Oldgamer

Sure. Heck, I still play ASL.

Fionn, Thanks for the lengthy response. No offense taken, as I realize I am not a beta tester for CM. I assume that's what you meant, since we don't know each other so you couldn't know that I'm not a beta tester for another app. All that I am is a consumer, and in the future will direct my consumer requests directly to feedback@battlefront.com, as I agree that trying to debate them here can get truly ugly. I do still believe that in most situations, perhaps not this one, if a large enough group of consumers request an adjustment to a given product that adjustment may just occur. This can happen whether the requests come from articulate experts using careful research, or just plain old idiots like me (average Joe consumer). That is not meant to be self-depricating (sp?), but I truly know I'm not your equal in this debate. Unfortunately, that doesn't lessen my desire to express my opinion on making a product better. I don't know jack about cars, but that's not going to stop me from asking for a drink tray hanging from the roof if I think that would be cool. Just curious (newbie question) - are you an employee of BTS? Regards, Aaron PS Point well taken on the email thing, I have seen that get nasty before.

I mentioned earlier not to sweat the flames (sorry for the pun), but my personal line is drawn at open hostility. While I understand Fionn’s response, most of it directed at a specific individual would probably make more sense via email. Just my opinion. Also, I believe that I’ve done a reasonable job of explaining why I’d like the convenience of a list (which by some players’ definition is really a “pet feature”). Throughout the debate though, my request for a game tool has been linked to some dreaded part of CC. This is clear by the fact that the CC game is mentioned at least every few posts. I’ve played CC, and what I’d like to see has nothing to do with CC. However, I’ve also admitted that feature creep can be a problem with this type of addition. As many others have stated, I too will continue to play this version and most probably future versions, regardless of whether any new features are implemented. This is due in no small part to the very considerate response I’ve received from the programmers, who clearly paid great attention to testers feedback during the early stages of development. Oddly though, some of those involved in that early development period seem to believe that “that was then, this is now”, but from the perspective of a new player (2 months in my case) I feel that I’m now involved with the early design process for the next version. As part of that next version design process, I feel almost obligated to pitch for my “pet feature”, and imagine that that is exactly what the early testers did those long (2?) years ago. So, I believe I’ll continue to “whine” about what some feel is old news in an effort to improve what I believe is already a superb program. I am confident that Steve and Charles are listening to thoughtful debate, and at least considering the merits of ideas put forth, even if some of those ideas were previously debated way back when (before my time). Now back to your regularly scheduled “cesspool”. I believe I too need a break from this one.

Thanks Jeff! Nice work.

There funny run there guys. <g> To those who keep saying "go play, stop all this chatter" - I don't read this list at home, only when I'm at work. And while I'm bold enough to spend time dinking here during working hours, I can't actually load the game here, so this is my substitute. : (

Last night I had a rotten little Stuart survive three demos from my engineers that all appeared to be very close to target, and all going off in the same minute. Imagine the bells ringing in that crew's heads. They just smiled and drove away real fast. Actually lost to the AI because of that one event. I too have seen some devastating DC attacks on infantry though, and also have seen at least a couple tanks wiped.

spoiler - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sorry, still not Fionn, but my take on it. I achieved a draw on my only try, and believe it's quite beatable (is that a word?). Thought I'd won the thing, but apparently burned through a few too many AFVs while taking the hills. The trick in my opinion is good use of artillery assets early on, the AT guns are quite vulnerable to your offboard spotters. Of course, you may have to lose a vehicle or two just to flush them. Also, I may be confused as Henri mentioned Brits, but I could swear I fought Americans.?? I agree with him completely though that this scenario is all about moving in short rushes taking advantage of all the little hills, dips, and trees. Also, I think it worked better trying to coordinate movement so most of your forces pop into and out of view together, to avoid being ripped up piecemeal. Lastly, try to not get into a shoot out with the Allied AFVs until you are close enough for high percentage shots, and only after you coordinate so all your remaining tanks are firing in unison. Good, tough training scenario.

Slightly off topic, but I served my last year with the 52nd Engineers (construction) at Ft. Carson. They were probably the hardest working bunch I saw during my time in. Rather than always training for war, they were always working, on and off post. Being signal, I didn't like it. I had a lot of respect for them though. Sorry, back to the war...

