Strategic decisions

[quiet_man 8]

from press release my understanding is that the new game will simulate ongoing actions around you. So there must be some sort of strategic layer that decides for each side what to do next.

Now I don't like to play OPF like an RTS from the command bunker, but it would be nice to be able to "send messages to command" like

"we should take strategic location X"

"everything fine here, we can pull out forces at location X"

"I need tanks here"

"We need helicopters at location X"

"the enemy is preparing an major assault at location X, we need what we can get and dig in"

"Our forces at location X need to retreat to location Z to regroup"

the stuff a good officer would send to Headquaters when he comes to a place and recognizes something should be done different and when you earned enough reputation, maybe sometimes someone might listen

I hate seeing AI squads fighting hopeless battles without even being able to shout at them at the radio to get their ***** out of there

quiet_man

[Killbert 0]

Previews that I have read says that the AI will be the doing the planning, and player will be doing the fighting. But it could be fun to play the general. Maybe someone will mod it in later, if it's not there already. It would make a fun rts mod.

It might be better to let player make only the big decisions, like where to advance and where to retreat. It would perhaps take too much work to order every single patrol and CAS etc...

I expect that player has some strategic command in the field, by means of calling backup and air support and such. But the AI decides where to send the player in the first hand.

[ninjatek 0]

I wonder if there will be multiple different scenario arcs in the campaign. Where the story can go different directions if you win or loose, or do something critical during a game event.

[PhantomStalker 0]

Previews that I have read says that the AI will be the doing the planning, and player will be doing the fighting. But it could be fun to play the general. Maybe someone will mod it in later, if it's not there already. It would make a fun rts mod.

It might be better to let player make only the big decisions, like where to advance and where to retreat. It would perhaps take too much work to order every single patrol and CAS etc...

I expect that player has some strategic command in the field, by means of calling backup and air support and such. But the AI decides where to send the player in the first hand.

It will probably be like the first one where you start out as a lowly soldier who follows the orders in the war.. then progress until you probably could assume general-like abilities.

[imported_bör 0]

I wonder if there will be multiple different scenario arcs in the campaign. Where the story can go different directions if you win or loose, or do something critical during a game event.

Just like Falcon 4.0. 3 different scenarios:

1) North Korea attacked and pushed the allied forces back to Pusan.

2) NK attacked, but neither they nor the allies were able to launch a successful offensive. Stalemate on the border.

3) NK attacked and got pushed back heavily.

Furthermore you can set the strength of both armies, there are events like a chinese intervention, every unit you see on the map/battlefield has its own objective, the war continues dynamically, every of your (successful) mission has an effect on the war...

I hope the dynamic "OFP2" campaign will be similar to Falcon, because it feels like a real war going on. And maybe BIS includes an option to play as a general, that would be fun. If not, the modders will hopefully be able to take care of that.

[quiet_man 8]

I hope the dynamic "OFP2" campaign will be similar to Falcon, because it feels like a real war going on. And maybe BIS includes an option to play as a general, that would be fun. If not, the modders will hopefully be able to take care of that.

functions to influence the strategic layer, if by script or by player interaction would be interesting

quiet_man

[jakerod 254]

I hope that it would be like regular ofp only where you are the General and you can sit back in a bunker if you want and just plan it or you can head to the front at risk of getting attacked by a hind or something.

I want to be in the guy in charge commanding stuff but I want to be able to go around and inspect defenses and have the ability to die (unlike in most strategy games).

[DBR_ONIX 0]

Having just watched the VBS1 Instructor Interface vidoe (VBSResources.com or whatever it is), something similar to this would be nice. Cut down from it (So you can't create new enemy car-bombs, for example ), but giving squads (or squad members) waypoints would be good, and being able to order them to hold at a certain waypoint, then tell them all to go to their next WP when you press a button (Kinda like Rainbow Six : 3 and the "Zulu" order, or like the sync waypoints, which is also connected to a radio-trigger, but dynamic )

Maybe have two modes, basic command mode, and complex command mode, one you can just order squads and units about, giving them waypoints, and hold-untill-signal waypoints (Even just that would be great, being able to tell one squad member to go round one side of a building, and wait just before the door, antoher round the other side, and one more and you waiting at the back-door for your radio-call, all with no input from the mission designer!

Then a complex command mode, where you can tell a unit to hold a waypoint for x minutes, or till x time, then go here, or hold this waypoint untill you are under heavy fire/lost x men (:crazy:), throw a smoke grenade here, then cover-each-other up the road to here, and hide.. :P

Of course the mission designer could disable all this, either by an option in the mission setup, a command, or by not making the player a commander

Not sure how commanding other squads would work, maybe a line system similar to the group-lines, which you can state whether a certain group can tell another squad where to go. That way the mission designer is still in control, and can set it up so they player can't mess up the missions perfectly placed waypoitns of a certain group, but let them move a certain sqaud(or squads) about.

Things like

Quote[/b] ]"we should take strategic location X"

"everything fine here, we can pull out forces at location X"

"I need tanks here"

"We need helicopters at location X"

Are a little specific to allow a commander to press the "everythings fine here, pull out forces at area 3" button, but a ingame waypointing system would make things like that possible (in the complex mode, if it's clear, move to next waypoint, for example), (or if troops at zx89 are 20m away, and are udner heavy fire, there could be an option, if a friendly squad is less than x meters, assist them)

</ramble>

- Ben

[Heatseeker 0]

I would like to comand a squad in the field and to be in contact with comand with the use of radio, receive and send information and instructions, call for airstrikes, support, extraction, medivac or to even share information with other squads coordinating atacks on enemy positions, thats how far i would like to go with strategy. turning the game into RTS would be a terrible waste of potential even if made realisticaly without money, factorys that spawn stuff out of thin air it would still be boring and not what i expect out of this game.

I expect a strategic and realistic simulation of combined operations in the field where it all happens, not in a bunk filled with maps, radios, satelite and stuff like that .

I hope the game will offer strategic decisions on the field, choosing your aproach, tactics, etc.

[PhantomStalker 0]

Having just watched the VBS1 Instructor Interface vidoe (VBSResources.com or whatever it is), something similar to this would be nice. Cut down from it (So you can't create new enemy car-bombs, for example ), but giving squads (or squad members) waypoints would be good, and being able to order them to hold at a certain waypoint, then tell them all to go to their next WP when you press a button (Kinda like Rainbow Six : 3 and the "Zulu" order, or like the sync waypoints, which is also connected to a radio-trigger, but dynamic )

Maybe have two modes, basic command mode, and complex command mode, one you can just order squads and units about, giving them waypoints, and hold-untill-signal waypoints (Even just that would be great, being able to tell one squad member to go round one side of a building, and wait just before the door, antoher round the other side, and one more and you waiting at the back-door for your radio-call, all with no input from the mission designer!

Then a complex command mode, where you can tell a unit to hold a waypoint for x minutes, or till x time, then go here, or hold this waypoint untill you are under heavy fire/lost x men (:crazy:), throw a smoke grenade here, then cover-each-other up the road to here, and hide.. :P

Of course the mission designer could disable all this, either by an option in the mission setup, a command, or by not making the player a commander

Not sure how commanding other squads would work, maybe a line system similar to the group-lines, which you can state whether a certain group can tell another squad where to go. That way the mission designer is still in control, and can set it up so they player can't mess up the missions perfectly placed waypoitns of a certain group, but let them move a certain sqaud(or squads) about.

Things like

Quote[/b] ]"we should take strategic location X"

"everything fine here, we can pull out forces at location X"

"I need tanks here"

"We need helicopters at location X"

Are a little specific to allow a commander to press the "everythings fine here, pull out forces at area 3" button, but a ingame waypointing system would make things like that possible (in the complex mode, if it's clear, move to next waypoint, for example), (or if troops at zx89 are 20m away, and are udner heavy fire, there could be an option, if a friendly squad is less than x meters, assist them)

</ramble>

- Ben

waypoints are ok... so long as they do not show up as icons and crap on the screen in vet mode.

If I like have in my notes the sector(aka ej45) for each waypoint.. and have to make it there myself, then thats fine... but nothing like any other fps games god please.

[jakerod 254]

I don't want to be able to create tanks in factories or anything like that. I want it to be as realistic as possible maybe getting reinforcements and such every so often but no creating units. Pretty much I just want to be able to command the entire map, and fight alongside my men if i so choose.

[PhantomStalker 0]

I don't want to be able to create tanks in factories or anything like that. I want it to be as realistic as possible maybe getting reinforcements and such every so often but no creating units. Pretty much I just want to be able to command the entire map, and fight alongside my men if i so choose.

agreed on the making factories and producing tanks and stuff... if they want to make a mod for it like they did for original op flash, thats fine.. but I dont want that sort of stuff in the game. Atleast it wouldnt be under player control anyways.

[DBR_ONIX 0]

Yeh, thats why I stated it wouldn't be like the Intructional thing, in which you can create units. It was mainly the idea of being able to give units waypoints..

It would be a good alternative to the fact you can't walk up to a squad-member and say "You go around here, wait for this and do that", same with another squad..

