Lt Bull

Hello I have only recently gotten back in to playing CMBN and would like some comment on what I believe is perhaps an unrealistic TacAI response for infantry when they come under fire for moving. My experiences are only via WEGO gameplay. Compared to the TacAI response of moving infantry that come under fire in CMx1 under similar circumstances., the response I see in CMBN seems less realistic/favourable. Most of what I am referring to relates to situations in the game where infantry is being used to scout/approach/draw fire from suspected enemy positions. These units are typically very vulnerable. What you hope they do (or what you hope the game will allow you to do) is the following: draw fire from as yet un-revealed enemy positions minimise any loses/danger to themselves when they actually do come under fire. The typical orders available to use on infantry under these circumstances is "MOVE" or "HUNT". I tend to only use "HUNT" if I am certain contact with the enemy is imminent (within a turn or two as it is too slow and tiring for infantry units to use over extended periods of time). The MOVE command is a more "economical" way of scouting for enemy positions for extend periods of time, and my comments mainly relate to infantry in these circumstances that are following MOVE orders. Typically when an infantry unit is being used to scout for enemy positions, any enemy fire they receive is almost always going to be coming from in front of the unit, such that any further progression in the direction of travel will most likely DECREASE the range between it and the enemy fire, consequently placing the unit in even more danger, something you do not want. In CMBN however, if you give a MOVE order to a unit, it's as if the order to MOVE to a waypoint is interpreted as "I don't care if you get fired on, ignore self preservation, try to out run the gunfire, you must do what you can to reach your way point at all costs!" rather than "MOVE towards that waypoint but hit the dirt/find immediate cover/reassess the situation if you take fire (from unrevealed locations)" which as far as I am concerned is closer to the SOP for most infantry not engaged in a "charge" or "assault". In CMBN, infantry just seem too hell bent of getting to waypoints when coming under fire, by breaking in to a sprint, rather than considering courses of action that limit their exposure to further fire. In CMX1, infantry would often immediately "hit the dirt" if under fire and seek local cover by crawling, abandoning their current MOVE order. The "MOVE TO CONTACT" order was great for this. So is the MOVE TO CONTACT order an obviously missed order for CMBN, because the modus operandi of using infantry scout units that come under fire is to just to break in to a sprint towards the next waypoint, closer to the enemy, and towards death rather than think of finding cover/reassessment/self preservation. Comments? Bull

Hmm...I was not aware that it would take 4.4min or that it was documented somewhere in the UI such that I would be aware of it. I will have a closer look for this information as I am unsure where it is documented. Yes I did see that they were "Packing Up" but after waiting several minutes (turns) I guess my patience and expectations for how long it should take got the better of me and I came posting here. The fact that I reissued the "move" to limber on the HT order after 2-3 min of the ATG apparently being "stuck in a Packing Up state" would have reset the clock on the Packing Up order each time making the ATG spend even more time in the "Packing Up" state. I will try again with patience this time. Thanks Bull

MY apologies guys. I forgot to rename the file on the sever to ATG.bts. I have done so now and you can now download it.

I've waited several minutes. The idea was to see if others are experiencing the same issue with the saved file.

Hi Not sure if this should go here or in the Tech Support forum. Been playing the Kamfgruppe Engel campaign and in one battle, I have an ATG that just seems to refuse to a) move limber up on to a HT or truck. It has a full crew, is undamaged and not under fire. File is below. See if it happens for you. SPOLIER alert as it is just one battle in a campaign you may not have played. ATG.bts Not sure if all this is related to this as well: http://www.battlefront.com/community/archive/index.php/t-103772.html Bull

NVM...worked it out for the moment.

Hmmm, you think I trust the fidelity of the CMx2 graphics engine that much? Especially when it comes to trying to look through/past/near foliage, I have found it is more random/unpredictable than anything else. It's not that much less abstract than CMx1. Hmm, haven't tried this. Will see how it goes. Still, if the LOS tool could have an adjustable "height" from ground setting (maybe cycle it from 0m, 1m , 1.5m with a keystroke) it would make usage of the LOS tool much more relevant to the players needs. At the moment I would say the majority of the LOS checks made by the LOS tool are misleading/irrelevant to what the player really wants to know.

