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

[sand digger]

Thanks for all your responses and ideas.

No doubt with more experience, although I did play CMBO quite a bit, it would be a bit more familiar. But time is a factor, I'd like to spend time actually involved in a gaming experience, not scanning terrain endlessly looking for certain features that an electronic slave can do just as well in a fraction of the time. There is nothing challenging about the process of working out the lie of the land, it is necessary information in order to play realistically and well but the present process is just plain tedious.

It looks like the grid mod will help a lot though, the work some of you people have put into mods is amazing.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by sand digger:

Thanks for all your responses and ideas.

No doubt with more experience, although I did play CMBO quite a bit, it would be a bit more familiar. But time is a factor, I'd like to spend time actually involved in a gaming experience, not scanning terrain endlessly looking for certain features that an electronic slave can do just as well in a fraction of the time. There is nothing challenging about the process of working out the lie of the land, it is necessary information in order to play realistically and well but the present process is just plain tedious.

It looks like the grid mod will help a lot though, the work some of you people have put into mods is amazing.

I think the point is that it would be more realistic if you didn't know every corner of the map.

You don't need do scan the entire map, when i play i just look for the most important points.

Good luck and don't remember to have fun!

[junk2drive]

Ever play an RTS like Warcraft? You dont see terrain until you have been to it, real fog of war.

Ive played board games, rts, turn based. I love cm's way of doing it. give orders, hit the button, watch troops do whatever even if its wrong.

maybe cmx2 will let you have extreme fow = black screen until you recon the area.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by sand digger:

There is nothing challenging about the process of working out the lie of the land, it is necessary information in order to play realistically and well but the present process is just plain tedious.

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Personally, one of my favorite moments in the game is when a new battle opens on my screen and I get to take my walking tour of the battlefield. There are some scenarios I've opened and for one reason or another decided not to play, but delighted in cruising around the map. Even the computer-generated maps are mostly pretty nice.

So I guess it takes all types. I kind of hope you get something like you are asking for in the engine rewrite, but I think I will still be taking my battlefield tours, just to get that personal feel. BTW, it doesn't take me that long. I probably spend no more than five minutes deciding how I am going to route my attack (or if I am defending, where I can expect the attacker to come) and checking out the approximate LOS from some important points. Works for me.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Has it occurred to anyone in this thread that troops are issued maps for a reason? Not to say maps are always worth the paper they are printed on, but basic questions of contour would and should be known before hand.

Nonetheless, the assertion that an observer would be able to find the perfect spot to observe from without having to move around is very silly. Sometimes, in real life, there are no perfect spots; so it is in CM.

I think CM has trod the middle ground on this one just fine and see no need for any changes. A good (ugly) terrain mod will be just what the doctor ordered for seeing the lay of the land.

[Kilroy Lurking]

Contours or lack thereof came up in another recent thread - and I feel that a Contour "overlay" (as opposed to a grid) would as an option make the game less frustrating,

It also occurs to me that prehaps the actual combatants in the western desert (and plains of Russia) would have had miminal, if any advance written indication ot the terrain ahead - so CMAK as is, could well be true to reality.

The other observation I would like to make is that for anyone at ground level in a typical sandy/rocky desert terrain with the sun overhead is hard pressed to discern the lie of the land. This seems to be exactly as portrayed by the game. However there is a tremendous difference with a low morning or evening sun - magicaly every nook, gulley, rocky outcrop etc is revealed in stark 3D contrast. This would be a good challenge for the NewCM ,

PS Thanks Battlefront Guys, I just recieved my Copy of CMAK - I put off buying as I had some few CMBB scenarios to work through!

[Bil Hardenberger]

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.

Moon, while I respect you tremendously I find this mildly amusing.

All 3 of the CM titles are all about micro-managment. It is one of the two aspects of the games I really dislike. The amount of micro-management really turns me off to the larger scenarios, which otherwise I would love. Fix that, perhaps with Platoon orders among other controls, and I will be very happy.

With that being said, CMBB, CMAK, and HTTR are the only games I play now, so I can't be too upset.

Bil

[Trommelfeuer]

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.

I don't really understand the problem, I switched to view 1 in the setup phase, looked across the map, and discovered the wadi after 5 seconds .... o.K. could have been six or seven seconds as well....

Regards, Sven

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Kilroy Lurking:

It also occurs to me that prehaps the actual combatants in the western desert (and plains of Russia) would have had miminal, if any advance written indication ot the terrain ahead - so CMAK as is, could well be true to reality.

Indeed. I have begun to think of this as either an operational, or a tactical problem. Operationally, the Germans had real trouble knowing where they were in Russia, at times. The maps they had were just not good enough. Villages on the map would not exist. Villages would appear that were not supposed to exist. A whole railway line was found that nobody knew about. Think of that as the meta terrain, and it makes life for the planners difficult - as in 'Tomorrow, I./IR 347 will take the village of "unnamed village", which is 20km NE of the village of Frunse. II./IR347 will occupy Frunse.' What happens then is that I./347 occupies some random place (no good even asking the locals, if you have no idea what to ask them for), while II./347 occupies another village that is almost entirely, but not quite unlike Frunse, which did not exist in the first place. That is one issue.

