I wanna know everything all the time

[kingtiger]

Ghostone,

After reading your last post, I am in agreement with your reasons for having lost friendly unit place markers.

Then Gatsby commented on the actual real-world battle situations and I return to my initial stance for no markers and no overview screen. In particular he described rarely seeing Commanders receive accurate up-to-the minute information.

I return to my initial position of having no friendly place markers. Sorry GhostOne you had me convinced.

I would also like to expand on the information presented by Gatsby. Not having an overall screen with accurate information and not having all the information about hits and morale for opposing forces and not having markers for lost friendly units is more realistic than having them.

Richard Kalajian

[Guest R Cunningham]

Richard,

As far as I can tell the overall status screen proponents are not asking for MORE information of any kind. The point is only to make the decision making process easier and quicker than clicking on each unit to get its status. Watching the action phase 50 times to make sure you don't miss something is another issue.

One of the biggest abstractions in CM is the one player control of a company or battlion sized formation. It gives the player a realistic amount of information for the opposing forces but gives an unrealistic amount for the friendly forces. No real commander gets 100% accurate updates on each subordinate unit (3 levels down when we're taling a battlion commander) every 60 seconds. That info is present in the game and is not likely to be taken out, lest the game become unplayable. But I haven't seen a logical, convincing reason why the player couldn't click a button to call up a status of forces screen. By making the player click on each unit to get that SAME LEVEL of information just makes the process take longer. It goes back to the question that was posed before: if the data is there and you have no qualms about giving it to the player, then why not have an optional one click overview?

As a side note I find it amusing how each side invokes the holy principle of realism to justify its arguments while easily dismissing the others "realism-based" arguments with an appeal to the need for abstraction.

[GhostOne]

I personally feel there is plenty of info available and DON'T want an overview screen.

My only complaint is that infantry units simply vanish...no bodies..no indication they ever existed unless you go from unit to unit on a playback and find out what happened. You had three squads last turn..now there's one. Did the other's break and now I have to look around for them or are they dead? If I can see a knocked out tank or AT gun, why can't I see a destroyed infantry unit?

Am I the only one bothered by the vanishing infantry? If, in the real world, I lose a squad I am going to see bodies so I know what happened immediately or I'm going to believe my troops beat feet out of there.

In CM we have a full field birds eye view which is far more that a real world WWII commander had. Since we are dealing with concessions that a game or sim must make to be playable, and since CM shows killed markers for tanks and AT guns, what is the issue with showing KIA infantry markers? Is it realistic to show the other unit types but not KIA infantry?

If hardware is not the issue, then I still haven't heard a legitimate reason for allowing "knocked out", markers for other unit types but not for infantry. However, feel free to kick me if I'm being obtuse.

[M Hofbauer]

I just noticed that I suggested something similar to what Scott asks for in another thread then stumbled upon this one..I agree with Scott linton and Ken Talley...I am NOT used to it from SP...only played the original SP and that was ..like...3 or 4 years ago or so and I really can't remember too much about it...can't remember that feature in SP...

<FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF">

Moon:

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.

</FONT>

moon, I must admit that my idea for such an overview that Scott proposed probably stemd from my wrecked experience from the CM demo that doesn't run properly on my puter (as we discussed elsewhere) - believe what with the killer-noise sound FXs and 1frame/2seconds you would *NOT* want to view the resolution phase twice even if it *did* give you any info (which it doesn't for me) ... so, obviously I am not really the person top comment on this - but still I maintain my point that it would be helpful for people playing several PBEMs at once (like I can imagine Fionn doing right now) to quickly get into "that battle" again, or when taking up a saved game after not having played for a while.

<FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF">

kingtiger: 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".

</FONT>

kingtiger, what you are writing there is quite ...uhm how do I say it but keep polite...well, let's just say it is har for me to follow your logic. The post Cunningham made on that pretty much covers the same thing, which is that according to your logic, CM would consist of you as the BTLN COM sitting somewhere in your command tent, or on one *fixed* location on the ground somewhere to the rear of the battle map with binos, and receiving a report every once in a while of "Delta platoon reports having taken VL Tango"...after your logic CM as it is is *wrong* because obviously a commander in RealLife would NOT be able to view from each unit and micromanage each tank's movements for every inch and check on every squad meticulously...no wargame will ever be *realistic* in that regard as it would be *unplayable* as Cunningham, pointed out. You wouldn't want such a game. The ironic thing here is that if such a game contained anything at all then that would be a status report table of your units just the way Scott suggested ... LOL

<FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF">

Kingtiger:

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.

</FONT>

all you had to do was push CTRL-K. I don't think they were distracting. Living soldiers moved, dead soldiers lay in a pool of blood. Also, you had the soldier monitor which told you the status for each soldier. Obviously, you were one of those about who Doc of MS told that "there were people that played cc1 and cc2 and never used the SM nor knew what it was for" - whichj back then I couldn't believe since it was the heart of the CC engine. Standing in a pool of dead, mangled bodies significantly contributed to the psychological state of alive soldiers...

<FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF">

Kingtiger

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.

</FONT>

no, kingtiger, CM would be entirely unrealistic if judged by the criteria you gave above (which is a not so reasonable thing to do). Remember the example where the players talked about using a halftrack as bait to get a Hellcat with a StuG? Do you really think that would happen in reality? Do you really think that a buttoned StuG that sits behind a house not seeing anything could conceive of much less coordinate such a trick with the halftrack which itself doesn't see the hellcat just the same?

<FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF">

Moon:

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.

</FONT>

no it is not easy to pick up, at least for me ;o) ... but seriopusly, I could imagine even if the game went smooth then you still, if as Steve explained you looked at the game's progress with a 4 - view, then you don't neccessarily see your squad on the flank take losses - it's three men before and after taking 3 casualties...

<FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF">

THEN - you can always enlarge both side's forces (up to +4!) and zoom out of the map.

</FONT>

that doesn't alleviate the problem described above.

<FONT COLOR="FFFFFFF">

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.

</FONT>

well, if they're prone, yes, but the thing is they keep walking around three people as if nothing happened even if they took losses.

oh well, just wanted to sound off, guess we all, whether we are pro- or con-OOB table, agree that it is not *essential* for CM which will be a fine game even without it. Now if only I could get that *+#?§$& computer to run CM....

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[kingtiger]

RCunningham,

I stand corrected. Your comment: One of the biggest abstractions in CM is the one player control of a company or battlion sized formation. It gives the player a realistic amount of information for the opposing forces but gives an unrealistic amount for the friendly forces. No real commander gets 100% accurate updates on each subordinate unit (3 levels down when we're taling a battlion commander) every 60 seconds. .... Reply: This sounds like a point against having an OOB pop-up. We will agree that the game provides too much friendly force info. To get this information you must click on each unit, as though you were that unit.

You mentioned: By making the player click on each unit to get that SAME LEVEL of information just makes the process take longer. It also makes you assume the role of that unit, which is the only way that information would be available.

It is sounding like the argument for an OOB (I might add the more I hear the post for OOB, the less opposed I am), sounds like an argument to increase the unrealistic characteristics we deal with in a wargame. In the case of CM, the game provides to much information, i.e, individual level morale, unit strength, etc., but online OOB proposes to present that information even more completely and some have proposed even more information, like including destroyed infantry units.

I will admit I like the looks of the pop-up OOB and would definitely use it as presented by Mr. Hofbauer in another thread.

I see where it would be useful and definitely would make the game easier, but I also think it would slightly increase the unrealistim associated with this particular wargame.

_____________________________________________

GHOSTONE,

After reading posts from Hofbauer, Cunnigham and yourself the argument for kill-markers becomes more compelling. although I think it takes away from some of the chaos-of-war feeling that I get playing this game. It makes me think more. It raises my level of uncertainty. Kill flags with on-off switch is OK with me. You have pulled me into your camp.

_____________________________________________

Mr. Hoffbauer,

Outstanding post. Outstanding and compelling, clear and concise, especially considering you just wanted to sound off.

Much of my confusion comes from a misunderstanding of command & control. I think Moon said it best when he said, "I think a unitscreen goes directly against why I play CM". And I think information presented in a summary format begins to swing the game back in to the formats of games of old.

_____________________________________________

You mentioned near the end of your post:

Moon: With one blink of the eye, you see the entire front line. Woops - a couple of prone squads and Moon said: there...stinks! Ahhh - a prone enemy unit...great! Doesn't go quicker than that.

