Roster War, ceasefire

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Hi everybody,

As a relatively new player (I only played the commercial version) BUT an old grognard, somewhat knowledgeable about wargames (started wargaming with SL in '78, and for example CM immediately reminded me of Kampfgruppe - SSI 85, which HAD a WEGO system and order delays), I started this thread knowing that this topic had been discussed, but NOT that some guys will fire their Schrecks about it!!

Even if I did'nt really count the answers, it's CLEAR that there is a majority for a roster/OOB/list to be added.

What is strange is the reactions of the opponents (aka the Anti-roster Crew)...

Men, it's quite childish to argue that "it's not designed this way", "you'll play better without" or stuff like that... I stop here, I won't argue...

What count is :

- Is this an addition widely asked for ? Definitely yes !

- Does this have any effect upon the game's foundations/principles ? Nope, it's only basic interface

- Have BTS the time/resource to do it without having to delay other developments (TCP-IP, CM2, replay movies,...)?

I just don't know, BTS has to answer - BUT it seems that such a feature would'nt be very costly..

- Have BTS the intent to do it ?

Seems that NO - no problem, some players ask a feature, designer decide to do it or not !

He chooses up to where he wants to please customer, and assume it.

Two points lastly :

1- CM IS THE BEST WARGAME EVER, roster or not !

2- DON'T ANSWER TO THIS THREAD, unless you're BTS, I just want to finish that (and this way I'll have the last word)

Closed/terminé/fertig/terminado

See you soon.

[David Aitken]

Pascal -

There is no "roster war" - it is a discussion.

What you have said here is your personal opinion. It is not the definitive conclusion.

Please don't start a new thread in the vain hope that you can get the 'last word'. I might point out that your original "I want a roster" thread was also your attempt to get to the top of the agenda - the discussion should have stayed in "Interface needs work", where it started. This just divides the argument between various threads and creates confusion.

David

[DrD]

What was that? Don't reply? Oh sorry too late.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

- Does this have any effect upon the game's foundations/principles ? Nope, it's only basic interface<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know that? The assertion that the way we access information has no impact on the way we use it is patently false. What is a library without a catalogue (be that an OPAC or something Eco imagined) - a house full of books that are useless. When the internet first went up, all the information on it was available elsewhere. Yet it will still transform our societies in ways we can not even imagine at this stage. The way you access information has a huge bearing on the way you use it in your dealings with reality or a game.

Coming to the conclusion some people in the other thread have drawn from this, namely that an interface that is not easy and accessible is by default faulty. This is also simplistic. In reality, the interface is a means to an end. The end has to be known before the interface is designed. Using the interface to achieve this end is legitimate, therefore an easy interface can be the end in itself, but it must not be. Using libraries as an example again. If you go yo your local library you will usually have no trouble getting a book out and taking it home. The end is to suppply people with reading material, very straightforward, easy interface. If you go to our university library, the end is to make the limited amount of books go a long way. Therefore we have three different types of loan (term/week/day) depending on demand. I can tell you that 24hr loan is a very complicated interface to deal with. Now go to the British Library Folio Room and ask them to take the Lindisfarne Gospels home. The end there is to preserve the book, and to enable as many people as possible to look at the page that is opened on a particular day. You can not touch it. You can not take a photograph of it. Very complicated, clunky interface. I even have to go to London to see it.

Steve and Charles have clearly stated that they had a specific end in mind when deciding to make the means (interface) a bit more complex. IMO they achieved that very well, in fact I drew the same conclusion about a roster they did before I read their statement (thanks to Jason & the Searchonauts for providing these links). I do understand and have sympathy for a lot of the arguments for a roster (e.g. Lawyer's), but that it won't change anything in the way the game is played is a bold assertion that I do not believe.

Regarding your request that only BTS reply to this thread: if you want to have a private conversation with them, I suggest emailing them. This is a BBS.

All of the above is obviously IMO. I am not a student of information science, so I would like to get the input from someone who is an expert and the necessary corrections.

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

Andreas

Edited for continuing inability to use HTML code, proving that I indeed should shut up about information design.

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

[fdiskboy]

Germanyboy,

It seems that logic isn't your strongpoint either...

*puts on his flame-retardent fire-fighting suit and readies himself for the coming flames*

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Germanyboy,

It seems that logic isn't your strongpoint either...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to elaborate? I may well be completely wrong, but your comment does not strike me as very helpful in pointing out the error in my ways.

