To kick things off... a poll of sorts...

[Madmatt]

We plan on announcing the subject matter for the 1st and 2nd CMx2 games in a few weeks. Screen shots and other visual materials will accompany the announcement. But until then, we'd like to talk about some of the game stuff in general terms prior to getting into discussions tied to specific subject matter. Our thinking is that once we've revealed the subject matter we'll likely get swamped with questions about how this or that detail will work rather than Big Picture stuff. Right now, at the point of development we are at, the Big Picture is more important to us and we'd like to pick your brains about a few things in particular. Plenty of time for discussing nitty gritty stuff afterwards.

For those of you who aren't aware, CMx2 is a ground up game engine based on the concepts of CMx1 (CMBO/CMBB/CMAK). The main goal of this new engine is to provide us with the ability to cover a wider range of subject matter in a shorter period of time with greater depth than was possible with the old system. Oh yeah, and we've made the game's graphical environment cutting edge too.


We're curious to know what you guys think are the top 5 things you don't want to see changed from CMx1 and the top 5 things you want CMx2 to do differently. Please keep it to a 5 and 5 only because we're going to tabulate the answers and anything over 5 will be ignored. Also keep the list of things to game mechanics and NOT nitty gritty details. Example of what we're looking for:

I'd like to have a campaign system where I shepherd a core group of units from battle to battle

This is not what we're looking for:

I want the chin armor of the Tiger 1E to be simulated so that it has more detailed armor ratings

The first kind of comment is quite valuable to us because it is about the game system. And since we are coding up a game system, these sorts of things are obviously good for us to keep in mind. Specific comments about armor on this or that tank, the look of a particular small arm, or the type of underwear worn by SS Hampstertruppen is really uninteresting and rather worthless. Without the proper context such detail type suggestions are worthless. So for that sort of stuff please hold off until we have are actively discussing that specific setting. And especially do NOT sound off about what setting you'd like to see. We've already made decisions for the first two games that are irreversible, so there is absolutely no point in voicing that sort of an opinion.

Since this question is sure to come up, I'll ask and answer it right now: "How much influence do you gamers have over the shape of CMx2's first release?". Well, since we're about 2 years into coding and are expecting to finish up in early 2006, the honest answer is "not much". So why bother asking you guys what you think? Think of this as a last chance double check. The CMx2 design is a culmination of 9 years worth of work and about 8 years of online discussions with you guys. We should be pretty much on the mark because we HAVE been paying attention all along. However, if we find ourselves seriously offbase in a particular area, now is the time to figure that out. We can still make a significant course correction or redirect some development effort towards one feature vs. another if we see the need for it.

In the end you must remember that game design is not a democratic process. To put it in feudal terms... we are enlightened monarchs, you are the loyal subjects ;) It is in our best interests to please you and keep you from stabbing us with pitchforks, but in the end we're in charge and we call the shots. And that is as it should be. Anybody that has experienced "design by committee" projects knows exactly what we mean. We didn't fall into this trap with CMx1 and we won't do it with CMx2. Yet in both cases your feedback is critically important and that is why we're asking for it.

So let rip with the 5 and 5 lists!!

[ August 24, 2005, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[Michael Dorosh]

1) Convoy rules

2) Ammunition resupply in-game

3) Victory Conditions that are way more flexible

4) More terrain types, that don't conform to a 20 metre grid (ie true narrow streets, odd shaped buildings, etc.)

5) More cowbell

[junk2drive]

Dang, MD beat me to the first post.

[Jussi Köhler]

Wish to see changed:

1) Cover/concealement against small arms fire fixed.
2) Convoy rules/AI whatever you wish to call it. A "Stick to the roads" command.
3) Realistic and better artillery

No changes please:
1) PBEM
2) PBEM

[ozi_digger]

Hmmm, what he said...

Will second grog Dorosh on
1. Realistic terrain.
2. Flexible victory conditions (i.e. AI can defend an area if it doesn't have a flag on it); also:
3. Simple playability - please don't get more complex - CM is complex enough as it is.

The following are non gratis anus rodentum, IMHO:
1. Campaign mode (I have enough imagination without BFC having to name all my pixeltruppen for me)
2. Over-detailing of 1:1 (see post 3 & 1, above) - still wanna play realistic unit warfare without having to get to know my pixeltruppen personally, y'know?

[A.E.B]

All I need is MadMatt's address to send the anthrax spores I have been cultivating since CMAK to just I case I am disappointed by CMX2!

Otherwise what the above posters said, plus....

HQ <-> subordinate relations not usurped by closer HQs.

Straffing runs for CAS using MGs or Canon .i.e. they effect a strip of terrain rather than just one target.

More control over Artillery, including pattern, # rounds fired (plus quick/slow), and creeping barrages.

Soft Vehicles treated as AFVs for direct fire.

Wrecked vehicles providing cover and concealment (Shermans and T34s or Iraqi T-72s must serve some purpose).

The ability to export, import data in the form of text files to allow 3rd Party Campaign systems as BFC is not providing one.

Individual skins for vehicles allowing different camo / slogans / numbering when using multiple vehicles of the same type.

Sectional buildings that are not * ** *** destroyed as in CMX1. Instead partial destruction as per reality.

A.E.B

[Soddball]

One thing I don't want to see changed:

CMX1's level of scalability: Although it was always envisaged as a battalion maximum, it was possible with CM:AK to scale up to much bigger. I really enjoyed that.

[Michael Emrys]

I can't think of 5 things just now, so I hope I get to vote again until I've used my 5 up.

Change:

1) I'd like to see some kind of command relationship between superior and subordinate HQs. I'll get into the nitty-gritty of this when it's time. But basically, I want higher HQs, if present in the game, to perform their historic functions of command, control, and coördination.

2) I'd like to see a more intuitive control of camera position. The present system is workable but a little clunky. Too often I have had to stop and correct a mismove of the camera or at least stop and think about how to do what I need in order to see what I want.

3) Agree that the artillery system needs serious work. The air system is even worse if that's possible.

More to come.
Michael

[JonS]

Taking the bones I already know about as givens, and in no particular order …

**************

Change round:

1) No more angels on the head of a pin
Currently a section of up to 12 men, or an armoured vehicle weighing up tp 60 tons, is a point in space. When moving, the unit is either completely hidden, or completely exposed. Have units occupy a circle, or an ellipse, and vehicles a cube. And have their exposure, firepower, and vulnerability based on how much and what is exposed.

2) Obstacles ahead
Currently obstacles are bought in arbitrary clumps. Change the purchasing of obstacles to some linear or area measure, then let the player lay that out. So, buy a 100m^2 minefield, which can be laid out as an area 10m x 10m, or 100m x 1m, or something in-between. Set it using the mouse – ‘click here for the first point, then stretch out and click again for the diagonally opposite point’. Or sumfink. Clearing obstacles – be it mines, wire, or laser force fields – clears a small area, not the whole damn thing. So a 5m wide path could be cleared through a 100m wide minefield.

3) Spread out
The OoB editor in the scen editor laid out as a fully functional spreadsheet, with all fields editable in the spreadsheet. No more dozen-clicks to change the ammo load of a unit. No more restrictions on how a company or bn will be organised. No more restrictions on ranks or chains of command. You guys did a passable job on OoB research, but let us change it where we think it should, or needs, to be changed. If it exists within the module already, let us decide how to put the meccano together. If you can’t get that kind of functionality into the game, make the scen files open, and let someone else do it. You know they will, and they’ll do a good job.

4) Listen to me
Units maintain their pre-existing chain of command in the presence of higher commanders unless you specifically tell them otherwise.

5) Help us up mate
Make the file structure more open and amenable to third party programs. Allow the game to be used in ways you (or I) can’t even imagine. There is no reason – that I can see – to encrypt the raw scen files, or the end-of-game files.

**********

As you were:

1) PBEM
Well, maybe change it (though really, three emails per turn isn’t that much of a burden), but don’t get rid of asynchronous playability.

2) Power ups
I like the way power-ups are handled now just fine.

3) Deep Blue
Don’t spend a lot of time on the AI. It’s an OK sparring partner as it is now, but it’ll never be as good as a meatsack. Well, ok, it’s already better than Dorosh, but so is my cat.

4) But it existed on paper
Don’t fret about one off’s and odd-balls. Although, given that, see also ‘Don’t Change #3” above.

5) Brown nose
Your commitment to excellence. Meh, I couldn’t think of anything else. redface.gif

**************

Thanks
Jon

[ August 25, 2005, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Måkjager]

Tank and Infantry formation commands.
Texture modability.

Regards

Måkjager

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi MM et al

As I simply wish CMx2 to be 'deluxe' CM there is not a lot I would wish changed but improvement that would bring me most joy would have to be

1. Convoy Command

I am sure I will think of more..........

[Adam L]

1. Take part in historical operations and have your battles make effect on the campaign. Essentially, in "in game" CMx10 type system. Note I am talking about OPERATIONAL stuff here. I don't want to play as a battalion making it's way from one end of europe to the other. I just want to be able to have my battles within the context of a division action, for example.

2. Simply model a campaign management system, like an electronic tabletop board. Doesn't need AI or anything. I'm just talking about taking a campaing map editor and having something where I can move my units around (by hand if need be) and keep track of strengths and ammo, etc.

Oh, and I want the chin armor of the Tiger 1E to be simulated so that it has more detailed armor ratings.

Thanks.

[karch]

DON'T CHANGE

1) keep pbem of some sort please
2) keep the movement command to the unit, not individual man.

CHANGE
1) vehicles and infantry can get cover from being behind other vehicles
2) ability to have slow surpressing artillery fire or different shapes ( line along a ridge etc), or slow fire smoke to keep a screen up
3) follow vehicle or follow road command
4) work on CAS ( I just got strafed not 20' from 2 enemy infantry units, too close )

[Nelson 1812]

Wonderful news ...

Convoy system.
mobile cover (tanks)
fog of war.. (on those out of communication)
Phem
transfer of units and game maps from one game to another.

[jim crowley]

1) AI. I don't buy the "AI will never be as good as a human" (given some of the people I have played!). If you don't try you will never achieve and everything can be improved. Vital for solo gamers.

2)Robust C&C which stresses the importance of higher level HQs to manage and co-ordinate - maybe nationality based.

3)More varied victory conditions, especially for the QB generator. So a "Fall Back" type of defence may produce a very small defending force relative to the attacking force and so on.

4)Convoy/road movement/follow my leader.

5)Greatly improved artillery/indirect fire.
This should allow virtually anything, on map or otherwise, to fire indirectly given some sort of OOP system. It should also have a variety of arty missions such as "drop five rounds on this co-ordinate" and so forth.

Damn, thats five. But ammo resupply and a pre-battle OOB (like Steel Panthers) would come a close sixth and seventh.

[Peter Cairns]

No particular order.

Cowardice and fanatacism, some will hold out, others break and run.

Limits on what terrain you can see, so that details will be lost or lower behind hills. probably a lower detail level, or blanked out but you would be able to consult a map of the terrain to check what was there.

Fewer dead before a side buckles ( I know casualties don't represent dead as such ), It just would fell better if units broke and ran before being destroyed.

National tactics, don't really now a better phrase, a german unit would move different from a US one given the same command because of different training and or doctrine.

Again I like the idea of tank formations, but again it should reflect national doctrine.

Peter.

[Salkin]

Don't change:

*The WEGO system smile.gif .

Change:

*I'd like a campaign system added. I'm not talking a historical correct campaign with the exact right markings for each and every unit , but something simple where I move a few units on a map and sometimes get resupplied from an HQ somewhere. Something to put my battles in context and see changes in the big picture when I loose a tank/made an enemy loose a tank.

I don't want a campaign like this that goes on for ages but somthing simple. Like the RTW campaign but in a much smaller scale (and with less units).

*And like karch I want my infantry to able to take cover behind a tank.

*Oh, don't pour all your resources into it , but try to improve the AI a little (I know it's hard , but just make it a little better if possible.).

*Also I'd like multiplayer with more players then 2 . Up to 6 players would be kind of cool smile.gif .

That's all I can think of now.

//Salkin
Looking forward to the next big thing in gaming ;) . No pressure tongue.gif .

[ August 25, 2005, 03:34 AM: Message edited by: Salkin ]

[Mace]

Improved affects of battle on environment: eg better representation of building damage.

More terrain options.

Better modelled artillery procedures eg fall patterns etc.

ACCURATE vehicle representation (eg don't use the Wespe as a Grille etc).

Multiplayer options.

and especially, more sheep. :D

[Andreas]

Change:

1) Improved Battle Editor
2) More detailed terrain, in particular integration of buildings (sloping etc)
3) Improved artillery system (including direct-fire airbursts)
4) Add pioneer battle (if appropriate to scale)
5) Add .txt output file for battle results to allow umpired multiplayer campaigns

Don't change:
1) WEGO system
2) Bias towards realism over gameplay in design
3) User modability (scenario editor, graphics mods)
4) Availability of hard-core realism options (casualties, extreme FOW)
5) Open-ended game scale (i.e. though designed for battalion combat team, ability to simulate larger scale action)

All the best

Andreas

[ August 25, 2005, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Thomm]

This list is based on the things that we KNOW are in CMx2, that is, I do not write relative spotting or 1:1 representation!

Please do NOT change

(1) Turn-based game + movie playback.
(2) Realism
(3) Easy Editor
(4) Campaign style (moving window approach)
(5) Shockwaves ;)


Please change:

(1) Reduce time per game to an average of an hour
(2) Add convoy / formation commands.
(3) Put an emphasis on persistent smoke and dust!
(4) Some form of WIA management.
(5) Add terrain reading aids (shading, contour lines)

[Tim Hughes]

Stuff to keep:

1) PBEM
2) Realism(?) over eye-candy
3) Straightforward/easy artillery system (for those of us who don't want to pre-plan the trajectory of individual shells)
4) WWII emphasis - don't compromise tanks/infantry/artillery for the sake of horses/flaming pigs/space lobsters
5) WEGO
5a) Did I mention PBEM?

Things to change
1) PBEM - just two messages per turn please
2) Open up the file formats allowing 3rd party map design/scenario design/campaign management
3) SOPs - at least convoy movement
4&5) All the good stuff you've already told us about

[Egbert]

Ability to import OOB from an external file such as a spreadsheet or db file. Ability to export that same OOB a the end of the battle.

Ability to cancel a move order and revert to the original order, such as with the arty command now.

Keep the ability to Mod the graphics.

Add the ability to Mod the weapons charateristics, or characteristics of most things for that matter. (Wouldn't it be nice to mod a light building to become a jungle hut for Vietnam, or a floating restaurant in Aberdeen, Hong Kong for a future fictional?)

[TufenHuden]

1)A prone command or firing
from the prone.

2)To be able to chose/edit Ammo loadout:
A)Armor-Tungsten/HC/AP/HE to chose like
I want Stug-42-105mm to have 10HC rnds
and 20HE or Churchill VIII 95mm same as
above.
B)Infantry ammo loadout-more ammo or
frags-riflegranades,fausts-etc.
c)Arty loadout-or to give FO more rnds
but a amount that's not overkill.

3)Axis 88mm FO also to direct airstrike
like arty in game/scout planes.

4)Use PLt-HQ or any infantry in spotting
with on map mortars plus the use of
Armor/SP-guns/on map infantry guns in
same manner.

5) Better Arty like in CMBO.Also during
battle to tell Armor to use certain rnds
and command to limit HE fire like to
fire only 3 HE rnds in this turn or
use Tungsten at this Panther.

Misc-Keep PBEM.
Don't change the you go I go system....

Keep borg spotting why because he's
your grunt or crew member in the game
spotting for you-still in most sence a game.

[ August 25, 2005, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: TufenHuden ]

[Sargon70]

Please change:

- Borg Spotting (!!!)


"nice to have":
- a campaign game mode that allows me to lead my troups through several battles over several months where the outcome of one battle influences the available troups and their condition in the next


Please don't change:
- PBEM-capability. IMHO the feature I love most at CM - next to the realistic approach.

Oh, and I would like to run CM2 on an AMD Athlon 2000 MHz System with Radeon Mobility 9000 graphics. But that's just a personal preference... smile.gif


Sargon70

[Derfel]

Things I'd like to see:

1. Vastly expanded Victory Conditions / Scenario Editor. Example: VC should be able to include and combine things like secure, hold or arrive at location for (at) certain period of time, maximum number of casulties, certain units intact etc. For inspiration look at VCs for the old Harpoon game.

2. More players than 1 per side in multiplayer games.

3. WYSIWG Map editor, to flip back and forth between editor and map modes gets old very fast.

4. More detailed model of buildings, more floors, several rooms per floor and above all a more complex/detailed destruction sequence.

5. Reserved for something I will think of when I've posted this.

Don't change:
WEGO
Bias towards realism/extreme fog of war etc. (Thks Andreas)


-Derfel

[Bogdan]

Don't change :
1/ WEGO system
2/ Intuitive scenario/map editor
3/ Intuitive and easy-to-recall order system (one letter for each order)
4/ possibility to mod vehicles, uniforms, terrain features
5/ hardcoded 3D models (no freaky multi-turreted Panthers possible... :rolleyes: )

Change (if possible) :
1/ in a QB, possibility to see the map before purchasing units
2/ more terrain tiles variety, in particular the possibility to recreate small rivers (less than 20m wide)
3/ real mutliplayer mode (maybe up to 6 players ?)
4/ toggle shockwaves off/on :cool:
5/ allow the player to select specific ammo type for AFVs (HE, AP, Sm, WP...)

[Kanonier Reichmann]

A couple of things that come to mind.

1/ Must retain the ability to play PBEM.
2/ Allow units to fire through smoke as an area fire command to try & induce supression of enemy units suspected of being behind the smoke.
3/ Ensure a players order for a unit to fire smoke is actually carried out rather than being continually countermanded by the TacAI.
4/ Better representation of indirect fire that is more in line with WWII reality.
5/ Convoy command is essential.

Regards

Jim R.

[Sergei]

KEEP THE SAME
A - WEGO
B - a good balance between realism and playability, with enough weight on the 'realism' part of the syntax
C - PBEM, my primary form of play smile.gif
D - an easy to use editor - however, if there is a choice between easy-to-use tile based editor and a harder to learn vector type terrain editor, I'd rather take the last one!!!!!!111
E - the feel of 'being there' (where, I have no clue, but still...)

THINGS TO IMPROVE
A - there could be an ingame unit-o-paedia for browsing unit database to check availabilities etc.
B - better continuous operations, I do not specifically need a random campaign mode or such, but connected, dynamic strings of battles taking place within ('operations') which would be more realistic
C - some sort of modelling of supply connections
D - more indepth modelling of command & control, but not so that the focus changes - for example, if a conscript platoon was close to the Company HQ, they'd have the command delays of a green platoon (a crap example, but I don't know how different the command system will be, anyway)
E - better reactions by TacAI in situations like when routed, hopefully avoiding the headless chicken syndrome

And, finally...

DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT INCLUDING...
A - Space Lobsters of Doom
B - pseudorandom influence by Jamoomba
C - additional PDF book "Great hair-do tips by MadMatt"

Thanks smile.gif

[Bonxa]

Change:

1. Full movie playback! This might kick off as an entire new sub-community like modding and scenario creation.

2. Improved night combat. This may very well need rethinking of the entire LOS/spotting thing but wouldn't it be cool!

3. Open up the scenario and save game files to allow for 3rd party modification, import/export.

4. Improved arty/indirect system.

5. I would like a map overlay that you can turn on and off easily. On this overlay you can have TRPs, cover arcs, command hierarchies and perhaps even user added phaselines etc.

Keep:

1. WEGO!

2. Scalability. I might need a monster computer to do monster battles but I don't want coded in limitations against it.

3. Intuitive command system.

4. Yeah, I can chime in on the bias towards realism over gameplay. smile.gif

5. Everything else that is so great about CM and that I have taken for granted after 5 years of continual play!

[Der Kuenstler]

[/QB][/QUOTE]
"nice to have":
- a campaign game mode that allows me to lead my troups through several battles over several months where the outcome of one battle influences the available troups and their condition in the next

[/QB][/QUOTE]

In addition to this - I would like to be able to name my own men (personalize/nicknames) like I used to in good old Panzer General.

[Tarkus]

Change

1.- Traffic management.

To this date the only really horrible side of CM. I don't mind delays, shortcuts and the like, but please get rid of those silly and maddening out-of-the-blue traffic jams.

2.- Terrain rendering/modelling

I think the game deserve a deep overhaul on this count, both on look and substance. A better looking battlefield, as long as it is in line with a more accurate representation of cover, concealment and other factors intimately related to the terrain, will go a long way in making this game so much better. I know you guys are working on it, but this is a vital part of my expectations. That also include fortifications.

3.- Offgame interface overhaul

May sounds simple or irrelevant, but since my "don't change list" include a powerful scenario editor, and I expect battles to be downloaded and played by the dozens (even with a narrower scope), more order and clarity would be called for. Ergonomy could also be improved a lot so to allow usermade content to be more elaborate.

4.- More flexibility in the command structure

Maybe related to play balance and overall implementation, but.... I think being able to reorganize the command structure according to the situation - and within certain realism parameters- would be an important step toward realism AND immersion. For example, to take CMx1 lingo, say I play an operation set in the Battle of the Bulges, I might want to reorganize command of a badly mauled company to better balance overall manpower for following battles.

5.- Slightly widen the game scope

I know this is a tricky one. But by that I mean to allow second line/rear units and some additional aspects of small unit actions to be represented, be it ammo supply, field telephones, command post., combat engineering, wrecks, etc. Or at least provide the tools for scenario designers to implement them.

Don't change

1.- Scenario/map editor

I like you guys a lot, but there is a ton of guys in the community I still want to hear from scenario wise. Some deeply knowledgable grogs or excellente storytellers that come up with pure jewels. Keep the tools for them to create.

2.- We Go

3.- Level of infos given for each unit

I think we know just the right ammount of info on each particular units. It could be devided/presented differently ;) , but generally speaking, I'm happy with what the UI and detail screen tells me about my guys.

4.- TO&E

I know the "big scope" will be narrower. I'm OK with this. But always try to be as thorough as possible within each theater. Making a Bulge module ? I want all units present on that battle available. (Note: this some will include in "change" as they feel previous iterations were not complete, where I choose to assume historical accuracy on TO&E is a goal Battlefront always tended to. You get the point.)

5.- multiplayer flexibility

I know there might be issues with this. But I must only hope you'll do everything you can to keep PBEM in.

Oh... and, emm, 6.- Let me mod the interface please...

Cheers.

[Bigduke6]

The cynic in me suspects the whole point of this exercise is not to collect suggestions, but rather to give BFI ammunition to respond to future grog complaints.

"Tough luck, we asked the community ahead of time, and almost no one even mentioned the S.S. Armored Lobsters of Doom that aren't in the game that you want, so shut up."

