Early Impressions

[.Sirius]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

I think 'officially' it's around 1950 for the CWDB, but there are units there that pre-date that.

ORIGINAL: Temple

I may have missed this in the info posted, so bear with me...

What is the start date for the database? I guess I'm asking, what's the earliest scenario I can build? I have a bunch of Jane's and other resources that can be dusted off and put to good use again.

Also glad to hear that so many folks are pleased with the released product. I'm an old Harpoon player going back to the paper versions so this Sim is sounding like something up my alley. And my 60th birthday is coming up soon...[:D]

Hi guys glad you like command the Cold War DB runs from 1946-1979 with alot of WW2 platforns in it covering the early post war period

[MaB1708]

Downloaded last night (literally, my connection is...ahem...slow) and installed and started today after work, with big big concerns in regards to performance on my not-really-state-of-the-art XP desktop with 2.83 GHz. Sim started without any issues and runs smoothly, apart from the zoom function causing a minimal lag. I have no overview about which scenarios are really fat ones to test my performance, I took Operation Lightning Strike and I am ok with how my machine handels it. Yes, time compression is an issue, but nothing I worry about too much, patches may help and I will soon start to fiddle a little with my NVidiasettings.
I am happy that COMMAND is out now, thanks guys for your committment to taking...another simulation to a new standard.
Some quick questions (no, I had no time reading the manual, sorry...):
* Weapons do not show a "fuel" indicator when in the air and underway towards the target.
* When selecting a weapon e.g. the TACTOM I just assigned to attack an airfield, where can I find the information about the target that has been assigned? Do not see it in the side menu in the unit status
* Any way to find TOT for a given weapon?

So far, some quick ones. Looking forward for your continues support and dozens of great sceanrios to come from the public.

Bests,

Martin

[Primarchx]

1) Weapons do not show a "fuel" indicator when in the air and underway towards the target.
2) When selecting a weapon e.g. the TACTOM I just assigned to attack an airfield, where can I find the information about the target that has been assigned? Do not see it in the side menu in the unit status
3) Any way to find TOT for a given weapon?

1) Guided Weapons do have an 'endurance' bar by them on the map while they're in flight.

2) Go to the map, click on the target then select it's info bar in the RHS panel. That will be it's DB entry. Can't get there from the weapon dialog, though.

3) At this point - Math. Select the weapon then move the cursor to the target (but keep the weapon selected). In the black on-screen data box you'll see the distance to the selected unit (weapon) shown. Take that distance and divide by the weapon's speed to get time to impact.

[Temple]

ORIGINAL: ultradave

"OK, one more question. In the printed manual, how small is the font? Sadly I am no longer able to read small print like I used to. For a point of reference, I do have the full color manual from "Carriers at War" and find that I can still read it comfortably. If the color manual for Command is similar I'm be ok with it."

In the installation in a directory called Manuals, there is a pdf version as well as the ebook. I copied the pdf version to my desktop and if you do the same you can then open it with Acrobat where you can zoom and scroll like any pdf. The font is not that bad, but it is white on a black background which I find a little hard on the eyes. Zoomed in a little it's fine. (My eyes have trouble sometimes with the small fonts on my laptop too).

I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes, I understand there is a PDF version, but I am old-school and like the optional printed color manual. I was just wondering about the size of the font in the printed version.

[Temple]

ORIGINAL: .Sirius
Hi guys glad you like command the Cold War DB runs from 1946-1979 with alot of WW2 platforns in it covering the early post war period

Thanks, this looks pretty great to me! [:)]

[Yankee66]

While the price being undisputably high, it's also damn fine piece of software for an audience that is still considered being a rather small niche market.

I started playing these strategical/tactical wargames back in the day with Harpoon II, which was followed up later by Fleet Command and then Dangerous Waters. Inbetween came the "land combat" simulations like "Armored Task Force or Close Combat.

As of late, I played more "Total War" than any hardcore simulation. So I consider myself a returner to the warsim-genre. Not a complete newbie, but someone who once learned the ropes a while back and became rusty.

So, my first impression after playing it for a couple dozen hours:

The performance is good and it seems to run rock-stable. I am playing it on a Win7, 64Bit with 16 Gigs of RAM and a GTX 570 and haven't run into any problems so far.

The tutorials work really well. The way they are executed makes you read a little and think a lot. They take you by the hand and explain the basic concepts of the game through hands-on experience, while being clear and concise.
For me, they worked so well that I only looked into the manual to find out what custom overlays and the 1/3rd rule are, and I can still hold my own in most scenarios.

The "flow" of the game is impressive. Especially when looking at some rather clunky interfaces of other hardcore wargame titles.
Nothing you can do in the sim seems "hidden", and overall I had no problems putting missions together for my Units, then have them execute manual movement and firing orders in an emergency situation, before giving control back to the AI. This makes reacting to new situations easier than I thought and cuts down on the micromanagement.

From what I've seen of the AI, it pulls off believable and challenging tactics without making me feel like it's "cheating". I need to see more of it in more hours of gameplay to make a more detailed assessment. But the fact that it seemed to react to my actions in an appropriate way, and also differently in similar sessions, makes me like it from the get-go.

Something I always love to do is starting the scenario editor. And I did so with "Command" after just 2 or 3 hours of gameplay. And I love it. Again, nothing seems hidden or hard to reach, the concept of Triggers, Events and Actions isn't hard to grasp. Not entirely easy for those without prior knowledge, but also not hard to understand.

I was able to put together a very small test scenario, containing a carrier with a custom contingent of planes, a Sub and some land-based targets on a custom overlay in under an hour. The hardest part, if you can call it that, was setting up the custom overlay for the first time. Your explanation in the manual is really good and works well. The second time went much smoother and faster. Custom overlays are fun!

The sounds are kind of ok, although generic, and not without crackling. But looking at how much a game like this generally needs sound – like a cow needing a bicycle – it's not a big drawback or an annoyance. And I am sure there will be sound mods soon.

To conclude my early impression:

If you want to get into wargames, get back into wargames or get a modern wargame that's worth playing and also shows a lot of potential – get "Command".

The price of admission is high, no sugarcoating that, and the learning curve, although lower than in most hardcore sims, is still high, but if this game manages to build a strong community, I am sure it will provide years of wargaming fun.

[Temple]

ORIGINAL: Yankee66
<snip>
So, my first impression after playing it for a couple dozen hours:
<snip>

Thanks for the impressions Yankee! I think this is going to be on my "must get" list for my birthday! [:)]

[MaB1708]

2) Go to the map, click on the target then select it's info bar in the RHS panel. That will be it's DB entry. Can't get there from the weapon dialog, though.

Sorry I was unclear it appears. How do I find out which target had been assigned to the weapon? I assign a facility manually to a TACTOM, minutes later I am going back to that weapon and can't remember where it is heading. Which target has been assigned?

[Primarchx]

Honestly can't say.

ORIGINAL: MartinB

2) Go to the map, click on the target then select it's info bar in the RHS panel. That will be it's DB entry. Can't get there from the weapon dialog, though.

Sorry I was unclear it appears. How do I find out which target had been assigned to the weapon? I assign a facility manually to a TACTOM, minutes later I am going back to that weapon and can't remember where it is heading. Which target has been assigned?

[ultradave]

Ah, well, I haven't tried printing but it's just looking at the pdf I'd say the font is probably ok for reading.

Update - I just printed one page to check. Normal size is fairly small. But in Acrobat I just clicked on "Fit" so it would fill the page and then the font is quite readable, even for older eyes

ORIGINAL: Temple

ORIGINAL: ultradave

"OK, one more question. In the printed manual, how small is the font? Sadly I am no longer able to read small print like I used to. For a point of reference, I do have the full color manual from "Carriers at War" and find that I can still read it comfortably. If the color manual for Command is similar I'm be ok with it."

In the installation in a directory called Manuals, there is a pdf version as well as the ebook. I copied the pdf version to my desktop and if you do the same you can then open it with Acrobat where you can zoom and scroll like any pdf. The font is not that bad, but it is white on a black background which I find a little hard on the eyes. Zoomed in a little it's fine. (My eyes have trouble sometimes with the small fonts on my laptop too).

I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes, I understand there is a PDF version, but I am old-school and like the optional printed color manual. I was just wondering about the size of the font in the printed version.

[gexmex]

ORIGINAL: Yankee66

While the price being undisputably high, it's also damn fine piece of software for an audience that is still considered being a rather small niche market.

I started playing these strategical/tactical wargames back in the day with Harpoon II, which was followed up later by Fleet Command and then Dangerous Waters. Inbetween came the "land combat" simulations like "Armored Task Force or Close Combat.

As of late, I played more "Total War" than any hardcore simulation. So I consider myself a returner to the warsim-genre. Not a complete newbie, but someone who once learned the ropes a while back and became rusty.

So, my first impression after playing it for a couple dozen hours:

The performance is good and it seems to run rock-stable. I am playing it on a Win7, 64Bit with 16 Gigs of RAM and a GTX 570 and haven't run into any problems so far.

The tutorials work really well. The way they are executed makes you read a little and think a lot. They take you by the hand and explain the basic concepts of the game through hands-on experience, while being clear and concise.
For me, they worked so well that I only looked into the manual to find out what custom overlays and the 1/3rd rule are, and I can still hold my own in most scenarios.

The "flow" of the game is impressive. Especially when looking at some rather clunky interfaces of other hardcore wargame titles.
Nothing you can do in the sim seems "hidden", and overall I had no problems putting missions together for my Units, then have them execute manual movement and firing orders in an emergency situation, before giving control back to the AI. This makes reacting to new situations easier than I thought and cuts down on the micromanagement.

From what I've seen of the AI, it pulls off believable and challenging tactics without making me feel like it's "cheating". I need to see more of it in more hours of gameplay to make a more detailed assessment. But the fact that it seemed to react to my actions in an appropriate way, and also differently in similar sessions, makes me like it from the get-go.

Something I always love to do is starting the scenario editor. And I did so with "Command" after just 2 or 3 hours of gameplay. And I love it. Again, nothing seems hidden or hard to reach, the concept of Triggers, Events and Actions isn't hard to grasp. Not entirely easy for those without prior knowledge, but also not hard to understand.

I was able to put together a very small test scenario, containing a carrier with a custom contingent of planes, a Sub and some land-based targets on a custom overlay in under an hour. The hardest part, if you can call it that, was setting up the custom overlay for the first time. Your explanation in the manual is really good and works well. The second time went much smoother and faster. Custom overlays are fun!

The sounds are kind of ok, although generic, and not without crackling. But looking at how much a game like this generally needs sound – like a cow needing a bicycle – it's not a big drawback or an annoyance. And I am sure there will be sound mods soon.

To conclude my early impression:

If you want to get into wargames, get back into wargames or get a modern wargame that's worth playing and also shows a lot of potential – get "Command".

The price of admission is high, no sugarcoating that, and the learning curve, although lower than in most hardcore sims, is still high, but if this game manages to build a strong community, I am sure it will provide years of wargaming fun.

Thanks for your assessment Yankee! Definitely helpful in determining if/when to purchase.

[NefariousKoel]

I'm let down with the UI. It's just incomplete IMO.

While there will be bugs & such on any release, it's the UI that's the most lacking. I'm fighting it to get to the info that I need, and looking for features in it that aren't there. The poor performance on my PCs also exacerbates the issue when you have to sort through menus and windows that should've been easily reached from the window you were originally in.

It needs some work in most areas, but most notably for UI features & ease-of-use.

[Primarchx]

Sounds like that may be an issue with your performance concern. I run an i7 2.4Ghz, 12GB RAM, 256GB SSD and decent video card and have no performance issues. I'm actually surprised how elegant the UI is when it comes to running a complex battle situation. Could it be improved? Of course, and I expect there will be things that the player base will want that will come along in due time.

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

I'm let down with the UI. It's just incomplete IMO.

While there will be bugs & such on any release, it's the UI that's the most lacking. I'm fighting it to get to the info that I need, and looking for features in it that aren't there. The poor performance on my PCs also exacerbates the issue when you have to sort through menus and windows that should've been easily reached from the window you were originally in.

It needs some work in most areas, but most notably for UI features & ease-of-use.

[NefariousKoel]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

Sounds like that may be an issue with your performance concern. I run an i7 2.4Ghz, 12GB RAM, 256GB SSD and decent video card and have no performance issues. I'm actually surprised how elegant the UI is when it comes to running a complex battle situation. Could it be improved? Of course, and I expect there will be things that the player base will want that will come along in due time.

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

I'm let down with the UI. It's just incomplete IMO.

While there will be bugs & such on any release, it's the UI that's the most lacking. I'm fighting it to get to the info that I need, and looking for features in it that aren't there. The poor performance on my PCs also exacerbates the issue when you have to sort through menus and windows that should've been easily reached from the window you were originally in.

It needs some work in most areas, but most notably for UI features & ease-of-use.

Aside from performance issues, navigating some parts of the UI is a frustrating experience. I'm spending a lot of time opening and closing menus & windows, to get to info that should be a single-click away from the original screen I was looking at. JudgeDredd documented some of these examples.

Then I checked out the Formation Editor. It's an example of how the old aged Harpoon games have more UI features than Command does right now. I'm not even sure if we can have air patrols set up in the Form Editor - there is only three buttons in it and two relate to ship placement. I wasn't too crazed about the old UIs in H3/HCE either, but they had the tools and info within short reach that we needed.

These are the reasons I say the UI just isn't done. I'm fighting back & forth through the interface more than the OPFOR, and occasionally losing.

[thewood1]

I was already informed and I think its in the manual. Air patrols are set up with reference points that are done relative to the main ship. It is a little less simple to do, but much more functional and solves several problems with H3's formation editor.

Some aspects of Command seem harder at first, but you finally start to see how it works, they have usually enhanced a feature.

[Primarchx]

This. You set up air patrols as Missions. RPs can be slaved to groups in either fixed or relative bearing and missions tasked to them. Even better you can manually move the RPs around if you find you want to resize or reposition the mission. Takes a bit more work but is more flexible.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I was already informed and I think its in the manual. Air patrols are set up with reference points that are done relative to the main ship. It is a little less simple to do, but much more functional and solves several problems with H3's formation editor.

Some aspects of Command seem harder at first, but you finally start to see how it works, they have usually enhanced a feature.

[Temple]

Just noticed that Erik has added a post with a printer friendly version of the manual for download by anyone. Very nice and much appreciated.

[NefariousKoel]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

This. You set up air patrols as Missions. RPs can be slaved to groups in either fixed or relative bearing and missions tasked to them. Even better you can manually move the RPs around if you find you want to resize or reposition the mission. Takes a bit more work but is more flexible.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I was already informed and I think its in the manual. Air patrols are set up with reference points that are done relative to the main ship. It is a little less simple to do, but much more functional and solves several problems with H3's formation editor.

Some aspects of Command seem harder at first, but you finally start to see how it works, they have usually enhanced a feature.

Thanks guys. I know there is some functionality that I've just not figured out yet. This is very helpful.

[erichswafford]

My 1st impressions: Stunned.

The game does everything they promised and then some. Runs smooth, no crashes, AI if friggin' awesome (especially the friendly AI) and it's pretty much the Ultimate Toybox for guys who are into this stuff.

It is definitely *way* easier to get into than Harpoon ever was. It's the culmination of a lot of little interface tweaks (such as the handy right-click menu or the way you can easily define an area for missions) that makes the difference. The mission editor is especially clear, when you consider just how complex the thing really is. And the database is the equivalent of every volume of Conway's, minus the pics (and I just downloaded those, thank you very much).

I'm still messing around with it, trying to find some issues, but I've got a 3-month-old at home (the price of marrying a much younger woman - try not to cry for me too hard lol) and that pretty much craters my spare time at the moment.

Oh, and this: Try as I might, I *cannot* get the little guy into this game. Maybe when he's, like, 6 months old? He certainly had an opinion about the DDG-1000: GWAAAG. WTF does that mean? Anyone?[:D]

[CaptBeefheart]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

I witnessed a lot of work done on pathfinding and station-keeping to keep it as true as possible. I haven't seen a ship go aground yet, though in some very tricky coastal areas where pathfinding is extremely challenged you might see some funky formations. In these circumstances player intercession may be required.

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

As long as ships don't run aground, I'll pick this up. Nothing worse than doing an Indonesia scenario in Harpoon and no matter how much you tweak a formation or routing, a ship or two will run aground. Some sort of order like "automatically stay in waters deep enough for the entire task force" would be nice.

Cheers,
CC

Thanks for the reply. I'll be getting this soon. Funky formations I can live with.

Cheers,
CC