Demo Disappoints - no contour or exposure indicators, STILL!!!

[sand digger]

Why is this otherwise great series of games still lacking suitable means of judging unit exposure to enemy LOS and proposed move LOS? Geez, a couple of old games I had incorporated the means to do this eg contour lines. It is one of the most essential features of any war game, particularly when you are trying to manouver vulnerable tanks.

It is also not unrealistic to use such a feature, eg men on the ground can judge distances and heights with some accuracy while usually you can at least sneak a look towards a proposed destination to judge its exposure. Fog of war takes care of the rest as far as realism goes.

I've been waiting since Beyond Overlord for this to be fixed, that plus a means to bulk move units forward without having to plot a path for each individual one. Sorry, let me know when this is fixed and I'll start buying again.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by sand digger:

Why is this otherwise great series of games still lacking suitable means of judging unit exposure to enemy LOS and proposed move LOS? Geez, a couple of old games I had incorporated the means to do this eg contour lines. It is one of the most essential features of any war game, particularly when you are trying to manouver vulnerable tanks.

It is also not unrealistic to use such a feature, eg men on the ground can judge distances and heights with some accuracy while usually you can at least sneak a look towards a proposed destination to judge its exposure. Fog of war takes care of the rest as far as realism goes.

I've been waiting since Beyond Overlord for this to be fixed, that plus a means to bulk move units forward without having to plot a path for each individual one. Sorry, let me know when this is fixed and I'll start buying again.

Sorry to hear you are disappointed. I would agree with you so far as a better LOS tool goes -- I've thought that graying out the portions of the screen out of LOS would be the best way of handling this and don't understand why it has not been incorporated. I think, however, it would be unrealistic to have a "LOS along my proposed route" tool because, quite frankly, that would make it too easy. Part of the fun and the challenge is to find those covered routes. You have more information at your disposal than your WWII counterparts ever dreamed of having, so I can live with not having this type of tool.

I am curious, though -- if this level and period of combat interests you, with what game do you intend to replace CM?

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

You can find mods for the terrain that have different colours for each contour level; there are also gridded terrain mods. They're not pretty, but they let you read the terrain at a glance.

[Treeburst155]

Yep, Sand Digger, you need an ugly mod with a big thick 20 meter grid and colored elevations. They are a rare, but obtainable item. 99.999% of CMers detest these mods for their ugliness. The remaining .001% cannot ever go back to the original. They are doomed to a CM that is very ugly. Why? You can see the lay of the land. You can predict LOS much better, minimizing any desire for a point to point LOS tool. You have 20/20 vision on the battlefield! You gather information with your eyes that in reality would...um.... be gathered with your eyes.

I've heard it whispered about that there is even a mod or two that shows the terrain exactly how the computer sees it....every 2m x 2m subtile! It is said that these mods reveal many secrets about CM battlefields.

Yes, these are very powerful mods, and very addicting. They WILL improve your game. If you wouldn't know the Mona Lisa from a 3rd grader's water color art, and want to really SEE the battlefield, you might want to email me at the address in my profile. I have connections to the underworld of ugly mods.

Treeburst155 out.

[Michael Dorosh]

And if you act now, for the low, low price of 29.99....

[Treeburst155]

Please, Grog Dorosh, I'm making a pitch here. Go upgrade to 1.01 and look at those PBEM movies I sent you. You'll see the power of UGLY at it's best. Go on now, install the patch.

Treeburst155 out.

[sand digger]

The shading of marginal LOS areas would be realistic, a black and white distinction would not IMHO. It is not a matter of having 100% vision, it is merely a matter of having a fair idea of what the lay of the land is like in areas you would normally be able to see in a real life situation. It is a bit late when you move to a position and then find upon using the current LOS tool that you're exposed like a shag on a rock.

I'm not an avid gamer, more a WW1 and 2 student and particularly NA. So its potentially fun and interesting to play out something that you have a historical knowledge of, particularly at a tactical level. Hence the frustration, specially because the rest of the game is of such a high standard.

Guess I'd better do some searching and see what mods are out there.

[junk2drive]

If they gave us nukes in the game, we could win quickly too. coming from spwaw, this game series was very different. now i enjoy the additional challenge, and fog of war. when a 50 50 aar is satisfying, you have passed that need to win all the time attitude.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by sand digger:

The shading of marginal LOS areas would be realistic, a black and white distinction would not IMHO. It is not a matter of having 100% vision, it is merely a matter of having a fair idea of what the lay of the land is like in areas you would normally be able to see in a real life situation. It is a bit late when you move to a position and then find upon using the current LOS tool that you're exposed like a shag on a rock.

I'm not an avid gamer, more a WW1 and 2 student and particularly NA. So its potentially fun and interesting to play out something that you have a historical knowledge of, particularly at a tactical level. Hence the frustration, specially because the rest of the game is of such a high standard.

Guess I'd better do some searching and see what mods are out there.

If you want to see like in a real life situation go to view 1, that always gives me a good idea.

[Sirocco]

I have to agree. I've never understood the need for gridded terrain. The first thing you should do, even before positioning your units, is to get down to view 1 and scout the map thoroughly.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

I have to agree. I've never understood the need for gridded terrain. The first thing you should do, even before positioning your units, is to get down to view 1 and scout the map thoroughly.

This can still opse problems, however, on large maps with multiple subtle terrain variations. Hence the use of a grid.

For an example, look at the map in B&T's Murphy's Law. I don't think there is more than one level variation on 90% of the map -- and those are almost impossible to see on anything but the lowest view unless you have a grid. The grid allows you to see the big picture a little easier.

Steve

[junk2drive]

in real war who went into enemy territory and came back with a report? why not preview in scen editor and see where the enemy is too.

its just a game.

[Moon]

Sand digger, one of the problems with such features is that while in itself they are "not unrealistic", they *can* ultimately lead to the player being able to micromanage his forces too much. The requirement for the player to go down to level 1 view and check with his own eyes is a built-in obstacle to micromanagement. We *want* screwups in CM, the missed LOS, the blown opportunity, the unit that walks a tad too far or comes too late or has to take a few extra minutes to find the perfect spot!

Without them, CM would be half the simulation, and if you ask me, half the game, too.

Martin

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

I have to agree. I've never understood the need for gridded terrain. The first thing you should do, even before positioning your units, is to get down to view 1 and scout the map thoroughly.

This can still opse problems, however, on large maps with multiple subtle terrain variations. Hence the use of a grid.

For an example, look at the map in B&T's Murphy's Law. I don't think there is more than one level variation on 90% of the map -- and those are almost impossible to see on anything but the lowest view unless you have a grid. The grid allows you to see the big picture a little easier.</font>

[Sergei]

Also, on maps with a lot of forests and/or grain fields (as in, anywhere in Finland) grids are the ONLY way to tell how the terrain flows, as tree base & grain colour is same at all heights. Incidentally, such mod is available for CMBB at CMMODS.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Moon:

We *want* screwups in CM, the missed LOS, the blown opportunity, the unit that walks a tad too far or comes too late or has to take a few extra minutes to find the perfect spot!

Interesting point. You may have said it before, but it's the first time I've heard it. And I have to say I agree with the idea.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Moon:

We *want* screwups in CM, the missed LOS, the blown opportunity, the unit that walks a tad too far or comes too late or has to take a few extra minutes to find the perfect spot!

Yes indeed. This is first and foremost a Combat Simulator. Simulators use fog of war to simulate realistic conditions in battle. If we knew exactly which enemy units could see "hex 10G" before our own units actually got there then we'd be taking a step back towards board games.

Can you imagine a tank simulator that told you with 100% certainty that you have no chance of taking out that Tiger @ 400 yards before you even fired your gun? That wouldn't be realistic at all. It should be up to the player to estimate and judge if he's got a chance. It should be the same for judging LOS.

[sand digger]

Some of you are taking the point way past what was made. FOW does the surprise thing, but being half blind should not be on the agenda. Unless you are partial to that kind of thing.

Good example. On the second (in Italy) demo scenario I was trying to place the US mortar spotter where he could see a certain area. Had him on the right flank up in the hills. Must have moved him to about ten different spots before by chance I got him in the right place. Now that would not happen in real life, particularly with a trained spotter, particularly in such a relatively small area.

Visual feedback in real life is much, much more informative than that in the game I hope we would agree. It is in 3D for a start. Which is why you need something more than the various angles of view which don't help much at all I've found, particularly given the inevitable misproportion as to size as rendered by the graphics.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by sand digger:

Good example. On the second (in Italy) demo scenario I was trying to place the US mortar spotter where he could see a certain area. Had him on the right flank up in the hills. Must have moved him to about ten different spots before by chance I got him in the right place. Now that would not happen in real life, particularly with a trained spotter, particularly in such a relatively small area.

Not sure how you can justify this statement.

[sand digger]

Because Michael you would look around you as you approached for the highest area facing the direction you wanted and head for it. In the scenario there are open areas and various densities of vegetation which would help, if it was all very tall, dense vegetation then the task would be much more difficult. But the present excellent LOS takes that into account, see the suggestion in the patches topic.

[JonS]

Michael, I can see what he's getting at.

OTOH, I've also spent 10-15 minutes wandering around on the side of a hill trying to find a spot that gave LOS over the zone I'd been assigned. In CM terms, my commander didn't have to issue any further orders, but equally it wasn't a case of waltzing in to the exact spot based on a map-recce alone.

Having said that, something akin to 'seek hull down' for infantry would be useful I think. The infantry-type unit would advance until they had LOS to the spot indicated, then stop and set up if need be.

Now, stop being a luddite, and update to 1.01. Since you were the one who started several threads about it (mis-appropriating the term 'official' while you were at it) it's a bit unseemly for you to still be putzing around with 1.00 a week after the patch was released. Failing that, run two exe files.

be cool

Jon

[Treeburst155]

Some of your LOS hunting hassles are due to lack of experience I think. The rest are due to the pretty, but uninformative artwork.

Treeburst155 out.

[Moon]

Originally posted by sand digger:

Some of you are taking the point way past what was made. FOW does the surprise thing, but being half blind should not be on the agenda. Unless you are partial to that kind of thing.

Good example. On the second (in Italy) demo scenario I was trying to place the US mortar spotter where he could see a certain area. Had him on the right flank up in the hills. Must have moved him to about ten different spots before by chance I got him in the right place. Now that would not happen in real life, particularly with a trained spotter, particularly in such a relatively small area.

Visual feedback in real life is much, much more informative than that in the game I hope we would agree. It is in 3D for a start. Which is why you need something more than the various angles of view which don't help much at all I've found, particularly given the inevitable misproportion as to size as rendered by the graphics.

(You are playing with realistic unit size set, are you?)

If you mean that it took your spotter 10 minutes to move into the desired position, then I must say the game works as intended. This is precisely what I had meant in my previous post. With even more powerful tools available to the player (than he already has) his entire battalion could function with clockwork-like precision.

You would have a valid point if ALWAYS it would take 20 tries to find a certain position. But it doesn't. You can find most lines of sight (or hulldown positions) quickly by just using your eyes and the various camera levels. Therefore the occasional "it took me 10 minutes" is very well intended and part of the design. In fact we worked hard to achieve this kind of balance. It's possible that we could have solved this differently, and maybe for the new engine we will, but it will always be a give and take (get more control here, lose control there) with the aim to make the simulation as a whole more realistic.

Martin

[Thomm]

Dear Martin!

It is good to learn about your standpoint regarding terrain-reading aids:

Originally posted by Moon:

Sand digger, one of the problems with such features is that while in itself they are "not unrealistic", they *can* ultimately lead to the player being able to micromanage his forces too much. The requirement for the player to go down to level 1 view and check with his own eyes is a built-in obstacle to micromanagement. We *want* screwups in CM, the missed LOS, the blown opportunity, the unit that walks a tad too far or comes too late or has to take a few extra minutes to find the perfect spot!

So far I thought that engine limitations prevented you guys from adding additional viewing aids to the game. Nevertheless, I never understood what limitations these were and why they could not be overcome in the past years.

Now I read your statement and I realize that the present condition is in fact intentional. Unfortunately this 'feature' was one of the reasons that I did not and will not buy CM:AK. Let me tell you why, as it is an emotional thing. I went out to play the demo (the German assault scenario) and (like others I assume) was absolutely *shocked* when I discovered that central wadi in the middle of the game, that could have saved me so much grieve. This was when I got a little bit upset as I thought to myself: they had years to give me a means of reading the terrain better and all I get is a swamp of pixels.

Now I accept that I can roam around on view 1 and discover the map this way. Certainly; the interface is smooth enough for this. But it is all about my TIME. Firing up a game of CM at 11 p.m. is a hopeless move in most cases, but then - at least - I want the information to be as easily accessible as possible. I would gladly trade YOUR fear of too much micromanage for the time that the proper tools would save ME!

I have no problem buying a game without ever finishing it (CM:BB being an example, played only about 1/3 of the missions - yet). In the case of CM:BB the new features made it an easy decision! But CM:AK really overemphasizes the engine 'shortcomings' (perceived as such by myself) with its 'flat' desert terrain.

I hope that you ease up on your principles for the new engine, because I would gladly spend more money on your products!

Regards,

Thomm

[Moon]

Hello Rollstoy,

So far I thought that engine limitations prevented you guys from adding additional viewing aids to the game. Nevertheless, I never understood what limitations these were and why they could not be overcome in the past years.

Actually it *is* an engine limitation by now, because the decision to try to balance player tools was taken early on during development. We looked at adding at least a unit roster at some point during CMBB development for example, and found it near impossible to add it without *major* recoding, so it slipped down the priority list.

As for your point of view re: CMAK. Fair enough, and it's something we kept in mind. We found the current solution to be a good balance between playability and realism; provided that people play CM on the intended scale, i.e. don't try to play a 10,000 point regimental size monster and then complain about the time involvement Not saying that this is what you do, just explaining our line of thought.

We'll have to accept that some people will not like this I guess, even if what you perceive (IMHO incorrectly) as an engine limitation is just a reality of desert warfare.

Martin

PS. Forgot one thing - the new engine, as the name implies, obviously won't suffer from the limitations of the current engine. One of the main goals for the new engine is flexibility, so this will impact also player tools and visual aids. Thing is - the tools a battlefield commander has at its disposal do change and improve from WW2 to the current time, and so a combat simulation that is set out to be flexible as to theaters and time periods will have to take this into account.

[ February 10, 2004, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: Moon ]