Exel

WASD for camera movement, mouselook for camera rotation. Faster and more intuitive to use. No clicks needed, mouse buttons freed for more important tasks.

It works with the numpad by default. It'd be nice to be able to free up the letter keys for direct hotkey commands though, so you could map your most used commands into their own keys as you wish.

You're missing the point. Versatile doesn't have to mean clumsy. With some pretty basic changes (fundamental maybe for the code) you can have the same functionality with immensely more streamlined usability. 5 clicks to make a unit simply to move is just not acceptable for a time-sensitive RTS - and though it's more bearable in turn-based mode, streamlining the UI wouldn't hurt there either.

I've been saying the same.. it's backwards. I don't know a single other application that does it this way.

Remember though that this is a whole new engine and a whole new AI. It is of course a disappointment that the starting level of the AI isn't better, but I don't doubt that the TacAI and AI in general will be greatly improved in future patches. I don't think the first version of CMBO had that great of a TacAI either...

How about using the top row keys of the numpad to select the tabs? Then use the number keys to give the actual commands. Then again, I'd rather be done away with the command tabs. But that would be an acceptable short-term workaround, or improvement if you will.

Which is a lot less of a problem than not having WeGo at all.

For TBS mode, yes. However for the RTS mode that is not sufficient. You need to be able to give simple movement commands to multiple units at the same time with a single lasso & click - not with a half a dozen of clicks. That has been the industry standard for RTS games for well over a decade now, so there's really no reason to not have it in CMSF. Reinventing the wheel is not a good idea if you end up with a square box.

Sorry but I have played the game in RealTime and as long as controls are still ones designed for a turn-based game, I have to agree with him. But the suitability of the controls for RT is another topic for another thread so let's not start that debate here. This about getting a WeGo mode as promised, not about how great or bad the RT mode is.

Two things. First, you can't pause in multiplayer. Second, like Sirocco said, it's a general UI problem - RTS just makes it worse. The UI is not great even for TBS, but what is tolerable there (thanks to ample time to use the UI) can be a game-breaker for RTS. If you want the RealTime mode in multiplayer to be about tactics and not about who can work the interface the fastest, you need to streamline the controls - a LOT.

One thing about unit purchasing that has so far gone unmentioned.. Unit selection has the huge advantage of familiarizing the player with his units before deployment. He knows what he has to work with and can check stats on units previously unknown to him. Even if there's not a whole lot to select from (restricted TO&E) the player can still assess his organization before getting to the game. This is especially important when there is no unit encyclopedia in the game, and the manual only gives the very basics of unit descriptions (and without in-game graphics). So even if you wont make a full unit purchase system, please consider to add a TO&E chart or unit roster of some kind to the QuickBattles force selection.

It'd be cool to be able to edit waypoints so that after setting the regular movement waypoints, you could then add special commands to each of them - like dismount infantry at Waypoint #2, hide at Waypoint #3. It'd save a lot of time, and would be useful for adjusting existing commands after changed situations without having to plot a whole new series of commands every time.

If WeGo is implemented by force-pausing the RealTime game, filesizes shouldn't be an issue (the only thing you need to relay are the commands) even outside LAN games. "Full" WeGo with replays and all could be added later if necessary for LAN/High Speed connections, but I don't see anything but some game code standing in the way of RealTime/WeGo.

For RTS the basic move commands should be given by simple mouseclicks on the terrain with just the unit selected (one click for move, double-click for fast move) with SHIFT-clicks for adding multiple waypoints. Clicking close behind the selected vehicle should also automatically register as a reverse command. These are standard commands for all RTS games, regardless of genre (yes that's right, RTS controls are not used by just Warcraft and the like, and nor will using RTS controls turn the game into Warcraft). It would require for the camera controls to be reassigned from the mouse buttons, but that's a minor issue - especially when the camera controls need to be reworked in any case. For more complicated commands you can still use keyboard shortcuts and preferably a CMx1 / CC style mouse context menu. Get rid of the command tabs, have all the (relevant) commands visible in the UI at once. Now you have decent controls that make playing CMSF as an RTS a joy instead of a fight against the UI.

Those are "gill" sideskirts. The idea behind them is for them to be lighter than a full-width sideskirt while offering the same protection by adjusting the coverage with moving the hinges. They were used in some T-64s at least in the 80s or so, but were dropped in favor of "real" sideskirts later (the concept proved out to be about as successful as it sounds and looks like).

And THAT is the only thing we are asking. That you would indeed support both, as you promised. Not having WeGo in online play is not supporting it. We're not asking to remove RealTime, we're just asking to be able to play WeGo as well. Do that for us and we'll be happy. Losing replays for WeGo in online play with "paused RT" is a minor nuisance over not having WeGo at all. In fact, I'd personally consider not having replays in online games only a big plus, for not having to wait for the other guy to finish watching his replay..

