Mikeydz
-
Posts
375 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mikeydz
-
-
As I understand your point Hagen, your fine with the lack of information on enemy status because of FOW (which I think is good), but you would still like information on your troops in a "status page" layout showing all friendly troops in some type of table or chart format.
I don't oppose this for people who really want this type of information in game, and I wouldn't care if BTS decied to go ahead and add it in, as long as it was optional. My thing is I think it would tend to hurt the average gamer, because he or she would begin to focus on units that were indicated on the chart to have had some major change (morale dropping like a rock, casualty figures for a unit mounting, ect) and start to forget about some of the units that nothing is happening to. This is where I think the lazyness agrument comes in. The chart would breed lazyness in players who would place the wrong emphisis on what he's seeing in the "big picture".
The way I watch the movies is to use view 3 and watch once for each platoon, and then watch once for each vehicle, unless I'm moving them in a group. I find this helps me keep my platoons under good C&C, since if I have to scroll the screen to see all the squads in a platoon, then I for sure know they all can't be in C&C and acting as one cohesive unit. That lets me see if any squad in a platoon is in need of special attention, but mainly I'm interested in how the platon as a whole is doing. I think it would be easy to lose this perspective if I was presented with everything at once. Old saying goes that the devil is in the details. Hard to see details when it's in the mddle of a bunch of numbers.
Mikey
-
Mikey:
"...would you have them add floating % labels showing damage..."
SC:
"No, nothing of the sort has been suggested."
That's the problem, what would Hagen suggest be added that would provide the information he wants while not taking away from the FOW.
Mikey:
"You already get a kill...a rough idea..."
SC:
"True, but you can get a much less 'rough idea' but using the 1st person view and a pencil and paper to jot down the enemy's crys when hit. And for the record if the unit has NO graphic (just a cross or star) then you get zero information about hits otherwise."
What BTS should do, as long as it does not delay the final much if any, is to change the sound volume to be based on the location of the nearest enemy unit that can hear, and not in relation to the distance of the "camera". If a .50 cal opens up on a GER infantry at 500 meters, then you should not hear anything from that squad if you hit, even if you put the camera right on top. but if that squad happens to be 50 meters away from a hidden US 1/2 squad hiding in nearby woods when that distant .50 opens up, then you should hear. And on the star/cross thing... I'm not aware that you could target those things, but even if you could, remember that those are not unidentified unit icons, but enemy unit location markers for enemies that you no longer have a LOS or any other info on. There may no longer be anything at that spot, since it's just the last known location, so you shouldn't get any info at all.
Mikey:
"I can't imagine that from 100+ meters, that you can tell if a unit is broken, panic, or just turning tail and redeploying away from your unit in real life while under fire, so why should you get info like that in this game. I tend to agree with Fionn and BTS that players have grown accustomed to the info give by other games while under FOW, and it's taking a bit of effort to get used to making decisions based on having little hard, or even accurate (in some cases) intel on your enemy."
SC:
You make MY case for me very well. If this is so then why can I zoom in and count the number of hits by listening? Perhaps this should be removed altogether? I would be all for that.
So we agree... like I said above, and since BTS replied that it's being looked into, that if this means a loss of a feature to get in or a decent delay in releasing the game... then leave it be. If it can be changed easily, maybe like I outlined above, then I'm all for rooting out another gamey aspect. BTW, if none of the beta testers had pointed this out before this thread appeared, maybe I suggest two candidates for the CM2 beta? Sound good to you SC?
Mikey
[This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 10-31-99).]
-
I don't think that Scott is saying that you do HAVE to have this, but that he feels that it can be helpful to some players, and since you don't have to use it even if it is include it, how does it hurt. I don't personally agree with him that it's all that helpful, though. I kinda think of the old saying of not seeing the forest for the trees, but in reverse... I think you get so much info on that one screen, that you can miss an important detail that you might catch if you look at your forces on a squad/platoon level. I know that I always check out at least the general look at each squad on a platoon by platoon basis. I feel that all in one place screens might be good for an after action screen that you can access, along with going back to the map without FOW on, but in the middle of the game, I don't see where it helps all that much.
Mikey
-
(SC)
I think Hagen has a valid point you guys have entirely missed.
(Hagen)
"If the only way I am going to know that my mortar team is hitting that advancing enemy squad is by zooming in close to the enemy team and listening for the paper dolls to go 'ouch' and 'medic' then something is wrong.(I can't do this is real life, can I?)"
(SC)
I must say I agree. In this example if I spend the possibly huge amount of time to sit with each of the enemy's units and mine during the replay in an busy turn in "view 1" I would have enough info to predict with some certainty how many enemy infantry were hit by the number of "ouch" and "medic" calls I got. This is a loss in FOW. It might not be exact but it is definitely good intel. to have. BUT, if I don't spend the time to sit in first person, in a place were I should not be anyway (an ENEMY unit!), I do not gain this information.
