Errrr... The 'unit navigation' screen?

[ianc]

Groggies,

Sorry to bring this up again. There was some very agitated discussion about it last year, and the last I remember, we agreed to leave it alone until final release got closer. Perhaps now that we have a time-frame for final release, I dare ask again:

Did any kind of screen showing unit status, like whether they've moved or not this turn and an option to jump straight to a particular unit make it into the final code?

Thanks,

ianc

[Guest Big Time Software]

No, there is no report like this. If you recall, we never planned on putting one in

BTW, you can tell if a unit has orders by turning on all the movement "Paths". This is an option to see, graphically, which units have movement orders, what they are, and where they go.

Steve

[ianc]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the fast reply!

"BTW, you can tell if a unit has orders by turning on all the movement "Paths". This is an option to see, graphically, which units have movement orders, what they are, and where they go"

This is definitely a helpful feature. The trouble is that I often find that I can't see all my units on the map at a glance ('specially those tiny 2-man teams) and will end up forgetting to move someone for a few turns. This difficulty multiplies with the # of units one has. A little listing of units you command showing what orders you've given them, and the ability to jump straight to one you've forgotten would mitigate this considerably, as well as just giving you a good quick idea of the composition of your force.

Ah well, maybe CM2... Good luck on the wrapup! Awaiting your baby with great anticipation,

ianc

[guachi]

Hit Shift-c to make your units big and you should have no problem spotting the "Attack of the 50 Foot Bazooka Team"

Jason

[Guest KwazyDog]

Also ianc, turn on the unit bases.

Im not sure if their size, etc has been changed since the beta, but Ive had no problems spotting my untis.

[Dschugaschwili]

Also, turn the trees off when you're looking for units in woods.

Dschugaschwili

[Guest PeterNZ]

dunno about anyone else.

but i run on realistic scale with bases on.. seems to be the best way of running it for me,

PeterNZ

ps. yeah trees are off mostly too!

[Lindan]

I'm with Peter here.

realistic scale + bases. Otherwise I had difficulties finding spots to hide or have cover.

Well I still get smacked pretty bad anyway

[dalem]

hmm. I figure that, if I forget a unit, I forget a unit. More fun that way for me.

-dale

[gaffertape]

Actually a 'forgotten' unit saved me one time. I accidentally lost track of a panzerschreck team when I moved a bunch of squads along the american flank. Turns out that these forgotten troops took out the first US tank, and forced two of the others to roam into my 88's killzone. Fate can work wonders.

GAFF

[This message has been edited by gaffertape (edited 03-30-2000).]

[guachi]

Check out http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001165.html for a long, involved thread about the amount of information (or lack thereof) the game gives you. The thread in question started right after the beta was released.

The replies in this thread show that most of us have become very comfortable with the amount of info the game gives us. What a difference a few months make...

Jason

[DEF BUNGIS]

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

The trouble is that I often find that I can't see all my units on the map at a glance ('specially those tiny 2-man teams) and will end up forgetting to move someone for a few turns.

ianc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good commander knows exactly what he has on the battle field, knows exactly what each team is doing and where they are going.

I'm glad I'm not one of your little computer guys.

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

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[ianc]

Hi guys,

Good suggestions all. I don't mean to sound like a whiner, but it is just NOT convenient to continually increase all units to full size, turn on bases, and turn off trees, then pan my view around the entire map at various times throughout the turn to make sure I haven't forgotten anyone, then put it all back again.

Oh sure, I could do it. I could also walk to work on my hands. It's just that it's a bit easier to drive.

Ease of use is my point. I feel that your suggestions are good workarounds for an existing problem, but that's all they are: workarounds.

I won't continue to complain though, since I know no fix is forthcoming this time around. I just wanted to explain my viewpoint a little better. Thanks for all your input and suggestions,

ianc

[Moon]

ianc - if you had to do all of the above all the time to find your units, I would agree with you. But that's not necessary 99% of the time. Usually, all you need to do is turn unit bases on - Shift-B. That's one punch on the keyboard - way faster than scrolling through a list of units IMO. Only in rare cases (when units indeed are fighting in the woods) you might want to toggles tree display or enlarge the scale.

