Interface needs work.

[David Aitken]

John -

Almost everything you see in Combat Mission is abstracted. It is just a graphical representation of the calculations the computer is doing.

I highly recommend you just buy the game. If you liked Close Combat, you will love this. The engine is incredibly sophisticated, like nothing that's been done before. Then you'll get a manual, which will tell you absolutely everything you wanted to know about how the game works and how different things are modelled. You don't get much of a manual with most games these days, but Combat Mission's manual is indispensible.

In situations like you suggest, where a tank should leave a hole in a wall or whatever - this is really not something you worry about when you're playing the game properly. Just be assured that everything is beautifully modelled under the hood.

There is less need for a 'roster' in CM than in CC. In CC you've got little pictures of troops scattered all over the place, and you can't possibly work out what is what without a roster. In CM, you've got command lines, you've got unit bases, you've got a lock-to-unit function, you've got a select-next-unit function, you've got an enlarge function, etcetera.

I say again - get used to playing the game. Don't try and play it like Close Combat, because while it may look similar, it works completely differently.

Decide whether you want the game or not. If you do, buy it. Then play it for a couple of months, and once you've actually got used to the way it works, THEN come back and ask for a roster. Don't just take one look and come running in here complaining that it's not the same as Close Combat.

David

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And what's wrong with smilies?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the heart of the Brazilian rain forest, there lurks a breed of smiley that would make even mild-mannered ( ) Peng tremble with fear and rage. Obviously the work of a mad genius, the Super Smilies, as they have been dubbed by the scientific community, are a genetic cross between a mime, NY City hot dog street vender, and your garden variety Bush-Tailed Prairie Smiley. In tests on live specimens, Super Smilies have been found to be twice as expressive as their more generic counterparts.

Luckily, the bushmen of South America have limited access to computers, laptops, and the internet. The only live specimens seen were taken off of a biologist's laptop by airport security when he returned from a trip to the Amazon. But if the Super Smilies somehow emerge from the depths of the jungle in force, God help us all.

-Andrew

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

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[Panic]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John:

Sorry if this seems like nitpicking, but I have a few minor gripes with the interface (I'm playing the demo, by the way).

1 - It can be a bit hard to find a particular unit. A Close Combat style roster would work well, especially with the 'lock cam to unit' command (CTRL-click)

2 - It can be hard to keep track of where the units are going. Perhaps a dot could appear on the landscape - again like Close Combat.

3 - When you move multiple units, do they have to stick to formation so rigidly. I keep moving platoons through woods or behind buildings, and units end up in the middle of open ground.

4 - Perhaps a tactical map?

5 - Infantry units riding on tanks is great, but why can't they shoot while doing this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a hot key to turn all paths on - I play this way, much nicer to see where you have everyone going, and grab waypoints to move around. Plus it gives you a sort of cool-looking maneuver map before you hit go.

Also, BTW, tanks can go over walls -- I drove the Panther up through Plomville and across the wall to mop up some infantry -- it just slows you way down. Damage is not modeled, either, which is okay by me, as there are other reasons walls/fences slow units down that have nothing to do with the physical barrier. People like walls, as they are good to hide behind, and tend to use them for cover. Anyway, my .02.

[Panic]

Also, before I forget, the infantry thing isn't that unrealistic. From what I know the preferred method of building entry during house-to-house is the wall breach -- straight through the wall, preferably from an upper floor or the roof. Now, troops aren't going to stop every time to do a breach, especially if they are pretty sure the building is unoccupied, but given the time and unit scale, just having the troops move into the building is, I think, an acceptable abstraction.

[Los]

I think you're splitting inconsequential hairs. First off the stone walls in CM are the standard stonewalls you find walking in amny rural areas. You can they are 1.5 meters in height tops. Standing behind one provides you some cover laying behind it provides you full cover. That means we are not talking castle walls or two-three meter height walls.

Now a tank crossing these CM walls might either bull it's way right through the wall creating a gap, or if it's a lighter AFV might just roll over the top of it, breaking it down somewhat but not smashing a whole in it. I've seen both types of breaches occur in real life.

OK, so now said infantry squad comes along. There is a small gap in the wall. They are not all going to rush through it at once but will file through one or two at a time since they are using tactical movement. Why crowd an obvious gap all at once? It's going to take a squad more or less the same amount of time to walk through a gap in a low stone wall as it will take to have another squad hop over or straddle cross another stone wall which they can cross and still retain their tactical formation without having to funnel through a gap.

