Crucial notofications

[Ranger33]

My 2 cents: The game is too tedious to play beyond company sized battles, and just in general. Anything to help with that should be fairly high on the priority list for 3.0

Personally I Just don't have as much desire to play anymore because it is more work than fun. It was less of a problem in CMSF since the nature of the terrain and long range fighting meant less micro management. In the WW2 titles you have to really get into the nitty gritty to keep your guys alive, and you often have larger forces than in CMSF to boot. Urban combat that was very enjoyable in CMSF is now a PITA due to the no AT weapons in houses rule. I'm not sure I will be getting any new titles until some kind of improvement is made in this area.

[pord]

I think having in-game unit notifications is an excellent idea and something that should definitely be added. A text log that indicates important notifications and keeps them in a chronological record would be invaluable. If you are playing turn-based games, it is less valuable, but it would still be helpful. In real time is where it would really shine. Having a squad get unknowingly mowed down while you are managing the other side of the map is awful. Blinking icons are great, but aren't much help if you are looking at the other side of the map. Indications like "waiting for orders" would also be great for units who have not done anything in a number of minutes, just to notify you in case you forgot about them.

For the naysayers who think it just can't be done because there would be too many messages, you are wrong. Sure there would have to be some tweaking to determine what is deemed important or not, but the balance between too few/too many messages wouldn't be hard to find. The Close Combat series had similar messages, and they added greatly to the gameplay IMO. The scale of the battle of Close Combat is also similar to what is seen in CM games. To say it can't be done because it would be too annoying or would not be helpful are not valid arguments. If the programmers can program it, I ensure you it would benefit gameplay greatly.

[Guest]

I'd like to disagree with the word 'heap'. From what I remember the only things changed was 'target briefly' and a better representation of things like demolitions. There may have been more but, as I said, I can't remember (btw, with 'UI' I mean everything below the 3D area)

Don't get me wrong - I'm ok with the upgrade but IMHO there is still much room in UI improvements.

Hmm. What about the new multiplayer pause system, or the new floating command menu, or the complete redo of the method for mapping hotkeys, or the way some commands were redone (like targeting), or the fact that you can now drag waypoints? What about the menu UI changes that allow you to sort your saves / PBEM games, as well as show only saves / PBEMs from a specific folder, or the editor UI improvements, like auto-road-generation, that eliminate a lot of UI-centered work? There were even some "hidden" UI changes, like the addition of copy and paste in the AI plans area of the editor. Heck, we even reorganized the scenario info in the scenario selection screen to make it easier to pick out what you wanted.

And there are more. Changes to most areas of existing game UI, plus adding some new ones, sure seems like a "heap" to me. I certainly spent a fair amount of time on UI enhancements, additions, and changes.

?

I think I'm allowed to wish what I like and I wish you would put a higher preference on the engine instead of content because that is my preference.

I wasn't saying you couldn't wish for what you wanted. I was saying if we're going to have this thread be about a particular suggestion then don't muddy the waters with non-germane discussions. You're welcome to wish for whatever you want, but if we want this discussion to stay focused we should avoid going down roads like content vs. engine features, in this thread.

[A Canadian Cat]

To say it can't be done because it would be too annoying or would not be helpful are not valid arguments. If the programmers can program it, I ensure you it would benefit gameplay greatly.

Well I disagree with you there. Just because it can be done does *not* mean it would be useful. I also fall into the camp that thinks that hundreds of messages would not be helpful at all.

Rather the design should be refined to reduce the distraction and perhaps then a useful amount of information could be displayed. Only then would I agree that the feature would be worth doing.

One suggestion I have is that the notification be restricted to what we already get (unit sustained causalities, is shaken, is being suppressed etc. see my earlier list - and check it for completeness) and that the notification screen could only show information for units that are not currently on screen. That way the current indicators would be used for the units you are currently looking at and the notification window would only show you stuff about what you are *not* looking at. As such if there is lots of action where you are already looking the notification window will not be swamped. How ever you will be told when the s*** hits the fan somewhere else on the battlefield. Which is what we want anyway.

[pord]

Well I disagree with you there. Just because it can be done does *not* mean it would be useful. I also fall into the camp that thinks that hundreds of messages would not be helpful at all.

As I see it, the idea is that it would not be hundreds of messages, but only crucial ones. If a tank gets immobilized or damaged, a squad comes under fire after previously having no contacts, a unit is inactive for 10 minutes, etc. Stuff that doesn't happen hundreds of times per round. I find it hard to say this would not be useful if done unintrusively (a single line text box with small font would hardly be a distraction). And of course, an option to have, or not have the text displayed could be easily given.

[Pak40]

I think having in-game unit notifications is an excellent idea and something that should definitely be added. A text log that indicates important notifications and keeps them in a chronological record would be invaluable. If you are playing turn-based games, it is less valuable, but it would still be helpful. In real time is where it would really shine. Having a squad get unknowingly mowed down while you are managing the other side of the map is awful. Blinking icons are great, but aren't much help if you are looking at the other side of the map. Indications like "waiting for orders" would also be great for units who have not done anything in a number of minutes, just to notify you in case you forgot about them.

A casualty alert would certainly be good and probably not too annoying. I actually think it's needed for real time play even though I rarely play real time. However, the original post suggested having an alert every time a unit came under fire, which is absurd even in a small battle. You would constantly be getting alerts, it would be very annoying and ultimately useless. If they got an alert once per unit per game, that might be tolerable.

For the naysayers who think it just can't be done because there would be too many messages, you are wrong.

Whether it can be done or not depends on which type of alerts you're talking about. The spotting alert, which Zebulan Pleasure Beast II suggested, would completely ruin fog of war (see my previous post). I seriously doubt BF will sacrifice their excellent spotting system on which they spent a lot of time developing.

The Close Combat series had similar messages, and they added greatly to the gameplay IMO. The scale of the battle of Close Combat is also similar to what is seen in CM games.

No, not really close in scale. Close Combat has a max of 15 units IIRC. In CMBN a 15 unit battle is tiny and a typical battle is closer to 20-30 units with the possibility of splitting squads to get 40-50 units.

Close Combat's system worked well because you 1) had a manageable number of units [which means a small number of alerts] and 2) because you could quickly access all you units in the UI with a single click.

Also, IIRC, CC didn't alert you every time your units saw an enemy unit and it didn't alert you every time your units got fired upon, which were the suggestions of the first two posts in this thread.

[Baneman]

As I see it, the idea is that it would not be hundreds of messages, but only crucial ones. If a tank gets immobilized or damaged, a squad comes under fire after previously having no contacts, a unit is inactive for 10 minutes, etc. Stuff that doesn't happen hundreds of times per round. I find it hard to say this would not be useful if done unintrusively (a single line text box with small font would hardly be a distraction). And of course, an option to have, or not have the text displayed could be easily given.

Ok, I felt like suggesting the following to you - take an hour and think about what you're asking for.

Assume you're starting with all events logged ( which must be tucked away in the game somewhere ), ie. all bullets, casualties, spots etc.

Now think about what you'd actually like to see in your "crucial messages" list.

When you've worked that out, now spend some time thinking about how you'd differentiate/select those from the complete list.

And that's just the selection criteria, not even the programming to allow you to toggle selections on/off.

I predict you will see that your statement "If the programmers can program it" is a really big thing.

[pord]

A casualty alert would certainly be good and probably not too annoying. I actually think it's needed for real time play even though I rarely play real time. However, the original post suggested having an alert every time a unit came under fire, which is absurd even in a small battle. You would constantly be getting alerts, it would be very annoying and ultimately useless. If they got an alert once per unit per game, that might be tolerable.

I agree. It definitely would not be feasible for every spot or unit coming under fire to be reported.

Whether it can be done or not depends on which type of alerts you're talking about. The spotting alert, which Zebulan Pleasure Beast II suggested, would completely ruin fog of war (see my previous post). I seriously doubt BF will sacrifice their excellent spotting system on which they spent a lot of time developing.

I did see your previous post, but I'm looking at it in the opposite direction. Instead of getting an alert each time a new unit is spotted (because how do you know if it is really a new unit or not), you should get an alert each time one of your units makes its first spot. This essentially differentiates the unit from a condition of having made no contacts vs. a condition of having made a contact. This is at least what I envision.

No, not really close in scale. Close Combat has a max of 15 units IIRC. In CMBN a 15 unit battle is tiny and a typical battle is closer to 20-30 units with the possibility of splitting squads to get 40-50 units.

It's approximately on the same order of magnitude. Minor adjustments could be made accordingly, or it could be turned off at the users request. I prefer tiny/small battles anyway.

Also, IIRC, CC didn't alert you every time your units saw an enemy unit and it didn't alert you every time your units got fired upon, which were the suggestions of the first two posts in this thread.

I agree with this post. I like the idea the original poster had, but obviously not all the details. I'm not trying to program the solution or anything, just trying to say the idea would be neat, and that it has been implemented with success in other franchise.

