Discussion - Arty/Air Support Improvements

[Cavtroop]

I agree. The artillery is one of the best features of the game.

Now if it would let me adjust fire (click the button, nothing happens), or use smoke rounds...

[birdstrike]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

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

I like the Artillery model, it seems very straightforward and powerful with lots of good options.

I've been trying to figure out the relationship between the FSV and the FO. Does the FSV by itself have good ability to act as a spotter? Is the FO at his best when he's in the FSV?

I've had situations where the FSV can see the target, but the FO inside the FSV can't seem to see it, even if the vehicle is "Opened Up". I assume in this situation, I should use the FSV as the spotter? Or is there a tradeoff between speed and accuracy in this case.

I hear you there. I want to know these also. FO or FSV? or FO in FSV? Which is better? We need some tech answers. :confused:

</font>

[Fencible]

I am very impressed with the new artillery system. I appreciate the amount of control I now have over the use and allocation of resources, target typing, barrage patterns, duration and intensity. I think that it is an enormous improvement over the model used in CMx1 (but I still miss the very cool expanding shock wave spheres from explosions in the original game).

I have not yet figured out how to add artillery assets to quick battles. Is it possible? I had hoped to experiment with the artillery system in quick battles, but it never seems to be available.

[B00M$LANG]

Dear BFC,

I've been a very good boy this year. As of right now, I only have one "wish" for the arty/air system:

PLEASE, disable "right-click" until I either confirm or cancel a mission or left-click on the "x" in the mission box to consciously exit the arty call before completion.

I can't tell you how many times I have accidentally hit the RMB before finishing my arty call, and having to start all over again!

Oh yeah, Mr. Claus, I think the "adjust fire" feature is broken, or at the very least there is no visual or audible cue that the mission has been adjusted.

Thanks, and rest assured there will be milk and cookies waiting near the fireplace!

Curt

[Huntarr]

Thanks birdstrike. It's what I was assuming. I hope your right. The problem is that when I have the FO in an FSV he can't see what the FSV see's. So how do you explain that he is more accurate?

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Molotov_billy, the manual explains some of the things you're wondering about. Only Emergency should screw with your accuracy. Time Delays are there to coordinate with other things you might want to do.

Most users don't read manuals, especially when they're 200 pages. It's a reality I wish you guys would accept and adapt to.

Anything with significant importance to gameplay should be self-evident or explained within the user interface. Again, I think tooltips would go a long way to fix some of it. I understand that it's on your wish list.

Two other suggestions that I remember now -

You should display just how long each artillery bombardment option will last - how does "Short" and "Emergency" equate in game minutes?

Also - it would be useful to know how much ammo each of those options will consume. This will allow you to make decisions such as - "should I do one long bombardment, or three short ones?" At the moment, I'm just guessing.

There's also no indication to how much ammo air assets have left. Is the apache out of hellfires? Is he down to just his 30mm cannon?

[Becket]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Molotov_billy, the manual explains some of the things you're wondering about. Only Emergency should screw with your accuracy. Time Delays are there to coordinate with other things you might want to do.

Most users don't read manuals, especially when they're 200 pages. It's a reality I wish you guys would accept and adapt to. </font>

[scottie]

i was stunned when i first used a spotter , loved the interface , loved the additional control. Not found the lack of ADUST problem yet but makes sence to have it i would argue, some with SMOKE.

scott

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Molotov_billy, the manual explains some of the things you're wondering about. Only Emergency should screw with your accuracy. Time Delays are there to coordinate with other things you might want to do.

Most users don't read manuals, especially when they're 200 pages. It's a reality I wish you guys would accept and adapt to.

Anything with significant importance to gameplay should be self-evident or explained within the user interface. Again, I think tooltips would go a long way to fix some of it. I understand that it's on your wish list.

Two other suggestions that I remember now -

You should display just how long each artillery bombardment option will last - how does "Short" and "Emergency" equate in game minutes?

Also - it would be useful to know how much ammo each of those options will consume. This will allow you to make decisions such as - "should I do one long bombardment, or three short ones?" At the moment, I'm just guessing.

There's also no indication to how much ammo air assets have left. Is the apache out of hellfires? Is he down to just his 30mm cannon? </font>

[Neutrino 123]

The artillery model is quite an improvement. Two things that might have been overlooked:

1. A timer near the artillery would be useful for an estimate of how much longer the main strike is going to take to arrive. There is an initial estimate, but then one has to try to remember the exact time the strike was called for.

2. After a fire mission, the artillery should have a target reference point, allowing them to immediately fire for effect again in the same or nearby area without use of more spotting rounds.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

Well stop guessing and RTFM pg. 80-84 so instead of reading a whole big manual you could look at the table of contents for what you are looking for exactly. IMHO

I mean really your reading right now! Are you using that new braile monitor? Why wouldn't you read a manual?

My goal here isn't to find out the specific answers to these questions. I'm giving feedback to the developers about the questions I had in mind when playing the game over the last couple of days.

Why I haven't read the manual isn't important. What IS important is the actual real world fact that most users don't read manuals, or look stuff up in a book when playing a videogame. Developers should create their games with that fact in mind (and most do), with a great deal of attention put towards user interface.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

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

Well stop guessing and RTFM pg. 80-84 so instead of reading a whole big manual you could look at the table of contents for what you are looking for exactly. IMHO

I mean really your reading right now! Are you using that new braile monitor? Why wouldn't you read a manual?