If there is some minute difference in time it certainly isn't wasn't worth modelling when the time could better have been spent coding up the stats for another vehicle or whatnot. Certainly if anything it would have more graphical impoact than tactical impact (Showing the broken wall)and again there were better more pressing things for the artists/modellers to work on. I hope this explains things. (And no it's not like we sat around talking about this particular situation and debated how best to model it.)

Los

[John]

I take the point about the tanks driving through walls. It was just an idea, that's all.

I have actually been playing the demo for a while, and I've read the review in PCGamer. But, as I pointed out, I don't just go out and buy a game. I play the demo for considerable time first. My initial view was that I shouldn't get the game, but as I talked with poeple on this site, I became more sympathetic. After all, just deciding whether I wanted the game or not wouldn't be fair to CM, would it? They agree with me about the roster, by the way. As I said earlier, I'm not asking for Close Combat 3D.

I agree that, once you've learnt the keys, it gets easier, but while I now don't see a roster as essential, it is something that CM would benefit from. Saying that you can manage without it is beside the point. The job of a game interface, in my humble opinion, is to make controlling your units as simple as possible. Take the units holding formation. This was probably a design decision, as it makes holding lines easier. However, units far away from the control unit (that's the one with the yellow box, the others have blue boxes) sometimes end up out of cover. If there was an option for units to break formation and regroup, or seek cover (holding down a key when you set the order would do it), this would solve the problem. Similarly, being able to check what every unit was doing at that moment, without changing views, would make keeping track of the battle much easier, and in turn this would make the game more fun. And that is the whole point of playing games, right?

[This message has been edited by John (edited 08-06-2000).]

[David Aitken]

John wrote:

> I've read the review in PCGamer [...] They agree with me about the roster, by the way.

They agree with you, or you agree with them?

> The job of a game interface, in my humble opinion, is to make controlling your units as simple as possible.

Which is not the same as filling your screen with statistics. In CM, all the functions are there, but BTS thankfully (and commendably) elected to tuck them away instead of plastering them all over the place to try and impress you.

> Take the units holding formation. This was probably a design decision, as it makes holding lines easier.

It was actually a late addition for lazy people. I hardly ever use it, and I find moving squads individually neither a chore nor particularly time-consuming. If you get into the game properly you should understand why group-moving is both unrealistic and inadvisable.

> If there was an option for units to break formation and regroup, or seek cover (holding down a key when you set the order would do it), this would solve the problem.

Hang on, I'm sure Charles can knock that together in a few minutes for you.

> Similarly, being able to check what every unit was doing at that moment, without changing views, would make keeping track of the battle much easier, and in turn this would make the game more fun.

Yup, and this would be a good simulation of the laptop computers Battalion commanders were issued with in WWII. You know, the ones that gave them instant feedback about exactly what each of their men was doing during a battle.

When you walk down the street, do you have a head-up display telling you how many people are in your field of vision and what they're doing? Or do you prefer to look and see for yourself? Not everything you need to know is always available to you, especially in war. You've got to find it out for yourself, and I think Combat Mission simulates this rather well.

David

who should either be dead or working by now

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hi John. I think people have pretty much covered your questions, but I thought Id just add a couple of things on the end

Should you buy this game? Well, good question, and of course only one you can answer The big question is are you into wargames? If you are, then I personally feel you cant go wrong, honesly I cant see CM leaving you feeling dissapointed. CM is the best wargame Ive personnaly had the pleasure to play ever, and the biggest step up in the wargaming genre in many many years. Of course, if wargames arent always your thing then I can understand you taking your time as CM is first and formost a wargame. Mind you, I think its converted a lot of people over to the genre too

Something you probably dont know is that CM was and is being developed by a small development team. Something that was #1 on their list for CM1 was to make sure that it had as much realism in there as viable within the development period. This ment that of course some things came before others on the 'wish list', with the unit list being one of those left for a later date. But, on the other side of the fence CM has some literally amazing behind the scenes work being done in there. The detail behind tank vs tank combat for instance is immense, with the factors being taking into account here too numerous for me to remember. For instance even the angle one tank of offset from another is taken into account when calculating target penetration, along with factors such as shell weight, spin, armour mm, degree, quality, weak points, etc, etc.

Anyways, just a couple of thoughts John. I hope you find CM as enjoyable as I have in the past few months.

[HankWWIIOnline]

John: Regarding the 'Info Bar' ala Close Combat...I too thought they should of included one in CM when I first played it. But...once you get used to it, you won't even think about it. Close Combat really needed one because it's in real-time, and you don't have the luxury of replaying your last turn over and over to see what happened.

