Revival of CMAK's Hunt as a workaround

[Battlefront.com]

God forbid we talk about issues we feel that impact gameplay. No, this thread is so much better for having you call us whiners. That really helps things along.

As does this? Both sides have to let it go or it will keep on going. Let's try to get over it and move on.

Thomm,

I hope they don't go the route of specific commands.

The flexibility of the CM system is briliant, imo. Some pretty clever stuff can be done by combining several order types to get great results and specific behaviour.

Not to worry... we have no plans to do "SOP" UI. It always works better in theory than in practice. I'd go so far as to say that no Combat Mission game, ever, will go the route of SOP type Commands. More problems created than solved, plus the game becomes a LOT harder to play. Not good.

Steve

[BletchleyGeek]

Not to worry... we have no plans to do "SOP" UI. It always works better in theory than in practice. I'd go so far as to say that no Combat Mission game, ever, will go the route of SOP type Commands. More problems created than solved, plus the game becomes a LOT harder to play. Not good.

While I tend to agree with Thomm regarding the command system flexibility, I also think that it wouldn't hurt that the UI also had "meta commands" or "macros" built in, based on feedback from players and beta testers about the most common combinations and the like.

What would really be perfect is that we could design those SOPs, or plans, ourselves, store them and recall them for later use. The closest example I have in mind is the Formation Editor tool from Harpoon 3. It was hard to master it, indeed, but as long as you didn't click the button you could pretty much do without it. Yet another thing is that it was of key importance when handling, say, a CVBG. Another much simpler example of a similar tool is the Mission Parameters editor from Panther Games operational RT wargames.

The mere existence of a certain feature on a UI doesn't force anyone to use it If that fits or not Battlefront schedule, is something up to you to decide, but I think the idea has indeed some merit.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

As does this? Both sides have to let it go or it will keep on going. Let's try to get over it and move on.

Both sides? There's just one side that has engaged in disruptive behaviour Steve and it would've been nice had you rounded on them, not me once again.

I would rather be tossed off the forum then just take the unwarranted and stifling negativity without comment.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

While I tend to agree with Thomm regarding the command system flexibility, I also think that it wouldn't hurt that the UI also had "meta commands" or "macros" built in, based on feedback from players and beta testers about the most common combinations and the like.

What would really be perfect is that we could design those SOPs, or plans, ourselves, store them and recall them for later use. The closest example I have in mind is the Formation Editor tool from Harpoon 3. It was hard to master it, indeed, but as long as you didn't click the button you could pretty much do without it. Yet another thing is that it was of key importance when handling, say, a CVBG. Another much simpler example of a similar tool is the Mission Parameters editor from Panther Games operational RT wargames.

The mere existence of a certain feature on a UI doesn't force anyone to use it If that fits or not Battlefront schedule, is something up to you to decide, but I think the idea has indeed some merit.

But then you also have to squeeze it in to the UI some place, one that is already quite crowded.

And I doubt there are many situations where a specific command combo would be of use given the complexity of the environment. It will always require tailoring to the exact needs of the situation.

Take my own favourite "hunt+cover armour arc" combo. I would forever be adjusting the arc to cover the area I expect trouble from, not some default scheme.

And then there is of course the always scarce coding time being used. Yeah, I know, that one is getting old. But it is a real concern nonetheless. I don't think BFC could justify spending much time to allow for a fairly specialized and narrow feature.

[Battlefront.com]

While I tend to agree with Thomm regarding the command system flexibility, I also think that it wouldn't hurt that the UI also had "meta commands" or "macros" built in, based on feedback from players and beta testers about the most common combinations and the like.

The massive effort that would take to design, code, test, perfect, and maintain such a system is completely out of proportion with it's best case practical use. Definitely not something we're going to go with.

The mere existence of a certain feature on a UI doesn't force anyone to use it

The mere existence of a certain feature requires development time and that time comes at the expense of something else. Or in this case, a LOT of something elses. So while it's true that a feature can usually (but not always) be made optional, the player doesn't have the option to use other features that we didn't make because of the optional one.

If that fits or not Battlefront schedule, is something up to you to decide, but I think the idea has indeed some merit.

There is always a case to be made for more micromanagement/control. Always. So in that sense any request for more control, within the bounds of realism, has merit in the CM context. The problem is 10s of thousands of ideas have merit and we can only do a few hundred of them. Which means merit isn't enough, just a starting point.

There is an inherent, fundamental, and so far unsolvable conflict between SOPs and ease of use. I have yet to see a SOP system in any game that would even remotely work for CM. I've also never been able to conceive of a system that would, and believe me I've tried. The reason I've tried is that, in theory, it would be beneficial. The reality is it won't be because inherently control = UI and the more control = more UI. More UI = less likely to be used. It's an equation that cleverness can only modify ever so slightly.

