I want a roster, a roster !! Vote !

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Yes, a roster, not a rooster...

Perhaps I'm late as it has already been discussed, but why in hell is there no roster or any form of unit list in the game ?

I know that BTS already dismissed the idea as being "not in spirit" with the game..

But I don't think so, such a list will be very useful for assessing what is happening, and I'm sometimes tired of searching a lone sniper or team in large scenarios- browsing with the + / - keys is tedious.

Anyway noone will be forced to use it...

So I suggest a vote ...

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

PDF

[chrisl]

Play a little bit more. I've learned to handle reinforced battalion size forces (haven't tried larger) without a roster. If you try to keep troops in/near command and control range you'll develop small battle groups and remember who's in which one and where they're going. Picking out one single-man unit from a bunch can sometimes be tricky, but you can always go to view 5, tab, and zoom down.

[Guest Germanboy]

No

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

Andreas

[Joe Shaw]

Andreas, Yes, by which I mean No, that is to say I mean I vote against it too. I hope I've made myself clear.

Joe

[Jeff Heidman]

Yes, anything that provides the user with the same info he can get anyway in an easier to use format is desireable. That just basic interface design.

I think people who do not want a roster should also be asking that BTS remove whatever info would be in the roster from the unit displays. If it is not realsitic to see it in a roster, it should not be realistic to see it anywhere.

Jeff Heidman

[Oldgamer]

Not that it will get us anywhere, but I agree that the game needs some form of unit list. chrisl offers what I've seen before here which is a workaround, but oddly when I see someone offer a workaround it usually is because something needs fixing. Not trying to be a smartass; really. I'm hoping BTS will include some form of OOB in CM2, and still don't believe I've seen a logical explanation for it's exclusion.

[David Aitken]

No (no). Nein. Non. Nuh-uh.

David

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Play a little bit more. I've learned to handle reinforced battalion size forces (haven't tried larger) without a roster<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I mean. No offense, by would should someone have to "learn" how to issue orders? You are not talking about how to tactically handle a unit, you are talking about how to click here and point there to do something. That is not an attribute of a good tactical commander, it is an attribute of a savvy software operator.

A roster screen would make the game *less* gamey by allowing the player to concentrate on what's important, i.e. what orders to issue, instead of how to issue them.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Germanboy]

I am sorry, but I can not resist Jeff. Just to prove that you are not the only one who can jump to conclusions, I am going to explain my reasoning here, and then jump to one myself.

I don't want a roster because I think it makes you a better player not to have one, over time, because you have to learn more about your units, and deal with them in formation, and not piece-meal. I am not bothered about realism at all.

Now here it comes: therefore I logically deduce that everybody asking for a roster sucks as a player, because that can be their only reason for wanting one.

There you see, I can jump to conclusions just as well as you can. Please don't tell me what I have to ask BTS for.

Please note that all those smilies dumped into the river in another thread have now had acid poured over them by said French workmen.

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

Andreas

[Fred]

I agree with Jeff,

so a Yes to a roster.

After all, the player is just this, the player, not an alter ego of a CO on the battlefield. It's a wargame after all, not a role playing game.

Fred

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

"I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

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

I am sorry, but I can not resist Jeff. Just to prove that you are not the only one who can jump to conclusions, I am going to explain my reasoning here, and then jump to one myself.

I don't want a roster because I think it makes you a better player not to have one, over time, because you have to learn more about your units, and deal with them in formation, and not piece-meal. I am not bothered about realism at all.

Now here it comes: therefore I logically deduce that everybody asking for a roster sucks as a player, because that can be their only reason for wanting one.

There you see, I can jump to conclusions just as well as you can. Please don't tell me what I have to ask BTS for.

Please note that all those smilies dumped into the river in another thread have now had acid poured over them by said French workmen.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, that's YOUR view of how one can become a better player - and I don't share it !

I'll become a better player if the interface helps me making the good decisions, not if it makes me lose time at finding info instead.

Do you think you'll become a "better" word-processing software user if there's NO "find" feature so that you'll have to browse through all the text to find the word you want ???

Don't take all this too seriously either : it's not a major flaw, I'm just somewhat wondering why such an obviously needed addition isn't yet in the works...

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

PDF

[David Aitken]

Combat Mission provides you with numerous ways to keep track of your men, and understand what they're doing, by looking at them. All the information is there, down on the ground.

Close Combat needs lots of statistics screens because there's a limit to the information you can glean by looking at your men. This subverts the focus from the battlefield, and the way you fight your battles is less realistic as a result. Instead of getting down there and fighting, you sit back and watch all your flashy statistics.

If you get into CM properly, and play it the way it was meant to be played, you won't need a roster. Such an addition would simply encourage people to play CM like CC, which is wrong. CM may resemble CC, but the way it works is completely different.

Combat Mission is ideal the way it is. The way to develop it is to refine what's under the hood, not to add on lots of bells and whistles. The latter is the Microsoft route of product development - tack on hundreds of different ways of doing the same thing, without actually doing anything special underneath.

The finest programs in existence are simple but powerful. CM is a perfect example of this, and I sincerely hope it remains so.

David

[Oldgamer]

Ok, one more point leaps to mind. I've been playing SL/ASL for around 20 years, and have seen more than one player lose because he didn't see some trifling unit hidden in an obscure stack. This "feature" currently exists in CM. Shouldn't the computer be there to help us avoid these things. The same analogy can of course be applied to missed firepower modifiers (etc...), which is also something handled by the computer in CM. Not having to sweat these "gamey" details is one of the main reasons I'm playing CM.

[Jeff Heidman]

Andreas, relax.

I am not jumping to conclusions, I am just basing this on what I have seen as the primary reason most people seem to be opposed to unit rosters, at least that is the arguemnt I have seen time and again. If that does not apply to you, then it does not apply to you. No need to think I am speaking for you or about you.

On to your central point:

Your reasoning seems fine, although I think it is mis-placed. If you think it makes you a better player not to have one, then that is fine with me. Certainly if a roster existed there would be nothing forcing you to use it.

But I do not think it would make me a worse player to have one, I think it would make me a better player, since I can spend more time thinking about what I want to do instead of how (programmatically) I should do it.

The challenge of mounting a reinforced battalion sized attack on a town should be in the tactical decision making of how to deploy your forces effectively, not in trying to remember where that damn 150mm artillery observer went. I know he was around here somewhere....

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Hey, that's YOUR view of how one can become a better player - and I don't share it !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you are most welcome to. It was billed as a vote, not that it matters much, b/c Steve and Charles retain control over these matters. If we all agreed then there would obviously be no need for it.

I just get a bit stroppy when someone comes along like Jeff did and explains why my reasoning is flawed when he has in fact no clue what my reasoning is. The above therefore was firmly tongue-in-cheek.

Having said all that, I actually think it has made me a better player not to have these stats shoved into my face. And I was not much of a wargamer before CM. Too many statistics destroy the intuitive nature of the game IMO. But as always, YMMV.

Jeff, just read your reply (boy this board moves fast). I agree with your reasoning, and I don't think it makes you a worse player if it is there. But I know that if the roster had been there when I got hooked on CM, I would have used it, and I believe that my skill-level would not have increased as it did, to a point where I beat people in PBEMs, sometimes. It is a bit like learning to walk with a crutch, it is easier at first, but you have to get rid of it sooner or later.

I can also see the reasoning behind this for large-scale scenarios. The fact for me is that I don't play them, b/c I don't like that scale and the stress they impose (with or without roster, I believe there would not be much of a difference). I am currently playing a very large scenario that has as a saving grace that I have good reasons to keep back large numbers of my troops in reserve positions, and an easy map.

I think CM shines at small, nasty and very intense fire-fights, and you simply don't need a roster for these, IMO. But as I said, YMMV. Sorry if I came over a bit rough in my original post, it was not intended to sound like that.

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

Andreas

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 08-07-2000).]

[Papa Khann]

IMHO, a roster would make is easier to check on the status of your forces quickly. That would be a good thing. It obviously won't decrease the need to set the camera to level 1 and check LOS at key points, etc, but in my mind, any tool that increases the efficiency of the software and decreases the amount of time it takes me to complete a turn would be great.

If you really believe the lack of a roster makes you a better player (and the logic here completely eludes me), then you could choose not to use it.

Papa

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Combat Mission provides you with numerous ways to keep track of your men, and understand what they're doing, by looking at them. All the information is there, down on the ground.

<snip>

David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That' the point, all the info is there "on the ground" which is not very accessible sometimes. I do not think anyone is proposing a roster screen that would add a single bit of info that is not already available. It would just make the info that is available more accessible.

IMNSHO, your objection is like someone insisting that the German units only provide their info in German, because that is more "realistic", and forces the player to play more ike a German by making them learn german to play.

OK, thta analogy is a bit of a stretch, but it illuminates the point.

Currently, if you want to know how many rounds of ammo your 150mm arty obserer has left on call, you have exactly two ways of doing that.

1. Find him on the field and click on him. This is fine in a smaller scenario, but can get very difficult halfway through a large scenario when there are dozens of teams and squad remnants around, all that look exactly alike. So you click on this one, then that, then that one, and eventually, by process of elimination, you find the guy you were looking for, and of course, he has NO ammo left, so you can quit worrying about him anyway!

or

2. The "+" key. In a large scenario, the problems with this are obvious.

In neither case is the "feel" of the game improved by the exclusion of a simple clickable roster screen that would allow me to immediately find what I am looking for, nor would it's inclusion remove an iota fom that feel.

Jeff Heidman

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Yes, a roster, not a rooster...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES, YES............. Sick of loseing my spotter ...

Regards, John Waters

[Oldgamer]

Allright, I can't stop. : )

Such strange logic in this thread. Two points -

If I'm a real battlefield commander, should I not have any written notes in tabular format as to what assets I have at my disposal?? Would I consider this too "warey"? (Warey being a modification of gamey) If this physical, written list makes me a better commander than my buddie next door, or my opponent, than you can bet I'm going to use it. Real commanders had real tools.

Also, maybe we're not all on the same page when it comes to what I'd like. I don't need all the stats in an OOB. I just want a simple list that prevents me from overlooking a Schrek (or whatever) in the big operations.

[Guest rune]

Register my vote as a decisive MAYBE.

Why maybe? depends on what the OOB had. I have no objections to an OOB for setup, maybe for gameplay where you click on a unit and go to it. I DO have a problem if every stat is listed on it. I could look at the unit to get ammos and whatever, but I usualyy don't. When I fight I don't want to be a book keeper, I'd rather fight by instinct. Yes, if one of my units runs out of ammo, I'll pull him back...but guys, that is what happens in a war. So...mark me as a maybe...

Rune

[Jarhead]

I cast a NO vote.

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

Semper Fi.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oldgamer: Ok, one more point leaps to mind. I've been playing SL/ASL for around 20 years, and have seen more than one player lose because he didn't see some trifling unit hidden in an obscure stack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OG-

To me these things happening (losing track of a unit, forgetting a rule, etc.) are nice features that add a little of that old Fog of War that many of us are searching for. Since I have so much control over the battle to start with in a game, I accept these things as abstracted 'stuff happens' events. Like in ASL when getting that wonderful snake eyes activates a Sniper and gets your best leader whacked.

While I certainly don't believ a 'roster' feature would break the game experience for me, there are other things I'd rather see added instead, so I hope it doesn't creep in.

-dale

[David Aitken]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> IMNSHO,

We worship your greatness.

> your objection is like someone insisting that the German units only provide their info in German, because that is more "realistic"

I've no idea where you got that from. I'm saying the information is on the battlefield, like it is in reality. Combat Mission provides you with numerous ways of assimilating what is happening on the battlefield.

You're so caught up with either clicking on a unit or using the + and - keys - that's a Close Combat way of thinking. In CM, you can put the camera wherever you want. You can put bases on units or enlarge them to see them better. Rather than having men scattered all over the place, CM represents squads and teams as distinct groups, and distinguishes between them. You also have command lines to keep platoons together. I could go on.

You also seem to have the memory of a goldfish. If you're wondering whether your spotter has any ammo left, you remember where you left him and you click on him. It's not that difficult.

If you have a roster, it tells you what a unit is doing, but it offers no contextual information. What's the point in knowing whether a unit is moving or firing or whatever, if you don't know where it's moving or what it's firing at? It makes far more sense to have all the information in one place (ie. on the ground), instead of picking some of that information and displaying it in a roster, which in itself is of little value.

Want to know what units you have and what they're doing? (1) Remember. God gave you a memory for this purpose. (2) Look and see. This will give you all the information you need at a glance, instead of offering a couple of contextually useless points of info in a place removed from where it really matters.

Oldgamer wrote:

> I just want a simple list that prevents me from overlooking a Schrek (or whatever) in the big operations.

If you could overlook a team in the game as it is, you could overlook a team even if you had a roster. The units are all there - you just have to look and see. In the same way that you have to look at a roster and see what's there.

The only way to ensure you don't miss any units, is to go through the roster from top to bottom issuing orders. This is an awful way to play, and exactly what I'm getting at. Combat Mission is about context and realism, not about lists and statistics.

David

[Preacher]

NO roster, please

Preacher

[SS_PanzerLeader]

A resounding yes!

There is NOTHING gamey about this ....god Im over that word already Again this is a game and a damn good one, if fact the best IVe evver bought but as a game/ application it shouyld be as user friendly as possible ...that is what this is an issue of. There should be nothing in a roster that isnt there now IMO the only diffference being is speed of play to access this issue. Some people should remmember that just because they arent interested in TCP/IP or Big games some of us are. Having a roster there and possibly the ability to double click on the unit portrait and go directly to that unit would be a HUGE improvement on the intereface... there is no logical argument that can deny this IMHO. This has nothing to do with being a better player...cycling through units has nothing to do with making you better it just slows ya down and becomes tiresome at times when ya have 5000pt defence. Hopefully after the TCP/IP comes out this may be implemented as it would be a great plus for the game.