[pord]

@Baneman

I agree it isn't a trivial programming task. Some decisions would have to be made about which events are crucial and which events could be easily tracked. It would certainly take a lot of time, but I am trying to argue that the player would benefit greatly from some kind of notification window. It would take a programmer (not me) to determine if the undertaking would be worth the perceived benefits. Having seen similar notification systems implemented in other games, I'd wager the benefits would be worth the effort.

[JonS]

If it suppresses the unit in question, I guess it can be trusted as hitting near enough for it to count.

But that isn't *at* the unit(s) in question, it just happens to be *near* (for some definition of 'near') to it/them. Originally you asked for notification of units firing *at* each other, now you're asking for something else. This isn't a criticism - I deal with people who struggle to define their requirements every day, and realise it's a very common issue. The point is that as soon as you start unpacking "simple", it turns out to be not-so-simple.

The game already handles suppression from ordnance flying nearby.

Sure, and the game already notifies you about it. So, you already have what you're asking for. :cool:

Various posters:

As I see it, the idea is that it would not be hundreds of messages, but only crucial ones.

Define "crucial." Not just crucial to you, but a commonly - universally - agreed set of "crucial" notifications. Good luck, and we'll see you in about a decade

If a tank gets immobilized or damaged, a squad comes under fire after previously having no contacts, a unit is inactive for 10 minutes, etc.

All those things are already notified. You might not like or understand the way that happens, but it does happen.

In game terms, if you are monitoring the battle as a whole, which you really ought to be if you are commanding,

Yes, you are the task-group/battalion-group commander. But you are also all the company commanders, and platoon commanders, and section commanders, and team commanders, and vehicle commanders.

Whenever something takes a hit it would print out something like "2Coy 3Sqd: 2 WIA", "60mm mortar out of ammo" "M4A3 Sherman immobilized."

Apart from two of those three examples already being in the game, and the third - "mortar out of ammo" being already in the game AND both pointless and a sign that you haven't gripped up your battle - the UI and play implications of this overall idea is horrible, IMO. I think your eyeball-time is far better spent watching the battle, looking at the flow of tracers and the movement of units, and generally maintaining a high level view of how and where force is being applied. Watching a madly scrolling list of events would seem to me to seriously detract from actually playing and enjoying the game.

I bought Conquest of the Aegean and Battles from the Bulge some 6-12 months ago (tip o' the hat to BH - nice work on those scens). I struggled with the interface for a while but eventually sorted it out. Among other things I started using the scrolling log of events a lot more. In case you haven't seen it before, COTA and BFTB have red, yellow, and green notifications, each colour representing some arbitrarily defined level of importance, and as a player you can selectively chose to view or not view each level of notification. Viewing all three is pointless, I've found - there are hundreds of 'green' notifications, which individually can be seen as objectively important, but the sheer mass of them overwhelms. So I turned off the green, and just followed the yellow and red. And, that was good - I started succeeding more in the scenarios. But at the same time I found I'd pretty much stopped playing the scenarios. I wasn't watching the battle anymore, instead I'd become just an accountant, obsessively watching the ticker tape scroll and reacting to events. At that point, although I was "winning" more, the game ceased to be much fun and so I've pretty much shelved it.

I firmly believe that the ability to accept that imperfect knowledge is normal and that chaos exists, and to actively manage that is a key skill for CMBN players. In many ways it's this - rather than the exact colour of Fleckenblobble '43 boot covers, or the exact penetration of a 67.2mm gun at 829m - that is the closest that CM gets to simulating actual battle. Some players already have that skill, and that makes them formidable opponents. Some players work hard to develop it, and get noticeably better over time. Some players actively fight against learning it, and will I think always struggle to play CM well, regardless of any crutches that BFC choose to add to the game.

Jon

[George MC]

I'd just like to add - Hear! Hear! JonS has nailed it.

For me it's all about managing chaos and uncertainty. Revel in it - embrace it and victory is yours!

[poesel]

Hmm. What about the [...]

And there are more. Changes to most areas of existing game UI, plus adding some new ones, sure seems like a "heap" to me. I certainly spent a fair amount of time on UI enhancements, additions, and changes.

Phil - in no way did I mean to imply that there weren't a lot of changes. As I said, I like the update. But I also wrote that by 'UI' I mean the part of the game below the 3D window. That may be a bit mean but it filters out all the good improvements you have mentioned. This part of the game has been mostly untouched by the upgrade. That I wanted to say, no more, no less. Didn't want to make you angry.

I was saying if we're going to have this thread be about a particular suggestion then don't muddy the waters with non-germane discussions.