Mr. Hofbauer: Well, if they're prone, yes, but the thing is they keep walking around three people as if nothing happened even if they took losses

Kingtiger: My question to you is: If you were the soldier who inflicted a casualty on this group, would you know whether you inflicted a casulaty or not?

__________________________________________

Kingtiger said:

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.

Mr. Hofbauer: no, kingtiger, CM would be entirely unrealistic if judged by the criteria you gave above (which is a not so reasonable thing to do). Remember the example where the players talked about using a halftrack as bait to get a Hellcat with a StuG? Do you really think that would happen in reality? Do you really think that a buttoned StuG that sits behind a house not seeing anything could conceive of much less coordinate such a trick with the halftrack which itself doesn't see the hellcat just the same?

My comment: Actually, I think that ordering (via radio)the halftrack to move out and draw fire is realistic, and ordering the Stug to turn up the road, target the Hellcat and fire is not unrealistic. Rare, yes. Unrealistic no. But I ramble and babble - sorry. You have already accurately corrected me on my misconception of being a commander in charge. I just felt like rambling.

___________________________________________

Having ton-o-fun with CM,

Richard Kalajian

[Guest PeterNZ]

TO SIR MIXALOT

hehe of course the germans are hard to see, they're wearing cammo

Seriously though, try turning bases on. I do all the time and it's a great way of quickly working out where everything is and click-tabing around the map

PeterNZ

[Sir Mixalot]

I do have the bases on,it's just the german ones are hard to see.The Americans I see okay though..they stick out easy

Sir Mix-A-Lot

------------------

Warhammer 40k Scenario Page

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/3805

[Guest PeterNZ]

They're so cute too, with their little screams and dying *sigh*

what am i saying?! I'm playing US in two pbems!

PeterNZ

[Guest Madmatt]

Alright, time to throw my hat into the ring on the subject of 'Kill indicators' and such. For the record, I haven't played Steel Panthers since it was first released and only a couple of times at that. My experiences with the Close Combat series were also very brief, nice game/effects but very cheesy AI, I thought. I am a minatures wargamer (Grognard from the ole' school) who cut his teeth on the orginal 'Angrif' (sp?) set of rules and every other incarnation since. In regards to computer games I have been part of internal and external beta test groups for several well known products (Falcon 4 ring a bell?!?) and own a bleeding edge system (P3 600 fast enough for ya?). I enjoy flight sims AND (gasp) First person shooters! So as you can see I straddle (no smirks ) both of the major camps. Now onto my opinion on bodies et al...

The closest game currently available that comes anywhere near the level of immersion and chaos on a battle field (IMHO)that CM does is "Sid Mier's Gettysburg". It captured the eb and flow of classic ACW minatures battles as well having litterally hundreds of tiny animated soldiers running around. When a regiment took extensive casulties a graphic of tiny little dead bodies would lie where the damage was inflicted. After a particullary bad day on Seminary Ridge or the Roundtops the field would be strewn with bodies. It truely gave one pause to send just one more assault up a ridge when you could see all the grisly remains of the last attempt.

Now of course the level of casulties in the American Civil War far exceeded those in WW2, but the effects to the individual are very much the same. In CM we already are thrown into a maelstrom where tracers rip across the fields, building collapse crushing the unlucky occupants, men scream out in agony and mortar rounds punch holes into the landscape.

I have read in this forum that the effects of sudden and brutal damage upon a unit is simulated. The example given in the docs is that a unit that takes 1 kill per turn for 3 turns in a row is better able to cope than a unit in which one blast kills 3 squad-mates at once. If this is true (and I am sure that it is) then it would also stand true that a squad that is ordered to assualt a position, may have some reservations if the field ahead is covered with the remains of Baker Company. Now I am not sure (I may be wrong) that this pyche situation is currently modeled. I thought I read where the status of adjacent units affected other units moral, ex. a squad gets decimated and the other units nearby also take a moral penalty, but I can not be certain of this. Either way, this is a rather large factor that plays out on the battle field. How than to model it in a way the player is made aware of it? Well, since as players we are in escence the entire command chain for our forces in play, a graphic representation may be just the answer.

