Can't buy troops????

[RedDevil]

Originally posted by GSX:

I think the big mistake here has been to rely on the CM name for what isn't the same product. You should have called it Shock Force. Its just not CM.

Well said Geordie, I think this sums up a lot of misunderstanding..

I'll go back to playing CMx1 for my CM fix and keep this RTS simcity wanna be for killing time between those turn files until it bores me from too much vanilla.

[rlg85]

I think at least we need a large number of preset formations that we have option to choose from, not the current tweak the settings and hope you dont get an all Kornet force.

[Xipe66]

Jason, I do belive you can get all those forces if you add Syrian batalions and delete everything that you don't need - but you'll probably get a few extra HQ's.

Hence my previous suggestion to make the TOE moddable. If we can't get rid of the C2 restriction then we might at least get it moddable.

Preferrably in text files that in game are displayed as a dropdown. That would allow for experimental settings while still adhering to the C2 restrictions.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Xipe66:

Jason, I do belive you can get all those forces if you add Syrian batalions and delete everything that you don't need - but you'll probably get a few extra HQ's.

HQs can be deleted also.

[Xipe66]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

HQs can be deleted also.

That's true. Though, I've had instances where I kept two platoons, and then the company commander can no longer be deleted - so basically you'd need one company / group of disparate soldiers you wanted to field.

So in certain ways C2 is absolute. But all that calls for is more companies, and that's manageable, I guess.

You'd miss out on higher echelon C2 bonuses though - and this is especially true, and vital, for the Syrians. And I guess that's why Steve is railing against it - the game, on a deeper level, really doesn't support it accurately. (?)

[ July 29, 2007, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]

[imported_Major_Jerkov]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Major_Jerkov,

To be fair to WiC, and any game, beta testers are almost always bored with the game FAR sooner than regular customers. If you were ever a tester (especially an inhouse) tester, you'd understand why It's a high burnout job. We're fortunate that we have a huge pool of quality testers to choose from, but it still doesn't change the fact that we burn ours out too.

That being said, I don't know squat about WiC so I'm only commenting generally.

Steve

I totally agree, but their are other reasons that beta testers would lose interest quickly.

[Ryan Crierie]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ryan, I am not slamming you here. What I am doing is pointing out the "baby and the bathwater" syndrome you are voluntarily ascribing to. CM:SF is absolutely a new game. Ground up design from fresh code. T here were some major paradigm shifts, some small changes, but a LOT of it is exactly the same.

Steve, can I be honest with you?

I don't care about the elimination of QBs, Random maps, etc. They're annoying, yes, but they won't break the game for me.

What annoys me is how you tossed out a tried and true interface system that worked perfectly for turn based in favor of a system suited best for real time.

I quite literally can only play a single turn of CMSF with the current UI for basic commands before I give up and go play something else.

You really did not need to read the manual with CMx1. You could literally tell people how to play the game in a few minutes.

"What do I do?"

"Well, click on your Tiger and right click"

"Sweet! what are all these commands for?"

"Move makes your guy move. Hunt makes him move, but really slowly and on the look out for the enemy"

"Awesome"

I used rightclick quite heavily for the advanced options like covered arcs (armor or basic arcs), as a sort of "paper cheat sheet" to make the game play much faster for me.

With Shock Force, this beautiful interface was tossed out in favor of a constantly changing keyboard interface; where "M" is constantly changing according to which tab you have selected.

Perhaps this change is better for a real time interface, but I don't want a real time game. I always get my ass kicked in those; where twitch speed rules and you have to memorize keyboard commands in order to be able to react fast enough to constantly changing conditions (cough, Company of Heroes).

There is also the graphics issue, where things look really great up close, but from a distance, they turn into a really bad blurry mess.

[ July 29, 2007, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Ryan Crierie ]

[Ryan Crierie]

deleted dupe

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Xipe66:

Jason, I do belive you can get all those forces if you add Syrian batalions and delete everything that you don't need - but you'll probably get a few extra HQ's.

Of course deleting troops is irrelevant for a quick battle.

[JasonC]

Well I am glad it is feasible in a scenario, but yeah I'd like to be able to play against an opponent who has no idea what force mix and therefore tactic I will try, while having "editorial" control over my own tactics.

Perhaps that means I have to ask an opponent to play a scenario that I've designed. If that is the work around I can live with it, if other players will put up with it. But it isn't symmetric.

I suppose passing choices to a third party "ref" could allow tailored force "scenarios", though with a bit of extra player supplied work.

[average]

I'm totally fine with been patronised on the basis that I haven't been posting non-stop sice I first stumbled on CMBO sometime in the early part of this decade.

Apparently I'm also one of those realism nerds, who thinks real time is actually a good idea so you have time pressure in making decisions.

Regardless, the basis point is that you think its no fun if you can't buy the units. Its like shopping, but for Grogs.

Your view is having strange force mixtures adds replayabality. My view is that having to adapt your tactics to your force mix is good for replayabality. It also means you are forced to think a little bit.

As for my concerns, well you dimiss stupid force structures as not being a problem, and then go on to say a circus is great fun.

The illustration used by Mr Spkr is that using gentleman's agreements, you could get a balanced game using historically accurate forces (ie Matilda 2's v M40's) by both players agreeing to buy based on historical TOEs.

So, the new method makes gentleman of us all. That is surely a good thing.

Anyway, I seem to be getting the idea that putting together some wierd force mixture and fighting it out WEGO style is your idea of fun. Its certainly not my idea of fun, and it is a matter of opinion.

Just like you can hold backward views about how much fun it is to mix together a Plt of Waffen SS, some Hungarian Conscripts and then suddenly, in a god like issue orders to all of them every 60 seconds.

Incidentally, do you want to tell me how many points my M1A2 is worth ? What if my M1A2 is fighting uncons, or if its fighting Republican Guards ? Should the value vary maybe ?

So do any of you shopping Grogs play to be challanged or is it to work out in your own mind if the T-34/M42 is as effective against the PIVF2 as the T-34/M43 variant ?

[thewood]

Actually to your final comment, its both. I like making cake and eating it too.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

The "fun" buying units lies only in the first moments,

For you, O Arrogant One.

Sheesh.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

If you've played Cmx1 from day one you surely must remember it had it's fair share of issues on release? Have faith.

Elmar, this isn't about adding bodies or changing tracer colors or fixing .50cal accuracy, this is a major, fundamental leg of the game system chopped out and gone. It's a question of design philosophy.

And either the BFC lads knew this, expected this reaction, and are girded for it, or they didn't, didn't, and aren't.

If the former, no problem. If the latter, big problem.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Sigh. Memories. I really need to find my CMAK disk.

Steve

Yes, you do.

-dale

[Janster]

sigh.

well I guess someone has to like the new system.

But honestly, random QB's ..dude its just strange.

Complaining about points values, yes its not perfect, but atleast I GET to choose my bloody units in a game.

Is that so much to ask for...??? heck skip the points, just let me CHOOOSE!!

btw this new interface don't favour RTS at all, it favours nothing I know really...its just clumsy.

It just makes me want to force em to play a bit modern RTS so they learn how controls for these games are really made.

As for those who wants click fests...whats the point of giving us superrealistic clickfests?

And how are we to enjoy detail when we can't because we have to stay zoomed out all the time or we loose the game.

Silly people, you have no defense, neither has Battlefield..

What sounded ok in your head has blown up in your face.

Reviewers will have a field day soon

Janster

[average]

Janster,

More money on ESL classes. You have your view, you've spammed the forums, and yes BFC have sold you out, so don't buy the next game.

See you still have a choice. Remember, you like choice. You can go back to the board games even.

Random thought, board based wargamers had a bad reputation for being semantic, poorly socialised nerds(often with jobs in the IT industry). Focus.

[konstantine]

Not sure if this is the right thread, but why has a CMSF QB given me Syrian FOs without any artillery? I have three T-72s and a spotter team with nothing to do.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by konstantine:

Not sure if this is the right thread, but why has a CMSF QB given me Syrian FOs without any artillery? I have three T-72s and a spotter team with nothing to do.

Government cutbacks.

[Battlefront.com]

Ryan,

What annoys me is how you tossed out a tried and true interface system that worked perfectly for turn based in favor of a system suited best for real time.

A steering wheel works great for a car, it doesn't work well for an airplane. We changed the controls because we had to. The "tried and true" system simply didn't work with the new game, therefore we changed it. We certainly didnt' change it for change's sake, and we certainly didn't do it to make sure you guys had something else to moan about. And yes, we knew a lot of people wouldn't like it.

What you fail to remember, Ryan, is that very few people like CMx1's controls when the game came out. They wanted us to use systems from other games. They weren't applicable so we borrowed what we could and did the rest ourselves. Therefore, you're not complaining because CMx1's system is the perfect solution for CMx2, you're complaining because you don't want to adjust to something new.

Remember Ryan, with resistance to change like yours we would have made CMx1 using hexes. The identical logic you have expressed was used to try and tear us a new one over abandoning hexes. "WHAT! You guys are NUTS! Hexes have been used forEVER, and now you are tossing them right out the f'n window! You guys are going to fail, and you should because you've screwed the pooch".

I remember it very well. And I am choosing to listen to the parts of this discussion that are relevant, and ignore the knee jerk "I don't like it because it is different" crowd. And if you don't think you are part of that crowd, do you think we should have stuck with hexes, IGOUGO, 2D, and multiple phase turns? Because that is exactly what people were arguing for when we released CMBO. You can't say you're upset with us for not listening to them, right?

