Who is happy with Command?

[adek670]

Erik,

For me, being able to play this in real time is what the sim is all about. 1:5 just doesn't seem to bring the reality to the game - I would like game seconds to be seconds no more no less - the game is, for me anyway, broke if it cannot replicate this.

I really want to like this game - but at the moment, its getting shelved until the updates.

Reaper

[Tomcat84]

And to answer the original question: I am very happy with Command. Is it perfect? No. Is there things that should be improved? Yes.

But what there already is so far is very satisfying to me. I got Harpoon 3 but it never quite seemed to do what I wanted to do and had some limitations that turned me off it. Going into Command I was not sure if this would be different, would it hold my interest or not? And it certainly did.

Additionally, for the way forward, I got into the beta in the last wave. It seems like a while ago but really looking back it was about the 24th of August that I got my first chance to play, just over a month ago only. If I look at what the small dev team accomplished in just that month, I am confident about the future. Bugs reported were fixed quickly almost all of them, and also feature requests a number still made it in, in such a short timeframe.

So is there things I want, requested, that havent been done yet? Of course, I want better waypoint control, better time on target strike planning etc. But the devs know this, they are planning on it and they are working their butts off on this an other aspects. I am already very pleased with what there is, and I know these guys are in it for the long haul and are making it better.

So to answer your question:

Me! I am happy

[miller7219]

I'm 60% happy. I'm a database lover and naval history buff, so the database itself is a gem for me. Although I'm not a scenario builder, I see the possibilities of Command's editor being endless and so robust that even scenario builder novices like me might give scenario building a try one day. I haven't studied the under the hood numbers and calculations or tested the modeling of various staples of air/naval warfare yet, but on the surface they look strong, deep, and realistic....on par and likely better and definitely more functions modeled than Harpoon ANW. Performance has been extremely good on my system, unlike some others are reporting.

Now, unfortunately the 40%. The AI is simple and weak at best, thus making the mission editor and auto attack features mostly undesirable for anything but the simplest mundane functions (like ASW patrols). Manual control is underdeveloped and missing even some basic "givens" of the genre that makes it an extreme exercise in babysitting if you want your forces to have any hope of success or survival. The UI is unpolished and lacks a full understanding of what a player wants and needs to become a true armchair naval commander. I'm trying to be kind and constructive, but I'd be lying if I said it was even close to what I wanted it to be.

Will I continue playing. Yes. It will get better with every new release, and I expect we'll being seeing very frequent and many releases beginning very, very soon to address Command's shortcomings. These guys have put a tremendous amount of work into this and although the naval simulation community isn't known for its charitable manner, I think we all can and should cut them some slack and give them the benefit of the doubt and trust they are reading every post and taking in every gripe with respect and good intent. I for one am not sorry I purchased Command, maybe not for what it is today, but what I believe it will be....just hopefully sooner than later!

[ExMachina]

We are also looking at an option to run in 1:1 mode with 1-sec pulse length (a.k.a. "Harpoon mode") instead of the current 0.1 sec. This effectively sacrifices fidelity for the sake of performance and in tests has dramatically increased speed.

Seriously, I couldn't care less if 1:1 is actually one second long.

[ExMachina]

The game has all the potential that I had hoped for AND the implementation is pretty impressive (I still haven't had a crash or freeze--this is amazing for a v1.0 game of this scale). No regrets on buying.

The weakness of Command are the "staff" AI and some aspects of the UI. I could handle one or the other but having to micromanage with a sometimes clunky interface to compensate for an incapable AI might be frustrating for some folks (I'm ok with it, but also think that it will get much better with version updates)

Right now I'm very happy with the game and because it's so stable to begin with, I think the Command developers can jump right into making improvements (rather than bug fixes).

[midnight_mangler]

Lets be honest - it's not perfect. But for what it purports to be, it's pretty darn close. And for those who know the dev team from the harpoon days, it's difficult of think of a better team of perfectionists. I have a great deal of trust in these guys to take Command ever higher.

I for one am very optimistic about the future. The genre is headed for a rebirth - and a great one.

[Grim.Reaper]

ORIGINAL: ExMachina

The weakness of Command are the "staff" AI and some aspects of the UI. I could handle one or the other but having to micromanage with a sometimes clunky interface to compensate for an incapable AI might be frustrating for some folks (I'm ok with it, but also think that it will get much better with version updates)

These two items pretty much sum it up for me....if the AI management and UI can be cleaned up, I see a lot of potential. If not, I can see this being a frustrating experience for me since I prefer not to micromanage myself. Development team seems very responsive so I have high hopes.

[JRyan]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

It's not just testers...it's programming resources., The beta testers might have come up with 1000 issues/suggestions. The development team has to prioritize and decide what is done pre-release and what is done post-release.

This...I am sure the list is rather large. I had a few on it myself.

[MaB1708]

I was not talking about suggestions. To have them considered and if suitable implemented during the weeks and months - fine with me.
It is about issues or functionalities that do not work as designed. If some of them are found within hours of release by non-beta-testers within the tutorial missions even, for me that means insuffcient beta-testing or -testers.
It is not about what is tackled pre- or post-release, it is about identifying what has to be solved prior to release.

But all this does definitely sound unhappier then I am with COMMAND, as stated earlier from my side and others in this thread, its on its way, we trust the guys behind the projects and at the end, everything will be fine.

M

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Reaper

Erik,

For me, being able to play this in real time is what the sim is all about. 1:5 just doesn't seem to bring the reality to the game - I would like game seconds to be seconds no more no less - the game is, for me anyway, broke if it cannot replicate this.

I really want to like this game - but at the moment, its getting shelved until the updates.

Reaper

So you'll run a two-year scenario over the span of at least two years? I'd like to see that [:)]

[RoryAndersonCDT]

I am 110% pleased wtih this game! One thing I've noticed is that people are simply unaware of the sandbox gameplay; the scenarios are great but nothing compares with your own imagination!

I'm going to be streaming some additional videos today:
tm.asp?m=3420399

[adek670]

cant imagine a two year dog-fight but hey, who knows.....

Quote from warfareSims.com "Relentless Realism",

I just think that the fact that you cant play it at the recommended specs at 1:1 means its not doing what it is designed to do.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

I don't have a good computer but I was able to live stream a scenario with around 1500 units yesterday! Live streaming means my computer is using alot of effort elsewhere. I think what you are experiencing is a bug that will be fixed!

tm.asp?m=3420399

[adek670]

yeah, loved your vid.. Watched it earlier.

Am interested in your specs.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

I've got a i5 processor with 4 gb ram, nVidia 460 GTX.

[RoryAndersonCDT]

I'm thinking of upgrading to help with livestreaming... But the game runs just fine if I don't try to stream live video to the internet while encoding it locally!

[adek670]

is the i5 much faster than the Q6600 quad CPU? running it a 3.00GHz with 8 gigs of ram and a SSD 2 x gtx 260s in sli - although I don think gpu capability is even tested by this game

Well... I will continue to watch your vids.. keep up the good work.. they are superb.


Reaper

[adek670]

Sunburn,

your reasons below are why I would like to play in 1:1

Because there are certain occasions where you really do want the camera to "come down" and literally hang just over the scene of the action.

Examples:

* Cluster bomb/warhead bursting over e.g. a group of vehicles, the bomblet cloud gradually spreading out and finally impacting, most of the vehicles being wiped out.

* Similarly, a Tornado/JP-233 run over a runway. (If you've added a custom image overlay, it's just like being there).

* Platoons of tanks and other vehicles exchanging fire, tracers and near-misses everywhere.

* A close-in dogfight between aircraft, with cannon tracers and IR missiles criss-crossing.

* Being surrounded by near-misses from enemy artillery, for example: http://www.warfaresims.com/WarSimsWP/wp ... ashes1.png

At these and other moments you don't really have time to notice the jagged coastline or the pixellated mountain range. You're too busy picking your jaw off the floor [:D]

< Message edited by Sunburn -- 9/27/2013 3:52:28 PM >

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Reaper

cant imagine a two year dog-fight but hey, who knows.....

Quote from warfareSims.com "Relentless Realism",

I just think that the fact that you cant play it at the recommended specs at 1:1 means its not doing what it is designed to do.

So... extrapolating this viewpoint, when the guys at CERN simulate e.g. a matter-antimatter collision, and they're running a hyper-detailed simulation on top of a super-computer and it still takes weeks to simulate a few micro-seconds of this cosmic interaction, does this mean their simulation is not realistic, because simulating one second takes longer than one second?

You can probably guess I do not subscribe to this view.

IMHO, Command does EXACTLY what it was designed to do. It conforms to the priorities that we, and those who grok the stuff we do, have set upon it.

When we speak about realism, we mean weapon DLZ parameters, radar scan vertical beamwidths and their effect on sidelobe jamming, a towed array's angular resolution as a function of its aperture width, and a virtual captain's/pilot's ability to make sense of all these and use them to his advantage. For us, that's where realism lies. If a sim takes shortcuts on fidelity so that you can have a smooth 30-60 FPS visual experience that's not realism for us.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Baloogan

I am 110% pleased wtih this game! One thing I've noticed is that people are simply unaware of the sandbox gameplay; the scenarios are great but nothing compares with your own imagination!

I'm going to be streaming some additional videos today:
tm.asp?m=3420399

Thanks. We view it that way too!

Mike