John

OK, I think it's time to lay this thing to rest. I can't believe the response its got. It was just so that BTS (and everyone else) knew what I thought. If people do this, developers get a better idea of what people want, and make better games. So I hoped that, by posting messages on this board, I could help BTS make their future games better. The point is nicely put by XPav: 'BTS got the game done, and I'm sure they've learned a hell of a lot in the process'. David, have BTS said they have considered a roster WITH info, status, actions, etc, like CC. I think this would be a good idea, but I haven't seen any post tothis effect. The post I replied to actually said: 'We have stated in the past that we are keeping in mind a PURE OOB feature for future CMs. This would be something that would allow you to see little more than the unit's name, type, and command structure relationship. You would also be able to "jump" to a particular unit by double clicking (or something) on the entry in the OOB. We have no firm design in mind, but this is one thing we have kicked around as a possible compromise.' I think the subject is calming down (thank God), but at some points it was clogging up my e-mail with notifications. I'll keep an eye on developments.

Ok, this is from the 'roster war, ceasefire' thread, as it's closed, but I think this needs saying. Fionn wrote: 'Dan E and the various other real-time vs CM or CM vs real-time posters here It occured to me that most people are approaching this incorrectly. CM IS real-time. It is NOT continuous-time. CC IS continuous time.' Never heard of continuous time. I'd call CC realtime, and CM simultaneous turn-based. Tiger wrote: 'Real-time is more STRESSFUL, IMO, but that does not make it tenser. When I play CM, everytime I watch the movie (which shows BOTH players' moves being executed AT THE SAME time) I am on the edge of my seat waiting for something to happen. Waiting to see if my AT team can knock out that tank. Waiting to see if my opponent is going to drop arty on my troops hiding in the trees. Waiting for whatever is in store for my forces. When I play real-time games, the tension is replaced with stress because I know I need to click the fastest. I need to point the fastest. Forget plans, when the **** hits the fan, you need to be quick on the mouse. I find myself watching only the "hot spots" and ignoring everything else.' Have you actually played CC? The average RTS, I'll agree, is pretty much chuck-em-in-and-hope stuff. But CC is much slower, and you do have time to make tactics. In reply to BTS's closing post: I haven't seen any really unreasonable arguments (on either side). Obviously, if you've decided against a roster, that's your choice. But I for one prefer CC, so I'll stick with my copy of Battle of the Bulge. CM is a good. As I mentioned in another post, it does some things better than CC. But I personally think rosters, when done well, really work. I would ask you to at least consider the idea. Thanks

I don't think Kelly's Heroes was much of a reslistic movie - good fun though. Perhaps the Tigers were guarding the $16m worth of gold, rather than the '****ty' bank?

Right, probably just me getting confused, then

Don't know if this is just the demo, or it's me, or what. But don't the lines disappear if they get too far apart?

Ok. In a post in the 'interface needs work' thread, I mentioned interfaces. You're talking about it here so I guess I'll just set the record straight by what I mean by a good, simple interface. Bear in mind that these are all just opinions! Wether an game is simple or complicated to control is not so much decided by how many parts they have (although that is a factor), but more by how many things the player has to do to get the desired effect. Also, there is how many things the player has to remember about the interface. So, a roster may make the interface more complicated, but overall, it will make the game simpler to control. This because without a roster, to use a unit (or find out anything about that unit) you first have to find it. A roster can do that for you. CM does things a little differently to its closest counterpart, CC. But now, lets get down to business. I never intended for this to become a big debate - I just think that games players have a sort of duty to let the designers know what they think. This makes it easier for designers to figure out what players want, and this gives us better games. So let's face up to what this has become - a battle between CC and CM. I'm going to list in which areas each game wins out on the other. Note that, as I've only played the demo, I can't comment on the strategic side, so I won't comment on that in CC either, as this would be unfair. Note also that I may contradict myself. Just bear with me. We'll start with CC: -Roster. This gives quick and easy access to units, and unit info. A Good Thing. -No need to match squads with command - apart from morale. This takes a load off your mind. -Real-time, therefore tenser. -Simpler unit controls. In CM the list of things a unit can do is quite daunting. -Graphics are very, very detailed. -Listen to what your troops say over the radio - you can get an idea of what's happening by this. -Minimap Now for CM: -3D graphics, making it easier to judge height. Units are fairly detailed. -Turn-based, so plenty of time to think. -Better control of off-map support. -More advanced unit controls - more things each unit can do, more control over each unit -A new action can be set at each waypoint. You can have a unit creep upto a point, then run the rest of the way. -The 'in command' thing is more realistic than in CC. -Buildings have different floors. Doesn't sound much, it makes it more realistic in that units on the top floors take longer to exit the building, while units on the lower floors don't get much of a height bonus. Things that both games could do with: -Contour map overlays to help judging terrain. -More interaction with off-map support, such as airstrikes, artillery and naval artillery. -Units not walking through walls. An arrow where the visible doors are, and the units would have to use the the doors, or climb through the windows. -Deformable terrain - large explosions maknig craters (CM has this, but could make more of it), tanks driving through flimsy walls and fences, etc. Obviously, this is dependent on technology. Right, that's it for a while John

