Targeting when assigning indirect fire, very annoying "feature"

[Baneman]

But the issue is not relative spotting itself. It's fine as a game mechanic, it's bad when used to break the UI. ...

Because it just doesn't make sense. I have to restrain myself from area firing on something the mortar can see, but I'm expected to move an HQ to see that target so he can then call in indirect fire from that same mortar? ....

I don't understand your argument - how does relative spotting "break" the UI ?

And why do you have to restrain yourself from area firing at something the mortar can see ?

If the mortar can see it, it can shoot at it.

If the mortar can't see it, but you know something is there, the mortar can still area fire at that location ( yes, it might be regarded as slightly gamey, but I don't see any way in which you are constrained from doing so ).

If the mortar can't see that location itself, then you need a spotter in order to use indirect fire.

I actually thought this thread started out by the OP wanting the mortar to "see" the 3d model of a target a different unit can see ie. when he selects the mortar to fire, the contact model disappears. That is the only UI issue I can see here and there are several ways to work around that.

[sburke]

The door to the Peng thread is not locked. The instruction booklet thrown inside that explains how to open the door does contain long words though.

short, long, doesn't matter. they can't read. They need better glasses, but can't figure out how to get to an optometrist...if they actually knew what one was.

[Wrath of Dagon]

@Baneman

That's what I mean by "break" the UI. There's really no reason not to show the same thing with the unit selected and with nothing selected, except have the un-spotted icons greyed out. Yes, there are ways of getting around that, but they're a pain, that's all.

Btw, the training mode does other things in addition to removing relative spotting, even if I wanted to remove relative spotting.

[Migo441]

I can't believe this thread has gone on so long...

For me, the whole thing broke down in the original post with this:

That way the operation would take 15 seconds and now it takes 5 minutes.

It certainly does not take 5 minutes to be a gamey bastage and shoot at a contact marker the firing unit cannot see. Yes, it's inconvenient and annoying but that's a feature of relative spotting. It's supposed to be inconvenient and annoying in the pursuit of more realism and lots of people like it that way.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm again compelled to point out how cool the combination of relative spotting and co-play would be. With human players in command of smaller numbers of units, the relative spotting will be more in tune with reality. The human player from the original example would never be annoyed that he couldn't target his mortar at a disappearing contact marker because he would never be aware there was a contact marker at all.

And look, yes we're all gamey bastages in one form or another. But wouldn't you just feel so much dirtier if you were sending another commander a screen shot so he could "see" the contact marker?

[Baneman]

...

And look, yes we're all gamey bastages in one form or another. But wouldn't you just feel so much dirtier if you were sending another commander a screen shot so he could "see" the contact marker?

It would be even closer to reality if you told the other commander where it was ( Teamspeak / Email ) and he totally plastered the WRONG bush/tree/hillock with mortar fire

@Wrath of Dragon - you say "even if I wanted to remove relative spotting" which implies you don't want to remove it, but you also say "There's really no reason not to show the same thing with the unit selected and with nothing selected" - but that IS the effect of relative spotting.

So really you're saying you're both for and against relative spotting

[mjkerner]

Hey EB, I don't spell check, so be my guest.

In the end, regarding this and other threads where people get bent out of shape for one reason or another--on either side of an issue--it's still only a game we're talking about. So, would it hurt to lighten up things, just a little?

[mjkerner]

P.S. Shows you what I know. I thought there were three mispellings in my post!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Hey EB, I don't spell check, so be my guest.

In the end, regarding this and other threads where people get bent out of shape for one reason or another--on either side of an issue--it's still only a game we're talking about. So, would it hurt to lighten up things, just a little?

I did not exactly get a bent out of shape vibe from anyone, except maybe Steve who started to fray at the edge a little towards the end there. But nothing more then a little snark, which I cannot object to overly much, it being my primary mode of communication.

For all the panache you were probably the rudest fecker in the thread.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It would be even closer to reality if you told the other commander where it was ( Teamspeak / Email ) and he totally plastered the WRONG bush/tree/hillock with mortar fire

@Wrath of Dragon - you say "even if I wanted to remove relative spotting" which implies you don't want to remove it, but you also say "There's really no reason not to show the same thing with the unit selected and with nothing selected" - but that IS the effect of relative spotting.

So really you're saying you're both for and against relative spotting

No, that's not everything there is to relative spotting. You may know where the enemy is, but your unit still doesn't. So he can't fire on his own, and you can't give him a direct fire order, only an area fire.

That's one reason I prefer we-go. During the turn, it's an actual simulation. During the command phase it's not, and can not be, no matter how you slice it the player is still an omniscient commander that doesn't exist in the real world.

[Baneman]

True, but, y'know, it's a wargame - and all wargames rules have at their heart, the requirement to at least try to get the gamer to conform to the realities of the time/era.

But we're still wargamers, so we're really playing elaborate chess. A perfect simulation would leave us merely watching the whole thing unfold. And I prefer to pit my wits against someone else using the medium of the game.

[SteveP]

I did not exactly get a bent out of shape vibe from anyone, except maybe Steve who started to fray at the edge a little towards the end there.

I concluded some time ago that people who create and sell sophisticated sim games on the commercial market must have very thick skins. I admire their ability to control how they respond in some cases. I don't think I could do it.

[sburke]

That's one reason I prefer we-go. During the turn, it's an actual simulation. During the command phase it's not, and can not be, no matter how you slice it the player is still an omniscient commander that doesn't exist in the real world.

Good point and one of the reasons I prefer we-go as well (besides being able to go back and look at all the little action scenes going on). I think we can all agree there is just no way for there not to be some sort of "gameyness". It goes with the turf of being the one who issues every single command even down to telling a unit to go back to a jeep it can't see to get more ammo. Some of it just needs to be accepted. It is all a question of where, when and how much you want to push for realism or not. you could for example insist a runner be sent from the team that has identified a target back to it's commander to simulate passing the information. if the runner doesn't make it, you don't get to fire. Tungsten alloy mode. Doubt I'd ever go that far other than as an experiment in a single battle, but you get my drift.

However altering the game code to facilitate ease of a function that already exists albeit not as easy is for me a non starter. There is just too much else that I'd like to see corrected (bridge issues for example) and allow Steve the time to get the UI stuff in he wants (not too mention another couple modules/games) to be able to say the particular issue raised by the OP warrants programmer time. Actually that is why you will likely hear me sound quite selfish about proposed changes. If it isn't actually a bug, then I would much rather battlefront keeps it's programmer elves locked down in the shop turning out more modules.

Just my two cents and worth rather less I suppose.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I concluded some time ago that people who create and sell sophisticated sim games on the commercial market must have very thick skins. I admire their ability to control how they respond in some cases. I don't think I could do it.

Hehe, yeah. Kudos to Steve for putting up with us. I certainly wouldn't.

[Broadsword56]

Yes, IMHO, if the mortar crew gets a contact icon in that area, it is not gamey to order area fire there. That would be legitimate in either role you are playing, since as overall commander you could easily and quickly authorize a mission on a location already known to the firing unit. Otherwise, no contact icon, no area fire.

But in my example, the firing mortar crew did not get the contact icon. They could, however, see the friendly casualty in another squad from the sniper's shot and hear his screams of "I'm hit!" And the mortar had direct LOS to that suspected sniper area, so they area-fired in retaliation.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, I'm done here. It's arguing with a couple of people about something that doesn't seem to bother anybody else. If we had a 12 page thread about everything in the game that a couple of people had a beef with, wow... I know a Forum I would never participate in ever again

The facts are as follows:

1. We have a philosophy of not doing anything special to encourage behavior we do not feel is positive in the grand scheme of things. There will never be consensus about where to draw the line, and the super minority should be kind enough to accept that and move on.

2. We have tons of things we can do with our limited time. There are little things, very little things mind you, that more people would want to see addressed than the one we're talking about here. So even if I thought it was a good idea to change it (and I do not) it would sit on a ToDo List ranked behind dozens, if not hundreds, of other suggestions made by tiny handfuls of people.

3. And yes, we would have to make code changes. Whether anybody values the time spent on those changes or not is not of a concern to me because we value our time. And customer priorities of how that time is spent.

4. Customers should know by now that making a small problem seem bigger than it is doesn't mean it is any more likely to be addressed. Exaggerating the impact on the average gameplay, in fact, makes us more prone to disregarding the urgency of the matter completely.

5. I would say that a customer who routinely feels this UI issue is getting in their way to such an extent that it's harming their enjoyment of playing should either figure out a different approach or stop playing. Because it's not going to get any better unless one or the other happens.

Time to lock this up.

Steve