Is there a button to reveal all units LOS ?

[Destraex1]

I see in most battle tutorials and even chris's youtube videos. People are manually pressing and dragging a line all over the place to see what they can and cannot see.

Can I press space bar and just see different colours indicating where I can and cannot see on the map?

[ASL Veteran]

I see in most battle tutorials and even chris's youtube videos. People are manually pressing and dragging a line all over the place to see what they can and cannot see.

Can I press space bar and just see different colours indicating where I can and cannot see on the map?

No there isn't a way to do that

[Destraex1]

I guess it takes a keen eye then. Shame the terrain is not so easy to distinguish.

[Battlefront.com]

This has been requested of CM since 1999. It will never, ever, ever be a feature in the game. Ever. Players have too much precise information at their fingertips without working hard for it. If one wants absolutely ridiculously precise and exact information then we want them to work so hard at it that they get annoyed and stop. CM never has been, and never will be, a game tailored to those who feel that level of detail is required to play.

Steve

P.S. Never, ever. Just in case you missed the first part

[Michael Emrys]

Besides, how could you possibly code for that? Would the command reveal targets of x size as seen by a man prone, kneeling, standing, from the turret of a tank? How tall a tank? And then what about the targets that are not of x size, but y, z...Ω? Gets complicated, doesn't it?

Michael

[Sixxkiller]

There is. Steve you forgot Ctrl+Up+Down+Right+Right+A+A+B+Select.

[Cirrus]

This has been requested of CM since 1999. It will never, ever, ever be a feature in the game. Ever. Players have too much precise information at their fingertips without working hard for it. If one wants absolutely ridiculously precise and exact information then we want them to work so hard at it that they get annoyed and stop. CM never has been, and never will be, a game tailored to those who feel that level of detail is required to play.

Steve

P.S. Never, ever. Just in case you missed the first part

Can't say that how much this feature is asked, but in general if some feature is asked much I find your attitude quite stupid.

Decision like this has caused for example me to stop playing single player games with CM. If I know game interface and mechanics allow me to do something and I want to do it, but game by accident or like in CM's case on purpose makes it too difficult, I will get bored.

I can't see the harm of giving tools for different playstyles if game mechanics inherently can't prevent it anyways. If someone doesn't want to be HC simulationist why should she?

Every person can decide if she uses "aids" or not.

[Cymru]

This has been requested of CM since 1999. It will never, ever, ever be a feature in the game. Ever. Players have too much precise information at their fingertips without working hard for it. If one wants absolutely ridiculously precise and exact information then we want them to work so hard at it that they get annoyed and stop. CM never has been, and never will be, a game tailored to those who feel that level of detail is required to play.

Steve

P.S. Never, ever. Just in case you missed the first part

So, soon then?

[Whiterider]

This has been requested of CM since 1999. It will never, ever, ever be a feature in the game. Ever. Players have too much precise information at their fingertips without working hard for it. If one wants absolutely ridiculously precise and exact information then we want them to work so hard at it that they get annoyed and stop. CM never has been, and never will be, a game tailored to those who feel that level of detail is required to play.

Steve

P.S. Never, ever. Just in case you missed the first part

Hey Steve, I think it could be an interesting option to many CM players who wish to spend less time in micromanagements. Ok, it´s good to be realistic but after all it´s just a game in a world of business.. Some people agree, some people disagree. Never forget micromanagement=boredom. Maybe I´m wrong but I try to be realistic in a realistic world. Let´s people choose their way.

[costard]

Hey Steve, I think it could be an interesting option to many CM players who wish to spend less time in micromanagements. Ok, it´s good to be realistic but after all it´s just a game in a world of business.. Some people agree, some people disagree. Never forget micromanagement=boredom. Maybe I´m wrong but I try to be realistic in a realistic world. Let´s people choose their way.

Here's the thing: the customer isn't always right. In fact, if you want a business to stay viable, the customer is very rarely right - they get to choose what they spend their money on, sure, but then so do the owners of the business. The game is not just about big guns doing their 'splody stuff (though this is undoubtedly important), nor is it only about winning. It certainly isn't about winning easily because that concept is a fantasy and the game tries to be faithful in it's modelling of the world.

My personal objection to the inclusion of this feature is to do with a description of capable military personnel that I've come across in my reading: they're described as having a good eye for the lie of the land. The CM series enables the development of quite a few skills (mostly to do with mental processing) and I don't believe you learn how to use your brain by having a machine do the thinking for you.