Nevertheless, in the spirit of my deep faith in the world's best wargame design company...

Changes:

1. Make the armor engagement routines more sophisticated. This would include:

a. The tactical A/I does rational point aiming and doesn't just fling rounds.

For example, the TAC A/I has a T-34 or Sherman crew automatically aim at Tiger tracks, rather than wasting rounds on a Tiger hull - naturally at a reduced chance of hit. If possible this could be toggled - "Shoot for immobility kill" or "Shoot for turret", etc.

b. Turret size matters.

For example, a Pz IV hull-down should be a lot harder to hit than a TigerII hull-down. As of CMAK, AFAIK they're the same.

c. Fix the goddam cower routine, already!

At minimum do something so weaker tanks won't cower away from taking an easy flank shot. It would be great if you could toggle this: "Scout" if you want your tankers to back off from anything, and "Breakthrough" if you want them to stand and blast whatever they come up against, no matter what.

d. Armor damage can accumulate

An armored vehicle struck the tenth time by a large caliber round should be more vulnerable to damage, than one struck the first time around.

It seems to me this could be done pretty easily - just assign a counter to each AFV, take a tiny percentage of caliber to each round that hits, penetration or no, and allow the counter to keep track of the accumulated mini-percentages. Then subtract that increasing number from armor quality. As hits accumulate the overall quality of the armor degrades.

e. Increase the random variable for armor engagements.

Make it so that the game gives more of "on the edge" penetrations, and more "it shoulda gone in for sure, but it didn't" penetration failures. Players should be less sure of the results of an armor engagement than they are.

f. Increase substantially the effectiveness of curved and rounded armor.

At present there are far too many flat, penetrating strikes. The armor engagement engine needs to lean much more heavily towards rounded/curved armor giving a high-angle strike.

g. Increase the number of armor faces the game thinks about engaging: for instance not just the turret front, but gun housing, mantlet, and plate seams, for instance.

2. Bigger, badder, fluffier terrain, including:

a. Player can turn relief lines on and off
b. Terrain tiles down to five meters.
c. A toggle for terrain gradiations (this is level one soft ground that will muddy your boots, this is level ten soft ground that will swallow a tank.)
d. Tanks leave tracks in soft terrain
f. It is possible to go UNDER a bridge
g. New terrain tiles including:

* High stone/brick walls
* Three-ring concertina
* Barbed wire that engineers can clear
* Orchard, distinct from scattered woods
* Cobblestone, distinct from macadam roads
* Sandy terrain, distinct from open terrain

3. Building destruction makes more sense, i.e.:

a. Buildings in general absorb HE better, i.e, there are no more "Houses of Cards."
b. When buildings do go smash they usually do so partially.
c. Infantry in a building under fire can bail out of a building under fire on its own accord (or not, have a toggle going from "avoid casualties" to "hold at all costs".)
d. When the building goes down rubble can block streets.

4. The point system needs overhauling. Unit values, especially tanks, should be tied to their actual worth on a CM battlefield, not a summation of their bells and whistles.

5. Make PBEM faster, i.e, less exchanges to get a turn done. I want to receive a file, watch the turn movie, plot my moves, and then and only then to send the file back to my opponent. If I have to be on-line to do this, that's cool with me; but it should not be the case that my opponent MUST be on line as well.

Keep:

1. A priority on accurate modeling of WW2 combat. It's not a game, it's a simulator.

2. WEGO, turn-based set up.

3. The battle scale

The focus should remain as it is: an average battles battle is about a battalion once you include attachments, but the engine does just fine down to a company or up through a brigade/regiment.

4. Air and artillery stays pretty much the same, maybe the point values could use some retooling but in general I'm happy with it.

5. The way TC/IP works, it suits me fine

[ August 25, 2005, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Ron]

Things to change

1- More fidelity in objects and terrain and vehicles, ie not simply just 'all or nothing' regards sighting and/or damage - includes firing through smoke, AFVs blocking LOS, AFVs being partially seen etc.

2- A more comprehensive and realistic C&C structure including SOPs, Plt-Coy-Bn COs relationship etc.

3- A vastly improved AI to stengthen the solo experience. CM's AI is decent but has a lot of holes that could be filled.

4- A more realistic and rewarding Operational level.

5- An even more realistic simulation, ie Relative Spotting et al. smile.gif


Things NOT to change

1- PBEM

2- WEGO

3- CM's adapability to play a QB, Scenario or Op from Plt size up to Bn+ size.

4- a WWII theme.

5- Price ;) (JK!)


Ron

[hoolaman]

WANTS FOR CMX2:

1. I don't want to feel like a vital part of a larger battle is "missing" because of the narrower focus of the initial release described by Steve in the "module" discussion. This concept is fine, but not if it restricts players to less than historical battles.

Strictly for the sake of an obvious example, I would rather have an initial release game that simulates the entire Normandy campaign, then have a sequel that simulates all of the Battle of the Bulge, rather than having a game that takes the 101st airborne from D-Day to Dusseldorf, then have a sequel that takes a British division on the same trip.

So in essence I want to play any part of a whole theatre, even if it's a small one, not follow a single company "Band of Brothers" style.

2. A realistic 3C model specific for each level of command.

3. A more coherent and consistent operation model where lulls in fighting only happen realistically, such as after an attack is pushed back, or when night falls.

4. Atmosphere! Weather, smoke and fire, dynamic lighting.

5. Some depiction of rear areas including some concessions to logistics. Ammo resupply? Trucks that may be shown as carrying a particular cargo to give them tactical value. In real warfare a large objective was to get back amongst his artillery. I would love to see artillery on map as well as rear command posts, tents etc.

DON'T CHANGE FROM CMX1:

1. Originally posted by Soddball:
One thing I don't want to see changed:

CMX1's level of scalability: Although it was always envisaged as a battalion maximum, it was possible with CM:AK to scale up to much bigger. I really enjoyed that. I agree with this for the most part. Up to and including batallion level should still be an integral part of the C&C design. Even if you are playing a single company, I think the batallion CO level of command should still be "in play" in some form.

2. Fully user made battles, maps and "operations" whatever they may be.

That's all I can think of, there is so much in CMX1 that could be better, I hope CMX2 isn't so similar that I am already sick of playing it like what happened when I went from CMBO to CMAK.

[MAJOR EDIT TO INCLUDE MORE POINTS]

[ August 25, 2005, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[hellfish]

Most everything I want and hate has been covered already, but here goes:

Wants

1. Dynamic Campaign. Probably totally unrealistic, but if every other flight sim out there has something akin to a dynamic campaign generator, why can't CM? We don't need to have overall control of the war (though it'd be cool) but it would give us a context of the battles we'd fight.

2. Tied loosely to the above, I'd like an expanded campaign system. Operations are good and all, but I'd like something in a larger context beyond one or two days.

3. Open-ended scenario editor with scripting capabilities. Much akin to what Operation Flashpoint has. With an open ended scenario editor we'd be able to do a lot of the stuff you guys might not want or have the time to make (like a Dynamic campaign).

4. Expanded chains of command - company commanders for tanks, issuing orders to entire companies like entire platoons can be ordered.

5. More flexible FOs. Modern FOs can call for fire from a variety of assets and aren't limited to one firing unit. I'd rather have one FO with multiple assets on call than five FOs for five different assets. This is probably context-dependent, though.

Keep the same:

1. Your maddening attention to detail

2. Wego. Wego rules.

3. Most everything else...

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Tarkus:
4.- TO&E

I know the "big scope" will be narrower. I'm OK with this. But always try to be as thorough as possible within each theater. Making a Bulge module ? I want all units present on that battle available. (Note: this some will include in "change" as they feel previous iterations were not complete, where I choose to assume historical accuracy on TO&E is a goal Battlefront always tended to. You get the point.)
Unfortunately I posted before I read this, but this is exactly what I mean with my point above.

[ August 25, 2005, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[Richie]

1. PBEM
2. More terrain detail, (trams, trains, boats, the little stuff etc)
3. More flexible victory conditions

You guys are going to impress us regardless

[KG_Jag]

Please add:

1. More choices in types of cover arcs (e.g. all vehicles and all armored vehicles).

2. Multiplayer--it's becoming more well known and popular, and it's great fun.

[Canuck]

Movie Playback- This is the only thing I can think of. The ability to save each movie turn and then merge them all into one big movie.

[Cpl Steiner]

In keeping with the request to steer away from technical details, the following are my thoughts on where the game works well, and where it needs improving.

Things that works fine now: -

1. Realistic simulation of warfare.
2. Well researched historical setting.
3. Both multiplayer and singleplayer options.
4. Planning and action in good proportion (WEGO).
5. Scale (company-battalion) right for setting (WWII).

Things that would make the game better (in no particular order): -

1. More intelligent friendly and enemy unit behaviours.
2. More emotional engagement (i.e. less like a board game, more like an interactive war movie).
3. More realistic Fog of War effects (as applied to spotting issues etc).
4. Fewer restrictions on how you can play the game (for example, customizable OOBs).
5. Campaign system that is better than current Operations game mode.

[(FGM) Bootie]

Change

1 - Campaign - I'd like something to play through when my inbox is empty with a bit of continuity and a sense of purpose to each battle.

2 - Driving of map edge - Id like a choice of deciding whether my unit leaves the battle field or not. a misplaced waypoint can be so annoying when you see that KT drive over the edge and into infinity. A simple box with yes or no.

3 - Convoy controls - Im fed up pinpointing each turn for a convoy of half tracks... tell them to follow the bloody road... LOL

4 - A timescale on artillery when purchasing - Again annoying when you buy some heavy gear in a QB and the battle si over before it lands.

5 - Indirect SP Artillery fire.

Dont Change

1 - WEGO System

2 - PBEM

3 - Theatre of Operations - WW2 is fine for the first release... then change it into Attack of the Space Lobsters or whatever..!

4 - Modding capability

5 - Easy to use control system.

Bootie

[Ace Pilot]

Thanks for asking for our input.

5 wants

Relative spotting

Vehicles modeled as objects, not points so that:
1. They block LOS
2. Hull down is not an off/on function, but a linear function, so the vehicle can gradually go from turret down, to hull down, to hull up.
3. Turret size is more accurately modeled, giving more accurate hit locations.

Better command and control, especially regarding company and higher HQs. If my company HQ is lost, I want consequences beyond just the cost of the men.

Better/more detailed building models – interior walls, staircases, and better modeling of building collapse (i.e., collapses not so predictable nor always encompassing the entire building)

An off-board set up area – I’d like an area off the map where units can be placed. This would serve 2 purposes.
1. It would allow a player or scenario designer to lay out units in an organized fashion so that it is easy to see what is available.
2. Units that move off the map would show up in this area, allowing both players to check on the unit after the battle is over. In CMx1, you can never find out the kills of a unit that moves off the map. Especially frustrating in exit scenarios.

Not in my list of top 5 (mostly because PBEM Helper allows you to do this somewhat), but I’m surprised there have been so few mentions of full movie playback.


5 keep the same

PBEM – Please keep even the format the same. It works so well with PBEM Helper.

WEGO system

Uncluttered user interface – don’t overload me with too many details. I’m more concerned with being able to see the battlefield than the status of Pvt. Wally’s shoelaces.

Camera controls I think they work well and I’d rather not have to learn a new system.

Your dedication to realism and accuracy – except for the Space Lobsters of Doom module. I want to be able to nuke Alpha Centari from my backyard despite what the eggheads say is within the realm of physics.

[EarlofWarwick]

Things to Keep:

The campaign format (with a few tweaks). I want to lead a company+ and reinforcements to Hell and Back

Quick Battles!!!!!

Quick Battles!!!!

Quick Battles!!!

Quick Battles!!!


New Things:

Better graphical modeling of infantry. I’m not expecting Rome: Total War, but no more robotic cartoon figures.

Make graphical representation of improved positions such as fox holes and trenches
truly 3d –no more infantry sitting atop of brown donuts.

More reliance on HQ’s/leaders rather than individual squads, or at least an easier way to work with leaders --An option to scroll through HQ’s, for example.

As few placeholder graphics as possible—no question marks in my firefights

[undead reindeer cavalry]

want added

1. real 3D line-of-fire instead of point targets, so that you get, for example, ability to use MG fire that hits all units in the LOF and have vehicles (operational or not, friendly or not) block LOF.

2. random generated operations.

3. more battle types ("delay and withdraw", "recon areas A and B", "prevent enemy reaching/crossing areas A and B", "patrol from points A, B and C to D" etc).

4. some control of rate-of-fire, so that you can tell rougly how fast to spend ammo.

5. ability to give actual two dimensional area for area target command, instead of just a point target.


don't want removed

1. simplistic UI

2. flexibility

3. random battles

4. "TCP/IP"

5. extraordinary quality (not to be mixed with quantity)

[Pvt. Ryan]

Changes I'd like to see:

1. During set up troops are deployed in some formation instead of strung out along the edge of the map. Same goes for reinforcements.

2. Distinguish between damaged/destroyed and abandoned crew served weapons or bunkers so that crews who abaondon can go back to their positions once they recover morale if their weapon is still useable.

3. Ability to fire into blind areas such as smoke or into trees even without LOS. Mortars can fire BVR at night.

4. Vehicles provide cover for troops.

5. Working wristwatches on every soldier.

[ August 25, 2005, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Pvt. Ryan ]

[76mm]

At last an opportunity for input!!

KEEP THE SAME:

1) WEGO System;
2) robust scenario/map editor;
3) large scale battles possible (at least battalion on each side);
4) dedication to realism

CHANGE:

1) ADD DATA IMPORT/EXPORT or access to save files to allow for more player-designed campaigns, etc.

2) ADD SOME IN-GAME campaign functionality, although given that 10 players would probably have 25 different opinions on how to implement any campaign feature, I think that #1 (data import/export/file access) is more important, because the community will then be able to develop the various types of campaigns that people want.

3) IMPROVE AI, perhaps with AI scripting or other player-tweakable feature.

4) ADD FOLLOW ROAD/CONVOY COMMAND.

5) IMPROVE MAP EDITOR/GENERATION: The current map editor and generator are pretty good and much better than nothing, but I use a lot of max-sized maps and after auto-generating every map I need to basically scrape all the buildings, etc. off of it, and I shudder when I need to create a huge map with a river/stream and a town on it. The amount of effort seems like it will climb exponentially if CMX2 does away with tiles--will I have to place every individual bush, fence post, etc.? I would like the following abilities in the map editor:

a) be able to tell the map generator to create linear features (road, river, etc.) that run from one map edge (or portion thereof) to another.

b) although it will never be perfect, try to improve the map generator's placement of terrain (ie, no swamps on hilltops, etc.)

c) be able to copy, rotate, paste sections of the map. For instance, if you are creating a large map you might create a farmhouse with fences, fields, a barn, etc., then be able to copy this whole farm, rotate say 90 degrees, paste somewhere else, and tweak a bit to individualize. Much easier than placing all of the individual do-dads.

76mm

[ August 25, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]

[Hat Trick]

New:

1. Multi-player – per side, of course.
2. Campaign mode – or some incentive for players not to fight to the last man/vehicle
3. Improved command – some use of HQs above platoon level in their historical role, not just as alternative commanders of squads
4. Re-manning (and capturing) support weapons
5. Terrain fog of war – areas of map “blacked out” until seen, with option for scenario editor to include overlay maps


Keep:

1. Asynchronous play – pbem or some other method wherein a single player can “send” a turn without the other player(s) being online.
2. Simple user interface
3. Wego
4. Graphics – okay, they can be improved, but this is not a priority for me
5. To be determined at a future date

[Tifosi]

Most of what I could come up with has already been mentioned, apart from letting the player have more control over when CAS (if any is available) shows up. Let us call down death from above when WE need it, not when the AI decides to grace us with it!!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tifosi:
Most of what I could come up with has already been mentioned, apart from letting the player have more control over when CAS (if any is available) shows up. Let us call down death from above when WE need it, not when the AI decides to grace us with it!! Given the recent discussion on CAS in the CMAK forum, I'd suggest ditching CAS altogether, actually...

[gibsonm]

Change / add:

1. Ability of crews to dismount from the vehicles (or horses) to do recce.

2. Ability of crews to re-man their vehicle, horse, crew served weapon, etc. if they recover their morale.

3. Mounted organisations arrive mounted. No more dicking around putting a company (or worse a Bn) into their half tracks before you start. Each squad gets a vehicle and the specialists get in with the command element (or whatever you come up with).

4. Option for Team play. That is more than one person per side. Say 2 x Pl comd or an Infantry comd and a Armoured comd.

5. OS X support.

[ August 25, 2005, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[Panzer76]

1. Campaign system where you carry your force forward, and (slowly) gains experience. You as commander may arean medals and gain ranks which gives you the ability to command (buy) more forces.

2. Multi-multi player option. 3 or more players able to play at the same time. Commanding their own forces (delegated at start of the game)

3. A point system that reflects the strenghts and weaknesses at the virtual battlefield better than now.

4. Make CM moddable, in the true sense of the word.

5. Multi-multi player campaign system smile.gif

[juan_gigante]

I second every suggestion made, and would like to add a few of my own. I think it would be kind of cool for scenario editors to be able to put in some rudimentary scripting when making levels. Let's say you are making a big Russian attack. Instead of giving the Soviet player a few conscript high-calibur guns that the player is supposed to use for pre-planned fire, why not script where the artillery barrage would land, when, and in what amount. After all, most times I doubt that the battalion commander on the ground commanded all facets of the barrage. And one could do other stuff like that as well.

Many people have commented on scalability, and this is very important, I feel.

The thing that worries me the most is that our 1:1 soldiers won't act in a way that looks realistic or cool. I would sacrifice, say, a new artillery model if I could ensure that the soldiers act like how they do when I have dreams about CMX2. But for that, you'll need to do motion-capture with Jessica Alba.

All in all though, ditto to other people's comments.

[AstroCat]

Change/Add:

1. Dynamic Campaign System/”RPG” elements

2. Much improved graphics (Lighting, Weather, Destructible Terrain and Buildings, More Terrain/Buildings/Objects options and variance … fluff!)– I like realistic wargames and I like “killer” graphics, why can’t we have both?

3. Reworked and improved no “Borg” spotting system

4. Improved single player AI

5. Full movie playback


Don’t Change:

1. Realism vs Fun equation

2. WEGO system

3. “Modability” of both graphics and sounds

4. PBEM as an option

5. WW2 setting

[Elvis]

I am gonna write this without having read anyone elses. The thought being you are looking more for similar answers than coming up with my own unique and clever suggestion..

5 things I love about CMx1 and would hate to see go:

1) "We go" system
2) Play by email, solo or TCP optiona available
3) VERY easy interface
4) Unlimited new battles through scenario editor
5) true 3D for visual and gameplay

5 things I wish CMx1 had and hope CMx2 does:

1) Force list during battle to quickly locate ubits.
2) Much better infantry graphics (I really don't care but I probably missed closing a couple of sales for you guys because of it)
3) Campaign following one unit (doesn't matter if it is a platoon or company or battalion or whatever..something continuous...)
4) More "fluid" elevations angles
5) 2 mails to complete a turn instead of 3 (this could really be answer 1 through 5...It is the change I would want to see most..maybe it could be an option when starting a game so people could decide level of security they want for a game)

[ August 25, 2005, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Elvis ]

[WineCape]

In no order of preference:

(1) Expanded victory conditions
(2) Basic plt. formations ~ & convoy command
(3) Ammo resupply
(4) Cover behind shot-up AFV's, if possible
(5) Vastly improved Arty fire control

Please keep:

(1) WEGO
(2) PBEM
(3) Fun factor!
(4) WWII TO, for now, at least
(5) your drinking habits.

Sincerely,
Charl Theron
http://wine.capetourism.org/wine/images/logo.gif

-----------------------------------------------------
Co-creator & Sponsor of the following CM tournaments:
</font> The serial Rumblings of War (RoW I, II, III, IV, V) (http://bootsandtracks.com/ROW.php)</font> The infamous CMBO Invitational (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=019427)</font> WineCape Tourney I (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=019311) and II (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=019362)</font>

[ August 25, 2005, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Bannon DC]

Hello!

Change:

1) Editor system that lets you give orders or dispositions to AI troops. For example: "attack on turn 5"; or simply "defend only"
2) more terrain features.
3) in scenario menu -- some way to sort or tag which scenarios I have played, which I have won and lost
4) adjust the much discussed spotting system
5) increase "in-game terrain modification" -- destroyed fenses, down trees, rubble blocking streets


Keep:
1) things that go BOOM!
2) Fun factor

Thanks for more years of enjoyment and wasted time! ehehe.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

What to add -

1} better and more terrain types. you should be able to "paint" in a line of trees for example. not block in a patch of them, for more flexability in the map editor. the same thing could be applied to fortifications such as trench lines and barbed wire. instead of painstakingly placing one at a time inplace, you could paint a line across the map in the editor to save vast amounts of time.

2} A grand campaign system where you start out with a core set of units and upgrade them as the fighting continues. id love to see the units elligable for promotions and medals/awards.

3} A Pacific version. i cant tell you how bad i want to assault Iwo Jima in Combat Mission!

4} I know the new versions will be more battle specific. that opens the door for the opportunity for you guys to use more rarer AFV's/vehicles/airpower/units/ect... that werent included in the game. such as schmalturn Panther turrets in the italian moutain fortifications and German festung citys. or the German nebelwerfer halftracks that were used in the late war, just to name a few.

5} And last but certainly not least, and i cant stress this point enough, MULTIPLAYER!

What to keep -

1} WEGO system.

2} Simple map/scenario editor.

3} Easily modded game graphics.

4} PBEM.

5} Fog of war, i love that, it makes it more realistic.

[Foolish_Dog]

Change:

Campaign game
improved AI
Column movement for roads
Close air support
Improved options on quick gnerator

Dont Change:

PBEM

[Reichenberg]

Things to change/implement:
1) Campaign mode / In addition to the very good operations, have an easy campaign mode ala Steel Panthers. No historically correct battles, but keep your troops....for the beer and pretzels time.
2) Convoy command / E. g. follow road or follow leading vehicle or replacement of thereof to a designated waypoint. Would be nice to have that enhanced with a formation command.
3) Full movie playback / Chance of editing the full movie (cut / replay from different angle...) and converting it to a common file type.
4) More than 1 player in a multiplayer game / In a PBEM or even against the AI (for specific scenarios that are in favour of the AI).
5) Destroyed tanks and vehicles being able to provide cover

Do not change:
1) Focus on realism
2) WeGo system
3) WW2 setting
4) WW2 setting
5) WW2 setting

Uwe

[toxiczen]

ok five things i would like to see as a long time cmx1 player.
1) PBEM
2) tcp games
3) the continued depth and realism
4) another time period, medieval and or fantasy even...
5) more environmental effects as well as bystanders. examples: houses or trees falling to the ground and even onto things nearby them, bystanders running in panick or herds of animals stampeding.

thankyou for developing such fantastic games! you guys are a rare breed!

[anteportas]

ok this is my list

What to add:
1: easier terrain view. It should be possible that when you click on a unit, that terrain is highlighted which the unit can see. Have seen this feature in some strategy game, but dont remember which.

2: units have real dimensions, which means you can shoot the front of a tank while the back is hiding behind a house.

3: complete unit information in the purchase screen. So you can check all armour statistics and firepower, before you go into combat.

4: more soul in the game, a campaign like in close combat 2.

5: option to give platoons formations, like wedge or recon formation.

to keep:
1: scale of the game
2: micromanagement should not increase
3: detailed armour hits
4: good fun/realism balance
5: ability to use cheat codes

[dalem]

Change:

1) More granular terrain. No need for you guys to knock yoursleves out designing a "bocage" terrain type that we'll probably just complain about anyway ;) if we can just build the darned thing up ourselves.

2) Area Fire. We need a real Area Fire mechanism where we can "mouse pull" a target ellipse or square and have all shots and fire purposefully spread within that area for effect. Maybe all "point fire" as we have it now for smallarms disappears entirely and everything gets a type of adjustable beaten zone.

3) Spotting. You know what we need better than we do ourselves I'm betting.

4) Artillery & Air. Artillery needs serious work. Get rid of the air component. (I know, impossible marketing-wise.)

5) Scenarios. I'd like to see some kind of method to assign zones of responsibility to units initially that restrict information and movement at the beginning of a battle. I sent Moon an email about this awhile back based on CMx1 mechanics.

Don't change:

1) Unit scale. I like squads and teams and individual vehicles.

2) QBs. I love 'em.

3) PBEM options if possible. I love PBEM.

4) Please don't change your stance on "National Characteristics" and how inappropriate 99% of them are.

5) Realism. In the continuum of 100%Realism--------------100%Game please stay on the half or quartile that's nearer the "100% Realism" side.

-dale

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by impact42615:

5) more environmental effects as well as bystanders. examples: hoes falling to the ground and even onto things nearby themJust had to...

[Pzman]

Keep:
Anything that isn't broke, that isn't or cannot be improved upon.

Add:
Anything that makes the simulation more accurate, and easy to build battles in the editor. smile.gif

[Dirtweasle]

The top 5 things you don't want to see changed from CMx1

1- Multiplayer, PBEM & TCP/IP LAN play

2- Squad Based Scale

3- Scenario editing / building functionality. Could improve, but the basic functionality is a must.

4- CM's "IGO UGO WEGO" flavor of turn based play.

5- A wide selection of realistic scenarios right out of the box.

and the top 5 things you want CMx2 to do differently

1- A Campaign mode or something to that effect which conveys operational continuity.

2- Short of #1 above, which I believe is a non-starter, software hooks built in to support user community campaigns.

3- Road travel of vehicles needs to be handled differently. Telling a vehicle to go down a winding road and pull into position before the treeline is ugly as it is now.

4- More realistic feel to the exposure of portions of vehicle to fire when other portions of the vehicle remain behind a house for instance.

5- A granular terrain model, where for instance fences, buildings, trees and "doo dads" lay upon the terrain singularly, and appear and function more naturally and buildings set better on sloped land.

[Mercury]

1. The ability to pre arrange how reinforcements arrive on table - eg, in a column on a road, already loaded in their half tracks etc

2. Beach terrain

3. Placing wrecks, bodies in scenario design, more for realistic atmosphere than for playability

4. More building variety and levels, eg church spires or cellars.

5. European style terraced housing, where squads can blow in walls to pass from house to house

[MikeyD]

Things to keep:

1: WEGO (pretty-much universal agreement here).

2: A healthy variety of historical weaponry. I'd rather see 12 tank types with medium quality polygons than 2 tank types of outstanding quality.

3: Real-world stats for real-world theaters, and no tweaking of anything to enhance gamey gameplay (no health crystals under waterfallls).

4: Keep 'fuzzy' unit responses (Just because i order my tanks to charge to their deaths doesn't mean they necessarily comply). Other people hated 'tank cowering', I rather liked it.

5: Airstrikes stay random/unexpected/of varying effectiveness, unless we're talking modern war laser guided munitions. I don't need 100% player control of the air.

--
Things to change:

1: Varying/multiple AI 'personalities'. Cautious technique, aggressive technique, etc. With CMx1 we pretty much know from experience the present AI's most likely route of advance. Grognards boasts a 'multi-level' AI?

2: AI multiple-unit coordination. For instance a vehicle platoon system that has some sort of positive tactical benefit. or a hvy mg team that does 'overwatch' of advancing units like tanks do, instead of blindly walking at the front of the line.

3: Somewhat unlikely to see... Civilians! Perhaps with a "Number of Civilians" sliding bar in the scenario editor to distinguish a 'front line' battle (no civilians) from a 'peace-keeping' engagement (majority civilians). Very simple AI-controlled walking/watching civilians on the street for troops to work around. We'd expect the AI to have them scatter to the nearest shelter on hearing the game's first shots. This might even include civilian automobiles? And you WON'T be able to purposefully target them, though a high civvie body count could involve point penalties.

4: Screen view that has more of a 'through-the-eyeballs' looks to it, as opposed to 'bumpy monopoly board'. I see screenshots for the Grognards game appear to have a bit of convincing wide-angle-lens warping at high altitudes?

5: Campaign system - not a hard-core "must complete this to advance" campaign (I never did get halfway through Tombraider) but at least a semi-linear story line. Perhaps like a CM1 'operation' with wider-scope tools to steer the direction of subsequent battles (buy extra tanks for instance).

Since we've only got 5 suggestions to post I'll leave out my ongoing request for working wristwatches on every soldier. ;)

[junk2drive]

Weather changes in battle.
i.e. you start the battle in overcast and mid way it starts to rain.

[birdstrike]

Things to keep:
- game scale
- detailed OOBs
- easy interface
- a dedicated community
- my current computer (no killer specs just for some useless eyecandy)

Things to change:
- more detailed tracking of small arms ammunition
- ability to change rate of fire
- ammo supply
- real 3d representation of objects and vehicles (COVER!)
- I like the idea of civilian non-combat
vehicles in the game (like cars on the streets) to use for cover - just the vehicles, no people

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by MikeyD:
--
Things to change:

1: Varying/multiple AI 'personalities'. Cautious technique, aggressive technique, etc. With CMx1 we pretty much know from experience the present AI's most likely route of advance. Grognards boasts a 'multi-level' AI?

;) I've had my five but as my No.1 was AI improvement, I think this is a brilliant idea.
Don't know how difficult or otherwise it might be.

[flammenwerfer]

Change-

1. Area Fire system
2. Sound contacts/visual contacts
3. Map Editor improvements. Ability to preview terrain while 'in' the map, or a quicker load time.
4. Victory conditions.
5. Add Pioneer/Airborne missions.

[McAuliffe]

To be implemented:

I.'Follow the leader'-group command, including:
a)Advance sub-menu : column, line abreast or wedge
b)Deployment sub-menu : formation upon arrival destination: column, line or wedge .
i.o.w .:
1.select group of units,
2.designate leader,
3.plot wayponts of leader.
4. select submenu's
Execution of command:
All selected units will walk/drive to start-point of leader(see embark command) and follow the leader in his footsteps or as chosen under submenu 1. Of course, TacAI will handle obstacles in case they occure.
Upon arrival of destination, the selected units will deploy as per sub-menu 2

II. Smaller tiles in order to reflect more diversied terrain + height difference adaptation in order to reflect hills or mountains upto several hundred meters.

III. Instead of offering limited number of models of finished buildings, the editor will come with walls, textures, rooftops, etc.. in order to put together your own buildings. (Think LEGO and make a copy of your own house, the Notre Dame or 'Reichskanzlei')
Such constructions can be saved and be imported into the scenario.

IV. A way to import GPS or similar data into the relief editor or to use aerial pictures as background layer in order to 'paint' the landscape. (see Mapping Mission project)

V. Programming / designing AI manoeuvers /

Do not throw away:
I.WEGO
II.PBEM
III.Importing of existing maps in QB's
IV.All the rest.

[MOS was 71331]

Things I'd like to see:

1. A road movement command where waypoints are (a) place of entry onto road if not already on road, (b) junctions where road selections are possible, (c) stopping point or place of exit from road if not staying on road.

2. A follow command (possibly with close up or spread out options) for vehicle movement. [Select v2 - select follow - select v1] It shouldn't take multiple waypoint selections with attendant command delays to get v2 to proceed down the same path as v1. And, obviously, v3 can follow v2, ... [If v3 is ordered to follow v1, cancel v2's command to follow v1.]

3. Don't generate new paths with multiple waypoints when one vehicle encounters a friendly vehicle on a road. If they're going in the same direction, let the following vehicle continue after the leading vehicle gets x meters ahead. If they're going in opposite directions with sufficient room to pass, have them each steer appropriately to continue. (I don't mind if they stop for a time varying with their unit quality, but I don't want them to go berserk -- as they do now.) If there isn't sufficient room to pass, have them stop and cancel their movement orders.

4. Topographic terrain with the lowest point at 0 meters, and 5-10-or-20 meter bands above that. (It doesn't always have to be visible. I'd be happy to be able to turn it on and off.)

5. A select ammo command -- so I can get my guys to use their satchel charges or their tungsten rounds or their panzerfausts/shreks.

[Frenchy]

Things I would like to see implemented/changed:

1. Ability to recrew weapons (especially AT guns) if guns are not knocked out.
2. Better implementation of artillery...especially ability to ask for TOT.
3. Tweaking of air support and ability to direct A/C with ground spotters.
4. Follow Road command
5. Able to set depth of creeks/rivers and rate of flow. This would affect what type of units can cross rivers/creeks and at what speed.

Please Keep:

1. WeGo system
2. PBEM
3. TCP/IP Play
4. Ability to Mod grahics
5. Realism options

[gunnersman]

Change:
1)A move to contact "arc"
Move to contact without worrying about stopping from contact with crews or inf too far away to worry about.
2)Relative spotting
3)Feel like Im apart of something bigger
If that means a campaign engine, fine. I always liked the way "Close Combat 2: A Bridge too Far" attempted it.
4)Walking Artillery Barrage
5)Movie Play Back
6)And yes more cowbell, gotta have more cowbell :D

Dont Change:
1)scale
2)WW2 setting
3)WEGO
4)Graphics and graphic representation are fine IMNSHO

[General Bolt]

Edited because I counted higher than five. New post on page 7.

[ August 27, 2005, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: General Colt ]

[Gpig]

The top 5 things you don't want to see changed from CMx1

1- scale
2- pace
3- balance between FUN and Realism
4- Ease of command and control (don't get OVERLY detailed)
5- camera controls. LOVE it!

and the top 5 things you want CMx2 to do differently

1- Detailed and functionally realistic animations.
2- Rubbled buildings and piles of rubble/deformable terrain/water has depth
3- SOPs for units (If A happens, do B)
4- Multi-multi-multi player
5- add a campaign function

Good luck!

Gpig

[MikeyD]

I'd be willing to downgrade my request for 'civilians' to 'evidence of civilians'.
Simple automobile polygons sitting in front of houses. simple bed, table, chair polygons in the houses. Bigger LOS obstacles in cities like simple non-moving bus & trolly polygons (basically painted boxes). No need to add a protection component since these things are 90% sheetmetal anyway and about as bulletproof as a sheet of paper. Store fronts, shop windows.

Maybe BFC could get a bit extra revenue selling ad space on their virtual billboards. CMx2 - brought to you by Dove Chocolates! ;)

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Campaign mode Either following a unit trough a long stretch of fighting gaining experience, new units etc or some operational setting or whatever but please, please give us some context to our battles. If not feasible atleast provide for 3rd parties to bolt something on to import export unit data.

Convoy move Difficult to code or not, the inability of vehicles to travel down a strech o road without rubbing hulls is just sooo infuriating.

Cover from vehicles Might be tricky to implement on moving vehicles but moving troops forward behind the cover of an advancing tank is just so damn sexy. But cover behind KO-ed hulls is just a must-have minimum.

Fuzzy visibility distance Tired of being area fired to death from 1m beyond visible range? I sure am.

Better portrayal and control over artillery The near impossibility to lob shells into a wooded area... not fun. More control over weight/rate of fire and pattern would be nice. Same for on map mortars. More meaningful spotting rounds would be great also.

*Gosh, did I really go for six instead of 5 wishes? Inflation!*

[ August 25, 2005, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

[Elmar Bijlsma]

oh and I have to second Gpigs request of keeping the balance of realism and fun intact. From reading some of the snippets of info I sometimes feel like BFC is heading more away from 'fun' then I prefer.

[Nelson 1812]

Wonder how people would feel like if the fog of war, was to included your own platoons etc that are suddenly out of contact with there immediate commander, radios out, out sight, and the AI took over, you losing there visual aspects on the map...and them following pre arrange paths.

Would add some fun to large flanking moves, and cut back on borg spotting!

[badhaggis]

Keep:
1.pbem
2.pbem
3.pbem
4.pbem
5.pbem

Add:
1. The ability to set battlefield views to "units only" with a max viewable height in editor when designing a battle.
2. The ability to navigate the map in editor mode with keyboard keys.
3. Ammo resupply with runners or HTs to arrive when requested by platoons in command.
4. "Stay on road" command for vehicles

[kipanderson]

Hi,

What I do not want to change.

1)Keep the basic scope and scale of CMX1. By this I mean the basic manoeuvre units being squads/individual AFVs/ATGs and such…same as in CMX1. Game optimised for company to battalion clashes over 2km by 2km map.
2)Still be able to see all that my units can see. Still play the role of squad/AFV commander, not just company/platoon commanders, hence being able to see all squad leaders can see. But, of course, only be able to see what my units could see in the real world. Each unit does his own spotting.


What I would like to change.

All relate to the wish to use CMX2 as a means to resolve operational/campaign games such as CMMC.

1)Be able to track units over a large/campaign type map.
2)Ability to fully edit Saved games. i.e. move units from one Saved game to another new map. Then edit on the new map.
3)Universal map file type. In CMX1 terms, the ability to use battle game maps in operations.
4)Be allowed to built huge maps/battles, way over the size current computers could use in a game. I am talking 30km by 30km maps one can cut and paste from.
5)The end to “uber” mines, wire and obstacles. More realistic engineering features, breaching operations.

Great to hear things are still on track smile.gif .

All good fun :D ,
All the best,
Kip.

[TufenHuden]

Fog on any graphics card ATI-Nvidia...

Use of landingcraft also include the
duck jeep-amphibious jeep and a decent
jeep for Axis Swimwagon about 2000 made
and had MG on it.

Moddable mods that aren't hard coded
like to be able to change from a barrat
from Brit para to there airborne helmets
if that can be easy.

More detail on the look on mortars,zooks,
zreks,piats.

More acurate on FJ's have FG-42 in there
TO&E link: http://www.cruffler.com/historic-november00.html

[ August 25, 2005, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: TufenHuden ]

[Ted]

Add

1) White Phosphorus and it’s detrimental effects
2) Convoy/Follow command
3) Full movie playback
4) Scroll map using mouse wheel
5) Oh and how about highlighting or somehow noting a berserk troop
(explain why some units do what they do)

Keep

WEGO
PBEM
QB’s
WWII theme

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Nelson 1812:
Wonder how people would feel like if the fog of war, was to included your own platoons etc that are suddenly out of contact with there immediate commander, radios out, out sight, and the AI took over, you losing there visual aspects on the map...and them following pre arrange paths.

Would add some fun to large flanking moves, and cut back on borg spotting! Apparently that is a "command level" game and no one, bar yourself and yours truly, wants a "command level" game. Shame, because I think it's a damned good idea :D

[dalem]

Originally posted by jim crowley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nelson 1812:
Wonder how people would feel like if the fog of war, was to included your own platoons etc that are suddenly out of contact with there immediate commander, radios out, out sight, and the AI took over, you losing there visual aspects on the map...and them following pre arrange paths.

Would add some fun to large flanking moves, and cut back on borg spotting! Apparently that is a "command level" game and no one, bar yourself and yours truly, wants a "command level" game. Shame, because I think it's a damned good idea :D </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, disappearing friendly troops is something I suggested years ago. So that's 3 of us. smile.gif

-dale

[pamak1970]

change/add

1.real 3D LOF/LOS calculations at least for heavy caliber weapons like tank cannons and machine guns
Friendly units should block friendly LOF and multiple enemy units in different locations may be affected by the same MG LOF ( grazing fire )

2.A new type of command that assigns area of responsibility for major sub units (companies or battalions).
(Units inside this area act after a shorter time delay against an enemy in the same area-for example initiating fire against a spotted enemy.
Reaction time is not affected -For example return fire against an enemy unit firing at them from any location ).

3. Ability to generate a new scenario easy by copy and paste forces from any turn of a battle.
For example retain morale ,ammo levels and numbers of forces during turn 15 and use them as the "starting force" of a new scenario.
This is very useful for game Masters during multi player projects like combat mission meta campaign.

4.Ability to breach ALL obstacles .Regular infantry should also have the ability to do so for most obstacles,although they will not have the perfomance of engineer units.
Again this is very useful for projects like combat mission meta campaign


5.deformable terrain.
Large caliber at least shells should create craters that can be used for cover.


Keep the same

1.Wego system
2.Graphics and eye-candy issues.
I prefer to see PC power used to calculate things relative with realistic procedures than appearance.

3.Printed manual as part of the game set.
4.Scope of the game regarding the amount of forces involved and the maximum area of operations during a single battle (again relative with my preference about the use of PC power)

5.Price :D -(ok, if the new game engine includes the above recommendations ,i will not complain)

[ August 25, 2005, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[Jack Carr]

First, thanks for asking. You folks are second to none in my book.

1) Not sure what everyone means by Convoy rules, but what I think would make the game experience more realistic is a higher AI intelligence for following troops/tanks/vehicles. If this is what everyone means by convoy rules, then I am in agreement. For example. If I'm playing the AI and one of my T-34's nails a panzer coming through a viewable gap, the panzers following the brewed up one just don't come rolling behind as if nothing happened.

2) To add to #1, if a tank rolling down the road spots an enemy tank (big threat), they won't just keep cruising down the country lane because the unit lost sight of it for a moment. I think this falls under the AI improvement heading as well. The example here is similar to that in #1, but nothing got blown up.

3) Rotating, round wheels/bogeys. Eye candy category. Not quite as picky as hamsterfuhrer liederhosen details.

4) Active skyline (moving clouds). Don't worry Battlefront, my video card can take it!

5) More individual soldiers per squad. CMX1 shows three. Hopefully the new engine will be able to increase that.

Thanks, Battlefront, and Good Luck!

6) I'm cheating by making six suggestions. Please make the setting World War II.

[ August 25, 2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Jack Carr ]

[Tero]

Especially for heavy ordnance there are currently precious few misfires (due to faulty firing pin and other causes). And there are absolutely no stabilizer malfunctions.

Different failure rates for the same equipment using different parts and/or procedures (re: Maxim's using canvas belts vs Maxim's using non-disintegrating metal belts).

User selectable ad-hoc command and control switching of out-of control units from one HQ to another HQ.

FO's should be HQ units onto themselves and should not incur undue penalties because they happaen to be in the influence radius of a higher HQ unit. They should also be able to act as command units on the spot when situations demand it.

[Tero]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Maybe BFC could get a bit extra revenue selling ad space on their virtual billboards. CMx2 - brought to you by Dove Chocolates! ;)

Well, we may end up getting all sorts of weirdly named vehicles and other ordnance (as well as those blasted WG troops and no swasticas) because the companies still hold on to the trademarks and will prosecute if they do not get their cut of the profits if the names are used.... ;)

[Folbec]

Originally posted by Ted:
Add

1) White Phosphorus and it’s detrimental effects

Battlefront did not include it in the CMX1 game because they feared it would be overused, but I just saw an interview of civilian survivors of the late 44 Alsace battles (Strasbourg and villages nearby), and they stated spontaneouly that it was heavilly used, to the point that tiling the land later (after the front line had moved) could be dangerous because some bit would be brought back and start burning again.

[HarryInk]

HarryInk's wish list (typed with lurv smile.gif ):

1] The map editor in CM has always felt a after-thought dog. Please, take it out the back and shoot it. Incorporate the improvements of Mapping Mission and then some. I really want the ability to edit terrain in the bird's-eye AND 3D viewer using point-to-point clicks that the 'puter will edit and keyboard commands to choose terrain. I want to be able to overlay(er) a scanned topo map, define and click in the contour lines etc., and have the engine reproduce the terrain for me. No more of the crap coloured hard-to-read/visualise number matrices, please.

2] PBEM. NO PBEM? Great disappointment, NO BUY. I'll stick with the older versions. It's the selling point for the CM series to me. I enjoy TCP/IP but I'm not a teenager so I negotiate my playing time around family. PBEM play is the great feature that allows CM to fit into that regime (crudely, I admit, but I'm not divorced yet - and until CM provides ALL the joys of companionship I won't make a decisive choice!! tongue.gif )

3] Multiplayer system. I've fought a couple of MP games with CM but the process is slow, clumsy and riddled with work-arounds. [Assuming PBEM] Please include a routine to allow assigning of combat commands, process a series of PBEM files from one side to produce the overall turn. A communication net back up the chain of command would be ace, too (or an auto-report device that would give OCs an abstracted idea of who's getting hammered and by what). That way we could be playing single games up to the scale of regiments or even divisions (given that the business end of [US] Div (in terms of a 30 or 40 minute battle) is maybe 8 coys+/4btns out of 36/12)!

4] Better OB editor. I've seen this mentioned elsewhere in this thread. It's just a linear document, at the moment, which doesn't gel with military organisation it's suppose to represent. It's a dull click-fest to alter much (for scenario development). Similarly, when reinforcements arrive, they plonk on the map holus-bolus, mixed through each other like spaghetti. How about units appearing on map in some (eg. platoon) formations rather than the long default line along the friendly edge?

5] Full Game Movie Replay that incorporates the option to change between FOW and no FOW and to see turn/order plotting. This would be the single best learning feature that you could provide with CMx2. If BFC has even a half-serious eye to the military training market, I can't believe this could remain an option for you.

Despite a great community, the thing that CM-as-it-is doesn't provide is the 'round-the-table' cooperation/disasters & banter that I used to enjoy with tabletop battling. The multiplayer option would move toward that.

Thanks for great work so far and good luck with 'x2'.

HarryInk

[JonS]

Originally posted by pamak1970:
5.deformable terrain.
Large caliber at least shells should create craters that can be used for cover.:confused: Have you actually played CMx1?

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pamak1970:
5.deformable terrain.
Large caliber at least shells should create craters that can be used for cover.:confused: Have you actually played CMx1? </font>[/QUOTE]Oh Jon, you are such a perfectionist!

