Roster War, ceasefire

[fdiskboy]

David,

Fascism? Where did that come from?

(That's a joke. I hold a history degree, I don't need any more lectures from you.)

Perhaps you are content to allow others to decide for you what is best. I am not. I call it like I see it. If that makes you uncomfortable and borders on sacrilege where Combat Mission is concerned, I feel for you.

The status quo can always be improved upon. BTS has done it. That doesn't mean the apex has been reached.

I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. Such is life.

Please don't put words in my mouth or jump to illogical conclusions.

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>John Waters wrote:

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but BTS has responded to the issue publicly. Read the Roster Vote thread where Jason has kindly provided links to past discussions. It is a dead horse that repeatedly gets brought up. Now the 'word' is it is something being looked into for CM2 so let's just enjoy the game now and leave this matter alone.

[RMC]

This has been an interesting argument in both threads.

I don't particularly care if a roster gets implemented or not. I am most intrigued by the arguments of the crowd that seems so fervently opposed to a roster. Since no one has clearly defined exactly what such a roster can/should do I see people making assumptions about some grandiose game management system that would obviate the need for a player to ever look at the units on the maps. As far as I can tell the Rosterians want a simple OOB list to the side of the screen that allows them to get to their units more quickly an easily than by using the + and - keys or by scrolling around the map. I haven't seen anyone ask for a chart like the CC (which seems to spring up again and again as the example not to emulate) Team Monitor that had a modicum of info about the player's unit in it. This monitor did not allow players to issue orders through it. It provided info and an ability to get to a desired unit more rapidly than scrolling. This was very important in CC because of the manual lag in giving orders to units by finding and clicking on them. CM does not suffer this liability because orders are not given in "real time." The time concern here is the real time of a player's life. For some, it seems hunting for the lost PIAT consumes valuable personal time and detracts from the game experience.

Anyway, I can't see any Table or Monitor from CC that is inherently anathema to the design of CM. The two monitors in CC were the Team Monitor and the Soldier Monitor. Both were changed over the course of the series. Both had limited functionality and different information. Neither freed the player from clicking on his unit to issue an order.

[Guest Rollstoy]

Again I vote for a hotkey to highlight Mortar teams, AT teams, HQ teams, respectively! And the search will be over ...

[Guest Germanboy]

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

I haven't seen anyone ask for a chart like the CC (which seems to spring up again and again as the example not to emulate) Team Monitor that had a modicum of info about the player's unit in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have a look at one of the threads Jason dug out in the 'Roster-vote' thread, I believe there is such a table in there.

Nice work, Jason.

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

Andreas

[Oldgamer]

Germanboy,

Thanks for restating the feature creep point. This I do understand, and is why if they do implement a roster/list I hope they make it as simple as possible. Also, I wouldn't use the darn thing on all the little 500-700 point quick battles I've been playing (every night, much to my wife's chagrin), I got into this whole discussion because of playing the very enjoyable Carentan operation. This one was big enough that I got truly sick of the + key method, but still felt that I had to keep track of my strung out German defenders. It truly became tedious. Until that time I hadn't even thought of a roster.

By the way folks, you shouldn't sweat the flames so much. Compared to many lists I've participated in, this forum is really quite tame. I attribute this to the general nature of the game/subject. The only distasteful thing I've seen here is the occasional bit of elitist condescension, which is generally drowned out by many more polite, knowledgeable, enthusiastic contributors.

[Jeff Heidman]

David, I do not think it behooves us to continue addressing each other on this issue.

Frankly, I am pretty tired of your attitude that someone who wants a roster is somehow broken, and is not a "true" CM player or something. I certainly do not say that your lack of interest is indicative of anything about you other than your lack of interest.

Comments about the game not being "my kind of game" because I think the interface could be better is just more arrogance on your part. You do not get to define for me what the "right" attitude towards some game is. So far you have alluded that I am a misplaced Close Combat (oh! the horror!) player and now apparently I would be better off playing Quake.

Well, David, I think I will play whatever the hell I want, and I do not fel any need to check my opinions at the door when I walk into the CM forum.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Nobody died and made you the authority on what the "right" way to play a game is, so quit telling me that my interest in a roster in any way is an indicator to you as to how I play.

Jeff Heidman

[MarkEzra]

And the battle rages on....Let say at the ouset that I've never played CC...I'm a dedicated SP player for years. For those of you who are familar with the Various SP games the Unit list worked well. I used it from time to time. Actually seldom might be a better description. There were times that I needed to find out just how many units I actually had or where the hell they were. Then the unit list was a quick and useful tool.