---------------------------------------------
My question is this. I think its kinda of gamey to do this, but to prevent this would you have them add floating % labels showing damage which occured to a unit? You already get a kill count on units that are nearby, and on distant units, you get a rough idea of casualty figures by counting if there are 1, 2 or 3 "men" shown for the unit. I can't imagine that from 100+ meters, that you can tell if a unit is broken, panic, or just turning tail and redeploying away from your unit in real life while under fire, so why should you get info like that in this game. I tend to agree with Fionn and BTS that players have grown accustomed to the info give by other games while under FOW, and it's taking a bit of effort to get used to making decisions based on having little hard, or even accurate (in some cases) intel on your enemy.
Mikey
-
I decided to test out hotseat play, because of the question about what hotseat play was in a previous thread. While tinkering with it I came accross something that bothered me alittle about how it works..
To set up..
Hotseat works like this in CM (using Last Defense as example with 1st player as Allied)
Allied Password Choice
Allied Setup Phase
Axis Password Choice
Axis Setup Phase
Axis Orders Phase
Allied Orders Phase
Allied Movie Phase
Axis Movie Phase
Loop back to Axis Order Phase and continue until game ends.
My problem is that the Axis player in this example has the small advantage of making his orders fresh after watching and replaying his movie. The Allied player though, after watching his movie, has to wait for the Axis player to both watch his movie, and give orders. Considering that in a larger battle, this process may take anywhere from 15-30 minutes (or maybe more)in a larger game (especially if your like me and spend alot of time analyzing the movie from multiple unit's POVs, ect...) some details might be forgotten by the allied player while waiting for his turn to come around again.
Just looking quickly at this I've come up with 2 ways (1 quick and 1 more complex) to fix this.
Solution 1 would be to swap the order of the Allied/Axis Move order, so as to go like this...
Axis Order
Allied Order
Axis Movie
Allied Movie
then loop back
Pros... Allied player no longer has a long wait time between watching his movie and issuing his new orders.
Cons... Both players now have a wait time, and adds 1 seat change to the loop.
Solution 2... After the 1st turn order phases are both done, changing the player order/movie phase order completely My proposal would go like this
Setup Phase
Allied setup
Axis setup
First Turn Order Phase
Axis Order Phase
Allied Order Phase
First Turn Movie/Second Turn Order Phase
Axis 1st Turn Movie
Axis 2nd Turn Orders
Allied 1st Turn Movie
Allied 2nd Turn Order
Loop back to Axis 1st turn movie slot, replacing with 2nd turn move, and continuing.
Pros... Both player gain the benefit of zero wait time between watching the last turns movie and issuing thier new turns orders.
Cons... More difficult to program changes?? Can't really think of a gameplay con to this change. Any thoughts?
Mikey
-
Hotseat play is a way for 2 players to play against each other using 1 computer. It's one of the 4 choices you get afterselecing a scenario and then choosing the side to play.
The way it would work (have not tried it with CM, but in other games) is for example...
The German player gives his orders to his units, checks stats, ect. When he hits the Go button to finish his orders phase, the game will prompt for the US player to sit in front of the computer. The US player then clicks on the acknowledgement that he is ready, then proceedes to give his orders. When he is done, more than likely, he will watch his "movie" then the game will prompt for the German to watch his movie and then take his turn. I'll have to try this out but in general that's how hotseat games work.
Mikey
-
--------------------------------BTS----------
Mortar batteries fire an awful lot of shells in a very short space of time. Watch it in CM and it's whoomp-whoomp-whoomp-whoomp all over the place in just a few seconds. Enough shells are landing that even if only 1 out of 50 shells hits a vehicle, it won't be long before that happens, because 50 shells can land in a pretty brief time.
I wonder if part of your perception is from the fact that the AFV casualties you're seeing in the CM demo are open-top vehicles? We put lots of halftracks (and M18s) in the scenarios, so the open-toppers are disproportionately overrepresented. And there's a strong likelihood that we haven't implemented the part of the TacAI that retreats from artillery/mortar beaten zones. If so, this is an issue that will be fixed in the final release version.
---------------------------------------------
Well first time I played Last as the US, my mortar crews on the hills immediatly gained LOS on the halftracks and tanks at the clearing with the paved road. I assigned 1 crew each of three of the halftracks, and got two kills (2nd coming at 59 seconds). The 3rd HT that was targeted did kick it into reverse gear, and backed right into the brewed up HT behind him... The 4th HT parked out of LOS behind the treeline near the curve leading to town. Turn 3 had a STUG round the curve and rumble directly on the road to town... I had changed the 2 mortar teams that killed their targets on turn one to focus on that Stug. About 20 meters onto the road, the Stug took a no damage top hit, which caused him to button up. At that spot he put on the brakes and stayed there for 2 plus turns. Over that time the 2 mortar crews fired about 40-50 rounds on him, scoring 12 top hits, but no damage. Unlike the HT though,he just sat there. So does the retreat reaction take into account the nature of the vehicle that is under fire? (ie HTs run like frightened schoolgirls, vs that STUG laughing of the 60mm rounds like so many spitwads)
Mikey
-
Fionn, I didn't see CM listed on the Opp registry games list... Can clue as where to find it?
