posted on Dec. 07 2005,17:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (Scrub @<hidden> Dec. 07 2005,22:53)
For the benefit of all here, if you have it in english, would you please copy the feature list? It looks very nice!
sorry I have to repeat myself... But you have to play 20+ games before you can understand all the possiblities It has...
I suggest you come back If you tried the crCTI 0.84 or higher
And the site is in pure english... I seen no german there.
So we don't have to play a game for 4 weeks to understand it, could you highlight some of it's greatest features? This is about bringing new ideas, info and now facts into the light for ArmA.
Here's the site I Googled it on: http://ofpc.de/download_file.xhtml?list=ofpc&id=1214
Looked briefly but found no DL on your post. HA! checked again and got it. First time took me to your forum.
will update in a few...
Ahh, crCTI = CleanRocks CTI. His and Kar's are what I started on a long time ago. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif No info in the DL to post though. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif
KaRRiLLioN
Dec 8 2005, 00:50
Cam, I understand what you're saying about one chopper taking out a squad, that's why some addon makers made it so there's a five second reload time between missiles on some aircraft to combat that.
Air superiority has been an issue since I made RTS-1 back in late 2001/early 2002 and I've made adjustments in all versions such as making air more expensive and taking longer to build, taking longer to research, etc. but even RTS-2 had similar issues, but that's because in mid-2002 I wasn't editing addons at all.
After I made RTS-3 I began to get into editing addons myself and trying to find ways to balance them without ruining them. Having some sort of multi-second delay on missile reloads helps a lot. Since RWS is mostly non-addons, obviously the same old issues exist.
The ADATS and Tunguskas obviously help since they are very effective at taking down Aircraft, but that's in RTS-3, not RWS.
Well, I'm hoping that ArmA will support more than 12 units in a group, because I'm looking forward to adding that into gameplay in RTS-4 (or whatever I name it), and I'm hoping that naval units will work better and AI will be better able to control aircraft, i.e. find and engage targets without having their hands held.
If VTOL is supported and the Roadway LOD limitation is fixed, then I will definitely bring Aircraft carriers into the mix and they will operate as a sort of offshore MCU (mobile construction unit). I think that adding a *workable* navy to this will bring a great new facet to gameplay. I'd like to have the Aircraftcarriers make a large naval construction yard in the ocean.
Insofar as persistent games, I suppose that might be cool, assuming there are enough people to keep the battle somewhat even on a consistent basis.
_Aragon_
Dec 8 2005, 01:46
I'm against unrealistically dumbing down the helicopters it is far better to have them harder to obtain.
Do you think CTI's are the ideal format, for large-scale games like this? The principles of a CTI are quite basic, making it easier to play on public servers e.t.c Most people know what to expect, and go off and do there own things.
My idea was to exploit the largest possible maps in Armed Assault (within reason), create two opposing countries. Each with their own industrial complexes, military installations and AI defences and AI Airport(s). Probably separated by a large expanse of water or no mans land.
You would already have x amount of resources and the ability to acquire more, but resources should be cherished and not squandered in Rambo style attacks. Aircraft e.t.c and more so trained pilots should be a valuable asset, well worth your while to rescue downed pilots e.t.c
I already have the scripts for multiple AI airports\carriers (hopefully refined come Armed Assault) and I've just finishing the scripts for the AI Radar and SAM sites. When Armed Assault hits the shelves, I'm going to put the two together and see how they stand up. I just want a persistent battle field sooner rather than later, one where a player can join as Special Forces, or Air Sea Rescue, fly CAP or command combined assaults e.t.c But also a game that can be just played H2H, with both players commanding entire countries military forces.
My only worry is that most people would prefer to play regular CTI style, jump in a jeep and go off trying to RPG each others MHQ's. I mean who wants to spend a couple of hours rescuing downed pilots, just to work you way up to the Attack choppers. Or fly CAPs to prove yourself as a capable pilot. Or adopt gorilla tactics to harass the enemy supply routes?
Robert(UK)
Dec 8 2005, 09:37
@<hidden> UNN - Hey, I'd love to do those sort of missions that you were talking about at the end of your post... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
@<hidden> Gandalf the White - I like your ideas there... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
@<hidden> UNN- WOW, bump it up to the next level, why don't you?http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif lol I LIKE it! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Do you think CTI's are the ideal format, for large-scale games like this? The principles of a CTI are quite basic, making it easier to play on public servers e.t.c Most people know what to expect, and go off and do there own things.
My idea was to exploit the largest possible maps in Armed Assault (within reason), create two opposing countries. Each with their own industrial complexes, military installations and AI defences and AI Airport(s). Probably separated by a large expanse of water or no mans land.
You would already have x amount of resources and the ability to acquire more, but resources should be cherished and not squandered in Rambo style attacks. Aircraft e.t.c and more so trained pilots should be a valuable asset, well worth your while to rescue downed pilots e.t.c
I already have the scripts for multiple AI airports\carriers (hopefully refined come Armed Assault) and I've just finishing the scripts for the AI Radar and SAM sites. When Armed Assault hits the shelves, I'm going to put the two together and see how they stand up. I just want a persistent battle field sooner rather than later, one where a player can join as Special Forces, or Air Sea Rescue, fly CAP or command combined assaults e.t.c But also a game that can be just played H2H, with both players commanding entire countries military forces.
My only worry is that most people would prefer to play regular CTI style, jump in a jeep and go off trying to RPG each others MHQ's. I mean who wants to spend a couple of hours rescuing downed pilots, just to work you way up to the Attack choppers. Or fly CAPs to prove yourself as a capable pilot. Or adopt gorilla tactics to harass the enemy supply routes?
RWS uses this style map. Its called AEC island, check it out:
AEC (http://ofp.gamezone.cz/index.php?showthis=6085)
@<hidden>(UK)
Nice one, sounds like I'm on the right track. I doubt this would ever have mass appeal, but it's good to know there would be at least a hard core of gammers willing to play this type of game.
@<hidden>
Lol..I do have a tendancy to get carried away, and I don't know as yet how practicle all this will be. But I'm certainly going to try. I'm will add each element one at a time, and see exactly what you can get away with, using Armed Asaaults new and improved code.
@<hidden>
Yeah, I've played CTI's on AEC. It's just OFP cant handle what is effectivly an island with 3x the detail of the originals. But I do want to use the same techniques. With a bit of carefull design. I'm sure you could create a usable island, big enough to make things like fuel managment a real concern.
Robert(UK)
Dec 9 2005, 11:49
@<hidden>(UK)
Nice one, sounds like I'm on the right track. I doubt this would ever have mass appeal, but it's good to know there would be at least a hard core of gammers willing to play this type of game.
Hehe, well, I'll tell you now, although I am definitely a hard-core gamer, I'm not very good at flying things... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
It would be cool though if you could put that level of detail and thinking into other areas of the game, like ground based units, as I am much better there! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Hi fellas
Want to throw some input in here http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Personally I liked some of the original concepts in this topic suggested especially for a large scale type game siimilar to CTI.
My opinion has always been that OFP has offered the ability to make some really awsome and immersive missions (missions like CTI that are more like seperate games in themselves). I mean you got all that area to use and the standard missions that come with the game only use small areas, (effectively managing lag of course). But as time has moved on of course puters arent what they were, and I really wish to see some massive 'missions' like that produced by BIS for AA.
I also have a good idea of the reality here, that chances are something of a massive scale that creates an alive enviornment and manages lag properly will probably not be seen by the user communit, not because it cant be done but because there isnt the time nor the resources to do it. I'm not being negative, but being realistic, look at whats ben going on at the ofp editing center for years now, people are defenitely skilled enough that have come up with missions there that could create such missions, but who wants to turn mission making into a full time job for months just to get no paycheck aside from 'great job' lol, been there, done that.
I spent like a week compiling info on a mission that utilizes the concept of taking towns from CTI, and although to a degree I agree that the taking towns part is similiar to capture the flag its also a quick way to replicate the positive long term effects of taking over crucial territory by giving that players team more money. The mission had a similiar layout to CTI at start, main towns on the island occupied, but in this scenario some towns are east and some are resistance. All players start on west side, although the concept is that they all are to their own sides and can operate independantly (players still can join forces if desired but each player will have their own individual money system), using resistance and west unit configs selectable, and so each player starts alone seprate from each other and operates independently.
The resistance towns are freindly and east towns are enemy. Wars would be waged between east and resistance towns at times, town to town artillery shelling would occur initially sometimes, and eventually the two towns forces would move out to battle eachother somewhere in the middle. Players could join with a resistance town and assist them in such a battle therefore upon the taking of the enemy town (success) they would recieve a reward from that resistance 'clan', each town starts held by a certain 'clan', east or west. Players can take either east or resistance towns, although taking a resistance town requires that a player is 'enemy' to the clan holding that town or there is no clan memebers of the clan that hold the town present in the town area, thus if a player kills a resistance clan member then he/she will goto renegade status anytime he/she enters a twon area held by that clan. And of course money is accumulated periodically for each town held, alike cti.
In two main 'merchant' towns players can buy vehicles, weapons, troops, etc. Difference here in buying troops is similiar to what was described earlier in this topic, where troops purchased are used primarily for holding towns and so they are under a seperate group and under general control through commands offered by the mission script, actual players allowed ai units grouped to him in this mission would only be one or two because the mission already allows simple but effective management of troops(large combat forces) that frees up the player to not have to constatly worry about keeping 12 units in exactly the right spots to get ahead, thus the mission becomes far more personalized. Also different would be costs, which would be realistic costs, where just having a good weapon on hand is a big deal, like the difference between an ak47 and an m16. And the enviornment would be very alive while using as much unit/vehicle spawning and deleting as possible in only ways where it would never be seen to efficeintly manage lag. Convoys would be moving from freindly town to freindly to trade with each other, towns are truly alive(as much as can be allowed considering lag), also players can take on the role of 'mercenaries' for hire for freindly clans- after a player has comitted a kill of a freindly clan that clan will put up a bounty for that player- , rogue east groups will operate in areas outside of towns attacking convoys and resistance towns, could go on if I thought about it...Oh yea, btw players can kill each other and any rating drop caused by such is removed(the player that kills another player would still become enemy to the players clan that he killed if he/she were to enter a town area owned by that clan - prolly a good idea to add a function where players can select if other players clans are considered freindly or enemy to be able to allow different player ai units to co-exist or not and allow safe entry or not into their towns).
This is just a general descript, but can anyone see the picture and potential of this sort of a mission? I mean its not even really a mission, its a game in itself. It could go on for hours, days weeks lol. I imagined using a function where players could quit and then come back into the game later on at will and the game qould save their inventory status (similiar to Sinews Of War function), but essentially the mission would provide absolute freedom with a realistic and alive enviornment where players can interact within that enviornment on a large scale, without having the annoyance of having to constantly manage a ton of units, but still be able to accumulate troops and use them in a simple and strategic manner therefore personalizing the experience.
I could just imagine the 'scenes' of such a mission: A player and his hired mercenary waiting at the top edge of a cliff above a valley for a supply convoy to pass by(so as to salvage the contents of the supply trucks after eliminating convoy defenses), night time falls (accel time optional) as the flashes of artillery fire light up the night as a resistance town begins shelling an enemy east town with artillery cannons (and the flashes/explosions of the rounds landing around the east town), a number of players gathered at a resistance town mid-day waiting to join the towns clan attack forces which are about to advance towards an enemy clan for a battle (those players of course would recieve rewards from the freindly clan upon taking over enemy clans town), a player waits hidden outside a nearby town by a main road for another player to leave the town which has a bounty placed on him for attacking a freindly clan, players holding back behind resistance armor forces along with freindly resistance troops as the armor advances pounding enemy east clan forces as a 'clan war' begins, I could go on..
And the big picture here is that clan wars erupt periodically, towns will change sides, players (which also each have their own clan) will be able to take and hold towns(or assist a clan in taking a town) which may also come under attack from east clans, some clans will grow in strength depending on how many towns they own, and stuff (like convoys moving, ai interaction, etc) will be happening in a realistic manner to make the enviornment alive, aside from the other goodies mentioned like players being able to become mercs for hire, etc etc - basically the whole island will be alive with purposefull life where things can be constantly changing.
I started work on such a mission for winter Kolgujev (seemed the best map for an 'adventure' type mission, I know, tank driving sucks on it lol), but my mission making days are over, I have a job and I like it, and I like my time off too lol, after spending 2 years working on WWIII mod for Ghost Recon I have learned a lesson, 1 job is enough, (1 job) + (1 job that dosent pay) = stress, lost family time and possible loss of job #1. So I have given up on it, it would take forever alone anyhow, but I guess my point here is it would be nice to see BIS come out with some missions of such scale on a professional level where the quality was high, dont know bout you guys but I'd pay $50 bucks for a cd with just one mission like this produced professionally and put on the shelves.
I'm not throwing this on to ask someone to make this or nothin, I guess what I'm wanting to do is just show what the REAL potential of games like OFP, AA, and I'm sure OFP2 have for mission making, I mean really who dosent dream of such missions but we only get little peices of such in individual missions. I would very much myself enjoy to play such a mission, and to be able to play it on and off for days even, being able to come back and pick up where I left off, it would be awsome.
Oh well, lol, a dream and reality are two different things...
Anyone who has actually read all of this, you deserve a medal for patience lol.
Christian
I think those are some of the hopes that will come with ArmA http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif
Did you just rejoin the forums? (Dec. 2005) I thought you've been around for some time? Either way, welcome! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Richmuel
Dec 9 2005, 15:53
Interesting Points.
I like the idea of a changing atmosphere but are you saying all players will be on the same side? Going back to an earlier post in this topic I think it would be better if instead of West and Resistance verse East as this is unfair it should be say West and 'Police' verse East and 'Terrorist' Groups as such so that humans can play on both sides keeping it fair.
Anyway as for me I find CTI can get a little 'messy' sometimes as everyone is quite spread out and I always find West seems to attack say the Right while East the Left and so they completely miss each other. Also night time cycles would re-add tension, During Night its riskier to move because its harder to see but for some units it would bring them to a halt never knowing if an ambush is being set up.
I also think that Convoys are a big essential point as these can fund a frontal assault. I say each town you take spawns an AI convoy and agreeing with another earlier post you should be able to crank up its protection points. It then sets on a circular route round you territory and stops off at certain 'points' for say 2 minutes. Maybe you get 1 convoy for every 2 towns held. Imagine if the enemy takes a town whilst you are deep in enemy territory. If you 'through balance issues' have to rely on these convoys you are now cut off so you have to resort to ambushing an enemy convoy.
I think there need to be ways to almost bring aspects from the SP campaing into CTI. How about playable 'cards.' They give you team a benifit but it then also triggers a mission for your enemy. Say you play a Delivery of Extra men card deep into enemy territory - those men will be set a mission to take a town, whilst the enemy through 'intelligence' must deal with the threat. The winner would then get a reward or maybe completeing mission is reqard enough. THis would require your commander to have to refocus troops, encourage engagment and give people something else to do.
These are sketchy ideas but they can be developed. Also I strongly agree with creating a frontline as such.
Robert(UK)
Dec 9 2005, 16:28
@<hidden> mrpibb - Another awesome concept. Having read that, I was reminded of a couple of things that must be in these games, or at least should be.
1 - No TIME LIMITS - In real war they don't have time limits (well, not like in most war games) and the battle goes on until one side is wiped out. I remember there used to be some servers that did this in Joint Ops, so I would play for an hour, then leave, come back next day and the same battle was still raging on. That was awesome!!! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
2 - Day/Night Cycle - I seem to remember this being in OFP, but not sure, so if it isn't, please include it, especially for MP modes like COOP and CTI, as it's really cool having to adjust to the different times of day... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
@<hidden> Richmuel
Quote[/b] ]I like the idea of a changing atmosphere but are you saying all players will be on the same side? Going back to an earlier post in this topic I think it would be better if instead of West and Resistance verse East as this is unfair it should be say West and 'Police' verse East and 'Terrorist' Groups as such so that humans can play on both sides keeping it fair.
Thanks for the input there, but I did mention that although as far as the mission itself goes each player is actually on their own side, similiar to death match concept, except in this case players are freindly to eachother, but they will operate independantly, as they cannot share resources nor towns for income, each player will have their own income amount based on that players held towns and each player will also have their own purchaseable groups of combat forces, so the system would encourage player independance, the players wouldnt even be penalized for killing each other, quite the contrary they may be rewarded if one manages to take another players town over. oookaaay sorry, just wanted to clear that up, not like I'm makin the thing or nothin lol. So really its like a mission with up to 8 sides for players instead of 2 or three essentially, its just as far as the technical aspect, they are all west (ofp only allows 3 sides lol).
My statement in previous quote:
Quote[/b] ]
All players start on west side, although the concept is that they all are to their own sides and can operate independantly (players still can join forces if desired but each player will have their own individual money system), using resistance and west unit configs selectable, and so each player starts alone seprate from each other and operates independently. Also wanted to add that the towns held by east and resistance are intermingled across the map to allow individual 'clan' wars rather than drawing one immense line between the two sides
@<hidden>
Quote[/b] ]
I think those are some of the hopes that will come with ArmA
Did you just rejoin the forums? (Dec. 2005) I thought you've been around for some time? Either way, welcome! .
Would be neat to see a mission or two of such size with the game.
My opinion is that a game isnt just the elements that can be used to create missions, its the missions too, one could take good ol ofp, make a massive mission unlike what has been seen and it would prolly get played to death(till AA comes out), then take good ol ofp, throw down some standard 'good' missions, peeps play em once, maybe twice or whatever, point is that the effects of the best graphics in the world will eventually wear off, leaving the player with one thing, the mission.
Thanks for the welcome, yea I was on a while ago, cant remember when, I kinda cut off all my old modding links to rid my life of the attachment completely, being I almost lost my job a number times because of modding time, finally ended it lol. I guess I just wanted, like you guys to put input in here.
@<hidden>(UK)
I agree, being able to join in and out of missions would be great, I personally would think it would be quite a task to add this to a mission, but well worth it too. Yea, ofp operates in real time and the speed that the sun moves across the sky can easily be increased to shorten days.
Neat stuff to chat about...
@<hidden>
I'm no better as a pilot either. The reason I put such initial emphasis on aircraft is, that’s the unknown factor. OFP can handle ground based units without much trouble, managing aircraft is the script intensive side. So If I can get the aircraft running without lagging the entire game, then the ground based missions will fall into place. Given the correct balance, infantry and aircraft will not be able to operate effectively without each other.
@<hidden>
I did read your entire post, but probably have to read it a few more times. I considered the idea of factions, in OFP. The problem was, OFP is stuck with just thee sides, that will consider each other as hostile. OFP does not handle death match style games very well, just flagging every kill as a Team Kill. Getting the AI factions to fight amongst each other would be very difficult ATM. For example, if you killed a player on the same side, who had a bounty on his head. You would probably be killed by your own AI for being a team killer. I'm hoping Game 2 will allow more flexibility on this aspect. But I think Armed Assault will be pretty much the same as OFP?
The problems of time are not really an issue for me, I can spend eight months just working on scripts for a single addon. The reward, beyond just the intellectual challenge, is a mission that I would want to play for many more months than it took to create.
There are definitely some common themes coming out of this discussion. For just a couple:
JIP routines to handle players joining and leaving the game.
Resource management for each player.
Supply routes, with actual vehicles that drive from A to B delivering resource.
Some form of automatic and player, mission generation system.
These can and probably do exist in one form or another as modules. For example COC's Network Services. If COC plan on adding support for JIP then that’s one less thing for the would-be, massive, mission maker to worry about.
@<hidden>
Quote[/b] ]I did read your entire post, but probably have to read it a few more times. I considered the idea of factions, in OFP. The problem was, OFP is stuck with just thee sides, that will consider each other as hostile. OFP does not handle death match style games very well, just flagging every kill as a Team Kill. Getting the AI factions to fight amongst each other would be very difficult ATM. For example, if you killed a player on the same side, who had a bounty on his head. You would probably be killed by your own AI for being a team killer. I'm hoping Game 2 will allow more flexibility on this aspect. But I think Armed Assault will be pretty much the same as OFP?