If a unit takes say 3 or more kills (or mission kills) within a turn or the unit is completely eliminated then have the game show a kill indicator i.e body. The exact cause of a kill indicator can be left to decide for now. I am sure even this would have two camps, one for kill grfx when a unit is wiped out and others who want to see bodies to indicate massive casulties and for units destroyed. The indicator could be a static graphic like the ones displayed for artillary impacts. It appears that the graphics (the explosions, foxholes, vehicle textures) are all pre-drawn .BMP files anyway so this could be anything from a prone body (custom grfx for the differing sides and camo patterns would be nice but possibley too hard to implement) with a splotch of red to a graphic of just arms and legs and equipment strewn in a small square of space.

Now, what does this add? It adds alot. Since now we have a visual indicator that the way ahead is a meatgrinder, or that the lone Volksgrenadier Squad out on the flanks is no more. Being that we have a slightly limited 'GODSEYE' (appears God is only intersted in OUR side ) view of the battle anyway, why not see what happens to a destroyed or severally damaged unit. We already have the burning hulks of brewed up and knocked out vehicles littering the terrain why not such indicators for dozens of dead soldiers. Granted tank hulks can block sighting lines and roads et cetera and dead soldiers don't, but I can tell you that once a tank gets brewed up by a hidden '88, I am not so quick to send another Sherman to forage along the same path. Why? I have distinct and viewable 'feedback' or the disasterous results. A dead tank graphic for all to see where once stood (drove?) a metal giant.

Some would say that LOS would dictate that we shouldn't be able to see any bodies if no units are nearby. Really? Take a look at the map when artillary is dropping. It seems to me that EVERYONE can see the craters that artillary creates wheter or not it is within legal LOS. I will do some more checking on this to be sure though.

Ok, on to the tecnical constraints. Could this be implemented. I don't know...I think that the argument FOR bodies is a good one and would do nothing but add to the overall feel and immersion of the game as well as providing some more 'battle feedback' that is currently missing. Would it put undo strain on the graphic engine? Perhaps, I can not answer that and it really that depends on how the game engine handles other static graphics. What I mean by that is objects like craters, which aren't animated. I would think bodies would even be simpler (on the rendering side anyway) as there needs to be no LOS computation occuring. Now what COULD stall this venture is in the process which determines IF a body is to be rendered. There may not be a way to insert a body graphic when a unit is destroyed or takes a lot of hits. That can only be answered by the programer(s).

Whew, ok thats enough for now, I leave my argument to stand or fall as it is, but I will be happy to speak on this further. Either way, we are in the midst of a gaming revolution. CM IS the future of hard-core computer gaming. A realm that has been blessed and cursed with upstarts and false promises for all too long. CM promised the world and has deliverd the heavens!

Madmatt out...for now

p.s. BTS, feel free to use that above quote all ya want

------------------

[ianc]

Hi Folks; long-time lurker joins the fray.

I've played the demo (after checking in here every day for what seems like months to see if it had arrived).

I'll post some other comments elsewhere after a few more games, but I have played it three or four times and I've got to jump on the bandwagon in support of the unit order screen. Scott Clinton makes some excellent points in support of the screen and I'll add my own here.

One time when I really miss this screen is during the setup phase of the game. When you start, you just see a bunch of units on the map. You don't have a good idea of what you've really got without clicking on each and every unit, then trying to form a picture of your force's overall composition. All you see are a bunch of men.

I'd like to use the screen to divvy up my forces to allocate tasks to each team that I want to create. I'd like to use it to track the relative strength of each unit so I can see how they're doing without having to click on each and every unit to find out.

While playing Reisberg as the Americans, I went to look for my FO's one turn and found that they'd disappeared. Damn, now where the hell did they go? I reviewed the last action phase's playback looking for them, but couldn't spot them. I pressed '+' and scanned through every unit on the map but no go. A screen would have given me that information right away.

I'm not particularly concerned with finding out the exact status of every squad and what they're doing at that particular point in time and how much ammo they have left etc., but I'd just like to have an organizational tool that I could use to keep track of units and help me to navigate to them rather than scanning around the battlefield to find them, then clicking on them. This would be a very useful tool and a feature that a lot of gamers would appreciate.

Some of the arguments counter to the screen almost sound religious in nature. If you don't like the screen or you prefer not to use it, then just don't. It's that simple. But don't think that just because you've managed to get used to playing without it that its inclusion wouldn't be appreciated and welcomed by alot of people.