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

Andreas

[fdiskboy]

Germanboy, you say,

"The way you access information has a huge bearing on the way you use it in your dealings with reality or a game."

Can you give me an example of how the way you access information has a huge bearing on the way you use it. More specifically, elaborate on your assertion that a library without a catalogue is just useless books. That is a fallacious argument. The books remain useful, just more difficult to access. The information in them remains useful, again access to them in a timely manner is hampered.

Let me give you an example. You may research Tiger tanks to your heart's content on the internet in a matter of minutes, or search out books on the subject in the library in hours or days. The information you glean is still perfectly relevant and will consist usually of the same facts and figures, but the way in which you gathered the information is irrelevant unless you are concerned with the time it took you to compile it.

I was actually attempting a bit of humor to lighten what is becoming, even for me, a tiresome discussion. (It's a joke, son, a joke.--Foghorn Leghorn)

I will warn though that building a logical house of cards usually results in hurricane warnings.

Was that more helpful?

Respectfully.

--One more thing. The internet has changed our society, you are correct, but only because it made information exchange EASIER and FASTER.

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

[aka_tom_w]

So from what I've read...

Steve and Charles put a great deal of thought into the interface and they designed it the way it is for a reason. I'm not sure that it is the most user friendly interface I have ever seen but it works.

I have voted no for the roster as I like the way the game plays as it is.

Now I know this could be another thread but the interface design on the Scenario editor is unjustifiably and unecessarily clunky and hard to use. I am LOATH to be critical of any aspect of this game at all, (ok, those who know me may recall I was perhaps overly critical of the "problem" with non-flaming AFVs not blocking LOS or LOF, just to be fair, but that too was a design and conscious decision by Steve and Charles) but the map editor in the scenario designer is a really good example of a User interface that could be made much more user friendly.

This is hard to say as I know Charles has coded this game and has done AMAZING job to make it all work so well! Thanks a Million times over for this great game!

But the user interface in the map designer is not at all user friendly, and need not be so "clunky" except that it was more than likely quicker and easier to code the way it is. It works, thats for sure the user can move around in it and design maps. No problem, but it could be alot mor user friendly like the tools and pallets and drop down menu's in Sim City for instance. I think Maxis DID a GREAT job with the user interface on Sim City or any of their Sim games. In those games instead of a button for EVERY tile you can use they are logically grouped so you can click and get a drop down menu for the tile you want.

This is for SURE a GREAT game, but I would say Steve and Charles are not exactly interface design guru's.

Before I am unnecessarily flamed here I'm a Mac Tech and I teach in a college Program in New Media Design and we teach Advanced interface design to our students here.

But irrespective of that, these are just my personal opinions.

-tom w

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Steve and Charles have clearly stated that they had a specific end in mind when deciding to make the means (interface) a bit more complex<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is the current interface is not complex at all. Indeed, it is extremely simple (note that simeple != easy) to use. It is also (in some situations) extremely tedious.

I am still not very clear on how tedium=better gameplay. This still seems to me like saying part of the game is to have your significant other come and hit you with a hammer and shut off your computer in the middle of the game to better simulate real life combat. Heck, I know mine would go for that...

Jeff

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Can you give me an example of how the way you access information has a huge bearing on the way you use it. More specifically, elaborate on your assertion that a library without a catalogue is just useless books. That is a fallacious argument. The books remain useful, just more difficult to access. The information in them remains useful, again access to them in a timely manner is hampered. .

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An example that springs to mind is day-trading or whatever it is called on the internet. All the financial information that is being used (well, a large amount of it anyway) existed before the internet. Our ability to access it in a quick and easy manner has made traders out of millions of people world-wide who otherwise would not be direct share-holders at all.

You are partially right about my statement with the library - the books per se are useful, but they will not serve the end of what a library is supposed to achieve. Targeted access to information in a reasonable amount of time. Unless you are a librarian delighting in owning books (a different end) it might be better to just distribute these books throughout society in manageable portions.

So far we are in general agreement I would think that in fact easier interfaces/access, call it what you will is indeed a very positive thing. I have not denied that per se in my post (at least I did not intend to). What I tried to rebutt was the assertion that easier access will not change the way you deal with information.

Coming to your example: I will usually do a quick internet search on matters of interest (e.g Tiger armour values) using a software called Copernic that I find quite valuable. Unless it really interests me, I will not go down to the library and look for books on a marginal topic for hours. Ease of access has an impact on my ability to participate in discussions about Tiger armour (not to mention my incapability when it comes to Physics).

