CM: Shock Force 2 Wish List

[Buzz]

"target"/"target light"/"target heavy" toggle would add a nice flexibility.

Xm25 looks really cool & effective but I don't think BF has included experimental weapons before in their games.

[Buzz]

Found it located in PART TWO - "CM: Shock Force 2" Wish List replies.

"Chemical Weapons capability and NBC suits."

[Whiterider]

"Chemical Weapons capability and NBC suits."

Another interesting idea

[Whiterider]

A new order: Watch around. The spotter will turn his face gradually in intervals of 90 degrees, he must be quiet. There are four possibilities: 90, 180, 270 and 360 degrees. In one minute time the unit will turn his face to a different angle for a few seconds (30 seconds for a 90 degrees spotting; 20 seconds for 180; 15 seconds for 270 and 12 seconds for 360). A spotter from a vehicle will be able to watch around with or without vehicle movement. If the unit detects an enemy it will automatically stop turning its face.

On another note we should recover the "move to contact" order. It´s extremely useful for patrols. Defensive units in CM tend to be very stathic and have a predictable behaviour, these orders will make more challenging (and realistic) any offensive.

[Erwin]

I think one has to accept a level of abstraction. Pretty soon we'll want to simulate the guy's hayfever and whether he sneezes before his comrade can get him a tissue.

[Vark]

I've already suggested disembarking as a waypoint, how about infantry paths originating from the disembarkation point? At the moment, you can plot infantry moves and vehicle moves, but the infantry start from the vehicles present position, which can be confusing. IIRC, in CM 1 APC's could drop infantry and then move, if you gave the infantry orders first, in CM2 you cannot represent standard SOP's without timing debussing till the end of the move.

[Whiterider]

Possibility to share ammunition between allied units. Example: Use of "acquire" when two infantry units are close enough.

[Erwin]

Yes, an improved ACQUIRE feature has been asked for over and over again.

[Buzz]

"Watch around" would seem be a very detailed instruction. Why was the "move to contact" dropped? Infantry paths originating from the disembarkation point would be useful. Improved ACQUIRE would be useful for sure.

[Erwin]

+1 for bringing back MOVE TO CONTACT. HUNT is too tiring, and MOVE can only be used when there is complete safety in the move.

(Why on earth were so many useful CM1 commands and features removed and now we're fighting to have them back at glacial speed?)

[Whiterider]

(Why on earth were so many useful CM1 commands and features removed and now we're fighting to have them back at glacial speed?)

That´s something I can´t understand :mad:

[Whiterider]

A kind of indication when a vehicle can´t crooss narrow streets. Sometimes it looks the vehicle is able to do it, but later you notice the tank start to make strange and risky movements:( Then it´s too late...

[Whiterider]

It would be cool to see planes and helicopters attacking :cool:

[Vark]

Would it be possible for vehicles to be given primary, secondary, tertiary, targets, so that working your way from the outside in, or vice versa, could be simulated? This way an M1 might be given the T-90 as primary, BMP as secondary and some dismounts as tertiary. The AI might overrule, depending on the developing situation (the M1 spots a second T-90 and puts the BMP as the tertiary target, the dismounts drop to fourth).

[agusto]

Would it be possible for vehicles to be given primary, secondary, tertiary, targets, so that working your way from the outside in, or vice versa, could be simulated? This way an M1 might be given the T-90 as primary, BMP as secondary and some dismounts as tertiary. The AI might overrule, depending on the developing situation (the M1 spots a second T-90 and puts the BMP as the tertiary target, the dismounts drop to fourth).

Yeah, but not as specific target commands. It would be better to be able to define general SOPs, like for an M1 tank:

primary target = all tanks

secondary = all IFVs

tertiary = all that doesnt fit the two above categorys

[Vark]

Why not specific commands? IIRC, SOP when being attacked by superior RED forces, who have deployed from column to line is to work from the end vehicles inwards and the middle vehicle outwards. SOP's, as in TacOps, have been ruled out by BF, which is a shame, because they gave that game an added dimension, it also allowed concentration on the mission, not stopping to micro-manage units, which is a CM weakness.

