Lack of Feedback

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Oh, I saw that already.

And I did not think you were directly addressing me. I thought you were directly addressing this issue....and I responded.

Organization of existing data is a good thing.

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[Guest Big Time Software]

This whole debate is worthy of having, but I will say this right now:

At least for the initial release of Combat Mission, there will be NO report screen of any sort. There are many reasons for this, one of which is time. Since the majority of people do not feel this is a necessary feature, it does not rank up there in our priority schedule. We also feel strongly that it will adversely affect what Combat Mission is all about. However, we aren't going to write this one off 100% (though it is our inclination to do just that).

To those of you who find info gathering tedious and/or impossible I have to ask you to ask yourself a few questions:

Why are you in the minority on this issue? If the game was SO HORRENDOUSLY designed that you have to write stuff down (I really want to believe that this is a stretch of the truth...) why the heck aren't we getting EVERYBODY on our case? I mean, long time wargamers, newbies, and even sim folks are not complaining en mas. Information is such a FUNDAMENTAL part of the game that if it were really that hard to access, we should see torches and pitchforks at our windows from the angry masses More importantly, with all the other things we have got right in the game (from orders interface to the game system), don't you think we might have noticed the "teensy" problem of tedious info gathering if it were a core problem? Come on, give us some credit! Look at the game! Look at all the other games that have come before it! Do you really think we would strike out on such a basic element? If the answer is "yes" then your standing in our eyes has sunk to "not our customer" and we wish you well with whatever wargame you buy instead of Combat Mission, since it is obviously not intended for you. But if you do see the forest through the trees, and admit that we know what the heck we are doing then PERHAPS you will consider that it is your expectations and play style that are are the issue here. No game system can be everything to everybody, so there is only so much we can cater it to a particular style outside of the one we are shooting for. Anybody that doubts that we have missed our goals... well... all I have to say is Steel Panthers IV is probably more for you than CM is (er, if it is ever made that is).

The thought of NEEDING to write down info or seeing a static display of all info available in the game to really play CM is simply incomprehensible to us. I play by gut feel and observation. I get all the info I need watching the turn 1-3 times and clicking on my guys when I feel they are in need of attention. I don't need to know how each guy is doing, whether he has the sniffles, a booboo, or a case of the runs. This kind of head counting information is simply not necessary to play and win. Tactics, strategy, sense of the whole, feel for which units can do what when etc... THAT is what is needed. If you feel the need to watch the game 10 times and click on every guys 15 times, then you are really missing something IOHO.

CM was designed to discourage micromangement. Any argument that you need to micromanage to get crucial info simply proves to us that you are micromangement material (pun intended ). Someone who is not a micromanager looks at the game, realizes that the information gathering doesn't have to be absolute, and then plays the game by instinct and intuition. The person that needs to know what the heck everybody is doing all the time is, by definition, a micromanager and will fight what CM is tooth and nail by scoffing at the design's offerings and attempt to force it to bend to their own vision of what it should be about. If we add a report screen I am sure we will get requests for some other baggage left over from the games we are trying to break away from. We can see why this is frustrating, but if your vision and ours don't line up, while the majority's does, we don't feel the overwhelming urge to try and make fundamental changes to our vision. If that means losing a few of you in the process, that is an unfortunately side effect that we were prepared for since we decided 2 years ago that Combat Mission wouldn't be the same old same old. I hope you can understand that from our perspective.

When Combat Mission is out the door I will make myself available for a challenge against anybody here who thinks they NEED to know EVERYTHING (too busy to do this now). I will play with a 5 minute timer per turn and allow the challenger unlimited time per turn. I predict that I will kick your butt OR at least come out on an equal footing. And if I can do that without clicking on every single unit and replaying the game 10 times, maybe you will see the light.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Leland,

I'm confused by your last statement. A 3 figure Squad is at least 66% of the unit's total strength. In general one figure is equal to 3 or 4 men. Therefore it would be impossible for a 3 figure squad unit to have anything less than about 6-9 men. Is this not happening for you?

