ClarkWGriswold

Not possible without under the hood code changes. I asked for the exact same thing in another thread shortly after the game came out. I think we need icons not just for engineers, but also for scout split squads, AT split squads, rifle split squads, etc. When you have to rely on these icons for most of your intel, they need to be as descriptive as possible.

I agree with you completely. CMBN is a great game, but it lags far behind AAA titles in a lot of key areas. And while the graphics are quite decent (leaps ahead of CMx1) there's still a lot to be desired. The game looks great in screenshots and under certain circumstances, but it doesn't compare to most games released in the last two or three years in the graphics department. I play CMBN more than every other game I own combined. But that doesn't mean it's without its (large and numerous) flaws.

I think the suppression indicator also only takes into consideration the amount of fire and the caliber. For instance, being fired on by a dozen rifles or one 75mm chucking tank would both peg the suppression meter, but being fired on by a single sharpshooter wouldn't. So, you could have your squad leader killed by a single bullet and have the rest of the squad panic, while the suppression meter probably wouldn't even register.

Because he would be shocked from having his commander's guts splattered all over him?

From the video, it looks to me like the Tiger's first shot missed. I agree with Womble though, the Tiger is shooting upwards and has a bad angle on the glacias of the M10, while the M10 is shooting downwards onto the thinner top armor of the Tiger. Not surprising that the Tiger was taken out, though the M10 certainly got lucky. What surprises me most is that the M10 took a casualty from the second shot, yet instead of popping smoke and reversing or just sitting there shocked, it gets off a very quick shot to take out the German halftrack.

While that is true, the way it's conveyed to the player is still totally nonsensical. The way that the came counts down remaining rounds is bass-ackwards to how it should be shown if you want any meaningful information to be conveyed to the player.

Well, I obviously couldn't disagree with you more. Like yourself, I play exclusively WeGo. Like you, I watch the replay multiple times each turn, watching things from different angles and perspectives and reliving my triumphs and defeats. Even so, I *hate* the fact that I can't easily see the information that's important to me without a huge amount of time and effort spent clicking individual units. Why should I keep track of each unit in my head when I'm sitting right at the computer - a device designed to do such tasks? What about units who weren't directly involved in actions? Or what about units that were involved but you just didn't notice? Can you honestly say that you've never clicked on a unit only to find that it was out of grenades when only a few turns back you remembered them having plenty? Have you ever suddenly found yourself unable to control artillery because the radio man was shot when you weren't looking? Ever lose an important asset and not realize it until a turn too late? These are the kinds of issues I'm trying to alleviate. Well, you need to know that X happened before you can research the cause of X. The interface on the left gives you an overview of your forces. If something important happens it's a lot more likely to jump out at you. For instance, let's say that one of my HQ commanders is killed. Currently, the only indication of that happening is the icon flashing orange a few times (assuming the unit is even on screen). In a frenzied battle it would be easy to miss such an occurrence, especially since the same exact indication is used when any casualty is taken. But with the overview UI I'm proposing you'd immediately see the effects of that commander's death as multiple units' C2 lines turn red and their contact indicators disappear. If you were playing real-time, you might not know HOW that man was killed, but you'd at least immediately know that he was and could take a closer look. When playing WeGo you could jump to that unit and rewind to see what happened. Even though it's a small thing (one man being killed), the consequences can be drastic. The chances that this would go unnoticed would be much less likely with a comprehensive overview UI. I believe that it is very important to provide the user with a detailed overview of the current situation. Sure, a person can do this all mentally and step through each and every unit by hand. In fact, that's what we all have to do right now because there's no other option. But do you really think the current solution works well for most people? I certainly don't, and everyone I personally know that plays this game feels the same way. The UI really needs to do a better job at conveying information to the player than it currently does.

Ah, I understand now what you mean. I think the little red/yellow/green dots work pretty well when combined with some other signal that the group is a split squad (the "A" and "B" in my mockup). I think the silhouettes would look nice, but using the dots keeps things uniform across the board. Perhaps there would be a way to use both though?

