New features wish list!

[GerryCMBB]

Hello All:

I would love to see H2H campaigns developed for the game by BFC. (Kinda like the ASL Red Barricades, etc. – you fight multiple scenarios over the same terrain). I did not have Cmx1 but I think they were called Operations there?

Despite the lovely history in the CMBN campaigns, I just cannot get into them. I really need a human opponent to get into the game.

Hoping,

Gerry

[MikeyD]

The big hangup for the 'same terrain' thing has always been moving damaged/destroyed terrain into the next battle(s). EVERYBODY would like multiple battles on the the same map. But coding and testing the precise transfer of two hundred artillery craters from map to map is a daunting proposition.

[JonS]

Gerry,

H2H campaigns are technically quite easy to build in CMx2, and there are a few H2H campaigns about. Generally these are 'regular' campaigns that have been lightly re-worked to allow for H2H play.

The ones I know of are probably horribly unbalanced, because they were originally designed for play against the AI, which generally means that the AI-side force strength has been beefed up a bit to compensate somewhat for it's inherent inflexibility. A human player driving those same forces should be able to do much better.

Truly H2H campaigns are mind-bendingly difficult to create from a practical perspective. The largest problem is that CM players tend to push their forces harder and faster than in Real Life, and as a result a small edge can cascade into an overwhelming victory in which one side or the other is anhiliated. This is difficult enough to allow for in a standalone scenario, but how do you do it over a campaign of many battles? If there is a reasonable chance that one force or the other is going to be completely wiped out in the first battle, what forces do you present the players with in the second to prevent an edge gained in the first battle leading to the other force being wiped out in the second battle, and the third battle featuring only trivial forces for the defeated side?

It could be done with completely independent forces in each battle, so that losses in one battle don't carry forward to the next, but that kind of defeats the purpose of building or playing a campaign.

I expect that some clever person will eventually be able to create a fully H2H campaign, but I wouldn't expect that there'll ever be very many them. In the meantime, getting involved in one of the numerous ongoing meta-campaigns is probably your best bet.

Jon

[womble]

I see your point but i don't feel the same way.

1. in most scenarios i have played the designer has not made any or atleast very few changes to the default assignments...They often remove some platoons and other units that they don't want but thats it (not much in the way of reassignments that i can see...but thats absolutely fine though...

[noxnoctum]

1. Wego tcp-ip

2. Armor cover arc

3. Hunt command (not just move to contact which is important but serves dif purpose)

4. Infantry not moving in single file line (formation options would be ideal)

5. Able to shoot AT weapons from buildings

6. Triggers for AI

7. Barebones multiplayer lobby

8. "Direction based" area fire (so a smoke grenade doesnt prevent from at least being able to fire in that direction)

Most important for me.

[Glubokii Boy]

Womble...

"I certainly agree though that a shade more flexibility in the C2 tree would be good.

XOs do take over, but I think their role could legitimately be expanded in the time before their Old Man carks it.

It's a complex issue, though, as anything that gives more freeform opportunities to the player is."

I agree with this...Right now i don't really know what to do with my XO-teams...I have read that many use them as medics

and perhaps use them to bring more ammo up to the fighting squads...Maybe this is as it should be (like real life) but they do little in the way of helping

with maintaining C2 (expanding the COs command radious)..atleast to my knowledge.

The same with HQ support units...A small test i did:

I took an ordinary companie WEAPONS PLATOON and put the HQ-unit (equiped with radio) and the 3 light mortar teams

and placed them together...All have perfect C2...Then i placed the 2 machineguns and the HQ SUPPORT-unit (also equiped with

radio) close together but out of sight from the HQ unit...The HQ SUPPORT-unit has perfect C2 (connection with the PLATOON HQ

via radio). The 2 machineguns located on the actionspot next to the HQ SUPPORT-unit have no connection to the

PLATOON HQ...This i find very strange...Should not the HQ SUPPORT-unit (having radiocontact with the HQ) be able to keep

the 2 machineguns 5-10 meters away informed of the HQs intentions ?

