The Value of Tactical Gameplay Mechanics.

[P1nkalicious]

The new game engine for Generals 2 is Frostbite 2.0 - everyone knows this and the engine's talent for destruction, as much touted during development of Battlefield 3. But the question is, will BioWare Victory take advantage of the opportunity presented before them? With complex destruction, the tactical opportunities in Generals 2 have expanded greatly, as fundamentally tactics revolves around cover and the destruction of cover. With Frostbite 2.0, it provides the opportunity to implement a complex cover system.

With this cover system, it has the opportunity to not be a binary system. Rather, have different cover values (orange / green for Company of Heroes) for hard and soft cover, the difference between the two fundamentally being (besides the protection value difference between the hard and soft cover) the resilience of it against destruction. This allows tactical warfare to be far more dynamic. Do I flank the cover, OR, do I have enough resources to destroy it with grenades? Do I have anti-tank units to destroy the cover? Do I have a tank or artillery?

In addition, tanks do not have to be exempt from cover. Instead, why not give cover to tanks? Obviously not having tanks take cover behind sandbags, but rather introduce the hull-down mechanic as cover. For example, a ditch or the incline of the hill could actually have a cover value for the tank (obviously the incline of the hill would have disadvantages and require positioning, first so the tank can still fire over it, and second so it is negated by the damage bonus provided by the high ground), meaning rather than tank spamming and kiting other tanks there is an emphasis on positioning and actual tactics.

Of course, suppression could also be implemented, but that would change much of how the game is played, and in my opinion is not needed. But it's possible, and you're free to disagree.

[wombat789]

I quite like the idea of cover system and positioning of tanks etc . Would this be able to imply weapon use efficiency .Over kill with certain weapons of certain units . What of a game mechanic that emphasizes the pace of battle ? Sudden bursts of conflict followed by a low ? The variable momentum of battle ?

[P1nkalicious]

I quite like the idea of cover system and positioning of tanks etc . Would this be able to imply weapon use efficiency .Over kill with certain weapons of certain units . What of a game mechanic that emphasizes the pace of battle ? Sudden bursts of conflict followed by a low ? The variable momentum of battle ?

Not sure what you're saying here.

[oompah]

I think you are both missing the boat

the greatness of the C&C series has always been the arcade style pacing of the play, not the meticulous cover system (for example).

IMO the formula for success for this brand is to deliver arcade paced fun without too many layers, tech options, cover systems etc... build massive armies and go fight.

I wouldn't be against Victory-Bio exploring some set pieces in the single player campaigns that delve into some more complex game functions - perhaps blowing up something big and it creating a cover to funnel wounded units behind while they repair - yea OK I could live with that but the life blood, longevity and eventual good word of mouth will come from Generals 2 ability to have appeal online in it's multiplayer arena. If the PVP multiplay is done right - simple, fun, fast paced and the community is large and supported that is the way to get this brand back on track, no cover system will help with this bigger issue.

[Adridos]

I agre with oompah.

Imagine RA 2 if you had to find cover for your people, tanks could ding from some directions, tanks would roll through buildings, etc.

The beauty of the C&C has been its fun gameplay. Sure, tanks could roll through buildings, but that would destroy one of the core C&C mechanics (infantry garrison) being here for so long... And we do not want to be clicking madly to postion that tank in such a way that they cannot hit his weaker front and will just hit a building, or a side at such a high angle it would ding every time. We can use outflank with directional armor, but that is the most I think is needed. Reward for a wise split of teh troops at most, not setting up every tank individually for every tank to make an impenetrable line at the end only artillery can weed out mostly.

They are good mechanics, but for a different type of games.

[oompah]

wow someone agrees with me - awesome

also why do I have to log in about 50 times to be able to post in here?

[Golan2781]

C&C was about being simple, not bland. If a cover system can be integrated with a simple rule-set but complex impact it could work very well. Ever since SAGE, C&C actually does allow for makeshift cover, like having structures absorb an airstrike.

[oompah]

I agree with your thesis there is a line between simple and boring. C&C was never a "boring" game, it was an action RTS with an emphasis on bigger armies and faster battles with less strategic elements although there always was some strategic parts just the emphasis was always on tactical fighting (dividing forces) when you attack, when to defend etc...

for my money there isn't much room for things like cover in the COH sense of cover in a C&C title. If the makers are wanting to change the formula and make this more of a COH like experience it sounds like they could with frostbite however for my own personal interests and banking on their past success and game formula I wouldn't think elements like cover should be injected.

[Borreh]

I think you are both missing the boat

the greatness of the C&C series has always been the arcade style pacing of the play, not the meticulous cover system (for example).

I think that the failure of TW, RA3 and T_T proves this way of thinking wrong. Maybie the heart of C&C lies somewhere else.

for my money there isn't much room for things like cover in the COH sense of cover in a C&C title. If the makers are wanting to change the formula and make this more of a COH like experience it sounds like they could with frostbite however for my own personal interests and banking on their past success and game formula I wouldn't think elements like cover should be injected.

Success? TW, RA3, T_T?..

--------

Also, as stated by Golan - Being simple doesn't mean "bland". It's a matter of implementation - If it's easy to play but hard to master, then I guess it's pretty much C&C.

[P1nkalicious]

I think you are both missing the boat

the greatness of the C&C series has always been the arcade style pacing of the play, not the meticulous cover system (for example).

IMO the formula for success for this brand is to deliver arcade paced fun without too many layers, tech options, cover systems etc... build massive armies and go fight.

I wouldn't be against Victory-Bio exploring some set pieces in the single player campaigns that delve into some more complex game functions - perhaps blowing up something big and it creating a cover to funnel wounded units behind while they repair - yea OK I could live with that but the life blood, longevity and eventual good word of mouth will come from Generals 2 ability to have appeal online in it's multiplayer arena. If the PVP multiplay is done right - simple, fun, fast paced and the community is large and supported that is the way to get this brand back on track, no cover system will help with this bigger issue.

So you advocate casual gameplay? And, ultimately, what you described was CnC 4. Fast paced arcadey combat? Yeah, TT.