My goal here isn't to find out the specific answers to these questions. I'm giving feedback to the developers about the questions I had in mind when playing the game over the last couple of days.

Why I haven't read the manual isn't important. What IS important is the actual real world fact that most users don't read manuals, or look stuff up in a book when playing a videogame. Developers should create their games with that fact in mind (and most do), with a great deal of attention put towards user interface. </font>

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Sgt.Joch:

I think you will find most CM players do read the manual.

So I wonder about the hundreds of posts being sifted through every day, where questions are being asked about something that's already "clearly explained in the manual." Multiply that by 10, considering that 90% of users don't even visit the forums, let alone post in them.

I'm still wondering why any of this means that the UI shouldn't explain things better than it already does.

[Bonxa]

I have to join the choir and say that I love the new system. This was one area I thought lacking in CMx1 and you did it just right this time. But I have also lacked the following:

-adjust fire (it's there but not working)

-smoke

-count-down timer

-confirm/cancel is easily forgotten

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Becket:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Molotov_billy, the manual explains some of the things you're wondering about. Only Emergency should screw with your accuracy. Time Delays are there to coordinate with other things you might want to do.

Most users don't read manuals, especially when they're 200 pages. It's a reality I wish you guys would accept and adapt to. </font>

[Blackmuzzle]

Rule 1 in UI design: Never surprise the user. Surprise is unexpected. Unexpected things are not intuitive.

Rule 2: The first thing the user tries to do is always correct. Regardless of what you say about your product, when a user finds something not working as he expected, you are wrong.

Rule 3: Never, ever, use blinking red. Except for absolutely important things like "Engine 2 Fire"

So yes, if you have to look into the manual to find something like taking a Javelin from a vehicle, something's wrong. The Javelin is right there as an icon. The first thing I did was click on it. Then I tried dragging it onto a soldier. It took me quite long to finally find the little text on page 65 in the manual, which was not where I'd expect such an information. And pressing Aquire? Who would expect that to open up a dialog? Why can't that dialog open up when you click on the icons in the center-left of the status bar?

[juggy]

One thing that got be to buy CMx1 when I played the demo was the artillery. I remember very distinctly how "scary" is was to get down to ground level and feel those shells hit the ground. For some reason, I don't get the same kind of impact from the CMx2 engine.

...just my $0.02

[dalem]

Originally posted by Sgt.Joch:

I think you will find most CM players do read the manual.

Not after the BB debacle I don't.

-dale

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Becket:

World of Warcraft's manual is 208 pages, FYI. [/QB]

Sorry, what's your point? World of Warcraft's UI is absolutely fantastic. Anything you'd ever need to know is explained thoroughly in the game itself. They've done their homework and deserve every one of their 9 million paying customers.

[birdstrike]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

Thanks birdstrike. It's what I was assuming. I hope your right. The problem is that when I have the FO in an FSV he can't see what the FSV see's. So how do you explain that he is more accurate?

I'm afraid you've got me there. You're right the unit inside the FSV can't see the target (maybe a 'bug'? - it should 'see' the target through the FSV's cameras, I reckon). And the FBCB2 symbol appears in the FO's interface when inside the vehicle - so he should be able to give better information about what he *cannot* see.

But then again, accuracy doesn't seem to be any worse inside the vehicle w/o LOS to the target.

And delivery time seems to be reduced by staying in the FSV.

Maybe we can get a little insight from BF.

[ChrisND]

Something else occured to me; the initial spotting/adjustment rounds are a little too accurate. They seem to always land within 100 meters, even 50 meters, of the target. That would be an FO's dream come true.

[Fugazzi]

So far I have liked the artillery system put in place. It is simple and intuitive.

Besides the fact I can't adjust the fire missions after I sent the order(no matter which asset I select), I would like to suggest that until the player sets his desired designated area, there should be a way to set the area without resorting to closing the artillery assets button and doing everything again.

[Battlefront.com]

molotov_billy,

Anything you'd ever need to know is explained thoroughly in the game itself. [/qoute]

The point is that CM:SF has a TON more gonig on in it than WoW, yet the manual is about the same size. This isn't so much a UI thing as it is a volume of stuff thing.

We wanted to get tooltips in, but we didn't have time. Sorry, can't do everything.

Contrary to Panzer76's continued trolling (which won't be tollerated much longer), there is a tutorial. Check the Campaigns.

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The point is that CM:SF has a TON more gonig on in it than WoW, yet the manual is about the same size. This isn't so much a UI thing as it is a volume of stuff thing.

Absolutely not true! Some folks may dismiss it as simple because it's popular - but in reality that couldn't be further from the truth. World of Warcraft is actually an incredibly complex game - the magic here is that they do a wonderful job of introducing elements of the game to the player over longer periods of time.

You don't start out with a level 70 character with 60 spells, 30 hot keys, two jobs, a guild, talent points, equipment sets, PVP, etc etc. You start as a level one character with a single spell or action. New spells and abilities are fed to you over time, at a rate which is completely up to the user. Nothing is thrown at you which you are not ready for. All told, it's a deeper, far more complex game than what Combat Mission has to offer. The important difference here is presentation.

[ July 31, 2007, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[Achim]

I love the new system.

I played the "tutorial" first, after that i have no problems with it.

I read the manual, that explains it too.

But there is one question left. I can see the ammo of the firing unit. But i have no clue how many strikes i can order.

If i choose "Maximum", they will fire all granates. I read that they fire 2-4 granates if i choose "fast". But i cant see how many granates left (just a colored bar, range from green to red).