War Dogs Q&A Feature
Derek dela Fuente
17/01/2005
TVG chats to the President of Quicksilver about War Dogs...
William C. Fisher, President, Quicksilver Software, Inc., spoke in length to Derek dela Fuente about War Dogs which we shall be keeping tabs on.
How much is the core idea and technology behind Full Spectrum Command (FSC) the starting block for War Dogs? What have you learnt from creating FSC?
War Dogs was inspired by both Full Spectrum Command and its successor product, Full Spectrum Leader. We were very encouraged by our ability to create in FSC a standalone simulation featuring fully automated opponents at a company level ā“ as many as 250 total entities, all of them simulated at once. Weāve been told that this was the first time that had been done in a military trainer, and itās certainly part of the appeal of the product to the Army now.
We got two major benefits from the development of FSC: knowledge and technology. Most important of all was gaining a clear understanding of how real military operations work. As you probably know, itās not like the movies. True military combat operations require a great deal of coordination and training. There is chaos. Each soldierās job is to filter through the information streaming in and make logical sense out of it, then make a plan based on that knowledge. The game is therefore a ācognitiveā simulation and not a strict combat simulation. Its true purpose is to develop thinking skills, not combat skills. Learning to shoot a gun is easy. Learning when to shoot is much harder.
The technology that came out of these projects is what we call our āhierarchical command and control AIā. This is the underlying architecture that makes it possible for the player to order his troops to do something complicated like clear a building, and know that theyāre going to be able to do it properly. Thereās a huge amount of work in there.
Can you describe some of the objectives and focus for War Dogs?
Thatās easy. War Dogs is designed to combine the massive firepower and number of units of an RTS with the immediacy and intensity of an FPS.
The way we achieve this is by putting you into the middle of the action, but designing the scenarios so you need the help of all of your soldiers in order to complete the mission. Itās quite different than a standard FPS shooter experience. Theyāre both fun, but in different ways. In our game, you often have dozens of active opponents coming after you at once. These arenāt simple walking targets. Theyāre active, clever soldiers who understand how to hide behind obstacles, use suppressing fire, and do all of the advanced things that your soldiers can do (like breaching barricades). And they can be incredibly aggressive, so itās a very intense experience.
Thatās where the RTS element comes in. To succeed, you must use all of the units assigned to you. You need to think about where the threats may come from and set up a defensive perimeter. You need to consider whether itās better to chase the bad guys up the ravine or keep your entire force together and move into the town in force. You need to use smoke to conceal your movement (it really does have an effect) and call in indirect fire to soften up enemy positions.
That pretty much covers the core of why the game is fun to play. I think it was Chris Crawford who said that a game is a series of interesting decisions. Weāve made sure there are plenty of those, and added in a good dose of time pressure as well.
FSC was very much a game based around realism and authenticity but at what point do you have to add certain ideas to ensure you have a challenging game?
Good question. This is what separates game designers from military sim developers. Theyāre very different ways of developing products.
We saw the original FSC as far too hard-core for a broad consumer market release. Company-level operations require a lot of planning and a modest amount of execution, followed by detailed post-combat analysis. But all of that stuff at the beginning and end would have to be chopped out for a commercial game. We just didnāt see how the remaining parts would be able to stand on their own, so we waited until we had the next title in the series, Full Spectrum Leader.
Once we got a running version of FSL, we saw the core of a consumer game. We realized that we could chop away the planning interface entirely and give the player the briefing inside the game engine (like most other action titles). By focusing the game on the exciting bits, and removing the boring parts entirely, we ended up with a very clean game design that is ideal for both PC and console play.
In addition to removing the dull stuff, we also made a number of subtle changes in the commercial version. Weapon ranges are shorter than in real life, and kill ratios are different. The map has exaggerated terrain, because it āfeelsā more real even though itās not. Our rule was simple: if it looks and feels right, then itās right. Weāre not slaves to realism. Games arenāt real, any more than Hollywood action films. The purpose is entertainment with the flavour of reality, and thatās what we provide. The cool thing is that we know enough about real military operations to be able to make things seem quite realistic ā“ the scenarios, the terminology; the weapon behaviours are all still representative of the real thing.
Bottom line: itās been said that a stage play is simply life with all of the boring parts removed. We believe that the same thing can be said of a good game. This design can easily be described as āonly the good parts of infantry combat operations.ā
Was War Dogs originally developed for the Army and what news ideas ā“ perhaps telling us one in detail, are you currently most excited about?
The project is based on Full Spectrum Leader. We knew from the start that we wanted to make it a more immediate and active game than its predecessor, because this kind of title is all about action and fast decision-making.
Next on our list: multi-echelon operations (several players, each controlling platoons, with another layer of live or automated squad leaders under them). Very ambitious concept, and likely to take several years to come to fruition. Also, weāre already at work on a project to build a generic AI interface to the game so researchers can use it for advanced AI development. We believe that AI will be a major element of future games, and therefore have decided to create alliances with many universities and government research organizations.
Finally, weāre actively marketing the technology for other military branches, both within the Army and reaching our further to the Marines, for example. And weāre looking for ways to use it for research as well as training.