The second argument I was making was actually quite independent of the ease-of-access one, where I think we mostly agree. And that was that ease of access to information is always a good thing. Not so I would argue, IMO it is valid to use the interface to achieve different ends and even deter users from accessing the information. That has of course unintended consequences that can be quite negative, as Lawyer's post has shown.

Thanks for the hurricane-warning, but it is quite unnecessary. I do not mind being proved wrong in public, because I believe it to be a learning experience. The question is whether the criticism comes in a form that is constructive, as in your second post, or in a form that can easily be misconstrued as insulting, as in your first.

I think you can get out of your flame-suit now, as far as I am concerned.

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

Andreas

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I am still not very clear on how tedium=better gameplay. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the idea is to deter you from accessing the information at every possible moment, and make you play more intuitively, and with an eye for the terrain, situation of a unit relative to others etc.pp. (not saying that you don't do that, but I can see a risk for new players to just use the roster). As a low-level wargamer before CM came out, I find it works exactly like that.

I can see how if you have developed a style of playing that uses this information heavily in other games (note: this is not a statement that implies a judgment of your abilities and I am not calling you an old git in a nicer way) you would find it tedious. I remember our first discussion/fight/clash/call-it-what-you-will about the information given on effective range of LATWs in the game. I think it really is a style question. I prefer the intuitive style, others don't. Fortunately enough for me, the game was designed in the way I prefer it. I have seen some of my friends being turned off by too much information in tables in other wargames etc. and not look at wargames at all anymore, preferring Doom instead. So I think the approach actually has some merit when it comes to drawing new gamers in, but I know that not everybody will agree with me.

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

Andreas

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

David,

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

There is no "roster war" - it is a discussion.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but it was at times quite hot !

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

What you have said here is your personal opinion. It is not the definitive conclusion.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By definition there can be *no* conclusion to such a discussion - I just wanted to sum up what was said

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Please don't start a new thread in the vain hope that you can get the 'last word'. I might point out that your original "I want a roster" thread was also your attempt to get to the top of the agenda - the discussion should have stayed in "Interface needs work", where it started. This just divides the argument between various threads and creates confusion.

David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhhh.. I admit my fault...to be on the top of the lists is my ultimate goal <G> !

No, the real reason is that in such a BBS it's quite impossible to follow a thread with 100+ posts, I'm accustomed to newsgroups where it's much more easy .

Starting a thread gives a new start to threads where noone has the courage to go to page 10...

So, interface needs work on the BBS too ???

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

PDF

[Jeff Heidman]

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

I think the idea is to deter you from accessing the information at every possible moment, and make you play more intuitively, and with an eye for the terrain, situation of a unit relative to others etc.pp. (not saying that you don't do that, but I can see a risk for new players to just use the roster). As a low-level wargamer before CM came out, I find it works exactly like that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is, what you are talking about is enforcing people to play in some certain manner, that has nothing to do with the game itself.

People should look at terrain, force disposition, command, tactics, etc., etc., because that is the smart thing to do, and that is what will be effective, not because a kludgy interface forces them to.

What you are talking about is just plain good wargaming. I do not think you can force someone to be a good wargamer by giving him a intentionally limited interface. For that matter, I do not think you can make a poor wargamer a better wargamer by giving him a good interface. A roster will not allow anyone to deploy their troops better, know how to assault an entranched enemy, or how to set up overlappong fields of fire. Certainly the lack of a roster will not do that either.

I think there is this idea that the addition of a roster will spawn some mindless legions of people who will never look at the pretty 3d graphics again, and will be enslaved to their roster screen. That is silly, and not supported by anyhting other than supposition.

David (and other anti-Rosterians keep making the comaprison to CC. I think that it is a bit insulting to think that the difference between CC and CM is a stupid roster screen. The CC (at least some of them) games were pretty good games. Refusing to use ANYTHING they did just because they did it is ridiculous. CM stands on its own as a outstanding wargame in the traditional sense of what a wargame is. Its lack of a roster is hardly what defines it.

Jeff Heidman

[Oldgamer]

Not sure if anyone is still interested in this thread (roster), but I'm still really confused by the fog of war aspect. Many otherwise logical debaters have said that searching for your units adds an element of real life fog, and makes organizing your forces more important. How??? I can still use the + key every time for a full look at my troops. Every time, every turn! I would agree that if there was really some loss factor built in then I might actually lose contact with a unit, but as it stands now I always have the + key. I just want the plus key in a table. I've only briefly played CC, and am just now realizing that it's what many of you are distressed with, and I agree that a CC style table would NOT be cool in this game. Don't want that - only want a + key table. Yep, that's what I'm calling it now. : )

Really, can someone explain to me how there's any fog of war built in as described. It really sounds more like, "if I take the time to + key through all my units, and my opponent doesn't, I've got an immediate advantage". Ouch, way gamey in my opinion. It gets to where two opponents should always ask before the game, "are a plus key user, or do you just wing it?".

Aaron

PS Still wondering why anyone cares if we debate this into the ground, even for the xth time.? Isn't that what forums are for?

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The thing is, what you are talking about is enforcing people to play in some certain manner, that has nothing to do with the game itself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure about this - it might just be the very thing that makes CM different, and a conscious design decision that it should be played intuitively. In that case it would have everything to do with the game, but we won't know that, because all we can do is surmise.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

People should look at terrain, force disposition, command, tactics, etc., etc., because that is the smart thing to do, and that is what will be effective, not because a kludgy interface forces them to.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I absolutely agree. I guess the question is whether they actually will do that if you give them a choice between learning from the ground up to do all these things (and get smashed a few times in the process), or will they just use the roster and never learn 'good wargaming' at all. Again, we can have opinions on it, but we will never know. In my case, I believe the absence of detailed unit information in accessible form was very helpful for me to learn this game. Lots of reading did not harm me either. What was more important in the end, I can not tell. in your case, and probably Pascal as well, since you both seem to be long-time wargamers, you have learned all this stuff already elsewhere, and you can do it and use a roster, which is of course quite a good skill to have.

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

Andreas

[David Aitken]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> I am still not very clear on how tedium=better gameplay. This still seems to me like saying part of the game is to have your significant other come and hit you with a hammer [...]

Jeff, I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. No-one is saying or implying what you are saying.

The attitude you (and others) have towards Combat Mission, almost suggests that it's not your kind of game at all. Some Quake monkey could come along and dismiss CM in its entirety as tedious - simply because they want instant gratification. We're not talking here about features of CM which were designed to be tedious - we're talking about features which are more suited to the kind of game CM is.

The way CM works, is to have everything - as I have said before - down on the battlefield. You earlier reacted to this by saying

> It's "on the battlefield"? What in the hell does that mean? Last I checked, there was no "battlefield", just a computer screen giving me information about a virtual representation of WW2 combat.

You must agree that there are different levels to the way CM displays battles. You have the 3D model of the terrain and your units, and you have secondary information - the panel that tells you what a unit is doing, and the panel that gives you detailed information of a unit's firepower and kills. These two panels are necessary.

BTS have deliberatly chosen not to provide any secondary management features. Games like Close Combat rely on these heavily, and the graphical representation of the actual battle is much less useful.

In CM, the only way - and in my opinion, the right way - to find out what is going on, is to look at the battlefield. Various people have argued that a commander would have a list of his units, and a roster represents this. This argument is flawed - you are already given a list of your units, in the briefing. No commander had a real-time display of exactly what each of his units is doing at a given moment. If you scribble down that you have four platoons, the paper does not magically update itself when you lose one.

It has also been argued that a commander could not actually jump to one of his units and see what it's doing, so why shouldn't the game provide a roster which a commander wouldn't actually have? The answer, is, when you jump to a unit, you are doing exactly that. You are not looking at a summary of all your units - you are looking at the battlefield, and seeing what is going on first-hand.

This is the key to Combat Mission's interface - it is first-hand. No lists, no statistics, no fancy management features - everything you need to know, you find out by watching the battlefield. CM provides you with numerous features to keep track of this - features which enhance the actual action, not features which display second-hand statistics about the action. This is not being awkward or tedious - it is simply channeling your focus towards what is actually happening.

I hope this clears things up for you, Jeff.

David

[fdiskboy]

Germanboy,

My intent was not to offend. (My intent is to get to 30 posts and be a real member--but I digress). My apologies, I will refrain from throwing gasoline on any fires I might see.

I believe that perhaps we may agree more than we disagree. There are still problems with your "use" argument. The way financial information is used has not changed. People use it to make financial decisions. True, the information is much easier to come by, that just means that more people are able to access it and actually profit from it. They aren't using it in a different way if they couldn't use it before. If they could use it before and chose NOT to do so, that does not mean the way they used it changed. It only means they changed their mind about making the necessary effort to do so. (Keep in mind that in the daytrading example, the financial cost of trading stocks, daytrading or otherwise, also impacted the numbers of people actually participating.)

