World War II
by Nick K · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 02/25/2003 (10:43 am) · 26 replies
[I originally posted this in the industry board under the After the Wall subject, but I realized this is more of a game idea]
You know, a good WWII game could have been a great thing.
Here's my vision for the game I would like to play:
I'm talking about a game that gives you a feel for what it's like to be part of a team of soldiers.
One possible way to enforce team play is the use of a counter called moral. Moral goes up when you're near your squad and you're not under fire, and it goes down when squadmates get killed and you're under supressing fire, as an example. If moral goes down too low, your soldier hits the dirt and finds cover, i.e. the player loses control of his avatar. Maybe at this point only an NCO or an officer could inspire his team. This is actually quite a profound addition to the FPS experience.
Non typed communications would also be important, the NCO points his cursor over the enemy position and presses the 'c' key (whatever) and his squad hears him yell, "covering fire, 1oclock" while a little targeting rectile appears over what the NCO is pointing at. These types of communications could add a lot to game play. Perhaps following orders adds to moral? Who knows?
There has got to be some WWII field manuals around somewhere that talk about squad-squad engagements (I /think/ a squad is about 13-16 soldiers) so this would be a good start.
As the game grows, you could do platoon-platoon engagements (50 versus 50) and if it really takes off, and enough tweaking is done on the engine, maybe company-company (150 v 150) but this may be unrealistic, and it's certainly very long term.
Again, the goal is to enforce teamwork: supressing fire, flanking missions, etc. Flanking missions often require the flanking squad to be hidden by terrain AND to have the enemy soldiers ducking for cover.
Perhaps a way of realistically engineering such a game would be to release just one weapon on each side, an M1 versus a KAR, and slowly add on weapons. Maybe having plenty of weapons is easy to do, depends on modelers I'm guessing.
I think that what would make this game type hard is:
1) Doing good research to find fun squad-squad engagements, and then adding higher type engagements platoon-platoon, etc.. There will be a huge temptation to add all kinds of weapons that may not necessarily be all that common, sniper rifles, flame throwers etc... I think it's better if you stick to the bread-and-butter of the rifleman.
2) Making sure my whole morale scheme actually adds to the gameplay, tweaking this is going to be hard. People could find work arounds that destroy the spirit of this system, so it has to be really well thought out.
3) Persistence of players is a hard problem to address in these types of games. I mean, what happens when people die? Perhaps they could go to a basic training map until the game is over? Is it bad or good if the death map is less fun than the real game?? =)
4) How do does a team choose its NCOs and Officers? A bad one could destroy the squad, which in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's only bad when one person could ruin the game for 25 others.
5) Vehicles. It's a shame to have an engine that's got such strong vehicle support, and not implement them. It could be fun to actually get the squad together and drive them to a rally point, but adding tanks changes the whole dynamics of the game, this is a point where research is going to be key.
6) Artillery, motars and guns are an important part of these engagements, maybe mortar men could be bots. Artillery is sufficiently behind the line that you don't have to have men manning it.
Any comments?
Perhaps you could convince me to be a coder, I don't know much about torque or graphics programming, but I'm a real expert at C, many years of experience, and I'm a quick study. The person who would convince me to code would have to be the one who is going to make a game close to what i have outlined =)
n
You know, a good WWII game could have been a great thing.
Here's my vision for the game I would like to play:
I'm talking about a game that gives you a feel for what it's like to be part of a team of soldiers.
One possible way to enforce team play is the use of a counter called moral. Moral goes up when you're near your squad and you're not under fire, and it goes down when squadmates get killed and you're under supressing fire, as an example. If moral goes down too low, your soldier hits the dirt and finds cover, i.e. the player loses control of his avatar. Maybe at this point only an NCO or an officer could inspire his team. This is actually quite a profound addition to the FPS experience.
Non typed communications would also be important, the NCO points his cursor over the enemy position and presses the 'c' key (whatever) and his squad hears him yell, "covering fire, 1oclock" while a little targeting rectile appears over what the NCO is pointing at. These types of communications could add a lot to game play. Perhaps following orders adds to moral? Who knows?
There has got to be some WWII field manuals around somewhere that talk about squad-squad engagements (I /think/ a squad is about 13-16 soldiers) so this would be a good start.
As the game grows, you could do platoon-platoon engagements (50 versus 50) and if it really takes off, and enough tweaking is done on the engine, maybe company-company (150 v 150) but this may be unrealistic, and it's certainly very long term.
Again, the goal is to enforce teamwork: supressing fire, flanking missions, etc. Flanking missions often require the flanking squad to be hidden by terrain AND to have the enemy soldiers ducking for cover.