Tactically, it is quite clear that the player has more information than an officer even with a map. It is e.g. possible to explore every nook and cranny on the enemy's side of the map. Try that in 1944 in Italy. 'Excuse me, Herr Oberfeldwebel, would you mind awfully if the lads from the RA have a rummage around your position to see from where you would have a nice key-holed place to interdict the road. I knew you would not, there's a good boche. We'll be back tomorrow to tear you and your fellow Jerries apart. Have a nice day.'

Or the old favourite - 'if only we make it to that ridgeline, we'll have a grandiose view across the valley'. Must be one of the three great lies, because (woops!) what from the map looked like the highest place in town is actually overlooked by that other ridge 350 yards hence, where the Germermans have cunningly installed an HMG. Shame you did not know that before the bullets hit you.

That happened a lot in the very chaotic Italian mountain ranges. In particular accounts of Cassino are full of it, IIRC.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kilroy Lurking:

It also occurs to me that prehaps the actual combatants in the western desert (and plains of Russia) would have had miminal, if any advance written indication ot the terrain ahead - so CMAK as is, could well be true to reality.

Indeed. I have begun to think of this as either an operational, or a tactical problem. Operationally, the Germans had real trouble knowing where they were in Russia, at times. The maps they had were just not good enough. Villages on the map would not exist. Villages would appear that were not supposed to exist. A whole railway line was found that nobody knew about. </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JonS:

RE maps of the Desert were pretty good.

You notice I cunningly avoided mentioning the desert? Could not care much less about that theatre, truth be told, so I am no position to make informed statements on it (not that that has stopped me before).

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

RE maps of the Desert were pretty good.

You notice I cunningly avoided mentioning the desert? Could not care much less about that theatre, truth be told, so I am no position to make informed statements on it (not that that has stopped me before). </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

Knowing where you were on that map - and even if you were on that map-sheet at all - was a whole other problem, one that wasn't really resolved till GPS.

Which is one reason why tracks were so popular (there were several others, but I'll come to them in a minute): if you were on one, the odds that you knew at least approximately where the hell you were improved considerably. Assuming of course that you were on the right track.

Now for those other reasons why tracks were popular. For one thing, the going was usually better, or at least a known quantity. Secondly, they generally connected places of interest, such as water sources—handy things to have in the desert. Thirdly, if you were sneaking around—as the LRDG, the SAS, and similar groups were wont to do—if you pulled onto a track, your tracks became indistinguishable from all the other vehicles which had recently gone that way, especially as seen from the aircraft that had been sent out to look for annoying buggers such as yourself. Finally, if you were on a track, you usually didn't have long to wait for help in case you ran over one of the mines that both sides loved to scatter liberally along tracks in enemy-held territory (and which frequently became friendly-held territory).

Cheerio. Toodle-pip. Sayonara, baby.

Michael

[Abteilung]

After having spent a great deal of time in the first person as many of the units portrayed here, I can safely say that the LOS tool is actually too powerful as it is now. Spend an evening towing and setting up guns (88, Mle 1937, bofors, 2pdr, etc) in WWIIOnline and then come back and tell me you wouldn't give a body part for such a tool in that environment. Despite other bugs, that much of the game does play out true to life. We have waaaay more information and control than any field commander would have had during the real conflict. Even using army cooperation aircraft (ala Storch) to affect movement orders is not even close.

I think, if anything, the camera controls could be a lot more intuitive to allow more freedom of movement down low. I spend more time looking through my TC's head at exactly what he's looking at (I even try to match the zoom level to roughly what his sights are capable of), than I do anywhere else. The exeption is when I wish to zoom to point on the map which is out of the LOS of that viewpoint.

That is my humble, unwarranted, and probably poorly informed opinion. Thanks for reading!

[sand digger]

Had a few more goes at the Line of Defence scenario, attacking with the US, and finally found the secret spot from which you can observe those pesky German AT guns on the left. Now I had scanned that area heaps of times using all camera angles and there was no, no, visual indication of the spot at all. And I had had men all around the spot, within meters of it.

Eventually the spot was found in a very gamey way. Just sent a couple of Stuarts through an area where tanks had been fired on previously. One Stuart gets nailed, crew bail out. Crew LOS reaches the two German guns, beautiful, the mortar observer gets sent to keep the crew company............

Now it would be more realistic IMHO if such spots could be located as they are in real life, by observation. Not by sending in your least valuable vehicles as bait.

[Omi]

I don't understand why some people complain about this. CM already gives us more control over the battlefield than any general could ever dream of during WWII. Sure, it's hard to spot some elevation and judge where the enemy can't see you, but on the other hand, you can zoom out of the map to get a global view of the battlefield. If the game was 100% realistic, we would be forced to stick to the level one view.

[Sgian Dubh]

Hi all,

Here is a suggestion, for what it is worth.

I have gone back and forth between using grided terrains and not. If possible with the new engine, why not have a wire-frame that can be toggled to overlay the map as the user sees fit?

You could then allow the user to set the colour and spacing of the gridlines (even if it was a text file that had to be edited).

This would allow the people who wsnt the aid of looking over the topography and getting a quick feel vs the people who have the time or desire to move all over the map at level 1.

The other thought that occurs is to have a hotkey that would allow you to pop up a map that has the topography information. This seems reasonable from both a user perspective and from a 'realism' perspective since in the real world commanders may (I don't know how offen, but I have a growing colletion) have access to topo maps for the area in which they can fight. This may give the users that want it sufficient 'quick overview' to meet their need.

[ February 11, 2004, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Sgian Dubh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by sand digger:

Had a few more goes at the Line of Defence scenario, attacking with the US, and finally found the secret spot from which you can observe those pesky German AT guns on the left. Now I had scanned that area heaps of times using all camera angles and there was no, no, visual indication of the spot at all. And I had had men all around the spot, within meters of it.

Eventually the spot was found in a very gamey way. Just sent a couple of Stuarts through an area where tanks had been fired on previously. One Stuart gets nailed, crew bail out. Crew LOS reaches the two German guns, beautiful, the mortar observer gets sent to keep the crew company............

Now it would be more realistic IMHO if such spots could be located as they are in real life, by observation. Not by sending in your least valuable vehicles as bait.

This makes no sense to me. How can you tell if a spot has an LOS to another spot until you, or someone, stands on the first spot?

What exactly are you lobbying for?

Besides which, it would be more realistic to allow the observer to call down fire on map references with no penalty due to the spot being out of his LOS - actually, that's already done, we call those references "TRP"s.

I don't understand what it is that you think is broken and requires fixing. Are you advocating that the player should know all LOS from every spot on the map to every other spot on the map before play begins? I don't see how you can justify that in real world terms.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

What exactly are you lobbying for?

The same thing a certain set of players has lobbied for since over a year before CM was even released: a fantasy game that shares certain features with CM but is not CM; a fantasy game that more closely matches their expectations based on the war movies they grew up on and the more triumphalist sort of historical documentary. They want the kind of game where all you have to do is point your Tommygun and spray bullets and all the Germans obligingly fall over; the kind of game where every shot from a Tiger causes a tank on the other side to erupt in violent flames. Welcome to the Twilight Zone. Or should we call it ArcadeLand?

Sand digger probably doesn't represent such an extreme case of the syndrome, but the bug must have bitten him because he's showing the rash.

Michael

[Simon Fox]

I think you're being quite unfair Emrys in characterising him in that way.

As an aside I have a question for you. If you go and stand somewhere can you quickly ascertain your field of view or are you constrained to do it while peering through a tube?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

If you go and stand somewhere can you quickly ascertain your field of view or are you constrained to do it while peering through a tube?

What point are you trying to make?

If you are asking me if that were the case if I were a soldier during a battle, I would have to answer that it would depend. You haven't nailed down enough variables for me to know what exactly you are asking.

As an aside, just because that swine Tittles has slimed you (welcome to the club, BTW) there's no necessity to take it out on me.

Michael

[Simon Fox]

No need to be evasive. Variables? It's a simple question not a point. I'm not trying to trick you, we'll get to the point in due course. One step at a time.

Your the one who stuck your neck out by sliming this sand_digger bloke. Sheesh! Anyone would think you own the place.

[JonS]

He does, or hadn't you heard of the Apocalypso?

[sand digger]

Pity some have to get personal when they don't agree with a POV.

To repeat the point, though god knows why it needs repeating, on real ground you can see what other ground in your LOS is higher or lower. And being trained as an artillery spotter inter alia involves the aiding and development of such skills.

Now if suggesting that the replication of that skill in the game will lead to something that is other than realistic, then............

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

As an aside I have a question for you. If you go and stand somewhere can you quickly ascertain your field of view or are you constrained to do it while peering through a tube?

IRL I think that, as you say, you still have to go to the place, to figure out what you can see from there. I hill-walk a lot, using 1:25k OS maps (best there are), and they are just not good enough to tell me if (and more importantly how far) I can see from spot X, until I get to it.

Now one problem with the game is that this necessitates some micro-management. Another is that you have no control over individual units while they move. So if the unit crosses a crestline onto a forward slope, it would probably stop IRL, if it had a consciousness, because it is doing something stupid. In CM it goes on. I think that in a computer game, it will be very difficult to fix this.