So it might be a personal preference in the end. For me personally the danger of a unit list is that it invites "bookkeeping" - something which might be suitable to operational level games but very out of place for a tactical game like Combat Mission. Therefore I prefer the current system (which is even faster most of the time). Just my two cents...

[Lorak]

I think (while a neet idea) this would get crazy during large battles. If your really worried about losing or forgetting a unit you can also just step through each unit until you get back where you started. I this is most likely common knowlege... I just divide the map into sections or battle groups and give all orders for a given "section" before moving to the next.

Lorak

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

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

[Guest Scott Clinton]

> The replies in this thread show that most

> of us have become very comfortable

> with the amount of info the game gives us.

> What a difference a few months make...

Or that those that are not 'comfortable' with the level of information simply do not what a repeat of that thread, especially since Steve has made it crystal clear how the final game will be released.

> A good commander knows exactly what he

> has on the battle field, knows exactly

> what each team is doing and where they

> are going.

Huh? What level of "commander" issues the number, magnitude and detail of the orders that a SINGLE player must issue in CM? Answer: None.

A player in CM is filling the shoes of not only the Company commander(s) and Platoon commanders but also squad NCOs, and even higher level commanders in some cases. To fill all of these 'shoes' you should have relatively EASY ACCESS to the SAME LEVEL OF INFORMATION that these real-life officers and NCOs would have. A NCO (for example) would know IMMEDIATELY, without question if one of his men was killed, or if he had no 'orders' to move in the next minute or that his squad was in a state of "Panic". But in CM the player does not have this easy level of information communication. An overview screen was simply a single proposed method to help with the information flow. The only method I have ever heard about in the game to obtain this level of information is to cycle through all the units each turn using the "+" and "-" keys.

> if you had to do all of the above all the

> time to find your units, I would agree with

> you. But that's not necessary 99% of the

> time.

And that one time you don't do this...

Sorry to bring this up but (again) but don't think just because some of us don't say more is a sign of our 'converting'. We are just tired of "beating a dead horse".

PLEASE NOTE THE ABOVE IS SOLEY THE OPIONION OF THE WRITER AND REFLECTS NO ONE ELSE'S VIEWS BUT HIS OWN...AND

"I guess we will have to agree to disagree"

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 03-31-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 04-01-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Sorry Scott, but you will just have to live with the fact that you are part of a minority. I'd say "vocal minority", but I haven't heard a peep about this in about 4 months. If the majority of people had such a fundamental problem with CM we would be hearing about day in and day out, no matter WHAT we say will or will not be in the final game. And that is the "dead horse" that is getting beaten here again. This isn't a problem for the vast majority of players, the "fix" for the minority involves a lot of programming and violation of our design goals, so it ain't going to happen.

I return us back to the fundamental issue that was sparked up the last time. The level of information you are asking for is NOT NECESSARY to play the game and play the game well. That is why there isn't a massive outcry trashing CM for a core flaw. Because it isn't a core flaw, and in many people's minds it is actually a plus and not a flaw. I have played battles 3 times as large as any you have played and I don't lose my units, become confused about what I am doing, or lose touch with the strategic situation. I also don't go around clicking on each and every unit each each and every turn. I don't because I don't need to.

Our testers have played battles even larger than I have and they haven't had problems either. So unless we happened to pick 20 people that have some amazing mental gift I put it to you that the level of information you claim is necessary is in fact not. From the way you want to play the game, perhaps, but do NOT confuse your own opinions with imperical fact. A few think that CM shouldn't allow you to issue orders to individual units and instead only assign group objectives. To each his own, but CM can't be everything to everybody. So long as the vast majority of wargamers like what we have done, we have done better than most game developers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And that one time you don't do this...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usually nothing. And if something DOES happen (which could easily be postitive you know), so what? War is full of "**** happens" so why not in CM?