You may not believe this but the script has already been set up in where the 'faction' works, sides never actually change their freindly status to another, east is enemy to all and resistance freindly to west - so east towns war with resistance towns, that part never changes - the 'faction' thing where a player would end up enemy to a resistance clan (particular groups of resistance units) functions in town areas only, once a player walks into a parimeter area around a freindly town if he/she has bad 'faction' with that towns occupants he/she will goto renegade status for the duration of that players stay - yes, the players ai units affected by this has always been an issue here, which is why players in this case would only be allowed one or two ai and workarounds would be implemented although the good news would be that being each player has potential command of numerous seperate groups of forces to send to towns for defense primarily which would not be involved in such scenarios to cause harm to the player. As I recall now, the idea was also to not allow players troop groups to attack towns, only defend, therefore eliminating issues with both same side battles (which are impossible) and to prevent players from only focusing on taking east towns as well. As far as the few ai units allowed for the players, which would be just enough for tank usage, once again I am trying to recall but if I remember correctly the best seeming answer for removing the chance of ai units killing players when they go renegade status in a freindly town is to make the units not fire, which could be easily explained, like"because they are freinds to the resistance they will not participate in attacks on their towns" or something like that.
Quote[/b] ]For example, if you killed a player on the same side, who had a bounty on his head. You would probably be killed by your own AI for being a team killer.
The player to player fire is easy to fix, I already have that in the script, where I believe it is a hit event handler for players that finds the shooter and restores any loss of rating for a player kill (if shooter not player then exits). How ever the script check was initiated (been long time since looking at it), it worked and no rating loss was suffered for player to player fire - which would actually in the end have to encompass all freindly fire outside of freindly towns in the end to allow complete freedom without rating loss penalizing, once again a script running off a hit event handler on players is prolly the best way.
There are indeed a number of other work arounds, like the issue with peeps runnin over peeps in freindly towns with no rating loss, concept was to make 'no drive zones' in resistance towns, basically stick to the roads in those towns or else, which is pretty realistic, if I owned a town on an island I wouldnt be fond of people driving across front and back yards while maybe runnin over people.
Basically all the bugs have fixes, alot of improvisations but nonetheless the outcome would provide the intended results.
Please dont think I'm trying to push this over, it is what it is, but beleive me it certainly can be done, I wouldnt even have bothered starting on it if I hadnt looked over the entire scope of issues, its just a huge project, I mean really big, I had forseen that most units/vehicles on the map would have to be spawned into position as players neared an area around them (same as town units for cti) to maintain lag and to allow players that might want to run smaller games ideal conditions for lower end computer users, this would be alot of work considering all the actions the various island occupants will be performing.
Anyhow, I appreciate input, and although the matters you brought up were either resolved or planned for it certainly shows how much work it would take to pull it off, lol, alot.
I can post the 'faction' script if you'd like to look at it later or send it to ya(roughly one page of script), its a neat system that works but being it runs on a loop for each town the realization set in that using hit or killed event handlers for each freindly town occupant would be a much more 'lag free' way to initialize the checks, then using loops in script only for towns that a player has bad faction with, therefore reducing the number of towns having scripts running for them would only normally be a few rather than all eight or whatever.
Christian
Yeah, I know about AddRating & SetCaptive as work arounds for the AI. But the restrictions you mentioned did not really work with the faction based mission I was thinking about.
Quote[/b] ]I had forseen that most units/vehicles on the map would have to be spawned into position as players neared an area around them (same as town units for cti) to maintain lag and to allow players that might want to run smaller games ideal conditions for lower end computer users
Looks like we came to the same conclusion about client and server side processing. You would have to pull out all the stops, to keep this running at a decent rate. There are already a couple of AI spawning scripts, if you were not up for writing your own. COC's & Mapfacts spring to mind, curious to see how they could fit into the mission.
Thanks UNN for the response, umm, sorry for getting so 'into' my own concept there, I guess I was just trying to defend the mission's 'doability', I just get a little inspired (actually alot sometimes) when I imagine what kind of ultra-realistic adventure type missions that could be made with this sort of 'platform' system.
Anyhow, just want to say that I also along with you guys would like to see a large scale mp or sp mission come out for AA that really uses most of the programs resources ending in an immersive 'alive' mission with huge freedom. So I guess now I'm gonna kind of 'be quiet' lol and let this topic carry on in the way it was intended to.
Quote[/b] ]mrpibb Posted on Dec. 12 2005,22:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I guess now I'm gonna kind of 'be quiet' lol and let this topic carry on in the way it was intended to.
It already is... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Need some time this week to make the first list of concepts for voting. The idea is to make proper catagories, list everybody's ideas to this point -gonna be hard to get all the variations, might generalize a bit and go into detail later- and put it in columns for everyone to '[QUOTE]'.
Thinking of using a '1' for liking the idea, and a '-1' for not liking.. '0' for neutral as I need a space holder. I'll be copy and pasting everyone's responses into a space delimited format for import into Excel for consolidation (a lot less typing for me http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif ) let it crunch the numbers and copy and paste the results.
Quick example:
-----------------------------------------------
12/12/05 Next-GEN CTI Idea Vote
X = not responded to
1 = Like idea
0 = Don't care
-1= Do not like
Vehicles
1 Medical evac vehicles
X Propaganda vehicles
-1 Simulated weekly garbage pickup vehicles
Game reality alterations
0 Increased fuel consumption on aircraft
-1 Doubling armor and damage values on the M1
1 RL firing and lockon times for weapons
X Units shouting for their mommies when it gets thick
Economy, rations, resupply points, Etc..
1 Get $$ for property 'owned' (ArmA Monopoly, anyone?)
0 Slow addition of points over time
-1 Randomized addition of Re-Sup points over time.
AI / User roles
1 AI or user can be in support role
0 AI handle all infrastructure
0 AI are on call for something I can't think up at this hour...
You get the picture.. The 'X's will be placeholders for the 1,0, and -1's
The results will be added and the communities weight, plus or minus will be shown per item. All ideas will be posted so anyone can get inspired by something they see. I hope this becomes a useful tool to all the designers out there wondering what will get people on the servers... Well, you know.. Besides ArmA itself! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
Any comments or ideas on the voting?
Quote[/b] ]Thanks UNN for the response, umm, sorry for getting so 'into' my own concept there
I'm glad you did get carried away....I for one, would like to hear more.
Sorry if I sounded dismissive. I should have wrote:
The idea I had for factions, I think, is different to yours? So the work a rounds you mentioned, may not work for me. The problem I saw with JIP and perpetual battlefields was scripting an entire campaign that would still tick over, even if there were no human players to witness it. So I thought rather than scripting a large scale conflict, try something more static, like an occupying army.
Players would join the game as would be, Freedom Fighters in dispirit factions dotted around the map. It would then be their job to acquire weapons and resources from the occupying forces, and recruits from the hard done by population through humanitarian acts. But the ultimate goal is to repel the invading forces and carve out a territory of your own, with or without the help of your neighbouring factions. At least this way players could come and go as they please.
Your idea to manage the AI, so as to circumvent the side restrictions in OFP. Is exactly the kind of technique I think we will need to use, to get something of this scale working.
@<hidden>
Vehicles
1 Medical evac vehicles
X Propaganda vehicles
-1 Simulated weekly garbage pickup vehicles
I already have the basics for generic evac routines, see CSJ's Huey pack. It's easy enough to create a module that could be attached to any addon, the mission maker wanted to use.
Game reality alterations
1 Increased fuel consumption on aircraft
0 Doubling armor and damage values on the M1
0 RL firing and lockon times for weapons
-1 Units shouting for their mommies when it gets thick
I think fuel consumption should be applied to everything. Assuming we have larger maps, then you should not be able to drive a fuel-guzzling tank. From one end, to another, without a supply convoy backing you up.
Economy, rations, resupply points, Etc..
1 Get $$ for property 'owned' (ArmA Monopoly, anyone?)
1 Slow addition of points over time
-1 Randomized addition of Re-Sup points over time.
Depends on the mission type I guess. But I personally want to stick with the idea that an Army has x amount of resource in stock, and x amount over a period of time. Assuming nothing disrupts the distribution.
Espectro
Dec 13 2005, 08:17
[QUOTE=Quote ]mrpibb Posted on Dec. 12 2005,22:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I guess now I'm gonna kind of 'be quiet' lol and let this topic carry on in the way it was intended to.
It already is... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Need some time this week to make the first list of concepts for voting. The idea is to make proper catagories, list everybody's ideas to this point -gonna be hard to get all the variations, might generalize a bit and go into detail later- and put it in columns for everyone to '
'.
Thinking of using a '1' for liking the idea, and a '-1' for not liking.. '0' for neutral as I need a space holder. I'll be copy and pasting everyone's responses into a space delimited format for import into Excel for consolidation (a lot less typing for me http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif ) let it crunch the numbers and copy and paste the results.
Quick example:
-----------------------------------------------
12/12/05 Next-GEN CTI Idea Vote
X = not responded to
1 = Like idea
0 = Don't care
-1= Do not like
Vehicles
1 Medical evac vehicles
X Propaganda vehicles
-1 Simulated weekly garbage pickup vehicles
Game reality alterations
0 Increased fuel consumption on aircraft
-1 Doubling armor and damage values on the M1
1 RL firing and lockon times for weapons
X Units shouting for their mommies when it gets thick
Economy, rations, resupply points, Etc..
1 Get $$ for property 'owned' (ArmA Monopoly, anyone?)
0 Slow addition of points over time
-1 Randomized addition of Re-Sup points over time.
AI / User roles
1 AI or user can be in support role
0 AI handle all infrastructure
0 AI are on call for something I can't think up at this hour...
You get the picture.. The 'X's will be placeholders for the 1,0, and -1's
The results will be added and the communities weight, plus or minus will be shown per item. All ideas will be posted so anyone can get inspired by something they see. I hope this becomes a useful tool to all the designers out there wondering what will get people on the servers... Well, you know.. Besides ArmA itself! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
Any comments or ideas on the voting?
If you want to create it as a HTML file or PHP, i can host it for ya at arma.dk
Robert(UK)
Dec 13 2005, 14:14
Woot!!! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif - It's all getting underway now... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/nener.gif
Espectro: That would be much appreciated, please msg me with what you'd be able to do. I've got too many projects at work and don't have the mental capacity left at the end of the day to be creative. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif
Thanks!
UNN: Patience, patience, patience.. (That was just an example http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif) You'll be able to vote your desires soon enough. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Quote[/b] ]I'm glad you did get carried away....I for one, would like to hear more.