Hi, I think this is a long time issue even with CMx1. Never bothered posting about it, but after playing the Scottish Corridor operation, there were critical occasions where this affected battle outcomes too much. You might try check LOS from a setup position (typically from a tank/AT gun) to some other spot on the battlefield but it might tell you it is blocked, usually because of intervening foliage/grass/shrubs etc. When you do this I am sure the end of the LOS tool is actually located right at ground level, therefore not really providing you with the kind of practical LOS information you really want to know because you are typically wanting to know if you could practically spot an object (man/vehicle) that is not FLAT on the ground at that spot but one that has height above ground, say between 1m and 1.7m. So what ends up happening in game is that LOS to practical targets appear where "mock" LOS checks previously may have suggested NO LOS. Very annoying for the player. Any work arounds for this? I could image an LOS tool that had at least a toggle that allowed the target end of the LOS tool floated 1m to 1.5m above the level of the ground, therefore emulating LOS to target with real height. Comments? Bull

Opps, how did I forget that...was FAST speed. I am not exactly sure what you are getting at here but I think you might be getting ahead of yourself. I think you are reasoning that because "it's very hard to pinpoint in the near endless permutations of cross-influencing variable combinations" that affect vehicle bogging in game, making sense of the data generated from these types of tests, when put in the context of an actual game, is limited. To a degree yes that is correct, in the same way that knowing someones weight is not a sure fire way to determine their actual health (well except in extreme cases). But these tests don't claim/intend to give you that information. Who knows just how many other factors can affect bogging probability/frequency. For example the straight line fast speed tests may show that vehicle X might have a lower bogging frequency than vehicle Y on one type of terrain, but if you now made both vehicles travel in a zigzag (ie. change direction every 20m for example), the bogging frequency of vehicle X may be now be higher than than of vehicle Y. FWIW, I certainly would however think that ANYTHING but continuous straight line travel over terrain would result in HIGHER bogging rates in general. It would be easy to test for, but would be a pain of a test to carry out (eg. you would have to manually issue the multi-waypoint orders for each vehicle in each trial...very time consuming). I would suggest looking at these bogging frequencies that can be determined by these simple straight-line "vanilla" tests as being "best case" scenarios that can be used as a logical fundamental starting point for any further investigation in to how OTHER factors may influence bogging, such as changing direction/speed or as you have suggested whether the crews "situational awareness" affects things. For the moment, it is probably of much more value and interest now to just see how these "vanilla" bogging frequencies alone map out across all the vehicles in the game. Who knows what controversy would insure if say we found that German vehicle bogging frequency was not affected by speed but US vehicles were. (not suggesting it's so, but its an example of simple stuff that could be revealed). I will see if I can get a few more tests done. I really would prefer if someone could suggest a particular vehicle (or vehicle pair comparison) they believe may be bogging too frequently/not frequently enough. I may as well do those tests first.

Hmm...are you saying that if you start playing a Very Dry/Downpour scenario eventually you will literally see the ground conditions reported when you press the "conditions" button dynamically change from Very Dry-->Dry-->Damp-->Wet-->Muddy?

Yes I agree that this is the biggest issue related to the current HIDE command when playing WEGO in H2H mainly, though I haven't personally been affected by it and hence I wouldn't consider it a show stopper. I may be wrong but I kind of feel that the TacAI, when it comes to the HIDE command, is kind of "dumber" than what we saw in CMx1. Is it correct that CMBN units are more prone to stick to the HIDE (ie no return fire) command when they have been spotted and are taking direct fire or when enemy have moved within ambush range (when it comes to infantry)? As has been noted, there is a full max 60sec they could potentially be fired upon without returning fire even though as you watch the replay you would have wanted/expected them to break the HIDE commend and start returning fire, purely out of self-preservation. Is there any data on the "spottablity" of infantry units in cover issued with the HIDE command as opposed to infantry issued with short target arcs?

Hi ian. This is not exactly a correct statement. There is no "shortcut" way to get the bogging/km travelled data. For each tank/terrain/condition combination, a minimum number of total reliability kms need to be covered. If the "obstacle course" has one type of terrain, then it will actually take less time/trial runs to get the data that determines the kms/bogging frequency for that one terrain type, than if say that terrain was one of only five other terrains on the course. Yes, probably best to get all the data for the Sherman M4A1 (mid) as you say. Just looked at the ground condition types possible in the game. there are quite a few! Very Dry, Dry, Damp, Wet and Muddy. I would guess that the bogging rates vary for each one. Then there is also the weather conditions: there are 11 types. I wonder if they affect things at all as ultimately weather in RL does affect the ground conditions, probably not. Note however it is possible to make a scenario with Very Dry ground conditions with Downpour weather conditions. We are yet to determine if the bogging rates are the same for all vehicles. I would tend to think not. The ground pressure data for each vehicle that BFC already had from CMx1 probably factors in here somewhere.