Steve

[aditional note... ah... I see that you are talking about the FoW of an enemy unit. Will see what can be done about that]

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-01-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just to show you guys that we are NOT ignoring your requests because we don't care or are pigheaded (we'll leave that to other game developers! ), there is one thing that has been touched upon a few times in this thread, but it took Leeland's comment to make it register that a change is needed.

When you spot an enemy squad, but don't have an accurate headcount, the unit currently remains at "3 figures" until you get better intel on it. This is not really fair, nor realistic. You should get SOME feedback about general casualties other than the "argh" and "medic" sounds. Er, and BTW, we removed them as per your suggestion that this feedback was an unrealistic breech of FoW Anyhoo, the figure count will now accurately drop due to casualties. So if there is a 12 man US squad, and you hit it with a mortar, and one figure is removed, you know you have caused between 4 and 7 casualties. Exactly how many you caused is still not known (and should not be) until you get better intel, but now you at least have a visual clue that the unit in question is no longer full strength.

Steve

[chaos]

Steve,

Not to be contrary, but it seems to me that if you don't have good intel on the enemy squad, you don't have good intel. Shouldn't you be able to tell by the dwindling return fire that a unit is somewhat depleted? It seems to me that changing this goes against the company line re some of the fow issues that have been raised in other threads ( a line that I have fully agreed with.) Please correct me if I am off base.

chaos

[Pixman]

It amazes me how many places you can apply the Meiers/Briggs personality typing model. This board, and particularly this thread, is a perfect case study. The "sensing" "judgers" out there want all the information they can get. They are just uncomfortable in a world with limited information. Almost paralyzed into inactivity by fear of the unknown. The "intuitive" "perceivers" on the other hand, don't want all that data mucking up the works. Just give a game that feels right and realistic and I'm happy.

Generalizing here (pardon the pun), the sensing judgers are often good at management but lousy at leadership. I would bet my bottom dollar that Rommel, Patton, Guderian and the like were intuitive perceiving types who had the other types on their staffs.

CM is an intuitive, "feel" game. I think this feature is what sets it apart. By the way, it also keeps it consistent with its board game predecessors. You don't get any summary screens and the like in SL/ASL. Nope, you have to look around the board and get a feel for how things are flowing.

I warned months ago about taking a numbers approach to pure tactical combat. Steve backed me up then and I am backing him up now. I will go further and contend that I make decisions by knowing where the numbers are going to be before they are even there. If you wait for the results, it is already too late. The action is what tells you how to lead. The numbers follow.

Somebody, I do not remember who, made a comment about watching tracers for feedback. THIS IS BRILLIANT!! It is exactly what I do and I guarantee you it is exactly what every player who will end up in the competitive top 10% will do. Not only that, it is what the real commander would do. "Heilige Scheiss, we're taking fire from 5 different bases across a 150 degree arc, let's get the hell out of here! No wait, on second thought, let's see what the numbers on our actual casualties tell us, before I make a command decision." Go for it. My men will shoot that abacus right out of your hands, and then plant one in the brain to end the misery.

I know this is coming on strong, but the ability to lead and make decisions with limited information is a true test of skill. I take Scott's point that all of the information is available already, but he has to work to get it. I say, if you are the type that needs to do that, great. But I won't play you on-line (only so many hours in the day you know). Maybe a PBEM.

Gotta run.

Pixman

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

Fact is the enemy of truth. - Don Quixote

[Guest L Tankersley]

Chaos, as Pix points out above, you _can_ judge by dwindling return fire that the target is depleted. In fact, that is often the ONLY indication you've got that you are successfully suppressing/attriting them. If they're not shooting back, they're probably dead or scared, and it's time to advance.

Steve, good news about the figure feedback, thanks!

Leland J. Tankersley

[Hagen]

If you are interested in an honest response, read on, if not, ignore this, as it is not intended to upset the developers...

