Ideas that could make CM titles any better!

[Michael Emrys]

I have nothing against ManoWar.U51 expressing his thoughts. But just for the record, neither did he win me over to his side.

Michael

[Pike]

On 2016-03-21 at 10:56 AM, Bulletpoint said:

Won't change much, as the spotter doesn't need the radio anyway, under current game rules...

What? You actually need radio to call in arty. If your spotters radio guy get shot and you have no other HQ with radio close. You can't call in arty if there is no radio.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Pike

[Pike]

Hey pick on BF and trolls in another topic please. Give them some suggestions and they may listen and do something hopefully. What I can see all want a good campagin system. So BF lets bring it and you will be rich! ;)

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, Pike said:

What? You actually need radio to call in arty. If your spotters radio guy get shot and you have no other HQ with radio close. You can't call in arty if there is no radio.

I thought the same thing at one time.  Certain units have call privileges with or without radios.  It is sometimes referred to as a field phone (wire line) abstraction.  If the Forward Observer officer is KIA then even with the radio the F/O unit can't call for fire.  I just recently discovered that some XO (2IC) units with no radios can call for arty fire. (I had sometimes been using XO units as medics.  Now I more often use them to call for fire so the Platoon HQs can keep moving).  

Below is a screenshot of a similar situation. 

 

  Edit to add: It somewhat surprised me to learn it is more about the individual with the call privileges than the radio when it comes to calling for fire missions.  The radio is still important for C2 & vertical information sharing. 

Edited March 22, 2016 by MOS:96B2P

[Pike]

On 2016-03-21 at 10:56 AM, Bulletpoint said:

4 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

I thought the same thing at one time.  Certain units have call privileges with or without radios.  It is sometimes referred to as a field phone (wire line) abstraction.  If the Forward Observer officer is KIA then even with the radio the F/O unit can't call for fire.  I just recently discovered that some XO (2IC) units with no radios can call for arty fire. (I had sometimes been using XO units as medics.  Now I more often use them to call for fire so the Platoon HQs can keep moving).  

Below is a screenshot of a similar situation. 

 

  Edit to add: It somewhat surprised me to learn it is more about the individual with the call privileges than the radio when it comes to calling for fire missions.  The radio is still important for C2 & vertical information sharing. 

That must be a BUG really.
 

[sonar]

Hi, for me there are two things that really need to be rethought or just fixed.The first I would argue is a flaw in gameplay the second is a hamper to gameplay. 1... Fix infantry behaviour, movement and spacing which i'd say is about fifty per cent what it should be and in game can easily become ridiculous. 2... The long asked for "follow me command". It's a shame that there is nothing more disheartening than loading up a scenario and seeing a load of halftracks and stuff as trying to recreate or play classic mechanised force scenarios rapidly becomes an exercise in extreme tedium. These to me are the biggest flaws in the game as it stands and I'd say, given the games time period and tactical scope they are pretty serious. Fixing these two things i think would allow a more realistic, fluid and enjoyable game and i would much rather time be spent on this than new modules and the like. Cheers.

[Duckman]

The most underdeveloped area of the game by far is fortifications. They don't mesh well with the terrain and don't look appealing. Given that they were such a major part of defensive tactics this is a shame. There has to be a better way to both simulate and represent foxholes, bunkers, and everything in between.

I'm sure there are good technical reasons for the above, but right now it stands out like a sore thumb in a game that is otherwise so advanced both graphically and simulationwise. Fortified buildings would be nice too, if we're in wishlist mode.

[Damagepoint]

Actually very little

1. Multicore-Processor ^^
2. More variations of models (see point 1)
3. Better environment graph (see point 1)
4. Better resolution map
5. Damage Model
...

In sum, what everyone probably knows ... New Engine ^^

The rest need not improve, because the principle is Super

 

 

[banned]

On 20/03/2016 at 9:35 PM, IanL said:

So, you want more for less.  Hee, hee I don't see that happening

Spoken like someone that is a ) not really paying attention or b ) who thinks the only features of value are the ones they care about.

 

On 20/03/2016 at 9:58 PM, IanL said:

No there really are a handful of posts back to 2008.  So not likely who's it back for more.

Just returned to be confronted with the inevitable of course but I didn´t expected it of you. Are you´re also searching the trash bin of your neighbours when you don´t agree with their opinion? Let´s hope not. Unbelievable how a grown up man can become so aggressive and butthurt because of video game criticism and ideas that are voiced in a dedicated thread. Very professional behaviour you´re showing here.

Have a nice day.

[A Canadian Cat]

Ah well, I'm not bothered in the slightest. Not offended before or now.  I have no idea why calling you on being unreasonable would be considered unprofessional.  Actually I read back further it was someone else compared you to someone rude who used to be a member here - I'm the one that said you could not be that person.  All I did was say your expectations were out of step with reality.  I'm afraid I do not understand why you are so upset by my comments nor how you interpreted them as my being upset by your comments. 

:confused:  but also not really caring much about it either :shrug:

[banned]

14 hours ago, IanL said:

Ah well, I'm not bothered in the slightest. Not offended before or now.  I have no idea why calling you on being unreasonable would be considered unprofessional.  Actually I read back further it was someone else compared you to someone rude who used to be a member here - I'm the one that said you could not be that person.  All I did was say your expectations were out of step with reality.  I'm afraid I do not understand why you are so upset by my comments nor how you interpreted them as my being upset by your comments. 

:confused:  but also not really caring much about it either :shrug:

For sure you are the "don´t care" type of guy.

However let´s agree upon that this matter doesn´t need further discussion.

Edited May 5, 2016 by MANoWAR.U51

[John Kettler]

Pike,

Given your experience with artillery, I need to move to your reality. Sure doesn't work that way here. In my use of artillery in WW II CMx2 games, I've found that not only does the spotting round frequently land well off target or is lost outright, sometimes repeatedly, but FFE frequently misses altogether. In practice, FFE commenced when the target was ranged to a 100 yard bracket. Note well what this comprehensive site on WW II artillery has to say. This is for the US on matters FO.

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/observer.html

(Fair Use)

"Initial shots will be off by about 400 yards for estimates and 100-200 for map data."

Naturally this presumes that there is a map and that it's accurate! Even to this day, that's many times not been the case.

This means you should count yourself fortunate, especially since an early 1980s US Army study on FO own location error determined it was 300 yards, precipitating a major investment into technical means for determining FO position long before GPS was available.

One of our Redlegs told a story from his FA training days. The call for fire and adjust segment had 17 rounds allotted, but when the instructor went to show the trainees how it was done, he failed utterly, getting not one round on target. I believe this was coeval with the Army's discovery, but as I recall, the guy was simply incompetent.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited May 6, 2016 by John Kettler

[McAuliffe]

On 2/1/2016 at 2:56 AM, Macisle said:

My current short list:

Front end:

(...)

• For the long term, add a Follow command that would cause units chosen as part of the group to line up behind and duplicate all of the selected lead unit's movement orders, including waypoint pauses (not a must have, but could be a big time-saver in some situations).

 

Make it  top priority and include in next patch...

[ht-57]

+1 For a purchased force save!

- option for a "30 sec" wego turn

-option for longer qb.....like 4hrs,,,I know its then called a long battle

- the ability to reload tank ammo   ex- I ran out of 7.6mm ammo the other nite had crew bail @ a supply truck and acquire 1k

rounds got back in and .....nothing....It would be nice to have the abilty to p/u up a couple rounds of he whilst there.

 

 

[Doc844]

Starting a new QB with Budbacker on FB and one of my biggest problems when buying troops is not being able to preview my troop selection on the map.  I like seeing my units laid out before me, it gives me a better appreciation of their make up and strengths and weaknesses, rather than trying to visualise it in my head.  If you can already do this then i apologise and SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME HOW. LOL.

 

So my wish is for Troop Preview screen on map for QB and also being able to have saved OB's.  Just thought i would slip that one in their.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Doc844

[A Canadian Cat]

No there is no troop preview.  It would be nice though.

The only thing I can suggest is before picking the troops for the real battle do a few rounds of troop picking and looking in the setup using a local you vs the AI game.  That is really the only way to see what a force looks like.

[Michael Emrys]

Not quite the same thing that Doc is asking for, but I have for years and years lobbied for something I came across a long time ago in TacOps. There, instead of starting out with your units already on the map, they instead appear in a floating window that you can place in a convenient location on your screen. There you can organize them to your heart's content, put personnel in vehicles or take them out, whatever. When you have them like you want them, you click on them and then click on a legal location of the main map and there they go. You can even move them around a bit once they are on the map, just like you can do in CM now. It is ever so much more handy than having everything dumped onto a crowded set up zone in no order whatever and having to go through laboriously to sort them out. I am all for easing the player's workload in any way possible, playing CM is inevitably a lot of work under the best of conditions. 

Michael

[polterklotz]

Plain movable markers

Similar to target reference points but can be repositioned during combat. (Ideally with different designs, and perhaps growing in size as you zoom out).

• Where did I get that LOS again?
• Saves AAR dudes a lot of time
• Comes in handy for some cooperative style play modes

Selection tools

• Add-select adjacent: Is basically an incremental way of shift-clicking or box dragging, it adds the next closest unit to the selection
• Mark (1,2,3): You can visually mark (and recall via a hotkey) a selection (individual or group). You have e.g. 3 of these "memory slots" that help you execute moderately complex maneuvers faster, particularly in real time engagements.

Arcs

• Add an un-hide arc, use anti-armor, and regular arc cumulatively

Movement

• Have a faster vs more careful button, (e.g. hitting "+" will make the movement order to the next waypoint go from "hunt" to "quick", shift-"+" does this for all waypoints. You can probably ignore "walk" speed in this context.)

Of course it would also be cool if one could give transport vehicles a "park/pause long enough for people to hop off" pause - and the troops would actually do it. But I assume this is easier said than done from a game engine perspective...

Edited May 14, 2016 by polterklotz