Foobar Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Hey guys... I would have to say that I'm somewhere in the middle on this. I don't agree with the "need" for the unit list. But consider this. A commander would probably have on paper the name of his units. He would have an overhead map of the area he was attacking.(as was displayed on the AAR, sorry fionn!!) Personally I found myself sketching out the area, and trying to list out my units on a piece of paper. BUT , if I'm going to be honest, I've found that the last time I played, i did that a little less.Whenever you break the mold, people end up having to make adjustments. Overall though I've been enjoying the hell out of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 MK, OH so they FIRED at the Germans... Well in that case it's obvious why they were spotted.. Some 50 US soldiers popping up and firing at you from behind a wall is something you will notice. MK it sounds to me like you need to use the AMBUSH command more to keep your troops heads down. My PBEM opponents are about to find out what I mean in at least two games and are in a WORLD of hurt. Two of them are gonna lose at least a platoon each in front of my positions next turn (within 30 metres of an ambushing platoon of mine ). Don't worry about it MK.. You simply need to get used to giving orders better to ensure they won't open fire until you really want them to. Hint: If anything fires more than 1 burst ASSUME IT IS SPOTTED.. It's a rule of thumb but its pretty accurate. Steve, CoolColJ's units had fired on the enemy from behind a wall. No wonder they got spotted . As for the zooks.. The BEST hit% I've ever gotten with a zook is around 40% against a buttoned and immobilised enemy tank... I routinely fire at 15 to 20% to hit chance since getting more than that is so, so difficult. I don't want to get fully into the whole unit screen thing too much. I'm going to try to be a voice of reason (not a role I'm usually assigned.. Fionn "Kick asses and take names" Kelly is my nick ) so here goes. NONE of this is against anyone or anything: 1. Feature drift: Scott, if your simply "All units listed on one screen to make navigation easy" screen goes in then we'll end up with it being bloated to include ALL the data possible (I've already seen posts wanting this). 2. Charles and Steve have put a LOT of thought into this. In private I have disagreed with a lot of their decisions at various times and some of the decisions I disagreed most strongly with I went public with ( no-one has ever accused me of shirking a fight if I feel its a matter of realism or accuracy .. Thank god Charles and Steve understand its nothing personal and so put up with it ). Some of the things I disagreed with were talked over and changed. Others I was told simply weren't going to be changed for a variety of reasons I was then given by email... I think I can honestly say that on every point Charles and Steve turned down my suggestions I eventually came around to agreeing their way was better. I'm used to hex-wargame data and unit lists and initially had issues with finding units and info in CM. At this stage though, after a little more experience with the game, I am totally sold on the fact that the way Charles and Steve have it WILL make the game better for most gamers. I fully accept you may want that screen (and I for one know you're just being a grognard like me and saying you want more but aren't going to suddenly stop liking the game if it doesn't go in ) BUT even you will agree you don't NEED the screen. Unfortunately until you and I learn to code a game and make it ourselves we will BOTH have to make certain concessions to the way we would have done it if we were making the game. With that said you and I both know that you are going to have to make FAR FAR fewer such concessions to CM Hell, I'm willing to bet that 6 months from now you'll end up agreeing with Charles and Steve (I know it doesn't seem that way but I know it's possible cause I was REALLY pissed at some of the things which I thought were plain wrong until I got deeper into the engine and realised WHY they HAD to be that way.) One other comment: The beta demo is a simple skimming of the surface of the game. I haven't heard a single beta tester support the call for these screens and Scott, quite a lot of these guys are people almost every wargamer on the net would know by name or have heard of... This beta group is extremely experienced and quite a few would qualify for grognard status by any definition of that term. I guess like Oddball says to his driver in Kelly's Heroes "Have a little faith." ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 31, 1999 Author Share Posted October 31, 1999 Scott, sit back and think about it for a second. Are you sure you don't just feel like you want that screen because you're so used to it in Steel Panthers? The description of what that screen should contain is pretty much exactly what I can see in SP. Anyhow, such a unit screen goes directly against WHY I am playing CM. People keep complaining that they have to review the turn replays more than once, that they have to check out different units more than once. Hell, this is the exact reason WHY I love this game so much! THIS is what Combat Mission is about - not a sterile top-down view stats game, but a tactical simulation that allows (and forces) you to get into the middle of it. You mentioned that the game should not