Just started reading this thread and I appreciate the tests/experiments being conducted to better understand how bogging in different terrains is implemented in CMBN. However I will add that the design of the tests could be modified to provided much more useful, valuable, transferable and meaningful information than what is currently being provided. ian.leslie, the results of your obstacle course are interesting but the results themselves are practically meaningless outside the scope of your tests because you are using an arbitrary multi-terrain obstacle course. The results you are producing are not a transferable metric that is of much meaning outside of your own particular tests. To get a better understanding of how terrain affects bogging, you need to run your tests on ONE type of terrain at a time and determine an "AVERAGE KMs per IMMOBILISATION" frequency metric for moving across a particular terrain type. This is just as easy to do as running any of the tests you are currently running. For my own curiosity, I decided to run a few of these single terrain tests myself to find out exactly ho many kms of travel it took before you can expect a bogging. Its quiet easy to do. Lining up the same vehicle along a map edge and giving them all orders to travel at a certain speed (FAST, QUICK, MOVE, SLOW or HUNT) along a length of uniform terrain. All you need to do is: a) record the number of bogging occurances record the number of immobilisations that eventuated from any bogging (this data needs to be processed separately, will be good to know if chances of immobilisation increase if bogged in different terrain) c) the total distance travelled Doing this I determined that under test conditions, travelling in a straight line, with DRY conditions on GRASSXT, ShermanM4A1 (mids) regular crews will suffer on average 1 bogging every 150 kms. Because I had 38 tanks moving at once along a 2.15km course, running the test 13 times is equivalent to over 1000km of reliability data. It takes a few minutes for them all to travel the 2.15km course. I repeated the test for MUD terrain and found that based on just 40km of testing, the frequency of bogging seems to level off/stabilise/converge at some value just over 300m. Just a note on the tests. It gets tricky to keep track of which vehicles have bogged/rebogged if the frequency of bogging is excessive. For example, I only let the MUD trials run for just the first minute and restarted/reloaded the test so they all start lined up again. It's just easier to see who is getting bogged. Also the graphs make it easy to determine if you have done enough tests (or taken enough samples) because you can see the results converge/flatten off as the sample size gets bigger. Anyways, it would be good to to know the kms/bogging for every terrain type for every vehicle, for each speed, for each ground condition type. These tests are how you would do it. Very easy to run. I will see if I can be bothered doing any more (I will take requests! Name the vehicle, terrain, conditions, speed). I know that BFC probably already have this frequency data these tests expose tucked away somewhere anyway. I know they could just theoretically publish the data/tables (but I know they wouldn't for various reasons), but doing these tests essentially allow you to easily reverse engineer that data anyway to within even 1% accuracy without much fuss if you want. PS: ah stuff it, why not...here is my scenario file that has all 38 Shermans lined up already if you are interested. Just use the scenario editor to change the terrain type to do other tests. Bogging Test GrassXt Shermans.btt