Sorry if I sounded dismissive. I should have wrote:
The idea I had for factions, I think, is different to yours? So the work a rounds you mentioned, may not work for me. The problem I saw with JIP and perpetual battlefields was scripting an entire campaign that would still tick over, even if there were no human players to witness it. So I thought rather than scripting a large scale conflict, try something more static, like an occupying army.
All right then, I will ramble on a bit more then for the sake of rambling lol
Indeed actually our intents are similiar, although the layouts are different, to have conflict on the island that is realistically continuing as time goes on regardless of player interaction, although my concept requires a 'system' that periodically causes wars between particular town holding east and resistance clans. Tons of tweaking would be required as progress was made, to make every mission a complete 'who knows whats gonna happen' but plainly put: generally the idea is to have periodically one 'clan' begin fueding with another clan (east vs resistance), then the war will soon begin. Now over time as one clan attacks another clan and takes their town (remember I said the east and Res clans are scattered about the island) that clan becomes stronger through the gain of income, and hence the same would happen again and again with other clans. Pre-set templets of each possible town to town war would be made where when a periodic time had arrived to select a clan war, a town-town war templet is randomly selected (normally) which holds 2 towns that are owned by clans that are enemy to each other (east/Res/players(West)). So there is a 'system' where as time goes on, each game will have different outcomes, some clans will disappear completely being destryoed, some clans will exist barely, only holding one or two towns, some clans will become very strong and become a threat to all that oppose it. And of course these wars will absolutely include east clans attacking towns held by players, where as I mentioned earlier each player starts with their own 'clan' name (maybe a selectable name) and their own flag, where as each player grows financially through many successes they can expand their clan size across the island holding multiple town areas with their own clan forces.
Now, as I said 'tweaking' would be a big thing as the mission development progressed - assuming that most players wont be all that bent on taking over resistance towns, being that they can initially come and go as they please there, so east towns will be more of a focus - and therefore the 'tweaking' should be set so that east clans will eventually more-less dominate the map - that is if players do not make a great effort to stop them pre-emptively.
Quote[/b] ]
Players would join the game as would be, Freedom Fighters in dispirit factions dotted around the map. It would then be their job to acquire weapons and resources from the occupying forces, and recruits from the hard done by population through humanitarian acts. But the ultimate goal is to repel the invading forces and carve out a territory of your own, with or without the help of your neighbouring factions. At least this way players could come and go as they please.
Your idea to manage the AI, so as to circumvent the side restrictions in OFP. Is exactly the kind of technique I think we will need to use, to get something of this scale working.
Once again I see our concepts are similiar in design lol, but I have to say that the 'factions' thing I added in my concept is actually for more freedom, not less. The 'grudge' status (what its called in the script) that a player can gain through attacking a resistance clan does not limit freedom, but expands it - by allowing a player to be able to completely take over a freindly town owned by a Res clan, and gain financially from it, also it allows other players to be able to collect bounties on players that have caused a particular freindly clan trouble (have killed one of their clan members), so it allows a realistic set of options where also being enemy to one freindly clan does not mean being enemy to all others, so they will still have free access to town areas held by other freindly clans. Of course players causing this 'trouble' to the resistance freindly clans will increase the potential for a 'mass takeover' of the island from east clans (cause and effect), which would cause greater problems for players trying to hold town areas as east clans continue their advance.
On the flip side- any freindly clan that a player does not attack will provide many extras to be benefited from, like being able to assist that clan in a war against an east clan therefore recieving a reward (cash normally) upon taking enemy clans town, being able to collect bounties from that clan on players enemy to them, also wanted to add bounties availiable on ai units that would at times cause trouble and even bounties on ai rogue groups operating outside town areas, and lastly of course freedom of safe passage through that particular freindly town. Again balancing and tweaking would be an issue with the clan wars, to certainly make it so resistance clans may often not be able to take over an east clans town in a war without assistance, therefore making the mission for players of assisting an Res clan in a clan war a task of some difficulty.
And lastly (whew) lol, the issue of allowing each player to have their own potential armies that would more-less merely hold territory taken, provided in as much of a realistic manner as possible. Like I described earlier, in this mission concept the players could go to one of the two 'merchant' freindly towns to purchase pretty much everything that would be availiable to buy in the mission, this would include troops(troops meaning any militant forces, men, armore, etc). Having a system very similiar to what the commander has in CTI, where seperate groups could be managed would be perfect, but the problem is with this particular concept if the player had the amount of control that the CTI commander has over those groups they would end up alover the map causing some real problems with the 'island conflict system', especially including attacking freindly towns, which would just be an impossible mess with so many units trying to implement the renegade status to acheive bad faction (they all would be killing eachother LOL) - so to make things simple and still be able to allow players to fortify their taken town areas I decided that seperate groups purchased by players would have a command system that would be very basic, primarily the player would have their already held towns to select from as locations to send the groups for defense, where maybe some additional commands could be added for various types of town area defense (patrol town, or select a position within a town area radius to hold at). Any commands allowing such groups to attack east towns would have a major impact on the whole scope of things, and therefore it would seem likely that this option would not be allowed because it could allow one particular players 'clan' to ransack the island to quickly through growth by ai groups taking town after town, therefore defeating the continuem of the 'island conflict' and also causing a 'rat race' for players to focus on getting ai groups to over take towns, and thus removing the 'adventure' feel, and leaving the freedom somewhat out because those players that choose a different path (like mercenaries, or just exploring, freedom basically) rather than conquest of the island would be quickly left behind and would feel dwarfed by not participating in the 'rat race' to get towns. Sorry to be so long that last description, but indeed most of these thoughts are what led me to only allow purchaseable seperate combat groups for territory (town areas) defense, and it simplifies the mission too, so not everybody has to be a tactical wiz to have a great time throught the mission. And so what would make up for this 'loss' in tactical use of units normally seen with CTI, I'll tell ya, the whole mission would make up for it, rather than being a less real feeling tactical/overhead mission it would become a realistic adventure with all kinds of freedoms in an enviornment that reacts to the players decisions, and where each player can accumulate assetts in their own personal items from weapons to vehicles and they can accumulate assetts through taking territory where they can hire troops to defend their lands in a simple manner to be able to continue being immersed in the adventure without having to focus on the 'tactical/overhead' view, and get down to living and surviving in the mission. And once again as I stated earlier in this particular concept there would be one or two max ai availiable within each players team, which of course would allow effective use of combat vehicles and also allow a little more give and freedom, rather than allowing no ai under direct control at all. I did earlier mention in a previous post in this topic probable solutions to problems with those ai units in scenarios where the player side is switched to renegade status:
Quote[/b] ] As far as the few ai units allowed for the players, which would be just enough for tank usage, once again I am trying to recall but if I remember correctly the best seeming answer for removing the chance of ai units killing players when they go renegade status in a freindly town is to make the units not fire, which could be easily explained, like"because they are freinds to the resistance they will not participate in attacks on their towns" or something like that.
And I hadnt really delved into that much more, so other options might have arose.
And thats pretty much it (I guess lol) Its just input I guess, take it for what its worth, thanks for the readins.
Christian
man its late lol
Quote[/b] ]Indeed actually our intents are similiar, although the layouts are different, to have conflict on the island that is realistically continuing as time goes on regardless of player interaction, although my concept requires a 'system' that periodically causes wars between particular town holding east and resistance clans.
Yes, they are similar ideas. By scripting when and where the battles occur, means you can manage the issue of sides.
Myself I prefer the idea of greater freedom, to the point of making permanent bases a liability. Well I mean, creating a base for your faction would have benefits, like medical facilities, stockpiles and fortifications e.t.c Only, any significant base would attract lots of attention. Especially if you’re active in that area. So I was looking for a more Nomadic feel, where your trying to stay one step ahead of the occupying forces and other factions. There is no reason why I could not have all the factions on the same side, separated by the bulk of the map. It's just human players will always make better opponents than AI, so I did not want it to be just a COOP.
There is nothing stopping individual players to enter as hired guns e.t.c in either version. It sounds like it's a case of either system-generated conflicts over towns, compared to player instigated combat. Although I suspect the auto-generated conflicts would be much easier to script. So have a better chance of ending up as a finished mission.
Perhaps JIP will lets us shift players from one side to another (Edit: I just realized you probably can already using the join command?), then perhaps I could use the same idea for managing sides and the number of players involved in any one skirmish. If not I can wait for game 2.
"Randomized addition of Re-Sup points over time"
Is this sort of like additional guys (Player Respawn Lives) given over time?
If so I think it would add more value to a soldiers life. Money buys tanks vehicles etc, and lives buy soldiers. Sort of like a dual economy.
LOL! That was just a jumbled bunch of thoughts for an extra example, but you may have something there. It would definitely add a bit of the unknown to a game. What's the timing, and what amount will you get? Hard to plan on and could be a blessing or a curse of you're hard pressed and getting a lot of casualties. Keep going Smoot! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
*Damn supply guy gave us 100 rolls of T.P. not 100 RNDS of AT-4!* http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
Quote[/b] ]Keep going Smoot!
Well, ok, you asked for it. Here are the list of recent Ideas some of the guys im working with on a new CTI version for ArmA came up with.
A CTI that takes advantage of 60+ players, with limited AI roles.
Each team has predefind starting roles broke down in to squads.
(Example)
Squads Slots/sqaud
1 Commander 1 (+additional AI)
1 Sniper 2
2 Assault 8
1 Air 4
1 Armour 5
1 Black ops 5
1 Support 3
------------------------------------
Economy broke in to 2 areas.
Money (gained every 10 minutes) For buying tanks, vehicles ect.
Recruitment (gained every 15 minutes) Lives given to a team. Each squad has a different % of lives gained. This puts more value on not getting killed and working as a team.
(example)
Air might get 4 lives every 15 minutes
Assault might get 10 lives every 15 minutes
Commander might get 1 life every 15 minutes
------------------------------------------
Tactical Map
Some towns bases etc give bonuses to the side that owns that territory. Bonuses range from money, lives, fuel, technology, or faster transportation due to roads leading more area's.
(examples)
Money, Town A gives an increase of $2000 over the base ammount every 10 minutes.
Life, Town B gives a bonus of an additional 2 players per squad for each 15 minutes.
Fuel, Ability to spawn Fuel repair, and ammo trucks, also if town has a fuel station equipment can fuel up at taht location.