Perhaps a way of realistically engineering such a game would be to release just one weapon on each side, an M1 versus a KAR, and slowly add on weapons. Maybe having plenty of weapons is easy to do, depends on modelers I'm guessing.
I think that what would make this game type hard is:
1) Doing good research to find fun squad-squad engagements, and then adding higher type engagements platoon-platoon, etc.. There will be a huge temptation to add all kinds of weapons that may not necessarily be all that common, sniper rifles, flame throwers etc... I think it's better if you stick to the bread-and-butter of the rifleman.
2) Making sure my whole morale scheme actually adds to the gameplay, tweaking this is going to be hard. People could find work arounds that destroy the spirit of this system, so it has to be really well thought out.
3) Persistence of players is a hard problem to address in these types of games. I mean, what happens when people die? Perhaps they could go to a basic training map until the game is over? Is it bad or good if the death map is less fun than the real game?? =)
4) How do does a team choose its NCOs and Officers? A bad one could destroy the squad, which in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's only bad when one person could ruin the game for 25 others.
5) Vehicles. It's a shame to have an engine that's got such strong vehicle support, and not implement them. It could be fun to actually get the squad together and drive them to a rally point, but adding tanks changes the whole dynamics of the game, this is a point where research is going to be key.
6) Artillery, motars and guns are an important part of these engagements, maybe mortar men could be bots. Artillery is sufficiently behind the line that you don't have to have men manning it.
Any comments?
Perhaps you could convince me to be a coder, I don't know much about torque or graphics programming, but I'm a real expert at C, many years of experience, and I'm a quick study. The person who would convince me to code would have to be the one who is going to make a game close to what i have outlined =)
n
#2
Private servers that have live admins present such as clan servers are not an issue, but you might as well give up on the public servers.
02/25/2003 (6:45 pm)
Mike is right, it is impossible to MAKE people play as a team. It is a better tactic to try and reward players for team play, but there is absolutely no way to MAKE people play as a team on public servers.Private servers that have live admins present such as clan servers are not an issue, but you might as well give up on the public servers.
#3
Players are supposed to want to act as part of a team, and I think my moral counter idea is a solution worth considering:
In all games, there's no fear factor. The idea of covering fire becomes moot when a player knows he will be respawned 30 yards away in five seconds. In order to instill the fear of death in a player, the player needs to feel compelled that death has grave consequences. One solution, that has never been implemented is to force the player to wait a long time until the game ends. But I think this is more problematic than my soltuion. I propose that players are forced to hit the deck and find cover once their moral reaches a certain threshold. I think this is a reasonable solution. Maybe fear has no bearing on teamplay, my hypothesis is that it does.
This doesn't mean it has to be an oppressive system, and my idea may be totally off the wall, I think it makes sense, at least to try.
It certainly seems reasonable that if you've got machine guns firing at you from three sides, you're less likely to get up if you're behind good cover. In an ideal world, the player would be compelled to do this without some type of coded system - what suggestions do you have?
Take care!
n
02/25/2003 (8:56 pm)
We all agree -Players are supposed to want to act as part of a team, and I think my moral counter idea is a solution worth considering:
In all games, there's no fear factor. The idea of covering fire becomes moot when a player knows he will be respawned 30 yards away in five seconds. In order to instill the fear of death in a player, the player needs to feel compelled that death has grave consequences. One solution, that has never been implemented is to force the player to wait a long time until the game ends. But I think this is more problematic than my soltuion. I propose that players are forced to hit the deck and find cover once their moral reaches a certain threshold. I think this is a reasonable solution. Maybe fear has no bearing on teamplay, my hypothesis is that it does.
This doesn't mean it has to be an oppressive system, and my idea may be totally off the wall, I think it makes sense, at least to try.
It certainly seems reasonable that if you've got machine guns firing at you from three sides, you're less likely to get up if you're behind good cover. In an ideal world, the player would be compelled to do this without some type of coded system - what suggestions do you have?
Take care!
n
#4
The basic concept is, morale can either boost or sap the soldier's performance. How it does this is open to numerous possibilities. At this point you need to choose how real you want to get. I was aiming for an experience where all physical stimulus on the battlefield was taken into account. I had the idea of working adrenaline into the mix along with a few other physical factors.
The adrenaline response could be two fold on the soldier. Almost a polar effect of both positive and negative adrenaline. In CQB, the soldier would move faster, respond quicker and take most injuries without problem (raises stamina). Negatively, the soldier may not hear orders given and start to get a slight tunnel vision, possibly even lose more morale once he calms down. A semi-relaxed sniper could make some very accurate shots, but once he starts receiving fire lack of accuracy in precision aiming drops significantly. The sniper would then have to relocate away from fire and reacquire his target to get off the perfect shot. Positive adrenaline would hold or raise the soldier's morale. Negative adrenaline would make the soldier more suseptible to loss of morale.