-dale

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by Ted:
Add

1) White Phosphorus and it’s detrimental effects
..... To keep it from being gamey normal load of maybe 5 WPs and 50 HEs for a mortar. 10:1 ratio.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by JonS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pamak1970:
5.deformable terrain.
Large caliber at least shells should create craters that can be used for cover.:confused: Have you actually played CMx1? </font>[/QUOTE]Can you take cover inside these craters generated by artillery during the game?
I am not talking about the graphic presentation of the symbol.
I am talking about its function in providing cover.

[JonS]

Some you can, yes. Things as small as 81mm mtrs can create cover, while sometimes the huge stuff fails to create a hole you can hide in.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by JonS:
Some you can, yes. Things as small as 81mm mtrs can create cover, while sometimes the huge stuff fails to create a hole you can hide in. The question is about combat mission game.
Do artillery shells during a game create craters that provide a percentage of cover?

[Gpig]

Yes. There are TWO types of craters in CMAK/CMBB. Ones that provide cover (they are slightly MORE black inside, graphically) and ones that don't (slightly more brown inside).

If you pass the LOS tool over a crater and it tells you "crater," then it is the kind of crater that offers cover for your little troopers.

smile.gif

[Bonxa]

Originally posted by pamak1970:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:
Some you can, yes. Things as small as 81mm mtrs can create cover, while sometimes the huge stuff fails to create a hole you can hide in. The question is about combat mission game.
Do artillery shells during a game create craters that provide a percentage of cover? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes! Some of them crater marks do provide cover. If you check with the LOS tool you will see which ones.

[Edit: I knew someone would beat me to it with forum being so active today.]

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by Gpig:
Yes. There are TWO types of craters in CMAK/CMBB. Ones that provide cover (they are slightly MORE black inside, graphically) and ones that don't (slightly more brown inside).

If you pass the LOS tool over a crater and it tells you "crater," then it is the kind of crater that offers cover for your little troopers.

smile.gif I understand that.what i ask is what type of crater is created by artillery strike during a game.
I am not talking about scenario-map editor.

[JonS]

.

[ August 25, 2005, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by JonS:
Oh for fecks sake - how dense are you? We are talking about IN GAME. In the COMBAT MISSION x1 GAME. WHILE YOU ARE PLAYING. Ok, so from what i understand it is a random thing regarding which craters created by artillery strikes during game provide cover and which ones they do not and are just graphical symbols.
That is the clarification i was looking for.

[37mm]

I want...

Far more realistic smoke, mist & fog… I want signalling smoke, moving smoke clouds & dawn mist, burning tanks to obscure visibility, changing wind direction...

The ability to see your battles in an operational context with 'some kind of' Operational map

Ability to modify the 3d models, weapons values & effects that kind of thing.

Make sure that the Mk VII battle-crabs armoured carapace is at least butter resistant

[aka_tom_w]

Change

1) Please enable asynchronous FOW ( Where one player plays EFOW the other player (AI) plays Partial FOW (Handicap for less skilled player)

2) Follow or Convoy command

3) END to Absolute Spotting! Bring on the REAL Relative Spotting paradigm AND the better C&C communications model/simulatiton

4)MORE Fog of War options including something extra hard like Ironman or Frankco's rules.

5) BETTER AI !! Way better AI with the enhanced ability for Scenario designers to script or program units with SOP's on defence and on attack

6) more terrain fidelity

7) Fix the Map editor with a better GUI make it like terra forming in Sim City or in Bryce

8) Full Movie Replay (speaks for its self)

Don't Change

( **Note** Most of the stuff we don't want changed we are all taking for granted such as the "WEGO system" AND the simultaneous MAC and PC release I MUST have this on a Mac or I won't buy it! )

1) AI does NOT CHEAT (ever) (hints however, are OK and necessary!)
2) balance between FUN and Realism (its was VERY good in CMAK, but WAY too much fun and not enough realism in CMBO
3) User modability (scenario editor, graphics mods)
4) Availability of hard-core realism options (casualties, extreme FOW)
5) Open-ended game scale (i.e. though designed for battalion combat team, ability to simulate larger scale action)
(thanks to Andreas and Gpig I support their don't change suggestions)

[ August 26, 2005, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

oops

[Bartokomus]

1) Campaign System
2) Map Contour for easier LOS dtermination
3) Improved Battle editor


*4 & 5 reserved for future use

[Emar]

1. Better representation of night combat (star shells, moonlight, etc.)
2. Better convoy management on or off road and the ability of vehicle and boat passengers to fire their weapons even if it is at decreased effectiveness.
3. Artillery modeling
4. Diagonal city streets
5. Think of something later ;)

[Buq-Buq]

These are tough, because — of course — as I wrote I thought of so many other things I wanted to throw in here. I've attempted to keep to the topic at hand, and not get too specific (comments about Australian Matildas notwithstanding!). I hope that I've been clear in my descriptions.

Things to Change (or add on . . .)

1. Pick your Command Level

I would like to be able to choose to play any scenario/campaign as EITHER a squad leader/vehicle commander, a platoon commander, a company commander, or a regimental commander.

Playing as a regimental commander, play would proceed basically as it does in CMX1: you give orders to all of your units to do most things (an exception to this is that the AI oft-times chooses whom to fire upon, and when, by itself).

In CMX2, however, if I chose to play as a platoon commander in a battle, for example, I would be able to directly control only the units in my platoon — and those units under my command would act like units do in CMX1. The gameplay — the tactical decisions — for the rest of your force, would be handled entirely by the AI. Perhaps the player would be allowed to be 'regimental commander' in a very general sense . . . telling his side to push harder over here, or to fall back over there . . . but again, only in a very general sense. I'm picturing big arrows being drawn on the map (maybe in a grease-pencil sort of looking graphic) to indicate where and how your side would apply the focus of battle. Then the AI for your side would create its own orders for the units not in your command, following your general concept. But again, the only thing you directly control as a platoon commander is your platoon; as a company commander: your company, etc.

There are a couple things I like about this. #1 is that it takes you out of that ability to control everything your side is doing. Few commanders have that capability in battle. Secondly, you can play immersed within a much larger picture, without having to be concerned about every aspect of that picture. It would also allow you to play much larger battles than you might normally be pre-disposed to take on, either due to time constraints, ability, etc. Another element that might be introduced with this is an increase in Fog of War: perhaps you wouldn't even be allowed to see what your own troops can't see — or the view of the total battlefield might be diminished, unclear.


2. Scripting of Events/Victory Conditions

By this I mean the ability to have more flexibility with things such as Victory Conditions, Reinforcements, events, etc. when building scenarios. I think that some people have described this as having SOPs for units. I think that would be good, but I'd like to see it go far beyond the SOP solution. I'm thinking that allowing "If/Then" statements to govern certain circumstances might do the trick. For example: "If the Attacker looses > 5 tanks, then reinforcements will arrive the next turn", or "If Engineer Platoon Leader A sees an enemy AFV within 100 meters of the bridge, then Engineer Squad A under his command may attempt to destroy the bridge with his explosives", or "If the Attacker has more than 2/3rds of the squads in Panicked Morale State (or worse) at any given time, then the Defender wins immediately".

Part of this comes about due to frustration with the standard 'capture the flag' Victory Conditions in CMX1. I understand that a points system allows for a wide range of results, but sometimes wouldn't it just be nice to have a Black or White Victory Condition once and a while? "Hold this building or you loose." Directly tied to this is the complete inability under the current system to build situations that would resemble a reconnaissance mission, or a raid, because you have to hold the flag at the end in order to get the points. Allow the scenario designer to place flags that give points ONLY to one side, and also allow them to designate that certain flags can be removed from play once they are captured by the other side (and the points held without the possibility of loss by that side). Way more flexible; way more possibilities.


3. Command Relationships, higher to lower

I like what Michael Emrys suggested here; I think that it would be good to have a Battalion Commander perform his function of commanding his battalion, rather than having him as a glorified squad leader. Allow this to work for vehicles as well (i.e., AFV company commanders, etc.).


4. A better OoB Editor

Again, seconding what someone else has said, in this case, JonS. Make the OoB Editor easier to use, and while you're at it, allow you to create your own command relationships and platoon make-ups (like a tank troop consisting of 3 Cromwells and one Firefly). Also, a bit more flexibility in allowing 'things that just weren't so' to be done would be a nice touch: the hoops I had to jump through to get HE for Australian Matildas for some PTO scenarios were outrageous. Oh, and while we're at it . . . once a vehicle/unit is in the game, wire it so that it can be used anywhere, by anyone. In the above example, British Matildas had to stand in for the Australians, because Australian Matildas just didn't happen in the MTO, so they weren't in CMAK. Likewise, those great Pz38(t)s that were in CMBB are unavailable in CMAK, and thus are nowhere to be seen in those great France 1940 scenarios that a few people have done. Come on. Just let me give my Matildas Australian crews . . .


5. A better combat environment & a more user-friendly Map Editor

I fret over using my last 'wish' for a better map editor (rather than crying for a follow command — or PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE a way better handling of night combat) — especially since it appears that maps will be significantly changed for the better already . . . but this one does cause me considerable anguish in CMX1. Those roads! 90 degrees or 45 degrees. Ugh! I'm hoping for some sort of more real-world look, curving lines, realistic contours, etc. Also, the editor just isn't incredibly easy to use. Something's gotta be done about that. A lot has happened in the computer interface arena in the past five or so years; I'm hoping that you can take advantage of that.


Things to keep

1. I really like the whole camera look-at-any-spot-on-the-battlefield thing, and the way that the current game flows: we both give orders, we hit go, the units carry them out (or not!). I guess I'm saying I like WeGo.

2. I like that there is enough eye-candy to keep things interesting, the attention to detail, and the nods to both the modeling community as well as the wargaming community. I generally lose track of that eye-candy once the game starts, but hey! priorities! Priorities!

3. I like that we the users can build our own Battles and Operations — and that we use the same device to do that as you (the original game designers) did.

4. The focus of the game: in general terms, tactical combat.

5. The level of excitement that this game system generates in me. As an aside, I would have to say that this game has hands down given me more for my money than any game I've ever owned. I'm looking forward to that tradition being continued in CMX2, and I am also looking forward to many purchases of the forthcoming CMX2 modules.


Mark

[Wolfe]

Assuming that the borg spotting issue doesn't need to be mentioned:

Change:
1.) Better menu interface allowing reassignment of keys and changing the resolution and various 3D render details within the game (or at the very least an editable .ini text file).

2.) Implement SOPs (and/or basic orders sets) so infantry support tanks aren't found dueling with tank destroyers, and support elements generally support units within their command structure and aren't blazing at every enemy unit on the map (unless ordered to).

3.) More accurate artillery representation.

4.) More editable maps with placeable, rotate-able objects (houses and fences, etc.), greater variety of terrain types (including mixing of terrain elements, such as rocky forest, and flooded grassy areas, etc.), and pre- and partially destroyed objects (partially collapsed farm houses, burned-out tanks, etc.).

5.) Easier battlefield management (including Follow command, toggle-able overlay grid, mouse-look and freedom of camera movement (including smooth up-and-down like Madminute's Bull Run), and group move command (more than one destination, please)).


Keep:
1.) WEGO.

2.) PBEM.

3.) Game scale. Bigger (larger than battalion) or smaller (single soldier) really wouldn't interest me, at least not for a WWII setting. Going up loses the flavor of battle; going down creates too much micromanagement.

4.) Unit attributes uneditable. Flexibility is nice, but it has its limits; I don't want to play 20 different versions of what someone else determines is the "correct" value for unit firepower, AP penetration, or unit organization. The ability to turn a Tiger into an Abrams is not a good thing.

5.) Current camera controls. Just because I'd like to see them enhanced and more flexible doesn't mean I want the existing ones junked.

- Chris

[KG_Cloghaun]

Howdy guys!

Change-

1. Campaign Mode
2. Ability to design our own Campaigns
3. True Multiplayer system
4. Troop importing from previous battles.
5. More depth/options to the battle editor

Don't change-

1. PBEM
2. Ability to design our own maps
3. The WEGO system

[toxiczen]

and a map editor! i left that out, map editor is very important, gots to have one, so map editor to. smile.gif

[Dook]

Change

1) Vehicles and units occupy space, not just points, and thus block LOS

2) Increased scripting options at tactical and operational level, including small unit SOPs (esp. a "follow road" SOP), event triggers (Y happens when Player 1 reaches X), and more flexible victory conditions

3) Improved indirect fire modelling (# of rounds/arrows/rocks, etc.)

4) Improved AI - keep all parts of unit in C&C whenever possible, better and less predictable placement and movement of units (e.g. ATGs not always at absolute rear of map)

5) Assignable HQs

Keep

1) Scale and scope, to include time required to complete a game

2) PBEM

3) Compatibility with Mac

[SgtMuhammed]

More flexability with units in scenario creation. Ability to remove units between battles, specific reinforcement locations for ops, things like that.

More terrain variety to vary cover, scattered trees with heavy brush, dirt field, etc...

Ability to assign chains of command.

Ability to adjust unit equipment. (Units tend to accumulate and disgard things over time)

More realistic rates of fire.

[Blah Blah Blah]

To Change

1. Orders through units HQ and less specific control of my units
I would like to see orders for a unit to move from point A to point B, to target an specific unit/area etc be done through the units HQ.

2. AI Targeting
The AI currently often targets useless and non combatant units such as tank crews from a destroyed tank. Or continually changing from target A to B then back to A.

3. Ammo expenditure, ammo amount & resupply
The rate of ammo expenditure made when in close resulted in a units being ‘empty’ within 2 minutes. A well dug in defending unit knowing the enemy is coming would where practical have extra ammo. Resupply of attacking defending units.

4. Value of the objective
As it stands the objective is rarely worth the loss of points to attain it. So winning often means backing off, while we don’t want a ‘hamburger hill’ situation not attaining the objective needs to cost dearly.

5. A more practical implementation of what the unit can see
when I click on a unit I would like a shading of where he can and cannot see. This is not less realistic than the line.


I know it said five, but the time the battle takes. I don’t want to have to feel rushed, give me time to manoeuvre and the likes.


Not to change
1. PBEM
2. WEGO
3. WWII
4. 1 minute turns
5. PBEM

[SgtMuhammed]

Gotta add one more:

Test mode for scenarios. Designer can see all units while doing a run through but for game purposes FOW is as set. This can help greatly with tweaking AI actions and reaction.

[PanzerBlitz]

5 items I would like to see changed from CM1 to CM2

1. Convoy Rules/Follow Vehicle/Stick to Roads movement function.
2. Copy and Paste (import/export) feature for Map Building.
3. One big play back file at end of any game (PBEM, Hotseat, 1 Player, etc.). I would still like the ability to stop/rewind/fast forward while watching this file.
4. Map based Campaign system. I would like to have some kind of strategic input and decision making that would influence the tactical (CM) battles.
5. When deploying, have a small window that lists all your troops. This way, we simply pick and choose from this list and deploy our troops as opposed to trying to find them where the computer has placed them on the map.

5 items I would like to stay the same
1. PBEM
2. WeGo System

Thank you!!!

[Martyr]

Woo hoo! Just a few weeks until we know some real stuff!

Here are my votes for what to change/improve:

1) Give scenario designers more tools (assigning goals to the AI, multiple pre-programmed strategies, event triggers, scoring options, etc.)
2) Keep improving the TacAI, the heart of CM in all modes of play
3) Better formation commands
4) More sophisticated orders system (including Standard Operating Procedures, more variable delays, response to local intelligence, etc.)
5) More sophisticated artillery control

And what not to change:

1) PBEM
2) WEGO
3) WW2
4) BTS
5) Emphasis on detail, accuracy, and realism

[Count D'Ten]

Things to improve:

1. Aide to help handle larger battles (for example I might have one company/battalion with AI Aide handling a force on my flank -- I'd see the edge of what the AI's doing, having to worry and adjust rather than trusting a map edge. Or I could command the whole show having the AI "carry on" while I concentrate on moving the critical sector.) ;)

2. Multiplayer PBEM system (with limited intelligence/FOW) :cool:

3. Better AI with random personalities (or at least one that can attack). :D

4. Better multi-unit road movement (Whether it's MP's who can direct traffic or a "follow me" convoy officer, or a "keep to the road" order -- whatever works for you. Actually an MP or officer might be better. If they're killed the ability goes away.... :eek:

5. Some kind of random campaign maker that gives even a Quick Battle some context and an option to "continue" and see what happens next.

Don't change-

1. PBEM
2. The WEGO system
3. Please :(

[wbs]

KEEP:

1) Campaign Game format, in one form or another

2)TCP/IP and PBEM

3) Keep anything not mentioned in "Change", below

Change

1) Add Convoy ability to eliminate these clusterf*ck traffic jams

2) Improve terrain types and varieties

3) Improve Indirect Artillery fire

4) Improve AI. Make it a harder opponent, because sometimes that's all I have, and I'm tired of winning 400 games in a row, if you know what I mean.

5) Enable larger scenarios than 5000pts. of purchases, and make maximum gameboard size larger, while keeping current minimum sizes of each.

[ August 25, 2005, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

[Brent Pollock]

[Apologies if others have already covered these and I don't cite them.]

Five top changes:

1. fight the Borg, of course. Relative spotting that also accounts for unit status (e.g. pinned, well rested defender, experience, buttoned, radioless, one man turret, crew casualties, etc.). This should tie in with more realistic command control. Battalion COs can't act willy nilly as platoon leaders. Damage inflicted on higher HQs either increases command delays for subordinates or puts a dent in global morale. Higher level AFV commanders & command vehicle modelling. Daytime friendly fire.

2. QB maps that make some sort of geographic sense or that can randomly modify a human-made map. No orphaned fences/buildings. No lack of water. No heavy stone churches in the middle of the Ukraine, etc.. I am of course, utterly clueless as to how to go about improving this. Perhaps give it some modules to build on (swaths of trees; orchards/fields and farm buildings; tree-lined roads near inhabited areas; Norman walled towns; market areas; swamps/bogs)?

3. Better night effects. Illumination by fires. Dark adaptation blindness. Gunflashes. Trip flares, flare guns & illumination rounds. Blind firelanes. Units lose their bearings and wander off course. Think ASL Chapter E.

4. Scenario stuff:
In whatever Operations will morph into, I'd like reinforcements to arrive during the battle, rather than get plopped down at the start. I'd also like to define different entry zones, rather than have to specify Friendly Edges. What I am aiming for is something more akin to the HASL modules in the ASL system.

Different VC modes. For instance, recce points for spotting fortifications, heavy weapons, etc., mainly to improve PROBE type battles.

A reconnaissance engine that reveals info during set up (front line; fortifications, gun emplacements; foxholes; MG nests, etc.) for Attacks/Battles.

Modify the unit purchase engine to permit some randomness. For instance, rather than simply boosting the price of rare units, assign a flat rate for the purchase of a certain type of unit (e.g. ATG, artillery FO, air support, medium AFV platoon, armoured car platoon) and then have the rarity covered by a % chance that it will be the type selected. The Solitaire ASL system is a good example of this. I'd like to use this in scenario design, too, "on turn X, a Veteran medium tank platoon appears here".

More terrain types, especially for built up areas (wall heights/robustness, cellars, rooftops, mouseholing, tunnels, trenches into gaps in buildings).

5. General beefing up of "vehicle as solid object" modelling. Improved hull-down/size modelling. Cumulative damage by sufficiently large rounds. Crews can voluntarily abandon then reoccupy (e.g. to scout on foot). Long barrelled weapons have restrictions in close terrain. LOS/LOF blocking. Driving accidents, especially if the driver gets whacked (there seems to be a bit of this already, but the vehicle never gets damaged as a result). Vision port damage & repair. Radio malfs & damage.


Top five things not to change:
1. EFOW

2. WEGO

3. ability to do something analogous to the current PBEM.

4. focus on realism instead of arcade.

5. WWII as focus of first release.

[Neutrino 123]

Here’s my list of ones I can think of off the top of my head. First things to add (that haven’t been discussed or that I might be able to offer more insight to smile.gif ):

1. Better command and control system.
Ideally and for maximum realism, this would be real time [with plenty of pausing since the player will have to represent multiple commanders (until technology become more advanced leading to a far, far, better AI)], with delays depending on the number of commands issued by each HQ at (about) the same time (eg, a ‘queue’ for issuing orders, with the associated delay displayed, of course).
If it can’t be real-time (I doubt you made it real time since you were talking about turns in another thread ;) ! Maybe for CMx3 when technology improves…) (I admit that a realistic real-time game would be very, very difficult to implement, and maybe not practicable with large maps/unit sizes since in these cases, a player can’t see everything at once), a 30-second or so turn would help. Other ways to improve realism would be for individual HQs to have a more complex delay system, depending on various realistic factors such as the complexity of orders (for example, “moved around on the right flank and take a covered route” might have several waypoints, but is not a very complex order. “run to those woods, then slow down to normal speed, and start crawling when you get to the end” might have only three waypoints, but is more complex). In addition to the regular pause command, there should be a variable time pause option (maybe a menu that scrolls out when you move the curser over ‘pause’), so one could coordinate attacks more effectively.

2. Improved road movement.
This has been mentioned as something that you will defiantly do, but I want to clarify a point just in case. With the current system, simply a ‘follow’ command would help, but it would not be enough. Right now, there is additional delay for each little bend in the road. Moving along a road should only have delays for the initial order, and for intersections (this sort of goes with #1).

3. Improved artillery system.
For both on-map and off map artillery, anyone on the battlefield that could historically call on those assets for indirect fire should be able to do so. Perhaps different levels of command could have different delay times (this would be a good reason to have a forward command post). Spotters should be included, but should not be more common then their historical counterparts.
More artillery firing options would definitely be good. More options does not have to increase complexity for those that don’t want it to. After you target a spot, you could access a menu to give realistic options for more detailed fire plans if you want to, or have the automatic default if you don’t.

4. Fallback command(s).
In the current Combat Mission, I often find myself wanting my guys to make a platoon/squad-level fighting withdrawal. As of now, the only good options for moving away under fire are running like hell, and crawling away. I would like to tell my squads to slowly fall back, taking appropriate cover along the way and occasionally shooting some covering fire. This movement (this is an estimate) should be as slow as crawl, but should be difficult to pin, take fewer casualties then running like hell, and sometimes inflict some casualties on the enemy. It would also be nice to tell my guys to try to start falling back after enemy fire on them starts becoming intense and hopefully before it pins them (this type of command could reduce certain aspects of micromanagement even though it would need to be ordered in advance).

5.An improved and expanded set of cover arc commands (if these are to be kept and not replaced with something better).
For starters, when placing covered arcs, one should have the first two clicks be as they are now, but then, have another click for minimum range. This will allow a player to set up proper ambush zones without having to worry about enemies passing in front of it.
Also, instead of only two commands for covered arc, there should be four: one for everything, one for all vehicles, one for combat vehicles with cannons (everything above 50cal machine gun), and one for medium/heavy tanks.

I assume things such as the LOS being what one actually sees with the camera at ground level (no tanks with a tiny bit of their left track covered getting hull down!) will be corrected. Also, there is always encouragement to improve the TacAI (an essay of 10 pages or even a book could be written on this). Commands sort of like ‘fast hunt’ could help…

Now some key things to keep:

1. Quick battle generator.
This greatly increases replayability, and sometimes it’s fun to pick your own forces, even if some players abuse this. Maybe you could add more customization to it (no slider selection for total points, allow a customizable point value to be imputed for armor, infantry, vehicle purchaces, etc.).

2. Grand Scale.
It seems the scale of the CMx2 games will be reduced, but this is okay to a certain extent. The number of tactical possibilities between say, “The Western Allies in Europe” has and, “Americans from Overlord through Cobra” is significant, but the difference between them is much smaller then the total possibilities of the smaller hypothetical game.

3. Time period.
If the game is to remain at the tactical level, then the most interesting forces with the widest variety of tactical possibilities will be modern wars (by tactical possibilities, I mean great varieties of distinct equipment and the lowest maneuver unit element). This, of course, isn’t just WWII, but would cover, say, various things from the 30s to the present (though not all battles and wars in that time period, of course!). In times such as the civil war, the lowest maneuver element was usually the regiment, which would entail a significantly larger scale then the present CM games.

4.Tactical Scale.
I don’t need to command a regiment, but I would like my two year old 3GHz machine to be able to handle reinforced battalion (on each side) sized engagements.

5. Can’t think of anything specific at the moment, so I’ll just use one of those cheap excuses for a numbering bullet smile.gif .
Keep realism as the primary design pillar. However, I give you the sage advice that in some situations, if you make things more realistic for the player, the overall realism of the battle may decrease since AIs are still not too good compared to humans in most things.

[melb_will]

Ok I suppport much of the things already said. I especially support the person that said give more flexibility to OOB, Ie in CMAK some units are only available at certain times in certain regions. While I accept this is historically accurate it removes the 'what if' scenarios. Once it is in the game it should be able to be used anywhere in any manner, even if it has a note saying that it would be ahistorical to do so.

Second and this one is fairly random. I want to be able to draw marks on the map ala paint. that way if I am playing a large scenario I can have memory aids for play. Ie move firegroup here. I find that when I am doing set ups for PBEM's i often take a view 8 to paint and draw on it to get ideas. If I could do this in the game where I could get a better idea of height it would be great.

I definitely want a follow road

Def want to get rid of borg spotting

def want to get rid of absolute spotting (diff probs in my view but related)

What don't I want changed

Australians, there should definitely be Australians.
PBEM (although a built in Email Manager would be cool oops was that six?)
Anything else i'm prepared to see where you guys take it

Cheers

Will

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by PanzerBlitz:
5. When deploying, have a small window that lists all your troops. This way, we simply pick and choose from this list and deploy our troops as opposed to trying to find them where the computer has placed them on the map.
That is an excellent idea.

I sometimes go to set up a CM game, and by the time I find and organise and place all my troops I am so sick of it before the first turn that I go and watch TV!

I would also like to second a DRAG/CUT/PASTE function in the map editor so you can copy that perfect farmhouse or village to several different maps.

[ August 25, 2005, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[lucero1148]

HI,

This might sound odd but I would like to see
1. Civilian units, unarmed non-combatants that could also represent POW units for developing scenarios that could allow scenario designers to make rescue hostage/pow scenarios. This could be implemented at scenario design allowing anywhere from 1 to 6 civilian units to use in the battle and would add additional victory conditions like how many civilian/pows rescued or avoiding harming hostages in a battle. It's a vague concept but would add to the complexity of the game. If for example 50% of the civilian units are killed morale factor of civilains would be against the force that failed to protect them. Civ. could then be turned into combatants pickingup arms and fight against whichever side is losing the morale factor of the civilians.
2. when designing maps for a battle it would be nice to be able to paste the map for use in an operation battle and to expand on the map design while in the operation battle design.

Hope that makes sense?
Allbest
Patrick

[GreenAsJade]

1) Don't loose Asynchronous Play (aka PBEM).

2) Don't change the "scale". CMxx has the right number of the right kinds of units to order around, over the right time period.

3) Actually, it might be interesting, especially if the AI improves, to have slightly longer "turns".

4) Don't loose Asynchronous Play

5) Don't loose modability. Add more.

GaJ

[Mord]

Don't Change

1. WEGO System.
2. If each game/module released is only going to be two nations please let us have as many troop unit and vehicle types as possible. Or over time cover all the nations and vehicles that CM and it's sequels did. I don't care if it takes fifty modules the historical accuracy and coverage of military personell and vehicles is one of the things that set CM above the other less inclusive WWII games.
3. Camera shake.
4. Nationality languages.
5. modability.

Change To
1. Full movie playback.
2. Deformable forests.
3. Ability to place wrecked vehicles and other damage in editor.
4. Better bridge representation.
5. 1:1 Casaulty markers atleast for KIA's.


Mord.

[Runyan99]

To not change:

1) Turn based WEGO system

2) Bias towards simulation rather than 'game'


To change:

1) Ability to carry a company or battalion over miles and hours.

That is, move away from the 30 minute firefight 'game', and give me the ability to simulate several hours, or days, of action in a freely-flowing manner. Make time a flexible variable.

2) Full movie playback

[Pyewacket]

Improvements:

1) TacAI: don't let units sneak away from walls (or similiar terrain things)instead of hiding behind if they are shot by the enemy.
2) the convoy proposal above.
3) A 'contact arc'. I am using very often the 'contact' order but the unit doesn't move because there's a unit in LOS which I don't care about because it's too far away or already pinned or routed. Would be cool to move the unit as long as there's no enemy in front of it (or a new enemy unit appears).
4) Let a squad shoot at different targets at the same time. It would be nice to either target one enemy squad (like in CMX1) or to order a 'fire at will'. The last combined with a fire arc could be used by the TacAI to choose the biggest threads and shoot at them (e.g. two advancing squads) at the same time.
5) open file system (import / export units to text files and back to the editor, ) to build up 3rd party campaigns. I am a BoB member and there're excellent campaigns and tournaments. I don't think you can code all these excellent ideas, so I would ask for an easier life of the campaign masters.

Stay with:
1) the game concept (turn based) and realism is great!!!
2) controlling teams and not individual men. I hate that RTS concept of moving single soldiers around.
3) TacAI 's trying to save the unit and disobeys orders.
4) The use of aircraft as it is. The focus for me (and what I like in CMX1) is ground combat.
5) PBEM ability is the most important factor for many players.

[Midnight Warrior]

1. Follow/convoy command

2. Better unit step commands (e.g. unit roster menu or step by HQ option, step from last unit stepped verses last unit selected option, step to next Arty Observer, etc)

3. programmable one click mouse wheel quick select buttons that allow configuring the mouse wheel to control viewing height levels, look up/look down angle, looking left/right, unit step (like hitting the +/- keys with each up/down mouse wheel click, camera range (move forward/backward, magnification, etc)

4. Better LOS rules such as AFV as cover, creeks and ditches, stuff like haystacks, sheds as cover, better modeling of walls and fences as cover.

5. Better C2 that make use of higher lvels of command and better models the human factor

[DTrill]

Don't change:
1)PBEM
2)Game scale size, in this case size does matter
3)Turn based system
4)Relatively straight forward battle/map editor
5)PBEM

Do Change:
1)Ability to flag units to stay with one HQ and not flipflop back and forth
2)Would be great to have a toggle to check what is visible from different points on the map without having to move there and then find out you have no LOS to where you want
3)Grid type maps
4)Assignable keys for different units
5)Get the AI to use any special AP ammo before it's too late.

[Wood]

From what I read I think you have it nailed.

Like to sees:
1) Convoy movement - select multiple vehicles that will follow a lead vehicle down roads so you only have to map one set of moves - keep a standard distance between vehicles

2) In deployment, instead of pre-placing all units along one map edge, provide a "window" that lists the units so we can click and drag the unit or use mouse clisk to place them on map.

3) Campaign system with the ability to carry forward surviving units that gain experience.

4) One big playback movie file so you both sides can re-live (and die) each others battle with pause, rewind, play and ff.

5) Option for "all English" voice commands regardless of nationality. Use your Hot Key command system to allow us to move between country specific langauge and all english.

Must keep:
1) The core "we go" system of CM
2) PBEM
3) Extreme Fog of War
4) Pause/Play/Rewind/FF ability in View mode

[Lurkur]

I haven't had time to read all the CMx2 posts, so maybe this has already been addressed. I'd like to see two things done differently-

1. Area fire-Let the player mark a zone for area fire rather than a point. It could work similar to the covered arc comand. Click on the first point. drag the arc to the second point, then move in or out and click to set the depth of the zone. Now a unit firing area cover will adjust firing to fill the zone with shot instead of a single point.

2. Make the map editor very robust and flexible, with options to select areas, cut and paste, and drag selections to another area of the map. Include an option to save the map at the end of the game to use as the basis of a new map.

[SteveS]

Basically what I think I want is an evolution of CMx1 (i.e. the core elements of WEGO and scale etc.) coupled with an improved physical environment and TAC AI. If CMx2 turns out be revolutionary all this is moot.

My 10 specific changes/no changes are

Change

1) Improve the modelling of LOS and visibility. It is very crude in many ways, especially with respect to structures.

2) AFVs above a certain experience should be able to target different areas (i.e. tracks) of other AFVs.

3) If a unit has an indirect fire capability in real life it should have so in the game.

4) Allow a greater variety of vehicle types to be included, e.g. in a WW2 context...buffalos, DD tanks, flail tanks, at the expense of 57 different varieties of PZIV.

5) Delineate the HQ command structure better and no more flipping units between different HQs based on proximity.

No Change

1) Async. (PBEM etc) play. I cannot stress how important this is. It is the ONLY way I play CMx1. Playing humans is many times more satisfying than playing the AI and TCP/IP is not a practical option for me.

2,3,4,5 WEGO, SCALE, elegance/simplicity of the interface and generally getting the opportunity to beat the crap out of Nazis using men in shorts.

[bitterboy101]

Keep PBEM.
Keep PMEM.
Keep PBEM.
Keep PBEM.
Keep PBEM.

[Fredrock1957]

Designer Features I would like to see:

1) Ability to placed damage on map by designer such as buildings (*) or (**) without having to use the map generator, also 'destroyed vehicles', etc
2) Independent of clear terrain for features such as roads, fences, paths, hedges, etc... right now all fences have 10m of open space on each side..
3) Enhanced Briefing capablities which would include hyperlinks, graphic embedding, etc
4) Scalability of Barbed Wire, Tenches, Roadblocks, Minefields, etc, ablitlity to stretch, shrink, bend, etc
5) Toggle for a contour type feature on the maps.
6) Ability to assign multiple VL's variable values.

Playability Features I think have been covered:

Dont Change:
1) PBEM
2) The Scale
3) WEGO System
4) Mod-ability
5) Camera Angles/Controls

Thanx for this thread...

That is all...

-FR

[Nicdain]

Please don't change:
1) WEGO system
2) PBEM
3) realism
4) editing capability
5) XX century warfare (pls stick to I, II WW or at least modern warfare, but no space lobsters!)

Change
1) SOP
2) mobile cover (infantry behind vehicles)
3) no more terrain tiles
4) I would like to have the possibility in the scenario briefing to see and print the order of battle (i.e. organized in an hierarchical tree shaped way) in order to always know which are the forces at my disposal
5) Another request in the briefing phase would be a printable map of the area, possibly with a topographic appearance (contour lines, roads, buildings, rivers, etc.).

Thanks

Niccolò

[SpitfireXI]

My addition to this thread:
1)Convoy system
2)Ability to control smoke motars on the tanks.
3)Ability to play the movie of an entire battle from beginning to end.
4)Start game with troops and commanders grouped together. I am talking about the fact that when to start a game and have to set troops up, they all stand in a line and you have to manually find the troops and comander and group them together.
5) A Campaign system

[Pirx]

Please add:

1. convoy order so that vehicles not under fire can travel along a road

2. campaign system. no need for gamey experience pionts or promotions, just a semi-historical series of battles or operations involving the same unit.

3. gliders, parachutes, landing craft

4. more control over ammunition expenditure, including squads and tanks as well as artillery

5. ability to select an area for the "area fire" command, if desired

Please keep:
1. "WEGO" system

2. WWII setting (for initial release)

3. PBEM

4. Similar ease of use of interface, i.e. pls avoid excessive micromanagement with move to 1:1.

5. Lots of playable vehicle, artillery and squad types.

[Kilroy Lurking]

Hi!

Add....

Follow me/Convoy

QB's to be linked - core units progress with +/- additions together with much more varied victory conditions/objectives.

More deformable terrain esp. woods and in wet conditions shelled terrain turning into mud etc.

On/Off ability to show contour lines (if only from the birds eye views).

Trains,boats,planes together with "Modable scenery/structures".


Also change..Marketing - Make available Direct Download with discount :D

Don't change..

I guess if it aint broke don't fix it..

Regards, David

[Vanir Ausf B]

Change:

1. Random terrain generator. I want the one from CMBO back. It generated natural-looking terrain with dominant features. In CMBB it was changed to make more "balanced" maps that were more generic, uniform and lacking personality. This wasn't as noticable on small maps but it sure was in big games.

2. Bring back the Ambush command. It's much better than covered arcs for some things... such as ambushes.

3. Change the rarity system so that units are either available or not available for purchase, rather than modifying the purchase price.

4. Bring back shockwaves.

5. "TacOps style" SOPs. Gotta have 'em.

Don't Change:

1. Scalability. Don't take away our ability to play big battles with a couple of battalions per side on big maps. This flexability of scale was one of CM's best features. I don't like playing little games.

[ August 26, 2005, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Black Max]

Please Add:

1. More bugs that cannot be duplicated. This will make the Grogs pull their hair out running hundreds of useless test situations and keep them off the forum so everyone can have some normal discussions.

2. Large scale Nuclear strike option in the event that your opponent is sure to win. This should equal things out and allow for more "Draws".

3. Upgrade the "WEGO" system to the next level. Here are some examples. WeeWeeGo - GoGo - WeDontWantToGo - WhoGo - WeAllGo. The opportunities are endless.

4. PBEM Spam. Your PBEM file is spammed to as many emails as possible in order to receive at least one file back in as short a time as possible.

5. New Barbie interface to allow for an easier "MOD" change of clothes and proper color coordination with tanks. THIS IS A MUST!


Please keep:

1. Current convoy ability. This function runs as close to the real world, if you consider how many bad drivers there are out there.

2. AIs ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

3. Ability for your tank to rotate in line of site of the enemy and wave its 'behind' at them in order to taunt your opponent.

4. Inferior Tanks not taking a flanking shot at a Superior Tank so your opponent does not get mad at losing such a tough tank.

5. MODS. This is a great thing. I love that I can go over to a friends house and secretly load my "Customized" MODS so that his Panzer II looks like a King Tiger. It makes the game so much more fun.


There are of course many other 'additions' that should be incorporated, but you asked for only 5.

.
..
...
....
.....
......

;>)

[JeF]

Hi,

First post since a long time.
Am too lazy to read the 6 pages of posts. So bear with me as I post my 5 and 5 list of things.

Things I don't want to be changed :

1) Turn based, simultaneous resolution (aka WEGO)
2) 3D view (is it so obvious ?)
3) WW II settings (at least in the beginning)
4) Operations (or any sort of linked battles)
5) PBEM

Things that I'd like to see improved

1) when moving groups of vehicules or squad, enable the TacAI to manage the formation (line or column). Often seen as the "Convoy feature". But can be applied to a tank platoon in echelon formation.
2) linked to it : enable vehicules to follow roads, without penalty (i.e. path finding)
3) elaborated campaign mode
4) to add to the previous : elaborated "multi-player" (2 to ... 50 tongue.gif ) campaign mode
5) one email per turn per player PBEM, with the possibility to prepare ones turn while your opponent does the same (a bit tricky but doable).

my 10 cents,

JeF.
PS: edited to add that I heartedly agree with Black Max, who happen to have just preceeded me while registering on this site. Great minds think alike (or something approaching... ;) )

[ August 26, 2005, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: JeF ]

[yuvuphys]

Include:
Flexible Recon before battles
Borg Spotting
Better AI and realistic action for night combat
More realistic C&C system with more varied orders
QB's for campaigns

Keep:
Armor system
QB's
PBEM
Extreme FOW

[Carl Puppchen]

Keep:

PBEM
Scenario Editor

Add:

"trusted" PBEM
Multi-player capability (i.e. ability to have 3-4 people plot orders and play, some way of delegating troops to different leaders from the same side)
A way to change forces / mod forces to cover different time periods such as pre-war (Spain) or post war (Korea, Israel)

Keep up the good work!!

[Brujay]

Keep:

1) Mac compatibility! Though upgraded to OS X
2) Nearly everything else.

Add/Revise:

1) How about a savable scorecard? Simply name of game, who played against (AI or human), type of victory/defeat, and percentages. Should take minimal memory.

2) There should be a way operational tanks with low ammo can pull up next to a knocked out or immobile tank and transfer its ammo. Obviously this could not take place under fire or with a burning tank. And it should take maybe 3 turns to complete.

3) I've always been bothered by the fact that if any individual grunt can see an enemy unit, everybody can see it. This unrealistically gives every man a walkie-talkie, Maybe only HQ or recon units should have this ability.

4) Sure would be nice to have scenarios for that other little skirmish, you know, the one against the Japanese.

[Alex von Teller]

Hi! Seems like everything has already been said! I will sum my vote to these 5&5s:

Please keep:
1) PBEM
2) WeGo
3) WWII environment
4) Playability. Right amount of fun vs accuracy.
5) Tactical level combat. Squads, teams and vehicles are the right units.

Please add/change:
1) Convoy commands. I can stand clicking waypoints for the leading vehicle, but would be nice to issue the rest of the column a "follow" order.
2) Artillery barrage control. Not too much, but we could use three parameters: a) Center of barrage; b) Layout (Concentrated - Line - Circle - Rectangle); c) Orientation.
3) CAS Control. Random, uncontrolled CAS is not bad, nor incorrect (for WWII), but we could use too, Forward Air Controllers to direct CAS to specific targets, as much as we use FOs for artillery support.
4) Game end movie playback! (exportable, of course! :rolleyes: )
5) Maybe not a full Campaign In-Game Module, but we could use some "Campaign Tools" that let us manage current campaign games more efficiently and easily.

[1FSTCAT]

Things I'd like to see:

1: Improved ballistics physics from CMx1. This is something that the CM series has done well, and I think could be expanded upon.

2: Improved damage modelling for vehicles. Again, CMx1 did well at this, I'd like to see more.

3: Accurately display hit locations. There's always that need to zoom in and see just how good a hit that 105mm AP shell got on that Sherman.

4: Improved physics for damaged buildings and vehicles. Soldiers: Hero's of WW2 is a good example of the carnage I'd like to see.

5: Campaign asset management. I'd like to see resupply and repair expanded on, for campaigns. Maybe add vehicles or crew specifically dedicated to repair and rearming of vehicles.

Don't change:

1: Turn / Movie system

2: Emphasis on ballistics

3: Ability to create custom battles, where different units are purchased with points and applied to the battle

4: Emphasis on realism/history

5: PBEM/LAN/Internet Multiplayer

[GRUMLIN]

At present, when you ID an enemy and they then disappear, you get an Icon (red star for sovs for example).

If that same unit appears somewhere else, that red star disappears so you KNOW that that was the first unit you have already seen.

This means that it is very hard to bluff you have more than one tank, for example, by running it around a bit.

If you could have some way of icons slowly fading out over time, it would preserve FOW a bit better....or maybe icons just don't disappear until a friendly unit gets enough of a LOS to see that there is nothing still there

oh, and keep PBEM cos us hardworking fathers have no time for IP!!

[Shmavis]

Change:

1)Ditto on the formation commands.
2)"Drunk" fitness setting for Soviets(Bwahahah!I'm only half-serious about this, but they had their vodka rations...)
3)No use of identical graphics for vehicles which had considerable differences.(the PSW 233, for example)
4)Ditto on campaign system.

Don't change:

5) SS hampstertruppen underwear(They get a bit bitey).

[SKELLEN]

5 New Things:

1) Ability to select number of rounds fired from Mortar teams.

2) AI keeps its units in foxholes while in defense.

3) Include a built-in mod editor if possible and done in a similar fashion to scenario editor for ease of use.

4) Indicate scenarios previously played in menu by a simple tick if need be.

5) Engine failure on vehicles or Tanks could/would add another dimension to the game.


5 To Stay:

1) PBEM

2) WW2

3) EFOW

4) Quick Battles

5) Mac Compatibility (OS X goes without saying)

[...................................]

Please Change:

1) Drop all placeholder graphics - they ruin immersion. Fewer units done well is better.

2) Rolling barrages (plan at scenario start, shift barrage to location X on turn Y etc).

3) AI artillery - especially pre-planned barrages. Simply shelling a random terrain feature near to any objective at the start would force players to rethink deployment, and definitely help the AI attacking. Especially useful if combined with rolling barrages shifting between several random terrain features near to objectives. No more useless drops in the middle of nowhere and players stuffing handy woods with units to wipe out the AI without concern.

4) An end to the AI's procession of units in huge streams bunched together between terrain features en-route to whichever flag it has decided to attack. There must be a better alternative.

5) An AI which can keep the front armour of its tanks facing the most likely threat direction at all times.

Overall it's the AI which needs most attention. TCP & PBEM will always be great fun with much better use made of units. However a reasonably challenging AI is priceless these days, especially one which can attack, and we all have times where we need a quick wargaming fix against a computer.

[ August 26, 2005, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Pheasant Plucker ]

[General Bolt]

When you include resupply (So many have asked for it you gotta give it to us) a pop up will be there at the start of a turn "You have more Ammo" kinda like the "Reinforcements have arrived" popup.

[Andrew Kulin]

Five I'd like to see:

1. LOS Tool during set-up - place a unit at a location and all areas visible from that spot are highlighted
2. Borg Spotting - Click on a unit and only the units it sees/can see are shown to it on the map - other units, even if spotted by others on your are either invisible or shown as last spotted markers or infantry sounds etc.
3. Fix Road travel and reinforcement arrival
4. Map editor - allow for smoother contouring (to get rid of the blockiness now present in the topogrpahy, and allow for unlimited elevations. It would be nice if some way of importing maps (and only maps) into the editor using outside programs could be permitted) - it would also be nice if the map editor would allow you to import BMP/JPEG files of map scans/airphotos to help in the map creation.
5. Permit crews to re-man weapons and squads to pick up dropped weapons

Five I'd like to keep:

1. I never had a problem with the graphics as presented in CMX1. The graphics should be kept behind the bleeding edge - I'd rather the CPU cycles be used for game physics, unit tracking and AI rather than generating eye candy
2. PBEM ability (of some sort) to let us play at our own pace against folks on the opposite side of the world
3. The way turns are played out. Both plot moves and then movie runs w/o intervention.
4. A HARD-COPY MANUAL! (Charge us more if you have to, it's still cheaper than getting 200 plus pages of PDF printed out somewhere)
5. The goal to provide the richest, deepest, most realistic war game experience out there and the great customer support and communication with your customer base.

[Stryker]

1) AI progamming (waypoints, objectives, etc...)

[ExplodingMonkey]

I want:

1. AFVs not being "see through" i.e. Troops can run behind them for cover, tanks can use burnt out hulks for cover, ect...

2. Better bunker and trench system. I'd like to see a modular system where you could attach gun pits, foxholes, trenches, and bunkers in a complex and realistic manner

3. 3D representations of close support aircraft.

4. Toggle for arty shockwaves (please bring these back).

5. Limited squad construction kit in the EDITOR ONLY. I think the replayability would soar with this tool made available for scenario designers! Just keep it out of the QB generator and we're good.

[ August 26, 2005, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: ExplodingMonkey ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Sorry, one more.

Variable Command Delay. Each unit could have a base of so many seconds with a random factor added that is independent of experience. I have had a lot of time commanding troops in the field and you can never predict how long it will take someone to get moving. Guys are always messing with their kit or trying to fix something or looking at their map to figure out where the hell they are. I would actually accept delays that can last a minute or two for even vet units.

[Boris Balaban]

I have been folloing the development of this game since they split up from Avalon Hill when Avalon Hill was bought up by Hasbro Toys. I hope I can add some positive points.

1) Leadership , I remember that this game was based on a game called Squad Leader (Avalon Hill); you are assign a mission and played it. At the end of the game you added up points to see if you got a promotion smile.gif or a demotion :( . Can this be implemented in a campaign game? With the ability to be edited (were the goals met) for a major campaign game of more then 3 (or more) players.

2) Weapons , the ability to recrew weapons (especially AT guns) if guns are not knocked out, if the crew is to small to more the weapon then vehicles or an infantry unit can help move the weapon (redeploy) at the cost of loading up and unloading time. I have lost heavy mg’s for the last man could not move the gun and with plenty of ammo he became useless as the battle moved on.

3) Campaign , multi player game (3 or more players) to play PBEM.

4) Convoy/Waypoint movement , the inability of vehicles to travel down a stretch of road without setting all the waypoints. Infantry also given waypoints will be told to use cover or move fast as possible. If enemy spotted the units will have in orders to stop and go for cover or attack.

5) Reinforcements , the units coming in that turn have a map extension only for the order of marching in assignment. If they all come aboard the map extension disappears and no unit may enter it. Units can be set in order and mounted.
smile.gif

[BloodyBucket]

Wish list:

Some kind of convoy order.

Capture/recrew weapons.

Linked campaign.

Full game playback, with ability to jump in at any point.

Maps printable as contour map.

Don't change:

The outstanding customer service and support, and all else will be fine.

[ErikinWest]

Ok. Well here it goes:

1. Allow player to change the 3d model. Total conversion ability. (Basically you could make a Boeing out of a panther.)
2. Let the player control the physics. Another modding necessity. That way mods of other wars could be implemented.
3. Better terrain. More shrubs, mountains, squirrels.
4. Combat atmosphere. Just a bit more to their moral and such (ex. Nervous, scared, excited),
5. On screen artillery.
6. Motorcycles and horses. Transport people!

Erik

[GreenAsJade]

I didn't use up all my five, so I thought of one subtle but EXCELLENT graphical effect that would be REALLY NICE...

... proper transparency of trees.

I'd like to be able to see through the trees in a way that is acceptably close to the way that the troops can!

If LOS is blocked by trees to some feature, then I should not be able to see it through the tress (that is how it is now).

If there is LOS through the trees to something then *I should be able to see it through the trees*

That would be wonderful!

(As it is, I play with trees off 99.9% of the time)

GaJ

[REVS]

Keep
1) World War II topic
2) PBEM
3) WEGO
4) Simple user interface/playability
5) Quick Battles and Meeting Engagements

Improve/change/add
1) Better towns please (ie, narrow alleys, etc)
2) Use of large vehicles as cover for infantry & small vehicles
3) Crews be able to occupy or re-occupy abandoned guns/vehicles
4) "Follow road" vehicle/convoy command
5) Savable replay movie at end of game

I'm hoping we don't have to ask for OSX support. That's a given, aint it?

[Hensworth]

Keep :

1) Wego system.
2) FOW system.
3) Editor.
4) Ability to represent action from broad scale
conflict (if necessary by building it up over
multiple modules).
5) Quality of research and historical depth.

Improve / change / add

1) More realistic maps, ability to create an
inhabited world rather than a sterile arena
for fighting in.
2) Some form of event triggering.
3) Convoy movement.
4) A C&C role for higher echelon HQs (additive
command bonuses for example, a good captain
makes all the lieutenants a little better).
5) Enable weapons crews to fight as riflemen
when the enemy is below the effective range
of their main weapon.

[Steiner14]

Keep:

WEGO

PBEM

MODDING possibility, but

HARDCODED MODELS

PLACING AVAILABLE UNITS DIRECTLY ON BATTLEFIELD (i just read, a few are really suggesting to put available units in a separate window - that would mean the end to learn the units, putting them in an order prior to the setup and to choose their tasks accordingly to their qualities)

Want:

FULL MOVIE REPLAY

VEHICLES - mobile cover

VEHICLES - commanders can leave for spotting

3rd party campaigns - kind of .txt output/input

BATTLE DESIGN - much more commands for scenario designers supporting the TAC-AI (trigger points, trigger cover-arcs, trigger levels (plus time), on contact/enemy-fire retreat to point X, don't move,...)

[ August 27, 2005, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[sonar]

1.Cover arc for move to contact.

2.reassign squads to h.q.'s other than parent due to casulties or for example pioneer squad assign to infantry plt as assault/anti-tank asset.

3.Set squads reaction to threat on a sliding scale.So for instance set to 150m squad will only engage within radius this would save having to set loads of cover arcs just to prevent squads blasting away at useless ranges.

4.Triggers for A.I. and scenario design.e.g.flag A is only contested by force in blue set up,flag B by force in yellow set up while force in green set up is free to contest any

5. REMOTE DEMOLITIONS and smoke for pioneers for bridge/building/obstacle removing.

[Mad Russian]

Things I'd like to see changed:

1) Convoy movement. There should be some. A convoy order so that click the order then the front and back vehicle and everybody keeps the spacing. Give the front vehicle movement orders and watch them all move. Combat breaks the convoy order.

2) Realistic modeling of night combat...flares, shadows, very selective LOS. I know that from reading some of your comments on file size this may have to wait for a later fix. In place of night combat, in case that isn't on the menu or isn't possible to integrate at the moment, then aircraft using the correct armament. No more
P-38 bombing attacks using a total of 10 bombs...that, of course, was an exaggeration but not by much.

3)Accurate leadership model for both infantry and armor. Make the Bn/Company commander worth more than an extra Lt. on the map. Do a leadership Chain of Command for armor that has a leader higher than a Lt.

4)Artillery with smoke shell capability that is not all or nothing. The game should be able to handle an amount of both HE and smoke rounds assigned to an artillery unit without too much problem I would think.

5) Remanning guns and vehicles. This should include enemy guns or vehicles as well. While a case can be made for all guns and vehicles, machineguns should be an absolute. There are litereally thousands of examples of enemy MG's being used during tactical engagements against their owners. Not to mention any other types of weapons that would help. It goes without saying if enemy weapons would be crewed upon capture your own weapons would be recrewed as soon as possible during the fight.

Don't change:

1: PBEM. It is the preferred way to play. I know you will do your best to keep it.

2: Some sort of After Action Report page. There are multiple possiblities that an AAR page can bring to the game. If that data could be easily transferable to a spreadsheet so much the better.

3: The ability of the modder's to continually take all aspects of the game to another level. The modding community has increased the value of CM for most gamers by multiples.

4: The simple CMBB/CMAK style of giving commands. While there are some more commands I would like to see, I have no problem playing the series with those already in place.

5: Aircraft. While I have a couple of issues with the way aircraft are modeled, I would rathere have them the way they are than to lose them. Most gamers seem to prefer CM without aircraft but that just wasn't the reality of a good share of WWII combat.

Thanks for listening.

[Mike Churchmoor]

Inprovements in general:

- Inproved air-support. For example, at least in assault possibility to point/pre-plan (area)targets.
- Inproved on-/off-map indirect fire. For example, ability to give orders like: "82 mm, hit that at-gun with 5 rounds". Maybe possibility to add this to the movement command.
- Abilility to use tanks as a cover.
- Better infantry graphics.
- Ability to atg-/mortar-/inf.gun-/ etc. crews to use their personal weapons when enemy is close (as IRL).


For single-play:

- Some sort of campaign mode (Steel Panthers, Close Combat ).
- Better AI.

For multiplayer:

- Ability to inspect the map before QB.
- Movies.

Keep:

- PBEM & tcp/ip.
- WW2 (maybe...?: The Early Days, 1939-1940).
- Realistic and funny as hell.
- Modding possibility.
- QuickBattle

[General Bolt]

1)KOed and living tanks as inf cover.

2)Ammo resupply - even if 5 or 10% during the game. Even for Arty Spotters - another truck load of shells just arrived at the battery. Provided you keep the spotter alive and near the front. Capture ammmo - even 5 to 10%. A pop up saying "You've got Ammo!"

3)More terrain damage - knocked down trees become cover. Knocked down large buildings put rubble in street. Knocking holes in walls to allow inf to pass thru.

4)secondary explosions: Rounds cook-off in burning tanks causing nearby damage maybe for 5 minutes after being destroyed. Other secondary explosions around bigger guns and mortars. Secondary expolsion of hit FTs guys.

5)At startup, instead of a long list of scenarios, a list with some folder selection capability. That way we can put our already played games in the Played folder, the H2H games in the H2H folder and the AI games in the AI folder. These folders would be user generated. Also the list should be sortable by more various columns: Title, Date, Size, Country, Weather, day/night etc.

KEEP: Everything not listed in my five wishes.

[ August 27, 2005, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: General Colt ]

[Other Means]

Casting my mind back as a virgin player, who are the untapped revenue pool BFC want to tap, the things that I remember really wanting are;

Campaign system - I hear this is in.
Variable camera heights/configurable keys/storing camera angles - it's hard to find your way around at first
Formation grouping - like "keep 25m apart"

The main thing that stops me playing games is the setup. There are countless ones I've started and abandoned (sorry Elmar), therefore;

Default layout of own troops done by the AI - this would at least give you a start point if everyone was in a reasonable formation

And of course we need to keep

Asynchronous play

These are all about gameplay, rather than units etc. Which I think is what's required?

[dangerousdave]

The most important thing to do with CMX2 is to create another game that I will want to play over and over for a long time. Given past performance, I have no doubt but that BF will do that. I trust you guys to figure out great ways to dazzle your audience.

My suggested improvements center around making it less likely that we players will feel like something fundamental is happening that just shouldn't. Such as...

Ability to give more types of orders to prevent units from behaving extremely irrationally and to improve responses under fire.

The traffic jam is the worst feature. No real tank driver would just run into the tank in front of him because he is blindly following orders to move to the next waypoint... I want units under fire to behave like men who want to live. When a platoon of tanks is ordered to advance across a RR track, e.g., and the first two brew up because of the hidden 88, then the rest of the platoon should stop and think thrice (at least) before proceeding up over the tracks (let along running into the back of the burning hulks!). Of course, I want to be able to order the whole platoon to charge no matter what happens as well. Perhaps a greater variety of move orders.

I want to be able to order my tank destroyers to retreat back into cover after shooting ... automatically, not just when the numerically superior enemy returns fire at my thin skinned Marder. TacOps has an order like this (retreat after firing).

I want to be able to see the terrain without having to adjust my camera several different ways. Perhaps a feature that allows one to toggle contour lines on and off. I also want to be able to figure out what a given unit can see without having to drag blue LOS line around the map ... perhaps like in East Front, etc, where the areas that are visible can be toggled with light, vs darkness for areas which are not visible.

I can't wait to see what you have in store for us. Keep up the great work!

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Shmavis:
Whoever said Denmark could have Greenland?The stupid Swedes in 1814. We all know it's Norwegian.

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by dangerousdave:


I want to be able to order my tank destroyers to retreat back into cover after shooting ... automatically, not just when the numerically superior enemy returns fire at my thin skinned Marder. TacOps has an order like this (retreat after firing).

So does CMX1; its called "Shoot and Scoot"

[stikkypixie]

Yes but not automatically, like an ambush. Wasn't there talk for a modular aproach to orders (I believe he term SOP was used).

[Aacooper]

I would like to change:

1) PBEM so you could have more than one-on-one. Two-on-two with your teammate having fog-of-war rules would be a lot of fun, and very realistic.
2) Mapbuilding to be a little easier. Maybe one idea would be to put in elevations in meters, and then let the game calculate whether the scale should be 2.5m/level, 5.0, or 10.0, or whatever.
3) Exit victory conditions. Somehow, you never get the result (win/loss) you expect, or feel you deserve. Something has just never felt right.

I would like to keep:

1) The current lack of any convoy or formation rules.
2) Most everything else is pretty good. I still play CMAK/CMBB, however you guys want to improve it will probably be fine with me.

[SlowMotion]

Ignoring the things that will be there according to recent announcements, like better graphics, more detailed terrain, SOPs and improved arty.
Also ignoring requests that seems won't make it, like scenario file import/export.

CHANGE:
1. Campaign system
2. Multiplayer
-for all game modes (qb, scenarios, operations, possible new ones)
-several human players against human player(s) or the AI

Improved Scenario/Unit editing, including:
3. Alternative reinforcements (say 3 unit lists defined, randomly selected one arrives.
This could simulate among other things: some of the vehicle column breaking down/getting destroyed during transport)
4. Alternative reinforcement arrival places
5. Map copy/paste - possibly only selected layers
HarryInk had a good list about map making, but if you can change only one thing, add copy/paste first - please)

KEEP:
-WEGO
-Asynchronous game play (PBEM now)
-Easy to use UI

[skelley]

Fixes:
The main thing I would like to see reworked is the way terrain is edited. I would love to see a paint brush style way of changing height. I hate the number system. A good style to follow is the sim city 4 god mode. Also has a good way of putting trees in. I would like to see open terrain a little less open with random trees, rocks, etc. Also the rivers need to be winding instead of the block like effect you get with squares.

The borg spotting issue resolved.

More control over arty (americans getting TOT targeting)

Leave alone:
Don't limit size of battles.

[Migo441]

Top Wants...

1.) An OB Screen available pre-game (for sure) and in-game (perhaps as an option). This may be less of an issue if the scale of CMX2 games is smaller than the average CMBB/CMAK, but it's sorely lacking in the CM series. Some have said that it's unrealistic and priovides too much information to a commander. But if we know how many and what types of main gun ammunition tank such-and-such has, I can't understand why we can't have ready access to what units we're commanding.

2.) Some sort of order such that a commander can regulate (or attempt to regulate) ammo expenditures. This needn't be more sophisticated than three levels for each unit that would work in concert with the other commands. So, a "standard" level along with "conserve" to simulate harassing fire or the attempt to save ammunition for later in the battle and, of course, "fire-at-will" to simulate desperate moments and quick gambles for decisive results. Needless to say, less experienced troops would be less likely to obey the ammo commands and even highly experienced troops would disregard them if in favor of self preservation, etc...

3.) More players than one per side, AKA multi-multi-player capabilities.

4.) Vastly more sophisticated victory conditions to include independent victory conditions per side (as in ASL), flags giving per-turn points which could be variable, casualty limits, etc...

5.) An overhaul of command and control to include:

- Distinctly different roles for Company and Battalion commanders as compared to Platoon leaders. I don't have a full system in mind, but others have talked about higher level commanders exerting command or influence on lower level commanders rather than just serving as "extra" Platoon leaders.

- More variable command delays.

- A map layer feature where you could cycle through command units and the units under their command would be highlighted in some manner (out-of-command units could be treated as a seperate "command" or perhaps unavailable in this feature as an out-of-command penalty).

[Strider]

Different

1.) Multiplayer that allows more than 1 vs 1.

2.) More control over airstrikes. i.e. similar to arty FO choosing an area.

3.) In addition to purchase-by-points, have option of 'assigning' the full Battalion/Company/Platoon group(s) to a battle. And a setting to allow/disallow changing out individual unit 'adjustments'. Add or remove specific 'individual' unit, and/or change 'abilities'.

4.) Formation Keeping. When you place units in certain positions relative to each other, there is a command that they maintain this as best they can for manuvering.

5.) Player(s) set the number of puchase points.

Wouldn't Like Changed:

1.) The way the turns are processed. I like giving the commands then letting the TacAI do it's thing.

2.) Don't care one way or other about role-playing-campaign. Not against it nor for it.

3.) I don't have a problem with the way ammo is expended.

4.) Variable turn numbers.

5.) The excellant quailty that has gone into these first 3 games smile.gif

[acrashb]

Remain:

1)it will still play on my system. That doesn't mean dumbing-down the graphics, just making them adjustable.

2) PBEM. No PBEM, I'm out.

3) hang on to the philosophy of simulating conflict instead of glorifying gore. If I have to look at the space lobster's guts dripped off a simulated ceiling, it's a bad thing.

4)keep it smart. I don't want to _have_ to know the physics behind shell penetration on '43 face-hardened armour from the factory where slave labourers sometimes messed with the heat treating, but it's good to know that the game is delivering realistic results in a historical context. In other words, keep it a simulation more than a game.

5) friendly customer service. OK, I'll settle for the current (good) customer service smile.gif

Change:

1) chain-of-command AI to give orders to. I.E., I should be able to order a company to take a defensive position in a certain spot and get reasonable results (vehicles will use roads while considering cover, infantry will do something smart in response to "go stealthily" vs "get there in a hurry", etc). Then, once the company is in place, pick off a platoon and send it scouting.

2) single-file-exchange PBEM. Many people have shown how this can work while continuing to block cheating. Let's make it happen.

3) individual infantry instead of abstracted squads (not individually controllable, the smallest orderable unit should still be a squad).

4) individual weapon ammo loadouts. I want to be able to run the LMG's (or light plasma guns) dry and still have the SMG's (or gauss pistols) available for close combat.

5) multi-player, chain of command changeable during the game. So Fred gets the Allied armour, Joe gets the infantry, Sally takes the Axis as a whole. When Joe has to leave to go to work, or just drops out, Fred can take over the infantry and slug it out with Sally mano-a-mano.

[pocketrocket]

Change.

1.TCI/IP Multiplayer Server Lobby.
2.Road movement.
3.Campaighn system.
4.Graphic scale for infantry
5. Er, make airplanes crash on the map !?!?!?


Keep.

1.Wego
2.Everything not mentioned in the first list.

[Paul AU]

Don’t Change:


(1) Unit scale.

(2) Turn-Based mode.

(3) WWII Setting. (At least not first-off)

(4) The range of historical and geographical options within the one game.

Don’t create a game that forces you to play in a certain specific year, in a certain specific area. And then release what’s essentially the same game set in another specific year, another very specific place. (You are going to do this, but still).

A large part of the attractiveness of CM:BB was it’s 5 year, six nation, Finland to Sevastopol possibilities. Don’t make the “slice” too thin. Make it thick, and charge me more.

(5) The general "feel" that CMx1 has.


Change/Add:

In order of importance:

(1) More control over A.I. units behaviour in the scenario editor.

Perhaps reate A.I. various “behaviour profiles” and make these random in Quick Battles, or scenario-designer-settable. These would effect A.I. aggression, etc.

Ideally, some system of plot-able ”way points” for A.I. formations, that will force them to make approaches along a designated path, at designated times. “On turn 4, move to this point”.


(2) Improved LOS tool. Manually checking each line of sight, point to point, every time, is so tedious, that games are often won or lost dependant on who can stand doing this the longest and oftenest.

I want a “click here to see what the selected unit/point-on-the-map can see” button. I recall being told “this can’t be done”, but, any improvement in this regard would be an improvement worth making.


(3) Ammo resupply – even if BFC considers this unrealistic



(4) Time delays – for opening fire.

Similar to the 10 sec. delay-units used for movement.


(5) Immobilisation-probability Toggle.

Give the player the option of never getting immobilized on roads or flat hard ground when travelling at normal speeds. Even if you think it’s unrealistic.

[Gordon]

Ok, these have probably already been mentioned, but I might as well get my vote in.

Formations/Convoy movement/Platoon movement - Including better following of roads and traffic jam avoidance. Infantry unit and tank unit formations.

Vehicles as cover, both live ones and dead 'uns.

Better night battles, with illumination from fires, star shells and illumination rounds (including appropriate graphical effects.

Improved aircraft, gliders, helicopters and paratroops. I don't know why, I always felt a little cheated by not being able to see the aircraft, and being able to see their point of view. Paradrops/glider assaults will be messy but cool, just like amphibious assaults.

Resupply during a battle. Even if I have to get an ammo carrier to survive until it can get to my units or my units can get to it or a resupply point. Besides, it would be cool to be able to roll flaming barrels of gasoline down on attacking German King Tigers. :rolleyes:

[Pinetree]

Okay,here's my 5 wishes:

1)Better road movement.

2)Ability to scrounge for weapons and ammo plus use captured weapons(maybe with a penalty or sumfink smile.gif ).

3)Entire game movie playback.

4)Allow images of real maps to be pasted into the map editor so you can trace over them with the map tools(HTTR does this pretty well).

5)More varied Victory Conditions.

[Znarf]

Things I would to see changed:

1) I want to see a campaign system that includes a core group and a "leader" character that increases in rank

2) I want to see more flexible scenario design options by incorporating an "event engine" (similar to the Talonsoft/Kroger Century of Warfare event engine but tailored to tactical map instead of strategic map) (e.g., Reinforecment slot 20 = "Cancelled" if "RR Station" captured by "Axis") (see my old "Stalingrad 2.0" scenario for ACOW to see how powerful this can be)


3) I want to see more flexible scenario design options by incorporating "human v. human/human v. axis/allied v. human" orders of battle so that a scenario can be played from either side of both sides with a challenge.

4) I want to see the same map file type for battles and operations

5) I would like to seen non-LOS for howitzers on map with a forward observer (e.g., a battery of 4 105's behind a hill 2km back and a FO for the battery near the front line).


Things to stay the same:

1) KEEP the "Chance of appearing" on each reinforcement slot. This is an excellent tool for replayability.

