womble
-
Posts
8,872 -
Joined
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by womble
-
-
Is it really that big of a problem for WeGo play?
It (the interface) is enough of a problem for several old CMx1 hands to mention it as a serious contributory reason for not getting into CM:SF. It's a particularly serious problem if the game's behaviour still doesn't match that which is described in the manual (which may not be the case, as I say; the SF demo may be a special case). Some of the problem is self-inflicted and could have been resolved, trivially, for CMBN. It could still be mostly addressed before launch, for very little effort, none of which needs to involve precious coding resource or reprinting the manual.
-
Can't remember which thread for the life of me, but Steve did respond not long ago about foxholes and AT guns. He said that they would protect the crew but not the gun. However, he also said that the gun (and crew) would be protected by a particular fortification in-game, I think it was a revetment or something similar, it escapes me at the moment.
I believe it was in the WeGo VAAR thread, and he said it was Hedgehogs, initially, cos of being tired and emotional. I think he later recanted and corrected himself to say "Sandbag emplacement". The manual mentions fortifications.
-
Nothing we can do about that with the existing UI, really, except what we tried to do. That clearly isn't working for quite a number of people so we're going to try something completely different for the next major CM release.
Steve
It doesn't have to be completely different. IMO, some of the things it needs are:
* An easy way of flipping between the two paradigms of 'direct' and 'relative'. (This implies that the two are kept separate, as I believe is the intent)
* An easy way of remapping the keys to what you want them to be.
* A broader palette of available keys, including CTRL/ALT/SHIFT combos and the F-keys, the cursor keys, numpad and the Ins/Del 6.
* The option to turn off scrolling at the edge of the screen.
* The ability to rotate and move the camera at the same time.
At least some of these seem like they'd be relatively trivial changes to the Interface, since they're mostly new Options to choose and wouldn't affect the in-game graphics and information display any more than exiting and changing the hotkeys.txt file does.
Also, I've just been experimenting with the L/Rmouse-drag controls for move and rotate. Some observations:
* I can't rotate the camera while I'm moving it. Would be nice if both buttons together did that.
* Except when I don't want to. If I move my mouse in a curve, with the left button held, the view seems to "precess". If I draw circles, I can end up pointing in quite another direction to where I started. It's not enough to be useful, but is enough to not end up where you wanted to when you're translocating a long way.
* The manual says that rotation with the mouse "with the unit selected" (my emphasis) rotates around the unit. This is not true. It is only true if the view is locked to the unit using the Tab key.
I think a combination of the second 2 points caused me great frustration the first time I tried to get into SF (this last time, I didn't start off trying to use the mouse-drag commands). Perhaps it's because I'm using a Demo (the 1.20 one with Brits and Marines copyright 2009), and the second one could conceivably be a tech problem, I suppose. The last, though, is still what the manual for CMBN says; I hope it's been corrected so the game behaviour matches the manual.
-
Hell, I'd UNBIND serveral keys from my keyboard in order to avoid this problem.... if it's possible.
IE, only keep the most used binds on the keyboard itself and change stuff like "dismount" or "bail out" to button press only.
It's entirely possible. There's a section in the manual about 'customising hotkeys'. Page 21 of the CMSF base manual PDF.
For some strange reason I always get my tankers to bail out in the middle of a fight when I want them to "hunt".
That's because 'bail' is the middle-middle key on the 'special' menu, and 'hunt' is the middle-middle key on the 'movement' menu. In the default mapping, that means that both are activated by the 'k' key on the alpha keyboard, and by <NUMPAD 5>. Which you get is dependent on what mode you're in.
-
CM's 'problem' is there are more order types than keyboard quick keys available. And people keep demanding more and more orders types! I imagine problems might arise having to reconcile PC with mac keyboard commands too. Other Means suggested above that if we were to abandon the default keypad movement commands in favor of the mouse control that frees up just about enough keys to cover all bases. Sounds like a good plan, but it'll take a decision on the player's part to abandon keyboard movement. I don't think BFC is willing to make that decision for you.