(hardly even worth 2 cents)

[LC-]

I do miss the CMBO type spotting tool. But I understand how it was questioned and have grown accustomed to using the 'target" button to see what my pixeltruppen can fire at and what is blocking them.

[Michael Emrys]

Can't say that how much this feature is asked, but in general if some feature is asked much I find your attitude quite stupid.

-snippage-

I can't see the harm of giving tools for different playstyles if game mechanics inherently can't prevent it anyways.

You didn't read my post, did you? It's #5 in this thread. Who's stupid now?

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Can't say that how much this feature is asked,

Rarely. VERY rarely in fact. If I were to rate this request in with all the requests I see on a regular basis this one wouldn't even be on the radar. The same was true back in CMx1 when it also didn't have this feature and yet was competing (in a way) head to head with Steel Panthers which did. CMx1 was also competing (in a more direct way) Close Combat, which did not.

but in general if some feature is asked much I find your attitude quite stupid.

This attitude, as you put it, created CM, made it stand out from all wargames before it, has kept it going for 15 years, and has put it ahead of all others so far. If that's what "stupid" gets you, then where are all the "smart" developers?

Decision like this has caused for example me to stop playing single player games with CM. If I know game interface and mechanics allow me to do something and I want to do it, but game by accident or like in CM's case on purpose makes it too difficult, I will get bored.

This is an absolutely horrible justification for making a game feature. Customers are, often, totally wrong about what makes a game good and what features are needed to get the game to that point. Because if all it took was playing a game to know how to design one, don't you think you'd have better games to choose from than the ones you do?

I can't see the harm of giving tools for different playstyles if game mechanics inherently can't prevent it anyways. If someone doesn't want to be HC simulationist why should she?

Firstly, because every single feature we put into the game takes time to add, test, debug, retest, and support once it's in customers' hands. We've literally had thousands of requests for game changes. How do we prioritize which ones we spend time on vs. the ones we don't? Simple... we pick the ones that work within the overall philosophy of the game and are viable from a technical standpoint.

Secondly, because what you request isn't even valuable. We could make a basic LOS "highlight" that showed you roughly, in abstract, what you MIGHT be able to see. You'd then have to use the Target tool to figure out what you can actually see. Which is, oddly enough, the same as what you have right now.

Third, there would be a major (i.e. noticeable) speed hit to such a feature. Not terrible for WeGoers, perhaps, but still rather unpleasant if you're trying to issue Commands quickly.

As an aside... it has been a LONG time since I've seen someone complain about the lack of the CMx1 dedicated LOS tool. Probably because by now most people have grown accustomed to it and have come to understand that Target gives them the same information in terms of both form and function. Which is why after 8 years of work on CMx2 we've not cluttered the UI with a dedicated, redundant, LOS Command. People who have not played CMx1 probably don't even know there's something to miss

Every person can decide if she uses "aids" or not.

And yet there's no game company on Earth that makes games using this philosophy. Not even the ones who spend $50m on a single game do this. Why do you think that might be?

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Customers are, often, totally wrong about what makes a game good and what features are needed to get the game to that point.

Heh. Before CMBO was released I swore up and down that I'd never use any of the oblique views, but only the ones from directly overhead. After about five minutes of playing my first game I abandoned that position forever. I seldom even use an overhead view unless for some reason I want to take a look at the entire battlefield.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Hey Steve, I think it could be an interesting option to many CM players who wish to spend less time in micromanagements.

Here's my take on this after 20+ years in the games industry. People who complain about micromanagement are usually (not always) doing it to themselves. In short, they are putting way too much concern on something being "perfect" instead of "sufficiently good enough".

Put another way, the experience is that players who micromanage will micromanage no matter what tools are available to them. They are naturally inclined to such behavior, which means the more tools you give them the more they feel they need to use them. Which causes them to request yet another tool. Give them another tool and now they want a tool to manage the tool that manages the tool that manages the behavior. Then they complain there's too many tools and ask that the game be simplified because there's too much micromanagement.