2) KEEP the Quickbattle option.

3) KEEP the load file and import troops options for Quick Battles

4) KEEP tactical air support and off-board artillery

5) KEEP the extensive OOB options

[Cull]

Holy Jeebus, I stay away for a few days and I miss the birth of the O-ficcial CMx2 thread.

The one thing I would get most excited about would be a much more flexible/powerful/detailed terrain and map editor.
A very close second would be a campaing system of sorts.
And of course the age-old spotting issue.
Oh and yes, convoy/road movement. Or at a larger level, something of a company/battalion level movement command. Or basically anything to make me want to play bigger scenarios, or at least not go insane playing them.
So I guess that's four. Sorry---I know they're more like wish list items/additions than "changes to current methods", so I'm probably off-track here.

Nothing I can think of that I would say is untouchable. Oh wait: don't make it RTS :D , and most definitely keep the QB play.


Now to go back and read all the goodness!

[ August 27, 2005, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Cull ]

[Mars]

New things I would like to see:

In game unit list. It doesn't need to be detailed but it would be nice to see a list of units and be able to click on a list entry to center on that unit: "where did that smg squad go?"

[Alech]

Campaign system. That's all really.

[Stuart J. Vincent]

To the guys at Battlefront,

I am really looking forward to playing CMx2, all the new features sound amazing. Thanks for all your hard effort and making computer wargaming what it is today.

[flamingknives]

Changes:
(1) Speed of sound modelled. I want to hear the report after the explosion, depending on where the view-point is. Perhaps if I select a unit, I hear what it hears.
(2) Sound attenuation over distance - not just quieter, I'd like to lose some of the frequencies so it sounds far away.
(3) Model machine guns to account for better sustained fire properties - both an MG42 and a Vickers fire 200 rpm on sustained rate but the Vickers has a lower firepower and fires no more often.
(4) Better Line of Sight for light flak/aeroplane interaction. As it is they can see through buildings, woods and the like.
(5) Spotters for on-board mortars.

Keep:
(1) AI control of the minutae; I don't want to be telling each tank
"gunner, tank, fifteen degrees. Loader, sabot..."
(2) Firepower based weapons modelling - nice and abstracted
(3) Cover arcs, although an option to target vehicles rather than heavy armour or everything would be nice.
(4) WEGO. duh.
(5) Random curses, exclaimations and orders - adds to the immersion.

[jim crowley]

I didn't do the "keep" options previously.

They are:

1)Turn based WEGO

2)QBs - hopefully with expanded capabilities.

3)Same/similar scope to CMX1 i.e. up to battalion level.

4)Fuzzy logic - this allows for the unexpected fro time to time.

5)Saving maps and troops from one battle to the next.

[Potential Italian Player]

Changes:
- Introduce the ability to form a core force: the units increase their attributes with survival and success in previous battles.

- Eliminate the pbem system and enhance the multiplayer modes via network.

Keep:
- AI Control
- WEGO
- OOB Options

And thanks for this customer feedback. smile.gif

[Londoner]

Trying not to mention anything already covered although some obviously have been....

All in order of perceived importance.

Changes:

1. Machine gun tweaks. I.e. firing on fixed lines/grazing fire/area denial etc.

2. Vehicles really need a solid state (not because of the questionable "cover" argument). Please no more vehicles shooting through one another. E.G. Convoys - they are at present not nearly as vulnerable as they should be because of this.

3. Night/low light coding improved, links in with 1. to an extent as well I guess.

4. Dare I dig up this old chestnut again - on board indirect arty fire? It is worth it? Do the old (and very valid) arguments still hold water? Surely with the increased flexibility the new engine will give, we'll see more scenario designers making larger battles and maps. If so it's got to be worth it no?

5. Vehicle stopping and turn rates - vehicles stopping and/or turning on a penny. Sure, this is obviously abstracted to some degree in CM1. However wasn't there a rather interesting discussion on this topic a while back? IIRC many armoured vehicles cannot in fact turn on the spot, the Stug being one of the culprits.


Keep
1. WEGO.

2. Tac AI targeting - threat analysis - ammo expenditure verus effectiveness, target priority and "stickiness". (Not surprisingly) It's taken a long time to get where we are on this (particularly with infantry), please keep as is.

3. General pace of game - suppression times and especially infantry movement/endurance. Slow it down further if need be but don't speed it up, back to CMBO and to a lesser extent CMBB levels!

4. Infantry modelling - nationality specific infantry is not the way to go IMO, the current system is flexible and robust.

5. EFOW. Love the multitude of great tweaks we've seen over the years. To name a single if subtle example IIRC - CMBB - if an enemy tank is firing (given relatively clear LOS obviously) you will see the red or orange target line from the first shot. IIRC in CMAK this is by no means instantaneous. I'm sure EFOW will change substanially but do not take a step back towards simplicity in this department.

I don't want to sound like one of MD's "cheer leaders" :D but it's marvellous to see that BTS clearly hasn't got their collective head stuck in the sand over the years. You would almost expect a certain arogance to develop after such success. Great times ahead for us wargamers!

[ August 28, 2005, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: Londoner ]

[chico]

KEEP:
1) wego system
2) wwII

ADD / CHANGE

1) convoy rules
2) stick to road option
3) encyclopedia (let me scroll down the units and give me full details + picture of them + description)
4) hit chart: let me see the probability density function of a hit from a 88 vs a sherman at that specific angle.. something far more detailed compared to the kill probability shown in CMX1.. a graph would be nice

point 3 and 4 are not for playing pourposes but for research in order to understand more of what was going on..

[Stoffel]

What I like to see is :

1) better movement of convoys of vehicles along a road.
2) engineers ability to blow holes in barbed wire and roadblocks.
3) button to add vehicle damage in a game /QB same as with ammo and headcount
4) better representation of vehicle chokepoints,i.e. not so simple for a 60 ton Kingtiger to cross a small wooden bridge without troubles
5)an extra command ,unload/retreat if unit comes under fire(same as the items in the tacops sop menu.

Thats all I can think of for now smile.gif

[Hat Trick]

Originally posted by Other Means (snipped):

The main thing that stops me playing games is the setup. There are countless ones I've started and abandoned (sorry Elmar), therefore;

[4]Default layout of own troops done by the AI - this would at least give you a start point if everyone was in a reasonable formation


Yes, yes, yes! Big battles are a huge pain to get started, and for new players this can be a real turn off. Even though the AI set up is not perfect, is would be a great improvement to have that as a base line from which create my own set up.

[Tiger II]

Things to change:

1. Add 'Campaign' option to allow progression of units throughout a 5+ series of scenarios, ala Steel Panthers/Panzer General.
2. Replays: I would love to see a replay option for the WHOLE BATTLE. That, and allow replay saves of TCP/IP games [right, Mark? ;) ]
3. Command Relationships; similar to what Buq-Buq mentioned, higher to lower, but with a chain-of-command commensurate with the overall troop quality [i.e., Veteran troops automatically replace killed commanders quicker than Regulars].
4. AI common sense [i.e., no "dancing KV's" on the battlefield]. No AFV crew worth it's salt, like a Regular KV crew, would do a slow 360 pirouette in the face of GE SP guns.
5. Better modelling. Yeah, I'll have to buy a new graphics card, and it's already pretty good, but could DEFINITELY be improved.

Things to keep:

1. Fog of War - the more 'extreme', the better.
2. I like relatively 'human' reactions of troops under fire, e.g. 'panic', 'shock', etc.
3. Environmental effects.
4. Game style: Turn-based, tactical combat.
5. Replays. I love watching my T-34 shrugging off pathetic 37mm rounds by the dozen... :D

~Jim

[Joachim]

- Relative spotting
- Terrain
- Long campaign

And of recent experience:
- Tank cowering fixed when at a good angle and/or from ambush
- "Hunt&scoot" instead of "run&scoot"


Gruß
Joachim

[Hulldown]

Keep PBEM please

[OBJ]

Thanks for asking- Hope these haven't already been announced/are redundant

Keep:
1. WEGO
2. Emphasis on realism
3. Ability to command individual units
4. Infantry and armor modeling (although if true that all tanks use the same frontal and flank silhouette to determine if/where a hit is made, it would be nice if at least different turret and hull dimensions could be modeled in addition to armor quality, angle and thickness)
5. WWII focus (at least initially)

Add/Change:
1. Campaign feature - select one from a choice of historical divisions to follow a group of representative core units at co/bn level through the division's historical battles/campaigns; core units start at historic levels of unit experience and leadership quality then are impacted by battle (unit experience and leadership quality improve or decrease depending on unit and leader casualties, time to rest, refit and train between battles, quality of replacements, battle results [win, lose, casualties inflicted], national preparedness/military character); each unit and leader in the core group (including replacement units/leaders as they come in) has a randomly assigned experience/leader quality potential (not viewable by the player) less than or equal to the game allowable maximum biased by nationality and branch of service (i.e. most core units and leaders will end a campaign with something less than game maximum traits in all categories, e.g. more German infantry and armor units and leaders will have experience and leader quality potentials near or at game maximums than will Russian infantry and armor units and leaders); unit/leader experience/quality can not advance beyond its potential; allow some 'realistic' degree of unit non-doctrinal equipment/ammo augmentation over time(e.g. more BARs/sqd, more ammo per MG) and internal non-doctrinal reorganization (e.g. add two BAR teams to the plt HQ), allow portability of core units to follow-on CMX2 games
2. Artillery and CAS - planning, control, responsiveness (e.g. plot FPFs; Inf and armor Plt,Co,Bn level HQs capable of calling for situation realistic level of arty support; refined accuracy, volume of fire and delays for planned vs unplanned fires and targets based on historic national artillery branch quality)
3. Command and control - allow player set pre-battle chain of command (task organize); battle field succession (someone has to be in charge, occasionally an improvement); also 'realistic' Inf/Ar HQ control of artillery (see 2 above)
4. Infantry squad and Platoon level formations/commands - column, line, wedge, Vee, and related movement, firing and engagement impacts
5. Dismounted scouting - Infantry scouts/OPs vs half squads; dismounted TCs; leaders recon; prone stationary position

[Thin Red Line]

No Change
PBEM (but less files)
Historical warfare Realism
Scale (from platoon to regimental combat)
WWII context ? But myabe i'm a little conservative
Customer service and CM spirit !


Change
2+ Multiplayer
Borg spotting
Detailed orders (anticipating different situations)
More realism (ie : still too many fights to the last man in the current system)
Improved scenario editor

[A Panzer]

Keep:
1. Scale
2. Interface

Change:
1. More terain flexibility
2. Controll over air support (IE HQs mark targets for them)
3. Ability to simmulate raids on bases by commandos / convoy ambushes
4. AI that can handle embarked troops better and use boats.

[David Chapuis]

Change

1. Fluid C/C. It can be very frustrating (and highly unrealistic) to have C/C represented as an on/off switch. It should be scaled to some degree.

2. Some changes to make 3rd party uber-campaigns easier.

3. Game Options for dimishing the All-Seeing Eye Problem. A couple that options that I can think of are:
</font> A. option for different turn lengths (2 minute or 3 minute turns as opposed to just 1 minute turns)</font> B. Friendly Unit FOW setting. In some limited situations, I think it would help to not have perfect information about what is happening to my units, but still be able to give them orders.</font>
4. SOP's

5. Convoy Rules

Dont Change
1. AI Focus. Keep the empahsis on the Tac AI as opposed to Strat AI.

2. QB's

3. Import Map and Troops (always wondered why this option was not in the editor as well)

4. PBEM (or some other asynchronous play option)

5. adding multiplayer to release 2.

[Martin Krejcirik]

Keep:

1) WEGO

2) realism

3) WW II


Change:

1) Dumb movement and pathfinding, unit shouldn't travel straight between waypoints, it should find some inteligent path. Allow convoys and other formations.

2) Drop order delay per waypoint

3) Drop God's eye view, make all terrain features (trees, houses, etc) spottable. At the beginning of the game, player should only see barren landscape.

4) Let the player draw various markers and lines on the map.

5) more randomness everywhere (I mean things like speed of movement, visibility, reaction time, etc).

[simovitch]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

5) More cowbell Don't fear the reaper... :D

1. Allow combining of 1 man remnants into larger squads, perhaps at a cost to overall morale.

2. Provide for water courses of different types, and add some water sound effects.

3. Provide a linked campaign system with core group history.

4. Maintain current historical integrity. No Arcade gaming here.

5. Don't feel that you have to over-tax current technology just to make a great looking game that only plays on top-end systems. Allow the user to toggle hardware demands from the pre-game interface.

[TexasToast]

Keep:

1) PBEM support - with reduced files per turn
2) (Relatively) stream-lined selection of orders -> playability
3) Turn-based WEGO system
4) Support for user mods and scenarios
5) Vision as tactical simulation versus "game"

Change:

1) Mac OS X!
2) Campaign support, even if just import/export hooks for third party usage
3) AI scripting or other means to improve single player scenarios
4) More varied scoring-victory conditions
5) Liven up AAR screen by highlighting top performers for each side

Looking forward to getting back into CM!

TT

[scoop88]

Keep:

1. Focus on World War II
2. Realism over eye candy
3. Scale of game
4. Mod-ability of terrain, forces and scenarios
5. Ease of play

Change:

1. More fog of war for own and enemy forces and terrain features
2. More weather effects on movement and fatigue
3. Reduce the gaminess of the map edge so it's more difficult to secure your flank by moving along the side edges of the map ... perhaps have edge-huggers draw fire from abstracted enemy forces off the map edge
4. Support Mac OSX
5. Return the "ride the tank" feature from CMBO on camera level 1. (You could select a vehicle and the camera view would be from the top of the vehicle as it moved.)

[Pvt. Ryan]

One other thing I would like to see: Vehicles can crunch infantry or at least overrun them (i.e. make them displace).

[V]

5) More cowbell LOL

[jbertles]

Keep:

- PBEM
- WEGO
- Scale - squad to regiment(?)
- Reasonable balance between armor and infantry
- Ability to create and distribute scenarios, campaigns and mods

Change or Add:

- Ability to control the initial movements of the AI. In certain scenarios (such as an ambush scenario), the scenario designer may wish to plot specific movements for the AI opponent in the beginning of the scenario. A good example of that would be the old Harpoon naval game: At each plot point there is a % chance of course deviance (e.g., 30% to go this-a-way, 60% to go that-a-way, 10% chance to go the other way). The idea is to give the AI a very general set of commands like "Move to the hill via the town". The % deviance would enable even the designer to play the game against the AI and be surprised. Reinforcements could be handled the same way.
- Variable rates of artillery fire
- Transfer of Units and Game Maps from one game to another. Same thing goes for Battles to Scenarios and vice versa.
- Show targetable area as a color overlay rather than single LOS
- Map-building: A drag-and-change altitude tool like the old Sim City map editor; cut and paste ability with map features (possibly with filters such as "altitude only" or "man-made features only"); variable weather (starts out rainy and ends up foggy, for example)

And of course horses and motorcycles!

[huhrlass]

I would like to see

1. Ability to keep core units and gain experience with them similar to SPWAW

2. Able to change name of person in unit

3. I would like to see the terrain heights more easily seen for a level 3 and 4 so you can plot unit moves more easily.

4.. Flag placements and missions

[huhrlass]

also

4. How about an in-server utility for playing games online

5. ease of play, tactical and not all eye candy

the original is great and i am sur ethe next one will also be great but if its a graphic hog some people may not be able to play

[aka_tom_w]

Change:

How about More profanity in the voices on the sound track?

You know.... like Swearing and yelling in real life on the battlefield!

-tom w

[Mark Gallear]

Not read all the posts so maybe I have a number of repeated points.

Players have used CM for large multi-player Campaigns so I would like to see tools that would help with this.

Umpire mode with management systems and editing of troops which would normaly be considered cheating. (I think this needs some thought and discussion with players who have run these campaigns.)

(I am against units getting better with combat experience because the opposite effect is what really happened.)

Motorcycles and Mounted Cavalry represented if possible.

Better modelling of MGs on tanks – coaxial (more like HMG) different from Hull (LMG burst mode). I think tank MGs are not represented as powerful enough in the current CM games – very apparent in early period.

Better modelling of tank commanders getting killed or buttoning up.

Better modelling of grenade throwing – so tactic before assault and Hand to Hand with bayonets, etc

Options for larger and more real defensive systems such as minefields in depth rather than the odd booby trap representation that we have now - ok I admit these are not very playable for points games but should be available for scenario designers.

If you are going to do Pacific then Naval landings (nice for D-Day too) and jungle terrain.

Better modelling of real AI in operations and options for not just moving from one end of the map to the other. I tried to model a real battle where the Germans arrived on the side of the map! Also option to remove troops for operation designers after a fight – such as heavy artillery left behind in the chase phase of a battle.

Greater effort at accurately representing real troop organizations such as large squadron sized tank units. Can we move on from trying to represent paper organizations and try and represent the real understrength and battered real combat organizations used for the different periods. This could be flexible with players been able to pick and mix to a certain extent at Battalion level, ie optional levels of Infantry AT weapons such as AT-Rifles or PIATS - currently over strength compared with most real organizations.

Not interested in moving clouds and other such crap! Please concentrate on getting the gameplay right.

Ok Mike my Englsh is still crap but at least I am English ;)

[ August 29, 2005, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[norvandave]

It's been a while since I posted. Such a good topic... I'm in general agreement with most previous suggestions.

KEEP:

1. Abstracted soldiers. We don't need to see everybody.


CHANGE:

1. Improved AI.

2. Improved sound effects, (whats that? did you say 'Surround Sound'?)

3. Improved road movement for vehicles.

4. Mud, deep snow, starbursts.

5. Ability to set variable length of turns (e.g. instead of 1 minute perhaps 3 minutes)

[ August 29, 2005, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: norvandave ]

[GreenAsJade]

Play-aid: can we please be able to turn off the display of dead units.

[Chops]

Requests for CMX2

1. The ability to insert oneself into the game. For example, name a squad leader after yourself at the beginning of a battle. Then be able to track yourself and your squads performance throughout a series of battles; pull up statistics on number of kills, squad mates wounded, morale, weapons etc...which are cumulative. Save the statistics.

2. The ability to play back an entire scenario in movie format.

3. Improve convoy/vehicle movement commands.

4. Improve airstrike and artillery commands/functionality.

5. Tanks have the uncanny ability to spot AT guns and bazookas/panzerfausts way to quickly. Please fix this.

[citizen]

Changes
1. Pushing bogged vehicles increases odds of unbogging.
2. Persistent smoke screens
3. Thin skinned AFV's not so resistent to AP ammo
4. More arty options and realism. Can on-board mortars fire where they can't see yet? They would certainly be inaccurate and the unobserved ground detonations would not be seen by the player.
5. Most important... Convoy vehicles command (with "stay on road" option.)

Keep
1. Huge maps
2. PBEM
3. AI Player
4. WEGO
5. WWII

[Stalin's Organ]

Originally posted by citizen:
Changes
1. Pushing bogged vehicles increases odds of unbogging.But increases the chances of breaking somethign on the pushing vehicle!

[Ardem]

Don't Change

WEGO system

PBEM - I know wishful thinking but us Aussies its hard to find people in our timezone.

Your dedication to realism


Change

Need a Campaign Experience addition, or even a two verus two campaign experience.

Operation editor much more involved, which would included reinforcement entry at varying times, more deloyment areas.

Smoke an AT gun then using area fire on the AT gun which has a fair bit of accuracy to knock it out, this option must be more realistic. Either smoke not as accurate as shells or Area fire not as accurate when firing at smoke.

Spotting of AT teams a lot harder, at the moment I think it very easy to spot two people, whereas even in brush they could be hiding in a ditch.

More terrain features, such as Anti Tank Ditches, fortified positions like bunkers that squads can enter, creeks just more and more hahah

[Sailor Malan]

CMX2:

No change:
1 Scale (or at least coninue to be able to play at platoon/company/individual vehicle, even if the system can play bigger. Not interested in smaller - individual man)
2 realism priority over candy
3 WEGO
4 PBEM
5 no 100% control over individual units - TAC AI and panic reactions out of player control(but you can always improve he AI!)

Change
1 Borg spotting to relative
2 more sophisticated C&C - chain of command, delays etc. Orders flow down the chain etc. Non-organic HQ can take command of a unit, but with penalties - higher delay, lack of full bonus. Full effects dependent on nationality, troop type etc. eg German Btn HQ from another Btn, small effects; British infantry HQ over tanks, bigger effect (at least pre 1944); Rumanian inf HQ over SS tank unit - almost no benefit.
3 Multplayer, integrated into the command system - that is player a can have a unit or group of sub units from the same inf btn, but can only have flexibility, say platoon of inf (out of the btn), and 3 tanks (out of a company) as a single command, if scenario designer allows it, and national characteristics/troop quality permits (i.e fairly flexible Ge elite, less so UK line, almost impossible Sov conscripts)
4 Advanced info on terrain before unit purchase in QB or equivalent (although not necessarily full map - fuzzy level 9 view?)
5 List of units on your side visible at start of scenario (not current status, just 'what have I got under cammand')

[Fenris]

Keep
WW2 (at least)
Turn system
Sim rather than game
PBEM
Mod-ability

Add
1 - Contiuous, all turns playback option
2 - Simple 'campaign'play where you buy a force, it fights, it's value is recalc'd. You can play the force again in any battle in the same theatre as long as battle is a later date by having it as a buy option in the force list. Force with new re-inforcements fights again, is recalc'd. Continue til end date of conflict. Unit stats kept and unit rename options.
3 - Higher level campaign over lay a la the CM x10 system allowing large formation gaming with engagements then (optionally) resolved by a generated battle on the current CM scale

edit
4 - option to get to see map (in some form) before unit selection in a QB

Not asking too much, heh. Thanks for your continuing work.

[ August 30, 2005, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Fenris ]

[c3k]

ADD:

1 - COVER and CONCEALMENT - This needs to be programmed as well as the differing penetration abilities of small arms. Obviously, damage needs to be tracked as well. That way my .50 caliber will be able to dismantle the house my opponent is hiding in. smile.gif Then my squaddies can have their fun.

2 - IN GAME OOB MENU - This drop-down menu will enable me, at a glance, to check on my entire force. I can do so already, but it takes a long time and a repetitious "+" and "-" scrolling. No gameplay changes, just a better player experience.

3 - PRE-GAME OOB MENU - Same as above, but the attributes of individual units are changeable. Again, I can do so already in the editor, but with a lot of workload. (Ammo loadouts, leadership levels, etc.)

4 - CAMPAIGN SYSTEM - I want to EASILY give my men a series of battles. Between battle tweaks are allowed; wounded, ammo, replacements, etc.

5 - HIGHER FIDELITY ARMOR SYSTEM - Track the energy status of penetrating weapons; internally map ACTUAL locations of systems in a vehicle; each system has a property relating to kinetic energy and allowed damage limits; track vehicle status based on internal damage.

E.g., a shell penetrates a turret side: it has, say, 2,000 unites of Kinetic Energy remaining. Mounted on the same turret side is the tank's radio. It has a value of 200 KE. The shell destroys the radio and has 1,800 KE's leftover. The assistant gunner is rated at 1,000 KE. Hmm, he's toast. Now the shell has 800 KE. It can't get out. It now wounds the Gunner.

Vehicle status: radio inop; no assistant loader, so greatly increased load times; wounded gunner, so reduced accuracy, or perhaps a totally inop gun/coax.

See Panzer Elite's internal model.


KEEPERS:

1 - PBEM
2 - Play vs. Computer
3 - All the other good stuff. smile.gif

Thanks,
Ken

[mikeadams]

No change:
Simplicity of play. Too many games seem to keep adding complexity with each upgrade at the expense of playability. If you do add more detail (i.e. every man in a squad can fire at a different target) allow this to be turned off.
WWII as the theatre of operation. Eventually from Poland to Berlin
WEGO system: the best solution I have seen
Easy MODs
Great support

Change:
Optional on/off: A level of spotting that allows you to designate the overall commander and only see what he sees. All other information about troop positions is sketchy, occasionally updated by new reports
Better road movement, especially convoys
Effect of camouflage: I often feel that a well hidden gun gets spotted far too easily. Maybe I'm just a sore loser
Mac compatible regardless of G5 vs Intel

[Scipio]

1 - 5&sup3;) Keep the PBEM feature
5&sup3;+1) Keep the we-go-system

Wishlist:

1) Movement orders with waypoints for groups

2) I'm missing a sneak order that doesn't result in crouching.

3) Dynamic weather effects, weather changing during the battle, weather that varies from one edge of the map to the other (at least on large maps).

4) A realistic artillery system with realistic artillery effects. There is a threat running about this.

5) Let me have a beautiful landscape. Gras and flowers rolling in the wind, water wistheling a melody in brooks, sweet villages with friendly, happy people and dogs and cats and cows and horses. Let me bring death and destruction over this girly bull****.

I don't want: Originally posted by GreenAsJade:
Play-aid: can we please be able to turn off the display of dead units. I want 5a : Soldiers of Fortune Mode - Can we please turn on gutts, gore, exploding heads and bellys, scattered limbs and burning people running around, with realistc sound effects? War is hell!

[ August 30, 2005, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Barticus]

1. Better AI waypoint calculation. I hate seeing my vehicles advancing in reverse because two drivers had an argument.

2. Addition of convoy command would be a big help

3. Expanded Operations options like random reinforcements and/or random arrival.

4. Fully articulated track systems would be nice instead of the 1 pixel deep stencils we have now.

[Dr.Love]

1. No more .wav sound files.

2. Tanks tipping over if dive bombed.

3. Destructable fences and other obstacles including civillians like in the great X-Com.

4. Grenades that don't sound like muffled zits popping. Louder weapon sounds all around.

5. This game needs more cowbell, as well as Panther turrets not being so slow since they could rev the engine to speed them up.


Here's what not to change,

1. Basic concept of the game.

2. Scope of the game.

3. The price

4. Fast a$$ shipping to New (better) England

5. Keep keep'n it real?

[mcgivney]

The ability to tell my AFV commanders 'load that %^&@ tungsten right %&^@ now!', or AI that is far more profligerate with tungsten use. Maybe it's just me.

Also, and this is a minor issue, but the point distributions in the "combined arms" setting nead to be tweaked for small unit battles. In 600 pt or less combined arms games, the point totals are often so low that you can't really buy anything, leaving you to fill in the point gaps with fortifications and the like.

I'm not too sure about the doctrinal use, but the ability to call for illumnination during night battles would be neat. Just neat. I'm not frothing at the mouth for it or anything.

Oh yeah, set the whole thing in 1988 in the Fulda Gap. (kidding).

Aside from that, keep the awesome rolling.

[PatAWilson]

MadMatt said it in his example: a campaign smile.gif . I would like to start with a core unit and command that unit through the war (or whatever segment of the war is being modeled) in different randomly generated scenarios.

Basically I want the kind of campaign that was done with a spreadsheet to be automated.

[norvandave]

I would like to add two things to my previous list.

CHANGE:

6. The ability to preview the map (at least partially) for quick battles, before choosing your side. It would be great if some idea of the map was known.

7. Terrain FOW. Maps were not totally accurate all of the time.

[Raton]

* I would like a "move by road" order, to avoid fourteen waypoints and about 90 seconds delay to move one unit by road...

* I would like, for similar reasons, a convoy move order or so...

* I would like to order artillery (company or battalion level) by HQ.

* I would like a change in sound detection. A more abstract sound detection it would be better. I dont like see where that noisy thing is heading...

* I really would like a little operational level tool to manage campaings...

* I would like less information when you hit a target. I guess its very hard to see when you has hit (and if it has penetrate...) at not too much distance...

* I would like more levels (or maybe more scalate-it exits this word?) to HQ abilities.

* And I would like to have to be close to a germantank to have a minimal chance to destry it with a PIAT... smile.gif

[zmoney]

1.Dead vehicals are actually dead space and can be used for cover.
2. I think the cover arc needs to have a possibility of being 360 degrees rather than 180.

[zmoney]

Oh yea and
3.I would love it if you guys put a campain feature in there so you could retain some veterain units and such.

[pcpilot]

Need:

1.) Amphibious capabilities. We already have assualt boats. I doubt its that big a step up making LCVPs to hold a platoon or LCMs to hold a single tank. Without amphibs, your missing out on North Africa's Torch, Anzio, Sicily, Southern France, Normandy, and darn near every freaking LARGE river crossing ever did.
2.) How about a damn "Y" road crossing for mission/map builders? Sure coulda used one more than once building missions instead of trying to jury rig some goofy, way larger than needed "Y" with whats ingame.
3.) Leaders that can be assigned to any particular unit in the mission builder. Not just mere platoon leaders. But I want to be able to assign company and battalion leaders.
4.) How about MOBILE HQ's to accompany mobile units?
5.) Fog that works on an ATI video card. Fog shows up on all my other games that have it.

Dont Need:
1.) The game MORE complicated. Its user freindly and playable for the most part now.
2.) More scalable difficulty for newbies.
3.) Im thinking about it.
4.) Im thinking about it.
5.) Im thinking about it.

[Taki]

Hi there. If been Reading about CMX2 for a long Time now and been playing CMX1 since the Beginning. Greetings to all German Players and the Rest of the World smile.gif

My 5 Things are:

NOT to Change:
1) Realism over Eye Candy and Gameplay
2) PBEM
3) Squad Movement as a whole
4) Map Size
5) Wide Scale of Units and Veh.

What i want to see

1) The Realtive Spotting and and Soloution to the BORG Problem
2) Hardcoded 3D Tankmodells
3) Recon Ability against Hidden Units
4) More Complex Moralsystem and Spottingsystem
5) An After Aktion Viewer for the Whole Game in one Ongoing Videofile !!!

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Scipio:

I don't want: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GreenAsJade:
Play-aid: can we please be able to turn off the display of dead units. I want 5a : </font>[/QUOTE]I don't get it. Do you mean you don't want them to enable me to be able to turn off all the dead units so I can easily see the live ones and thus be able to do my turns more quickly and easily?

This would be a switch like turning on and off smoke or trees: why would you argue against that?

:confused:

GaJ

[Zalgiris 1410]

Things to change:

1) Improved CPU/StratAI that could be used by the player to optionally help with ordering own units, but especially for choice between different solo opponent settings. (Especially StratAI handling of on board mortars, guns, armour and indirect artillery fire plans please.)

2)Formation command of units that are realistic with options that ease control and playability with of course column and follow road movement.

3) Artillery fire patterns that the player can arrange as well as options such as curtain and creeping barages including perhaps with multible batteries.

4) An area of sight / vision freature especially for units and for HQ spotted mortars and artillery teams and may be even for map postions also.

5) Blind fire into and through smoke sceens, dust clowds, fog and at night, also allow actual blind fire by martars and Infantry guns and for plotting artillery.

6) Better night fighting with pistol flares, very lights and with artificial moonlight provided by AA spot lights when documented or acceptiable.

7) OoB table availiable at start, finish and during play to help with checking and finding my units.

8) Provide an ability option to set rate of fire for units and artillery including TOT.

9) Allow for actual though some what retarded spotting against hiden units, considering all those binoculars and have an ability to recon hiden units accordingly.

10) Coloured troops to represent US, colonial French and British Negroes, Indians and esp the NZ 28th Maori Btln.

11) Gun traverse limitations according to stats for effects upon on board guns similar to the penalties that turrettless SP guns face when targeting outside their gun traverse arc.

12) Coned out area fire arcs which will make for much better zoned area suppression effects rather than the case with pin pointed single lined area fire.

13) Individual loadouts of ammo for each differnt weapon in squads so that LMGs can fire off at distance while rifles still keep enough rounds for themselves. BTW I haven't liked the way extra SMGs lower and run down the ammo of squads so much. (ie; IMO it shouldn't matter to the riflemen how many SMGs are in the squad as they both carry their own full loads of personal amounts of different kinds of ammo.) :confused:

14) A move to contact and a fire range setting for all units or types of units that distinguish between tanks and Infantry and MMG and TH teams so that I don't have to set so many individual covered arcs.

15) I wish to see or hear somekind of in game modelling and reporting feedback on say their target braketting by all gun and AFV crews as they fire at specific enemy units.


Things to keep:

1) WEGO system though it could be improved by perhaps having optional 30 second turns or elso at least in solo games the ability to interupt at any point to make orders.

2) Small countries as in CMx1 for the variety though I wish I could have Slovakia! :confused:

3) Planes as they are outside of my control and exciting but I wish I could actually see them! :cool:

4) Sandbag positions but not as a terrain tile as in CMAK but like trenches, also rock contructed sangars could be treated the in same way and availliable especially for NA and the ruff.

5) Wide variety of historically accurate ET&O in a WWII setting, just what I always wanted, thank you very much. smile.gif

[ August 31, 2005, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Dr.Love:
4. Grenades that don't sound like muffled zits popping.

Ever seen one go off for real?

[MikeyD]

Zalgiris 1410 , that's a nice thought-out list but you might want to subdivide your list into 2 postings to get it into their database. I think Matt said at the top that any suggestions beyond the 5 x 5 response limit would be discarded. :( :rolleyes:

Your firing blind through smoke suggestion (5) is an old old complaint of mine that i had completely forgot about, and flare pistols a night (6) is one of those suggestions that make you slap your forehead and say "Of course!"

[J Ruddy]

1) Infantry and Vehicle Formations
- This is critial for non-skirmish type theatres, such as the Napoleanic wars.

2) Improved Cavalry & Vehicle Dismounting Logic
- This drives me nuts in CMX1 - I should be able to tell a vehicle to drive to point X and have the passenger(s) dismount and move to position Y, while the vehicle scoots to position Z. If cavalry or mounted infantry is implemented in the new engine, the same goes for horses and riders. (except hopefully the horses won't scoot!)

3) The ability to place target reference points while in game for Air Strikes

4) 3, 4, 5 or 6 player options for TCP/IP play

5) More options in the map editor - roads crossing train tracks, rail yards etc... Specifc types of buldings - such as Industrial, row housing etc... Also drawing a road, wall etc by dagging the mouse would be a big bonus.

DON'T CHANGE
1) WEGO - if you change this I will not buy the product.

[ September 01, 2005, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]

[Foreigner]

Sorry if some ideas are repeated - consider them my vote in support.

1. Treat bunkers/pillboxes like sturdy houses - able to man/abandon/reman with any units that fit inside (or leave completely empty). Like houses, have several options with different capacity, firing arc dimensions, and "sturdiness" - different point "prices" a given (fighting unit not included).

2. Give all infantry units some "engineer" ability - to have a chance (however small) to spot a minefield before walking over it, to remove wire and dismantle roadblocks (however slowly, and only when not engaged in fighting). HQs, Teams and crewed weapons should be a little worse at those tasks; dedicated engineers should be much more efficient, plus they would remain the only ones to clear a minefield (and not only by using their explosives). In all cases, higher experience level should mean faster and more efficient action.

3. Allow more flexibility in defensive formations/posture/orders - just like we have "move to contact", "advance", and "assault", let's have "skirmish and hightail", "hold your ground", "fighting withdrawal under fire". It can be realized by movement or formation commands.

4. Allow the assignment of "victory points" to the destruction/preservation of units and structures - now those "capture the building intact" or "destroy that KT" in the briefing become more meaningful. After all, we already have "should exit for points" for units.

5. Allow preview of map before unit purchase in QBs.

Please, in addition to those Top 5, kindly consider those "honorable mentions":

6. Give at least squad infantry the ability to "swim" (cross water not at ford) - slow and dangerous (like sewer movement), but still... While we are at it, introduce "water state" to account for current, waves, etc, and make water more or less difficult to cross.

7. "Experience" for fortifications (except TRPs) - then more money would buy you trenches with better protection; minefields, wire, and roadblocks that are harder to detect/pass through/clear.

8. Even if we don't get "full battle replay", at least allow turn resolution movie recording a la PBEM turn for all types of games.

9. Ability to "draw" roads over terrain.

10. Ability to recrew abandoned weapons; if with the original crew, then with the usual "Broken!" handicap. Allow recrewing with "fresh" crews, but only if they are the same "class" - MG/mortar/field gun/AFV crew, etc., with a slight decrease in effectiveness.

[ August 31, 2005, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Foreigner ]

[Zalgiris 1410]

Things to change:

1) Improved CPU/StratAI that could be used by the player to optionally help with ordering own units, but especially for choice between different solo opponent settings. (Especially StratAI handling of on board mortars, guns, armour and indirect artillery fire plans please.)

2)Formation command of units that are realistic with options that ease control and playability with of course column and follow road movement.

3) Artillery fire patterns that the player can arrange as well as options such as curtain and creeping barages including perhaps with multible batteries.

4) An area of sight / vision freature especially for units and for HQ spotted mortars and artillery teams and may be even for map postions also.

5) Blind fire into and through smoke sceens, dust clowds, fog and at night, also allow actual blind fire by martars and Infantry guns and for plotting artillery.


Things to keep:

1) WEGO system though it could be improved by perhaps having optional 30 second turns or elso at least in solo games the ability to interupt at any point to make orders.

2) Small countries as in CMx1 for the variety though I wish I could have Slovakia! :confused:

3) Planes as they are outside of my control and exciting but I wish I could actually see them! :cool:

4) Sandbag positions but not as a terrain tile as in CMAK but like trenches, also rock contructed sangars could be treated the in same way and availliable especially for NA and the ruff.

5) Wide variety of historically accurate ET&O in a WWII setting, just what I always wanted, thank you very much. smile.gif

[Zalgiris 1410]

Things to change:


6) Better night fighting with pistol flares, very lights and with artificial moonlight provided by AA spot lights when documented or acceptiable.

7) OoB table availiable at start, finish and during play to help with checking and finding my units.

8) Provide an ability option to set rate of fire for units and artillery including TOT.

9) Allow for actual though some what retarded spotting against hiden units, considering all those binoculars and have an ability to recon hiden units accordingly.

10) Coloured troops to represent US, colonial French and British Negroes, Indians and esp the NZ 28th Maori Btln.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Things to change:


11) Gun traverse limitations according to stats for effects upon on board guns similar to the penalties that turrettless SP guns face when targeting outside their gun traverse arc.

12) Coned out area fire arcs which will make for much better zoned area suppression effects rather than the case with pin pointed single lined area fire.

13) Individual loadouts of ammo for each differnt weapon in squads so that LMGs can fire off at distance while rifles still keep enough rounds for themselves. BTW I haven't liked the way extra SMGs lower and run down the ammo of squads so much. (ie; IMO it shouldn't matter to the riflemen how many SMGs are in the squad as they both carry their own full loads of personal amounts of different kinds of ammo.) :confused:

14) A move to contact and a fire range setting for all units or types of units that distinguish between tanks and Infantry and MMG and TH teams so that I don't have to set so many individual covered arcs.

15) I wish to see or hear somekind of in game modelling and reporting feedback on say their target braketting by all gun and AFV crews as they fire at specific enemy units.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Things to change:

16) More terrain types such as Beach terrain, proper Orchards and Y road intersections.

17) Phases of the Moon for night fighting even if just no moon -quarter -half -full moon which would effect vision distance for veriety and may be more realistic night fighting.

18) Reinforced concrete bunkers or fighting positions that Infantry and crew weapons can occupy so that such sieges as those of Bardia, Tobruk, Odessa, Sevastopol, etc as well as fortified lines (walls) can be better depicted.

19) A hold fire on the move order for AFVs.

20) Some concept of light wounds category so that troops can stay until the end of a battle or say a day in a campainge but count as a half-casualty in the tally. Same half cost should go for damaged and immobile AFV as well.

[ August 31, 2005, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Zalgiris 1410]

Things to change:

21) Dragon teeth and and other abatis.

22) K 18s the German 105mm field gun availiable for on board deployment on top of the 105mm leFH.

23) Hobarts' funnies at least especially flail tanks and bull dozer tanks. Also Bocage busting Allied tank additions.

24) Penal Battalion option for the Russians with reductions in the number of rifles distributed and handled somewhat like disarmed troops, say with between 2-5 men per rifle. (May be also Ostbattalions for the Germans.)

25) MG battalions for the Commonwealth, the Germans and for the Russians in their Fortification Regions (MMG Divs). Would help with purchasing Coys & Pltns and I would like to see the same treatment with ATGs, for I would like to buy Coys or at least Pltns of those like as with AFVs.


Things not to change:

6) Keep Katyushas and Nebelwerfers even the tracked kind off the on board map. As cool as they might be they don't have a level direct fire capability and I understand this as a perfectly good reason for not having them outside their distant indirect fire role.

7) Keep the rifle grenades capacity in the German Infantry squads and outside of player control, ie under the TacAI direction. However I think that they should have a larger layout of grenades becuase I have a sourse that says that the rifle grenadier was given 5 AP and 10 HE rounds normally. It would be more realistic if they could be fire according to their proper ranges since they were intended to replace the 50mm mortar AIUI.

8) Keep up the ammo, especially allow for the designer to assign higher levels of ammo than normal if they want. Even increase the maximum amount and make it quicker to do so as well please. ;)

9) Keep the capacity for Infantry and teams to be able to ride on top of AFV, though I would like to see them perform a mine and obsticle detection activity that according to their degree of experience would lessen the likelihood of their AFV bogging and avoiding mines.

10) WWII historical focus over game play eye candy or else at least make as much eye candy and game play that reproduces WWII as historically as possible just as I found the CMx1 series to be, thank you. smile.gif


Edit: Sorry for all the posts, I hope I haven't made a massive donkey vote! :eek:

[ August 31, 2005, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[molotov_billy]

I would like to see a real-time option for single player. I understand the need for a WEGO system for PBEM, but I have no interest in PBEM and the turn system is essentially worthless (not to mention frustrating) to me in single player.

The WEGO system in singleplayer is essentially what has kept me from really enjoying CMAK. I would love to simply play it in pauseable/real time mode like in the close combat series.

[MPK]

I played the CMBO demo for 6 months (amazed)
before I needed to buy the Bundle Pack..

Been playing CMBB ever since. Mostly Ops,
and mostly by PBEM. Love it.

I've spent of lot of happy hours with the Editor...
getting Not Much Done.

My Five:

(1) Night combat needs all the obvious
features: flares, CDL & AA searchlights,
illumination rounds, light from nearby
fires etc

(2) Field Engineering is far too limited:
needed are mine-clearing AFV's (plough, flail, snake); and bridging (by pontoon and
AFV-launched bridge). Amphibious vehicles
(and troop landing) are missed by almost
everyone. The same goes for paratroops,
and glider assaults, and prepared demolitions.

Fortifications need a total revamp:
"Like-A-Vehicle" the bunker, pillbox,
trench, foxhole, sangar, gun pit, tunnel,
fortified house, Polish basement,submarine
pen etc - these should all be able to hold a certain number and type of units, including
guns and fixed flamethrowers, and should
come in heavy (prepared defence)and lighter versions.

(3) PBEM.
I'll still buy the damn thing even if,
but I'd only be playing with myself :(

(4) Operations.
I love 'em. Whether company-sized or bigger,
they can only benefit from the announced
terrain and Editor improvements...20-battle
Op in a medieval town, anyone?

(5) Can I save this one, and then complain bitterly when you don't put it in the game?

Cheers & Best Wishes,

Matt

[Xenophile]

Changes
1. Make map edges less attractive. Absurdly wide maps relative to the size of the forces might be enough, but failing that, model some larger possibility of danger from outside the map edge to elements close to it.

2. Line-of-sight aid. Overlay indicating the exact scope of a selected unit would be good (although might reduce player involvement). Even increasing the contrast between terrain at different heights would help though.

3. On-map visual indicator of the status of elements during the orders phase. It's a pain to me in larger fights to have to check every non-sneaking unit to see which have taken fire. Make it switchable for those who don't want it.

4. AI. Make it better at it's best certainly - but allow it more variability, both in the level of tactical skill it displays and the tactical approach it can take (passive/aggressive, dispersed/concentrated). I'm sure this is not easy to do.

5. More unknowns. The defender surely ought to have more terrain knowledge than the attacker in most cases? Troop quality - aren't the reactions of men under fire unpredictable, even units which have seen action? Aren't weapons, particularly innovative ones, less than reliable? (I love the anecdote where a panzer crewman, startled by a shouted command, breaks the handle of his vision block dust-wiper, obscuring his vision, who then jumps out of the vehicle...is this really modelled by 'bogged'?)

[J Ruddy]

Nuts - I forgot one other thing that drives me crazy - no Map.

I'd like to see a 2D map (especially when I need to purchase units) of the scenario area - it doesn't have to be too detailed, at least some kind of 1:10,000 representation of the area would be nice.

Even the 2D view from the Scenario Editor would be better than nothing...

If you could include a jpg or bitmap in the scenario description, people could make their own 'field sketches' or 'intelligence photos' based off of a screenshot etc...




Oh ya and...
I'd like to have a campaign system where I shepherd a core group of units from battle to battle

Although I think I've posted that, emailed to support and yelled it from the top of the CN Tower already and if I recall, was rebuked quite effectively.



[Edit#2]
While I'm at it, I will add this from another post.

Someone please tell me they are putting in a freeking volume control! When I am Voip'd to my opponant and can't make him any louder and can't make the game quieter (without moving away from the battlefield or muting the game) it sure makes conversation frustrating...

Give me sliders or give me death!
Master --------O--
Ambient ---O--------
Game Sounds --------O---
Music O-----------
Space Lobsters ----------O-


[/Edit#2]

[ September 01, 2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]