That's only because BFC (unlike other game designers) make the icons obscurable by terrain. It is a problem they have created themselves. Seems many people are too eager to just "buy in" to the notion that BFC made the icons that way because they just had too. Just looking at how unit markers in other similar games behave proves how incorrect that is. Definitely not the problem, and I have played dozens of similar tactical wargames on 3D battlefields similar to CMBN. When it comes to the implementation unit markers, CMBN stands alone as the black sheep elephant in the room. The problem is the unprecedented implementation of a counter-intuitive unit marker system that needlessly results in a ridiculously excessive physical disconnect between where the unit is on the battlefield and where the icon belonging to it is located, directly diminishing the quality of the unit positional information communicated by the marker to the player. As I have said, this is not a discussion on if you are happy with it or not, or how you should try to "adapt" to it (though I appreciate the intent). It is about understanding "why is it this way?" No it is not a game breaker. I can play the game though when I do I know I am needlessly fighting my own intuition, double checking/clicking things I know I shouldn't have to, paying more attention to just simple things like "so where is that marker telling me my unit is?". I regularly survey the map/battlefield from afar from different angles and my eyes see a marker on the map and tell me (like they do in every other game I have played, or as you would see on a) "that is where the unit is", but, then I have to stop and check because in this game what you see is not what you get and units are located at ridiculous distances from the marker. Imagine if you were able to shift all the unit markers shown on a 2D tactical combat map 30m in one direction and presented it to a commander for assessment: Commander: Hey sergeant bring me that battle map. I need to reassess our positions. You: Sure thing sir! <unfolds map on table> Commander: Err, I thought we had 1st Squad located in that barn. What are they doing in that open field to the north? And that tank for B Co. What's it doing in those woods north of where I ordered it? You: umm....errr.... Commander: 3rd Sqd should be in that gully, not in that nearby building. Hang on a sec...WTF is going on? None of these units are where I thought they should be. Have they been disobeying orders again? You: No sir, not that I know. Commander: So who has been messing with this map? You: Well, umm, sir...we are marking maps differently now. HQ have told us that its better to not actually position the unit markers where the units are actually located but 5-30m north of where they really are. Commander: You are kidding me right? What kind of knuckle-headed idea is this? You: Well sir, it's HQ. They say that if you move the marker away from where the unit actually is you can see the terrain the unit actually is in. Commander: You serious? Last I checked maps tell me where things are. You: Well sir, not anymore. If you REALLY want to be sure where your units are, you are going to have to go out and personally check each one individually yourself, in person. Commander: OMG! But the unit markers are small enough I can see the underlying terrain anyway. There is no need do to it anyway. I mean at least draw a connecting line from the marker to the spot on the map where the unit actually is, at least then I can see where the unit actually is....Hang on, why am I even arguing. This whole idea is just RETARDED in the first place! You: Well sir, it does't end there. Rotate the map. <Commander rotates map clockwise 90deg> Commander: What the? The unit markers have moved AGAIN! You: Well you see sir the markers on these maps reposition themselves depending on how you look at the map. All markers are now around 5-30m west of where the units actually are. Commander: Oh my, this is doing my head in. you: One more thing sir. See those markers at the top of the map? They are actually further away from where the units are than the ones down on the bottom edge. Commander: OK, I will bite...why? You: Well sir, I don't know, something about making them more visible that the ones down here loser to you. Commander: Un- *******-believable. This whole idea is doing my head in. What the hell are they thinking? YOU: Umm, no't really sure sir. <Commander rolls up map> Commander: Sergeant.. You: Sir! Commander: Take this map back to those clowns at HQ and tell them to shove it up their ***. Then go find and bring me back a normal regular conventional military map that actually tells just shows me where my units really are. You know, like the ones we and everyone have been using for centuries. I am not asking for much, really. You: Yes sir! I will do my best. Commander: Gods speed sergeant

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. 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! 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. 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. . 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? 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: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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>

