Another reason for a centralized Forum...

[Sgt.Squarehead]

13 minutes ago, rocketman said:

I would also like to see wrecks remain on map.

It did that too.....Destroyed vehicles stayed put (burning ones, burn out for the next battle), but immobilised vehicles would disappear once your engineers recovered them (there was a setting for vehicle recovery chance, but you had to own the ground they stood on for it to apply).  Then, once they've been repaired, they reappear in your TOE.

I guess you guys are probably seeing why us old fekkers keep wittering on about Persistent Map Damage and Static Campaigns.....They really added a lot of immersion to the game, in fact I'd say they were a big part in getting me hooked from CM:BO onward. 

FWIW

Edited October 17, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[weapon2010]

7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes.  CMSF2 has all the same features as the other games.  Obviously there are some game specific features that aren't available, such as European terrain and housing, but the game code is identical.

so CMSF2 will be a European setting?I am confused

[LukeFF]

8 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:

so CMSF2 will be a European setting?I am confused

What exactly is confusing? No, it's the same setting as the original CMSF.

[IICptMillerII]

10 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:

so CMSF2 will be a European setting?I am confused

Steve meant that it will be on par feature wise to CMBS (the other modern CM game) but that it will be in a different setting, Syria. Same features, different locations. 

[Destraex1]

Any news on new core features like dedicated 2v2 or coop play, this would take the game to the next level and in line with a great many modern games.

Also making the breifing text readable or at least fit the full screen res (enlarged).

[Ithikial_AU]

7 hours ago, rocketman said:

One example would be @Ithikial_AU's campaign "Lions of Carpiquet", which is excellent but the immersion is somewhat lost when houses reappear, craters disappear (a lot of them in this campaign). I would also like to see wrecks remain on map.

Yeah it was always in the back of my mind and would have been the big reason not to attempt to recreate Operation Windsor given the static nature of the 36 hour engagement, but the Vehicle Pack release and the new shiney toys made it all the more worth while. If the player follows the barrage instruction in the second mission, it should be roughly close to what you see in later missions but it was never going to be exact to the ruined version of Carpiquet map I made for later missions. The other option was just to start on a ruined map but that would take away from some of the atmosphere and be a bit of a break from history in the opening turns as the Canadians marched behind a creeping brrage. One of the sources I read quoted an NCO calling it "World War 1-esque" tactics for a WW2 combined arms battle.

Even some of the BF stock campaigns have hit the same issue. The Scottish Corridor campaign springs to mind. I remember I magically received a free church for hard cover in Gavrus after blasting it to smithereans the mission before. Persistent battle damage/wrecks is certainly one of my top wishlist items as someone who likes scenario design (when I get the time ).

[Ithikial_AU]

****Double post****

Edited October 18, 2017 by Ithikial_AU

[Ivan Zaitzev]

+1 for persistent scenario damage + wreckage. Close Combat has this but it has a different and more randomized type of campaign than CM.

In all honestly I don't know how much this feature would be used, but it would be awesome and super immersive to have.

Retreat to a previously captured zone and find that the building you had to destroy last time could be really useful now would be a lot of fun.

[IICptMillerII]

3 hours ago, Destraex1 said:

Any news on new core features like dedicated 2v2 or coop play

I agree, I would love to see co-op capability added to the game, even if at first it was just co-op against the AI. However I remember Steve saying that this is one of those things that isn't worth the amount of time and effort required to get it into the game in the near future. Hopefully we will eventually see it, but it won't be anytime soon. 

As to the persistent map damage, I too would love to see this feature. With it, you could essentially improv campaigns on the fly, among the many other things people have already mentioned. However, Steve did say in his post that persistent map damage is a feature they have shelved,  as in they aren't planning on doing it anytime soon. Again, hopefully in the future it will make its way into the game, but that probably wont be for a while. 

[Cobetco]

i'm probably the odd man out here, but i'd like to see a more robust fortification system. have mortar pits, maybe camo nests for machine guns, and yeah i know the game already kinda simulates that, but i'm an artist, so visuals matter to me to an extent. i'd also like a "use grenades" command for building assaults, rather than a target command wasting rifle/smg ammo. oh an illumination rounds for night battles would be cool too.

[Bud Backer]

You’re not the odd man out - better representation of fortifications is something I’d like to see as well. 

[rocketman]

12 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

[snip]

Even some of the BF stock campaigns have hit the same issue. The Scottish Corridor campaign springs to mind. I remember I magically received a free church for hard cover in Gavrus after blasting it to smithereans the mission before.  [snip]

That's what I call divine intervention

[Sgt.Squarehead]

17 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

****Double post****

It was worth posting twice, great perspective and it's reassuring to know that more experienced designers feel the same way. 

13 hours ago, Cobetco said:

i'd also like a "use grenades" command for building assaults, rather than a target command wasting rifle/smg ammo.

I'm pretty sure grenade throwers appreciate the covering fire, so the current system seems more sensible to me.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[danzig5]

On 10/16/2017 at 11:00 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Sure, I can give you an exact idea... we aren't expanding the game in any way from what you see in CMSF (content) and Engine 4 (game features).

We are considering some very limited, targeted revisions to a tiny handful of things in CMSF that were speculative at the time and we have since got more hard data.  Mostly it has to do with what the Syrian Army has for T-72 variants.

Not ruling it out, but we're not planning that far ahead in a way that is meaningful to you guys now.

Steve

Oh baby I have always been bothered by the fact the T-72A was missing from the Syrian arsenal, since they are the only non Soviet operator of the type.

[rocketman]

@Hister If you haven't already, try the Nvidia program "Nvidia Inspector" to fine tune graphic card settings. I had progress using it, especially capping FPS to 30-35, which smoothes out the variation a bit. I'll try to dig up the settings I have in case you want to try it.

[Erwin]

The CM1 delay issue when "stuck in the middle of the road in an ambush" could have been solved with an "Emergency Order" which allowed immediate action but with consequences (eg: Fatigue very quickly). 

For regular commands, the time delay was quite effective as it made one appreciate the difference in efficiency between CONSCRIPT/GREEN and VET/CRACK troops.  The delay made the game harder as one had to think ahead for regular actions in addition to the WEGO 1 minute.  Having mastered the technique, it didn't seem to be an issue to me.  But, I know other players had a hard time with the delay feature. 

It's ironic that we have players now who devote their time to making the game harder in lots of other ways.  eg: Delaying orders if not in C2 etc.  Actually, that could be something the computer could handle.

[A Canadian Cat]

4 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The CM1 delay issue when "stuck in the middle of the road in an ambush" could have been solved with an "Emergency Order" which allowed immediate action but with consequences (eg: Fatigue very quickly). 

Not sure how that solves anything. Why would following the orders of the squad NCO be quicker but more tiring than following the orders of the Platoon Lt.?

 

4 minutes ago, Erwin said:

For regular commands, the time delay was quite effective as it made one appreciate the difference in efficiency between CONSCRIPT/GREEN and VET/CRACK troops.  The delay made the game harder as one had to think ahead for regular actions in addition to the WEGO 1 minute.  Having mastered the technique, it didn't seem to be an issue to me.  But, I know other players had a hard time with the delay feature. 

OK, sure. I think the game still offers and shows a significant difference in effectiveness when troops are better trained. Lessor command delays is not required for that.

 

4 minutes ago, Erwin said:

It's ironic that we have players now who devote their time to making the game harder in lots of other ways.  eg: Delaying orders if not in C2 etc.  Actually, that could be something the computer could handle.

My bold: that's not what the feature did. And even if it did that would still not solve the basic problem.

Some searching came up with this thread:

 

[danfrodo]

you mean it can get harder?!?  I am on veteran level after over a year and am just now getting 'good' at winning. 

I agree w folks it would be great to have new engine, new things.  But I am mainly just grateful that we have such a great game series as this.  I still have dozens and dozens of campaign battles to fight out, plus the standalone scenarios.  And I haven't yet gotten Black Sea.  I have years of content right now with the limited time I have to play. 

Of course, the graphics refresh is very choppy (is it the hedgerows & trees?) and I would like that to be better (I need to take a look at some of the tips here & adjust NVidia settings) 

Having said all that, I sure would like some 1980s Nato vs Warsaw Pact action.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

You will learn to play CM2 better if you just switch to Iron now.....It helps you to understand how your units communicate up and down the chain of command and thus how to better organise your units for maximum effectiveness.   In terms of the firefights themselves it all works the same, so it's not so much a difficulty setting as a realism setting (IMHO of course).

I can live without command delay TBH, I had assumed the current games represented the increased skill of a commander in some other fashion.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[grunt_GI]

Hey @IanL Just a question...do you play WeGO or RT?  I did have Best for everything playing RT and found it better to turn down to Excellent Models, Better Texture, High Trees and Shaders Off...felt it made larger scenarios more playable in RT?

[A Canadian Cat]

I only play WEGO. I don't think I have even played a single scenario in real time. I have small pockets of time when I can play and I have very little interest in playing the AI. So no blocks of time to play, only playing humans. That pretty much means it's WEGO for me.

[Battlefront.com]

Ooo!  I just noticed there's a feature that allows me to move posts out of a thread and into a new thread.  Will wonders never cease?   I'm going to use it now to put the tech support stuff over to the Tech Support forum.

Steve

[sburke]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ooo!  I just noticed there's a feature that allows me to move posts out of a thread and into a new thread.  Will wonders never cease?   I'm going to use it now to put the tech support stuff over to the Tech Support forum.

Steve

Too bad they don’t have spellcheck though eh?  

you’re spelling is erratic.  

[Hister]

Ha, thank you Steve! I just came from work and wanted to reserve a bit of time to gather everything and move it ti the proper forum space - you saved me that time, now I can play some CM instead of typing.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

 

you’re spelling is erratic.  

Irony is so ironic.