Since CM does let you do that, it's only a matter of spending time and looking over the battlefield. It's a bit time consuming, BUT...I personally find it hella fun to watch the turn over a few times, and don't mind taking the extra time to do so. I orient myself with my forces as well as have a cool time doing so.

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

College Football approaches...

www.getfanatical.com

[guachi]

CM has about 4 BILLION hotkeys for controlling your units. Practically the ENTIRE hotkey menu is filled with commands for easily finding and controlling your units.

Okay, that was a little overstated, but CM does make it really easy to follow what is happening to your men.

Jason

[deanco]

Hi John,

I personally agree with you about the roster. For new players it would be a blessing to see your whole list at a glance, preferably with different colored type to know easily if they were moving, firing, hiding etc. It would make it easier to not forget anybody, that's for sure. The plus and minus keys are just too laborious, especially later when you have a bunch of crews running around. Not to mention that the + and - keys also cycle through all spotted enemy units too... And I also feel that the keyboard ergonomy could have been done better. Sure, a lot of commands are available, but they're all Shift + something. What's wrong with the function keys? Why can't we simply remap the keys to whatever we want? Since I have a French keyboard some of the defaults are not the greatest, like Alt Gr + ) to zoom the camera. To BTS's credit though, the key combos actually do make the functions work, as opposed to some games where you have to use the American counterparts. Other than that minor niggle, however, I think BTS have made an almost perfect game. Anyway, just to let you know I think you have a couple valid points.

DeanCo--

[Blue Macs]

unfortunately you cant go out and buy this game, you have to stay in and buy it, haha

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

"If you see a white plane it's American, if you see a black plane it's the RAF. If you see no plane at all it's the Luftwaffe." -German soldier, Western Front, 1944

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...read a lot from people like Fionn, Mark IV, Joe Shaw, KwazyDog, Moon, WildBill Wilder, Captain Foobar and others of that ilk,...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm all goosepimply I'd like to thank my Mom and Dad, who taught me to point (helps with the mouse donchaknow), and of course all the little people who I stepped on to reach the glorified heights I've reached. And to the others in this category, it's an honor just to be listed in the same breath as me. NOT

Do NOT listen to what Peng says on this issue (or indeed what he says about smileys, he's just flat wrong there), as my opponents will gleefully tell you, I'm not even in the same game (let alone the same league) as the others he mentioned. See what posting frequently can do for your reputation

And finally, I've never touched an Ilk in my life ... as far as you know.

Joe

[Jeff Heidman]

AS far as the Roster question is concerned, I think CM could defintely use one.

Someone mentioned that a Battalion Commander in WW2 did not have a laptop, and that CM somehow reflects this by not giving the use access to that info in a roster type screen.

This is fallacious on a variety of levels. While COs did not have laptop computers, they also did not have a "+" key either. Nor did they have full 3d rotating viewpoints, or the ability to tell exactly how many men were still operational in a squad 2 klicks away.

However, all of these things are available in CM. Does this make them wrong? Perhaps to some, but the reality is that in CM the player is NOT a Battalion CO, he is a Battalion CO, three Company COs, an attached Weapons Company CO, 9 Platoon COs, 27 squad COs, plus another dozen or so heavy weapons teams COs. Additionally, he is the track commander and driver of somewhere between 0-10 AFVs.

It comes down to this. It is not a debate that has ANYTHING to do with realism. The game is inately unrealistic. It is a question of interface. For better or worse, BTS decided that some amount of information would be available to the player. Given that some piece of information is available (say the unit men status info), good interface design is making that information as accessible as possible. Right now, it is available through either finding and clinking on the unit or cycling through all available units with the "+" key. Both of those are useful sometimes, and not so useful other times. A roster screen would just add a third way to access information the game already makes available.

If you want to argue that having that info is unrealistic, that's is fine, and might even be valid. But arguing against a roster screen is arguing against the format of the information, not its inclusion. It is already there to begin with. If you do not think it should be there for realism reasons, then you should also argue against the "+" key and being able to click on a squad and see how many men are unhurt.

Jeff Heidman

[David Aitken]

Combat Mission provides you with numerous ways to keep track of your men, and understand what they're doing, by looking at them. All the information is there, down on the ground.

Close Combat needs lots of statistics screens because there's a limit to the information you can glean by looking at your men. This subverts the focus from the battlefield, and the way you fight your battles is less realistic as a result. Instead of getting down there and fighting, you sit back and watch all your flashy statistics.

If you get into CM properly, and play it the way it was meant to be played, you won't need a roster. Such an addition would simply encourage people to play CM like CC, which is wrong. CM may resemble CC, but the way it works is completely different.