-
------------------------------------------
2) When I issue all the orders to my units and hit "GO" button for like 4 - 5 seconds nothing happens on the battlefield, after that all the units execute my orders...is this intentional ?
------------------------------------------
Either your refering to the blue bar thing Fionn was talking about... (The results generation phase before the action movie starts) or your refering to the time delay before units can begin to carry out an order.
If its the 1st one, I'm assuming that that is when all the dirty work of the action phase is done, and the movie itself is only showing what happened in the 5 seconds it took to calculate all the combat and such.
if it's the 2nd thing your refering to, then as far as I can tell, there is always some delay before a unit can begin to execute a new order. IIRC, this time delay is modified but factors such as if it's within "control range" of it's HQ unit, ect. BUt as far as I can see, there is always SOME delay.
Mikey
-
Well, I don't think that those hellcats have an all that great advantage appearing up on that hill. There is little cover up there and LOS to that spot is pretty good from most areas of the map. In the game that I'm playing now, the Germ AI's King Tiger is sitting on the edge of the woods just past the curve in the road leading to town. I ordered 1 cat to go full speed to the right, one full to the house on the right side of the road, and one full to the left house. Within 3 seconds of them begining thier movements, one took a direct hit, while the one on the right is stuck behind cover lest he get smoked to trying to get to the bridge. If there is a 1 turn delay before orders can be given, I would have 3 bonfires burninging instead of 1. Now I would quibble with the map/scenario design the other way in that I would have added a little bit more map space depicting the road cresting the hill, so as to allow the reinforcements to appear in a more protected enviroment that currently offered.
But that's an issue of the individual scenario design, and not the game itself.
MikeyD
-
To Pix about multi in demo...
IIRC hotseat and PBEM support will be in the beta demo, but not TCP/IP....
Or else I'm stuffing my ICQ with numbers that won't get used til December at the earliest...
-
ICQ 4754005
Just outside of Houston, TX
Waiting for a can of whup-ass to be opened up on me....
-
-----BTS Forum Rules------------------------
" You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. "
--------------------------------------------
-----Fionn----------------------------------
"Now, I don't have anything against HPS but Oscar is being an a##h##e with his attitude here."
--------------------------------------------
-----BigAlMoho's retort---------------------
Does this break the rules?
--------------------------------------------
-----My response----------------------------
Forum Rule 1.
"1. No Flaming and/or Baiting. If you have a strong opinion, that is fine. But express it in such a way that is non-abusive and not emotionally charged."
Forum Rule 2.
"2. No foul language. Standard decency request here. If people ignore this we do have the technology to block any word we want from being posted. Try and keep us from flipping the "censor" switch, will ya? We don't really want to use it."
To me, it looks like your violating the "no baiting rule" with your "one-liner", and violated rule two by reposting Fionn's expletive again in you own post.
If your implying that we should debate Fionn's banishment, because of a rules violation in light of the disussion to ban OSCAR for rules violations, then your barking up the wrong tree. I don't condone Fionn's choice of words, but OSCAR has shown a blatant PATTERN of violating the forum rules by engaging in negativity, while refusing to even defend his "facts". Can we get back to reality?
If you were truly offended by his comments, then reread rule 1 in its entirety, and follow up as stated therein.
I vote that we all drop this once and for all. Hopefully, BTS will lock all the threads now relating to this waste of energy, so we can all get back to what we are here for... Honest and constructive discussion of CM.
[This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 10-23-99).]
-
Just a comment on the pre-order bonus offer... The order screen makes is seem like the demo being refered to is the officail demo...
____________________________________________
This offer is good until Battlefront.com states it is no longer available (roughly 2 weeks before Combat Mission ships). Your credit card will not be charged until the day we ship your copy and poster out to you. Pre-orders can be canceled anytime before your order ships without penalty, but see our Purchase Policy for more details.
____________________________________________
Since I had heard that the timeline was that the offical demo would be released about 2 weeks before final, then has this changed?
(Or better yet, does this mean we are really close to 2 to 3 weeks before the final?)
[This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 10-22-99).]
-
I believe it would work like the...
Player A gives his orders.
Player B then gives his orders.
CM processes the orders during the real time 1 minute segment, resulting in a movie results for each player.
Player A watches his movie and generates new orders.
Player B then watches his movie and generates new orders.
Continue till one side is brewed up better than a Guiness.