Oops, not sure how I became so bold there - from Spook: Yep, the LOS tool is sweet. But keep in mind that you use it ONLY from a friendly unit's actual location, NOT from some arbitrary point to another in the map. Earlier games like the TalonSoft Campaign series had a LOS tool that could provide you with the latter---a means to "recon" any or every map hex to determine what has LOS to that hex, whether or not the hex was occupied. (You can still move around the map at Level 1 to do "map recon", but you still won't get absolute answers on LOS to any unoccupied location.) Rest asssured, CS gamers soon learned to make diligent use of that feature. ++++++ Interesting side note (way off topic though), in ASL by rule you are not allowed to check LOS until you actually make an attack (with a few rules exceptions), so in that sense cardboard more accurately portrays that battlefield limitation (you can still eyeball it though, and also determine elevation blocks by counting hexes). One oddity in CM is that you can have an out of body experience and move to any given location so as to view LOS. As you said, not 100% accurate, but pretty darn good. As others have said, there is no perfect solution to some of these gaming shortcomings. Many of these debates do come down to whether you're more interested in 100% accurate historical representation, or just a hotly contested sim. Ok, I should probably get back to work now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: <big snip> So it finally boils down to “the law of diminishing returns.” My personal view is that BTS has decided that an OOB roster is past the diminishing-return point, unless enough CM gamers clamor to state that they attach very high value to the concept. Sorry for the long post. [This message has been edited by Spook (edited 08-08-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Spook, You've done a good job of framing THOSE particular issues, but in my opinion they're off point. I definitely know HOW to find my units, whether by searching or going through each unit (+ key), it just seems odd to me to have to do it. Other folks have already stated HOW do to it, and implied that if we play more we'll get it. I think I already do get it, and I've sure been playing more than enough (not that I'm good, just that my wife doesn't see me anymore). As an analogy, CM could force you to use some clunky tool to manually determine line of site (thus, making better players out of us), ala ASL players stretching string or whatever between hex dots for LOS. Instead, the game has the sweetest little "drag the line" tool I've ever seen. This saves me having to do something manually. If the argument were over this needed tool, I'd be saying "hey, I know how to use the string, I just don't want to". Ok, not the greatest analogy. The only strong argument against that I've seen is that feature creep might make this a pandoras box. I just hope they can implement a tool to make the big honkin' ops more pleasant to play, without upsetting the system/it's players. If nothing else, this longish thread will let Steve and Charles know that it's still of interest to some.

Germanboy, Thanks for restating the feature creep point. This I do understand, and is why if they do implement a roster/list I hope they make it as simple as possible. Also, I wouldn't use the darn thing on all the little 500-700 point quick battles I've been playing (every night, much to my wife's chagrin), I got into this whole discussion because of playing the very enjoyable Carentan operation. This one was big enough that I got truly sick of the + key method, but still felt that I had to keep track of my strung out German defenders. It truly became tedious. Until that time I hadn't even thought of a roster. By the way folks, you shouldn't sweat the flames so much. Compared to many lists I've participated in, this forum is really quite tame. I attribute this to the general nature of the game/subject. The only distasteful thing I've seen here is the occasional bit of elitist condescension, which is generally drowned out by many more polite, knowledgeable, enthusiastic contributors.

Not sure if anyone is still interested in this thread (roster), but I'm still really confused by the fog of war aspect. Many otherwise logical debaters have said that searching for your units adds an element of real life fog, and makes organizing your forces more important. How??? I can still use the + key every time for a full look at my troops. Every time, every turn! I would agree that if there was really some loss factor built in then I might actually lose contact with a unit, but as it stands now I always have the + key. I just want the plus key in a table. I've only briefly played CC, and am just now realizing that it's what many of you are distressed with, and I agree that a CC style table would NOT be cool in this game. Don't want that - only want a + key table. Yep, that's what I'm calling it now. : ) Really, can someone explain to me how there's any fog of war built in as described. It really sounds more like, "if I take the time to + key through all my units, and my opponent doesn't, I've got an immediate advantage". Ouch, way gamey in my opinion. It gets to where two opponents should always ask before the game, "are a plus key user, or do you just wing it?". Aaron PS Still wondering why anyone cares if we debate this into the ground, even for the xth time.? Isn't that what forums are for?

Sorry, flame away if necessary, but: why should we close the topic? If you don't want to discuss the issue, don't. TCP/IP is more important? I disagree. This has been stated as a default truth. I'll always play this more via email than through TCP/IP. I agree it will be cool, but don't agree that it's more important than an OOB. As others have stated, many respected reviewers have made notice of the lack of an OOB in their articles. By the way, do any of you who are against the feature ever read the OOB given in the pre-game briefing. Find it useful? Find it useful to know what reinforcements are coming?

<sorry for the snip> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DanE:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: <snip> If you could overlook a team in the game as it is, you could overlook a team even if you had a roster. The units are all there - you just have to look and see. In the same way that you have to look at a roster and see what's there. The only way to ensure you don't miss any units, is to go through the roster from top to bottom issuing orders. This is an awful way to play, and exactly what I'm getting at. Combat Mission is about context and realism, not about lists and statistics. David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Someone earlier in this thread mentioned assumputions. You're apparently assuming that I lose units, which to my knowledge I never have. I pay WAY too much attention to detail when playing turn based games, which in my opinion makes this game "gamey" to start with, really the same complaint people have made for years about cardboard turn based games. Don't get me wrong, I love CM, but realistic?? You can drool over an email turn for hours, and in the ops I certainly spend sometimes much more time reviewing and analyzing than I'd like. Beyond the initial planning, being a real tactical battlefield commander is all about making well educated, RAPID decisions. I don't believe a list would affect my gameplay in the least, but would simply make large games faster for me to play. I would not play the game with the roster as my interface, as I agree with you completely on this point.