Part of that problem, and in my eyes it's a real one, not something you can put in quotes and make go away, is that there aren't enough keys available for use as quick keys. A consequence of having a .txt file as the configuration method, and a config file with no syntax to allow non-alpha keys to be used.
Abandoning the relative model of hotkey mapping (or allowing it to be explicitly toggleable in the Options) would allow the numpad keys to be used for custom approaches to interface usage. As I understand it (potentially a faulty understanding, I freely admit) the numpad keys aren't remappable. I tried to use numbers for my camera movement keys, but only the alphanumeric keyboard numbers worked; the numpad did "odd things" that I have since concluded were the standard 'relative' mappings.
Many of the commands in the interface don't need hotkeys. Mark Mines, for example is probably rare enough that you can mouse to it when you need it (or use the spacebar menu). It's also arguable that some commands that you can't undo (like Split Squad in its various flavours) should only be mapped with caution, since having to wait for the game to correct your (or your cat's) error could waste an entire minute.
Still, there are 36 (9x4), maxiumum, hotkeys to be mapped and a dozen or so camera keys. Ought to be able to fit that on an alphanumeric keyboard...
However, that's not the point. That the default keymap disregards the game creators' sage advice to avoid mixing relative and direct keymapping methods, is. That this confusing approach makes the game more inaccessible than it needs to be, is. That addressing these problems to some extent, even at this late stage, is.
-
I wouldn't mind the CM:SF system and the key-binds if some keys wouldn't be bound twice.
I can't say how often I got my tank crew to bail out instead of letting them "hunt". :mad:
I don't think they're bound twice by default, and correcting that is just a matter of proofing your edits to the .txt file.
Except, I suppose, that all the keys are bound 'twice' (or 3 or 4 times), in a sense, in that "I", for example will get you Quick move, Target Light, Pause and Assault Team, depending on what order mode you're in. I choose 'I' as the example because it's actually a good (well it makes sense to me) replacement for "Q" which is reserved for camera rotation...
It's an inherent flaw in the whole default key layout.
-
Take a look at the CMSF forum and my hotkeys are stickied at the top. If you don’t use the keys for camera movement (like me and most CM1 players) they're a lot easier to learn.
Things like: (Q)uick, (T)arget, co(V)er arc (the V looks like an arc definer) etc.
Seen 'em. I think I like having the keys available, but am playing with mousey camera.
But it still isn't my point. That such modifications are so necessary/widespread as to be stickied in the forums kinda reinforces my point. And since they're there already, why not include them as a 'hotkeys - direct - mouse camera.txt' in the final release of BN?
-
I got used to the default commands in CMSF. They are by no means perfect, but they are now second nature to me (I play mostly WeGo).
Sure, you can get used to them. You can get used to lots of things
And, of course, it's editable, sort of (I'd still like to use Tab/Shift-Tab for next/prev unit, and that's not possible). But the point is that the awkwardness and confused nature of the design makes the game more difficult to get into than it should have been. I'd've probably bought the whole kaboodle of SF when I returned to CM last year, if the interface hadn't contributed to my 'not sure I like the setting' doubts.One thing you don't mention is the return of the 'SPACEBAR orders' which arrived with one of the CMSF patches a few years ago - I don't use it especially, but it can be handy.I don't imagine many people use it 'especially', which is one of the reasons I didn't mention it, another being it works (for what it is) as it should, largely. And my focus was on the relative/direct dichotomy in the interface.
-
...of Normandy, Summer '44.
I've never been a fan of the 'relative' system in the interface. To be frank, I hated it and thought it was deeply misconceived from the start. The concept that 'similar commands are together' sounds good at first blush, but when you're setting up an order string for a unit, you don't just want to move it or fight it, you want to issue combat commands, special commands and administrative ones too, which involves a lot of paging around, which is bad interface design.
