Game Suggestions

[USSInchon]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

No devs need to focus on folks interested in the game and not poster's screwing around on the forum or trying to troll the devs.

Mike

Sorry, it was poor attempt at humor.

[mikmykWS]

No worries[:)]

[vicberg]

Ok, tried playing nice.

Game has been deleted. Not enough information on what's going on under the hood and no desire to get answers from this forum

1) The Persecution section in the manual is buried within pages 137-164 of the Addendum to the rules. The addendum is organized more like a set of patch notes rather than instructional information. You obviously didn't have time or interest in incorporating into the manual but you certainly expect others to spend hours wading through 27 pages of patch notes to find a critical piece of information.
2) The inability to escort early warning or a SEAD patrol is a design gap
3) Patrols in general are a mess because there's not enough understanding of what the AI is going to do on Patrol. There's nothing stated in the manual or within the plane/weapon in-game descriptions what the target prioritization or best use. This is especially true for SEAD patrols and based on loadout of a plane or varied loadouts including cluster bombs, etc.,.will the AI use cluster bombs to hard kill a SAM of on SEAD? No idea. But certainly not interested in asking on this forum.
4) WRA is too generic. Should be more tailored for the mission type
5) Not only is WRA generic, interface is clunky at best, almost impossible for a large scenario at a global level and time consuming on a mission by mission basis.
6) Your information about planes and weapons is haphazardly presented. Sometimes a picture and full explanation and purpose/role of the plane or weapon, sometimes just a data dump. There's little to no explanation of key terminology or acronyms, unless I google it. Little explanation about key information concerning best use of weapon and no idea if AI is going to use that weapon in best role or even how to configure WRA in order to use it in best role
7) I'm guessing your target market is people who've been in the Air Force and/or Navy or otherwise are military technology enthusiasts. Forget everyone else right? I've got a better idea. Ridicule! Another idea. Label as trouble maker if you don't like what you read. That's smart
8) Game doesn't scale to large battles because of the degree of manual involvement. Harpoon had same issue and for same issue, removed it.

In summary, you haven't figured out what you want to be when you grow up. A CinC type game or a detailed hands on WITP type game. You've mixed both and thrown in real time on top of it, so it's a mish mash of all worlds. Was going to play nice to try to help, but after this, no thank you. The degree of professionalism from some of those involved in it's development is lacking at best.

Good luck.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: vicberg
I've already received PMs from others since I started this thread about how people are treated on this forum.

It's not news to us that there are people here more interested in forum drama than playing the game and helping others.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: Rudd

You're right I guess, there are no dumb questions.

The problem is, you didn't ask any questions in the first post, you just were saying here's a bunch of issues with the game, that aren't really issues.

That's what irritates some of us, we may reply in not such a pc way so the devs don't have to repeat themselves over and over. Stay on here for a while and you'll see what I mean.

This.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
By the way has anybody found forum utopia yet? I hear it's a wonderful place for exactly one person.

Mike

It's funny though. No one who's actually in the trenches of developing wargames/sims has ever criticized us of being "rude", "unprofessional" or whatever is the chestnut accusation of this week. Likewise, no-one who's doing any serious forum moderation has ever told us we're doing it wrong. And I hardly think it's because they're afraid of retribution.

Dunning-Kruger much? [:)]

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: vicberg
Ok, tried playing nice.

Game has been deleted. Not enough information on what's going on under the hood and no desire to get answers from this forum

If it fits your narrative, sure.

1) The Persecution section in the manual is buried within pages 137-164 of the Addendum to the rules. The addendum is organized more like a set of patch notes rather than instructional information. You obviously didn't have time or interest in incorporating into the manual but you certainly expect others to spend hours wading through 27 pages of patch notes to find a critical piece of information.

How dare we expect users to read and be informed about the stuff we're adding/improving.

2) The inability to escort early warning or a SEAD patrol is a design gap

The inability to understand design priorities is a PEBKAC.

3) Patrols in general are a mess because there's not enough understanding of what the AI is going to do on Patrol. There's nothing stated in the manual or within the plane/weapon in-game descriptions what the target prioritization or best use. This is especially true for SEAD patrols and based on loadout of a plane or varied loadouts including cluster bombs, etc.,.will the AI use cluster bombs to hard kill a SAM of on SEAD? No idea. But certainly not interested in asking on this forum.

There are a million different things that can happen in a patrol based on the combination of tasked assets, their platform capabilities, opposition and other factors (weather etc.). If you expect a "here's what's going to happen" documentation for each possible combination then you clearly don't get the scope.

4) WRA is too generic. Should be more tailored for the mission type

Who will pay for that? Oh wait we should do everything in free updates.

5) Not only is WRA generic, interface is clunky at best, almost impossible for a large scenario at a global level and time consuming on a mission by mission basis.

Given that most users find the WRA interface suitable for their needs, this comment speaks more about you than the game.

6) Your information about planes and weapons is haphazardly presented. Sometimes a picture and full explanation and purpose/role of the plane or weapon, sometimes just a data dump.

How dare we not include information obtainable through a 30-sec Google search, and which will inevitably be stale if stored on the game whereas when externally queried it always remains currents. And of course photos (which have to be paid for handsomely unless we want to become every copyright vulture's plaything) for every single platform.

There's little to no explanation of key terminology or acronyms, unless I google it. Little explanation about key information concerning best use of weapon and no idea if AI is going to use that weapon in best role or even how to configure WRA in order to use it in best role

"You're not spoonfeeding me enough!"

7) I'm guessing your target market is people who've been in the Air Force and/or Navy or otherwise are military technology enthusiasts. Forget everyone else right? I've got a better idea. Ridicule! Another idea. Label as trouble maker if you don't like what you read. That's smart

Our target audience is smart, respectful and no-nonsense people. Your confusion is understandable though.

8) Game doesn't scale to large battles because of the degree of manual involvement. Harpoon had same issue and for same issue, removed it.

It scales just fine if you let go of the need to micromanage everything. Chuck Horner was not checking the fuel state of every F-16 over Iraq and neither should you. We understand this is not possible for everyone though. Many users stick to small/medium-scale scenarios and are just happy.

In summary, you haven't figured out what you want to be when you grow up.

Condescending know-it-alls? We may face some stiff competition on that path. Better find something else.

A CinC type game or a detailed hands on WITP type game. You've mixed both and thrown in real time on top of it, so it's a mish mash of all worlds.

Or the best of both worlds, as our tens of thousands of happy customers (plus pro users) attest.

Was going to play nice to try to help, but after this, no thank you. The degree of professionalism from some of those involved in it's development is lacking at best.

Having lost the argument, you can always bring out the "professionalism" staple. Never saw _that_ coming.

Good luck.

Take care.

[thewood1]

"I'm not very smart and I'll admit that, but I did play GDW Air Superiority and Air Strike so I have an understanding of the overall mechanics. For 2010 technologies, not so much."

This quote from Mr. vic says it all. This is a perfect textbook case of a troll. There is no way a real player is going to come in and talk like this or say the other things he said. He is either not very smart or had a non-game goal in mind when he set out. There was a lot of effort expended to help him and he basically said he wouldn't do anything to learn the game. That is just not a normal person.

[mikmykWS]

I understand his frustration with lots of people not agreeing with him. I think we've seen it before[:)]

Filtered the noise out and just grabbed what was useful for us to look at.

Mike

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

ORIGINAL: vicberg
I've already received PMs from others since I started this thread about how people are treated on this forum.

It's not news to us that there are people here more interested in forum drama than playing the game and helping others.

Ever seen the movie Mean Girls?

Mike

[Kitchens Sink]

I've had this simulation for over 2 years, and it took me 4 months of screen-time before I felt smart enough to even ask a question on the forum. Most of the questions I would have asked were answered by just reading the manual, playing the simulation, and experimenting.

THIS GUY comes in after a few days of playing with a long laundry list of "non-issues" and says he's gonna help y'all. Then he deletes the game and says bye-bye when there is some pushback on the forum.

[8|]

[USSInchon]

ORIGINAL: Kitchens Sink

I've had this simulation for over 2 years, and it took me 4 months of screen-time before I felt smart enough to even ask a question on the forum. Most of the questions I would have asked were answered by just reading the manual, playing the simulation, and experimenting.

THIS GUY comes in after a few days of playing with a long laundry list of "non-issues" and says he's gonna help y'all. Then he deletes the game and says bye-bye when there is some pushback on the forum.

[8|]

^^This. I have been lurking in the forums for years before I finally had the funds to purchase on Steam when it was on sale. I have loved this genre of game since the early days of Harpoon. This game is deep, it will take years to understand how things work, and how to get them to do what you want. I applaud the devs for making such an in depth simulation rather than just a contemporary version of Command and Conquer with fancy visuals but no depth. It is intimidating for most, but for those that will give it a go, there are great rewards.

[MarkShot]

I didn't play much HC/H3/ANW. However, I see big improvements in this game both in terms of the game and technology.

There is one area of the UI which should be changed. Windows only come to the foreground when they are first opened. If they are open already and hidden, then hitting then appropriate key or menu option does nothing. They should always come to the foreground. I am using two monitors and the absence of this greatly negates the secondary monitor and free floating windows.

Thanks!

[thewood1]

Probably best to put that in the request thread, not buried in this one.

[stilesw]

Thank the Powers That Be! Another forum troll dispatched, no longer (hopefully) to antagonize and frustrate the dedicated CMANO development staff, followers and satisfied users!

[StellarRat]

I hardly think that you should gloat about this like it's a victory of some kind.

[Dimitris]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

I didn't play much HC/H3/ANW. However, I see big improvements in this game both in terms of the game and technology.

There is one area of the UI which should be changed. Windows only come to the foreground when they are first opened. If they are open already and hidden, then hitting then appropriate key or menu option does nothing. They should always come to the foreground. I am using two monitors and the absence of this greatly negates the secondary monitor and free floating windows.

Thanks!

If you can open a new thread for this on the Tech Support forum and provide a step-by-step it would be great. (UI issues are very hard to reproduce without precise retrace of the steps).

Thanks.