disadvantage the player who has less time to spend checking out his replays than does his opponent. Why not? Careful analysis and preparation ALWAYS are an advantage for one side if the other is sloppy. And if the time between turns in a PBEM is too long and you feel like you forgot some things, well, you can save the PBEM files and review them at any later stage by simply loading them in again. I am sure you know that I am expressing my opinions only (as you are yours) and this is NOTHING personal. In fact, the "grumbling grognard"s opinions have always been and are a pleasure to read on this and other forums, and I hope to meet you soon on a CM battlefield of your choice. Still can't forget how you kicked my butt once (or twice?) in Soldiers of War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 BTS, Fion etc Re the ZOoks behind the wall - that has been cleared up. I actually had them placed on the wall - well when I zoomed in, they did look like they were behind the wall, when in fact they would be sitting on the wall having some afternoon tea As far as spotting infantry in other situations, I will continue playing, to see if my opinion changes ------------------ CCJ aka BLITZ_Force My Homepage - www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Beach/4448 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 CoolColJ, I did the same thing myself when I first had CM.. I put units ON walls and ON hedges in plain view.. Anyways, I'm glad we cleared that up and found it wasn't a bug.. What your guys were doing, in effect, was lying down on the top of the wall (not a recipe for long life ). Anyways, here's hoping you have better luck in future games. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostOne Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Whereas I don't necessarily feel the need for an "all units screen", I would like some type of notification that a unit was wiped out during a turn instead of trying to find it when I knew it "was around here somewhere" last turn. I don't think you should have to rerun the film behind every unit to find out if the unit was destroyed. A commander would be notified via some form of communications that "we just lost second squad" or "we lost a schreck team" during a battle. Some type of sit-rep from his units would not be unrealistic. Also am wondering about the effect of morale on individual unit functions. I have seen a lot of cases where a unit is down to 1 man from 8 or 12 and he is still carrying on the attack and even moving into and assaulting a full enemy squad in a building by himself. Doesn't seem like real life modeling in these cases. I could understand it on rare occasions perhaps but not regularly which is what I'm seeing. That said, I love the demo and think what you guys are doing is way beyond anything prior and definitely sets a new and exciting standard as well as being a kick to play. I can't wait for the final version.....or how about releasing another scenario or two now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 From what I've heard it would appear the demo features FANATICAL units which have been asked for by fans before. basically this means SOME of your units (maybe 25%) simply won't panic.. I think that's what you're seeing here. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 GhostOne, POINT: The suggestion for the Overall Screen (OS) you made above. COUNTER-POINT: Just a little food for thought on the Overall Screen for unit death reporting. Let's assume you were the commander. Let's assume that reports are fed back through some chain of command back to you. Let's also assume that this is done every 60 seconds. Now let's assume that all the 200+ men and vehicles are accounted for. Let's assume that every platoon and every unit and everyone in the chain of command is able to gather this information every 60 seconds and then feed it up the chain of Command. Let's say that every one of the 200+ soldiers has..... Wait a minute it's already far too unrealistic to expect any one to provide this information especially in the heat of some of the battles I have witnessed. And I say, "If it's unrealistic in war, than it's unrealistic for the CM". Richard Kalajian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostOne Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 KingTiger, I'm not suggesting an Overall Screen nor am I suggesting an update on individual soldier losses. However, the loss of a maneuver unit, anti-tank weapon, or individual vehicle in a small unit tactical environment is going to be communicated to the commander in some manner at some point during the action. My suggestion is for some notification during or at the end of the turn or in some realistic time scale, that this has happened. If we assume communication between the units and the commander, then adjacent units to a unit that has been eliminated would certainly update the commander so he was aware of unit strength. Actually, this is a non-issue IMHO regarding vehicles as they don't disappear off the map like infantry units do. I personally have spent a little too much time looking for a grunt unit that was last seen in the woods, to finally realize it had been eliminated during the turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostOne Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 BTS.... How about just leaving the dead infantry units on the map. Not necessarily the individual