Ideas that could make CM titles any better!

[John Doe]

Also be able to set formations. 

Honestly I don't  know if I want see formations in the game. It would over complicate things. A better system is one of Total War because the one the only formation I need is to seen pixel men advancing in lines not columns.

[SlowMotion]

 

Scenario Editor:

• Allow copy-pasting of map sections into new maps, with a rotate feature.
• Allow copy-pasting of buildings and flavor objects in 3D Preview mode, along with free rotation and a dropdown menu to select new building/FO items while in 3D Preview.
• Allow 3 force mixes in one scenario file to facilitate different force mixes for Allied vs. AI, Axis vs. AI, and H2H. That way, you could say, give the AI a much stronger force than in the H2H setup.

There are more things, of course, but these are currently at the top of my list.

Agree on all these

[lordhedgwich]

I think if you just streamlined all the titles into one .exe it would be a big boost.I am currently play FI BN RT and BS about 15 games and i have to load the exe every time i want to load a different multiplayer game. even streamlining modern and ww2 ere into theyre own exe would be welcome.

Other than that i would like a raking fire feature and to be able to fire into concealment. just because you cant see them doesnt mean they didnt shoot at area targets. big example of this is crops like grain, wheat doesnt stop bullets nor do bushes. i cant count the numbr of times i couldnt do anything about a guy shooting at me because of some LoS caused by concealment. Real world we would "cut" that crop down.

I dont know if it is a feature tbh but burning fields and wooded areas with flamthrowers to defoliate and flush out troops would be cool too.

Me and two buddies have been PBEMing in every CMx2 except CMA and we actually were talking about how great it would be if you could launch all from one exe. though it will never happen 

[John Kettler]

Would love to see noise discipline modeled. It is quite annoying in a number of ways to be playing a game in which the RL troops would do everything to be quiet, yet have to hear loud talking and orders going on. This would ideally tie back into spotting likelihood. Quality of noise discipline could well be tied to training, morale, fatigue, etc., with some sort of random event modeling of cough, sneeze, tripping and such. Naturally this needs flares, too!  Noise discipline would be especially important if anyone decided to model patrols or raids, especially night or in bad weather. Would very much like to see arm signals introduced generally in the game, though I know this would be a lot of work on the animation front.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Would love to see noise discipline modeled. It is quite annoying in a number of ways to be playing a game in which the RL troops would do everything to be quiet, yet have to hear loud talking and orders going on.

Heartily agree. Few things in the game are both more annoying and more ironic than to hear the sergeant in a loud voice call out, "Let's have some noise discipline!"

Michael

[JonS]

Then turn the volume down on your speakers.

That, or replace the voice wav files with birdsong or crickets.

[Kinophile]

*** Move From .BMP to JPEG/PNG! ***

This would cut the entire game file size down by about 25%,if not more, and drastically speed it up. 

It would also allow much better textures and graphics. 

 

 

 

[Kinophile]

Me and two buddies have been PBEMing in every CMx2 except CMA and we actually were talking about how great it would be if you could launch all from one exe. though it will never happen 

This is actually quite doable by the mid community alone -  you're basically talking about a launcher. I've seen several mods for other games that built quite effective and slick launchers. 

 

 

[Kinophile]

I posted a long time ago that I'd like the option to have custom formations that you can save and choose to use in any battle, the points being deducted from the overall total available.  For extra points it'd be great to be able to save any custom formation's status at the end of a fight to carry it over to the next one (after a few replacements of course and with perhaps the option of a time stamp restriction so you can only use it in battles that occur after the fight before).

Custom. OoB would be huge. It's a complete waste of time to build a new order each game,  especially when replaying the same map. 

I don't suppose anyone knows if the original OoB is a text or excel file,  or something similarly straightforward?

[Sequoia]

That, or replace the voice wav files with birdsong or crickets.

That's actually not a bad idea. I volunteer to do a mod if there's real interest. Any one have other suggestions for some sound/phrase replace that wav besides birds/crickets?

[JonS]

Custom. OoB would be huge.

It's possible to do this now, but there are a couple of embuggerances with it.

