DiverNB
Liturgist
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 472
Why? As bad as it may be to say, the current U.S. war on terror could have been the perfect setting for a good, tactical strategy game. Or at least the encouragement for one in a different setting. Honestly, I can't be the only one to think this. I mean sure, we've gotten RTS's focusing on it, but which of these games hasn't sucked?
I mean, there was Generals from EA which was terrible, a couple of crappy shooters, and COD4 (Pretty Decent). What the hell? The urban combat that could be had in those types of environments would be amazing. Think about it,
You're leading a squad of marines through the market place where there are hundreds of townspeople doing their shopping. Then all of a sudden rifle fire cracks through the crowd almost killing two of your squadmates. You order them to quickly take cover, but then what? ALL of the townspeople are now rushing madly about, and you can't pin point the gun fire. At the same time, you know you can't stay in that position for long lest the enemy attempt to use the crowd to get behind your position. Do you randomly return fire? Do you stay put? Do you order a squad mate to move to get a better position?
To add more depth, there could be public approval rating. Depending on how successful you are during your missions, it could drop or rise depending on how many soldiers you lost, how much collateral damage there was, etc. etc. As it rises and falls, it affects the funding you get from the government, which would be used in game to better equip your soldiers/provide reinforcements as well as affecting recruitment rate.
Also, they could add some free form choices to the game which later effect future battles, possibly even diplomacy and intel gathering. Assaulting an enemy position on the border of a nation? What if you misfire on targets across the border that belong to another country? How are you going to explain that one to the nations leader? Or, why not convince a neighboring country that you'll split the land with them 50/50 after you've taken control of it just to get some human shields?
Also, unit stats could play an important role in the game. Stamina, Accuracy, Perception, Dexterity, Medical skills, and of course explosives. Realism would be an important part of the game, so obviously patching up someone who just got shot in the head isn't an option. Soldiers wounded in battle would need to be patched up then put on medical leave until they are fully healed. Soldiers would be vital, you don't want to lose them altogether.
I also want the idea of troop transport to be fully realized. Soldiers don't just march around town all day and clean out area after area. Making troops travel long distances would be something the player is punished for, troops would get tired and their overall effectiveness would be lowered. So obviously players are going to want to keep their transport choppers / trucks alive.
Obviously the game would be set for small skirmishes, nothing more then say 20 man battles with the main focus being on urban combat. The AI would also have to actually be clever, or the main premise of the game (tactical combat) wouldn't work to well. I also think smaller battles are better, because you actually feel the immediate effects of unit loss. Your grenadier got shot and killed? Well, guess you can't assault that MG nest as easily as you had hoped.
Thinking about it, it doesn't even need to be in the Middle East. I just figured it would have encouraged at least one developer by now to make a game that takes into consideration all aspects of war. I don't want to have a shitty over world management system with good battles (Total War series) and I don't want to have a good over world with shitty ass combat (Civ series). Why the hell can't I have both? It's 2008 for crying out loud.
I mean, there was Generals from EA which was terrible, a couple of crappy shooters, and COD4 (Pretty Decent). What the hell? The urban combat that could be had in those types of environments would be amazing. Think about it,
You're leading a squad of marines through the market place where there are hundreds of townspeople doing their shopping. Then all of a sudden rifle fire cracks through the crowd almost killing two of your squadmates. You order them to quickly take cover, but then what? ALL of the townspeople are now rushing madly about, and you can't pin point the gun fire. At the same time, you know you can't stay in that position for long lest the enemy attempt to use the crowd to get behind your position. Do you randomly return fire? Do you stay put? Do you order a squad mate to move to get a better position?
To add more depth, there could be public approval rating. Depending on how successful you are during your missions, it could drop or rise depending on how many soldiers you lost, how much collateral damage there was, etc. etc. As it rises and falls, it affects the funding you get from the government, which would be used in game to better equip your soldiers/provide reinforcements as well as affecting recruitment rate.
Also, they could add some free form choices to the game which later effect future battles, possibly even diplomacy and intel gathering. Assaulting an enemy position on the border of a nation? What if you misfire on targets across the border that belong to another country? How are you going to explain that one to the nations leader? Or, why not convince a neighboring country that you'll split the land with them 50/50 after you've taken control of it just to get some human shields?
Also, unit stats could play an important role in the game. Stamina, Accuracy, Perception, Dexterity, Medical skills, and of course explosives. Realism would be an important part of the game, so obviously patching up someone who just got shot in the head isn't an option. Soldiers wounded in battle would need to be patched up then put on medical leave until they are fully healed. Soldiers would be vital, you don't want to lose them altogether.
I also want the idea of troop transport to be fully realized. Soldiers don't just march around town all day and clean out area after area. Making troops travel long distances would be something the player is punished for, troops would get tired and their overall effectiveness would be lowered. So obviously players are going to want to keep their transport choppers / trucks alive.
Obviously the game would be set for small skirmishes, nothing more then say 20 man battles with the main focus being on urban combat. The AI would also have to actually be clever, or the main premise of the game (tactical combat) wouldn't work to well. I also think smaller battles are better, because you actually feel the immediate effects of unit loss. Your grenadier got shot and killed? Well, guess you can't assault that MG nest as easily as you had hoped.
Thinking about it, it doesn't even need to be in the Middle East. I just figured it would have encouraged at least one developer by now to make a game that takes into consideration all aspects of war. I don't want to have a shitty over world management system with good battles (Total War series) and I don't want to have a good over world with shitty ass combat (Civ series). Why the hell can't I have both? It's 2008 for crying out loud.
