UI Request to BF.C

[c3k]

Steve, et al.,

Thanks for all the bones you've been throwing. It's great to get a look, even at a preliminary stage, of what's going on.

In a different thread, "The main UI explained", you showed the User Interface. In one section of it, labelled number 5, were the depictions of the weapons used by the various squad/team members.

Would it be possible to put the weapon name as a background behind each weapon? As an example, if the Team Leader has an M-4, use semi-tranparent graphics to write that in over the weapon depiction. Additionally (because your customers are NEVER satisfied), would it be difficult to enable weapons information to be accessed by right-clicking a mouse over the weapon depiction?

In the same M-4 Team Leader example, if I know nothing about what an M-4 is, I can hover the cursor over the weapon, right-click, and get a small window describing caliber, range, magazine capacity, design intent. This would also enable me to learn the difference between an M-249 and an M-240B.

With the rapid change in weapons abilities and the superficial similarities between different weapons, I think this addition to the UI would make the game more accessible to the non-hardcore modern militarist.

Thanks,

Ken

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

I think this is a great idea, a mouse-over on the weapon would even spare me a click! For the heavy weapons platforms with exotic names, and vehicles, I think this would be very important information to have easily available.

[Battlefront.com]

In general it is a bad idea to tailor UI to something that is fairly limited and consistent. There aren't a lot of small arms so a quick check in the manual will clear up all questions for ever more. That being said, we are planning on doing mouse over stuff in a lot of places. This might be one.

There is also a "Details Screen" available to show stuff akin to the Details Screen in CMx1. Things like weapon effectiveness, top speed, etc.

Steve

[MikeyD]

BFC was always getting weapons/unit description requests for CMBB, especially from non-grogs. Sure anyone can tell a Sherman from a Panther but those endless German halftrack and Russian light tank designations could be daunting! And the CMBB manual didn't contain a list of weapons in the game (that would've doubled the manual size!).

For me, semi-grog that I am, I think I'll do fine in CMSF with the bigger items (I can tell a T72 from a T55), but those endless M16 rifle configurations and milit-spec Palm Pilots might give me problems too. Mention of a possible weapons list in the CMSF manual is welcome news. That's one of the benefits of NOT covering the whole eastern front from '41-45 this time around.

[c3k]

Guys,

I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling the need for this. (Okay, not so much NEED as DESIRE...)

WWII weapon systems are pretty simplistic by today's standards. So many of the differences in modern weapons are almost invisible to an observer. Yet, these differences can have huge differences in battlefield effectiveness.

Not that they're _all_ going to be in this iteration of CMx2, but just think of the differences among the M16, M16A1, M16A2, M16A3 and M16A4. Now, imagine you're NOT a modern grog.

I'm glad BF.C is thinking of including access to this information. As a player, I'd prefer it to be IN GAME. But, having the manual open nearby is not the end of the world.

Thanks,

Ken

[M1A1TC]

I dont think they will be including all these M16 versions- it's pointless waste of time

[c3k]

M1A1TankCommander,

Oh, I agree: all the M16 versions will not be included. I don't think it's a pointless waste of time. (Of course, my wife thinks any computer game is a pointless waste of time, but that's a whole other subject. )

You're obviously very well versed in modern weapons. What about those who aren't? This is the formative period for the next CM engine. If BF.C has the time and resources to include this information, it can only help. Since you know all the different small arms, both U.S. and Syrian, their effective ranges and planned uses, you need never bother digging deeper in the game for the information. What of the poor Frenchman who doesn't know his M240 from an M230?

If not for the kids, think of the French!

Regards,

Ken

P.S. If this offended any Frenchman, feel free to flame me in French.

P.P.S. M1A1TankCommander, nothing in here was meant to be snide or sarcastic. It was written with mirth and merriment foremost.

[Peter Cairns]

I quite like the idea of getting something similiar to the CMBO firepower specs for the squad just by putting the cursor over the team or the weapon, rather than having to look it up by switching screen or having to check the manual.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

The small arms stuff is the easiest stuff to figure out. It is a gun and it shoots bullets. Some shoot bigger bullets than others, some do it faster than others. Some work well at night, others don't. That's about it The vehicles, on the other hand, have a lot more stuff to figure out. That's what the Details Screen and manual are there for. Cramming useful tidbits of info into the main display is not practical so it isn't going to happen.

For small arms the US force will certainly have these:

M4 - basic rifle

M4 w/XM320 - same as above but with 40mm grenade launcher

M249 - Squad Automatic Weapon. Same bullets as above, just a lot more of them.

M240 - Medium MG firing heavier round than above.

