Hagen Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 The other threads are getting long and off topic, so I started a new one to focus on the feedback issue. I think Psy made one of the points I intended far better than I did. Sure, I can replay the turn 10 times focusing on each enemy unit to determine what has been happening to them. But I really don't want to. I want to watch the turn once or twice and then move on. Is the goal of the design to have players watch turns multiple times to get necessary information? If so, then this is not the game I am looking for and you should all tell me to sod off. The problem is that I am fighting the interface for the necessary information. If the information isn't available then it isn't available and that's fine. The challenge of CM seems to be wrestling with the interface to get the necessary info; man versus machine, not man vs man. Why should I have to right click or cycle through each of my troops to find out what is going on each turn? Is there no better way to give the player this info? I want the challenge to come from interpreting the info available and making strategic decisions, instead of the challenge coming from how dillingent I am in watching each turn over and over to get the necessary intel on the enemy. It is funny that Impression's consumer research was mentioned because CM reminds me of the old Impressions game Front Lines. I get the same feeling that what I am doing has little effect on what is going on. (A review said playing Front Lines was like, "Two cavemen throwing rocks at each other.") Let me play the GAME. Don't make me wrestle with the interface. I am no longer bringing up the graphics issue since everyone seems to be in agreement that I should not expect this information to come from the graphical representation, and I am okay with that. Just tell me, how am I supposed to get it? -Hagen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Hagen, I tend to agree with you regarding lack of feedback and inaccessability of information. I don't understand others' objection to having a "pop-up" list of your units, from which you could select the unit you want, and which would summarize the condition of your units. The same concept covering enemy contacts would also be nice. I don't consider myself lazy (at least when it comes to playing wargames , but I really think it is cumbersome to have to right-click to find your units, or use the +/- keys to cycle through all of them. I have also read BTS's comments re: showing casualties graphically (ie dead bodies) on the map. To me the map looks a little to sterile w/o them. I'm not asking that EVERY casualty show up as a dead guy on the screen, but some representaion would be nice. As it is now when an enemy squad is eliminated they just disappear into thin air. Leaves one feeling a bit flat. On the whole, love the game. When do we get to fight the Communists??? CM2? Regards, The Dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 See I think it a difference in what you want. Take Close Combat for example, even though CM is light years ahead of, it does share a lot of common elements except that it is real time. Sometimes units will NOT listen to you and the like. In fact I think I have less problems with control in this game than that one. I RARELY have had to micromanage my forces too much in this game. Typically there is ONE or TWO areas in a battle per turn that are key at that moment that I need to pay attention to. And with the moveable cameras I have found that the 2nd or 3rd camera from the ultra-closeup give a good general overview without two much movement. Honestly I don't know why folks are having so much difficulty with this part of the game which I think is well done. My only problem with the game is the artillery stuff. I wish I had a better idea of how long it took to get artillery to rain down and how lack of line of site affects it. ------------------ Richard Arnesen The Wargamer http://www.wargamer.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001192.html Hagen etc.. Check out that link. People DO listen if you make a good reasoned point consistent with the game philosophy. Now, I'm sure you will have other issues with the game but isn't that a big one solved for you? ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Fionn, Checked out the link you suggested, doesn't address my concern. I'm not disappointed with the lack of info, I just happen to feel that the info is sometimes hard to find, and unnecissarily so. I like the FOW as implemented, and am sure I will play with full FOW when I get the final version. I just don't understand why some seem to feel that going back and panning around the map during multiple replays of a turn is preferable to having a summary presented of each friendly unit including status, perhaps whether it is under fire, and so forth. Can't see why hunting around the map is the only solution. For those who prefer to do the latter, well, then don't access the summary!! Don't think that would be a "gamey" feature either, anymore than being able to majically teleport your POV to any point on the map is. Anyway, don't want to come of sounding too negative, as this is not a gamebreaking issue for me. I just shudder to think of all the clicking and cycling through units that would have to be done in a battalion sized