Matrix Games Forums

Ok, here goes, this is the Scenario Selection Screen I have in mind:

If I'm not mistaken, the scenario names I've used are part of the
full list featured in the game.
Hehe, check out the sector names I added [;)].
I couldn't resist. [:D]
The dates are random, but the scenarios should be sorted, see my next post below for a description.

Looks Great, GG!

My vision for this "temp" solution, until a real campaign mode makes it into the engine:

• Selecting/highlighting a particular scenario on the selection screen should bring up the particular bitmap, showing the mission area boundaries (which should have a red transparent overlay), sector/area name (ie. St. Vith on my sketch), start/end dates and (if there's enough space) the number + title (short form, see screenshot) of the scenario.
• The scenario-list in the left hand window should display all the scenarios, sorted in this order (as the Germans divided the TO into 3 sectors):
  
  a) Sort by sector (aka Group 1 - 3)
  b) Sort by date within each sector/group
• As you can see on my screenshot, I provided the sub-sector names too (ie. Bastogne, or St. Vith), to give players a rough idea where the battle took/takes place. This would be a neat feature as there are many players who have read battle details about let's say St. Vith or Elsenborn Ridge - or who saw these places rendered in other games, so that way they could easily pick the mission that might appear to be the most interesting for them. In COTA, players had to dig in the briefing text, in order to get an idea/info where a particular battle was actually fought. Descriptions like "Spartans at the Pass", or even "We fight and die here" aren't very informative, are they? [:)]
• The date (start date) should be part of the scenario name too (see screenshot), since quite some people requested to have the scenarios listed in a (more helpful) chronological order.
• Arrows, as shown in my sketch, would be a neat addition, to show the player the direction of a particular German (or Allied) thrust, and will help the less knowledgable wargamer to understand how the entire operation developed. Again, an external flash animation would be a good way to enhance the immersion even more.

Ok. My 2 cents.


Btw, the sketch above: ---> Copyright by GoodGuy !

GoodGuy,

Very nicely done & a great idea!!

Rob.

That's pretty neat.

I'd also like if the scenario list allowed you various filters. Group by chronology, group by region, alphabetical. Also, a quick checkmark nothing which scenarios you've already played on which side would be a nice reminder for those of us with no memory.

Yes being able to sort the scenarios by various categories is on our wish list, but I'm not sure we're going to have time for that for BFTB. We have remodelled the Scenario selection screen to make the briefing pane bigger. We'll see how we go with the available time.

The engine will still do a simple form of sorting, and this will be sufficient, especially if there's no time to code an advanced sort-function.
Just stick to a specific syntax for scenario names (for the stock missions), example:

• Sector 1: 01. Höfen Ho-Down...............- Höfen.........16.12.44
• Sector 1: 02. Elsenborn Ridge..............- Elsenborn...17.12.44
• Sector 1: 03. Final Drop........................- sector.........18.12.44
• Sector 2: 09. We fight and die here......- sector.........16.12.44
• Sector 2: 10. Peiper's Race f.t. Meuse...- Trois Ponts.19.12.44
• Sector 2: 17. Peiper crosses the Meuse.- Meuse.......16.12.44
• Sector 3: 18. Battered Bastards............- SomeTown..22.12.44
• Sector 3: 21. Tutorial-Return to St.Vith..- St.Vith.........22.12.44

Come on, you gotta put up the vision, not your (former) customers. [:D]

I added "...." because the forum code won't accept spaces.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

We'll see how we go with the available time.

Care to comment on my sketch and description? [:)]

Thanks for the mock up. A picture is worth a thousand words. I understand why you have opted for the complex text field incorporating all the data such as dates and sectors. However, I don't like that. We had done that for HTTR and COTA to the extend of prefixing the scenario name with the map name. I got so frustrated with not being able to find the scenario just buy its name that I took this out for BFTB. I would prefer to have seperate columns for the dates and map names and then be able to sort by each of these. I'd also like to add columns for force size, "best played as" and maybe a difficulty/complexity rating. As I said I'll see what we can do.

Personally, Dave, I think a sorted order of scenarios, especially for something so well known (BftB) is a great idea and you'd miss a trick if you left it out. BftB is all about what happened when to alot of people that know anything about it...to replay those battles in chronological order is a must for anyone with any knowledge of the battles.

