Brief overview of where CM is headed

[A Canadian Cat]

Hmmm, compared to other forums I've "inhabited", this is pretty mild.

Thankfully, personally I don't inhabit many other forums precisely because this kind of thing gets out of hand. In fact the other two mailing lists I read regularly (yeah mailing list - one has been around in one form or another for close to 25 years) would not tolerate any of this latest flare up.

 

Also quite forgiving.

It is that.

[Stagler]

I'm thinking, can anyone actually think of any overarching features that the game is lacking that would improve all existing games in one, to be rolled out in 4.0. It would have to be some kind of UI change or an additional engine change. We now have amphibious vehicles, so that wont be new to 4.0. The player lobby is one thing I am hoping for, but the only other one I can think of is non-LOS sensors on vehicles.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Stagler

[Vinnart]

I'm thinking, can anyone actually think of any overarching features that the game is lacking that would improve all existing games in one, to be rolled out in 4.0. It would have to be some kind of UI change or an additional engine change. We now have amphibious vehicles, so that wont be new to 4.0. The player lobby is one thing I am hoping for, but the only other one I can think of is non-LOS sensors on vehicles.

 

I think a FOLLOW command would certainly improve all existing games. Definitely on the top of my wish list. That, and cooperative multiplayer especially to improve the games real time genre popularity. The more I play real time the more I wish I was on a team helping to manage the force. Even the set up phase would go so much faster to get a real time game going. Such a feature would attract more the type of player into ARMA's team oriented attraction, and bring a new dimension of team work to all previous games. I would expect we will see Follow before that though.

[Battlefront.com]

Baneman, on 12 Jul 2015 - 6:49 PM, said:

Also quite forgiving.

It is that.

 

Very, however not infinitely. When someone deliberately tries to get banned, there's not much to do except grant the wish. Which, in this case, I just did.

 

I'm thinking, can anyone actually think of any overarching features that the game is lacking that would improve all existing games in one, to be rolled out in 4.0. It would have to be some kind of UI change or an additional engine change. We now have amphibious vehicles, so that wont be new to 4.0. The player lobby is one thing I am hoping for, but the only other one I can think of is non-LOS sensors on vehicles.

As I said at the outset, the feature list for v4.0 is not firmed up and won't be for some time. But it is a looooooooong list because there are always more things that could be done than can be.

 

I think a FOLLOW command would certainly improve all existing games. Definitely on the top of my wish list. That, and cooperative multiplayer especially to improve the games real time genre popularity. The more I play real time the more I wish I was on a team helping to manage the force. Even the set up phase would go so much faster to get a real time game going. Such a feature would attract more the type of player into ARMA's team oriented attraction, and bring a new dimension of team work to all previous games. I would expect we will see Follow before that though.

I would love to have CoOp play in CM, but for CMx2 I don't think it will ever happen. Not unless we get a military contract. The cost of putting in such a feature relative to the payback and opportunity cost is just too high. Sadly.

Steve

[kevinkin]

If you mean back to CMSF I am not sure what the code will allow. I would think a QB system incorporating the many user suggestions might be readily implemented across existing titles.

Kevin

[Ithikial_AU]

BF have already stated in the past that the CMx2 engine has come so far since it's early days with CMSF, that any update would likely be a whole new product. The amount of work required is far more than a usual 'upgrade,' it would be it's own base game. Personally I'm still holding out hope that CMSF is one day rolled into CMBS so we have nice 'modern era sandbox' to play with. Would be great for creating fictional scenarios and club based campaigns.

[Baneman]

I think a FOLLOW command would certainly improve all existing games. Definitely on the top of my wish list. ...

 

Although, when the Bulge game comes out, you're supposed to have traffic-jams !

[rocketman]

Although, when the Bulge game comes out, you're supposed to have traffic-jams !

And you will get victory points for getting bogged down 

[umlaut]

Although, when the Bulge game comes out, you're supposed to have traffic-jams !

Yep. I have it from reliable sources that several of the missions in the german campaign will be with german forces only: the mission will be to get your forces across the map and into the exit zone - before the time runs out

;-)

Edited July 13, 2015 by umlaut

[womble]

I'm thinking, can anyone actually think of any overarching features that the game is lacking that would improve all existing games in one, to be rolled out in 4.0. It would have to be some kind of UI change or an additional engine change. We now have amphibious vehicles, so that wont be new to 4.0. The player lobby is one thing I am hoping for, but the only other one I can think of is non-LOS sensors on vehicles.

 

 

• Make the branching in AI orders have more conditions, make it non-binary.
• Similar in Campaigns, plus simple dialog-based choices so the designer doesn't have to insert a scenario for every choice they want to accommodate.
• Updating all the UI elements to C21st standards (scalable, configurable, incorporating standard UI conventions like scroll bars and in-place editing).
• Camera height going to actual eye levels of selected elements.
• Allow Broken troops to rout off the map edge in all cases if they're still running away and they hit it; if they leave from within a setup or exit zone, they're not counted as casualties;if they leave off an unmarked edge, they're MIA.
• Improve the TacAI so it's more aware of what's around it and can react to that knowledge. Including more surrendering when cut off, surrounded and about to be wiped out. Especially allow it to abort/reschedule script movement orders when it's being forced to run a gauntlet.
• Tagging for units and AI order groups so that groups get orders appropriate to the kind of assets which will be assigned.
• Make screen edge scrolling toggleable.
• Being able to Tab to a waypoint.