I like keyboard shortcuts. I tend to use them in every game I play, and in other applications too, but the relative system was a stumbling block that put me right off CM:SF. And then (to quote from the BN manual) "...we recommend that you decide which system you prefer and then assign the keys as you wish..." Yet the default UI has a confusing mix, with some functions available from direct keys, but others not (my biggest bugbear has to be 'I' for quIck vs 'T' for Target; so often you're using the Target line to find a hull-down place and the next thing you want to do is move there, quIckly. Oops, that's a Target Light order I have to cancel).
I would like to suggest that a hotkeys.txt for each approach be included in the final download, so that it's easy to expunge this confusion without having to edit files. I know it's too late to change the default; the manual (on which I'm basing my post) is being printed, after all, but if you're after improving the UI in subsequent releases, some work on the hotkeys (and how you assign them; TXT config files are a bit 90s, really, for a computer application) would be an excellent place to start, along with more informative tooltips.
Edited for clarity.
-
Biggest thing is miss from the CMx1 engine is the LoS and Target lines. Am I doing something wrong not to be seeing those?
It's been a while since I CM1-ed, so I can't be accurately comparing SF with x1, but you do get a LoS/LoF line when you hit "Target" as the order, and, most usefully, you can click on any waypoint and see what the LoS from that waypoint is. If you've been laying waypoints you have to right-click off that mode, then you can left-click on a waypoint of the selected unit. The LoS/F line originates from the location of the selected vehicle, but the ability to target is based on the waypoint's location.
Getting more used to moving the camera around, but it still seems clunky compared to CMx1.As a newbie, too, I found that operating with the camera pretty much glued to the units made orientation much easier. Tab whips the camera to looking the way the currently selected unit is, at whatever height you've currently got it, and "View Lock" appears in text at bottom middle of your screen. Using the rotate keys (Q/E by default) switches to "Unit Lock". Hitting Tab again, or moving the camera laterally or longitudinally will de-lock the camera. If you go "Next/previous unit" with a lock on, it will be locked to the viewpoint of the unit you switch to.
-
The download only option comes up after release, no idea why you can't pre-order the download only though :|
What would be the point, for you? If you're only downloading it you'll be able to buy it and get it as soon as anyone who's pre-ordered.
-
I thought code words for things were randomly assigned these days. I know they are for ops.
-
I have a suggestion for BF... Is it possible to set a time of day when announcements will be made/stuff will get released? If you said "We'll make any announcements at 10h00 EST" (or whenever), the refresh monkeys would at least get most of the day off...
-
What I don't understand is why people might prefer playing the AI rather than each other. Winning or losing to a computer means nothing to me - but then perhaps I like humans and playing mind games too much. Not everyone is competitive. I've always preferred to play in a team of humans vs the AI, with 'appropriate' handicaps (overwhelming numbers in RTS's, or no human handicap at all in FPSs cos I r rubish at FPS) to create a challenge.
That said, I think the CM community is of the kind where I'd be happy to get involved in HvH games, as the attitude seems less sociopathic than the Internet norm. I'll still want to get to grips with the mechanics and such vs the AI, before inflicting my nubity on a human opponent.
-
There have been ways described, I think, of passing half-completed game files between players to add more orders. It's been oft-stated by BF that co-op play 'proper' is a metric long ton of work and won't be in BN, though it's on their list of features to add in the future. Their very long list.
-
If you've got all the modules, and I do recommend you do...
I'm sure you're right. I shall probably fire up the Marines 'Going to Town' soon to see how their AAVs and huge squads are different to the Army Strykers (though the opposition looks a lot tougher, from the briefing, too). But I'm mostly waiting for BN, and once that hits will only have time for one military wargame, so the SF demo is probably as far as I'll go with that product line.
-
I'm new to this CMSF lark, having gotten out the demo in preparation for CMBN. I've played the tutorial, "Going to Town" and "Out of the Wilderness". The Army force in "Going to Town" was comprehensible to me, with plenty of firepower on its vehicles that was reasonably well protected against light threats, with HMG squads to add to the suppression, and most of my casualties came from not being quite agile/agressive enough.
