Jump to content

Kaunitz

Members
  • Posts

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Bulletpoint in Bunkers are Equivalent to Coffins   
    You don't need a 105. In the real war, all sides invested heavily in large-calibre HE direct fire guns to take out fortifications. In this game, 75mm is all you need, even for the heaviest bunkers.
    As I see it, the reason is that bunkers are:
    Too easy to spot Too easy to hit (literally a "log cabin" instead of being dug into the soil) Too easy to knock out.  
    In the game, the bunker in this example would not an obstacle at all, but the AT gun and the infantry would be.
  2. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Zveroboy1 in A bunch of maps of Ukraine I have made over the years   
    Yes I had a look at street view. I didn't realize it was available until I had already done half the map. I didn't think of checking at first because the areas I had mapped previously in the Donbas region are barely covered at all by street view. It was useful for the little shrine and picnic area and also the thickness of the vegetation on both sides of the road. I made it impassable by vehicles because it just looked too thick, except in a couple of spots because otherwise it would limit movement too much and be a death trap. It already kind of is actually, on the eastern half. I mean I have never driven a tank but I don't see how you could cross that. Maybe it is possible, I don't know.
    Anyway great feedback and tips thanks, especially the parking spots. Easy to implement too.
  3. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Combatintman in A bunch of maps of Ukraine I have made over the years   
    @Zveroboy1 - had a more detailed look at this.  It is impressive as you clearly have used street view to get the road sign placement, the shrine and the bus shelters in the right places.  Should you wish to make some changes I would recommend the following:
    Have a look at the telegraph poles in the village - quite a few of them need rotating.
    I would rotate the shrine by 90 degrees.
    I would replace the gravel tiles in the area of the shrine.  As you know from street view the area is a small car park which can be replicated using the highway tiles using the two tiles circled in red in the image below with different rotations to achieve a parking bay look:

    Otherwise - I repeat my earlier comment - good work.
  4. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Panzergrenadier Tactics (training film in German but with later English subtitles)   
    "Infanteriegruppe als Spähtrupp" (The infantry squad on a recon mission for the company)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJwEsfobXy8
    @40:43, you can see a schematic presentation of the squad's retrograde movement (footage starting @32:18) upon contact. The distance between the german squad in the rivulet and the enemy heavy MG is said to be 150m. The distance between the german light MG (back in the wood) and the enemy heavy MG is 350m. 
  5. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from George MC in Panzergrenadier Tactics (training film in German but with later English subtitles)   
    "Infanteriegruppe als Spähtrupp" (The infantry squad on a recon mission for the company)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJwEsfobXy8
    @40:43, you can see a schematic presentation of the squad's retrograde movement (footage starting @32:18) upon contact. The distance between the german squad in the rivulet and the enemy heavy MG is said to be 150m. The distance between the german light MG (back in the wood) and the enemy heavy MG is 350m. 
  6. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Aragorn2002 in Panzergrenadier Tactics (training film in German but with later English subtitles)   
    Slightly similar: the "Frontschau" videos. Obviously it's german propaganda and it's not as detailed at the Panzergrenadier video in regards to tactics, but I still found it pretty "convincing" (as in not overly "glorifying" or portraying combat in a fantastic/hollywood manner). 
    PS: Here is a combined version with some (not always completely convincing) english synchronization: 
     
     
     
     
     
