Suggestions Thread!

[Artkin]

Don't know if one has already been made, a quick search concluded that there are none(Or it very well may be six feet under).

I think we should have a turret rotation feature. You tell the vehicle where to look in a general direction but keep the chassis straight. This would help wonders in urban battles. Different from target arc. Many times the turret turning speed accounts for losses. It would be different from target arc since the unit isnt required to fire in that predefined space. It's just a better way of spotting. Besides, when do you ever see vehicles defined to turret perfectly front and center all the time. 

Bring the criticism!

[steepdate]

A discrete command for the use of demolitions charges.

Visible aircraft.

DirectX.

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, steepdate said:

A discrete command for the use of demolitions charges.

 I take it you mean to throw at things since there is a blast command for wrecking walls etc.

1 hour ago, steepdate said:

Visible aircraft.

Would be totally cool.

 

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Artkin said:

I think we should have a turret rotation feature. You tell the vehicle where to look in a general direction but keep the chassis straight.

 

What would the difference be re the current "covered arc" feature?

My request would be the old CM1 style one-click 180 degree covered arc so that one can quickly change the direction that the turret is facing without the current slow and irritating method of physically placing a start point the reversing the screen to place the end point.

[A Canadian Cat]

I was going to say the same but then I realized there is actually a difference. With a cover arc the order is cover this area and *ignore* all else. With a separate turret facing command that@Artkin is suggesting the crew could still target something on their left if the turret command had them facing the turret to the right. Having the turret face the right would mean they could spot threats easier on their right and react to target them faster too but it does not prevent them from reacting to things on their left.

Subtle but important difference - sometimes.

So question: what happens if you give a tank a series of way points to move along a road and then give a facing command to the left at one of those way points? I am not in front of my gaming computer so I cannot try it. Could it do what @Artkin wants?

 

[MOS:96B2P]

29 minutes ago, IanL said:

<Snip> So question: what happens if you give a tank a series of way points to move along a road and then give a facing command to the left at one of those way points? I am not in front of my gaming computer so I cannot try it. Could it do what @Artkin wants?  

I think the Face command would rotate the hull.  A Target Arc at the waypoint would only rotate the turret but also restrict fire. 

[A Canadian Cat]

3 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

I think the Face command would rotate the hull.

Yeah but, but if it was on an intermediate way point the tank would be still driving in some other direction. It would be cool if the game took that to mean turn your turret that way until told otherwise.

[steepdate]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

 I take it you mean to throw at things since there is a blast command for wrecking walls etc.

Would be totally cool.

 

Yes. A targetable blast command that does not contain a movement order.

[HerrTom]

I mentioned this in passing on another thread but I'd love to see fragmentation simulation. That way, we could really see the effect of artillery! I can't find the video from my phone but the ACE mod for Arma does a nice job for it, I think.

I feel it would give extra depth to treebursts and airbursts since it becomes much easier to model the blast pattern this way. And the fragments could bag AFVs too! The possibilities are endless!

(I also agree visible aircraft would be pretty cool, but I feel less strongly about that haha)

[IMHO]

Stop tanks from instantly detecting ATGM launch direction if ATGM targets the tank, may be?  Ok, in CMBS the tanks don't immediately acquire the targets as was the case in CMSF but they still rotate the hull and target acquisition time is enormously reduced... ATGM teams are still half-kamikazes

Edited March 21, 2017 by IMHO

[Artkin]

7 hours ago, IanL said:

Yeah but, but if it was on an intermediate way point the tank would be still driving in some other direction. It would be cool if the game took that to mean turn your turret that way until told otherwise.

I had tried this, the unit will ignore the face command until it has stopped. 

 

6 hours ago, HerrTom said:

I mentioned this in passing on another thread but I'd love to see fragmentation simulation. That way, we could really see the effect of artillery! I can't find the video from my phone but the ACE mod for Arma does a nice job for it, I think.

Ace mod had beautiful fragmentation. The best mod developed for any game ever in my humble opinion. In CMBS I've had large artillery land on top of a squad killing half the squad. A man standing on the edge of the crater lived and a man further away was killed. It is very odd. Previously on this forum it was mentioned artillery was toned down. I'd prefer that the price was raised, and heavier hitting. I've also read artillery was the number one cause of death in previous wars. 

 

6 hours ago, HerrTom said:

I feel it would give extra depth to treebursts and airbursts since it becomes much easier to model the blast pattern this way. And the fragments could bag AFVs too! The possibilities are endless!

Speaking of this, I've also heard some army concluded tests on armored vehicles with artillery, and the results were devastating to the side hulls of AFV's, tank or apc. 

Edited March 22, 2017 by Artkin

[Artkin]

5 hours ago, IMHO said:

ATGM teams are still half-kamikazes

I can attest to this. Even the Kornet, shot from a 90% slope to the target is viable for committing suicide.

[Xorg_Xalargsky]

I've have a few suggestions.

Modify the TAC-AI so that troops in good cover (especially foxholes and trenches). even poorly trained troops with low motivation, choose to stay more often and longer in place as opposed to run/crawl for other cover.

Make it so that mines, wires, and tank traps be able to give VP's when designated either as terrain or unit objectives.

Add a Demolition command, similar to Blast, but used to demolish buildings, fortifications, or (small) bridges .

Add more extreme values in the various value boxes throughout the Quick Battle Editor and the Scenario Editor (ex. extra time, headcount, supply)

Make the Equipment Quality dropdown menu perform more variably with regards to small arms. (essentially, I'd like for the poorer settings to distribute even less fancy weapons as it does)

[Combatintman]

Less political arguments and willy waving in the CMBS forum.

[A Canadian Cat]

11 hours ago, Artkin said:

I had tried this, the unit will ignore the face command until it has stopped.

Yeah, bummer. Sorry for the distraction - didn't work for me once I tried it last night. Note to self: skip brain dumping dumb ideas that you haven't tried yourself yet

[A Canadian Cat]

10 hours ago, Xorg_Xalargsky said:

Make it so that mines, wires, and tank traps be able to give VP's when designated either as terrain or unit objectives.

Can you clarify that please? Do you mean that if I have wire on an occupy objective that it counts for my side as holding the objective until the enemy cleans up all the wire?

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

Yeah, bummer. Sorry for the distraction - didn't work for me once I tried it last night. Note to self: skip brain dumping dumb ideas that you haven't tried yourself yet

Yes, but as someone who has to do this dozens maybe hundreds of time every mission, I know that you can set a new covered arc at every waypoint to do exactly what you want. 

I always set 180 degree arcs, so a tank can rotate the turret to engage targets 90 degrees to the right or left of center of arc.  But, without the so useful single click 180 degree arc of CM1, it takes a bunch of clicks and wastes serious game time to do this in CM2 if you have to use the current process for dozens of turreted vehicles over dozens of turns.

[Xorg_Xalargsky]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

Can you clarify that please? Do you mean that if I have wire on an occupy objective that it counts for my side as holding the objective until the enemy cleans up all the wire?

I mean that as of now, from what I have tested, mines and obstacles do not grant points as Unit or Terrain objectives.

For example, if you place Unit Spot objective on a mine, you do not get points if you detect or even mark it.

I also would like for obstacles placed over a Terrain Destroy objective to give points when they are destroyed.

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, Xorg_Xalargsky said:

I mean that as of now, from what I have tested, mines and obstacles do not grant points as Unit or Terrain objectives.

For example, if you place Unit Spot objective on a mine, you do not get points if you detect or even mark it.

I also would like for obstacles placed over a Terrain Destroy objective to give points when they are destroyed.

Got  it. Nice, those are good ideas.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Persistent map damage for static campaigns would be great.....It's probably the thing I miss mist fro the old games, it felt kind of satisfying leaving your mark on the terrain, especially urban terrain.

[exsonic01]

Most of my suggestions are discussed in this forum at least once. But here I introduce again of mine... 

My logic is simple: More detailed expression = more immersive environment = possibly more realistic game = possibly more sales.

1. Tank with mine roller/dozer

2. More delicate engineering features, such as bridge explosion and mine clearing

3. As far as I know, arty HE rounds should be able to clear mine fields, at least in some degree. 

4. Vehicle mast sight & TC override ability. Also bug fix regarding some vehicle's sight such as Khriz. Khriz should be able to "see" from radar, but it seems its viewpoint is crew's eye. 

5. Realistic building collapse and debris. 

6. Realistic TAC-AI about retreat. If they are in good cover, they should stay in the cover regardless of damage / suppression. 

7. Visual representation of airplanes and rot.wings when flyby in game. It doesn't need to be perfect detail, just far silhouettes would be OK. 

8. Small chances for "flying turret" for vehicles when destroyed. This happens rare for modern tanks, but still it happens. Dramatic boom boom is always great  

9. Some attack helicopters should be able to perform multiple target engagement, such as Apache guardian / longbow.

10. Some attack helicopters should have very low chance to be shot down by AA, since they can engage behind / slightly over the ridge lines, shoot and scoop style. Right now, they all are just attempting strafing run like Vietnam war Cobra style. This is not true.  

11. Blood / gore expression (optional). Well, this could be debatable but this will make the game more.... realistic in some sense. But I also think that this is not that much essential. Just blood expressions would be enough maybe. Or we can introduce turn on / off ability for this option.  

12. Detail modeling of shells(tanks/artillery) and several airstrike missiles. Right now, shells flying like the Star Wars laser blaster. 

13. FASCAM, ICM, WP, Thermobaric, and chemical strike. As far as I know some of those special ammos are also available for regimental level support assets. 

14. Fire on trees, buildings, houses, and glass, burned ground expression. 

15. Up to date of UA forces, such as UAV in UA. 

16. Variable weather and wind. 

17. Transport helicopters and heliborne / repel. 

18. If possible, dedicated multiplayer server and 2:2 3:3 possibility? Or multiplayer campaign? But I think those are really tough goals. 

19. Variable turn time depend on faction, if possible. 

20. Counter artillery option for artillery and airplanes. Give them "counter arty" mission. When activated by user, by some chance, artillery automatically reacts to enemy arty, based on each side's counter battery radar ability. And results will be printed on fire support team like "counter battery success", like "Airplane shot down" of AA units. Depending in their mobility, artys can evade CB but they cant couduct any fire mission during evade.

 Counter battery is also available by airplanes. Several A2G stand off missiles are able to conduct counter battery missions. 

21. SEAD aircrafts, and realistic EW ability of airplanes. For example, as far as I know, F-16CJ is equipped with jamming pods, should have more survive chance against AA. And SEAD will allow users to attempt like strike package by multiple airplanes.  

22. More units: Javelin / 30mm Stryker, Tos-1A Buratino, Other rocket artilleries, T-90M, M1A2 SEP v3, Marines, VDV, Naval infantries, and etc.... 

Edited March 23, 2017 by exsonic01

[Erwin]

Oh wow... that would be wonderful!!  After doing all that extra work, it would make the game amazing and much more valuable. 

In order to pay for all the extra work, BF would have to increase the price several times of course.  So CMBS with all these fabulous features would be what - US$250 per unit?   But, it would be well worth it to have all the extras. 

[Artkin]

Loving the ideas guys. I think BF really needs to compile their games or theyll never make it as big as some guys. I loved Men of War for the variety. BF should focus on porting their games together. I'm sure normandy is big enough already, however, making a bunch of games that people will consistently have to drop a "premium" price for, isn't desirable for some of us. Take it with a grain of salt BF. I think the games are excellent and could dominate the realism rts section of the market

[Artkin]

6 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

18. If possible, dedicated multiplayer server and 2:2 3:3 possibility? Or multiplayer campaign? But I think those are really tough goals. 

This is one of my dirty desires on this game. It's a fantastic idea, since platoons or companies wont work perfectly in sync, following exact tactics(controversial to say)

45 minutes ago, Erwin said:

So CMBS with all these fabulous features would be what - US$250 per unit?   But, it would be well worth it to have all the extras. 

It would be a game everyone wants to buy, if done right. BF should consider this thread as mass interest in the game 

[steepdate]

I paid a hundred dollars to buy Distant Worlds with all the expansions. I also probably spent thousands on various models and miniatures over the years.

CM to me is not a game; it is an interest. A pastime. A hobby. An investment. I would pay more to get all the things we want out of it.

Edited March 23, 2017 by steepdate
Forgot a semicolon.