Three Moves Ahead Review on Command

[ultradave]

Al
[/quote]

And finally .... I have never, without exception, played another game where the Devs are so willing to engage with players to improve the game.

This ^^^^^ a hundred time. Can't say this enough. The amount of material we've gotten for FREE - new features and platforms, makes paying for DLC a no-brainer. Best value for money around IMO.

[kevinkins]

Around the 44th minute of the recording one guy asserts Command is not well designed and then a few seconds later calls Command a "pretty" remarkable achievement. I believe the former was related to the UI and the later to the breath of the available units and post WWII combat scenarios. That being said, the assertions are conflicting and confusing to any potential player sitting on the fence. I guess one can chalk that up to the recording not being a written review that can go through the normal editorial process.

[SeaQueen]

WWII was really the beginning of what's there today. There was such a thing as combined arms then. Blitzkrieg was definitely about bringing together the disparate arms of armor, infantry, air power and artillery. The thing is, people were just starting to get a sense of what might be possible. Communications technology was just starting to take off, radar was a new thing, aircraft were just starting to be more than wood and fabric kites with engines, precious guided weapons were highly experimental secret weapons. Aircraft carriers were new, and carrier tactics were still a little experimental. Guided missiles were experimental and just barely entering service by the end of the war. Jet power and really long range bombers didn't appear until the end of the war. Back then the aircraft attacking strategic targets (e.g. B-17s or B-29s targeting industrial complexes) were distinct from the aircraft attacking tanks (e.g. P-47s, P-39s, B-25s). The tactical, operational, strategic levels of warfare remained distinct and the platforms which sought to achieve victories in the various levels of warfare remained distinct.

Today we're seeing the logical consequence of what was envisioned then, because the technology has advanced to keep up with the doctrine. Now, a few F-16s or F-15s might be tasked with attacking a strategic target like an industrial complex, or attacking tactical level targets providing close air support or battlefield interdiction.

The numbers of troops involved are also so much smaller. During WWII, a third of the American population was in uniform. Now, only tiny a fraction is in the service, and of those, you could probably fit everyone who is trained to actually close with and destroy the enemy into a mid-sized stadium. Now a days, a recon or SOF platoon (a tactical level formation) might provide laser designation against a strategic or operational target (headquarters, C3, early warning radars) to be struck by tactical aircraft (F-35, F/A-18). You couldn't do that kind of thing in WWII. In fact, these days, coordinating air and ground forces often seen as essential to the success of air power.

So yeah, everything works together in a way that was only being hinted at in WWII, and I don't think they really grasp that in that review.

ORIGINAL: DrRansom

SeaQueen - you get at a very interesting problem. I have seen that friends of mine with a lot of experience and history from WW2 and earlier games have a very hard time conceptually approaching modern warfare. The mindsets are totally different in a way that is hard to explain. WW2 nerds famously know everything about every vehicle and weapon, but there knowledge ends there. In modern warfare, you have to know everything about each unit and then know how to integrate them into a coherent package.

[Primarchx]

Let's get something straight. Command is a hard game to master, and not an easy one to pick up and just play. Games today barely have manuals, depending on opening missions with tons of baked-in demo info and tool tips. Modern warfare isn't that simple or straight forward. I've been playing modern naval war games my entire adult life and one thing I'll say, the arena of operations is not being simplified. Command IHMO is bold in modeling the nuances of this changing environment as functionally as possible given open sources.

You just can't walk into a game of this scope and magnitude as a neophyte and expect to grok it all out of the box. You can play Skyrim and not know a thing about sword fighting or disarming a trap except for what the two minute "here's how you do this" segment of the game shows you. A little bit of play later, it's like you've been doing that your entire life. When you play Command, it's an iterative learning experience that can take years to fully operationalize the interaction between sensors, platforms, weapons, environment and communication in determining how to effectively achieve a scenario mission.

I like that there has been more attention to tutorials. New players need to have operational segments of the game split out so they can concentrate on how to succeed in those narrow regimes. Then scenarios that combine a few of those segments together in a small engagement. Then build upwards from there. Monster scenarios are the last thing a new player should attempt to try and are daunting even for experienced players to fully manage.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx
When you play Command, it's an iterative learning experience that can take years to fully operationalize the interaction between sensors, platforms, weapons, environment and communication in determining how to effectively achieve a scenario mission.

I wonder if there's a tendency in Command for players to specialize in the arenas they're interested in? Maybe some players favor submarine focused scenarios while others prefer things to be air focused? Maybe some players tend to be more naval focused while others more interested in bombers and strike aircraft? It would make sense, given the learning curve, to say, "these are the things I REALLY want to play with, the rest is just background" and make/download scenarios focused on interesting questions in that area?

[thewood1]

You can see it in posts all the time. Look at the flight sim guys wanting to almost make it as detailed as a flight sim. The sub guys harking back to the days of sub details by companies like sonalyst. And then you have the slightly off-putting people obsessed with nukes.

[HalfLifeExpert]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

ORIGINAL: Primarchx
When you play Command, it's an iterative learning experience that can take years to fully operationalize the interaction between sensors, platforms, weapons, environment and communication in determining how to effectively achieve a scenario mission.

I wonder if there's a tendency in Command for players to specialize in the arenas they're interested in? Maybe some players favor submarine focused scenarios while others prefer things to be air focused? Maybe some players tend to be more naval focused while others more interested in bombers and strike aircraft? It would make sense, given the learning curve, to say, "these are the things I REALLY want to play with, the rest is just background" and make/download scenarios focused on interesting questions in that area?

That's definitely me. When I first started playing CMANO, my focus was on surface engagements (Ships vs ships). Gradually I explored submarines and aircraft, to the point where probably my main focus would be naval aviation, chiefly the operations of Aircraft Carriers and Carrier Battle Groups.

[DrRansom]

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
I wonder if there's a tendency in Command for players to specialize in the arenas they're interested in? Maybe some players favor submarine focused scenarios while others prefer things to be air focused? Maybe some players tend to be more naval focused while others more interested in bombers and strike aircraft? It would make sense, given the learning curve, to say, "these are the things I REALLY want to play with, the rest is just background" and make/download scenarios focused on interesting questions in that area?

That is very true in my case, I stick to 70s to 90s scenarios with heavy focus on aircraft, because that is the era I know best. The game really allows specialization in player focus.

[Cik]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

You can see it in posts all the time. Look at the flight sim guys wanting to almost make it as detailed as a flight sim. The sub guys harking back to the days of sub details by companies like sonalyst. And then you have the slightly off-putting people obsessed with nukes.

no one here actually wants to make it as detailed as a flight sim. maybe the flight planning tools should be "flight sim equivalent" but no one is really arguing that every missile should have it's own flight model or that every plane should have a list of 20,000 distinct quirks or avionics that would influence every aspect of it's operation.

[thewood1]

I was not talking specifically about you. Just take a look at some of the requests.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert
That's definitely me. When I first started playing CMANO, my focus was on surface engagements (Ships vs ships). Gradually I explored submarines and aircraft, to the point where probably my main focus would be naval aviation, chiefly the operations of Aircraft Carriers and Carrier Battle Groups.

I think the mistake people make when they start playing Command is that they think handling a whole carrier strike group effectively is going to be easy. It has all the tools necessary to do it, but I think that's one of the hardest things to do in the game because of the variety of platforms and missions involved.

To do it right you have to understand how to fight aircraft, ships, submarines, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles while potentially attacking targets defended by SAMs, guns, and more fighters. It'd be better to start off with smaller scenarios that deal with just one aspect of controlling a carrier and its supporting platforms. If you can't fight with a small surface action group, you probably won't be able to handle a carrier and win.

[BrianinMinnie]

Folk,

As a 1-2 times a week player, this is an incredible sim, land, sea and air, from WW2 to the near future in hardware and sensors. Every time I play I learn something new, every time I read these forums, I see something else to think about the next time I play.

Every time I watch "us"tube videos of playthroughs or tutorials, another possibility is presented to me.

I listened to the review and it was interesting to hear the games aspects from a different angle than my own and I took it as most things I read, watch, or listen too nowadays, more information to think about in relation to how we all think, see, listen and act upon after considering what the heck were all taking in. Then move on. its all good.

Long winded I know, however it doesn't matter if it's planning a alpha strike against a complex or just dropping a torp from a single helo vs mystery sub, I think its great reading what we all get out of this game.

[fatgreta1066]

ORIGINAL: Michael H

ORIGINAL: thewood1
And coming to the dev's forum and syaing you knew you'd piss off long time players is just plain poor form.

I'll address that one point specifically. I apologize because my initial comment was probably poorly worded. I didn't come here to poke at the forum or to say anything along the lines "Haha! This will chap their butts and I don't care!"

I went into the recording having a high degree of enthusiasm for the game. I had hoped that the others would share that enthusiasm, but as the show progressed I had the realization that it was not going to be the case. As they made their points, it became clear that this was going to be one of those shows that will not go over well with long time fans of the game. At that point I had a strong feeling that this type of response was going to happen. I do apologize that the show did not give the game you all are very passionate about the due that you feel was necessary.

I had hoped to come and possibly present a better face for the show, but clearly some people are upset and at this point I don't want to make anything worse. So, like I said, I'll continue to enjoy the game and hope you all do too.

I'll add my two cents here, in terms of how I reacted to this episode. to start with, I fell a bit in love with your podcast a little over a year ago and listened to a lot of old and new episodes. Over time, it seems to me that the show has developed a tendency to start out with everyone talking about their specific problems with the game in question, before even talking much about the game overall. That seems to start the show down a winding and hard to follow path (at least for me). It seems that recent episodes have done this more and more, but I'm not sure because (due to this) I've largely stopped listening to the show. Especially recent episdoes with Bruce on them seem to become really negative complainy things. I'll also say that this seems to me to be especially true when the game being reviewed is more along the lines of a hard core war game. I recall the review of Hearts of Iron IV, it very much had that flavor. And without question this episode did, big time. So as winter of wargaming approaches, I hope you take this feedback as constructive criticism. That's how I intend it at any rate, I don't want to come across as super negative.

[thewood1]

What I tend to find with semi-professional reviewers is they themselves don't like to be reviewed.

With that said, reviewing professionally is a difficult job if its done well. Balancing complaints, personal preferences, fan pressure, etc. I think that is why reviewers tend to get more negative as the progress. It is much easier to detail complaints over good points.