EDITOR wishlist-/ suggestion thread

[Glubokii Boy]

hello

I don't remember ever seeing a dedicated EDITOR wishlist/suggestion thread. So i thought i'd start one...

Many suggestions will most likely have been mentioned before but please ...post away !

- factory buildings, chimnes, cranes, steel skeleton ruins.

- factory style flavoured objects

- External ladders and stairs to place along buildings (different styles and hights).

- multi story walls.

- edit damage to walls.

- being able to toggle buildings to have blown out windows and doors.

- remove individual flors of buildings (but keep the walls).

- hightediting (ditchlock) with 90 degree angle.

- heavy and light protected buildings ( maybe even fortrified houses with very good protection).

- battledamaged trees and other vegitation.

- manually select FOV on or off for destroyed or immobile veichles and equipment.

- manually be able to select wich soldiers will be killed in a squad (a suplement to the headcount function).

- manually editd number of special weapons and ammo in squads, veichles and teams.

- ice level (thicknes) for lakes and rivers (infantry only- or also veichle passable).

- more ways to 'complete' mission objectives.

- ability to choose location, commited assets, start time and duration for AI artillery.

[Andrew Kulin]

Being able to set water at different elevations across the map.

[Fizou]

Being able to set water at different elevations across the map.

+1 Id love for this to happen.

[Michael Emrys]

Being able to set water at different elevations across the map.

Having it flow with determinable velocity would be nice. Maybe small cataracts when there are sharp changes of elevation too. This would be really appropriate for Italy and similar kinds of terrain. But I guess it would be a long time before this gets in.

Michael

[Bradley]

Fantastic suggestions. If there was more time in a day we could get some of these maybe later.

[smbecket]

I like a lot of the OP's suggestions and I give a plus 10 to the water ideas. Aside from those I would love to see round building add on features: grain silos (were there round grain silos in France?), round towers for a chateau or castle, oil tanks, etc., etc.

[umlaut]

+ 1 on the water levels suggestion from me too.

And I have one suggestion/question regarding maps and the editors:

Will it at some point be possible to export/import maps from one CM family to another?

I really hope so.

Why? Here´s an example:

If I were having this great idea for a Operation Barbarossa scenario it would be great if I could begin working on the map right away in CMRT. And then when the East Front 1941-1942 family eventually is released I could import the map and finish the scenario with the correct units and so on.

It would also be nice to be able to start working on a Bulge map in CMBN - and then finish it, once CM Bulge is released.

I realize that in these cases there would be a number of map features that would differ from family to family: There would be no bocage in the Ardennes, the buildings and trees would be different, etc. But I guess the game could replace bocage with ordinary hedges and Normandy buildings could simply be replaced with the corresponding Ardennes buildings.

And of course there would be a lot of "fine tuning" to do with these imported maps before they would be ready in the new editor. But in my opinion it would great to have to opportunity to begin working on "basic map" for a game that hasn´t been released yet. Instead of wating for the release - and then having to start from scratch.

[Canada Guy]

I understand the complexity of creating randomly generated QB maps but what about so e assist with the maps themselves.

1. A button to just generate elevations without anything else. Have 4 choices

Flat

River valley

Hilly

Steep

2. Button for trees

Sparse

Sparse but clumpy

Thick but clumpy

Forest

With these 2 tools, my ability to create the maps just got a whole lot easier. This, i am hoping, is not like trying to create a random town or roads but it would go a long way.

[Andrew Kulin]

Having it flow with determinable velocity would be nice. Maybe small cataracts when there are sharp changes of elevation too. This would be really appropriate for Italy and similar kinds of terrain. But I guess it would be a long time before this gets in.

Michael

I'd be happy enough to start with just being able to set disconnected water bodies at different elevations (think of a bunch of ponds or lakes). Being able to model rivers or streams which drop in elevation over gradual distances, and which would great of course, could be deferred if really that difficult to deal with.

I just don't understand why the water has to be at the same elevation across the entire map. Perhaps the programmers could chime in with a simple explanation as to what is causing this limitation?

[Andrew Kulin]

+ 1 on the water levels suggestion from me too.

And I have one suggestion/question regarding maps and the editors:

Will it at some point be possible to export/import maps from one CM family to another?

I really hope so.

Why? Here´s an example:

If I were having this great idea for a Operation Barbarossa scenario it would be great if I could begin working on the map right away in CMRT. And then when the East Front 1941-1942 family eventually is released I could import the map and finish the scenario with the correct units and so on.

