Getting the list of your units in battle field?

[Mika]

I was trying to search for an article about this but didn't have much luck. Would it be possible to have some sort of list out of your units during the gameplay? Personally I prefer using 1600x1200 resolution with about realistic size men and vehicle (Is it just me or do those giants look funny in middle of the forest?) and when the action starts I like to watch the show from the 'upper corner' so I can see as much of the battlefield as possible.

And when the minute is over, I've noticed that finding the units can sometimes be quite difficult (especially if you have much infantry around and single man units like sharpshooters).

So, I thought it would be nice to have list behind a key that would pop up which could look something similar to this perhaps? It'd show the unit, the morale/status and ammo. And of course you could click the unit name and have it selected so you wouldn't need to travel around that huge map filled with smoke etc. and try to find it.

Platoon 1:

Platoon Leader OK 19

Squad 1 OK LOW

Squad 2 OK 22

Squad 3 Panic! 0

Platoon 2:

etc.

-- MS. --

[Tiger]

This has been discussed before. Do a search on "roster" "unit roster". About as many people that were for it were against it. I was and still am against it, as I believe it results in too easy micromanagement. We already have a birds-eye view of the battlefield and a couple of devices for locating units. The shift-c command, unit bases can be turned on/off, and you can cycle through your units with the +/- keys. I personally would rather be responsible for my units and have to get down and look at the battlefield rather than have a roster that lets you click and pop directly to groups of units. I think a roster that updates the staus of your units would be bad for a tactical game such as this. My view is that you should know the condition and placement of your units at all times, not have it done for you.

jmho,

john

[aka_tom_w]

This one has been discussed almost to death many times before and there are two fairly divided camps on this one.

I agree completly with everything Tiger said, and find that the inclusion of a unit Roster, would do more to encourage a "gamey" like min/max, old 2D board game "playing mentality" and I agree with the way it is now, which makes you the player more active, and more responsible to pay attention to ALL the developments on the battle field, by using views 1 and 2 if necessary to get down on the ground and see what is really happening.

Its a GREAT game and I am of the opinion that a unit roster "might" make it "easier" for some players, but it would not make the game any more realitic and I don't think it would make the game any "better".

I'm sure you can count on someone else to post here, with an equally compelling and passionate rant, detailing why the unit roster really should be in the game. Who's up to the challenge?

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-29-2000).]

[Robert Mayer]

Yeah, it's been discussed to death. Personally, while I find merit in the arguments against a roster, I have to come down firmly in favor of it. I really have problems with the idea that we, as gamers, gain from enduring what is in effect an interface failure. It seems to me that the arguments against a roster are based on the idea that somehow the game is made better by being harder to use, and that the act of hunting around a map to find each and every unit somehow adds to the fun and realism of the game.

Balderdash, I say! For one thing, it isn't fun to rummage around a large map trying to find that 105mm spotter--was he in that building or this one? they all look alike--or trying to locate the halftrack that D Platoon is in. For another, you will, eventually, find that information. It's not hidden. It's not a matter of skill, but of patience. Unless you think that the best measure of a tactical commander's skill is an eidetic memory and expert administrative abilities, then I fail to see how forcing players to memorize the location of each and every unit adds to the realism of the simulation. And I defy anyone to show how hunting for units is fun.

I guess it depends on what you want. Do you want a game, that has great realism and provides you with historical challenges, or do you want a historical simulation where realism triumphs over any and all "gamey" stuff, things that make it fun? I'm in the former camp, strongly. I'm all for things that enhance the game experience, but I fail to see how making players spend extra time trying to find units on what can be very cluttered maps adds to anything.

No, "real" commanders can't call up a list of units and click on them to find them. Neither can they save a battle in progress, quit when they have to go to dinner, rotate the view around terrain and units to their hearts content, or plaster hamster faces on the visages of their foes. So I can't see how a roster would hurt anything. Use it if you like, and if it pains your sense of realism, ignore it, like I ignore 90% of the hotkeys as it is.

Do I care that much? Nope. Love the game as it is. But I'd play more of the bigger battles if it wasn't such a pain in the ass to manage them. I don't want to simulate the sort of piss ant data management in the game that I have to do so often in real life, folks .

[Jeff Heidman]

The basic argument FOR the roster is that it would provide exactly the same amount of information currently provided, but in an easier to access manner.

Some feel this is gamey. I think the very idea that hiding information, or making it hard to get to, somhow adds to a games "realism" is a bit, uhh, silly. Maybe we should force the German player to rea all his unit stuff in German in order to make it more "realistic"!

In the end, this is not a question of realism or gameyness, it is a question of software interface design. If it is "unrealistic" to give people information in format A (a roster) than it is unrealistic to give it to the player in format B (madly clicking away at the map, or the '+' key).

The fact remains that in both cases each format is simply a tool to provide the player with information the game designers decided they needed or was desireable. The format is irrelevant from a realsim standpoint, but is relevant from a gameplay standpoint.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Germanboy]

The official answer is that BTS will think about adding a simple unit roster (without further info like you requested) in CM2. They have stated it, and if you type in 'roster' in the search function you will see all the glorious debate in at least 4 threads, most of them locked, IIRC, as I suspect this one will soon be.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Hollywood7]

I agree with Robert Mayer's points. The game is not made any more enjoyable or easier to play by forcing the player to cycle thru every unit in order to find a spotter or a sniper or a squad which has been was previously routed and ran into the woods.

It's an interface omission which, when added , will allow for more time spent having fun and giving orders than playing hide-and-seek using the +/- keys.

[aka_tom_w]

To be fair to this issue, the unit roster was ONE of the first things several of my other wargaming buddies who play other wargames but had not seen CM yet wanted the first time they played.

It seems the unit roster has come to be "expected" in this kind of game, as it seems fairly standard in other games, but since MOST of those "other" games Like Steel Panthers are PC only games have have no Mac counter part, I have never become accustomed to the use of the unit roster.

While I like the game the way it is, I can easily agree that a unit roster would come REALLY handy while playing TCP/IP head to head games under a short tight time limit.

I can, however, wait until CM2 for this possible feature without any problems at all.

[Jeff Heidman]

I will say this:

I have always been a very outspoken proponent for the roster, but having played a long time without one, I have become accustomed to playing without it.

It is hardly a deal breaker, although I would have appreciated one in my recent tourney game with DefBungis, and that was only 2000 points! I could imagine it getting real hairy with the 5000 point battles you hear some people talking about.

The biggest help would be to keep track of support units that are not part of the main advance or defensive line. Like artillery spotters. It is easy to lose track of them for a turn or two in a large scenario.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 12-29-2000).]

[Vanir]

Jeff brings up a good point about the size of battles. During nearly all of CM's development the size of QBs was limited to 1000 pts. At this size a roster is fairly irrelevant. But now that you can do 5000+ pt games keeping track of what you have can be a real chore. I think a limited function roster like Steve has said he will consider would be appropriate. We'll just have to wait to see what happens here.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[David Aitken]

God help us! Instead of replaying the entire argument here, those unacquainted may be interested in the following threads. I think everything that can possibly be said on the subject has been said here:

Interface needs work.

I want a roster, a roster !! Vote !

Roster War, ceasefire

David

[Robert Mayer]

Hmm, I suppose if the real world worked the way this forum seems to work (for some, at least) all writing since Homer would have been banned, because, well, he rather said it all, one place or another .

Agreed, it's often better to scan existing threads to see if your question ("what is this?" "how much is that") has been addressed, but are to assume that we've been allotted one chance to discuss each salient issue? And if we miss that chance (i.e., the thread exists, and perhaps has been locked) we can't ever bring it up again? Interesting way of looking at the world.

And before you suggest it all has to do with keeping the forum manageable, I run a rather large commercial site with fora and, while we do lock threads occasionally, we don't have Thread Police straight from Gestapo HQ making sure no one duplicates thoughts. It isn't necessary, really.

Sorry to sound peeved, but it seems lately that any issue anyone brings up gets the same treatment: we (the high llamas who apparently have nothing better to do than live on this forum) discussed it earlier, so you can consult our wisdom then move on, grasshopper.

Bite me .

[Jeff Heidman]

LOL.

Excellent response Robert!

Jeff Heidman

[hnh3_cm]

Robert is sooooooo right (in both posts ).

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

There is something the puts a label on each unit saying what each units staus is, but i forget what the hotkey to turn it on is. And if you can't find your units, turn unit bases on and remove all the trees.

[Robert Mayer]

Turning on bases is a must; removing trees does help. I think the only real point here is that, if you can find all your units that way, which is admittedly possible but a pain, why not make it easier to do?

But as most will say, it ain't no big thing. Not nearly as important, say, as making the hamster mods a basic part of CM!

[DanE]

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

God help us! Instead of replaying the entire argument here, those unacquainted may be interested in the following threads. I think everything that can possibly be said on the subject has been said here:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the links David. For those that still do not see the advantage of searching, here is BTS' offical reply to this very subject:

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

Software

Moderator

posted 08-09-2000 11:22 PM

OK, probably time to lock this one up So folks, what have we learned from this and other threads?

1. The lack of an OOB in CM 1 was an intentional design decision. Because

of that, there are reasons for not having one. We do not expect everyone to agree with them, but we DO expect people to understand that it wasn't blind oversight.

2. Since most everybody appears to agree that we have pushed wargaming into an entire new arena, we therefore must know what we are donig. Great games of detail are not made by some sort of freak accident. Therefore, agree or not with our decision, we deserve a decent level of respect for it. Enlightened people can respectfully disagree.

3. Yes, many people have asked for OOBs. Many people also asked that we make CM 2D instead of 3D, use sprites instead of poligional figures, have continous time as the heart of the game, etc. So simple head count does

NOT mean the feature is either good or necessary. We are the keeper of the vision, and it damn well better stay that way or future CMs will get muddled.

4. Large numbers of requests does mean we need to listen to the well reasoned arguments to see if we should do something differently. Perhaps not exactly what those users are directly asking for.

5. Whining and abusing us doesn't count for anything in our books If anything it INCREASES our desire to keep things as is. Best to state your case clearly and rationally, debate it in the same way, and then leave it be at least for a time.

6. The lack of an OOB has not hurt our review ratings OR our sales. Nearly all reviews have put us over the 90% mark, which is damned impressive.

7. An OOB feature, even if rather simplistic, would be a significant investment of programming time. If the feature is worth the investment, then it would certainly go in. But this is debate

And finally...

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.

The time to debate this is really over for the moment. Try again in about 6 months when we know better what we might or might not do

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jasper]

I don't like the 'commander jet pack' ability to fly all over the map - so I don't. If a feature offered by CM strikes you as undesirable - then why not simply ignore it?

[Jumbo]

For a simple roster, I write down the units that I purchase (or just set up) BEFORE the gameplay begins. It takes just a few minutes. You can cross off units that get eliminated -as it happens. After all, a commander should always know what he is in command of.

Perhaps the unit purchase page can be automatically kept in memory somewhere and accessed with a hotkey. No, that really shouldn't take a whole lot of programming. The list already has to exist (somewhere) for the AI to pick & hence place the units.

Now, to find them in a big battle is another matter entirely. That would take a lot of programming. I couldn't and wouldn't expect that to happen.

Happy New Millenium everyone!

Jumbo