Both sides? There's just one side that has engaged in disruptive behaviour Steve and it would've been nice had you rounded on them, not me once again.

I already explained that my initial comments were in no way aimed at you, so from my perspective this is the first time I've rebuked you. And with VERY good reason. You are the one complaining about the complaining, yet you are keeping the complaining going. May I remind you of what I said in my "stifling and negativity" of my last post?

"Both sides have to let it go or it will keep on going. Let's try to get over it and move on."

Since you are on one side, and I said both sides have to let it go, you need to let it go as much as the other side. If you will not do it, then it won't end unless I put my foot down even harder. Which I suspect you won't like because it will be coming down on you as well as anybody else.

My advice is take a deep breath, realize I agree with you that this is unproductive, and want to get us to move on. Since you are the one that is pointing out that it should end, I do hold you to a higher standard. Lead by example and let it go. I'll make sure everybody else does as well.

Let's try again to do what you asked and move on, shall we?

But then you also have to squeeze it in to the UI some place, one that is already quite crowded.

The threshold for too much UI is a very individualized one. It also varies greatly within each person, depending on game feature, play style, etc. However, there is one truth... the more UI that goes into a game, the less people like to play it. If it were possible I'd have 1/2 as much UI in CM as there is now, not 1/2 again more. But every game requires certain things to make it function and there's only so many ways those can be optimized, minimized, and otherwise kept out of the player's hair. CM has about the right balance, so we are VERY cautious about upsetting that balance.

There's also a corollary between UI visibility and utility. The less it is stuck in front of the player's immediate attention, the less likely it will be useful to most people when they would theoretically benefit from it. Therefore, we have to be very cautious about investing time into UI which is optionally toggled on/off.

And I doubt there are many situations where a specific command combo would be of use given the complexity of the environment. It will always require tailoring to the exact needs of the situation.

Exactly.

And then there is of course the always scarce coding time being used. Yeah, I know, that one is getting old. But it is a real concern nonetheless. I don't think BFC could justify spending much time to allow for a fairly specialized and narrow feature.

If it the work would produce an end result that most people would use frequently, even if for specialized purposes, that might make it worth doing. We hold out just about zero hope that we could do that, therefore it's a dead issue.

The far, far, FAR better solution is to wrap "SOPs" up with Commands, as we do now. Then code up the TacAI to make judgements of what to do with those SOPs in given circumstances. This frees the player up from having to micromanage, it frees us from having to make extremely intensive (and likely unsuccessful) user accessible features.

The question for us to ponder, as we always do, is if we've offered enough of Commands to give the player the right balance between control and usability. The answer to that is probably always "no" since it's an opinion. However, in this case I'm in agreement that we do need some improvements. They won't be as easy as people seem to think, and certainly we're not going to do every single Command that people think they need, but we are definitely going to expand the Commands sooner rather than later.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have yet to see a SOP system in any game that would even remotely work for CM.

TacOps? It's been over a decade since I played it, but it is WEGO and the SOPs worked very well there.

[Battlefront.com]

TacOps? It's been over a decade since I played it, but it is WEGO and the SOPs worked very well there.

This is the problem with UI... the more complicated it gets the fewer people find it useful. That doesn't mean NOBODY finds it useful. The SOPs for TacOps worked for me mostly because I didn't use them I found they got in the way of my enjoyment of the game (and I played the Hell out of it!) more than they enhanced it.

Having said that, the SOP feature in TacOps is the best that I've ever seen for a complex game like a tactical wargame. So in that sense it did an excellent job. But TacOps is a very different game than CM. I think if we tried to mimic that in CM it would be an unmitigated disaster.

Steve

[BletchleyGeek]

The massive effort that would take to design, code, test, perfect, and maintain such a system is completely out of proportion with it's best case practical use. Definitely not something we're going to go with.

The mere existence of a certain feature requires development time and that time comes at the expense of something else. Or in this case, a LOT of something elses. So while it's true that a feature can usually (but not always) be made optional, the player doesn't have the option to use other features that we didn't make because of the optional one.

There is always a case to be made for more micromanagement/control. Always. So in that sense any request for more control, within the bounds of realism, has merit in the CM context. The problem is 10s of thousands of ideas have merit and we can only do a few hundred of them. Which means merit isn't enough, just a starting point.

There is an inherent, fundamental, and so far unsolvable conflict between SOPs and ease of use. I have yet to see a SOP system in any game that would even remotely work for CM. I've also never been able to conceive of a system that would, and believe me I've tried. The reason I've tried is that, in theory, it would be beneficial. The reality is it won't be because inherently control = UI and the more control = more UI. More UI = less likely to be used. It's an equation that cleverness can only modify ever so slightly.