Steve(BTS):

Why are you in the minority on this issue?

______________________

Because everyone else who doesn't like the game has deleted it and moved on. How many people who dislike it are still sticking around in this forum?

Steve:

If the game was SO HORRENDOUSLY designed that you have to write stuff down (I really want to believe that this is a stretch of the truth...) why the heck aren't we getting EVERYBODY on our case? I mean, long time wargamers, newbies, and even sim folks are not complaining en mas.

__________________

Again...why would anyone waste time complaining if they do not like it? It is not like this game is on the cover of every PC mag. You are getting responses from the hard core who like it, not the casual folks who are turned off or the hard core folks who dismissed it out of hand.

Steve:

Information is such a FUNDAMENTAL part of the game that if it were really that hard to access, we should see torches and pitchforks at our windows from the angry masses.

________________

Only if the malcontents really cared about the game, otherwise they just move on.

Steve:

More importantly, with all the other things

we have got right in the game (from orders interface to the game system), don't you think we might have noticed the "teensy" problem of tedious info gathering if it were a core problem? Come on, give us some credit! ____________________

Should I list all the games that have come out as complete dogs because the dev team really thought they had something special? Anyone who has been playing games seriously for any length of time knows that blind trust that the design team "knows what they are doing" is a bad policy.

Steve:

Look at the game! Look at all the other games that have come before it! Do you really think

we would strike out on such a basic element?

__________

Yes. It's been done before. Look at Acendency, it even got a rave PC gamer review (from the guy who wrote the strat guide, oddly enough) The road to gaming hell is paved with the good intentions of passionate developers.

Steve:

If the answer is "yes" then your standing in our eyes has sunk to "not our customer" and we wish you well with whatever wargame you buy instead of Combat Mission, since it is obviously not intended for you.

___________

Well, that is kind of a defeatist attitude but certainly within your rights to assume. It's your game after all, YOU of all people need to be happy with it. The 'trust us or else' idea is one that should maybe be reconsidered, however.

Steve:

But if you do see the forest through the trees, and admit that we know what the heck we are doing then PERHAPS you will consider that it is your expectations and play style that are are the issue here.

______________

The blind trust issue again. I think gamers should almost never assume developers know what they are doing. (Even Blizzard can make mistakes) I also must admit that it is a tough arguement to make that it is the customer's fault for not liking your game....

Steve:

No game system can be everything to everybody, so there is only so much we can cater it to a particular style outside of the one we are shooting for.

____________

You are absolutely right. You will always have malcontents who want a game to be something it is not. But what you need to ask yourselves is: Are these people upset with game concept or are they upset with the execution? Are these people looking for a different game, or are they running into obstacles that are preventing them from enjoying the real game? And is it worth it to us to fix these obstacles?

I'm one of the few people posting here who still can't enjoy playing the game. Why am I here you ask? (No, not to be a wise guy...) I am here because this is the type of game I have wanted for a long time, and I really really want to learn to like it...so even I am not your typical malcontent.

Thanks,

-Hagen

[johnnymo]

Here's why I would LIKE to see a Friendly-Unit "Status" screen (sorry, Steve, I see you already have stated that one WON'T go in, but I'm going to rant anyway ):

I'm busy, with lots of demands on my time. But I love to play wargames. Unfortunately I don't usually have even 4 hours/week to play. If it takes 5-6 hours watching the movies to play a scenario COMPETITIVELY, I will play less often. (For most games, I'd say flat-out "I won't play", since it's not fun to lose all the time. So far, with Combat Mission, losing isn't so bad since it's so cool to watch ).

If unit information (that is already available to someone who watches the movies exhaustively/clicks every friendly unit every turn) were available in an easy-to-access format that saved me 2-3 minutes per turn of viewing the movies/clicking my units, I'd use it; not because I don't want to do these things, but because I CAN'T (unless I get a divorce, but let's not go there ). This would allow me to play more often, since I've got less clicking to do to get the information THAT IS ALREADY AVAILABLE TO ME IF I CLICK EACH OF MY UNITS.