That's there. It's dark colored to fit in with the rest of the GUI, but it's there. This is one of those things that should only appear when it's needed. Rather than having buttons that are always on screen taking up space, they should only show when you have a unit selected that can actually call arty or air support. That's something I wanted to put in my mockup, but it was getting late and I just wanted to have something finished enough to post before I went to bed. Excellent idea! I'm right there with you on using different shapes to distinguish different information. But, since this was just a quick mockup and everything in the current UI is made of rectangles, that's what I went with. I honestly don't think it's necessary to show more than one type. Just show the lowest common denominator. If someone is out of audible range and in far-visual range, that information is useful enough to know that you're getting to the edges of what will be in command. It should be relatively easy to show this using color and/or shape. Maybe pinned or suppressed units have "yield sign" shaped (upside down triangle) icons instead of circles and squares? I think it's more important that you know *something* bad is up with that unit. Once you know that, you're probably going to select the unit and figure out exactly what's going on anyway. The key here is to let the player know what's going on from the 10,000 foot level so they can decide who needs individual attention and who doesn't. I started off trying that, but it just didn't work. A 12 man squad (or even 9 men) is just too much info to try to squeeze into that small of a space. So, I came up with the compromise I posted, which is to represent squads with a single weapon to signify what they are. Split AT teams could have a bazooka/panzerfaust. Scouts could have a scoped rifle. The key for me was to make it very apparent how many men are in each group, which groups are split squads, and how many casualties the group has taken. I don't need to know exactly which gun each soldier has. If it gets to the point that you need THAT much detail, you're going to select the squad and then you'll see all the nitty gritty detail. Because most people have widescreen monitors these days, I thought the UI made sense being on the side. It spoils the panorama a little, but is easier to navigate. Also, tree structures like this are almost always presented vertically, so it's second nature for people to navigate them. Putting it horizontally at the bottom wouldn't work as well. The bar at the left wouldn't replace the bottom UI elements, it would just enhance them. If you click a unit you want to get all the detailed information about what weapons they have, how much ammo, any damage the vehicle has taken, etc. The key for me was to give the player a better overall view of the battlefield so that they know what's going on without dozens of clicks. Sometimes you need that detailed information, but you shouldn't have to check each and every unit to determine if you've lost a man, if you're low on ammo, etc. That's something the game should tell you without having to ask.

I really enjoy CMBN. I spend more time playing it than all my other games combined. However, I still find myself incredibly frustrated by the lack of situational awareness and the how cumbersome the game is, in general. Both of my regular PBEM opponents feel the same way, and the other day we got to talking about the problems. I thought this might be a good thread for discussing the issues that people have and ideas about how to fix them. I know that these suggestions probably won't make it into the game in the near term, but perhaps some ideas could and, at the very least, it could give BFC ideas about the most frustrating aspects and potential fixes. Here's an example screenshot that should illustrate the gripes I have with the current system: You can see about 80% of my forces on the screen. Even so, you really can't tell much of anything about them. I have one squad that has been totally wiped out, one HQ that has been wiped out, one squad that is rattled, and one squad that is half rattled and half broken (split squad). Most of my squads have been split, but you can't tell that because the icons are the same for a 9 man squad as they are for a 2 man scout split squad. I have two mortars, but one of them is out of HE shells. I have three tanks, but one of them is out of HE shells. One of my mortars is not deployed. One of my Marders is out of HE shells. Of all of my forces, only two vehicles and one mortar squad are in C2. There is absolutely NO on-screen indication of ANY of these factors. NONE! The only way to know any of this information is to keep a very close eye on every single unit and/or click through each and every unit. Even then, some of this info is hard to track because KIA men disappear from the UI rather than turning red. In order to address these issues, I suggest something like the following: You can immediately see which units are in command and which are not by the red/green lines on the left. Units that are out of command show a red line, while units that are in command show a green line as well as the way that they're communicating (visually, via radio, etc). In addition to being able to see if a unit is in command or not, you can see who they are supposed to report to and the state of that commander (as well as whether or not there's another level of command above the immediate commander). It's much easier to visualize breaks in C2 structure this way compared to the little red dots that are currently used. Not to mention that the dots don't tell you WHY a unit is red (are they out of radio contact? Out of visual range? Dead?). The tree method I've mocked up gives you much more information. You can immediately see which squads are Broken/Shaken (red outlines) or Rattled (yellow outlines). In addition, these states carry over to the icons in the main window so it's easier to see groupings of units in trouble states. You can immediately see how many casualties each unit has taken and if any units have been wiped out. If the death of a unit affects C2 to units below, you can immediately see how many units are affected and which ones they are. Additionally, you can immediately see any un-deployed mortars or machine guns. You can also see the status of vehicles and squads, even if those units are not on screen. And you can see if a vehicle or mortar is out of ammunition and, if so, which kind (HE, AT). This information can ALL be seen without having to click on a single unit! I've removed the UI from the bottom of the screen because it should be possible to remove much of the current UI since it would be redundant with what I've added. In addition, you wouldn't necessarily need the old UI elements most of the time, so they could be made to appear only when a unit is selected or it could be toggled on/off. Other UI elements could be removed or pared down as well. There's no need for the VCR controls during the command phase and no need for the movement controls during the replay phase. Combined with other changes like constant size unit icons (so that units further away have smaller icons while closer units have larger icons), color coding, shape changes, etc. you could potentially convey most everything the player needs with only a minimal, intuitive UI. Now, this is just a quick mockup, so I haven't addressed everything. For instance, I think split squads really need their own unit icons so that they're easier to tell apart from whole squads and easier to keep track of what resources are where. Also, in addition to Broken/Rattled it would be nice to show Tiring/Exhausted and suppression level in some manner as well. What do you guys think?