Sure, you want this and that, but a list of battles in chronological order is a step in the right direction and a foot in the door for the next version. On top of that, think of this...one of the things I did not like about COTA was the interface. I find it very hard to "enjoy" or "immerse" into COTA simply because of that interface. It's basically a selection of individual battles. Great battles, great names and if you can stop your eyes from bleeding, great scenario briefings, but a list of unattached, unrelated scenarios none-the-less.

You've got a great engine here. Everyone (mostly) has been saying this for some time. Your interface needs some tlc. Once your in game, your enjoying what is there, but it's firing it up that's the chore.

I am a proggrammer. I am not a programmer of games. I do not use the language you use. I am, however a programmer and a good one. I deal with databases and front ends. I know what it takes to put in a sort function on a screen (in the language I use)...I simply cannot believe it would take much effort to allow individuals to sort on a selection of criteria. That said, if you are adamant about it being time consuming, then a simple chronological ordered list of battles would suffice I feel.

Just my opinion and wanted to add weight to GGs argument...the interface for your series needs updating. At present, it's a chore. [:(]

When you say interface do you mean the startup interface, the in game interface or both?

I'd kinda agree that the initial experience of firing up one of these games is a bit daunting and hardly inviting. I like the radio graphic, but the scenario selection routine is not really 21st century UI quality. A bare list, with lots of text, and no real sense of where these things happen in the game's covered area isn't very inviting or informative. Not a huge deal, but the sorts of things being chatted about here would add to the overall experience--but no, I don't want the damn thing delayed for a fancy scenario list![:-]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

When you say interface do you mean the startup interface, the in game interface or both?

I meant the interface when selecting scenarios...startup interface if you will. I just find it very clinical and uninviting. It really doesn't make me look and go "oooohhh......what mission to play" which is a real shame, because there are some fantastic missions in there.

I know other people want other things...but from my pov, immersion is high on the agenda when it comes to computer games and, unfortunately, that's what your game leaves out...not once your in game...oh no...immersion is all there...but I just simply cannot be bothered to troll through the list of scenarios and read that small writing...no graphics...no flash...just some text and a few options.

I hate being criitical like this Dave...especially witha game I love...but I have to be honest, it does stop me firing it up as much as the actual engine deserves.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

....such as dates and sectors. However, I don't like that. We had done that for HTTR and COTA to the extend of prefixing the scenario name with the map name. I got so frustrated with not being able to find the scenario just buy its name that I took this out for BFTB.

Well, here again, you see it from your personal POV of a developer, but you don't seem to take the time and try to see things through the eyes of your customers.
On one hand, when you do your internal chatter, referring to a given scenario in front of your BETA bunnies, you might use the scenario names exclusively and it may ease communication.

On the other hand, the current format is

a) less interesting,
b) less informative and more confusing for your customers and
c) it totally ignores the immersion department.

No offense, but your personal taste/level of confusion may not match the taste/level/needs of your customers in this regard.

I would prefer to have seperate columns for the dates and map names and then be able to sort by each of these. I'd also like to add columns for force size, "best played as" and maybe a difficulty/complexity rating. As I said I'll see what we can do.

Well, but if there's not enough time to code an advanced list, you could use the format I outlined in post #7 (did you take a look at it, at all?), meanwhile.
I'm sure people would find this to be a good temp solution.

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

Just my opinion and wanted to add weight to GGs argument...the interface for your series needs updating. At present, it's a chore. [:(]

Hi Judge
I'm glad you like my suggestion.
Thanks for your input.

I agree that given a choice I would much prefer to see the scenarios listed in chronological order (by starting date) than alphabetically.

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Thanks for the mock up. A picture is worth a thousand words. I understand why you have opted for the complex text field incorporating all the data such as dates and sectors. However, I don't like that. We had done that for HTTR and COTA to the extend of prefixing the scenario name with the map name. I got so frustrated with not being able to find the scenario just buy its name that I took this out for BFTB ...

Has anyone else noticed that the actual game scenarios listed for BftB are usually a day or two shorter in length then they actually are?