Popping into the CMNO thread to post video obstensibly to help someone learn about the game, which instead basically shits all over it as a competitive product is pretty much the definition of being a jerk.
You were a jerk. Don’t be a jerk.
No, answering a member’s request for information directly with an accurate depiction of this game is what I did.
And I did it all without name-calling; which is one common definition of being a jerk.
I notice that no one has yet been able to point out where the video is inaccurate. Of course, many have tried (desperately), but no one has yet been successful.
Okay.
I like it. It’s a wargame. I’m willing to forgive it of a multitude of interface and presentation sins because of that—ideally, I wouldn’t have to, but good UI is hard, and for whatever reason, wargame/simulation developers rarely get it right—and because it’s hands-down the most detailed simulation of modern naval combat ever made. Particularly important to me is EW modeling, which I think CMANO gets more right than Harpoon did. Also handy is CMANO’s vastly improved grouping and mission system, which, although it builds on pioneering work by Harpoon, is a significant enough improvement to be worth the price of entry by itself, if you like large actions.
I like smashing small fast-attack boats together. The big fleet battles just make my head spin. I can’t imagine coordinating a multiple-ship alpha strike simply because I prefer to be a captain versus a Grand Admiral. (This is from my wargame roots where I preferred individual ship actions e.g. Battlewagons, SFB et.al. vs. the higher level stuff like 5th Fleet).
The UI is a sheer vertical cliff, but once you’ve got your figurative crampons in place, you can do amazing things with the mission editor.
I like big boats and I can not lie
Your level of tolerance and mine are different. That’s fine. This is why it is important to post videos that honestly depict how this game runs. You may accept the problems, but others may not. Letting potential users know the truth so that they can make their own informed decision is paramount. That is why FailSafe is recorded in real-time. Every agonizing second is depicted so that viewers can know exactly what their money purchases.
Throwing a gazillion unnecessary details into a game does not make it good. Trying to track the number of rivets on a plane or pilot call signs adds nothing to playability
There are certainly differences and they may be improvements. However, it would be hubristic to claim to know which one is better. The fact is that Harpoon allows for folks to change values if they have different experiences or knowledge. There are many different opinions on the effectiveness of EW systems, yet we are locked into one perceived situation for MNO. It may be right but, more often than not, it isn’t.
This is true. There have been some improvements in MNO grouping (like the ability to drag-select multiple units for path plotting a’la NWAC), but there have also been some significant failures. For example, the ability for units within a group to be many miles distant from one another is just one of them. Often, you can see one unit being engaged while the group icon is many miles away, unaware that one of the sub-units is is actually within enemy range.
I cannot agree with the ‘large actions’. The poor MNO data handling pretty much precludes the larger scenarios. Time and time, again, reports show the large scenarios simply grinding to a halt. MNO is suited for the small and medium-sized scenarios.
Everyone has their personal preference. Sadly this game is pretty much limited to small or medium-sized battles simply because the large scenarios cause so many problems. The FailSafe scenario I played and recorded is, IMO, only med-large in Harpoon terms and it ran like molasses.
The smaller scenarios also minimize the control problems induced by the UI. Players can focus on a smaller area and actually see what is happening to their forces. On the larger maps, much the time is spent pausing to zoom in and out in order to find out What happened and Where.
And some guys like the new Atlantic Fleet or Battle Fleet 2 types of games, where they almost act as individual gun captains.
Too true. The UI is a total kludge, but that is a matter of poor design. However, players should be able to ignore the Mission Editor altogether and simply administer their forces directly because the AI is so weak. The last thing a player should want to is to grant control of his units to the AI. Unfortunately, the UI is so poor that direct control is almost impossible. Issuing the right orders to your own units should never be an ordeal, the way it is in MNO.
The video… was … made…by a fucking…robot. No one is going to watch 4.5 hours of your masturbatory dev stalking in order to refute it.
I see that you are unable to find an actual fault with anything within the video. So, you resorted to your usual name-calling as a smoke-screen for your failure.
Noted.
Hi,
Which aspects of the UI would you like to see improved? Thanks!
The saddest part here is that there is some good constructive criticism to be had on these games. The problem is that the discourse is plumiting. As a guy who liked what Harpoon did way back when I really appreciate what CMNO is trying to do. Now, I haven’t got onboard with it yet because I simply can’t deal with that kind of UI to get to that kind of simulation at this point in my life. So yea maybe it’s got issues but it’s obvious that it is a successor to Harpoon. I don’t know why you insist or by what criteria you really need to label it as a failure, and I’m not going to watch hours of YouTube video to find out. If you’ve got some salient points to make do so and I think everyone around will be better for it. As someone without much vested interest in the competition(?) this is some really bizaare behaviour and you do come off as a little obsessive.
Tom Mc
Hi Chase,
Which aspects of the UI did you have difficulty with in the beginning and would like to see tweaked? We are regularly checking/testing ways to make the UI less intimidating for beginners (for example, IIRC in v1.10 we grouped together a number of related menu items on the unit context [right-click] menu in order to make this menu deeper vs “flatter”).
Thanks!
Let me get back to you on that—I haven’t played in a while, and if I’m going to offer feedback, I want it to be informed and specific.
(Great work overall, though—CMANO is a great tool for answering all the burning platform-vs-platform questions I’ve always had.)
Exactly right. Games should be fun to play and not a chore to endure.
Vested interest? Really? I’m pretty sure the owner of Harpoon would strenuously object to any suggestion that I might be invested in his company. Of course, if you define my ‘vested interest’ as someone who thoroughly documented all the problems found within Harpoon, then you are correct. * Known Harpoon [ANW] Issues
Here are some of the points I previously identified and persist to this very day:
The Good
- Many game functions and commands are compatible with Harpoon3. H3 veterans will easily grasp the basic game concepts and controls and be playing within an hour.
- A physics package will ensure that most units will observe the Laws of Physics. This means no more instantaneous acceleration, turns, dives, or missiles fired ‘over-the-shoulder’ at a pursuer. Unfortunately, the game engine only applies the universal Laws of Physics in specific situations.
- Sensors and weapons report very detailed resolution through comprehensive messages that show the various modifiers and variables. These messages can be disabled if they turn out to be too much information.
- Third-party modifications to images, sounds, and icons are easy to add. Many images for the aircraft, ships, and submarines have already been added by the user community as well as a speech and ambient sound module.
- Color-coded messages make for ease of reference by the player. Hostile action reports appear in Red, while other administrative reports appear in white, green, or yellow. The colours quickly catch the player’s eye and help him categorize those reports that require immediate attention.
The Bad
- No multiple player capability exists. The only opponent is the AI, which can be easily tricked once it is understood. This is easily seen from the video AAR for a scenario classified by the developers as Maximum Difficulty and Complexity:
Steam Community :: Video :: [MNO] Northern Inferno: FailSafe- The Event Engine produces strange results from teleportation of units instead of the more recognized deployment from aircraft or ships.
- A crude Formation Editor capability means that the solitary map is cluttered with unnecessary icons and symbols. Confusion quickly ensues when aircraft assigned to protect the carrier group cannot easily be distinguished from those assigned to expeditionary missions. Most other games have independent window displays to control formations so that units can function as organized groups.
The downright Ugly
- No database editing capability exists. The database is frozen. The current items, equipment, and systems can be shuffled, re-arranged, or re-combined, but nothing new can be added nor can the performance of any current system be modified. Players are forced to accept false perceptions of reality.
- The false database information cripples virtually all modern combat aircraft with the same 925 knot maximum speed on afterburner, regardless of their true performance parameters in Real Life.
- The UI is severely overloaded, cluttered, and user-unfriendly. The dependence upon a single map to display all the units and functions means that the number of icons and other data displayed is extreme. Coupled with the inability to turn off some information, this means that the player is easily overwhelmed by the data, much of which he probably did not want to see in the first place.
- Direct player control is difficult to exercise due primarily to the single map display. The inability to differentiate between units at a distance or high altitude means that the user must constantly zoom in and out to locate units for his orders and targets. This awkwardness triples the time and effort necessary for the most simple and basic orders and truly makes the game a chore to play instead of a pleasure.
Just another perfect example of re-arranging the deck furniture on the Titanic.
Is CMANO sinking in some way? Do you have a successor to Harpoon in the offing Herman?
Thanks!
If you’ve been away for a while, be sure to check the updates summary and the Manual Addendum to get up to speed quickly.
MNO may or may not be sinking, but re-arranging the deck furniture is just another exercise in futility. Instead of tackling the endemic problems within the UI, these constant superficial changes result in no meaningful improvements. Of course, three years after the game was released, it is unlikely any are forthcoming.
I may not, but we can certainly hope that someone out there does. The bar has been set pretty low with this attempt.
What are the major problems, and how would you address them?
I didn’t struggle too much with the UI, it’s fairly straight forward once you accept the paradigms (F3 to issue move orders, rather than a contextual right click for example).
My major dislike remains the difficulty of navigating around the map. It should be fast and slick to rotate the globe, and you should be able to hold the right button down to do it. Holding the keys down should work as well, rather than rotate the map invisibly in the background as they do currently. This kind of graphical thing should be uncoupled from game logic updates. Maybe we could have a minimap as well! :)
I’d love the OOB window to be functional rather than just a unit selector, and support issuing right-click orders to units there. I should be able to open a mission listed in the OOB window for editing. It should be dockable. Maybe some tooltips to show unit details.
Other stuff would be mostly quality of life improvements:
Issues with main screen focus when coming from windows - should not need to click to activate the main window before menus work.
OOB window doesn’t remember last settings, or the tab you were on. It could do with collapse/expand all, maybe some filters.
The ctrl-key groups should select units, not just move the camera.