Combat Mission is ideal the way it is. The way to develop it is to refine what's under the hood, not to add on lots of bells and whistles. The latter is the Microsoft route of product development - tack on hundreds of different ways of doing the same thing, without actually doing anything special underneath.

The finest programs in existence are simple but powerful. CM is a perfect example of this, and I sincerely hope it remains so.

David

[Papa Khann]

David wrote:

*Combat Mission provides you with numerous ways to keep track of your men, and understand what they're doing, by looking at them. All the information is there, down on the ground.*

And since the info is already there, I still don't see the harm in added one additional tool that presents it in a more complete format. This tool would not "replace" the type of activity you are describing (using the level 1 camera setting to check LOS, etc.), it would simply add an additional and alternative method to access that same information.

*Close Combat needs lots of statistics screens because there's a limit to the information you can glean by looking at your men.*

I don't play CC anymore, so who cares.

*This subverts the focus from the battlefield, and the way you fight your battles is less realistic as a result.*

I see no correlation between the lack/addition of a roster screen and realism in CM. CM "appears" realistic because of the 3D modeling and the immense amount of research Charles has (most admirably) incorporated into the design. But it's still just a game. Furthermore, the game elements (sound, 3D video, ballistics modeling, etc.) won't be less "realistic" because I can turn a roster screen on or can't. In my mind, the issue of "realism" vs. "should there be a roster" are not related. By that reasoning, the "+" and "-" key functionality should be removed, because it's "not realistic". Ridiculous.

*Instead of getting down there and fighting, you sit back and watch all your flashy statistics.*

I'm not "down there fighting" now. I'm entering orders on my computer, to which this wonderful software responds by generating 3D movies. It will do that with or without the roster screen.

*If you get into CM properly, and play it the way it was meant to be played, you won't need a roster.*

Good of you to point out to the rest of us how CM is "supposed" to be played.

*Such an addition would simply encourage people to play CM like CC, which is wrong. CM may resemble CC, but the way it works is completely different.*

CC is real-time. CM is not and should never be. Again, I hardly see the addition of a roster screen influencing my style of play in the manner you propose.

In the end, you could always choose not to use the roster screen, were one added.

Papa

[David Aitken]

Papa Khann wrote:

> And since the info is already there, I still don't see the harm in added one additional tool that presents it in a more complete format. [...] it would simply add an additional and alternative method to access that same information.

Which is a good thing? A roster basically tells you what you'll already know if you have a memory. It may also tell you what a unit is doing, but nothing about the context. To find out WHY a unit is doing what it's doing, you have to look at the battlefield - so why not do that in the first place?

> In my mind, the issue of "realism" vs. "should there be a roster" are not related. By that reasoning, the "+" and "-" key functionality should be removed, because it's "not realistic". Ridiculous.

There is a distinct difference. All the functionality that is there, is on the primary level - where the action is happening. A roster is on a secondary level. The most effective way to use a roster is to go through it from top to bottom issuing orders, which is a completely unrealistic way to play.

> I'm not "down there fighting" now. I'm entering orders on my computer, to which this wonderful software responds by generating 3D movies. It will do that with or without the roster screen. [...] Again, I hardly see the addition of a roster screen influencing my style of play in the manner you propose.

It will almost certainly change the way users of the roster play the game, as I've said above. Instead of looking at the battlefield, taking in everything at once and dealing with each skirmish in turn, you're going through a list, jumping around the battlefield, seeing where each unit is and issuing orders in a fashion irrelevant to the actual battle. If you don't use a roster this way, there's no point in having one.

> In the end, you could always choose not to use the roster screen, were one added.

To add a roster would be a misallocation of manpower and would pervert the essence of the game.

David

P.S. This debate seems to have transferred to the "I want a roster" thread. Best keep it there.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

If you get into CM properly, and play it the way it was meant to be played, you won't need a roster. Such an addition would simply encourage people to play CM like CC, which is wrong. CM may resemble CC, but the way it works is completely different.David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might be the most arrogant thing I have seen posted on this board all day.

Just because someone disagrees with you hardly means that they are not playing "the right way".

Who gave you the monopoly on defining what the "right way" to play this GAME is?

Jeff

[Henri]

Although I can live with the game as it is, a roster would be useful.

Another possibility is to have a hot key to go from HQ to HQ in addition to the existing one to go from unit to unit; this would help avoid forgetting a platoon off to one side (yes, it has happened to me . And I wish the latter key jumped over killed units, I just want to scan over my live units in order to make sure I didn't miss anybody -if he's dead, I don't care.

Henri

[John]

Wow, who would've thought that my post would get this kind of response. Thanks to all those who gave their views, including those who disagreed with me.

