I want a roster, a roster !! Vote !

[DanE]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I say that? I do remember typing "tactics" and "abilities" but I don't recall saying the first thing about missing units. Plus, I said I wanted to use tactics to try to win instead of seeing how fast I could click my mouse button. You'll notice in my previous post that I put a little statement at the end because my post was off topic from what was being discussed.

But since we are here, I was expressing my opinion that CM's "wego" system is much better that either "real time" or true turn-based.

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The player is, like it or not, a supreme commander. You have full view of the battlefield (minus unseen enemy forces),full knowledge of how long the battle will last, full command of your troops (with an increased delay for units out of command), full knowledge of the status of all of your troops and the ability to issue to your troops your exact orders.

I like chaos and randomness, but what do you think are the odds of your platoon commander misunderstanding the company commander's orders? None, because the player gets to issue orders to every unit on his side.

So once again, I will point out that I have not declared, one way or the other, my feelings on the roster debate. I will leave it up to BTS. It is their game and if they choose to put it in, fine. If they choose to leave it out, fine.

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

everyone has an opinion

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes we do, just don't tell me what mine is.

[Mannheim Tanker]

I think it's quite arrogant for many of you anti-roster types to assume what is the best way to learn the game. I'll guarantee that many of the pro-roster people can whip the crap out of the anit-roster supporters (and vice versa). Bottom line: it's irrelevant to the argument. Even if it were, who are you to make the decision for what is best for others...if we don't want to learn to play the game to your high standard then so be it. Just toggle the roster off and you'll never have to worry about it. Sheesh!

[jdl]

No roster mahn. That's my vote.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Crap! (Double post)

On a side note: that fact that this issue is so heated is a very good argument for including it. There is obviously a LOT of demand for it...as long as there is a toggle feature, everyone can be satisfied by including it.

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

[Mark IV]

Hmmm... at least 2 feared and respected PBEM opponents in the anti-roster camp.

AHA. They don't want ME to have it! Now I am inalterably pro-roster. The game MUST have it.

Actually, I remember requesting one in the beta days. Now I don't really need it anymore, but as I said, I might use it if it were there.

I really don't understand what it could detract from the game for others. I'm thinking WWII commanders probably had a list of the units under their command.

I can't think that it's very realistic for a group of men to stand at parade rest for a full minute on a battlefield because somebody double-clicked the + key.

If the user-interface simulates the chain of command, how likely is it that a platoon leader would forget one of his 3 squads? Whereas the CM god-player with time constraints has to physically and personally command each of the units in a scenario the size of Cambes, or larger, once per sim-time minute. So a roster is like a drink-holder in a car- not gonna make or break the deal, but darned convenient once it's there.

OTOH, I need to play more people who misplace 150mm spotters....

[Tyro]

Roster, Yes. just my vote.

I am not sure I understand this I don't want it so you shouldn't either argument. As was previously mentioned, one of the downsides to some of the reviews of CM was a lack of an roster or OOB, so maybe BTS should look at it from a sales point of view (that is why they made the game in the first place and a damn good one at that) it might project into more sales and make it more accessable to those that don't want to hunt all day for that FO who keeps getting lost in the trees, or the team that got spooked and took off for parts unknown, I personally want to be able to find them when I want them, and if that makes me a bad guy, so be it. for the guys that don't want to use it, well, don't.

[PacifistButLikeWarGames]

I vote for a roster.

I doubt that it would affect the way CM is played if one was included.

The platoon-style movement would still be the best way, due to the benefits inherent in leadership bonuses.

A roster would simply make the interface easier, not the game itself.

[Guest rune]

Stateing the obvious here. First I see someone just wants a OOB, which I can agree with. The someone wants it modified to show infantry firing at infantry 100 meters away. Nope. can't agree with that. It is changing the basic play of the game. Does anyone else see feature creep? I want he skipping rounds, I want OOB with everything going on, I want each piece of armor down to the nearest mm. If BTS tried to put everything everyone wants into the game, it would require the new IBM mainframe, a few million dollars to spend on research, and would be done in a few more years.

Steve and Charles designed the game to be fun. They succeeded. I want to see some bugs fixed, I want to see tcp/ip, I want to see CM2 within 12 months.

Is the game playable without an OOB? Yes. Is it worth delay of anything else to do so? Nope...

Change my vote to a NO.

Rune

[Mikester]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Crap! (Double post)

On a side note: that fact that this issue is so heated is a very good argument for including it. There is obviously a LOT of demand for it...as long as there is a toggle feature, everyone can be satisfied by including it.

[This message has been edited by Mannheim Tanker (edited 08-07-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr. M. Tanker,

Please don't take any of the following personally.

Frankly, this is NOT a "good arguement"

I would still not be satisfied even if the feature were toggleable. As, in my opinion, BTS spending their time on such matters is a "waste" in relative terms to other features / issues that could be added and/or addressed in the game. Many of which, I might add, are way more important than any roster ever will be in both my, and any number of other peoples opinions, on this board.

You must remember that BTS is not some huge game company with a large programming staff working on everything under the sun that we may wish to have. Their resources are limited in regard to the time they have and I think there is much better use than can make of that time than messing around with what I regard as a triviality in the overall scheme of things.

Mikester out.

[Tiger]

When I said everyone has an opinion DanE, you wrote:

"Yes we do, just don't tell me what mine is."

I don't think anyone has tried to tell someone what their opinion should be. If that were so I could well accuse you of trying to tell me what my opinion should be . Each side has given valid arguments, though I don't agree with many of those who want a roster. The most prevalent reason seems to be that it makes jumping to your units easier so that you'll never miss giving orders to one. If you're going to do this you might as well make the game 2-d.

No one who wants a roster sees that this was left off to intentinally add some unwieldiness to going through your units.

You're not supposed to have instant access to each unit in the game through a roster. How to locate and give orders to your units is clearly described and examplified in the book that came with the game. Being able to simply pull up a roster and click to goto a unit was left out for a reason. It simulates the confusion of a WW II battle field very well. I hope Big Time will stick to their design premise on this. I will agree that some type of info panel for each unit would be nice that tells what it is in laymans terms for people who have no idea about WW II units. I would not want to see instant jump to a unit via a roster.

Time to end this thread Big Time, it's been beat to death both ways!

-Tiger

[Bastables]

Yes and no, if the roster is some sort of magic turn by turn update in the status of all your units no. If it’s a static OOB fine I can deal with it.

[Philistine]

Tiger:

You said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The most prevalent reason seems to be that it makes jumping to your units easier so that you'll never miss giving orders to one. If you're going to do this you might as well make the game 2-d.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I already do this. I keep bases and movement paths on, and generally before I hit "go" I go to the number 8 view and make sure either all my units have movement orders, or the ones that don't aren't moving because I don't WANT them to move, and not because I forgot about them.

Other reasons (at least I have) for wanting a "roster" are:

(1) to speed up play (not having to use +/- key to cyle through forces on a large map. I think this will be especially important if/when there is a timed option in TCP/IP (personally I probably won't be playing much TCP/IP because of scheduling problmes).

(2) in order to not have to go searching for one particular unit (e.g. where is that FO?)

(3) refamiliarization with my forces when I've got several E-Mail games going. I've already had one E-Mail game where I was convinced for two turns that I had two TD's (so that the one that got destroyed wasn't a catastrophe). Turned out I was confusing it with another game where I had a very similar force mix, but had two TD's.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No one who wants a roster sees that this was left off to intentinally add some unwieldiness to going through your units.

You're not supposed to have instant access to each unit in the game through a roster. How to locate and give orders to your units is clearly described and examplified in the book that came with the game. Being able to simply pull up a roster and click to goto a unit was left out for a reason. It simulates the confusion of a WW II battle field very well. I hope Big Time will stick to their design premise on this. I will agree that some type of info panel for each unit would be nice that tells what it is in laymans terms for people who have no idea about WW II units. I would not want to see instant jump to a unit via a roster.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the argument that bothers me. IMHO, an interface should not be made deliberately "unwieldy." I don't agree (of course, YMMV) with making an interface more time-consuming in order to simulate "confusion" in battle. I think the FOW and Tac-AI coded in the game do a very good job of simulating the chaos and confusion of battle.

I don't find the lack of a Roster to add to the immersiveness of the game, instead I find it jarring. However, I recoginze this is definitely an issue of personal preference.

Most major reviewers have indicated that the lack of an OOB/Roster feature is a flaw in an otherwise nearly perfect game. I understood (but I could be wrong) that BTS was seriously considering putting one in for CM2 (and hopefully backfitting it to CM?)

It seems to me that those who don't want a roster are saying that the lack of a roster improves the immersiveness of the game for them and those who do want a roster (or at least me ) are saying the lack of a roster detracts from the immersiveness of the game.

BTS just can't win!

--Philistine

(But I still think they should put one in)

[Mannheim Tanker]

Mikester: We'll have to agree to disagree on this one... Just because you think it's a trivial matter doesn't mean it's so. I'm arguing that it is not as trivial as other suggestions, in large part because it's caused such a stir. From a programming perspective, a roster would not take much effort at all (from experience).

Best,

MT

[Mark IV]

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

Yes and no, if the roster is some sort of magic turn by turn update in the status of all your units no. If it’s a static OOB fine I can deal with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye. I know some of us pictured a unit list, and clicking the unit would select that unit on the map- nothing more. At least I did. An interactive OoB, if you will.

Point on feature-creep is well-taken. Two guys alone draw the line and wherever that is, is fine with me.

The best arguments in favor of the roster are lost in the shuffle: new player satisfaction, and more favorable reviews. Both of these issues go straight to the bottom line.

Mr. Aitken: I am used to being disagreed with, and would be surprised if I weren't (it would mean (sniff) that all the board regulars were dead). 'Twas only the condescending tone that struck a nerve. Lose that and we can debate till the cows come home.

[Purple4Ever]

Count me in - I vote *yes* for a roster.

[Minnesota Joe]

Yes- if it is just used as a more practical way to quickfind your units, like a list. A real commander would have a list of his units, wouldnt he?

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

Ah scheist.

[Moon]

Errm... ladies and gentlemen, this discussion has come up many times before. Every time it came up, it grew faster than any others. Most of the time it's been closed down at some point or the other - either because of abusive language, personal insults or simply (last time it came up I think), because the arguments kept going 'round and 'round without any solution.

Fact is that what sounds so simple (hey, just add it and make it toggleable) is not. In case anybody forgot, somebody has to put the code together for such OOB list and make it work. That somebody is Charles... it's the same somebody who might sit down a couple of days over the code for operation front lines OR an OOB list.

As far as I know, it's been a game design decision not to include an OOB list in the beginning. Combat Mission is designed in a way which should in fact punish micromanagement of any sort. Steve and Charles have stated so (in different words maybe) many times before.

However - some while ago another of these discussions has ceased with Steve saying that they could imagine - at some point in the future - to add an overview roster, mainly in the form of a simple unit list without any additional info. As far as I recall it's made the list of things to be worked on for patches and future releases (CM2).

Personally, I don't think that an overview list will make it into any of the CM1 patches, but it might (and probably will) into CM2. Should we end this discussion for now before some unnecessary flames need to be put out? Sounds like a good time to do so now

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

"An hour has 60 minutes, each minute in action has a thousand dangers."

- Karl-Heinz Gauch, CO 1st Panzerspähkompanie, 12th SS Panzerdivision

[aka_tom_w]

WOW!

Joined this one a little late.

I had no Idea this is/was such a HOT topic or issue.

My vote is NO!

The game is near perfect the way it is.

Others here in the No-Roster Camp have fully and completely spoken and I agree with them

I figure you "should" be able to sort of just "know" where all your units are. the Shift C makes them big if you want to find them. Their Dead bodies show up if you look for them. Thats good enough for me.

The No-Roster way of doing things that BTS has adpoted is the the way I like the game.

My vote is for no roster.

But there are strong opinions here on both sides for this one.

Nothing needs "fixing" more than the availability of TCP/IP play. That should be the next BIG thing.

I can't wait for live action via my opponent

(with timer via TCP/IP)

Next issue please....

-tom w

[Oldgamer]

Sorry, flame away if necessary, but:

why should we close the topic? If you don't want to discuss the issue, don't.

TCP/IP is more important? I disagree. This has been stated as a default truth. I'll always play this more via email than through TCP/IP. I agree it will be cool, but don't agree that it's more important than an OOB. As others have stated, many respected reviewers have made notice of the lack of an OOB in their articles.

By the way, do any of you who are against the feature ever read the OOB given in the pre-game briefing. Find it useful? Find it useful to know what reinforcements are coming?

[Midnight Warrior]

Perhaps there is a compromise solution to this isuue. If the game had a step function similar to the +/- that would step between HQ units that skipped stepping through the subordinate units then one could use this to quickly find a unit. For example one could step from A0, to B0, to C0, D0, etc. Then either use the point and click method of finding the subordinate unit or use the +/- key to find it.

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

March To The Sound Of The Guns

[Jadayne]

before this post gets closed, I vote yes. In fact I demand it since not having a roster takes away from the reality of the game. A real battlefield commander wouldn't be able to zip around the battlefield and get instant information about the status and locations of all of his troops. He'd get radio reports from the battlefield telling him the status of what's happening.

Therefore, in the interest of realism, I think the roster should be implemented as mandatory and the map be removed completely. You simply all of your orders for the game and then wait. At the end of the game a report comes in telling you if you've won or lost.

There. How's that for a solution.

(seriously though. I vote yes.)

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Sorry, flame away if necessary, but:

why should we close the topic? If you don't want to discuss the issue, don't.

By the way, do any of you who are against the feature ever read the OOB given in the pre-game briefing. Find it useful? Find it useful to know what reinforcements are coming?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Because Moon is as close to an official opinion on this as we are going to get on this in this thread, I would think.

2. The intro, actually I don't read it closely. And if you ever play one of my scenarios, what you are going to get is "Another troop/Coy/platoon may be released later, in which case they should arrive within the next 30 minutes. Maybe they bring some tanks. Assume you have to do the job with what you got." And I can already tell you that what you get may not have anything to do with what is mentioned in the briefing. You are a wartime CO, so deal with it.

And some other people brought up this 'People who want a roster suck' - thing that I started - of course that is my belief. Actually I demand a roster now that I have learned how to play the game. It will make me the best player ever. I shall rule the ladders. Harharhar you are all doomed, doomed!!! Actually no, it was a joke. Maybe those people should re-read my original post and the following one in which I elaborate a bit.

Still, for reasons of opportunity cost I am absolutely against Charles spending time on a roster.

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

Andreas

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Yes and no, if the roster is some sort of magic turn by turn update in the status of all your units no. If it’s a static OOB fine I can deal with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, HEY; if you got time to post here you can find the time to send the next turn .

Regards, John Waters

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

People who can smile when things go wrong

have found someone else to blame.

[Blue Macs]

i would certainly use a roster if it was there but i just dont think its necesary. i hardly ever use +/- keys, i find that my plans link my units together and so its hard to forget about a unit. as rosters are such a recognised thing i assume that it was thought of when making the game and therefore it was probably dropped as an unneeded idea. im sure BTS have taken our thoughts in, so try not to get too nasty guys,

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

"If you see a white plane it's American, if you see a black plane it's the RAF. If you see no plane at all it's the Luftwaffe." -German soldier, Western Front, 1944

[Guest Mortiis]

I vote yes and dont see why personal insults were being directed at those who would like to save time in locating units, a very childish way to make a point I think. As for those who did or who would vote no because it would take too much time to do, remember if enhancements such as these are deemed worthwhile well the time involved providing us with these enhancements would be done in cm2 and since the engine will be the same, the time used to do it here will be simply time saved when incorperated into cm2.

Midnight Warrior: good idea

there has been good points made by each side but the fact that this has become quite a heated discussion is indication enought that there is something missing in the interface- or why would there even be such a heated discusion. The anti-rosters make a good point about the possiblity of demand for other enhancements added later to the roster that would detract from the game but Im sure that the pro-rosters would vote against those enhancements when and if they ever did become an issue; I know I would, all I want is a way to quickly zoom to my sniper and other units that are not normally apart of a unit. Id rather see the movie replay feature made first myself >)