I want a roster, a roster !! Vote !

[WendellM]

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

Adding a roster is the thin end of the wedge. It is an element which is not in keeping with the design of Combat Mission.

and earlier wrote:

All the information is there, down on the ground.

Followed by:

Combat Mission is ideal the way it is.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry David, but I just don't follow this (I'm not being sarcastic). Yes, all the information is there, but right now, the player has to do unneeded "busy work" to get at it. I'm not asking for anything more than is currently available, just that it be better organized.

Maybe part of the reticence on the part of "non-roster-ers" is due to what is perceived as desired. You know that status section that appears at the bottom of the screen when you click on a unit? All I want is that info in tabular form, with several units per page (and when I click on a given unit's stats, the map centers on it). I can't speak for others, but that's all I want. That way, I don't have to click all over the map / hit +/- repeatedly to get that info. It's *already* available in the game as it exists now - it's just badly organized. All I want is for what is *already* present to be better organized.

Wendell

[Mark IV]

If the roster was there I'd probably use it.

There are other substantive things I'd like more, all of which alarm Mr. Aitken.

Is it really necessary to remind everyone with which you disagree (several of whom have been around here for quite a while, BTW) that this is not CC/an arcade game/Doom/Quake? This is a regular pattern....

[DanE]

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

I pay WAY too much attention to detail when playing turn based games, which in my opinion makes this game "gamey" to start with, really the same complaint people have made for years about cardboard turn based games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry to hear you feel this way. IMO, the WeGo system is the best way to go. It puts the emphasis back on tactics and planning instead of seeing who can click and point the fastest.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't get me wrong, I love CM, but realistic?? You can drool over an email turn for hours, and in the ops I certainly spend sometimes much more time reviewing and analyzing than I'd like. Beyond the initial planning, being a real tactical battlefield commander is all about making well educated, RAPID decisions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think CM does a very realistic job of doing what it was designed to do. Is it realistic to have unlimited time to plan your next minute of orders? No.

As a battlefield commander, is it realistic to issue percise movement/fire commands to every soilder under your command? No.

Until a game is made that allows the player to assume the role of one individual soilder, things will never be "realistic" in this sense. As a commander, your job is to make well educated, RAPID decisions and pass those decisions along as orders to your troops. It is up to your troops to carry out those orders to the best/worst of their abilities.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate...

[David Aitken]

fdiskboy wrote:

> Providing the same information in a roster ALREADY available by cycling through your units with +/- changes the game how?

I have already explained. The only way you can use a roster which makes it worthwhile, is to go through it from top to bottom, issuing orders as you go. This takes no account of the actual tactical situation - if you have a bazooka tagging along with a squad, you should be issuing them orders together, not giving the squad orders, then jumping across the map to a different platoon, then eventually getting round to said bazooka. And if you break from your routine to issue orders differently, you lose your place in the list, and you're no less likely to forget about that proverbial Panzerschreck.

WendellM wrote:

> You know that status section that appears at the bottom of the screen when you click on a unit? All I want is that info in tabular form, with several units per page (and when I click on a given unit's stats, the map centers on it). [...] That way, I don't have to click all over the map / hit +/- repeatedly to get that info.

Cripes, that's even worse than I imagined. Okay, you've got your list of info panels. You double-click on one to jump to that unit. How are you going to see said unit if your screen is full of info? The list disappears? So where is the advantage of pulling up a list, finding a unit, dropping the list and jumping to the unit? If you want ALL the information in the panels then, as you say, they'll have to be a few to a page - so how is scrolling through pages of info panels any easier than using the + and - keys?

David

[Kurtz]

No.

It will not make itself hence it will delay CM2 and that is simply unacceptable!!!

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

Four things greater than all things are;

women and horses and power and war.

- Rudyard Kipling

[fdiskboy]

David,

Once again, you are assuming that we are just alike. I would NOT use a roster in such a fashion. And I can think of other worthwhile uses. For instance, I would like to find my arty spotter...pop up the roster, select him, issue orders, voila, that's it. Once I select the FO and center on him, I might choose to work with the units in his vicinity before returning to the roster again. Just because you can't think of any worthwhile uses does not an argument make. There are those of us who are very creative....

[Chupacabra]

I'll amend my earlier post-

If it could be easily added as a toggleable feature, sure, why not.

I just personally don't like clutter.

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

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

[David Aitken]

Mark IV wrote:

> There are other substantive things I'd like more, all of which alarm Mr. Aitken. [...] This is a regular pattern....

You could count on the fingers of one hand, the number of threads where a suggestion has been made that I have taken issue with. There are considerably more threads and suggestions than I have fingers. There have been suggestions made that I support, but I am less likely to post in agreement, which I think is a normal human characteristic.

It may be the case that I simply see Combat Mission the way BTS sees it. Many of the improvements I would like to see, have been discussed previously and are taken for granted.

I don't take issue with people for fun, I do it because I believe there is a case to be made in response. And ultimately, such is the source of good discussion, which is surely the purpose of this forum.

David

[Oldgamer]

<sorry for the snip>

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

Originally posted by Oldgamer:

I pay WAY too much attention to detail when playing turn based games, which in my opinion makes this game "gamey" to start with, really the same complaint people have made for years about cardboard turn based games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry to hear you feel this way. IMO, the WeGo system is the best way to go. It puts the emphasis back on tactics and planning instead of seeing who can click and point the fastest.

+++

You took my comment out of context, and actually confirmed my point. I was simply trying to point out that the game is NOT reality, as many debaters keep pointing to the notion that having to poke around the battlefield makes it somehow more realistic. Even worse still is the implication that you'll occasionally "lose" a unit, just like they do in real life. But that's the thing, I don't lose units because I understand ctrl-b and ctrl-c, and use these constantly. And, I have all day long if necessary under email to find the little buggers.

I wasn't slamming WeGo, and agree that it's MUCH better than the old IgoUgo (or whatever that's called). And, I've never been a fan of click fests, and agree with you there as well. I'm a traditionalist, really.

[WendellM]

"Okay, you've got your list of info panels. You double-click on one to jump to that unit. How are you going to see said unit if your screen is full of info? The list disappears?"

That's right. What's the problem? There's the info screen and the main screen. Lots of games work this way.

"So where is the advantage of pulling up a list, finding a unit, dropping the list and jumping to the unit? If you want ALL the information in the panels then, as you say, they'll have to be a few to a page - so how is scrolling through pages of info panels any easier than using the + and - keys?"

Because then *several* units show up per page, as opposed to *one* in the current system. Say 5 show up per page. So, to get the the 13th unit, I go "[Roster] + +". In the current system, I go "+ + + + + + + + + + + +". See?

BTW, I see you've sidestepped the whole "it ruins the game" issue into the realm of "it's not *that* much more convenient". Why not just admit that you don't like the idea (which is fine!) and admit that implementing this wouldn't be a "wedge" that would *ruin* the game? Some of us like the idea, OK? That's all I'm getting at - restated: how would implementing this feature as I've described it hurt *your* enjoyment of CM?

Regards (honestly),

Wendell

[David Aitken]

fdiskboy wrote:

> For instance, I would like to find my arty spotter...pop up the roster, select him, issue orders, voila, that's it.

So if you have a list of info windows for every unit on the map, how many pages is that likely to spread to? The more units, the more necessary the roster, but the more cumbersome the roster becomes. You'd have to have pretty comprehensively lost your spotter for this to be worthwhile.

If it's just like a menu listing your units, that is subject to my earlier argument - people will wonder why it's so lame, and demand features which will ultimately make the roster impractical to avoid.

David

[Tiger]

"As a battlefield commander, is it realistic to issue percise movement/fire commands to every soilder under your command? No."

It IS realistic to simulate each unit being able to effectively (or not) carry out functions that it would normally be able to carry out on its own and to be able to actually function on a battlefield without having to be told by "god" to move here, shoot there. This whole notion of the player as supeme-god-commander is a whole load of "bunk". The game simulates more than one person in control of things, by which units are able to do and think for themselves. This is artificially done by one person, but it simulates numerous command and control facilities/functions and the self-command ability inherent in any unit trained (or even untrained) in war.

Saying that you want to win a battle through "tactics" and your own "abilities" without any chance of missing a unit or forgetting to move somethinig for a turn, is to remove ANY of this inherent ability a unit would naturally have to do for itself and is just another way of saying "I don't want there to be any randomness or chaos on the battlefield, I want to have complete-god-control". This is not how a WW II battlefield should be simulated, imho.

I stand by my opinion that adding a "roster" will remove any simulated battlefield randomness and chaos that units may miss or not get orders by allowing the player to simply bring up the roster and make sure he's moved everything. You can do this already through the many various functions already built into the game, however these are intentionally left a little unweildy to make sure there is a bit of randomness and chaos on the battlefield.

everyone has an opinion

-Tiger

[Philistine]

I'm for the OOB.

Is it gamey? Of course. It's supposed to be. It's part of the interface. Is using a mouse gamey? Yes. Is clicking on hotkeys gamesy? Yes.

The only reason I can see for not doing an OPTIONAL OOB is because the coding/retrofitting into the current game will take too much effort and/or screw up something else.

It's not a game-killer for me, but it sure would be helpful in speeding up a turn, especially in big scenarios.

Most big reviews have mentioned it as one of the few down-sides of the game. I think, especially for new wargamers (and those of us who are asking for it) that it would be very helpful.

A few novices I've introduced the game to have been very confused by the number & type of units. They don't know the details of units other than thats a tank and thats infantry. I think an OOB would be very useful to cut some slack for those who haven't invested way too many hours into wargaming.

Just my $.02

--Philistine

[David Aitken]

WendellM wrote:

> BTW, I see you've sidestepped the whole "it ruins the game" issue into the realm of "it's not *that* much more convenient".

No, I regard the former argument as having been made, and I am moving with you on to more specific matters.

> Why not just admit that you don't like the idea (which is fine!) and admit that implementing this wouldn't be a "wedge" that would *ruin* the game?

I am not the only person who doesn't want a roster, and I am putting forward the argument for this camp. As you should be aware, the world revolves around such discussion.

> Some of us like the idea, OK? That's all I'm getting at - restated: how would implementing this feature as I've described it hurt *your* enjoyment of CM?

Restated, it would see the game branch off in unnecessary directions, which would inevitably affect the way it develops, whether you think so or not. Doing a Microsoft Word, and adding on different ways to let you do the same things, is not the way forward.

The ways which are currently available to do things in Combat Mission, are the ways for which the game is optimised. As I have said, it is a simple, powerful program, which should not be subverted by unnecessary window dressing. The improvements that should be made, are those under the hood which will increase the realism of the game.

In case you're wondering, I would quite expect the command interface to develop. But this development should happen from the inside - it should grow from the game's inherent strenghts. Combat Mission works in a new and unique way, and if BTS continue doing things differently, the game will continue to be exceptional. If they just stitch on this-and-that because someone saw it in another game, CM will lose its superiority.

David

[Ron]

First, this is all IMO so as not to ruffle any delicate feathers.

Stop for a moment and forget whether an implemented roster list is realistic, gamey, will give you info already there, or make you a better, quicker player etc. These are moot points and more a reflection of a person's bias and personal preference.

The crux is BTS made a design choice for a style of play they imagined in the game, ie intuitive versus a more 'God like' control. If searched(!), anyone can discover for themselves BTS's rationale on the matter. So the question is why isn't that accepted?

For me, the feel of the game is improved being 'on the ground', everything is accessible in an instinctive manner and is a large part of the game's elegance. That said, I wouldn't enjoy the game less if an OOB list was implemented but since this is a vote I think time could be better spent on other things.

Ron

[Xavier]

Yes, I think I would like to have a roster. Sorry, I really don't understand arguments against an optionnal roster

What is the difference between a player who have the time to spend two hours to check each of his units by turn and one who will just check a roster?

The 'play more' argument: Oh yeah, I would like to have the time

The 'it's not realistic' argument: may be, may be not. A perfect realistic game would be very boring with only your QG on the map and from time to time a laconic message from your units you can't see

The 'I don't like stat on my screen' argument

: not a problem if it is an option.

The 'I always agree with BTS' argument:humm sorry

[DanE]

No problem Oldgamer. I was just a little concerned about your mental health when you used the word "gamey" to describe CM. Now that I understand what you were going for, I have no concerns at all.

[WendellM]

David,

Heh, I like your comparison to MS Word - while I see your point (I *detest* Word), I'm afraid that I can't allow MS's blunders to sour the whole "there's more ways to skin a cat than one" approach.

All I can do is state that I respect your opinion, but suggest that my approach allows us both our preferences, while yours would deny me mine:

As you might view it: I'm a lazy sot - I suck - I want a roster/OOB. Disgusted, BTS devotes one man-week to shut me and players like me the hell up. That's it.

You still have your beloved +/- interface. You can still spend 2 minutes searching for a given unit while I need only 15 seconds. Big deal. BTS got the same amount of cash out of both of us. I'm happy because they listened to me, so I'll spend ~$50 for the next CM. You're happy since they kept your preferred +/- system, so you'll spend ~$50 for CM2. Everyone wins.

The alternative is that they ignore the input of dozens of CM players like me and arrogantly retain *just* their current +/- system. The alternative is that they alienate some of their "fan" base. Is BTS stupid/cruel? I think not.

I can see why BTS didn't make the roster an initial part of CM. It's understandable. But now, many passionate players/fans have asked for it, at least as an *option*. Only suicidal bull-headedness would drive BTS to ignore their fans and not at least make this much-requested feature an *option*!

This is the last I have to say on the subject, which has already been well-discussed.

Wendell

[Hemo2]

I definately would like a roster.

I have such limited time for game playing that anything (and I mean anything) to speed up the play process is a welcome feature. I enjoy looking at the status of my units after each turn, but to do it manually one unit at a time is time consuming.

A simple list summarizing this already available information would be a very welcome addition. It would also be nice if I could pull up this list and double click on a specific unit and it would automatically take me to that unit on the map. I could careless if it's gamey. This is after all a game and I'm not looking for any info that I can't already get, I just want it in a more efficient manner.

[Tobe]

This is rediculous. It's obvious that not everyone wants a roster. But I also think it appears that ENOUGH people want it to make it a worth while addition. I can't fathom how it would actually bother some people it it was an *optional* list. If you like playing the game it is now, DON'T POP UP THE LIST! Some of these battles are so huge it would be really nice IMHO if I could find my spotter real quick. As for making the game unrealistic, that is just crap, there are so many elements of this game that are not realistic in the way it controls, this would be minor in comparison. The realism is in the way that action is played out and inacted by the TacAI.

[David Aitken]

WendellM wrote:

> You still have your beloved +/- interface. You can still spend 2 minutes searching for a given unit while I need only 15 seconds. Big deal.

Aha, but this is the point. I rarely use the +/- keys, and I rarely lose track of ANY of my units, no matter how big my force is. I just keep my forces organised and I know where they are. Combat Mission allows you to really organise things, unlike Close Combat or whatever - and I think organisation is a key part of winning battles, so I relish the opportunity. In my opinion, this is the ideal way to play.

Anyway, it's up to BTS. I would very much like it if they would surprise us with something more powerful and intuitive than a mere roster... otherwise it's next stop, Close Combat 3D.

David

[JWorthing]

I just hope that if the roster is implemented that it does not pave the way for other "cluttering and unnecesarry things".

I think that having no roster is an essential part of the game. It was obviously a deliberate decision to leave it out.

Now if BTS "gives in" then I just hope they don't give in on other things, turning CM, the game we love, into something else, something with less integrity.

When I first played this game back in the beta days, it was very confusing as there was so many units and situations to worry about. I remember longing for some kind of OOB. It took a long time to get used to how the game played but that's exactly it!

The game is a totally new approach to wargaming. This is the first wargame to implement 3D, correct? Well, I had to get used to that. I had to get used to using the LOS command and the hunt command in order to get good hull-down positions. (never did that in CC)

Well, this is the first(?) wargame that chose to take out the (unnecessary) roster. You know what,? I got used to it.

Is *love* too strong a word?

[ReneLloyd]

I vote for a roster.

Though what I would really like, is for the zoomed-out view of the map to resemble a map, with the units shown as tactical symbols. This would then look like the commanders planning map. The player could be allowed to draw phaselines and objectives and comments of any kind etc on this map, but they would only be visible when zoomed-out.

[SF]

All this roster discussion is wonderful, but let's us not forget each change to CM is taking away valuable programming time from tcp/ip and CM2. CM is wondeful just the way it is, I say just give us the tcp/ip patch and move on to the EASTERN FRONT.

[Mikester]

No need for any roster.

Would much rather see BTS spend their limited time/resources working on other aspects of the game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Mikester out.