Grumblers musing

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Jack and Dave,

Thanks.
I am being extra careful about my tone and content.
I just threw out some thoughts that may go against the grain.

I also have read on the other forum what the intent is for the development of the Campaign Series and how they are going to split it apart as three separate games (yes, I am a free market capitalist and understand about making money). But, I was concerned about the comments about porting over all the great things that they created for ME into those games.

I brought up my cautionary comment that I have always stated "do whatever you want with ME but do not ruin my CS". If a different view cannot be expressed we all become yes men?

You are right, Jack, about things being different and keeping the game(s) alive.
And, you are correct Dave. I will use all my energy to not devolve the discussion over comments which I find smug and condescending. Others might see them as humor.
If I get humorous I hope the others will see it that way too?

Had the day off and attempted to play a few of the larger scenarios and also back to the boot camps. Still "disappointed" is the only word I can come up with. It's either a serious learning curve or not my cup of tea.
If it is not my cup of tea I would like to not have "my tea" soured.

And, a simple note, my time off is precious to me. I hope I am not wasting my time.

HSL

[Warhorse]

Hang in there, Ed! It isn't easy to make a jump from WW2 to the more modern stuff, AND to also have new stuff come along with it! I'm a stick in the mud guy, and am getting used to it as well, I enjoyed being a part of this game and others to come! I do commend you Sir on trying it out! If you like, I will play a game with you, something small please?!! LOL, I hear ya bout precious time off, I'm sure my boss has heard that speech from me enough times about working Saturdays, and/or late!!

Anywho, let me know, ok?

[Big Dawg]

Ed,
No worries.  I completely understand & I intended no offense.  I did not detect any either so we are good!!

The game has many similarities to  the CS EF & WF, but  just as many differences.  One major difference is the theater itself is mostly desert. 

I am still trying to figure out the new additions.  Hell, I never learned how to program my VCR!

I am looking for part time work as I have 2 in college & one is a sophmore in HS so my gaming is mainly against the AI at this point.

I do miss the comradery years ago before Combat Mission pulled many players away.

Best to you & yours.

Jack

[Crossroads]

1948 to 1985 is a lot of ground to be covered.

I believe the 1948 scenarios feel very much like the early war scenarios for those familiar with CS. Ad hoc militias, even regular army equipment not really that great. Range and effect of weapons is not that great.

1950s-1960s scenarios see better equipped forces in the battle field, yet the "late war" CS combined arms tactics still work a treat imho. Importance of recon becomes more obvious, as weapons now pack a punch.

Enter the 1970s, and it is a new game. Humbling of the tank, says one of the scenarios names. Helos enter the fray as well. Going into 1980s, and while there might be less counters in the game some of them are truely deadly. If you see it first, likely you will kill it first.

So, as the saying goes: something old, something new, and at least for some, something blue in a form of new features or changes to existing ones.

With the new EFOW LOS calculation, recon while increasingly important, becomes more difficult too, for you don't see the visibility from a certain hex unless you have friendly eyes there. Battlefield is inherently a darker more dangerous place. It is a conscious design decision, it is for EFOW only, so if you don't like it for now there's the regular FOW available.

In our internal wish list there's a concept of FOW Slider, where these could be more finely tuned. Not likel in 1.01 yet, but later.

As always, you guys spot something make a specific comment about it and we surely take a note of it. This is a 1.00 release, and already a lot of feedback from Matrix fora is seeing their way into 1.01.

Finally, there is no drift between the 2D and 3D teams. They are not dependent of each others, both sides can have independent design wishes and implementations. At the moment there's two 3D designers and one 2D designer, but that is not important as such. Both sides of the games continue to be developed, while the game engine is designed to work smoothly which ever of the seven available views is being deployed.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I guess where my frustration is concentrated does not depend solely on whether the game is WWII in play style, or the more modern tactical style (I can handle that too).

As I said, I played versus the AI both ways in the boot camps and the smaller scenarios. What happened in the smaller scenarios was eye opening.

I forget it's name, but in one scenario I was the Israelis who humped over hills to fight the enemy on a peninsula. Destroyed the AA guns along the way and even brought in Helos in the end to take a rear victory hex and radar station, one helo was shot at long range from a triple AA gun and destroyed. The other survived long enough to disembark it's passenger and get destroyed by close range small arms fire before it could fly away. The enemy resisted OK and even had a few assaults that knocked my boys back.

Playing in the reverse role was interesting. I did not expect to be tossed around like a rag doll, have all but one AA gun destroyed but even the one could not score hits at range. Then the Israeli helos swooped in and were airborne one hex away from machine gunners and AA guns, still loaded. I figured scratch two helos and their passengers, to rack up some points. It did not happen. I fired the AA and saw no effect ... twice. I fired the Mg's and small arms weapons multiple times to no avail. Bad luck die rolls? I replayed the scenario from the same side and it was almost a repeat of the play all the way to the helos parking next to my units and daring me to fire. Same results.

In my second PBEM game I am down to three tank platoons that sit and watch the Israeli infantry getting picked to pieces. I used up all 11 of my air strikes, my artillery is running low on ammo and I have stooped to letting my infantry try it's luck at Opt fire because it was totally ineffective against the enemy armor and infantry when I fired it myself. With nine or so turns left of me just plotting artillery fire where I think my infantry stands a chance of surviving the turn, it does not give me a satisfying experience (one where I say "hey, great game") let alone "great" scenario.

Edit: One thing that I did not mention is that my opponent took an unsupported strong point forward of my lines on turn three. Combined with the victory hexes around the strong point my opponent had a major victory. At that point I felt that it would require me to fight back into the enemy to retake the victory hexes and destroy whatever was in my way, to take away his victory and possibly gain one for myself. Nope! Did not even get off the ground. His armor was so fast and effective that my armor was not able to form up let alone advance.

I dunno. It is like playing an EF campaign game only to have your armor whittled down by the more effective AI's artillery fire which disables more often (and a disable is a kill that has to be replaced in campaigns). Watching it happen from small mortars opt firing as the armor moves forward is frustrating. Reverse it and try it from the other side and disables just do not happen as frequently. I learned to live with that. Part of the game ... move on.
Not as disappointing as the above, in ME.

Mike, to be honest I do not know what scenario to play to give me a better experience. If you have one in mind send it my way; esilcoxjr(at)gmail(dot)com. I'm willing to give it a go. Smaller is fine. I really do not enjoy the bigger scenarios unless they are team games.

HSL

[Warhorse]

Hi Ed, I'll look into them, definitely won't be Assaulting Budapest, I just got my clock cleaned royally as the Egyptians in that one! We don't even have to register if you don't like it, I don't care too much about standings, more the joy of playing the game, although there was NO joy in that last one!!

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Hi Ed, I'll look into them, definitely won't be Assaulting Budapest, I just got my clock cleaned royally as the Egyptians in that one! We don't even have to register if you don't like it, I don't care too much about standings, more the joy of playing the game, although there was NO joy in that last one!!

Mike,

You've always been a class act. Thanks.

HSL

[The Real Rake]

Yup. Bought it.
I hope enjoyment can eventually come. My two forays into PBEM have been awful.
I hope I did not waste my money.

Disappointing (the one word that comes to mind each time I press the button.)
Tried the boot camps. OK.

I hope PBEM balance will become a priority.

It is easy on the eyes. But, I hope the 2-D crowd does not take it completely over.
Don't care for the LOS rules. Hope they are not ported over to the Campaign Series.

I do hope that ME and the Vietnam releases will stand alone.
In my opinion you should not mess too much with EF/WF/RS. Please. That could suck the fun right out of playing.

Windows 8.1 (turned it into Win10) and now this ... CSME. 

Now I know what Earl felt like. Maybe my time will come sooner than later.

Thanks team!

Ed,

Thanks for sharing...  I've been a bit hesitant about sharing my initial reaction to ME on the Matrix board; most seem giddy regarding the new "features", and my one post about that subject hasn't yet solicited any response.

It sounds as if my results in the "Bootcamp" scenarios was a bit better than yours, managing at least a Minor Victory in all.  In the one scenario that I've played to completion (From Russia With Love), I wound up with an overwhelming Major, although it was barely a minor going into the final turn.  I haven't played PBEM in years, though I've thought lately that it was time to try once again.

I'm... "ok" with the new spotting rules.  It's a big change, and while I certainly prefer the older EF/WF/RS LOS, I can understand the thought process behind the switch.  My major disappointments have to do with the friendly fire "feature" and the incomprehensible (IMO! ) decision to hide damage results in EFOW.

I've had friendly fire affect my troops on a couple of occasions... both were playing in 3D mode where I clicked within the limits of the hex that I intended to target, but evidently, it was close enough to the edge that it targeted the hex that  my guys were in.  This mis-selection of hexes has happened on a couple of other occasions, too.  I've left-clicked on one hex, then right-clicked on the hex to which I intended to move and found the wrong unit moved (i.e., the unit in the adjacent hex). 

The "feature" that really puts me off is the hidden results.  I haven't yet read a solid reason behind this design change, but I cannot fathom why this was done.  I know of no other game where the results of combat are hidden, and this information is, again IMO, necessary to making rational decisions going forward.  Yes, I can click on the enemy unit's hex to see if it's been disrupted, and I can view the damage dialogue to see if any SP's were lost.  I just don't see the point in adding extra steps.

Jason...  if you're listening, please don't misunderstand my post.  I very much appreciate the continued work on the series and a LOT of good things have happened.  I use 2D at least as often as 3D and the new zoom levels are an exceptional enhancement (IMO ).  I too prefer WW II, and am a bit behind the times when it comes to the capabilities of modern equipment and their best tactical uses.  Helicopters look like they'll be a game-changer, though I've only used them in the Bootcamp scenario.  Overall, I think there's a lot to like.

But...  the two things I've mentioned have been off-putting enough that I've probably played EF/WF 2-3 times more often than ME since the latter's release.  They are the reason that I've only played one additional scenario after the bootcamps.  I really hope a FOW slider is in the works, or at least some thought is given to making optional rules out of the friendly fire and hidden damage "features".  Standard FOW is not an option for me...  it gives away a little bit TMI.

Rant over...  Rake out

[Jason Petho]

But...  the two things I've mentioned have been off-putting enough that I've probably played EF/WF 2-3 times more often than ME since the latter's release.  They are the reason that I've only played one additional scenario after the bootcamps.  I really hope a FOW slider is in the works, or at least some thought is given to making optional rules out of the friendly fire and hidden damage "features".  Standard FOW is not an option for me...  it gives away a little bit TMI.

Rant over...  Rake out

Good day, Rake.

Understandable about your concerns with Friendly Fire. They take some getting used to, when they were first introduced, I also had my fair share of losses. Initially, I was annoyed, but the more I played, the more I enjoyed having the feature. Rarely now do I misclick in the dozens of games I have played now, but it happens. Unfortunately, Blue on Blue happens.

Hidden results in Extreme Fog of War is part of making the Extreme part of the Optional Rule more prevelant. It was really insignificant before, now it is very significant. The information is all still there, it just isn't there instantaneously like one was used to from playing the old games. It requires a few moments to dig that information out, with the intention or representing combat at the command level one is typically playing.

Apart from the Adaptive A/I (which is also in play during PBEM games!), it has the most direct impact on game play and will be noticed the most by players of the original series, because it is a shock to how they played before. A negative reaction is perfectly understandable and reasonable. Pretty well the same reaction when Extreme Assault was introduced, for me as well.

I recommend giving it a chance, try it out.

The FOW slider is noted, for sure.

Jason Petho

[berto]

The "feature" that really puts me off is the hidden results.  I haven't yet read a solid reason behind this design change, but I cannot fathom why this was done.  I know of no other game where the results of combat are hidden, and this information is, again IMO, necessary to making rational decisions going forward.  Yes, I can click on the enemy unit's hex to see if it's been disrupted, and I can view the damage dialogue to see if any SP's were lost.  I just don't see the point in adding extra steps.

As Jason put it so well:

Hidden results in Extreme Fog of War is part of making the Extreme part of the Optional Rule more prevelant. It was really insignificant before, now it is very significant. The information is all still there, it just isn't there instantaneously like one was used to from playing the old games. It requires a few moments to dig that information out, with the intention or representing combat at the command level one is typically playing.

The blue highlight says it all. In the real-time FOW of actual combat, the higher level force commander (represented by you, the player) would not know casualties to any detail, instantaneously. (Each turn representing six minutes of "real time", right?) The force commander would have to take the time and effort to "dig" for such info.

Especially for EFOW, the intent is to move away from God-like, know-it-all, real-time omniscience.

That said, in ME 1.01, for EFOW only, we will change the "unknown effects against unknown units" to, for example, something like "losses inflicted" or "no losses inflicted", without spelling out the precise details. So make EFOW a bit less extreme, and make the Damage Report box not quite so useless.