Well, I finally get a chance to get back to my PC and read the posts, and wow, where do I start? Quite a few posts from some touchy posters who decided to take the offensive/defensive/personal/fanboi tone rather than contribute anything of value to what really is a discussion about game/UI design. You know who you are. Thanks so much for wasting space here, you have done your bit, you are no longer needed here. We can now say goodbye so feel free to just go off and find someone else's thread to pollute. Thankfully there are quite a few good replies by people who are capable of choosing to discuss things with open minds in a manner conducive to further discussion. Let me select a few good/interesting/worthwhile points that were brought up: I will start with this one first: Absolutely!!! This is quite an important assertion but if you actually read my post I am NOT asking or requesting or suggesting BFC to change or do anything about the game (I gave up on that years ago!). I was just asking/looking for explanations why something in the game is the way it is. FWIW, if it was at all considered, it would be best implemented as an option the player can set for personal preference. If the potential already exists for the icons to tell you exactly (or certainly MUCH better than what they already do) where the unit is (something ALL players need to know at some stage), why not utilise that potential? It is generally bad/inefficient design to not utilise the potential of a feature you have already implemented to meet a design requirement and instead implement/introduce a totally new one just to do it. It's kind of like designing a car with a stereo that runs off disposable batteries rather than the off the 12V battery already existing in the car to run the other electricals. If you are going to do that, it really does beg the question "why?" which is what I am asking so emphatically. I actually originally thought that the icons we see in CMBN were "unobscurbale" by terrain/folliage on the map etc.... I was mistaken there and I am surprised that no one picked this up. I had to do some tests but I definitely now know that they CAN be obscured by terrain if they are submerged in foliage. Here are some screenshots of "?" icons (which DO NOT float) getting obscured by terrain (the second image is what you see when you pan closer). Note however that this is not exactly a deal breaker for having the icons at ground level. Not only have BFC considered this OK for the "?" icons, but as you can see from the screenshots above, moving the camera anywhere near the distance you would normally interact with the icons automatically removes the foliage from the tree tops, making any icons at ground level visible anyway. We need to remember that there is NOTHING unique about the requirements of the unit markers in CMBN. There are many other games similar to CMBN that have addressed the same problems, such as "How do I show the player where the unit is when it is submerged in foliage", in ways that I believe are much better and more effective (friendlier to the user) than what we see with the "floating icon" solution seen in CMBN. It seems apparent that perhaps some poster simply just haven't ventured outside of CMBN/CM/BFC world/forums too much, have eyes just for CMBN and are simply unaware of how other game designers handle the exact same issues/challenges faced by BFC when designing CMBN. I will show a few relevant examples of how other game designers handle things: Here is a game that actually gives a player a choice as to what kind of markers are used to locate/ID units on the battlefield. Same game zoomed in to unit. You can see the unit icon and soldier markers (dots) actually do "float" above the unit just like CMBN, but no where near as high as they do in CMBN. The implementation of the unit markers in this game seem almost identical to the floating icons in CMBN, but there are a number of key critical defining differences: 1) The markers (as I originally mistakenly thought was the case for CMBN icons) are implemented such that they just do not get obscured from view by any terrain/foliage etc. They are always visible. 2) The markers "float" what seem to be around 0.3-0.4m above the unit. In CMBN terms, that is like 50 times CLOSER to the unit than what they are in CMBN!! 3) The icons DO overlap if the camera is positioned such that they coincide with each other. As a result of 1) and 2) (and to a lesser degree 3)), by just glancing at the battlefield and observing the location of these markers (or even better when just panning around) the player gets much higher grade information about the actual location of their units than what you get in CMBN. It is as simple as that. I have more examples from other games to post and really do want to address some of the many other good/controversial points already raised by some posters here. There is plenty of discussion to take from those alone so please and I will get to them but I need to take a break. So please, patience and don't go opening cans of whoop ass when the previous cans opened haven't been addressed. Great valid point and that is exactly what I would have done originally if my video making skills were up to scratch. Give me some time and I will see if I can cobble up a decent video comparison of CMBN and of that game I showed in the screenshots above. Hopefully the drastic difference between how well both games allow the player to track where their units actually are on the battlefield.

Note: I deleted this post by request. It was simply a double post and had a lot of big images that slowed down loading. Steve

???? You entire post :confused: Lazy???? Are you serious? You think communicating simple information in a game should be a chore to the player? You think needlessly having to pan around the map because the interface/icons just can't tell me where the units are in the first place is of no consequence? What a ridiculous comment you start off with. Please NEVER get in to software/GUI design! And you can't believe I am talking about these floating icons which I have already pointed out would most likely be a sinch to fix. They are the PRIMARY way of keeping track of what's going on in the freakn game and are essentially critical to providing the player key information. OMG, just like BFC it seems you really haven't thought this one out correctly have you? What are you talking about? You think the only reason you see the icons belonging to units located in trees is becasue the icons "float" above the tree tops!!?? LOl!!! The freakn icons (even in their current state) NEVER get obscured by ANY foliage or terrain because they are NOT actual 3D objects/entitites in the game and it simply is impossible to do!! LOL you think that the icons would be "hidden" by the trees if they were at ground leve and so that's why they "float"l!!! Please think about what you are saying, it is nonsense. Another example why you should never consider a job in software/GUI design. What the heck?? You seriously are telling me that I should "guess"? What are you talking about? I not looking at my screen to "guess" where my units are. I am not playing the game to needlessly click/pan/whatever just to make sure I know where units that are already marked (but precisely) are located just because the markers in the game do a bad job of it? Why should I have to? ??? Who is questioning whether the icons float directly OVER the middle of the unit? Not me. Did you actually red my post/look at the examples? To be honest, based on your comments and assessment, I am not surprised. Try answering/explaining WHY arbitrarily floating icons that don't tell you where units are actually located "work absolutely perfectly" for you. You just like the way you can never really be sure where units are like having to individually check each unit by zooming right in and seeing the actual units themselves??? I understand some people really are masochists and that's fine, but the majority of us are not.

