What I'd like to see in CM3...

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Now Bil.....You know I don't do conventional! 

[Bil Hardenberger]

37 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Now Bil.....You know I don't do conventional! 

...could be why I specified conventional... you think?   

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'll put something along the lines I described above together on the 'Bishr' map in due course.  Tricky to explain how it would be configured (as I don't know exactly just yet), but I think it might make an interesting challenge.   Essentially the 'Conventional Defending Force' would have to deal with a number of hostile Combatants operating within the city, while simultaneously resisting the encroachment of Fighters from the deserts beyond.  The heaviest weapon on the map would likely be a T-62, the most common, Technicals, lots & lots of Technicals (which sadly rather precludes an AI controlled variant).

[BornGinger]

In CM there are different movement orders for the troops. The only one which is directly connected to shooting at the enemy is "assault". I wish there could be an  assault order for shorter distances called something like "throw granade and assault" which could be used when a squad or team get sent onto a spot where enemies are, or most likely could be,  waiting and cause casualties to the squad/team when they get there. Throw a granade or three and then assault the spot to finish the enemy off.

Edited January 13, 2020 by BornGinger

[Bulletpoint]

34 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

In CM there are different movement orders for the troops. The only one which is directly connected to shooting at the enemy is "assault".

Assault is not connected to shooting. It's basically a mislabeled command for doing bounding overwatch. But yes I would like to see a grenade throwing command too.

[wadepm]

On 1/13/2020 at 9:11 AM, Bulletpoint said:

Assault is not connected to shooting. It's basically a mislabeled command for doing bounding overwatch. But yes I would like to see a grenade throwing command too.

I think as the AI gets better we are going to have fewer commands not more...

[Bulletpoint]

42 minutes ago, wadepm said:

I think as the AI gets better we are going to have fewer commands not more...

Maybe, but I wouldn't hold my breath. 

[wadepm]

I won't!  Is CMx3 even in development...officially?  I suppose they are always looking ahead to the next generation...

[SimpleSimon]

A new game engine would require abandonment of most of CMx2's content though. I can't see myself making the leap to a new game engine until its menu of sides, equipment, ToEs, units, maps, etc was suitably large enough for my militaria ADD. I think the CMx2 engine is more than adequate for the foreseeable future personally, and most of what i'd like to see on the technical side are relatively minor quality-of-life and user-interfacing improvements that I can do without. The first thing that will keep me buying modules and games is further exploration of sides, theatres, wars, etc that have not been covered so far ie: the Battle of France, Cold War, Barbarossa and accompanying modules for all of that.

Don't get me wrong, a new engine would be great if it would facilitate faster development and release of content and enable greater options in what Battlefront could explore with the series. 

[Bulletpoint]

9 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

I can't see myself making the leap to a new game engine until its menu of sides, equipment, ToEs, units, maps, etc was suitably large enough

I can see myself making the leap as soon as any CM sequel comes out with real improvements to fix graphics glitches, building targeting issues, fortifications sitting on top of the ground, rendering performance, etc.

That's not to say it's not already a good game. It is. But it's also a game I don't find myself sinking more money into. Just like I don't buy new chess boards every year.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[Holdit]

Copy-able, re-usable, rotatable maps and map segments.

[BornGinger]

21 hours ago, wadepm said:

Is CMx3 even in development...officially?  I suppose they are always looking ahead to the next generation...

You can read what Steve said about it in this post.

 

[Erwin]

That post was 18 months ago.  A lot can change in that time.  

[wadepm]

And it was pretty vague to begin with...

[BornGinger]

What ever!

But you still got Steve's thoughts about it.

[Erwin]

Once upon a time we was told that CMSF2 was never going to happen.  But, things changed and now we have CMSF2.  Am simply pointing out that info that is 18 months old is almost useless.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

Once upon a time we was told that CMSF2 was never going to happen.  But, things changed and now we have CMSF2.

Yes.....Yes they did. 

[SlowMotion]

I would like to make scenarios more playable when playing against the AI and in H2H mode.
I think these changes would be a big step forward:
- allow scenario designer to define that some units are included only when this side is played by the AI.
- same thing for reinforcements
 

So one could design a scenario that is balanced when playing in H2H mode. Then add some extra units in Scenario Editor and possibly reinforcements that appear during the game ONLY when the AI is using those units. -> the scenario would be more playable also when playing against the AI.

Edited March 24, 2020 by SlowMotion

[SlowMotion]

<this improvement idea to storing/recalling camera positions during PBEM games was already handled on page 7>

Edited March 24, 2020 by SlowMotion
never mind

[RockinHarry]

likely mentioned before. A 3D map editor would help making maps more intuitively and much faster. All that terrain placing and height mapping sort of stuff. Same time adding variations of certain terrain tiles independent from terrain attribute. I.e more visual variations from grass, or making a swampy (mud) terrain type look like grass and such.

[norvandave]

I would like user defined length WEGO turns where you could specify how long a turn is, e.g. 2 minutes, or something else instead of the 1 minute setting now. 

[BornGinger]

If CM3 is being made and is going to be a bit like CM2 I wish that the info about "Requires Forward Observer" we have when we choose artillery for QB also is going to show up when we choose artillery in the editor. According to QB artillery some pieces of howitzers need FO and some don't and US heavy mortars require FO but German ones don't. In the editor this info isn't given to us.

[Erwin]

On 3/27/2020 at 10:16 PM, norvandave said:

I would like user defined length WEGO turns where you could specify how long a turn is, e.g. 2 minutes, or something else instead of the 1 minute setting now. 

I wasn't sure if this was a joke idea as obviously all one has to do is press GO twice in a row without giving orders.  (I acknowledge that in a PBEM it would speed things up.)

But, what is really needed imo is a shorter option.  There are times in a game - esp in urban assaults where in RL people would react a lot faster than 60 seconds.  So, as with the "Brief Target" command it would be good to have the option of 15, 30 and 45 second turns.  (At least the 30 second option.)

[Howler]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

But, what is really needed imo is a shorter option.  There are times in a game - esp in urban assaults where in RL people would react a lot faster than 60 seconds.  So, as with the "Brief Target" command it would be good to have the option of 15, 30 and 45 second turns.  (At least the 30 second option.)

Wouldn't we be better off simply adding a replay/rewind function to RT mode? The only reason I haven't bothered with RT play single player is the lack of re-watching the action. It would be nice to pause and skip back a minute or two to see the action... This playback buffer wouldn't need to hold more than a few minutes of elapsed play.

[Kaunitz]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

I wasn't sure if this was a joke idea as obviously all one has to do is press GO twice in a row without giving orders.  (I acknowledge that in a PBEM it would speed things up.)

That only works in PBEM if both players have a gentlemens' agreement and trust each other.