Glubokii Boy

if we get the CM3-engine with an initial release of... CM - Fulda gap or CM - Barbarossa I agree CM - Barbarossa would be my first choise...and then se BFC advance through the years the right way...41, 42, 43 etc... As WW2 eastern front does not seem to be to everybodies liking maybe an alternativ initial titel could be... CM - Fulda Gap as this seems to be a pretty popular choise... If however they decide to start all over...with CM3 - Beyond Normandy or something (western front WW2)...I do not want CM3 quite yet. If we do not get the full russo-german WW2 war in CM2 it will take 'forever' until we do get it... I want it now !

An AAR...Thank you !! Even if it is not CMSF2...It isn't...is it ? In the briefing picture it kind of looks like the irrigation ditch contains WATER ! but in the other screenshots it does not... Ooohh, well...CMSF or CMSF 2...it does not matter...An AAR. Lovely !! The map looks like a tricky one to attack across if the enemy have some long range firepower. Best of luck !

It is the same with all CM2 games. Any bombardments ordered at the set-up turn is considdered pre-registred locations simular to the TRPs...because of this... no need for LOS. The main difference is that TRPs may be used throughout the game...

The stealthynes of ATG guns have seen some lenthy discussions through the years...seems like about half the comunity like it as it is and the other half feels that the guns might be spotted somewhat to easily. I'm on the side that feels that the stealthynes of those guns could perhaps be improved somewhat. Especially if they have not opened fire yet. The option to be able to chose different levels of camoflage for the guns have also been discussed...a feature that i would like to see (i know about the - do not move after set-up rule ) A hastely deployed gun and a gun deployed in a well prepared and camoflaged possition are two very different things...not so in CM unfortunatelly...hopefully it will be someday (soon)... A few time when i have been able to deploy my AT gun just behind the crest of a Ridge...kind of hull-downish...the gun have been able to survive for quite some time in a firefight against tanks atleast...killing several ... As you mentioned...perhaps the germans did not bring any mortars for example (combined arms) to this particular fight... 15 tanks is a pretty good number though...I hope that gun-crew survived

I would like to see spreading, long lasting fire added to the game... but if i'm perfectly honest i don't really miss it all that much.. Burning Buildings...yeah...that would be nice ! but seeing large areas of Woods or fields burning...That would be kind of cool from time to time maybe... but not really a game changer imo...I'm not sure how often it would make a significant impact on CM-scale gameplay...

Jolly good ! Carry on, man....

This is obviously a valid Point...

Tweaking these things in the editor does not require any major effort...very doable for most people (except absolute newbies maybe...)...sure but...IF...doing the neccesary adjustment to the 'game play selection' UI is not a massive effort either (i don't know...i guess it is not as easy as one might Think though). It might be Worth atleast some considderation... If BFC could add two extra options for the start-screen where we chose playstyle, difficulty level etc...Why not ? First option: Allow AI auto surrender: (yes) or (no) second option: Gametime: (default) or... copy the game-time window from the editor to let the player choose any time he like for the scenario... With these two options perhaps both sides of the discussion could get what they want That would be the best thing...No ? As an extra plus ...If the sceanrio designer does not need to make the reinforcement-tweak to the scenarios the get the AI to keep fighting...that would be good to imo less trouble with the VP-scores...

Macisle... Your last post may not have anything to do with this... But i just want to make it clear...i might have been a bit unprecise with my previous comment... It is in no way directed at this thread...What i mean is that a specified "map making, suggestion and wishlist" - thread in the general discussion forum might not spark all that much intrest and that threads like that has a tendancy to become very short lived lately... I hope you continue posting pics and even videos of the progress regarding your Kharkov map...This thread will have no lack of intrest i'm sure /RepsolCBR

Yepp...i guess it is better to not derail this thread to a wishlist-thread I'm not so sure there will be any great future in a map making thread though...Wishlist and suggestion-threads seems to spark very little intrest around here right now...I guess that most of the things have already been mentioned and dicussed numorous times before...Most such threads seems to get something like 3 to 5 post and then die away...