Hank, you're right - it is a luxury. But a nice luxury. One that I like. And what you mean about the way you use the roster, that's pretty much what I meant by the idea of status. Jeff's system could work. And trying to fit all the info (cover, suppression, ammo, morale, etc) on one roster would either make it too big or all the info too small. I still think that having unit info on the roster would be good. Perhaps a button to switch the roster through different modes? Or the ability to expand the view would work. This would work like this: You have a list of all your units, with minimal info about each one. Each entry would have a little 'expand' button, and clicking on this would expand the entry, giving more detailed info. How does that sound? About the thing with moving in groups. Someone said that moving units in groups is unrealistic, and tactically unviable. This is true in CC. But then CC does not require you to keep your units together in the same way as CM does. In CM, if a squad moves too far away from its platoon commander, there is a delay before the unit moves (the out of command bit) This means that you have to keep the squads, teams and command squads together. Also, squads need contact with their own Platoon Commander. If you separate them, and can't remember which squad went with which Platoon Commander, you are buggered.

Just been through the postsin more detail. David, to answer some of your points. It's true that the review was written before I played the game, but the view about the roster is my own. What the review actually said was "unit management takes some getting used to". This was also listed as one of the two (the other being the graphics) down points of the game. I just think that a roster would resolve this. You have a point that the Close Combat style roster does not give much of an idea of context. But you can improve on the system. So, instead of the action being simply 'attacking', it could be something like 'att inf-sqd(100m)'. This would translate as attacking an infantry squad at 100 metres range. This would give a better idea of context. Also, a roster doesn't just give a list of who's doing what,it gives you an idea of status. When a unit is attacked, its entry in the roster could flash. You can get a quick idea of who is healthy, who is out of ammo, etc. You say that you could use the roster to allocate orders one-by one. Have you played Close Combat? Is that the way you play it? Finally, wouldn't WWII commanders have had a sheet with everything they knew about each unit. They could forget a unit's status just as much as anyone else, especially as they had other things to worry about. Like mortar shells going off a matter of feet away. I find it hard to believe that the average commander of any period did not keep a record of his units.

Wow, who would've thought that my post would get this kind of response. Thanks to all those who gave their views, including those who disagreed with me. About the roster, there is an option to have detailed unit labels. Don't know what it is, I just found it while messing about with the key commands. But this still requires you to zoom out. Papa Khaan and Jeff Heidmann have hit the nail right on the head. There are other features that the game has, like a 3D bird's eye viewpoint, that WWII commanders didn't. And the roster would just be a more concise version of the detailed labels I mentioned above. The thing about group movements, then. The system I described is fairly simple, isn't it? Especially if, as you suggest, this was the original idea, and moving in formations was a later change. I suppose it all depends on the level of realism you like in your games. Just today, while flicking through a PCGW from a few months ago, I read an interesting letter from someone disappointed by the cancellation of Hasbro's upcomming M1 Tank Platoon. Apparently, it was due to poor sales of Gunship!. The writer of the letter thought that simulations were becoming 'too realistic', alienating large sections of the market. Very interesting. Perhaps CM is guilty of the same thing. Finally, I must appologize for my mistake. After looking for the review, I realised that it was PCGW that reviewed CM. Sorry.