About the roster, there is an option to have detailed unit labels. Don't know what it is, I just found it while messing about with the key commands. But this still requires you to zoom out.

Papa Khaan and Jeff Heidmann have hit the nail right on the head. There are other features that the game has, like a 3D bird's eye viewpoint, that WWII commanders didn't. And the roster would just be a more concise version of the detailed labels I mentioned above.

The thing about group movements, then. The system I described is fairly simple, isn't it? Especially if, as you suggest, this was the original idea, and moving in formations was a later change.

I suppose it all depends on the level of realism you like in your games. Just today, while flicking through a PCGW from a few months ago, I read an interesting letter from someone disappointed by the cancellation of Hasbro's upcomming M1 Tank Platoon. Apparently, it was due to poor sales of Gunship!. The writer of the letter thought that simulations were becoming 'too realistic', alienating large sections of the market. Very interesting. Perhaps CM is guilty of the same thing.

Finally, I must appologize for my mistake. After looking for the review, I realised that it was PCGW that reviewed CM. Sorry.

[John]

Just been through the postsin more detail. David, to answer some of your points.

It's true that the review was written before I played the game, but the view about the roster is my own. What the review actually said was "unit management takes some getting used to". This was also listed as one of the two (the other being the graphics) down points of the game. I just think that a roster would resolve this.

You have a point that the Close Combat style roster does not give much of an idea of context. But you can improve on the system. So, instead of the action being simply 'attacking', it could be something like 'att inf-sqd(100m)'. This would translate as attacking an infantry squad at 100 metres range. This would give a better idea of context. Also, a roster doesn't just give a list of who's doing what,it gives you an idea of status. When a unit is attacked, its entry in the roster could flash. You can get a quick idea of who is healthy, who is out of ammo, etc.

You say that you could use the roster to allocate orders one-by one. Have you played Close Combat? Is that the way you play it? Finally, wouldn't WWII commanders have had a sheet with everything they knew about each unit. They could forget a unit's status just as much as anyone else, especially as they had other things to worry about. Like mortar shells going off a matter of feet away.

I find it hard to believe that the average commander of any period did not keep a record of his units.

[Jeff Heidman]

Personally, I do not think a roster should give ANY info regarding whether a unit is engaged and how, simply because, as David pointed out, that information is almost useles since it has no context. And if it had enough context to be useful, it would make the roster too cluttered.

I think the info that is currently available by clicking on the unit (Name, type, ammo, weariness state, moral state) would be fine, possibly with the addition of attachment information (attached to such and such HQ/unattached/out of contact).

That would be usful info to have. With the addition of the ability to click and locate, we would have an extremely useful tool to manage forces, without adding a single iota to the information or accesibility level currently available in the game. The info would be what is already there by clinking on a unit, and the accesibility would eb the saem as what is there through the "+" key.

The only good argument I have seen in opposition to this so far is that the implentation would take time that would be better spent on TCP/IP and/or CM2.

Jeff Heidman

[David Aitken]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> This might be the most arrogant thing I have seen posted on this board all day.

Go me. But really, I'm not accusing anyone of playing wrongly - my emphasis is that Combat Mission, while it bears certain resemblances to Close Combat, works completely differently and needs to be played as such. Therefore, CC features like a roster are not necessarily relevant.

David

P.S. As I said, this discussion has more or less switched to the "I want a roster" thread, so best to check up there.

[deanco]

A roster may or may not be "relevant" but I'm sure that some players would find it useful. I don't see what is wrong with what has proved to be (by the number of posters that have agreed with John) a percieved need or minor fault with the game. Just because the issue was beaten to death a year or two ago doesn't mean it's set it stone for all time. I think Steve and Charles are listening here. From what I've read they seem to be open to suggestions such as this one. In the end they will decide what is "relevant" or not to the game, it's their success story here, not ours.

DeanCo--

[HankWWIIOnline]

When I played CC, all I used the Roster for was to immediately see who was being slaughtered or not. Then I could quickly click on the unit and go to the hot spot to try and get them out of it. Or if I heard a tank brew up, I wanted to know which one. I still see it as a necessity for CC because it's in REAL TIME, and having that roster is almost necessary. Otherwise you'd be scrambling all over the screen to see what the hell was going on, trying to issue orders.

In CM, you have the luxury of checking on all your units without the pressure of issuing orders to save their asses. There is no immediate need to place a roster in CM. It'd simply be a minor luxury. Time could be better spent elsewhere. We're already wasting time playing a game, so waste some more finding your units.

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

College Football approaches...

www.getfanatical.com