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

[Gpig]

The top 5 things you don't want to see changed from CMx1

1- scale

2- pace

3- balance between FUN and Realism

4- Ease of command and control (don't get OVERLY detailed)

5- camera controls. LOVE it!

and the top 5 things you want CMx2 to do differently

1- Detailed and functionally realistic animations.

2- Rubbled buildings and piles of rubble/deformable terrain/water has depth

3- SOPs for units (If A happens, do

4- Multi-multi-multi player

5- add a campaign function

Good luck!

Gpig

[MikeyD]

I'd be willing to downgrade my request for 'civilians' to 'evidence of civilians'.

Simple automobile polygons sitting in front of houses. simple bed, table, chair polygons in the houses. Bigger LOS obstacles in cities like simple non-moving bus & trolly polygons (basically painted boxes). No need to add a protection component since these things are 90% sheetmetal anyway and about as bulletproof as a sheet of paper. Store fronts, shop windows.

Maybe BFC could get a bit extra revenue selling ad space on their virtual billboards. CMx2 - brought to you by Dove Chocolates!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Campaign mode Either following a unit trough a long stretch of fighting gaining experience, new units etc or some operational setting or whatever but please, please give us some context to our battles. If not feasible atleast provide for 3rd parties to bolt something on to import export unit data.

Convoy move Difficult to code or not, the inability of vehicles to travel down a strech o road without rubbing hulls is just sooo infuriating.

Cover from vehicles Might be tricky to implement on moving vehicles but moving troops forward behind the cover of an advancing tank is just so damn sexy. But cover behind KO-ed hulls is just a must-have minimum.

Fuzzy visibility distance Tired of being area fired to death from 1m beyond visible range? I sure am.

Better portrayal and control over artillery The near impossibility to lob shells into a wooded area... not fun. More control over weight/rate of fire and pattern would be nice. Same for on map mortars. More meaningful spotting rounds would be great also.

*Gosh, did I really go for six instead of 5 wishes? Inflation!*

[ August 25, 2005, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

[Elmar Bijlsma]

oh and I have to second Gpigs request of keeping the balance of realism and fun intact. From reading some of the snippets of info I sometimes feel like BFC is heading more away from 'fun' then I prefer.

[Nelson 1812]

Wonder how people would feel like if the fog of war, was to included your own platoons etc that are suddenly out of contact with there immediate commander, radios out, out sight, and the AI took over, you losing there visual aspects on the map...and them following pre arrange paths.

Would add some fun to large flanking moves, and cut back on borg spotting!

[badhaggis]

Keep:

1.pbem

2.pbem

3.pbem

4.pbem

5.pbem

Add:

1. The ability to set battlefield views to "units only" with a max viewable height in editor when designing a battle.

2. The ability to navigate the map in editor mode with keyboard keys.

3. Ammo resupply with runners or HTs to arrive when requested by platoons in command.

4. "Stay on road" command for vehicles

[kipanderson]

Hi,

What I do not want to change.

1)Keep the basic scope and scale of CMX1. By this I mean the basic manoeuvre units being squads/individual AFVs/ATGs and such…same as in CMX1. Game optimised for company to battalion clashes over 2km by 2km map.

2)Still be able to see all that my units can see. Still play the role of squad/AFV commander, not just company/platoon commanders, hence being able to see all squad leaders can see. But, of course, only be able to see what my units could see in the real world. Each unit does his own spotting.

What I would like to change.

All relate to the wish to use CMX2 as a means to resolve operational/campaign games such as CMMC.

1)Be able to track units over a large/campaign type map.

2)Ability to fully edit Saved games. i.e. move units from one Saved game to another new map. Then edit on the new map.

3)Universal map file type. In CMX1 terms, the ability to use battle game maps in operations.

4)Be allowed to built huge maps/battles, way over the size current computers could use in a game. I am talking 30km by 30km maps one can cut and paste from.

5)The end to “uber” mines, wire and obstacles. More realistic engineering features, breaching operations.

Great to hear things are still on track .

All good fun ,

All the best,

Kip.

[TufenHuden]

Fog on any graphics card ATI-Nvidia...

Use of landingcraft also include the

duck jeep-amphibious jeep and a decent

jeep for Axis Swimwagon about 2000 made

and had MG on it.

Moddable mods that aren't hard coded

like to be able to change from a barrat

from Brit para to there airborne helmets

if that can be easy.

More detail on the look on mortars,zooks,

zreks,piats.

More acurate on FJ's have FG-42 in there

TO&E link: http://www.cruffler.com/historic-november00.html

[ August 25, 2005, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: TufenHuden ]

[Ted]

Add

1) White Phosphorus and it’s detrimental effects

2) Convoy/Follow command

3) Full movie playback

4) Scroll map using mouse wheel

5) Oh and how about highlighting or somehow noting a berserk troop

(explain why some units do what they do)

Keep

WEGO

PBEM

QB’s

WWII theme

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Nelson 1812:

Wonder how people would feel like if the fog of war, was to included your own platoons etc that are suddenly out of contact with there immediate commander, radios out, out sight, and the AI took over, you losing there visual aspects on the map...and them following pre arrange paths.

Would add some fun to large flanking moves, and cut back on borg spotting!

Apparently that is a "command level" game and no one, bar yourself and yours truly, wants a "command level" game. Shame, because I think it's a damned good idea

[dalem]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nelson 1812:

Wonder how people would feel like if the fog of war, was to included your own platoons etc that are suddenly out of contact with there immediate commander, radios out, out sight, and the AI took over, you losing there visual aspects on the map...and them following pre arrange paths.

Would add some fun to large flanking moves, and cut back on borg spotting!

Apparently that is a "command level" game and no one, bar yourself and yours truly, wants a "command level" game. Shame, because I think it's a damned good idea </font>

[pamak1970]

change/add

1.real 3D LOF/LOS calculations at least for heavy caliber weapons like tank cannons and machine guns

Friendly units should block friendly LOF and multiple enemy units in different locations may be affected by the same MG LOF ( grazing fire )

2.A new type of command that assigns area of responsibility for major sub units (companies or battalions).

(Units inside this area act after a shorter time delay against an enemy in the same area-for example initiating fire against a spotted enemy.

Reaction time is not affected -For example return fire against an enemy unit firing at them from any location ).

3. Ability to generate a new scenario easy by copy and paste forces from any turn of a battle.

For example retain morale ,ammo levels and numbers of forces during turn 15 and use them as the "starting force" of a new scenario.

This is very useful for game Masters during multi player projects like combat mission meta campaign.

4.Ability to breach ALL obstacles .Regular infantry should also have the ability to do so for most obstacles,although they will not have the perfomance of engineer units.

Again this is very useful for projects like combat mission meta campaign

5.deformable terrain.

Large caliber at least shells should create craters that can be used for cover.

Keep the same

1.Wego system

2.Graphics and eye-candy issues.

I prefer to see PC power used to calculate things relative with realistic procedures than appearance.

3.Printed manual as part of the game set.

4.Scope of the game regarding the amount of forces involved and the maximum area of operations during a single battle (again relative with my preference about the use of PC power)

5.Price -(ok, if the new game engine includes the above recommendations ,i will not complain)

[ August 25, 2005, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[Jack Carr]

First, thanks for asking. You folks are second to none in my book.

1) Not sure what everyone means by Convoy rules, but what I think would make the game experience more realistic is a higher AI intelligence for following troops/tanks/vehicles. If this is what everyone means by convoy rules, then I am in agreement. For example. If I'm playing the AI and one of my T-34's nails a panzer coming through a viewable gap, the panzers following the brewed up one just don't come rolling behind as if nothing happened.

2) To add to #1, if a tank rolling down the road spots an enemy tank (big threat), they won't just keep cruising down the country lane because the unit lost sight of it for a moment. I think this falls under the AI improvement heading as well. The example here is similar to that in #1, but nothing got blown up.

3) Rotating, round wheels/bogeys. Eye candy category. Not quite as picky as hamsterfuhrer liederhosen details.

4) Active skyline (moving clouds). Don't worry Battlefront, my video card can take it!

5) More individual soldiers per squad. CMX1 shows three. Hopefully the new engine will be able to increase that.

Thanks, Battlefront, and Good Luck!

6) I'm cheating by making six suggestions. Please make the setting World War II.

[ August 25, 2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Jack Carr ]

[Tero]

Especially for heavy ordnance there are currently precious few misfires (due to faulty firing pin and other causes). And there are absolutely no stabilizer malfunctions.

Different failure rates for the same equipment using different parts and/or procedures (re: Maxim's using canvas belts vs Maxim's using non-disintegrating metal belts).

User selectable ad-hoc command and control switching of out-of control units from one HQ to another HQ.

FO's should be HQ units onto themselves and should not incur undue penalties because they happaen to be in the influence radius of a higher HQ unit. They should also be able to act as command units on the spot when situations demand it.

[Tero]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Maybe BFC could get a bit extra revenue selling ad space on their virtual billboards. CMx2 - brought to you by Dove Chocolates!

Well, we may end up getting all sorts of weirdly named vehicles and other ordnance (as well as those blasted WG troops and no swasticas) because the companies still hold on to the trademarks and will prosecute if they do not get their cut of the profits if the names are used....

[Folbec]

Originally posted by Ted:

Add

1) White Phosphorus and it’s detrimental effects

Battlefront did not include it in the CMX1 game because they feared it would be overused, but I just saw an interview of civilian survivors of the late 44 Alsace battles (Strasbourg and villages nearby), and they stated spontaneouly that it was heavilly used, to the point that tiling the land later (after the front line had moved) could be dangerous because some bit would be brought back and start burning again.

[HarryInk]

HarryInk's wish list (typed with lurv ):

1] The map editor in CM has always felt a after-thought dog. Please, take it out the back and shoot it. Incorporate the improvements of Mapping Mission and then some. I really want the ability to edit terrain in the bird's-eye AND 3D viewer using point-to-point clicks that the 'puter will edit and keyboard commands to choose terrain. I want to be able to overlay(er) a scanned topo map, define and click in the contour lines etc., and have the engine reproduce the terrain for me. No more of the crap coloured hard-to-read/visualise number matrices, please.

2] PBEM. NO PBEM? Great disappointment, NO BUY. I'll stick with the older versions. It's the selling point for the CM series to me. I enjoy TCP/IP but I'm not a teenager so I negotiate my playing time around family. PBEM play is the great feature that allows CM to fit into that regime (crudely, I admit, but I'm not divorced yet - and until CM provides ALL the joys of companionship I won't make a decisive choice!! )

3] Multiplayer system. I've fought a couple of MP games with CM but the process is slow, clumsy and riddled with work-arounds. [Assuming PBEM] Please include a routine to allow assigning of combat commands, process a series of PBEM files from one side to produce the overall turn. A communication net back up the chain of command would be ace, too (or an auto-report device that would give OCs an abstracted idea of who's getting hammered and by what). That way we could be playing single games up to the scale of regiments or even divisions (given that the business end of [uS] Div (in terms of a 30 or 40 minute battle) is maybe 8 coys+/4btns out of 36/12)!

4] Better OB editor. I've seen this mentioned elsewhere in this thread. It's just a linear document, at the moment, which doesn't gel with military organisation it's suppose to represent. It's a dull click-fest to alter much (for scenario development). Similarly, when reinforcements arrive, they plonk on the map holus-bolus, mixed through each other like spaghetti. How about units appearing on map in some (eg. platoon) formations rather than the long default line along the friendly edge?

5] Full Game Movie Replay that incorporates the option to change between FOW and no FOW and to see turn/order plotting. This would be the single best learning feature that you could provide with CMx2. If BFC has even a half-serious eye to the military training market, I can't believe this could remain an option for you.

Despite a great community, the thing that CM-as-it-is doesn't provide is the 'round-the-table' cooperation/disasters & banter that I used to enjoy with tabletop battling. The multiplayer option would move toward that.

Thanks for great work so far and good luck with 'x2'.

HarryInk

[JonS]

Originally posted by pamak1970:

5.deformable terrain.

Large caliber at least shells should create craters that can be used for cover.

:confused: Have you actually played CMx1?

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pamak1970:

5.deformable terrain.

Large caliber at least shells should create craters that can be used for cover.

:confused: Have you actually played CMx1? </font>

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by Ted:

Add

1) White Phosphorus and it’s detrimental effects

.....

To keep it from being gamey normal load of maybe 5 WPs and 50 HEs for a mortar. 10:1 ratio.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pamak1970:

5.deformable terrain.

Large caliber at least shells should create craters that can be used for cover.

:confused: Have you actually played CMx1? </font>

[JonS]

Some you can, yes. Things as small as 81mm mtrs can create cover, while sometimes the huge stuff fails to create a hole you can hide in.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by JonS:

Some you can, yes. Things as small as 81mm mtrs can create cover, while sometimes the huge stuff fails to create a hole you can hide in.

The question is about combat mission game.

Do artillery shells during a game create craters that provide a percentage of cover?

[Gpig]

Yes. There are TWO types of craters in CMAK/CMBB. Ones that provide cover (they are slightly MORE black inside, graphically) and ones that don't (slightly more brown inside).

If you pass the LOS tool over a crater and it tells you "crater," then it is the kind of crater that offers cover for your little troopers.

[Bonxa]

Originally posted by pamak1970:

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

Some you can, yes. Things as small as 81mm mtrs can create cover, while sometimes the huge stuff fails to create a hole you can hide in.

The question is about combat mission game.

Do artillery shells during a game create craters that provide a percentage of cover? </font>