gatsby Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 You guys who want a status screen have missed something I think.. i am not a beta tester I just have played the demo but its apparent to me that you can lose a game by missing something...You might miss that a squad has been alerted or is under fire or suppressed...and because you've missed it you lose...that would never happen with a status screen...You see you have limited time unless you do want to look at a replay 40 times...and like a commader you have to go up the decision tree and decide what area is important what you will concentrate on...and hopefully cover all the areas as well...if you miss something you lose ...its um part of the game...the replay is not add on..it is the game.. to look at the replays allow you to decide what is important and where to look...just liek any real tactical situation where information overload is the norm...the only thing missing here is physical fear and the confusion that brings... John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Richard Kalajian [This message has been edited by kingtiger (edited 11-03-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatsby Posted November 3, 1999 Author Share Posted November 3, 1999 (Long Rambling Post) Tactical combat is about processing amazing amounts of information and reacting...Looking athe replay screen no matter how many time or from how many perspectives gives you this wealth of information but does not collate it for you.. That's your job...The flashes ...the tracers or the lack thereof...are all noise and info in the zone...you have to take all of that and make some sense of it or not and then act and react...but its not chess...its chaos with order imposed on it in order to make a decision...a status screen just does alot of that work for you...its all there in some ways or so you would think...hoping from unit to unit as oppossed to area to area...I look athe replay from a distance the first time...but rarely make it all the way throughw ithout zooming in and backing up and few times and maybe moving around before I even get through the first time...I mean if you've been playing the game you obviously know areas of concern and what you hope for so that's where you look...areas.. the attack on that tank....the the attemot on the machine gun...the run for the houses..etc...and you look at the map and move your men from the inside not from the outside...fromw hat i've seen the game attempts over and again to go inside but without resort to only a first person inthe mud look...which is probably the look you'd actually have...the mud or the grass or the bottom of the guys boot...so the game gives you a higher view...an ability to make the guys bigger(more of you health bar and status screen guys should try that)an ability to take a scroll through the battlefield...too cool...a status screen pulls you outside and lets you look the inofrmation presented in such a way that you would never have access to... as a commander or just indivually at how you take confusing information and process it...Sorry for rambling...Its just so smart the way they've struck the balance...and where the line is that tilts it...and I think anything that pulls you outside is across that line John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatsby Posted November 3, 1999 Author Share Posted November 3, 1999 Ugh I didn't see your post King tiger before I posted my follow up so it looks awful...like I had more to say after your post...so I honestly was adding more to my first post.. not responding...that would have been yuuchy LOL John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 John, well said. BTW, you can edit your posts by clicking on the little pencil and paper icon in your message header. We don't want people to be doing this long after a post has been put up, as the edit will likely be missed if there are other posts, but if you post and say "OH CRAP, I forgot something" a minute or two later, the edit button works wonders Lots of people don't know about this thing, so I am now on a crusade to let people know what they are missing out on Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFox Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 I am glad someone has started a topic on this instead of it just taking over every other thread I have read just about every thread on this subject and while some people have come pretty close to my opinion on the subject I would have to say that most people posting are those with strong opinions. Perhaps those like myself who are fairly ambivalent are just sitting back lurking. I think that valid points have been made for both sides of the argument. Though in my opinion spurious ones have been made too But in essence I think there are two paralell arguments going on here which are getting intermingled in a way which is confusing- very clearly from some posts. If I can venture to distill from what others have said I would break it down into two very distinct options.... (A) "Unit Navigation Menu/Window" This very simple list contains NO information other than the unit identity. It is purely and simply a tool to enable you to move around the battlefield. If desired this list could impart some limited information through colouration of the unit names. For example units in control could be one colour and units out of control could be another (in order to maintain FoW this category could include destroyed/broken/out of C&C lumped together). But even so its main aim is as a navigational aid. ( Unit Status/OOB Screen All of the information currently available to the player by clicking on each individual unit collated into a single table/menu. This also functions as the same as A. In addition to these there are a couple of other points to consider. Some people want even more information than B would give (based on the existing debate they should give up or modify their requests to something that has a chance). More pertinent would be giving the player a little bit more information in the Set-up phase. For example the menu as described in B would be available in set-up but revert to type A during play or some other combination thereof. [silly mode on} If I could digress and very flippantly characterise some of the viewpoints I have seen expressed (BTW Fionn these are not quotes ): 'I love it that I don't know what the hell is going on'- bizarre! 