Technology, Town C gains access to spawning more advanced tanks, chopper, etc.
Some towns may have any combination of the above.
----------------------------------------
The ability to surrender. All weapons and ammo are droped and the combatant is taken into custody. Each team has a POW camp that where POW's are taken (AI guarded). Since lives maybe a rare comodity for your squad or team you may want to take this option rather then get shot and die.
(Example)
Downed West Pilot surrenders and is taken to the East POW camp.
A. West commnader can either pay east for his return (life is added back to his squads life pool).
B. West commander sends in black ops to try and get him out.
c. player can try and sneak out.
D. player can just run out and get killed by AI
-------------------------------------------------
Problems with this game type
1. Fun factor is put heavily on the commander and squad leaders. The commander has to relay what he wants done and give missions to other squads. Squad leaders need to come up with a plan of attack and keep squad members involved.
2. If lives run out for a squad how fun would it be to have to sit and wait the remander of time for new lives to accumulate.
(maybe a squad can buy lives as well with the money it has but buying a life wouldnt be cheap?)
3. A save feature would be nice for multiplayer that can save what towns belong to who, and how many lives and money each side has. That way if it is a war that takes days to win you gaming community can save where everything is at and come back to it at a later time.
These are just some ideas, and who even knows if this will be possible with ArmA. Kick those around for a while.
Quote[/b] ]Myself I prefer the idea of greater freedom, to the point of making permanent bases a liability. Well I mean, creating a base for your faction would have benefits, like medical facilities, stockpiles and fortifications e.t.c Only, any significant base would attract lots of attention. Especially if you’re active in that area. So I was looking for a more Nomadic feel, where your trying to stay one step ahead of the occupying forces and other factions. There is no reason why I could not have all the factions on the same side, separated by the bulk of the map. It's just human players will always make better opponents than AI, so I did not want it to be just a COOP.
I agree that main bases do indeed draw alot of attention, and if the players could actually benefit from taking over a main base, freindly or not, if it could be done players would eventually try, and try, unless the defenses were great enough for a freindly base where the answer was simply no, it prolly cant be done, and worst off if I attack the base in attempt to take it I will lose freindly status with that base, where I can no longer freely come in and enjoy whatever is made availiable at the base, would it be worth getting cut off for attempting an attack that would likely fail anyhow?
In the concept each town held by a clan would be more less a mini-base, some towns having more fortifications than others, some with parimeter defenses, even barbed wire sourounding the town bunkers, etc, once again the larger towns would prolly have the more significant defensive structures. And yea, in this concept the two 'merchant' towns (which would be freindly) would be like the two 'main bases' of thje island, and indeed would draw alot of attention, which was why in my notes for the mission I put down to make sure that the two merchant towns were almot impossible to take, having extreme defenses.
Oh, lastly I wanted to add something that I didnt earlier, that in this concept AI clans would gain financially from any towns they held (alike CTI), and therefore would be able to purchase more and more combat forces as their held towns increased, only mentioning this to show how a particular AI clan could become stronger without thinning itself out through taking more territory (towns). As far as how the AI clans would purchase their combat forces, honestly I hadnt gotten that far, cant have east clan units being bought in Res merchant towns, it would have been figured out once the mission progress had (I say HAD as in it will not be, but HAD the mission work continued) gotten to where that needed to be implemented.
I agree too with the coop thing, I didnt want it either, the concept was to merely start players as freindly to each other, but not dedicated to each other, they can do what they want, stay as freindly, or go rogue, whatever, them being on the same side is really just the technical description of their status in the game program. Neat thing about allowing all players to start as freindly is that also particular players (like 2 that know each other) can join forces, although the mission system limits this because each player accumulates their own income based on their own towns, which would keep a tight rein on too much 'coop' style play.
Whatever you guys come up with, I do like alot of the ideas I've read here, the convoys providing backup would be neat, although you would have to find a realistic starting location for them, you might not want them just 'spawning' from the middle of nowhere (even if they are never seen being spawned), its always nice to at least have a base location of something that they would come from where even (worst case scenario) if they were spawned at least if they were spawned in a base area it would be more believable to the players, another words even with spawning (as I'm sure you know) its good to have as much of a realistic starting location as possible, just like in CTI where even though all the Res units are spwned in towns, you'd never know it, and if you did know it at least you knew their spawn locations are also their true realistic starting locations, their homes.
Thats pretty much it for me here, I cant come up with much more to say, and I'm afraid to try. So thanks for letting folks like myself add some input here, take what you want from it(if anything), I'm moving on here..
Have a good evening, you guys take it easy out there
Quote[/b] ]If so I think it would add more value to a soldiers life. Money buys tanks vehicles etc, and lives buy soldiers. Sort of like a dual economy.
Good point. Your not going to get many new recruits. If you can't look after the ones you already have http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Quote[/b] ]1. Fun factor is put heavily on the commander and squad leaders. The commander has to relay what he wants done and give missions to other squads. Squad leaders need to come up with a plan of attack and keep squad members involved.
That’s only a problem on a public server, if you cant find someone who is willing to take on the role of Commander.
Quote[/b] ]3. A save feature would be nice for multiplayer that can save what towns belong to who, and how many lives and money each side has. That way if it is a war that takes days to win you gaming community can save where everything is at and come back to it at a later time.
Yeah, we can only wait and see what Armed Assault has to offer.
Quote[/b] ]Downed West Pilot surrenders and is taken to the East POW camp.
That would make a good sub mission, as either a breakout or rescue. At least then you would not have to rely on someone coming to pick you up. And could probably be run on the client, unless a player was coming to rescue you. So less strain on the server.
Robert(UK)
Dec 15 2005, 11:28
Awesome!!! Yet more really cool ideas. I especially like the ones about player lives and the POW camp. That would be really realistic and really cool to have in game.
Nice work guys, keep it up!!! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/yay.gif
-----VOTE----------VOTE----------VOTE----------VOTE----------VOTE----------VOTE-----
ALRIGHTY THEN! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
This here post signals the limit of the first vote. All suggestions after will be put into the next one.
How to vote:
1- Quote my next post (the one with all the vote topics) .
2- Replace the X's with '1' of you want the idea, '-1' if you don't, and '0' if you don't care either way.
**Important** Please don't modify anything else but the X's, and don't add any other text as it'll pikeup the compilation! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
3-Post your response. When I have time, and my brain stops oozing out my ears, I'll compile and post the results. Probably on Espectro's ArmA.dk as well (Thank you)
Feel free to change your mind and edit your vote, as I'll probably be over a week before I get to it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
Edit: The accepted ideas will be able to go into a more detailed vote next time. This is a general vote to thin the field a bit.
Have fun!
-----VOTE----------VOTE----------VOTE----------VOTE----------VOTE----------VOTE-----
12-15-05
Vote for ARMA: Next-Gen CTI Ideas
Replace the 'X' with your vote:
1= Like Idea
-1= Do Not Like
0= Don't Care
--------General Gameplay-----------------------------------------------------
X :Massive Warfare, Large coordinated battles
X :Unscripted, non-linear play.
X :Resistance in towns.
X :Improved command and movement (A La 'CE2' ).
X :Indirect fire support (Artillery).
X :Improved AI Cooperation.
X :Punish defensive army / reward aggressive army (thru wealth, points, time, Etc.).
X :Needing to have several units in zone to call it 'secured' and gain benefit from it.
X :Being able to reinforce a newly secured area (with AI and fortifications).
X :Needing to have at least one supply convoy enter a held town to own it, and have benefits.
X :Strategic interface for Commander (improved SI for commander?)
X :Having to go thru the BUILDING of mission specific areas and structures (AI spending time digging and building)
X :Being able to convert native resistance to your cause (they become your AI)
X :Voting on playing modes (like: 'full/partial/no logistics', or 'support personnel on/off', Etc.)
X :No 'Command Vehicle', But players with authority to order things built.
X :Functional Native Assets,(FN-A) I.E. Radar tower (Monitor airspace), communications(Troop movements/Satalite views)
X :Each zone has a specific bonus (or several). I.E. one might boost troops, one might be a factory for more vehicles.
X :Mobile spawn points (moved by commander/medic etc.).
X :Linear capture of towns / zones.
X :Balanced gameplay. (weapons/vehicles equal power, both sides)
X :Free gameplay (read: not balancing).
X :Map updates every so often showing the known frontlines.
X :Two (at least) pre-existing industrial countries with their own infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities going to war (fixed starting point CTI?)
X :Game has many ragged factions vying for control of island.
X :Continuous gameplay (utilizing JIP).
X :Ability to save game and continue later.
X :Native (Insert name here) units attack East troops.
X :Different Native (insert name here) units attack West troops.
X :Dynamic mission system (suggests missions? Not sure what this could be).
X :Native AI can build up forces once attacked.
--------Units / Unit Alterations---------------------------------------------
X :Propaganda vehicles (or delivery) to sway neutral territories.
X :Combat Engineers (a purchased resource) for building bridges and other structures.
X :Accelerated fuel usage in some/all vehicles.
X :Predefined roles (I.E. limited slots for type of duties).
X :Vehicle ROF set as close as possible to RL levels. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
X :Vehicle target acquisition times set as close as possible to RL. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
--------Player / AI Related -------------------------------------------------
X :Players able to be in support role.
X :AI able to be in support role.
X :ONLY AI does support roles
X :Players good performance brings notoriety and a bounty on their heads.
X :Ability to surrender and be a POW (need an incentive to not just kill?).
X :Better reporting ability for troop movements (for a scout/AI)
X :Commander can allocate (limited?) priority points to areas that will cause free AI units under command to move in and reinforce.
--------Economics / Management-----------------------------------------------
X :Buying specific Equipment and Troops. (either with money or points)
X :'Money' in general.
X :'Resource' points in general.
X :'Getting what you get' from supply.
X :Resource Points slowly add over time.
X :Resource points accumulate at random intervals.
X :Resource points accumulate with random amounts.
X :Limited pool for weapons/equipment.
X :Limited pool for troops.
X :Rewarding the difference between 'beach head'(nothing really secured) and established territories with airports/harbors.
X :Limited supply vehicles to bring material into the game zone (if all destroyed, need to scavenge - no more transports)
X :Having a Second Commander to assist in organization.
X :Ability to authorize many different players use of the control interface (assign players to supply, control a region, etc.)