Note that the "Status" screen I would like to see is just a recap of information that is currently available on the Friendly individual unit screens. I can view the movies a couple times to see what is happening to the enemy units, so my opponent who has more time may still have an edge on me in that regard, but I don't feel an Enemy "Status" screen fits into Combat Mission at all.

Example:

Unit Status Healthy/Hurt Ammo

A0 Lt. Morris Alerted 4/2 25

A1 Sgt. Joe Panic 6/6 30

This allows me a quick look at all my units without having to click on each and every one, thus saving me time and allowing me to play more often.

I agree that a list like this can take away from the immersion factor, since you as a real-life commander don't have lists like this. However, by clicking on each unit, you are essentially compiling this EXACT SAME list in your head (whether you want to or not). Why not just put it in print so time-pressed people like me can use it?

Here is what I'm NOT asking for:

Updates on what each Friendly Unit did during this turn

Changes in status for Friendly Units during the turn

Extra knowledge on enemy units/less FOW

Lists of enemy units and strengths/activities

Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but this really would help me fit Combat Mission into my schedule more often, and isn't that a good thing?

[Guest JonS]

Hi BTS Guys,

Let me first say that I like this game. I _really_ like this game. I enjoyed the few games I’ve played of the demo and am looking forward to receiving my pre-ordered Christmas present .

Now, on to FOW and friendly OOBs. I know it’s been stated that this will not be in the 1st release, and may never get in to the game. I can live with that – I’ve coped so far, and am sure I’ll cope in the future, with larger and smaller scenarios. Several times though I’ve thought that some sort of OrBat would be useful, and from time to time have left units behind because I couldn’t see them in the woods. Occasionally, the only reason I find some units is because I know they must be there somewhere, and for high value units (FOs and AFVs – yes, I once couldn’t find a StuG because it was in the extreme back corner of the map, and the way I had the camera angles I never got a glimpse of it. I knew there were supposed to be 2xStuG, but had assumed that there was some variability in the starting line up, which explained it’s absence) will look, and look some more, until I find them. A bit of a pain and a waste of time. These aren't game breaking problems, and I just accepted it as part of lifes’ rich tapestry.

But, I’m confused. You have refused, for your own reasons, to introduce even a simple table showing all friendly units. Yet you now have TWO options to reduce the FOW of the enemy units (one option removes it altogether), and have introduced other changes that reduce it still futher (eg changing the number of figures to reflect the number of men in the enemy squad, even though you won’t have an accurate head count).

So we have a situation where one is now getting more info on the enemy, and can select to have ALL such information, yet we can’t have a summary screen of the information, on our own units, already available to us? IMHO, that is some odd reasoning.

You say that the enemy FOW options are in place to ease new comers into the system. That’s cool and a fine idea - but don’t you think that a simple summary and clickable link to each on-board unit would serve the same end?

If you feel your blood pressure rising, please re-read para 1 above. I like this game. I’m trying not to come across as snippy or beligerent, and I don’t really care one way or the other (friendly OOB or no-OOB), but I do think your reasoning on this is a little wobbly.

Thanks

JonS

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

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[kingtiger]

John S,

Here is a suggestion I hope will make finding units easier for you. Assume a camera angle with the area in question (could be your half of the map). Hit Shift-C five-10 times quickly and look for changes. Your units will pop-out like giants in a diorama. And/or turn off trees (Shift-T)- voila no trees. Hope this helps.

Now if you still can't find a Stug or you are leaving units behind, I think a different cause is at fault.

Sincerely,

Richard Kalajian

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

[Foobar]

I know this thread is long, but I want to make a couple of points, to BTS/FIONN/managmement...

1) Any dork who would spend his precious free time reading & posting countless messages would have to be either

a) Some kind of compulsive freak who needs some serious help.