"Out of the Wilderness" was another kettle of fish entirely. Using FV432s for firebase units just got my gunner crewman shot, and there were no direct fire assets that didn't just scream "ATGM me, go on, I dare ya!" outside the squads, and they were getting quite badly hit by Syrian HMGs that I couldn't seem to spot, regardless of how many binos I had squinting down from on high.
I won the scenario, with quite heavy casualties, by using arty to get some suppression on and take down the wall of the compound I was supposed to take, then Fasting laden FV432s across the open ground to drop their troopers tight onto the objective.
Obviously, playing British forces (especially the light infantry in that scenario) requires a different approach. Artillery support seems essential to reach out and scratch those AT assets that you can scare out of hiding, but there don't seem to be the tools (HMG teams, Auto-GL, protected vehicle gunners) to set up the sort of firebase the US does.
Is it just the specific formations I've seen? Are US Light Infantry similarly doctrinally distinct (I can see that a Brit unit with Warriors might seem more like the Stryker Company, since its cannon can be operated without exposing the gunner to small arms fire)? Do other Brit formations have more support weapons? Did I misuse the British support elements (by not recognising them as what they are)?
-
Not sure the Americans could legitimately put ObL in front of the ICC, since the US doesn't recognise the court's jurisdiction over US citizens.
The killing wasn't terrorism, since ObL was an officer in an organisation that has declared war (however asymmetrical) on the US and the shooting was by uniformed US personnel. Similarly, it wasn't an 'extra-legal execution', since he was attempting to fight back. IANAL.
-
I agree that this is the sort of variable that's probably best catered for by experience. I don't think it'll take very long to get a 'feel' for how movements can coordinate. What I'd like is to be able to plot a move for a dismounted vehicle crew in the same turn they dismount (and for a movement of a dismounting unit to end up with a mount in a different vehicle, though that necessity would be reduced if I could look at the inventory of a dismounted vehicle without remounting it).
There may already be a way to do this, but so far my experience is that a crew unit (I'm thinking of the way CMSF handles things like Jackal crews) ordered to dismount and then move actually drives its vehicle away from the dismount point... If it can already be done, that's great, if someone could kindly edumacate me
-
The bottomline is we can only do so much to keep casualties in line with real world averages. To really change things we would need to remove the player from having significant control over what happens. Because when you boil things down, the player is the "problem", not the game system itself.
To a point, I agree with you, but when the AI does things the player wouldn't ask them to do, if they actually had the ability to give less ambiguous orders, I think you're overstating the case some. Obviously, there will always be limits as to the level of control the player can exert, and those will change between WeGo and RT play. And it's always going to be hard to elicit the intentions of the player and translate that into numbers an engine can crunch.
Maybe the 'problem' that some players are in this respect is misusing the controls already available to them (using Quick, where Hunt would actually get them the result they desire, maybe). Maybe this can be addressed somewhere down the line, or finer grains of control made (possibly optionally) available, like a 'commitment' level for a type of move, maybe.
-
Some things that it'd be nice if the AI could account for, taken from old CMBB/AK and recent, shallow CMSF experience:
* stay the hell hidden if exposing yourself is going to get you killed deader'n a bunny at a jilted stalker's convention. (Example: a Syrian HQ which had been hiding in a hollow, unseen while its platoon was eradicated by artillery, snipers and AC fire, opens up on a squad that dismounts near it, when there are 3 AFVs (including a Challenger) and another squad within 150m, and the HQ has zero anti-armour weapons. They inflicted one casualty and all 8 of them were wiped out to a man.)
* refuse to do really stupid things (Example: drive over and past the crest of the last slope before the enemy's known position, in the open, in a soft-skinned vehicle before anything at all had been suppressed. I misclicked on the unit and didn't mean it to do it, and the driver was nailed before it'd got 10m past the crest.