What will be the view point from the player and who do you assume and who are you in charge of?
Youāre a platoon leader. That means you have between 3 and 5 squads, each with up to nine soldiers, though some will have less, depending on the weapons they carry.
Viewpoint is third-person. You see yourself from the back. That gives you the best situational awareness while keeping you close to the action.
You can also invoke a 'squad cam' which zooms your POV over to your squad leader momentarily. You can then issue direct orders to that squad, such as pointing out a target for suppression fire.
You can give direct orders to squads or to their fire teams (each has two, normally, with four soldiers each). You can also shoot your own gun. But you canāt control individual soldiers. Thatās too much micromanagement.
How critical will decision making be to succeed and is success through trial and error? What kind of help will the player get to understand the whole picture?
This game all about making good decisions ā“ despite not having enough time and not having enough information. The challenge for the player is deciding whatās really going on and how to allocate limited resources to deal effectively with the threat. Adding a little spice to this mix, we take advantage of the high level of intelligence of our AI opponents. Youāll find on several play-throughs that each scenario is a little different every time you try it. Iāve seen bad guys end up in very different places based on a very slight change in the playerās plans. This makes it a lot of fun. Usually, when we demo the game, we play through the first scenario two or three times. Weāre fighting a pitched battle each time, yet itās not quite the same battle, as a gamer, I love that kind of challenge.
Success is definitely not through trial and error. This isnāt a puzzle game. Itās a fast-moving, real-time combat situation. The fun is in making the right decisions under pressure. But theyāre not the same decisions every time, so the pressure is on even when you think you know where the enemy is hiding.
The player gets a lot of useful information ā“ too much, really, but thatās on purpose. Thereās a briefing at the start of the scenario, of course. Then thereās a āradar mapā that shows, in general terms, the locations of the enemies you know about. Far more useful in the squad cam mode, which allows you to see what a squad leader is currently seeing. In real life, of course, you simply call the guy on the radio and ask for a situation report. But in a game, thatās boring and not very helpful, so we simply zoom you over to the given position instead. Itās a lot of fun that way.
Thereās also a lot of audio. Besides the obvious cues such as gunfire and directional/positional audio, there is also a lot of radio chatter and in-person dialog to keep you focused on the task at hand and informed of key developments. Thatās all standard stuff, really, but itās critical to building a well-rounded game experience.
What kind of control and orders will you have over your men and will the system be very much like FSC?
The system is very similar to what weāve done for FSL, which is at a lower level than what we did in FSC. FSC was very indirect. You gave orders on a map display and heard results over the radio. Thatās how company commanders operate.
Platoon leaders, on the other hand, are deep in the action. Usually, theyāre following the lead squad into the battle. For FSL, therefore, we built a ācommand ringā interface. You can tell your teams to do anything with no more than two clicks. The top three commands (move, set up base of fire, etc.) require only a single click and then a destination. This is the same basic interface that weāll be using in War Dogs, though the commercial version will be a little simpler.
You can tell your people to move, take cover, set up a base of fire, or use suppressing fire. You can also tell them to lay down smoke, fire RPG rounds, or use an anti-tank weapon. But those are just the basics. You can also order them to do complex tasks like clear a building, breach a barrier, or lay down Claymores (mines).
The game allows you to shoot your own weapon, too, if you really want. Thatās sometimes a useful option when you need to take out a sniper or dispatch a pesky grenadier. Of course, you canāt do it too often, or youāll end up underutilizing your other people.
There are also some interesting options for maintaining your situational awareness. You can see the world from your own point of view, of course. But youāre also able to zoom to a āsquad camā view which shows you what a given squad leader is currently seeing. You can then issue a limited set of orders to that squad. This is often convenient for showing you the level of a threat from a given position.
Can you tell us what you hope will be some of the locations and possible mission ideas?
Weāre just getting to that now. Some elements that we plan to include will feature:
* Lots of variety in the startup sequence. Sometimes, youāll get a detailed briefing. Other times, your briefing will be cut short by an enemy attack or an urgent radio call from Company. In the real world, you donāt always get time to think things through methodically. Sometimes you have to act quickly to get the job done or to adapt to changing conditions.
- Individual personalities. Thereās an element of role-playing in the game, with the personalities and attitudes of your fellow soldiers developing as you continue through the scenario track.
- Wide variety of missions, ranging from assault to defence to hostage rescue, to name a few.
- Variety within missions. There will always be a set of primary mission goals, and scenarios will be carefully staged to keep you on the edge. But the way you achieve these goals, as in real military operations, is to some extent up to you. You have many different tools at your disposal. Itās your responsibility to select the most effective set of tools for the job.
Is there a chance to develop the engine to create WWII and even WWI battle games and is there an area you are looking at?
Yes. Weāre definitely interested in WWII as a theme. Our engine can handle any era, from ancient to modern to future. We already have several working concepts, including one really interesting futuristic design.
Will you be extending actual body deformation and injury to give an even more detailed game?
We donāt plan to have a ārealisticā visual model for depicting injuries. But our internal game model actually does do accurate collision detection based on body parts, and adjusts damage accordingly.
Thank You