Again, it comes down to the founding design goal of CM. We designed CM for commanders not statiticians. Commanders make mistakes, overcome them, learn lessons, and try to do better the next time. The statitician wants absolutes and gets frustrated when control is lost. "Perfection" is something that exists only in text books. It is a goal to aim for, and the closer someone comes to it the better they are as a commander. Pouring over stats a good commander make not And that is what CM is all about.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-31-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Responce done off-line

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

The Grumbling Grognard

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 03-31-2000).]

[Guest Zulu1]

A NCO (for example) would know IMMEDIATELY,

without question if one of his men was

killed, or if he had no 'orders' to move in the next minute or that his squad was in a state of "Panic".

I can think of a number of situations where this would not be true and this is where the FOW comes in.

Unlike SPR, any squad would not be bunched up unless you all wanted to die quick. If you were defending an area you would have you guys spread out at say 5 yard intervals. In a firefight, depending on the cover, say trees, brush, rubble, it is entirely conceivable that one of your guys would get hit and you would not know it for a minute or two.

So, CM works for me the way it's currently designed.

[Schrullenhaft]

I actually like the way CM plays too. The current game mechanics can be a bit disconcerting to those whose style of play leans towards "statistician" level of control. There have been many times when I wish I had more control over my own troops, but then again real-life commanders didn't have that level of control either (instead they had subordinates ). In fact, to my knowledge, even ultra-modern C3I systems don't have the level of information/control that most game systems give their commanders.

Admittedly all ianc is looking for is a user interface that allows him to control his troops in a manner that is more complete and more comfortable for him. However CM doesn't provide this interface since it changes the nature of command in a subtle way. The idea with CM (in my opinion) is that you ARE going to make mistakes - you're going to forget that a platoon is sitting in the rear doing nothing - that your machine gun team has an exposed flank. Ianc isn't looking for a lot (my examples don't make a pointed case against what he was asking for), but such a feature inclusion pushes the game towards a more statistical bent that seems to detract from the confusion that is tactical combat.

OK... sychophant mode off.

[ianc]

"Admittedly all ianc is looking for is a user interface that allows him to control his troops in a manner that is more complete and more comfortable for him. However CM doesn't provide this interface since it changes the nature of command in a subtle way. "

For the sake of friendly discussion, I'll drop a few more words on this. I don't want to control anything with this interface.

When we last had this discussion, it kind of degenerated into a debate about whether this feature would give too much information to the player, whether it was too 'gamey', whether it would give you an unrealistic perspective on the battle, etc.

Let me just clear this misinterpretation up. I don't want a 'unit information' screen. I don't need to know how much ammo a unit has left. I don't need to know whether they're pinned. I don't need to know whether they're broken, down two men, experiencing bad gas, etc.

I just want a screen that will let me see all the units in my command at once, tell me if they've got orders, and let me jump to them by clicking on them if they haven't. That's all.

This is important information. Game-deciding information if you're playing multiplayer. You cannot afford to forget to move something if you're playing against a wiley opponent. This forces you to arduously, assiduously, and laboriously track down each unit in your force and manually ascertain whether they have orders or not. This is boring, and boring detracts from the fun of playing the game IMHO.

In addition to the ease-of-use factor, this display would prove very useful in mentally visualizing your force's composition and organization at the start of a scenario and apportioning various elements for different tasks you may have in mind.

One user posted that you can just cycle through your units and look at their status that way. That's really all I want to do with this screen, but I can see that information all at once rather than tapping the 'next unit' key 50 times, and I can jump to units in the order I want, in a way that makes sense for the tasks I want to assign them.

Again, I make these comments because it seems like I haven't made my desires clear in the past. Maybe if I can articulate them well enough and convince Steve and Charles that they wouldn't be breaking their game concept by including such a tool, they might even think about including it in CM2. 'Nuff said,

ianc

[iggi]

Ianc, I used to want that kind of a feature and I understand your reasoning for having one.

However, to err is human. You are human and you will make mistakes. the better your memory, the less mistakes you will make.

All the info you need should be loaded in the 'ram' in your brain. It should be in your imagination. If you forget that a pzfst team is in the woods, that goes a long way into saying how little value you mentally placed on him.

