PDA

View Full Version : NATO symbols vs. icons



Deltapooh
12 Jun 03, 18:27
What does people prefer, the NATO symbols or the vehicle icons? The reason I ask is that I'm trying to decide whether to forego the process of building the lookdown paint for NATO symbols. It would speed up adding vehicles. Yet, it can also be a drawback for people who are not too familar with FM 101-5-1.

My list of vehicles include:

United States

Styker Family
LAV Family
M270 MLRS
CH-47 Chinook
CH-53 Super Stallion
CH-46E Sea Knight
AH-1 "Cobra" Family
MV-22 Osprey (maybe)
M119 105mm towed
M198 155mm towed
HETs
HEMTT (for ammo)
5-ton trucks
M966 TOW-2 HMMWV
AAV-7

British

Challenger Tank
Scorpion Vehicle
Puma Helicopter
Lynx Helicopter

USSR

T-55
T-59
T-62
BMP-1
BMP-3

Comments?

kbluck
12 Jun 03, 20:17
I *hate* the vehicle icons. I use only NATO. This was a point of considerable distress for me when I couldn't get to the Options dialog.

If they're not to scale, I don't see the point of "realistic" icons. In my opinion, they just make it harder to tell where the "center" of the unit is when you're trying to target it, especially the dismount icons. I can put up with the sound effects, since the spot report log is almost useless as is in terms of maintaining situational awareness, and they're really the only reliable way to know when contact has been made off the current view.

"Pretty" features make sense for Command & Conquer arcade-style games. For serious simulations, I prefer a minimalist interface that supports rapid and accurate information and control rather than eye candy.

But then again, I'm notoriously hard-to-please.

--- Kevin

Talon xBMCx
12 Jun 03, 20:42
Well I must admit I prefer vehicle icons. But to be honest I do not care for the ons in ATF so I use the NATO symbology.

Im working on trying to edit the icons ... but I lack patience and skill ;)


Talon

Deltapooh
13 Jun 03, 01:30
For now, I'll just use NATO symbols for two vehicles I must add for my next scenario (M119 & CH-47). My primary problem is getting a top down image as a reference. I found a number of vehicles last night, but not for the M119. I'm also horrible at getting image editing. I'll continue to study it though.

Personally, I believe the NATO symols are more identifable than the vehicle icons, particularly when you zoom out far.

Deltapooh
13 Jun 03, 03:32
Then again, I might be able to make vehicles for the M119 and CH-47. Found good pics for both. The M119 can be supplemented by th 2A45. Just need to alter the color maybe. I also have a good image of the Ch-47 I got off the Internet. All I have to do is add rotors. I can copy and paste those already in the game. I don't think the game supports twin rotor blades.

I also found some reference pics for the LAVs.

Now all I have to do really is get those angles right. ;)

Col.Bucky
16 Jun 03, 01:10
I perfer the icons.They seem to be easier for new players and will spark interest in potiential new wargamers.If possible both icons and Nato symbols should be presented as a option.

Deltapooh
16 Jun 03, 02:06
Originally posted by Col.Bucky
I perfer the icons.They seem to be easier for new players and will spark interest in potiential new wargamers.If possible both icons and Nato symbols should be presented as a option.

I'm trying to forego having to use NATO symbols only for the reasons you stated. Not every is comfortable the NATO symbols.

The problem for me right now is getting the pictures to show up. I tried to add the CH-47 today, and it failed. I'll ask some Q's on the official board and give it a go. In the meantime though, I'll just create a scenario a more detailed edited map. Hopefully players will be occupied for a while with the nightmare trying to find and kill dismounts in urban conditions. :)

Col.Bucky
16 Jun 03, 02:55
Thanks keep up the good work.....