Stress response would gauge morale and how the adrenaline started, maintained, and ended. When a soldier is engaging a target area and not receiving fire, their stress would lower which inturn would make their adrenaline begin to rise positively along with their morale. If the soldier was in the same situation and hitting/killing targets, their adrenaline and morale would climb much faster. If they began taking fire and either they or those around them were taking hits, all the factors would begin plummeting into the negative. Taking too much supressing fire would would begin the soldier's spiral into negative physical effects. If it bottoms and he is nowhere near an NCO or CO, he would begin to have foggy/tunnel vision, movement/response would become sluggish (depending on the adrenaline level) and sounds would become muffled. He is now essentially locking up from fear. This doesn't mean the end though. An arriving NCO, CO or highly moraled soldier could turn the tide on the soldier's internal struggle. This type of thing would be reserved for the elimination of damn near your entire squad around you.
Environmental response would be the physical conditions the soldier is submerged in. If it's been snowing for days and you've been sleeping in a foxhole freezing your berry's off, you won't run like an Olympic marathon runner fresh off the shot. If you fall in a river during those conditions, you chance hypothermia and a quick cold death. These types of things would really dampen your morale and raise your negative stress. Warming next to a fire or pacing would help bleed off the cold effects. Although things like exposure to desert sun and long winter conditions wouldn't be totally applicable to short term battle scenarios, falling in a frozen river or lying in a snow bank would.
Wound response, this one shouldn't need much clarification. If you've got a sucking chest wound or 30 lbs of lead in your keister, you're not going to be all smiles. Wounds would be negative across the board. Morale, stress and adrenaline would all begin the steady climb into the negative. Especially if they are severe and/or go untreated.
There are more but I'm getting tired, would hate to bore you further and don't know if this helps out much anyway. Like I said, it's a concept I was playing with and was geared more towards the realism side. My main suggestion is research, research, research. Particularly first hand accounts of conflicts from all ranks. These are invaluable.
Good luck on your games. :)
02/25/2003 (9:45 pm)
The morale factor was effectively used in the Close Combat series of games (albeit RTS). I had thought using a similar system when I was outlining an idea for a Korean Conflict game last year. I had done a lot of research on the subject and it sparked my curiosity for an in-depth gaming experience. There is a way to effectively use it in a FPS, but you'd definitely have to have other factors to help counter the negative effects. Boosting aim and fire rate when close to an NCO or CO could be one of the benefits. Mostly you'd have to consider how intrusive you'll be on the player's control of their character. A lot of hardcore FPS players probably wouldn't go for this. So you're more than likely be looking at the war-gamer/sim crowd if you want to inject a lot of realism.The basic concept is, morale can either boost or sap the soldier's performance. How it does this is open to numerous possibilities. At this point you need to choose how real you want to get. I was aiming for an experience where all physical stimulus on the battlefield was taken into account. I had the idea of working adrenaline into the mix along with a few other physical factors.
The adrenaline response could be two fold on the soldier. Almost a polar effect of both positive and negative adrenaline. In CQB, the soldier would move faster, respond quicker and take most injuries without problem (raises stamina). Negatively, the soldier may not hear orders given and start to get a slight tunnel vision, possibly even lose more morale once he calms down. A semi-relaxed sniper could make some very accurate shots, but once he starts receiving fire lack of accuracy in precision aiming drops significantly. The sniper would then have to relocate away from fire and reacquire his target to get off the perfect shot. Positive adrenaline would hold or raise the soldier's morale. Negative adrenaline would make the soldier more suseptible to loss of morale.
Stress response would gauge morale and how the adrenaline started, maintained, and ended. When a soldier is engaging a target area and not receiving fire, their stress would lower which inturn would make their adrenaline begin to rise positively along with their morale. If the soldier was in the same situation and hitting/killing targets, their adrenaline and morale would climb much faster. If they began taking fire and either they or those around them were taking hits, all the factors would begin plummeting into the negative. Taking too much supressing fire would would begin the soldier's spiral into negative physical effects. If it bottoms and he is nowhere near an NCO or CO, he would begin to have foggy/tunnel vision, movement/response would become sluggish (depending on the adrenaline level) and sounds would become muffled. He is now essentially locking up from fear. This doesn't mean the end though. An arriving NCO, CO or highly moraled soldier could turn the tide on the soldier's internal struggle. This type of thing would be reserved for the elimination of damn near your entire squad around you.
Environmental response would be the physical conditions the soldier is submerged in. If it's been snowing for days and you've been sleeping in a foxhole freezing your berry's off, you won't run like an Olympic marathon runner fresh off the shot. If you fall in a river during those conditions, you chance hypothermia and a quick cold death. These types of things would really dampen your morale and raise your negative stress. Warming next to a fire or pacing would help bleed off the cold effects. Although things like exposure to desert sun and long winter conditions wouldn't be totally applicable to short term battle scenarios, falling in a frozen river or lying in a snow bank would.
Wound response, this one shouldn't need much clarification. If you've got a sucking chest wound or 30 lbs of lead in your keister, you're not going to be all smiles. Wounds would be negative across the board. Morale, stress and adrenaline would all begin the steady climb into the negative. Especially if they are severe and/or go untreated.
There are more but I'm getting tired, would hate to bore you further and don't know if this helps out much anyway. Like I said, it's a concept I was playing with and was geared more towards the realism side. My main suggestion is research, research, research. Particularly first hand accounts of conflicts from all ranks. These are invaluable.
Good luck on your games. :)
#5
02/26/2003 (6:52 am)
Some games do force you wait a little while when you die; Day of Defeat only forces a delay of up to what, 20s? Battlefield 1942 is the same. Actually now I think about it, Day of Defeat has the latest maps that make you sit out of the current round when you die. I think the maximum wait is 2 mins until the level re-starts. I'm not too keen on this as I don't like to sit around doing nothing while other people are playing. Also, if you're playing a new map it might mean that you spend more time waiting than playing, and that's not a good thing IMO.
#6
Day of Defeat is one of my favorite games. I think making another game like it, is a waste of time.
I want to play a game where I don't "know the maps" before I play them. I want to play a world war ii game, where I feel like I'm part of a team.
Again, my belief is that fear should be a coded system, and in an ideal world, players would feel so compelled to live, that they may actually do things like... retreat. In Band of Brothers, you hear veterans say things like: "I just wanted to survive." Maybe that should actually be the goal of the game =)
Now, I agree that it's problematic when players have to wait a long time in order to have fun, and that takes away from the game, I don't have a solution, and I'd like to hear other peoples ideas on this topic =)
n
02/26/2003 (4:07 pm)
Mike -Day of Defeat is one of my favorite games. I think making another game like it, is a waste of time.
I want to play a game where I don't "know the maps" before I play them. I want to play a world war ii game, where I feel like I'm part of a team.
Again, my belief is that fear should be a coded system, and in an ideal world, players would feel so compelled to live, that they may actually do things like... retreat. In Band of Brothers, you hear veterans say things like: "I just wanted to survive." Maybe that should actually be the goal of the game =)
Now, I agree that it's problematic when players have to wait a long time in order to have fun, and that takes away from the game, I don't have a solution, and I'd like to hear other peoples ideas on this topic =)
n
#7
Thats the way wh40k expresses the factors brought out by leadership and comradery. Making a ww2 soldier more powerful is retarded, but i can see increased acuracy being a benefit of having someone watch your back. If i saw something in the bush next to you id yell to you or make you perceive what i was seeing thus extending your perceptions beyond what youd normally have. There are definite and implementable benefits to coordinated team tactics.
You could use the camera ray vector of the team mates within a certain range, then process that information into perceptual benefits, ie- Increased accuracy, range, radar alerts etc. Like the array of sensors they are. There is a seperation that divides the clients, voice and text both have ther ups and downs.
02/26/2003 (4:24 pm)
Theres a warhammer40k HL mod that has a moral feature. The more allies and defensive type allies you have in your proximity the more accurate your fire will be and it becomes harder to be hit.Thats the way wh40k expresses the factors brought out by leadership and comradery. Making a ww2 soldier more powerful is retarded, but i can see increased acuracy being a benefit of having someone watch your back. If i saw something in the bush next to you id yell to you or make you perceive what i was seeing thus extending your perceptions beyond what youd normally have. There are definite and implementable benefits to coordinated team tactics.
You could use the camera ray vector of the team mates within a certain range, then process that information into perceptual benefits, ie- Increased accuracy, range, radar alerts etc. Like the array of sensors they are. There is a seperation that divides the clients, voice and text both have ther ups and downs.
#8
As for morale, I think that the more recent stuff about fear of death is important - if you can get the Player and not the Character to fear death, that's the best way.
Ultimate Stick method:
- If you're dead, you get shut out of the scenario. If everybody on a team dies, the other team gets an automatic win in most (but perhaps not all) scenarios.