--------Infrastructure / Support / Resupply Details--------------------------
X :Commander designates supply drops (when & or location).
X :Commander designates supply routes (distribution).
X :Using resources outside your immediate command (I.E. calling unscheduled C-130 supply drops) cost - using owned vehicles for Dist. doesn't.
X :Use realistic quantities for supply drops (I.E. Not having four T-90's delivered in an AN-72).
X :Using Transport ships at controlled harbors.
X :Ammo dumps / Supply stations that hold delivered equipment-and are the start and destination for a supply convoys distribution.
X :Refueling personnel (AI and/or PLayer).
X :Repair personnel (AI and/or Player.. Crewchief?) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
X :Medical personnel (AI and/or Player) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
X :Medical Evac (Helo or ambulance).
X :MASH Units (with personnel).
X :Detailed Logistics in general.
12-15-05
Vote for ARMA: Next-Gen CTI Ideas
Replace the 'X' with your vote:
1= Like Idea
-1= Do Not Like
0= Don't Care
--------General Gameplay-----------------------------------------------------
1 :Massive Warfare, Large coordinated battles
1 :Unscripted, non-linear play.
0 :Resistance in towns.
1 :Improved command and movement (A La 'CE2' ).
1 :Indirect fire support (Artillery).
1 :Improved AI Cooperation.
0 :Punish defensive army / reward aggressive army (thru wealth, points, time, Etc.).
0 :Needing to have several units in zone to call it 'secured' and gain benefit from it.
1 :Being able to reinforce a newly secured area (with AI and fortifications).
1 :Needing to have at least one supply convoy enter a held town to own it, and have benefits.
1 :Strategic interface for Commander (improved SI for commander?)
0 :Having to go thru the BUILDING of mission specific areas and structures (AI spending time digging and building)
1 :Being able to convert native resistance to your cause (they become your AI)
0 :Voting on playing modes (like: 'full/partial/no logistics', or 'support personnel on/off', Etc.)
1 :No 'Command Vehicle', But players with authority to order things built.
1 :Functional Native Assets,(FN-A) I.E. Radar tower (Monitor airspace), communications(Troop movements/Satalite views)
1 :Each zone has a specific bonus (or several). I.E. one might boost troops, one might be a factory for more vehicles.
1 :Mobile spawn points (moved by commander/medic etc.).
0 :Linear capture of towns / zones.
0 :Balanced gameplay. (weapons/vehicles equal power, both sides)
0 :Free gameplay (read: not balancing).
0 :Map updates every so often showing the known frontlines.
1 :Two (at least) pre-existing industrial countries with their own infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities going to war (fixed starting point CTI?)
1 :Game has many ragged factions vying for control of island.
1 :Continuous gameplay (utilizing JIP).
1 :Ability to save game and continue later.
0 :Native (Insert name here) units attack East troops.
0 :Different Native (insert name here) units attack West troops.
1 :Dynamic mission system (suggests missions? Not sure what this could be).
0 :Native AI can build up forces once attacked.
--------Units / Unit Alterations---------------------------------------------
0 :Propaganda vehicles (or delivery) to sway neutral territories.
0 :Combat Engineers (a purchased resource) for building bridges and other structures.
1 :Accelerated fuel usage in some/all vehicles.
0 :Predefined roles (I.E. limited slots for type of duties).
0 :Vehicle ROF set as close as possible to RL levels. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
0 :Vehicle target acquisition times set as close as possible to RL. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
--------Player / AI Related -------------------------------------------------
1 :Players able to be in support role.
1 :AI able to be in support role.
0 :ONLY AI does support roles
0 :Players good performance brings notoriety and a bounty on their heads.
1 :Ability to surrender and be a POW (need an incentive to not just kill?).
1 :Better reporting ability for troop movements (for a scout/AI)
1 :Commander can allocate (limited?) priority points to areas that will cause free AI units under command to move in and reinforce.
--------Economics / Management-----------------------------------------------
1 :Buying specific Equipment and Troops. (either with money or points)
0 :'Money' in general.
1 :'Resource' points in general.
1 :'Getting what you get' from supply.
1 :Resource Points slowly add over time.
0 :Resource points accumulate at random intervals.
0 :Resource points accumulate with random amounts.
1 :Limited pool for weapons/equipment.
1 :Limited pool for troops.
1 :Rewarding the difference between 'beach head'(nothing really secured) and established territories with airports/harbors.
1 :Limited supply vehicles to bring material into the game zone (if all destroyed, need to scavenge - no more transports)
1 :Having a Second Commander to assist in organization.
0 :Ability to authorize many different players use of the control interface (assign players to supply, control a region, etc.)
--------Infrastructure / Support / Resupply Details--------------------------
0 :Commander designates supply drops (when & or location).
0 :Commander designates supply routes (distribution).
1 :Using resources outside your immediate command (I.E. calling unscheduled C-130 supply drops) cost - using owned vehicles for Dist. doesn't.
1 :Use realistic quantities for supply drops (I.E. Not having four T-90's delivered in an AN-72).
1 :Using Transport ships at controlled harbors.
1 :Ammo dumps / Supply stations that hold delivered equipment-and are the start and destination for a supply convoys distribution.
1 :Refueling personnel (AI and/or PLayer).
1 :Repair personnel (AI and/or Player.. Crewchief?) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
1 :Medical personnel (AI and/or Player) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
1 :Medical Evac (Helo or ambulance).
1 :MASH Units (with personnel).
1 :Detailed Logistics in general.
Espectro
Dec 16 2005, 10:40
--------General Gameplay-----------------------------------------------------
1 :Massive Warfare, Large coordinated battles
0 :Unscripted, non-linear play.
1 :Resistance in towns.
1 :Improved command and movement (A La 'CE2' ).
0 :Indirect fire support (Artillery).
1 :Improved AI Cooperation.
1 :Punish defensive army / reward aggressive army (thru wealth, points, time, Etc.).
0 :Needing to have several units in zone to call it 'secured' and gain benefit from it.
1 :Being able to reinforce a newly secured area (with AI and fortifications).
-1 :Needing to have at least one supply convoy enter a held town to own it, and have benefits.
1 :Strategic interface for Commander (improved SI for commander?)
-1 :Having to go thru the BUILDING of mission specific areas and structures (AI spending time digging and building)
-1 :Being able to convert native resistance to your cause (they become your AI)
1 :Voting on playing modes (like: 'full/partial/no logistics', or 'support personnel on/off', Etc.)
0 :No 'Command Vehicle', But players with authority to order things built.
1 :Functional Native Assets,(FN-A) I.E. Radar tower (Monitor airspace), communications(Troop movements/Satalite views)
1 :Each zone has a specific bonus (or several). I.E. one might boost troops, one might be a factory for more vehicles.
1 :Mobile spawn points (moved by commander/medic etc.).
1 :Linear capture of towns / zones.
1 :Balanced gameplay. (weapons/vehicles equal power, both sides)
-1 :Free gameplay (read: not balancing).
1 :Map updates every so often showing the known frontlines.
-1 :Two (at least) pre-existing industrial countries with their own infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities going to war (fixed starting point CTI?)
-1 :Game has many ragged factions vying for control of island.
1 :Continuous gameplay (utilizing JIP).
-1 :Ability to save game and continue later.
1 :Native (Insert name here) units attack East troops.
1 :Different Native (insert name here) units attack West troops.
-1 :Dynamic mission system (suggests missions? Not sure what this could be).
1 :Native AI can build up forces once attacked.
--------Units / Unit Alterations---------------------------------------------
-1 :Propaganda vehicles (or delivery) to sway neutral territories.
1 :Combat Engineers (a purchased resource) for building bridges and other structures.
1 :Accelerated fuel usage in some/all vehicles.
1 :Predefined roles (I.E. limited slots for type of duties).
-1 :Vehicle ROF set as close as possible to RL levels. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
1 :Vehicle target acquisition times set as close as possible to RL. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
--------Player / AI Related -------------------------------------------------
-1 :Players able to be in support role.
1 :AI able to be in support role.
1 :ONLY AI does support roles
1 :Players good performance brings notoriety and a bounty on their heads.
1 :Ability to surrender and be a POW (need an incentive to not just kill?).
1 :Better reporting ability for troop movements (for a scout/AI)
1 :Commander can allocate (limited?) priority points to areas that will cause free AI units under command to move in and reinforce.
--------Economics / Management-----------------------------------------------
1 :Buying specific Equipment and Troops. (either with money or points)
1 :'Money' in general.
1 :'Resource' points in general.
-1 :'Getting what you get' from supply.
1 :Resource Points slowly add over time.
1 :Resource points accumulate at random intervals.
1 :Resource points accumulate with random amounts.
-1 :Limited pool for weapons/equipment.
-1 :Limited pool for troops.
0 :Rewarding the difference between 'beach head'(nothing really secured) and established territories with airports/harbors.
-1 :Limited supply vehicles to bring material into the game zone (if all destroyed, need to scavenge - no more transports)
1 :Having a Second Commander to assist in organization.
1 :Ability to authorize many different players use of the control interface (assign players to supply, control a region, etc.)
--------Infrastructure / Support / Resupply Details--------------------------
0 :Commander designates supply drops (when & or location).
-1 :Commander designates supply routes (distribution).
1 :Using resources outside your immediate command (I.E. calling unscheduled C-130 supply drops) cost - using owned vehicles for Dist. doesn't.
1 :Use realistic quantities for supply drops (I.E. Not having four T-90's delivered in an AN-72).
1 :Using Transport ships at controlled harbors.
1 :Ammo dumps / Supply stations that hold delivered equipment-and are the start and destination for a supply convoys distribution.
-1 :Refueling personnel (AI and/or PLayer).
-1 :Repair personnel (AI and/or Player.. Crewchief?) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
1 :Medical personnel (AI and/or Player) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
1 :Medical Evac (Helo or ambulance).
-1 :MASH Units (with personnel).
1 :Detailed Logistics in general.
Espectro
Dec 16 2005, 10:44
if we are gonna get artellery, i think that it should be something expensive that you have to research. There should also be an "arty locater research" that costs slightly less which can pinpoint any arty shots. So that the commander will get "arty shot from DB31 have been fired".
Robert(UK)
Dec 16 2005, 11:55
--------General Gameplay-----------------------------------------------------
1 :Massive Warfare, Large coordinated battles
1 :Unscripted, non-linear play.
1 :Resistance in towns.
1 :Improved command and movement (A La 'CE2' ).
1 :Indirect fire support (Artillery).
1 :Improved AI Cooperation.
-1 :Punish defensive army / reward aggressive army (thru wealth, points, time, Etc.).
0 :Needing to have several units in zone to call it 'secured' and gain benefit from it.
1 :Being able to reinforce a newly secured area (with AI and fortifications).
-1 :Needing to have at least one supply convoy enter a held town to own it, and have benefits.
1 :Strategic interface for Commander (improved SI for commander?)
1 :Having to go thru the BUILDING of mission specific areas and structures (AI spending time digging and building)
1 :Being able to convert native resistance to your cause (they become your AI)
-1 :Voting on playing modes (like: 'full/partial/no logistics', or 'support personnel on/off', Etc.)
-1 :No 'Command Vehicle', But players with authority to order things built.
1 :Functional Native Assets,(FN-A) I.E. Radar tower (Monitor airspace), communications(Troop movements/Satalite views)
1 :Each zone has a specific bonus (or several). I.E. one might boost troops, one might be a factory for more vehicles.
1 :Mobile spawn points (moved by commander/medic etc.).
-1 :Linear capture of towns / zones.
-1 :Balanced gameplay. (weapons/vehicles equal power, both sides)
1 :Free gameplay (read: not balancing).
1 :Map updates every so often showing the known frontlines.
0 :Two (at least) pre-existing industrial countries with their own infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities going to war (fixed starting point CTI?)
1 :Game has many ragged factions vying for control of island.
1 :Continuous gameplay (utilizing JIP).
1 :Ability to save game and continue later.
1 :Native (Insert name here) units attack East troops.
1 :Different Native (insert name here) units attack West troops.
1 :Dynamic mission system (suggests missions? Not sure what this could be).
1 :Native AI can build up forces once attacked.
--------Units / Unit Alterations---------------------------------------------
1 :Propaganda vehicles (or delivery) to sway neutral territories.
1 :Combat Engineers (a purchased resource) for building bridges and other structures.
0 :Accelerated fuel usage in some/all vehicles.
-1 :Predefined roles (I.E. limited slots for type of duties).
1 :Vehicle ROF set as close as possible to RL levels. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
1 :Vehicle target acquisition times set as close as possible to RL. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
--------Player / AI Related -------------------------------------------------
1 :Players able to be in support role.
1 :AI able to be in support role.
-1 :ONLY AI does support roles
1 :Players good performance brings notoriety and a bounty on their heads.
1 :Ability to surrender and be a POW (need an incentive to not just kill?).
1 :Better reporting ability for troop movements (for a scout/AI)
1 :Commander can allocate (limited?) priority points to areas that will cause free AI units under command to move in and reinforce.
--------Economics / Management-----------------------------------------------
1 :Buying specific Equipment and Troops. (either with money or points)
1 :'Money' in general.
0 :'Resource' points in general.
1 :'Getting what you get' from supply.
1 :Resource Points slowly add over time.
0 :Resource points accumulate at random intervals.
0 :Resource points accumulate with random amounts.
-1 :Limited pool for weapons/equipment.
-1 :Limited pool for troops.
1 :Rewarding the difference between 'beach head'(nothing really secured) and established territories with airports/harbors.
-1 :Limited supply vehicles to bring material into the game zone (if all destroyed, need to scavenge - no more transports)
1 :Having a Second Commander to assist in organization.
1 :Ability to authorize many different players use of the control interface (assign players to supply, control a region, etc.)
--------Infrastructure / Support / Resupply Details--------------------------
1 :Commander designates supply drops (when & or location).
0 :Commander designates supply routes (distribution).
1 :Using resources outside your immediate command (I.E. calling unscheduled C-130 supply drops) cost - using owned vehicles for Dist. doesn't.
1 :Use realistic quantities for supply drops (I.E. Not having four T-90's delivered in an AN-72).
1 :Using Transport ships at controlled harbors.
0 :Ammo dumps / Supply stations that hold delivered equipment-and are the start and destination for a supply convoys distribution.
1 :Refueling personnel (AI and/or PLayer).
1 :Repair personnel (AI and/or Player.. Crewchief?) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
1 :Medical personnel (AI and/or Player) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
1 :Medical Evac (Helo or ambulance).
1 :MASH Units (with personnel).
1 :Detailed Logistics in general.
Okay, here is mine...
whisper
Dec 16 2005, 16:30
It seems the idea of a more persistent fighting ground for ArmA has allready been thought out by BIS :
from here (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=64;t=49697)
Quote[/b] ]ArmA: imposing MP battles durative several days
Which may mean some kind of "persistent & global battlefield for MP"
Wouldn't it be great if we only had to 'tweek' it a bit? On the order of swapping units or scripting a bit 'o AI? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Quote[/b] ]It seems the idea of a more persistent fighting ground for ArmA has allready been thought out by BIS :
from here
Yeah, although initialy it was talked about for game 2. But the inclusion of JIP and the new super efficent code was enough to convince me, to start thinking about it sooner rather than later. I cant get the links to work in that article, but that certainly looks like large mission are now, more than wishfull thinking.
MP battles for several days? I wonder if that is in game time, with accelerated day/night cycles, or in RL? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif
--------General Gameplay-----------------------------------------------------
1 :Massive Warfare, Large coordinated battles
0 :Unscripted, non-linear play.
0 :Resistance in towns.
1 :Improved command and movement (A La 'CE2' ).
1 :Indirect fire support (Artillery).
1 :Improved AI Cooperation.
0 :Punish defensive army / reward aggressive army (thru wealth, points, time, Etc.).
0 :Needing to have several units in zone to call it 'secured' and gain benefit from it.
1 :Being able to reinforce a newly secured area (with AI and fortifications).
0 :Needing to have at least one supply convoy enter a held town to own it, and have benefits.
1 :Strategic interface for Commander (improved SI for commander?)
-1 :Having to go thru the BUILDING of mission specific areas and structures (AI spending time digging and building)
0 :Being able to convert native resistance to your cause (they become your AI)
1 :Voting on playing modes (like: 'full/partial/no logistics', or 'support personnel on/off', Etc.)
1 :No 'Command Vehicle', But players with authority to order things built.
1 :Functional Native Assets,(FN-A) I.E. Radar tower (Monitor airspace), communications(Troop movements/Satalite views)
1 :Each zone has a specific bonus (or several). I.E. one might boost troops, one might be a factory for more vehicles.
1 :Mobile spawn points (moved by commander/medic etc.).
0 :Linear capture of towns / zones.
1 :Balanced gameplay. (weapons/vehicles equal power, both sides)
1 :Free gameplay (read: not balancing).
1 :Map updates every so often showing the known frontlines.
0 :Two (at least) pre-existing industrial countries with their own infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities going to war (fixed starting point CTI?)
0 :Game has many ragged factions vying for control of island.
1 :Continuous gameplay (utilizing JIP).
1 :Ability to save game and continue later.
0 :Native (Insert name here) units attack East troops.
0 :Different Native (insert name here) units attack West troops.
1 :Dynamic mission system (suggests missions? Not sure what this could be).
0 :Native AI can build up forces once attacked.
--------Units / Unit Alterations---------------------------------------------
-1 :Propaganda vehicles (or delivery) to sway neutral territories.
1 :Combat Engineers (a purchased resource) for building bridges and other structures.
1 :Accelerated fuel usage in some/all vehicles.
1 :Predefined roles (I.E. limited slots for type of duties).
-1 :Vehicle ROF set as close as possible to RL levels. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
1 :Vehicle target acquisition times set as close as possible to RL. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
--------Player / AI Related -------------------------------------------------
1 :Players able to be in support role.
1 :AI able to be in support role.
-1 :ONLY AI does support roles
1 :Players good performance brings notoriety and a bounty on their heads.
1 :Ability to surrender and be a POW (need an incentive to not just kill?).
1 :Better reporting ability for troop movements (for a scout/AI)
0 :Commander can allocate (limited?) priority points to areas that will cause free AI units under command to move in and reinforce.
--------Economics / Management-----------------------------------------------
1 :Buying specific Equipment and Troops. (either with money or points)
1 :'Money' in general.
1 :'Resource' points in general.
0 :'Getting what you get' from supply.
1 :Resource Points slowly add over time.
0 :Resource points accumulate at random intervals.
0 :Resource points accumulate with random amounts.
0 :Limited pool for weapons/equipment.
0 :Limited pool for troops.
1 :Rewarding the difference between 'beach head'(nothing really secured) and established territories with airports/harbors.
0 :Limited supply vehicles to bring material into the game zone (if all destroyed, need to scavenge - no more transports)
0 :Having a Second Commander to assist in organization.
0 :Ability to authorize many different players use of the control interface (assign players to supply, control a region, etc.)
--------Infrastructure / Support / Resupply Details--------------------------
1 :Commander designates supply drops (when & or location).
0 :Commander designates supply routes (distribution).
0 :Using resources outside your immediate command (I.E. calling unscheduled C-130 supply drops) cost - using owned vehicles for Dist. doesn't.
1 :Use realistic quantities for supply drops (I.E. Not having four T-90's delivered in an AN-72).
0 :Using Transport ships at controlled harbors.
0 :Ammo dumps / Supply stations that hold delivered equipment-and are the start and destination for a supply convoys distribution.
1 :Refueling personnel (AI and/or PLayer).
1 :Repair personnel (AI and/or Player.. Crewchief?) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
1 :Medical personnel (AI and/or Player) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
0 :Medical Evac (Helo or ambulance).
0 :MASH Units (with personnel).
1 :Detailed Logistics in general.
Batukhan
Dec 16 2005, 21:35
EDIT: Batukhan was a bad bad boy and didn't read the earlier posts in the thread, making a useless post.
Canukausiuka
Dec 17 2005, 04:39
--------General Gameplay-----------------------------------------------------
1 :Massive Warfare, Large coordinated battles
1 :Unscripted, non-linear play.
-1 :Resistance in towns.
1 :Improved command and movement (A La 'CE2' ).
1 :Indirect fire support (Artillery).
1 :Improved AI Cooperation.
-1 :Punish defensive army / reward aggressive army (thru wealth, points, time, Etc.).
1 :Needing to have several units in zone to call it 'secured' and gain benefit from it.
0 :Being able to reinforce a newly secured area (with AI and fortifications).
0 :Needing to have at least one supply convoy enter a held town to own it, and have benefits.
1 :Strategic interface for Commander (improved SI for commander?)
0 :Having to go thru the BUILDING of mission specific areas and structures (AI spending time digging and building)
-1 :Being able to convert native resistance to your cause (they become your AI)
0 :Voting on playing modes (like: 'full/partial/no logistics', or 'support personnel on/off', Etc.)
1 :No 'Command Vehicle', But players with authority to order things built.
-1 :Functional Native Assets,(FN-A) I.E. Radar tower (Monitor airspace), communications(Troop movements/Satalite views)
-1 :Each zone has a specific bonus (or several). I.E. one might boost troops, one might be a factory for more vehicles.
0 :Mobile spawn points (moved by commander/medic etc.).
0 :Linear capture of towns / zones.
-1 :Balanced gameplay. (weapons/vehicles equal power, both sides)
1 :Free gameplay (read: not balancing).
1 :Map updates every so often showing the known frontlines.
-1 :Two (at least) pre-existing industrial countries with their own infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities going to war (fixed starting point CTI?)
-1 :Game has many ragged factions vying for control of island.
1 :Continuous gameplay (utilizing JIP).
1 :Ability to save game and continue later.
0 :Native (Insert name here) units attack East troops.
0 :Different Native (insert name here) units attack West troops.
0 :Dynamic mission system (suggests missions? Not sure what this could be).
0 :Native AI can build up forces once attacked.
--------Units / Unit Alterations---------------------------------------------
-1 :Propaganda vehicles (or delivery) to sway neutral territories.
0 :Combat Engineers (a purchased resource) for building bridges and other structures.
-1 :Accelerated fuel usage in some/all vehicles.
1 :Predefined roles (I.E. limited slots for type of duties).
1 :Vehicle ROF set as close as possible to RL levels. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
1 :Vehicle target acquisition times set as close as possible to RL. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
--------Player / AI Related -------------------------------------------------
1 :Players able to be in support role.
1 :AI able to be in support role.
0 :ONLY AI does support roles
-1 :Players good performance brings notoriety and a bounty on their heads.
0 :Ability to surrender and be a POW (need an incentive to not just kill?).
1 :Better reporting ability for troop movements (for a scout/AI)
0 :Commander can allocate (limited?) priority points to areas that will cause free AI units under command to move in and reinforce.
--------Economics / Management-----------------------------------------------
0 :Buying specific Equipment and Troops. (either with money or points)
-1 :'Money' in general.
0 :'Resource' points in general.
1 :'Getting what you get' from supply.
1 :Resource Points slowly add over time.
0 :Resource points accumulate at random intervals.
0 :Resource points accumulate with random amounts.
1 :Limited pool for weapons/equipment.
1 :Limited pool for troops.
0 :Rewarding the difference between 'beach head'(nothing really secured) and established territories with airports/harbors.
0 :Limited supply vehicles to bring material into the game zone (if all destroyed, need to scavenge - no more transports)
0 :Having a Second Commander to assist in organization.
1 :Ability to authorize many different players use of the control interface (assign players to supply, control a region, etc.)
--------Infrastructure / Support / Resupply Details--------------------------
0 :Commander designates supply drops (when & or location).
0 :Commander designates supply routes (distribution).
0 :Using resources outside your immediate command (I.E. calling unscheduled C-130 supply drops) cost - using owned vehicles for Dist. doesn't.
1 :Use realistic quantities for supply drops (I.E. Not having four T-90's delivered in an AN-72).
0 :Using Transport ships at controlled harbors.
0 :Ammo dumps / Supply stations that hold delivered equipment-and are the start and destination for a supply convoys distribution.
1 :Refueling personnel (AI and/or PLayer).
1 :Repair personnel (AI and/or Player.. Crewchief?) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
1 :Medical personnel (AI and/or Player) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
1 :Medical Evac (Helo or ambulance).
1 :MASH Units (with personnel).
0 :Detailed Logistics in general.
My Ideas.
- Battle Management System or a Strategic interface for Commander - you can set WPs to another groups. You click in a symbol to mark a group and give orders. A player can be a Master Commander.
- Artilharia and CAS. You will buy like Support Pack (available in Edditing center). The support only spawn and are not present for so long.
- buy delivery: truck, chopper, para-drop (C-130). They will spawn like Support Pack.
- Join Group/transfer troops. You call reinforcement. You cant tell the troops to join your troops. Command Engine have this option.
- jump to battle. You are looking the map or BMS waiting the groups to contact the enemy. Than you choose to command that group in first person (or command like a RTS).
- A Dynamic AI Creator. AI only spawn when enemy are in contact.
- Join game.
- Safe zone optional. The enemy cannot attack your base. The game are concentrated in take cities.
- set multiple WP to groups. A chopper will not overfly the enemy.
- UAV to make recce missions. You set WP and watch the videos.
- Limited troops number like 8-12 groups or 6-12 troop´s groups. You buy reinforcement/groups and vehicles. You can choose what control with "jump to battle". Another option is upgrade (regular => rangers => deltas ) and buy artillary.
- A groups of very small islands with a big map (100x100km) to command ships and make landings = Conquer the islands. This will be a naval battle.
- Unit replacemente editor. You can choose what troops or addons to use and. The player will choose wath config they wants.
- Limited objectives like control a groups of towns to play fast games, or a Epectro's battlefronts ideas.
- Play in Resistence side.
G-LOC
Robert(UK)
Dec 17 2005, 14:31
Yeah, not sure if this has been mentioned, but does everyone have to play on one side in these games? Can some of us not go to the East side? If it is East v West, that is... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
0 :Massive Warfare, Large coordinated battles
0 :Unscripted, non-linear play.
1 :Resistance in towns.
0 :Improved command and movement (A La 'CE2' ).
1 :Indirect fire support (Artillery).
0 :Improved AI Cooperation.
-1 :Punish defensive army / reward aggressive army (thru wealth, points, time, Etc.).
-1 :Needing to have several units in zone to call it 'secured' and gain benefit from it.
1 :Being able to reinforce a newly secured area (with AI and fortifications).
-1 :Needing to have at least one supply convoy enter a held town to own it, and have benefits.
0 :Strategic interface for Commander (improved SI for commander?)
1 :Having to go thru the BUILDING of mission specific areas and structures (AI spending time digging and building)
0 :Being able to convert native resistance to your cause (they become your AI)
0 :Voting on playing modes (like: 'full/partial/no logistics', or 'support personnel on/off', Etc.)
1 :No 'Command Vehicle', But players with authority to order things built.
1 :Functional Native Assets,(FN-A) I.E. Radar tower (Monitor airspace), communications(Troop movements/Satalite views)
-1 :Each zone has a specific bonus (or several). I.E. one might boost troops, one might be a factory for more vehicles.
-1 :Mobile spawn points (moved by commander/medic etc.).
0 :Linear capture of towns / zones.
X :Balanced gameplay. (weapons/vehicles equal power, both sides)
1 :Free gameplay (read: not balancing).
0 :Map updates every so often showing the known frontlines.
1 :Two (at least) pre-existing industrial countries with their own infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities going to war (fixed starting point CTI?)
1 :Game has many ragged factions vying for control of island.
1 :Continuous gameplay (utilizing JIP).
1 :Ability to save game and continue later.
1 :Native (Insert name here) units attack East troops.
1 :Different Native (insert name here) units attack West troops.
1 :Dynamic mission system (suggests missions? Not sure what this could be).
0 :Native AI can build up forces once attacked.
--------Units / Unit Alterations---------------------------------------------
0 :Propaganda vehicles (or delivery) to sway neutral territories.
0 :Combat Engineers (a purchased resource) for building bridges and other structures.
0 :Accelerated fuel usage in some/all vehicles.
-1 :Predefined roles (I.E. limited slots for type of duties).
0 :Vehicle ROF set as close as possible to RL levels. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
0 :Vehicle target acquisition times set as close as possible to RL. (limits blind tab-fire-tab situations)
--------Player / AI Related -------------------------------------------------
0 :Players able to be in support role.
0 :AI able to be in support role.
0 :ONLY AI does support roles
1 :Players good performance brings notoriety and a bounty on their heads.
0 :Ability to surrender and be a POW (need an incentive to not just kill?).
0 :Better reporting ability for troop movements (for a scout/AI)
0 :Commander can allocate (limited?) priority points to areas that will cause free AI units under command to move in and reinforce.
--------Economics / Management-----------------------------------------------
1 :Buying specific Equipment and Troops. (either with money or points)
1 :'Money' in general.
-1 :'Resource' points in general.
1 :'Getting what you get' from supply.
-1 :Resource Points slowly add over time.
-1 :Resource points accumulate at random intervals.
-1 :Resource points accumulate with random amounts.
0 :Limited pool for weapons/equipment.
0 :Limited pool for troops.
0 :Rewarding the difference between 'beach head'(nothing really secured) and established territories with airports/harbors.
0 :Limited supply vehicles to bring material into the game zone (if all destroyed, need to scavenge - no more transports)
-1 :Having a Second Commander to assist in organization.
0 :Ability to authorize many different players use of the control interface (assign players to supply, control a region, etc.)
--------Infrastructure / Support / Resupply Details--------------------------
0 :Commander designates supply drops (when & or location).
0 :Commander designates supply routes (distribution).
0 :Using resources outside your immediate command (I.E. calling unscheduled C-130 supply drops) cost - using owned vehicles for Dist. doesn't.
0 :Use realistic quantities for supply drops (I.E. Not having four T-90's delivered in an AN-72).
0 :Using Transport ships at controlled harbors.
0 :Ammo dumps / Supply stations that hold delivered equipment-and are the start and destination for a supply convoys distribution.
0 :Refueling personnel (AI and/or PLayer).
0 :Repair personnel (AI and/or Player.. Crewchief?) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
0 :Medical personnel (AI and/or Player) can be killed to hinder efficiency.
0 :Medical Evac (Helo or ambulance).
0 :MASH Units (with personnel).
0 :Detailed Logistics in general.
Robert(UK)
Dec 18 2005, 16:38
With this revelation about this 'Only 1 Commander Who Is Not In Game' thing, will the CTI boys be able to edit it so that it is possible for there to be a commander who can move around in game?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.