Glubokii Boy Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I get the feeling that would be too much for some units and not enough for others. Low soft factor troops seem to get that first bar from hearing firing, and keep it the entire game. High soft factor troops take more than just a bullet zipping past their ears to get any suppression... Yes, you 're right... My initial idea may not work very well but there has to be some sort of function in the game-engine already that keeps track of incomming fire that controlls the suppresionlevel going up or down. Maybe this funtion already in could be used to decide when a unit is taking 'real time fire'... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HistoryLover Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Another possibility would be to give the icons a colored frame - the frame color reflecting the suppression meter - except green. The frame would become yellow could go over orange to red. This should give a good impression where the most pressure is building on units. But what I really miss, if a squad is split and I select a team, is the information which other teams belong to the selected team and form a squad. Maybe this could be displayed with a dot above or below the icons? Or a somewhat slightly different color of the icon? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 But what I really miss, if a squad is split and I select a team, is the information which other teams belong to the selected team and form a squad. Maybe this could be displayed with a dot above or below the icons? Or a somewhat slightly different color of the icon? Some sort of indication for this would be good ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Yeah, we've talked before that it would be a "nice to have" feature if there was a way to easily identify all the teams of an individual squad. But, the #1 feature that would speed up play (by far) would be selectable waypoints/lines so that one could instantly select the associated unit by clicking on any waypoint rather than to have to go hunt for the unit itself before one could make any changes to its waypoints. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eniced73 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Panzer Command had a decent little feature. It had a small message box on the UI that could be toggled on and off and also resized to your tastes. It would let you know if an unit is surpressed, taking casualties, taking damage and what type. If you clicked on the message it would automatically rewind the turn to 5 or 10 seconds before it happened and put you on the unit that it happened to. Nice in big battles where you can quickly gather information on what happened to who. It also had a box on the UI that showed the icons of all your units. It was scrollable I believe to handle larger battles. This would actually do what you are talking about and hilight the unit icons that are taking fire. So the message box would tell you specific damages and casualties and the other icon box would show what was taking incoming fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eniced73 Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Yeah, we've talked before that it would be a "nice to have" feature if there was a way to easily identify all the teams of an individual squad. But, the #1 feature that would speed up play (by far) would be selectable waypoints/lines so that one could instantly select the associated unit by clicking on any waypoint rather than to have to go hunt for the unit itself before one could make any changes to its waypoints. I just click on the line and then hit the "tab" key. It takes me straight to the unit. I can see the benefit of this for large multiple orders per unit but I am more of a one order short command type of guy. So the tab key works fine for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 I am talking about ANY unit, not just the one you already had clicked on the line. You obviously never had the advantage of playing CM1. In CM1 it was great to be able to click on ANY waypoint line on the map to immediately select the unit itself. Can't understand why that very useful time-saving feature was dropped from CM2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eniced73 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Yeah, I have played plenty of CM1 before and honestly do not use what you are describing there either. I did misunderstood your post though and should have read it twice. The only time I can see your suggestion being somewhat useful is in huge battles. Like the BB tourney games at WEBOB where in the first couple minutes moving large quantities of troops halfway across the board is tedious. From my experience the majority of playas are more in the medium battle range in which I do not see it being of much use. I do not have a problem wasting time finding and clicking on the units to issue orders. Moving your pointer a couple more inches to the right or left is not a big deal. I guess it might be though if you are trying to squeeze turns in on your lunch break? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Yeah, am thinking more of large scenarios like some of us prefer... Clickable waypoints are really useful (in CM1) when you have several dozen units to change. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Maybe this one has been mentioned before but... I think that an other feature that would be nice to have brought back from CM1 is the ability to manually set the number of special weapons and equipment an infantry unit has with them. This will reduce the unnecisary high unit counts in larger battles. If regular infantry squads could be allocated a number of sachel charges and hand held at weapons for example. Breach-teams and AT-team units will not be all that necessary. Simply detach a breachteam or AT-team from the regular squads when you need them. specific breahcteams and AT-teams could perhaps be better at what they are doing and be able to carry more of the special equipment (maybe 2 sachelcharges for a regular infantry squad is the max and 4 for a breach team for example). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 An other idea... In the unit editor...To be able to toggle FOW on or off for veichles, AFVs and other equipment that has been knocked out or imobolized... For example if you have a map with a few destroyed tanks from a previously failed attack i think that the player should know about them (atleast some of them)...If you could toggle the FOW for thoos tanks off in the editor they would be vissible to the player from the start... or if you want to simulate an atempt to destroy a previosly imobilzed tank...No fow would be good (the troops already know about its possition...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 An other idea... In the unit editor...To be able to toggle FOW on or off for veichles, AFVs and other equipment that has been knocked out or imobolized... For example if you have a map with a few destroyed tanks from a previously failed attack i think that the player should know about them (atleast some of them)...If you could toggle the FOW for thoos tanks off in the editor they would be vissible to the player from the start... or if you want to simulate an atempt to destroy a previosly imobilzed tank...No fow would be good (the troops already know about its possition...) And, sortof related (in that it involves destroyed vehicles): can we have an option to disable hit text for vehicles we know are destroyed? It's irritating to have lots of hit text showing up when you're clearing an area using AFV MGs and there are scads of destroyed vehicles in the vicinity. When you watch from a distance it's difficult to tell whether these are new hits on your vehicles or just random pointlessness. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwerpunktgrenadier Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I'd like to see the smoke from destroyed vehicles be more billowing (rather than a rather wispy straight up and down appearance) with the ability to block LOS. And, what about a kindling option (setting fire to a building) so that smoke can be generated to provide concealment when smoke grenades are exhausted or not present. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 IIRC smoke can block LOS. And we've been asking for years for fire (and flamethrowers). We should get them in CM:ZA (Zombie Assault). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilM Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I know this has been raised before (probably many times ...), but wanted to bump it back to a new post again: showing movement paths that will actually be used in the turn when the unit in question cannot actually follow the path prescribed by your waypoint(s). The recurrence of this as an issue for me in an ongoing H2H game made me wish for this again so much! But also, a possible implementation method that I don't think I've seen suggested before? (If I'm subconsciously stealing someone else's idea, apologies!) Given that we don't want processor cycles taken up with redundant work, and some people may not want or use this, and even someone like me who would, would only need it occasionally, how about: - if you double click on any waypoint, intermediate or final, the game calculates and sets the actual path that will be taken, with added intermediate waypoints as appropriate, from that unit's current location to the selected waypoint. Thus limited move lengths, for specific units, can be calculated and plotted: you only get the game to show you what might be the iffy bits, where you are not sure what will happen when the move starts. If you want to test lots or a little, the choice is yours. Once plotted after the double click, the waypoint(s) become just as if you had created them yourself - but in the knowledge that the unit WILL now take that route; the waypoints could then be moved and / or deleted (or the movement method changed) just as with user created waypoints. This would allow you to select a unit, set one waypoint where you want it to finish up, double click that waypoint and see how the engine will get you there: if you like it, it's done; if you don't like it, amend or scrap as you wish. Any takers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I am for anything that helps the player reduce the time it takes to plot turns (esp in WEGO). So, it seems like your idea could be very useful. Add in selectable waypoints (as I may have mentioned once or twice b4) and that would really help us play the large scenarios a lot quicker. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 - if you double click on any waypoint, intermediate or final, the game calculates and sets the actual path that will be taken, with added intermediate waypoints as appropriate, from that unit's current location to the selected waypoint. Thus limited move lengths, for specific units, can be calculated and plotted: you only get the game to show you what might be the iffy bits, where you are not sure what will happen when the move starts. Yep, I am pretty sure I have read that type of suggestion before. Worth adding to this list though. I agree some way to ask the game to interpret your way point orders would be very valuable. I would probably use it only on a few occasions but those times it would be soooooo useful. Right now it can be hard in certain situation to figure out if your orders can be followed. On those occasions I sometimes spend a lot of time with the way point tool trying to figure out where the vehicle can and cannot go and guesstimate if there is enough room for it to pass. I would rather sit with my arms folded while the game tells me if it is possible even if it took 30s or a minute to do. Because, in those situations, I can spend way longer than that and still not be sure if my plans will work or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 FWIW I micro-manage waypoints to be certain units go where expected. So, being able to click on a far-off location on a large map and see exactly how the unit "plans" to get there would be a big time-saver (for large scenarios). That's the same reason why I have been harping on the desirability to select any unit by clicking on its waypoint or line (as in CM1) rather than having to go back to some far off point on a large map, then locate the unit, then select it, then go back to where you want to alter a waypoint etc... PS: Given how few people seem to visit the CMFI forum these days, this topic would generate more feedback over at CMBN forum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilM Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Yep, I am pretty sure I have read that type of suggestion before. Worth adding to this list though. I agree some way to ask the game to interpret your way point orders would be very valuable. I would probably use it only on a few occasions but those times it would be soooooo useful. Right now it can be hard in certain situation to figure out if your orders can be followed. On those occasions I sometimes spend a lot of time with the way point tool trying to figure out where the vehicle can and cannot go and guesstimate if there is enough room for it to pass. I would rather sit with my arms folded while the game tells me if it is possible even if it took 30s or a minute to do. Because, in those situations, I can spend way longer than that and still not be sure if my plans will work or not. My sentiments exactly! On my bolded bits, above: - sadly I don't think one can "guesstimate" if there is enough room: I'm pretty certain, having spent many minutes/hours trying to do the same thing, that gaps that LOOK big enough on the map will still restrict passage to vehicles (mainly) that, on screen, would fit past. It seems to be impossible to be sure. Almost like the driver doesn't want to scrape the paint from the track guards ... and when you see the state - and places - AFVs actually got into, especially when someone is shooting at them or they have a chance for a shot at someone else, some of the collision avoidance decisions taken by the game end up looking a bit prissy - I would hope (guess) that it would take much less time than 30 seconds, even though I too would wait! Given that my not stellar spec'd Macbook Pro doesn't take that long to process whole turns on large maps, including all the spotting and firing resolutions, I'm assuming that processing one path resolution cannot take that long? But hence the reasoning that it would only be done "on demand", and not happen automatically for all waypoint plots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilM Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 FWIW I micro-manage waypoints to be certain units go where expected. So, being able to click on a far-off location on a large map and see exactly how the unit "plans" to get there would be a big time-saver (for large scenarios). That's the same reason why I have been harping on the desirability to select any unit by clicking on its waypoint or line (as in CM1) rather than having to go back to some far off point on a large map, then locate the unit, then select it, then go back to where you want to alter a waypoint etc... PS: Given how few people seem to visit the CMFI forum these days, this topic would generate more feedback over at CMBN forum. Well, so do I - try to. But the point is that, however precisely one places the waypoints (say either side of a gap, to make the AFV pass through it), you cannot tell until it begins to move - or sometimes even until it gets to the gap but won't go through it - that it won't go the way you want it to. Seeing this detail is my main gain from this. The - slightly different - gain of plotting a long distance waypoint and seeing how the unit would get there, left to its own devices, is useful but secondary to being able to see if units will or will not cross certain specific terrain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Well, yes, I am trying to agree with you... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
para Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I'd like to see the smoke from destroyed vehicles be more billowing (rather than a rather wispy straight up and down appearance) with the ability to block LOS. And, what about a kindling option (setting fire to a building) so that smoke can be generated to provide concealment when smoke grenades are exhausted or not present. That practically straight up funnel of dark smoke from vehicles is a pet hate of mine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilM Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Well, yes, I am trying to agree with you... Oops! Sorry - definitely not a good thing for me to quibble with you if you are agreeing with me! Perhaps I misunderstood your post? I thought that the bit of yours that I bolded in my quote of it meant that you thought you didn't need the "path request" feature if you did (sufficient) micro management of waypoints to be "certain" where a unit will go? I was just trying to emphasise that, IMO, the path request feature is still beneficial even under this micro management regime, because even then, if you think you have plotted your way around all obstacles etc, you (or I, anyway!) can never be SURE that your chosen path will be followed (where some problematical aspect of the terrain is involved). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 No I really meant that "I do a lot of time-consuming micromanagement to avoid most routing problems, and that slows down game play (just like not having selectable waypoint/lines like we used to have in CM1 slows down gameplay), and even then, the routing problems still crop up from time to time, and it's very irritating when one is playing WEGO and the bizarre AI routing causes one to lose units and one has to make the frustrating decision to restart that turn assuming one has the previous turn saved, and if one has to go back 5+ turns that is doubly annoying and... so it would be great to see exactly what the AI planned route is and if it needs adjustment". Hopefully, that is what you have been proposing, or if not, maybe let's agree it's all a big misunderstanding and quit while we're ahead... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilM Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yep, that's it exactly! Great minds clearly DO think alike ... however the rest of that saying goes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.