soldiers, but perhaps leave a graphic where a team or squad met it's demise so you know immediately that the unit is KIA. Perhaps I missed the info in some earlier thread but why make the infantry units completely disappear whan they are KIA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 31, 1999 Author Share Posted October 31, 1999 Yep, GhostOne, you sure missed that one. Can't be blamed for it of course because there are now a few thousand posts in between, but I suggest doing a search, maybe use KIA as searchword? Bottom line: hardware restrictions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Hi Moon, Is that correct? My understanding is that the total polygon count would remain the same if as a 3 man figure were removed a single casualty figure were placed on the field. In fact, I think I remember a comment from Steve a week or so back that the issue would be reexamined for future CM modules. I may be mistaken but that is the impression I received. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Ghost One, Sorry, I misunderstood. I am, however, still opposed to providing more information than is already presented in CM. In fact, for PBEM, I would like to see the playback limited to several forward-only passes only. I think that missing information is a value-add part of the game by enhancing FOW. It really makes number-crunching and attack-ratios and stuff like that less of a part of the game. Imagine the real-world situation: Machine gun team firing on infantry squad. Infantry squad running, machine gun firing. Infantry squad gone. Yelling begins: Machine Gunners: "Yeahh Baby - You Dead" Infantry team near by: "what's up?" Machine Gunners: "We shot that infantry team to pieces over by the tree line" Infantry team: Are yah sure?" Machine Gunners: "Ummhh, I think so" Infantry team: "Come on you morons, tell me, Are they all dead, cuz me and my buddy from Boot camp are heading to that tree-line and I wanna know for sure" Machine Gunners: "I don't know - I think so" Just a real-world example of why I don't like too much information. I want to be unsure in a war game. It is more realistic. Now, back to my non-grognard non-flaming slightly antagonistic opinion of markers and stuff for dead men. Hmmmm. Nahh, I still don't like em. And I like dead bodies all over the place even less. I have an aversion to the markers due to marker use in CC. In CC-series I could never get into the game, clicking on dead bodies and trying to get them to move was pretty irritating, and it really makes the battle field unmanageable, especially for an RTS. I really don't know if that feature could be toggled. Oh and another thing Ghost, I'm not trying to badger you, I just have a viewpoint. And it just happens to be opposite of yours. 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 Face it guys you Beta testers are NOT a good barometer in this opinion for or against an 'overall screen'. Why? Because you guys are ALREADY exper. in the games ins and outs. A screen like this is to assist in the management of the ENORMOUS amount of information that a gamer has to deal with. Some will need it everytime they play. Most will use it rarely after awhile...I prob. will almost never use it by the time the game goes gold But the inclusion of such a screen COULD reduce the learning curve on CM by quite a bit. As for all the arguments against it because it is not 'realistic'...give me a break! You guys don't have a problem with hearing the enemy scream 'medic' for each and every hit when you don't have a man within 200 yards or even have the unit identified. But the simple organizing of ALREADY existing information about YOUR OWN troops is unrealistic?!? I will never accept that arguement. Also, keep in mind: Reduce the learning curve, increase sales, ensure a CM2...a CM3...a CM4... Thats what we all want, right? And another thing, sometimes I just don't want to spend an hour on a turn when I know the information could be gotten to in five minutes. If you HAVE to take notes (at any time) that SHOULD be a clear signal that something is missing. Anyone remember the old CRPGs where you had tor use graph paper? Some said that was required to keep the atmosphere too...do you think CRPGs should all do away with automapping now too? ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Scott, Hi. I think I agree on hearing "Medic" yelled from 200M. I strongly disagree on including the Overall Screen to improve the lurning curve as sufficent reason to provide. I had an AXIS total Victory my first time out. I would say that the current amount of information presented and the presentation format / interface is sufficient even for beginning users. I also strongly disagree with spending an hour to view a turn and vote for restrictions on this type of information gathering for PBEM. Why? I really think that missing information is a value-add for the game play. I am really opposed to spending so much time and making decisions based on too much information. I have an opposite view than yours and just thought I would post it. I want less information and you want more. Of course, one-on-one you would smoke me like a fine Cuban cigar. But, I am looking for a realistic simulation not a chess match. Just my opinion. sincerely, Richard Kalajian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Scott, In the same way that beta testers are unrepresentative (and BTW some of them have only had the game slightly longer than you guys... betas occur in waves... and NONE of them have asked for what is being asked here) so are your comments. You are asking for stuff because you are familiar with it from SP.. Give it some time to get used to it in CM.. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Richard: "I have an opposite view than yours and just thought I would post it." Thanks, I see your point, except... "I want less information and you want more." I don't think so. I think we both want the same amount of information. Only that which a real commander would have. I just would like to use the PCs vast ablility to organize it instead of taking notes... Fionn: "You are asking for stuff because you are familiar with it from SP.. Give it some time to get used to it in CM.." LOL! Do you have any idea the last time I played SP? Prob. been two years, prob. six months for the mods. SP has nothing to do with it. The fact is the information is avail. in the game. Using the PCs ability to organize and track it instead of pencil and paper seems basic to me. ------------------ 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...
Sir Mixalot Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 I too,would like to see a Steel Panthers-style HQ screen.I was playing the Reisburg(sp?) secenario as the US and it was staring to be a drag trying to keep track of the plattons scattered around.(I was attempting a double flanking attack and everything was sperad out).A HQ screen would help in the playability of the game IMHO.I would hate to see what a larger battle would be like to play.The +/- system is clunky to use. Also the command lines that go out of the HQ units to the suborinate(sp?) are quite hard to see.You might want to use brighter colors than Brown and Black. Also it is very hard to see the grey german squads on the dark green map.Mabye an option to brighten the colors a bit might help.At least the bases color for the Germans. Sir Mix-A-Lot ------------------ Warhammer 40k Scenario Page http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/3805 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Scott, Hi. ______________________________________ kingtiger: "I want less information and you want more." Scott Clinton: I don't think so. I think we both want the same amount of information. Only that which a real commander would have. I just would like to use the PCs vast ablility to organize it instead of taking notes... __________________________________________ Reply: I really want to miss some of the information presented. Example, the game may present three squads moving across the field of battle. I may have a machine gunner drilling them and they are saying, "Medic and heads are bobbing backwards". NOW, during the playback and presentation of this information I may only see this relatively large force moving across the battle field towards a rather poorly protected building and then... I may not take the time to zoom in and see that they are taking a whooping and may soon end up suppressed. Therefore, I will have missed presented information and may withdraw my minimal force from that particular building in an effort to preserve their lives. This is an example where the information was rather clearly presented, but I missed it. I truly do want this to happen. I like it. Therefore, your statement tht i think we want the same amount of information is innacurate. I truly like the idea of missing information and not having to make decisions based on every available piece of information. We clearly differ in our approach to wargaming. You would whoop me one-on-one, but I will still have a ton-o-fun. Ohh and another thing, I really can't comment on what information a real commander would have in making command and control decisions at this level of battle. Please comment on that. My guess (Big Guess) is that CM provides the most realistic quantity and quality of information relative to a real-world commanders knowledge, especially considering 30 minutes of skirmish. Now I'm tapping you for information. How much information did the Commander (don't know who that would have been) have in the end-scene of Private Ryan? Probably a bad example. Sicnerely, Richard Kalajian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 I will definitely have to support Scott on this one. An order force screen would give a quick picture of my own force structure. It would also allow me to very quickly grasp the general status of my forces. We are not talking about the enemy forces only friendly forces. As Scott stated I can get the same info by individually checking each unit. That is way to time consuming. And these two scenarios are only company plus sized engagements. Imagine what it would be like with battalion sized engagements. As for the argument that a person prefers lack of info, a person doesn't have to use it. A status screen would simply broaden the players informational options. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Richard, I think I understand what you are saying. But keep in mind the information is ALWAYS there, you are just not using it. Many people will. If it is there, I would just rather make it accesable to all in a fairly easy manner rather than multiple replays with pencil and paper. Either way, if you CHOOSE to ignore the information that is your choice of style. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostOne Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 If we can have a smoking or abandoned vehicle and a knocked out AT gun, why can't we see a graphic where an infantry unit is lost. For FOW, this doesn't mean our opponent should be able to see it which would still create uncertainty for them, but in a tactical environment we should be able to see where our losses occured instead of having units vanish off the map. This is not asking for more info to impact on the FOW...just info on what a commander in the field would be aware of. I don't want to see any more info on the enemy than I would have were I actually there, but I should know what happened to my men. It's the idea of them vanishing that bothers me. I know I can replay the movie enough until I find out, but it would save time and I don't see how it would detract from the experience. If it is a hardware issue, as Moon suggested, I can understand that but it shouldn't take much more to leave a polygon image there than it does to leave a shell crater image. I do agree with Kingtiger on the restriction of film playback for PBEM. Currently allows each opponent to replay ad infinitum and analyze exactly where fire is coming from which detracts from the FOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Fionn - in response to your response WAAAY up there (i don't like this kind of msg board, ryan got a much better one ). I said, "maybe" they fired at the krauts from the wall. NOT CERTAIN ... anyway Sir Fionn, noble knight of the CM crusade, i'll check out the ambush command and see if that will work better for me. I'm just a cc-player who likes to HIDE his troops and then wack the enemy at close range, ie. ambush him. One other thing ... do you think you could convince the o so nice and understanding BM people to hand over the scenario you and martin played ? Maybe edit it a little to show off some more stuff (maybe some bunkers and some "funky" equipment)? I would love to snow how the snow effects movement MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatsby Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 I have only seen combat as a journalist but I have to say that the experience you recount ghostone seems to be pretty close to what I have witnessed...I have seen unit commander assume that squads are holding a position and only finding out at the end of the engagement that the squad had been overrun near the beginning... What is great about this game is that it does allow you to make mistakes of focus...you leave a unit to hold down lets say a flank and the battle becomes so intense on the other flank that you fail to check on that squad...too bad for you when it gets overrun... also in my limited experience I rarely have seen commanders get accurate up to the minute reports during a firfight...there are very few guys...very few who are going to expose themselves to fire let alone do so for a cammander who needs to know what is happening with his MG...even in that instant.. I'm thinking of a particular time that commander even though sending a lt. out to find out what had happened to his machine gun never did find out...the rule of thumb if its not firing something's wrong... anyway... I hope these guys hold to their guns on this one...they for some odd reason have held their ground and we finally have a game that utilizes the computer as oppossed to porting a game board...Listen I love ASL but I am tired of guys figuring out whther to allow that squad to fire in order to get a good ratio by crosschecking the tables...This game you must make decisions as if inside a battle...you miss a dip in the terrain and you walk into an ambush...tough...be more careful the next time... John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 31, 1999 Author Share Posted October 31, 1999 /Ranting mode on/ Is it just me? But for the heck of it, I just can't get what people are complaining about? There is a ton of feedback coming straight at the player and soooo easy to pick up. First of all, you have the MORALE and VICTORY percentages right there in front of your nose on the interface. These percentages are there for a reason - they tell you how you're doing overall and what your men think of the whole thing. Doesn't go quicker than that for a brief glance at the overall situation. THEN - you can always enlarge both side's forces (up to +4!) and zoom out of the map. With one blink of the eye, you see the entire front line. Woops - a couple of prone squads there...stinks! Ahhh - a prone enemy unit...great! Doesn't go quicker than that. NOW - I want more details on the hot spots. I click on one of my prone units... look at that, I see red and yellow and brown lines spreading out... yellow lines - people shooting at me. Red - I am shooting back! If you something not clearly enough - toggle trees off, toggle smoke off, toggle vehicles off. It's all there and it's dang easy to use. It gives you as much info as you want and need and more than that sometimes. I understand that some of you are simply used to be looking at charts and spreadsheets and going - AHA! And this might be even a good approach to higher scale games. But how much more REAL is CM in the way it presents the information available off the battlefield! And how much more appropriate it is at this tactical level! CM provides a 3D battlefield for the very first time in this genre. Use it! /Ranting mode off/ Pfff... now a beer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts