New features wish list!

[Lt Belenko]

Two-player campaigns are already possible, and have been since CMSF. If you want to play them, it's up to you to make them.

The CMBN in the manual 1st or 2nd line of the Campaigns section says ."blah blah Single player only blah blah" ...you can quote me on that:D... There are no discussions of Campaigns in the CMFI book (pdf search). I stopped investigating at that point.

I was asking if there are future plans for such.

[Steiner14]

Wishlist:

Harder spotting, especially for entrenched and camouflaged units.

Much less ID information about the enemy units.

Better protection of entrenched units (offering the scenario-designers different levels of entrenchement by varying the depth of trenches and foxholes?)

To keep the game for the broad customer friendly, and not only to attract hardcore wargamers, make the increased realism adjustable/selectable like a difficulty level.

[WriterJWA]

The CMBN in the manual 1st or 2nd line of the Campaigns section says ."blah blah Single player only blah blah" ...you can quote me on that:D... There are no discussions of Campaigns in the CMFI book (pdf search). I stopped investigating at that point.

I was asking if there are future plans for such.

I'm with ya! Two-player campaigns would be great, or at least single-player campaigns that easily translate into H2H.

I've had a lingering suspicion user "JonS" is actually a bot built by Battlefront to troll and stomp on ideas. ;)

[WriterJWA]

I've been thinking about this too.

Rather than adding more Delay <Insert/Minutes>, I think what I'd like to see added is a <Hold Fire> option.

As it is, if you call in a stonk with a five minute delay and realise some way in that the timing is going to be slightly off, you have to <Cease Fire> the mission and call it in again even if it's on exactly the same lay, with the same rounds and effect.

There should be no need for trajectory recalculations or laying out and timing munitions etc. etc.

A battery should have the option to prep, fire spotting rounds until fire for effect is ready to be delivered, then be held on that line indefinitely until the mission is required, or they're called away to a higher priority mission.

The foward observer calls in the mission.

Guides the spotting rounds in.

<Hold Fire> battery on that line, until the stonk is required.

Fire for effect on my call.

<Fire>.

A battery with a twelve minute delay in prep time shouldn't have to run another twelve minute prep for exactly the same mission because the delivery time needed to be delayed by two minutes.

Similarly, a defensive battery assigned to fire on an area shouldn't have to run another prep for the same mission because the attack didn't happen at minute 15 of the battle.

So long as it's not given orders to prepare for another fire mission it should be able to hold fire on that mission until it's called for.

<Hold Fire> would mean you could also pause a mission part way through it's prepared rounds.

<Fire> Battery burns through 25% of it's prepared rounds in its first two minutes of firing.

FO calls <Hold Fire>, battery stands down but doesn't packup and go home.

During the next three minutes scout's mission forward as the smoke clears, but get themselves pinned down half way across the intervening ground.

FO <Fire> Resumes fire on same, Gerry hasn't had enough. Battery burns another 25%, rinse and repeat.

If the scouts get through, the FO can call <Cease Fire> on the mission, or he can keep the battery trained on that line in case he needs to pummel the same area to destroy an expected counter attack.

At the moment what we get is, sorry, we can't fire exactly the same mission without twelve minutes of everyone sitting around while we prepare, which is both unrealistic and an unnecessary delay to the game.

Well said on all fronts! It would be great if the game maintained on-call target data on barrage targets previous called for. Example: if I shell a bunker with 75mm's and it doesn't take it out, and I want to call in another barrage on the same target with the same spotter, the observer shouldn't have to go through the same adjustment processes, provided no other mission was called for that directed the attention of the battery elsewhere. IRL, there is a "repeat" order that an observer can give to have the battery simply repeat the same FFE mission.

Something else I've noticed regarding artillery: In WeGo, if I finish planning a fire mission and then decide to cancel it, why does the asset have "cease fire" across it since I technically haven't called in the target data to the battery? That wouldn't happen until I run the turn, right? Why do I need to wait until the next turn to plan again?

[Baneman]

Something else I've noticed regarding artillery: In WeGo, if I finish planning a fire mission and then decide to cancel it, why does the asset have "cease fire" across it since I technically haven't called in the target data to the battery? That wouldn't happen until I run the turn, right? Why do I need to wait until the next turn to plan again?

I agree, it's one of those strange design decisions - almost all other commands take effect when you press the Big Red Button, but if you press "Confirm" for Artillery during the planning/orders phase, you're buggered.

Same goes for Bail-Out/Dismount - why can't you "take it back" ?

@Steiner14 : I've been wishing/begging for them to take away the "All-knowing" unit info since CMBN came through my door. I'd far far rather just be told "Gun" or "Infantry" or "Tank".

[Glubokii Boy]

Rather than adding more Delay <Insert/Minutes>, I think what I'd like to see added is a <Hold Fire> option.

As it is, if you call in a stonk with a five minute delay and realise some way in that the timing is going to be slightly off, you have to <Cease Fire> the mission and call it in again even if it's on exactly the same lay, with the same rounds and effect.

There should be no need for trajectory recalculations or laying out and timing munitions etc. etc.

A battery should have the option to prep, fire spotting rounds until fire for effect is ready to be delivered, then be held on that line indefinitely until the mission is required, or they're called away to a higher priority mission.

The foward observer calls in the mission.

Guides the spotting rounds in.

<Hold Fire> battery on that line, until the stonk is required.

Fire for effect on my call.

<Fire>.

A battery with a twelve minute delay in prep time shouldn't have to run another twelve minute prep for exactly the same mission because the delivery time needed to be delayed by two minutes.

Similarly, a defensive battery assigned to fire on an area shouldn't have to run another prep for the same mission because the attack didn't happen at minute 15 of the battle.

So long as it's not given orders to prepare for another fire mission it should be able to hold fire on that mission until it's called for.

<Hold Fire> would mean you could also pause a mission part way through it's prepared rounds.

<Fire> Battery burns through 25% of it's prepared rounds in its first two minutes of firing.

FO calls <Hold Fire>, battery stands down but doesn't packup and go home.

During the next three minutes scout's mission forward as the smoke clears, but get themselves pinned down half way across the intervening ground.

FO <Fire> Resumes fire on same, Gerry hasn't had enough. Battery burns another 25%, rinse and repeat.

If the scouts get through, the FO can call <Cease Fire> on the mission, or he can keep the battery trained on that line in case he needs to pummel the same area to destroy an expected counter attack.

At the moment what we get is, sorry, we can't fire exactly the same mission without twelve minutes of everyone sitting around while we prepare, which is both unrealistic and an unnecessary delay to the game.

Good suggestion...I like it !

[poesel]

I agree, it's one of those strange design decisions - almost all other commands take effect when you press the Big Red Button, but if you press "Confirm" for Artillery during the planning/orders phase, you're buggered.

Because Wego is RT with a pause. It could be done for sure but it costs time, time better spend blah, blah... You know the drill.

A solution (as old as the request) would be to grant an automatic TRP for each mission fired. But then the TRP had to be specific to that battery and not available for everyone else. Different handling for on- and offboard, never moved and moved mortars and so on.

Steve has that probably on his list since WWI

[Steiner14]

@Steiner14 : I've been wishing/begging for them to take away the "All-knowing" unit info since CMBN came through my door. I'd far far rather just be told "Gun" or "Infantry" or "Tank".

Me too. But we must continue to hammer them with the good wishes because there is too much distraction on the yacht.

[sburke]

Me too. But we must continue to hammer them with the good wishes because there is too much distraction on the yacht.

Well you could edit the icons to be more generic (ie use the same ones for multiple unit types) and then never click on an enemy unit. I expect that would get you there.

[Childress]

Wishlist:

Much less ID information about the enemy units.

You're right. Especially being shown the squad #.

E.g., 'Mortar Ammo Bearer team 3'. Now we know the enemy as at least 'three' of those weapons: 'Men, disperse!'.

Actually, now that I think about, if they just removed that info I'd be OK with the entire system.

But there's likely some coding stumbling block otherwise BF would have removed it by now.

[Baneman]

... and then never click on an enemy unit. I expect that would get you there.

Trouble is, I like to click on enemy units to see who can see them and vice-versa.

I can't understand why it would be difficult to make it generic - there must be some code that puts the info on the UI - just intercept that with an IF statement...

IF difficulty = Elite or Iron ( leaves it on in lower difficulties for players who like it ), then description = "Infantry" etc.

I know it's only me guessing, but I can't imagine the information magically reaching the UI without the opportunity to be intercepted.

[JonS]

I'm with ya! Two-player campaigns would be great, or at least single-player campaigns that easily translate into H2H.

I've had a lingering suspicion user "JonS" is actually a bot built by Battlefront to troll and stomp on ideas. ;)

I'm not stomping on anything. I'm telling you that this thing you say you want has been available for 3+ years.

[sburke]

Trouble is, I like to click on enemy units to see who can see them and vice-versa.

I can't understand why it would be difficult to make it generic - there must be some code that puts the info on the UI - just intercept that with an IF statement...

IF difficulty = Elite or Iron ( leaves it on in lower difficulties for players who like it ), then description = "Infantry" etc.

I know it's only me guessing, but I can't imagine the information magically reaching the UI without the opportunity to be intercepted.

Hmm Yeah forgot about that aspect. Helluva lot easier than cycling through trying to figure it out by a long shot and in a big scenario it would be ridiculous to go that route.

[Lt Belenko]

I'm not stomping on anything. I'm telling you that this thing you say you want has been available for 3+ years.

Now for the REAL quote from page 49 of the manual.

CAMPAIGNS

A Campaign is a single player:mad: game that progresses through a series of interconnected Battles stretching over many simulated hours, days, weeks, or even months.

OK, JonS send me a H2H CAMPAIGN setup BN, CW, or FI. I'm Lt. Belenko at FGM site.

[JonS]

The manual is wrong.

I don't have one for CMBN/CW/FI (I don't think so, anyway) but there is at least one for CMSF. I'm pretty sure I saw another one when I was noodling around in the Repository yesterday.

Edit: here it is, one for CMBN.

[GerryCMBB]

Hello All:

Just a note before anyone tries this - a comment for the CMBN one says the 2nd battle has nothing to do with the first one so he did not consider it a campaign.

Gerry

[Lt Belenko]

The manual is wrong.

I don't have one for CMBN/CW/FI (I don't think so, anyway) but there is at least one for CMSF. I'm pretty sure I saw another one when I was noodling around in the Repository yesterday.

Edit: here it is, one for CMBN.

Did you read the comments about this campaign? It looks unplayable/buggy.:eek:

Also, I launched the game and selected Campaigns. My options were 1-player turn based or 1-player realtime. If 2-player campaigns are possible I think the GUI is wrong also.

Steve or Moon a little clarification here please.

[WriterJWA]

There is NOT a multi-player campaign where casualties and stats carry over. Again ... NOT.

[Lt Belenko]

When reinforcements arrive. I'd like to see the message appear with more enthusiasm.

Flashing red. Black banner with red font.

I completely missed 3 arriving ACs. They arrive in perfect position looking down on 2 M5s. Which one do they take out? The previously immobilized one. Then get all three get shot up.

Some better "announcement" of new troops would be nice.

[Steiner14]

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

[poesel]

For QBs: if you go to map preview the map should be populated with the troops you bought so far.

Would help those who don't have the whole TOE memorized

[WriterJWA]

Here's one:

Sharpshooter teams where the one with the scoped rifle is the only soldier that fires.

[General Lee Irked]

There should be motorcycles with/without sidecars why...? because I like em a lot and the cool factor goes up a notch. (not the groggiest argument to be sure)

[sburke]

There should be motorcycles with/without sidecars why...? because I like em a lot and the cool factor goes up a notch. (not the groggiest argument to be sure)

and they should be allowed to jump barbed wire if there is a convenient slope ala Steve McQueen.

[Michael Emrys]

Here's one:

Sharpshooter teams where the one with the scoped rifle is the only soldier that fires.

Exception: If an enemy unit opens fire on them or closes to within, say, 50 meters of them.

Michael