What u want to see in CMX2

[yacinator]

1. Being able to see the map in a QB before purchasing units.
2. Make CMX2 cover all WW2 theaters and put it on 1 huge DVD.
3. Horses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4. Fortified infantry fighting positions (whatever) that infantry can go into. It's basicaly like a "pillbox" only infantry can "embark" it and fight from there. There they are protected from enemy fire. They also pick up ammunition and grenades or AT weapons.
5. Allow player to controll airplanes.
6. Make trenches 3D so they are an actual hole in the ground. Same for foxholes.

yeah...

[Fishra]

The ability to save a finished battle as a movie file that others can download and watch (with the ability to see it from the axis side / allies side / show all units)

How awesome would it be to watch other peoples battles...

[Sgabuzzino]

Shepards.

[Sgabuzzino]

Odour detection.
Putting your ear to the ground to hear the horses and trains.

[Lucho]

Spying through keyholes before entering a room.

[General Bolt]

A post battle text file, where the scenario author can put data talking about the aftermath of a historical outcome. This post battle breifing would only be viewable after completing the battle.

[Lucho]

guard dogs!

[MikeyD]

Scantily dressed civilians.

Drunken cossaks (if its an eastern front game) in civilian sedan zipping around the board while the tune "foggy mountain breakdown' plays.

Viewing airstrikes from the pilot's perspective.

[stikkypixie]

The Home Guard!

[Stingray]

Visible aircraft during straffing attacks. Visible smoking aircraft as it is hit by AAA and sprials down ending with a big explosion !!!

UURAHH !!! UURAHH !!! Take that you dirty JABO !!! Next time bomb the enemy not us... you stupid blind pilot !!!

[Gpig]

A little "Winston Chruchill" unit. (Regular, With a +4 command and morale bonus!!!)

Stockpiles of cheeses. (with automatic 300pt flags)

Little radios and grammaphones.

Individual footprints of all units, so you can track the enemy into the woods.

[Publius Cornelius Patton]

Originally posted by Lucho:
guard dogs! Been playing a bit of Wolfenstein, have we? smile.gif

Well, I'd like to see the entire Western Theater (France/Germany and Italy... just let me play as the Americans and I'll be fine smile.gif )

I'd like to see an option to make you own infantry units, using the known WW2 weapons. For example, you could make an infantry squad with Garands, Thompsons and Bren LMGs. Or an all-BAR squad (that could be possible). Of course, the historical infantry units would be hard-wired so you could not temper with those.

Another thing I'd like to see it the ability to make a multi-square building. Yes, I know you can "simulate" such a thing by making many "large buildings" together but instead of going through one building to another, a squad will go out (making him exposed to outside fire) of the building, walk a little, and then go into the bulding, where it may be promply slaughted by an enemy unit in said building.

If they do the Western/N.Afirca/Italian Front, I hope that Pershings, and King Tigers are included.

I'd also love to see the Tetrarch and the M22 Locust tanks in there. (Go Airborne Armor! smile.gif )

Oh, and one last thing. I know that a lot of people want Battlefront to "push the envelope," and I have to say, DON'T! I've got a 500 mHz iMac from 2000, and given my financial conditions I probably won't be buying another one soon, so please let us "low-enders" play CMX2 in a good and reasonable manner.

My $0.02 for now.

God bless,

"Publius Cornelius Patton"

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Publius Cornelius Patton:

Another thing I'd like to see it the ability to make a multi-square building. Yes, I know you can "simulate" such a thing by making many "large buildings" together but instead of going through one building to another, a squad will go out (making him exposed to outside fire) of the building, walk a little, and then go into the bulding, where it may be promply slaughted by an enemy unit in said building.
Why would a unit go outside the building and then go back into it in another place when it would be safer to just use internal hallways? :confused:

[flamingknives]

He wants CMBB factories, methinks

[Pzman]

Maybe but it sounds more like he wants factory like buildings, but where you still have to go outside between them. What he said is little confussing. He does say he wants them to go outside rather than just through the two of them which led to my first reply.

[flamingknives]

I'm not confused. He says that while you can make large structures by putting large stone buildings together, your troops are forced to leave them to get to the next one.

Therefore, he wants to be able to move internally. Therefore he wants CMBB factories or something similar.

[bruceb]

1. cows
2. horses (for the germans)
3. telephone poles
4. more building types
5. corn fields
6. civilians
7. cheaper artillery
8. internal building movement
9. units that don't run toward the enemy when they freak out
10. parachute flares (for night fighting)

[bruceb]

and one of those four .50 AA thingees for the allies (the chopper!)

[Embark]

and one of those four .50 AA thingees for the allies (the chopper!) The US had the M16 HalfTrack with four 50 calibur guns on it. It was basically an Anti Aircraft version of the M3 Troop Carrier. Some versions had an additional 50 cal mounted on the front of the vehicle for protection from the ground units. Is this what you are talking about?


(YAY! MY First post on Military History!!!)

[JonS]

hmm. Is it worth bothering responding to bruceb, and pointing out that much of what he's asking for is already in CM?

[SKELLEN]

I would like to see the following:-

1) Mechanical problems with vehicles - could make things very interesting for both players.

2) Optional rulesets.

3) Built-in mod editor similar to the scenario editor maybe?

4) Follow vehicle command.

5) Infantry and vehicle formation commands.

6) Full movie play-back.

7) Distinction between commonwealth accents - at present in CMAK, they all have English accents.

8) A little more humour.

9) Winter textures - please!

10) Booby-traps - oh the possibilities!

I could probably mention more with a little extra thought, but this will suffice for now.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by SKELLEN:

8) A little more humour.
Vee frown on zat.

[Michael Dorosh]

The Krummlauf attachment for the Sturmgewehr 44 so my troopies can shoot around corners.

Medical Research Council body armour for Commonwealth infantry.

More types of cheese than have ever been modelled before.

JonS' head on a pike in front of my 25 pounder battery.

Poetry. Lots and lots of poetry. By Seanachai.

An all-Kitty all-the-time screensaver.

[junk2drive]

along SKELLEN's lines of thought, these kinds of changes in a preference screen, ala steel panthers, where you set the percentage of breakdowns, rarity, troop strenghth, etc.

[Ketil]

This!

http://www.royalgunpowdermills.com/images/kitchen.jpg

[Sergei]

Finns, Russians and Germans.

[MikeyD]

I suspect CMX2 is going to be OSX-friendly (and System 9 unfriendly?). I look at my ooooold system 9 G3 and think the ONLY thing it can't do is run the latest games. That's a thin reason to spend big bucks on a new PC, but what's a guy to do?.

[ July 14, 2004, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Pzman]

MikeyD there are ways around it. You can do what I did and stick a lovely little 1.2Ghz G4 card in your machine as long as its a G3 tower that is. :D That should give the old beast a kick. Put a new Video card in there too and you spend maybe $800-900 Dollars (Cdn, and I don't know how much it would be in US funds) tops.

[Seanachai]

Hmmm. I think in CMX2 I would like to see more Yacinator, but possibly a 'Yacinator Lite' version, that is less filling. But we should also have an option for mock-Yacinator for those who are Yacinator intolerant or sensitive. Probably this mock-Yacinator can be made out of tofu and various herbs.

[Wallybob]

Originally posted by bruceb:
and one of those four .50 AA thingees for the allies (the chopper!) Maxon quad .50
also comes as a vehicle trailer

Vehicle mount M-17

What about the 40mm Duster while we're at it?

[Wallybob]

Hi Mom!

[Seanachai]

Possibly mock-Yacinator ina bun, smothered in Wallybob...

[John Kettler]

I think it would be a great immersion enhancer if scenario designers could invoke some sort of rename command for HQs, squad and team leaders. We've already seen the modders swap the pictures out, but my idea would potentially allow the production of scenarios with the names matching the historical accounts. You would have a platoon HQ called Audie Murphy or a 442 RCT (Nisei) unit with, say, a Sgt. Munemori running it instead of Sgt. Koslowski. As for the M-16 (quad 50) and M-17 (37mm + 2 50s) GMCs, they're in the game already.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by John Kettler:
I think it would be a great immersion enhancer if scenario designers could invoke some sort of rename command for HQs, squad and team leaders. We've already seen the modders swap the pictures out, but my idea would potentially allow the production of scenarios with the names matching the historical accounts.

John Kettler Eh? What are you on about, John? So far as I know, scenario designers already have the ability to rename units.

Can't tell you how many times I've been emailed by someone gleefully telling me how they killed 'Sergeant' or 'Corporal' Seanachai in their last game...

[flamingknives]

Wasn't there a scenario with people of note in the forum represented?

[Sergei]

Yes, that was the Gunfight 1881 (or sumfink) by Hans. Damn him, had to go all the way. Now my puny little scenario where you get to kill me, Andreas and ParaBellum, has no worth whatsoever.

Hmm, maybe if I added a certain Efreiter Seanachaikovsky to the Russian side... that might make it 33% more interesting!

[Sanok]

1. When I click on an enemy unit, I want to see the words 'Taking Cover' on the unit screen if that unit is doing so. It can be very tedious to go to view one or two for every unit to see if they've gone to ground, especially in a large battle.

2. I would like to have the AI set up my units, with the option to change anything I want. This would be useful on defense, as the AI takes advantage of the true terrain, not the abstraction we see on the map. The AI can be quite adept at placing MGs and field artillery.

[Soddball]

Ninjas.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Sanok:
1. When I click on an enemy unit, I want to see the words 'Taking Cover' on the unit screen if that unit is doing so.Like so many other 'suggestions' in this thread, that is already in the game.

[Salkin]

Power ups.

[Carl Puppchen]

I would love to see "trusted email" as an option.

I would like to have some sort of 3+ player option, especially TCP/IP, for playing at once, even on some less than historically correct options (Patton plus Germans vs. Russians smile.gif )

I still believe that operations could work better as far as the starting line on subsequent games.

But all in all kudos to battlefront!

[Denwad]

* Individual soldiers modelled, each one with his own morale/intelligence (see:Close Combat series) with the option to toggle the regular 3 soldier graphic, as to spare the troglodites

I say intelligence because in CC i was very frustrated with idle soldiers. If the leader is still alive *all* the soldiers in the squad should attempt to fire on the enemy.

* After a battle/operation have the option to save it as a movie

such as the ability to render it in ultra-highres graphics

* Include kickass special effects for said movies

[ July 15, 2004, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Denwad ]

[willbell]

The Yahoos on this thread have no idea what is actually realistic when it comes to programing. Here is what I would like to see.

Cows mooing on the sound track.

Dead cows and horses.

A mess hall where your troops can pick up extra energy points.

Chickens running around in case the troops can't get to the mess hall.

Little sailboats that are randomly scattered on bodies of water and can be use by troops lucky enough to run across them.

Prostitutes.

Some homes might still have a family in them where troops can get meals in case they cant' get to the mess hall.

An option to play a what if game with Napoleonic Cuirassiers, Civil War veterans etc.

A what if option where you can design your own tank for a battle. Maybe with laser canons?

Each building should have it's own unique layout and texture, and an option in the editor to design your own european stone building.

An option which will automatically build a city to match arial JPEGs. I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be to difficult.

An option in the editor where you can build a whole battle, or war, and 20 or 30 people can play at the same time.

A script that allows you to play on a wide screen.

A version with a lot higher resolution and a bunch of extras for people that have access to super computers.

The possibility that opposing units got into some booze and loose cohesion.

A button that lets you alter the AAR in case it is really embarrassing.

A larger variety of hats.

A little closet at the back of some of the rooms (in the houses with complete detailed interiors) where if you go through the back you come out in a different game published by Sierra.

[imported_Iron_Duke]

I'd like to see the basic 20 meter terrain piece reduced to a 5m or even 1m terrain piece. To work along side the new terrain piece, many more elevation levels...perhaps out to 50 or so. Also a new elevation mode of 1 foot changes in elevation. (Super gentle? Realistic)

The ability for infantry to use small folds in the ground as actual cover. Ability for infantry to use stone walls\sandbags as actual cover.

Overhead cover for foxholes.

Free up the sandbags! Ability to place sandbags as fortifications and not terrain types.

MANY more terrain tiles\types...several types of the same tile. i.e. 3 or 4 different "Woods" tiles, building types, fences, etc...

Partisans\Collaborators\crazy bedouin tribes\etc...

Ability to script custom actions\events into battles and operations. (Can you imagine the possibilities of this? *Salivate*)

Actual airborne drops? Realtime lol...oh the fun you could have. haha

OSS\SaS\Whatever the Germans and Russians called their "Black ops" troops.

Ability to rearm or call for ammo in a battle.

GOD\Spectator mode to watch the Ai fight itself or watch 2 players as they fight.

I'm sure they've all been mentioned before but that's my .02

[ July 15, 2004, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Iron_Duke ]

[Denwad]

oh yeah

http://members.cox.net/denwad/cargo3.jpg

push it BFC, you know you want to. ;)

* photo courtesy of Jojimbo at www.inv44.com (http://www.inv44.com)

[yacinator]

Fog support for Radeon cards.

Vehicles crashing into each other. And tanks have to be heavier than the wreck they're pushing off the road so that u can make a roadblock in an ambush.

[Sanok]

Originally posted by JonS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sanok:
1. When I click on an enemy unit, I want to see the words 'Taking Cover' on the unit screen if that unit is doing so.Like so many other 'suggestions' in this thread, that is already in the game. </font>[/QUOTE]Not with full or extreme FOW. Of course, it may have been added to AK, which I haven't purchased yet. smile.gif

[Europa]

Heroes that gain extra abilities over a scenario like casting fireballs, calling down thunder and walking on water. Cannon towers, suicide bombers and dogs. Briefcase nukes and trees falling on troops, breaking their legs but not killing them. And then maybe a medic comes running inside a power shield that the hero has put on him but the opponents hero uses a counter spell and then the medic gets killed by a burning tree.

The world simulator comes closer!

[Wallybob]

Did I say, "Hi Mom"?

Well, if not, Hi, Mom.

[willbell]

If I see one more fricking complaint about the 3D resolution in CMAK, where there are hundreds of infantry and dozens of vehicles and tanks in a battle, compared to the models and resolution of those stupid WWII FPSs with a couple of dozen and men maybe ten tanks, I'm going to scream. I am going to throw Europa's fireballs into all your games, I'm going to write hundreds of posts about eating oily sardines and sour ham on Saturday and Sunday morning so all you sots blow chuncks on your keyboards. I'm going to meet your wives and girlfriends at supermarket fruit sections, seduce them, then on my way out tell them that you are doing their grandfathers. I'm going send you all Pokeman for Christmas. I'm going to start posting rumors that Hitler is still alive, the Italians really won WWII, Elvis was a spy for the Serbs. And, I will answer ten times to each technical question about WWII equipment with long, boring, detailed, yet ultimately pointless diatribes so that you get lost and start weeping every time you just want to find out what caliber of shell you are getting your butt whipped with.

So Be Warned!!!!

Or I might just complain to BF.

[jrrich0000]

Contour Lines!!

[stikkypixie]

. Originally posted by jrrich0000:
Contour Lines!! They'll have to draw contours around my twitching corpse before i let that happen :mad: :D .

[ July 16, 2004, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: stikkypixie ]

[Panzer Ace]

The ability to use paratroops, pick a drop zone before the battle and have the game engine randomly drop them to the spot marked or not,
That way you could have a good drop like in Holland, where the majority landed where they were supposed to, and you could have the randomness that was the case during Overlord, when airborne units were scattered every where. actually seeing the troopers coming out of the sky would be totally cool, ;)

[Sgt. Emren]

* More resources.

* Hero units, maybe like a RPG.

* A campaign, where your Heroes can gain levels and access secret weapons.

* Rocket packs.

* An 'Easy' mode, where your side is more invulnerable.


WHEN IS IT COMING OUT, HUH?!?!?!?!?

[securityguard]

Saving battle replays and new infantry mechanics are all I want. Anything else would just be icing.

[Halberdiers]

1-To save my "battlegroup" that survive the scenario for another scenario.

I could play a few scenarios in Tunissia and later with the same "battlegroup" I could play other scenarios in Sicily, and after that in Italy.

It only need a file for save the units ,
that you can re-take and add to another scenario (with the limit of the points of the next scenario). It could be fantastic for the QUICK BATTLES or other scenarios.

I think this can not to be difficult for programmers.

2-A pre-made HTLM-web for add turns, scenarios ,battles or campaigns:

I do not know anything about programming ,but if the developers can add an easy way to up an interactive web, I think people (as me) can make scenarios or campaigns or done turns to download and play from internet: with photos , MAPS , historical context,time-line interactive, Forum, etc.

In other words , not only a form to present your work in an attractive form. I say a new form of interactive communication and play with the people from internet but different from PBEM.

3-Improve the graphics of infantry please.

[ July 19, 2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Denwad]

Originally posted by willbell:
If I see one more fricking complaint about the 3D resolution in CMAK, where there are hundreds of infantry and dozens of vehicles and tanks in a battle, compared to the models and resolution of those stupid WWII FPSs with a couple of dozen and men maybe ten tanks, I'm going to scream. I am going to throw Europa's fireballs into all your games, I'm going to write hundreds of posts about eating oily sardines and sour ham on Saturday and Sunday morning so all you sots blow chuncks on your keyboards. I'm going to meet your wives and girlfriends at supermarket fruit sections, seduce them, then on my way out tell them that you are doing their grandfathers. I'm going send you all Pokeman for Christmas. I'm going to start posting rumors that Hitler is still alive, the Italians really won WWII, Elvis was a spy for the Serbs. And, I will answer ten times to each technical question about WWII equipment with long, boring, detailed, yet ultimately pointless diatribes so that you get lost and start weeping every time you just want to find out what caliber of shell you are getting your butt whipped with.

So Be Warned!!!!

Or I might just complain to BF. Perhaps you don't understand. I want to see ALL of my 500+ soldiers in my batallion!

I want to see the runners of my battalion HQ recieve their orders and then actually run to the company HQ's etc. etc.

[junk2drive]

i want to see i before e except after c
and too with two o's when appropriate.

[PLM]

campaigns like Talonsoft's campaign series.

[Sanok]

Originally posted by junk2drive:
i want to see i before e except after c
and too with two o's when appropriate. I'd like to see lose spelled properly, and not spelled as loose. It would also be nice to see you're used instead of your, when the person means you are.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Denwad:
oh yeah

http://members.cox.net/denwad/cargo3.jpg

push it BFC, you know you want to. ;)

* photo courtesy of Jojimbo at www.inv44.com (http://www.inv44.com) Is that a platoon of ET's on that Panther?

Regards

Jim R.

[Spears]

A McDonalds randomly placed on EVERY map (everywhere has a McD`s)

[Denwad]

dunno looks like Panzergrenadiers to me...

I realize that some of the necks look odd, that's a limitation of the Operation Flashpoint engine.

BTW Operation Flashpoint has small islands of 12x12km as the 'maps', it's definetly not a shoebox game smile.gif Infact there are some community modifications that allow you to control a company with a modified radio interface, but it's really clunky.

Operation Flashpoint isn't a run and gun game like MOHAA, if you try to be rambo in OFP you'll get shot really fast smile.gif Unfortunately it's an infantry simulator first, armor takes a big backseat, they're horribly difficult to control easily and they have a hitpoint model :/ [LIST]

[ July 20, 2004, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Denwad ]

[Metto]

Better shadows to the graphics engine -> height differences in terrain easier to spot(surrently next to impossible).

[Spears]

Operation Flashpoint. THE BEST GAME EVER. no if`s but`s or anything else for that matter. They need to release a new 1 as its old now, but its by far the best game ive ever played. And armour learn to use them TOW`s on bmp`s or M2, easy when you can do that. (tip for you who still play it). Get high in bmp/M2 point weapon high into air, go to commaners seat, lock onto targets and fire or scroll ur mouse across the horizon, it picks up things 1000`s meters off and lock fire smile.gif make sure weapon is high to clear trees` building etc and it comes down onto the weaker turett armour)
Sorry you hardcore CM fans for this outburst but i felt the need smile.gif

[ July 20, 2004, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: Spears ]

[EarlofWarwick]

1. 3D trenches, fox holes and improved positions, please, please! The grunts should be graphically hidden, like the tank commanders emerging from their turrets.

2. a prone firing position for infantry not in foxholes, etc.

3. better infantry modeling in general

4. faster crunch times for larger scenarios

[Sergei]

Originally posted by EarlofWarwick:
1. 3D trenches, fox holes and improved positions, please, please! The grunts should be graphically hidden, like the tank commanders emerging from their turrets.

2. a prone firing position for infantry not in foxholes, etc.Wouldn't that make it a tad difficult to actually PLAY the game if you couldn't see your men in trenches and foxholes unless you peeked in?

Would it suffice if we just had poetry by Seanachai?

[Alexei]

I want an intermediate stage in QB for purchasing troops, between Human only and Random (AI) only. I want to be able to spend some of my points and let the AI buy randomly with the remaining points, for both sides.

Quite often when playing against the AI, I would like to fight against some specific equipments whithout having to purchase everything for AI side, which prevents any type of surprise.
That's for AI units. Now with respect to buying units for myself, well, I usually enjoy playing with random ones but sometimes I would like to be able to say "okay, I will fight this battle with any possible configuration but please give me at least one PaK 40 - and not only Inf Coy and Armored Cars as usual." :rolleyes:

[flamingknives]

Representation of ready rounds would be nice - not all of a T34s stack-o'-shells are immediately available.

Capacity of weapons to fire at different rates - i.e. sustained and intense rates.

Weapon over-heat, featuring things such as barrel change or change in firing rate when necessary. Naturally, some weapons (Vickers, Maxim) will accumulate heat much slower than others (MG34/42)

[Publius Cornelius Patton]

Originally posted by Denwad:
oh yeah

[Über pic]

push it BFC, you know you want to. ;)

* photo courtesy of Jojimbo at www.inv44.com (http://www.inv44.com) NOOOOOOO!!!

Think for us humble low-enders! The ones whom can only afford a 500 mHz computer that we got back in 2000! Those who must despair whenever the newest game comes out- and the "minimum requirements" require a processor that runs 700 mHz-1+ gHz. Do not leave us behind! True, we may not be able to afford a $2,000 brand-new computer, but we can afford a $30 game. Please, please, I humbly beg and entreat you, Battlefront.com, for the love of God, man and World War II, DO NOT ABANDON US 500MHZ COMPUTER USERS!!!

You can see I have an opinion on this subject. smile.gif

God bless,

"Publius Cornelius Patton"

[Denwad]

^ dude BFC can't support ancient technology anymore!

seriously dude, upgrade! www.Ibuypower.com (http://www.Ibuypower.com)

you don't have to spend 2000 dollars!!! you can get a decent comp for ~700

[Spears]

THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE WHICH PLATOON/CO UNIT YOUR SUPPORT WEAPONS ARE ATTACHED TO.
ie when your silly platoon moves past your mortars, they stop firing because hes in command of them now, not that section hq who can see mutipule targets on green fields. .. grrrrrr very frustrating

[Publius Cornelius Patton]

Originally posted by Denwad:
^ dude BFC can't support ancient technology anymore!

seriously dude, upgrade! www.Ibuypower.com (http://www.Ibuypower.com)

you don't have to spend 2000 dollars!!! you can get a decent comp for ~700 BFC does support ancient technology. TacOps (http://www.battlefront.com/products/tacops4/tacops4.html) (which BFC still makes and supports) is still able to run on a PowerMac with MacOs 8.5. Not to mention you only need at least 300 mHz or so to run it. smile.gif


Sure, I'd upgrade to a newer, more powerful Mac in a heartbeat, it's just that I...can't...afford...it.

So, I humbly ask Battlefront to keep us (relatively) low-enders in mind. smile.gif

God bless,

"Publius Cornelius Patton"

[JoMc67]

A more realisic rate of fire and hit accuracy. I have noticed that the rate of fire doesnt change even if the firer or target is stationary or moving. Example: A stationary M5 stuart will fire every five seconds or so against a stationary or moving target. A moving M5 will also fire every 5 seconds at a stationary or moving target. I think the rate of fire should be reduced alittle giving the above circumstances.

[Denwad]

=O a mac user! Sorry about that, I had assumed you were a PC user, someone who could upgrade cheaply and easily every few years...

[Kellysheroes]

Heh, if you're a MAC user, you deserve to be left behind. ;) Now, me with my 3.2ghz P4 1g ram system am ready for an upgrade to the GRAPHICS of CMX2. Push it to the limit BF, I have the POWER! ;)

I definitely vote for the battle movies file. It's what makes Medieval Total War so much more fun, being able to sit back and watch the entire battle over again, scroll around the map, zoom in and out, should be top priority.

A smarter AI unit purchaser, balancing the QB with units equal or better than my own purchases.

More blood and screams

Partisian and French underground units. (need some females in the game)

An AI that branches it's attack more than it does now, too often it's far too easy to figure out where the AI is going to come from.

A Pacific theater included with the European Theater. ;)

A covered arc "automatic range indicator", I have such a hard time with mortar and bazooka ranges.

A "hand to hand" combat animation, knives, throwing helmets, fists, slapping, clawing, biting ears off! ;)

[Cthulhu Dreams]

Simple.

Actual mods.

thats all I want. The ability to do the half-life or operation flashpoint, or medieval total war total conversion style mods.

If you have that, you can do whatever you want with the game. You want fast grahpics for 500 mhz users? Mod it. You want high end uber sleek models and textures and terrian and everything? Mod that to.

Want pacific theatre? Mod it. Want vietnam? Mod that to!

[sebastian]

I want to see a more efficient user interface:

- When it comes to displaying information, the GUI of the Close Combat series is still the unreached reference (everything color coded, live mouse reporting).

- Camera control by buttons at the bottom of the screen is a HORROR. I want to zoom the camera with the mouse-wheel. I want to rotate the camera by holding the mouse-wheel down and moving the mouse.

[ July 22, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: sebastian ]

[flamingknives]

Actual (engine) mods. AFAICT, that's slightly less likely than Lucifer requiring Ice-skates.

The size of BFC and their position in the market means that making their product open-source would seriously hurt them.

I wouldn't say that the interface was too awful. Using ctrl-click and the live edges of the screen suffices for me, but them I'm trained in the ever-changing horror of different FEA packages. *shudder*

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by Panzer Ace:
The ability to use paratroops, pick a drop zone before the battle and have the game engine randomly drop them to the spot marked or not,
That way you could have a good drop like in Holland, where the majority landed where they were supposed to, and you could have the randomness that was the case during Overlord, when airborne units were scattered every where. actually seeing the troopers coming out of the sky would be totally cool, ;) This has been talked about before.
1. creat zones where you want the paras to appear then set them as reinforcements on that turn.
2.For d-day battles, use lotsa 1/2 squads scattered in little tiny drop areas so they are not a complete fighting force.
3. You still won't see them fall from the skys.

Thing I'd like to see: A tank (living or nonburning-dead) provide some degree of cover for a squad. This works for smoking tanks only now.

[Gen. J-sun]

Actual penetration wholes in the tank, and for the MGs withering fire (aas in hose the whole area) and experation times for area fire instead of dumping ammo for a whole turn, infantry in 1/2tracks and other transports can fight back, and the last thing FACs so an aircraft can have a general area to target, and picking ordinance such as napalm and tell him to target hard or soft targets

[Pzman]

Must we again go into the fact that there were no FAC's, or at least not till late 1944 for only the Americans.

[Richie]

The Dice Rolls

That's what I want to see!

[Nelson 1812]

Transferable maps, where axis route is in the planned direction...........and allies too!

rotate and expandable map building facility.

Fixed pillerboxes (such as the sandbags)

a youth tablet for all us older players to see all these wonderful additions!

and contour lines.........thanks

[K_Tiger]

A FOV = Field of View where all Objects are highlighted in your sight line.

[Richie]

Ooh Yeah, and PINK MIST !

:mad:

[EarlofWarwick]

"Start the purple! Start ... the ...purple!"

Players should have the option to play as the finest armor unit ever to take the field, the 2nd Bn, Irish Guards. There should be a Col Vandeleur unit (he should look like Michael Cane), and a wav. file with the above quote should accompany it. Whenever the wav. file is activated, rocket- firing typhoons should zoom in and decimate any nearby German positions (at least the ones marked with that wicked purple).

[Richie]

Do you have all Princes' albums?

[Renaud]

* Addition of flexible random variability in squad and team weapon TOE. This would enhance the you-are-there feeling and reduce the cookie-cutter feel of squads now. For instance, one squad might have 2 bars while another has none, but an extra SMG-man. Variability could perhaps be increased among higher-experience units, with a tendancy toward more captured weapons and preferred weapons such as extra bars or smg's. This would also allow a more variable dispersion of random captured enemy weapons appearing in squad TOE's, rather than the current hardcoded substitution of mp40's with PPSHk's, etc. Additional benefit of a flexible weapon-TOE system is that some or all members of a squad might have NO weapon, either through surrendering and then escaping, routing and dropping weapons, or entering the scenario unarmed. This would allow MG's and other integral heavy weapons to be abandoned, avoiding the syndrome of routing/broken HMG teams dragging 40+kg of equipment around. This naturally brings up the question of whether unarmed men could acquire weapons found on the battlefield. Unarmed men would probably be lost first, as they would try to recover weapons from armed squadmates who fell first. I do believe that a flexible, editable squad system is slated for CMII which may well address these issues.

* Ability for attacker to start entrenched in assault or attack scenarios. Possibility for units to start with additional ammo, which is lost if they move from initial position (voluntarily or not). Mortar position pre-stocked with 40 extra rounds, etc.

* Revamped fortification system. Keep the current 'pillboxes' with fixed armament, but add:

1) 'bunkers' with restricted cover arcs which are purchased empty, but allow friendly units to enter/exit much like the current vehicle mount/dismount logic. Occupants could be combinations of guns, teams or squads up to capacity limit. There could be several sizes of bunkers each with various occupancy capacities. Bunkers could be placed in any terrain, including buildings, and would be well-concealed unlike the current 'pillbox' style bunkers. Bunkers could be destroyed and occupants forced to 'bail out', much like vehicles, but only with the heaviest weapons. Occupants would typically have to be killed/incapacitated by hits/penetrations, while bunker remains undestroyed.

2) 'Communication' trenches in addition to the current 'fighting position' trenches, which would allow rapid concealed movement. No LOS in/out unless respective units are right next to or together in the trench. Perhaps addition of deformable terrain would allow this. I suspect current trenches are more of a kludge designed to give us something usable in the interrim.

* Seperate current scenario files into 'map' and 'battle' files. This would allow maps to be re-used independent of the TOE. Also would allow transfer maps between ops and scenarios. Would be a boon to those attempting to fashion adhoc campaigns out of a series of CM battles.

Ren

[kipanderson]

CMX2 features.

Hi,

These lists have been done many times before… but in my view, are no less fun for that:)

I will hold back from giving the entire list of features I hope to see, but will concentrate on one area.

My very uninformed guess is that one of the really big changes will be live multi-play. Teams of say… 4-6 players on each side… all live in the same game.

As all will know, and Steve has stated many times, Borg Spotting will be a thing of the past in CMX2. Units will all have to do their own spotting, with the exception of some modelling of a radio nets and such. This means that if a friendly infantry unit 100m from an enemy position spots an enemy unit, a friendly tank 800m away but in Line of Site, will not automatically be able to spot the enemy unit in question.

However, in games in which there is only one player on each side it is still inevitable that there will be a certain “Borg” feel to games. What I mean is that if there is only one player on each side that one player will still be able to spot what all his units can spot. He will still have a Borg like knowledge of the battlefield. This is where multi-play, team play, comes into its own.

In team play, say with four players on each side, each player will only be able to spot what the units he commands can spot, both in terms of enemy units and friendly units. So you may have one player commanding each of three infantry companies, plus a fourth commanding the few armoured vehicles and artillery spotters in the game.

Combine team play with coding such that each unit has to do its own spotting, and it will truly add a new dimension to CM play… one of confusion, command friction and blue on blue fire. The Borg element will be massively reduced. But there is more…

The above describes how multi-player games may be used when you take advantage of team play to have a single battalion combat team broken down into 4-6 elements. However, if one used a team play feature to play massive games, with 2-6 battalions on each side, over a huge 6km by 6km map an entirely new dimension would open up.

Imagine a 6km by 6km map of a road junction in the Ardennes, Christmas ’44. There are two US battalions in defence and four German battalions closing in from slightly different directions. Each battalion is commanded by a different player. Added to all this, in each turn there are not just two US versions and four German versions of the one minute action movie produced, but also an umpire’s/game master’s version which shows all of the units on both sides. The new engine would require one more feature, the ability to launch Saved games in the Editor. Saving the Units file and Map file separately. The umpire designs the scenario, recruits the six players and the game is played live. Then after a given number of turns, or at the umpire’s discretion, the game is saved to the umpire’s machine. He then tweaks the files and re-launches the game on another occasion.

This way operations, involving half a dozen players at a time, could be tracked, tweaked and edited over large, realistic maps.

Anyway… enough of my dreaming… but I am very optimist something along the lines mentioned above will be possible. Time will tell:)

All good fun,
All the best,
Kip.
PS. New graphics will be fun, but in my view they are just a bonus, not the real priority. Other features are likely to be hugely more important.

[yacinator]

Real modding. And building with more than 2 levels, a basement level, and rooftops on which infantry can walk and choppers can land

[flamingknives]

What is it with all these engine mod requests? :rolleyes:

I know that if I'd put as much work into something as the BFC guys have into CM, letting the general public have the source code is not the first thing I'd do.

Apart from anything else, there is nothing else out there that is similar to CM, so why let other people have the code so they can make cheap knock-offs?

Possibly something to change 3d models so modders can sort out the last few little models, but changing data would lead to massive arguments and restrict who you can play against.

[ July 25, 2004, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: flamingknives ]

[Sergei]

It all comes down to business plans. I doubt BFC's is anything like Valve's, so comparisons are fruitless.

What I would like to see is letting designers edit values in their scenarios a bit, as in Steel Panthers. Like for instance in CMAK I'd like to be able to edit an M4A3 into M4A3E2 Jumbo. Or putting a 380mm rocket launcher into a Kübelwagen...

[Brent Pollock]

I take it you want to do this so you can make mixed platoons, without having to resort to making them all Independent? Sure would help make those Commonwealth Sherman troops that had a Firefly and two to four non-Fireflies. It would also help with the single Pz IIIN support tank that was supposed to accompany a Tiger platoon.

Originally posted by Sergei:
[snipped by Brent] Like for instance in CMAK I'd like to be able to edit an M4A3 into M4A3E2 Jumbo. [snipped by Brent]

[Sergei]

Actually I'd like to do that because there's NO Jumbo's in CMAK. :mad:

[John1966]

Better shadows to the graphics engine -> height differences in terrain easier to spot(surrently next to impossible). Absolutely! Probably one of the most important things I would hope (expect) to see.

No need for any grid lines then...

[legend42]

the ability for crews to leave there vehichles and scout over a crest before the afv or vehicle has to crest it on its own,and then get back into there vehicle, no smart co would ever crest a hill without checking it out

[junk2drive]

"the ability for crews to leave there vehichles and scout over a crest before the afv or vehicle has to crest it on its own,and then get back into there vehicle, no smart co would ever crest a hill without checking it out"

i think that might take too many turns, to exit, then view, then embark. how about the ai doesnt take out everything on the first shot when cruising up a road.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Just small point…one of my original requests for CMX2 was for toggled gridlines.

So that in the orders phase, when you feel you need it, you could just hit a Hot-Key or some such thing and toggle on an overlay grid. But dispense with it when you want to enjoy the full realism of the graphics.

All the best,
Kip.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=009942;p=2

IF the company attempts to model german optics/rangefinding/etc, I hope they bother to know what effects each of these things have,

[Stingray]

My Christmas wish list is as follows:
1. Ability for tank bow gunner and AA MG (if available) to target seperately from main gun.
2. Off/On toggle switch for grid lines.
3. Visible aircraft with spectacular crashes.
4. At least two men graphics for crew served weapons: MGs, mortars, ATGs, guns, bazooka, etc..
5. Improved graphics for bazookas, mortars and piats.
6. Hatches that open and close.
7. Flares for night combat.
8. Bunkers and pillboxes that can be entered or exited by troops.
9. Ability to emplace ATGs and guns inside buildings and rubble.
10. Boobytraps inside houses and buildings.
11. Engineering units ability to pre-set Bridge/Building demolition.
12. Paratooper/Glider air drops.
13. My two front teeth !!! ;)

[Cthulhu Dreams]

Originally posted by flamingknives:
What is it with all these engine mod requests? :rolleyes:

I know that if I'd put as much work into something as the BFC guys have into CM, letting the general public have the source code is not the first thing I'd do.

Apart from anything else, there is nothing else out there that is similar to CM, so why let other people have the code so they can make cheap knock-offs?

Possibly something to change 3d models so modders can sort out the last few little models, but changing data would lead to massive arguments and restrict who you can play against. When did we ask for engine mods?

Engine mods are like the difference between Q# and call of duty tongue.gif

Real mods instead they "plug into" the existing physics and graphics backbone, and offer additional fuctionality.

So for CM, you could let modders at their own units, graphics, terrian, game modes or whatever, but the physics would always be the same.

[rune]

Won't happen. By allowing you to change the units terrain, graphics, we would still see a glob of cheap knock offs, with no income. BFC is not Valve as someone correctly pointed out. Also by allowing mods to the data. how soon would it be before cheating occured int he online play? Look at what happened to Microsoft Combat Simulators for a good example.

It will be more easily modifiable for BFC to make changes, instead of the time consuming process it is now.

Rune

[Sergei]

I think it still would be reasonable to let scenario designers to tweak unit properties like in Steel Panthers scenario editor. It wouldn't enable cheating because you can cheat already by editing the scenario before you play (I always add a couple of 8" arty spotters to my OOB when hosting the game... oops!). In a Quick Battle you'd naturally only be able to use the original TO&E's.

[Denwad]

concur

[birdstrike]

- ability to override TacAI and select the type of round fired by a tank or gun
- more detailed ammo stats for small arms
- some sort of ammo resupply
- no more borg-spotting

- and instead of contour-lines and stuff, how about an additional map window that can be opened ingame, made up like a WWII style topographic map including heights, and important landmarks;
this way, the realist enthusiansts would still have to find the actual places on the battlefield by themselves

[LongLeftFlank]

As a lifelong wargamer and junior league WWII grog, I personally love the game as is. I am also pleased to see that BFC is focusing its further development efforts on incremental refinements of the features that make the game unique to begin with.

I also get as much enjoyment out of reading the forums as I do out of playing the game.... the game has attracted an amazing global community of extremely bright and sophisticated (if not always in a socially mainstream kind of way) people.

However, all that being said, I can also readily imagine how competitive and fluid the games marketplace is right now. While a lot of grog purists are fighting tooth and nail against any move by BFC to broaden its appeal (and increase sales volume) to the despised "twitch" crowd, consider this fact: Nobody will be well served if sales aren't sufficient to keep BFC profitable and its creative independence intact. (Perish the thought!) they will inevitably either fold up or sell out to a large commercial house that will force the game in the populist FPS direction with predictable consequences ("our users don't care if there were no King Tigers in Normandy on D-Day").

So I believe that it's critical for CM2 to add some "sizzle" that will broaden the appeal of the game and draw in the next generation of grogs who don't have the same childhood/family connection to WWII that most of us do. The essential question is how to do that with without either creating a programming nightmare or turning the current game into another FPS?

One "out of the box" idea I had was to build in OPTIONAL media -- downloaded just as mods are now, or sold on a separate CD) that plays brief (2 second) animated audio/ video "clips" when trigger events occur, just as game voices are triggered ("Ich gevunden!") in the replay phase.

So on occasion when an artillery shell lands on a German squad, you get a brief clip from some doc footage showing landser hunkering down, etc. Of course you'd need to have a big enough library that the clips didn't get too repetitive and annoying (although the voices do that too sometimes).

By now a lot of you are reaching for your flamethrowers, but stay with me just a moment. Yes, this might require new technology investments by BFC that I haven't thought about that might make the idea infeasible. On the other hand, it might create some interesting new opportunities for ambitious modders who want to create cool animation clips (although additions to the library would need to be policed -- no Travelocity ads or porno).

This feature would add a lot of visual appeal without messing with the game. More important, it could educate and capture the imagination of younger gamers who never grew up on World at War and have no idea what real landser getting pounded by Katyushas looked like . Hard core gamers and processor have-nots could simply disable the feature (as could those of you who would rather die than look at Anzio footage during your Cassino scenario). A brief stock clip of Stukas or Thunderbolts diving in would also be a lot easier to mod than actual animated planes.

Sorry about the long post, but I don't speak up that often. Best regards...

[Nelson 1812]

To be able to select the number of points, (for both sides) 1750 foe example, and to also alloicate them points into Infantry, Support,etc!

Did I use the word Foe!

[Midnight Warrior]

1. Explicit modeling of radios and radio nets with radio traffic .wav files.

2. user selectable mouse wheel control to change viewing elevation, viewing elevation angle, step through units, or step through HQ's.

3. Aircraft "gun camera" view.

4. Easy way to identify scenarios that one has played from scenario list.

5. Embedded mod manager function tied to each scenario

6. User editable text file for each unit to keep notes for after action reports (e.g. as an expansion on the kills report

7. Way to export surviving units to other QB scenarios (build your own campaign game).

[Stingray]

Originally posted by Stingray:
My Christmas wish list is as follows:
1. Ability for tank bow gunner and AA MG (if available) to target seperately from main gun.
2. Off/On toggle switch for grid lines.
3. Visible aircraft with spectacular crashes.
4. At least two men graphics for crew served weapons: MGs, mortars, ATGs, guns, bazooka, etc..
5. Improved graphics for bazookas, mortars and piats.
6. Hatches that open and close.
7. Flares for night combat.
8. Bunkers and pillboxes that can be entered or exited by troops.
9. Ability to emplace ATGs and guns inside buildings and rubble.
10. Boobytraps inside houses and buildings.
11. Engineering units ability to pre-set Bridge/Building demolition.
12. Paratooper/Glider air drops.
13. My two front teeth !!! ;) Since I have been extra good this year; can I add these to my list?

14. Real snipers (not sharpshooters) the "one shot one kill type up to 500 meters" to target TCs and HQs personnel.
15. In game Mod Manager that can be activated after the scenario has been chosen.
16. For scenarios lasting more than 30 turns- ammo resupply capability.

Thanks Santa !!! :D ;) tongue.gif

[junk2drive]

for mod manager requestors
after you read your side's briefing, before you hit continue and see the loading 3d files, alt tab to desktop, use your mod manager, then full screen the game and hit continue. not too hard.

the mouse wheel. after 10 months i accidentally found the pan up pan down with shift + a or z
a wheel mouse function would be nice for this.

[Kip Watson]

Great game, best I've ever played, but of course that leads to lots of things to wish for!

A) Scenario Design

- ability to rotate map
- ability to cut and paste terrain elements
- more detailed and varied buildings and ruins
(eg. clusters of buildings or ability to subdivide terrain tiles)
(eg. ability to place buildings on tiles that change elevation)
- more flexible fortifications, including bunkers/pillboxes along the lines of trenches that can be occupied by squads and weapons (as mentioned elsewhere)
- scenario designer can vary squad composition (even just a little)
- designer can vary MG ammo on AFVs
- designer can send 'messages' to player (eg. on move 10 message comes up "Warning, enemy aircraft coming your way")
- ability to include simple graphics (eg. maps) in briefings
- ability to import maps from CMBB/AK/BO...??
- designer can apply damage to buildings


B) Forces/Units

- Actual cavalry
- mine clearing tanks
- display of aircraft
- optional (to designer) player control of aircraft
- TRP for aircraft?
- include beaches, amphibians and landing craft
(including German for hypothetical invasion of Britain?)
- some additional fortications (see also above) (eg. tank ditch, tank obstacles - basically same function as roadblock but looking different)


C) Game-play

- more varied QB purchasing rules (eg. light armour, medium armour, heavy armour, combined arms light, combined arms heavy, infantry-and-extra-artillery etc etc etc.)
- a few simple if-then/multiple orders (eg. a bit like scoot-and-shoot and move-to-contact-then-hide, but expanded like; move-to-contact-then-area-fire-with-explosives, if-see-enemy-tank-then-reverse, if-see-enemy-tank-then-turn-to-face, area-fire-with-grenades-then-assault)
- area fire 'ahead' (as opposed to area fire at a point) while moving command (for advancing in forests etc)
- Infantry movment commands like, move-and-stick-to-cover (to save micromanaging) and 'seek-cover' (like hide, as in move-to-contact-and-seek-cover)
- a CONVOY COMMAND!!


D) I-know-it-won't-happen-but Dep't...
- extend into post-war/cold-war/arab-israeli?


E) You guys rule, and thanks for inviting suggestions.

[Kip Watson]

Here's another thought.

It would be cool in scenario design to have a bit more variety in Victory Conditions. Eg. the following:

- one-sided Victory Flags, that could be applicable and/or visible to a particular side. In other words, you may not know for sure what your opponents objectives are. This would be quite cool and add nicely to Fog of War.

- Victory conditions that give extra victory points for the destruction of specific enemy units (artillery springs to mind), like in a search-and-destroy mission.

- 'Dynamic' exit zones, which could even be applicable to different parts of a force. Eg. Are you breaking an encircled force out, or a relieving force in? Similarly, Exit Zones that are invisible to an opponent.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Kip Watson:
Here's another thought.

- one-sided Victory Flags, that could be applicable and/or visible to a particular side. In other words, you may not know for sure what your opponents objectives are. This would be quite cool and add nicely to Fog of War.
It's called dynamic flags. Currently works in scenarios only. The attacker chooses one from several flags. The defender doesn't know the objective.


Gruß
Joachim

[Kip Watson]

Hi Gruß Joachim.

Yep, I understand Dynaic Flags - and they are really cool. That's why I was thinking of something like a further developed alomg the same lines. As in more complex victory conditions (Dynamic flags are essentially only one active flag and some dummy flags).

Imagine victory conditions completely visible only to one side (with a Dynamic Flag you can see them you just don't know which one is active). Because VLs basically correspond to something in your orders, but your opponent may have quite different orders.

For maximum victory you would have to hold your VLs as well as deduce your opponent's objectives.

Really, you could have some real FOW-fun with it.

[Michael Dorosh]

You guys may want to check the thread in the General Forum called "CMX2 Details" - there is an online article with some details of the next game engine in it...and it isn't somebody's half-assed idea of a joke, but a real article.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=014773

[fabs2002x]

1) More ammo or the possibility of re-supply.

2) a total re-modelling of hedgerow terrain for Normandy bocage scenarios. There should be two options:

- something that works like the "roads with trees" now do to model roads and tracks running between parallel hedgerows.

- Individual hedgerows to separate fields where there are no roads or tracks present alongside.

The hedgerows should be shown as earthen banks about 1m high on which shrubs and trees grow, that is what they looked like mostly, as opposed to the "manicured" effect currently portrayed.

Infantry should be able to gain strong protection from fire by setting up "inside" the hedgerow terrain, which should be just a narrow strip.

Hedgerows should not be passable by tanks, but it should be possible to blow gaps through them using engineers.

Infantry should be able to move through or along these obstacles but at a very high time cost.

Most of my other pet ideas have been mentioned by previous posters.

[fabs2002x]

Oh, and something that will mean roads won't bend in all sorts of curious ways when negotiating undulating terrain.

[Kip Watson]

Sorry to be a post-hog, but here's another couple that have been mentioned at Blitzkrieg WC

- Pacific theatre (I don't know how many time I've seen this, but it gets mentioned even more than the wish for Cold War era)

- An ability to play the whole movie back from start to finish of game (this is a really good idea)

[Pzman]

Originally posted by fabs2002x:

Hedgerows should not be passable by tanks, but it should be possible to blow gaps through them using engineers.
For German tanks anyway. After a while the Americans and other allied nations built cutters designed just to cut through Hedgerows. I don't think engineers would spend too much time throwing demo charges at them either as they had more than enough mines to deal with already.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Panzerman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by fabs2002x:

Hedgerows should not be passable by tanks, but it should be possible to blow gaps through them using engineers.
For German tanks anyway. After a while the Americans and other allied nations built cutters designed just to cut through Hedgerows. I don't think engineers would spend too much time throwing demo charges at them either as they had more than enough mines to deal with already. </font>[/QUOTE]don't be fooled by CM, Panzerman - demolition charges were not the standard method of dealing with enemy minefields!!!

They would generally sweep the roads with electronic equipment, or else a mineclearing tank like a Crab or Flail or whatever, throw down white "minetape" to mark safe paths (or use chalk for that purpose), and avoid the mines where possible. Lifting was done with probes, but I am not altogether sure that demolition charges were ever used to destroy mines or minefields with. Would be quite the waste of resources. CM only lets engineers do so as a visual aid to the player. Th reality - guys on their bellies with mine probes and hand mirrors - would be harder to replicate with those clunky little men on screen.

[Pzman]

True, and known about, but on CM's scale it really seems to be the only way to do it. Lets hope that it changes with the new game engine to something more realistic, but using demo charges on bocage doesn't seem very realistic to me either.

[Kip Watson]

Unrealistic? Considering the time scale it seemed about right. In the heat of battle I can imagine engineers using HE for all manner of things, blowing a path in a mine field - sure (although they wouldn't fling it they'd ignite a string of charges?). Blowing holes in Bocage, high walls, buildings' outer/interior walls (blowing building to rubble even), roadblocks and various fortifications... Why not? That'd be really cool!

And hey, what about bangalore torpedoes, even!

[JonS]

erm - you guys do realise that using dems charges to get through bocage was standard practice?

Busting the Bocage (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/doubler/doubler.asp)

[Kip Watson]

The extra orders that came with CMBB (covering arcs, advance, assault etc) were so cool compared to CMBO, and it would be neat to have a few more of them, for example

- creeping artillery barrage

- area fire possible across an wide-ish area instead of focussed at a point (like with sweeping MG suppressing fire)


And it would also be cool to be able to synchronise units in some way. The convoy command is one that gets mentioned a lot, but what about:

- A 'formation' command, possible for infantry but particularly for tanks (of course this would need to depend on state of morale and quality of the HQ but it would save a lot of micromanaging) (and even a 'stay on road' command)

- some different options for infantry under the same HQ unit using quick fire and manoeuvre tactics, eg: covering fire and assault and 'leapfrogging'. As it is, one minute (plus any additional unit delay) is too long for synchronsing squads really.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Kip Watson:
- some different options for infantry under the same HQ unit using quick fire and manoeuvre tactics, eg: covering fire and assault and 'leapfrogging'. As it is, one minute (plus any additional unit delay) is too long for synchronsing squads really. You can already do this by editing the delay times for various squads.

[Kip Watson]

You can already do this by editing the delay times for various squads.
...sure, I guess. But (a) being able to add a delay to the beginning of a move only really allows a rough approximation of synchronised squad tactics. (b) inserting an explicit and more intuitive menu-item for something the game already handles internally is easy, right? and (c) don't get me wrong, CM is super-duper-way-cool and it was intended as a 'wish-list' item, not as a criticism... :)

[Kip Watson]

OK - quite a few minutes of thought later (I'm a slow thinker), what about if you could add pauses between movement segments (instead of just at the start of a move), and even what about if you could add a 'synch pause' so that squads under the same HQ all wait (or shoot or whatever) until the slowest squad reaches the the pause-point - to allow for synchronised tactics.

...sounds complicated, though.

I get a bit lazy sometimes and some effective CM tactics require a lot of micromanaging - it would be cool if there were just a simple menu item that handled that .

Basically just continuing from what CMBB added, which were some additional intuitive infantry commands (assault etc).

As mentioned above, I'd like 'advance by bounds' (leapfrogging), and also 'move using cover' (doesn't add anything just saves clicking).

And to elaborate from an earlier post, a submenu on the move-to-contact command, to allow different things to do when contact is made (at the moment all you can do is hide).

[flamingknives]

The advance command abstracts leapfrogging within a squad. Leapfroggin with a platoon is fairly easy to accomplish.

[Akula2]

There is so many tactical options I would wish to appyl to various "levels" of "experience".

The first of wich is "reverse to hull down"

... "to anything" ... ... ... reverse, advance, assault, ... name it ... would be agreeable indeed.


more to come

[Midnight Warrior]

I'd like to see a smart camera capability. The smart camera would generate a list of events of interest during a turn. Events of interest could be events such as losses taken by a unit, units being fired on, etc. Clicking on an event in the list would position the camera and the clock to view that event. This would be espeacilaly handy for large scenarios and could save a lot of time replaying a turn to catch all the significant events.

[Major Concussion]

First off, I'd like to apologize to the CM community as a whole. I've been absent from these forums for literally two years, inexcusable. I'm posting for the first time since July of 2002 mostly because I see this thread as a fun opportunity. Plus you guys are awesome.

Anyways:
I like a lot of these ideas.
My particular favorites, plus a few of my own which may have been stated and I just forget were:

*The complete replays where you could save as a movie file and watch the entire battle over again (like a movie)
*The post where someone reccomended using short combat footage video clips when certain events happen like artillery fires and it shows a clip of 105's firing or what have you
*The bunker system, and "embarkable" pillboxes
*More fortifications
*Cavalry units
*Perhaps add some trains or something of the like, like the Big Bertha gun or whatever it was (sorry, I just don't feel like researching the real name right now). Of course guns like that are long range, possibly further than even the largest CM maps, but they would make a worthy objective for someone to capture.
*Embarked troopers firing from vehicles. Its always driven me insane when you have a squad in the back of a truck just sit there while the truck is idle and being fired upon. Of course at high speed, precision fire is difficult when you're on the back of a duce and a half, but at least suppression fire, they seem so helpless!
*Buildings that aren't simple squares. Make rooms or stairs or something. When a squad travels to the second floor it seems as if they brought their portable elevators with them or something because they just rise straight up.
*More terrain. There's always something I wish I could add to a scenario.
*Guns that can be placed in buildings.
*I agree with the notion to customize squads to an extent. Changing a squad so it has 10 BARs would be a little dumb, even if you were doing "a Commando mission". On the other hand, if you wanted a certain squad to be missing their leader or one or two soldiers you could select that. Or even mixed units where some troops are experienced and others green. Things like that.
*Pre-set destructions for engineers and the like. For example, if an attacking force gets too close, you can have an engineer squad detonate a bridge.
*Creeping artillery fire, although this can also be done just by adjusting fire every turn but this option would be nicer.
*CM does a lot on strategy, and to an extent logistics, but I'd like to see more of that.
*A lot of little things.
*EDIT: Make it so atleast a limited amount of troops can enter church towers. I think I might have watched SPR one too many times, but a sniper in a tower would be nice.
*EDIT: More scenario editing options. The thing I love doing most in CM other than actually playing is creating scenarios. When CM:BO first came out and I read there was a scenario editor, I was overjoyed. Of course, it has gotten better, and I really like it, but more options would be grand.

Things I don't agree with:
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and I respect that, but then again I'm entitled to mine:

*Making the graphics better. I don't have a really Uber computer or a really old junk one either. Its about normal, but you see, I don't know about you guys, but I don't play CM for the graphics. I play it because its awesome and its all about your tactics and what not. Since when in Day of Defeat can you cooperate a platoon to ambush a Tiger tank or actually outwit your foe rather than snipe him out? Plus I feel pity for some of the lower-lower-lower-end users out there.

*Viewable planes. The shadow is fine for me. Like I just said, I don't play CM for the gfx. Frankly, the planes are kind of annoying. I'm trying to coordinate my attack and all of a sudden some planes come and scatter my forces. Its war, I get it, but that's really annoying. If this was a Combat Flight Simulator versus Combat Mission, i would expect that. But since its Combat Mission versus Combat Mission, I expect my opponent to be worthy enough to bring the fighting to the streets like a true soldier. Not through some sudden blitzkrieg. Yeah I'm sorry, I got carried away, I just really hate those planes... However I like the planes crashing on the battlefield idea!

OK, done. Sorry for the extremely long, slightly redundant, incredibly specific post, but this is two years of suppressed thought compiled into one post here. Anyways... CM is awesome. smile.gif

[ August 22, 2004, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Major Concussion ]

[mobear]

Here's an idea that might be fairly easy to do. Put a timer into the editor to keep track of how long it takes to build a scenario. Start the clock whenever construction of a new scenario is started and from then on keep track of every time those files are accessed and for how long.

I'm thinking something along the lines of the game Civilization III, which keeps track of how long a person plays a given game.

[mobear]

Actually, might as well put the timer into the game too, although time spent playing a given scenario might not be such an interesting statistic.

[mobear]

Actually, now that I think about it, this is a stupid idea.

[medlinke]

1_ Battlefield Decay
*Dry Grounds decay from fields to flat, desert like areas
*Damp Grounds decay into wet and then muddy ground areas
*Dynamic weather that can change randomly during a battle
*Viewable physical damage to terrain from shelling. Off board naval bombardment created major crators...it'd be nice to actually have that impact play. I know it was a factor on Pointe du Hoc...

2_ More realistic unit AI. Fear is something palpable and simply affecting command is pretty generic. Why not have fight or flight take over and have flight take over PRIOR to getting all hacked up and bloody. If I'm in a unit that needs to defend and I see a much larger unit coming, I don't care necessarily that my orders are to stay...likely I will want to get out of there and that probability should be included in the AI's fight or flight routine.

3_ Player Tendency Tracking! I want to have the game store my tendencies. For example, what I choose to buy on QB's (in general terms like force composition slants). Also how I tend to play...aggressive with armor, and defensive with troops? Maybe I rely heavily on bombardment or smoke? The system would, over a period of time, build and refine a profile of how I play in general terms (do I favor the right of left flank for attacking? how large of units do I tend to move simultaneously together? etc.)

4_ Better Animation - Not meaning more polys per-se, but just smoother animations.

5_ Details - I want to see things like animals, details of life (cars on streets in cities, broken buildings that vary in appearance or destruction, fields with tall grass, shrubs, and gullies...you just MORE and better implementation of the things that already exist in some sense in the game.

6_ Mixed fighting forces - I want to be able to build fantasy battles with germans and brittish fighting russians or Americans and Russians fighting brittish!

7_ Game Map = Game World - I want the size of the map to scale to the world size!. The current configuration with the map as a tabletob in a generic world is okay, but it would be better to think and see the map as the ONLY thing in the world with edges that close off the areas in some way.

8_ Full Scripting Engine - It would be nice to be able to build fully scripted missions. EXAMPLE: Build a mission for the Americans to do Objective 1 then have a set of circumstances arise (reinforcements, mission end, or counter-attack) then do objective 2 that was contingent upon Objective 1 and the new set of circumstances.

9_ Models, Textures, Game Executable as separate entities - This will foster a more open community of resources that will then include folks building custom solutions and implementations of the game! It would be fantastic!!!

10_ XML game output. It would be cool to have the game record the key stats of each battle in an XML file. That file could then be uploaded to a league site and that would report the battle with complete stats so that leagues could do more tracking and create more elegant game recording methods!

[Hans]

Actually

I think I'd be happy just to see it

[JonS]

Originally posted by medlinke:
1_ Battlefield Decay
*Dry Grounds decay from fields to flat, desert like areas
*Damp Grounds decay into wet and then muddy ground areasWhat? In the space of 90 minutes max? Someone has been playing too much C&C
*Viewable physical damage to terrain from shelling.Erm, which game are you playing? This is already in since CMBO.
Off board naval bombardment created major crators...[snip] I know it was a factor on Pointe du Hoc...No it wasn't.

2_ More realistic unit AI. Fear is something palpable and simply affecting command is pretty generic. Why not have fight or flight take over and have flight take over PRIOR to getting all hacked up and bloody.Units can already break and rout before they take any cas. Also, the cas in CM are not necessarily folk with bullet holes. They are also people who've thought 'bugger this, I'm off.'
3_ Player Tendency Tracking! I want to have the game store my tendencies. For example, what I choose to buy on QB's (in general terms like force composition slants). Short term memory 'issues' huh?
4 & 5Not all of us have the lastest 733+ gaming rig. While improvements can - and no doubt will - be made in this area. Gameplay is what makes people come back to a game. Chess, for example, has particularly crappy graphics, but it seems to ahve stood the test of time.
6_ Mixed fighting forces - I want to be able to build fantasy battles with germans and brittish fighting russians or Americans and Russians fighting brittish!Might I suggest a fantasy game then?
7_ Game Map = Game World - I want the size of the map to scale to the world size!eh? :confused:
8_ Full Scripting Engine - It would be nice to be able to build fully scripted missions.There is nothing stopping you doing that now. In fact, it was done as long ago as CMBO.
10_ XML game output. It would be cool to have the game record the key stats of each battle in an XML file. That file could then be uploaded to a league site and that would report the battle with complete stats so that leagues could do more tracking and create more elegant game recording methods!I'm not terribly interested in ego-stats. However, the same basic idea could be used to make MMP campaigns much more amenable. Of course, that makes the suggestion about 3 years old ;)

Jon

[Gurra]

Hi,

may I make a suggestion or two.

I have come to notice over the years, that when playing large battles, one shifts focus from determining the right angle of ONE tank to overall tactics and angles of all forces. You can of course still check every tanks angle to perfection, but I find this halting the fluidity of the battle too much. And yet, you really have to do this to be victorious.

I would really appreciate the option of a " seek line of sight " for AFV's, comparable to " seek hull down ". The advantages of this, if desired, I guess, is pretty obvious.


And in the same manner as this " command shortcut ", I would also appreciate the option to select two or three formations for AFV's in platoon size or bigger. Column, side by side, and german keil, for example. Say you could choose where to go and then the appropriate formation. I don´t know if this would be possible with either the current or future engine, but it would nevertheless eliminate some of the parts I find less entertaining.

I know that this last suggestion has been up before in some way. Sorry for emphasizing.

;)

[Kip Watson]

How about these:

- A 'turret down' setting for AFVs!
- The ability for AFVs, while on the defending side, to start a battle fully camoflaged (netting and all? and could we see it??), with a corresponding 'invisibility' factor.

- Designer can assign map labels that are visible to one side only (eg. for recon info)

[Nelson 1812]

..........howabout map grid with references, and
extention of game moves, with the ability to nominate new troops (as in a scenaro).....and being able to create over an existing (end or even middle) game scenaro.

(sorry if these have been mentioned already!)

[medlinke]

WOW! Someone woke up on the jerk side of the bed...
Originally posted by medlinke:
1_ Battlefield Decay
*Dry Grounds decay from fields to flat, desert like areas
*Damp Grounds decay into wet and then muddy ground areas

What? In the space of 90 minutes max? Someone has been playing too much C&C Hmmmm...Apparently you've never watched a game of football in your entire life... I've played football and let me tell you, even when the ground is slightly damp, in about 30 minutes of running and sloshing around on it, it's a mud pit. So your comment, is not only unwelcome, but inaccurate as well.

*Viewable physical damage to terrain from shelling.

Erm, which game are you playing? This is already in since CMBO. Erm...I'm playing the games, but there is no physical depression in the ground, just a decal on th ground. Seeing a black splotch, is not nearly as cool as seeing the ground actually taking a beating.

Off board naval bombardment created major crators...[snip] I know it was a factor on Pointe du Hoc...

No it wasn't. Hmmmm...maybe you need a source photo because you're obviously too busy being a smart mouth to me to look anything up for yourself...

http://www.omahatour.bravepages.com/POINT.jpg

Look at that and tell me that they weren't a factor. I've been there and stood inside them and they were a freakin factor man, some of them are like 8 feet deep! Check out source material before you spout off.

3_ Player Tendency Tracking! I want to have the game store my tendencies. For example, what I choose to buy on QB's (in general terms like force composition slants).

Short term memory 'issues' huh? Actually no...but it would be cool to be able to play an AI built on your tendencies so you can face off against an ever developing AI. I thought most people would make that leap from tracking your tendencies to some kind of implementation...but I stand corrected....

4 & 5

Not all of us have the lastest 733+ gaming rig. While improvements can - and no doubt will - be made in this area. Gameplay is what makes people come back to a game. Chess, for example, has particularly crappy graphics, but it seems to ahve stood the test of time. It's a video game. Why re-write the graphics engine and NOT include the small touches that have come to be expectations for gamers?

It could very well increase the popularity of the game and bring in more players with something to contribute and help bts succeed. But apprently in your assessment, they should design for computers that aren't even made any more...Enjoy your PIII...


6_ Mixed fighting forces - I want to be able to build fantasy battles with germans and brittish fighting russians or Americans and Russians fighting brittish!

Might I suggest a fantasy game then? No...I like how this plays out. Why should reality be a limitation? Once again, It's a video game.... so get off your high horse.


8_ Full Scripting Engine - It would be nice to be able to build fully scripted missions.

There is nothing stopping you doing that now. In fact, it was done as long ago as CMBO. REALLY???? Wow! Please then script me the following scenario. I would like see engineers blow a bridge when axis reinforcements arrive, but they only arrive if their overall force strength is reduced to 33% and the allies force strength is over 66%.

10_ XML game output. It would be cool to have the game record the key stats of each battle in an XML file. That file could then be uploaded to a league site and that would report the battle with complete stats so that leagues could do more tracking and create more elegant game recording methods!

I'm not terribly interested in ego-stats. However, the same basic idea could be used to make MMP campaigns much more amenable. Of course, that makes the suggestion about 3 years old [Wink] Again in your fantasy world where BTS only caters to existing customers and doesn't want to see their game market expand that would be great. But I know that it would be really sweet and set this game apart from other games. There are like 4 or 5 sites out there that track battles, how easy would it be to have an automatically generated report pop up. Parsing XML is WAY easier than relying on folks not to have typos, and allows better more complete stat tracking.

In terms of persistent campaigns this would be awesome because it would mean a better coordination of many more users.

------------------

Seriously man. I have no clue why you choose to rain your sour opinions and pissy comments on my feedback. I've been a major advocate for this game with friends, local gaming stores, and in newsgroups in the past.

I really don't think I deserve your crap....

This was a topic intended to generate ideas. Not generate ideas that YOU approve of or think need to be in the game. You come off like a fanboy who is defending something from some vicious attack which I don't see the tenor of my initial post doing...

Additionally...your snide remarks are really off-base and in a few cases completely wrong. You're exactly the kind of person that drives away new players and tries to throw your weight around because you feel some sort of entitlement.

Let me tell you...nobody cares who you think you are, or what sort of entitlement you think you have. But, don't accost me and the ideas I put on this board because you refuse the hear proposals for ideas.

Grow Up.

[Moon]

Point and counterpoint, and may I suggest to leave it at that? I'd hate to have to lock a thread with (many good) suggestions.

Martin

[Alkiviadis]

Originally posted by Gurra:
...And in the same manner as this " command shortcut ", I would also appreciate the option to select two or three formations for AFV's in platoon size or bigger. Column, side by side, and german keil, for example. Say you could choose where to go and then the appropriate formation. I don´t know if this would be possible with either the current or future engine, but it would nevertheless eliminate some of the parts I find less entertaining.

I know that this last suggestion has been up before in some way. Sorry for emphasizing.

;) Absolutely I 2nd the above, It would be a real time saver

[flamingknives]

I'd like to see ground get broken up by passage of AFVs, particularly deep tracks created by heavy tanks in soft ground that were used by infantry for cover. I think that this is mentioned in "Battalion" the history of the... 5th (?) Seaforths.
Also roads being degraded by the passage of vehicles. Having the whole map change significantly is just daft. Just the tracks, Ma'am.

I think we're going to see a big jump in terms of graphics. Dynamic lighting is already on the cards. A great many people have said that they were happy with top-down hex graphics, then CM came along and whoa! Now people are saying that they are happy with CM graphics. I think that the BFC boys are a little more ambitious than that. Witness all the extra goodies that went into CMBB.

Game map = game world? Not likely. While the maps may well be bigger, I imagine that they'll still be maps. Part of the longevity of CM is the ease that you can rustle up new maps. I can't see many of the talented scenario designers creating a 20km square map for a battalion sized engagement. Not to mention the extra processing power required would seriously reduce what you can actually represent on screen.

Anything that creates extra files (Like AARs) should be user specified, with the default on off

While I'm on a roll, I think I'll go back to an old favourite. Track weapon heat, and code that into the jam probability for automatic weapons. This would really set apart barrel changes and water-cooled weapons. eg. A Vickers MMG would have one heat 'reservior' that has a very large capacity before anything untoward happens, wheras an MG34 would have multiple, small reserviors that would be changed at the discrestion of the TacAI. better quality troops would make better judgements as to when to change barrels. This way you could model sustained and intense rates of fire.

[JonS]

Originally posted by flamingknives:
I'd like to see ground get broken up by passage of AFVs, particularly deep tracks created by heavy tanks in soft groundThe tracks created would need to be subject to FOW, though, otherwise you would see disembodied tracks advancing across the map. Would that processing effort be worth the visual payback?

[LongLeftFlank]

Since we're giving free rein to our wish lists, as a kid, I always liked the MacGowan art on the original SL infantry counters showing the little figures advancing like actual combat soldiers (heads ducked, etc.) or lying around on the ground when "Broke 7". This really helped visually confirm that SL was a lot different from previous big unit wargames... that it was all about individual men fightin' and dyin'.

No idea what this does to the polygons, but purely from an aesthetic POV, I'd wish that CM2 infantry showed a slightly more realistic combat "body language", at least when executing "advance" or "assault" commands, as opposed to their current "Redcoats at Bunker Hill" stances. This might also help modders with some of the problems they've had with hats and heads. But then again, maybe not. I shall defer to the experts and enjoy whatever comes.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by JonS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:
I'd like to see ground get broken up by passage of AFVs, particularly deep tracks created by heavy tanks in soft groundThe tracks created would need to be subject to FOW, though, otherwise you would see disembodied tracks advancing across the map. Would that processing effort be worth the visual payback? </font>[/QUOTE]It's not just a visual thing. Deep tracks could be used for cover in the event of artillery fire, and ground crossed by multiple AFVs would become degraded and more difficult to pass. If you have terrain FoW too, it ought to be relatively easy.

[Major Concussion]

On a different note, before I forget:
Railroad crossings. Perhaps not fancy ones with the lights and gates, but when you're editing a map and you throw a railroad through your road and preview it, the road just ends abruptly at its tile, then the railroad, and another abrupt ending. Perhaps instead, there could be road ending pieces where the road (I'm referring to dirt road mostly) begins to blend in into grass and fade in a sense. This would obviously not only be used in crossings, but other places as well. Or I could just ignore the abrupt endings and just play, one or the other.

[flamingknives]

A proper level crossing would be good. As it currently stands, a unit traveling down the road must cross a railway, with the attendant penalties in speed and bogging chance or there is a discontinuity in the railway, which looks odd.

[Gpig]

Have the road displace the tracks. Not vice versa. It's actually more realistic.

Either way doesn't look good. So a proper level crossing would be ideal.

(Mine is a useless post, it is now apparent to me)

Gpig

[poppy]

Im gonna put my bunny in Heer hoppfully somebody will notice. A lotta new capabilitys will be abvaiable with CMX2. Hopefully the gameplay will not change. I have purchased all three CMB versions and have been playing and creating scenarios for them for several years without gettig boored with the game. The only suggestions that I have for "enhansment" of the game is smaller tiles for better terrain display and maybe a squad or two or a team purchased in very limited quantity that would be able to perform special missions. Ie. blow a bridge , snipe an 88at gun.

[Kip Watson]

Heh heh, some of the terrain suggestions start to sound more like a model-railway-sim that a warfare sim (It's a joke! don't get upset, they're good suggestions really).

But it makes me think that interesting terrain features are very worthwhile and of course you will be adding some more and really cool ones, but please can we have the ability to blow them up! Destroying buildings and bridges is fun (ahem, I mean historically informative), but I would like to be able to destroy other terrain elements too - walls, fences, hedges, treebursts with exploding trees, sandbags with gaping holes...

...all in the interests of military historical verisimilitude of course! ;)

...and in 'heavy damage' mode, could we have trees and woods with a bit of that denuded, devastated, WW1-type look?

[postfux]

First of all, thanks for a great game. Given the opportunity i will add my own wish list.

1. Recon: the spotting system is working all right but could easily be improved. Why not giving some "real" information instead of "infantry?" or "squad?". When my guys are spotting some infantry why not giving away the spotted numbers and when they fire their guns i might get a hint on the type. A full squad could be identified as "5 men, 1 lmg ?rifles" for instance. Same for sound contacts. I always wondered about the "bunker" sound contact. Should be "MG" or "gun".
Then unit marker should stay visible but fade away and be fixed after lets say a minute without contact reestablished. "Sir, sir, i spotted a tank! Which type? Dont know but it is the same spotted ten minutes ago by A company." Add the posibility to put notes in unit markes and hide or delete a specific marker. Some filters like show unit markers of last ten turns... would also help. This will give some more depht without changing gameplay and could be made as an additional FOW option. I would also like to draw on the map and leave notes (minefield cleared, platoon? spotted minute 7...).

2. C&C: Stop one HQ overruling each other interfering with indirect fire and reducing the effectiveness of subordinated units. "Run! The major is coming!"

3. Artillery: Possibilty to make other fire plans than "drop all your ammo around point x" (different patterns, effectivly "walk" arty fire, several targets for single preplaned battery..). Purchasing arty per shell not per module and independent purchasing of spotters and battery availabilty. I think one spotter should be able to contact different batteries.
On board batterys. All you need is a HQ with a radio or telephone and C&C to all the guns. The FO makes a fireplan, chooses the onboard battery, the rest is processed automatically. Telephone lines? I get carried away.

4. Tanks as 3D objects. They act as cover and block LOS (tank columns). Follow unit order (for vehicles and infantry). Follow road order (order delay is otherwise sometimes ridiculous).

5. Better fortification model. Wodden bunkers as improvement for trenches. Faster movement in trenches.

Thats all folks! (for now)

[Fly Pusher]

And it would also be cool to be able to synchronise units in some way. The convoy command is one that gets mentioned a lot, but what about:

- A 'formation' command, possible for infantry but particularly for tanks (of course this would need to depend on state of morale and quality of the HQ but it would save a lot of micromanaging) (and even a 'stay on road' command)

I second this suggestion. Part of the frustration with the way things are now is the necessity to micro-manage in order to do well.

More global commands such as being able to give an orders such as 'take control of this area' to a company commander would be good.

Even better if one could still maintain the ability to jump in and tweak individual subunits if you felt so inclined.

Something like this may well make the game more accessible to those of a less 'control freakery' nature.


More Finns would also be an improvement. Especially in the PTO...

[Ace Pilot]

I’d like to see the unit spotted icons changed so that they remain in effect for a certain amount of time. As it is now, they disappear whenever a friendly unit moves into the area and confirms that the unit is no longer there, or the unit that caused them is spotted somewhere else. This last effect makes it extremely hard to set up distractions. You reveal your platoon on the left flank and pull them back out of LOS and move them to the right flank. As soon as they are spotted on the right flank, their spotted icons on the left flank disappear.

Also, if the spotted icons remain for a set amount of time, a single unit can attempt to appear as a larger unit by going in and out of LOS, which would leave numerous spotted icons.

And I’d like to see Finns in the Pacific as well – in skimpy bathing suits.

[Major Concussion]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:
I’d like to see the unit spotted icons changed so that they remain in effect for a certain amount of time. As it is now, they disappear whenever a friendly unit moves into the area and confirms that the unit is no longer there, or the unit that caused them is spotted somewhere else. This last effect makes it extremely hard to set up distractions. You reveal your platoon on the left flank and pull them back out of LOS and move them to the right flank. As soon as they are spotted on the right flank, their spotted icons on the left flank disappear.

Also, if the spotted icons remain for a set amount of time, a single unit can attempt to appear as a larger unit by going in and out of LOS, which would leave numerous spotted icons.

And I’d like to see Finns in the Pacific as well – in skimpy bathing suits. I agree. I'd like to see that too, I think it would make the game much better. smile.gif

[Sergei]

Okay! Here's my Finnish girlfriend:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/250000/images/_250288_fatswimmer150.jpg

Should the bathing suit be skimpier? :confused:

[JonS]

Originally posted by postfux:
3. Artillery: ... Purchasing arty per shell not per module and independent purchasing of spotters and battery availabilty. Amen. This has been mentioned in the past, but it's worth repeating. Basic idea:

* Pay a small-ish amount for a wire spotter (~ the same as a coy HQ perhaps)
* Pay a slightly higher amount for a radio spotter(~ the same as a bn HQ perhaps)
* Both types of spotters come with 0, or only a few (~10), rounds
* Buy ammo, at a set rate, or a linearly increasing rate, or an exponentially increasing rate, whatever (for example; set-rate for the US and UK in 1943-45, linearly-increasing for the Germans in 43-44, exponentially-increasing for the Germans in 45, etc)
* for added fidelity, allow certain types of spotter (US- and UK-Radio in 1944-45 for example) to buy any mix of quantity and calibre of round. (though this would lead to a more complex interface, in that you'd have to specify the calibre(s) when calling a mission)

This would solve the 'Allied Arty is too expensive in QBs!' problem, make it easier to reflect different arty doctrines, and a number of other issues.

An altogether different solution would be to make the rounds essentially free to buy, and unlimited in quantity, but cost VPs to use. So, the more you use, the more you have to defeat your opponent to gain any level of victory. At the margins, you might defeat your opponent, but still lose the scenario because you used too many artillery resources. This would reflect the flexible nature of artillery (it can be used on any part of the battlefield within range, not just your bit), and the opportunity cost associated with using it anywhere in particular (ie, while it is being used by you, it can't be used to support 2 Bn over the hill). However, since this is fundamentally different to the way anything else is handled I doubt it would be a practical addition/change.

Regards
JonS

[ August 26, 2004, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[markl]

I would like to see a mod installer build in that was not as complex as CMMOS so it would be used by texture modders & scenario designers.

I would like to select a scenario and before I load it, press a button to see all the mods I have for that scenario re, terrain and vehicles that are applicable to that time period for terrain and vehicles with a preview picture. Then be able to load the selected mods when the scenario is loaded.

One text file supplied as a template from Battlefront that could used by both scenario designers and mod makers would be needed to like all the required information.

Since in my opinion it is the third party scenarios and mods that that make the game, and help increase sales this area should have full simple support in the next version. Especially since it seems no access will be given to make full scale mods like other games.

The game play I am not worried about as I am sure Battlefront will surprise us all with god features as their past performance in that area is very good.

Cheers

[poppy]

On map indirect artillary fire. It would have to be a very large map as a minimum distance to target is the determining factor for each type of artillary. Artillary duels,anti-artillary units ?? Self propelled artillary would be more valuable than it is now. poppy

[sebastian]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:
I’d like to see the unit spotted icons changed so that they remain in effect for a certain amount of time...we asked for that allready just after CMBO. my idea was to indicate the age of a spotted icon by its transparency. the older the spotting is, the more transparent it schould become and fade out completely after a certain time.

most important: the icon schould show more information than now (big icon: vehicle, small icon: infatry). instead of a national insignia it schould show the units type. so you dont have to click on each icon to check what it was.

however: exceptions will be needed. loosing and gaining contact to a unit several times within a short time schould not produce dozens identical icons on a the same place

[junk2drive]

how about pinking out the last seen icons to increase the fog of war?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by junk2drive:
how about pinking out the last seen icons to increase the fog of war? I play that way against the AI.

But it is not perfect since clicking on an invisible icon still shows the normal unit info on the bottom of the screen.

[General Bolt]

How about a method of setting the fuel level on vehicles in the editor? And the game tracks how far each tank travels. Along with this a refuel setting on operations.

[Europa]

More sound fx. Tank turrets traversing, AFVs bouncing over the terrain making nice sounds etc. IMHO the sounds are more important than the graphics.

[flamingknives]

Way to suck up to Madmatt.

[poppy]

Hi flamingknives, "Madmatt" is a computer program. poppy ;) tongue.gif :cool:

[poppy]

With a thick skin. poppy

[LGMB]

I've been saying it since CM 1.5:

Jamming Tank MGs & Reload sounds!

[hurtzDonut]

Enough of these foolish requests! I must have "Russian suicide anti-tank dogs", in CMX2!