Make this game more accessible for Non Gamers

[altipueri]

CMANO is probably the best game to get non gamers to try wargames because of the modern equipment that people see on the news - e.g. Migs and F16 over Kashmir; ships in the South China Sea.

But it is a frightening game for those who venture in.


I have tried sneaking mentions of CMANO into online posts in newspapers like the Times, Financial Times, and Guardian. Sometimes there are replies like one today in The Times - saying they bought it but gave up.


My suggestion - try the Command Ops 2 model - i.e. base game system plus three small scenarios for free. This wouldn't impact on your Northern Inferno limited scenario pack or full game pricing. If people don't progress you haven't lost anything.


Wargames are played by war nerds but can actually be very educational. However there is a hurdle to over come of public perception. I try to stress that these are simulations used by NATO and other navies for training.

[Dysta]

Let’s hope your suggestion becomes true for the rumored CMANO2, or whatever the newer title from WarfareSims.

I also hope for the better accessibility to tablet players, especially for someone who isn’t always at home. I know it works for some Windows-based tablets, but the destop-based UI isn’t easy to navigate with fingertips.

[ARCNA442]

I don't think what you want is possible.

While the CMANO team could certainly put more a lot more effort into reducing the learning curve and improving the UI and overall feel of the game, the real "problem" is that CMANO is a simulator.

Even if it had a completely intuitive UI and amazing graphics and sound effects, very few people care to put enough time in to understand all the different land, air, and sea systems and how they interact to the point where they can actually make informed tactical judgements. The average person thinks everything that's grey and floats is a "battleship" and even most military enthusiasts are at the level of "Brahmos is awesome because it goes really fast". Ask them to do something basic like set up an ASW screen and CAP for a CSG and they'll look at you like you're speaking a foreign language - and that's before you starting bringing in complicated ideas like EMCON, radar horizon, threat axis, AEW, convergence zones, etc.

[Oberst_Klink]

My 2c, but then I have been in the wargaming business since I was a pimpled 14 y/o.
Back in the 90s I started Harpoon and even back then there was a learning curve, and more or less no real tutorials. CMANO got a series of amazingly engaging and informative tutorials with a high replay values, as well as for various aspects of the game (I prefer calling it a simulation). As David already pointed out, CMANO, as well as other 'wargames' e.g. Flashpoint Campaigns - Red Storm, etc. are being used and utilised for training purposes at various armed forces. I collected a few studies about the subject and also published a few articles about it for a German wargaming mag and The Wargamer in the past.

Klink, Oberst

[Cik]

it's likely not possible. ultimately there's only so much hand-holding you can build in. believe it or not, as far as sims go, CMANO is probably 90th percentile in user friendliness.

[SeaQueen]

From what I've noticed, there's a lot of people who seem confused by having to make a decision regarding what to do when they first start the game. I think they're not always sure how to start. Command is unique among computer wargames because to really make it sing, you have to spend a lot of time up front planning. It's difficult to leap into quickly, especially with larger scenarios. There's a big disconnect between the tutorials, which have you controlling a few platforms, and scenarios where you're controlling a hundred or more.

I've also noticed that a lot of scenarios, in an attempt at realism, try to duplicate the OPORD format. That tends to be verbose and legalistic, and doesn't get quickly to what people really need to be doing in the game. In real life, an OPORD would probably also be accompanied by an annex that includes operational overlays, and most likely a briefing with maps, diagrams, schedules, charts and pictures. That's where the real description of what to do is, the rest is basically reference material for building a briefing.

If scenario designers boiled it down and just said, "attack this" or "defend this" I suspect players would get the idea faster without actually sacrificing any "realism." I like to use the computer controlled side's briefing screen scenario notes which a player doesn't really need to complete the scenario. I think it's important that we recognize as scenario designers, that just because a fact is important to us in the scenario design, doesn't make it important to the player. They don't need to know everything that goes into the sausage, they just need to know that it tastes good. The player briefing and scenario description shouldn't be a "splat" of every thought that entered the scenario designer's head. It should be extremely succinct. It's more than a paragraph and some bullet points it's probably too long. If you must use a standardized format, think FRAGO not OPORD.

I also think sometimes scenarios ask the player to do too much. It isn't that the software is necessarily incapable of doing it, it's that the players don't really know where to start, or they don't have a process for how to begin thinking about the problem the scenario poses them with. My favorite scenarios are deceptively simple (e.g. DCA-MiniEx). They ask you do a highly specific task, but allow great latitude regarding how you go about it with a given set of assets.

[BDukes]

Everything could be improved but is this a real problem? The game seem very populars.

[kevinkins]

Play chess. It's far more complex than Command will ever be. And there is a bonus, once your learn to play chess, you can play another human .. pretty cool.

[Cik]

s
o
l
v
e
d
g
a
m
e

[HalfLifeExpert]

I've said this a few times before in other places: This game is not for everyone, not even close to the majority.

ARCNA442 makes a very good point:

ORIGINAL: ARCNA442

I don't think what you want is possible.

While the CMANO team could certainly put more a lot more effort into reducing the learning curve and improving the UI and overall feel of the game, the real "problem" is that CMANO is a simulator.

Even if it had a completely intuitive UI and amazing graphics and sound effects, very few people care to put enough time in to understand all the different land, air, and sea systems and how they interact to the point where they can actually make informed tactical judgements. The average person thinks everything that's grey and floats is a "battleship" and even most military enthusiasts are at the level of "Brahmos is awesome because it goes really fast". Ask them to do something basic like set up an ASW screen and CAP for a CSG and they'll look at you like you're speaking a foreign language - and that's before you starting bringing in complicated ideas like EMCON, radar horizon, threat axis, AEW, convergence zones, etc.

For CMANO to click with a potential player, most likely that player already has to have a beyond average interest in post-WWII military hardware (specifically air and naval). That may not be as common as one may think. The average interest in my view would probably be nothing more than your average COD fan who probably doesn't know much about the actual armed forces operate, given the Hollywood/Michael Bay path the series has taken.

I don't think what OP is talking about is realistically feasible at this stage.

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

From what I've noticed, there's a lot of people who seem confused by having to make a decision regarding what to do when they first start the game. I think they're not always sure how to start. Command is unique among computer wargames because to really make it sing, you have to spend a lot of time up front planning. It's difficult to leap into quickly, especially with larger scenarios. There's a big disconnect between the tutorials, which have you controlling a few platforms, and scenarios where you're controlling a hundred or more.

I've also noticed that a lot of scenarios, in an attempt at realism, try to duplicate the OPORD format. That tends to be verbose and legalistic, and doesn't get quickly to what people really need to be doing in the game. In real life, an OPORD would probably also be accompanied by an annex that includes operational overlays, and most likely a briefing with maps, diagrams, schedules, charts and pictures. That's where the real description of what to do is, the rest is basically reference material for building a briefing.

If scenario designers boiled it down and just said, "attack this" or "defend this" I suspect players would get the idea faster without actually sacrificing any "realism." I like to use the computer controlled side's briefing screen scenario notes which a player doesn't really need to complete the scenario. I think it's important that we recognize as scenario designers, that just because a fact is important to us in the scenario design, doesn't make it important to the player. They don't need to know everything that goes into the sausage, they just need to know that it tastes good. The player briefing and scenario description shouldn't be a "splat" of every thought that entered the scenario designer's head. It should be extremely succinct. It's more than a paragraph and some bullet points it's probably too long. If you must use a standardized format, think FRAGO not OPORD.

I also think sometimes scenarios ask the player to do too much. It isn't that the software is necessarily incapable of doing it, it's that the players don't really know where to start, or they don't have a process for how to begin thinking about the problem the scenario poses them with. My favorite scenarios are deceptively simple (e.g. DCA-MiniEx). They ask you do a highly specific task, but allow great latitude regarding how you go about it with a given set of assets.

I agree about the disconnect between the tutorials and several scenarios. It's one of the things I try to address in my Steam Guide (see section 7): https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... 1081327870

While many scenario briefings do use the OPORD Format, I really don't see that as an obstacle. Those are really not hard to learn if you just sit down and read them. I have no military experience myself, but I've been able to comprehend almost all of my orders in a CMANO scenario, unless there is an error in how they were written of course.

Lastly, I agree that there should be a larger number of simpler scenarios available to help newer players.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert
Lastly, I agree that there should be a larger number of simpler scenarios available to help newer players.

There needs to be continuity between controlling a few units and controlling a many squadrons and ships distributed over a large geographic area.

It's not just an issue of complexity for new players. It's also time. I only have a few hours a night to play for fun. If the scenario is too huge, then that's all time I need to spend planning, setting up missions, measuring distances, timing things, weaponeering, etc. To do it reasonably, might take a week's worth of prep work for a day's weekend play. We need to build scenarios which are interesting to novice and experienced players alike, but can be played fairly quickly, without a ton of preparation and planning.

[kevinkins]

We need to build scenarios which are interesting to novice and experienced players alike, but can be played fairly quickly, without a ton of preparation and planning.

That's one of the holy grails in wargame/scenario design in general. Not impossible, but hard to do on a regular basis. Might be good to brainstorm a list of attributes a scenario that both the expert and novice would enjoy would need to have i.e where would they intersect.

[AlGrant]

I could see a use for an entry-level purchase (not free) option along the lines of the way the Standalone DLC's are released.

Base game - no editor - Tutorials and a selection of (15-20) scenarios of increasing complexity and priced at a similar level to the DLC's (currently £15.99 as opposed to the full £60.99).

I think there are some who see the lower price of the DLC and decide to try those first before paying out for the full game.
I love the DLC content, but don't think they are suitable as an entry point for Command, DLC's tend to be larger and more complex scenarios, often designed to explore newer/advanced features of the game and to challenge existing, more experienced players.

[Primarchx]

The game is what it is. There are other, less complex titles out there that would work fine.

[IainMcNeil]

While we would love to appeal to a wider audience you tend to have to simplify and abstract to make things more manageable for your average gamer. By chasing the unicorn of approachability you may lose the essence of what makes Command so unique and interesting so its something we have to be very careful about. That's not to say we cant make improvements, just that the idea of this ever being a game you can sit anyone in front of and have them enjoy it without a steep learning curve is unrealistic. We're always looking for ways to make what we have better but we;re never going to sacrifice the complexity and realism which is the essence of Command.

For a start you need to understand the tactics and systems. That in itself is something people spend years learning and not many master and it only gets more complex by the day. Then layer on top of that a UI to perform these extremely complex operations and you've got a hugely difficult problem to solve.

[Oberst_Klink]

I am sure most of us Generation X wargamers, 'grew up' with either the tabletop version of Harpoon or the 1st PC/Amiga releases of the Computer game; while at the same time read books like Hunt for Red October or Red Storm Rising. Those games/books did give us (I think) an insight about modern naval tactics and maritime warfare of the 80s. I found some interesting articles about how the whole things developed.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/harpoon- ... orm-rising
http://www.admiraltytrilogy.com/reading.php
https://news.usni.org/2013/10/08/interv ... tom-clancy

Klink, Oberst

[CV60]

For a start you need to understand the tactics and systems. That in itself is something people spend years learning and not many master and it only gets more complex by the day. Then layer on top of that a UI to perform these extremely complex operations and you've got a hugely difficult problem to solve.

Ian-You are absolutely correct. Rule #3 of the "Six Cornerstones" section of Hughes' "Fleet Tactics" book is "To Know Tactics, Know Technology." He writes: "The tactician stays ready by knowing his weapon systems. Technical facility, like good leadership and sound doctrine, is the third cornerstone of this book. We bow to the great god technology and honor him as a jealous deity who will wreck vengeance on all apostates." Understanding how technology works in a warfare setting is not easy, even for professional military officers. Consider how long it took for naval doctrine to incorporate the advances in submarines, mine warfare, air power, fire control, and communications between 1905 and 1914. IMHO, CMNAO does an excellent job in an unclassified setting of showing this interplay. But there really isn't a way to significantly simplify it without dramatically changing what CMNAO is.

[FTBSS]

For me I think some UI enhancements could be done, but as to where do you start a scenario, that should be set up in the scenario description and the order briefings that the scenario designer creates, If done well it gives you the main objectives and even some side objectives, But does not hold the players hands in how they go about meeting those objectives (there is more than one way to skin a cat, hope PETA is not reading this [;)]).

This Simulation/Game is very near a perfect modern warfare (naval/air) simulation, It why I buy every dlc that the developers put out, (it's obvious to me they love this product). I will continue to economically support their continuing dedication to making the improvements they do.

When playing Harpoon (to the detriment of my marriage) back in the 90's, what Command is now is what I always wanted Harpoon to be back then. The database alone is worth every penny I have spent on this sim, (this is coming from a guy who used to read Jane's for fun).

For me the few areas that need improvement are still Aerial refueling AI(including Helo HIFR from surface vessels). Some additional ground combat including Formation editor affecting combat modifiers). Some UI Cargo improvements.

I would also like to see some more aerial combat improvements (dogfighting) especially if the recently hinted at WW2 expansion becomes a reality, also more detailed armor modifiers for this future expansion as well.

Putting in more video and sound to the sim would make it more commercial but for hardcore military sim guys like myself I think this is far down my list of improvements (I say this out of personal feelings though, as I would love for the game to be more appealing to non-military geeks, so that the developers could make more money on this product and continue to support it to keep up the improvements, which again have been much more than I expected or even hoped for when I bought this sim several years ago).

[altipueri]

Well as the old git who started this thread I've dragged myself into post WW2 gaming and a trip to the local bookshop got me:

"Helicopters in Combat - The first 50 years"
"Navies in the Nuclear Age"

------------------

I actually bought CMANO about 3 years ago, tried the tutorial scenario, and thought I would never play again.

Here's my idea for newby scenarios:

1. 1 plane attacks one ground target
2. 1 plane attacks another plane that can shoot back.

[c3k]

A newb's perspective:

The game is outstanding...and outstandingly difficult to access. It's not the weapons, it's the UI.

I'm playing through the tutorials and find that the WRA and other behaviors are inconsistent and difficult to access. For example, I order all aircraft to ignore pathing when engaged offensive...and they don't. They launch a missile and follow their plotted course, leaving the SARH missile to go blind. I -know- I tried to order them not to...and thought I had. That's a UI issue.

I tried to launch a single G450 (? the gulfstream aew airframe) in a one-ship patrol. I assigned both (in the tutorial) to the mission, but only wanted one to launch. They both launched. That's a UI issue.

I don't want launched aircraft to emit. But they do. Contrariwise, I want some aircraft to emit, but they don't. That's a UI issue.

There are more examples. I -know- what I want my units to do. I -think- I've given them the proper orders. Then, they don't do it.

A simple (but not optimal) fix would be to allow me to select a unit and SEE all of THAT unit's orders, postures, wras, etc.

It's a great game, but the UI is holding it back. Not the coding, not the underlying architecture, it's purely the user interface.