Some kind of gamer who is absolutely in love with the product here

My perception is that you guys feel besieged by a bunch of malcontents with no appreciation for all your efforts and hard work.Only OSCAR posts messages without positive intent. Even if the people don't express it to you enough, This game is a GIANT LEAP. And I have also never had so much response by game designers to comments I post at my whims. So I for one want to say thanks. (And I'm not just trying to get a free Tiger poster.)

2) The leader/micromanager analogy is great. I find myself to be naturally hesitant, and every time I jump around the corner in a bold move, I get my d*ck in a vice. But we micrimangers who are posting REALLY wanna play.Now there is a list of survivors in the AAR, could this somehow be accessed during the game (alt-?)

3) So here is my real suggestion (and this is for the final version), or a download.

We need some sort of CM101, where we can learn this VISION you guys have. And I encourage micromanagers to try to get outside of our comfort zone.

I'm enjoying the game, but I am always missing details. So teach us how to do it your way, and thanks again.

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hagen,

I have been making wargames for 6 years, and so has Charles. Three rules things can always be counted on in this market:

One - Hardcore number centric players are a very tiny minority of wargamers. In fact, they become a smaller group each and every day.

Two - above mentioned players think that they are the majority, and therefore try to push around weight they don't in fact have.

Three - if we cater to the above mentioned players we risk losing all the people that want to play a game and not a spreadsheet (the majority).

Sorry, but if we are going to err, it won't be in favor of a numbers nut. Two years ago we made the conscious decision to make a break from the past and create something new and different. Heck, we would have had to produced a 2D hex based game with terrible interface and graphics if we listened to the hardcore. It has been done so many times before, why bother? We knew way back then that people like you would show up here claiming we have got it all wrong. And here you are to tell us just that

You can come up with any theory you like about why there aren't more people like yourselves finding the game impossible to play, but you are flat out wrong if you think it is because everybody hates it and isn't bothering to post. Just look at the Newsgroups, which are generally a place to piss on games, even good ones. Feedback last I checked was overwhelmingly in support of Combat Mission AS IS. One person in one newsgroup even wondered if CM is the first game everybody can agree is great. We also know how many people are ordering Combat Mission each day, and we aren't disappointed And downloads are still going strong. First preview went up yesterday, and the guy was drooling all over it. You really should entertain the thought that you are totally wrong.

Hagen, you are firmly in the minority. We still listen you your requests, but until you have proven yourself to be a successful wargame designer, we trust our knowledge and judgment over yours. This is not to be offensive, just a reality check that you don't know as much as you think you do. In fact, that is rule #4 BTW; a hardcore wargamer ALWAYS thinks he knows more than anybody else, especially vs. the people who actually make games Yup, been doing this a loooooong time and it is always the same old thing

We almost fired someone just like you when I worked at Impressions. Ironically, he wanted pretty much the same thing you were asking for in a game he was testing, and predicted the game (which was "impossible" to use) would tank because it didn't have a big stats screen. The game sold something like 500k units last I heard. He never really admitted he was wrong, but when he later became a designer he had a hard time with making all his rhetoric work in practice, let me tell you

Again, if you are spending hours trying to gather information you are not playing the game as it was intended to be played. The choices are therefore simple; either open your minds to the possibility that there is another way to play it, or don't buy it because it obviously a piece of crap and/or isn't intended for you. Not a slam, but as I said before we can't please everybody so there comes a point where we must draw the line and keep the vision true (i.e. the reason we don't have hexes and CRTs...) If this doesn't satisfy you, it is a free market and you are welcome to take you business elsewhere. We will be sorry to lose a customer, but if it isn't to your liking there isn't much we can do about it. We are confident that we are making the right call, and we have the experience to back it up. And since it is our work on the line here, it is our call to make.

