Jock Tamson

Understood, but that should be optional for the more hardcore/WYSIWYG fans.

I think you'll find that it won't get rid of tracers by type of weapon, only change the length.

I would like something similar to the flame/flamethrower effects in Graviteam Tactics. Note also the blistered paint and shed track. They also do very good hit decals. Additionally they have a nice feature (also in the image) where you can examine each hit on a vehicle post battle, and the UI will show trajectory of the initial round, trajectory of any ricochet, details of the damage and the details of the firing enemy. Finally, I would like CM to ditch the tracers for small arms.

I doubt there is a single WEGO player on this forum who does not use the target tool from waypoints to achieve what the OP originally asked for. So the information is available, but it can be time consuming to gather it. Does effective use of that tool make you a good tactical wargamer, or patient with the interface? Anything that decreases fighting the UI and allows more time for the tactics is an improvement IMO. To be honest if a simple LOS check is against the CM credo I don't understand why you can check targeting information from waypoints at all. Indeed Battlefront's reasons for not wanting it - that you don't need to micro for successful play - are quite at odds with those who don't want it because they feel it makes the game more hardcore than other tactical wargames. Because the latter are definitely checking what they can and can't see and from where using the targeting tool - what PBEMer in their right mind is going to move units only to find out 24 hours later that their ambushing tanks can't see the road from the waypoints they plotted?

You may also find these illustrations useful: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=108858&highlight=LIne+sight+tool

Sorry Jon but this is rarely the choice that is faced by dev teams - I work in one - unless there is literally only one dev or no system in place to allow code to be branched and merged. Anyway back to the subject in hand, Command Modern Air Naval Ops handled this quite well by exposing the database to the game and allowing the community to contribute images and descriptions to go along with the raw data http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=1876

wrong thread

Yes I get where you are coming from. But sometimes in a QB v the AI you just want to go up against a company of grenadiers and a couple of AFVs in support, which means buying the AI his force but ruining any surprise. Once you have knocked out the 2 PzIVs you bought him you know your tanks have got a reasonably free hand. If you didn't know precisely what from the pool was going to turn up, combined with the new triggers, you would need to play in a more measured way. Dare I say, more like you would against a human. What if there were three probability settings of 25/50/75 and the cost of the units at each probability scaled accordingly? So you could buy the AI four 25% chance PzIvs at the same cost as one at 100% ?

Fine. Weak, it doesn't read to me that he claims to have saved the beachhead, merely that he saw an opportunity and took it. The situation with the beachhead provides the context for that decision. Fine. To paraphrase you v JK - you have read it but not understood it. The Wiki article literally makes no mention of being "10 miles behind enemy lines". The point it is making is that from A to B it was a ten mile trip through an area active with enemy troops, in uniform. Fine. Where does the article say they surrendered to him? Published 30 years before Macpherson's autobiography. Did Hastings interview him?

Any chance you could take a look at the idea I had for QBs in the wishlist thread Steve? - being able to set probability of appearance for the AI's forces in QB force purchase. This would add an awful lot to the uncertainty when playing the AI.

Which bits? His story is very well known where I come from. If you know different I'd be interested to hear it.

Indeed. If I suddenly have 4 hours free I can use it against the AI at my own pace. I poured several hours into Wittman's Demise the other week against the AI. I guess I am three quarters through and I may not get back to it for another fortnight. If I had been doing it PBEM for 4 hours we'd be maybe 12 moves in?

I think most of us appreciate that, but for many (most?) of us, a few free hours for gaming appears in the schedule with zero notice.

Agree, but it is how the vast majority of customers play CM. Hopefully the new triggers, even in their limited form, will apply a veneer of responsiveness to the AI's movements. Conditional triggers will be the real game changer for single players though, I think.

One wonders how CM would handle 23,000 prisoners surrendering to one man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Macpherson

To clarify, I am talking purely about setting the probability for AI units in the force selection screen prior to going into QB. So, for example, you wouldn't know whether you are facing 4 tanks or 1. This would make QBs against the AI much more challenging. At the moment, you buy the AI his force and then you grind your way through it looking for his final PzIV.

To be able to set the percentage probability of a given unit being present in the scenario - say 25/50/75 I'd like this to be available in QB force selection as well (in fact that is where it would probably be most straightforward to implement as it would have no impact on AI plans).

Yes, my Air dual boots with Windows 7 and it is noticeable that some OpenGL software seems to run better under OSX.

Crusader Kings II is one of the biggest selling strategy games on Steam. Anyone who knows that game will understand the point I am making - Steam is not full of kids.

That's interesting to know. I have got an Air as well and I have never bothered putting CMx2 on it because it doesn't have a discrete Graphics card. May give it a try.

Let's throw something else into the mix. On April 12th, Microsoft support for Windows XP will cease, so it will be a deprecated platform. That leaves Vista and Win 7 32 Bit users. They make up only 12% of Steam users - I think it is fair to use Steam stats as a view of people who play games on computers. Many many titles that fall into this genre are available on Steam. All current versions of OSX are 64 Bit. Battlefront already mandate 64 Bit for these users for Red Thunder as it requires 10.6 OSX minimum. Windows 7 64 Bit makes up 50% of Steam users. Windows 8 64 Bit makes up 20% of Steam users. So I would not regard mandating a 64 Bit OS for the next engine as a dangerous step. I also don't think it would be unreasonable to mandate >4GB RAM. RAM is cheap and, other than on a sealed unit like a MacBook Air - which does not meet the minimum requirements for CMx2 anyway - it is trivial to upgrade. At some point, holding back the series because of deprecated Operating systems and low spec computers has also got to become a "non starter". Particularly given these stats, which indicate that that user base will be rapidly dwindling.

For clarity, what I am thinking of here is a drop down beside each unit on the force selection screen where you can choose whether there is a 25,50,75 or 100 per cent chance of the unit appearing in the battle. This would add such a lot of variation to AI QBs. We know the AI opponent will never be as surprising as a human, but if we can add a little mystery to his forces it would require a bit more caution, proper scouting etc.

Yes, and I would have no problem with a half way solution where the player creates a sensible force pool for the AI, from which a selection is taken based on chance. Even if it was something like being able to define the percentage chance of each unit appearing in the AI's force.

I have no problem with the lack of random generated maps. What does cause an issue with playing the AI is the lack of Fog of War in AI force composition. I suspect most single players adjust the AI's force to make it something more sensible than the generated suggestions. Which can make playing the AI in QB a bit of a dull grind as you pick off a known quantity of units. What would be good would be some means to create a force pool for the AI, from which units are selected, so that there are some unknowns for the player. So, for example, you might not know if you are facing 2 panzers or 4, 1 mortar team or 2, 1 Pak40 or none. For me that would make a huge difference, particularly in small battles. It would make a QB almost akin to a designed scenario, in terms of FoW.

Speaking as someone who works in software, I would say that it is rarely a choice between, say, new textures or fixing bugs. Unless you have a dev team of one.