John Posted August 9, 2000 Author Share Posted August 9, 2000 Hank, you're right - it is a luxury. But a nice luxury. One that I like. And what you mean about the way you use the roster, that's pretty much what I meant by the idea of status. Jeff's system could work. And trying to fit all the info (cover, suppression, ammo, morale, etc) on one roster would either make it too big or all the info too small. I still think that having unit info on the roster would be good. Perhaps a button to switch the roster through different modes? Or the ability to expand the view would work. This would work like this: You have a list of all your units, with minimal info about each one. Each entry would have a little 'expand' button, and clicking on this would expand the entry, giving more detailed info. How does that sound? About the thing with moving in groups. Someone said that moving units in groups is unrealistic, and tactically unviable. This is true in CC. But then CC does not require you to keep your units together in the same way as CM does. In CM, if a squad moves too far away from its platoon commander, there is a delay before the unit moves (the out of command bit) This means that you have to keep the squads, teams and command squads together. Also, squads need contact with their own Platoon Commander. If you separate them, and can't remember which squad went with which Platoon Commander, you are buggered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John: If you separate them, and can't remember which squad went with which Platoon Commander, you are buggered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's very straightforward to see which squad goes with which Platoon HQ: Click on a Platoon HQ and lines will be drawn to all the squads in its command. If they're black they're not in C&C. If they're vets or better they handle themselves reasonably well without C&C though. You can also just click on the squad, and unless it's in C&C of a CoHQ, it will draw a line back to its Platoon HQ. If it's in range of a CoHQ, go to the next paragraph. Also, the squad labels match their Platoon HQ labels:B-0 is HQ, B-1 is first squad, B-2 is second squad. Works great--especially if you attached a squad or two to the CoHQ and want to figure out where to send them back to when you're done with them. Also, to see who's being slaughtered count the visible guys-- if there's three then less than 1/3 the squad is gone, if there's two, less than 2/3 but more than 1/3, etc. In most cases it's not important to know whether they have 12 or 11 guys, but occasionally I want to know exactly what weapons they still have. Then I call up the detail screen, but usually just using the LOS tool to target something will give you a good idea of effectiveness (by the firepower). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted August 10, 2000 Author Share Posted August 10, 2000 Don't know if this is just the demo, or it's me, or what. But don't the lines disappear if they get too far apart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HankWWIIOnline Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Hmmmm...don't think so John. I've noticed MG's and (I think) mortar units don't have a direct C&C line(Visible) to a CO. I've also noticed very LONG black lines...don't know if it disappears when you're far enough away. Generally I at least try to keep all the units under a certain CO in the vicinity of each other. I don't send half the squads to the left flank and the other half to the right...you'll only be able to keep one group under C&C. ------------------ College Football approaches... www.getfanatical.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 10, 2000 Share Posted August 10, 2000 Command lines always exist between a Platoon HQ and his squads. If they are black the squads are out of range, of they are dark red the squads are within range. There are two exceptions. 1) If a squad is out of range of its Platoon HQ, but within range of a Company HQ or higher, the new HQ will take over. This is only temporary, until the squad either goes out of range of the Company HQ, or meets up again with its Platoon HQ. 2) Teams have no fixed HQ. They are not as badly affected as squads if they are out of range - they work well on their own. If there is an HQ nearby, they will come under his control. In other words, platoons should be kept together, but the rest is up to you. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted August 11, 2000 Author Share Posted August 11, 2000 Right, probably just me getting confused, then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted August 11, 2000 Author Share Posted August 11, 2000 Ok, this is from the 'roster war, ceasefire' thread, as it's closed, but I think this needs saying. Fionn wrote: 'Dan E and the various other real-time vs CM or CM vs real-time posters here It occured to me that most people are approaching this incorrectly. CM IS real-time. It is NOT continuous-time. CC IS continuous time.' Never heard of continuous time. I'd call CC realtime, and CM simultaneous turn-based. Tiger wrote: 'Real-time is more STRESSFUL, IMO, but that does not make it tenser. When I play CM, everytime I watch the movie (which shows BOTH players' moves being executed AT THE SAME time) I am on the edge of my seat waiting for something to happen. Waiting to see if my AT team can knock out that tank. Waiting to see if my opponent is going to drop arty on my troops hiding in the trees. Waiting for whatever is in store for my forces. When I play real-time games, the tension is replaced with stress because I know I need to click the fastest. I need to point the fastest. Forget plans, when the **** hits the fan, you need to be quick on the mouse. I find myself watching only the "hot spots" and ignoring everything else.' Have you actually played CC? The average RTS, I'll agree, is pretty much chuck-em-in-and-hope stuff. But CC is much slower, and you do have time to make tactics. In reply to BTS's closing post: I haven't seen any really unreasonable arguments (on either side). Obviously, if you've decided against a roster, that's your choice. But I for one prefer CC, so I'll stick with my copy of Battle of the Bulge. CM is a good. As I mentioned in another post, it does some things better than CC. But I personally think rosters, when done well, really work. I would ask you to at least consider the idea. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 11, 2000 Share Posted August 11, 2000 John wrote: > But I personally think rosters, when done well, really work. I would ask you to at least consider the idea. They have, and they've made this clear, even in the post you're responding to. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPav Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 I was playing a large scenario on the CD yesterday (where a bunch of Germans attack a bunch of brits). This is a big scenario. I started playing. The Germans approached the arty target points. I was trying to find the arty spotters. This was painful as hell. There are lots of units on the map, and it was taking forever to sit there and scroll with the +/- keys to find the spotters and mortars. I don't want tons of info on the roster, I just want to be able to go "Hey! Where's that spotter/sharpshooter/AT team!", because those people hide, and then I can't see them! But that's realistic, because its the point of camoflauge, I guess. The scenarios will just keep getting bigger and bigger... and managing entire battalions with +/- is tedious, extremely not fun, and lends nothing to the seat of the pants feel that CM is trying to create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 XPav wrote: > I was trying to find the arty spotters [...] This was painful as hell. Obviously I don't know how you're playing, but you might try getting a better grasp of your forces before you start. It's a very good idea to take time in the setup phase - find a clear bit of ground, and lay out all your units in their command order - Battalion and Company HQ's at the back, then teams, then Platoon HQs and their squads. Tack teams onto the platoons - for example, each British platoon should have a 2in mortar and a PIAT. Take a moment to soak up what kind of teams you have, and how many, and then decide where they're going to go on the battlefield. Put your platoons in position first, then lay out your teams in supporting positions, where you think they'll be most useful. Then when the action starts, you shouldn't have any trouble finding those spotters, because you'll remember the logic to where you placed them. This is an example of how to get the most out of Combat Mission - as I was just thinking this evening, the more you put in, the more you get out. It's not the kind of game where you either win or you lose - you can play well, or you can play badly, and the outcome will be completely different. Sure, maybe a roster would help you keep track of your forces - but if you take the time to organise them, you'll have less need for a roster, and you'll be a better player to boot. Just imagine in reality - units can get lost there too. "Hey, where did Johnson go? Have you seen him?" This isn't an elitist way to play, it's just common sense. By the way, this is just general advice - if you're way above it, no biggie - I'm sure it'll be of benefit to someone. =) David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPav Posted August 14, 2000 Share Posted August 14, 2000 David: This was using the default settings on the scenario. This is the scenario (forget the name) where a battalion of German armor attacks more than a battalion of Brit Infantry. I looked at the default setup, and well, it was a good setup. You're proposing that I move everyone around and take half an hour for a game against the computer to figure out where my forces are? I don't think so. Quite frankly, for smaller engagements, yeah, a roster wouldn't be needed. Here though? It'd make the game play smoother. Micromanagement *is* *not* *fun*. Sure, people can do it, and people can get good at it, and then those people can wipe the floor with those that don't do it. That doesn't mean that just because one has mastered the skill that its the best way to play the game. A similar situation: Falcon 4.0, upon release, had a very twitchy landing model. It was hard to land the F-16. Most people would snap the landing gear off until they got really good. Real life F-16 pilots commented that it wasn't that hard, and in the next patch, Microprose made the landings easier. A bunch of grumblers then came out of the woodwork complaining about how the game was being "dumbed down" because, all of a sudden, it wasn't as hard! Making things hard doesn't make things realistic. We're dealing with game-imposed interface issues here, none of which were in World War 2 (although I bet Patton would have killed for a flying eye!), and the observation of a great number of players is that the interface make it hard for one to fight large battles without spending a great percentage (compared to smaller battles) micromanaging their units. After reading the postmortem at Gamespot, I think I know why too... BTS didn't anticipate to weel on the power that would be around for the game's release, and as a result, large scenarios beyond the original intended scope of the game are indeed, technically possibly. But hey! BTS got the game done, and I'm sure they've learned a hell of a lot in the process. I've just come off kicking a large amount of software out the door, and I can look back and see that I've learned a lot in the last one and a half years. I'm confident that they'll figure out the right thing to do. [This message has been edited by XPav (edited 08-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted August 16, 2000 Author Share Posted August 16, 2000 OK, I think it's time to lay this thing to rest. I can't believe the response its got. It was just so that BTS (and everyone else) knew what I thought. If people do this, developers get a better idea of what people want, and make better games. So I hoped that, by posting messages on this board, I could help BTS make their future games better. The point is nicely put by XPav: 'BTS got the game done, and I'm sure they've learned a hell of a lot in the process'. David, have BTS said they have considered a roster WITH info, status, actions, etc, like CC. I think this would be a good idea, but I haven't seen any post tothis effect. The post I replied to actually said: 'We have stated in the past that we are keeping in mind a PURE OOB feature for future CMs. This would be something that would allow you to see little more than the unit's name, type, and command structure relationship. You would also be able to "jump" to a particular unit by double clicking (or something) on the entry in the OOB. We have no firm design in mind, but this is one thing we have kicked around as a possible compromise.' I think the subject is calming down (thank God), but at some points it was clogging up my e-mail with notifications. I'll keep an eye on developments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 Aah, but you've gone and dug it up now. Knocking it to the top of the forum is not the way to 'lay it to rest'. Lucky for you I'm too tired and too pressed for time to care to add anything. =) David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts