The "Uber" Command: Modern Air/Naval Ops Thread

[spelk]

Anyway, back to the fun of the actual game...

What was the first real scenario played and why?

I'm trying to decide where to take the plunge, because I like to invest some time - getting to know the era and equipment available, and I'm not really sure where to begin. Obviously the Falklands scenarios are looking enticing, but I want to savour them and take my time, when I've got a full command over all aspects of controlling the game/units.

[mikeck]

Here's an example of the absolute absurdity of that review: Herman's complaints about having to click on every unit individually to tell the AI not to fire. Makes a big production about how much of a pain it is to click on every unit. Well, why would you have to do that? Almost every unit that is doing something is doing it within the framework of a mission created in the editor. When you create that mission, you create the rules of Engagement. Standard would be "engage unidentified targets: no"

So, if my ROE is set to not shoot at crap when I don't know of its hostile, why would I have to run around and manually tell every pilot not to shoot at unidentified crap? Well, you don't...that's why we have Roe. Now, is there a time when you wouldn't want a ship or plane to fire at a hostile target when in weapons range? Perhaps...and when that occasion occurs, you can click on the unit and select "AI hold fire" simple.

Your ignorance of this game is simply astounding.  To be perfectly clear, there is no way to order units to hold fire with the ROE setting.  That setting is only for "Engage non-hostiles".  In Harpoon and Naval War: Arctic Circle, Weapons Tight status is set with two clicks.

A player who wishes to exercise total control over his units and not permit them to fire without his express authorization cannot do so.  This is for both hostile and non-hostile targets.  The only way to prevent units from firing is to issue the Hold Fire command to each and every group along with every individual unit.  There is no other way.

Oh sorry your majesty... Didn't mean to challenge your knowledge of the game. I'm pretty sure I've made it through many hours of playing this game without having my AI controlled units randomly firing missiles all the targets all of the screen.

You do set rules of engagement in the mission editor and those rules are set to prevent an AI unit from firing on anyone except hostile contacts. Now, if for some reason I don't want my AI controlled units to fire at hostile targets within weapons range, then yes, I have to click on the hold fire icon but I can't think of a whole lot of times that I would want to do that so it's really not that annoying to go click on the one or two units you want to hold fire. You put the review online... you're the one who submitted it to the public. I'm pointing out something into your view that I thought was unfair and inaccurate and your response is to call me ignorant? why not you try to be a little less arrogant and listen the criticisms whether you find constructive or not.

This game has issues with performance and UI. Personally, I think there are too few scenarios and no campaigns is a problem. That said , it's a good game and I found your review to be inaccurate and unfair. If your response is just to call me ignorant , then fine.

Personally, I had spent years developing a game...a true labor of love, only to see it poorly reviewed, I would be upset too...REGARDLESS of whether the complaints were innaccurate. I don't think the developers reaction indicates defensiveness... It's because it's inaccurate (in some areas...not all to be fair).

That's all. I just thought your review was in poor form Herman.

[mikeck]

What's annoying is this - his review is there...like it or lump it - in the public domain...so it should be discredited by pointing out glaring issues with it - by doing anything else suggests there's a disregard for the points he raised.

Actually, I can point to one glaring error that totally unhinges the entire review:

"Most displays such as Weapons, Sensors, and Contacts can only be activated via the mouse-click on a button."

should read:

"Most displays such as Damage Control and Contacts can only be activated via the mouse-click on a button."

:P

Edit: misread the comment

[mikeck]

Sorry... Didn't see we were " back on topic" while I was ranting. Anyway, I have provided two examples of where he is wrong or nitpicky. And like jarhead , I couldn't listen. Heard about 30 minutes of the review and read the rest.

[spelk]

Baloogan has just put up the videos from his Episode 2 of playing Command.
http://baloogancampaign.com/2013/09/30/command-episode-2/

[jomni]

I think there's a difference in UI philosophy in Command vs. Harpoon.

Command is a bit unconventional because you do a lot of clicking before the mission is executed via the all-important Mission Editor.  But once it's rolling you just leave it be with little fine tuning.  The challenge is in coming up with the greatest plan that needs the least adjustment.  But of course the truth of the matter is that "No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact..."  But the key here is for the AI to actually be smart and realistic enough to execute a brilliant plan (like in Command Ops Battle of the Bulge).  The task is akin to high-level commanders, sorting out areas of operations, force composition and ROE.

Harpoon on the other hand employs a hands-on approach during combat where the system asks for your permission when firing weapons, you individually plot waypoints, speed, depth / altitude. (which you can also do in Command), etc.  This is the conventional way of playing games.   As for Harpoon, it is as if you are the commander of each individual platform with a "hive mind".

I like both games because the approaches are different and offers different experiences.

But I do agree that a bit more control options can be put into Command for more flexible and detailed planning and execution.  It may be more clicks for some parts or less clicks for some other aspect. :)

[Bismarck]

Actually, I screwed up the first tutorial file. I was playing by phases, e.g. sending the Tomcats then saving. I sent in the Corsairs and took out no SAMs. I started over but, in both the save and original. The Tomcats and Corsairs are unavailable. I even uninstalled ad re-installed - same thing.

1. What did I do wrong when saving?
2. How do I get a fresh copy of the tutorial file back?

[Dimitris]

Hi Jim, here's a fresh copy of the scenario (see attached).

[Bismarck]

Thanks, Dimitris. Any idea what I did wrong?

[Dimitris]

Difficult to say without examining the scenario file in detail. None of the actions you describe should cause this result.

Any chance you have the autosave file?

[Bismarck]

Not yet.  I moved you new file over and had the same problem.  Very strange.

[emsoy]

Hi Jim,

We actually have an updated database and scenario ready for release, will zip and send over later tonight when kids are in bed and I'm back from the dojo  ;D

Thanks!

[Bismarck]

Great. Thanks.

[Bismarck]

Difficult to say without examining the scenario file in detail. None of the actions you describe should cause this result.

Any chance you have the autosave file?

I found the autosave. I can't attach here. How do I get it to you?

[Dimitris]

Send it at sunburngr@gmail.com .

Thanks!