Battlefront.com Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 Actually, that's exactly the type of behavior I'd envision for a "Move to New Contact" type of order I'd be perfectly happy with it stopping on each new contact it has, even including units that it loses track of and then come into sight again.But that isn't the same logic people are asking for. It is different logic altogether. Including the current CMx1 logic there are three things being discussed here: 1. Stop every time you spot an enemy 2. Stop every time you spot a new enemy 3. Stop every time you spot a new enemy that is a threat We can't have one order to do all three, yet we aren't going to put in three orders just for this one thing. I suspect we can get some of all of these behaviors out of a single order thanks in part to Relative Spotting and one other new feature, but it isn't going to be as robotic as is being requested here. Tank/Infantry coordination, in real life, is very difficult to do. Extremely difficult to do over distance and/or tough terrain. So even if we did put in something that made it easier, it will still be imperfect. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 The primary reason we rejected SOPs is the UI. I've never been happy with any other game's presentation of UI in terms of user friendliness, and couldn't figure out a way to do it in CMx2 without it adding a layer of complexity to the game experience. We would also get calls to be able to change the SOP at any given point of the movement path and that gets things even messier. It is like having to put down two movement paths for each unit, or at the very least be aware that there could be two sets of instructions. This is a turnoff for most people who play CM since most people are not inclined to want this level of finite control. And I am including many of the people asking for it in with the "most people" bunch. This is certainly one of those things that falls in to the be careful for what you wish for category. On top of all that, we found it to be largely unnecessary. For the most part the CMx1 system works just fine. Usually when your units do something you don't want it has nothing to do with SOP but instead to do with the Absolute Spotting system and/or the fact we did not have Morale and Suppression as two separate factors. By fixing these two latter issues we probably solved 90% of the source of complaints about units doing "the right thing", yet we did it without adding an extra layer of complexity to the user experience. Also note that TacOps has no TacAI. At least not to the extent of CM. Therefore there is a critical need for user input SOP since that is what the game system uses to control your tactical behavior. CMx1 does most of this stuff for you, most of of the time, mostly correct. With the changes I just mentioned it will be even better in CMx2. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirx Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 I agree with a simpler user interface without SOPs. One of the beautiful things about CMX1 was that the commands were relatively simple but the gameplay allowed complex strategic thinking. There are too many games where most of the so-called fun is learning the user interface, but then gameplay is unimaginative and boring. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 There are too many games where most of the so-called fun is learning the user interface, but then gameplay is unimaginative and boring.And even when the game play is fun and interesting, perhaps the player doesn't realize this because he got frustrated and abandoned attempts to learn it. Or didn't until he found that learning the interface was only 1/2 the battle. The other 1/2 is actually using it! I remember a few games like this... it took a while to learn the UI, but after I learned it I still found it too cumbersome and therefore wound up not caring if the gameplay was any good or not. It just wasn't worth the annoyance of needing to do 10 things to make 1 thing happen. Kinda like dating Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 10, 2005 Share Posted September 10, 2005 it took a while to learn the UI, but after I learned it I still found it too cumbersome -Steve I suspect this has come up before but I think the same could be said of the Map editor in CMx1. But not the game it self. -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.