engagement. Can't imagine a summary would be that hard to implement, and those who prefer the "purity" of scrolling around the map wouldn't have to use it. Regards, The Dude P.S. Enjoyed the AAR at TGN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Hagen, It sounds like you really want tons of information to use for making the command and control decisions prior to each turn. I am opposed to you in your desire to have that much information for making decisions. I feel if it were present I would not like the game as much. Why? One thing I really dislike about most of the wargames I have played is the incredible amount of useful information presented in order for me to make command and control decisions. If it is presented I need to use it. But, I don't want to have too much information. In CM I like to watch once, twice and maybe three times to see the action take place. I make overall assumptions about the status of each battle area. I then move each unit and target the defenses. Quick and simple. I think that missing information is a valuable part of the game and a very realistic simultaion of real-world battle. If all the information was present, my opponents would use it and whip me every time. 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 Richard: "If all the information was present, my opponents would use it and whip me every time." Oh, we'll still whip you...it will just take us longer to gather the information using first person perspective on all the units and taking notes for information that you won't get. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 LOL. Good comeback Scott. Dude, Thanks very much regarding the AAR. It was fun to do and I hope others will write more AARs and post them to my Combat Mission site. BTW.. Just want to make it clear that although I don't agree with you as regards the unit data I can see your point and it ain't anything personal . (I'm more than happy to agree to disagree ). ------------------ ___________ 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 Scott, Yes I will be whipped. your comment is why I argue for limited playback time (3 passes of forward only) and argue against: crunching numbers and writing stuff on paper and playing chess instead of war. Richard Kalajian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 As I understand your point Hagen, your fine with the lack of information on enemy status because of FOW (which I think is good), but you would still like information on your troops in a "status page" layout showing all friendly troops in some type of table or chart format. I don't oppose this for people who really want this type of information in game, and I wouldn't care if BTS decied to go ahead and add it in, as long as it was optional. My thing is I think it would tend to hurt the average gamer, because he or she would begin to focus on units that were indicated on the chart to have had some major change (morale dropping like a rock, casualty figures for a unit mounting, ect) and start to forget about some of the units that nothing is happening to. This is where I think the lazyness agrument comes in. The chart would breed lazyness in players who would place the wrong emphisis on what he's seeing in the "big picture". The way I watch the movies is to use view 3 and watch once for each platoon, and then watch once for each vehicle, unless I'm moving them in a group. I find this helps me keep my platoons under good C&C, since if I have to scroll the screen to see all the squads in a platoon, then I for sure know they all can't be in C&C and acting as one cohesive unit. That lets me see if any squad in a platoon is in need of special attention, but mainly I'm interested in how the platon as a whole is doing. I think it would be easy to lose this perspective if I was presented with everything at once. Old saying goes that the devil is in the details. Hard to see details when it's in the mddle of a bunch of numbers. Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Richard - you do know that there is an Estimated time for artillery? Click on the FO and check his unit window. It should say something like: "Time: 2 min" in there. Scott - I have never ever had to take notes while playing CM. After watching the replays once or twice I simply know what happened. Oh, did you know that you can click on a unit during replay and see how the stats change? See, Charles and Steve, you made a too detailed game! People don't want that - they want a status report! Sheesh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Hagen, it's not clear to me from your post exactly what information it is you feel you have to fight the interface to get. Can you provide a detailed example? If you want to know which friendly units are pinned, broken, shaken, or whatever, you can turn on labels and get that information for all units at a glance. If you're more concerned with tracking how many casualties have been incurred per unit, it's true you can't get an exact headcount except by inspecting each unit, but the number of figures displayed by the interface gives you a rough estimate (a squad with 3 figures is >= 67% strength, with 2 figures it's down to 33-67%, and with only 1 figure it's at 33% or below). And since to issue orders to a unit you have to select it anyway, you can just look at the unit status area to see exactly how