[Whiterider]

To stop moving in a waypoint to face location is something you can do just pressing face order in any waypoint. Being sincere it´s a pause (5 seconds)+face order.

However, I cannot face a fixed area (ie towards north looking east or even towards north looking south) between two waypoints while moving. IMO when a face order is chosen in a waypoint the soldiers should look to that direction until another face order is received in the next waypoint. There are plenty of situations where it can be applied: You know there is someone in a house located at the east and need to approach to the door (lateral movement), etc.

Troops inside vehicles can face a fixed area at any speed (like "watch around"). While infantry units are only allowed to normal movement or hunt (perhaps a bit slower than normal or hunt order).

[Buzz]

It would be cool to see planes and helicopters attacking :cool:

Yes it would but I doubt this will happen in CMSF-2. Discussion before indicate graphic resources & tactical probability were considerations ... but yes it would be very cool.

[Peter Cairns]

Just some thoughts on UAV's i Shockforce 2.

I think there should be two broad types simulated, Man portable and higher level.

The small launched ones would be acquired like weapons from a vehicle or issues with the TOE and would work like a weapon in that they would be targeted on a specific point like light fire.

Once they reached that point they would act a bit like a spy, giving you a view of that area and a link to the firing unit. like spies depending on the type they would have limits and be vulnerable to close units. so you wouldn't see everything and you could lose them.

The higher level ones like Reapers etc. would work like an Air mission with point or area targets and the possible choice of Observer or Strike. Unlike a tactical unit deployed UAV sighting from these would be available to a wider number of units. You would effectively have three support options; Artillery, Air and UAV.

I think doing it this way would make including UAV's easier to do in game design terms and would be easy for players familiar to the game mechanics to get the hang of.

What do people think?

Peter.

[Buzz]

Sounds great Peter. UAVs two broad types simulated, Man portable and higher level would be a sweet addition to CMSF-2.

[Whiterider]

Just some thoughts on UAV's i Shockforce 2.

What do people think?

Peter.

Totally agree.

[Whiterider]

1-A realistic limit to the ammunition an unit can acquire from vehicles, based on weight a number of soldiers are able to carry. A heavy emcumbered unit can´t move fast and carry like a mule at the same time.

2-Possibility to stock ammnunition in any place outside vehicles. So, units can acquire or drop ammnunition in any place. Also an option to stock ammnunition in any place (ie buildings) in the scenario editor.

3-A chat system for PBEM and Hotseat games.

[Erwin]

"1-A realistic limit to the ammunition an unit can acquire from vehicles, based on weight a number of soldiers are able to carry. A heavy emcumbered unit can´t move fast and carry like a mule at the same time.

2-Possibility to stock ammnunition in any place outside vehicles. So, units can acquire or drop ammnunition in any place. Also an option to stock ammnunition in any place (ie buildings) in the scenario editor."

+1 and for all CM2 titles.

[c3k]

Number 1 is in the game, is it not? Do you think the current ammo limits are too generous or too tight? Do you think the current way laden troops are fatigued more easily than light troops is too lenient or too difficult?

[Whiterider]

Number 1 is in the game, is it not? Do you think the current ammo limits are too generous or too tight? Do you think the current way laden troops are fatigued more easily than light troops is too lenient or too difficult?

The current ammo limits are too generous. Example: A HQ unit (Commander+soldier-radio operator) has the following initial ammo:

.30 cal M2 83

.30 cal M1 car 60

.45 cal 17

Grenades 4

They got from a jeep +400 (.30 M2) +200 (.30 M1) +80 (.45). Giving a total of 483/260/97. The same unit went to another jeep and got the maximun ammo available in the vehicle, and so on.

In other words, the units have no limits to get the ammunition they can use. Furthermore they can move like any other unit at fast speed. Not to mention they can´t share ammo with other troops...

A box symbol would be a good indication to know there´s ammunition in any location of the map. A full loaded unit should move slower than others and if fast move is required they must drop the "box" on the ground. Also a limit to the weight or ammo an unit can carry is neccesary.