Steve

[Guest PeterNZ]

Guys, can you post us links on reviews and stuff so we can go check out what other people are saying?

ta

PeterNZ

[Guest Big Time Software]

Johnnymo, good post and we do listen. Our counter point is that you should try to play by instinct more. If you do this you will find yourself thinking more and clicking less (current system) or squinting at a tiny chart less (proposed sytem - small because with something like 200 possible units in one list, it would have to be SMALL). Sounds like you are having fun with it, so give it more time. BTW, in multiplayer games there are timer options. I suggest NEVER playing a multiplayer game without a timer on. Just asking for an all nighter to finish one turn

Hi Foobar,

Yes, there are always a certain group of people that say something like "I have played this game for 100hrs so far and it SUCKS". Uhm, if it is really so bad, then why does the person play it so much? Nothing better to do?

Seriously, if the OB thing is the only major thing "wrong" with CM, then by applying something called logic the rest of the game must be at least "OK". If it isn't, then why the heck is anybody wasting their time playing it, and our time complaining about it. On the other hand, if the rest is at least "OK", then that crazy thing called logic dictates that the game designers must have SOME idea about what they are doing. In that case, *gasp*, maybe the game designer actually knows more than the gamer!! I know, hard to beleive, but I suppose it is possible

Nobody can break a hardcast mold with 4 man years worth of work and produce something at least "OK" by accident. Sorry, but it takes a lot of skill to design a game and actually make it into something playable. Gamer's who think they know better than the developer should really try and keep this in mind when they go tunnel vision on something. Eh, but we knew this was going to happen just as the sun rises every morning. Few things can be counted on with absolute certainty, and grogs with blinders on is one of them. Thankfully there aren't very many of them left.

Steve

P.S. we will have some CM-101 training missions for sure.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-02-99).]

[PSY]

Hi everyone, I think things are escalating a bit too much here. While perhaps it's not my right/responsibility to say anything, since I've been a part of the "Please add an OOB in" movement, I'd kind of like to do my best to return things to a more cordial level.

As many of you probably know, studies have shown that computer communication has some major limitations. E-mail and BBoards lack the visual feedback found in real face-to-face meetings or even the audio tone of voice feedback found in telephone conversions. As a result, when disagreements occur, participants often assume that people they are communicating with are writing with a hostile tone of voice when they aren't. The result is that each participant responds with a slightly more hostile tone of voice and the conversation escalates into an argument. Ultimately this leads to flaming.

I think both sides in this debate feel like they're being attacked. I was quite suprised to discover that some of the anti-OOB crowd feels like their being attacked by hoards of pro-OOB types. Personally, I felt that Hagen, Scott, I, and a few others were being attacked by Steve, Moon, Fionn, and others who were saying basically we were idiots who just didn't get what CM was all about. (By the way, thanks Fionn for your conciliatory posts in another thread on this issue).

The point is, I'm sure both sides feel like they are under attack and both sides are starting to escalate. This is unfortunately par for computer communication. I think the important thing to do is to realize what's going on and for us all to make a very sincere attempt to return things to a cordial level.

[WARNING WARM FUZZIES ON, GROGNARDS TRY NOT TO GAG]

Anyway, let me just say that I very much appreciate the effort that Bigtime has put into creating a game for us. I appreciate the fact that Steve takes the time to communicate with all of us on this board. I definitely appreciated Fionn and Moon taking the time to do the AAR for us.

I think it's safe to say, as others have pointed out, that those of us posting in disagreement are doing so because we see this great game and want to make it better.

[WARM FUZZIES OFF]

That said, I still want my OOB DAMMIT

[Hagen]

I responded to Steve in that 'Don't Post here...' thread some clown started.

Psy, I certainly have not taken offense at anything anyone has said in response to our comments about CM. (Not even Fionn's comments.)

But when people like a game, they will want to defend it passionately, that is what makes gaming the fun activity that it is. So people may get a little hot under the collar if someone criticizes the game of their choice, but we shouldn't really blame them.

Steve has been pretty good in his responses. You can imagine how upset someone who is busting their tail to finish a project might get when someone bad mouths it. (Although, I don't think any of us have been callous with our comments...I've seen much worse.)