You wouldn't be able to create tank-factorys, or 100000 friendly soldiers (unless the mission is an RTS mission, see, possibilitys )

Technicaly this is possible in OFP, but things like linking two squads up isn't very easy, and it would require a lot of input from the mission creator

- Ben

[funnyguy1 0]

but giving squads (or squad members) waypoints would be good, and being able to order them to hold at a certain waypoint, then tell them all to go to their next WP when you press a button (Kinda like Rainbow Six : 3 and the "Zulu" order, or like the sync waypoints, which is also connected to a radio-trigger, but dynamic )

yhhh....

In fact the 2 things ofp1 need in this case are:

1. better AI, with better consciousness of the terrain (especially in the CQB), AI that would know how to use the surroundings correctly; leaning, covering the corners of the buildings, etc. It`s quite possible we`re talking about the same thing.

2. ability for the commanders to give more complex, longer orders...If you don`t know what I mean, It`s the same thing you suggested about the waypoints...or with the mission plan like in r6 series I suggested here..

With option to draw the waypoints ant paths on the map maybe, and have the ability control the teammates just like r6, when they move from one waypoint to another (hold/all hold (which is possible already, but I think more about the waypoint switching, not the exsisting `hold` command).

[Batukhan 0]

Still, IN-GAME the command thingy must be simple. If you want to attack a building, you don't want to manually line up every soldier and tell them to "use force" and "move fast" and all that. You should tell them "TAKE THAT BUILDING" and they will take it. Tho that may need a lot of different strategies being written into the game. Like "AMBUSH THIS ROAD" and "WAIT FOR ANY ENEMIES AND REPORT THEM BACK TO THE BASE"

[crave22 0]

Yeah, the command system has to be simplified. That was one thing I didn't like about OFP 1.

Anyway, my idea for the campaign or any other mission is you start out a private and work your way up to colonel instead of general, and with every rank you get new command abilities. However, I think you should only get up to colonel because you have command of a company, but you're still in the field and you still have to fight. Then, when you complete an objective, you go back to HQ and recieve orders to take a position or whatever. Then you plan it in a "strategic mode" and then go with your men to fight. After that, you head back to HQ. Plus, whenever you die you restart as a private (unless you were smart enough to save   ) and you have to work your way back up to colonel.

[Killbert 0]

Who knows, that could happen. BIS has said that the new game will have some RPG elements in it. RPG:s always has character building, and getting promotions could be a good way to do it in military RPG. Original flashpoint campaign works similary, but the "game2" could give promotions more value.

With better rank, player would have access to better weapons, equippent and soldiers. When player makes it to liutanent, he could command his own squad. As captain, he could have command of more than one squad, and maybe become a platoon commander. And at the very top he would be the commander of the whole war operation.

The problem with the higher ranks would be that the player responsibilites would be less and less hand on. A general wouldn't take a rifle and go shoot people, he would send someone else to do it for him. Commanders would just sit in a tent and make plans. That could be interesting too, but the gameplay could alienate a lot of players. But maybe in a mod some day...

[quiet_man 8]

Still, IN-GAME the command thingy must be simple. If you want to attack a building, you don't want to manually line up every soldier and tell them to "use force" and "move fast" and all that. You should tell them "TAKE THAT BUILDING" and they will take it. Tho that may need a lot of different strategies being written into the game. Like "AMBUSH THIS ROAD" and "WAIT FOR ANY ENEMIES AND REPORT THEM BACK TO THE BASE"

for the tactical level commands, It would be good if they add support to the API like "LocateHidingsNearXY", "LocateCoverDirectionX" or "LocateViewDirectionX"

you could do alot with scripts this way.

quiet_man

[dachrinne 0]

i just want something like that ... that you can choose if you want to play the campaign as russkie, american, or resistance ... and everytime i play it should be a different campaign ... and when somebody creates a new island i can just take this island and play a random campaign on it. and you should choose wich addons (tanks, helos, .....) should be used in this campaign. so you just have to choose the starting point of both armies or just liberate the island .

[Jinef 2]

With better rank, player would have access to better weapons, equippent and soldiers. When player makes it to liutanent, he could command his own squad. As captain, he could have command of more than one squad, and maybe become a platoon commander. And at the very top he would be the commander of the whole war operation.

Ok basic infantry structure lesson.

Squad/Section: 8-12 men. Led by a Corporal/Seargent.

3-5 Squads to a Platoon. Usually 3 Rifle to 1 Weapons.

Platoon: 40-50 men. Commanded by a Lieutenant.

3-5 Platoons to a Company. Usually 3 Rifle to 1 Weapons.

Company: 150-200 men. Led by a Captain.

3-5 Companies to a Battalion. Usually 3 Rifle to 1 Weapons.

Battalion: 500-600 men. Led by a Lt. Colonel.

3-5 Battalions in a Regiment. Several Regiments in a Division.

Several Divisions in an Army.

Abbreviations.

