Matrix Games Forums

After 4 years somebody finally pencil this in.

https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes ... operations

Interface stuff->True
History of game->They did not dig real deep and make up a lot.
Troy Goodfellow->Sounds like jaded Harpooner who does not like new dinner.

I listed to it.

Take home message: the steeper the learning curve the more likely you'll get comments from guys who fell off early...and at least one of these guys fell off way early

The tension between games v. simulations has existed since the first wargame.

The kinds of games those guys seem to really like are very specifically scoped and look at very specific problems. They'd probably like an operational wargame that looked at a hypothetical near future conflict on the Korean Penninsula from a ground commander's perspective. Command probably has too broad a scope for their taste.

The thing I'd argue, is that in the modern era, that kind of specificity is becoming less and less accurate unless you're dealing with very small numbers of troops and platforms. A lot of that is driven by aircraft and precision guided weapons. When a B-1 can take off from an airbase in the United States and fly half-way around the world to provide CAS to a platoon of Marines in Afghanistan, then fly back, the distinctions between the various levels of warfare start to break down, or at least become more abstract. Similarly, if a ballistic missile can traverse a quarter of the globe in minutes to attack an aircraft carrier before it can get within range for its strike aircraft to attack targets, at what point does a strategic movement begin and a tactical movement end? When TLAMs fired from an SSGN can strike targets throughout the Middle East in a coordinated raid with land and carrier based aircraft launched from bases potentially anywhere on the globe, is that a tactical or strategic level weapon? Is the sensor feed from that missile tactical or strategic level intelligence? The distinction makes no sense. The feed off a single Predator drone might make me decide to launch a wave of hundreds of strike aircraft. The lack of distinction between the various levels of warfare makes the kinds of approximations necessary to scope a game like they might prefer difficult or impossible.

A lot of the kinds of wargames they like only work because warfare was different in the past. Once upon a time it made sense for a high level commander to be unconcerned with the movements of individual or small numbers of bombers, because they'd fly hundreds at a time in a single raid. They'd abstract them to formations, and approximate the outcomes with statistical methods or continuous mathematics. Now, a thanks to jet engines, midair refueling, stealth technology, advanced sensors, and precision guided weapons, a single B-2 with a load of JDAMS can do the work that once took hundreds of B-17s. What was once too down in the weeds for commanders to worry about is now very much a concern. With modern communications technology it's possible for almost anyone to talk to anyone too.

I thought it was interesting how they talked about how they were un-used to worrying about sensors so much. Sensors were very much a concern in Harpoon as well. They must have been horrible Harpoon players. While a primary concern of commanders has always been finding the enemy, managing a wide variety of sensors with varying degrees of effectiveness is also a characteristic of modern warfare.

Command is the kind of game that appeals to people who want to learn something about post-WWII warfare. That era has been characterized by an ever increasing reliance on aircraft, sensors, missiles and precision guided weapons, as well as a distance scale that's blurred the distinction between the various levels of war. When a single battle requires global movement just to support tactical level operations, and the outcome of a battle depends as much on deception, stealth and sensing as it does on concentrating firepower from platforms scattered halfway across the globe, is it any wonder that the learning curve will be steep? In order to have a faithful representation of things at all you need to capture that somehow. I can't help but think that their mixed review says a lot about their lack of understanding of modern warfare, and how the technologies that have evolved during and since WWII have changed warfare.

Excellent post...as is typically the answer, Command just isn't for everyone. I see a lot of traditional wargamers struggle with games like command. If its not turn-based it ain't realistic.

What I don't understand... is the 'criticism' of command? CMANO is one of the most realistic theater level modern warfare simulations available to the public. From what I understand it's good, if not better that what the pentagon has to offer on this particular scale and breadth of platforms.

The podcast highlights very well how spoonfed we where pre Command:MANO

I listened to about half. The fact that they seemed unwilling to crack the manual to look anything up and wanted to depend on just figuring things out from looking at the menus and/or watching Baloogan's YouTube videos got tiring.

Yes, it's complicated. But RTFM before saying how hard everything is to do.

Also, it took them about 20 minutes of discussing how it was unrealistic to pause to set something like a mission or response, before one of them mentioned that, yeah, in real life, there would be a whole staffed CIC who is doing the job that you as one player are doing. Actually multiple staffed CIC's on ships, not to mention air battle controllers (whatever that facility is called). So you are the Task Force commander, but you are also doing the jobs of many who work for you. It's just fine to pause to get organized, IMO.

Apologies if in the second half they changed their tune but the lack of checking the manual, something that is harped on continuously on the forum here, was frustrating. There's loads of good info in there, and in the on line addendum.