Today, and since the CM Beta came out, I play CM/PBEM. I don't think there is a time when I have less than 5 PBEM games going. Keeping an exact memory of all units/reinforcements/arty spotters, you name it AND their exact location on every game board at all times can be a taxing. I do my best to respond both promptly and with my best effort each turn, for each player. So someone want to tell me what the difference is between putting on unit stands to see better, wearing the plus minus button out on my keyboard so as to "scroll" through all my units, or turning my men into giants to help my poor old eye find them or just have a simple little popup that can list my units and send me to them with ease and speed?

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Ah, but BTS has responded to the issue publicly. Read the Roster Vote thread where Jason has kindly provided links to past discussions. It is a dead horse that repeatedly gets brought up. Now the 'word' is it is something being looked into for CM2 so let's just enjoy the game now and leave this matter alone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ack, I saw his post read it & saw this :

"In the absence of an 'official' BTS response, these are likely the closest

you'll get."

And didn't bother checking the links because of it.

Regards, John Waters

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

People who can smile when things go wrong

have found someone else to blame.

[Fionn]

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

Ah it always warms my heart when someone who has no idea of the coding and OBVIOUSLY the principles behind the game tells us all what is and isn't possible and what will and won't affect the game's foundations and principle.

And John,

BTS HAS taken a public stance on this. They've said " No for now".. Unfortunately every so often people deem it necessary to whine and plead for this again.

I have the impression that BTS is simply sick of getting involved in this discussion and so, like myself until now, is simply staying away from the thread.

Over and out.

[ianc]

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

I'll pick this snippet out of the preceding ebb and flow to comment on because I think that it best illustrates the crux of the difference of opinion here.

To me, the concept of making information more difficult to access through the UI for any reason is fundamentally and philosophically flawed from a design perspective. The whole purpose of any sort of UI is allow the user to manipulate available information in the quickest, easiest fashion. The facility with which they accomplish this is the standard by which they're judged.

It is the philosophical argument behind this that bears closer examination. I understand Steve and Charles' original design goal to disallow the player from micromanaging units, and having a wealth of information about a particular unit may indeed encourage this.

However, if this is your intent and the result of a conscious design decision, then you should logically make the information unavailable in any form in the game to prevent the player from accessing it.

The idea of making information accessibility more difficult to implement this might be slightly more understandable (although still basically flawed)in a real-time game since then time constraints would prevent its access. In a turn-based game that just won't wash though.

In essence, if you don't want us to have the info, don't give it to us. If it's OK for us to have it, then don't let's continually waste time trying to gather it.

ianc

[Guest Germanboy]

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

In essence, if you don't want us to have the info, don't give it to us. If it's OK for us to have it, then don't let's continually waste time trying to gather it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh - you do know that that is my interpretation of what BTS have said, and could be (and probably is) lightyears off the mark?

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

Andreas

[Chupacabra]

This thread reminds me of the grid discussion. The issues were largely the same: the pro side argued that it would speed up gameplay, the con side argued that it would change the way the game is played.

I didn't see a definitive answer to that question, and I don't foresee one coming here. Arguing about it isn't going to make a difference.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[ianc]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Arguing about it isn't going to make a difference<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it's so much fun! Seriously, just a bit of harmless intellectual debate going on here, at least as far as I'm concerned.

And Andreas, I hear you, but this accessibility issue seems to be the cornerstone of the anti-OOB stance, so I wanted to throw my hat into the ring on it. Take care,

ianc

[Guest Rollstoy]

Posted by BTS some time ago: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Having a report about the exact nature of everything on the map is too much concentrated information. CM forces the player to pay attention to the stuff that matters (i.e. the actual units and actions they partook in) and through it introduces the chance that the commander (the player) might screw up. That is realism. Having a spreadsheet with brightly colored warning lights lessens this chance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So BTS wants us to screw up! This explains their point-of-view, I would say. This statement would also be incompatible with my HOTKEY to HIGHLIGHT Mortars/AT-teams/HQs proposal, wouldn't it?

Just fishing, Thomm

[Philistine]

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

"

And John,

BTS HAS taken a public stance on this. They've said " No for now".. Unfortunately every so often people deem it necessary to whine and plead for this again.