I take the point about the tanks driving through walls. It was just an idea, that's all. I have actually been playing the demo for a while, and I've read the review in PCGamer. But, as I pointed out, I don't just go out and buy a game. I play the demo for considerable time first. My initial view was that I shouldn't get the game, but as I talked with poeple on this site, I became more sympathetic. After all, just deciding whether I wanted the game or not wouldn't be fair to CM, would it? They agree with me about the roster, by the way. As I said earlier, I'm not asking for Close Combat 3D. I agree that, once you've learnt the keys, it gets easier, but while I now don't see a roster as essential, it is something that CM would benefit from. Saying that you can manage without it is beside the point. The job of a game interface, in my humble opinion, is to make controlling your units as simple as possible. Take the units holding formation. This was probably a design decision, as it makes holding lines easier. However, units far away from the control unit (that's the one with the yellow box, the others have blue boxes) sometimes end up out of cover. If there was an option for units to break formation and regroup, or seek cover (holding down a key when you set the order would do it), this would solve the problem. Similarly, being able to check what every unit was doing at that moment, without changing views, would make keeping track of the battle much easier, and in turn this would make the game more fun. And that is the whole point of playing games, right? [This message has been edited by John (edited 08-06-2000).]

I use that method you talk about of setting a group move, then fine tuning them individually. Another one I use is having them moving them into position before sending them all off, but as group movement clears all other moves, this takes a full turn to do. P.S: I NEVER buy a game unless I am completely satisfied it is a good game, and this involves playing it first. That is why I am still playing the demo. I can see that some of my gripes were unfounded, and for that I apologise. But the one about the roster STILL STANDS. Who are all those blokes or blokesses (blokesses?) you told me to read about. I'm reading The Art Of War by Sun Tzu. Will that do? And what's wrong with smilies? [This message has been edited by John (edited 08-06-2000).]

Tony, cool poem! Thanks. Los, I can see now why infantry can seem to be walking through walls, but that's not exactly what I mean. Imagine this: a high wooden fence. Because it's so high, infantry will have quite a job getting over the top, right. But along comes a Sherman tank, and this will have no trouble just driving straight through, knocking the fenceover, allowing infantry to move through the gap. The same would not apply to, for example, a heavy stone wall, or the side of a bunker. Maybe I'm just being stupid.

Wow, kicked up a hornet's nest here. What I meant by tanks knocking down walls is that, if a tank drives up to a wooden shack, it could crash through the wall. Infantry can climb over low walls, but they wouldn't be able to go straight through like a tank could. Just an idea. I didn't realise about the 'in command' thing. Sorry. Next time I'll try to keep my squads near their command units. I also didn'trealise that the units are magnified, although I did realise that the three-man symbol for a squad actually represents a larger group of men. In future I will try having the tank pause and wait for the infantry. I also use various views, but I will use the bases. I know I'm lazy to complain about having to move units individually, and when I play the game, I manage by moving the units individually or in small groups. But it would be nice not to have to, eh? And, David: 1. I have read the online manual, but,as this is a demo I'm playing, perhaps I've missed something 2. Sorry if I misused the forum, but I had no specific questions. 3. I'm not asking for Close Combat 3D. However, you can't deny the similarities that are already there, and that Close Combat had some good features. I stand by my request for a roster. I like minimal interfaces as much as anyone, but I think it would benefit from a roster, preferably one that can be tucked away when you don't want to use it.

Thanks to Maastrictian for your advice. I'll try it out. As for the unit moving thing, I have been moving them individually, but it gets tedious. Here's an idea: what about if you hold down a key and that tells the units not to hold formation, but to seek cover, or regroup or something?

Something else I thought of. Why is it that infantry can walk through walls? (I'm still trying out the demo, so shoot me if this has been fixed for the final release) Close Combat had the same thing. And has any one else noticed that vehicles only have a collision detection point in the centre? I once had a tank drive halfway into a building, then realise what a plonker it was being, and decided to drive round. And what about deformable terrains. Tanks driving through lighter walls and such? Also, not QUITE realtime, is it? I ordered a rifle squad to embark a Sherman and the tank to fast move, but the infantry squad waited until the tank was halfway across the battlefield before chasing after it. Hmmm.