'Cursed OOB worshippers may your nightmares be afflicted with the ghost squad you cannot find!'- nasty! 'I don't want to be beaten by someone who puts in more effort than me'- mmm scared are we 'I want to be able to export the OOB menu into Excel and why can't I find out the chance of hitting the commanders vision slit before I fire?'- there is a word.... 'I really love the game but I would like to suggest...'- really the effrontery! [silly mode off] Well OK a bit extreme hehe. If you are offended, well hey get a grip this is a game we are talking about. The only people entitled to a level of indignation are Steve and Charles and since this is all about customer relations they are sensibly resisting the temptation to get annoyed (excepting Mr O of course ). Personally I prefer to play intuitively and seldom use the unit menu during SP anyway but I can see the merit of option A. I can manage without it but I think it might add to the game. Furthermore it might go some way towards answering the requests people have made without detracting from the fundamental ethos of the game and therefore may be a compromise acceptable to all. No doubt 50 people have posted since I started this long post so I better get it in quick Gee only 4 things must be slowing up- at last. John reading your posts is like James Joyce [This message has been edited by SimonFox (edited 11-03-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 LOL... The funny thing is that all those paraphrasing are really out there. I personally love the people who go. "Now I have NO game design experience and I know Steve and Charles have 12 years under their collective belts and I KNOW they've sat down and thought this out for years BUT based on my first day's play I think they've got the .... insert one of the following unit information/ view control system / entire order and FOW system ... wrong. Now, given I have zero experience here is how I'd fix it.. I offer this in all humility BUT if you tell me it won't work and won't go in I'll post about a 100 messages complaining and arguing with you." ... The bit that gets me is that when they're told by the game developers and all the beta testers that it's not as good an idea as they think they still insist that we're all wrong .. You've just gotta admire their unquenchable faith (Ps I'm just poking some fun at some of the posts here. Don't take it personally ok guys ... I love ya all but sometimes you'd drive a saint to drink (Irish expression.) ) ------------------ ___________ 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 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 (Serious, Trying to Understand Mode On) Fionn: You made a post regarding this screen as a crutch, a post apparently supported by BTS. I must be missing something, but the logic on this seems pretty weak to me. I don't see how can you explain/justify the stance that simply reorganizing existing data is a crutch. How can it be considered a 'crutch' when this data already exists in CM as it is now? CM already has a crutch by this logic; it is just a damn difficult to use crutch! I asked this before but you never answered: Do you consider the fact that the data is hard to extract an extension of the FOW? This is NOT a rhetorical question, am serious in asking this. Because, if this is not your stance I am clueless to your logic and would like you to further explain for me if possible. I think you know I do not consider a difficult (even mildly difficult) interface an aspect of FOW. To paraphrase my stance (again): All of this information is already in the game ready for the player to use IF they want to key through each and every unit and spend time looking for it. If the information was not in the game you would have a VERY valid point and I don't think anyone here would even be asking for a status screen. But it IS in the game and all we want is an easier way to get the data. (Conciliatory Mode On) Also, this condescending tone from you, Moon, and BTS toward CM's heartiest supporters is getting tiresome (it has be going on for quite some time). It is also reminiscent of another company that produced a 'real-time wargame' about the same time last year. I hope it dose not escalate/continue as it did with that company. Just my take on some of the posts. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatsby Posted November 3, 1999 Author Share Posted November 3, 1999 Scott Even though not Fionn I have to reiterate something I said...It doesn't matter if the information is already there...what matters is how you collate it......If the computer takes all the information and processes it giving you a chart or screen with all your units on it...it defeats the purpose of the game...The centre piece of this game is being able to take an overload of information and make it coherent so that you can then make a decision... What they are trying to simulate is the difference between tactical commanders in a firefight...a good tactical commander can take chaos and see some sense in it..see something that can be done...chaos is the norm when people are shooting at you...how you deal with that chaos of information will either give you victory or defeat...basically what you are asking for defeats the whole point of the game...who is better at dealing with confusing pieces of information...mortars exploding machine guns firing...men not responding to orders...men shooting at different targets...etc... the chaos