I have the impression that BTS is simply sick of getting involved in this discussion and so, like myself until now, is simply staying away from the thread.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My impression (which I don't think is inconsistent with what you've said) is that some sort of roster/oob is "on the list" for possible inclusion in CM2.

My points in posting on this topic (I think in the other thread) has been more in hope of having this implemented in CM2 (& hopefully retrofitted to CM1 as a patch).

I would think the reason it came up again now would be twofold: (1) because there's a lot of new people (particularly non-wargamers) who are now trying CM and (2) because many reviews have listed the lack as one of the few negatives.

It may be too early to have serious discussions of what new features will be going into CM2, but that's never stopped us before.

It seems that BTS' take is definitely towards the no-OOB side, but that due to (the previous) request by several posters, they're at least considering it again. (I would expect that the reviewers' opinions will also cause them to consider putting it in).

I think these threads are useful (and they have remained remarkably flame free for the most part--a little "goldfish" reference, once a complaint that someone was comparing another to a "fascist") to at least show BTS the opinions of the players (which seems fairly evenly divided--I seem to think it seems more pro--but that's probably my own bias. Anyone do a count of posters, not just posts?).

I can see why BTS wouldn't want to jump in on the issue, particularly if they haven't completely made up their minds on whether it will go in in the future.

--Phililstine

[David Aitken]

fdiskboy wrote:

> Fascism? Where did that come from? [...] Please don't put words in my mouth or jump to illogical conclusions.

It came from your recent post where you stated:

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

> Perhaps you are content to allow others to decide for you what is best. I am not.

I don't think you could get further from the truth. I am not telling you how to play the game, or suggesting that BTS is doing this. I am saying that BTS designed the game, and therefore, I trust them to provide a user interface which they deem appropriate. They conceived the game, and inevitably the way they design it will affect or restrict the way it is played. I simply recognise their thinking behind the game, and I respect it, and I enjoy following it. If I felt there was something wrong with it, I would be the first to complain.

> I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. Such is life.

Really? You're suggesting that each of us thinks every word the other has uttered is total rubbish? As far as I am concerned, I recognise where your argument comes from, but I'm just putting the case that the changes you want to see in Combat Mission may not be relevant to the way the game is meant to be. I may not be the authority on this, but I am aware of the relevant facts.

RMC wrote:

> As far as I can tell the Rosterians want a simple OOB list to the side of the screen that allows them to get to their units more quickly an easily than by using the + and - keys or by scrolling around the map.

Requests vary... some people are looking for a section which lists the info panels of every unit. This would be a section in itself, not just a menu at the side of the screen.

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> Frankly, I am pretty tired of your attitude that someone who wants a roster is somehow broken, and is not a "true" CM player or something.

I never said anything of the sort. If you play CM, that makes you a CM player. But it's not impossible for features to be included in the game which distract attention from the essence of the game - what sets it apart from the rest. If you employ that feature, that doesn't make you some kind of heretic - but if the feature is there, it can still have a negative effect on the game. Please understand this distinction.

> Comments about the game not being "my kind of game" because I think the interface could be better is just more arrogance on your part.

Neither did I say that this is not your kind of game - you're twisting my words. What I am saying is, Combat Mission takes time to play - and features which make it quicker, do not necessarily make it better.

> quit telling me that my interest in a roster in any way is an indicator to you as to how I play.

You really think I'm out to get you, don't you? I am not telling anybody they're wrong, or flawed, or goodness knows what. But as I've said, features could be added to this game which are not in line with the way the game is meant to be (and no, I am not implying I know exactly how the game is meant to be - that's beside the point). Just because you, personally, might not be distracted from the essence of the game, the presence of said feature does change the game, and does encourage people to make use of it.

David

[fdiskboy]

David,

Your leaps in logic continue to amaze me. You should run for political office if you haven't already. You would fit in well in Washington.

This is not intended as an insult. You and I obviously come from different schools when it comes to debate and logic.

I believe our discussion can best be left at that. We speak different languages it seems.

[David Aitken]

fdiskboy wrote:

> You would fit in well in Washington.

Pity I'm on the wrong side of the pond...

I think we're discussing a complicated issue - the subject itself may be relatively simple, but the theory behind it is complicated. And in such a situation, the arguments are also likely to be complicated. I'm sorry if we've become confused.