     
  7. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to RockinHarry in Over-Powered Artillery and general game lethality   
    I think the game engine is geared more towards mobile, fluid tactical actions and far less to model combat across extensively fortified areas. When it comes to cover in buildings, they´re well suited to provide cover vs small arms, but when it comes to more or less heavy HE, every human person with sense of survival either would leave entirely, or seek the deepest of underground protection. We´ve no underground protection in the game and we neither have deep spider holes and slit trenches, or the sort with bits of overhead cover to protect from tree bursts and the like. Log bunkers is the best you can use in the game as substitute. Unless BFC is able to deal with the FOW issues when it comes to anything that is dug into the terrain mesh, only some further abtractions would be feasible. One example taken from CMBB would be sewer movement that takes units out of the 3D space entirely. IIRC BFC does not want to abstract things in those ways anymore and prefers to keep modeling everything in the given 3D space. So with regard to artillery/HE effectiveness in the game, I think it´s not really that far off. It´s just the means of real protection from it missing in the games.
  8. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Artkin in A bunch of maps of Ukraine I have made over the years   
    @Zveroboy1
    I've converted your map for Red Thunder and Final Blitzkrieg. Just had a quick look, everything looks fine. The only thing you might want to adjust are the flavour objects. I've uploaded the files here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/91wr3f203ub9ash/AABD8cAKYNLStBpusxo1yl_pa?dl=0
  9. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Zveroboy1 in A bunch of maps of Ukraine I have made over the years   
    So I have been toying with the map editor in Combat Mission ever since I got Black Sea a couple of years ago and I have half a dozen maps that I am fairly happy with, pretty much all of them 90% complete. Most of them are maps of the Donbas region where fighting actually took place but there are also a couple that I simply picked because the topography looked interesting. I have downloaded tons of stuff over the years from other people, scenarios, campaigns, maps and loads of mods so I thought I'd post what I have here. Is not purely unselfish because I also hope it might encourage other people like me to share their work with the community.
    All these maps are based on real terrain and topography, using google earth, tons of photos and a bit of creative license from time to time. But I tried to stick as much as possible to the real terrain. I am going to provide a couple of satellite pictures for each one because some people might find it interesting to know where they are located. But obviously you're free to use them for whatever purpose you like and pretend it is a place in Greenland or Kentucky if you feel like it.
    I decided to post them all in a single thread and plan on releasing them in the next weeks as I put the finishing touches to them. I got one of Nikishyno and Logvynovo in the Debaltseve area in particular that people might like.
    Again feel free to use these for whatever you want. All I ask is that you link to this thread if you end up using them to create a scenario with one of them for instance. Also if you are some sort of genius or mastermind who knows how to create an AI plan for quick battles and make one for one of these maps, please post it here.
     
     
  10. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Bulletpoint in CM WWII: Are tanks "overpowered"?   
    It's an interesting idea. I think it would basically mean a much more difficult game for the attacker. He would either advance too slowly, or he would have to be really clever about pre-programming long sets of elaborate move paths with pauses etc.
    A variable turn length setting would be nice. Manually having to start up the game, load the savegame, click the red button, then wait till dropbox uploads it, then wait for the opponent to do the same, etc five times in a row sounds pretty darn boring though
     
  11. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Another contentious topic: CMx2 vs Mius?   
    So I've spent the last weekend giving Graviteam a real chance for once. I've had MiusFront it in my game library for a long time already, but being the CM fanboy that I am, I never really made a serious effort. But now as I'm growing slightly disatisfied with CM's lack of progress/innovation, I decided to try GT out more seriously. 
    The bad:
    Graviteam's AI is no challenge. Lacking a multiplayer mode, this means that any fun I might have with the game will be short-lived. This is the single most important point of this review. After one weekend of playing, I'm already tired by AI suicide charges.  Graviteam's UI is a nightmare beyond description, both in the tactical battles and even more so in the operational mode. I call "fanboy" on anyone who thinks differently on this point. Nobody seems to understand how the various indirect fire methods really work. Even the expert tutorials just tell you which combinations of buttons you should have checked, without fully understanding what they do. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Mabye it's bugged.  The campaign aspect is certainly interesting, but it's more on the "game" than on the "simulation" side of things. They way battlemaps are cut out of the campaign map means that positions that could very well support each other are simply "cut off" (but to be fair, this is even more noteworthy with many CM maps...). Also, the whole reinforcement/battlegroup aspect is rather questionable. Battalions are represented by single companies (the other companies are in reserve, not present on the battlefield). The good:
    The visuals are more simulation-like: For example, tracer rounds are simulated - these really have a huge impact on the overall aesthetical impression of a WWII battle. Another thing that struck my eye is that tree models are more realistic than in CM (in CM, tree trunks are much too thick). From what I've seen so far, clear areas on most GT maps also feature a lot of small bumps that provide cover to prone infantry. The more realistic impression of GT is also related to the "tight" reaction of individual soldiers. While the overall animations of GT soldiers are a bit clunky at times, they tend to stand up and run faster than CM soldiers, who sometimes seem to react/move in slow-motion.  GT gives the player less control over some aspects, which leads to command friction that is a bit lacking in CM. For example, GT has an interesting "command delay" system to prevent the player from micro-managing too much. As it has been discussed, friction is of particular importance when it comes to tank-infantry coordination. Here, properly scaled maps also help a lot - tanks are simply faster than infantry! But you will only start to understand the implications of this if you play on realistically sized maps. Graviteam's maps are realistically large. The same cannot be said for CM quickbattle maps. Situational plausibility. One thing I particularly like in GT was that both the mix of troops you lead into battle as well as your overall goal for a battle somehow seemed more plausible than in most CM games. The second point is probably related to the campaign mode, which ties the operational and the tactical levels closer together. Due to their fine, time-consuming level of detail,  CM battles need to deliver a lot of action in a short time-span to be fun, even if the resulting high intensity of the action is very unplausible. GT is very different here. As they're real time, battles play out very fast. Long periods of "nothing" can be bridged very quickly by speeding up time. This means that GT can portray the intensity level of WWII engagements (with a few exceptions, obviously) much better. Casualties are lower overall, engagements develop slowlier, don't necessarily end in full escalation. Also, in the campaign battles of GT, you never know how many and what kind of troops the opponent still has in petto. You could find yourself in a very asymmetrical/unbalanced battle (it's okay because retrat makes sense and you don't lose too much precious game time if you do it...). In CM, by contrast, the balance lies within a single game/scenario, not on the campaign level.  It features some details that are missing in CM: e.g. telephone units that lay wires; flares.  Also, you can set the density of an infantry formation. I wished I could spread out my soldiers in CM too... Offside the core functions, one also needs to point out that modding CM seems to be much easier and that CM features an awesome map/scenario editor. 
    So overall, I would say that Graviteam has a more realistic/simulationist visual appeal, while CM's visuals are a bit more "table top like" (and very detailed at that!) which also has its own charm. In terms of gameplay, the overall combat situation (mix of troops, map size, goals of a battle, intensity of engagements) is more plausible in GT, while the actual mechanics are probably more convincing in CM (precise positioning, effects of cover and concealment, etc). Any advantages that Graviteam might have, however, are strongly mitigated by the lack of multiplayer support, and severely hampered by the atrocious and clunky UI. CM is the much more polished and user-friendly series.
    So both games have their merits. I think I will stick to GT for a more "contemplative", laid-back singleplayer experience (let's just watch the action) and to CM for a more competitive, highly invested tactical multiplayer experience.
  12. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from sttp in Another contentious topic: CMx2 vs Mius?   
    So I've spent the last weekend giving Graviteam a real chance for once. I've had MiusFront it in my game library for a long time already, but being the CM fanboy that I am, I never really made a serious effort. But now as I'm growing slightly disatisfied with CM's lack of progress/innovation, I decided to try GT out more seriously. 
    The bad:
    Graviteam's AI is no challenge. Lacking a multiplayer mode, this means that any fun I might have with the game will be short-lived. This is the single most important point of this review. After one weekend of playing, I'm already tired by AI suicide charges.  Graviteam's UI is a nightmare beyond description, both in the tactical battles and even more so in the operational mode. I call "fanboy" on anyone who thinks differently on this point. Nobody seems to understand how the various indirect fire methods really work. Even the expert tutorials just tell you which combinations of buttons you should have checked, without fully understanding what they do. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Mabye it's bugged.  The campaign aspect is certainly interesting, but it's more on the "game" than on the "simulation" side of things. They way battlemaps are cut out of the campaign map means that positions that could very well support each other are simply "cut off" (but to be fair, this is even more noteworthy with many CM maps...). Also, the whole reinforcement/battlegroup aspect is rather questionable. Battalions are represented by single companies (the other companies are in reserve, not present on the battlefield). The good:
    The visuals are more simulation-like: For example, tracer rounds are simulated - these really have a huge impact on the overall aesthetical impression of a WWII battle. Another thing that struck my eye is that tree models are more realistic than in CM (in CM, tree trunks are much too thick). From what I've seen so far, clear areas on most GT maps also feature a lot of small bumps that provide cover to prone infantry. The more realistic impression of GT is also related to the "tight" reaction of individual soldiers. While the overall animations of GT soldiers are a bit clunky at times, they tend to stand up and run faster than CM soldiers, who sometimes seem to react/move in slow-motion.  GT gives the player less control over some aspects, which leads to command friction that is a bit lacking in CM. For example, GT has an interesting "command delay" system to prevent the player from micro-managing too much. As it has been discussed, friction is of particular importance when it comes to tank-infantry coordination. Here, properly scaled maps also help a lot - tanks are simply faster than infantry! But you will only start to understand the implications of this if you play on realistically sized maps. Graviteam's maps are realistically large. The same cannot be said for CM quickbattle maps. Situational plausibility. One thing I particularly like in GT was that both the mix of troops you lead into battle as well as your overall goal for a battle somehow seemed more plausible than in most CM games. The second point is probably related to the campaign mode, which ties the operational and the tactical levels closer together. Due to their fine, time-consuming level of detail,  CM battles need to deliver a lot of action in a short time-span to be fun, even if the resulting high intensity of the action is very unplausible. GT is very different here. As they're real time, battles play out very fast. Long periods of "nothing" can be bridged very quickly by speeding up time. This means that GT can portray the intensity level of WWII engagements (with a few exceptions, obviously) much better. Casualties are lower overall, engagements develop slowlier, don't necessarily end in full escalation. Also, in the campaign battles of GT, you never know how many and what kind of troops the opponent still has in petto. You could find yourself in a very asymmetrical/unbalanced battle (it's okay because retrat makes sense and you don't lose too much precious game time if you do it...). In CM, by contrast, the balance lies within a single game/scenario, not on the campaign level.  It features some details that are missing in CM: e.g. telephone units that lay wires; flares.  Also, you can set the density of an infantry formation. I wished I could spread out my soldiers in CM too... Offside the core functions, one also needs to point out that modding CM seems to be much easier and that CM features an awesome map/scenario editor. 
    So overall, I would say that Graviteam has a more realistic/simulationist visual appeal, while CM's visuals are a bit more "table top like" (and very detailed at that!) which also has its own charm. In terms of gameplay, the overall combat situation (mix of troops, map size, goals of a battle, intensity of engagements) is more plausible in GT, while the actual mechanics are probably more convincing in CM (precise positioning, effects of cover and concealment, etc). Any advantages that Graviteam might have, however, are strongly mitigated by the lack of multiplayer support, and severely hampered by the atrocious and clunky UI. CM is the much more polished and user-friendly series.
    So both games have their merits. I think I will stick to GT for a more "contemplative", laid-back singleplayer experience (let's just watch the action) and to CM for a more competitive, highly invested tactical multiplayer experience.
  13. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to benpark in How to read elevation on Soviet period maps?   
    Here is a direct link to the publication on Soviet topographical matters. I see contour lines there, mainly at the top. If there is a larger map, look at that as well, as there will be additional hints as to the underlying heights. As that appears to be vaguely around Leningrad, there should be a few period maps about.
    https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/pdf/soviet.pdf
    The relevant bit:

  14. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to MikeyD in Fire and Rubble   
    WWII was literally the most catastrophic man-made event in human history. If you include Japan and China in the mix some 80 million people died (out of a world population not much larger than 2.3 billion) in the space of a few short years. The scale of atrocities is unimaginable. By war's end even the 'good guys' were incinerating entire city populations. Looking back on his actions in the Pacific General Curtis Lemay commented "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." WWII is a template for nobody for how nations should act.
  15. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Heirloom_Tomato in CM WWII: Are tanks "overpowered"?   
    @Kaunitz my $0.02 is the tanks in the game are not overpowered, it is you the player who is overpowered. I know earlier in this thread you mentioned the downfall of the all seeing player and the ability to tell units to area fire into places where they have no clue any enemy units are. Have you tried playing with @RockinHarry no enemy icons mod? It completely changes the way you play the game as it places you the player into a state of FOW, yet leaves your units with all the information you would have if the icons were on. It forces you to move slower, pay closer attention to the battlefield and reduces your reaction time. With enemy icons on, you can see where the enemy is coming from and a rough idea of what is coming at your men. With the icons off, you won't know what you are actually facing until every enemy unit is actually visible to YOUR eye. Enemy icons off makes any low visibility scenario an absolute nightmare to play. 
  16. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from jtsjc1 in CMRT Module 1 Bones   
    Has this already been posted somewhere?  I suppose it will release quite closely to the new module? What a coincidence!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9WyzQLdw6g
     
