What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: Filitch
Completely agree with LewisOwen. There are too many things in CMANO to implement, except 3D view. Most of noted above - will improve modeling result, make model more realistic, whereas 3D - mostly will not.
ORIGINAL: lumiere
Let me say too...
Note: This is one anonymous Command player's personal opinion: This is not developer's policy at all. Sorry for pointless/incorrect opinion.
If you felt any offence or do not like me, please just click "Block this guy" button, and ignore.
Everytime when I see "3D view/animation for Command" (like Professional Edition they say) demand, I doubt such feature is needed for (at least) normal version of Command.
They say that"it's shame that Command, the greatest wargame, lacks 3D view" and it will enhances Command to 250+ percent, but IMHO this will weak Command to 50 percent or less.
Reasons:
(1) It's simply impossible to model every units in CWDB/DB3000, even if everyone take time to death,
at the expense of valuable time to play or discuss game tactics/stragety.
They may say "generic" image for minor units, but what's the difference between this one and stylized unit icon?
I'm completly satisfied with .jpg DB images. Even though this does not covers the all,
but finding and trimming images is not difficult even for me (who lacks 3D-modeling technique).
(2) Increases System Requirement. My PC is no high-spec, so I will always turn off 3D view option.
What to do in larger scenario? (which most units are not 3D modeled)
(3) Increases devs' workload too.
The more they pay attention to improve "Exterior" 3D view, the less to "interior" Bug-fix, detailed game model (as LewisOwen says), ete.
I really like devs' current quick responce to these issues.
(4) I could easily imagine that DB3000 database thread (already one of the hottest thread in this forum), or 3D-view dedicated thread will be
choked up with messages claiming "Unit XXX model should (not) have YYY in 19ZZs" (most are about color skin or accessory, which does not affects the game at all). They conceal more important requests for game.
(5) Some of them says 3D models would be mod made by volunteer creator with 3D-modeling technique:
I doubt this would reduce the dev's burden.Who should I contact for request? how much extend does devs have responsibility for respective mods?
I'm interested in, what they learened from the dev's famous "No-DB editor" policy in this complex game.
(6) They say Command can use Tacview. I'll show great respect to Tacview author, but the name "Tac" view - this says it. 3D View player are really interested in viewing things in tactical perspective (1-2 unit involving dogfight/bombing), but not at all in the strategic perspective (50+ unit involving complex strike mission, ASW campaign, ete.).
BTW when I were to create scenario, to hide out the most fatal CPU maneuver, I would make "Diversionary actions", or circus show for 3D View player (more units/explosions). Consider "Dance of the Vampires" in Red Storm Rising as an good example.
Conclusion:
(1) I have neither money to buy platstic model (no interest, no assemble technique either even if purchased),
nor problem of playing one of the most complehensive wargame rule,
with simple paper aircrafts written just his name "F-15J #908" (I have to indicate remaining fuel/weapons, though).
(2) If you want to get situation awareness, please get accustomed to User Interface or NTDS symbol, and fly your AEW/recon aircraft.
I think it's a good experience for I, or normal version Command user "armchair general", to compensate lack of (brutal, bloodsheeding, and distressful) visual image report from frontline, by imagination.
(3) And as always: if you want to dance with beautiful/cute units, please play (for example) DCS world or Cold Waters.
or watch in-action footage in youtube. It is good news that there is "Play video" Lua function.
Thanks for reading!
Tacview would only stand to increase CMANO's success with a wider audience, which would benefit everyone.
ORIGINAL: lumiere
Let me say too...
Note: This is one anonymous Command player's personal opinion: This is not developer's policy at all. Sorry for pointless/incorrect opinion.
If you felt any offence or do not like me, please just click "Block this guy" button, and ignore.
Everytime when I see "3D view/animation for Command" (like Professional Edition they say) demand, I doubt such feature is needed for (at least) normal version of Command.
They say that"it's shame that Command, the greatest wargame, lacks 3D view" and it will enhances Command to 250+ percent, but IMHO this will weak Command to 50 percent or less.
Reasons:
(1) It's simply impossible to model every units in CWDB/DB3000, even if everyone take time to death,
at the expense of valuable time to play or discuss game tactics/stragety.
They may say "generic" image for minor units, but what's the difference between this one and stylized unit icon?
I'm completly satisfied with .jpg DB images. Even though this does not covers the all,
but finding and trimming images is not difficult even for me (who lacks 3D-modeling technique).
(2) Increases System Requirement. My PC is no high-spec, so I will always turn off 3D view option.
What to do in larger scenario? (which most units are not 3D modeled)
(3) Increases devs' workload too.
The more they pay attention to improve "Exterior" 3D view, the less to "interior" Bug-fix, detailed game model (as LewisOwen says), ete.
I really like devs' current quick responce to these issues.
(4) I could easily imagine that DB3000 database thread (already one of the hottest thread in this forum), or 3D-view dedicated thread will be
choked up with messages claiming "Unit XXX model should (not) have YYY in 19ZZs" (most are about color skin or accessory, which does not affects the game at all). They conceal more important requests for game.
(5) Some of them says 3D models would be mod made by volunteer creator with 3D-modeling technique:
I doubt this would reduce the dev's burden.Who should I contact for request? how much extend does devs have responsibility for respective mods?
I'm interested in, what they learened from the dev's famous "No-DB editor" policy in this complex game.
(6) They say Command can use Tacview. I'll show great respect to Tacview author, but the name "Tac" view - this says it. 3D View player are really interested in viewing things in tactical perspective (1-2 unit involving dogfight/bombing), but not at all in the strategic perspective (50+ unit involving complex strike mission, ASW campaign, ete.).
BTW when I were to create scenario, to hide out the most fatal CPU maneuver, I would make "Diversionary actions", or circus show for 3D View player (more units/explosions). Consider "Dance of the Vampires" in Red Storm Rising as an good example.
Conclusion:
(1) I have neither money to buy platstic model (no interest, no assemble technique either even if purchased),
nor problem of playing one of the most complehensive wargame rule,
with simple paper aircrafts written just his name "F-15J #908" (I have to indicate remaining fuel/weapons, though).
(2) If you want to get situation awareness, please get accustomed to User Interface or NTDS symbol, and fly your AEW/recon aircraft.
I think it's a good experience for I, or normal version Command user "armchair general", to compensate lack of (brutal, bloodsheeding, and distressful) visual image report from frontline, by imagination.
(3) And as always: if you want to dance with beautiful/cute units, please play (for example) DCS world or Cold Waters.
or watch in-action footage in youtube. It is good news that there is "Play video" Lua function.
Thanks for reading!
ORIGINAL: LewisOwen
Some excellent points. Amen.
ORIGINAL: LewisOwen
I really don't get all the hype behind it [&:]
It's really disappointing to see the developers prioritize this kind of stuff over actual, game-changing features, that actually affect the game.
Long time coming features like:
Day/Night cycle and weather properly affecting air&naval ops
implementation of soft kills
rudimentary framework for CSAR/SAR ops
improved weather modelling
Intermittent sensor settings or advanced strike planner.
Even simpler things like:
higher res relief layer
range circles for aircraft
ability to target ref point (srsly this one can't be that hard)
ELINT being able to detect COMMS
and improved game logic so that units are better at staying in formation (enhanced formation editor would be nice too)
I would choose any of the aforementioned features over the whole 3d visualization thing any day of the week. I can only hope that I'm not the only one with this opinion.
Cheers
ORIGINAL: kevinkins
Or why it's even being advertised openingly in the first place and not top secret?
ORIGINAL: guanotwozero
To me the big benefit would not be accurate vessel modelling, but rather a better visualisation of the 3D world with hills and valleys - easier to understand radar masking and line-of-sight, and perhaps even submarine navigation in shallow waters.
ORIGINAL: LewisOwen
I really don't get all the hype behind it [&:]
It's really disappointing to see the developers prioritize this kind of stuff over actual, game-changing features, that actually affect the game.
Long time coming features like:
Day/Night cycle and weather properly affecting air&naval ops
implementation of soft kills
rudimentary framework for CSAR/SAR ops
improved weather modelling
Intermittent sensor settings or advanced strike planner.
Even simpler things like:
higher res relief layer
range circles for aircraft
ability to target ref point (srsly this one can't be that hard)
ELINT being able to detect COMMS
and improved game logic so that units are better at staying in formation (enhanced formation editor would be nice too)
I would choose any of the aforementioned features over the whole 3d visualization thing any day of the week. I can only hope that I'm not the only one with this opinion.
Cheers
ORIGINAL: magi
3d viewing would add nothing to the game.... its just kiddy stuff...
ORIGINAL: guanotwozero
However I recognise the importance of the Pro version, and agree that 3D may help in immersion and visualisation. I don't agree that every separate unit should be accurately modelled as this would be an enormous, thankless task. Better to have a limited number of generic models, e.g. all "modern fast jets" would use one model or a small number of variations. Same deal for generic destroyers, aircraft carriers, etc.