David

[Obergefreiter Porta]

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

And the battle rages on....Let say at the ouset that I've never played CC...I'm a dedicated SP player for years. For those of you who are familar with the Various SP games the Unit list worked well. I used it from time to time. Actually seldom might be a better description. There were times that I needed to find out just how many units I actually had or where the hell they were. Then the unit list was a quick and useful tool.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'm from a Steel Panthers background too and I've yet to use the roster in that, even on that massive SPWAW Bulge scenario. I can see why other people use it and why some people want something similar in CM. I wouldn't use it because it's not the way I manage my units but if such a thing were to be useful to other players then it can't be a bad thing. It'd just make CM playable in different styles by different players.

I don't know why so many people are so fiercely and colorfully (what was the average age of this forum again?) opposed to a unit roster in CM given that no-one would be forced to use it even if the BTS boys were to put it in. I wonder what the so called anti-roster lobby think about the option to turn off the Fog of War....

[OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obergefreiter Porta:

[bI wonder what the so called anti-roster lobby think about the option to turn off the Fog of War....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*Rolls eyes skyward* This is a new genre of PC game. Closest thing to it I have seen is a table top miniature wargame. Cm is what I have wanted in a PC game since Adam was a boy. If I wanted bloody Rosters, "Follow" commands, War elephants and bloody MG Carriers with pulsar laser guns I'd buy a pretty box produced by one of the big game companies.

If you want all that crap, go and play the games that have it in them already. With the possible exception of Tigers targeting bailed crews in bocage maps instead of other tanks, every time I have had or seen a queston about "why this" or "whats up with that", there has been a rational , thought out, researched, concious decision made about it by BTS. Once you know, it makes sense.

This is a wargame, and is intended to be played as such. Not for me to speak for BTS, but they have had the opportunity to sell out to big gaming publishers before, and elected not too so they could retain full control over content. I would imagine that if they had sold out, this is exactly the sort of candy crap that the "big house" would make them put in the game.

I some folks spent half the time actually playing the game as they spend whining on the board because it doesn't work like a cross between Close Combat and Star Wars Fleet Command, perhaps they'd begin to appreciate it for what it is.

*puff* *puff* Sorry, just sick of the whining, sounds like a frozen cat on a bandsaw.

I think I'll go and have a lie down.

OGSF

edited to wipe off spittle

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

[Aussie Smith]

Sigh…..

Don't you just love rhetorical arguments.

No one is right or wrong about getting a new interface or no - everybody has their own idea about what is good or bad - for them - that's where it stops - we all have our own opinion. No one should accuse or be accused for expressing an opinion as long as we all appreciate that that's all it is - a personal opinion.

In the end what is wrong/right for this game will be decided by BTS - yes I fervently hope by some inclusion about what has been expressed by us - but please guys lets not create poles over a view - consider each on its merits - look at the possibilities and then smile and say "we'll see what BTS decides"

In the spirit of the Game

Craig

[sneaky]

It's kinda like playing the old board games. The scenario sheet usually had really nice pictures with numbers of 4-4-7's, etc. But, you couldn't really use it as a roster. So as you deployed your forces, you would remember "oh yeah, that big stack over there has xx, yy and zz, etc.

You would get a "feel" for your deployment as you visually panned across the map. And then your stinking cat would hop on the table causing the geomorphic maps to separate, simulating massive earth shattering movement which completely disrupted your entire force, if not completely wiping out time as the "counters" knew it.

I for one, am glad that when my cat jumps on my computer desk it is unsuccessful at disrupting my non-rosterized units. BTS's forsight in hardening and including this part of the user interface was brilliant.

This is absolutely the best wargame ever produced. I'm sure BTS will one-up themselves with CM2. In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy every gem, and wart, this game has.

sneaky

[fdiskboy]

OGSF,

A new genre?!? You need to check the definition of genre before you go shooting off your mouth.

Played like a wargame?!? I've been playing CM like Quake. Think that could be my problem?

At least we're the same in one respects I too wish you'd quit whining about the whiners and go play the game.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

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

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

Ah it always warms my heart when someone who has no idea of the coding and OBVIOUSLY the principles behind the game tells us all what is and isn't possible and what will and won't affect the game's foundations and principle.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well,

1- how do you know I have no idea of what I'm talking about ? We know each other ??

And c'mon, let's be serious, this kind of "reporting" is relatively cheap to develop - and I know what I'm talking about - can you accept that ?

2- OBVIOUSLY a roster/OOB/List goes again the game principles ??

I smell here some elitism ("we have the Truth and anyone going against is wrong") AND a good deal of narrow-mindedness...

Too bad...

Bye

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

PDF