Moon Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Note: the following is not intended to "defend" CM or flame anybody elses opinion. It's just my own personal take, written from a point of view of somebody who had the luck to "test" CM for longer than a few days. I can't actually understand why some people are complaining about a lack of "feedback" from the game or keep asking for a unit overview menu. OK, I can understand it a little - because they're used to having these from other games. But when you look at CM as what it is (to reiterate what some others have pointed out already) - "a tactical combat simulation", you really have to ask yourself if this would be realistic. Having the knowledge about all your units with one mouseclick - wouldn't THAT be a "gamey" thing? The other argument brought forward to incude such units menu is one of user interface and not wanting to click through all the units every turn etc. Well, my personal opinion on this is: lazy! Guys, what do you want? A game that shows you combat in a way never seen before or a stats game - "unit X destroyed unit Y"... I for my part enjoy viewing and re-viewing the action turns very much and also like the possibility to "out-intel" the other guy. I also DO like the possibility that I might miss certain things ("where the heck did that come from?!"), all of this only adding to the confusion, fog of war (FOW) and immersion of a combat simulation. A unit overview would eliminate the need for the player to get down right beside his guys and look twice. I think this would be a tremendous loss for the game as a whole. Other opinions welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Its beautiful. To me the true divider when it comes to wargames is whether or not the game engine allows itself to be moulded into the shape of my own tactical thinking. Do I have the freedom to implement what I consider the best solution to the current situation? To what level am I able to give my thoughts shape in the simulation? Am I in command or are the game mechanics? If I by applying real tactics am able to produce realistic and “predictable” results then it is a good game. From there on only the level of freedom granted to me in choosing my path to successfully completing the task at hand dictates just how good the game is. To me the level of feedback in CM is spot on (as usual... in this moment in time, in this context, in this scale etc.). The graphics and sound deliver all that is necessary in the way of environmental input and more on top. The flow of the battle makes itself felt directly, be it a small exchange of fire or the whole battle field. The moment to sprint across that field, storm that building or launching the breaking attack can be sensed... Just by carefully listening, looking and feeling the, well, mood... While this “mood” thing might sound like a loose foundation for decision making it is in fact the sum of all your impressions of the current situation, filtered and processed through your own knowledge, training, experience and individual aptitude. If you are good... you will have read the situation correctly. If you lack in some aspect you will find yourself frequently making the wrong assumptions. The beauty of CM is that it seems (and feels) like it will actually be able to deliver a new level of realism when it comes to applying real knowledge, real training, real experience and real individual aptitude to a simulated reality. Of course all things are relative, always has been, always will be... But no other game has to this date delivered anything like CM when it comes to the things that makes a good wargame good in my book, period. So no wonder there is a special smile on my face as my assault works out as planned, it was all my doing... Battlefront, who is that? Mattias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 No I COMPLETELY agree, 100%. Now if this were a Real Time game I would be pulling my hair out . BTW we have posted the demo at: http://www.wargamer.com/downloads/demos/cmbd.exe ------------------ Richard Arnesen The Wargamer http://www.wargamer.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Moon I agree with your point - I have no qualms against this. What I have a beef against is - my zooka teams getting wasted when they are hiding behind a wall (since the start of the game) from 500 m away by a tiger and some German squads - cmon! Even in other situations, in the heat of battle, infantry is not that easy to spot. ------------------ CCJ aka BLITZ_Force My Homepage - www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Beach/4448 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerShark Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 I agree with Moon, especially the final part. Whether something is realistic or not in a game is not,IMHO , important. As long as the game "works" it's ok. Jumping of a cliff (2 metres high) in rl can break my leg. If this would happen in Quake it would be a pain in the butt. Realistic? yes...but a pain. As for CM i do understand some people might not like this "realistic" approach. Hell, the first game played was very hard for me. Did i finish off that squad? Does that mortar have rounds left? I really got affraid, affraid to run into a full squad i must have missed "somewhere". Affraid because i'm not sure about that mortar, and if i'm wrong my men are toast. Then i realized "this fear" is actually good fun. It might take some time to get used to it. But when you are, be ready to get scared...a lot Take Care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 long-time lurker alert ! Well, i have to come out of hiding for this one. CoolColj has a damn good point. Infantry are too easily spotted IMO, and it also seems that your hiding infantry open fire at the enemy at ranges wich will produce virtually no results (i like to keep my men hidden as long as possible, then open up with everything at once). This might be due to the fact that in the "defense" scenario, the US are playing with regular infantry, but even then, a bazooka opening up on a stuG3 with litte more than 10% hit cahnce is a bit far off. IMO this needs some tweaking ... unless of course fionn, "defender of the faith" posts some funky reponse (and probably too long lol), convincing me i'm wrong. MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 The only thing I can think of in the Zooka case is that they were not well trained troops and panicked. Otherwise I dunno... ------------------ Richard Arnesen The Wargamer http://www.wargamer.