If there is one thing about CMBN that severely affects my ability to address the most fundamental and basic requirements of gameplay which is simply to understand WHERE units are actually locate on the map/battlefield, it would be those @##$ing stupid floating unit icons! They are so counter-productive to what they should really be doing and so incomprehensibly poorly implemented that I just can't let their existence in the game go unexplained by BFC or anyone else. The implementation of these floating icons is so ridiculous, yes I would even say retarded, that I can't help but demand some kind of explanation, any! I have pointed out my gripe with these damn floating icons before and it seems that I am in no way getting "used" to the way they are implemented in the game. NOTE: I am not saying CMBN should have no icons! (contrary!) So let me clearly point out again what I believe is one of the most poorly thought out "features" of the game and why it is so damn annoying having to put up with such a portly implemented concept. A game like CMBN with 3D battlefields WITHOUT some kind of "visual aid" to 1) locate/identify and 2) determine the position of known friendly/enemy units while surveying the battlefield map would make it basically unplayable, so their inclusion is a FUNDAMENTAL concept. If units were NOT highlighted "artificially" by some kind of marker/base/icon on the battlefield, it would be just too easy to lose track of where they all are, mainly because the units will just get lost amongst all the foliage/terrain on the map. A game like this NEEDS some "artificial" marker implementation. This should be of no revelation or surprise to anyone. So what's the problem with the CMBN icons? First lets consider a basic/fundamental "check list" of information you would expect any implementation of "artificial markers" should convey to the player. It becomes apparent that they can convey quit a bit of information beyond just location. 1. VISIBILITY: The markers should stand out from the rest of the battlefield. The CMBN markers (icons) for the most part do this (so did the CMx1 base markers). That's not the problem. 2. UNIT INFORMATION: The markers should (though not totally critical to the function) convey "some" information as to the ID/status of the unit it is attached to. The CMBN markers (icons) do this, the CMx1 markers did not. That is not the problem. 3. LOCATION: The marker location on the battlefield should coincide as closely as possible with the actual location (the centre of mass) of the unit on the 3D battlefield landscape so as to provide the player scrolling/panning around the battlefield with easy to interpret accurate positional information relating to exactly WHERE the unit associated to the marker is located. CMx1 however fulfilled this requirement fully and as good as you could expect. The marker was a "base" that actually coincided with the virtual spot on the battlefield surface the unit was located on. So what do we see in CMBN? For some still yet unexplained reason, BFC decided to virtually "float" the markers (or icons) at some seemingly random/arbitrary distance ABOVE the spot on the battlefield the unit they are attached to exist. The name of the CMBN unit markers alone , "floating icons", indicates just how poorly considered their implementation is in the game. Equally as baffling is that for some as yet unexplained reason, all "?" icons representing unknown/unidentified units DO NOT FLOAT and actually DO appear where you would think would be the IDEAL position to place these icons in the first place, as close as possible to the unit base!!!!?!!! :eek: WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY DO THE ICONS HAVE TO FLOAT?????? WHAT IS THE UPSIDE OF FLOATING THE ICONS ABOVE UNITS??? And THIS is the problem I have with the implementation of the CMBN markers, floating icons. They fail so badly at providing the player any quality information related to the LOCATION of units on the battlefield and actually actively work AGAINST the natural intuition of how you would expect these markers to work and behave. Let me graphically point this out in graphical detail, because what we are talking about here is a visual thing: Here is screenshot of typical CMBN battlefield perspective playing as the US with the floating markers activated. You can see 7 US unit icons and 3 German icons. If the icons DID NOT FLOAT, we would all be quite confident in being able to perceive WHERE all those units represented by the icons are actually located (terrain/cover etc) on that 3D battlefield. However, because they float, the positional information they convey is simply garbled. All you know is that it is "somewhere BELOW the icon". For example: That left most US icon that is overlayed on some tress. Can anyone really tell where the unit associated with that icon is? Is it: 1) behind those trees the icon is on? 2) under the trees but on the opposite side of the hedge? 