Listened, rolled eyes and concluded that idiots can podcast reviews too. Listened to two other Idle Thumb podcasts to confirm that the CMANO review was not their only vacuous drivel.

-C

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.

That is an excellent point. Most of those gamers come into WW2 games with some preconceived notions. They can't do that with Command.

Yeah I listed to it. Wasn't impressed. They judged CMANO too much on preconceived notions of what wargames should be.

They completely missed the fact that the scoring system is different depending on the scenario, which is pretty important, since one of them effectively alluded to all the scenarios scoring the same. One said they didn't play any community scenarios.

I also don't understand much of the claims of CMANO being unrealistic, especially one of them stating that it is unrealistic the way the game pauses with pop up messages since you can't pause in real life.

Well, by that logic then you would have to criticize literally every real-time video game ever made, especially the ultra realistic flight simulators.


And yes these guys did not seem to demonstrate a lot of effort in actually reading the documentation, I don't remember the word 'manual' being said.


I always try to avoid criticizing someone who doesn't understand something as well as I do, especially if they demonstrate a real serious effort to understand it, and I just didn't get it from these guys. They judged too much without enough information.


And SeaQueen does indeed make an excellent point about the blurring of tactical and strategic in modern warfare.

It’s funny: as we were recording the show, a little thought bubble came up that said something along the lines of: “Oy, this isn’t going to go over well with the diehard fans”.

I’ve always worried about these shows, the episodes in which we cover games that are enormous in scope and have a passionate fan base. Games like Command, Dwarf Fortress, or Aurora 4X. These are games that people spend years and years playing, poring over patch notes, finding the edge cases, etc. On the show we all have our pet games, but we are still committed to putting out weekly content. That often means spending a few weeks with a game, tops. That’s not nearly enough time to satisfy long time fans of a game like this.

We’ve gotten negative feedback before, it comes with the territory (though “vacuous drivel” is a new one, thanks for that). But I’ll continue to lurk here and over at the TOAW forum. I just picked up a few more bits of Command DLC in the Steam sale and look forward to diving into them.

Based on what I heard, I would hope you spend at least as much time learning the game as you did recording that. While I understand the review business very well, its a complete disservice to not at least make an attempt to learn the game. Especially because the game has been out for five years, so there was no urgency in getting the review out into the the public domain. This is a game the relishes its hyper-realism and the amount of work you need to do to play it.

A fair review would have been to mention that you have only limited understanding of modern naval warfare and you don't really understand how sensors and tactics play a role in a modern battle. But I am not sure fair is the goal or if filling some air time to generate content is the goal. A fair review would have been to say right up front that the game is hyper-realistic and daunting to learn, then mention you didn't read the manual, do the tutorials, check the published notes, or even ask anyone how to do some simple things. It might even include a comment that someone shouldn't buy the game if they don't want to invest in learning the game or the concepts of modern naval warfare.

But again, I understand completely the need to be superficial and not totally as informative to your listeners as compared to having to generate content. And coming to the dev's forum and syaing you knew you'd piss off long time players is just plain poor form. Instead, why not come in and ask us for some direct feedback on your mistakes in the review? That drive for continuous improvement must burn like a fire for a top notch review operation.

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.

Well, all I can say, is that I hope you put a lot more thought into your reviews than you post-review comments. It wasn't just the comment, but the fact you have exactly two posts ever on the Matrix forums and only one in six years. That doesn't exactly win you much credibility in the contriteness department. I mean, you make a post once every six years and that is the post...

I would also point out that some of the "passionate" players are actual military and former military. They have become a driving force in the game. I see this all the time. When "professional" game reviewers are confronted with some real realism, they don't like it. They all think about how great it would be to flick a finger and make something go boom. But when they have to have to maybe think a little and learn a little, there must be something wrong with the game. It just goes to heavily reinforce the wargamer stereotypes that anything outside simple hexes and turns must not be good. So thanks for once again setting the image of the wargamer back a couple years.

And just so you don't think we are overly sensitive snowflakes that think Command is perfect, here are some things I think need improvement in Command:

1) The interface is straight out of 1999.
2) Its incredibly complicated and difficult for new users to come to grips with the game
3) The documentation is not organized and makes assumptions on knowledge of naval warfare
4) The patching process can be confusing
5) It takes a lot of game knowledge, naval warfare knowledge, and planning for scenarios to not become micromanagement hell
6) The graphics do not lend themselves to a quick understanding of a situation
7) There are dozens of obscure features and options that are not easy to find
8) etc....there are probably dozens more.

Its not perfect and should have a huge sign on it that says not for newbs. There should be a test on basic naval warfare knowledge and PC capabilities. That is all fair stuff to include in a review. But to call Command unrealistic when the reviewers have a most limited understanding of what is realistic, is unfair and a disservice to your listeners. There were a number of comments in the review that made me cringe made me feel a little embarrassed for the people making the comments.

Wood is not good to talk to. Like drink poison and wash mouth out with more.

tm.asp?m=4438086

Do not waste time on him talk only to dev.

Still stalking...

Wood does make a fair point about the fact that CMANO is hardly a new game, having been out for five years, so there was plenty of time to get a bit more of a grasp on the game before reviewing it.


I do share wood's frustration of newer players sometimes charging head-on into this game and then complaining a lot when they can't figure things out, without having spent much time to actually read the manual and/or sought help from the community. That's one of the main reasons why I made my Steam guide. I'll put a link here in case any of you want to check it out: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/f ... 1081327870

This is frustrating because so much information is freely available (The manual, the addendum, YouTube videos, the forum), that there isn't much excuse for pleading total ignorance if you are unwilling to use all the free resources available to you.

All I ask of new players is simply to politely ask for help when you need it. There is no shame in asking for help, ever, pretty much as long as you are polite about it.

Basically instead of saying "I don't get this [insert thing here], this game is too hard!!" (this isn't referring to anyone in particular btw)

Say "I don't understand this system, could you please help me? What am I missing?". Pretty much most of the time you will receive honest help from ether a dev or one of the players.

I do have a few gripes with CMANO as it stands (mainly a few very specific issues with ready times for aircraft), but on the whole I do love CMANO, even though I wouldn't put myself in nearly the same neighborhood as a Pro. (i'm actually just fine with the basic Windows interface to be honest [:)]

There is plenty that I do not understand yet, and that is just fine with me, I know my own limitations (the reason why I don't tackle making scenarios anymore). I am perfectly happy with this because I have a good understanding of what CMANO is, even if I don't know how to fully play it.

CMANO is not a conventional wargame. There is no single or firm way to 'master' it, simply due to it's scale and variety )

CMANO is less a 'game' than it is software. It's a 'tool' for modeling and learning about naval warfare and conflict - primarily in a maritime environment. The goal isn't so much to 'win the game' but to use the software to learn about weapons, sensors, technology... and even systems just to see how these things could be used.

I spend as much time reading RAND papers (just for fun, not professionally) as I do playing CMANO... because 'the game' complements the reading and what I'm trying to learn.

As a professional pilot I find it fascinating to see just all the different aircraft, their ranges, what they look like, the technology they're equipped with... and how that tech and capabilities could be used it in a real-world conflict or civil/military application. Not to mention it's a great database for looking at engines, weights, comparing 'performance' of aircraft... and then figuring out what the strengths and weaknesses are of comparing design philosophies. I start playing and then before I know it I have 10 windows open (in firefox) on different airplanes reading about their design history, characteristics, use, and things like aspect ratio, empty weight, powerplant, max range, etc. CMANO really inspires A LOT of reading and curiosity.

With CMANO I can contrast what I'm seeing with what I'm reading or studying. And it makes the learning 'easier' or 'more fun'. I think this is very different... from playing a 'game.' Or atleast the vast majority of games.

[A response - Not a rant!]

I just picked up a few more bits of Command DLC in the Steam sale and look forward to diving into them.

I would seriously hold on before 'diving into them'

Sorry to say this but your current review comes over as a bunch of people who don't understand the game, telling people who don't have the game how it works. And that's not fair on the Devs or players of this game, nor on your listeners!

I'm not really clear if those giving this review of Command bothered to run through the Tutorial scenarios.
(You may have mentioned this in the review and I will admit that there were bits I skipped - due to the very real danger that I would end up punching my laptop screen if I continued!)

If you didn't run the tutorial scenarios I would strongly suggest doing so .... If you did do them then I'd strongly suggest trying them again as you clearly missed some of the fundamentals on how Command works.

DLC scenarios by their very nature tend to be bigger, more complicated and more challenging, so I can't imagine you would find it any easier than any previous attempts.

The interface for Command is far better than you give it credit for.
However, you'll never get everything from a single mouse click or single menu tree. There are so many options and setting that it can seem daunting at first, but once you understand what the game is and how to actually play it, it does make sense and becomes easy to navigate.

I genuinely hope that you spend some time finding your way around Command - start with the tutorials, then smaller scenarios then the bigger DLC's. Once you understand how to play the game .... then review it!

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


Reagrds
Al