Medal of Honor pulls a Modern Warfare

[GreasyDogMeat]

In a move that's not a total copy of Infinity Ward, the next MoH game will be set in Afghanistan in modern times. A bit of competition can't hurt gamers I guess.

 

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/medal-of-spike-tv/59597

 

Looking on the bright side, it sounds like this new MoH will be inspired more by actual events and not ridiculous Tom Clancy style thriller fiction. Don't get me wrong, I love 24, but I became interested in CoD/MoH games in the first place because they were based on, you know, ACTUAL events. Even if they are cinematic'd up a bit. Modern Warfare 2 gets especially ridiculous. Another positive, IMHO, is a focus on Middle East combat, which Modern Warfare has been extremely skimpy on. Remember playing MW1's demo, being excited for the Middle East campaign only to find that it is pathetically short.

 

On the negative, there hasn't really been an outstanding MoH game since Allied Assault, which was actually developed by Infinity Ward before they broke off and formed IW.

[Syraxis]

Am I the only one that thinks MoH would be better off going towards a futuristic setting (e.g. Battlefield 2142) than a MW knockoff (which many will inevitably consider despite differences)?

Edited December 3, 2009 by Syraxis

[Monte Carlo]

Why not Medal of Honor: Korea or Medal of Honor: Vietnam?

[HoonDing]

Why not Medal of Honor: Korea or Medal of Honor: Vietnam?

Was there any honor gained in those battles?

 

Might as well make Medal of Honor: Bay of Pigs.

Edited December 3, 2009 by virumor

[Monte Carlo]

Don't want to bore you by putting on my military history head but a shed-load of UN units served with extreme distinction in Korea. It's an epic, if under-publicized, conflict.

 

Vietnam tells it's own dramatic story, with yes valour by combatants on both sides.

[Niten_Ryu]

How about morally ambiguous MoH: Iran-Contra

 

First DLC - The Tower Commission

[Monte Carlo]

I think you're onto something: Medal of Moral Ambiguity.

 

Although a tactics game where you channel money via shell companies in the 1980's might be a tad dull, although an Ollie North avatar would rock.

[vault_overseer]

Just like the rumor last year said...

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Had to happen. Although it will probably be worse than the Call of Duty series, as is always the case with Medal of Honor games.

[Slowtrain]

Why do gamers like playing war so much?

[Morgoth]

Never liked these war games, won't like this new MoH either.

[Slowtrain]

Never liked these war games, won't like this new MoH either.

 

 

Sometimes it all just feels a little too real. I guess I just prefer my fantasy violence to be a little more explicitly fantastical.

[Monte Carlo]

Slowtrain, I love wargames. Tactics, strategy, what if? history.

 

I don't like these ultra-violent FPS war shooters, I see them in a different genre completely. However, I'm of the Airfix generation, you know the WW2 model kits? I grew up with war comics, war movies, a lot of men in their late 40's onwards had actually been in the war. So I grew up with those stories too.

 

So for me a game like Company of Heroes is a lot of very powerful, nostalgic stuff from my childhood made real on the PC.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Why do gamers like playing war so much?

 

Because peace games tend to be dull? And actually participating in war is dangerous?

 

If they make good on their claims of authenticity beyond a superficial MW fashion, I think the game sounds good.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Cl_Flushentityhero

[Slowtrain]

Slowtrain, I love wargames. Tactics, strategy, what if? history.

 

 

Yeah, I would class warganes differently from some of these wacky FPS things.

[Slowtrain]

Why do gamers like playing war so much?

 

Because peace games tend to be dull? And actually participating in war is dangerous?

 

 

SO you're saying that somehow playing a compouter game somehow simulates the actual dangers of real war?

 

 

Is that with the health pickups? Or the regen?

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Why do gamers like playing war so much?

 

Because peace games tend to be dull? And actually participating in war is dangerous?

 

 

SO you're saying that somehow playing a compouter game somehow simulates the actual dangers of real war?

 

 

Is that with the health pickups? Or the regen?

 

Yeah, pretty much. Most video games attempt to offer people a glimpse into a life other than their own, whether or not it's a good simulation. Also, if you have a problem with glorifying war, chasing video games specifically is barking up the wrong tree. Movies and books on war have sold like hotcakes long before CoD 4.

[Slowtrain]

Why do gamers like playing war so much?

 

Because peace games tend to be dull? And actually participating in war is dangerous?

 

 

SO you're saying that somehow playing a compouter game somehow simulates the actual dangers of real war?

 

 

Is that with the health pickups? Or the regen?

 

Yeah, pretty much. Most video games attempt to offer people a glimpse into a life other than their own, whether or not it's a good simulation. Also, if you have a problem with glorifying war, chasing video games specifically is barking up the wrong tree. Movies and books on war have sold like hotcakes long before CoD 4.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not sitting in judgement or anything. I was just curious.

 

I watch some of these contemporary war FPS things and I just wonder if maybe they don't make war maybe too palatable.

 

Don't know. Just something I think about when I see these game vids.

[Critter]

Yeah, I'm not sitting in judgement or anything. I was just curious.

 

I watch some of these contemporary war FPS things and I just wonder if maybe they don't make war maybe too palatable.

 

Don't know. Just something I think about when I see these game vids.

 

Nah, they could never make a FPS game on actual events of any shape or form too realistic.

 

"What do you mean getting shot in the leg once put me on the ground screaming and bleeding profously?"

 

Reload.

 

"Wait, what? A grenade landed near me and shrapnel ripped my face apart and now my character is just rolling around with blood-curdling screams?"

 

This game sucks!

[Oner]

First Person Agony Simulator, suffer your way to victory!

[Monte Carlo]

In an ironic piece of marketing altruism, you can make money for the (otherwise excellent) charity War Child by playing this game* online at the weekend.

 

I know charities need money but why does this make me feel ever so slightly uneasy?

 

* Edit: MW2 is the game I'm referring to.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Monte Carlo

[Nightshape]

Yeah, I'm not sitting in judgement or anything. I was just curious.

 

I watch some of these contemporary war FPS things and I just wonder if maybe they don't make war maybe too palatable.

 

Don't know. Just something I think about when I see these game vids.

 

Nah, they could never make a FPS game on actual events of any shape or form too realistic.

 

"What do you mean getting shot in the leg once put me on the ground screaming and bleeding profously?"

 

Reload.

 

"Wait, what? A grenade landed near me and shrapnel ripped my face apart and now my character is just rolling around with blood-curdling screams?"

 

This game sucks!

 

OFP & ArmA try to do this actually...

[entrerix]

most people dont want to be a regular army grunt in a realistic sim. they want to be arnold in true lies or predator

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I watch some of these contemporary war FPS things and I just wonder if maybe they don't make war maybe too palatable.

 

Don't know. Just something I think about when I see these game vids.

 

That's the eternal question.

 

Here's another one: I bet they've upped enlistment significantly in a time when the U.S. is hurting for troops. What if more responsible handling of war by the media meant compromising some aspects of the American middle-class standard of living most of us have become accustomed to? Would people be willing to sacrifice their big-screen TV for a more nuanced understanding of war? Their car? Their house?

 

American culture is, IMO, built upon a complex set of components, and changing one seemingly for the better could have all kinds of other implications.

[Llyranor]

It's easy to say you're sick and tired of wargames, when all you play are stupid Hollywood action games. Actual wargames are awesome, just not for ADHD 10-yr olds.

 

The Airborne Assault series is the absolute best real-time representation of high-level (operational level) strategy and tactics in gaming, and I will accept any challenges to the contrary. The basis of this argument is on both the implementation of command and control/chains of command, and on the presence of time as a crucial element in planning strategy in the form of order delays. You aren't playing a godlike entity with full absolute control of your units, you're a high-level commander.

 

The series currently has two titles, Highway to the Reich (Operation Market-Garden) and Conquest of the Aegean (Operation Marita/Mercury = German invasion of Greece/Crete). Later this year: Battles from the Bulge.

 

Why is COTA a good WW2 game? It's not Hollywood-style, and it doesn't just implement the WW2 setting just for big explosions and drama. Instead, it uses the setting as a strength of the game, crafting historically accurate scenarios and putting you in the shoes of the general of a particular battle. It's of an operational scale (thus smaller than HoI2), which I think allows for tigher design. COTA covers the battles of Greece, Crete, and a hypothetical invasion of Malta.

 

It's an operational wargame. It's real-time with pause, but plays nothing like a RTS. It tries to be as accurate as possible, avoiding as much gaming conventions as it can - a pseudo-simulation of sorts. How does it do this? I'll present some points posted by someone else on another forum (MarkShot) who does it much better than me, and I absolutely agree with him.

 

In many so called "strategy" games, the player may formulate a strategy in pursuit of victory. However, when it comes to executing the strategy, it is largely incumbent on the player to execute each small detail in order to realize the strategy. So, the "strategy" is actually something the player imposes upon the gaming system, as opposed to the player actually interacting with the system at the strategic level. At worst, this leaves the player so mired with the details that the big picture is lost or at best, the player can track the big picture but finds much of their involvement happening at a lower level than the one for which they acquired the game for in the first place.

 

So, what is it that is different about Panther's engine that allows strategy to be both the main focus of the player and main interaction with the game?

 

(1) Panther has introduced a flexible multi-level chain of command structure into the game. The player may interact with units/sub-units at any level within the chain of command. Thus, it is very adaptable to individual style and needs. One can both micro/macro manage within even a single gaming session. A critical road block can be created by tasking individual companies while some place else an entire brigade can be given very open ended orders to make an attack.

 

Some games have a natural level at which the player should interact with the game. As long as scenarios and forces are constructed around that natural limit, they play very well. Panther's engine is much more open ended. The ability to command at any level makes the game highly scalable. In many games, if you double the forces, the complexity for the player will quadruple (exponential scaling). In Panther's engine, the scaling is more of a logarithmic function. So, doubling the forces may increase the complexity for the player by a factor of 1.2 or so.

 

(Okay, keep this scaling in mind as I will come back to it soon.)

 

(2) Along with this being able to take command at any level, Panther has provided a very powerful (or as they prefer to say "capable") AI. In most games, the AI is something that serves as your opponent. In the Combat Mission series, Battle Front identified two different AIs. First there is the Tactical AI, which resolved combat between individual elements (units) in the game system. Second, there is the Strategic AI which formulates a high-level plan for the battle against the player. If we look at Panther's engine, we will also find both of these AIs. However, in the Panther engine the Strategic AI also functions on behalf of the player to produce plans in the execution of orders given by the player. It is this which allows the player to command at any level. The player need not concern him or herself with a myriad of typical details like choosing the best route, coordinating the movement of many units with proper overwatch and security, developing a proper attack formation, deploying different type of assets to their maximum advantage, etc...

 

---

 

So, when we add the two above features together we get a highly scalable system that allows the player's main involvement to be with defining and monitoring strategy. In some games, you may be able to command large scale battles. However, this is often achieved by abstracting the forces involved in the battle. With Panther's engine, large scale doesn't mean highly abstracted. In fact, while playing HTTR you will find all the low level elemental units like infantry companies, anti-tank platoons, mortars platoons, ... individually represented and involved. So, even though you are directing a battle involving tens of thousands men and giving order to brigades, it is fought before your eyes at a much finer level of granularity. All the inherent messiness and give and take of battle is not abstracted away by some hidden numerical system. It is all there for your immersion and analysis despite your involvement at a much higher level.

 

(3) I think there is one other aspect of Panther's engine that significantly contributes to the strategic nature of the game. This is order delays. Anyone who is serving or has served will tell you that no plans/orders are immediately executed. They require time to plan, communicate, organize, and execute. You will also be told that command and control delays during WWII were much greater than they are today. There were no GPS satellites, computers, integrated battle management, etc... Panther has implemented such command and control delays into the gaming engine. While playing, you are free to issue orders and reissue orders at any point in time. However, if you choose to play with order delays (this is optional, but is selected by most players), then you will not be issuing orders and revising them every simulated hour. You are going to analyze and then, formulate a plan. Then, you will issue orders. Then, you are going to, with as much patience as you can muster, sit back and let things run their course. Even when things are not going well, you will not immediately jump in and tweak this or that. You will make a commitment as the commander to stand by your decisions until a major overhaul is needed.

 

Believe me, this all feels very real life. The requirement to create the best plan on incomplete/inaccurate information and then sit back and let things just happen, adds a lot to the fact that this is about strategy. You will work out a strategy and then set it in motion. You are not going to keep nudging things in the right direction based on some tables published by players who have reverse engineered the gaming system. I have never served in the military, but I have managed large scale software projects and this game truely captures the feel and challenges of leadership/management.

 

Summary:

1) The Order of Battle actually matters. Multi-level chain of command means you can macro- or micro-manage as much as you want. The beauty of it is that the more you micro, the more HQ becomes overwhelmed, learning to longer order delays, so you quickly learn to deleguate.

2) AI is very capable of carrying out your macro orders. In setting your orders, you set out different parameters, and the AI carries them out competently. There are a general view of what order settings you can have available on the left:

3) Order delays means that this CAN'T be a twitch fest, even if you wanted it to be. Every order you implement (because you control battalions and regiments and above, and not single squads or units) takes TIME to be carried out. It takes time for your units to organize themselves and prepare. What this means is that you have to plan out ahead, and anticipate the enemy's plan as well, taking into account various possibilities as well. You can't overcome setbacks by clicking wildly. From a gameplay perspective, that makes it very challenging.

 

Why does no one play this around here? Well, you basically play on a 2D map and manipulate little squares around. You don't see lots of bells and whistles. Despite that, the look is clean, the interface itself is ace and very functional, and it performs really well. It's a big shame, really.

 

The games really put you in the commander's shoes. Immersion is a silly overused word, but I was immersed enough into the settings that I went out and bought some books on Market-Garden and the Greece/Crete operations to read more on them. That's what WW2 games should do - stimulate the player to learn more about the conflict.

 

In any case, the upcoming game in the (renamed) series is Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge. It'll actually have a demo, so maybe people will finally try it out.

 

I usually hugely favor turn-based over real-time when it comes to tactics/strategy game. In fact, I will always ALWAYS pick a turn-based tactics/strategy game over a real-time one given a choice - the sole exception being this series. The authenticity that the system brings to the depiction of operational-level strategy and tactics (any such emulation in a turn-based system would be fairly abstracted) is so significant to me that I will even forgo my turn-based bias.

 

Wargames are awesome.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Llyranor