Totally amazing game CMFI!

[GreenAsJade]

Of course.

It was like that in CMx1

GaJ

[Vanir Ausf B]

The main difficulty with AA is that you will need to add new elements to the game. Ditto with fire, but the changes fire would require are probably simpler: some new graphics, new properties for terrain and buildings, proper AI reactions to being burninated etc.

With fire you also have to deal with different ground conditions, which can even change during the course of a game.

But I'm not sure that making two lists of issues to deal with and seeing which is longer paints an accurate picture. For example, I would be shocked if the TacAI changes needed for fire were not much more complicated than for AA. WW2 AA weapons are functionally identical to weapons already in the game except that they can elevate far enough to engage aircraft, and there are no persistent effects for the pixeltruppen to concern themselves with. With fire you don't only have to tell the TacAI how to deal with a persistent and possibly spreading danger, you also have to teach it how and when to utilize flame throwers. Shooting a flame thrower into a headwind while defending in a wheat field may be counter-productive

I don't think it's debatable that AA weapons were more prevalent on European battlefields than flame throwers. At the CM scale I think nearly all of them were dual purpose weapons that could and often did engage ground targets.

[Broadsword56]

This might be violating BFC's principles against "design for effect," but how about a compromise on AA that would...

1. Give us the units on map, so they can play a direct fire role.

2. Omit any actual effect on aircraft, or abstract it so it can have a slight effect ( for example, presence of an AA unit with ammo that fires skyward "suppresses" air units to a certain extent and screws up their chances of firing/hitting.

[sburke]

This might be violating BFC's principles against "design for effect," but how about a compromise on AA that would...

1. Give us the units on map, so they can play a direct fire role.

2. Omit any actual effect on aircraft, or abstract it so it can have a slight effect ( for example, presence of an AA unit with ammo that fires skyward "suppresses" air units to a certain extent and screws up their chances of firing/hitting.

Heck I'd be happy if the 20mm were included but still had no AA effect at all. Too many instances of them in ground roles in MG to totally ignore them, but their overall impact as an AA weapon against anything other than supply and para drops and glider landings (which we can't duplicate) is nowhere near as important.

[Battlefront.com]

Concur with the statement having "realistic effects" is important - we like that. But I disagree with the part about "decent visuals" are required. Remember most of us were STILL playing CMx1 LONG after is visuals and 3 man squads were stone age in the computer world.

Most of who? A fair number of the people here on this Forum, perhaps. But we also have a fair number who have never played CMx1 of any flavor. Plus, it doesn't matter anyway even if 100% of you are still playing CMx1 because we stopped making CMx1 back in 2004.

The truth is CMx1's handling of flamethrowers was quick and dirty even by 1999 standards when we put it in. We are not going to downgrade the quality of CMx2 and suffer through MASSIVE complaint and ridicule from our existing and potential audience. Straight out, flat out not going to happen.

When FTs and Crocs are introduced will hits on the fuel tank result in a violent explosion taking out the FT dude, nearby troops and starting a fire?

I woud hope so. Certainly is possible.

But I'm not sure that making two lists of issues to deal with and seeing which is longer paints an accurate picture.

Correct. There is no real value to comparing the two together, though for sure AAA is easier to do than flame weapons. If for no other reason than the graphics. Well, unless we're talking about showing aircraft in 3D. In that case flamethrower stuff becomes ridiculously easy by comparison. Which is why we aren't even considering the possibility of having aircraft show despite the fact it would be visually sweet if we did and did it right. The latter being the primary problem.

This might be violating BFC's principles against "design for effect," but how about a compromise on AA that would...

1. Give us the units on map, so they can play a direct fire role.

2. Omit any actual effect on aircraft, or abstract it so it can have a slight effect ( for example, presence of an AA unit with ammo that fires skyward "suppresses" air units to a certain extent and screws up their chances of firing/hitting.

That is most likely going to be what you guys get. Problem is #2 is still a significant chunk of work. Not jaw dropping difficult, just enough to put it behind other things like moveable waypoints, nested menus, ingame hotkeys, etc.

Steve

[Baneman]

...

That is most likely going to be what you guys get. Problem is #2 is still a significant chunk of work. Not jaw dropping difficult, just enough to put it behind other things like moveable waypoints, nested menus, ingame hotkeys, etc.

Steve

Aha ! So, ( going for the taking-things-out-of-context prize ) does that mean that with the appearance of moveable waypoints, nested menus and ingame hotkeys in FI and 2.0, AAA is Coming-Soon ?

[Rocky Balboa]

I would think that AA would be easier to implement than fire, and tactically more important, IMO.

Sure adding AAA would be nice but I wouldn't put it as a high priority for a WW2 title, not over fire in any case. The number of games I've played with any kind of air support I can probably count on 1 hand. So I really can't say I have noticed their omission. On the other hand, the lack of fire effects on the battlefield to me are quite noticeable.

There are certain operations where the lack of AAA will be more noticeable namely the breakout of the British 30th XXX at the beginning of Market Garden. Quite a bit of CAS was used during that operation but with diminished effect due to German AAA.

With all this said for a modern day title like CMSF2? I would say AAA is more important than fire to implement because the use of CAS has greatly increased in modern times as well as the need to have more effective ways of countering it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The number of games I've played with any kind of air support I can probably count on 1 hand. So I really can't say I have noticed their omission.

In that case I would guess all of them begin with the words Combat Mission

[Shadrach]

Just gonna jump in there and say I am so far very happy with CMFI; love the Italians and their "wonky" equipment, the R35s are just lovely. It's not often you see them in a war game, last time I had a chance to drive one of those was in the Carpathan Crosses mod for Red Orchestra, great fun

I loved CMBN but the bocage fighting got stale after a while, was longing for open landscapes and more tactically interesting scenarios.

Soooo.... East Front next then?

[Dadekster88]

Gotta say from an infantryman perspective that AA freaked me out more than fire. Fire can't jump across at you from stupid ranges and turn you into so much hamburger in less than a second. Fire was kinda nice sometimes, depending on what you had to do.

[newlife]

My favorite Flamethrower tactic in CMBO was waiting for the attacker to take the first building in a town and then lighting it on fire. Break the first squad and deny them cover they were counting on all in one quick stroke!

[newlife]

Maybe not very common IRL, but in the game parts of the map on fire works also in defense.

All depends upon which way the wind is blowing...

[Mord]

I remember firing a zook in a small building one time, playing CMBO and it started a fire. The zook team and I think a squad had to vacate in a hurry. Of course their was a serious firefight going on outside, so not the place to be. One of those Holy CRAP, THAT was cool, moments.

Mord.

[Rocky Balboa]

Can't imagine playing East Front without seeing burning stepps and maybe even a molotov or two?

[Sublime]

Id have to agree the way I was envisioning adding AAA without it seeming ridiculous or asking for a whole new dimension to the game was basically similiar to CMx1. The AAA guns would sometimes when air support was on map start shooting rounds in the air - tracking an invisible (to you) target. Sometimes this would drive off the air support (or perhaps it was shot down - doesnt matter to you) Perhaps sometimes this may affect the length of an attack run or interrupt one.

The AAA weapons prescence would be important to - simply as another tactical weapon for the Germans that is great for halftrack cleansing =)

[Broadsword56]

Yes, having those 20mm flak units would doing direct fire would add significantly to German tactical firepower in the game, and probably take some getting used to for Allied players. But if we're eventually going to get canister capability in the rest of the CM 2.0 families for Allied M5 Stuarts and M8 AGs, then maybe the German flak units would be a good counterbalance.

[Erwin]

Agreed, it has little to do with aircraft... I just loved the AA vehicles and their use as anti-inf and AT weapons.

[Rocky Balboa]

Yes, having those 20mm flak units would doing direct fire would add significantly to German tactical firepower in the game, and probably take some getting used to for Allied players. But if we're eventually going to get canister capability in the rest of the CM 2.0 families for Allied M5 Stuarts and M8 AGs, then maybe the German flak units would be a good counterbalance.

Don't really see how BF can leave the flak units out of the MG module as these units were pretty much present at every bridge and were in some cases the first resitance encountered by the airborne troops ....