Hey Steve, thank you for your answer.

I understand your concern about getting work done in stuff which is not going to be used universally, hence the quite minimalistic UI in CMx2 (Elmar, it's not overcrowded by a far margin, man). However, I am curious about what problems did you find integrating the concept of SOP - cover arcs are very minimalistic kind of SOP btw - into CMx2.

But I think it would help if we could separate "logistics" problems from "logical" problems If you could describe the problems you found in practice - and assuming you had human resources enough to tackle the issue - in an abstract way so you don't have to give away details you don't want to, perhaps we could help you and I'm sure it'd be appreciated.

[Battlefront.com]

I understand your concern about getting work done in stuff which is not going to be used universally, hence the quite minimalistic UI in CMx2 (Elmar, it's not overcrowded by a far margin, man).

One of the primary problems with games, in general, is ever individual player has their own personal threshold for too much UI. They also have their own personal preferences for how that information is displayed and utilized within the game. Since we can't design thousands of individual UIs, and the features behind them, we have to go with with works for most people most of the time.

As it stands now, for most people the UI is pretty well maxed out. Obviously you disagree, but you need to keep in mind you are only one person and this game is not being made explicitly for you (not that I think you don't understand this ). So you're just going to have to trust us that based on our 18 or so years of experience... the UI is pretty full by most people's standards.

However, I am curious about what problems did you find integrating the concept of SOP - cover arcs are very minimalistic kind of SOP btw - into CMx2.

It's a cascading effect. If every Command had the sorts of complications that Arcs have (UI and conceptual), the game would become massively frustrating to play. This is, again, all about individual preferences and the fact we have to aim for the majority of our customers and not the minority. Worse, wargaming is already on the cusp of alienation just because it's a wargame. So our margin for error, even amongst wargamers, is really thin.

But I think it would help if we could separate "logistics" problems from "logical" problems If you could describe the problems you found in practice - and assuming you had human resources enough to tackle the issue - in an abstract way so you don't have to give away details you don't want to, perhaps we could help you and I'm sure it'd be appreciated.

There's been many discussions about this in the past, but it all boils down to more control = more UI = more development = more rules = more exceptions = more sources of problems = more work to get things working = VICIOUS CYCLE!

We have direct experience with this. You cited the Cover Arc as an example of a simplistic SOP type system. Well, guess which Command we have put more effort into than probably any other Command? Guess And guess which one people want us to separate out into 2 or 3 additional Commands? I think you can ace this quiz!

All Commands have a bit of SOP built into them in the form of TacAI doing reasonably predictable things for given situations. The difference between these and Cover Arc is that the player isn't able to directly influence that behavior except through how/when he uses them. And even then the Forum is filled with discussions about this or that Command being more/less useful, annoying, etc. Just imagine the explosion of discontent, confusion, and dismay if all the backend details now become the player's responsibility to set. What I picture is something akin to perhaps Level 6 of Dante's Inferno. On a good day. Otherwise I think we'd find the Levels go beyond 7

As I said earlier, the problem is one that can not be solved. Fundamentally. That's because more control works against both development capabilities and customer desire to play. Each step towards giving the player more control has to be extremely cautious and very, very, VERY sound in theory. Generalized SOPs, in any general sense, completely flunks that basic logic in every way.

Steve

[BletchleyGeek]

Hey,

One of the primary problems with games, in general, is ever individual player has their own personal threshold for too much UI. They also have their own personal preferences for how that information is displayed and utilized within the game. Since we can't design thousands of individual UIs, and the features behind them, we have to go with with works for most people most of the time.

As it stands now, for most people the UI is pretty well maxed out. Obviously you disagree, but you need to keep in mind you are only one person and this game is not being made explicitly for you (not that I think you don't understand this). So you're just going to have to trust us that based on our 18 or so years of experience... the UI is pretty full by most people's standards.

Obviously it wasn't made for me. One thing that I have very clear in my mind is that I just own a copy of your game. That certainly doesn't make me a shareholder, but certainly makes of me a stakeholder And I indeed trust you, guys. I bought your games! If I ever become multi-million dollar worth I wouldn't mind to invest 1M into you guys. But I would get SOPs, wouldn't I?

Regarding the UI, I can understand some people feel it's pretty full, especially the bottom "command & status bar". 2/3 of it is devoted to depict data on unit attributes and status in a summarized form. There's a lot of info being presented by pixel. I see it to be also very focused on individual units, and very little on giving info on the overall situation. Browsing through the OOB is done in a way which is not really "standard" and makes a lot of sense for someone trained as a programmer (you're navigating through the command and control tree, one node at a time) but hardly to someone with such training or acquantaince with discrete mathematics.

