To kick things off... a poll of sorts...

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

[snips]

[*]Integrate multi-shot weapons better. In CM1 there is an annoying functionality break between single-shot guns, burst guns (FlaK guns) and heavy MGs. This is very artificial and tuning durign CM1 games added to the chaos.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you explain further?

All the best,

John.

[Tankgunner]

Add:

1. Convoy movement

2. Triggered defensive obstacles:

a) minefield activated by a demolition team (by wire). This could simulate a heavy HE charge on the bridge or on the road, widely used by commando, partisan and guerilla units.

russian FOG remote-controlled flamethrower fields

3. Better hand-held anti-tank weapons simulation. Now only Germans have sufficient range of AT weapons. Russian grenade bundles and RPG-40/41 high explosive grenades, British sticky mines and so on are not present....

4. Multi-turret wehicles with multi-targeting option. From T-28 and M3Lee to remotably controlled turrets and MG of modern AFV.

5. Wehicle blocking LOS

Keep:

1. PBEM (huh, I'm not the first one here...)

2. WEGO

3. Scale

4. Interface concept

[rawmassiah]

-Campaign linking battles, similar to the old Steel Panthers campaigns where you get reinforcements and upgrades made available over time, maybe with basic experience system to create veteran units.

-co-op multiplayer. 2+ players controlling seperate troops on same side against AI

-beach landings

[BDW]

5 top things I'd like to see added:

1. better unit descriptions and details during the purchasing phase! (images and ammo details would be nice)

2. More, different and various victory conditions - especially those relating to time. For example: "hold X bridge for Y turns, then exit at least 60% of armor by turn Z". Or, "seize control of Hill 524 by turn 15 and hold it until the end of the game".

3. "Green" should NOT always translate to "slow, wimpy and a bad shot". "Green" should instead translate to "performance during combat will be unpredictable". I'd like the purchasing of green units to be more of a gamble. They might suck or they might kick ass.

4. Pre-organized companies & platoons at the set-up phase

5. Integrated PBEM system for multi-multi-player

[jm]

please keep:

1.turn based control + movie playback, no need not stick to 60 second periods

2.pbm (3 files is good to avoid manipulation)

3.AI is already quite ok (apart from convoy behavior especially on roads)

4.Priority of clear visualization of the tactical situation over ‘eye candy’ and pseudo realism. CMB is a serious tactical simulation.

desired improvements in the sequence of priority:

1. AI, Convoy movements: Units now headlessly run into the predecessor and neighbor vehicles and afterwards search a completely unreasonable detour; instead they should have at least a bit awareness of the formation and foresee possible collisions, sometimes just wait until the predecessor proceeds its movement.

2. Better frontline calculation between battles of a campaign: Up to now its mainly one-dimensional, in the sense that it just calculates one line over the width of the map;

- instead take into account more or less advanced sections

- consider more or less visually separated portions of the map

-possibly restrict allowed rearrangements of units due to realistic lines of approach and retreat considering the degree of insight by the enemy, (How can it happen that completely isolated groups are rescued at the end of a battle only because there is a new battle?)

and the state of recon, (How can I conquer a region without ever having entered it?)

- possibly restrict rearrangements and resupply of units underlying a concept of the period of time between the battles (15 minutes or hours?), i.e. do not allow to drive all over the map but in a realistic range from the last position.

3.An open scenario file format in order to enable exterior programs/programmers to feed combat mission with maps and unit settings. This would allow for development of external editors, overall operational campaign systems, which produce scenarios to resolve regional battles, converters from other games (e.g. East front scenarios are a treasure of very interesting scenario outlines which can be exploited!),

4.Scenario compatibility between upgrades (Due to the poor grafic and features of cmb1 I was not interested to play cmb1 any more as soon as cmb2 was released. But it would have been nice to be able to reuse the cmb1 scenarios and campaigns in cmb3. Cmb2 Kursk battles would have really gained from the dust clouds in cmb3.

5.Roads, landscape contours, and building outlines and positioning should be less restricted to the grid (why not treat buildings like vehicles and pillboxes, but of course with walls always aligned vertically ?)

[Darkmath]

Do not change :

1)WE GO gameplay

2)CMX1 level of scalability

3)Single scenario (battle or operation) system

4)"What if" context about some units (like 14inch battleship gun in CMBO)

5)PBEM

Change :

1)Enhanced physical engine (no more vehicle overlapping another one until it reach the collision area.Also, terrain distortion, like crater formed by hitting shell, would be a dream what become a reality )

2)Enhanced graphic

2)More accurate small arms management (like including ballistic penetration in firepower)

3)Blocking LOS on unit behind a vehicle

4)"No more angels on the head of a pin" (quoting JonS because I am lazy )

5)Better crew self defense weapons (Why a bazooka team had a 98K to protect itself when a SMG can be used in CMAK?)

[ September 07, 2005, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[The Colonel]

CHANGE:

1. I'd like a screen that lists all my current units and their status, like suppression level, ammo remaining etc.. and the ability to select a unit on that screen and go to it on the map.

2. In the scenario editor, affects for taking objectives other than just points. For example, a reinforcement's arrival conditional upon an objective being held (could be used for a bridge, dock, intersection etc.) or ammo levels drop if an objective is lost (e.g. ammo dump)

3. Beyond line-of-sight indirect fire...I should be able to zero in mortar fire on top of a ridge, the adjust a few clicks down on the elevation to drop the rounds on the backside of the ridge where my mortar/platoon commander can't see.

4. Greater morale effect of having company and battalion HQs in the area, and morale deficit for units in their chain if they are eliminated.

5. A "line-of-sight" map option for each unit, where you can look down on the map and all the areas visible to him are shaded.

KEEP:

1. I know I'm in the minority on this, but hear me out. I think Borg spotting has to stay. The reason is that a player essentially has "Borg control" over all of his forces. In other words, you can still give orders to a unit that is out of command, albeit with some delay. In reality you may not even know where your own units are or be able to give any orders at all if it is the real-world equivalent of "out of command". But as a player we get a "God's eye view" which is necessary to be able to play the game. Therefore you know exactly where all your own units are and can always communicate with them. Borg spotting is a necessary side effect of this. Imagine how complex it would be if an enemy unit were moving toward your lines. First you have to check each unit to see who has LOS to that unit, like we do now, then you have to somehow determine who is actually seeing it. And if a unit has LOS to the emeny, but doesn't "see" it, what will we do? Would there be a "hey look over there" order? Because if any my units on the map spots an enemy unit, then I as the player have knowledge of that unit. And if I as the player can communicate with any of my units at anytime, then that should include all the current knowledge of the enemy locations. Which means Borg spotting. I know it's not necessarily realistic, but I think the gameplay mechanics would be a disappointment to many if we did away with it.

2. Please keep the flexibility in size of game that can be played, as I like scenarios approaching Division size.

[ September 08, 2005, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: The Colonel ]

[jamiebecciwalsh]

Too add my comment...

I would love to see an expansion of the single player game, specifically a campaign based option (and if you included a strategic map a la Total War I will love you forever!) where the excellent unit statistics (especially unit kills) can be built upon and improved.

I argue this as the ability to become attached to your units is a great asset, and every commander has his favourites after all...

As for what I would like to see improved - the vehicle 'sutoroute' system was always a bit clumsy, and the information about units could be made a bit more 'Layman' friendly - especially about things like different weapons on tanks etc (I still don't know the difference between half of them in CM3!)

Probably won't happen, but at least I've said it!

[Imperial Grunt]

My two cents, for what it is worth.

Add or Change:

1) Add a map with military symbology to show "big picture" as well as known and probable enemy locations. Map automatically updates during game. Map may not match terrian 100%. Take away "God's view" option.

2) Squads and crews should automatically redistribute weapons and ammo as they take casualties. Squads and crews should automatically consolidate after taking casualties. Leaders should "bump up" positions.

3) Snipers should be more effective and much harder to spot.

4) Squads and crews should be able to use captured enemy weapons to varying degrees of effectiveness, based upon their training and experience.

5) Ammo from abandoned vehicles and weapons should be able to be redistributed. Add ammunition resupply trucks.

6) Plt and higher HQ's should all be able to call for and spot supporting arms, depending on nationality and training.

7) Model realistic tracer fire for different weapon types per nationality. Add effect of dust kicked up by small arms and machinegun fire. Fix the time of flight of bazooka and panzershrek rockets and for main gun rounds.

8) Add illumination rounds for night battles.

9) Extreme Fog of War option should be just seeing muzzle flashes, smoke, tracers and just glimpes of running infantry until that last 200 yards is reached, unless the battle is being fought on a golf course.

10) Study all the color footage shot during the assault on Fallujah and make the battle effects look like that.

11) Depending on the size of the game, create a time limit in which a side may give orders. If a BN or Co HQs is eliminated, that player should get less time to issue orders.

12) Make a Pacific Theater game!

Semper Fi

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Redwolf:

[snips]

[*]Integrate multi-shot weapons better. In CM1 there is an annoying functionality break between single-shot guns, burst guns (FlaK guns) and heavy MGs. This is very artificial and tuning durign CM1 games added to the chaos.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you explain further?

</font>

[Robert Goldsmith]

In addition to meaningful chains of command previously mentioned by others, I'd like to see higher level unit morale. Currently morale is by a single unit or the entire command of one side. Morale of platoons, companies, battalions, and nationalities should be taken into account. In other words, for example, one platoon could have its morale shot, while a different platoon is fine. At the very least, different nationalities should not share morale. Do the Germans really care if the Italians run away?

Second: follow road order

Third: choice of types of artillery barrage, e.g. intense, harassing, rolling.

[Robert Goldsmith]

I thought of two more things:

I'd like to see artillery spotters be able to spot while mounted on some vehicles.

Also, an option for getting more off board ammo, perhaps at the expense of victory points.

[NCrawler]

What I'd like to see for CMx2:

Sound effects/music converted to OggVorbis format.

I really hate making a sound mod which is 45+ MB zipped...

NC

[Slamelov]

1) Realistic Terrain

2) Units could take weapons from death bodies (same for ammo, grenades, etc)

3) Use vehicles for covering

4) Dinamic Campaign playable in multiplayer

5) Dinamic weather

[Slamelov]

Another one, allow to record in AVI the full battles

[nijis]

1) More detailed terrain and modelling of infantry doctrine, particularly in urban combat. For example, it's my understanding that a modern US infantry squad could probably advance down a street against a machinegun nest with a reasonable chance of success, using suppression fire, short dashes from street corner to doorway to burnt-out vehicle, etc. I assume a fairly high-quality WW2 squad probably could too, although less effectively because they'd have fewer automatic weapons and less specific training. Meanwhile, based on everything I've seen, heard, or read, even well-motivated and experienced militias and guerillas rarely do fire-and-movement, because they're not really familiar with it.

I understand this something like this is already being done, with 1:1 representation and squads broken into teams and all. What I'd like to see improved upon is the ''advance'' command in CMBB -- the squad, a blob on the map rather than some guys moving and some guys in cover firing, will move slowly out to the open, get pinned immediately, try to crawl back to cover (the square house tile) and get shot up on the way back too.

2) Uneditable weapons and vehicle characteristics, but editable (and plentiful) troop quality ''intangibles'' -- even beyond what Thompson and others suggest in terms of differentiating training, experience, and morale. This will be particularly useful when if the system moves beyond WW2 and starts getting into irregulars. Unlike the front armour of a Panther, infantry quality can't be quantified, and for the most part anecdotal evidence is the best you can do. Scenario designers can do this a bit with commander attributes, but the differences don't really seem pronounced enough to make that much difference into how a scenario plays out.

Without going into national characteristics, I'd love to see a system which gave infantry lots and lots of attributes -- motivation/morale, weapons handling, tactical maneuvering, officer initiative, physical fitness, stealth/use of cover, situational awareness, something like integration into the larger unit that affects command times and whether or not it relays information -- that scenario designers can tweak to model perceived differences between Mahdi Army militiamen (suicidally brave but can't hit the broad side of a barn), 1967 Arab Legionnaires (good putting rounds on target but don't react to being flanked), Haber Jedir clansmen (usually high on qat and sometimes forget to duck), wily old peshmerga (expert ambushers but have never done a day's worth of tactical drill in their life) to whatever else.

3) Borg spotting

Keep:

1) The basics of a great system -- wego, focus on realism, quick battles, the interface, ability to control individual squads and vehicles. I'd sure like PBEM too.

2) Design emphasis on company-level scale. Makes C&C less unrealistic. Hey, I'd say take it down to platoon if we could get true LOS/LOF.

[ September 10, 2005, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: nijis ]

[Patrocles]

Originally posted by rawmassiah:

-Campaign linking battles, similar to the old Steel Panthers campaigns where you get reinforcements and upgrades made available over time, maybe with basic experience system to create veteran units.

-co-op multiplayer. 2+ players controlling seperate troops on same side against AI

ditto! and the ability to create/design campaigns for single-player and multiplayer (coop or force-on-force)

[Battlefront.com]

We're coming up on 300 posts, which is the magic Forum meltdown avoidence number, so I'm locking this thread up.

Thanks to everybody for all their comments. They have been very helpful to us, and I suspect you as well.

Steve