So I think this has been kept pretty civil. In fact, I have learned quite a bit from all the comments. A couple more weeks of this and I might even be able to play a full game of CM. (Btw, how do you quit the game? I keep having to reboot to exit...heh)

-Hagen (email flames are always welcome)

(Hagenjg54@aol.com)

[Fionn]

PSY,

No worries. My argument is almost always with the opinion and not the person.. I do make special exceptions for the O-man though grr !

And now I'd like to get right to the heart of the matter: "I think it's safe to say, as others have pointed out, that those of us posting in disagreement are doing so because we see this great game and want to make it better."

PSY said that (and many other have too PSY was just the latest".

The interesting section is " ... want to make it better."

Given that no-one here has major game design experience I would strongly argue that what people actually want to do is "make the game more comfortable for me (being they, themselves) to play."

Also I'd point out that THAT is not, necessarily, the same as making the game better.

I think you need to look at Steve and Charles as designers who have developed quite a few wargames over at least a combined experience of 12 years in the wargaming industry. These two critically well-received wargame designers are putting ALL of their best ideas into Combat Mission free of corporate small-mindedness and are putting out the best wargame they can make at this time.

I think people should stop treating Charles and Steve as equals... They are not. Charles and Steve made Combat MIssion as it is today and KNOW that game inside out... I think that given their large amount of experience in the wargaming side of the industry people should just consider that these two guys who know much more than them just MIGHT be right when they say "uhoh, that'll end up hurting gameplay."

You may not agree right now (and there's nothing wrong with that) but in the same way as you wouldn't argue with a real-life rocket scientist about rockets maybe you should accept Steve and Charles really do know what they're talking about on this one.

The intermediate FOWis quite a different issue on a number of levels than this oob list and shouldn't really be compared.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[TangoYankee]

BTS and Fionn,

Fionn: "I think people should stop treating Charles and Steve as equals... They are not."

I'm not a wargame expert. I do not know the muzzle velocity of an M-1. I don't know the max. range of a German 88. You guys know that stuff. You're supposed to. It's part of your job. The other part of your job is to produce a good wargame, which you have.

Fionn:

"The interesting section is " ... want to make it better."

Given that no-one here has major game design experience I would strongly argue that what people actually want to do is "make the game more comfortable for me (being they, themselves) to play."

Also I'd point out that THAT is not, necessarily, the same as making the game better."

You're 100% correct. No one here knows more about game design than BTS. We're the customer. and the customer's (all the rest of us non-grogs) job is to offer BTS suggestions as to how the customer might find the game more playable/comfortable.

If you, BTS, can look at these items (OOB stuff, et. al.) from a different angle, I think you'd see that no one here is trying to tell you how to program it. Rather, they're trying to help you see the little things that could open it up to a much wider audience.

If your goal is to produce the most realistic wargame of all time, I'd say you've done it. OTOH, if your goal is to produce a war game with the highest level of realism, but still playable by a larger portion of the game buyers than just grogs, I would ask you to take a look at some of the things being asked for. You said it yourself:

BTS:

"One - Hardcore number centric players are a very tiny minority of wargamers. In fact, they become a smaller group each and every day.

Two - above mentioned players think that they are the majority, and therefore try to push around weight they don't in fact have.

Three - if we cater to the above mentioned players we risk losing all the people that want to play a game and not a spreadsheet (the majority).

Sorry, but if we are going to err, it won't be in favor of a numbers nut."

Maybe I'm missing something, but I would like to see things like OOB put into the game, and I'm DEFINATELY not a part of the hardcore minority. I'm not a numbers nut, I'd just like to have the game a little easier to manage. I don't think that's trying to tell you how to program the game or how to incorporate realism into it. It's just things that can make the game more enjoyable for the majority, not the experts.