I don't play CMx2 on RT much, or ever, because I find it very hard to find out about important events happening to my units - a unit being routed, or under fire - and track the general status of the force. I find Panther Games approach to this problem to be right on spot, with their event notification system and filtering. Since I have to pause the game every 30 or so secs, I prefer WEGO, since I can cope up with the amount of info being presented. I also find some aspect of CMx2 daunting.

If you want some radical thinking, I'd have done away with the tabs and button boxes, and just use the space bar - or right-click - contextual menu and hotkeys, freeing up real state on the screen for other purposes.

It's a cascading effect.

What's not? Even missing someone's name on the credits can have cascading effects :eek:

If every Command had the sorts of complications that Arcs have (UI and conceptual), the game would become massively frustrating to play. This is, again, all about individual preferences and the fact we have to aim for the majority of our customers and not the minority. Worse, wargaming is already on the cusp of alienation just because it's a wargame. So our margin for error, even amongst wargamers, is really thin.

I agree with you that wargaming has been deemed for a too long time "stuff for nerds, stuff that matters". Making "popular" board-based wargames has been a long sought after chimera pursued by many publishers, which have basically failed - in my opinion - because they dumbed so much game mechanics and the results were so much like those obtained from playing Risk, that people just say "why bother with this five page booklet" and go play Risk inventing the rules as they play.

Computer wargaming offers a way to escape this so often beaten path into oblivion. Why? Because you don't need to dumb down anything. Software development is mostly hiding the details from the wrong people: the one that will be either confused or misinterpret or abuse such details. The problem is that having systems layered like that - with layers being rendered transparent being optional - are fairly complex and time consuming programming projects.

Are we on the same page on this Steve?

Wargamers will be the most exigent, because they have previous experiences with other game systems which they hold dear because of enjoying them. But they're important: are the only ones who will invest time into really learning the game, and will usually spot things that are off first.

Wargamers is indeed a small fraction of the general populace, but they're really close-knit and word-of-mouth works really well selling a product. They're also the ones who will mostly contribute scenarios and campaigns to the game. They'll be extending the longevity of the game, which is bad for new titles, but good as well, because you can put a higher price because CM:BN isn't a game that it's over after a weekend (which is sadly true with SO many AAA titles).

Non-wargamers who play wargames either become wargamers or go back to whatever they were doing before. So wargamers, while a notoriously unruly bunch, will always be spotting bugs, creating content for your game and urging you to "push the envelope".

There's been many discussions about this in the past, but it all boils down to more control = more UI = more development = more rules = more exceptions = more sources of problems = more work to get things working = VICIOUS CYCLE!

I've seen that cycle, mostly on board wargames. There it gets much worse. Have you tried to play Flattop or Pax Britannica? I find surprising you haven't been able to escape from this cycle, especially when you have a reasonably sophisticated AI (because if the AI can control that, why can't a user? It's the matter of providing a uniform interface to send the proper messages to certain objects in the simulation engine).

We have direct experience with this. You cited the Cover Arc as an example of a simplistic SOP type system. Well, guess which Command we have put more effort into than probably any other Command? Guess. And guess which one people want us to separate out into 2 or 3 additional Commands? I think you can ace this quiz!

Hahaha, indeed I can ace it. Wargamers. People who already know why it does a difference not to shoot with the main gun infantry at 250m when you can shoot at the same infantry with a machine gun. But non-wargamers, if they like the game enough, will learn eventually learn this as well!

I've been mentoring for a few years CompSci students in a course whose programming project was developing a RoboSoccer team for the 2D Simulated Agent league. You can check here the base code I provided them:

http://staff.science.uva.nl/~jellekok/software/index_en.html

here the agents (soccer players) have limited information about their environment and have to deal with a lot of uncertainty in the outcome of their actions.

One common problem I had to deal with were with the young guys trying to write their controllers for very general tasks - such as conducting an attack to score a goal. If there's one thing true when writing an AI is that the more circumscribed is the problem, the simpler is to solve it. I had to patiently coach them so they saw the truth of this, and eventually they come up with the tasks to be hierarchically decomposed. Some of them even came up with procedures for handling soccer-like "cover arcs", especially when defending their own goal line (does the guy have the ball? should I tackle? should I position myself between the ball and the guy? etc.)

Since I know you made CMx1 I know you know better than my young students.

So what are SOPs? They're basically decision procedures to provide context to individual units / or agents and trigger some behavior (which might or not be generated in an on-line way).

