What were they thinking? I ask again...

[c3k]

I have gills.

[Doug Williams]

I'll bet that every one of us (even the f-words) could write a full page rant on at least one or two aspects of the game that drive us up a wall. Heck, I probably have. However, I have yet to find any one gripe that renders the game unplayable (as others have claimed) . . . or even close to unplayable.

Well said.

My personal list would include moveable waypoints (like CMx1 had), and giving units in buildings more protection from small arms fire.

With that said, I don't see myself ever going back to CMx1.

[Hessian deserter]

I like the song "99 Luft'ballon's".....

[Arm505]

At least one person mentioned it - I'll mention it too (because frankly the OP does actually have a point):

Why can't the 'balloons' have visible 'strings'? Seriously, a one (or configurable) pixel wide 'string' running down to the base of the unit?

a) How hard could THAT be to implement?

Also, make them configurable (like trees, on/off/stumps), ie on/off/colour/thickness, something like that?

/\

\/

!

!

!

UNIT

(Please forgive terrible ASCII example )

[Ron]

I don't get it at all. Simply click on the icon and wham instant feedback as to location. I find most times I know where the dudes are at a glance without a click. However, if I have to click then what's really so difficult about that? Enough to warrant the orignal rant lol?

I find the comparison to Achtung Panzer simply incredible! What an exercise in UI frustration, non-intuitiveness and lack of feedback that was. So much so, it totally destroyed my tactical wargaming passion to learn a new game.

I guess it comes down to personal perceptions and tastes, but I still don't get it.

[Erwin]

+1 to the comment re Achtung Panzer! I really tried to like and learn it, but compared to CM it was a complete mess I thought.

[TheBlackHand]

I click on the balloon, hit "tab" and BAM . . . I know right where my unit is. (Pipe down, Beavis.) Sometimes it takes a second to sort out a particular unit when they're grouped together . . . but it's no big deal. I could see how it might be a problem with RT, but I play WEGO so I have plenty of time to get things organized. I find the (modded) tactical symbols much easier to identify this way than the original symbols. Yes, I always plot moves with the trees turned off (trunks only). Again, it's not a big deal in WEGO. Maybe in RT . . . but that's not for me (never even tried it, actually).

[LJFHutch]

I find the comparison to Achtung Panzer simply incredible! What an exercise in UI frustration, non-intuitiveness and lack of feedback that was. So much so, it totally destroyed my tactical wargaming passion to learn a new game.

I can't entirely remember it, though I do recall some confusion with AP.

[Praetori]

While I can understand some of what the original OP is saying I must say that my biggest beef with the current system is more centered around the icons not representing the bulk of the squad.

I don't know how many times I've seen an icon appear behind a house or obstacle only to find a friggin MG34 or worse still in position. Actually my spotter should have no eyes on the "other" guys. This goes the other way round as well. A squad I thought was safe was just the icon and one Sgt in a trench while the rest of the guys were hunkering down on the wrong side of the road in the open.

[c3k]

The icon, and any movement waypoints, seem to be at the location of the average position of the unit. So, if you have 1/2 of the squad on each side of a road, the icon will be over the middle of the road. Likewise, if 1 man of a 3 man team is running for his life while the other 2 remain in position, the icon will be located along the line between them, 2/3's closer to the 2 men.

XX___I______X

X are men, I is icon.

[sburke]

That may be part of the issue here. Perhaps too many players use the icons as a fast alternate for knowing the actual position of their units. For me it is simply a means to find the unit and a general perception of their location. i.e. I click the icon to find the unit then zoom in to see it's situation as opposed to using + and - to step to the unit. It is a player aid to getting to your unit, not something to be depended on to know the overall situation of the unit. You want that you have to look. 1:1 modelling requires more attention to the detail.

[Chek]

Personally I've never really thought about it so I guess they work for me just fine.

[Erwin]

Ditto. In WEGO one has the time to locate units and there are so many other issues that imo do a much better job of causing irritation and wasting players' time. (Maybe in RT, the icon issue is more of a biatch?)

[noob]

I have no issues with the icons, as previously mentioned they are just a rough guide to where your units are, but more importantly they allow you to see which enemy units can be seen by your men and vice versa.

[Praetori]

Ditto. In WEGO one has the time to locate units and there are so many other issues that imo do a much better job of causing irritation and wasting players' time. (Maybe in RT, the icon issue is more of a biatch?)

Well this tbh.

I went from WeGo to RT fulltime with the Brit module for CMSF. I'm actually trying to go back to WeGo with CMBN but I've come to enjoy the game more on the bat-level tactical simulation than the turn-based wargame side of things.