I think that by not listening to your majority customers, potential and current, you're cutting out a huge market segment. I think all they want is good entertainment/fun value for their money. It's what I want and I think I fall into that group. I love the realism as that's what has drawn me to the game in the first place. BUT, I don't want to sacrafice fun at the expense of realism. Why do you think CC is so popular? Realism or playablility?

I think you've got 100% of the realsim and about 80% of the playablity. Do you think it's possible for you to take cut back 10% of the realism and add 10% to the playability, without ruining the overall concept of the game?

What it all boils down to is this:

If I have a choice between being playing a TOTALLY realistic wargame and losing all the time because I was never in the Army and don't know platoon level tactics, OR being VERY realistic and having loads of fun because it's easy enough to use, I, and I think the majority, are going to choose the latter.

Thanks for listening to my ramblings...

TY

[Fionn]

You do NOT want to hear why I think CC is so popular ...

LOL

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest JonS]

Sorry to bring it up AGAIN, but this OoB thing - is it possible to have/get a detailed OoB for both sides at the END (important ot note 'end' ) of a scenario? The raw numbers of killed/wounded/vehs/weapons-systems taken out are vaguely interesting (to me, my opinion), but what would be more interesting (to me, my opinion) would be something that showed it in context: which platoons had been rendered combat ineffective, how the company/battalion looks as a whole. And also, to see what damage my attack/defence had inflicted on the bad guys. I know I can view the map, click on units, play back the movie (? I think? Haven't figured out how to do that for the whole game yet), etc, but what I'd like (my opinion) is something like what you get in orders at the start of the scenario - a list of assets available.

Oh, and a suggestion - sometime ago during the discussion on names/ranks (I think) someone asked that the descriptive name for a group of soldiers be accurate for each nation (squads for the US, sections for the UK, etc), but was shot down because (IIRC) it would be easier if all nations used the US descriptors. Can I put a spin on this? What if the descriptors used were those applicable to the side you were playing? This would add to the immersion factor (In my opionion). For example, UK units would, I imagine, tend to describe all units they saw in terms that were familiar to them - ie sections and so on. Similarly other nations soldiers would do the same. Also to consider is the learning potential - often with a game I learn heaps about the battle/period on show. Again, to take an example, The Ardennes Offensive, while a bit of a flakey game, has lots of useful info in it appropriate to uts scale - which division were there, names of commanders, and so on. CM similarly already provides much information appropriate to its scale - especially in relation to AFVs!! - and accurate names for groups of soldiers is something else that I'd find interesting. This stuff might be second nature to many of you, but it isn't to me.

Wow, a game as a historical resource - theres a novel concept

Thanks

JonS

Ps - I've been really careful about the IMO thing because I'm not an expert on this game, or wargames designing. But I can think, and I do have ideas, and, 'gasp', some of them might be good ones

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

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[kingtiger]

John S,

I would concur. More information at the end game would be cool. It would be nice to know how many kills the a specific machine gun crew had. But, I wouldn't want the computer to tell me these numbers until the game was over.

Richard Kalajian

[Moon]

Hah! That actually reminds me of something. I am not sure if it is in the beta demo and/or working, but when you select a unit and hit enter, the detailed unit menu comes up. Look at the upper right corner. Is there a white box saying Info/Stats? If so, click on it - you should see a "killed" report...

Uh oh... there'll be tons of questions about THAT one

[kingtiger]

Ummm... errr.... Well yes it is. What do we have here, an immediately available pop-up window that lets me know whether the position is effective. WOW. Guess I should read the manual.

Richard Kalajian

[Beamup]

Here's a thought I just had on this issue. Suppose that you were a real WWII commander. Could you find out, at any given time, how many men were left in some squad under your command? Sure, you can just radio Sgt. Smith and ask about his squad. Could you find out immediately about all of your squads? No way. You could do it, but only with some time and effort. So, CM accurately displays how this would work. I'm a bit short on time, so I will close by saying that I personally used to be on the other side of this debate, but have now converted. I don't want a status screen.