A desktop commander.

[Baphomet]

I downloaded the CoC scripts recently. It got me thinking. Only with the slight emergence of rts style missions for ofp, I realised I was in the mood for being an armchair general. Jagged alliance is a good game for that and there are some others. However I'd love to be able to just sit with a map occasionally viewing my units and doling out commands to multiple squads of guys, ordering them around an island posturing for war and formulating strategy. It sounds like a really good idea right now. Especially in ofp.

Only I wonder about the feasibility of such a thing. My idea of a nice desktop general style play would be taking the individual control element out of it. Just being some authoritative entity, that would eliminate my desire to grab a sniper rifle and a law and got to work on the enemy myself. I think it'd be just fun in a way to watch a battle unfold and try to indirectly turn the tide in my favor.

I don't know how many of you appreciate strategy on that level but right now, an ofp game with a more relaxed strategic pace sounds like a welcome change.

[Josef]

What WOULD be cool was MP games where you had one deskie and the rest were squadleaders...

[Baphomet]

That would be interesting. I'd love to be a deskie for once. Even though I'm no strategic genius. =P

[General Barron]

I really don't understand why people buy a SQUAD based infantry combat simulation, like OFP, and then want to turn it into a tactical or strategic RTS. If you don't want to be able to run around and influence the battle yourself, then why don't you get any one of the numerous strategy games out there? Personally I like the Close Combat series of games. They are WWII, top-down strategy point-and-click style. Even though they are 2d, and top-down, I find them MUCH more realistic than OFP. Soldiers panic, their weapons jam, you lose control of them as they retreat and cower in their holes, etc. None of this happens in the fearless world of OFP AI.

But my point here is that if you want something in a game (such as RTS/desktop general), why don't you get a game that is MADE for that? Just because something can be done in OFP doesn't exactly mean that it should be done. I'm all for creativity in scripting and CoC and all; don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that OFP is NOT the be-all, end-all military game in the world; that is the perfect engine for all levels of military play (from political to strategic to tactical to personal). It was made for squad-based combat, and that is what it is best at.

[toadeater]

But my point here is that if you want something in a game (such as RTS/desktop general), why don't you get a game that is MADE for that? Just because something can be done in OFP doesn't exactly mean that it should be done. I'm all for creativity in scripting and CoC and all; don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that OFP is NOT the be-all, end-all military game in the world; that is the perfect engine for all levels of military play (from political to strategic to tactical to personal). It was made for squad-based combat, and that is what it is best at.

No, that's not the problem. The problem is that you can't do it with scripting alone, you need access to the game code. OFP could easily handle a strategic game, but the code for how the GUI works, etc., needs to be changed. The AI could use some tweaking too, unless the missions would be completely scripted. For an example of what could be done, you may want to take a look at how the IL-2 engine has been converted into a WW2 RTS game, and is to be published by Codmasters of all people:

http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/mag.dyn/Features/1531.html
http://www.codemasters.com/news/displayarticles.php?showarticle=2675

So let's just say that until we get access to the engine code, making a good, non-hacked strategic OFP game is going to be impossible because you'll never have the GUI controls needed to make such a thing fun and easy to play.