of of a WW2 battle in short...the guy who will win in this game is the guy who is better at making up his own status screen in his head...In this game you don't need to go from unit to unit...Its just not neccessary and its very unrealistic and that seems to be the designers main focus... Yes all that information is out there...butyour job is to go and get it...not have the compute get it for you...you as a commander would never have that OOB at your finger tips...never...you would have to go and find out what is happening or not...I'd wager that the guy who just hops from unit to unit will 99 out of 100 lose...because just in real life if a commander is too busy micromanaging he find that the big picture soon takes over and chokes him...there is so much info in the zone that if you triued to get it all(ie status screen..condition of unit etc) you would fail and die... John (off topic) BTW I hate James Joyce...Boring.. and pretentious and should have lived alife instead of writing about one that is obtuse and frigid...well except his short stories.. especially The Dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Scott, Nope, not supported by BTS. I just posted as I saw fit. Scott, I DO consider the OOB things a crutch since they are more tied to old games than the future (as I see it).. I consider the OOB list a crutch which people used to the old games want to maintain familiarity. That's just my opinion and I don't even know if Steve or Charles agree with me. Relax, the OOB list is on the list.. Just cause I think its a crutch won't make the blindest bit of difference to it going in or not. I respect your opinion on this and think you're wrong and you respect mine and think I'm wrong .. We'll simply have to settle it over a PBEM LOL (which I see in your latest email you're challenging me to eh? ) And comparing the fact that I simply don't AGREE with you to Atomic is quite preposterous. I don't agree with you and am telling you why. The list went in regardless. I'll thank YOU to not make incorrect comparisons. I'm entitled to my opinion without being compared to them amn't I? And HEY for someone who has spent HOURS responding to numerous emails and posts from people I think I've shown a LOT of patience. More than you could probably muster. Ps. {Posting that comparison makes the conciliatory mode on thing a joke Scott. However I figure you just got carried away and I'll let it drop here and now. BTW I agree a LOT with Gatsby's take. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Western Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Why not just leave out all unit info except for the units that the CO can actually see. Hmm that wouldn't be much fun. Without the OOB list someone will eventually just hack the save game file so he can look at his unit data in whatever format he likes. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Fionn, I have to take exception. Unless I misunderstood your statement, you believe that OOB's will play less and less a role or are even on their way out for future wargames. Quote: "I DO consider the OOB things a crutch since they are more tied to old games than the future (as I see it).." I seriously doubt if they will disappear simply becuase they are so tied in with the reality of the military. If a commander doesn't have a pretty darn good idea of the strength and organization of his unit, he isn't going to be the commander of that unit for long. And he needs to know it in extreme detail include equipment status and personalities. There are times of flux when things are changing but again he better be on top of it as soon as he can. And the OOB status is all up and down the chain of command-what is the status of your unit whether a fireteam or a division. So no, I have to disagree simply because a knowledge of your strength and equipment (OOB) is so essential in both the past and future militaries. OOB's will always have an essential role in wargames whether past or future. Perhaps you just had a slip of the tongue there. But if you are serious, I am curious about your reasoning. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Ken, That's not what I meant. What I was referring to was the EASE with which data which normally had to be gathered etc was being presented to players was on the way out since nowadays there were MANY new ways to present that information in a non-list format which older players might simply have to get used to. OOBS are EXTREMELY important BUT I do think that wargaming is going to leave organised data lists behind and begin utilising new means of communicating that information to the gamer. That there will be resistance to this is a given but it will happen. Most mainstram companies will still have lists but use new methods as an adjunct while some, like BTS will simply use the new methods since they're better and don't have to make as many compromises as the big companies do. FWIW I can give you a detailed recounting from memory of my OOBs in the PBEM games I'm playing and once (when I was more into modern stuff ) did up TO&Es and OOBs for the Soviet armed forces from squad level to Military district level based on early 1990s/late 1980s info... I have a LOT of experience doing OOBs, have done up OOBs for the WW2 German military in the past and consider not knowing your OOB in a game a crime. However, there are new ways to CONVEY that OOB info and I think that I was saying that what is occuring is a resistance to those new ways of conveying it and processing it. so to finish.. OOBS are important . ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preacher Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 You are correct in stating that a commander that doesn't know his forces isn't worth his salt. However, in the midst of a firefight I seriously doubt that any commander - particularly 50+ years ago - was able to discern minute-by-minute the status of each of his units. There is (was) an art to this. I believe BTS's philosophy is to encourage us to develop this art. Watch, listen, react. I love it, personally. I know some folks don't, and that's ok. What we ALL need to realize, however, is that BTS is being very cooperative and open-minded about making changes/adjustments to the game - as long as those changes do not betray the overall design philosophy. My .02 Preacher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Gatsby & Fionn: Okay, that is what I thought you guys think that the actual information gathering process is part of the FOW. I don't agree simply because one man would not have to do the job I am asked to do in CM, nor would one man have access to this amount of data to begin with. But, I do understand what you are saying now. And given this, YES an overview screen would be a crutch (in your view). IF this is the case...then by God we HAVE to have a timer on this game! Give me a timer and I think all will be right in my CM-world (This is for 'general consuption as I have already related this direcly to Fionn via email--not trying to bash you Fionn) As for the comparison to 'the other game/company'; it was simply intended to raise your awarness level of what how you are coming across in some of your posts. I think/hope it has worked. I have ALREADY received three private emails from people that have been thinking the EXACT SAME COMPARISON (to that other company/person). So, it can not be so unjustified can it? They, however are afraid to post this openly. This also should say something... ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard [This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 11-03-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatsby Posted November 3, 1999 Author Share Posted November 3, 1999 I can't leave this alone because I think it is so important...but its another long one.. Peter said: Why not just leave out all unit info except for the units that the CO can actually see. Hmm that wouldn't be much fun. Well the designers of this game had to compromise to make it playable and they obviously drew a line...As I said earlier if they were going to give you a total realistic tactical simulator(without the death) then you would probably only see dirt and the boot of the guy ahead of you...They have had to compromise on reality in order to give playability but I think we can all agree they have been more concerned with the reality of a tactical situation than any other game...They seem to think in terms of real world firefight but also what would be neat...without resorting to various player aids that are completely unrealistic...see below KEN TALLEY SAID "I seriously doubt if they will disappear simply becuase they are so tied in with the reality of the military. If a commander doesn't have a pretty darn good idea of the strength and organization of his unit, he isn't going to be the commander of that unit for long. And he needs to know it in extreme detail include equipment status and personalities. There are times of flux when things are changing but again he better be on top of it as soon as he can. And the OOB status is all up and down the chain of command-what is the status of your unit whether a fireteam or a division." Well I don't know what your experience is but I'll tell you a quick story... I watched two companies move through a forest..not that dense on manauvres...both commanders were very experienced...Vietnam vets the whole shebang...Now this was just a movement but they had to move through the forest and then through each other...it was maybe 500 yards..It took a very long time.. and many of the units got lost and straggled and both commanders had no idea where I would say at least 1/3 of their men at some points during the manouvre(some stopped to chat some just lost orientation etc)... When I interviewed them they both just kinda shrugged their shoulders and laughed...and one guy told me a story about doing a sweep and turning up at the extraction minus a machine gun and mortar crew which they later found..(n they had gone to ground during a snipering incident just before they reached the extraction and hadn't moved after wards.. their squad leaders had gone to ground with them) One guy asked me if have I ever watched a high school football team get on a bus for an away game...40 guys...how long does that take...guys straggling...eequipment forgotten ..someone having a crap... Now lets add some firing to this...how in the world is a captain in th emiddle of a firefight going to know what squad a is up to on his right flank when he and 5 squads in his immediate vicinity are underfire... in fact how is he going to know with certaintity what the status of even those five squads are...are they all going to be nicely lying down in exposed positions so he can see them...Is he going to ask them for a show of hands? And lets says each squad had a radio(never happen in World war 2or even now for that matter but lets say he did) is all the information he gets going to be accurate...is not one squad leader going to be more detailed than another.. depending upon experience and situation( a sgt who is under fire from an MG may not be able to accurately report what is going on compared to a Sgt. who is in charge of a squad which is taking limited fire...) part of being a commander in the field is to determine what reports have credence and which don't...one guy comes running back and says there are tigers tigers millions of them...another guy says there is panther with some support infantry...the comamnder has to decide who is more accurate...if its Normandy the panther guy is right..Bulge maybe the first guy... when the shooting starts very little information will be available about the condition of his units...one of his decisions and one of yours in this game is to DECIDE what you deem to be important where your focus should be and what units do you really need info on.. a commander who goes out and tries to run from squad to squad to find out what their status is will not be much use in a command and control situation...if he radios lets say a lt. who tells him that he has a man down...but then loses most of his squad five minutes later what kind of accurate info will that commander have.. what a good commander will do is look at the situation of his squads and make snap decisions..based on guesstimates which will be informed by a variety of factors.. the quality of the troops, the squad leader.. the terrain...the amount of fire...unless each soldier has a sensor on him and the commander a little computer screen there is just NO WAY he will the information that you suggest.. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 This is a quick response to John's post(got some that needs to be done). My main discussion was the role of OOB's and commanders "need to know" of their unit's status and that reality to wargames. I used the phrase "state of flux" to acknowledge time delay in informational flow. Perhaps I should have used "combat or even maneuvering". In peacetime, one guy could be snake bit on the far left flank and the commander may not know about it for 10 minutes. But he will know about it sooner or later. Or in the Korean War, that his first platoon now has 18 remaining effectives and no more LMGs after a 10 minute firefight. When we look at the true lack of real time knowledge of a combat leader, we better not compare it to CM. Becuase all of that information is immediately known simply by watching or clicking on the unit. That is immediate real time feedback which is not consistent with reality. But there is no way to get the reality you described w/o removing all unit feedback unless they are in direct line of sight of the company commander. That can't be done w/o changing the whole focus of CM. CM is more a reflection of a multicommander game. You are the team, squad, platoon, company, and battalion leader rolled all in one. If that concept is accepted then we should have OOB data available at all levels and instantanously. Which then leads logically to making that data easily accessible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Ken said: >> When we look at the true lack of real >> time knowledge of a combat leader, we >> better not compare it to CM. Becuase all >> of that information is immediately known >> simply by watching or clicking on the >> unit….You are the team, squad, platoon, >> company, and battalion leader rolled all >> in one. If that concept is accepted then >> we should have OOB data available at all >> levels and instantanously. Which then >> leads logically to making that data easily >>accessible. Thank you Ken, that is my view in a nutshell! Very well put, better than me......nahhhh......but good. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard [This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 11-03-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 If I could drop a couple of pennies into this particular cup... I've been a wargamer for 35 years, most of it boardgaming. Those games taught us to micromanage. We had to. There was no other way those games could be played. The players had to memorize the rules, or at least how the rules could be accessed, and enforce them. So we all pretty much had god-like omniscience and control over our paper armies. There were various mechanisms attempted to introduce fog of war and imperfect command/contol, usually involving umpired games, but this was extremely rare and usually didn't get very far. When computer games came along game designers tended to carry this approach over into the new realm for no better reason than it was what everybody in the wargaming community was accustomed to. But there have always been thinking people who were conscious of the artificiality of player omniscience and omnipotence and recognized that the computer could liberate gaming by providing everybody with their own umpire to enforce the rules, in somewhat the same way that reality enforces the rules in real-life warfare. Thus, the player could be brought closer to the elusive goal of experiencing something like the thing being modeled. So now BTS is teaching us a whole new set of lessons: how to live with the uncertainty of imperfect knowledge; how to cope with orders that go astray and with units that show some tendency to think for themselves. Some people are experiencing discomfort at finding themselves in a new and very different role from the one they are familiar with. Hell, *I'm* experiencing discomfort. I'm an irascible old fart who is set in his ways. But I couldn't be more firm in my belief that BTS is on the right track. CM isn't perfect. In fact, graphically speaking, it's ugly as a warthog. But it is also a miracle of great design. You guys are lucky. You are privileged to be present at one of the great moments in the history of wargaming, a true turning point. Don't blow it. ...Clink. Clink. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Here's my 2 cents on the discussion at hand based on my nearly 21 years of wargaming experience. Also, let me state that this is absolutely nothing more than my opinion on the matter. Take it for what it's worth. I have to pretty much agree w/ Mr. Emrys here. I think too much info is not necessarily needed / desireable. In fact I'd say the level of info that BTS is providing in CM is pretty much right on target. That being said, I'd agree that there are probably a couple areas of the interface in terms of how said info is displayed (NOT HOW MUCH INFO BEING DISPLAYED MIND YOU), where BTS could perhaps make things easier for us to access / see the info that we need to make good decisions. These have been commented on extensively now by dozens of folks here on the board and it is up to BTS to think about it and make a decision as to what changes, IF ANY, need to be made to the game. As far as the cries for giving more and more all encompassing information go (THE "I WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING CROWD"), I'd say forget about it. Might very well "ruin" the game vs. improving it! Regards, Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Western Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Michael said "So now BTS is teaching us a whole new set of lessons: how to live with the uncertainty of imperfect knowledge; how to cope with orders that go astray and with units that show some tendency to think for themselves." Well this is not altogether true, there are existing computer war games that have some these type of info levels. There are game that limit the amount of info you have about opposing unit and your own units to the point that they would not show up on the game map unless you happen to click on them. The fact that I have to click thought every unit to determine what condition they are in is not new, you could even call it old. [This message has been edited by Peter Western (edited 11-03-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Talley Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 There are so many posts over the last few days that I am having a difficult time tracking them. So perhaps people are asking for more friendly OOB info. Myself I don't want more OOB info. I would just like easier access. I did seem to notice that more enemy info might be provided. I myself am pretty happen with the existing knowledge of enemy units which is pretty skimpy as it should be. I believe now that enemy units will provide the exact number of figures they actually contain from the moment of spotting. That seems to be a reduction of FOW from the enemy side. Is that going in the wrong direction or did I miss something there. I also have to agree with Michael that this game is a big leap forward for tactical WW2 wargaming comparable to what Sid Meiers Gettysburg did for pre-twentieth century wargaming. And w/o Charles Moylan and the BF team we wouldn't have this brillant game. But I do hope this type of customer feedback and discussion provides that detached independent observation point that assists in the further development of CM. Scott, moments of brillance don't compare to consistent brillance, but I try < >. Ken [This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 11-03-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neutral Party Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 About the status screen. IMO both sides have a valid argument here. On the one hand there is the opinion that the screen is only an easily accesible summary of data that is available elsewhere but requires a tedious procedure to get it. On the other hand there is the argument that the presence of this summary screen is not only uneccessary but actually a negative and retrograde step in terms of the overall game dynamic. I can see that a compromise solution would be to have the OOB screen as an option and I can also see that these viewpoints are strongly and honestly held. My own personal opinion is that the information at present is pretty much just right. I think the tactical decision-making should be made on the dynamic movement, fire and discovery information that we get from the replays. It is this more than anything else that sets the whole tone of the game for me. I don't want to use an OOB summary that is updated in real-time as the basis for playing the game because I think this will be more mechanical than intuitive, will lessen my feeling of immersion in the situation at hand and, in general, will be less fun. One of the best aspects of this game for me (my god it's still just the demo) is the sense of letting go of the numbers (I trust BTS) and, as Obi-Wan might say, using the force. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Neutral Party is well named Joe has clearly stated where we are right now with this issue. We have two camps, the OOB camp and the Crutch camp. There are valid points on both sides, even if we are in the Crutch camp ourselves. We have already stated that there will not be any OOB feature in the first release. This is because it is not crucial and our time is short. Even the OOB people seem to generally admit that it isn't a game breaker (a few exceptions that we can dismiss as the "never happy" types). Because of this we do not intend on delaying the game for such a feature, even if we decided it would be at least a good option. After the initial release we will take another look at this delicate matter. *IF* we can find a way to balance UI, Intel, and general game play concerns with some sort of OOB feature, we might just do it. It certainly will not be the sort of über OOB that started off this whole discussion, but we might come up with something that would give the OOB camp most of what they want while STILL keeping CM's gameplay where we want it to be. But one thing we will never do is put in a feature that we feel is harmful to Combat Mission, no matter HOW strongly people request it. We are the keepers of the faith, and it is part of our job to defend the vision. Otherwise the vision will become muddy and unfocused. Although some people think game design should be democratic (shudder!!), we think of it as enlightened despotism We listen to your suggestions, and VERY often act upon them, but at the end of the day things only happen because we feel they add to the vision of the game. Nobody, not even the OOB camp, would want it any differently. A muddled game is a crappy game Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Scott just play with a timer. That will be an option. This way the guy who is spending his time gathering detailed info will not have given enough orders. He won't have the time to take notes. Playing without a timer would negate the whole point of not having OOBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts