I want a roster, a roster !! Vote !

[JeffRaider]

YES to a roster. I'd like one that showed normal strength, casualties and ammo. That's it. You don't like it? Don't use it! Anything that lets me see the overall picture a little quicker is a good thing, I think.

[WarDog]

I don't see any harm in it. If you don't want to use it - don't use it. I can sure think of a couple times it would have been nice.

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

Cry Havoc!and let slip the dogs of war

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

[ianc]

Hi All,

There was some rabid discussion on this a (long) while ago, and the upshot of all the pissing and moaning was as Moon has related.

BTS originally thought of the type of roster included in CC, and rejected it, simply because they thought it included too much information and was a bit gamey.

I don't know whether I agree with this or not. To me, if you can glean the info anywhere in the game, there's no point in wasting people's time in making it harder to find. However, what most people (I think) really wanted was just an overview of what units they had and the ability to hop to them without going on a house-to-house search or wearing out their wrists and +\- keys.

That's why I like to call MY requested feature a 'navigation screen' rather than a roster. I just want to see a listing of units and jump to one without searching.

An additional benefit of this for me is that I find that looking at a table of units with everything grouped organizationally helps me to get a good overview of my command and apportion it at scenario's start as to which tasks I've identified for the successful completion of my objectives. Really helps to take the sting out of the hated setup phase of a new scenario, where you're trying to group everything. I find that I'm physically dragging stuff around on the map into little piles during setup so I can organize things. Very time-consuming.

I envision the right pane of the buy screen that pops up transparently on screen. A click of a particular unit in the pane jumps you to the unit and disappears the screen.

Steve said that a simple 'navigation screen' of this type would be strongly considered for CM2, but would probably not make it into CM1. I'm satisfied with that, and can respect that the effort and time to add this feature to an already-shipped product is not something to be taken lightly. I'd just like to present my take on why such a feature would be desirable prior to that decision being made for CM2.

So I guess my vote for a CM2 'nav screen' would have to be a resounding YES!

Maybe I will close in commenting on a couple of the prevalent anti-navigation screen arguments:

1) 'play more. I was confused at the start, but I don't need it any more. It's like a crutch, you'll be a better commander without it.' - I don't understand the logic of this: how could slower and more tedious access to information make me a better player? I've played this game plenty, from the beta demo on up, and it doesn't get easier to find your units in the heat of a battle no matter how much you've played. I don't enjoy large battles now for just that reason.

2) 'This simulates FOW and the lack of cohesion inherent in any real-life combat situation.' - Simulating reality by forcing yourself to painstakingly search house-to-house for an FO you know is out there (somewhere)? Added difficulty in manipulating a UI is not a valid way to simulate FOW. There are far better ways to do this, and pressing the +\- keys many times is not one of them.

Have a good day all,

ianc

[deanco]

I vote for a roster. Organized by type, infantry, armor, artillery, support, crews, etc. With different colored type to indicate the morale and 'moving' 'taking cover' etc. after the name. A double click takes you to that unit on the map and selects the unit. See Urban Assault. That would really be an enormous help to all those people who are coming to CM from RTS, 4X, Civ-likes, etc. due to the good reviews. These people will appreciate a roster too, I am confident.

DeanCo--

[David Aitken]

Mark IV -

Sorry if I sound it, but I never mean to be condescending. Even when I'm telling people they have the memory of a goldfish, I don't mean it as a person attack. When reading what I say, assume my enemy is the argument in hand, not the person I'm arguing with. I'm paranoid about making enemies, so to be condescending would only be to make life more difficult for myself than it already is.

David

too young to fall asleep, too cynical to speak - we are losing it, can't you tell?

[Sitting Duck]

vote yes for roster.

[Aussie Smith]

Folks

It makes me smile when we all quote the word "Realism" (and we all do me included) - whilst I appreciate the fact that we all would like the game to reflect the effects of weapons vs. armour, HE on structures etc accurately there is no way that the game - nor any game will be realistic - how can you factor in the physiological effect of warfare on a soldier or indeed a battlefield commander under stress of battle and this comes to my point - I like the idea of not having a roster as forgetting units gives me in part a sense of battlefield fatigue - no field commander will ever have under his fingertips the level of control that we do within a game system particularly if at the time he's being shelled or direct fired at - to quote one of my favourite lines from one of my lecturer's at the Military Training School I went to (Portsea for you Aussies) - "No plan survives contact with the enemy unchanged".

Its a valid point - a roster to me would divorce a level of fog of war that serves the game well - so my vote is nay to a roster - but hey - make it an option that can be turned on and off if you want to - that way both sides of the argument are served.

Cheers

Craig

[Jadayne]

I'm totally prepared to be flamed on this, but for everyone that says CM is "perfect" is wrong.

It may be the best wargame out there. It may be a supremely accurate tactical level simulation. But "perfect as is" -c'mon.

There's a seriously disturbing tendancy on this forum to think of this game as our baby -beautiful in every way and impervious to criticism. But, the fact is, all babies have to grow up eventually and survive in the real world. This game also has to survive in the real world. If, in the real world, everyone was a professor of history concentrating on ww2 and owned a G4 supercomputer, then ok, I stand corrected. But, for my part, I have neither and scrolling choppily across the map to try to figure out which of my units is the HQ i hid under woods A and which is the FO I hid under woods B gets to be a bit of a pain during a massive operation. What's really wrong with being able to punch the "R" key so that a roster appears letting me simply select the unit I'm looking for. There's room for a unit information screen -why not the present OOB?

And, though I hate to bring up the dreaded LCD (lowest common denominator), the idea here is to sell games which, in turn, leads to financing to create further versions-not to be stuck with a 1 off that is only enjoyed by hardcore hobbyists and ww2 fanatics. Anything-ok, not anything, but certainly something as basic as a unit roster -that will make the game more accessible to a wider audience should be welcome as it will only make Steve and Charles richer and more inclined to continue their fine work.

I actually see lots of room for improvement on the interface level. I assume that the game will evolve as CM 2, CM 3, CM 4 and all the various patches come out until we all look back and chuckle at the quaintness of CM 1 and admire how "our baby" has grown.

so flame me -I dare ya'

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

"Well then private, it must be sh*t. Good thing we didn't step in it."

[Lawyer]

I vote YES to a unit "roster" for the reasons stated above. However, maybe it would be useful to talk about what the roster we're asking for should include.

Yesterday, I lost a single PkIV tank in the middle of one of 45 potential game turns with many units that took me most of the weekend to play out. Having a child, a house, a yard, and a full-time job, that valuable weekend time is hard to come by. Yet that PkIV tank oversight cost me dearly due to a CM game information display system that requires me to be a time-consuming "unit accountant" on a crowded computer screen after each turn.

In the real world, my German commanders would know the orders and be responsible for keeping track of their individual units. In the game world of CM, I get the joy of running the whole show (very unrealistic, but fun). However, I am also responsible for running around the map after each turn finding un-ordered units (equally unrealistic, but decidedly NOT fun).

I'm sorry, but my disappointing weekend CM experience did not build my character or increase my tactical skills. I bought CM to be challenging and entertaining simulation of WW2 combat, not to test my eyes and memory in finding every unit on every turn amid a computer display of colorful 3-D movement markers (NONE of which appear on real battlefields).

CM is a game for me, not an eye-test. I just don't accept that game display difficulties make CM a better game. Nor do I agree that players who want a more straight-forward display are somehow ruining the game for others who choose another style of play.

I would like a unit list by OOB that is color coded to show if I have made a move each turn. That's all. A click would simply take me to the unit where existing CM tools give me plenty of information. It could easily fit in the wasted dark spaces at the bottom of the screen where the non-functional BTS ad space is located.

CM is a great game, but it can be improved like most products that go into mass production and get larger audience feedback. I hope BTS adds an optional unit list for those of us who want it.

Cheers

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

I fought the Law and the Law won.

[Los]

Just a quick point. If you read BTS' manifesto then you are well aware of the economic situations behind why you buy this game direct from them instead of through a store or whatnot. While it's nice to sell a gazillion games, BTS does not have to do this to be profitable because they are making a huger percent of the profits then any regualr wargame where the designers make the smallest fraction of the pie. So where a game like CC has to be structured for LCD so it can sell a million copies to break even or turn a profit, whatever, CM and BTS aren't under that kind of pressure. This gives them the freedom to design the game as bets fits THEIR vision on what a simulation of WW2 at this level should be like.

RE: The roster thing, it was never included in early test versions of CM. It was never in and never missed in the slightest. It is something we are talking about for CM2 but in a way that will best fit into the spirit of Charles and Steve's vision. They have proven to be quite impervious to mass requests for stuff to be put in just because of "popular demand". And thank god that's so because for every good thing that has been added due to discussion on this forum there's been an equal or larger number of inane requests put forth which had little or no real merit despite how much people wanted them.

Please note I'm not saying that the roster falls into the latter category. Personally I could care less either way though I certainly agree with Aussie Smith's comments.

Cheers...

Los

[guachi]

I feel like I've gone back to last November when we had this discussion the first time. It's Deja Vu all over again!

Let's see if I can find an official BTS response. {shuffle, shuffle, looks through reams of FAQ papers}

Ahh... These are the best of the bunch (and there are probably 15+ OOB threads) from after the beta demo release.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001210.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001164.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001165.html

In the absence of an 'official' BTS response, these are likely the closest you'll get.

Jason (and his Mighty Searchonauts)

[Mark IV]

With all due respect to the intrepid Searchonauts...

BTS has brought realistic war to the masses (I am a mass; you may debate my desirability amongst yourselves). Is that bad? Lawyer has stated it well. Not everybody has the time or expertise to play CM at the "early beta tester" level. I don't think they're necessarily disqualified.

"it was never included in early test versions of CM. It was never in and never missed in the slightest" by acknowledged grognards of long standing. By definition.

Look how the base of the pyramid is growing! (which is not to imply that newbies are base, nor pointy-headed). This is the best thing to happen to REAL wargaming since SP, or possibly computers in general, since it makes realism "cool".

'Most everyone here respects LOS', Moon's and rune's opinions and insights, along with Fionn, Matt & Co. (afterthoughted only due to their reticence in this thread).

But having read the umpty-millionth post on how we're a niche market and no one likes us and the big boys won't cater to demands for better glacis modeling, I say take this bastard and run like the wind! Bring it to the people, and their dollars will make CM2, and CM83 (The First Punic War, which I would really like to see, after Korea ).

Soon, kids at the espresso bar will be skateboarding up and kibitzing about so-and-so's gamey preference for Nebelwerfers.

There are ways to keep the game's integrity without pre-qualifying how many cardboard markers you fished out of the dog's mouth in the '70s.

CM has more free publicity now, than it's ever going to get. Useful tools (like rosters) that pique the interest and hook the newcomer are good; otherwise, the private club thins itself, and nothing follows...

[Los]

(Looks at the posted links to past conversations) Ahh the days when Steve had time to come up here and wax philosophically for paragraphs on end.

"Not everybody has the time or expertise to play CM at the "early beta tester" level."

I'll make only one wry commnent. When beta testing first started our instructions were literally this: We got a CD in the mail, no instructions, no install program, nothing. At first I was like, WTF? Over? But basically we were told, "just go play it, figure it out for yourselves, if you guys can do it anybody can." IN about ten minutes I was fighting a hellacious battle that I couldn't believe, in two hours I had my pictures out from my Trip to Normandy and was building the La Fiere battlefield.

There's nothing to figuring out and playing this game EVEN WITHOUT the nice 150+ page manual. It's more or less intuitive. So to imply that without an OOB the masses are lost and the game will sink is LOL hillarious. This same argument has been used over and over to try and bring BTS into line with the Conventional wargamers wisdom. But what was it Steve said, they like to take a lot of those bogus conventions (I'm not saying that OOB is one of them mind you!) and "throw them out the window as hard as they can."

You already know that there will be no OOB in CM. Maybe something in CM2? (Only Steve's hairdrsser knows for sure.) Anything that's been said about OOB good and bad has already been intelligently put forth and noted THE FIRST TIME AROUND. This reminds me of the dead body issue where dudes dragged that carcass around for months (much to my amusement among others) after the decision had already been (Secretly) made to include a dead figure. Cheers...

Los

[ianc]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You already know that there will be no OOB in CM. Maybe something in CM2<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, we know that. We just want to make sure that it's given a closer look when the BTS types are kicking around the design docs for CM2!

ianc

[JoePrivate]

Where's the CMBorg? It needs to be notified there's a glitch in the machine, quite a few people aren't being fully assimilated.

[Jeff Heidman]

Well, this seems about talked out.

I will note one thing however. On a more general note, I think that people need to quit polarizing themselves quite so much, and that includes me.

There seems to be these factions of people when it comes to CM. Eeryone loves the game, but some people seem to take that to an extreme, and will defend it no matter what the issue is.

The funny thing is, when something like this is brought up, and LOTS of people ask for it, the response from the faithful is that BTS should not aceede to the demands of the (implied) ignorant masses. At the same time, if an issue is brought up, and it does NOT have massive support, the answer seems to inevitably be "Well, it must not be important, or more people would be asking for it...". What this tells me is that no matter the merits of the point, some people are going to defend the status quo no matter what. Shrug. Perhaps that is inevitable with such an outstanding game.

In any case, as far as this subject goes, I imagine we will just ahve to wait and see. Personally, I certainly think a roster would be great, but I can see why it would not be a priority. I can wait until CM2.

Jeff Heidman

[guachi]

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

(Looks at the posted links to past conversations) Ahh the days when Steve had time to come up here and wax philosophically for paragraphs on end.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, somebody actually READ one of the links I posted . Yeah, Steve is fun to read when he gets a full head of steam.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But what was it Steve said, they like to take a lot of those bogus conventions (I'm not saying that OOB is one of them mind you!) and "throw them out the window as hard as they can."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many times has Steve told us to 'Unlearn' what we learned from previous war games? I don't have enough fingers and toes to count.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You already know that there will be no OOB in CM. Maybe something in CM2? (Only Steve's hairdrsser knows for sure.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd think after dealing with us for the past year Steve would have pulled his hair out in frustration.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This reminds me of the dead body issue where dudes dragged that carcass around for months (much to my amusement among others) after the decision had already been (Secretly) made to include a dead figure. Cheers...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, based on a cryptic comment by Moon at the beginning of December, the 'dead bodies' issue was resolved within a few weeks of the Beta release.

Jason

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

[ianc]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, this seems about talked out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may be right Jeff. All we can hope is that this tool is given a fighting chance in CM2.

BTW, how awesome that we went a full 115 posts on this particular quagmire with the worst denigration thus far involving a goldfish!

ianc

[Jeff Heidman]

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

BTW, how awesome that we went a full 115 posts on this particular quagmire with the worst denigration thus far involving a goldfish!

ianc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hah! Easy for you to say! You weren't the goldfish!

Jeff

[Derfel]

A most hearty "Aye!"

'twould please me greatly to see a OOB-function (aka a roster) in CM.

-Derfel

[Zamo]

I can take it or leave it. I have never felt the need for a roster. I like the game just fine as is. Personally, I agree it adds more gaminess to the game. A Company CO doesn't go over a roster and issue each unit commands EACH minute of a battle, which is what we're talking about with CM's turns. By providing a roster, you're actually increasing the micro-management potential, not decreasing it. It will make it easier to manage orders for all your troops, which is exactly what you guys seem to want, I realize. Bad idea for me. Let the TacAI do that.

But I realize I am not everyone, and I think an Order of battle list (not really a roster) might be a useful thing for the game to have. To me, I'd never use it. Like the rosters in Steel Panthers, they were there, I never used them. Yet some people might find the game easier to manage and thus funner to play if it did exist. It seems like it would require a lot of code work to add at this point, an entirely new feature as it were, so I agree, let's think about it for CM2.

[Tobe]

I vote NO.. I would rather see the time spent adding more important features like UFO's that can fire lasers at tanks, and cyborg robots that can join the fight.. Maybe even a Mario style side scrolling "jumper" mini game? Any comments BTS?

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

[Spook]

Given some of the strident opinions that have been come up on this “poll”, I think a little game is needed to address the concerns of the pro/con parties.

It’s called “FRAME THE ISSUE”. First take the pro-roster arguments on a point-by-point basis, then determine if the present CM system has a potential “shortfall” on each point or provides a workaround, and then start thinking if the added effort to provide an OOB roster is worth BTS’s time compared to other future “wish list” items.

(First, as a disclaimer, I will state that I personally have no need for a roster, but presently am trying to allow that some concerns to those who do are indeed valid.)

1) “A OOB roster provides the gamer information on his forces in a more accessible manner.”

There will always be some gamers who want information assembled in a comprehensive listing, and that such a list helps them to appreciate more “value” to their gameplay as a PERSONAL PREFERENCE. It doesn’t help that people arguing against the roster are saying that the pro-roster gamers want a roster for “gamey ploys” or “are getting more information than they should be allowed.” (It’s far more important in tactical SIMULATORS instead of GAMES where we should start worrying if the “commander” has too much info. And in spite of the FOW elements, we’re STILL getting more info in CM gameplay than a real-life field officer would have, if we pursue the “role-play” stance.) But here’s also where we all have to recognize the first potential trap to BTS. If it works up a roster, then what format is to be used? What information is to be presented, and in what order? Would it suffice to provide the unit identification and its present “strength/health”, or how much is more required? Getting a consensus on this will likely be quite contentious too; the argument shifts to a different playing field.

2) “I have a tendency to let some of my units get lost.”

Thus it’s suggested to bring up the proposed OOB roster, click on the unit in the roster, and get sent to the unit on-map as a “go-to” function. That’s one way to do it. But there are sufficient workarounds IMO. First, I “turn off” trees (Shift-T) if I have to. I then use the click-and-drag to highlight units into blue outline boxes. If I still can’t find certain units, then I zoom out on the map and expand the click/drag zone. Eventually I always find my “lost units” this way.

3) “I have a hard time finding SPECIFIC units, like the artillery spotters.”

Units like those can be tricky to find from farther view distances. But it’s an issue with me only when I’m setting up PRIOR to gameplay. From my outlook, I attach enough importance in my mind to spotter locations after the game’s start that I personally don’t forget their general location. Then I use the click/drag in that region to start picking amongst the single-man units ‘til I find the bugger. So a workaround is still in hand. Zoom in if it’s still hard to find.

4) “What about units stacked over each other? Like a squad under a vehicle?”

Yeah, that happens, and trying to get to the unit “under” another (or picking between two units overlapping) is a bitch. That’s when I’ll highlight the immediate ranking HQ unit instead, and start using the “+” key until I can highlight the “buried” unit.

5) “A roster helps me determine the health/strength of units at quick reference.”

Yes, it would, if you are trying to “assess” the health/strength in terms of higher formations like the platoons, companies, etc. How MUCH quicker than to inspect the units on the field between turns is the unknown quandary. This is, after all, a turn-based game that allows us the time to do “between-turn assessments” out the wazoo.

6) “A roster helps me quickly see unit status in terms of firepower, ammo, and effective ranges.”

Yes---but here I am personally less enthused to see such info presented together in a comprehensive manner. Here’s where I THINK(!) that gamers would start to attempt “higher-level” or “God-like” coordination between the units if they use such information in a roster to do their orders planning, beyond how they normally do in CM now. I don’t have a firm basis for this view, because if a gamer is determined enough to use ammo levels and effective ranges for planning his units’ orders & deployments in a very meticulous way, he can still do it. The information is still all there, in the pop-up info boxes or the lower-screen info bar. He just has to work harder in the present scheme.

SO......

In most cases, the issues to the “roster” arguments already have workarounds. As such, I personally can’t attach much “value” to a OOB roster, although I recognize that other gamers will, in how they “perceive” the game/unit information (that is already there) and thus feel enhanced gameplay.

SO.......

If enough of us still clamor for a roster, and assuming for the moment that BTS would be amenable to providing one, Then how would this “issue” be ranked versus other ones that CM gamers provide on their wishlists, if BTS requested such a ranking from us? (Remember the TCP/IP? BTS gave us a fair chance to vote yes/no on requiring it for initial delivery versus a later patch.)

So it finally boils down to “the law of diminishing returns.” My personal view is that BTS has decided that an OOB roster is past the diminishing-return point, unless enough CM gamers clamor to state that they attach very high value to the concept. Sorry for the long post.

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

[Oldgamer]

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

<big snip>

So it finally boils down to “the law of diminishing returns.” My personal view is that BTS has decided that an OOB roster is past the diminishing-return point, unless enough CM gamers clamor to state that they attach very high value to the concept. Sorry for the long post.

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

Spook,

You've done a good job of framing THOSE particular issues, but in my opinion they're off point. I definitely know HOW to find my units, whether by searching or going through each unit (+ key), it just seems odd to me to have to do it. Other folks have already stated HOW do to it, and implied that if we play more we'll get it. I think I already do get it, and I've sure been playing more than enough (not that I'm good, just that my wife doesn't see me anymore).

As an analogy, CM could force you to use some clunky tool to manually determine line of site (thus, making better players out of us), ala ASL players stretching string or whatever between hex dots for LOS. Instead, the game has the sweetest little "drag the line" tool I've ever seen. This saves me having to do something manually. If the argument were over this needed tool, I'd be saying "hey, I know how to use the string, I just don't want to". Ok, not the greatest analogy.

The only strong argument against that I've seen is that feature creep might make this a pandoras box. I just hope they can implement a tool to make the big honkin' ops more pleasant to play, without upsetting the system/it's players. If nothing else, this longish thread will let Steve and Charles know that it's still of interest to some.

[Spook]

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

Spook,

As an analogy, CM could force you to use some clunky tool to manually determine line of site (thus, making better players out of us), ala ASL players stretching string or whatever between hex dots for LOS. Instead, the game has the sweetest little "drag the line" tool I've ever seen. This saves me having to do something manually. If the argument were over this needed tool, I'd be saying "hey, I know how to use the string, I just don't want to". Ok, not the greatest analogy.

The only strong argument against that I've seen is that feature creep might make this a pandoras box. I just hope they can implement a tool to make the big honkin' ops more pleasant to play, without upsetting the system/it's players. If nothing else, this longish thread will let Steve and Charles know that it's still of interest to some.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've stated your opinion quite "boldly", Oldgamer, in this thread. (Sorry, couldn't resist )

Yep, the LOS tool is sweet. But keep in mind that you use it ONLY from a friendly unit's actual location, NOT from some arbitrary point to another in the map. Earlier games like the TalonSoft Campaign series had a LOS tool that could provide you with the latter---a means to "recon" any or every map hex to determine what has LOS to that hex, whether or not the hex was occupied. (You can still move around the map at Level 1 to do "map recon", but you still won't get absolute answers on LOS to any unoccupied location.) Rest asssured, CS gamers soon learned to make diligent use of that feature.

Some people here who don't favor a roster tend to regard it as similar to a gamey "all-knowing LOS tool." I don't quite agree, and am more ambivalent on a roster's overall impact to gamesmanship.

And to your "Pandora's Box" comment----that was one of my own earlier points, so I guess I'm not completely off-point by your admission. Maybe long-winded, though.

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