mav1

It would be good to have medium and heavy artillery ( 3500 - 19000kg )on the map ( not just as off map artillery ) as individual guns, giving direct fire support. This would stimulate rear guard actions, desperate situations and units that have been surrounded by the enemy. To my knowledge not all field artillery in combat mission was present on the map for use as direct fire support. I remember the Hungarians having no field artillery in CMBB.

What programme do you need to edit in combat mission. I have no idea about modding :confused:

Maybe there should be degrees of fanatasim (morale), just like there are degrees of experiance. A green unit can hve low fanatic value where it gives up easily. Or high fanatic value where it fights to the death. So the same with veteran units, which can have high or low fanatic values. Just bcause a unit is veteran doesn't mean it will fight to the death. As well just because a unit is green it will not run away. A veteren unit can be professional but not suicidal. A green unit can be inexperiance, but is willing to die for a cause. [ March 29, 2006, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]

This problem was even worse with operations when the AI would place it's afv's in the front line in the sight of nearly all my units. Maybe you should get a sound contact in a area just outside the map to give warning of approaching units. As well if the area that the reinforcements are meant to arrive is known to be under control of the enemy, you should be given the choice of diverting the reinforcements to another area and suffer a time delay for it. But if the enemy are not spotted in the reinforcement area then the reinforcements can be ambushed. But the best solution is to have bigger maps, where the chances of being spotted are smaller and the chances of the reinforcement area being controlled by the enemy smaller.

In CMx1, I usually ran out of ammo half way through a battle. A lot of it down to covering fire. So I can only image I will run out of ammo even quicker in shock force. It's a right pain as I have to get close to the enemy and use granades for the rest of the battle. So regulated firepower level would be a welcome addition. The AI has a pointless habit of wasting it's ammo against long distance targets, of any unit that's spotted, that it has no chance of inflicting any damage.

What about a mission involving finding hostages, hidden inside a building somewhere on the map. You have to find them, rescue them and then protect them as you escape through the exit zone. Or a mision involving finding and killing a general or political leader that is heavily protected. There could be supplies that need destroying in a building.

You read my mind MickeyD on the static airplane on the runway as a target. It would be great to have a mission to destroy something then make a run for it. What a about mission involving rescuing hostages? For example the hostages can be on a plane, you can go inside the plane like a building, kill the enemy and rescue the hostages. [ March 20, 2006, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]

What about mission's where you have to destroy or protect objectives rather than capturing the flag. For example trucks, buildings, radar stations, missile launchers can be given points. You gain points by protecting or destroying them. This would be great for sas or commando missions. You have to get behind enemy lines and destroy your objective then you have to get your soldiers through an exit zone (to escape). Two examples would be to destroy aircraft and helicopters in an airport that's heavily guarded by sam's or destroying a supply dump. The AI for the computer to use exit zones needs to improve, as the AI fails to recognize it has to pass troops through the exit zone. [ March 20, 2006, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]

It will be a shame to sacrifice big maps for a smaller action game. Being able to create big maps is what I loved about Combat Misssion. So I hope a choice will exist for people who like to play on smaller or larger maps. Maybe the best thing to do is not create artificial limits on the size of the map. So that as computers get more powerful you will be able to create bigger maps with more and more units on the map. So how about being able to play brigade v brigade on a 10kmx10km map, by the time cmx3 comes out, as computers get more powerful.

Wouldn't anyone like to use the British Centurion, the German Maus or the American M43 on the western front?

Combat Mission's realism is what makes it brilliant. What I meant by taking realism too seriously, is not giving the option of creating a what if scenario to the game. You can still be semi realistic by adding historic afc protoypes in the game.

I believe in giving the gamer as much choice as possible. If you want to or don't want to use a afv construction set, should be a gamers choice. The only question is, will there be too much work for the dvelopers, in coding in a construction set. You can take the philosophy of realism too seriously. Give a little space for those who like to create what if scenario's. At the moment you can create historic or non historic battles, expand that freedom more. It would good to have more different kind's of trucks then just one type. Also it would be nice to have the ability to change the colour's of afv's in the game rather than having to splash out money on a programe to be able to edit the afv's. If BFC refuse to have a construction set, then what about including historic prototypes of afv's in the game, such as for example the Romanian Marasal tank destroyer or the Hungarian TuranIII with 75mm 43m gun. Also include afv's that just failed to enter ww11, such as the British Centurion or the various American Self propelled guns that just failed to make it into ww11. It would just add fun for players like me who just want to play with more different types of afv. Also adding new countries such as Czechoslovakia in the western front. Or Yugoslavian Partisans, slovakia, Turkey and Sweden on the Eastern front. Would add more divercity and add the ability to include what if scenario's.

What about a construction set for afv's, you get a number of chassis, guns, turrents, hulls and tracks to choice from. You could then construct your own afv (like lego). The values of penetration of guns would still be hard coded. But maybe you could choice the armour petection. It may not be realistic or practical but it would be fun. For example you could create a jagtiger with a 128mm gun or a tank destroyer version of a crusader tank.

Maybe the best option would be to give a choice for the player. One option would be to have the generic unknown option, that already exist's, for players who are not so fussy about realism. The other option would be just a sound, that goes louder as you approach it { just as Cpl Steiner mentioned }, this would be for players who like realism. The sound option would be great for players who dont mind searching the map, like myself. The best games are one's that give as much options to gamers as possible.

That's just the way as I look at it Kipanderson. CMSF is a bonus game, a chance for BFC to perfect their art. So the next game will benefit, which will be placed in a more interesting setting

I would have liked to have seen two games based on wwII. Western/southern front 1940-45 and Eastern front 1939-45. Also both games would have be compatable, so you could play Americans against Soviets or British against Hungarians {as an example}. This would have meant a complete ww11 game based in Europe, Africa and the Near East on only two compatable cd's. But in life you can't get always get what you want. So who know's what BFC are up to. I would like them to stick to wwII or modern warfare. As the computer game Total War already does pre ww11 games, so I can't say Iam interested in Bfc doing pre ww11 games unless Total War deceide to do ww11 or modern warfare games.

SteveP, what do you think of BfC's approach to CMx2. What I was hopeing for was an improve CM on a grander scale, with a campaign {to replace operations}. But they have gone for smaller action, based on urban warfare {I think}. Also what are your ideas on how to make a campaign for combat mission. I would like to compare your ideas on how to do a campaign with my ideas.

I agree with you SteveP, that how well the AI work's is down to the scenario designer. A few of the designers in the scenerio's included in the game got it wrong. But I wonder if you give more time to the AI to think, could you improve the AI. If during the time the player is thinking of his/her move. The AI uses the time to think of its move (dont know if this is done already). This approach is done on a game called Galactic Civilation, its supposedly got good AI because of it. Dont know if its relevent, but its a suggestion.

Afv's don't get much camouflage protection against anything, not just aircraft. If you can hide a 128mm german anti tank gun that's almost as big as a stugIII. Then why can't you hide a stugIII as well as the 128mm gun?

The game I suppose lacks a more human element on the part of the ai. If the crew of the tanks had heard about the massacre taking place, they would have rushed to the rescue, cover or no cover. But then again this is balanced by the player not giving a damn about his own troops unless it interferes wth him/her winning the battle. That's why having a campaign is important, in adding to the realism of the game, because then losing troops will count. It will be interesting how bfc will cope with creating a campaign. It will be hard to get it right. In battle it is important to get more troops than your opponent in a critical area. If the ai is failing in using all its troops, it could miss the bigger picture of the battle being lost. I hope the new path creation plan in combat mission x2 for the player will leave a random element for the ai. Otherwise as the scenario creater, I will know were the attack is going to come from. Hopefully this will stop tiger tanks travelling through a cementry to get to it's objective rather than using a road near by. Thanks for your input SteveP, its good to get someone elses view on things.

The poor path-finding method of the ai gives a big advantage to a player. As a player I have no hesitation in moving forward my troops, cover or no cover if the moment demands it.

Oh yes, I have just noticed the search button.

Will there be more blood and guts, rather than a casulty laying on his back when hit.

Thanks for the info Sergei, Iam feeling happier now.

Thanks for the info Kurtz, very helpfull.