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Kraut- What was the experience level of the bazooka team? What was the morale? One team was "green". I'm learning that the "ambush" command is a good way to limit when my units will fire. So far, I've only done it with the bazookas, but it should work with the rifle squads. I agree that squads "seem" to be detected too easily. A good trainig scenario would be to show how easy/hard it is to detect squads that are moving/still/hiding and how the different terrain affects it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 LOL MK, You'd be complaining even more if I simply stopped answering everyone's questions and took a break from the boards and some of the posters on it as I've wanted to do a few times. With that said, CoolColJ, send me a screencapture (hit the printscreen key then open a new blank image in your graphics program and hit paste. It will paste from RAM. Save and send to me) with the unit info bar at the bottom of the screeen on. (MEDIUM quality will do.. I don't want a 2 MB picture.. a 100 Kb picture is quite readable.) One thing I think MANY people are not realising is that a shaken squad WILL basically disregard all your careful ambush points and simply want to fire back at the enemy. Also I think many of you are probably picking VERY poor locations for your infantry if they're getting spotted from 500 metres. I can send you jpegs of two German squads who have just walked into a platoon ambush on the Last Defence map. They are within 25 metres of the wall my troops are hiding behind and I have been UNSPOTTED ! I think that people are making very poor dispositions and are being spotted and blaming the game system .. Methinks 'tis time to REALLY look at your dispositions and improve them. I went through a stage where I was spotted from 100s of metres, where no attacks worked etc etc BUT I spent some time examining what happened and now I can be within 40 metres of your troops in ambush and you won't even know it. I think you simply need to play more (preferably from hotseat) so you can SEE why your units are being spotted so easily.. BTW did it occur to any of you that FOXHOLES are pretty visible from a LONG distance unless they are tucked VERY close to a wall. If they are more than a couple of metres from a wall though they simply become big holes in the ground which are easy to spot. I think that's what many of you are doing wrong. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 *BLING* (the light goes on) ahh of course! Foxholes are pretty visable! they'd be pretty invisible in heavy woods eh? I know here in New Zealand during hte Maori Wars the various Maori tribes got very adept at making rifle pits and tearing apart advancing colonials who frequently had no idea where the fire was coming from (mind you, the bush/jungle here is pretty thick) PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Dave - in the last defense scen. all troops are regular (as far as i see). I'm very sure the zook was regular. It shot at the stuG from over 120m and with less than 20% hit chance. Luckily though, it nailed the tank. I'm definitly not gonna complain about that (i'll leave that up to my opponent ... lol), but i still will complain about it firing at the tank with such a small hit-chance, since i think it should have waited a little longer to get a bit higher chance. Now again, it might be because the crew was regular ... i would need to compare some elite 'zooks to see if that's the case (so, BF, send me a few scenarios will ya ? lol). Fionn - All i know is that it "feels" like the infantry are spotted too early. It's probably because they actually fired at the krauts and then were spotted (again, i think they should have waited a bit longer). But i'm sure i had them directly next to the wall in a foxhole, because i made sure they were (scaled them to realistic and put them right up on the wall). MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Well, this is in response to the orginal post by Moon. I disagree about the unit over-veiw. I find none of your arguments compelling in the least. "Having the knowledge about all your units with one mouseclick - wouldn't THAT be a "gamey" thing?" Gamey? Why, because it would be a good tool to help NON-military people manage the wealth of information that is on the screen? How can this be any less 'gamey' that allowing you to call of the EXACT stats of all vehicles down to the mm of armor and penetration with a single click? Lacking realism? Come on, is is realistic that one person is commanding the minute to minute actions of all these units to begin with? What futher 'error' would an addtional information MANAGEMENT tool add? This is an important point there IMHO. A overall unit screen would not add one tiny bit of information. All it would do is help the player veiw it quickly and easily. If you want realism then we should be locked into one view only also...that of the overall commander. Also important IMO is that the mainstream wargamer will be EXPECTING a screen of this sort. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hnh3 Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 A menu with no info, only access to your own units, certainly wouldn't show anything more than clicking through every unit would. With the small demo scenarios clicking through every unit isn't a big deal, but it isn't 'laziness' to not want to cycle through every unit in a battalion size scenario. Again, having a menu with only unit names (no info whatsoever) and quick access to them is not a bad idea IMO. Seems a lot less intrusive to the gaming experience than enlarging all the units or disabling trees just to be able to click on a well hidden unit. This isn't a flame either (I refrained from calling anybody lazy ). I totally agree that an SP-like unit menu would detract from the CM experience. Moreover, if adding an access menu would complicate things or delay the release, I say to heck with the whole idea. It would be a nice bonus, though. Well, that's more than I've posted on every other forum combined the last couple of years. This game sure forces the lurkers out into the open, eh? Not to mention the emoticons. I'm through. --good grief, 5 people posted while I was writing this-- [This message has been edited by hnh3 (edited 10-30-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Scott, I would contend that "non-military" wargamer is a contradiction to start off with Further, we feel that non-wargamers are the last people to want a spreadsheet like report. I know this was what the results of Impression's consumer focus studies showed (boring to watch, but interesting none-the less ). Personally, I don't miss it and even don't want it. Why? 'cause I don't need it to play the game well. Also, the "wargamer expecting" thing we threw out the window about 2 years ago. Wargamers expect too much of the wrong thing in our opinion. Much of Combat Mission breaks with conventions. It is not only what makes it different than other games, but more realistic. It also does things that are almost taboo in traditional "serious" wargames -> it looks good, is easy to play, and ohmygod it is actually FUN You don't seem to disagree with this (from reading your other posts), so keep in mind that we did NOT get CM to where it is today by following traditional conventions, rather by tossing them out the window as hard as we could throw them. I have been playing wargames for as long as most, and longer than others. I have also been playing CM since it was a prototype. I have *never* wanted an overall screen. Expecting one? Not a good enough reason for inclusion. If it were, CM would would be hex based, have horrible interface, absolute knowledge of the enemy once spotted, it wouldn't be 3D, etc... Heck, I think we would even have to put in crappy AI and lots of bugs, since I know that is what *I* expect when I play other wargmes As for comparing the armor penetration stuff with a cumbersome "State of the Union Report", I disagree with your point of view that these things are contradictory. If you click on your unit you get the information you need (if enemy, the information available). It matters little if this is armor penetration or headcount. It is *all* information that a Battalion or Company commander would NOT have at his finger tips. The "all or nothing" argument about realism is a faulty one from the very start. No wargame will EVER be 100% realistic, so why should that even come into the discussion? All we can do is simply making the game as realistic as we can. Obviously you see a report as being an aid, we think it is a crutch Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-30-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 CoolCoJ and Kraut, There could be some tweaks to be made, but there can also be understandable reasons for what you saw happen. For example, that wall is at a lower elevation than the terrain the Germans are attacking from. In other words, that wall doesn't offer as much protection/obstruction as you might think it does. One can see over a wall if one is higher than it Zooks shoot partially based on what their ammo level is. More ammo, more likely to shoot. 20% chance of a hit is not all that low. You are unlikely to find hit chances much better than that and survive. Again, tweaks might still be needed. Just don't be so quick to assume that they are Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Steve: "...the "wargamer expecting" thing we threw out the window about 2 years ago." I don't beleive this for a minute, unless you have thrown out all you asperations for a CM2 and CM3 also. I think perhaps you exagerate a little. People expect an easy to use interface. You have provided that. People expect that if the information is in the game that it should be fairly easy to get to also. "I have *never* wanted an overall screen." Most will, sure after playing for two years like you they will forget about it. But after playing SP for two years I forgot about a lot of things too "Expecting one? Not a good enough reason for inclusion." How about reviews? How about sales? "If it were, CM would would be hex based, have horrible interface..." None of this at issue. "As for comparing the armor penetration stuff with a cumbersome "State of the Union Report", I disagree with your point of view that these things are contradictory." You misread me. The fact that it is cumbersome is not the issue at all. "If you click on your unit you get the information you need (if enemy, the information available). It matters little if this is armor penetration or headcount. It is *all* information that a Battalion or Company commander would NOT have at his finger tips." THIS IS THE ISSUE. You state it yourself. a commander would NOT have this kind of detailed vehicle specs at his finger tips. But you have this available. I think an overveiw screen would be less of a 'breach' of realism than this by a WIDE margin. "The "all or nothing" argument about realism is a faulty one from the very start." I agree, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. "Obviously you see a report as being an aid, we think it is a crutch" Something that makes the game easier to play is bad? You want to make the game harder for people to understand and play? Makes no sense to me. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Great points Steve. Scott, I have a question about what you are requesting. ____________________________________________ You said to Steve you wanted an overall screen: Most will, sure after playing for two years like you they will forget about it. But after playing SP for two years I forgot about a lot of things too...etc. _______________________________________ Can you describe for me what you are looking for in this overall screen. I am simply a player of this game and of many others and have no idea what you are even referring to. Please help me out. I would fall in the most category you mention above, but can't imagine a need for any more information or screens. I played Avalon Hills Bookshelf games, SSI's, CC's and West and East Front. Sincerely, Richard Kalajian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 The sceen would NOT have any additional information. In fact it would I think by a requirment of size limits have to contain less information than can be had now by clicking on each unit in turn. But it would be the ONLY place where you could see your entire force on a SINGLE screen. I would like it to have if possible: current morale state; ammo; number of men at start; current men in unit; if damaged (vehicles); terrain occupied; current order (hide, run, etc.) When you click on a unit in the overview it should jump you to that unit. Easy way to navigate through your units WHILE you are viewing ALL of their stats. I am sure it would be tough to fit all of this into a single screen, but any screen of this sort would be a big help IMO. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard [This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 10-31-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Scott, if CM gets panned for not having a Steel Panthers style status screen (I hated that thing BTW ) then we have a few choice words that we will use in private about the reviewer Seriously, we have dispenesed with MANY things that gamers "expect", and have put in many things that gamers never expected. 3D, top notch graphics, sound, interface, attention to detail, etc. I mean, what game comes close to delivering any of these things? You don't seem to think this is the issue, but it is the ONLY issue. if we stuck to designing games based simply on what the ones before us had CM would be nothing more than a copy. So again, we have tossed so many things out the window that if a reviewer is going to get bent out of shape about it, one report screen will not make a hill of beans difference. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>THIS IS THE ISSUE. You state it yourself. a commander would NOT have this kind of detailed vehicle specs at his finger tips. But you have this available. I think an overveiw screen would be less of a 'breach' of realism than this by a WIDE margin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You missed my point. Just because we include something that a Bn or Co commander wouldn't have at his fingertips doesn't mean that all bets are off and therefore realism can no longer be compromised by other elements. Having a report about the exact nature of everything on the map is too much concentrated information. CM forces the player to pay attention to the stuff that matters (i.e. the actual units and actions they partook in) and through it introduces the chance that the commander (the player) might screw up. That is realism. Having a spreadsheet with brightly colored warning lights lessens this chance. It also is a UI and game problem. SP/PG's static screens draw you OUT of the game experience. We wanted no such thing in CM. The bottom line here is... *I* don't need the screen to play well. Others don't need the screen either. Therefore it isn't critical. I am no Rommel, I just play by my instincts and perceptions, not statistical reports laid out for me as if I were an accountant. Scott, we did focus group studies about this VERY feature when I was at Impressions. Result was that they were SCARY to most gamers. Very few people want to look at big reports. It actually makes the game seem daunting because there is SO much information presented in one go. I agree. All the info is there in CM, but you access it as you need it. We think we know a thing or two about what makes a successful wargame (and the demo you are playing should prove that), so perhaps you should at least admit that there *could* be another valid point of view on this issue. We understand your postition and thought about it carefully as we designed and played the game over the last two years. If we thought it was manditory for smooth game play, it would have been in years ago. I just can't see why you HAVE to have such a screen to play the game well. I can understand that you might want to know every little detail about your forces at the drop of a dime, but I really doubt such a thing will allow you to play the game better than without it. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Scott, Thanks for the quick reply. I still can't see where an Overall screen would be useful. On each turn I automatically go to each unit and carefully consider: morale state; ammo; number of men at start; current men in unit; if damaged (vehicles); terrain occupied; current order (hide, run, etc.)... Then I pan with the camera and determine additional information like: what can I see? I do this for every unit. Why? I make it a practice of checking each unit and considering it's targets, movements and condition prior to moving to the next unit. I usually alter something on most units. I guess the need for an overall screen being a non-issue for me is my personal opinion, but i think you are putting too much importance on it's inclusion for this game. Sincerely, Richard Kalajian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 "I just can't see why you HAVE to have such a screen to play the game well. I can understand that you might want to know every little detail about your forces at the drop of a dime, but..." Don't think I said I HAD to have it. And no I don't need this sceen to play well. Just to play faster. Again, all a screen of this type would do is make play faster and easier for the gamer. Both a good thing. If some people are scared by it (?) or don't like it they can always ignore it. You really think more people would be scared by the inclusion of a screen that they don't have to use than will be scared by people that can't figure out what the H*ll is going on?!? The negative posts I have seen on the net regarding the demo are all along this line of reasoning (that and they want "Half-Life" graphics). "...I really doubt such a thing will allow you to play the game better than without it." I said this once before in the Mortar example that Hagen gave. Do you really want to 'lose' information that your PBEM opponent has because you could not spend 3 hours per turn during the replay phase taking notes, in first person perspective for each and every unit (freind and foe). Something your opponent can do. The lack of this screen has the possibilty to invite micro managment to an extreme (at least in this one aspect of information gathering). I have yet to see a good reason not to include this sceen. All it does is gather existing information and make it easier to access as well as ease navigation. All well within the 'scope' of any game esp. on of with the wealth of infomation CM has. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Steel Panthers had an "all units status" screen" Holy crap, I played that game for about a year and never saw it. I for one didn't miss the all-unit status screen while playing the demo the first few times. I was able to judge how units were doing from their visible actions: going from 3 to 2-man squad representations; suddenly getting up and running; firing only a few times in a turn; other things like that. It *would* be nice to have a unit-list with NO information; just a list of units so that you can, with one click, go right to one of your units to give it orders/whatever. It is sort of cumbersome to have to either scroll the map around to be able to click a unit, or hit "+" or "-" until you've selected the correct unit. Sorta like the "go to unit X" feature that was in TacOps: hitting "Ctrl"+"G" brings up a window listing all units, then clicking one of them zips you right into that unit's order window. Just a thought. GOD I like the demo. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 I don't think that Scott is saying that you do HAVE to have this, but that he feels that it can be helpful to some players, and since you don't have to use it even if it is include it, how does it hurt. I don't personally agree with him that it's all that helpful, though. I kinda think of the old saying of not seeing the forest for the trees, but in reverse... I think you get so much info on that one screen, that you can miss an important detail that you might catch if you look at your forces on a squad/platoon level. I know that I always check out at least the general look at each squad on a platoon by platoon basis. I feel that all in one place screens might be good for an after action screen that you can access, along with going back to the map without FOW on, but in the middle of the game, I don't see where it helps all that much. Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMc Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Enjoying the demo very much. Looking forward, like everyone else, to the finished game. I, too, would like a "see all units" screen, that would tell me what all units' current orders are, their status, and how many men are able or dead/wounded. Also it would be great if I could click on a unit's number and the screen would automatically take me there. I don't see this as a problem, really. Yes, it is gamey...but Combat Mission *is* a game. And couldn't such a screen be optional? Anyway, having great fun with the demo. Everything looks good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 I still don't get how you can be unhappy with watching results of your actions on the enemy. To me it's pretty obvious. Shells landing nearby = ouch more units firring at them then they're firring back = surpressed as one plays more it'll be easy to tell since one will have the memory of how it has applied to you in previous games. (eg. today seeing an enemy platoon have 4 units and an mg firring at it it's obvious it's in trouble and won't be much risk to my guys). I do not mind the idea of a panel tho. Explain exactly what information you'd like to see tho. unit name. status/dead? ammo. ? something like that? PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts