Good to see it's still alive!

[Alexander Seil]

Great job on the facelift. It's a little rough around the edges, but looks like it's headed in the right direction.

But, now that you are out of the clutches of Matrix's absurd pricing and marketing policies, is there any possibility LnL could put this on Steam?

I'm not suggesting this for my benefit alone. It's such a great game that I don't mind the hoops to jump through. However, Steam is where money is made. And I suspect that there is a great pile of money to be made here, because it's one of the few hardcore wargames (or, maybe, the only one) that is possible for a "normal" human being to play and enjoy (which is why RPS likes it so much, I suspect).

The reason I post this, is because I tried the other wargame darling of the mainstream, Flashpoint Campaigns (it's on Steam, by the way), and found its UI utterly horrid (and quit once I realized that I can't just order a HQ to do its thing, like I can in CO!).

Please, make money, and use it to make more and better CO mechanics and scenarios. It's one of the best (war)games ever made.

 

[Daz]

I think the game needs three key things, then it will sell big time.

Sequential tasking, dismountable mech and mot Inf, and most important of all 3D maps.
Get them in the game and I think it will get dragged out of niche market, and into main stream.

 

[Rosmarus]

I really don't see what 3D maps could add to the game besides growing system requirements. Games like Command Modern Air/Naval Operations and Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm both have 2D maps (Well Command works on a 3D planet map, but essentially forces you to play in a 2D environment) and are very much in the mainstream of wargaming. Hardcore strategy games will not break into the true mainstream because of their inherent complexity and it is that complexity that makes them so rewarding. In my opinion development resources are more well spent if they are used to add more moving parts to the simulation itself. More aggressive marketing could work in Command Op's favour as it would draw in people who are into wargaming but not aware of this title.

 

[Daz]

If you want to lead the way you have to try something others are not doing.

The biggest advantage of 3D is the ability to see the topography of the terrain, to assist in visualizing line of sight, without having to use the rudimentary tools.

A very important thing to be able to see in this game, far less so in Command Modern Air/Naval Operations, or in a hex based game like Flashpoint.

 

[The Plodder]

I dunno, you could probably get away with shading the maps with a relief layer or drop shadows, similar to what William and I did with the Flashpoint maps, without going full 3-D. That would involve enabling raster layers in the map drawing routines somehow though.

 

[Daz]

Something like this you mean where the camera stays in Plan view but the contours are shaded as if the sun is low in the sky, casting shadow onto the reverse side of a slope?

 

[The Plodder]

Yep, that's it.

 

[pekische]

Yeah, this kind of plastic maps would be really huge progress for the game. I don´t think that full 3D is needed.

 

[Kurt]

I am pro 3D personally, I play Panzer Command (MATRIX GAMES) and having that 3D perspective on on the map as apposed to 2D is huge. Playing in 2D is like commanding miles from the front relying on maps. Playing in 3D is like being a forward artillery observer getting a real feel for the terrain . Looks cool too .

 

[Falkenberg]

Uh? This is an WWII operational game. In my mind this means:
1. you are commanding miles from the front
2. your understanding of the terrain is derived from printed maps

But more generally, what does Panzer Command have in common with Command Ops? Not so much it seems. Although I have not played Panzer Command it seems best compared to Combat Mission rather than to Command Ops.

I wish we could respect Command Ops for what it is and does so well instead of wishing it were a completely different game.

 

[Daz]

The problem with the Command Ops maps is they don't give you the same kind of contour information as printed OS maps.
I was trained on OS maps, and can quickly determine the lay of the land from a quick glance at them.
The way the Command Ops maps have been developed with very little contour information makes this much harder.

Having the 3D Option can only bring in more people to the game, and wouldn't have any effect on people that wanted to stay locked into the Pan (top down) view as the map would look no different from this view than it does now.

I'm not talking about having the kind of 3D that is in the Combat Missions game, with 3D model equipment, or the kind that is in the campaign map of the Total War series, I am just talking about having the current maps draped over the 3D terrain, as in the images in my St Vith AAR.

This would also make life much easier for scenario designers, because if you went for the shaded kind of maps as in the image above, where the 10m contour is accurately represented, can you imagine how much extra work that would involve compared to just draping your map over a 3D model of the terrain as I did for my images from Google Earth?
Can you honestly say you would never use the 3D option if it was available and would stay locked permanently into the top down view?

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

I must say I am partial to having 3D maps for all the reasons Daz and others had advanced here. However, if we went this route, then we would need to carefully consider how units will be represented. I am not that much in favour of the draped icon as it makes it very hard to see depending on the orientation. I think I would prefer a draped "occupied area" and then a flag type icon that was always flush to the screen - in that way it would not be distorted and remain clearly legible. But it's something we would need to play with.

 

[Daz]

Got to go to work so don't have time to say any more but i will when I get back

 

[DerGrenadier]

How about the road Battle Command took?

http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.de/...ealAndSimulatedWars+(Real+and+Simulated+Wars)

 

[pekische]

Wow, are you Dave really thinking about 3D maps?! It would be great! I absolutely agree with reasons for this kind of maps that Daz mentioned. Moreover it would be completely different game experience and I am sure that absolutely commercial success.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

How about the road Battle Command took?

http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.de/...ealAndSimulatedWars+(Real+and+Simulated+Wars)

While they haven't draped the icon over the terrain they have laid a tile if you like on top of the terrain. In the end though it still make it hard to read.

 

[Rosmarus]

If you want to lead the way you have to try something others are not doing.

The biggest advantage of 3D is the ability to see the topography of the terrain, to assist in visualizing line of sight, without having to use the rudimentary tools.

A very important thing to be able to see in this game, far less so in Command Modern Air/Naval Operations, or in a hex based game like Flashpoint.

You'd still need the LOS tools. If you have ever played games from the Combat Mission franchise I'm sure you remember constantly having to check LOS for the units. The LOS tool is not currently in the latest titles and this leads to situations where you scroll up and down to see the terrain and the big picture and in the end you drive your tank into a position where a) it is more exposed than you meant or b) it is not able to see. 3D terrain is flashy, I give you that but proper map with good relief layer and LOS tools wins, especially when you have to see big picture. And with 2D presentation there is no way you can lose an unit behind a hill. I really liked the picture you had in your message #6 and that could be a nice compromise between both parties.

 

[Kurt]

Uh? This is an WWII operational game. In my mind this means:
1. you are commanding miles from the front
2. your understanding of the terrain is derived from printed maps

But more generally, what does Panzer Command have in common with Command Ops? Not so much it seems. Although I have not played Panzer Command it seems best compared to Combat Mission rather than to Command Ops.

I wish we could respect Command Ops for what it is and does so well instead of wishing it were a completely different game.

Senior commanders are known to put in a physical appearance at the 'pointy end' , perhaps climbing a hill and donning bino's to view the battlefield in order to get a better 'feel' . Senior German commanders in WWII certainly did this . That is the way I perceive this concept,

 

[No idea]

I think a good 2d map would be enough, alhough a good 3d map is more intuitive. Anyway, as things are now it is difficult for me to tell if i will have los and what is the general terrain layout without having to use the tools constantly, which becomes really annoying.

 

[Templer]

I must say I am partial to having 3D maps for all the reasons Daz and others had advanced here. However, if we went this route, then we would need to carefully consider how units will be represented. I am not that much in favour of the draped icon as it makes it very hard to see depending on the orientation. I think I would prefer a draped "occupied area" and then a flag type icon that was always flush to the screen - in that way it would not be distorted and remain clearly legible. But it's something we would need to play with.

Personally I can live very well without 3D maps.

I think there are more important things for Command Ops as 3D maps.

The generals at that time did not have any 3D maps, as I have really good used to the Command Ops maps.

However, what bothers me a bit, is the highs on the Comand Ops sometimes maps are sometimes in bright tones (BotB), another time display in dark tones (CotA).

A straight line would be good.