Rank: Pvt./L Cpl./ Cpl./Sgt./Lt./Cpt./Lt. Col./Col./Gen.

Units: Sct./Pl./Coy/Bn/Rgt./Dvn.

-----------------------------------------------------------

So if in a campaign you started out as a private it would take you quite a while (Around 30 years) to get to Bn CO.

More realistically. Like BIS had several characters before, Armstrong, Gastovski, Maverick or whatever.

You could play one of many roles within the campaign.

Infantry:

> Pvt. James Fisher, Rifleman, 3rd Sct, 2nd Pl, A Coy, 1-14th Bn. USMC.

> Cpl. Arnold Becker, Sct. Leader, 2nd Sct, 1rst Pl, B Coy, 1-14th Bn. USMC.

> Ltn. Ryan Wilkins, Pl Leader, 1rst Pl, A Coy, 1-14th Bn. USMC.

> Cpt. Marvin Bobbleknocker, Coy CO, A Coy, 1-14th Bn. USMC.

Helicopter Pilots:

> Flt Lt. Jay Sanders, Pilot (1rst Officer), A Flight, 73rd Airlift Sqn.

> Flt Lt. Ryan Welbeck, Pilot, B Flight, 24th Attack Sqn.

> Flt Lt. James De Haviland, CP/G, B Flight, 24th Attack Sqn.

Flyboys:

> Col. Flash "Hooty Rooty Whopper", 11245th Attack Sqn. "The Screaming Angels of Death Who Scream Very Loud Very Much About Death"

----------------------------------------------------------

You are correct in assuming people would not do much as they go higher up in the chain, a platoon leader would rarely fire his weapon. However people do enjoy leading. Especially if nexgens AI are going to behave like humans. Very rewarding.

However let's not have a dumbed down, play 2 missions and "Oh wow I am a colonel now, oooooh I get a 56X sight on my rifle and can fly an A10 whenever I want."

Weapons are assigned and stay that way. You have your M16, you have you M249. That is what you are keeping.

There should be definite punishment for picking up enemy weapons.

[dachrinne 0]

how do you want add different characters in a dynamic campaign .

just let us select at the start of the campaign what weapon you want to play and on what for side.

and i think its a bad idea to punish picking up enemy weapons ... it should be punished too lose your service rifle or whatever.

[CherokeeJack 0]

Quote[/b] ]The problem with the higher ranks would be that the player responsibilites would be less and less hand on. A general wouldn't take a rifle and go shoot people, he would send someone else to do it for him. Commanders would just sit in a tent and make plans. That could be interesting too, but the gameplay could alienate a lot of players. But maybe in a mod some day...

Maybe once the player has reached a certain rank or completed a certain number of missions, he can be given the choice to stay on the ground, fighting with his men and following orders from HQ, or take on a strategic role in HQ itself, directing amounts of troops that increase as the player distinguishes himself by completing missions? Maybe BIS will meld the two by having a BF2 style Commander element?

[funnyguy1 0]

What`s wrong with you guys...

Do you really want to play those rpg things?

I mean, this kind of progres you`re describing is, well...bad.

I totally agree with Jinef, besides, I don`t want to start at `private` level, I want to start at funnyguy1 level:|

Same situation in the recently openned (don`t remember exactly the name) `more human like AI thread`..

Do you really wanna have your hands shaking and stuff when you`re a `private`? Do you want to start as a total lame, and then become a super hero?

This rpgish `progress` stuff ist good for the AI, but please bis dont force me to use the character with worst or better skills that I have in the rl.

I`m gonna post exactly the same in tbe mentioned above `human_like_AI` thread...

Sorry for the typos caused by the totall exhaustion

[CherokeeJack 0]

Well, we know that Game 2 is going to contain RPG elements (in fact, the preview posted on ArmA.dk describes the environment in Game 2 to be sort of Morrowind-like), though exactly which ones it will have are anybody's guess. Myself, I wouldn't mind it at all, though it would be really cool if it were optional.

Now I'm really curious to see exactly how RPG-like BIS is willing to make Game 2.

[UNN 0]

I’m curious to see how they will implement it. Will it just be a case of firing up the editor and stepping into a war zone?

Can you turn it off?

Will you have multiple active airbases, populated cities?

Supply chains and AI convoy's?

Can you decide which areas are populated by RPG AI?

Will you be able to tap into these AI RPG events using scripts?

How will you configure each opposing side?

The whole thing sounds like a Mammoth task, which does make me wonder if they can apply the same level of flexibility we get with OFP, to such a system? If anyone can pull it off, I'm sure BIS can.

But anyone who thinks it's somehow going to destroy OFP's gamplay. There is absolutely no evidence to support this? How many people here started up the Campaign for the first time, and said. "This game is rubbish, I want to command twenty tanks now!".