Too many difficulty levels?

[Michael Emrys]

Maybe it is a minor thing, maybe not that much...

It is a very minor thing and you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Give it a rest, please.

Michael

[womble]

BFC seem to have a deep aversion to popups/tooltips. I can understand that their overuse just leads to players turning them all off, but there has to be a "happy scarcity" where they help without hindering (and can still be turned off by those who don't want them, just like Icons, or Smoke, or Trees).

[Clubfoot]

A difficulty reduction to five types? Four? Let's just distill down to two. 'Grog' and 'Nancy'. For accessibility's sake, of course.

[DavidFields]

I play Veteran level. I used to play Warrior, but I just found it more fun to go to Veteran level.

Posters on the forum are not, I hope, a cross-section of their market-- for BFC's sake, that would make for a very small market.

I think the number of levels they have are well thought out and, from what I can see, well done.

[Childress]

A difficulty reduction to five types? Four? Let's just distill down to two. 'Grog' and 'Nancy'. For accessibility's sake, of course.

Haha. If we're going to have two levels how about 'Chuck Norris' and 'Conchita Wurst'? The first is probably tougher but the second is no slouch either. The concealment factors in that one are off the charts.

[LukeFF]

The difficulty information should be included in the game. The current difficulty naming scheme doesn't clearly convey information and you cannot at a glance decide what difficulty is best for you.

That's what the manual is for.

[Clubfoot]

@Childress: I'd totally play Chuck Norris mode. Would I be limited to A Force of One? Zing.

I know I know.

[MengJiaoRedux]

@Childress: I'd totally play Chuck Norris mode. Would I be limited to A Force of One? Zing.

I know I know.

This reminds me: a few days ago i was looking for kid shows for my kid and there was Chuck Norris: Ranger: Texas Ranger: Walker: Taledega Nights.

Chuck was shooting at a bear. at least I think that was happening in the script. On the screen there was Chuck looking at his rifle in disbelief and there was the bear looking bearish, and then Chuck and then the bear and then Chuck using the scope on his rifle and then the bear (cue bear: furious!) and then Chuck checking to see if the rifle had fired or worked or was hooked up and then the bear: still an angry bear. then some people looking relieved or amused or something.

I tried to imagine (during Peppa Pig) what happened with the Chuck Norris sequence: they had the bear footage and they had the Chuck hates-his-rifle footage and they needed to wind up the episode so they increased the drama by splicing together two totally unrelated strips of film.

Oh! And I play on Veteran Difficulty. I think I almost always have. Since, oh, 2007 or something.

[Pelican Pal]

So I'll agree that this isn't that big of deal. I would never made a thread about it, but now we have one and I find UIs interesting. I enjoy CM so I would like to talk about the UI/UX of CM.

Even if none of these ever get implemented it isn't a big deal. I'll still enjoy CM. I'm sure new players will continue to come to CM, however I don't see why we can't discuss it.

76mm - Those were just some quick examples I wrote up in a space of a few minutes. The basic idea is that it doesn't matter what they actually mean. However they do keep with standard video game language in regards to difficulty and obviously make sense next to each other. All we need to know is that "hard" is harder than "normal, and so on.

Frankly CM would probably be better off with language that gauged realism rather than difficulty. Because the game (barring basic) is essentially as difficult regardless of the difficulty setting.

Michael Emrys - It isn't about new players being driven away. It is about the presentation of the game. Apple gets a lot of slag for having simple systems, but they do make some slick products and that isn't something you should discount. Often times the "feel" of a product can be as important as its functionality.

LukeFF - That information could be easily included in the game and improve the player experience. Just because it is in the manual shouldn't mean it should be not in the game. And remember at this point most of us don't have nicely printed manuals nearby anymore. If I want to view the manual I need to alt-tab out of the game, go to the BFC website, find the manual link, load the PDF, then search through the PDF to find the info I want. Is it the worst? No, but it could definitely be better.

In fact it would be better if most everything in the manual were in the game.

Imagine if during the quick battle selection screen basic information about a unit was displayed. So I would know that the PSW 223 has an MG34 and radio on it, while the PSW222 has a 20mm auto cannon, or that a Sicherung squad has 7 riflemen and a SL with a MP40.

I could finally know the differences between all those bloody Panzer IV models without having the manual open on a second screen and a written list of differences nearby.

Or if I could click on a unit during a battle and see a little encyclopedia entry brought up. I see a rarely used Panzer Mark II and I'm interested in the tank. So i right click and select the option to open the encyclopedia page. I see pertinent information about the tank (armor, gun, etc...) and a short history of the vehicle. If anyone recalls doing this in the original Rome: Total War it was quite a bit of fun to be able to read up on the units you saw in battle.

Now does anyone of this *need* to be in the game. No, of course not. We don't need BFC to drop everything and add any of this in. In fact they never have to, and I would still buy their games. But it would make the experience better.

[Michael Emrys]

Michael Emrys - It isn't about new players being driven away. It is about the presentation of the game. Apple gets a lot of slag for having simple systems, but they do make some slick products and that isn't something you should discount. Often times the "feel" of a product can be as important as its functionality.

Okay, as a generality I'd agree with that. You're still making a mountain out of a molehill. Find a topic more deserving of your forensic skills.

Michael

[Vinnart]

I only play in "Super Master Titanium Triple Ultimate Guru Grog Mode" level for ultimate realism

[slysniper]

I only play in "Super Master Titanium Triple Ultimate Guru Grog Mode" level for ultimate realism

This must come only in the "Gold Edition" available for $150 as I recall

[Michael Emrys]

I only play in "Super Master Titanium Triple Ultimate Guru Grog Mode" level for ultimate realism

This is the one where people actually shoot at you, right? I tried that but my neighbors complained about the noise.

Michael

[Lt Belenko]

I only play in "Super Master Titanium Triple Ultimate Guru Grog Mode" level for ultimate realism

Is this the one where you only keep the camera at view level 1 and the trees always on?

[George MC]

Is this the one where you only keep the camera at view level 1 and the trees always on?

You forgot to add that in this mode every time a pixel truppen meets his digital end you are shot by a airgun mounted just behind your chair for ultimate realism. Oh and you wear the same undercrackers for two weeks. Non stop. And don't wash.

[sburke]

You forgot to add that in this mode every time a pixel truppen meets his digital end you are shot by a airgun mounted just behind your chair for ultimate realism. Oh and you wear the same undercrackers for two weeks. Non stop. And don't wash.

and you go into your backyard, dig a trench, fill it in and then go dig another trench. You do this for two weeks in between actual action. You rarely play the game.

[Qman]

This is great conversation. All being said, what level do most folks play? I have been playing(learning) at Iron level because i heard it was the most realistic but am i missing out on a more fun gameplay balance?

[A Canadian Cat]

Nope you are not missing out. If you are happy with Iron that's awesome.

Personally I play on Elite (but I am flexible with opponents - if they want Iron I'll do it)

[Pelican Pal]

I play Elite.

Personally I feel that Iron just makes the game more annoying, not more realistic. I have to constantly unselect units to select new ones and there is just a whole lot more mental gymnastics that you have to go through.

[mjkerner]

I play Elite.

Personally I feel that Iron just makes the game more annoying, not more realistic. I have to constantly unselect units to select new ones and there is just a whole lot more mental gymnastics that you have to go through.

Same here, so I play Elite only.

[sburke]

This is great conversation. All being said, what level do most folks play? I have been playing(learning) at Iron level because i heard it was the most realistic but am i missing out on a more fun gameplay balance?

I play on Iron as well, not because of it being more "realistic" but because I get a better sense of my units than I do on other levels. I can tell what a unit is aware of and how isolated in Iron and you just don't get that same sense in Elite.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Prefer iron.

[poesel]

Also iron man here.

I think it is actually easier than elite because if you click on a unit you see what they really see. I've never had to search for my own troops as some mentioned here.

And I'd like to repeat my request for another level where you can only look out of the eyes of the HQs, vehicles with radios and a birds eye view (because CM has no map function). That would give one a better sense for the confusion on a battlefield (I guess).

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I play on Iron as well, not because of it being more "realistic" but because I get a better sense of my units than I do on other levels. I can tell what a unit is aware of and how isolated in Iron and you just don't get that same sense in Elite.

Exactly this.

[womble]

And I'd like to repeat my request for another level where you can only look out of the eyes of the HQs, vehicles with radios and a birds eye view (because CM has no map function). That would give one a better sense for the confusion on a battlefield (I guess).

Just for curiosity's sake, try doing that using the current views... You'll find, I think, that you won't be able to maneuver your troops where you want them to go because of the many and multifarious things that get in your way which would be no impediment at all to an actual team/squad/vehicle leader IRL. Even if you turn off the trees. 'Tis a significant problem with the 2D depiction of a 3D environment: you can't tell someone to go past or round an object until you can see past or round that object.

And if you can only see out the eyes of HQs, how are you going to know what your squad leaders can see? The TacAI will have to improve immensely before that becomes even close to practicable.