Carrot method:
- Give rewards for survival, experience points or medals or whatever. This means that you have to put in code some weaknesses that have can be overcome - these can sensibly be related to 'battle hardenedness' and reflexes that you want to train out of yourself. These can also be morale (or stress) responses:
Involuntary ducking: low-xp characters will duck whenever they are under fire, even if this means they are cowering ineffectually.
Involuntary evasiveness: character loses the ability to use 'walk' and has to choose between 'run' and 'crawl'
Freezing: Low-level characters will freeze for a moment when they shift from being under zero threat to detecting a threat.
The shakes: Once stress levels go beyond a certain point, start feeding tiny controller movements into the input stream - increase the frequency of the inputs as the stress level climbs
Heartbeat sound: At around the time that the shakes kick in, play a heartbeat sound effect that gets louder and faster as stress levels rise. Make sure you provide a feature for turning this off, because it will produce physical stress in the Player.
Red mist: put a red filter over the screen, give the player one second, then hold down the 'primary fire' button for a few seconds.
Then you need your morale boosting and lowering effects (numbers would obviously need tuning):
These are applied every [time interval]:
+1 for every health level possessed by nearby allies
-1 for every health level possessed by nearby enemies
+1 for every living ally in visual contact
-1 for every living enemy in visual contact
-10 for enemy fire during this interval
-5 for bleeding during this interval (need first aid before you calm down)
+20 for total rest (no movement or activity at all, select 'rest' movement pace)
+10 for partial rest ('rest' movement pace)
These are per incident:
-100 for being fired on by a previously undetected enemy (unless already under fire)
-100 for being hit
-100 for seeing an ally die
-50 for seeing an ally get hit
-50 on first contact with enemy for the scenario
+20 for seeing an enemy die
+10 for hitting an enemy
This should promote 'realistic' behaviour both when attacking (catch sight of enemy, take cover, compose yourself, then attack), and when being attacked (do whatever you can to get out of immediate danger, then work out what to do).
You could then allow an instant respawn, just take all the XP away, and give the respawn a massive stress level that they will need to overcome before they do any good.
HTH,
Nick
02/28/2003 (5:55 pm)
Tim's ideas for rewarding people that stay in contact with each other are really positive, I think.As for morale, I think that the more recent stuff about fear of death is important - if you can get the Player and not the Character to fear death, that's the best way.
Ultimate Stick method:
- If you're dead, you get shut out of the scenario. If everybody on a team dies, the other team gets an automatic win in most (but perhaps not all) scenarios.
Carrot method:
- Give rewards for survival, experience points or medals or whatever. This means that you have to put in code some weaknesses that have can be overcome - these can sensibly be related to 'battle hardenedness' and reflexes that you want to train out of yourself. These can also be morale (or stress) responses:
Involuntary ducking: low-xp characters will duck whenever they are under fire, even if this means they are cowering ineffectually.
Involuntary evasiveness: character loses the ability to use 'walk' and has to choose between 'run' and 'crawl'
Freezing: Low-level characters will freeze for a moment when they shift from being under zero threat to detecting a threat.
The shakes: Once stress levels go beyond a certain point, start feeding tiny controller movements into the input stream - increase the frequency of the inputs as the stress level climbs
Heartbeat sound: At around the time that the shakes kick in, play a heartbeat sound effect that gets louder and faster as stress levels rise. Make sure you provide a feature for turning this off, because it will produce physical stress in the Player.
Red mist: put a red filter over the screen, give the player one second, then hold down the 'primary fire' button for a few seconds.
Then you need your morale boosting and lowering effects (numbers would obviously need tuning):
These are applied every [time interval]:
+1 for every health level possessed by nearby allies
-1 for every health level possessed by nearby enemies
+1 for every living ally in visual contact
-1 for every living enemy in visual contact
-10 for enemy fire during this interval
-5 for bleeding during this interval (need first aid before you calm down)
+20 for total rest (no movement or activity at all, select 'rest' movement pace)
+10 for partial rest ('rest' movement pace)
These are per incident:
-100 for being fired on by a previously undetected enemy (unless already under fire)
-100 for being hit
-100 for seeing an ally die
-50 for seeing an ally get hit
-50 on first contact with enemy for the scenario
+20 for seeing an enemy die
+10 for hitting an enemy
This should promote 'realistic' behaviour both when attacking (catch sight of enemy, take cover, compose yourself, then attack), and when being attacked (do whatever you can to get out of immediate danger, then work out what to do).
You could then allow an instant respawn, just take all the XP away, and give the respawn a massive stress level that they will need to overcome before they do any good.