Beautiful pictures, Bimmer. Those houses truly are works of art, and the close-ups really give you an appreciation for the effort it would take to build one. So much stone and mortar!

Maybe put ivy on non-independent buildings (no base problem) and more generic, "simple" stuff on independent buildings (a few exposed bricks, cracks, etc.? Something like this heavy climbing ivy would look great and really break up the monotony, yet still fit into the Normandy landscape:

Cropping screeenshots isn't a big deal, but when making movies the UI can be very intrusive. You not only get the bottom 20% of the screen wasted, but things like "replay phase" text, the compass, the camera angle in the bottom right corner, etc. are all distracting and cannot be removed at all.

That's a good idea, as long as it doesn't become too prolific.

There is... just build the whole building out of posters. Voila! Indestructible building! The Germans won't know what to do!

This is very nice. I think the potted plant on the wall is a mistake though. Things like ladders are less multi-dimensional and don't look off, but a potted flower just looks painted on. Otherwise, very, very nice work. Too bad the game engine can't handle shot out windows and such.

I'm playing against two opponents and, even though they both use Dropbox (at my suggestion), neither one of them uses H2HH. I've tried to convince them of the benefits, but they don't want to run yet another program on their machine. I think the only way either of them would use it is if it could store and pass passwords to CMBN automatically - which doesn't seem like it will happen any time soon.

CMx1 also had "action spots" that were four times as large, and there was never a worry that your commander would see the target but the gunner wouldn't. It would be nice if we could just tell who could see what (Personally, I'd love to see something like the yellow cover arc that shows what is and is not viewable), but since we can't I think the LOS-from-waypoint is sometimes necessary.

Does that include showing waypoint LOS from the unit, rather than from the selected waypoint? It would be much less confusing for new players if that were fixed.

This is a must-have in my opinion. It increased my enjoyment of the game far more than any graphical changes ever could have.

I've been very lucky. So far, I've always been on the fortunate side in these sorts of exchanges. My lone Sherman took out a Panther and two Stugs to win the game for me. My last anti-tank gun took out my enemy's three remaining PzIVs. My bazooka team knocks out the gun of the enemy Panther (his only remaining armor asset) and gets me the win. I think my opponents are starting to think I have a backdoor into the AI programming.