Totaly agree with this ! I also get reminded of this every time i try to do a 'damaged' map. It would be a good addition indeed... Another one would without a doubt be the option to toggle-on...blown out windows ! This one seems to be a real nightmare to implement though unfortunatelly. I belive Kohlenklau messed with this a while back to try and mod the windows out. I can't recall right now if he ever did get it to work. Having the option to do this though would be super nice ! It would really improve the look of battle damaged maps...seeing those windows all intact looks a bit wierd..

Impressive ! Like some others here have also mentioned...i too have made some urban maps through the years and know what a mamut task it is to edit all those doors, walls and windows... I have never made one of quite this scale though...this one is a 'biggie' ! Even with the largest one i ever made it took many, many hours to tweak those things. I used the same technic that you are using though....Ones you have the basic layout of the map clear...work on a small part of it and finish it piece by piece...Like you mentioned. It can be quite gratifying to se the map slowely come together. Do to much window/door tweaking an ones and you will get 'tired' Pre-battle damage does not neccesarely have to reduce the tactical possibilities. On the contrary...It could even increase them imo. You don't have to flatten an entire area. A few building might be seriously damaged other might only need damaged roofs and a few blown out walls...this combined with piles of rubble, craters etc might allow for some additional tactical ingrediences. Having a pre-battle destruction (of the Buildings) and only light artillery when playing the scenario might even sequre a good tactical situation on the map. If the player gets to much Heavy artillery to play with he might destroy some of the 'nice tactical situations' you have created on the map (the ones you are hoping will provide some good fighting locations) simply by using massed artillery. I'm not saying that you should devote time to rubbeling the map...You have enough to do as is ! but i don't Think that pre-battle destruction neccesarely limits the tactical options. I'm pretty sure that these things have been mentioned before but some additional things to the editor wishlist that comes to mind when watching the Pictures of this map are the abilities to use some sort of auto-rubbeling and auto-cratering feature.... Maybe if you could paint parts of the map simularely to how you paint set-up zones or objectives and then set a level of destruction and shelling for that areas ranging between something like light - massive...and then the computer would fix that for you... When it comes to shelling you would specify the intensity and caliber (small, medium, large, huge, mixed)...and with the rubbeling you would simply specify the level of destruction...ranging from light to massive. Perhaps it would be asking to much to have the computer Place flavored rubble and debri one the map for us but destroying the Buildings at a sutable level ought to be possible to automate... The designer could the concentrate on some specific areas he feels are more important and do those by hand...or simply tweak the auto generated ones... Good luck with the Project...It looks...oh,well...OUTSTANDING !!

WOW ! Outstanding work on this map...Hopefully someone else will use it to make some nice SP scenarios (if that is not in your plan)... If the majority of the buildings have working internal (and perhaps also tweaked external) doors this map will be amazing as a H2H map i'm sure but it would be a 'waste' not to use it in SP scenarios also... Top class work !!!

You are most certanly not alone...but i think that this limitation primarely shows itself when designing AI-attack scenarios. Not very many people seems to be doing this. Maybe because of this very reason...to few AI-groups. We can't get the AI to perform good enough... If the player commands something like a company sized force in a defensive scenario then the attacking AI will pretty much need a battalion sized force to provide any kind of challange. If we limit ourself to only using one AI group/platoon in this battalion attack we will still need something like 12 - 15 AI Groups. ( 3 companies with 4 platoons each ( 3 X inf.platoon plus 1 X hvy weapons platoon)) equals 12 AI-groups plus one or a few extra for battalion support weapons (on map mortars for example). This leaves pretty much nothing left for supporting armour, some halftracks maybe, recon untis, breach units, reinforcements etc.. Having an entire platoon in each AI-group is not even good enough in many situations imo. It has been made even more apparent now in V4.0 that includes the ability for the AI to use areafire... The AI will not do so on it's own (as far as i know). The designer needs to give the AI-group that order at each waypoint. Sure...You can give an entire platoon of infantry or tanks ( 1 AI-group) an area fire order...no problem ! But this might not be what you want. You want PARTS of the platoon to area fire at a designated area while the other part moves forward... Simple solution ! use 2 AI-groups/ platoon. Now one group could provide suppresive fire while the other moves forward. much better ! You might want to split the platon into 3 AI-groups to better control the advance and have the ability to area fire at two different locations as the third teams moves forward. Other examples. Some platoons contains their own light mortars (brittish). Keeping this mortar team in its own AI group to provide some indirect fire (area fire command) while the rest of the platoon ( a seperat AI-group) advances would be a good thing. Some platoons might have attached bazooka/schreck teams. It might be a good thing to keep these in seperate AI-groups. Some might have breach teams etc. Using only one AI/platoon is very limited imo. Having the freedom to use more would be a fantastic improvement in epspecially AI attack scenarios. I really hopes this will happen !

May we trouble BFC/playtesters for an AAR showcasing one of the soon to be released modules.. The forums have turned very quiet ones again...We need something...

Cheers !

No ! they do not... I did a scenario in CMRT in wich i used T34s and tankriders (different AI-Groups)...The tanks where their own AI Group and the tankriders...also their own... The tanks could be help back ones the tankriders had jumped of to provide support when the infantry moved forward... I'd be suprised it doesn't work the same way with trucks, halftracks etc...

That caught my eye also...I have Always had the impression that the russians deployed artillery on a level 'unheard' of anywhere else... also.. I'm not even close to having the historical knowledge of many of you other guys here...but a small detail that i think have been somewhat missed in the discussion on what the russians would or would not be able to do in a follow up war...compared to how they faired against the germans... The russian readines for war ! During the first few years the russians survived in a large degree because of the western lend-lease...this is probably true...But in 1945, 46 the russian situation did not look anything near what it did in 1941. When the germans attack the russians pretty much lacked even half decent leaders at every level because of the purges. At the start of the war the majority of the russian equipment where already obsolete (and broken). They lacked radios. The organisation and tactics of their armed forces where not 'the best' and needed fixing...during the war. All these shortcommings lead to the ridiculous russian losses in the first few years. These catastrophic losses required lend-lease to fill out the ranks...by 1945, 46 most of these shortcommings had been addressed...The russian Equipment where not obsolete, the russian leaders (and Soldiers) had experience and knowledge of how to fight a war. This combined with the fact that the russian industry where 'in place' and working at full speed...( something that was not the case in 41,42 i Think) could perhaps result in the russians not being all that dependant on wester lend-lease in 1945... The russians might still have lost to allied air power in 1945 but comparing the russian situation in 45 to how it looked during the war against the germans seems quite limited...

Me too...many of the times. It gives far better controll of how tha AI behaves when it comes to maintaining formation, leap frogging, timing and choosing god fighting possitions etc... Sure...the AI will do a somewhat decent job controlling a platoon sized AI Group consisting of a few tanks...It is no disaster by any means but it is 'that Little extra' that may not work as the designer wants it to...sometimes the right flank tank in a formation decides to move over to the left flank of the formation when moving through a number of waypoints for example...This usually is not the best of ideas...If the AI is left in controll of the entire platoon the leap frogging might not be conducted in the way the designer want it to...the fighting possitions enroute might not be choosen according to the designers wishes etc... Being able to controll each tank individually pretty much removes these problems...The designer will be able to get the tank platoon to perform as he intends them to... even the finer details

Here we have to disagree... A good way to solv the very problem you mention above would be to give the desiger more AI Groups. I'm pretty sure that this would be far easier to program compared to getting the AI units to act in a more belivable way by their own...To get a more human-like AI the computer controlled units would need to have a better understanding of what each unit does...how to do it...when to do it...why to do it...The AI would need to be able to interpret the terrain to a far greater degree in order to be able to use it to its advantage...both the terrain 'under its feet' as well as the over all terrain situation...What kind of impact will that hill 150m of to the west have on the movement across this field...for example. The AI would need to have a better understanding of both what other friendly and enemy units are doing right now and might be doing soon... Getting the AI to have this kind of awareness would be a massive undertaking to program...It would be far easier to program additional AI Groups... Let us scenario desigers HELP the AI a bit more ...It needs it... Having more AI Groups would not neccesarely complicate scenario designing imo. It would require more work to program...yes...but it would most likely cut down on the playtesting and subsequent tweaking quite a bit...The designer will have a far greater chans of getting the AI Groups to perform as he wish first time out if he can keep them smaller. A small example...An infantry platoon with a machinegun attached advances down a street... Have them in one AI-Group...the designer would have very limited controll of wich team moves where, when they move, what they do when they reach their next waypoint etc... Splitting this platoon up into maybe 3 or even 4 AI Groups would give the scenario designer the ability to make sure that the advance up the street is well timed and coordinated...The machinegun could be placed to suppress (area fire) suspected targets up ahead and provide direct fire against any enemy that shows itself. The squads could be ordered to advance up the street on both sides (without zig-zagging across the open street to get to the next waypoint) at a pace and intervall that the scenario designer seems fit. The squads could also be ordered to area fire at certain objects as they go along if desired. The HQ team could be held back at a sutable distance to be able to maintain C2. At the right time the machinegun team could be brought forward to their next supporting possition... Things like these ... More AI Groups would help imo

The AI in this game is perhaps one of its weakest points...Not that any other game does it better...but still...it is seriously lacking ! That is why i have been advocating for some major improvements for quite some time now...that is...MORE AI GROUPS !!!...(32 atleast)... The AI have ZERO understanding of the overall picture in a scenario. The AI have very limited understanding of the terrain concerning larger areas. The AI have very limited understanding of what the different unit does...How to use HMGs, how to use a light mortars, how to use an assultguns etc... It's been my experience that the AI pretty much only sees each unit/team as a number of men...A sniper-team is 2 men, a HMG team is 4 men, a squad is 8 men, a panzer schreck team is 2 men for example... It does not really matter what kind of team it is...The AI does not understand how to use it... If the scenario designer puts an infantry platoon, a HMG team and a light mortar-team into an AI-Group and gives them an advance orders...They will do so...They will advance... But they will not do it very visely...The machinegun team and the mortar team will NOT set up a base of fire possition to support the assulting units...They will just TAG ALONG...treated as a number of men...not taking into account their ability/limitation as heavy weapon teams... Please , please, please !!! give us 32 AI-Groups...It is absolutely neccesary to get the AI to perform somewhat intellegently... In a PLAYER attack scenario 16 AI-Groups might be enough for most circomstances...but in an AI attack scenario it most certanly is NOT !!! The AI needs HELP !!! to perform somewhat cleverly... In a well designed scenario the AI can be a challange...Yes, absolutelly !...but 95 percent of those scenarios are... PLAYER ATTACK scenarios. On the defence 16 AI-Groups might be enough in many situations...but on the attack...no, no, no !!! 16 AI-Groups will not do it...It is simply not enough... The evidence is pretty obvious...The number of AI attack scenarios avaliable is very limited....The number of GOOD/CHALLEGING attack scenarios is even fewer. please, please, please !!! give us 32 AI-Groups...The improvements to vs AI gameplay will be MASSIVE !

Yepp...let's forgett about the nukes for a while... That would work for me to... I would really like to se this happen. It would be a very cool addition !

I see your Point... My thinking was that the allies where far more war-tired at the end of the war compared to the russians...Especially when it comes to the political and military leadership the western nations where more concerned about the high casualties taken during the war. The russian leaders did not seem to care all that much. I guess that the civilian population of both countries where equally tired of the war and wanted no more of it... The allied leaders would have a hard time getting support for an additional war...the russian leaders didn't really care i guess... Even back then i think that the americans looked at the nukes as a last resort defensive weapon and not really as a war-winner in an offensive conflict. I think they would have used it as a desperate defensive weapon in the case of an overwhelmming russian attack...but not as an offensiv weapon. But yes...looking at it from the russian side...attacking an enemy with this kind of weapon would not be the brightest idea

If you only count the stock scenarios/campaigns that comes with the game when you buy it...Then the answer is NO...They are about equal... The main difference comes when you include the comunity made stuff (wich you can download for free)...CMRT have seen a decent amount of both Campaigns and individual scenario released by other forum member...many of these are of the highest quality...well comparable to playable content included in the game purchase... CMFB have seen very Little in the form of comunity made stuff so far... You will get far more playable content if you buy CMRT (and download avaliable comunity scenarios/Campaigns)...thats what i mean...

I'm sorry...but i really don't see the problem here... After all...the tread title is "2018 look ahead"...It seems to be a fairly OK place to share ideas for future Projects...even if they are not done by BFC... Many members are looking forward to some Irak/ Afghanistan...and anti Taliban/ISIS kind of scenarios using CMSFII...Good to know some are in the making It's not like he is going to charge money for his work...Simply mentioning that this is something we can expexct to see the comming year... As for this i think it simply was an answer to a forum member that found his initial annoncement intresting...