The library example is exactly the same. The information is available for research, whether it is used at all is the question, not how it is used. You are correct, a catalog ensures that a library is more efficient and easy to use. It does not change the way the information contained in it is used. Frankly speaking, libraries are manageable chunks of books spread out throughout nations/states/cities to make them easier to use. It's just a question of scale. At what point does it not make sense to break it down further.

Back to CM though. You want people to get down and dirty with their troops. That is not the issue. I do that anyway--you have to for line of sight and terrain reasons. I think we still come back to ease of access to information that is already available.

Any CM player that tried to play straight from a roster would be soundly defeated by the TacAI, much less a human opponent if they did not use it as simply another tool to manage their resources within the game. Will a roster keep me from getting down in the trenches to survey my troops position? No. Observe lines of sight? No.

Ensure cooperation between different units? No. Why would it hinder the newer players? Must we assume that all the new players will be idiots? I think not.

It comes down to ease of use. You think it helps the game to hinder the ease of use of the information presented in it. I believe it hurts the game. We are both entitled to our opinions.

I enjoy Combat Mission. Please hear me on this one. I respect Steve and Charles immensely. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them on everything. Does anyone believe that they aren't in the business of selling games. I think we can safely say that if they sold no games at all they would not continue to operate solely for the love of producing great wargames. I do not ask them to appeal to the LCD, only for a simple tool to make what they have created that much easier to use.

Is it too much to ask? I don't think so. Will it take away from CM2's development? Not if it is something that will be incorporated in the new game.

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

[Jeff Heidman]

Andreas,

I think I see where you are coming from.

You see a roster as a crutch, and are afriad that people will come to rely on that instead of using their brains instead.

I am still uncertain how a list of units can be used as a crutch in place of some other, more appropriate tool, but at least I see where youa re coming from.

Perhaps you could expand on that? lets pretend I am Joe Newbie. I have little or no experience with wargames. How does my accessing my units through a roster instead of manually clinking on them and/or cycling with the + key going to allow me to learn bad habits? This (honestly) baffles me.

I guess I am almost always of the opinion that giving someone (under almost any circumstances) as much information in an as easy to use a format as possible is a good thing. What they choose to do with that information is up to them.

Jeff Heidman

[fdiskboy]

One quick thought after reading David's post.

This is why I dislike government. Because it generally thinks it knows better than me when it comes to what is best for me.

David says,

"This is not being awkward or tedious - it is simply channeling your focus towards what is actually happening."

I watch the movies between turns to see what is happening. I do not need someone to channel my focus. I do that just fine all by myself.

Again, David, I appreciate your opinion, I just happen to think that I know better than you when it comes to how information should be presented to me, specifically.

Respectfully,

Land

[David Aitken]

Pascal DI FOLCO wrote:

> No, the real reason is that in such a BBS it's quite impossible to follow a thread with 100+ posts [...] Starting a thread gives a new start to threads where noone has the courage to go to page 10

Excuse me, who exactly doesn't "have the courage" to go to page 10? That is your personal opinion - not an excuse to disrupt the running of this board.

There are now three recent threads based on this discussion. The earlier threads are continuing, which is a far more difficult situation than simply having a long thread. By starting a new thread, you force people to restate things they've already said, while new posts made to previous threads are lost to the discussion.

I say again, kindly do not fragment the discussion just because you don't personally like long threads. You're not solving any problems, and you're certainly causing some.

David

[Guest Germanboy]

Fdiskboy, I think we should wind this down. I believe we are coming into the area of different definitions for words (e.g. use) and different ways of using them. Usually hair-splitting is the next step, followed by questioning the amount of angels capable of dancing on a needle's head. So let's just agree that the interface has indeed an impact on the way information is being used in society/groups (not by individuals), by effectively defining whether it is economic to use existing information for certain sub-groups (e.g. those without internet access or limited time).

As for the impact on CM, I think our disagreement stems from that I think it would be legitimate to stow away information in a difficult-to-access place in order to simulate chaos and uncertainty. No surefire way of course (unless you take it out completely), but good enough for a large part of the bell-curve (not those with a lot of time/tenacity/working +-keys). And that's it, I think. Our opinions on this differ, but I don't think anyone here who disagrees with Charles or Steve is a heretic, and has to continuously profess how much they love the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I am still uncertain how a list of units can be used as a crutch in place of some other, more appropriate tool, but at least I see where youa re coming from.

