PDA

View Full Version : Would You Play Ladder Games?



KG_Norad
17 Apr 04, 11:23
Which Military Simulation would you actually play on a competitive ladder? We used to support Tacops, Decisive Action, BCT & ATF. Tacops and Decisive action went away do to a lack of support. BCT & ATF have a very active community but due to the realtime nature of the titles no one plays ladder games. Now there is renewed interest in DA and POA2 is now out.

The question I have for you is which Milsim game would you play on the ladder if any?

NBrenner6
17 Apr 04, 12:05
Which Military Simulation would you actually play on a competitive ladder? We used to support Tacops, Decisive Action, BCT & ATF. Tacops and Decisive action went away do to a lack of support. BCT & ATF have a very active community but due to the realtime nature of the titles no one plays ladder games. Now there is renewed interest in DA and POA2 is now out.

The question I have for you is which Milsim game would you play on the ladder if any?
Would these all be on one ladder?

KG_Norad
17 Apr 04, 12:18
That would need to be determined. Right now the situation is I have people who sign up for the ATF BCT ladder but since september I have never once had a game reported. I am just trying to determine if there is any interest in any ladder play for any Military Sim type game.

Dr Zaius
20 Apr 04, 09:05
DA and TacOps lend themselves to to ladder play better than the others. POA-2 also has a good PBEM system, however, that system is not entirely ready for prime-time tournament play just yet.

One of the things that I believe keeps ATF from becoming more popular than it is (and I have told Pat this before), is the real-time nature of the gameplay. While this does make it neat for playing against the AI, it cripples the system for multiplayer. PBEM is the cornerstone around which almost all PC-based wargames revolve. You can only play against the AI so much until it grows thin. Players want to play against a human opponent. This is where ATF has issues. Even if the system ran silky smooth during live multiplyer and was really easy to set up, this type of play just isn't popular among wargamers. TCP/IP play has been implemented in Combat Mission in an awesome fashion, yet the vast majority of players don't use it. They prefer PBEM? Why? Because PBEM allows armchair generals to take as much time as they like with their turn. It also allows people who have unusual schedules to still partipate in multiplayer wargaming.

I have suggested before that ATF be modified with a turn-based simultaneous resolution style play. Each player would plot their orders for a given length of game time (5 minutes, 10 minutes, whatever Cpt Proctor decided was best), then the "Go" button would be clicked and the AI would carry out those orders to the best of its ability for the duration of that period. That would constitute "1 turn." In reality, the actual mechanics of the game wouldn't change at all. The only thing that this setup would change, is that players would no longer be able to continually micromanage each unit in real-time. You could even make the argument that such a simultaneous resolution combat system is even more realistic than the current structure. Right now players basically have the ability to micromanage each unit down to the squad level by continually tweaking the orders and pausing the game. The player would be a bit more restricted with a simultaneous resolution system. The player would have to issue orders, then would be forced to sit back a watch for a period of time just a real commander is forced to do.

It goes without saying that the huge side benefit of such a system would be PBEM. This would allow ATF to maintain its real-time flavor, but it would also allow a lot more flexibility for human vs. human play. I hope CPT Proctor will take a serious look at this option.

Redwolf
20 Apr 04, 11:31
One of the things that I believe keeps ATF from becoming more popular than it is (and I have told Pat this before), is the real-time nature of the gameplay.


There were plenty of people doing TCP in CMBO. The tournamenthouse.com ladder had thousands of games reported, the majority TCP.

The more severe and short-term reason why ATF cannot be used for competitive play is that there is no savegame functionality in two-player mode.

I also understand that Cpt. Proctor just used the DirectX networking APIs without looking into them too much. Which I am sure will also offer some nasty surprises when a crowd of people with vastly different network setups start playing each other.





I have suggested before that ATF be modified with a turn-based simultaneous resolution style play.[...] The only thing that this setup would change, is that players would no longer be able to continually micromanage each unit in real-time. You could even make the argument that such a simultaneous resolution combat system is even more realistic than the current structure.

It is only possible and only offers realism if there is a capable "MicroAI" taking over the short-term actions during the resolution phase.

Look into the mess that Combat Mission makes out of it, although that could easily be fixed by just dropping most of the actions ordered by the "TacAI" as they name it.

But for ATF, you cannot have 1 minute turns because games are too long. If you have more than one minute then there are things that just cannot be put into a MicroAI easily, namely fire support decisions.

To do this, the game would have to be modified so that the commander (player) plans his fire support like Cpt. Proctor lines out in his new AAR and the plan then gets executed automatically based on triggers. Implementing this is a huge effort and would lead to a different game.