A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Scourge of War: Waterloo



Message

nijis -> A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (7/23/2015 8:49:48 PM)


I really would like to like this game, with its epic scale and its commitment to realism. I can deal with abstracted graphics. But the command and control is so baffling, and so unpredictable, that I have no way to tell whether things are working as designed or bugged.

The Take Command flagging system is NOT intuitive, nor does the game give much help figuring it out. Whose orders are my units following? Why, sometimes, when I command a unit to move to a spot on the map, does the commander move? Why, at other times, does the entire unit move and the commander go off somewhere else?

I'm currently playing the Waterloo full battle scenario, with courier for all levels of command. I tried to commit the entire Guard Division to a flank attack. The divisional commander moved by himself, so I committed the brigades piecemeal. Well, the brigade went off to the attack, but the brigade commander seems to be following the divisional commander. I'm sure there's a logical explanation, somewhere between toggling the TC flag on or off at one or the other echelon, but I cannot figure it out. And at some point I want to just throw in the towel.

It seems to me that the entire system could be replaced by a somewhat simpler one: at the beginning of the game, all units have a "don't move on their own initiative" tag that changes when you give them an order. Give a commander an order, and he detaches from the larger unit and moves on his own. Reattach him, and he follows the directions of his commander. If you want to have a "Don't deviate from my orders" tag -- ie, the current command system -- make that a separate flag, but don't mix it in with the question of whether or not a unit responds to orders from a higher echelon.

More importantly though, make it transparent whose orders a unit is following. Maybe a little bit of text, like the targeting text. "Unit is moving on army commander's initiative." "Unit is moving on own initiative."

Another idea - when you click on a unit, list any incoming orders by courier. That way you know if a unit hasn't received orders yet, or is just ignoring you.

And finally, it would be great if, when you clicked on a commander, all subordinate units would be a different color on the battle map.

Whatever tools you used to debug Command and Control, maybe give us access to them - at least to know what our own forces are doing!



ArtilleryHorse -> RE: A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (7/23/2015 11:49:01 PM)

Wow, taking on the whole oob is daunting.

This will cheer you up, few hours old, go youtube: "Scourge of War Waterloo Review - Worth a Buy?"


Honest, direct, very supportive! Truthfully hilarious.

subordinate units different color: mine have a gold star so easy to find.



e_barkmann -> RE: A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (7/24/2015 12:42:15 AM)

Lol! great youtube review. thanks.

I find a useful shortcut for getting formations to a particular spot is to use the Command Map.

Select the commander of the formation, hit the N key, click on the spot on the map you want the formation to move to and then hit the commander's 'use roads' button if you require the formation to road march.



Djouk -> RE: A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (7/24/2015 6:51:27 AM)

Some other topics explain theses move problems...

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3897488
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3892033
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3877916

Actually using n command map is just an alternative solution.



nijis -> RE: A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (7/24/2015 3:49:19 PM)

Thanks for the links. I've read all those threads, and while I sometimes get the results I want, sometimes I don't.

I've noted the gold star, but only on the 3D map - and it's easy to overlook a unit that's gone off somewhere else.

The problem is I can't tell: have I made a mistake? Is there a bug? Has a corps commander countermanded my orders?

This is why I think that the orders system needs transparency - an easy way to tell WHY is this unit marching to the edge of the map, or going off by itself.

Panther Games' Command Ops series had a pretty intuitive system of handling multi-echelon command and control - you could always tell whose orders a unit was following, yours or an intermediary AI commander. You could tell if new orders were en route. The game had a 2D interface, making things a little easier, but I imagine that it would not be too difficult to do in 3D as well.




Djouk -> RE: A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (7/25/2015 6:21:28 AM)

Yes if you play with courriers it's more realistic and immersive but you add the possibility that an order is misinterpreted or intercepted. Playing with no courrier allow to detect what is going wrong in the command chain and movement interface. So you can see if you are doing mistake or if this a bug. In the massive scenario Waterloo (we like it!) you may see corps and divisions commanders going alone on a side of map without their troops and only brigade commanders well following your orders. To move all this massive army you have to multiply orders : send move orders to corps then division commanders then each brigade commanders... AI is not the problem: logically and normally just sending a single and alone moving order to AI corps commander should allow displacement of divisions and brigades under its command, but that's not the case actually. You can play Waterloo big scenario with historical frontal attack (as this happened historically) but don't expect to easily prepare a flank attack. In sandbox campaigns from Division vs Divisions to Army vs Army only corps commander has this independance but division commanders will follow instructions so you can more easily move and play with courriers here if you want. A what if scenario of Waterloo reenactment is better playable in sandbox with army vs army letting french attacking.

Anyway an update should come to resolve this i hope.




nijis -> RE: A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (8/1/2015 10:51:30 PM)

Thanks for the answers! Misinterpreted orders, if that's what's happening, seems to be taking realism too far. Players shouldn't be trying to guess if a weird move is a feature, or a bug, or the player not grasping a nuance in the TC flagging system.

Telling us whose orders a given unit is following would still be very helpful.



ETF -> RE: A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (8/2/2015 5:55:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nijis


I really would like to like this game, with its epic scale and its commitment to realism. I can deal with abstracted graphics. But the command and control is so baffling, and so unpredictable, that I have no way to tell whether things are working as designed or bugged.

The Take Command flagging system is NOT intuitive, nor does the game give much help figuring it out. Whose orders are my units following? Why, sometimes, when I command a unit to move to a spot on the map, does the commander move? Why, at other times, does the entire unit move and the commander go off somewhere else?

I'm currently playing the Waterloo full battle scenario, with courier for all levels of command. I tried to commit the entire Guard Division to a flank attack. The divisional commander moved by himself, so I committed the brigades piecemeal. Well, the brigade went off to the attack, but the brigade commander seems to be following the divisional commander. I'm sure there's a logical explanation, somewhere between toggling the TC flag on or off at one or the other echelon, but I cannot figure it out. And at some point I want to just throw in the towel.

It seems to me that the entire system could be replaced by a somewhat simpler one: at the beginning of the game, all units have a "don't move on their own initiative" tag that changes when you give them an order. Give a commander an order, and he detaches from the larger unit and moves on his own. Reattach him, and he follows the directions of his commander. If you want to have a "Don't deviate from my orders" tag -- ie, the current command system -- make that a separate flag, but don't mix it in with the question of whether or not a unit responds to orders from a higher echelon.

More importantly though, make it transparent whose orders a unit is following. Maybe a little bit of text, like the targeting text. "Unit is moving on army commander's initiative." "Unit is moving on own initiative."

Another idea - when you click on a unit, list any incoming orders by courier. That way you know if a unit hasn't received orders yet, or is just ignoring you.

And finally, it would be great if, when you clicked on a commander, all subordinate units would be a different color on the battle map.

Whatever tools you used to debug Command and Control, maybe give us access to them - at least to know what our own forces are doing!



+100!



mitra76 -> RE: A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (8/20/2015 3:56:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nijis

The Take Command flagging system is NOT intuitive, nor does the game give much help figuring it out. Whose orders are my units following? Why, sometimes, when I command a unit to move to a spot on the map, does the commander move? Why, at other times, does the entire unit move and the commander go off somewhere else?
I'm currently playing the Waterloo full battle scenario, with courier for all levels of command. I tried to commit the entire Guard Division to a flank attack. The divisional commander moved by himself, so I committed the brigades piecemeal. Well, the brigade went off to the attack, but the brigade commander seems to be following the divisional commander. I'm sure there's a logical explanation, somewhere between toggling the TC flag on or off at one or the other echelon, but I cannot figure it out. And at some point I want to just throw in the towel.


A suggestion: when engaged (it means at least one brigade or battery of unit enter in fight) the AI of division starts a process of deployment of troops not already engaged around the fighting zone, which can take time because a division can occupies much space, only after the not engaged brigades (usually for obvious reason is the battery which start the fight) can start to move again if the division commander is sufficiently aggressive to assign "offensive stances" to the brigades. If you want avoid all the process beucase you feel make mass and speed is more important, assign "hold to the last" stance to the division commander, it will block all the process above and the brigade will continue the march until engaged directly.

The same concept is valid for the brigades, if you set hold to the last you don't disable the AI but the reaction distance to the enemy is at "weapon range" which for infantry is at 150 yards and only against weaker enemies. All out attack engage the nearest enemy inside a range variable between the more the 300-800 yards also if 4 times stronger than the brigades. Alol the other stances works with different values inside these ranges, but the logic is this one. This is the primary role of brigade stance, there're regiment reactions depending from them for distance\morale checks, but for the player is important consider the primary role when organize a brigade attack.





nijis -> RE: A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (9/1/2015 7:45:11 PM)

That's good to know - and I'll try it - but it's not intuitive, easy to remember, or transparent when it's going on. In fact, I'd go as far to say that if you need tricks like that, then that shows up a deficiency in the system. None of this is a criticism of the AI in itself, just of the interface.

It is possible to do a realistic command and control system that's easy for a player to follow, and again I would put the Command Ops series as a model. You'd need a few more changes - like a close-in zoom on the overhead map - but I'd recommend those anyway.



mitra76 -> RE: A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (9/1/2015 9:13:06 PM)

quote:

That's good to know - and I'll try it - but it's not intuitive, easy to remember, or transparent when it's going on. In fact, I'd go as far to say that if you need tricks like that, then that shows up a deficiency in the system. None of this is a criticism of the AI in itself, just of the interface.


I know is not immediate, but is really easy and linear after you know how set things in order to have what you want (the hold to the last is not a trick, is the correct command to use in order to obtain what you wanted to do above); the base concepts for the player to know in order to play well are really 5 or 6. What is still missing a good guide, but preparing Tactical Documentation (glorious name for How-to) and Videos with and after the release of patch are already on the list.

Consider that the game is set for play from the 3d and not from the 2d map, and at the maximum realism you play at ground level without references of your or enemy units on the map and giving order using couriers which sometime take 10-15 minutes to pass the order (if they're not intercepted).
You can imagine the Command Ops system of interface (I used to play a lot the game) cannot work at this level, this doens't mean there's not margin of change of course



nijis -> RE: A few suggestions to make C&C more transparent (9/9/2015 5:11:08 PM)

Okay - I can see the complications if you're trying to do Headquarters in the Saddle.

Still, a real-life commander would have far more visual clues as to what is going on than a player in any game, not to mention a staff that can help him figure things out.

There is also the problem of players in a game wondering if a unit's strange behavior is a feature or a bug, or if they didn't use the order system correctly. (People tend not to suspect reality is bugged, although frankly it would explain a lot.) It might not be fully realistic, but I would recommend that players should easily be able to find out whether units are acting on their orders or the orders of AI subordinates, if there was a misinterpretation of orders, and whether or not new orders are en route.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.03125