I was replying to this (#6):

If you would be happy with BFC simply making new units and terrain with no new features to improve the game, hey, good for you, but others want to see the game they love and cherish be made better.

I took this as an argument of content vs. engine which it - after reading it again - is not very much. No one else picked it up so it's no big issue here anyway.

[sburke]

I'd just like to add - Hear! Hear! JonS has nailed it.

For me it's all about managing chaos and uncertainty. Revel in it - embrace it and victory is yours!

or not*, but it is still a helluva lot of fun!

Victory I mean, I agree JonS has nailed it - sig material there except that Emrys sold us all out and altered that historical document that was his sig.

[Guest]

It's approximately on the same order of magnitude. Minor adjustments could be made accordingly, or it could be turned off at the users request. I prefer tiny/small battles anyway.

It's only on the same order of magnitude if you play small / tiny battles. That "15-50 elements" example is an average battle. We can't build a UI around that. I can have multiple battalions running around, each of which comprises dozens of elements. CC had a hard, and very low, limit on number of units. We don't.

Any adjustments, or filtering, or options only increase the difficulty of getting the system into the game. And, again, with a large scenario no amount of filtering will help.

[pord]

It's only on the same order of magnitude if you play small / tiny battles. That "15-50 elements" example is an average battle. We can't build a UI around that. I can have multiple battalions running around, each of which comprises dozens of elements. CC had a hard, and very low, limit on number of units. We don't.

Any adjustments, or filtering, or options only increase the difficulty of getting the system into the game. And, again, with a large scenario no amount of filtering will help.

You're the programmer, so I would have to defer to your technical knowledge that it isn't feasible.

[Pak40]

I did see your previous post, but I'm looking at it in the opposite direction. Instead of getting an alert each time a new unit is spotted (because how do you know if it is really a new unit or not), you should get an alert each time one of your units makes its first spot. This essentially differentiates the unit from a condition of having made no contacts vs. a condition of having made a contact. This is at least what I envision.

OK, I see your point but this sounds like it will only really be useful at the beginning of the game. Once all or most of your units have made their first spot, probably in the first 1/3 of the game, it's pretty much useless. And it may not be useful at all when it really counts, i.e. when that King Tiger suddenly pops it's head out and you're screaming at your units "Why didn't you alert me about the F@#$@#ing Tiger!!"

[Wodin]

Frankly, the RT aspect of the game doesn't exist, as far as I'm concerned, as anything but a mode that imposes unwelcome constraints on some of the WeGo gameplay.

I agree..and no it's isn't baggage either..

[ForwardObserver]

I noticed with interest that BFC started using Qt in CMFI and then in CMBN 2.0. For those who don't know, Qt is probably the best cross-platform framework for developing user interfaces. I wouldn't be surprised that reworked scenario selection interface has been implemented by re-skinning standard Qt widgets (UI controls) using an OpenGL drawing surface. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that BFC is at the moment reworking the legacy CMSF user interface code they had, replacing their in-house developed buttons, etc. by more functional and flexible Qt-provided widgets.

This is a HUGE work, and I'm glad to see that BFC is rolling out these changes in an incremental way.

So I'd say that as BFC moves its user interface code more fully into Qt, we should see in the coming months or years, a more flexible and featured user interface. Including a messaging system, a OB browser and perhaps even a minimap, which I find would be a very welcome addition to the game.

Thinking more in the short term, I think stuff like this should be doable and interesting to see implemented:

• The ability to see all covered arcs simultaneously on the map (as in CMx1). Same thing for on-going or planned indirect fires.
  
• Rather than 'fire' messages, I think it would be more useful and doable to have on-screen notifications like those we already have for vehicles, such as 'Taking Casualties', 'Pinned', 'Panicked', etc. As a first incremental step, this would help a lot.
  
• Command lines. The current unit-based icon system is good to know what kind of connection it has to its HHQ in the C2 chain, but I'd welcome a spatial-based visualization of such connection, perhaps only when selecting an HQ unit.
  
• A simplistic way of linking order waypoints, so one movement orders don't get triggered (i.e. a Pause command is inserted) until another unit has achieved a waypoint.
  

[sfhand]

I don't play RT... but if I did I'd prefer Dos Equis. Seriously, if I did I'd never zoom in and ditch Iron Mode. Even then, the game's already present notifications would seem sufficient to keep me informed of the "important" events. Then again, as soon as I focused on the unit needing attention I would lose most of my situational awareness. And with no replay I wouldn't know what happened to my tank on the other side of the battlefield while I was addressing the needs of other units. In that situation a list of recent events would help, but it wouldn't help as much as playing WeGo... which I play zoomed out until the icons flash...