Perhaps you could expand on that? lets pretend I am Joe Newbie. I have little or no experience with wargames. How does my accessing my units through a roster instead of manually clinking on them and/or cycling with the + key going to allow me to learn bad habits? This (honestly) baffles me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, I think it is a matter of how much info about units you put in there. If you just have a cycle list, as Oldgamer asked for, I think you would be completely right. The problem for me starts with more information, e.g. remaining ammo, status, whether in C&C, number of guys left, FP over a certain distance, remaining PFs/DCs, has moved or not, has target or not, etc.pp. Now I am not sure whether you are asking for that (I don't think you do), but here feature creep is rearing its ugly head, IMO. Once you have the list, there will be people demanding additional information, and they will be numerous too. Now after a certain amount of this information, it will no longer be necessary to look up your unit on the battlefield or so it will seem. If you don't do that, you will most likely get wasted even by the TacAI, as fdiskboy pointed out. The problem is that you will not understand why that is, because you imagine you have total control. All this speaking for a newbie to wargaming. It would take a large part away from the game. The most ironic thing is, you don't actually need a lot of the info that could be put into such a roster b/c the game works so well without it. You can play in blissful ignorance of it and still have fun.

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

Andreas

[David Aitken]

fdiskboy wrote:

> Again, David, I appreciate your opinion, I just happen to think that I know better than you when it comes to how information should be presented to me, specifically.

Land -

This is not about fascism. It is about interface design. The job of an interface designer is to guide the user towards the most important aspects of a game.

By your argument, designers should ask users how they want to play a game, and provide an option for every single one of them. In reality, it is up to the interface designer, as someone privy to the thinking and emphasis behind the game, to produce an interface which reflects this emphasis.

If you want to call the designer fascist, that's your decision. I call them the authority, and I expect them to do the right thing for the game.

David

[aka_tom_w]

A Thought..... (Perhaps even an ORIGNAL thought...)

Perhaps we could all agree here that some people who have played other war games are accustomed to a Roster.

I think this is more of an issue than anything else. Those that have played cardboard 2D wargames or those that have become accustomed to Rosters in other Video wargames maybe looking for the same experience and style of play in CM.

I have not really played any other wargames other than the RTS variety like Myth II and Age of Empires, so I must admit I do not know Steel Panthers or CC or Panzer General, although many of my friends enjoy these games.

I like CM because it is FRESH new and original in its thinking and design. I really like the fact that most of the hard core stats and data are not exactly available at your finger tips and that the game is BEST played by focusing on what exactly is happeing on the actual Battlefield.

I really think CM breaks new ground the way the WEGO system and the Full Fog of War gives you LOTS of surprises and makes the simulation of the combat well, foggy and confusing at times.

In previous posts I have spoken out requesting MORE fog of war.

I suspect that some players who have come to CM and are not accustomed to a Roster don't or won't really miss the roster. (I don't) But those who have enjoyed the advantages of the use of the roster in the past in other wargames are, not surprisingly, looking to have that feature included here.

-tom w

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

[PzKpfw 1]

To me this whole Roster thing has been blown way out of proportion. A Roster is a personel prefrence that many BTS consumers see would enhance _Their_ play, & have expressed this to BTS here by posting on BTS's discussion board in the Roster threads.

Now regardless of the anti roster consumer section objections; to this for varoius reasons, the fact remains their is an request for a roster, by some CM owners.

Now the Roster & Anti Roster ppl can argue till Icecles ornamate Sutur's Fiery Realm, neither side is going to convince either their right.

The only real response that would mean anything to the pro roster camp would be for BTS to step in and adress this issue once & for all.

BTS's lack of takeing any public stance for whatever reason on this issue is a reason this topic keeps comeing back to haunt this board IMHO.

Regards, John Waters

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

People who can smile when things go wrong

have found someone else to blame.

[Guest Rollstoy]

I think something similar to a roster and (probably) more useful would be the option to highlight certain teams, like e.g. all HQ teams or all AT teams, or all mortar teams. Maybe with a hotkey!

So, even when you play at realistic scale, you can pick out the team you are looking for in a matter of seconds. Like: "Oh, enemy tank spotted! Where is my nearest Bazooka team? Ah, there!" ... team selected.

I think this would substitute an in-game roster quite well!

And never forget to turn on the unit bases!

Regards, Thomm