Lol I never noticed the sad horses lilje I will have to go check them out. I was think that you might be able to set/mod the zoom to get rid off or limit the 3d model's.
- 1
Why does "everyone" insists on the NATO Counters that much ?
- Thread starter Salatmander
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
What is friggin hilarious is that the NATO type counters basically evolved from the 'miniatures' type of battle plan maps. Symbolic counters are designed to be easy and clear to read. They are, however, not the be-all, end all of clear infographical symbolism. They are a compromise between abstraction and detail. Sticking to baseline 'symbols' in a computer world for the sake of 'old school wargames' is counter to the entire concept of the counter. If there is a tool available which can show more, important information without cluttering the rest of the display OR displacing more important information, by all means use it.
Just as an example, counters cannot (without adding more non-standard markers) show training, movement, strength, combat, bombing, attrition, or numerous other things that we might like to know.
A sprite can do pushups, march, be 'missing men', fire, take shelter, starve etc to illustrate what is happening to it. And sprites can do it in a way that makes it clear from a casual glance what is happening.
Now, when zooming out either the sprites become tiny, or they overlap, making their 'extra' information useless again.
If General Patton could have had tiny little mechanical tanks that displayed exactly what his units were/were suppose to be doing, he would have been a happy camper. Counters were the best option when we still pushed things around on a sand table / had 8 bit graphics....
Just as an example, counters cannot (without adding more non-standard markers) show training, movement, strength, combat, bombing, attrition, or numerous other things that we might like to know.
A sprite can do pushups, march, be 'missing men', fire, take shelter, starve etc to illustrate what is happening to it. And sprites can do it in a way that makes it clear from a casual glance what is happening.
Now, when zooming out either the sprites become tiny, or they overlap, making their 'extra' information useless again.
If General Patton could have had tiny little mechanical tanks that displayed exactly what his units were/were suppose to be doing, he would have been a happy camper. Counters were the best option when we still pushed things around on a sand table / had 8 bit graphics....
- 14
- 3
I suppose Doc you could represent much of what you say on counter's by colour's on the counter.
- 1
The only thing i see as negative point of sprites is if something like here happens.
Because I have no clue whats going on THERE right now^^`
(but i think in HOI 4 also thanks to much more detail on the models them self it wouldn t look such confusing)
In the end, its just important you can differ the troops from each other
Because I have no clue whats going on THERE right now^^`
(but i think in HOI 4 also thanks to much more detail on the models them self it wouldn t look such confusing)
In the end, its just important you can differ the troops from each other
Last edited:
- 10
There is already added non-standard markers on the counters in the previous installations of HOI which worked perfectly fine. For example movement is displayed by a triangle in the direction of movement, which I personally believe is far superior in clearly showing where the troops are heading compared to a large camouflaged soldier walking stationary, especially when there is numerous movement in the same province/zone. When a unit was "starving" ie out of supplies it was red, when it had little supplies it was yellow. How is the level of supply represented by sprites, are they eating bread and drinking water when low on supplies and praying for food when completely lacking?
Not even gonna open the can of worms with push-ups which I believe is ridiculous and training in general (since it seems to be a no-brainer to train troops in peace time), but it could be represented by anything, a small T in the corner of the counter or a ribbon of some sort. And I don't want my troops on a regional scale to duck for bullets or anything else like this. It can however be represented by ribbons/signs/letters/whatever.
If people want moving soldiers, that is completely fine, I'm not arguing that those features should be left out, I just hope there will be both alternatives at some point in the future. That way everybody will be happy.
On a side note my guess is that Patton would not enjoy a clusterfuck of different toys on the board, it simply does not convey a good order and overview.
- 13
Ah Lilje I cannot believe you don't like the push ups 
I thought they looked cool . but I agree with you completely on the counter's.
I think if Paton had a toy soldier on the map doing push ups he would have loved it.
I thought they looked cool . but I agree with you completely on the counter's. I think if Paton had a toy soldier on the map doing push ups he would have loved it.
Last edited:
Well, considering we have the choice between the two, and have had it for a long time (even the ability to mod how units look on the board was mentioned a while ago, if I remember correctly), I think it really doesn't matter. If you want counters and no sprites, you get counters and no sprites. If you want sprites, you get sprites. If you want both you get both. Simple as that.
People should not be forced to play with the unit models for obvious reasons mentioned many times, but for the counters, I apologize, but I think it is a little childish in itself to consider playing with unit models childish. It is, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. If I wanted to be a "grown-ass man", I would not be playing video games.
The unit sprites don't give out the most information, admittedly, and can cause some people who watch to cringe, that's fine. To me, the unit models add life onto the mad, just like the "neon lights", the day-night cycle, and the gradient boarders. Some people like to feel like the general on the planning board, I don't. I like being the god in the sky watching "reality" happen on the map, so I like the colours, the bustling cities, the soldiers standing on guard and doing pushups, awaiting war.
People should not be forced to play with the unit models for obvious reasons mentioned many times, but for the counters, I apologize, but I think it is a little childish in itself to consider playing with unit models childish. It is, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. If I wanted to be a "grown-ass man", I would not be playing video games.
The unit sprites don't give out the most information, admittedly, and can cause some people who watch to cringe, that's fine. To me, the unit models add life onto the mad, just like the "neon lights", the day-night cycle, and the gradient boarders. Some people like to feel like the general on the planning board, I don't. I like being the god in the sky watching "reality" happen on the map, so I like the colours, the bustling cities, the soldiers standing on guard and doing pushups, awaiting war.
- 4
Can you turn of the sprites? Where is this confirmed? Also, the counters presently in this game is not the counters most users want. I however am quite fine with the new type of counter since it also displays number of units, now that we have the possibility to choose NATO symbols and have no OOB.
I agree that it is childish to consider unit models childish, there is nothing wrong with it in that sense, and it's possible that Patton enjoys them for their looks, but they are confusing in large numbers and generally not as clear as plain counters, as Salatmander showed in the picture.
- 1
Right, but the point is, is THAT is a FAIR reason to not want sprites, so further support in how there should be a choice between the two and not forced.
I actually just hear about the counters thing frequently on the forums, I would not be able to come up with a source right off the top of my head.
I'm curious how a training starving sprite would look like, or just a starving one, on his knees reaching for help? And I don't think it's more clear at a casual glance, trying to interpret 20 sprites seems a lot harder then 20 counters with red boarders for example.
- 3
I actually didn t want to bring this to a discussion what is "better".
That depends completely on personal preferences.
I do really like the new 3d models und animations. Because in the end I need some visualisation.
I see it like The_Meme_Man
My only concern with it is that it gets unclear what units you have where, doing what or in the worst case, who it belongs to.
Thats a big thing Paradox needs to be able to manage. And also if a Dev really is that "bored" to read the 26th Thread about this topic now ^^`.
The visual is awesome and like me (not all apparently =P) lots of people are looking forward to seeing more of them.
BUT, the way you put so much weight on the visuals and sprites, and put that much confidence in them, that you say "no, they are awesome, why should people want to deactivate them".
They MUST be clear to oversee and understand, also in large scale confrontations.
I am sure that this was thought through in the development but i just want to mention it again, it mustn`t look like in the picture i posted above (actually not self made, just googled it)
That depends completely on personal preferences.
I do really like the new 3d models und animations. Because in the end I need some visualisation.
I see it like The_Meme_Man
and i don t like to see it as a "military simulation" on a tactic table. Also a reason why i don t like to just move "chips" around.
My only concern with it is that it gets unclear what units you have where, doing what or in the worst case, who it belongs to.
Thats a big thing Paradox needs to be able to manage. And also if a Dev really is that "bored" to read the 26th Thread about this topic now ^^`.
The visual is awesome and like me (not all apparently =P) lots of people are looking forward to seeing more of them.
BUT, the way you put so much weight on the visuals and sprites, and put that much confidence in them, that you say "no, they are awesome, why should people want to deactivate them".
They MUST be clear to oversee and understand, also in large scale confrontations.
I am sure that this was thought through in the development but i just want to mention it again, it mustn`t look like in the picture i posted above (actually not self made, just googled it)
- 2
A sentiment you share with a lot of people. Nor do I get why they are so insistent, and so respectless. You don't convince people by being "bitchy" and entitled and griping about "toy soldiers" and how those who disagree with you aren't "true wargamers", and either way, sometimes you just have to take a no for a no and move on with your life. That's basically Human Interaction 101 right there.
- 6
- 1
The problem in HoI III was that the 3d models were, well, pretty much useless atleast for me. They gave very little information about the units so pretty much anyone used the counters. In HoI IV they put way more effort into it and it wont be an issue.
Last edited:
- 6
- 1
I second that.
Just to be clear, the default (or better the only) option is modell + counter. If you zoom out the 3D Modell will disappear.
So thanks to the counter you should see what type of unit is where and which command group it belongs to.
- 1
What I still don't get is why peoples call the 3d models of soldiers sprites.
Its 3d models not sprites, right or am I wrong?
Sprites is so 1994 and to me will always be stuff like this:
I'm firing up Civ2 right now. It's been too long old friend.
The only thing i see as negative point of sprites is if something like here happens.
Because I have no clue whats going on THERE right now^^
It's clearly some sort of party.
- 8
- 1
I see no easy answer to the sharp division between those players who want animated figures and those who want stylized counters. The one is more "satisfying", while the other conveys information better at a glance.
In a crowd of marching and standing figures of various nationalities, which of those is a Marine unit, which is a Mountain division, and which is regular Infantry? Once I learn the basic symbols (such as: "X" is a pair of crossed rifles to indicate standard infantry), the counter will tell me that at a glance, while I may have to zoom in closer to see the details with animated figures. A little triangle near the corner of the stack of counters will tell me that different divisions are moving to multiple provinces, where the facing of an animated figure may not be adequate to tell me that there are three distinct movements in progress, along with units not moving.
How do I tell if my Light Cruiser is training; does the ship do pushups? I see enough odd situations which can't easily be conveyed by the animated figures, or can be conveyed in some cases but not others, but which can easily and consistently be indicated with a mark on or adjacent to a counter.
I very much prefer counters (with Paradox's non-standard additions to indicate movement direction and other information), but do not want to deny the option to use animated figures for those who want the more visceral and "exciting" image of hundreds of little guys in different poses and uniforms moving around on the screen. The OP's depiction of the counter supporters as not wanting to allow animated figures is highly misleading or outright false for the vast majority of posters; we want the OPTION to disable the figures. The only viable reason I can see for wanting the animations stricken from the game (rather than "optional") is because of the development time which some feel could be better spent. Since roughly half of the players want the animations and half want the counters, the developers more-or-less have to do both in order to capture the widest possible portion of an already "niche" market, although the animations have to be more costly to implement. The "optional" approach should be satisfactory for everyone.
In a crowd of marching and standing figures of various nationalities, which of those is a Marine unit, which is a Mountain division, and which is regular Infantry? Once I learn the basic symbols (such as: "X" is a pair of crossed rifles to indicate standard infantry), the counter will tell me that at a glance, while I may have to zoom in closer to see the details with animated figures. A little triangle near the corner of the stack of counters will tell me that different divisions are moving to multiple provinces, where the facing of an animated figure may not be adequate to tell me that there are three distinct movements in progress, along with units not moving.
How do I tell if my Light Cruiser is training; does the ship do pushups? I see enough odd situations which can't easily be conveyed by the animated figures, or can be conveyed in some cases but not others, but which can easily and consistently be indicated with a mark on or adjacent to a counter.
I very much prefer counters (with Paradox's non-standard additions to indicate movement direction and other information), but do not want to deny the option to use animated figures for those who want the more visceral and "exciting" image of hundreds of little guys in different poses and uniforms moving around on the screen. The OP's depiction of the counter supporters as not wanting to allow animated figures is highly misleading or outright false for the vast majority of posters; we want the OPTION to disable the figures. The only viable reason I can see for wanting the animations stricken from the game (rather than "optional") is because of the development time which some feel could be better spent. Since roughly half of the players want the animations and half want the counters, the developers more-or-less have to do both in order to capture the widest possible portion of an already "niche" market, although the animations have to be more costly to implement. The "optional" approach should be satisfactory for everyone.
- 15
- Status