Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Tacview improvement priorities

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Tacview improvement priorities Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/19/2019 5:24:48 AM   
Dimitris


Posts: 12497
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
Okay, let's all step back a bit.

I think JOhnnyr raises a fair point, in that outsiders / newcomers who are completely unfamiliar with Tacview are likely to take it for granted that it includes FOW, because that's what they are used to with other games (JFC, NWAC etc.).

While people who are already familiar with Tacview (incl. the dev team, and the myriad of CMANO players who consistently asked for Tacview integration in the past) consider it normal that it has no built-in FOW because that's how it has always worked since its inception.

So, this is not a case of the devs/publishers deliberately misleading anyone, but of different awareness of the product, assumptions and expectations.

< Message edited by Dimitris -- 12/19/2019 5:53:12 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 61
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/19/2019 5:28:35 AM   
Dimitris


Posts: 12497
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr
Not to stir the pot, but you are being a bit ridiculous . Anyone not familiar with Tacview would 100% assume it uses Fog of War, because that's how games work, and how every game ever made has worked. It just is.


Not to be too pedantic, but FOW is not always a given, even in pretty mainstream strategy/wargaming titles. Have a look at Unity of Command (the first one), for instance.

_____________________________


(in reply to JOhnnyr)
Post #: 62
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/20/2019 3:51:40 AM   
LargeDiameterBomb

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 3/3/2019
Status: offline
I bought the CMO/Tacview package on Steam and used Tacview for about a week and realized it added very little of value for me. This was not an effect of any fault that I could find with implementation of Tacview in CMO, it's just that CMO, as a fundamental concept, is a game that was not primarily meant to be experienced from the eyes of a fighter pilot or something like that (This is in no way meant to imply that I fault the developers of CMO for making Tacview an option - I perfectly understand the reasons the developers had for making this decision).

I understand the longing for Tacview as fundamentally coming from the drive for ever nicer graphics in games. The drive for ever better graphics is a long--held mainstream opinion among gamers which i can't say I disagree with in general (Note that this being mainstream is not at all meant to belittle the people who hold those views).

The concept of CMO is on the other hand not a game at all focused on ever nicer-looking graphics: It is an operational level (Primary air/naval) battle simulator with a focus on realistic simulation while maintaining playability and with almost zero focus on a fancy graphical representation.

So this conflict the CMO community has here is in my opinion a clash between two different computer game traditions: The more mainstream minded players's quest for nicer-looking graphical representation and the typical war-sim player's valuing realism.

When I play CMANO i don't use any sound, very seldom any music, I use NATO symbols for units and sometimes turns the lights down a bit to get the feeling I am sitting in Cheyenne Mountain in 1984 so I am squarely one of the people looking for simulation realism while maintaining playability with graphics, sound effects and music being of very little use. That is the type of immersion suitable for this game for me.
The thing that most would heighten immersion for me, except a more realistic and playable game, is implementing some way more advanced version of SeaHag that would heighten the feeling for being an OiC of an operation surrounded by your staff in a command facility by having people talk to you frequently).

I though understand if most new players would expect there to be fog of war in Tacview when they bought CMO since it is a pretty universal feature across games and that lack of FoW can be very irritating.
On the other hand the developers could hardly have done more to inform potential buyers about Tacview lacking Fog of War. In the material that was released they were very clear that Tacview was a separate product that was sold as is and FoW is not a feature of Tacview. And besides, refunds were possible.

Now, to solutions. I have no insight into how hard it would be implement FoW in Tacview (But I guess that for instance how to represent units detected as being somewhere within an area of 3x3 nm that's constantly changing will be very hard to give a fair representation in Tacview space that is not just confusing and irritating with units jumping around on the screen from second to second without makinga a substantial development effort) but I realize this would probably increase sales in the long run, potentially leading to a better outcome for all interested parties, besides making those who value Fow in Tacview happy.

If implementing FoW is a medium to hard, quite time consuming project, it might be better to include the functionality in a Chains of War style-update to make it a selling point for a product to bring in further revenue for development of the game.
It's not like those of us that are more of the typical purely realism-minded war-sim types have not waited for our favorite and quite fundamentally game-changing functionality to be added for very long times (For me that is the Advanced Strike Planner or Weather fronts plus now in CMO, when it seems to be a possibility, complete editability of units).

I just wanted to give a different perspective on this topic that I have not seen represented in a single unified post in the thread, from mostly the other side of the issue while still considering the at least in parts valid critique of lack of FoW.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 63
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/20/2019 11:56:15 AM   
Japo32

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 8/12/2017
Status: offline
I don't know if implement FoW is difficult in Tacview, as Tacview is not designed for making the FoW feature and it is appart from CMO....
BUT "if Mohammed does not go to the mountain, the mountain will go to Mohammed"

The DEV TEAM has the ability to modify CMO to HIDE (even they are hidden) from STREAMING to Tacview, the units that the player has no contact. So when the player detect a contact that JUMPS in distance because it is an estimation, then the devs, could just stream that contact with same positions and model to tacview. Don't just not show in CMO the unseen contacts. REMOVE THEM from CMO and make them born, when they are contacted (and also make them die, when they are lost).
A live database that reads CMO should be able to do that.


IF the devs see that imposible to make, then please at least allow us to use Tacview as AAR mode. I think if DCS, IL-2 can record all events and positions of all units to be seen after battle in Tacview, CMO can do the same.

< Message edited by Japo32 -- 12/20/2019 12:00:46 PM >

(in reply to LargeDiameterBomb)
Post #: 64
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/20/2019 12:24:09 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 4891
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
My head hurts after reading that post.

(in reply to Japo32)
Post #: 65
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/20/2019 12:34:10 PM   
JOhnnyr

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

My head hurts after reading that post.


You might need glasses?

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 66
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/20/2019 3:54:54 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 4891
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I think I need colored glasses for that post.

(in reply to JOhnnyr)
Post #: 67
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/21/2019 12:17:04 PM   
TheCabal


Posts: 98
Joined: 1/2/2013
Status: offline
Please implement some sort of FoW, make the AAR/replay possible which even the Free and Standard TacView versions provide for other supported titles as a BASIC feature... I mean even Fleet Command had this, it was nice to see how I performed... how I read/misread stuff (where the gods eye come in handy (with an on/off button ofcourse). I read somewhere that ONLY THE PRO version of Command does support AAR/replays... seriously? If yes and if I didn't misread something... we are talking about a Fleet-Command/688(i) feature here.. available two decades ago.

< Message edited by TheCabal -- 12/21/2019 12:20:06 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 68
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/21/2019 7:06:10 PM   
Japo32

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 8/12/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I think I need colored glasses for that post.


The ones that makes you see in 3D? Well... if you don't understand it then I could explain to you in Spanish. Meanwhile I only expect to hear something from the devs, that actually are the ones that can make CMO better.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 69
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/21/2019 7:56:29 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 4891
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Its the fact you used three colors in your post. Why? That's not a language barrier.

(in reply to Japo32)
Post #: 70
RE: Tacview improvement priorities - 12/24/2019 3:18:20 AM   
sfbaytf

 

Posts: 1041
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anathema

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf


quote:

ORIGINAL: JOhnnyr


quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

If I didn't have just about all the fightsims made, I'd get a refund for tacview. It really destroys the game in many aspects. What needs to happen for it to be useful in this situation is to be able to hit the record button, save the file and then be able to view actions in tacview in playback mode as a AAR. I don't see why that can't be done. Its the way its used in games like DCS and IL2. I don't see why it can't be done for CMO.


It can be, and is done for CMO PE. For whatever reason they don't want to allow it in the consumer version.


Kinda strange as to why they don't want it in the commercial version. Not sure what the reasoning is.



If you are charging professionals significantly more and I don't know the exact price, but let's say 10 times as much for the sake of argument then you are going to have to give those customers value for money and a reason to pay the higher price.

Considering professionals and the military use CMO and Tacview for AARs, simulated exercises and teaching then that is an obvious feature you can offer to professionals to convince them to pay the far higher price, especially as the vast majority of home gamers aren't going to ever want or need to do an AAR.

I think it's actually a pretty clever decision and perfect way to differentiate the professional edition from the game we all play.


For some reason this conjures up the stories of the Pentagon paying $1000 for screwdrivers you can buy from a hardware store for $5.

(in reply to Anathema)
Post #: 71
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Tacview improvement priorities Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.156