  17. Upvote
    Kaunitz reacted to JulianJ in WW2 Footage in Colour - Film "D-Day to Berlin"   
    Part of my job is to do with archive footage. In anticipation of the commemoration of D-Day I rediscovered Hollywood director George Steven's colour home movies of his war. He volunteered at 37 and was put in charge of a combat film unit, filming of course in B/W but he took his 16mm camera along and had access to rare stocks of colour film. These home movies were only discovered by his son in storage after his death.
    It's an eye-opener, and useful for modelling and gaming.
     
  18. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Heirloom_Tomato in CM WWII: Are tanks "overpowered"?   
    Browsing through memoirs in the search for infantry vs. tanks, I found this to be one of the most detailed accounts. Granted, it is not overly usefull for our context here as it all happened in an urban environment. But as it is such an interesting read, I wanted to share it here.
    The scene is January 21, 1945. B company, IV. btn, King's Own Scottish Borderers (155th brigade, 52nd Lowland Division) was ordered to attack into the town of Waldfeucht at the dutch-german border. The commander of the company’s 10 platoon, Peter White, has left us this account of the action which highly interesting in its various details for anyone interested in the gruesome combat experience during WWII. It also seems to have made a lasting impression on him, given that he made drawings of the action. The whole memoir and some of the drawings are published under the title “With the Jocks. A Soldier’s Struggle for Europe 1944-1945”. Highly recommended!
     Warning: The account is rather graphic.  
     
  19. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from George MC in CM WWII: Are tanks "overpowered"?   
    Browsing through memoirs in the search for infantry vs. tanks, I found this to be one of the most detailed accounts. Granted, it is not overly usefull for our context here as it all happened in an urban environment. But as it is such an interesting read, I wanted to share it here.
    The scene is January 21, 1945. B company, IV. btn, King's Own Scottish Borderers (155th brigade, 52nd Lowland Division) was ordered to attack into the town of Waldfeucht at the dutch-german border. The commander of the company’s 10 platoon, Peter White, has left us this account of the action which highly interesting in its various details for anyone interested in the gruesome combat experience during WWII. It also seems to have made a lasting impression on him, given that he made drawings of the action. The whole memoir and some of the drawings are published under the title “With the Jocks. A Soldier’s Struggle for Europe 1944-1945”. Highly recommended!
     Warning: The account is rather graphic.  
     
  20. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in CM WWII: Are tanks "overpowered"?   
    Browsing through memoirs in the search for infantry vs. tanks, I found this to be one of the most detailed accounts. Granted, it is not overly usefull for our context here as it all happened in an urban environment. But as it is such an interesting read, I wanted to share it here.
    The scene is January 21, 1945. B company, IV. btn, King's Own Scottish Borderers (155th brigade, 52nd Lowland Division) was ordered to attack into the town of Waldfeucht at the dutch-german border. The commander of the company’s 10 platoon, Peter White, has left us this account of the action which highly interesting in its various details for anyone interested in the gruesome combat experience during WWII. It also seems to have made a lasting impression on him, given that he made drawings of the action. The whole memoir and some of the drawings are published under the title “With the Jocks. A Soldier’s Struggle for Europe 1944-1945”. Highly recommended!
     Warning: The account is rather graphic.  
     
  21. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Hapless in CM WWII: Are tanks "overpowered"?   
    Hey Hapless! I love your videos. And I've linked your video about "Bunkers for dummies" many times in many forums.  Many of your questions are linked to each other, so let me present my thoughts summarily. 
    Positions become "exposed" to direct tank fire once the enemy has beaten your long range AT assets and can therefore let his armor advance far enough to get LOFs on your enfilade defensive positions. Must something have gone "wrong" for this to happen? I don't know. Sometimes you lose the long range tank combat, sometimes you win. It's also (not exclusively, of course) a matter of luck and force selection. You've bought many smaller calibre ATGs and the enemy shows up with 1 Tiger. Good luck with keeping the Tiger at bay (if you find a way please tell me )! You've bought a single large calibre ATG? Now you are more of a threat to the Tiger, if your gun is positioned on what happens to be the right side of the map and can see the Tiger that is! Unfortunately, good ATG positions are preferred targets for speculative arty barrages, and you can't do a lot to protect the ATG. Fortifications are not reliably, and moving the ATG into position only once the shelling is over is bad as the gun loses its camouflage bonus (and also it might be too late!). And if your enemy brings 6 light tanks instead of 1 Tiger, then good luck with your single ATG. 
    This is also the reason why underpowered AT assets sometimes need to engage overarmored tanks. As demonstrated above, sometimes your (A)T force selection is no match for your opponent's (A)T force selection. This doesn't mean that your force selection is neccessarily bad. Just that it is bad against this or that combination, and good against other combinations. (A)T force selection is often guesswork and can have a big impact on games. From my own experience and also from watching CM AARs, I often get the impression that (anti)tank duels are decided one way or the other at some point. There is hardly ever a stand-off that lasts until the end of the game - at some point the attacker will need to attack and both players have to show their cards. This decision then quickly shifts the balance of the game. The idea for this thread here is also to make games last and stay interesting beyond this point. If the attacker is out-armored by the defender, then it's obviously game over. But a defender could very reasonably keep kicking from his prepared defensive positions, try to seperate the tanks from the infantry. Under the current conditions, I think this is not possible.
     
    PS: Forgot to add the american "Crack that tank" video: https://youtu.be/EngDMNRoqvE
     
