Next-Gen CTI

[AtR 0]

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.

[Scrub 0]

We'll have to see about a new damage model in Arma, won't we?

(read: don't know what will happen there)

[rundll.exe 12]

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

Bit thats just my opinion.

Good Ideas all! Some are hard to put in current OFP, but I hope ArmA will be more flexible

[Zerg 0]

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.

[Scrub 0]

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.

[Cam51 0]

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.

[Zerg 0]

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.

[Scrub 0]

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 0]

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.

[Zerg 0]

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.

[Scrub 0]

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

Go ahead, discuss, discuss!

[smoot 0]

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?

[Cam51 0]

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 0]

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.

[Zerg 0]

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] ] 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 0]

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) 0]

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...

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

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 (DayZ) 0]

This is what I have in mind:

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).

[Scrub 0]

Zerg, for God's sake, what's wrong with you?    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..  

Or another suggestion, start your own thread and prepare to deal with people like you.  

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) 0]

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!

[Cam51 0]

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.

**Note for you guys that want to try it.  Please read the briefing before jumping right in 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.

[Scrub 0]

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..

[Cam51 0]

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 mmmmm

[rundll.exe 12]

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)