3) Under the trees but on this side of the hedge? 4) somewhere else? All those answers would seem correct. Well it is in the open ground this side of the hedge. And as you can see in the next screenshot the icon is in game floats around 15m above the unit. WHY????????? (see here). Lets now look at the German units. The left most icon that also is overlaying some trees. Where is the unit located? 1) In those trees just below the icon? 2) In the field below the tree/hedgeline? 3) In the field but along the hedge lining that road? 4) On the hedge line road? It's actually on the hedge line road. The location of where the unit related to "?" icon however is clear. Seriously, why must what should be simple to convey/communicate basic spatial information be so ambiguous and difficult to interpret in CMBN??? Why float the freakn icons!!!????????? And for some reason (which I again beg ANYONE to explain why) BFC decided that unlike other icons the "?" unknown/unidentified icons should NOT float. Why???? If floating them in the first place seemed liked such a good idea to someone at BFC, why not apply it to all icons? What could possibly be the logic behind that?????????? Lets now just see what happens if we were to replace the floating icons with icons that DIDN'T float, just like the "?" don't float. The unnecessary ambiguity is gone. It is clear (using the bottom edge of the icon), where on the battlefield the units are located. So why float the freak'n icons in the first place? Just compare the two screenshots. The difference seems trivial, but the implications to what they communicate to the player are huge. And please if ANYONE prefers the first screenshot (the status quo) to the non-floating version, please, let it be known WHY you prefer the icons to float and disagree with what I am saying? How is this better for you? Who could possibly argue that arbitrarily floating icons above a unit has benefits (name even one!) over just letting the icons reside as close as possible to the location on the ground where the unit is actually located?? But the problems don't just end with looking at/interpreting static screens like these. These "floating icons" are even more confusing when you pan/scroll/ the camera to look around the battlefield. What the heck is up with not allowing the icons to overlap????!!! If you pan the camera, the icons will randomly "jostle for position" to prevent themselves from overlapping another icon as if doing so would cause cataclysmic confusion/distress to the player. What is so wrong with just letting the icons overlap themselves should the camera happen to be oriented in a way that would result in one icon partially/fully overlapping one that is in the background? As a matter of fact keeping the icons fixed at one position on the battefield and allowing the icons to overlap would even give the player an better idea for the "depth"/spatial separation of the icons. Here is an example of what would happen if CMBN icons DIDN'T float and DID overlap. How can one NOT say it vastly improves your understanding of what and where things are on the battlefield. Again, if your disagree, please clearly state why. This random jostling of icons you see in CMBN again is an inexplicable implementation of a feature that makes a bad situation (floating icons) even worse by actively adds to the spatial confusion/lack of reference presented to the player. Just like the decision made by someone at BFC to "float" the icons, the decision to have them jostle randomly/erratically to avoid overlapping each other is yet again another example of an extremely poorly thought out implementation of a feature that actually is counter productive to what should be the whole point of it's implementation in the first place. So, for the reasons I have demonstrated and in the absence of ANY reasonable logically explanation for why icons in CMBN were implemented to float in the first place , I just can not see how anyone could argue their persistence in the game/series can be seen as a positive/necessary feature to have in the game, let alone useful! At this stage here my very humble and simple #1 "easiest to fix/huge improvement in playability" request for CMBN is: - Make ALL the icons behave like the "?" icons currently do in the game. I am sure it is just one line of code that needs to be changed. A parameter that defines how many pixels about the action point the icons float. Just set it to zero (or what the "?" are set to). It is such a shame this game is let down by seemingly poorly conceived design decisions that just frustrate the player and really affects the players ability to just play and enjoy the game.