In a game of this nature, there's alot of information to be assimilated. If, perchance, you happen to miss some important event during one of the replays and can't go back to it, the screen would let you know what happened straightaway. It also makes navigation a hell of a lot easier. Want to go to that Sherman? Just press the hot key to bring up the screen and click on it. Bam, you're there. No more panning around and switching camera views until you find it...

Steve and Charles, you personally may be able to get along fine without one, but I count this as the number one flaw I've found in the game thus far. Please include it as a playing aid for those of us who are organizationally challenged. Thanks for your consideration,

Ian

[Joel]

Ian,

Great post, I totally agree with you.

I'm a bit puzzled by this "Holy War" against this feature request...

A simple OOB (friendly units only, with unit ID, unit name, leader name, men, casualties, status) would be very useful for me to quickly get accustomed to the organization of my forces, and to fit in the role of the Co/Bn team commander (who is supposed to have a fairly precise mental picture of his OOB, which I have not as a player since I've not lived on the field with my unit for weeks like a real commander would).

And if you don't like, you don't use it. Simple as that.

Great game anyway...

Regards,

Joel

PS: A friendly thought from FRANCE to all NZ rugby fans here... ;o) What a GAME!!!

[Guest hnh3]

Man, every time I start to post on this subject I get so worked up I have to stop and start over. Here's as simple as I can make it:

1) This feature would be totally optional.

2) No info not already available would be shown.

3) The creator's of CM would no more be pressured into an expansion of this feature than any other they have implemented (i.e. FOW levels).

4) A quicker way to access unit info will be essential for internet play where time is money in many cases (admittedly having no info about internet play as yet).

5) These arguments are cold, hard common sense. I'm distressed that anyone could think otherwise and that we, the players (and payers BTW), are to be considered lazy or SP junkies for stating our very considered concerns.

The preceding was not intended to "defame" CM or flame anybody elses opinion. It's just my own personal take, written from a point of view of somebody who wants CM to be the very best it can be (to paraphrase Moon ).

[Guest hnh3]

Ummmm....my last post won't hurt my chances of getting a simple unit access menu, will it? --Jerry Lewis type wink-- (try to make an emoticon for THAT)

[This message has been edited by hnh3 (edited 11-01-99).]

[Fionn]

I'm trying to stay out of this one but...

to hnh.

Point 3. This feature would most definitely be hugely liable to feature creep I'm sorry to say.

Point 5 (I think).. I'm not saying you're lazy I'm just saying what worked in other games simply may not be workable in CM...

Martin, myself and others aren't trying to beat down your ideas for fun. We're doing so because we have the FULL game and simply don't think it would work like you think it would.

I would also like it if you all would stop characterising posts disagreeing with your wish to get these data screens etc as a "holy war" etc. I and others don't agree with you. If you can't handle that without starting to cast insults (and characterising it as a holy war is insulting since right there you are denigrating us and saying we won't listen to reason.)

I am the person who spoke out strongly for FOW to Charles and Steve and I do listen but if you insult other testers and myself by continuing with such denigration of what we're saying and us I certainly will stop listening to this thread.

Final point: We're wargamers./ We have LOTS of experience and the testers are almost 100% united against the screen you're asking for. We have a lot of backgrounds etc and we all reached our opinions individually.

If we virtually ALL think it isn't necessary and probably harmful to gameplay from playing the FULL version isn't there just the tiniest possibility that we are right and you are wrong since you are basing your calls on a VERY selective sampling of the game (the beta demo).

Try to think about it a little ok. That's all I ask.

Cheers,

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Moon]

Holy war? Nah, come on. Strong opinions are being exchanged, that's all. And so far, in a very civilized, on-topic manner, which impresses me a lot.

New players (and even after a few days you're new) want an overview screen. Old players (with a few months unlearning under the belt) don't want one. Both have a point. BTS is listening and taking notes, and an overview screen has made The List (as Charles has mentioned somewhere on the board). If it makes it in, dunno - depends on what else has to go from the list.