[Wodin]

I find them useful.

For me this is another thread on this forum thats a massive rant about nothing.

It really does surprise me how many threads I see where people are pulling their hair out over issues that I've either, never even noticed or are something that doesn't really bother me.

[Erwin]

Well this tbh.

I went from WeGo to RT fulltime with the Brit module for CMSF. I'm actually trying to go back to WeGo with CMBN but I've come to enjoy the game more on the bat-level tactical simulation than the turn-based wargame side of things.

I think we WEGO fans simply enjoy replaying scenes so we get to enjoy the graphics and amazing action - like enjoying great movie scenes. I can't imagine playing a battalion-sized scenario in RT and having much of a clue as to what is going on (unless you pause all the time, and then what's the point?).

It's ironic... When CM1 was first released I thought playing RT vs a human via tcp was the only way to play and I could not stand PBEM. But, I think as scenarios became larger, I abandoned RT and have played PBEM exclusively for the last 8+ years. Perhaps also age makes the wrist-twitch element of RT play just too stressful as well.

[Vinnart]

I think we WEGO fans simply enjoy replaying scenes so we get to enjoy the graphics and amazing action - like enjoying great movie scenes. I can't imagine playing a battalion-sized scenario in RT and having much of a clue as to what is going on (unless you pause all the time, and then what's the point?).

It's ironic... When CM1 was first released I thought playing RT vs a human via tcp was the only way to play and I could not stand PBEM. But, I think as scenarios became larger, I abandoned RT and have played PBEM exclusively for the last 8+ years. Perhaps also age makes the wrist-twitch element of RT play just too stressful as well.

I feel the same way about WEGO vs RT. I enjoy the replay too much. Sometimes I will watch a turn from each of my engaged units perspective as well as the enemy 's point of view. I do dabble in CM in RT though to mix things up, and put me back in Sudden Strike adrenalin mode, and to study the experience for feedback to the developers in improving the situational awareness in RT. In that regard it can be much better with the addition of just a few more features IMO. I was also the same way about being a strictly RT player before I discovered Cmx1, now I play mostly WEGO and currently prefer it to RT. I just find it frustrating in missing situational awareness when it it does not have to be that way.

In regard to the original post gripe I still think toggle unit bases on/off ala CMx1 is best answer. Toggle off would work as now in highlighting base only for selected unit. In toggle on the player would have to rely on highlighted icon to know what unit is selected as the base would already be highlighted. I’m good as is but could see how having this could be useful.

[Lt Bull]

It's amazing just how poorly some people understand (let alone realise!) exactly how fundamentally different the implemntation of unit markers in CMBN actually is compared to other games (I have listed these key differences in detail again below) and how this impacts a players ability to percieve what is where on a 3D battlefield.

Perhaps people need to re-address this thread by asking themsleves the following queston:

"Exactly how has BFC made a better game for the player by choosing to implement a unit marker system that is fundentally so different to the way OTHER game designers implement unit markers in their games?" What, if anything, could there be to gain?? The question I reiterate is WHY?? Why did BFC (feel they had to?) do it like this? How does it make things better? If it doesn't, then why do it? If you still don't know what makes the CMBN "floating icons" so uniquely odd in the world of gaming, please watch these videos and keep reading.

CMBN v AP:OS

CMBN v ToW

CMBN V MoW:AS

CMBN v TWS2

Personally my answer to that question is "absolutely nothing to gain, it actually just makes it needlessly more confusing for the player". Unit markers dancing around everywhere, far way from what they are meant to be marking, for what? But as I have said before that to just say "you like/don't" the CMBN icons is of no value in this discussion, it's not a vote/survey. If you can't explain yourself beyond "i like/don't like them" and don't refer to the examples from the other games as a point of reference/comparison, don't bother posting. Is there some "hidden brilliance" in the implementation that I am overloooking? Were they "forced' to do it like this becasue of some self inflicted defiecincy in the game engine/planning/coding? I have yet to hear a rational explanation.

The reason the a "?" unit marker is at the base is because you can't actually see the 3D unit, therefore there's nothing to cover up.

So why not just float them like the other icons? What is gained by deciding to have these NOT float up high with the others? Sounds like inconsistent reasoning. I actually preter it in the game when all my enemy contacts are "?" because they are actually located where they should be. I also have realised that these icons ctually do overlap as well!

I think the real issue is that the icon height doesn't scale to the distance. In other words, a unit that is far away from the camera has it's icon floating at the same height(pixel wise) that a unit close to the camera has.