Mikey
-
Man, how could you... You know how nuts I went when I saw the title of the thread... I nearly lost it trying to click the link so fast, only to find it's a SWAG on your part!!!
Mikey
-
I have a LAN party a bunch of my fellow computer/board gamers are throwing, and was wondering if there is any chance that CM will have the Beta demo out before next weekend? It's a beta demo after all, so it doesn't have to be perfect.. Do us all this favor for me please
.Mikey D
-
So are you waiting on pins and needles for the next Infocom text adventure to come out, Oscar?
-
BTS, how many names (aprox) do you guys envision that it will support? I can't imagine that all the names (removing the "funny" ones) would take up all that much memory, but then again, last time I progromed was LOGO on an APPLE II in school (a long time ago...)
-
I think Jane's is doing something like that (Minus the individual infantry character, I think) , but set with modern weapons/vehicles. Think the first in the line is thier upcoming game USAF. Supposedly you'll eventually log into the "War Server" using your Janes flight simulator, or heli sim, or tank sim, or sub sim, ect. and do battle in a real time war against other players... Sounds like a cool concept, and I'm sure that if it's successful, the concept could migrate to some sort of WWII setup... Now if they can actually pull it off....
[This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 10-11-99).]
-
I was wondering if anyone out there has started a fan site for CM? Especially any that are being run by current beta team members? I know from beta testing SFC, that there is a limit on some of the things that can be said on some issues with the game, but There were some great SFC fan sites going over details of th games interface, gameplay feel, play balance, ect. Just wondering if someone over the the CM community has started something...
Mikey D
-
Well, I'm another Mike that lives in Houston, TX. Born and raised....
-
SFC IS very good... (was in the Beta for that one). I guess I'm in the opposite boat than you though... Mainly playing SCF now, but when CM comes, time to split the hours of the day into even smaller bits to make room for it.
-
Maybe you guys needed to rest this weekend, but I'm dying to see what the next few AAR's have in store. Any idea when you guys will supply me with my next fix?
MikeyDz
Problems with AI and 'gamey' issues
in Combat Mission Archive #1 (1999)
Posted
(Sage)
I really dig the "Your OOB" idea. I keep losing teams. I'd love to be able to pop up a quick "scan it for status" report like that. Especially if I could double click and jump to the unit in question.
(Mikey)
Well, since he brought up the fact that you can see (at least that I'm aware of) an after action info box of a non-vehicle unit after the fight is done when you turn FOW off, since they are dead and removed from the map, I would not mind seeing this more now as a detailed AAR. I still wouldn't use it during a battle.
(Sage)
Bodies: the attacker shoots a bunch at an area, sees no effect other than slacking outgoing fire. Doesn't know if it's because of supression, killing everyone, or the defenders pulling out. Attacker goes to area. Finds big honkin' pile o' bodies (or no bodies). Voila -- useful intelligence. Pretty common occurence in war. Not modeled in CM.
(Mikey)
Well, two problems. First thing is that in order for this to work properly, especially when dealing when the squad under fire is on the move, you would need to each men in the unit on a 1 for 1 basis, instead of the 2-3 man squad abstraction. Since that is currently beyond the capability of current processors to display smoothly (much less make this game playable on older systems), that has been ruled out as happening for quite a while at least. Second thing is your comment on it happening commonly in WWII. I'm no expert, but I doubt that squads did alot of up close "body count" intel until after the fight was over. And since the example cited was a squad 300 meters away getting raked by MG fire, I'm pretty sure that the MG crew could not fly over to the spot where the target was and count bodies (assuming casualties were represented on map) like you would be able to do in the game. That would be sort of a variation of the "postion camera over target to count casualties by counting screams" gamey tactic problem that was brought up in an earlier thread.
(Sage)
Infantry spotting (Charles said): "In a real WW2 battle, soldiers frequently don't even see the enemy. They are aware of enemy fire and usually where it originates from. They can get a sense for how strong that fire is, and react appropriately."
This is exactly what I mean when I say that I think spotting infantry is too easy. Getting 'Infantry sound contacts' when my closest unit is 700m away and moving themselves?!?! When I'm in the woods playing airsoft, I have trouble hearing people that are 50m a way, and less if I'm moving as well. I think that one should have to spend a lot more time doing area-fire on 'likely places' for infantry to hide
(Mikey)
Well, I haven't seen any infantry spotted by a sound contact from 700m, so I can't respond to that, but I do know that in a game I played, I had 3 US rifle squads and 1 HQ squad inside some woods hiding, and 4 GER squads appeared in LOS at about 20-25m moving toward me, at which time my squads opened up, obliterating 1 squad, and and hurting a couple of the others. I'd say the spotting system worked like a charm at that time. And where are you at playing airsoft??? I can find anyone here in Houston, Tx who plays it, though tons of paintball fields.
Mikey