So we have Cover Arc in CMx2. Which accounts for:

1) Restricting spotting and awareness to a particular sector.

2) When a hostile is detected:

a) If within specified range

i) If "soft" target, engage with weapons able to score a kill.

ii) If "hard" target, engage with weapons able to score a kill.

If you have cover arc, and you've been developing the whole thing in a "bottom up" fashion, providing with a Cover Armor modality to the users would just amount to add a submenu to the space bar invoked context menu to the appropiate order. Another thing is that you have a discrete button interface where "modalities" can't be easily accomodated in a consistent way. I'd suggest to keep the buttons as they are, yes, but a guy not caring/knowing would hardly bother about the space bar context menu.

All Commands have a bit of SOP built into them in the form of TacAI doing reasonably predictable things for given situations. The difference between these and Cover Arc is that the player isn't able to directly influence that behavior except through how/when he uses them. And even then the Forum is filled with discussions about this or that Command being more/less useful, annoying, etc. Just imagine the explosion of discontent, confusion, and dismay if all the backend details now become the player's responsibility to set. What I picture is something akin to perhaps Level 6 of Dante's Inferno. On a good day. Otherwise I think we'd find the Levels go beyond 7

Indeed, and are the assumptions built in in the decision procedure which do not hold water for substantial numbers of users. But there's no need to make everyone to deal with the backend details: you've already packaged them into a reduced set of high-level commands. People wanting this would even buy a solution based on invoking a console and entering the command by, oh anathema, writing it.

As I said earlier, the problem is one that can not be solved. Fundamentally. That's because more control works against both development capabilities and customer desire to play. Each step towards giving the player more control has to be extremely cautious and very, very, VERY sound in theory. Generalized SOPs, in any general sense, completely flunks that basic logic in every way.

I agree with generalized SOPs to be possibly a long shot for the scope of CMx2, I was just teasing you a bit. But I'd ask you to consider what I say in my answer above.

Thank you again for answering and taking the time to discuss this.

[Battlefront.com]

I'll focus in on this because it's the crux:

So what are SOPs? They're basically decision procedures to provide context to individual units / or agents and trigger some behavior (which might or not be generated in an on-line way).

The issue is HOW to have the player interface with the variables in a way that is easy to use, does not interfere with competing needs within the game (a player has a limited attention span), and doesn't come at the expense of something that has more value to the game. The latter can be in a direct sense, such as "the UI is too full we can't put in anything else, no matter how good it is", or indirect such as "we spent 1 month coding this SOP stuff, which means we didn't code WeGo TCP/IP".

Identifying what the SOPs could be is the easiest of easy parts. It's pretty straight forward and doesn't take much imagination to come up with actionable concepts. It's all in the execution. We've got a ton of experience making wargames that are more detailed than anything else out there... yet more playable. When faced with challenges we have a long track record of taking a risk and pushing things in a new direction. We're not afraid of getting it wrong to the extent we don't try.

Yet...

I've found no acceptable way to include SOPs in CM that fits in with what we know works and doesn't run afoul of what we know doesn't work. It's just one of those things... simple to conceive, damned near impossible to execute. At least in a way that is consistent with what makes CM what it is.

If you have cover arc, and you've been developing the whole thing in a "bottom up" fashion, providing with a Cover Armor modality to the users would just amount to add a submenu to the space bar invoked context menu to the appropiate order... I'd suggest to keep the buttons as they are, yes, but a guy not caring/knowing would hardly bother about the space bar context menu.

As a concept, this doesn't work. What you aren't taking into consideration is that players who don't want to have such a complicated game experience don't like having too many options put in front of them. They feel like if they don't use them then they aren't getting the full value from the game and/or aren't going to get optimal results and/or will be at a disadvantage in a MP game. Do not underestimate the psychological push-back on even optional features.

The other thing you're not taking into consideration is we now have to write more TacAI because the current one isn't written to be interfaced with the customer. And I can guarantee you that once the customer has input the amount of bugs, tweak requests, unhappiness, and other support issues will increase. Not decrease. It's as sure as sure can be.

Plus, it won't stop there. People who are really fired up about more control are never satisfied. Which means we'll see requests for more control over other Commands, as well as the usual suggestions to add completely new ones. The slippery slope we're already on, and are always on, will seem flat and sticky compared to the one you suggest we put ourselves on. Which is why you see a tiny bit of hesitancy to go that route

Lastly...

Indeed, and are the assumptions built in in the decision procedure which do not hold water for substantial numbers of users.

Not true at all. It works most of the time for most people in most situations. Sure, there are situations where it doesn't do EXACTLY what the player wants it to. However, in most of those situations I would argue that it did what it SHOULD do, which is a key component of having the game be realistic instead of being all about control (which in real warfare is minimal, at best).

In short, we don't see a big problem to solve. Therefore, going at it with a sledgehammer with a greased handle is absolutely not something we're interested in. We'd rather spend our time making what we have work a little better, when it's proven necessary. Which is why there will be some changes for the next major release, but SOPs will not be amongst them.

BTW, I don't mind having such discussions. You guys just need to know that it's our butt's on the line and we've so far managed to outlive pretty much all other wargame companies. We have got to this point through enlightened risk taking. So if you see me coming down VERY strongly against something, that in and of itself should give you guys pause for thought. Sometimes it's in your best interests for us to not do what you ask, though we still are interested in listening

Steve

[sburke]

As a concept, this doesn't work. What you aren't taking into consideration is that players who don't want to have such a complicated game experience don't like having too many options put in front of them. They feel like if they don't use them then they aren't getting the full value from the game and/or aren't going to get optimal results and/or will be at a disadvantage in a MP game. Do not underestimate the psychological push-back on even optional features.

Steve

A classic example of this is WitP AE. The Japanese player has the option of micro managing their industry to try to optimize aircraft and aircraft engine production to put together a competitive air force. I have seen on that forum some of that same resistance to the feature simply because if they don't use it they feel disadvantaged and it they do use it it is too much work. The game gives you the option but it doesn't stop people from not liking they have the option.

[Canada Guy]

As for UI, what about modularity? I may have naive assumption but since this is just the display of information that already exists and not the creating of new information, then being able to present it may just be a function of real estate.

By modularity, I mean the ability to include or exclude certain parts of the UI if each piece of data is broken up into separate pieces - lets call them widgets.

There would be the orders widgets, the unit info widget, the game info widget, the ammo info widget. The base game would display a default set of widgets but if I wanted a penetration widget, then I would have that widget displayed and if you wanted the armour protection widget instead, you would choose that.

It would allow those people with large monitors to have more if they wanted and less for those that want to play and feel info overload.

Myself, I would probably have all widgets and buy a bigger monitor just to display them. My opinion is better to have everything at my fingertips in case rather than not and lose one piece of info. (This is the same reason that I liked the command lines in CMx1 as it was info I needed directly in front of me and I did not have to look somewhere else which I find myself continually doing now even after 6 years though I do understand having different levels of CnC is hard to represent in one red/black line- It means the present system does not fulfill my needs as I should have adapted to better UI after all this time - and is the same reason I wish we could do something about the unit icons and status as now I have to take my eyes away from the action and look for what I need).

More info better or same info but presented in a more seamless integrated manner also better.

[BletchleyGeek]

The issue is HOW to have the player interface with the variables in a way that is easy to use, does not interfere with competing needs within the game (a player has a limited attention span), and doesn't come at the expense of something that has more value to the game. The latter can be in a direct sense, such as "the UI is too full we can't put in anything else, no matter how good it is", or indirect such as "we spent 1 month coding this SOP stuff, which means we didn't code WeGo TCP/IP".

Does that mean we're going to eventually get WeGO TCP/IP? Pausable RT over TCP/IP? If so, man, let's throw overboard those SOPs!

I've found no acceptable way to include SOPs in CM that fits in with what we know works and doesn't run afoul of what we know doesn't work. It's just one of those things... simple to conceive, damned near impossible to execute. At least in a way that is consistent with what makes CM what it is.

Are you referring to the code? If it's the former, well it happens. You'll eventually find the time to fix/change/refactor that. You already did that when you got decoupled sim resolution from visualization in CM:SF and we got the "blue bar" back.

Or to your vision of what CM should be? If so, then since this is your show all I can say is "Fair enough".

As a concept, this doesn't work. What you aren't taking into consideration is that players who don't want to have such a complicated game experience don't like having too many options put in front of them. They feel like if they don't use them then they aren't getting the full value from the game and/or aren't going to get optimal results and/or will be at a disadvantage in a MP game. Do not underestimate the psychological push-back on even optional features.

The very nature of MP wargaming entails some sort of tacit or explicit agreement on being a "good sport". The players can abide to whatever "house rules" they see can agree to "set the playing field even". Obviously, this is a matter to what "Wargaming Culture" do you belong to. You can set two "broad" groups, the ones that play just to win and the ones who play to have a good challenge. Over the years, I've found a lot of players in both groups.

People in the first group, when winning, usually go like "LOLZ I pwn y4. Yr utt3r cr4p! Im s0 l33t LOLZ" or some other way less full of crap. The others when winning, thank you for the game - even if you actually were utter crap - and some might even make polite remarks about what they think you did wrong. I tend to ignore the former and stick to the latter. They'll usually be up to coach you into mastering the game system.