Example: Moving a unit to a location and facing it to the direction of the enemy. With CMSF controls: Select unit, select command tab, select move, click to waypoint, click to cancel further waypoints. Select command tab, select face, click to direction. 8 clicks to execute command. With common RTS controls: Select unit, click to waypoint and hold, drag for direction of facing, release. 2 clicks to execute command. With CMSF controls it's four times as many clicks for the same command than your average "click-fest" RTS. Now which game was the click-fest again?

What he is saying that the controls of turn-based strategy game aren't suitable for real-time strategy game. Having given CMSF a try in the RT mode, I have to say I agree. It's not a question of whether some commonly used RTS controls are already in the current system, but how they are usable. RTS means you have less time to give orders to your units (in TBS you have as much time as you want before pressing the Go-button). That means you have to give the same commands faster, or end up giving less commands. The tools have to be such that as little of that limited time as possible is used up by operating the system instead of actually giving commands. That means the UI has to be streamlined, easy and fast to use, so you don't spend your precious time using the interface but commanding the units. There's a reason RTS controls have evolved into certain standards found to be most effective (= less time consuming). CMSF is designed as an RTS, but it's controls aren't. What would be acceptable for a TBS is clumsy and slow for an RTS. Having to click four times just to give a unit a simple movement command is not streamlined. When playing RTS with such controls, you end up fighting the command interface instead of the enemy. RTS controls do not imply click-fest. Good RTS controls imply less clicking for the same commands. See example below.

So you want a strict, realistically structured TO&E. You don't want players to pick a random mix on units. Fine. But why don't you let us pick our units within the strict TO&E you've defined? Why leave it to the computer to choose at random and take out the strategy of unit selection away from the player? Allowing player to select units doesn't mean that you must allow them to choose whatever they want. You can limit to options to the set TO&E. Likewise having a strict TO&E doesn't mean that you have to leave the unit selection all up to the computer to decide (randomly) as it is now. It's not binary on or off, there's a middle ground: Allow unit selection, but limit what you can select.

No, I do understand that. What I'm asking for is to give the player the ability to choose the units within those limits. The game does it for you now (according to the parameters you set) but why not have that phase be player-controllable as well? It's not just about cherry-picking or the joy of shopping around for exotic combinations of units, but about out-thinking your opponent already in the planning phase by thinking your strategy in advance and selecting the right tools for the job. If you leave that selection of tools to the computer, you essentially leave it to luck. Unless the player can always be sure of exactly what to expect with any given combination of presets - which would take out all unpredictability. Either way it's one tactical dimension of the game beyond the player's reach.

Understandable. But then doing something differently is not the same as not doing it at all. By taking out unit purchases you removed one major fun-factor of previous CM titles. You didn't change it, you just took it away. People miss that fun-factor, as they didn't see the need to have it removed. I understand you wanting to do things differently. Different can be better. But please consider if there would be a way to make unit selection differently - fulfilling the needs of CMSF for realistic unit formations etc. - without leaving it completely to the computer (even if within the set parameters). As was pointed out by someone else in some other thread, the game still has to select the units according to the given parameters (eg. Heavy BCT, Armor) somehow, it's not a single fixed organization it gives you every time with the same settings. So why not leave this selection up to the player? It would still prevent cherry-picking and unrealistic formations but it would bring back the fun-factor that is now sorely missed. It doesn't have to be identical to bring the same fulfilment to the player - it can do it better by being different. But by not being there at all it will just leave a gap that is perceived as something less, instead of something different. [ July 28, 2007, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

Right now it's a 4. The game didn't deliver what it promised (WeGo). I don't like not being able to buy units, and some of the controls could use an overhaul. The engine itself looks very promising and has a lot of potential. If and when these early glitches are fixed, it promises to be a great game. The battles are already impressive.

You are honestly saying that the way you command units in RT is realistic? The realism argument doesn't work either way here. Both WeGo and RT are abstractions in their own way. In reality a Company CO would order a platoon to "Go there, accomplish that" but in CM we need to set waypoints, determine the speed and stance of the unit, where it faces, what it targets, etc. In CM the player is not just the the company or platoon commander, but also the commander of each individual vehicle and squad - all at the same time. So be it in real-time or in turns, it's unrealistic all the same. That'd be a different game altogether. A game called 'World in Conflict' to be more precise.

Close Combat, Total War, Hearts of Iron, World in Conflict are all RTS. But none of them are conventional clickfest RTS in the sense that Command & Conquer or Warcraft are. RTS is a game mechanic, it's not a game format. RTS can work very well even for the more serious war games like CMSF. That said, it's also not a reason to leave WeGo out... [ July 28, 2007, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

Close Combat, Total War, Hearts of Iron, World in Conflict are all RTS. But none of them are conventional clickfest RTS in the sense that Command & Conquer or Warcraft are. RTS is a game mechanic, it's not a game format. RTS can work very well even for the more serious war games like CMSF. That said, it's also not a reason to leave WeGo out... [ July 28, 2007, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]