An overview screen would make playing easier and faster? No doubt about it. But everybody here will find that after playing the game for some time, they will never use this screen. I know that I won't use it, because it would mean that what I think is one of the strongest features in the game (the 3D replay in real time) would be not much more than eyecandy. But - and some of you might still not have understood this - it is NOT mere eyecandy. This is the game idea right there! GET IN! Take your time! Exploit the battlefield!

You want it fast fast fast? There are real time games for this. You want the strategic approach? There are divisional scale games for this. Combat Mission for ME is a tactical game at squad level and such a unit overview screen is simply not necessary and very low priority. But the decision in the end is with the developers of this game. They will decide as they want. And whoever thinks that sales, sales, sales will be driving their decision has not read their "Manifesto" yet.

[Guest hnh3]

No. I'm right.

But I know when to fold.

[M Hofbauer]

<FONT COLOR="FFFFFF">

Mr. Hofbauer: Well, if they're prone, yes, but the thing is they keep walking around three people as if nothing happened even if they took losses

Kingtiger: My question to you is: If you were the soldier who inflicted a casualty on this

group, would you know whether you inflicted a casulaty or not?

</FONT>

Mr Kalajian/kingtiger,

I think it's called "plinking" when you pick off targets and when you hit them they topple over or collapse. Sure, with all that which charles said about WW II soldiers usually never getting to see the enemy and stuff, but the basic concept of *shooting* a rifle still revolves around *aiming* at a *target* which requires you to *see* the target. I am not talking about unaimed area/suppression fire in the general direction of the enemy (something the american soldier excelled at in VN). I am talking about aimed fire at a recognized target. You see people walking, crouching, running. You aim and if you hit you usually see a result.

If the flock of chicken crossed the road running, you will see one toppling over whn you hit it. And even if they crouched, you can assume that if all others keep advancing but one keeps lying motionless in the spot where you shot it chances are it's not staying there because it thinks not advancing with the rest of it's unit and instead keeping in the field of fire of the enemy is such a splendid thing.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[Pixman]

I just have to chime in here. BTW, this is my first post since getting and playing the demo. I figure 400 - 500 new posts a day are plenty without me adding to the flood.

However, I must add my voice to the "no overview screen" camp. Why? Because I am against things that will artificially reduce the possibility for human error. I am also FOR a game forcing the player to use his head to put together the big picture. Look, it's all right in front of you on the map and in the details for each unit. Can't you aggregate it up to a macro impression? What's the matter, afraid you might have overlooked something? I say GOOD, you should be.

The term Fog of War has been too narrowly defined on this board. It has come to refer only to our knowledge of the enemy -- intelligence as it were. This is only a fraction of its true meaning. It also refers to luck, order delays, random unit behavior AND IMPERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF FRIENDLY FORCES. While no game can simulate this last part fully, CM takes a step toward it by forcing the player to work to get his unit info and aggregate it into an overall impression of the big picture.

I understand the arguments of those who want the screen, but I say that your lack of comfort and happiness without it is a desired and deliberate effect induced by BTS. I feel the same things, I just happen to like it because it increases the possibility that I will kick myself for not moving that tank or squad at a critical moment. It also makes it harder to lick the AI, although I have handled it pretty roughly so far. I have yet to play a human opponent. But, when I do, I want one of the decision factors in victory to be who was better able to manage the chaotic battlefield with no summary information available.

Please leave it as is BTS.

Pixman

------------------

Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote

[Preacher]

To M. Hofbauer: I disagree with your assessment on "plinking." I agree that a sniper with a scope concentrating on one man will usually be able to determine if he has hit or not. Other than that, it is VERY difficult to determine 'human' damage from your fire. At very close ranges, maybe. However, when you throw in all of the mitigating factors involved: sight distance, intervening cover, weather, light levels, firefight intensity, adrenaline, fatigue, etc., etc. i say it is impossible to determine hits or misses. General effects? yes. Actual casualties inflicted? no way. Only in a vacuum could this happen.

Targets don't always topple or crumple when hit (Hollywood?). Maybe with head shots they do. Good luck achieving those in the midst of a firefight

Just my 2 cents.

Preacher

[This message has been edited by Preacher (edited 11-01-99).]

[This message has been edited by Preacher (edited 11-01-99).]