HTH,
Nick
#9
03/02/2003 (2:58 pm)
When I first started looking through this thread, I thought "wow.", but now I'm not so sure. I really want to see a WW2 game where people actually care about what happens to their squadmates. I'm brought back to the show "COMBAT!" which features a WW2 squad trekking around Europe. I thought it was a great show, until I saw a scene where the entire squad watches their squadmate getting chewed down by an MG-42, and the only reaction was a "Gosh durn-it!" and a couple pounding of fists against rifle butts. Let us see a game where interaction between players is paramount. You run outta ammo? You walk over to Jimmy-Joe and ask for some clips, and tell him to keep his head low, because he likes to pop it up too much when he's giving cover fire. Think about it.
#10
Wing Commander was a game that took some steps in that direction, but the morale management was often described as a distraction from 'the real business of blowing up spaceships'.
*sigh*
03/02/2003 (10:15 pm)
If you want people to take actions to support their team-mates, you have to make those actions more efficient or effective than doing things for yourself.Wing Commander was a game that took some steps in that direction, but the morale management was often described as a distraction from 'the real business of blowing up spaceships'.
*sigh*
#11
When your comm has given you lots of cool stuff, he has spent a LOT of resources to give it to you, so you dont want to die because odds are you will have to wait to get it back (for the resources to come back). This makes you act as a team because even with all that cool stuff you will die easily against the other team if your alone.
Moral is included because, while this may be just me and my friends, by we feel dispare when we lose a base. When we get some momentum going in our attack, the other team loses moral (this is the players remember, theres no morale in the game) and are easy pray.
That is one way you can go. I like the idea of players starting off equal, but the better ones get more experiance points or something from kills or good teamwork, maybe these can be awarded by players (regulated somehow). This then elevates their moral rank and the benefits that players get by being near them. They may gain other skills that the group can then use, like stealth, where it lowers the movement noise of their squad when they are nearby.
Good ideas are popping up. Keep them comming.
03/02/2003 (11:16 pm)
Natural Selection (a HL mod) has a good morale system. Theres no penalty for rambo style play, besides the fact that you'll die VERY easy. There is a commander who gives out better guns, armour, jetpacks etc, and if he sees that you are not a team player he can choose to penalise you by not giving you any equipment. When your comm has given you lots of cool stuff, he has spent a LOT of resources to give it to you, so you dont want to die because odds are you will have to wait to get it back (for the resources to come back). This makes you act as a team because even with all that cool stuff you will die easily against the other team if your alone.
Moral is included because, while this may be just me and my friends, by we feel dispare when we lose a base. When we get some momentum going in our attack, the other team loses moral (this is the players remember, theres no morale in the game) and are easy pray.
That is one way you can go. I like the idea of players starting off equal, but the better ones get more experiance points or something from kills or good teamwork, maybe these can be awarded by players (regulated somehow). This then elevates their moral rank and the benefits that players get by being near them. They may gain other skills that the group can then use, like stealth, where it lowers the movement noise of their squad when they are nearby.
Good ideas are popping up. Keep them comming.
#12
03/03/2003 (12:52 am)
The game WWII GI by Team TNT had a moral counter and was annoying at times lol. I think there NAM game had it also.
#13
*its spelled morale*
;)
Nice idea tho. I have to agree, you cant make people play as team...yet. There are certain standards you have to set when dealing with teamplay.
03/03/2003 (11:01 am)
*ahem* sorry, i have to....*its spelled morale*
;)
Nice idea tho. I have to agree, you cant make people play as team...yet. There are certain standards you have to set when dealing with teamplay.
#14
--Ishbuu
03/03/2003 (4:48 pm)
My game has some of those elements... you should see it... the game is Mechan Assault Force: First Battalion incase anyone's interested...--Ishbuu
#15
1: Having a coded morale system for a game seems a bit heavy handed. In Warhammer a single player controls an entire side, whereas in an FPS game you only control one character. In warhammer if your guys get scared and randomly run off that's ok, that's not really ok when you are playing that guy and only that guy, especially if what made you go crazy is outside of your control.
I think if you want people to work in teams you should just make teamplay effective due to the general game rules. That is the approach Realm Wars will be taking for the most part. Why are teams good in real life?
There are some concrete things you can do to make teams better or worse. For example, limit the inventories such that no single person can be equipped for all situations. Reduce the number of large splash damage weapons. Look at Counter Strike, if you are hit you get momentarily stunned and are easier to hit again. Having a teammate handy means they can bail you out. (If someone hits you with a shotgun, for example, you are pretty much dead if you don't have a teammate around)
Another thing you can do is make it easy to stay in groups. If you have different characters with wildly different movement abilities they will probably end up splitting up.
2: It seems a lot of people are interested in WW2 games. To me it seems like a pretty saturated market, but if people are set on doing it maybe they should all join *one* group. Even if it means compromising a bit, better one cool WW2 game than 4 that never get finished no?
03/04/2003 (12:51 am)
Two things:1: Having a coded morale system for a game seems a bit heavy handed. In Warhammer a single player controls an entire side, whereas in an FPS game you only control one character. In warhammer if your guys get scared and randomly run off that's ok, that's not really ok when you are playing that guy and only that guy, especially if what made you go crazy is outside of your control.
I think if you want people to work in teams you should just make teamplay effective due to the general game rules. That is the approach Realm Wars will be taking for the most part. Why are teams good in real life?
There are some concrete things you can do to make teams better or worse. For example, limit the inventories such that no single person can be equipped for all situations. Reduce the number of large splash damage weapons. Look at Counter Strike, if you are hit you get momentarily stunned and are easier to hit again. Having a teammate handy means they can bail you out. (If someone hits you with a shotgun, for example, you are pretty much dead if you don't have a teammate around)
Another thing you can do is make it easy to stay in groups. If you have different characters with wildly different movement abilities they will probably end up splitting up.
2: It seems a lot of people are interested in WW2 games. To me it seems like a pretty saturated market, but if people are set on doing it maybe they should all join *one* group. Even if it means compromising a bit, better one cool WW2 game than 4 that never get finished no?
#16
"In warhammer if your guys get scared and randomly run off that's ok, that's not really ok when you are playing that guy and only that guy, especially if what made you go crazy is outside of your control."
I think bringing in the morale feature is going to be a make or break situation regardless. Anytime a genre dependent feature crosses over to another genre it's going to be a touchy situation. Especially when dealing with a combat situation. Any war vet will tell you it's nothing short of chaos. And at times you are lucky if you are in control of yourself. I truly think there is a way to bring it into the 'fun zone' and still make it a feasible feature.
Why are teams good in real life?
There are a number of reasons, the most obvious being roles. Combined arms makes a unit that much more effective against a variety of targets. Much like you suggested on limiting inventories, I think it really needs to be taken further. You have to take a look at what defines the role. In modern combat, (more often than not) the weapon defines the role. This has been the formula used in all FPS's (MoHAA, DoD, BF1942, etc) based on real world functionality and yet needs to be taken further. You need to look at what makes a cohesive unit and then drive it home.
Stressing dependence is a key point. When I played Operation Flashpoint online, I noticed that during the que prior to mission launch you have slots to choose from. Medic, Sniper, Officer, etc. were all in the line up. And the officer was the only one capable of giving orders on specific targets and guiding the unit. The remaining soldiers in the unit were only capable of a series of replies (Affirmative, Injured, etc). This kind of approach is a very small part, but shows what needs to be considered in creating a cohesive unit. Each soldier in that unit sould be dependent upon the other, the loss should be felt.
"Another thing you can do is make it easy to stay in groups. If you have different characters with wildly different movement abilities they will probably end up splitting up."
This is a good example of what I'm getting at with dependence. I think if you ditch your 30Cal team to engage an enemy unit head-on, you'll discover what really happens to a dilluted unit that comes under fire. Especially if the enemy remained a cohesive unit and have their heavy machine gun team with them.
"It seems a lot of people are interested in WW2 games. To me it seems like a pretty saturated market..."
I agree totally. But personally, I see WW2 as one of the last great epics of the modern era. It's well documented and many of its surviors/participants are still alive. The further back you go, the expanse of first hand knowledge begins to tighten significantly.
"... but if people are set on doing it maybe they should all join *one* group. Even if it means compromising a bit, better one cool WW2 game than 4 that never get finished no?"
Well put. I think if everyone passionate about the subject here pools together, we'll end up with one helluva game in the GG community.
03/04/2003 (9:19 am)
*Disclaimer* - I just had surgery and am on drugs so please bare with me on this train of thought. James, I'm not picking on you or your ideas. Just so you know ahead of time and nothing is taken as such. You helped me get the thoughts flowing and I thank you for it. :) "In warhammer if your guys get scared and randomly run off that's ok, that's not really ok when you are playing that guy and only that guy, especially if what made you go crazy is outside of your control."
I think bringing in the morale feature is going to be a make or break situation regardless. Anytime a genre dependent feature crosses over to another genre it's going to be a touchy situation. Especially when dealing with a combat situation. Any war vet will tell you it's nothing short of chaos. And at times you are lucky if you are in control of yourself. I truly think there is a way to bring it into the 'fun zone' and still make it a feasible feature.
Why are teams good in real life?