I really do not see how you can call Minecraft graphics "horrible". Simplistic looking yes, horrible? Definitely not. In fact, in many ways (some would even argue in the ways that matter) that the visual 3D world of Minecraft actually is BETTER than what you see in CMBN. How can that be? Isn't Minecraft full of big blocks? The fundamental reason behind this is because the actual lightning/rendering in the game is VASTLY superior to the primitive/as basic as it gets form of lighting/shadows you see in CMBN. The fact that you get much more colour grades/depth/shading is just one of the reasons. Everything just looks smooth and natural. Simple 3D models and great lighting ALWAYS trumps detailed 3D models in crappy lighting.

Lucky for you! I also consider all those points you mention as evidence of a poorly considered interface. Thanks for listing them. I have fallen for the "clicked the red button before giving orders" trap several times for exactly those reasons you state. OK but comparing things to similar things already out there is part of making a well informed judgement on something. You might not have to like a game to admire it's UI for example. Lets say you like the game of chess as much as you do CMBN. Does that mean that you would enjoy any and every version of a PC adaptation of the game regardless of how good or bad the UI was? This is teh distinction I am trying to make between evaluating "the game" and evaluating the UI.

Right clicking - one of the most used/efficient/elegant functions in software design that allows users to easily interact with objects they just selected with a left mouse click. It's so commonly used now it really is second nature. How is the potential of this feature utilised in CMBN? Well it isn't. It does the opposite of what you would expect...it deselects what you just selected. :/ The floating unit tags - the concept is OK, it's used in many games. but the actual implementation of it in CMBN is terrible and poorly considered and unlike what you might see in any other game that has the same "icon" idea. I've posted about it before. Essentially the icon scaling, the icon heights above the unit, they way they randomly bobble round each other when they are about to overlap...its just a mess. I still have no idea why they decided that friendly and spotted enemy unit icons must FLOAT but unspotted "?" icons don't. Making all icons NOT float will go some way to fixing the problem (or at least closer to the actual spot on the ground where the unit actually is). Please just make a bloody option at least. The general choice and presentation/layout of information on the screen- There was a recent thread somewhere by some guy who seemed to be so frustrated by the UI that he presented screenshot of "re-worked" UI and explained the reasons behind it all. It is evident that to an average user, the CMBN interface really has lots of misses. Maybe I will add more details, but picking basic/simple things out that are just so annoying and explaining them in detail in threads is so draining and depressing. I know doing so won't change a thing, but somehow I feel that by staying silent on things I see as deficient might be taken by BFC and others as "customer approval", and I certainly wouldn't wan't to risk that. I really would like to know what games you know of and what you are comparing to CMBN. BTW, my discussion was not about "the game" that is CMBN, as in what the game is about. It's about it's presentation to/interaction with the user.

For a game released in 2011, CMBN might even consider itself lucky to be given that score. Compared to the benchmark of games out there, yes the game does look saddled with pre-alpha looks and controls. The problem I see is that CMBN was designed as if the the designers live in their own little bubble and have no idea about/are oblivious to the advances/ technology/techniques/conventions being used by their peers to design games and their interfaces. CMBN certainly doesn't seem like a game that draws upon or brings together any of the sound/proven design principles/conventions you find familiar and are comfortable with in other games. It's like they reinvent everything about the game from scratch and in isolation (and consequently get so much wrong unnecessarily), rather than draw upon proven things that work well in so many other games out there and leverage the work of others. The UI/controls is a classic example of this. BFC just don't seem to be in touch with what makes a good and bad UI, or appreciate the importance of a good UI, or at least are incapable of delivering a good one. This ignorance of what other are doing and doing well is to their own detriment. Until BFC realise that they are terrible at UI design and start being more open-minded about looking around them for examples of GOOD UI design as sources of inspiration, the CM UI will always look and function as if they are pre-alpha, alienating any new players in the process.

Still no real answer (official or otherwise) to the original question posed in this thread. :/ As mentioned, three is no other game I know that handles unit icons as bizarrely and as incomprehensibly as what I see in CMBN (and I guess CMSF). Why?? There have been enough screen shots posted here to illustrate just how practically worthless the current icons are at providing the player with any valuable tactical information on the exact location/terrain of their units at a glance. I know that any "unknown contact" "?" icon markers sit right at ground level. Is there any way to switch all the icons so that they do this? Modders...can the icon floating height be modded to be lowered?

So this really is a problem is it? Hmm...CMBN certainly isn't the only game that features units on a 3D battlefield with terrain on it and a free camera. Have I experienced this problem of "losing" the icons in other games that DON'T treat icons the way like CMBN does? (actually I think CMBN is the ONLY game that treats unit markers like it does). No. Have you? If so please tell the name of the game so we can have a look ourselves (screenshots/videos). Maybe this is the case of BFC just thinking they need to deal with a problem that really isn't and in the process of trying to address it actually created a problem much more annoying than the one they thought they were addressing.