Which puts us kinda in a losing position before we even start

Contrast this with people who are not inclined towards micromanagement. They tend to do quite a lot with minimal controls and balk at having more tools since it introduces undesirable effects into the game. Either their own game experience is made more difficult because the UI is now more complex and/or they now fear playing against other Humans because they might be the micromanagement type who is able to achieve some sort of "gamey" advantage through excessive refinement of game variables.

Game designers have to be very sensitive to where to draw the line for a given feature or the game as a whole. And few will agree with where that line is drawn. The only obtainable goal is to shoot for most people agreeing most of the time in most situations.

Ok, it´s good to be realistic but after all it´s just a game in a world of business.. Some people agree, some people disagree. Never forget micromanagement=boredom. Maybe I´m wrong but I try to be realistic in a realistic world. Let´s people choose their way.

See my previous post. I do agree that micromanagement = boredom. So here's a sure fire way to not get bored... don't micromanage The game has ample UI feedback and visual cues necessary to avoiding micromanagement. If you don't think it does, then think about how it is that others can play the game successfully without micromanaging.

The best expression of this are WeGoers who insist that CM is impossible to play in RealTime because it's not possible to do everything that needs to be done to get a positive outcome (however that is defined). This is demonstrably false position to base an argument on.

Here's the thing: the customer isn't always right. In fact, if you want a business to stay viable, the customer is very rarely right - they get to choose what they spend their money on, sure, but then so do the owners of the business. The game is not just about big guns doing their 'splody stuff (though this is undoubtedly important), nor is it only about winning. It certainly isn't about winning easily because that concept is a fantasy and the game tries to be faithful in it's modelling of the world.

Correct. If one wants a simplified WW2 experience, there are a host of games out there that offer one. If one doesn't mind a graphically simplistic WW2 game experience, there's plenty of those too. That's not what CM is about.

My personal objection to the inclusion of this feature is to do with a description of capable military personnel that I've come across in my reading: they're described as having a good eye for the lie of the land. The CM series enables the development of quite a few skills (mostly to do with mental processing) and I don't believe you learn how to use your brain by having a machine do the thinking for you.

This is a very good point. Put another way, having a "lazy" way to arrive at critical decisions reduces the reason to play CM in the first place. This is not to say that CM deliberately seeks to have people spending 10 minutes with the Target tool for each unit each turn. No. What CM is doing is saying "we provide the tools to obtain the information one needs to make a decision, not unnecessary tools to overanalyze and micromanage what should be largely intuitive decisions".

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Heh. Before CMBO was released I swore up and down that I'd never use any of the oblique views, but only the ones from directly overhead. After about five minutes of playing my first game I abandoned that position forever. I seldom even use an overhead view unless for some reason I want to take a look at the entire battlefield.

Michael

HAH! I didn't know you were "one of those" guys. Man, I remember quite a few old time wargamers insisting that going 3D was totally pointless.

Truth be told, when Charles first suggested going 3D I asked why it would be any better than a good 2D system. He drew some stuff on the back of a Guinness stained napkin and, coupled with various hand gestures, I saw the light.

Steve

[Cirrus]

You didn't read my post, did you? It's #5 in this thread. Who's stupid now?

Michael

I don't know, but it seems that you missed my point a mile. But let's clarify.

1. I was not speaking specifically this feature. So your number 5 reply does not apply.

2. Even if I would have spoken this specific feature, I do not know you, so I don't consider you as any kind of coding expert of this game. So I would have just ignored it.

[Cirrus]

Rarely. VERY rarely in fact. If I were to rate this request in with all the requests I see on a regular basis this one wouldn't even be on the radar.

This is a reason for this specific feature that I think is very acceptable. No need to do it.

This attitude, as you put it, created CM, made it stand out from all wargames before it, has kept it going for 15 years, and has put it ahead of all others so far. If that's what "stupid" gets you, then where are all the "smart" developers?

This has actually nothing to do with anything. Your game could always be even better and get even more customers.

This is an absolutely horrible justification for making a game feature. Customers are, often, totally wrong about what makes a game good and what features are needed to get the game to that point. Because if all it took was playing a game to know how to design one, don't you think you'd have better games to choose from than the ones you do?

I feel that this is treating people as really stupid. If you add something, but do not in reality take something away for other customers. More people would get what they want.

Firstly, because every single feature we put into the game takes time to add, test, debug, retest, and support once it's in customers' hands. We've literally had thousands of requests for game changes. How do we prioritize which ones we spend time on vs. the ones we don't? Simple... we pick the ones that work within the overall philosophy of the game and are viable from a technical standpoint.

These are again hard facts. Time is limited and you have to prioritize. However your philosophy might be costing you customers. And your game could have several of philosophies. If some change does not take anything away and original philosophy can be followed like always, then customers are always right. Not one customer of course, but bunch

Secondly, because what you request isn't even valuable. We could make a basic LOS "highlight" that showed you roughly, in abstract, what you MIGHT be able to see. You'd then have to use the Target tool to figure out what you can actually see. Which is, oddly enough, the same as what you have right now.

Third, there would be a major (i.e. noticeable) speed hit to such a feature. Not terrible for WeGoers, perhaps, but still rather unpleasant if you're trying to issue Commands quickly.

I am not speaking specifically of this feature. It was your reply style that made me write an answer. If the reply would have technical difficulty or feature not requested enough or lines like that, I would not have paid any attention.

And yet there's no game company on Earth that makes games using this philosophy. Not even the ones who spend $50m on a single game do this. Why do you think that might be?

I feel that you are wrong. There is game companies that do not swear for one philosophy. They let players decide what kind of philosophy to follow inside the game. One example would be in game "cheats" like unlimited ammo and in game feature toggles. You yourself have difficulty levels that modify the game.

[Michael Emrys]

HAH! I didn't know you were "one of those" guys. Man, I remember quite a few old time wargamers insisting that going 3D was totally pointless.

Yep. I was one of "them". But as I say, it didn't take me more than a few minutes with the real thing before I saw the error of my ways.

Michael

[PhilM]

HAH! I didn't know you were "one of those" guys. Man, I remember quite a few old time wargamers insisting that going 3D was totally pointless.

Truth be told, when Charles first suggested going 3D I asked why it would be any better than a good 2D system. He drew some stuff on the back of a Guinness stained napkin and, coupled with various hand gestures, I saw the light.

Steve

So that's why CM games are so inspired! I hope you are both still drin ... erm ... taking the liquid vitamin supplements ...

[Sailor Malan2]

I think the reason why the 'extra commands' (like LOS button) crowd don't see BFC's reluctance (absolute refusal on occasion) to implement these 'option things that people don't have to use' is that they really do not get a couple of things:

- every feature you add means something else doesn't get in. So the question isn't 'why not put it in, people don't have to use it', but rather 'what does it go in as a replacement for, when some people wont even use it?' (assuming it's even possible).

- a large fraction of the current user base will drop CM like a lot brick if it ever shows any sign of dumbing down or going arcade-y. I am here for a reason. There are many mainstream 'wargames' that are not worth the name and have these features. Do not try and turn CM in to one or I am out of here (with immense sadness and regret, but absolutely for all that).

I liked Steel Panthers for example, for its command system and scope, but got bored because of the tendency for 'scissors/paper/stone' - scout forward, find enemy unit, bring up the appropriate killer, shoot it up, rinse and repeat. This was a function of the old turn based dynamic.

I am almost certain I am not alone in this view of CM...

Oh, yes - survey time? Commands are given in L3 or L2, occasionally 4. Battlefield scan in 6/7 (or occasionally 8 if I really want to 'look at the map'). Video replay in mostly 2 and 1 (depends on tanks/buildings etc). Situational awareness (where to look at in L1/2) in 3 or 4 just looking for messages. I watch each video maybe 4-5 times on a medium battle, once from 3/4 and the rest from 1/2...

Anyone else want to 'fess up?

[Jock Tamson]

I doubt there is a single WEGO player on this forum who does not use the target tool from waypoints to achieve what the OP originally asked for. So the information is available, but it can be time consuming to gather it.

Does effective use of that tool make you a good tactical wargamer, or patient with the interface?

Anything that decreases fighting the UI and allows more time for the tactics is an improvement IMO.

To be honest if a simple LOS check is against the CM credo I don't understand why you can check targeting information from waypoints at all. Indeed Battlefront's reasons for not wanting it - that you don't need to micro for successful play - are quite at odds with those who don't want it because they feel it makes the game more hardcore than other tactical wargames. Because the latter are definitely checking what they can and can't see and from where using the targeting tool - what PBEMer in their right mind is going to move units only to find out 24 hours later that their ambushing tanks can't see the road from the waypoints they plotted?

[sburke]

Truth be told, when Charles first suggested going 3D I asked why it would be any better than a good 2D system. He drew some stuff on the back of a Guinness stained napkin and, coupled with various hand gestures, I saw the light.

Steve

Was the stuff on the napkin to more explicitly explain the hand gestures?

I am one of those folks would probably consider a micro manager. I love playing this game at ground level watching what every damn one of my pixeltruppen is doing. The behaviors exhibited by the TAC AI are sometimes outright amazing and as much as I am not a modeler, seeing the drama unfold in a live action diorama is an absolute blast.

However I don't particularly spend my time trying to figure out every shot and movement expecting I have that level of control. The tools at hand allow me to do what I need to do and then some. Only thing I'd still like is the ability to tell my guys to toss a hand grenade in the way they do smoke now, but I expect if I had it I'd run out of hand grenades even faster than I do now.... Then I'd complain about that.

[Battlefront.com]

This has actually nothing to do with anything.

Of course it does! You say our attitude is "stupid" so I asked you to explain how a company with a "stupid" attitude could be around for 15 years with a market leading product. I then pointed out the obvious question, if we're so "stupid" then where is all the competition from the "smart" guys? I can tell you... not making wargames of any sort

Your game could always be even better and get even more customers.

Sure our games can always be better, which is why CMRT doesn't look like CMBO. The problem you seem to be having is thinking that your pet feature request would make the game better and get us more customers. I don't mind you having an opinion of what would make the game better for you personally, but you have no basis for forming an opinion beyond that. We do because a) this is what we do for a living and we've got a track record of success that few game companies have.

I feel that this is treating people as really stupid. If you add something, but do not in reality take something away for other customers. More people would get what they want.

This does not conform to reality. Which is why I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't run your own company, nor that you take something from drawing table to market. Because otherwise you'd understand where this theory of yours breaks down.

These are again hard facts. Time is limited and you have to prioritize. However your philosophy might be costing you customers.

Sure, but catering to the wrong crowd by diverting resources and complicating the game can also cost customers.

And your game could have several of philosophies.

We do that already. WeGo and RealTime are totally different ways to play the game. We also try hard to make a game that is both detailed and historically accurate, yet also fun and visually exciting to play. But we can not be all things to all people all the time. So there are limits.

I am not speaking specifically of this feature. It was your reply style that made me write an answer. If the reply would have technical difficulty or feature not requested enough or lines like that, I would not have paid any attention.

This is not a feature that we feel fits in with our philosophy so it's already in a losing war against other feature requests that are. The fact that there are technical challenges pretty much kills the idea. I suppose I could have just used the technical challenges as an excuse, but I have this really annoying habit of being honest and forthright with our customers. I think our customers deserve such treatment, but since you find our philosophy "stupid" in other ways perhaps you disagree with this too.

I feel that you are wrong. There is game companies that do not swear for one philosophy. They let players decide what kind of philosophy to follow inside the game. One example would be in game "cheats" like unlimited ammo and in game feature toggles. You yourself have difficulty levels that modify the game.

Yes, but games that lose their focus lose their identity. Those that lose their identity do not survive. We can not be all things to all people. Trying to be that is a recipe for disaster. Which means, by definition, we have to pick and choose what we do and do not include very carefully. By definition there will be someone who disagrees. As long as we, the people putting our arses on the line, are comfortable with the results of our choices then all is about as good as good can be.

Steve

[sburke]

To be honest if a simple LOS check is against the CM credo I don't understand why you can check targeting information from waypoints at all. Indeed Battlefront's reasons for not wanting it - that you don't need to micro for successful play - are quite at odds with those who don't want it because they feel it makes the game more hardcore than other tactical wargames. Because the latter are definitely checking what they can and can't see and from where using the targeting tool - what PBEMer in their right mind is going to move units only to find out 24 hours later that their ambushing tanks can't see the road from the waypoints they plotted?

I think Steve's point was a little broader than that. First that the information would only give you a general idea and you'd still need to use the targeting tool, second it would be a big hit on computing power.

And even with the targeting tool I still can't be guaranteed my tanks will have the LOF I might think they'd have before they moved nor that once there they won't be spotted first. I have learned the hard way, there are no absolutes in this game. You plan for what you think you can do and to optimize your chances. Then you hit the Red Button of Fate and start praying you were right. Kind of like a RL commander.