"Seems to me that any scenario that has an "off-OOB" element picked from 'Specialist teams' has had some 'reassignment' done

So any US Armoured Infantry platoon with a BAR team per squad has been granted some 'reassignment'."

You are absoluetly right...

"I don't believe "reassignment" within the OOB of a "Formation" element is possible."

You can do it if you wish...Example:

- Remove the 2 machineguns from the companie weapons platoon

- Select the first platoon you wish to asign 1 of the weapon platoons

machineguns to from your 'bought' OOB list.

- change to 'specialist teams' and 'buy' a simular machinegun.

- that machinegun should now be asigned to the platoon HQ you have selected in the 'bought OOB' list.

- do the same with a second platoon

- You now have the weapons platoons 2 machineguns directly asigned to

a platoon each.

- the weapons platoon still has command of the 3 light mortar teams.

[womble]

"I don't believe "reassignment" within the OOB of a "Formation" element is possible."

You can do it if you wish...Example:

- Remove the 2 machineguns from the companie weapons platoon

- Select the first platoon you wish to asign 1 of the weapon platoons

machineguns to from your 'bought' OOB list.

- change to 'specialist teams' and 'buy' a simular machinegun.

- that machinegun should now be asigned to the platoon HQ you have selected in the 'bought OOB' list.

- do the same with a second platoon

- You now have the weapons platoons 2 machineguns directly asigned to

a platoon each.

- the weapons platoon still has command of the 3 light mortar teams.

That's not "reassigning", that's deleting and adding replacements. Very similar effect, but not directly reassigning.

[Steiner14]

3. Hunt command (not just move to contact which is important but serves dif purpose)

Did you notice that armor cover arc is coming with v2.0? MTC combined with the new armor cover arc will be a tremendous step forward and should make hunt quite obsolete.

[sburke]

First wish

more vagueness in spotting reports. Some of that looks to be coming and some of this might already be in to some degree or another but it would be cool if:

The nature of a spotted unit be revealed sooner/later depending on the relative experience between the units i.e an inexperienced unit would be presumed to do stupid s**t denoting the presence of officers etc versus an experienced unit which would make more effort to conceal such obvious targets for snipers.

In general it would be nice if it took longer to ID what an infantry unit was beyond the fact that they are infantry. This would enhance play in all the various styles and AI as well as HTH play. Win win for everyone.

Second wish

The ability to import the units from a save game into another scenario as opposed to just being able to do so from a scenario into another.

[womble]

First wish

more vagueness in spotting reports.

+1

Second wish

The ability to import the units from a save game into another scenario as opposed to just being able to do so from a scenario into another.

I'd like to be able to save OOBs as separate items, from the OOB selection screen. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has "favourite" force compositions that only need a bit of massaging here and there to better fit any unique challenges the map presents. It'd be useful for scenario designers too.

It would also be cool to have a scenario type where the framework of the scenario is fixed but the player had some or total flexibility in choosing their force: "here's your Company, you have 300 pts to spend on 'extras'." If there could be a limited force pool for the extras to be chosen from, that would be good too.

Force selection is a part of the game's potential that I personally enjoy very much, having grown up with army lists for figures games, and not having the chance to pick my composition in scenarios is a downside of playing them.

Having the capacity to define perhaps more general troop allocations (clarified and finalised at the point before going to setup) might also be another tool for the scenario designer to build increased replayability into thier art.

[Baneman]

I'd like to be able to save OOBs as separate items, from the OOB selection screen. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has "favourite" force compositions that only need a bit of massaging here and there to better fit any unique challenges the map presents. It'd be useful for scenario designers too.

...

Very much agree. Since I have a tendency to massage even the experience and motivation for each squad :for eg. 1 Vet/norm, 2 Reg/norm and 1 Green/high ( dumb schmucks ) in a platoon, but it takes a whack of time and to be able to save that platoon or company pick would be great.

Even if it can only be saved as the full parent organisation, it would still be helpful.

[JonS]

You can pretty much do that already. Go into the scen editor, create your favourite force, save the scenario as "My Uber Awesomesauce Wunder Waffe.btt". Et voila. The down side is that currently only one OOB file can be imported - if you import a second one, the first is dropped and replaced by the second

Edit: I should probably point out that you don't have to name the file "My Uber Awesomesauce Wunder Waffe.btt". I suppose you could call it My Pantywaisted Paratroopers.btt, or My Yodelling Crossdressers From Bavaria.btt, or sumfink, but I'm pretty sure you'd suffer a -2 penalty hit if you did.

[poesel]

You can pretty much do that already. Go into the scen editor, create your favourite force, save the scenario as "My Uber Awesomesauce Wunder Waffe.btt". Et voila. The down side is that currently only one OOB file can be imported - if you import a second one, the first is dropped and replaced by the second

Thanks, I didn't know that. If that spreads around I'll bet we will have quite some OOB scenarios soon.

Also: if its already in the game it should be not too difficult to add a load and save button in the OOB screen. That would be very helpful.

[womble]

You can pretty much do that already. Go into the scen editor, create your favourite force, save the scenario as "My Uber Awesomesauce Wunder Waffe.btt". Et voila. The down side is that currently only one OOB file can be imported - if you import a second one, the first is dropped and replaced by the second

Ah. I missed a bit, I think: I'd like to be able to save force compositions between QB setups. I don't think you can do that, but I'm all ears if you can!

Edit: I should probably point out that you don't have to name the file "My Uber Awesomesauce Wunder Waffe.btt". I suppose you could call it My Pantywaisted Paratroopers.btt, or My Yodelling Crossdressers From Bavaria.btt, or sumfink, but I'm pretty sure you'd suffer a -2 penalty hit if you did.

At least.

LOL.

[noxnoctum]

Did you notice that armor cover arc is coming with v2.0? MTC combined with the new armor cover arc will be a tremendous step forward and should make hunt quite obsolete.

Not entirely. The hunt command lets you continue after an enemy contact has disappeared which doesn't work with the current move to contact order.

But you're right it's definitely a big improvement. Now at least when used in combination with armor cover arc a tank won't stop for every single lone enemy infantryman.

[MikeyD]

A small note of caution. Please don't get your knickers in a twist when you see v2.0 in action and it still resembles CM. BFC didn't entirely reinvent the wheel, it will still be the same great game, just cooler. I can almost predict that some folks will become upset that v2.0 didn't turn their computer into a soft-serve ice cream dispenser. No, nothing quite that magical is going to happen. You'll be able to give v2.0 a full run-through playing the CMFI demo before CMBN upgrade shows up.

[womble]

Not to worry, Mikey. Only the usual loonies will demand Mr Softee. The rest of us will be quite happy with a bowl of raspberry ripple from Iceland. We know we won't get Mr Softee til a patch...

[JonS]

Also: if its already in the game it should be not too difficult to add a load and save button in the OOB screen. That would be very helpful.

Well, the 'it' I'm talking about is really just saving your OOB as a scenario. It's hacking the scenario to be something other than what it's strictly intended for.

Incidentally, there are already two OOB files in the Repository. There's a complete Royal Artillery self-propelled field regiment (equipped with Sextons), and there's also an absolutely heroic Pz Lehr OoB. Yeah - the whole freaking division! (PROTIP: don't open that one up in 3D ...)

[JonS]

Ah. I missed a bit, I think: I'd like to be able to save force compositions between QB setups. I don't think you can do that, but I'm all ears if you can!

You can ... sort of. Set up your OOB and save it. Pick the QB map you want to play on. Open the map you want to play on in the editor and use the 'campaign import forces' function to copy the forces from your OOB file onto the map you want to play on.

Even better, get a third party to do it for you, to maintain FOW, and have them jigger about with objectives and scenario settings too (time of day, weather, etc).

But as I mentioned above, currently you can only import one campaign forces file So your friendly third party will have to create (or re-create) one side or the other by hand.

[sdp]

Just a quick note re one campaign force file; it's true as Jon says - you can only have one of those. But, you can have a campaign force file with units from both sides! So, you can create a TOE/scenariofile for let's say the German I./104.PzG RGT and import allied units to that file, save it with another name, for instance "Combat Forces File", and import that file into a QB map! Voila! You've got yourself a "quick scenario" :-)

Rinse and repeat - apply losses to the TOE manually inbetween battles - and you've made yourself a campaign

cheers/

sdp

[GerryCMBB]

Thanks for the answer. I think the only way to get around the balance problems, other than the design of victory conditions, is to playtest and tweak extensively. And this amount of work may be the prohibitive factor?

Wondering which campaigns you refer to below when you mention they are horribly unbalanced?

Thanks,

Gerry

Gerry,

H2H campaigns are technically quite easy to build in CMx2, and there are a few H2H campaigns about. Generally these are 'regular' campaigns that have been lightly re-worked to allow for H2H play.

The ones I know of are probably horribly unbalanced, because they were originally designed for play against the AI, which generally means that the AI-side force strength has been beefed up a bit to compensate somewhat for it's inherent inflexibility. A human player driving those same forces should be able to do much better.

Truly H2H campaigns are mind-bendingly difficult to create from a practical perspective. The largest problem is that CM players tend to push their forces harder and faster than in Real Life, and as a result a small edge can cascade into an overwhelming victory in which one side or the other is anhiliated. This is difficult enough to allow for in a standalone scenario, but how do you do it over a campaign of many battles? If there is a reasonable chance that one force or the other is going to be completely wiped out in the first battle, what forces do you present the players with in the second to prevent an edge gained in the first battle leading to the other force being wiped out in the second battle, and the third battle featuring only trivial forces for the defeated side?

It could be done with completely independent forces in each battle, so that losses in one battle don't carry forward to the next, but that kind of defeats the purpose of building or playing a campaign.

I expect that some clever person will eventually be able to create a fully H2H campaign, but I wouldn't expect that there'll ever be very many them. In the meantime, getting involved in one of the numerous ongoing meta-campaigns is probably your best bet.

Jon

[c3k]

I think, by horribly unbalanced, he stated "probably" as a conditional and referenced the ones created out of premade campaigns designed to be played vs. the AI and minorly tweaked to be H2H.

I agree.

If a solo campaign has the player attacking the AI 4 times, then the balance can be tweaked to ensure the player has something left by the 4th battle. Likewise, the AI forces can be setup to offer a certain level of resistance. However, if you substitute a human player for the AI, then you'd be hardpressed to predict how the battle will unfold.

I can program the AI to ALWAYS try a right flank counterattack in battle 1. However, the human player who substitutes for the AI may, instead, just hunker down and preserve his forces for the NEXT battle.

In this manner, any perturbation in the balance and outcome of an early battle creates waves in subsequent battles. There's a feedback loop; success breeds overwhelming forces which create more success. Losses early on make it more difficult to preserve forces in later battles which creates more losses.

Also, in real life, the player may say, "whoa, I've taken too many hits to continue attacking, I'm going to call a halt", the campaign will dictate that the player must attack.

It can be done (balancing), but not if the start point is a solo campaign and the tweaks are quick and dirty.

My .02 only.

Ken

[JonS]

Just a quick note re one campaign force file; it's true as Jon says - you can only have one of those. But, you can have a campaign force file with units from both sides! So, you can create a TOE/scenariofile for let's say the German I./104.PzG RGT and import allied units to that file, save it with another name, for instance "Combat Forces File", and import that file into a QB map! Voila! You've got yourself a "quick scenario"

Oh, you are so clever I'd completely missed that possibility somehow. Well done you!

Jon

P.S.I prefer to call them "Custom QBs"

[Vencini]

Just wishing :

- Weapons range "Marco Bergman Style"

- Destructible trees (by tanks for example)

- Nigth flares

- Sd.Kfz. 302/303a/303b "Goliath"

...

Regards!

[Aragorn2002]

Pz III Flammpanzer.