New features/feature ideas for CM for the next few years thread

[womble]

Funny. Except that the ASs are calibrated in metric and it would be awkward to convert to any other system (cubits, rods, etc.).

8m is 26 feet and a couple of inches, but does the actual size of the AS impinge much on the game? I'm a metric fellow (up to about a kilometer, then the UK's insistence on retaining MPH and posting road distances in miles gets into my brain), and I don't think much about how many AS away a target measured at 148m is... While leagues might be a bit of a redundant measure, a metric/imperial toggle might be comfortable for many users.

And anyway, a toggle really isn't necessary...

Necessary for what you're asking? No. A slick UI feature? Certainly.

A simple xC/xF notation in the conditions panel would suffice. I wouldn't even expect it to be precise down to the last decimal.

It might even educate callow youths of 46 like me about what the Farenheit scale really means

[Canada Guy]

When I travel in the States, I never know what temp it really is. Is 65 hot or cold - perhaps just comfortable. And then if something is 50 miles away, I see how far that would take me to drive if going 60MPH and then convert back to Kilometers (1 hour = 100km on the highway).

I think there are still three countries that use Imperial officially. USA, Burma and Liberia if I am not mistaken. Its that freeze at 32F and boil at 212F that always gets to me.

[Michael Emrys]

Here is something else to think about. At the end of a game, or any time you get a ceasefire actually, losses for each side are summed up. What gets listed are men killed, men wounded, men missing (i.e., surrendered), and various kinds of vehicles. It has always struck me as strange that guns and mortars destroyed or abandoned are not listed. In the official accountings in the real war they were always listed and very prominently. I've always wondered why CM doesn't include them.

Michael

[womble]

Here is something else to think about. At the end of a game, or any time you get a ceasefire actually, losses for each side are summed up. What gets listed are men killed, men wounded, men missing (i.e., surrendered), and various kinds of vehicles. It has always struck me as strange that guns and mortars destroyed or abandoned are not listed. In the official accountings in the real war they were always listed and very prominently. I've always wondered why CM doesn't include them.

Michael

Aye, especially cos the individual unit stats do, at least for guns.

[poesel]

If CM would write (at the end of a battle) a log file like:

...

56:34;casualty;1 Battalion HQ;radio operator;x354;y789;

...

I'll bet it would be under one hour before the first scripts would show up here. A wet dream for statistics freaks.

Another wish about trees: the option to show only tree stumps around identified units (and current POV as now). That would make it possible to look AT units from far away in forests.

[womble]

If CM would write (at the end of a battle) a log file like:

...

56:34;casualty;1 Battalion HQ;radio operator;x354;y789;

...

I'll bet it would be under one hour before the first scripts would show up here. A wet dream for statistics freaks.

Another wish about trees: the option to show only tree stumps around identified units (and current POV as now). That would make it possible to look AT units from far away in forests.

"Shoe trunks only" mapwide would get my vote.

[Michael Emrys]

"Sho[w] trunks only" mapwide would get my vote.

Sometimes I turn trees completely off in order to be able to spot identified units and plot movement or fire. I may leave them turned off the first time I run the view action part of the turn in order to be sure I don't miss anything. But then I may turn them back on so that I see it the way my units do.

Michael

[poesel]

Could the size of the waypoint marks (the white dots) of the currently selected unit NOT be dependent of the distance to the current POV?

The dot would then always have the same size no matter where you are. That would make them selectable from far away which in turn would be quite useful for LOS testing to far away points.

I often come in the situation where I have sighted a far away enemy and I want to bring a tank in position. I plot a movement order to a position where I think the tank could have LOS. But to find the exact place I have to unselect the tank because he can't currently see the enemy. I then move the camera close to the position and select the tank again. Now it becomes very hard to hit that tiny white speck to be able to target from that waypoint.

If the white dot for the selected unit would always have a clickable size that would help very much.

[Vanir Ausf B]

What I do in that situation is plot a movement order to the exact spot the enemy unit is at from a friendly unit that has already spotted him. Then you can mess with your tank's waypoints and do LOS checks without having to deselect the tank (assuming you have "show all movement paths" turned on). You just have to remember to delete the movement order from the spotting unit before you end your turn.

[agusto]

That would make them selectable from far away which in turn would be quite useful for LOS testing to far away points.

I am doing this with the x/c zoom keys. Put your camera on the place you want to check LOS, zoom in to the waypoint of your choice, click it and check LOS.

[Baneman]

What I do in that situation is plot a movement order to the exact spot the enemy unit is at from a friendly unit that has already spotted him. Then you can mess with your tank's waypoints and do LOS checks without having to deselect the tank (assuming you have "show all movement paths" turned on). You just have to remember to delete the movement order from the spotting unit before you end your turn.

Yes - if you use a HUNT command, even if you do forget to turn it off, they don't generally get too far into trouble.

[poesel]

Good tips and thanks for that. But I thought this thread is about making it easier (less clicky)?

[Vanir Ausf B]

It's not necessarily a bad idea. The downside is that a larger waypoint will obscure any distant units it is near or in front of.

[poesel]

It's not necessarily a bad idea. The downside is that a larger waypoint will obscure any distant units it is near or in front of.

That's why I suggested to do that only for the currently selected unit and leave the rest alone.

[poesel]

A 'patrol' movement order

you plot two or more waypoints and the unit will check them in turn and return to the first one when the last one is reached. Can not be combined with other movement types, no vehicle boarding. Speed like move, awareness between move and hunt. Waypoints can take CAs, pauses and target orders as usual.

Spotting an enemy would cancel the patrol (as with hunt). It would be desirable to limit the cancelling to within the CA (if set)(which IMHO would be an improvement to hunt, too).

[GJR144]

Hi all,

long time player here (CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, CMBN+CW, CMFI+GL).

My biggest wishes are:

Gameplay/interface:

Make paths selectable

Make paths selectable by clicking on them and show all of them when no unit is selected.

Honestly I don't understand why we must wait YEARS for such improvements in the overall interface when this was already present in CMx1.

Make group assignments permanent

Make group assignments permanent during the whole game. Currently they are of no use use for PBEM players, because ofter saving they are lost.

Before I assign the six platoons and tanks again for a single turn, I don't use it.

It seems to me that certain design implementations are ignoring the needs for PBEM players. But aren't they the vast mority of long time CM supporters?

Don't fill cover arcs with color

PBEM players usually like to watch cool replay action in all it's glory.

The cover arcs that fill big parts of the screen with this yellow or violet hurts the eyes and makes it necessary to unselect the unit to watch the replay undisturbed with all backdraws when the unit is no longer selected.

Feature wishes:

Iron Man Mode

For good players playing the AI is no real challenge. But there exists one mode, that even can turn the best player into a loser against the AI: the Iron Man Mode.

It restricts the viewing level to unit height and only allows locked to unit camera views (only a view of the map from the highest level is allowed to simulate a tactical map).

The problem with this incredible exciting ruleset is, that also an incredible self-discipline is necessary, not to break the rules and raise the camera view ("only this single time"). Especially when things are not going as expected... And they do. Always.

In my experience playing with these exciting rules against human oponents is even impossible. Even the most self disciplined gentleman will at some moment become weak, with the naked busty girl dancing all the time in front of him.

One must have played with these rules to get a feeling, how important a church tower really can be.

Or how nail biting sound contacts of tanks can be, while the own units only have a limited overview of the battlefield and there is no way to raise into the air and fly around like an eagle to check the positions again.

It's similar to playing against humans: this also can't be adequately described to players who only have played the AI. One simply must try this mode out to believe.

Triggers for AI

Giving scenario designers all sorts of cross-referenced triggers, to create much better AI-plans.

Better LOS Tool

An indicator that allows to judge if lying down, kneeling or standing infantry can see lying down, kneeling or standing infantry or if vehicles have LOS from the main gun or only from the MG to the important target heights.

PBEM multiplayer

As a PBEM-player I would like to cooperate with one or more other players.

Again I have the impression, that PBEM players are seeing a slower or no development at all in this area because of the special technical demands of the RT mode.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

I like the patrol move order a lot and can definitely see the uses in the game. I also love the idea of co-op multiplayer.

I would like to see H2H campaigns as well. Or the ability to load the "review map" saved game in the editor.

[A Canadian Cat]

Please do not turn this thread into a whining festival with all the troll bait that will throw down. So far we have been good about asking for cool things we want and discussing them.

Make group assignments permanent

I would really like this. I tried to use it once I found out about it and thought I had dreamed setting the camera groupings the previous turn. This would be really appreciated.

Don't fill cover arcs with color

Or some way to toggle them off or between a line only out line or something. Some way to make it easier to see the underlying terrain.

Iron Man Mode

Interesting idea to codeify it as part of the game. Not sure *I* would play it but cool idea.

Triggers for AI

+1

[A Canadian Cat]

A 'patrol' movement order

Do you mean back and froth along the path over and over? Like guards pacing. Interesting but I am not sure when this would be used. Right now I can fairly easily throw down some way points and have a couple of minutes of something similar. Sure I would have to choose between move and hunt commands but other than that.

[para]

Iron Man Mode

For good players playing the AI is no real challenge. But there exists one mode, that even can turn the best player into a loser against the AI: the Iron Man Mode.

It restricts the viewing level to unit height and only allows locked to unit camera views (only a view of the map from the highest level is allowed to simulate a tactical map).

The problem with this incredible exciting ruleset is, that also an incredible self-discipline is necessary, not to break the rules and raise the camera view ("only this single time"). Especially when things are not going as expected... And they do. Always.

In my experience playing with these exciting rules against human oponents is even impossible. Even the most self disciplined gentleman will at some moment become weak, with the naked busty girl dancing all the time in front of him.

One must have played with these rules to get a feeling, how important a church tower really can be.

Or how nail biting sound contacts of tanks can be, while the own units only have a limited overview of the battlefield and there is no way to raise into the air and fly around like an eagle to check the positions again.

It's similar to playing against humans: this also can't be adequately described to players who only have played the AI. One simply must try this mode out to believe.

.

Could have it so that every time you go to the birds eye view you incur a penalty in the final end of game calculations. If you get my meaning?

[GJR144]

Interesting idea to codeify it as part of the game. Not sure *I* would play it but cool idea.

IIRC it was invented already in CMBO days (Scipios Iron Man Rules?). It's the toughest mode CM can be played in.

The problem with the voluntary ruleset is, that it needs so much patience and discipline to even reach combat phase (think about the setup phase: often complicated enough with full battlefield oversight; with this mode it's becoming much much more difficult: suddenly you even can't check anymore, how the LOS behind that house down the street will be; you can only guess and look at the unclear map - like in reality... And how often did it happen in reality, that things were completely different than believed and judged from the map?).

Because of the necessary self discipline to stick to the voluntary ruleset I think only very few players ever tried this mode and even less will have played a game to the hot phase of the battle or even finished it.

Once you have managed the setup phase from ground level, you feel great. You feel even better once the battle begins. And the thrill rises once the battle intensifies. But when suddenly one tank after the other goes up in flames and you have no clue what is going on, without immediately flying over the battlefield and watching the action from ten angles, then that's the point where the voluntary ruleset, at the height of the tension it creates, usually will get a "timeout".

The phase when this mode begins to teach it's brutal lessons in tactical realism, is usually the phase when you want to abandon it.

But if it was a gaming mode and, once started with no way to escape for the player, I guess more people would reach the hot phase and with no other choice being forced to stick with it until it's played out.

Examples of lessons this mode has teached me:

I already mentioned the realistic simulation of unclear or wrong maps. In reality often enough with tremendous implications. You develop a sense for the advantage of the one, who knows the area compared to the one who only has his maps (IMM creates terrain fog of war).

Or:

Winning/losing a height in the standard mode is quite an abstract thing. Sure there are some pros/cons but mostly the heights are taken, because some victory location demands it, not because we as players really need it to win.

Playing IMM the player will naturally seek to get the tactically important locations under control because it are not only the unit's but also his personal windows to the battlefield.

It's one thing to read in military literature how important a height was and how much blood was shed to get it under control or to defend it. But playing a few battles in IMM means to develop a much better understanding.

I think this mode is not only very interesting for those seeking a bigger challenge from the gaming point of view but also for those who are interested in new or deeper tactical insights.

The price for the increased realism of this mode is, that it's tough. Really tough.

But who plays CM because it's easy to master?

Because of the flexible spreading of infantry units, it would be helpful, without reducing the realism, if the view was not locked exactly to the infantry unit in one single spot, but only resticted to the action spot(s) the unit is placed in.

[poesel]

Do you mean back and froth along the path over and over? Like guards pacing.

Yes - like guards - only longer - like a patrol.

Something like that can be done now but not quite. You had to redo the whole thing after each round. If you hunt them around they will be tired very soon but if you just move they will/may not stop when they encounter an enemy.

I guess that patrols would have been quite common especially for bigger and longer defence scenarios. But no nobody does them now probably because of the things mentioned above.

IMHO patrols would add a nice touch to the game.

Btw. +1 to Iron Man Mode. '1' view only over HQs and vehicles with radio. Choose unit only with 'next' or 'previous unit'. That'll teach you C2!

[Lt Belenko]

You want tuff, play a city game at 1 view only.

[womble]

The problem with the voluntary ruleset is...[blather]

No, the problems with that way of playing are that it ignores both the basic concept of the game (that you are the commander at all levels, not just the ground), and that it ignores the fact that the view of the world that you get is restricted by the fidelity of the medium.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

+1 to iron man mode