This applies even to hexwars.com, where the most popular game is Napoleon In Waterloo. It's eerie to find this also in MMORPGs so unforgiving for the new players such as Eve On-line. Perhaps it's something not intrinsic to gaming, but of human nature

It talks very well of you as a person that you care about the happiness of your customers in such a holistic way (there's no irony here, I'm writing this with a straight face). But you're a good game designer and I think that also a pretty good project manager. You're expected to produce good wargames. You're not expected to be our therapist.

The other thing you're not taking into consideration is we now have to write more TacAI because the current one isn't written to be interfaced with the customer. And I can guarantee you that once the customer has input the amount of bugs, tweak requests, unhappiness, and other support issues will increase. Not decrease. It's as sure as sure can be.

See my reference above to the "blue bar" thing (what a misleading way to refer to an architecture problem). You've done it before, I wouldn't be surprised you would do something like that in the future.

I think that can be worrying from a project management perspective but also satisfying. It means that people care about your product. You're right that there it seems to be tendency in this CM community of flaming you guys, which leaves me dumbfounded.

Plus, it won't stop there. People who are really fired up about more control are never satisfied. Which means we'll see requests for more control over other Commands, as well as the usual suggestions to add completely new ones. The slippery slope we're already on, and are always on, will seem flat and sticky compared to the one you suggest we put ourselves on. Which is why you see a tiny bit of hesitancy to go that route

Indeed it can get out of hand. But you're the captain, and in a ship no sailor daresays the captain. You'll always have the final word.

Not true at all. It works most of the time for most people in most situations. Sure, there are situations where it doesn't do EXACTLY what the player wants it to. However, in most of those situations I would argue that it did what it SHOULD do, which is a key component of having the game be realistic instead of being all about control (which in real warfare is minimal, at best).

Well, it would be nice to be able to give a certain kinds of commands in certain situations. I'm certainly not expecting it to work exactly as expected everytime. It's warfare being simulated, not playing tic-tac-toe.

In short, we don't see a big problem to solve. Therefore, going at it with a sledgehammer with a greased handle is absolutely not something we're interested in. We'd rather spend our time making what we have work a little better, when it's proven necessary. Which is why there will be some changes for the next major release, but SOPs will not be amongst them.

BTW, I don't mind having such discussions. You guys just need to know that it's our butt's on the line and we've so far managed to outlive pretty much all other wargame companies. We have got to this point through enlightened risk taking. So if you see me coming down VERY strongly against something, that in and of itself should give you guys pause for thought. Sometimes it's in your best interests for us to not do what you ask, though we still are interested in listening

I know your butts are on the line, I appreciate your work, so I support it by buying your products. You sound like being under immense pressure by something unknown to me. All I can say to you is that I hope the best for Battlefront. I'm only trying to help you doing the best you can by sharing with you my opinion.

Perhaps you'll change your mind some time in the future and see things more like my way. Or perhaps not. I'm patient, I'm not expecting to bend your mind with my ungodly powers and get this with the upcoming Commonwealth and Waffen SS module

[BletchleyGeek]

A classic example of this is WitP AE. The Japanese player has the option of micro managing their industry to try to optimize aircraft and aircraft engine production to put together a competitive air force. I have seen on that forum some of that same resistance to the feature simply because if they don't use it they feel disadvantaged and it they do use it it is too much work. The game gives you the option but it doesn't stop people from not liking they have the option.

This was quite a discussion that went on for years... Some thing with Grigsby's games never change. Now we have WitE and some very few and very vocal individuals are complaining they can't fine tune German war production as they could do in War In Russia.

A Japanese player could optimize plane production yes, but that didn't mean he couldn't lose all his carriers in a single engagement next to some quite useless piece of rock right in the middle of the Pacific. And the Japanese Home Islands - along with all those carefully nurtured airplane factories - would be reduced to the Stone Age by waves of B-29s.

Or in Eastern Front terms, yeah, sure I got the Panthers and Tigers rolling out in May 1942. You can feel big, surely you did devote a lot of time to optimize thing to get them your way. But that doesn't mean you can't get trapped in the middle of the steppe by vastly superior forces on your flanks and see, reduced to tears, your elite force being entirely wiped out.

[sburke]

This was quite a discussion that went on for years... Some thing with Grigsby's games never change. Now we have WitE and some very few and very vocal individuals are complaining they can't fine tune German war production as they could do in War In Russia.

A Japanese player could optimize plane production yes, but that didn't mean he couldn't lose all his carriers in a single engagement next to some quite useless piece of rock right in the middle of the Pacific. And the Japanese Home Islands - along with all those carefully nurtured airplane factories - would be reduced to the Stone Age by waves of B-29s.

Or in Eastern Front terms, yeah, sure I got the Panthers and Tigers rolling out in May 1942. You can feel big, surely you did devote a lot of time to optimize thing to get them your way. But that doesn't mean you can't get trapped in the middle of the steppe by vastly superior forces on your flanks and see, reduced to tears, your elite force being entirely wiped out.

LOL yeah and that well ... that would probably be the fate of my force.

I saw those posts and while I can see the point, they don't want to be condemned to repeat history, for them to truly have a strategic chance of victory would mean having to make fundamental changes in history to alter the political/economic circumstances.

Getting back to the thread though, my point was imply that there are folks that actually don't like to have options that may improve their chances if not using them puts them at a disadvantage and they make the game too much like a job.

[BletchleyGeek]

Getting back to the thread though, my point was imply that there are folks that actually don't like to have options that may improve their chances if not using them puts them at a disadvantage and they make the game too much like a job.

Yes, that's true. There might be quite a few individuals like that. But I find a gross exaggeration than a game like CM can become a "job". If something separates wargames and sims from the rest of the game industry is that the more time you invest into them, the more you get from them. They become a hobby.

This is at odds with the "instant gratification" paradigm which has installed in the minds of major game development studios. It's got really silly, even in RPGs. What's that thing of "unlocking achievements" one gets in Dragon Age - a game by Bioware which used to be the "hallmark" of RPGs - by doing stuff, like, picking some rare flowers, killing a rat or being nice through dumbed down dialogue options to an NPC? That's absolutely ludicrous. It's not that different from people who make drugs: I'm frustrated after a hard day at work, just argued with wife over something silly, ok, rather than going to the neighborhood dealer to get some cocaine, one logs into a MP server, pulls out a virtual weapon and starts blowing other people avatars' heads. Ahhh, it feels so good.

Steve is worried about how troublesome wargamers can get asking for features, making criticism and all that. He seems to me that he cares about the people that plays their games. He also cares about his business. I don't think Battlefront is producing "beer & pretzels" wargames, nor catering for the "instant gratification" junkies. These people might buy a copy of CM, but they'll be shelving it as soon as the next pseudo-historical RT buggy half-finished crap from Paradox comes out. "Instant gratification" and "constant novelty" usually go together. Can Battlefront keep the pace of this people? Who's more troublesome at the end of the day, the wargamers or the non-wargamers?

[GreenAsJade]

I hope everyone here will understand Steve is on top of this issue, Phil gets it and so does Steve, without compromising the NDA the beta testers have been ALL over it, but like every thing else it takes time, LOS OF TIME, and testing and Steve mentioned it's an issue and with new work and improvements on the entire UI it could/might/should be addressed in the a future release or patch.

Please trust me [ fanboy mode on] they get it, but the solution will not be fast or easy and a kluge or ANY FORM of kluge, (meaning quick and easy fix or faking it") is OUT OF THE QUESTION.

Please trust me Steve and Phil really get it and the solution is not easy, but they are working on behind the scenes..... FWIW, IMHO..etc.

To me this has been the most useful post so far. We've all come and said "hey, this isn't perhaps as good as it could be". At last someone who seems to be in a position to know something has acknowledged.

The only thing missing now is Steve (or anyone) discussing what _is_ being considered, instead of explaining what won't be implemented.

These threads would be so much more productive if that happened. Otherwise we have this cycle of "someone suggests a good fix in their opinion, Steve comes and explains why that won't happen, the someone gets shirty because they think its a good idea, and so does their friend..." and here we are.

What kinds of solutions are being dreamed up?

GaJ

[Holien]

What kinds of solutions are being dreamed up?

GaJ

I bet they will not say until it is done and implemented so unless you are a Beta tester then you (and we) will have to wait and see...

[Holien]

At last someone who seems to be in a position to know something has acknowledged.GaJ

I agree with this and if there could be closed sticky thread issued by Steve saying what issues are considered by BTS as things they are looking into it would help.

I knew about the firing at a move but did not know BTS position and if we had some place to read / direct people to that would surely help?

[BletchleyGeek]

I second that. It has worked very well for the developer of World In Flames (you can imagine how high could get the flames in the forum with the delays and the discussion on how to properly implement the rules from a game system with nearly 25 years of existence). People don't feel off-the-loop and the discussions - in a separate thread - are focused on concrete issues.

PS: Off-topic but not so regarding the thing with keeping people on the loop. I was moved when I learnt from that thread that Shannon, WiF developer, had developed a particularly crippling variety of eye cancer. That's a very straight way of handling people who have been waiting for years something which might well never get finished.