So who here is enjoying this?

[Kong]

Cordially disagree. Especially in CMBN the AI is capable of putting up a pretty stiff fight, at least on defense. I haven't gone against it when it's on offense, but rumor is that it does not do that so well. But in any event, to each his own.

I am not disparaging the quality of the AI when playing against the computer. I am speaking to the tangible differences between playing a Human vs computer. Personally I find a game much more engaging, intense, and satisfying when playing a person. And it is absolutely more satisfying to beat a human opponent of equal or better skill. Hell, I'd rather lose a good game against a human than get a Total Victory against the AI. I just got the set-up turn for CMBN's Carbide Carbide scenario against a Human (well at least he claims to be so) and I am the Americans attacking, I cannot wait to play this. I wouldn't bother playing this against the AI.

I semi-agree with that. In CMx1 I got into the habit of nearly always playing with a reinforced battalion, at least when attacking. Playing with a regiment would have strained my computer's resources, to say nothing of my own. It would have been more of a job than a pastime. For me, playing a regiment-sized force would have required the basic units to be platoons rather than squads, which would have changed the whole nature and scale of the game.

I will readily admit the time commitment is greater in a Huge battle, especially set-up. However, what I have found is that you must resist the urge to micro-manage in a huge battle. Of course there are specific units you need to micro manage, but let the AI handle the bulk of the dirty work. Huge battles become so intense and are so much more dynamic, the x1 engine really shines with these imho. CMBO came out in 2000, a computer that was built in the last 3 years would have no problems playing a huge CMx1 game today. I'm already wondering how big of battles CMx2 will be capable of with 2020 hardware...

[PapaKhann]

<snip>... Which is why we're not going to be putting Command Lines back in any time soon, if ever. Something else better? That's our target.

Steve

I'm sure there are lots of ways additional "at a glance" information could be added to the UI to inform players of the status of units on the map. I for one would really like to see something added to the floating icons to indicate:

1) In/Out of command. I don't need to know what type of command they are currently in. I just want to be able to tell when they are out of command without having to click on each individual unit.

2) Morale/Suppression status. Again, it doesn't need to be as detailed as the information presented when I click on a unit. I just want to be able to see, at a glance, who is in trouble.

I'm encouraged to learn that "Something else better? That's our target." is your target. I'm curious to know if that's something that will be worked on in a patch, or is that a backburner item that will be addressed when you guys do the next engine (I really hope it's not that far off).

Papa

[Battlefront.com]

This has been discussed several times over the years and yes, would be highly desirable. The thing is, there is no personal computer on the market as yet that is nearly powerful enough to run such a game.

That's a secondary problem. The primary problem is that someone would have to code the AI to behavior in such a way that players would absolutely, and without a doubt, consider mandatory. And if we could do that, we'd not be sitting here making wargames for you guys. We would be getting ready for a Nobel Prize

To sum up... yes, theoretically you can have a complicated/realistic wargame that is simplistic to play if there is an AI that is at least as smart as a very good Human wargaming player. And it would have to be consistently smart with almost no flaws in its execution. Then, and only then, would the game be viable.

Search 12 years worth of posts on this Forum and try to find instances where I say, unequivocally, that something is beyond our capabilities. I'd wager that there are very few and nearly all of those comments are tied in with a "command level" game like this.

We're never going to make a tactically rooted wargame that does everything for the player. We don't believe such a game isn't within our capabilities, or anybody else's for that matter.

I'm sure there are lots of ways additional "at a glance" information could be added to the UI to inform players of the status of units on the map.

Correct. Players should generally limit their suggestions to "this is the sort of behavior I want to see" and not get too tied up in details. Think of it like going to a doctor's appointment when you think something is wrong. Let the doctor hear what the problem is and figure out what to do about it. Be interactive, ask questions, help direct the options to something that works best for you. But don't insist the doctor you need an EKG and a MRI because you have a tooth ache. Not likely to produce the best results

I'm encouraged to learn that "Something else better? That's our target." is your target. I'm curious to know if that's something that will be worked on in a patch, or is that a backburner item that will be addressed when you guys do the next engine (I really hope it's not that far off).

CMx2 is an evolving game engine. Major features only come with major releases. We have already committed to a host of UI improvements for the next major release. In fact, that's our main focus outside of whatever is needed for that specific setting. We'll only move to CMx3 when we have to make a fundamental technology shift, such as rewriting the graphics engine.

Steve

[LJFHutch]

On top of that though, an incredibly realistic game doesn't necessarily have to be complicated, like I said, the only real benefit to realism with more detail and complexity is outliers.

[DavidFields]

The simplicity/complexity trade-off seems to me at the heart of these simulations, and is likely a matter of taste.

I remember one space civ game, can't remember the name, where one set policy sliders and the AI did almost all the details for you. Some people liked that, most did not.

Theoretically, one could pick an entire company, give an order to take a hill/town/forest, and the friendly AI could make the assaults--but besides needing massive coding, actually moving the squads and planning the company assaults is sort of what most of us actually want to do.

On the other hand, I still have not warmed to potentially splitting squads into 3 teams. Part of it may be the large battles I have been playing(got to force myself to finish C and F and get to something like Devil's Descent), part of it may be that some people really like focusing down on the individual soldiers, and seeing the animations of 3 guys running into a house, thowing grenages, and individual combat is fun--where I still mostly enjoy the focus on the squad level. Just went over to Tiger Tiger on CMBB just to "relax". Never played it before, but I am struck how much easier it felt to throw platoons across the board. (also nice to see the fall folliage)

Of course one can't get the balance "right" for everyone, in all their different moods.

[Georgie]

I enjoy CMBN, in particular the large battles. The larger the better and there is sadly a problem with the game engine. The engine as it is will not handle the max size maps. Hopefully the problem is being worked on and I hope that a fix is found and implemented ASAP.

[DaveyJJ]

Loved it until the 1.0.1 update busted it for me under Lion. Sigh.

[Erwin]

The other problem is the weird C2 issues that I posted about elsewhere...

In playing the otherwise excellent "Courage and Fortitude" campaign, I had a number of my platoon HQ's KIA in the "School of Hard Knocks" scenario. I found that neither their Co nor XO HQ's were able to give them C2 in that scenario or in the following scenarios in which the leaderless platoons appeared.

However, I thought that in succeeding scenarios the platoon HQ's were slowly being replaced. However, I was mistaken. After "Bumper Cars" and "Ridge" I am now in the final "La Haye" scenario and the leaderless platoons STILL have not received replacement HQ's.

While I am still enjoying the game and eking out victories without HQ's, it's amazing that after all this development time, BF has come up with a C2 system that is horribly complicated and non-intuitive, and apparently does not work properly... and I am finding that C2 does not seem to matter much either.

All that was wrong with the CM1 C2 system imo was that occasionally one would have an on-map mortar get hijacked by a passing HQ. And yes, I agree that it wasn't good that any Co or Bn HQ could command any other unit regardless of Co affiliation.

Can only hope this C2 issue gets fixed or done away with in following patches as it seems more trouble than it's worth re any obvious beneficial effect.

[black_prince]

Personally, I'm a little anxious at all this talk of 'improving' the UI. I hope that we won't see any changes to unit icons in order to give all sorts of 'at a glance' information. You should be able to see which units need your help/attention, just by looking at their behaviour and situation. Also, you should have some idea of what shape units are in just from knowing what they've been through in the course of the scenario so far.

It would probably be more useful to be able to see ammo states and vehicle systems damage at a glance. However, the amount of information which would need to be displayed in order for this information to be really useful would, I fear, result in so much clutter as to have a seriously detremental impact on the game's aesthetics. I don't see that it's really a problem to click on units if you require more information. After all, in WEGO you have all the time in the world to look at your unit's status between turns and in RT you can pause if you really have to.

For players who would like to try playing in RT but find it a bit of a struggle, I would recommend watching Tyrspawn's VAARs and CMSF walkthroughs and paying attention to how he plays (although IMHO, he could make more use of hotkeys).

I remember being very frustrated with the interface when I first played the game. I was forever de-seleciting units I hadn't intended to or giving units orders that I hadn't intended to because I didn't realise that they were still selected (although I have never experienced any of the problems with camera scrolling that others have complained about here). However, with time I got used to things, learned the hotkeys and figured out ways of playing the game which would reduce my over all work load without having a negative impact on my battle management. My concern is that BF is going to succumb to lobbying from CMx1 players who havn't played any of the other CMx2 titles and havn't really given the existing UI a fair go.

That said, there are definitely some improvements that have been mentioned which I would like to see implemented, namely armour only target arcs and a follow the leader command which would make column movements along roads easier. I also love the vehicle impact texts which I believe were originally featured in CMx1. The vehicle hit texts and unit kill tallies are probably the features I miss most when playing CMA or CMSF (other than the QB system). I don't have any objection to the introduction of command lines so long as they can be turned off, although by the sound of things, BF have come up with something better than command lines.

I don't mean to sound as though I am rounding on people for making criticisms but I do feel that BF should hear every side of the argument. I also have plenty of faith in BF to be able to implement changes in ways that will genuinely improve the game but I am quite pensive at the though of any radical changes to the UI when I'm now used to (and happy with) the existing system.