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

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by 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.

I understand that.what i ask is what type of crater is created by artillery strike during a game.

I am not talking about scenario-map editor.

[JonS]

.

[ August 25, 2005, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by JonS:

Oh for fecks sake - how dense are you? We are talking about IN GAME. In the COMBAT MISSION x1 GAME. WHILE YOU ARE PLAYING.

Ok, so from what i understand it is a random thing regarding which craters created by artillery strikes during game provide cover and which ones they do not and are just graphical symbols.

That is the clarification i was looking for.

[37mm]

I want...

Far more realistic smoke, mist & fog… I want signalling smoke, moving smoke clouds & dawn mist, burning tanks to obscure visibility, changing wind direction...

The ability to see your battles in an operational context with 'some kind of' Operational map

Ability to modify the 3d models, weapons values & effects that kind of thing.

Make sure that the Mk VII battle-crabs armoured carapace is at least butter resistant

[aka_tom_w]

Change

1) Please enable asynchronous FOW ( Where one player plays EFOW the other player (AI) plays Partial FOW (Handicap for less skilled player)

2) Follow or Convoy command

3) END to Absolute Spotting! Bring on the REAL Relative Spotting paradigm AND the better C&C communications model/simulatiton

4)MORE Fog of War options including something extra hard like Ironman or Frankco's rules.

5) BETTER AI !! Way better AI with the enhanced ability for Scenario designers to script or program units with SOP's on defence and on attack

6) more terrain fidelity

7) Fix the Map editor with a better GUI make it like terra forming in Sim City or in Bryce

8) Full Movie Replay (speaks for its self)

Don't Change

( **Note** Most of the stuff we don't want changed we are all taking for granted such as the "WEGO system" AND the simultaneous MAC and PC release I MUST have this on a Mac or I won't buy it! )

1) AI does NOT CHEAT (ever) (hints however, are OK and necessary!)

2) balance between FUN and Realism (its was VERY good in CMAK, but WAY too much fun and not enough realism in CMBO

3) User modability (scenario editor, graphics mods)

4) Availability of hard-core realism options (casualties, extreme FOW)

5) Open-ended game scale (i.e. though designed for battalion combat team, ability to simulate larger scale action)

(thanks to Andreas and Gpig I support their don't change suggestions)

[ August 26, 2005, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

oops

[Bartokomus]

1) Campaign System

2) Map Contour for easier LOS dtermination

3) Improved Battle editor

*4 & 5 reserved for future use

[Emar]

1. Better representation of night combat (star shells, moonlight, etc.)

2. Better convoy management on or off road and the ability of vehicle and boat passengers to fire their weapons even if it is at decreased effectiveness.

3. Artillery modeling

4. Diagonal city streets

5. Think of something later

[Buq-Buq]

These are tough, because — of course — as I wrote I thought of so many other things I wanted to throw in here. I've attempted to keep to the topic at hand, and not get too specific (comments about Australian Matildas notwithstanding!). I hope that I've been clear in my descriptions.

Things to Change (or add on . . .)

1. Pick your Command Level

I would like to be able to choose to play any scenario/campaign as EITHER a squad leader/vehicle commander, a platoon commander, a company commander, or a regimental commander.

Playing as a regimental commander, play would proceed basically as it does in CMX1: you give orders to all of your units to do most things (an exception to this is that the AI oft-times chooses whom to fire upon, and when, by itself).

In CMX2, however, if I chose to play as a platoon commander in a battle, for example, I would be able to directly control only the units in my platoon — and those units under my command would act like units do in CMX1. The gameplay — the tactical decisions — for the rest of your force, would be handled entirely by the AI. Perhaps the player would be allowed to be 'regimental commander' in a very general sense . . . telling his side to push harder over here, or to fall back over there . . . but again, only in a very general sense. I'm picturing big arrows being drawn on the map (maybe in a grease-pencil sort of looking graphic) to indicate where and how your side would apply the focus of battle. Then the AI for your side would create its own orders for the units not in your command, following your general concept. But again, the only thing you directly control as a platoon commander is your platoon; as a company commander: your company, etc.

There are a couple things I like about this. #1 is that it takes you out of that ability to control everything your side is doing. Few commanders have that capability in battle. Secondly, you can play immersed within a much larger picture, without having to be concerned about every aspect of that picture. It would also allow you to play much larger battles than you might normally be pre-disposed to take on, either due to time constraints, ability, etc. Another element that might be introduced with this is an increase in Fog of War: perhaps you wouldn't even be allowed to see what your own troops can't see — or the view of the total battlefield might be diminished, unclear.

2. Scripting of Events/Victory Conditions

By this I mean the ability to have more flexibility with things such as Victory Conditions, Reinforcements, events, etc. when building scenarios. I think that some people have described this as having SOPs for units. I think that would be good, but I'd like to see it go far beyond the SOP solution. I'm thinking that allowing "If/Then" statements to govern certain circumstances might do the trick. For example: "If the Attacker looses > 5 tanks, then reinforcements will arrive the next turn", or "If Engineer Platoon Leader A sees an enemy AFV within 100 meters of the bridge, then Engineer Squad A under his command may attempt to destroy the bridge with his explosives", or "If the Attacker has more than 2/3rds of the squads in Panicked Morale State (or worse) at any given time, then the Defender wins immediately".

Part of this comes about due to frustration with the standard 'capture the flag' Victory Conditions in CMX1. I understand that a points system allows for a wide range of results, but sometimes wouldn't it just be nice to have a Black or White Victory Condition once and a while? "Hold this building or you loose." Directly tied to this is the complete inability under the current system to build situations that would resemble a reconnaissance mission, or a raid, because you have to hold the flag at the end in order to get the points. Allow the scenario designer to place flags that give points ONLY to one side, and also allow them to designate that certain flags can be removed from play once they are captured by the other side (and the points held without the possibility of loss by that side). Way more flexible; way more possibilities.

3. Command Relationships, higher to lower

I like what Michael Emrys suggested here; I think that it would be good to have a Battalion Commander perform his function of commanding his battalion, rather than having him as a glorified squad leader. Allow this to work for vehicles as well (i.e., AFV company commanders, etc.).

4. A better OoB Editor

Again, seconding what someone else has said, in this case, JonS. Make the OoB Editor easier to use, and while you're at it, allow you to create your own command relationships and platoon make-ups (like a tank troop consisting of 3 Cromwells and one Firefly). Also, a bit more flexibility in allowing 'things that just weren't so' to be done would be a nice touch: the hoops I had to jump through to get HE for Australian Matildas for some PTO scenarios were outrageous. Oh, and while we're at it . . . once a vehicle/unit is in the game, wire it so that it can be used anywhere, by anyone. In the above example, British Matildas had to stand in for the Australians, because Australian Matildas just didn't happen in the MTO, so they weren't in CMAK. Likewise, those great Pz38(t)s that were in CMBB are unavailable in CMAK, and thus are nowhere to be seen in those great France 1940 scenarios that a few people have done. Come on. Just let me give my Matildas Australian crews . . .

5. A better combat environment & a more user-friendly Map Editor

I fret over using my last 'wish' for a better map editor (rather than crying for a follow command — or PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE a way better handling of night combat) — especially since it appears that maps will be significantly changed for the better already . . . but this one does cause me considerable anguish in CMX1. Those roads! 90 degrees or 45 degrees. Ugh! I'm hoping for some sort of more real-world look, curving lines, realistic contours, etc. Also, the editor just isn't incredibly easy to use. Something's gotta be done about that. A lot has happened in the computer interface arena in the past five or so years; I'm hoping that you can take advantage of that.

Things to keep

1. I really like the whole camera look-at-any-spot-on-the-battlefield thing, and the way that the current game flows: we both give orders, we hit go, the units carry them out (or not!). I guess I'm saying I like WeGo.

2. I like that there is enough eye-candy to keep things interesting, the attention to detail, and the nods to both the modeling community as well as the wargaming community. I generally lose track of that eye-candy once the game starts, but hey! priorities! Priorities!

3. I like that we the users can build our own Battles and Operations — and that we use the same device to do that as you (the original game designers) did.

4. The focus of the game: in general terms, tactical combat.

5. The level of excitement that this game system generates in me. As an aside, I would have to say that this game has hands down given me more for my money than any game I've ever owned. I'm looking forward to that tradition being continued in CMX2, and I am also looking forward to many purchases of the forthcoming CMX2 modules.

Mark

[Wolfe]

Assuming that the borg spotting issue doesn't need to be mentioned:

Change:

1.) Better menu interface allowing reassignment of keys and changing the resolution and various 3D render details within the game (or at the very least an editable .ini text file).

2.) Implement SOPs (and/or basic orders sets) so infantry support tanks aren't found dueling with tank destroyers, and support elements generally support units within their command structure and aren't blazing at every enemy unit on the map (unless ordered to).

3.) More accurate artillery representation.

4.) More editable maps with placeable, rotate-able objects (houses and fences, etc.), greater variety of terrain types (including mixing of terrain elements, such as rocky forest, and flooded grassy areas, etc.), and pre- and partially destroyed objects (partially collapsed farm houses, burned-out tanks, etc.).

5.) Easier battlefield management (including Follow command, toggle-able overlay grid, mouse-look and freedom of camera movement (including smooth up-and-down like Madminute's Bull Run), and group move command (more than one destination, please)).

Keep:

1.) WEGO.

2.) PBEM.

3.) Game scale. Bigger (larger than battalion) or smaller (single soldier) really wouldn't interest me, at least not for a WWII setting. Going up loses the flavor of battle; going down creates too much micromanagement.

4.) Unit attributes uneditable. Flexibility is nice, but it has its limits; I don't want to play 20 different versions of what someone else determines is the "correct" value for unit firepower, AP penetration, or unit organization. The ability to turn a Tiger into an Abrams is not a good thing.

5.) Current camera controls. Just because I'd like to see them enhanced and more flexible doesn't mean I want the existing ones junked.

- Chris

[KG_Cloghaun]

Howdy guys!

Change-

1. Campaign Mode

2. Ability to design our own Campaigns

3. True Multiplayer system

4. Troop importing from previous battles.

5. More depth/options to the battle editor

Don't change-

1. PBEM

2. Ability to design our own maps

3. The WEGO system

[toxiczen]

and a map editor! i left that out, map editor is very important, gots to have one, so map editor to.

[Dook]

Change

1) Vehicles and units occupy space, not just points, and thus block LOS

2) Increased scripting options at tactical and operational level, including small unit SOPs (esp. a "follow road" SOP), event triggers (Y happens when Player 1 reaches X), and more flexible victory conditions

3) Improved indirect fire modelling (# of rounds/arrows/rocks, etc.)

4) Improved AI - keep all parts of unit in C&C whenever possible, better and less predictable placement and movement of units (e.g. ATGs not always at absolute rear of map)

5) Assignable HQs

Keep

1) Scale and scope, to include time required to complete a game

2) PBEM

3) Compatibility with Mac

[SgtMuhammed]

More flexability with units in scenario creation. Ability to remove units between battles, specific reinforcement locations for ops, things like that.

More terrain variety to vary cover, scattered trees with heavy brush, dirt field, etc...

Ability to assign chains of command.

Ability to adjust unit equipment. (Units tend to accumulate and disgard things over time)

More realistic rates of fire.

[Blah Blah Blah]

To Change

1. Orders through units HQ and less specific control of my units

I would like to see orders for a unit to move from point A to point B, to target an specific unit/area etc be done through the units HQ.

2. AI Targeting

The AI currently often targets useless and non combatant units such as tank crews from a destroyed tank. Or continually changing from target A to B then back to A.

3. Ammo expenditure, ammo amount & resupply

The rate of ammo expenditure made when in close resulted in a units being ‘empty’ within 2 minutes. A well dug in defending unit knowing the enemy is coming would where practical have extra ammo. Resupply of attacking defending units.

4. Value of the objective

As it stands the objective is rarely worth the loss of points to attain it. So winning often means backing off, while we don’t want a ‘hamburger hill’ situation not attaining the objective needs to cost dearly.

5. A more practical implementation of what the unit can see

when I click on a unit I would like a shading of where he can and cannot see. This is not less realistic than the line.

I know it said five, but the time the battle takes. I don’t want to have to feel rushed, give me time to manoeuvre and the likes.

Not to change

1. PBEM

2. WEGO

3. WWII

4. 1 minute turns

5. PBEM

[SgtMuhammed]

Gotta add one more:

Test mode for scenarios. Designer can see all units while doing a run through but for game purposes FOW is as set. This can help greatly with tweaking AI actions and reaction.

[Jester09]

5 items I would like to see changed from CM1 to CM2

1. Convoy Rules/Follow Vehicle/Stick to Roads movement function.

2. Copy and Paste (import/export) feature for Map Building.

3. One big play back file at end of any game (PBEM, Hotseat, 1 Player, etc.). I would still like the ability to stop/rewind/fast forward while watching this file.

4. Map based Campaign system. I would like to have some kind of strategic input and decision making that would influence the tactical (CM) battles.

5. When deploying, have a small window that lists all your troops. This way, we simply pick and choose from this list and deploy our troops as opposed to trying to find them where the computer has placed them on the map.

5 items I would like to stay the same

1. PBEM

2. WeGo System

Thank you!!!

[Holman]

Woo hoo! Just a few weeks until we know some real stuff!

Here are my votes for what to change/improve:

1) Give scenario designers more tools (assigning goals to the AI, multiple pre-programmed strategies, event triggers, scoring options, etc.)

2) Keep improving the TacAI, the heart of CM in all modes of play

3) Better formation commands

4) More sophisticated orders system (including Standard Operating Procedures, more variable delays, response to local intelligence, etc.)

5) More sophisticated artillery control

And what not to change:

1) PBEM

2) WEGO

3) WW2

4) BTS

5) Emphasis on detail, accuracy, and realism

[Count D'Ten]

Things to improve:

1. Aide to help handle larger battles (for example I might have one company/battalion with AI Aide handling a force on my flank -- I'd see the edge of what the AI's doing, having to worry and adjust rather than trusting a map edge. Or I could command the whole show having the AI "carry on" while I concentrate on moving the critical sector.)

2. Multiplayer PBEM system (with limited intelligence/FOW) :cool:

3. Better AI with random personalities (or at least one that can attack).

4. Better multi-unit road movement (Whether it's MP's who can direct traffic or a "follow me" convoy officer, or a "keep to the road" order -- whatever works for you. Actually an MP or officer might be better. If they're killed the ability goes away.... :eek:

5. Some kind of random campaign maker that gives even a Quick Battle some context and an option to "continue" and see what happens next.

Don't change-

1. PBEM

2. The WEGO system

3. Please

[wbs]

KEEP:

1) Campaign Game format, in one form or another

2)TCP/IP and PBEM

3) Keep anything not mentioned in "Change", below

Change

1) Add Convoy ability to eliminate these clusterf*ck traffic jams

2) Improve terrain types and varieties

3) Improve Indirect Artillery fire

4) Improve AI. Make it a harder opponent, because sometimes that's all I have, and I'm tired of winning 400 games in a row, if you know what I mean.

5) Enable larger scenarios than 5000pts. of purchases, and make maximum gameboard size larger, while keeping current minimum sizes of each.

[ August 25, 2005, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

[Brent Pollock]

[Apologies if others have already covered these and I don't cite them.]

Five top changes:

1. fight the Borg, of course. Relative spotting that also accounts for unit status (e.g. pinned, well rested defender, experience, buttoned, radioless, one man turret, crew casualties, etc.). This should tie in with more realistic command control. Battalion COs can't act willy nilly as platoon leaders. Damage inflicted on higher HQs either increases command delays for subordinates or puts a dent in global morale. Higher level AFV commanders & command vehicle modelling. Daytime friendly fire.

2. QB maps that make some sort of geographic sense or that can randomly modify a human-made map. No orphaned fences/buildings. No lack of water. No heavy stone churches in the middle of the Ukraine, etc.. I am of course, utterly clueless as to how to go about improving this. Perhaps give it some modules to build on (swaths of trees; orchards/fields and farm buildings; tree-lined roads near inhabited areas; Norman walled towns; market areas; swamps/bogs)?

3. Better night effects. Illumination by fires. Dark adaptation blindness. Gunflashes. Trip flares, flare guns & illumination rounds. Blind firelanes. Units lose their bearings and wander off course. Think ASL Chapter E.

4. Scenario stuff:

In whatever Operations will morph into, I'd like reinforcements to arrive during the battle, rather than get plopped down at the start. I'd also like to define different entry zones, rather than have to specify Friendly Edges. What I am aiming for is something more akin to the HASL modules in the ASL system.

Different VC modes. For instance, recce points for spotting fortifications, heavy weapons, etc., mainly to improve PROBE type battles.

A reconnaissance engine that reveals info during set up (front line; fortifications, gun emplacements; foxholes; MG nests, etc.) for Attacks/Battles.

Modify the unit purchase engine to permit some randomness. For instance, rather than simply boosting the price of rare units, assign a flat rate for the purchase of a certain type of unit (e.g. ATG, artillery FO, air support, medium AFV platoon, armoured car platoon) and then have the rarity covered by a % chance that it will be the type selected. The Solitaire ASL system is a good example of this. I'd like to use this in scenario design, too, "on turn X, a Veteran medium tank platoon appears here".

More terrain types, especially for built up areas (wall heights/robustness, cellars, rooftops, mouseholing, tunnels, trenches into gaps in buildings).

5. General beefing up of "vehicle as solid object" modelling. Improved hull-down/size modelling. Cumulative damage by sufficiently large rounds. Crews can voluntarily abandon then reoccupy (e.g. to scout on foot). Long barrelled weapons have restrictions in close terrain. LOS/LOF blocking. Driving accidents, especially if the driver gets whacked (there seems to be a bit of this already, but the vehicle never gets damaged as a result). Vision port damage & repair. Radio malfs & damage.

Top five things not to change:

1. EFOW

2. WEGO

3. ability to do something analogous to the current PBEM.

4. focus on realism instead of arcade.

5. WWII as focus of first release.

[Neutrino 123]

Here’s my list of ones I can think of off the top of my head. First things to add (that haven’t been discussed or that I might be able to offer more insight to ):

1. Better command and control system.

Ideally and for maximum realism, this would be real time [with plenty of pausing since the player will have to represent multiple commanders (until technology become more advanced leading to a far, far, better AI)], with delays depending on the number of commands issued by each HQ at (about) the same time (eg, a ‘queue’ for issuing orders, with the associated delay displayed, of course).

If it can’t be real-time (I doubt you made it real time since you were talking about turns in another thread ! Maybe for CMx3 when technology improves…) (I admit that a realistic real-time game would be very, very difficult to implement, and maybe not practicable with large maps/unit sizes since in these cases, a player can’t see everything at once), a 30-second or so turn would help. Other ways to improve realism would be for individual HQs to have a more complex delay system, depending on various realistic factors such as the complexity of orders (for example, “moved around on the right flank and take a covered route” might have several waypoints, but is not a very complex order. “run to those woods, then slow down to normal speed, and start crawling when you get to the end” might have only three waypoints, but is more complex). In addition to the regular pause command, there should be a variable time pause option (maybe a menu that scrolls out when you move the curser over ‘pause’), so one could coordinate attacks more effectively.

2. Improved road movement.

This has been mentioned as something that you will defiantly do, but I want to clarify a point just in case. With the current system, simply a ‘follow’ command would help, but it would not be enough. Right now, there is additional delay for each little bend in the road. Moving along a road should only have delays for the initial order, and for intersections (this sort of goes with #1).

3. Improved artillery system.

For both on-map and off map artillery, anyone on the battlefield that could historically call on those assets for indirect fire should be able to do so. Perhaps different levels of command could have different delay times (this would be a good reason to have a forward command post). Spotters should be included, but should not be more common then their historical counterparts.

More artillery firing options would definitely be good. More options does not have to increase complexity for those that don’t want it to. After you target a spot, you could access a menu to give realistic options for more detailed fire plans if you want to, or have the automatic default if you don’t.

4. Fallback command(s).

In the current Combat Mission, I often find myself wanting my guys to make a platoon/squad-level fighting withdrawal. As of now, the only good options for moving away under fire are running like hell, and crawling away. I would like to tell my squads to slowly fall back, taking appropriate cover along the way and occasionally shooting some covering fire. This movement (this is an estimate) should be as slow as crawl, but should be difficult to pin, take fewer casualties then running like hell, and sometimes inflict some casualties on the enemy. It would also be nice to tell my guys to try to start falling back after enemy fire on them starts becoming intense and hopefully before it pins them (this type of command could reduce certain aspects of micromanagement even though it would need to be ordered in advance).

5.An improved and expanded set of cover arc commands (if these are to be kept and not replaced with something better).

For starters, when placing covered arcs, one should have the first two clicks be as they are now, but then, have another click for minimum range. This will allow a player to set up proper ambush zones without having to worry about enemies passing in front of it.

Also, instead of only two commands for covered arc, there should be four: one for everything, one for all vehicles, one for combat vehicles with cannons (everything above 50cal machine gun), and one for medium/heavy tanks.

I assume things such as the LOS being what one actually sees with the camera at ground level (no tanks with a tiny bit of their left track covered getting hull down!) will be corrected. Also, there is always encouragement to improve the TacAI (an essay of 10 pages or even a book could be written on this). Commands sort of like ‘fast hunt’ could help…

Now some key things to keep:

1. Quick battle generator.

This greatly increases replayability, and sometimes it’s fun to pick your own forces, even if some players abuse this. Maybe you could add more customization to it (no slider selection for total points, allow a customizable point value to be imputed for armor, infantry, vehicle purchaces, etc.).

2. Grand Scale.

It seems the scale of the CMx2 games will be reduced, but this is okay to a certain extent. The number of tactical possibilities between say, “The Western Allies in Europe” has and, “Americans from Overlord through Cobra” is significant, but the difference between them is much smaller then the total possibilities of the smaller hypothetical game.

3. Time period.

If the game is to remain at the tactical level, then the most interesting forces with the widest variety of tactical possibilities will be modern wars (by tactical possibilities, I mean great varieties of distinct equipment and the lowest maneuver unit element). This, of course, isn’t just WWII, but would cover, say, various things from the 30s to the present (though not all battles and wars in that time period, of course!). In times such as the civil war, the lowest maneuver element was usually the regiment, which would entail a significantly larger scale then the present CM games.

4.Tactical Scale.

I don’t need to command a regiment, but I would like my two year old 3GHz machine to be able to handle reinforced battalion (on each side) sized engagements.

5. Can’t think of anything specific at the moment, so I’ll just use one of those cheap excuses for a numbering bullet .

Keep realism as the primary design pillar. However, I give you the sage advice that in some situations, if you make things more realistic for the player, the overall realism of the battle may decrease since AIs are still not too good compared to humans in most things.

[melb_will]

Ok I suppport much of the things already said. I especially support the person that said give more flexibility to OOB, Ie in CMAK some units are only available at certain times in certain regions. While I accept this is historically accurate it removes the 'what if' scenarios. Once it is in the game it should be able to be used anywhere in any manner, even if it has a note saying that it would be ahistorical to do so.

Second and this one is fairly random. I want to be able to draw marks on the map ala paint. that way if I am playing a large scenario I can have memory aids for play. Ie move firegroup here. I find that when I am doing set ups for PBEM's i often take a view 8 to paint and draw on it to get ideas. If I could do this in the game where I could get a better idea of height it would be great.

I definitely want a follow road

Def want to get rid of borg spotting

def want to get rid of absolute spotting (diff probs in my view but related)

What don't I want changed

Australians, there should definitely be Australians.

PBEM (although a built in Email Manager would be cool oops was that six?)

Anything else i'm prepared to see where you guys take it

Cheers

Will

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by PanzerBlitz:

5. When deploying, have a small window that lists all your troops. This way, we simply pick and choose from this list and deploy our troops as opposed to trying to find them where the computer has placed them on the map.

That is an excellent idea.

I sometimes go to set up a CM game, and by the time I find and organise and place all my troops I am so sick of it before the first turn that I go and watch TV!

I would also like to second a DRAG/CUT/PASTE function in the map editor so you can copy that perfect farmhouse or village to several different maps.

[ August 25, 2005, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

[lucero1148]

HI,

This might sound odd but I would like to see

1. Civilian units, unarmed non-combatants that could also represent POW units for developing scenarios that could allow scenario designers to make rescue hostage/pow scenarios. This could be implemented at scenario design allowing anywhere from 1 to 6 civilian units to use in the battle and would add additional victory conditions like how many civilian/pows rescued or avoiding harming hostages in a battle. It's a vague concept but would add to the complexity of the game. If for example 50% of the civilian units are killed morale factor of civilains would be against the force that failed to protect them. Civ. could then be turned into combatants pickingup arms and fight against whichever side is losing the morale factor of the civilians.

2. when designing maps for a battle it would be nice to be able to paste the map for use in an operation battle and to expand on the map design while in the operation battle design.

Hope that makes sense?

Allbest

Patrick