Think they'd improve all the families.

[JonS]

I think a FOLLOW command would certainly improve all existing games.

What's the distance between following elements? Is it a simple MOVE command, or more like HUNT?

 

These aren't just rhetorical questions, and the answer (singular) must be applicable in all circumstances.

[Mace]

the game engine was deliberately designed to have no variability in soldier height.

 

OMFG?! Seriously?  No modelling of human height variability?!  Please fix or do somefink!!!!

[PhilM]

What's the distance between following elements? Is it a simple MOVE command, or more like HUNT?

 

These aren't just rhetorical questions, and the answer (singular) must be applicable in all circumstances.

 

How about ....

 

You pick the unit you want to lead, and assign its movement method and waypoints as the "pattern";

 

You pick the second unit, either from its current position OR give it a waypoint at the distance behind the lead unit you want to maintain, then, with either the unit OR that waypoint active, click "follow" as an action for that waypoint, and you then are able to choose the (first) unit you want it to follow;

 

Same set of waypoints and movement types as the lead unit are allocated to the following unit(s);

 

Having been tagged as a lead unit, that waits (sort of a "passenger" command) until any / all "linked' units are at the waypoints from which their "follow" link was made;

 

Once all followers are in place at their follow waypoints (or immediately, if you get them all in the right place first of all) the lead unit sets off, with all having the movement type you gave the first unit, and the gap distances are as you set them via the followers' waypoints that were set as the "follow" activate start point.

 

You can then choose what gaps and movement type(s) you want for the column ... with the actions, gaps and movement types stored with units' waypoints?

 

(All a bit hypothetical for me, as I find myself only rarely wanting to do this kind of thing, and am happy to set a string of "manual" waypoints, with pauses etc to (mostly!) avoid traffic jams.)

 

More use to me would be the ability to call up the pathfinding routine for a route, from a specified waypoint for a unit to the end of its current path, and show the route that it will *actually* follow when you click go. This will hopefully end discovering that, to avoid chipping the zimmeritt on his nice new Panther, the driver refuses to squeeze between that tree and the house, where it *would* fit even if having a slightly detrimental effect on the tree, and instead pops out into the road in full view of the lurking Firefly ...

 

The waypoints so calculated could either be accepted if OK, or abandoned and a new route chosen if that one would take you somewhere you don't intend to go.

[Vinnart]

What's the distance between following elements? Is it a simple MOVE command, or more like HUNT?

 

These aren't just rhetorical questions, and the answer (singular) must be applicable in all circumstances.

 

I am sure BF has their own ideas how they would implement it, but here is a mock up with details and illustrations of a possible concept for it that I came up with. For all I know we both have similar conclusions. If anyone wants to discuss a Follow command specificly please take it up in this thread:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111963-improving-logistics-%E2%80%93-follow-me/?hl=%2Bimproving+%2Blogistics

 

In summery the following unit copies the lead units movement path, and movement order type. The distance is set incrementally by the player similar to how PAUSE command works.

 

EDIT:

I did ad two other possibilities to that thread that just came to me. One is the simplest of using one action square space beween units with no toggle of incements as a default setting. The other possibiltity is a toggle of three distance settings the player can choose; Close, medium, and far.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Vinnart

[Wiggum15]

 

• Make the branching in AI orders have more conditions, make it non-binary.
• Similar in Campaigns, plus simple dialog-based choices so the designer doesn't have to insert a scenario for every choice they want to accommodate.
• Updating all the UI elements to C21st standards (scalable, configurable, incorporating standard UI conventions like scroll bars and in-place editing).
• Camera height going to actual eye levels of selected elements.
• Allow Broken troops to rout off the map edge in all cases if they're still running away and they hit it; if they leave from within a setup or exit zone, they're not counted as casualties;if they leave off an unmarked edge, they're MIA.
• Improve the TacAI so it's more aware of what's around it and can react to that knowledge. Including more surrendering when cut off, surrounded and about to be wiped out. Especially allow it to abort/reschedule script movement orders when it's being forced to run a gauntlet.
• Tagging for units and AI order groups so that groups get orders appropriate to the kind of assets which will be assigned.
• Make screen edge scrolling toggleable.
• Being able to Tab to a waypoint.

Think they'd improve all the families.

 

 

Thats a good list and some of this has been pointed out numerous times since CMBN release.

I hope BFC listens and will include TacAI / routing / surrendering improvements that allow a more realistic gameplay in the bulge game.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Wiggum15

[snarre]

sou you get banned and now maked new profile right a way . nice job man.

[Aurelius]

sou you get banned and now maked new profile right a way . nice job man.

Shhh, you'll blow his cover 

[folkie]

anybody have an over/under on how long it takes steve to figure out notlacroix is lacroix?

[Aurelius]

With such cover- never 

[James Crowley]

 

• Make the branching in AI orders have more conditions, make it non-binary.
• Similar in Campaigns, plus simple dialog-based choices so the designer doesn't have to insert a scenario for every choice they want to accommodate.
• Updating all the UI elements to C21st standards (scalable, configurable, incorporating standard UI conventions like scroll bars and in-place editing).
• Camera height going to actual eye levels of selected elements.
• Allow Broken troops to rout off the map edge in all cases if they're still running away and they hit it; if they leave from within a setup or exit zone, they're not counted as casualties;if they leave off an unmarked edge, they're MIA.
• Improve the TacAI so it's more aware of what's around it and can react to that knowledge. Including more surrendering when cut off, surrounded and about to be wiped out. Especially allow it to abort/reschedule script movement orders when it's being forced to run a gauntlet.
• Tagging for units and AI order groups so that groups get orders appropriate to the kind of assets which will be assigned.
• Make screen edge scrolling toggleable.
• Being able to Tab to a waypoint.

Think they'd improve all the families.

 

 

A very good, and appropriate list.

 

To which I would add:

 

• better representation of close assault on vehicles. The current one, whereby an AFV can be 'assaulted' from up to 30m away - sometimes with an obstacle to movement in the way - is far too generic and allows something that happened on a vanishingly small scale to become almost commonplace. The real short range danger to AFV's were 'zooks, 'shrecks, fausts and Piats  not 'improvised' weapons. 
• better auto-selection of forces in Mix option, in QBs, particularly in the tiny and small categories.
• stopping the heavy 'clipping' that is still possible with AFVs. I know Steve has said this is very difficult but having, for instance, a tank drive 'through' another tank on a narrow bridge is a real immersion killer, IMO.
• Never going to happen. I know but I can still hope. Tighter C&C around out of command units. Ideally, no communication with them at all but, more likely, some limitation on command options.
• Less casualties, much more suppression effects on infantry under fire, particularly in heavy cover/buildings.

[Sublime]

this is all great but i wish RT would get some love before anything else..

[Wiggum15]

 

Less casualties, much more suppression effects on infantry under fire, particularly in heavy cover/buildings.

 

 

This !

Combined with:

• Allow Broken troops to rout off the map edge in all cases if they're still running away and they hit it; if they leave from within a setup or exit zone, they're not counted as casualties;if they leave off an unmarked edge, they're MIA.
• Improve the TacAI so it's more aware of what's around it and can react to that knowledge. Including more surrendering when cut off, surrounded and about to be wiped out. Especially allow it to abort/reschedule script movement orders when it's being forced to run a gauntlet.

This would finally improve CMx2 infantry and overall combat behavior which has been neglected since ages.

Will such improvements be in the Bulge game Steve ?

 

Really, i could not care less about new scenario packs, a few new models or texture ( and  i think there are many players who think like that).

What i care for are REAL gameplay improvements that enhance the way combat works in Cmx2 !

Edited July 13, 2015 by Wiggum15

[LukeFF]

Allow Broken troops to rout off the map edge in all cases if they're still running away and they hit it; if they leave from within a setup or exit zone, they're not counted as casualties;if they leave off an unmarked edge, they're MIA.

 

If BF thought routing was a good idea, they would have brought it back by now. Four titles without it since CMSF tells me they don't think it's worthwhile. 

[Wiggum15]

 

If BF thought routing was a good idea, they would have brought it back by now. Four titles without it since CMSF tells me they don't think it's worthwhile. 

 

 

Then can you tells us why you think BFC should think its not worthwhile ?

Currently, infantry combat is in a bad condition and full of immersion breakers like cluster ****ing beaten up enemy units at map edges waiting for you to annihilate them.

[womble]

 

If BF thought routing was a good idea, they would have brought it back by now. Four titles without it since CMSF tells me they don't think it's worthwhile. 

 

Routing in CMSF was significantly different to the routing I described. It was much more like the Surrender mechanic currently in place; the units didn't have to get anywhere near a map edge. Routing off the table has been a staple of figures gaming for a century, and it makes perfect sense as an abstraction for fleeing troops when the map has limits to its extent.

 

One of the most ridiculous things in CM is the mandatory execution of Broken enemy who for some reason would prefer to run backwards and forwards in an open field in front of a tank with infantry support surrounding them on 3 sides, with the third side being a map edge, refusing to surrender because I'm not prepared to advance into grenade range, and forcing me to gun them down to prevent them rallying for a moment and shooting a couple of rounds at my bypassing forces. If we're at the end of the feature list, something like this could well be worth addressing. Maybe the game should allow Paniced or Shaken troops to surrender, because it seems that at the moment they can't, and once in those states they are easily returned to them by the very stimuli which should cause surrender. That would result in fewer "fields of broken troops at the map edge".