* it'd be good if there was some way for troops to know that they're not required to advance into unexpected fire. If a RT player (that saw in time) would cancel the movement order and pull his pixeltruppen back out, the AI should be allowed to too, even if the unit in question had the morale to press the attack 'recklessly'. Some sort of orderable differentiation between "Go have a nosey round" and "Go kick any krauts you find out of that farmhouse". Obviously 'Assault' has some implied pressure to take and hold, but 'Quick' could be interpreted as "Quick, get 'em" or "Have a quick dash in there".
Hopefully the AI parameters in BN are all entirely to everyone's liking and this is just me bootlessly expressing a preference
-
I played the Shock Force demo and didn't like it. I didn't like the real time gameplay and also the interface was a departure from CM1,2,and 3. I always loved the original CMX1 games better. Rough around the edges but enduring. My eyes are set on this new one but am I gonna be disappointed?
I'm playing the SF demo. I have completed "Going to Town" and am most of the way through the Brit. Demo. The Tutorial took a couple of restarts, mostly for tactical reasons: those Strykers ain't ver' tuff.
You don't have to play RT. The interface rapidly becomes second nature. I've nearly stopped mistakenly extending units' movement paths when I click on the next unit, and it's been a while since I didn't notice and roll it back. Other than that, the 'multi-pane' was a bit of a pain to start with til I discovered the f-keys to switch.
The combat environment is a bit of a shock (phear the ATGM), and sometimes it's hard to orient yourself in all that sand, but get used to using Tab (to lock view to a unit) and then the Q and E keys to scan about. The 'mouse in the corner' to rotate is still plain irritating. Remember if you move your viewpoint (using WASD), rather than rotating it, you can always hit Tab to get back to where you thought you'd be. Once you've unit-locked the view, cycling through units the lock moves too, so you can pan around easily.
There's so much more cool stuff (like ammo resupply, recrewing vehicles and all the neat things like that) in CMx2, that if you liked CM1, you will adore CMx2 if you can get past what's quite a small learning hump, interface wise.
-
Oh and then of course there may well be the mod of field the six foot high Sunflowers which again tend to be further south but it would be crazy terrain for a battle.
That reminds me that Normandy does grow some wierd-ass looking cropps, to whit: artichokes (the globe variety) Spiky things with a stalk with a globe on it. Or at least that's what my dad said it was when we were on holiday there.
-
Oh Im not convinced, Im just thinking logically. If BFC are going to make an Arnhem Module they need to put something in it. Logically then, it cannot be SS as they are in Module 1. If the Brit Airborne are included in Module 1, then what does that leave to attract anyone to an Arnhem module that a scenario designer cannot already make?
So if one module does not require another to play it, what would that leave? Some terrain and building changes? Which leads me to believe that sense would mean leaving the Brit Airborne out until Module 2, though Im still not sure how you can play Arnhem without SS units.
Unless of course SS units also get included in that Module as well. Which again makes sense to me.
Just because something has been introduced in one module doesn't mean it can't be repeated in a subsequent one. For MG to work, you'd need lots of 'Commonwealth' assets that would be mandatory for the 'Commonwealth' module. If you don't need the 'Commonwealth' module to use the MG module, then, unless none of the relevant units/equipment/TOEs etc had no significant overlap with 'what went before', there will have to be some overlap in material provided.
Which is just fine with me.
And, of course, it's editable, sort of (I'd still like to use Tab/Shift-Tab for next/prev unit, and that's not possible). But the point is that the awkwardness and confused nature of the design makes the game more difficult to get into than it should have been. I'd've probably bought the whole kaboodle of SF when I returned to CM last year, if the interface hadn't contributed to my 'not sure I like the setting' doubts.
Relativism and your Interface with the world...
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
It still remains 'more inaccessible than it needs to be'. The manual itself says "don't mix relative and direct" and yet the default layout makes a fine art of it. Different methods of using the interface are fine and dandy, but when one could be improved by trivial methods, that would be better, no?