[ForwardObserver]

I bought Conquest of the Aegean and Battles from the Bulge some 6-12 months ago (tip o' the hat to BH - nice work on those scens). I struggled with the interface for a while but eventually sorted it out. Among other things I started using the scrolling log of events a lot more. In case you haven't seen it before, COTA and BFTB have red, yellow, and green notifications, each colour representing some arbitrarily defined level of importance, and as a player you can selectively chose to view or not view each level of notification. Viewing all three is pointless, I've found - there are hundreds of 'green' notifications, which individually can be seen as objectively important, but the sheer mass of them overwhelms. So I turned off the green, and just followed the yellow and red. And, that was good - I started succeeding more in the scenarios. But at the same time I found I'd pretty much stopped playing the scenarios. I wasn't watching the battle anymore, instead I'd become just an accountant, obsessively watching the ticker tape scroll and reacting to events. At that point, although I was "winning" more, the game ceased to be much fun and so I've pretty much shelved it.

That's a bit irrational, honestly.

[ForwardObserver]

I don't play RT... but if I did I'd prefer Dos Equis. Seriously, if I did I'd never zoom in and ditch Iron Mode. Even then, the game's already present notifications would seem sufficient to keep me informed of the "important" events. Then again, as soon as I focused on the unit needing attention I would lose most of my situational awareness. And with no replay I wouldn't know what happened to my tank on the other side of the battlefield while I was addressing the needs of other units. In that situation a list of recent events would help, but it wouldn't help as much as playing WeGo... which I play zoomed out until the icons flash...

Icons flashing are easy to miss: the 'HIT: Penetration' messages aren't, or the columns of smoke that occasionally rise. Of course, you can replay at your leisure, but hey, I don't think it's a good design that to get an idea of what's going on during the last minute, one needs to replay the turn movie for a significant proportion of the units in the map (and I do that a lot). For a reinforced company, where you have split squads for maneuver (and work around TacAI limitations) you can have as much as 3 teams per squad, for a total of 27 units just for the line infantry. I've find myself adjusting my tactics, so I don't get as many units engaged as I can in order to be able to spend a reasonable amount of time figuring out what has been happening to my units.

That's micro-management of information gathering, and it gets tedious quickly.

[Guest]

I noticed with interest that BFC started using Qt in CMFI and then in CMBN 2.0. For those who don't know, Qt is probably the best cross-platform framework for developing user interfaces. I wouldn't be surprised that reworked scenario selection interface has been implemented by re-skinning standard Qt widgets (UI controls) using an OpenGL drawing surface. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that BFC is at the moment reworking the legacy CMSF user interface code they had, replacing their in-house developed buttons, etc. by more functional and flexible Qt-provided widgets.

This is a HUGE work, and I'm glad to see that BFC is rolling out these changes in an incremental way.

So I'd say that as BFC moves its user interface code more fully into Qt, we should see in the coming months or years, a more flexible and featured user interface. Including a messaging system, a OB browser and perhaps even a minimap, which I find would be a very welcome addition to the game.

This was a pretty impressive sequence of assumptions. Unfortunately you're starting from a flawed premise - we haven't moved to Qt. You're correct that it would be a massive project. That kind of time would likely be spent on more immediate and pressing needs than revamping our UI framework.

[ForwardObserver]

This was a pretty impressive sequence of assumptions. Unfortunately you're starting from a flawed premise - we haven't moved to Qt. You're correct that it would be a massive project. That kind of time would likely be spent on more immediate and pressing needs than revamping our UI framework.

Yeah, you haven't moved to Qt - you have started to do so

[Guest]

Yeah, you haven't moved to Qt - you have started to do so

Heh.... still nope. Your theory is not happening in any way, shape, or form. Flawed premise, and all ensuing assumptions are incorrect.

[ForwardObserver]

Heh.... still nope. Your theory is not happening in any way, shape, or form. Flawed premise, and all ensuing assumptions are incorrect.

Okay. The first time I need to say I'm disappointed with you guys

You're probably not going to answer, but I wonder what's the point of distributing Qt binaries along with CMFI and CMBN 2.0 if it's not related to the new features (and look & feel) in them, then. If it's not the engine, then it needs to be something else. Let me remind you this bit in the terms and conditions of Qt (open source) license:

[...]

For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling it. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

[...]

so the logical conclusion is that either BFC or someone else is distributing the binaries under Digia's commercial license, because certainly I haven't received any object files to relink at my leisure