There are a number of reasons, the most obvious being roles. Combined arms makes a unit that much more effective against a variety of targets. Much like you suggested on limiting inventories, I think it really needs to be taken further. You have to take a look at what defines the role. In modern combat, (more often than not) the weapon defines the role. This has been the formula used in all FPS's (MoHAA, DoD, BF1942, etc) based on real world functionality and yet needs to be taken further. You need to look at what makes a cohesive unit and then drive it home.
Stressing dependence is a key point. When I played Operation Flashpoint online, I noticed that during the que prior to mission launch you have slots to choose from. Medic, Sniper, Officer, etc. were all in the line up. And the officer was the only one capable of giving orders on specific targets and guiding the unit. The remaining soldiers in the unit were only capable of a series of replies (Affirmative, Injured, etc). This kind of approach is a very small part, but shows what needs to be considered in creating a cohesive unit. Each soldier in that unit sould be dependent upon the other, the loss should be felt.
"Another thing you can do is make it easy to stay in groups. If you have different characters with wildly different movement abilities they will probably end up splitting up."
This is a good example of what I'm getting at with dependence. I think if you ditch your 30Cal team to engage an enemy unit head-on, you'll discover what really happens to a dilluted unit that comes under fire. Especially if the enemy remained a cohesive unit and have their heavy machine gun team with them.
"It seems a lot of people are interested in WW2 games. To me it seems like a pretty saturated market..."
I agree totally. But personally, I see WW2 as one of the last great epics of the modern era. It's well documented and many of its surviors/participants are still alive. The further back you go, the expanse of first hand knowledge begins to tighten significantly.
"... but if people are set on doing it maybe they should all join *one* group. Even if it means compromising a bit, better one cool WW2 game than 4 that never get finished no?"
Well put. I think if everyone passionate about the subject here pools together, we'll end up with one helluva game in the GG community.
#17
Thank you for the responses, in general, I think there's a problem with the morale counter. It's never been done before. Because this is a new concept, people are hesitant to accept it. Not to say you are all a bunch of stodgy curmudgeons, just, you're having trouble visualizing a FPS where you lose control of your character. Frankly, this is a hard thing to visualize. In fact, it could really break a game.
I think rather than talk the talk, it would be really cool if I bought the SDK and slapped a prototype together, then we can see if this thing really is fun. I think it would be really cool if people had WWII models sitting around that could be contributed as resources to the comunity. That way, I (someone w/ zero model making experience, and more importantly, 0 desire to get any), could have something to play with =)
*hint hint* mike =) [I'm hinting that if you have any spare models from your game, you could share them]
n
03/04/2003 (4:13 pm)
Dear All -Thank you for the responses, in general, I think there's a problem with the morale counter. It's never been done before. Because this is a new concept, people are hesitant to accept it. Not to say you are all a bunch of stodgy curmudgeons, just, you're having trouble visualizing a FPS where you lose control of your character. Frankly, this is a hard thing to visualize. In fact, it could really break a game.
I think rather than talk the talk, it would be really cool if I bought the SDK and slapped a prototype together, then we can see if this thing really is fun. I think it would be really cool if people had WWII models sitting around that could be contributed as resources to the comunity. That way, I (someone w/ zero model making experience, and more importantly, 0 desire to get any), could have something to play with =)
*hint hint* mike =) [I'm hinting that if you have any spare models from your game, you could share them]
n
#18
03/04/2003 (4:19 pm)
Are you hinting at me? What are you hinting at?
#19
03/04/2003 (6:09 pm)
I guess you haven't read any of my posts elsewhere. I have no models for my game. I don't even have a modeller for my game. 
Torque Owner Mike Stoddart
I like the idea of the target indicator except I prefer to keep such unrealistic things away from the screen.
My game is called "Combat Section", and my aim is to foster team play through communications and tactics. The major problem here is how to get players to communicate and work together. My experiences online are usually of people doing Rambo-esque charges into enemy territory with no thought towards team-work. Covering fire is something thatis vital for successful teamwork, but you can't MAKE people do anything like that; they have to want to do it.
I want to include vehicles, but not tanks. Only vehicles for transport, although I would like to implement say mounted machine guns at the most. I'm more concerned with providing people with a "playground" for working together to achieve tactical victory, rather than letting fly all sorts of vehicles.
I also want to include artillery support, similar to Day of Defeat. Artillery fire could be ordered in by the appropriate ranking office, but there are no visible guns, only shells that land and detonate.
Anyway, if you're interested in helping me, drop me an email. Or head over to the forums at forums.stodge.net and post some thoughts there. I could do with some help with coding and modelling in case anyone is interested. This isn't a high profile "let's take the industry by storm" project. It's purely for fun, with the ultimate goal of making an online WW2 game that is realistic yet extremely fun to play.
Thanks