[Harold Jones]

I'm going to throw my hat in to the no perfect knowledge camp. Although, a hot list of your units with no information other than the terrain they are in and the ability to click on the unit's name and zoom to it would be helpful in finding units. Any more information would be contrary to the spirit of the game. I have found that by watching the tracers during the replay that I get quite a lot of useful information. If I see 2 or 3 streams of tracers hitting a unit I know that it is an area of concern and will check it. If an area doesn't have a lot of contact then I don't much worry about the units in that area. I usually watch the movie once per area of interest and then I move on. Every once in a while I'll zoom in to watch something that looks cool or I'll review a few extra times to find out how something died, but for the most part I just use the "force". It seems to be working for me just fine against the AI, haven't lost yet. I'm almost comfortable enough with the game to begin PBEM. Finally, this is probably the first game that rewards my mostly non-anylitical style of play and I don't want that to change.

------------------

If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

[Moon]

Did anybody actually realize already that the amount of tracers in one stream is directly related to the firepower? One of those small details that intend to give the player a "feel" for the situation.

[Joel]

Moon, Fionn,

"Holy War" was not meant as an insult in my post, and I apologize if anyone has been offended. I should have added a smiley.

What I meant is that I didn't understand how this topic could be so touchy.

Joël

[kingtiger]

Pixman hit the nail on the head.

Similarly, I love occasionaly missing out on information about various units. Something that happens virtually every time I play Riesberg as Germans: When I scroll to the 88MM on the hill, at some point I will see that it was knocked out. I usually find out in the order phase. I love it. Someone or something has a way at knocking out the big gun. Usually I find out when I scroll up to the 88 issuing a command to send smoke in front of some of the advancing Americans in an effort to reduce crossfire which is suppressing my Panzerschrek and an Infantry squad in a house next to the road. It is very satisfying to find that the only remaining source of smoke has been knocked out. I find this to be a very rewarding experience in CM and an OOB would virtually gaurantee that I wouldn't have that experience. I know - I know, you can choose to play without referring to the OOB. But, in the heat of online battle or PBEM, I would need to refer to it. I am lazy and would refer to it. I would pay less attention during the playback. I firmly believe it would ruin my experience.

I also dislike playing multiplayer or PBEM with individuals, who know the makeup of my squad better than I do for specific scenarios and then are willing to review the turn and note every little effect, compile and determine the next move. Compiling these numbers or having them for quick review makes the game more of a numbers game. The game becomes more like chess. How realistic is that? Come on, it's a war-game. It's not chess. No more frickin numbers please.

Too many players put too much value on having all of the information available and used for decisions. In PBEM, some of the proposed-OOB's would make sure the player didn't miss any thing. It would minimize the importance of paying attention during the playback. Adding the OOB is step in the wrong direction. This isn't chess, please don't make it more like chess. Please.

Harold Jones makes a reasonable suggestion: "Although, a hot list of your units with no information other than the terrain they are in and the ability to click on the unit's name and zoom to it would be helpful in finding units." However, I would always check my 88 and click to see it, and pick a target for it. I would know then that it won't be available 2 or 3 turns down the way, because I have seen it's current state.

HHH3, I just read your post as I was typing this message. Sorry if I imply laziness for the "Order of the OOB"(OOB-Camp). I am clearly in the "Order of the No-OOB" (Non-OOB Camp) and would find myself relying on the OOB for information and paying less attention during playback. That would make me lazy.

Harold Jones, in his message above, clearly articulates his method for playing out turns. I do exactly the same thing. I have heard Moon say something along the lines of look at the front, turn the camera, watch a couple more areas, make some decisions, plot and go - Easy and Quick. If it takes more than about 5 minutes average to do this, then I think you are spending too much time gathering too much detail.

Adding the OOB clearly eliminates the level playing field. Knowing everything and having it all organized before plotting moves appears to be outside the scope of this game. By adding the OOB, we (the non-OOB camp) will be forced to rely on the OOB to compete in tournaments and PBEM. Players will be less likely to miss something (missing things is a nice touch in CM).

Scott Clinton, I know, I know the information is already in the game. Well if it is presented to me, and I didn't look or I didn't bother to check then it isn't always in the game. I like the way the game enhances the missing of information.