 

Method:

1) go into editor

2) create custom OoB

3) save as a scenario (don't worry about the map or AI or objectives or anything, all you want are the forces), naming it the kind of formation it is - "SS PzGren Coy w/ Pz.V Pn, 1500pts", or sumfink. Save a bunch of different ones if you want.

4) opponent also does steps 1) - 3)

5) you and opponent select specific custom OoB files you want to use

6) both files are sent to a trusted party. Could be you, your opponent, or someone you both trust

7) the person opens the editor, and opens one of the OoB files

8) the 'other' OoB files is imported into the open one, using the campaign creation functionality

9) the merged OoB file is saved as a third file

10) that third file is then imported into the battle map you're going to play on, and the forces moved into the respective setup areas (which is why it's probably better to have a third person do this for you). then saved as a scenario.

11) The scenario file is sent to one of the players, who starts it as a scenario, and play proceeds normally from there.

 

The main embuggerance, apart from all the to-ing and fro-ing of files, is that the editor does NOT include the points values of units. If you don't care that doesn't matter, but if you're playing to a strict points limit then you have to create the OoB in the QB part of the game, write  list of all the units and their characteristics (right down to that last green unfit low ammo sniper bought to use up the last 5 points), then re-create that exactly in the editor. And hope/trust that your opponent has been as diligent and honest as you. That said, steps 1) - 4) can be done out of cycle and a-synchronously, so the set up for a new QB only really starts at 5).

Edited February 16, 2016 by JonS

[Kinophile]

Oh man. Torture. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The custom OOB would be nice.  I usually wind up playing with the same sort of forces in QB over and over again, and it's tiresome to have to make the same tweaks.

I have stated it before, and am doing it again now obviously but:

There really needs to be a way to simulate one side's air superiority or lack of it.  Fixed wing interception is as much a part of air defense as local ADA weapons, and it's a bit odd to see forces with historically weak air forces able to bomb forces with historically near total air dominance with impunity.  Being able to add that extra level of friction to air strikes makes it more interesting, and historical (and allows for the historically small chance of German CAS showing up, without making an a historical Stuka happy hunting day). 

[Fenris]

It's possible to do this now, but there are a couple of embuggerances with it.

 

 

You don't say  

[JonS]

It seems worse than it really is because I broke it down to a fairly granular level, because there's a couple of steps there that might trip you up (they did trip me up), but once you know the sequence it's really not that awkward. And steps 1-3 only need be done once for each specific OoB, then can be reused as often as you like (which is the whole point, of course).

[Seedorf81]

Am I the only one that immediately thought of...

Schwimmwagen!?

 

And something between "MOVE" and "QUICK" that could replace "FAST". (The latter I never use because of the hardly noticeable difference with "QUICK" except that the fatigue sets in much sooner.)

Soldiers that "MOVE" seem to behave as they are miles away from the front. AFAIK in real life soldiers that are near, or nearing, the front tend to change their attitude from say "almost carefree" to "bloody serious and very alert", while their pace slows just a little. Not to be compared with the current "HUNT" command, because that is only usable when the enemy is really close, and it wears the men down very quickly.

IMHO the tempo of "MOVE" could be sped up a bit and then called "March" (Didn't CM1 used to call this "MOVE TO CONTACT"?). It would get your pixeltroops a little faster from one place to another, which would be very useful with the ever growing size of the maps.   

 

So you would get:

MARCH:No enemy in sight, not very alert, moving along in a pretty pace without getting tired soon.

MOVE: Alert, still moving with a reasonable pace, but expecting trouble..

QUICK: The way it is now.

HUNT: The way it is now.

 

 

 

 

[lordhedgwich]

Would love to see noise discipline modeled. It is quite annoying in a number of ways to be playing a game in which the RL troops would do everything to be quiet, yet have to hear loud talking and orders going on. This would ideally tie back into spotting likelihood. Quality of noise discipline could well be tied to training, morale, fatigue, etc., with some sort of random event modeling of cough, sneeze, tripping and such. Naturally this needs flares, too!  Noise discipline would be especially important if anyone decided to model patrols or raids, especially night or in bad weather. Would very much like to see arm signals introduced generally in the game, though I know this would be a lot of work on the animation front.

Regards,

John Kettler

Idk I wish there was some more talking in game its immersive.. 

[General Jack Ripper]

Heartily agree. Few things in the game are both more annoying and more ironic than to hear the sergeant in a loud voice call out, "Let's have some noise discipline!"

Michael

"Keep an eye on those flanks!"

"Did you see that?"

"Secure the flanks!"

"Quiet down!"

"Let's get some noise discipline here!"

"Secure the flanks!"

[Warts 'n' all]

Quite often I find myself talking back to my troops.... So... 

"Did you see that?" gets answered with.. "No, I didn't, that's the f....ing problem."

"Let's get some noise discipline here!" gets... "OK why don't you shut the f... up, and let me get on with the game."

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I think it usually goes

*hand signal*

-recipient is not paying attention-

*frantic hand signal*

-recipient has found a random thing to look at-

*rock is thrown at recipient, angry gesture*

-blank look-

*VERY angry hand signal, followed by a knifehand*

-blanker look-

*hand signaler storms over to recipient, very unkind statements made, recipient wacked on helmet.  More knifehand*

[iluvmy88]

Create a menu on HQ type units to set theyre squads AI. example: HQ unit can set SOP for ROF of MG's and rifles, initial engagment range, what do to when they receive fire, react to indirect fire ext. 

Also allow HQ to Designate a "suppressive fire" area much like the mortar tool. troops would fire at every contact in that area at a set rate of fire rather than at spots

Better concealment numbers for snipers, they seem to get spotted just as easy as any inf even though snipers are trained in concealment n any terrain.

If a ROF was implemented as above, modeling of barrel heat for MG's.

Adjust AI movment Techniques. running around like a pack of ducks is unrealistic even just 3 men wouldnt do that. Squad formations are important and make platoon formation fall apart many times because everyone wants to take the same route.

[Michael Emrys]

Better concealment numbers for snipers, they seem to get spotted just as easy as any inf even though snipers are trained in concealment n any terrain.

I don't understand why you are having this problem unless you are letting enemy troops get way too close or are putting them in terrain that does not allow sufficient concealment. I try to put mine in heavy forest terrain whenever possible, or lacking that behind a hedge or some shrubs. When checking on possible locations, I use the targeting tool to ensure that they can see out, but just barely. That seems to make sure that the enemy has a hard time seeing in. My snipers don't get spotted even when the enemy might be only 200 meters away, which is close work for a sniper.

Michael

[iluvmy88]

I don't understand why you are having this problem unless you are letting enemy troops get way too close or are putting them in terrain that does not allow sufficient concealment. I try to put mine in heavy forest terrain whenever possible, or lacking that behind a hedge or some shrubs. When checking on possible locations, I use the targeting tool to ensure that they can see out, but just barely. That seems to make sure that the enemy has a hard time seeing in. My snipers don't get spotted even when the enemy might be only 200 meters away, which is close work for a sniper.

Michael

Which is fine when they are just observing, but when they are actually shooting they get spotted on the first shot most times. it would take a few shot to get a bead on where a sniper is esp in forested areas. this make me just use them as scouts which makes it pointless to have them most times. i have had a little sucess with them but never in a supressive role as they are intented. 

and example would be, a sniper knows not to get close to a window when he fires, he creates a stable nest well into the building, a green soldier would think much the wiser and get himself spotted.

Edited March 4, 2016 by iluvmy88

[Michael Emrys]

Adjust AI movment Techniques. running around like a pack of ducks is unrealistic even just 3 men wouldnt do that. Squad formations are important and make platoon formation fall apart many times because everyone wants to take the same route.

I assume by "like a pack of ducks" you mean falling in trail. I only see this when using the Move command, which I don't do if my squad/team is within range of enemy units unless there is some substantial terrain blocking LOS. And even then, if I give them short movement legs, they break out of trail and don't go back into it until they have covered some ground. Mostly I break squads down into teams and give them Quick commands. Doing that, they move in a pretty realistic manner.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Which is fine when they are just observing, but when they are actually shooting they get spotted on the first shot most times.

That strikes me as really strange. How and where are you setting them up? Are you letting them pick their own shots or are you giving them Targeting orders?

Michael