Is the concern about changes giving the AI problems having to do with the tacAI or the strategic, map plan AI? I'm struggling to see how a change to the old style Hunt command would have a negative effect on the tacAI. I find it even more difficult to see how changes to movement orders that the AI doesn't use (I understand that they don't use Normal or Fast movement, for instance) would impact them in any fashion whatsoever.

I really wish that BFC would allow the Acquire command to work without having to actually get into the vehicle. You would think that being directly next to a vehicle would be good enough. That would likely address the issue brought up here, as well as fixing the problem that you can't mount and dismount within the same turn (which means that acquiring ammo takes one full PBEM turn and at least one partial turn).

I read and participated in that thread. Given the number of people who are complaining about this issue, it sure seems to me that it's a fairly widespread concern. In this particular instance, many of us feel that things have not changed for the better. BFC is well withing their rights and abilities to say "tough cookies" and let us leave (or stay and be disgruntled), but I sure hope that's not their solution. You think the new system is great. Fine. Fixing it so that the rest of us are satisfied would not take anything away from that, and would not have any negative impact on your enjoyment at all. So, addressing the issue is a win-win for everyone. The only "loss" is the time and effort it takes to fix. <insert big, impressive words here> Here's the deal: Right now tanks shoot on the move. This behavior flies in the face of everything we know about WWII tank warfare. Firing on the move was done only in the most extreme of circumstances or the closest of ranges because of the astronomically low odds of actually getting a hit while moving. To cover up for this behavior tanks are given much better odds of hitting while moving. In real life (and in CMx1) you could pretty much count on a couple of things: 1) if you remained still and were shooting at a still target, you'd probably hit on the first shot or, at worst, the second. 2) If you remained still and were shooting at a moving target, you'd have a pretty fair chance of hitting and the enemy would have a very low chance of hitting you. 3) If you shot while moving you were virtually guaranteed to miss. Now what we have is a totally different situation. 1) still holds true, but 2 and 3 are crap shoots. Will your tank miss when firing on the move because it's moving, or will it hit because the firing has been "tweaked" to make up for the fact that tanks aren't smart enough to pause, then fire? There's no way to know, and you can't alter the behavior at all. In CMx1 you had a variety of ways to control your armor so that you could decide between halting (Move to Contact), pausing to engage (Hunt), and moving/firing at the same time (Move, Fast). In CMx2 you have no such choice. You can Hunt, which will cause your tank to stop and shoot, and that's the ONLY choice. Every other movement order will cause your tank to shoot on the move with unknown chances of whether or not it will hit. And if you DO use the Hunt command, your tank is going to stop as soon as it engages anything (even a single soldier with a pistol), and it won't continue on for the entire rest of the turn. You can't even work around this behavior by using Quick, Pause, Quick because there's no way to prevent your tank from firing during the "quick" phase, then sitting there with a giant target on it's back, reloading during the "pause" phase. How can anyone think that this new behavior is an improvement? We've got far less control over how vehicles behave, now. All it would take to fix this issue is to make Hunt work like it used to and have a Move to Contact option like CMx1 (or leave Hunt as it is, but make Slow work like Hunt did in CMx1). Making this change would allow you to do everything that you can do now, PLUS have more control over the behavior of armor and vehicles (and men too!). Heck, even making the Fast command prevent the tank from firing would be an improvement. At least that way you could Fast, Pause (fire), Fast and know that you aren't going to shoot on the move, giving away your position and triggering a long reload during which you'll be vulnerable. In short, we have far less control now than we did in the game that was made 10 years ago, and there seems to be no real good reason why. While you, personally, might be fine with the way things work now, many of us are unhappy with the results and would appreciate a change. I don't know the extent or difficulty of making such a change, but I suspect that there are workarounds that would not be that difficult to implement. If the programmers at Battlefront can create this entire world and make such a complex AI, surely they can make some small, very helpful changes to the moving/firing behavior without much trouble.

Yeah, actually, they did. EVERY single one of the people I know who played CMBB and now plays CMBN thinks that player control of tank behavior is a huge step backwards. It really needs to be addressed or threads like these are going to keep popping up (or worse, they won't be created at all because people will shelve the game).