It would also be nice to be able to start working on a Bulge map in CMBN - and then finish it, once CM Bulge is released.

I realize that in these cases there would be a number of map features that would differ from family to family: There would be no bocage in the Ardennes, the buildings and trees would be different, etc. But I guess the game could replace bocage with ordinary hedges and Normandy buildings could simply be replaced with the corresponding Ardennes buildings.

And of course there would be a lot of "fine tuning" to do with these imported maps before they would be ready in the new editor. But in my opinion it would great to have to opportunity to begin working on "basic map" for a game that hasn´t been released yet. Instead of wating for the release - and then having to start from scratch.

+1. Fully understand there would be unique things in the modules or game families that would look funny after import but leave that to the map maker to sort through on their time. Being able to import stuff like topography and such would be a time saver in itself.

Though if BFC has changed the way file database structures are stored for map info between game families then it is understandable why this would not be easy to do.

[Jock Tamson]

To be able to set the percentage probability of a given unit being present in the scenario - say 25/50/75

I'd like this to be available in QB force selection as well (in fact that is where it would probably be most straightforward to implement as it would have no impact on AI plans).

[Michael Emrys]

To be able to set the percentage probability of a given unit being present in the scenario - say 25/50/75

I'd like this to be available in QB force selection as well (in fact that is where it would probably be most straightforward to implement as it would have no impact on AI plans).

Uh, I think the QB maps will be coming with triggers too (they already come with AI plans). How those would be effected by the appearance/non-appearance of certain units I won't even try to guess at this point.

Michael

[Childress]

To be able to set the percentage probability of a given unit being present in the scenario - say 25/50/75

Nice idea. But it may prove counter-productive further complicating things. Scenario output could sputter to a crawl.

[Jock Tamson]

Uh, I think the QB maps will be coming with triggers too (they already come with AI plans). How those would be effected by the appearance/non-appearance of certain units I won't even try to guess at this point.

Michael

To clarify, I am talking purely about setting the probability for AI units in the force selection screen prior to going into QB.

So, for example, you wouldn't know whether you are facing 4 tanks or 1.

This would make QBs against the AI much more challenging. At the moment, you buy the AI his force and then you grind your way through it looking for his final PzIV.

[Ithikial_AU]

For the editor...

An Undo Button

[Glubokii Boy]

- manually select FOV on or off for destroyed or immobile veichles and equipment.

My original idea with this was to be able to have the destroyed and immobile units visible to the player from the start of the game without the player first having to get 'eyes on' that location.

This would simulate units destroyed in a previous battle and already known to the player...

But on second thought...Why limit the manual setting of FOV to only destroyed and immobile units...Why not have this option for ALL units ?

This would enable the designer to get more controll over what enemy units are

known to the player. Right now the pre-battle intel is quite random as to what units will be shown to the player (maybe including AT-guns or armour locations that you do not want the player to know about).

With manual FOV settings you could for example show pre-battle info of:

- forward line of troops only (nothing more).

- Specific areas of the map

- a certain AT-gun, AA-gun or machinegun

- a specific trenchline

- ........

Giving the scenario designer more control over the pre-battle intel would be a good thing i think...

[Combatintman]

You can do this in CMSF. Let's say you are designing a Blue playing Red scenario - first you set your mission as Red v Red, purchase your knocked out vehicles in what will become your Blue force unit selection screen and deploy them. Then switch back to Blue versus Red mission and you will see the destroyed vehicles at mission start. Not sure if this is possible in the WW2 titles as I don't have them.

Reference the lottery of the AI intel settings - you can work around it by stating explicitly in the briefing what is where in the Situation Enemy Forces paragraph.

[Fizou]

I wanted to place a destroyed bridge today but wasn't able to do so. If its not possible I would like it to be an option in the future. If it is possible already, can someone please explain how

The pic below is from a current battle. It took a lot of 150 mm shells before it collapsed.

[umlaut]

It is pretty simple - if you know the right button in the editor

- or am I misunderstanding you?

[Glubokii Boy]

You can do this in CMSF. Let's say you are designing a Blue playing Red scenario - first you set your mission as Red v Red, purchase your knocked out vehicles in what will become your Blue force unit selection screen and deploy them. Then switch back to Blue versus Red mission and you will see the destroyed vehicles at mission start. Not sure if this is possible in the WW2 titles as I don't have them.

thanks for the tip ! i will try this when i do my next scenario if i need some destroyed veichles...

Reference the lottery of the AI intel settings - you can work around it by stating explicitly in the briefing what is where in the Situation Enemy Forces paragraph.

This is one way of getting around the problem, sure...but like you said...It's a 'work-around'...To be able to manually set the FOV would be better.

Not neccesary...but better

[Fizou]

It is pretty simple - if you know the right button in the editor

- or am I misunderstanding you?

Ahhh.. Too easy. I was thinking it should be a ctrl click on the bridge. Well thats super, my wish fulfilled

Thanks for showing umlaut!

[costard]

From the lack of feedback thread:

Originally posted by umlaut

Making a scenario ready for release means:

- writing a briefing that is clear and hopefully entertaing to the players. Two briefings, if it is a H2H scenario.

- making a correct list of the forces involved

- making a strategic map BMP

- making a tactical map BMP

- making a preview BMP

- making a operational map BMP

- writing designer´s notes

As a serious wish, if all this could be done in the editor I believe we'd go a long way to getting more user made scenarios out there. Some of it, like the map making, forces and AI plans requires user input and I'm not suggesting the editor do these tasks, but some of this stuff [can/ought/might] be automated to streamline the process.

[Combatintman]

Reference making scenarios for release - it does require time but I don't see how a lot of it can be automated.

For my CMSF scenarios I just create a folder on my computer and as I sketch out my concept and put the mission together I put the concepts and graphics on slides as I go. Once I'm happy with it I port the graphics into paint and size them to the correct dimensions before saving them back into my folder as bmp files. I'll then write the briefing and once done copy them across to a folder in CM. From there I import the lot into the scenario via the scenario editor. The whole process takes about an hour and a half with most of that time being writing the orders text.

The only thing about the whole process that I find an inconvenience is that I cannot import from a directory outside of the CMSF directories.

[Collingwood]

And speaking of feedback (different thread I know) I have thoroughly enjoyed every one of your scenarios Combatintman.

[costard]

Reference making scenarios for release - it does require time but I don't see how a lot of it can be automated.

For my CMSF scenarios I just create a folder on my computer and as I sketch out my concept and put the mission together I put the concepts and graphics on slides as I go. Once I'm happy with it I port the graphics into paint and size them to the correct dimensions before saving them back into my folder as bmp files. I'll then write the briefing and once done copy them across to a folder in CM. From there I import the lot into the scenario via the scenario editor. The whole process takes about an hour and a half with most of that time being writing the orders text.

The only thing about the whole process that I find an inconvenience is that I cannot import from a directory outside of the CMSF directories.

Useful tips Combatintman, thanks.

As I understand it the licensing requirements to get [other] program functionality into the editor would send the unit price for the game into the thousands, I get that this isn't an option. I also get that spending precious programmer resources on the editor is way down the priority list if there is no business plan that supports this.

With the caveat that I've never been able to write good code, at any level, and am therefore displaying my ignorance of the workload involved, I believe making the tactical map bmps (arrows and intel included), the preview bmp (screenshot from somewhere in the 3D preview) and the forces list shouldn't require too much time with respect to the improved functionality lent to the editor (i.e. the value added to the game). Briefings aren't optional - though the Quick Battle briefing setup might provide some sort of skeleton to hang further details on - the operational map bmp is most relevant to a campaign and the designer's notes are mostly irrelevant to the play.

At the moment, it seems that Battlefront has sensibly broken it's available talent into streams for the scenarios that go with the releases - someone is excellent at creating maps, someone else writes fiendish AI scripts, someone else knows what situations grab players (H2H, solo, WEGO, Real Time), someone else can actually write to a level that is entertaining and informative: expecting the casual oik of a customer (squee!) to be able to muster all these capabilities and turn out multiple polished scenarios is setting the bar a tad high (something BF does as a matter of course when it comes to self-expectation and the reason we get such brilliant games to play). The surprising thing is that many casual oiks do manage to turn out quality scenarios - hence their mis-aligned snouts when receiving no feedback.

The important note as far as I am concerned is that this is a wish list - they're nice when they come true but nothing like a realistic expectation of the way things will happen. As long as Battlefront can keep their business profitable and their work enjoyable, we all benefit. There's no need to wish for anything more, really.