M2 - Heavy MG firing much heavier round.

M24 - Medium Sniper Rifle.

M107 - Heavy Sniper Rifle.

XM-26 LSS - Shotgun.

This boils down to icons that look fairly distinct from each other. The only weapons in a Rifle Squad are the M4, M4 with grenade launcher, and M249. Compare that with the list of small arms for the German Squads in CMBB All the rest of these weapons are support in nature and therefore obvious based on what unit you find them in. The M107 is obviously a sniper rifle because the unit using it is titled "Sniper Team". The MG240 is obviously a machine gun because the team using it is called "MG Team".

The Syrian equipment is a little more complex. Basically they have two of everything... old and new. The older stuff tends to be of a heavier calibre, the newer stuff lighter. They basically break down into the same categories as the US ones. And that is:

Standard Rifle

Squad Automatic Weapon

Medium Machinegun

Heavy Machinegun

Sniper Rifle

The sublte differences between the specifics of each category aren't really all that important from a tactical level. You won't be seeing the kind of lopsided and varied matchups in CMx1 games. All Syrian Infrantry Squads will be roughly the same as each other and comperable to a US Infantry Squad, which in turn is like pretty much every other US Infantry Squad. Both sides have MMG teams, HMGs, Snipers, etc.

See... it's not that hard

steve

[M1A1TC]

Steve

What vehicles are you planning on including for US side? Will M113 Gavin, M1A1/M1M2 Abrams, M2A3/M3A3 Bradley, M998/M1097 Avenger, M109A6 Paladin, M270 MLRS, M9 ACE be available?

Are you including any FCS stuff at all?

Will you include other branches besides US Army?

[ November 09, 2005, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: M1A1TankCommander ]

[Battlefront.com]

Only US Army stuff for the US side. Too soon to give specifics but Strykers, Bradleys, Abrams, Humvees, and some general transport vehicles are in. Those which are typically positioned further than 1500m from the center of operations won't be included on map, but can be off map if they seem relevant (like M109A6 Paladin). Specialty vehicles, such as the FOX and M9 ACE likely won't be in. FCS stuff won't be in at all since none of it will be fielded by 2007.

For the Syrians we'll include various T-54, T-62, and T-72 tanks, BMPs, BDRMs, trucks, and I'm sure some other misc. vehicles of one type or another.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

Thanks for the info Will the Avenger be included? It is used as close anti-air asset( within 1500m)

Another question. Will the view from soldier's eyes be an option?

Also, about how many animations are you planning to do for infantry?

[Rick]

Very curious to see how the Paladin is modeled. The Army guy that I've most recently been able to talk to was a Paladin gunner; served in Korea and Kuwait, between the two wars.

The only other vehicle I've heard inside stories about was the M60. A good friend joined the Guard upon graduation from High School and he was an M60 driver.

Back in the days when I was considering the military I remember getting a tour of an M60 on one of our JROTC field trips. That convinced me I didn't want to be a tanker, way to claustrophonic for that.

[Battlefront.com]

No to the Avenger. We are favoring Stryker vehicles first and foremost, non-Stryker as they seem relevant to the game. Since the Syrians will be capable of air ops for about the first 10 minutes of the conflict, we aren't even simulating a Syrian Airforce for the Avenger to shoot at. So just think... if you are deployed into Syria, and things go the way we think they will, you'll be driving around all day with nothing to do but admire the beautiful country side

Rick, if you think the M60 is clausterphobic... do yourself a favor and never, ever so much as stick your head into a Soviet AFV of any sort. Trust me on that!

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Testify on the claustrophobia! Got to climb into a T-62 years ago when my brother was at the NTC. Am just under 6', and was it ever tight in there, not to mention dangerous. Got hung up, gouged and dinged repeatedly on various turret ironmongery--in a static tank. Have some turret time on an M-48A5 from my Hughes days (seeker tests and letting analysts get field experience with a TOW thermal tracker), and it is positively roomy and safe by comparison, even when lurching about in heavy weather. There's a reason Russian tankers weren't supposed be be taller than 5'5", and one visit drove home that lesson in a way no amount of reading ever could. Didn't get the chance to try it, but a T-55 looked a lot more promising, given the higher domed turret. BMP passenger compartment wasn't much fun, but the MTLB was at least bearable ergonomically.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Tarkus]

Seeing the guy holding an M14 back on the groin thread got me wondering if these rifles will be included.

I've seen somewhere these are used in a counter sniper role, providing both accuracy and firepower to eliminate them in MOUT ops. Is this a wide practice among infantry units ? More of a special force twist ?

[hellfish]

Every squad has a designated marksman now - he'll usually be equipped with an M14/M21 like you see here, or an M4/M16 with a Trijicon ACOG scope (or, for some urban fights he may only have a reflex sight).

It's part of the continuing "commandoization" of the US Army's infantry - we're not treating infantry like the retarded stepchildren who can't be trusted with anything "high tech" anymore like they have been in the past. Since about 2000-2001 the infantry units have been allowed a bit more autonomy to acquire what they need - stuff like optics, knee pads, ballistic glasses, etc. - a practice that had previously been reserved for the SF and Rangers. Infantry units now are remarkably specialized - it's almost as if, in WWII terms, the entire Army had it's infantry units trained to the same standard as the Ranger battalions.

Today's Rangers are a bit more specialized, of course, but I think the comparison is apt.

[MikeyD]

I'm interested in seeing if I can get any utility out of the poor underappreciated T62. First production tank to fire APFSDS. I believe.

Small dumb question/suggestion. T72, T62, and MGS all automatically eject their shell casings on firing. It'd be cool (though admittedly pointless) to see that represented in the vehicle animations. Any plans to do such a thing?

[aka_tom_w]

re: commando-ization

interesting term

a search of the internet and web found only ONE reference

by a person posting to another forum

Hellfish6: from Aug 2005

An overused term is, IMHO, "Elite". I realize the US military has undergone a sort of "commando-ization" where former privilages reserved for specops units are now available to all (i.e. all that high speed gear can be given to the active duty SF guys as well as the lowly NG privates called up now), but it seems like every news report refers to the unit they're talking about as elite.

Whether it's active or reserve Marine units, MEUs, 82nd Airborne, TF 2-2 Infantry, some podunk infantry unit from rural Alabama, the 85th Training Division, whatever - it seems like everyone is elite these days.

Was that your post fytinghellfish ?

just curious

other than that there are no other references that I could find to "commandoization".

-tom w

[hellfish]

It was my post. Does this mean I officially coined the term? I gotta copyright that ****...

I think the bottom line I meant by it is that infantry isn't seen as cannon fodder anymore. Previously skills and tools reserved for a special few (be it battalion scouts, divisional LRSDs, Rangers, SF, etc.) are now available to all. You don't have to call up to battalion or brigade to get sniper support - you've got a guy with capability in your own squad.

[Colin]

I believe that is the M21. A modernized M14 designed for sharpshooters.

The Delta snipers have one in Blackhawk Down IIRC.

Obviously 2 snipers taking on a huge number of people isn't likely in this game but does the US operate with sniper teams at all?

I could see them being useful in a situation similar to the one BFC outlines for CMSF.

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The small arms stuff is the easiest stuff to figure out. It is a gun and it shoots bullets. Some shoot bigger bullets than others, some do it faster than others. Some work well at night, others don't. That's about it The vehicles, on the other hand, have a lot more stuff to figure out. That's what the Details Screen and manual are there for. Cramming useful tidbits of info into the main display is not practical so it isn't going to happen.

For small arms the US force will certainly have these:

M4 - basic rifle

M4 w/XM320 - same as above but with 40mm grenade launcher

M249 - Squad Automatic Weapon. Same bullets as above, just a lot more of them.

M240 - Medium MG firing heavier round than above.

M2 - Heavy MG firing much heavier round.

M24 - Medium Sniper Rifle.

M107 - Heavy Sniper Rifle.

XM-26 LSS - Shotgun.

Is the M110 sniper rifle not likely to be fielded by 2007?

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by Colin:

I believe that is the M21. A modernized M14 designed for sharpshooters.

The Delta snipers have one in Blackhawk Down IIRC.

Obviously 2 snipers taking on a huge number of people isn't likely in this game but does the US operate with sniper teams at all?

I could see them being useful in a situation similar to the one BFC outlines for CMSF.

Actually steve specifically stated that as a mission type for the campaign. I believe it was in refrence to why the campaign wouldn't be mult-player. A styker company vs a sniper team could be tense for the US player, but not for the syrian player.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Since the Syrians will be capable of air ops for about the first 10 minutes of the conflict, we aren't even simulating a Syrian Airforce for the Avenger to shoot at.

Just to make sure I understand, are you saying the Syrian player will not under any circumstance, QB, scenario or campaign, be able to call in air strikes?

[Colin]

Originally posted by JC_Hare:

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

Since the Syrians will be capable of air ops for about the first 10 minutes of the conflict, we aren't even simulating a Syrian Airforce for the Avenger to shoot at.

Just to make sure I understand, are you saying the Syrian player will not under any circumstance, QB, scenario or campaign, be able to call in air strikes? </font>