CM already has wayyyy more info available to the player than reality. Sure the command bars would make it much easier to keep track of everything. Without such a screen , every player will have to juggle more info in thier head.Every player will forget this or that.

Battle is not about knowing stats. It's about understanding the plan, remembering the plan. Visualizing the plan.If you were an officer in the woods, I sure hope that you don't forget that you left your anti tank team back 500 meters. You are already warm and safe at home. Sould CM make it even easier?

[iggi]

PS

Wolves don't need navigation screens.

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

"Don't tickle with the fingers, hit with the fist"

-Heinz Guderian

[Ron]

Ianc, my intention isn't to be condescending but you seem to overlook that all the things you want are presently available in a manner that is more user friendly, imo, than a distracting screen.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...that will let me see all the units in my command at once<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Press view 4, turn unit bases on, and scroll around.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...tell me if they've got orders<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Turn unit paths on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...let me jump to them by clicking on them<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Left click and press Tab.

Perhaps you have just missed these things I don't know but they seem simpler than having another screen overlaying the map. Good luck.

Ron

[This message has been edited by Ron (edited 04-01-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ianc, we agree with you to a point. Let me clarify the three different sides to this debate that have been around since it started. Sometimes they get all jumbled together as Ianc just pointed out.

1) The all knowing report. This shows pretty much anything and everything imaginable. Sorta like the end screen for a Close Combat game, but available in game. Tells all sorts of stuff, like headcount, morale, ammo, current action, etc.

2) The OB report. This is more of an orgainizational tool. It is similar to the above, except that the main purpose is to more or less locate units and to know maybe one or two major things about them (like if they have orders or not). But in general the nitty gritty stuff is not displayed.

3) The way it is now.

#1 has been rulled out for the reasons mentioned. There is no reason why this information needs to be displayed in a report. It is not realistic (in fact the opposite) but more importantly it detracts from the seat of the pants style of play CM was designed to model. Therefore this feature is not compatible with CM's core design philosophy.

#2 has not been rulled out. For setting up battles and making them in the editor, this might be a plus for larger battles. Smaller ones this isn't really helpful to have and isn't even necessary for large battles (we have some twisted testers that have made nearly Regimental sized battles without one). But as soon as information OTHER than the unit's name and location in the OB is added, it starts to become more like #1. It is a slippery slope that we might tackle in the future.

#3 allows people to screw up. This makes for more realistic battles because screwing up was a common occurance in probably all battles ever fought. Yes, you might forget to issue that platoon commands for the turn. In real war entire divisions were sometimes left out of the loop. And yes, perhaps forgetting about that bazooka team costs you an opportunity, or perhaps it winds up giving you one that you would have otherwise missed.

In short, the way it is now introduces a strong dose of uncertainty. Some people will fight this as hard as they can and painfully check out everything every turn from every angle. Others will play more by intuition and (as Iggi stated) using the RAM of their brains to remember what is going on. Putting in OB reports (either #1 or #2) gets in the way of intuitive play. It is a crutch, no offense intended to anybody. What I mean by that is that if it is there it will be used. If it is NOT there people will have to make due without it. Some will do better than others, some will fight against it harder than others. But we would rather have all of this happen than to have nobody trying in the first place.

Like I said, we might go with a limited #2 in the future, but it probably would be little more than a organizational and location tool rather than anything that gives a unit's status.

Thanks for keeping this discussion from being heated. There is NO need to get all hot under the collar about this. We have made LOTS of design decisions in CM that break with traditional wargaming, and this is but one. The feeback from wargmers we have received so far suggests it was a good one to do. Not all agree of course, but gather 100 wargamers in one room and I KNOW you will not get total agreement on ANYTHING you ask. That is human nature

Steve

ADDITIONAL NOTE - Ron pointed out one thing that I haven't in this thread so far. The interface for a list is somewhat against CM's interface design philosophy (i.e. don't hide the map, like Steel Panthers or other DOS like games). Trying to pull off #1 would be VERY hard to do, while #2 might be possible.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-01-2000).]