Bulletpoint Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) Inspired by another thread, here's a little opinion poll I put together: https://vote.pollcode.com/26474563 "If you had to choose just one, which of the following would you be most happy to see added to Combat Mission?" Just click on the link to vote. It's super easy and doesn't require any account or login or anything like that. Disclaimer: It's only meant as a bit of fun and an indication of what people find most important about the future of the game, not a demand that BattleFront do any particular thing. I tried to cover most of the suggestions I see people make on these forums, but if I forgot your favourite idea, feel free to comment below. Edited June 23, 2017 by Bulletpoint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) It's to bad that there isn't a "Revamp Game Engine 4" included in your Poll :-( Edited June 23, 2017 by JoMc67 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted June 24, 2017 Author Share Posted June 24, 2017 13 hours ago, JoMc67 said: It's to bad that there isn't a "Revamp Game Engine 4" included in your Poll :-( You mean fixing some of the specifics like automatic weapons rate of fire? I tried to keep the poll options quite broad and general. Pretty sure we will see a patch down the road that addresses at least some of the complaints people have about 4.0. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warts 'n' all Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 Shame that there isn't a "Just let Steve and the boys in the band get on with it in their own way" option. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted June 24, 2017 Author Share Posted June 24, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said: Shame that there isn't a "Just let Steve and the boys in the band get on with it in their own way" option. Actually I thought about adding that option. But then I thought that people who don't have any particular wishes might just abstain from participating in the poll. Edited June 24, 2017 by Bulletpoint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted June 24, 2017 Share Posted June 24, 2017 Hummmm I thought this was going to be about what era or war people wanted covered by CM? What is the difference between these two? "More game families covering more theatres of war. More expansions for existing games, covering more eras" Because one seems to suggest possibly more fronts on WW2? One seems to suggest bolting on stuff from one war on to a game from another. Not sure how either would be good. And what on earth does this mean? "Finer-grained simulation of combat" How can we get finer grained than each individual soldier being modeled? How is that the most popular choice? I was hoping for what war, real or fictitious would you like CM to simulate next. That would be interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted June 24, 2017 Author Share Posted June 24, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, IanL said: Hummmm I thought this was going to be about what era or war people wanted covered by CM? What is the difference between these two? "More game families covering more theatres of war. More expansions for existing games, covering more eras" Option 1: More separate games, covering for example the North African Theatre, The War in the Pacific, Korea, Fictional ww3 scenarios, etc. Option 2: More expansions to existing games, for example an expansion to Red Thunder covering the early war in Russia. "Era" might not be the best word, but I was pressed for space. I know it's the plan to release more content for the current game families, but I thought it should be an option in the poll regardless, to see what people are hoping for. 26 minutes ago, IanL said: And what on earth does this mean? "Finer-grained simulation of combat" How can we get finer grained than each individual soldier being modeled? How is that the most popular choice? Examples could be better infantry use of terrain (each man finding "hull down" positions on the edges of slopes, trenches, ditches, railroad embankments etc., possibly controlled by the player using the "face towards" tool), more or different types of movement orders, new types of fire orders (fire only the flame thrower without the main gun, throw grenades without firing rifles, etc). Could also be about more frequent spotting cycles (with same overall chances of spotting of course). Also having the ability for squads to spread out more, perhaps down to the level of controlling each individual soldier or buddy-team could be an option. I'm not going to tell anyone if they should think these are good or feasible ideas, I just wanted to give peple the option to choose it if they felt like it. Edited June 24, 2017 by Bulletpoint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM Stuff Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 (edited) +1 support All yours options Individual soldier representation will ne nice I think the commands for tanks and vehicles must be adapting to allowing infantry, to follow or stay behind, this include an order "follow" depending if tanks have to follow and protect infantry or if infantry have to protect tanks... Possibility to a tank or vehicle to move back 10 20 30m (alone)...without having to click with the mouse of the battlefield and giving the position ourself could be anoying when you are in mode zoom and don't have place to click on battlefield with a mouse click to order a move back loose precious seconds... More animations Landscapes buildings and effects... traces from tracks vehicles in mud or snow... Don't make a real module or expansion but like I suggest in a early post a Big editor covering more periods of war... Almost all possibilities of tanks and soldiers including resistance and civilians fighters this will allowed us to created ourself tanks vehicles and soldiers that we want where we want how we want... to cover all ww2, including Desert, after ww2 and future conflicts... we can then created Fulda, Arabs Israely war expansion for CMBN CMRT CMFI CMSF with the missing tanks and vehicles that we would like to see... all categories of tanks...with all technologies and realist effects of BF with an update and patchs (again money) to cover our further wishes and everybody will have what they are missing and will be happy to created and share all what they have doing with the huge editor of CM's... Edited June 25, 2017 by 3j2m7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 13 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: Option 1: More separate games, covering for example the North African Theatre, The War in the Pacific, Korea, Fictional ww3 scenarios, etc. Option 2: More expansions to existing games, for example an expansion to Red Thunder covering the early war in Russia. "Era" might not be the best word, but I was pressed for space. I know it's the plan to release more content for the current game families, but I thought it should be an option in the poll regardless, to see what people are hoping for. Examples could be better infantry use of terrain (each man finding "hull down" positions on the edges of slopes, trenches, ditches, railroad embankments etc., possibly controlled by the player using the "face towards" tool), more or different types of movement orders, new types of fire orders (fire only the flame thrower without the main gun, throw grenades without firing rifles, etc). Could also be about more frequent spotting cycles (with same overall chances of spotting of course). Also having the ability for squads to spread out more, perhaps down to the level of controlling each individual soldier or buddy-team could be an option. I'm not going to tell anyone if they should think these are good or feasible ideas, I just wanted to give peple the option to choose it if they felt like it. In Bold...Surely, you jest.Troops are already spread out to much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sttp Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 (edited) I chose "better graphics" even though I'm fine with the graphics in general -- landscape, buildings, etc. It's better and more finely tuned soldier animations that are needed, IMO. Seeing your troops moon walk, run in place, rotate on their heels, etc., can get a little old. Other than that, more missions / expansions / vehicle packs gets my vote. And I don't know what "Finer-grained simulation of combat" really means. Increasing the density of action squares, like making them 4 meters instead of 8? Because that'd be at least 4 times the load on the PC. Next game engine, maybe? Edited June 25, 2017 by sttp 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 6 hours ago, 3j2m7 said: ... traces from tracks vehicles in mud or snow... This would be nice, but tricky to implement. For instance, unless it can be programmed not to appear to the non-owning player unless he actually has eyes on that piece of terrain, it gives away too much information on the location of enemy units, i.e., it destroys fog of war. And as Steve has explained, this puts heavy additional demands on the CPU. 6 hours ago, 3j2m7 said: Individual soldier representation will ne nice This has always been a part of CMx2 from the beginning. How did you miss that? Or did you mean something different from what you actually posted? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 17 hours ago, Bulletpoint said: Examples could be better infantry use of terrain (each man finding "hull down" positions on the edges of slopes, trenches, ditches, railroad embankments etc., possibly controlled by the player using the "face towards" tool), more or different types of movement orders, new types of fire orders (fire only the flame thrower without the main gun, throw grenades without firing rifles, etc). Could also be about more frequent spotting cycles (with same overall chances of spotting of course). Also having the ability for squads to spread out more, perhaps down to the level of controlling each individual soldier or buddy-team could be an option. Some of this, like smarter utilization of terrain (although soldiers are getting pretty smart already), could be nice. But I would strongly oppose anything that increased the workload on the player. I would not like to have to give orders to each individual soldier as to which way to face or which weapon to use, etc. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 4 hours ago, sttp said: Other than that, more missions / expansions / vehicle packs gets my vote. My bold ... there is a scenario editor ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Combatintman said: My bold ... there is a scenario editor ... But making maps is a cast-iron bitch, so most people get burned out after only a few missions. Anyway, the one thing I want is some kind of omnibus edition of CMx2. It is a bit weird having all these years and months to choose from and yet only like three or four of them are available to be selected in each title. There is already a way of switching around regions, so why not whole theaters of war. As an added bonus, it would help bring the MP community together and maybe spur someone out there to make a dedicated matchmaking program so we could find opponents easier. To say nothing of fantasy match-ups like late war Soviet tank regiment vs. American armored infantry company on the defense. Edited June 25, 2017 by Apocal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM Stuff Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 3 hours ago, Michael Emrys said: This would be nice, but tricky to implement. For instance, unless it can be programmed not to appear to the non-owning player unless he actually has eyes on that piece of terrain, it gives away too much information on the location of enemy units, i.e., it destroys fog of war. And as Steve has explained, this puts heavy additional demands on the CPU. This has always been a part of CMx2 from the beginning. How did you miss that? Or did you mean something different from what you actually posted? Michael Hi Michael, yes I guess I missing this, really don't remind this view of each soldier ??...to keep CPU in good condition can perhaps reduce the size of silhouette soldiers and tanks and the zoom possibilities cos I think the zoom is "too much" and a zoom of soldier and tank could be perhaps avoid a high demand on CPU like you mentioned ? This could perhaps allowed us to have a view of tracks in mud and snow...dont know this is only a suggestion... And what about function of the rear movement of tanks and vehicles ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sttp Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 4 hours ago, Combatintman said: My bold ... there is a scenario editor ... Do you think 3rd party designed missions are as generally well done as those that come with Battlefront's official products? I don't. Nor do most people, if we take them at their word. I have all the respect in the world for scenario designers, I've spent a lot of time with the editor myself, and it's obvious it takes a long time to get good at it. But the overwhelming majority of players simply don't have the time or incentive to create missions with as much richness and depth as can be found in "official" scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaddyO Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 On 6/24/2017 at 7:25 AM, Bulletpoint said: Examples could be better infantry use of terrain (each man finding "hull down" positions on the edges of slopes, trenches, ditches, railroad embankments etc., possibly controlled by the player using the "face towards" tool), more or different types of movement orders, new types of fire orders (fire only the flame thrower without the main gun, throw grenades without firing rifles, etc). Could also be about more frequent spotting cycles (with same overall chances of spotting of course). Also having the ability for squads to spread out more, perhaps down to the level of controlling each individual soldier or buddy-team could be an option. If I had understood what "finer grain" meant, I would have voted for this. As it was I voted for "Follow Me" command. Tried to revise my vote but couldn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaddyO Posted June 25, 2017 Share Posted June 25, 2017 12 hours ago, Michael Emrys said: But I would strongly oppose anything that increased the workload on the player. I would not like to have to give orders to each individual soldier as to which way to face or which weapon to use, etc. Michael Ditto. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.