many men are left. Hit return and you can see exactly how the survivors are armed (btw, you can hit return once to bring up the unit info window, and then select multiple units to update that window with their information - you don't have to keep hitting return every time). Once I have the lay of the land in a given scenario, I typically only watch the replay once or twice (unless there's someting interesting going on I want to take a closer look at, such as an AT team shooting at armor). By watching the tracers fly and seeing units react, I get a good general idea of how the turn went, and identify particular things that may warrant closer attention (e.g.: "where did that big explosion come from? Am I under artillery attack, or is there a tank out there somewhere?"). I suspect that your frustration may be coming from the fact that in CM you tend to have very little information about the enemy, and not all that much control over your own troops. CM is not in my opinion a game of micromanagement where you direct the exact fire and behavior of every man under your command. Part of the fun of CM for me is _not_ knowing exactly what's going on, and having to plan ahead for mischance. To me, it's more immersive, although I can understand how some people wouldn't enjoy it. If that's the case, CM may not be for you. But it's the kind of game that I've been waiting many years for. Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSY Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My thing is I think it would tend to hurt the average gamer, because he or she would begin to focus on units that were indicated on the chart to have had some major change (morale dropping like a rock, casualty figures for a unit mounting, ect) and start to forget about some of the units that nothing is happening to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dunno, I think the opposite is true, at least for me. Running the game by replaying and viewing from angles makes it easy for me to lose troops. I played "Last Defense" as the Germans. Midway through the game I discovered that my Company HQ was still sitting at the start line! I had left him there at the start and as I was focusing on my other units he never showed up on my replays because he was behind my camera angle. I had no idea he was even there until I happened to scroll back a bit further than normal ... oh, I have another unit ... Now I do realize, that I could have found him if I had done the +/- go through every unit thing, but I find that a bit tedious. If BTS is opposed to a list of units because it reduces immersion, perhaps a set of goto previous formation/goto next formation keys would help. The keys would move from platoon HQ to platoon HQ and from major vehicle to major vehicle allow us to easily check the status of our platoons and tanks (not sure what it should do if platoon HQ is KIA, perhaps go to squad 1). Since the platoon HQ shows command lines to its units, it should be fairly easy to track almost all units this way. I still think having an available list of units would help. A list of enemy units should be included too, if we're worried about units popping on an off the list as they appear and disappear, just list them all with a notation that they aren't present all the time. (If you want to get really fancy, if an enemy unit appeared/disappeared during the turn allow double-clicking on an enemy unit to change the time to the point at which that unit appeared/disappeared). Another addition that I think might help and still fit in your interface is addition of a next target/previous target key when a particular unit is selected. So when we were looking at a particular unit, we could cycle through all enemy units in LOS. Also just as a random, slightly off topic suggestion, how about a single window summarizing the status of our "Warning Labels", "Path Display", "Weather Display", etc. I occasionally accidently turn them on or off and it's hard to determine their status without having to cycle through all the SHIFT hotkeys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Any CC3 beta testers here? deja-vu The unit information screen was orignally not going to be included in CC3. Deal is, most of us felt it 'had' to be there because the CC games were realtime and you needed the info provided (myself included). I don't get that feeling with Combat Mission. Steve has repeatedly made remarks about 'unlearning'...which I kept in mind, but still found myself doing and expecting things from other games. The worst: click and move on as fast as I can This game is not real-time (which is very nice). I started playing this beta-demo without any 'concious' preconceptions and found that I very much liked the uncertainies of what 'precisely' was happening. For me, it makes the game much more 'instense'. Having the basic information about ammo, morale, and the 'colored' lines indicating what the unit is firing at (and what is firing at the unit)seems ok to me... Don't know about the rest of you, but it took me and my opponent at least 6hrs to complete a game yesterday...The more I played the more I learned on how to deal with the game. I admit that when I first started the beta-demo, a lot of things about the game was 'bewildering', but I don't find that to be the case now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 1, 1999 