  22. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Additional fortifications?   
    Apart from a lack of properly working fortifications, map design plays a large part here too. A realistic map offers lots of small options for cover. It's hard to model that on maps, as the smallest height increment at your disposal is 1 meter and it also affects the neighbouring tiles. What is more, quickbattle maps typically lack important features like road embankments and drainage or irrigation ditches. Also, most quickbattle maps (except urban environments, of course) are way too "dense" with very short lines of sight. Fighting is always happening at point blank range, at which modern weapon systems are an overkill.  
  23. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to JonS in The History of WeGo games.   
    In the 1990s Atomic Games released the "V for Victory" series of games (Velikiye Luki, Utah Beach, Market Garden, Gold-Juno-Sword), later sequeled in the "World at War" series (D Day: America Invades, Operation Crusader, Stalingrad). They were set in WWII, and used the same WEGO system that CM uses (simultaneous planning phase, followed by simultaneous execution with no player interference), albeit in 2D and at the grand-tactical/operational level rather than 3D in the minor-tac realm.
    I loved and played the hell out of those games, and have been deeply disappointed that no one has yet picked up the 2D/Operational/WeGo mantle. HPS' Panzer Campaigns was a poor and pale imitation.
  24. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Improvement suggestions   
    To be honest my only major gripe with the game is the lack of fortifications and the related over-the-top casualty rate of infantry and the tactical implications that come with it. That is assuming that the "let's leave this perfect cover during the artillery barrage" behaviour is considered a bug and will get fixed some day.
    My other gripe, map design, is up to me (and other mapmakers if they think the same) to change.  
    Stricter fog of war would be nice to have, but the graphical effects (tracers, icons, bullet impacts) can be modded, as you've begun doing in your realism pack mod. Only sound-pinpointing remains a problem. But most players are gentleman enough that I'd trust them not to make any use of it. 
    CM titles are still light years ahead of other games. I don't see any competition anywhere remotely close on the horizon. And I'm actually very happy with the game so that I don't really feel the need for competition. Most of the things listed here refer to rather minor problems. I'd say that improvement suggestions are proof of the passion and love that players have for CM. Love and frustration are always closely intertwined.
  25. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Improvement suggestions   
    Okay, so I’ve made my last summary of this thread on 27th September here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/123157-improvement-suggestions/?do=findComment&comment=1763655
    Since then, a lot of new suggestions were brought up by the community, so it’s time for another summary. Note that I try not to repeat anything from the old summary (fortifications, fortifications! ^^) and I’m not listing title-specific stuff that only applies to a single particular title. There is no particular order, no detailed reasoning - it's just a quick list. I also included the more radical/crazy ideas. 
     Force selection/quick battle set-up
    Let us input the point budgets freely Scroll(wheel) function in force selection screen “random anything but night” option for daylight selection The ability to attach smaller formations to larger ones  The ability to set all vehicles as either genuinely dismounted or as ammo dumps across all the games  Aesthetical/graphical
    Fix the light/shadow issue where terrain has light/shadow on opposite sides of the shading for houses and troops. (especially occurring under dusk/dawn conditions?) More movie modes (although they don´t necessarily need having a movie style touch) from the ALT-M key combo.  User Interface
    A wind direction indicator on the compass tooltip - Ground type is displayed alongside mouse pointer when plotting movement/fire orders. Further possible options from the ALT+I key combo could  be "only show enemy AFV", "only show enemy ARTY" and similar when things on the map become somewhat confusing. Would be nice if they would let us toggle [the visual indicators of] all fire orders on/off like we can with movement orders. Would make it much easier to remember to stop area firing units. Gameplay/Aircraft
    Anti Aircraft: Some kind of indication (animation, onscreen message) whether you have shot down, damaged, forced away, or missed enemy aircraft. (MOS:96B2P has andwered that there is some kind of feedback) Aircraft shadow flying over the battlefield.   Editor/map, scenario and campaign creation (also see Force Selection)
    Ability to import map states from saved games. Ability for map states to carry over to the next battle in the same campaign. Shortcut/functions Ctrl-S (save) & Ctrl-Z (undo) If/then triggers for the AI Random map generation Better interface for flavor objects Let us place minefields/foxholes/barbed wire etc. in the 2D view of the editor Let us lay out AI plans in the 3D view of the editor A script (or something) that allows a map designer to quickly create a ruined version his map. A brush tool that randomly assignes craters and damages buildings it goes over?  Reserves arrive on map when position on map is reached. Opens up possibilities for designers both in terms of when friendly/enemy units arrive but also narratively like position reached = prisoners located. New Victory Condition - Objective Held/Taken within 'X' period of time.  32 Ai groups instead of only 16  Dynamic weather that can change during the course of a battle. (Pre-set by Scenario Designer). High chainlink fence. A fence you can see and shoot through but infanry can not climb over/move through. Ability to place dead soldiers on the map in the editor Treetrunks are too thick in general.   Gameplay/vehicles
    Make vehicles take longer to fire off the first shot (a loading task prior to rotating/taking aim; linked to the issue that vehicle crews have magically pre-loaded the appropriate type of round for their target) Functional fire-ports, crews should be able to toss hand grenades out of slits etc. Tank-riders should be allowed to area-target “directionally”, i.e. not aim at a fixed point but instead fire in a certain aspect/direction (that stays the same while the vehicle moves). Gameplay/soldier behaviour
    Have infantry stay on one side of a low wall when running along it. Right now, they jump back and forth over it. Also often affects hedges etc. infantry behaviour under any kind of shelling (even if in perfect cover, units decide to leave their cover to run around in the open and get killed like headless chicken) - this really is a major issue Squads should stay within say 3x Action Spots max (1x Action-Spot per Team), and not spread out half-dozen Action Spots when moving  Gameplay/LOS related
    A visual display/overlay of the LOS map in-game, so that you can tell which spots can be seen from this spot, unambiguously. Improved line of sight so the squads see through the woods exactly what the player can see from the same spot would be great to have. And improved line of fire so the squads can shoot at what they see even if they are further into the woods. Gameplay/new features & commands
    Road/formation following Fires Un-acquire command Ability to sync up commands between units. For example - Unit Y does not try to complete waypoint A, until Unit Z reaches waypoint B.  Off map support - "Repeat last mission" option for off map artillery and mortars. ROE-toggle for units: fire-at-will, return fire and hold fire 'checkbox' that could be ticked when placing any kind movement order wich would instruct the selected unit to NOT halt at the waypoint but rather move straight through to the next one Cellars, staircases Camouflage for vehicles, guns, men, fortifications Another speed mode [i.e. movement order], called mixed speed or jinking  via a colored line armor or soldiers can do it, should throw the AT gunners aim off nicely. Crouched run. Some way of moving faster than the crawl while keeping a relatively low profile.  A new target order exclusively for throwing grenades (while staying prone/in cover, if possible).  An easier way (requiring fewer clicks) to make soldiers stay prone but NOT withhold their fire.  for improved fortifications, esp. bunkers: shutters (might work similar to open up/button up orders for vehicles) Gameplay/general
    The assignment of soldiers to “split” units: The binocular-equipped squad leader should rather stay with the MG/gun group rather than with the rifle/assault group. Assault-orders: the gun group should be doing the overwatch. If only one unit sees incoming enemy fire, and that unit gets destroyed during the turn, then those enemy bullets/shells should not be visible to the player during turn playback. make tank commanders other people sticking out of vehicles harder to hit while vehicle are on the move,  The crew of a tank or halftrack should be able to operate any vehicle of the same kind (tank for tank crew and halftracks for halftrack crew) Any crew or squad unit should be able to drive a lorry. Smaller = more action spots: The square areas where to move units (men and technical equipment) could be smaller as a way to have more variation in where to position them Ability to use destroyed buildings as concealment for vehicles and guns while waiting for enemy vehicles and troops to come close enough. Other
    “Achievements”: For battles and campaigns a way to determine if you beat it or not a check mark or dot and for which side. Locking the cam to friendlies in first person view, as well as an automatic zoom (6x) for units having a binoc with just one key press. Maybe adding a special view for AFV gunners would be equally nice. This is to enable seeing of what you´d see in real life, without having a free flight cam or any the view modes above 1 to your avail in the game. To ease movement plotting in such a mode I´d add the same time sort of bitmap map layer (similar or equal to the one loadable in map editor) covering the real 3D terrain, but let you use any the view modes (1-9), inluding free flight./// Would be nice if such a mode could be enforced by a scenario maker, maybe with the addition of a bonus to victory points. Sound improvements fog of war improvements: no tracers option, no sound-pin-pointing of units, option to disable enemy icons completely, no fire impact effects (tiny fires, explosions when bullets hit trees, splashes of dirt when they hit the ground, etc) generated by the fire of unspotted units contacts shared via C2 are never updated ( http://community.battlefront.com/topic/126539-test-indicates-c2-contact-sharing-is-broken-when-enemy-moves/?tab=comments#comment-1739798 )  
×
×
  • Create New...