Steve

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Janster:

Silly people, you have no defense, neither has Battlefield..

What sounded ok in your head has blown up in your face.

I claim the insanity defence. I like the new game - a few glitches but overall it's excellent IMHO. Why is it so hard for a lot of you guys to grasp - that just because you don't like it - many people do.

[LuckyStrike]

Well, when I was working in IT, my specialty was user interface design. I gave some lectures at the local technical institute on the subject. The CMSF UI is not well designed. There was little wrong with the old one that some interface with the mouse wheel, for example, wouldn't have fixed. Context-sensitive right mouse button clicking has become almost standard, as have one-layer hotkey commands. That these have been removed is...odd. Multiple commands mapped to the same key depending on menu? Command panel at the bottom that does not scale with resolution, so that at high resolutions the buttons are tiny? Crawling camera?

[LuckyStrike]

Well, when I was working in IT, my specialty was user interface design. I gave some lectures at the local technical institute on the subject. The CMSF UI is not well designed. There was little wrong with the old one that some interface with the mouse wheel, for example, wouldn't have fixed. Context-sensitive right mouse button clicking has become almost standard, as have one-layer hotkey commands. That these have been removed is...odd. Multiple commands mapped to the same key depending on menu? Command panel at the bottom that does not scale with resolution, so that at high resolutions the buttons are tiny? Crawling camera?

[Battlefront.com]

LuckyStrike,

The CMSF UI is not well designed.

Since you have experience with UI design then you know that much of it comes down to personal tastes and what people are used to. I am a Mac guy and I hate a lot of what I have to do Windows. However, I understand that the entire UI is built with different philosophies in mind and the UI is geared to that. Therefore, I am not so quick as other Mac guys are to pronounce the Windows GUI "crappy". Windows 3.1... well, that was crappy

My point here is that what worked for CMx1 did not work for CMx2's design. Did we get it perfect first time around? No, I would never say that. But I don't think it is nearly as broken as some would suggest. It seems to me to be MOSTLY a dislike of change and some sort of bitter resentment that there is a different way to play the game. Janster is an unfortunately good example of that.

Context-sensitive right mouse button clicking has become almost standard, as have one-layer hotkey commands.

Suck ass for RealTime play and MANY people never, ever used it in CMx1. The testers and I were having this discussion earlier last night. Not surprisingly the ones that think the UI is fine are the ones that never used the popup menu in CMx1. I know I didn't, and I was the one that put it into the game It was an annoyance and got in the way of the game.

Multiple commands mapped to the same key depending on menu?

Yeah, it works awesome! Have you really TRIED it? You can keep your non-mouse hand in one position on the keyboard without having to move it, no matter which Command you want to enter. You don't have to hunt and peck for a particular key either. Ever enter numbers into a spreadsheet? It's the same reason why there is a NumPad instead of forcing accountants to use the line of number keys along the top of the keyboard. It is just more efficient to have the keys in a block instead of spread out. Plus, controlling up to 36 Commands with 9 keys vs. having 36 keys to keep track of is a pretty good idea IMHO.

Sounds pretty logical, don't you think?

Command panel at the bottom that does not scale with resolution, so that at high resolutions the buttons are tiny?

How are we supposed to fix that? We'd have to scale up the UI so that it filled up the same amount of screens space as it does in 1024. So what would be the purpose of running in a higher resolution?

Crawling camera?

Not quite sure what you mean by this, but if you mean the left mouse behavior, it is the easiest way to move around the map. You point and the camera moves there. The more you move the mouse the faster the camera goes. Once our testers got used to it they loved it. Sometimes the best ideas do not have obvious benefits to them until they are used for a while.

So there you go... what you see as being somehow a sacred gift to gaming is, in the opinion of others, a useless menu that gets inbetween the player and the gameplay. Who is right? Why, nobody. Each to his own. The only thing is we aren't interested in programming different UIs.

Steve

[ July 30, 2007, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Ryan Crierie]

Steve, I like how you ignore the fact that I posted a clear usable example of how right click was great; and how you could easily get to playing using CMx1's interface within only a couple of minutes; and as you learned more about the game, you could transition to using the keyboard for the most common commands, like move.

Move was ALWAYS "M", no matter what.

In CMSF it's now "O", which as a bonus is also used for:

"Target Arc"

"Hide"

"Anti Tank Team"

Depending on which tab you have selected.

Which leads to massive confusion.

You're trying to make this into a "CMSF is just as radical and changing as CMBO was" debate, when in reality, for a UI to work, you need the major commands which will be used the most often to be clearly and unambigiously delineated to a single button.

I wouldn't mind having to dig through a submenu to find the little used engineering commands like "plant mines, remove mines, prepare bridge for demo, etc", since they will not be used THAT much.

However, a heavily used command needs a clear and unchanging key.