Mr. Hofbauer, I see your point. Let's not use the sniper for discussions sake. Because, a sniper usually knows it has a hit, but really can't know if a kill was achieved for some time Private Ryan wasn't really the best example). Of course, I may be wrong. Let's look at a common situation within CM and discuss it. Do you know the Reisberg scenario area with two wood buildings flanking the road? Of course you do. I have had numerous games with massive conversions of Americans onto that area. My guess is that many are 50-80 meters away and getting plunked pretty regularly as they walk (This is enuff info for me BTW). Oh and it just occured to me what BTW was. Often times I only see the whites of their eyes. Kidding. I only see the head notch back and can't get specifics on the size/state of the unit getting "plunked" and some are on the road (again enuff info fore me). Sorry if I forgot what you were calling for from BTS, maybe it was pop-up overview of what had happened during the turn or maybe it was markers indicating kills (like little -1 appearing above unit). I would think at that distance (50m-80m) you would know for sure you had a kill. Now my experience, from the playback (keep in mind, I rarely playback more than twice unless something cool happens), I can see the effects of my defense and the effects on the attackers (Americans) in one pass. I have a very clear idea of the force I am facing and have identified areas that need attention. I have seen pretty much everything I need to see regarding that specific area of battle. I have all markers on, so I can see during playback which units are pinned and which are low on ammo. I would prefer not to have an overview screen, but wouldn't mind a little minus-1 above units instead of head jerks. In any case, hopefully you can offer a better suggestion for what you are looking for and why, with respect to the road-jam in Reisberg that I just covered. At longer distances, 200 Meters I think -1 above the head is very questionable. A really fast computer with a very nice 19" may make this process easier for me, I don't know.

Why am I so opposed to OOB? Maybe it is my style of play. During chess, 90% of my moves are instantaneous. Wargames are similar to chess. I wish they weren't. In chess I don't consider all of the available information. I have learned what to focus one and what not too. Same thing in CM. Sure, I leave myself open to a suprise attack from time-to-time in chess. The verdict is still out if my style of play will result in regular losses in PBEM.

I say, "No-OOB".

Sincerely,

Richard Kalajian

-----**** I re-read my post and I think it sounds a bit snippy. Ya know, like one of those little cute doggies that growls and shakes and makes agressive little barks ****--- I didn't mean it to sound like that, and I'm not cute or small --

[This message has been edited by kingtiger (edited 11-01-99).]

[Archer]

Regarding the question of leaving "dead" units on the field - I think people may be forgetting that units (say groups of 50 people or so) don't all of a sudden croak in one large clump, as if they'd all shot themselves in the head all at once in one spot. They "drool" over the field - one guy dies here, two more over there, thirteen by the wall, another stubs his toe and is shot in the head when he yells "Damn!" - you get the idea. So from a single unit of 50 men you have, potentially, fifty "dead man" dots. That's A LOT of polygons when you have twenty units down - thus potentially 1000 additional dead man markers.

Regarding the overview display concept. As I pointed out in another topic, I'm a horrible wargamer. One of the worst you'll ever see. But I don't miss the overview display, for reasons already mentioned. They scare me. I don't like them. If I don't know what I'm missing because I can't get at it, then I sleep better at night. And as a kind of alternative for the overview map, I've taken to swooping out to view 7, rotating the map and then checking out the field from above. And even *there* I feel like I'm cheating. I really try to stay down below view 4, to stay with the feel of the game, but since I suck I can't do it without being slaughtered. So I switch to 4 and 7, and with that view 7 I've got the overview I want. Not in terms of what the units are doing or what their statuses are, but position and so forth. Plus, I can always +/- through the units and get a general feel that way.

So to answer the underlying question ("What does the 'non-military' gamer want? Screen or no screen?") I can definitively say, from the perspective of a clueless wargamer, I don't miss the screen. I don't *want* the screen. It would give me way too much to think about, and already I'm "too nervous on the battlefield." Ignorance is bliss!

[Guest R Cunningham]

So Richard, you are perfectly willing to be thrashed by a anal retentive control freak who will watch the replay 50 times, check the status of each unit and the kills screen where it tells you how many casualties have been inflicted by that unit, do a little math and beat you in the information game?

Contrary to your idea that this would destroy the level playing field, I see no change. It may be advantageous to use it but Jedi masters of the "old ways" can still click their way to total enlightenment. The difference would be just a matter of time.

[This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 11-01-99).]