Yes (though the scaling behaviour isn't exactly how you describe it in the game) and this adds to the counter-intuitive behaviour that makes it difficult in determining where things really are. If the icons floated like they do but did not change height, it would make things easier to interpret. It's just what our human eyes are used to seeing. Comparing the height/size of known objects in any 3D environment and the rate at which things move relative to each other when our point of view is moving (liek panning/zooming th ecamera) is fundamental in determining and establishing depth of field on a 3D environment. If your references heights change, it screws around with your depth perception.

Overlaying them based on distance would help. Maybe a stick, or flagpole, dropping down to where the unit is located could help.

However one thing that would make connecting the icons to the troopers easier is to draw a thin line to the ground. Similar to the pins on google maps. Wouldn't clutter too much and give a better 3D understanding of the positions.

If the icons must float as high as they do in CMBN, yes, having a "flagpole" connecting the icon to the spot on the ground where the unit is would help things. It would only need to be very narrow, partly transparent. I too had considered this.

The last thing I want is some big, fat, ugly icon obscuring my pretty Panthers and pixeltrupen

.

Yeah right, like this you mean? Damn those big fat ugly icons that don't float as high as they do in CMBN! I can't see my pretty Tiger.

Or this. Where is my Churchill?

I do okay with the floating icons. They might not be the best solution, but trying to think of a better one is too much work for me at the moment

No need to think of a better solution if you can't. It's already existing and implemented in many games, like in the screenshots I have been posted. Just look beyond CMBN and you will invariably find a better implemented unit marker system which invariable includes :

- icons that are positioned just above the unit (so as not to obscure it) -unlike CMBN

- icons that essentially stay at a fixed height above units regardless of range form camera (some other games do very slightly increase this distance however) - unlike CMBN

- icons that are not obscured by terrain - unlike CMBN

- icons that can overlap assisting in depth perception (ie. do not randomly jostle for position ala CMBN) - unlike CMBN (except the "?" icons)

It's incredible (amazing even) that every one of these four marker features/rules you see in many/all other games are "boldly" broken by BFC in CMBN. It is amazing reading some comments that people would have you believe that the way BFC have implemented unit markers in CMBN is "the norm" and hence not worth even discussing. Is it now clear that we are dealing with an idosyncratic unit marker system in a CMBN that is in so many ways UNLIKE anything you find (and not in a good way) in other similar games?

Yet we still get comments like:

From my perspective none of your suggestions or examples are superior to the current implimentation. When I want detailed information about my unit, including the exact location of each member of the unit, I click on it's icon. That seems simple and straight forward to me.

I realize that some are frustrated here but I think from the discussion in this thread it is clear to me that BFC *did* consider icon placement and have chosen a good solution. Thumbs up BFC.

Incredible. Never knew the CMBN floating icon concept was considered such an awesome player friendly "feature" by some. I look forward to seeing it being adopted by other game designers for it's counter intuitive brilliance.

Part of the problem is the dense trees and foliage. It's almost impossible to play without frequently turning trees off

Having terrain/foliage obscure units is a gameplay problem faced by all game designers making 3D battlefields like CMBN. A well designed game shouldn't really require you to frequently turn off trees. The unit markers are ment to address this somewhat. However, rere is an innovative example of how to prevent the units themselves being "hidden" amongst foliage on a 3D battlefield (note the markers also overlap in this game as they do in every other example):

This certainly seems to be more a more "high end" solution that might just be a function of a higher end graphics engine, but still very effective and innovative.

I also realize that the technical reasons for making the icons float so high may still be applicable, so I do not expect change.

You can see based on the examples I have posted that it is NOT necessary to float the icons so high. The "the technical reasons" exist because BFC made them exist by a) not allow icons to overlap them overlap, allowing icons to be obscurable by terrain/foliage.

Lt Bull posted some screenshots of Operation Star, which is a good solution to the problem of providing people with an icon you can interact with and has a clear presentation (doesn't get confused with the image itself). Graviteam took the HUD metaphor for their game, in CMx2 we have the "miniatures with flagpoles" metaphor.

Yes except there are no "flagpoles" (the merits of which have already been point out) in CMx2 so your description it's not really a description for what we see in CMx2.

The only quick and dirty thing that comes to me would be to scale icon size with distance from POV. While it would not solve all the perception issues, it would help.

Changing/scaling the icon size based on distance might sound like it would help but in reality it opens up whole bunch of other issues. Just play/look at other games and how they implement unit markers and you will see this is not necessary.

...when I first read your post and saw your first picture with the floating icons I mentally went from icon to icon and "guessed" where the unit was....Yes, it takes practice but you *can* get good at determining unit position from the floating icons.

No other game similar to CMBN mandates that I "learn at being good at guessing" where units are on the map. The proximity of the unit markers in those games, unlike CMBN, are close enough to the actual unit that I don't (and shouldn't) have to guess.

I find the comparison to Achtung Panzer simply incredible! What an exercise in UI frustration, non-intuitiveness and lack of feedback that was.

Why? Whose refering to the AP interface in general? Yes there are certain things about the Achtung Panzer interface that are just as odd, unconventional and baffling as some of the UI "innovations" used in CMBN (it is made by an Eastern block company, they do have some funny ideas sometimes). However, their implementation and behaviour of the unit markers is not one of them (as you can see in the screenshots and video). I would say it is probably the best implementation of unit markers in a game of that type. Explanation why is in the screenshots and video. Would love to hear reasons for disagreeing.

This is a clear sign of someone unwilling to consider that an opinion is not a fact and therefore people will disagree. As long as the counter opinions are reasoned and not abusive, then they are completely legitimate. Name calling is a weak minded response to genuine criticism.

Oh yeah you are just so spot on about that "someone". And yeah I don't know the difference between fact and opinion.

Or are you trying to tell us that these observations are just "opinions":

- the further away/disconnected a marker is from what it is meant to be marking, the less useful it will be as a location marker.

- having markers on a 3D terrain "randomly" jostle for position to prevent them from overlapping each other does diminishes their function as location markers compared to markers that would otherwise overlap and remain true to depth of field principles.

- that arbitrarily/greatly changing the scale of things (eg. height of markers above units) based on camera range works AGAINST a players own innate exceptions for how they expect objects on 3D surface to behave, hence messing with their natural sense for establishing depth/space perception.

- no other games outside of CMx2 share ANY of the unit/icon marker behaviours that have been pointed out.

This is not a discussion about opinions. It's about trying to understand why BFC chose to break all standard conventions in UI design (once again) when implementing a unit marker system in CMBN.

I haven't seen significant complaint about floating related issues since early CM:SF days

As you well know, telling people that it's your your way of the highway tends to shut people up and to just be happy with what they have invested in. And not as many people cared about CMSF to even bother posting.

Since the icons are behaving correctly according to the intended philosophy, which it seems the vast majority of people like...

You mean that intended BFC philosophy of designing an idiosyncratic UI with as many needlessly distracting/unconventional/counter-intuitive/counter-innovative features as possible that requires the player to spend more time coming to grips with the UI than actually playing and enjoying the game? Yeah BFC certainly have nailed that one!

I have yet heard ANY coherent explanation from anyone explaining how the peculiar implementation of the CMBN floating icons could be in any way considered "better" than what you see in any of my examples. ie. I am waiting for reasons that begin with "I prefer unit markers that float further away from what they are marking because....", or "I prefer icons that don't overlap and instead randomly jostle around because...." or "I prefer not having markers float at a constant height above units when I move the camera because it improves...". Anyone?

...we are going to make no changes to that aspect of Floating Icons. Some other changes, that have far more relevance and meaning to players, are in the works for a future version of CM.

Good on you! That's showing 'em good hey! As if BFC need to improve basic fundamental simple UI issues/concepts in their games! Pffff!!! It's just a matter of time before ever other game designer adopts the revolutionary counter-intuitive CMBN uber-floating random jostling unit icon marker system for it's sheer brilliance and see BFC as the UI gurus they are reknown for being. Yeah better to tackle the more pressing bigger more worthwhile fish that is worth the time spent/payoff investment, like spending the next 5 years trying to animate a German soldier running with his weapon in one hand than get basic UI functionality right.

And thanks for explaining why the floating icons are the way they are. I get it now.

<shakes head>

[TheBlackHand]

<shakes head>

You're not the only one.

[Peregrine]

I don't like that the "?" contacts don't float as well. They can get easily lost in bocage terrain resulting in too much use of the camera to find them.

[Vinnart]

Lt Bull, I think the problem may be in how you are navigating the game. TRUST me if you take my advice you will be navigating, and finding units VERY fast! I have played TOW and other RTS games, and I navigate just as fast in CM. I played in international RTS leagues with a game called Sudden Strike, and was undefeated in all my team games with many times being the key guy to break through the line. I was a “professional” RTS player in that game so I know that speed of command and control is key to victory. Part of why I won so much was because I was faster than my opponent in controlling my units.

First, you need the right equipment. Not only for this game, but any others you may play. Look at it like baseball. If you want to play you need to have a glove even though you can catch the ball with your bare hands. If you want to play games efficiently invest in a mouse with as many programmable buttons (mine has 9), and a Nostromo52 speedpad. I know you are all saying why should I have to buy these extra things? See my baseball analogy. With these things any game can be made to control fast, and they can overcome poor keyboard control layouts.

How I navigate and find units efficiently: All my buttons on the mouse are for camera controls except the forward/back buttons. These are for cycling forward and backwards through units (+-). Center mouse key is the “Tab” key to center over unit. The rest of the keys are preset camera control 1-6. I usually keep the camera around the 3-4 positions. From there to find a unit I select the unit icon and hit my button to center camera over unit. The camera immediately flies to being centered over the selected unit, and I can see the bases light up showing the exact location. If I want to drop to ground level I hit a button. To go back to 4 for more of a overview I hit another button. It is as easy as that, and you are immediately where ever you want to on the battlefield to find units with NO problems. Just select an icon, and hit the “tab” button and the selected unit is center on the screen.

Ordering efficiently, and more camera controls: The rest of the game ( or any game) controls go on the Nostromo52. Here I have all the most common commands tied to the hotkeys. I have the zoom in/out tied to the N52 scroll wheel. Another IMPORTANT camera hotkey that is tied is F12. This key allows you to select the previous unit selected different than cycling, which is in formation order. With this you can jump between controlling two units very quickly. You can also use it to jump back to your friendly if you have an enemy selected. Also use this key if you accidentally deselect your previously selected unit.

Take my advice and you will be controlling this game with complete ease. FAST, and efficient! It takes a bit of upfront experimenting in how you want to set up the hotkeys for the devises, but once you do you will see a BIG difference in how you control a game. Hope this helps because I have no problems finding units any differently from TOW. Could the icon be improved, and overall situational awareness? Yes probably, but it is in no way a game breaker especially if one navigates as I have suggested.

[Peregrine]

+1 to the above.

I think having "Zoom to unit" (tab), "Forward Unit" (=), "Back Unit" (-), "Revert to previously selected" (F12) all bound to mouse controls makes the game infinitely more playable.

[sburke]

You mean that intended BFC philosophy of designing an idiosyncratic UI with as many needlessly distracting/unconventional/counter-intuitive/counter-innovative features as possible that requires the player to spend more time coming to grips with the UI than actually playing and enjoying the game? Yeah BFC certainly have nailed that one!

I have yet heard ANY coherent explanation from anyone explaining how the peculiar implementation of the CMBN floating icons could be in any way considered "better" than what you see in any of my examples. ie. I am waiting for reasons that begin with "I prefer unit markers that float further away from what they are marking because....", or "I prefer icons that don't overlap and instead randomly jostle around because...." or "I prefer not having markers float at a constant height above units when I move the camera because it improves...". Anyone?

Good on you! That's showing 'em good hey! As if BFC need to improve basic fundamental simple UI issues/concepts in their games! Pffff!!! It's just a matter of time before ever other game designer adopts the revolutionary counter-intuitive CMBN uber-floating random jostling unit icon marker system for it's sheer brilliance and see BFC as the UI gurus they are reknown for being. Yeah better to tackle the more pressing bigger more worthwhile fish that is worth the time spent/payoff investment, like spending the next 5 years trying to animate a German soldier running with his weapon in one hand than get basic UI functionality right.

And thanks for explaining why the floating icons are the way they are. I get it now.

<shakes head>

The sarcasm aside I get that you have some very strong feelings about the Icons and how you use them or don't to identify units and play the game. I won't offer any options to make it better as frankly I haven't spent any effort on that. They work for me, yeah they can probably be improved, but hell that's probably true of any single aspect of the game. I find the degree you get carried away by this frankly more startling than the difference between CMBN and the other games cited. Then again we all have those items that push our buttons.

I am more of the mind expressed by other posters that there are features that are more important than the Icons, and your sarcasm about soldier animation isn't what they are referring to. You know items like bunkers that are more functional, maybe better FOW for fortifications, fire, armored covered arcs and of course that holy grail - the Bren tripod.

All I can say is if they really put you off that much (assuming you aren't just trying to be overly dramatic) then perhaps you should play one of those games that have such (dare I say it) amazing! Icon UI dynamics.

[Chek]

Once again works fine for me I have absolutely no problem with the floating icons hell I don't even know what you're going on about.

Never had a problem finding units,or getting the information I need when I need it.

If I did I'd probably just think well I'm not the market they're aiming at and go do something else.