Share Posted November 1, 1999 Well this is my last post on this issue. Most of us want the same information. It would just some of us actually enjoy having to work for it while others would prefer to have it organized and easy to access. As for those that say they will never take notes...you either have a heck of a memory or are missing data (or are simply not telling the truth). In the game I am playing now a German squad just ran across the road under fire from several MGs from about 75m. If I had not stopped rewound the replay, and watched in views 1 and 2 several times I would not have caught the fact that the squad was ripped up pretty bad. I counted 5 (I think) cries from the Germans as they ran across the road and were pinned down. But because I did not have exact information the icon always displayed three men. As it was, I knew they were pretty much toast, at least for the time being. If I had not stopped and counted the 'cries' I might have assigned valuable resources to follow up on that enemy unit. This is but a single small example of valuable information that must be 'dug' for using an arduous and time-consuming method that could be EASILY rectified. I just fail to understand such resistance to an easy to understand/use method of displaying information. Information that is ALREADY being given to the player IF they want to dig for it. Last note: I keep hearing people talk about the three men, two men, one man. Sorry, not a valid solution because there will be folks that are unable to display all three figures do to hardware limits...should they be screwed because of this (not to mention it is just not as exact as counting the 'cries')? ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted November 1, 1999 Share Posted November 1, 1999 It's itneresting different people's playing styles. i for one, have bases on all the time and play through the moves only two maybe three times. My battles are usually divided into sections, generally around a company or a tank and i replay watching them in general. i don't micromange, but i still do pretty well. I have a friend who micromanages everything, and it's really noticeable in a game we play called Stars! He can spend a long time on each turn, me, just a few minutes. Yet i think in skill we're pretty even. I don't get frustrated with CM, but i think my friend would. The question then is does BTS want to change the nature of the game to allow both players to get into the game, or do they feel it will not help their idea of the game. Really it's up to them, and i can understand if they choose to let this issue slide. If they do, people might have to accept that the game isn't for them and move on. PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted November 1, 1999 Share Posted November 1, 1999 Scott, I know you said this was your last post, but I hope you'll respond to this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for those that say they will never take notes... you either have a heck of a memory or are missing data (or are simply not telling the truth).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm one of those "never take notes" people. From my POV there isn't that much going on, at least in scenarios this size. Until I read your post it never occured to me that anybody would take notes. I'm curious, what are the kinds of information you need to write down? (Casualties seems to be one - what are the others?) Another question for you, Hagen and/or The Dude: I'm not clear how having the info in a table/chart would solve the problem. Are you suggesting that it would provide a report on all changes in the last turn? Eg: Unit______Status_____Last turn C2_______8-4________(+2 casualties) C3_______11-1_______(under fire) etc Would you then click on the unit ID and be taken to that unit on the map? Just trying to clarify what's being debated. [This message has been edited by Brian Rock (edited 11-01-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gleep Posted November 1, 1999 Share Posted November 1, 1999 I have seen this debate on other threads but since this is a feedback topic ill throw my support to the topic. I have absolutly no clue as to what is going on during the battle. The intel is horrible. The only way to tell what is going on with a unit is to watch them, enemy included. I know alot of hotseat generals have been saying this is how "real war" is. But I have to say that I am no General, never been in a war, never want to be. I just like to play games, games that are fun, and semi realistic. I dunno what its like to lead a Batallion of soldiers in WW2. Most of you dont know what its like either so I know its not from experience you are drawing your conclusions. I think that the absolute lack of intel, and absolute lack of centrilized data on your troops detracts from the fun of the game, and takes a lil bit of strategy out. I hate micro managing and i find myself blindly sending my troops into to thier deaths and have no idea that i have dont that until 2 turns later when i want to advance them i find they are down to 4 men. Just my 2 cents ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 1, 1999 Share Posted November 1, 1999 Gleep, I think if you just give it a couple of days of play you'll come around.. Remember most people who don't like the interface simply need to get a little used to it.. BTW the VAST majority love the interface so I am sure once you make a few adjustments to your thoughts you'll learn to use it better. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Deych Posted November 1, 1999 Share Posted November 1, 1999 Fionn: Remember most people who don't like the interface simply need to get a little used to it.. BTW the VAST majority love the interface so I am sure once you make a few adjustments to your thoughts you'll learn to use it better. Hrm. Herr Fionn of the Thought Polizei? I hope that wasn't quite what you meant. BTW, you speak of English not being your first language...well, what is your first language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 1, 1999 Share Posted November 1, 1999 My first language is Flemish, then Irish and then English. After that are French and Dutch as well as a smattering of German (just enough to read WW2 documents really with a dictionary at hand.) Greg, What I meant was that people simply needed to adapt their thinking to the information levels of CM rather than trying to adapt CM to their liking. Why? Well, simply put CM has a pretty good grasp of what is realistic or not and has some good additional levels of FOW to help newbies and those not used to REAL FOW get involved.. The intermediate level fo FOW should help most of the people used to SP and CC and other such games which have miserable FOW to adapt and get used to FOW before trying real FOW on for size. ------------------ ___________ 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 November 1, 1999 Share Posted November 1, 1999 Sorry to post again... Fionn: "The intermediate level fo FOW should help most of the people used to SP and CC and other such games which have miserable FOW to adapt and get used to FOW before trying real FOW on for size." I think you are missing the entire point of this tread Fionn. FOW has NOTHING at all to do with a unit overview screen. This sceen adds NO new data. I will NOT change the FOW. Or do you consider the fact that you have to actually 'work' to extract some of the data from the game an aspect of FOW? I know I don't and I suspect that after the games starts ship you will see that most gamers will agree with me in that digging for information is not FOW. If the information is there, organize it. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest L Tankersley Posted November 1, 1999 Share Posted November 1, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or do you consider the fact that you have to actually 'work' to extract some of the data from the game an aspect of FOW?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm. Interesting...in my playing style (such as it is after about 5 games) I don't consider this work because I don't dig for that information at all. I tend to watch the movie more for the big picture and for specific events (e.g. "what killed my SPW?" [aside: I lost a halftrack to a direct 60mm mortar hit yesterday, confirmed after the battle - a US mortar team had an "unidentified light armor" kill]) and not to learn exactly how many losses I've inflicted. To me, that's a bit below the scope of the game. I tend to base my decisions on the relative weight of incoming/outgoing fire, whether the enemy is suppressed or not, and whether they are moving to the rear. Personally, I'm not sure I'd _want_ a lot more information than that. I don't have a problem with people watching the movie dozens of times to try to wrest every last bit of data from the sounds and graphics, but I don't think that's really the intent of the design. I can understand why you'd want the data, but I think of it more as "bonus" information you can gain if you expend the effort rather than something necessary to play the game. Just my opinion. [Although I will admit that it is a bit annoying to see a 3-figure infantry unit and later find out that it actually represents only one man.] Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted November 1, 1999 Share Posted November 1, 1999 WHile I like the level of information available (It's currently available in a simple enough manner for me to carry out my plans as I see fit without the slightest undue convenience), I always liked how Talonsoft Eastfront/Westfront allowed you to select option for instant colored highlighting on the map (Who's at what morale state, what damage level/fatigue,whatever?) It would make a nice option to have available but I certainly wouildn't want to see it available in multiplayer unless both agree (then your playing ASL) since it's patently unrealistic. But in the privacy of your own little single player game? Options are always a good thing, just be aware that the designers intent is being degraded by making that kind of info available so easily. (I think). Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 1, 1999 Share Posted November 1, 1999 Gees Scott, take some happy pills I wasn't specifically addressing you there buddy. I was just talking to the forum in general ok? I know what you're getting at ... Go check out the other threads. I made a post about the OOB LIST which should make you happy... I'm not going to get into a fight about something I've resolved elsewhere when I wasn't even talking to you at the time Scott. I forget the thread name but its another OOB thread. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts