Would these be good/possible features for the upcoming ver 4.00?

[James Crowley]

With the exciting news that a Ver, 4.00 of CMX2 will be under development at an unspecified time in the future and that the features to be included have yet to be decided on, do any of the features on this whimsical wish list, many of which have been raised before and which apply equally across FI, BN and RT, strike a chord?

 

Or are many/all of them merely tilting at windmills?

•  Make the branching in AI orders have more conditions, make it non-binary.Similar in Campaigns, plus simple dialog-based choices so the designer doesn't have to insert a scenario for every choice they want to accommodate.
•  Updating all the UI elements to C21st standards (scalable, configurable, incorporating standard UI conventions like scroll bars and in-place editing).
• Camera height going to actual eye levels of selected elements.
• Allow Broken troops to rout off the map edge in all cases if they're still running away and they hit it; if they leave from within a setup or exit zone, they're not counted as casualties;if they leave off an unmarked edge, they're MIA.
• Improve the TacAI so it's more aware of what's around it and can react to that knowledge. Including more surrendering when cut off, surrounded and about to be wiped out. Especially allow it to abort/reschedule script movement orders when it's being forced to run a gauntlet.
• Tagging for units and AI order groups so that groups get orders appropriate to the kind of assets which will be assigned.
• Make screen edge scrolling toggleable.
• Being able to Tab to a waypoint.
• better representation of close assault on vehicles. The current one, whereby an AFV can be 'assaulted' from up to 30m away - sometimes with an obstacle to movement in the way - is far too generic and allows something that happened on a vanishingly small scale to become almost commonplace. The real short range danger to AFV's were 'zooks, 'shrecks, fausts and Piats not 'improvised' weapons.
• better auto-selection of forces in Mix option, in QBs, particularly in the tiny and small categories.
• stopping the heavy 'clipping' that is still possible with AFVs. I know Steve has said this is very difficult but having, for instance, a tank drive 'through' another tank on a narrow bridge is a real immersion killer, IMO.
• Never going to happen but... Tighter C&C around out of command units. Ideally, no communication with them at all but, more likely, some limitation on command options.
• Less casualties, much more suppression effects on infantry under fire, particularly in heavy cover/buildings.

[Doug Williams]

In quick battles, allow points to be adjusted up and down for both sides.....not just the attacker. This should be a simple improvement to implement and will allow for really HUGE battles, as well as better handicapping options between PBEM opponents as well as the AI.

[womble]

In quick battles, allow points to be adjusted up and down for both sides.....not just the attacker. This should be a simple improvement to implement and will allow for really HUGE battles, as well as better handicapping options between PBEM opponents as well as the AI.

Heck, just have a text box where you can enter numbers up to 5 digits... if your rig falls over when you start the game, you know you picked too big a number...

 

One thing missing from the list of interface improvements is tooltips. Especially for the 2D elements, outside the game. Toggleable, of course. So for the above "points" box, you could have the tooltip for the defender show the recommended points allowance for Probe/Attack/Assault, say, once you've set the attacker's points allowance.

[Doug Williams]

Heck, just have a text box where you can enter numbers up to 5 digits... if your rig falls over when you start the game, you know you picked too big a number...

 

I'm for that.

 

But, regardless, the current +150% to -60% method should be available to both the attacker and defender in quick battles.

[Wiggum15]

I would say these would be good/possible features for the upcoming Bulge game.

Now the question is what does BFC think are "minor" improvements ?

As it has been stated by Steve the Bulge game will include such "minor" gameplay improvements.

[A Canadian Cat]

No not tilting at windmills - except that most of the suggestions have been suggested before so chances are their inclusion in v4 not be a direct result of this thread. But hey you never know one suggestion and its discussion could put one over the top.
 

•  Make the branching in AI orders have more conditions, make it non-binary.Similar in Campaigns, plus simple dialog-based choices so the designer doesn't have to insert a scenario for every choice they want to accommodate.
•  Updating all the UI elements to C21st standards (scalable, configurable, incorporating standard UI conventions like scroll bars and in-place editing).
• Camera height going to actual eye levels of selected elements.

Minus the editorializing yeah seems good.
 

 

• Allow Broken troops to rout off the map edge in all cases if they're still running away and they hit it; if they leave from within a setup or exit zone, they're not counted as casualties;if they leave off an unmarked edge, they're MIA.

 

 
Meh, I think the surrendering we have now suffices.
 

 

• Improve the TacAI so it's more aware of what's around it and can react to that knowledge. Including more surrendering when cut off, surrounded and about to be wiped out. Especially allow it to abort/reschedule script movement orders when it's being forced to run a gauntlet.

 

Improvements to the TacAI would be nice. I would like to see it in some circumstances area firing at ? icons that it sees. For example if one squad of a platoon is moving forward and comes under fire from a unknown enemy the other member of the platoon would automatically engage in area firing near any ? that they might get from their squad mates coming under fire.
 

 

• Tagging for units and AI order groups so that groups get orders appropriate to the kind of assets which will be assigned.

 

Interesting - what would that look like?
 

 

• Make screen edge scrolling toggleable.

 

Oh please, oh please (I'm just a broken record on this subject)
 

 

• Being able to Tab to a waypoint.

 

I'm not sure about this. I don't think I have ever missed having that. Given that the tab key already has a job what would you use instead?
 

 

• better representation of close assault on vehicles. The current one, whereby an AFV can be 'assaulted' from up to 30m away - sometimes with an obstacle to movement in the way - is far too generic and allows something that happened on a vanishingly small scale to become almost commonplace. The real short range danger to AFV's were 'zooks, 'shrecks, fausts and Piats not 'improvised' weapons.

 

Sure, although what we have not does not bother me.
 

 

• better auto-selection of forces in Mix option, in QBs, particularly in the tiny and small categories.

 

Auto selection is important - I'm going to make sure that auto force selection gets testing attention for any new product. CMBS is much better in that regard IMHO
 

 

• stopping the heavy 'clipping' that is still possible with AFVs. I know Steve has said this is very difficult but having, for instance, a tank drive 'through' another tank on a narrow bridge is a real immersion killer, IMO.

 

 
Yeah, that would look nice but after reading what Steve had to say about it I'm thinking we will not see that any time soon - but hey do not really know what Steve might try to accomplish.
 

 

• Never going to happen but... Tighter C&C around out of command units. Ideally, no communication with them at all but, more likely, some limitation on command options.

 

 
I would agree that will not likely happen.
 
My top three wish list items (also in my sig):

• Head to Head Campaigns via PBEM,
• Command line support (here is my proposal),
• Add "Custom" Quick Battle size so users can specify points

Edited July 14, 2015 by IanL

[slysniper]

In quick battles, allow points to be adjusted up and down for both sides.....not just the attacker. This should be a simple improvement to implement and will allow for really HUGE battles, as well as better handicapping options between PBEM opponents as well as the AI.

SO AGREE, I THINK THAT THE POINT STRUCTURE SHOULD BE TOTALLY ADJUSTABLE BY THE PLAYERS.

How ever they want to do it is fine with me. But I hate the restricted set ups they have now.

[womble]

Since these are questions about some of my favourites, I'll elaborate:

Tags for AI groups:

Interesting - what would that look like?

It's mostly for QB AIs I think, since the designer can already manually assign appropriate assets to relevant groups in scenarios.

An AI order group could be tagged with a category of troops. A basic scheme might include a list of tags such as:

• Armour
• Infantry
• Support
• Static AA
• ATG
• Recce
• Command

Each and every asset in the game (game, as a whole, not scenario/QB) would have to be assigned a corresponding type (intrinsically, in the same part of game design as TO&E is created; it's another attribute of the element, same as their paper complement, assigned equipment and the ratios of soft factors in their "Typical" settings) so that if an AI group exists with that tag, the asset would be assigned to one of those groups, rather than one without a tag or with a different tag. Untagged groups get the troops that haven't gotten assigned to any groups with tags.

So a scenario designer could have Group 1 be all the ATGs, and paint some nice setup areas with long keyholed LOS and no orders (arguably the best use for ATGs in the current AI environment). Group 2 could be the infantry, and group 3 the MGs and on-map mortars, caterpillar-moving up to support positions as the infanty hit their phase lines.

Currently, the arbitrary assignment of assets to groups can put static assets in pretty useless positions.

And:

Tab to waypoints:

I'm not sure about this. I don't think I have ever missed having that. Given that the tab key already has a job what would you use instead?

I think it'd be useful for moving around the map in a manner that's relevant to your intended dispositions. The idea popped into my head once when I was trying to get to waypoints far from their unit, and ever since I've seen frequent opportunities where it'd be helpful. You can currently double-click near a waypoint, but that moves your view to "looking out from" the point you select, above the waypoint, unable to see it, and it takes further manipulation of the view to get to a place where you can see to manipulate the waypoint. If you could "lock" your view to a waypoint in the same way as you can a unit, you would be able to see the waypoint immediately. And I'd maybe use <Shift-TAB> as the keystroke to go to the waypoint rather than the unit you necessarily have selected if you've got a waypoint "live".
 

[RockinHarry]

Enhanced pathing for individual units in groups between zones, is my current No #1 wish. This currently is the main hindrance for me to get something usable out of the AI editor capabilities, when it comes to setting up a non static AI opponent in my scenarios under development. Here´s a sketch showing the problematic and obviously plain random based AI movement schemes:

( yellow = Zones for group movement orders, A-B-C = infantry squads of a platoon in example group, Arrows = Movement paths from setup zone to movement zone/order #1 and #2 for squads A-B-C )

I´ll elaborate some more if the issue catches some interest, or the (bad) consequences of the movement schemes aren´t clear enough.

[Bulletpoint]

 

With the exciting news that a Ver, 4.00 of CMX2 will be under development at an unspecified time in the future and that the features to be included have yet to be decided on, do any of the features on this whimsical wish list, many of which have been raised before and which apply equally across FI, BN and RT, strike a chord?

 

 

I love how you put that

 

And I'm hoping to see many of those suggestions implemented.

[Vinnart]

Some good suggestions, but not all would be in my top 10. Anything that would improve the AI is always a step in the right direction so i am always for that.

 

Most of what I think would be good to add to the game are all features from cmx1 that have proven to work that i hope return.:

1) +1 to the return of the ability to adjust points manually for QBs to desired setting, and to the return of a MIX variation that limits points for each branch to spend on.

 

2) The return of the ability to select a unit by clicking on its movement orders line.

 

3) And MOST of all to the return of passenger, open, or floor on status in the UI, and the return of some color coding for better ammo supply awareness. This last one should not be too much problem as the game already has code for swapping graphics, and color coding text upon condition. Shown under the portrait in this example would be text of either passenger, open, or floor # when the condition applies. In game it would overlay the text same way “bogged”, “immobilized”, “pinned” ect… do over the suppression meter when the condition applies. Contextually this text fits well with the portrait, and makes it more informative so one does not have to move the camera as much to determine those statuses like in cmx1.

 

Currently if a troop is carrying a weapon, and it is out of ammo there is nothing that jumps out at the player to notice this. Instead of the ammo text disappearing as it does now it would improve awareness if it stayed, showed “0”, with the text changing to red similar to how it does when a vehicle part gets damaged.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2015 by Vinnart

[lordhedgwich]

Some good suggestions, but not all would be in my top 10. Anything that would improve the AI is always a step in the right direction so i am always for that.

 

Most of what I think would be good to add to the game are all features from cmx1 that have proven to work that i hope return.:

1) +1 to the return of the ability to adjust points manually for QBs to desired setting, and to the return of a MIX variation that limits points for each branch to spend on.

 

2) The return of the ability to select a unit by clicking on its movement orders line.

 

3) And MOST of all to the return of passenger, open, or floor on status in the UI, and the return of some color coding for better ammo supply awareness. This last one should not be too much problem as the game already has code for swapping graphics, and color coding text upon condition. Shown under the portrait in this example would be text of either passenger, open, or floor # when the condition applies. In game it would overlay the text same way “bogged”, “immobilized”, “pinned” ect… do over the suppression meter when the condition applies. Contextually this text fits well with the portrait, and makes it more informative so one does not have to move the camera as much to determine those statuses like in cmx1.

 

Currently if a troop is carrying a weapon, and it is out of ammo there is nothing that jumps out at the player to notice this. Instead of the ammo text disappearing as it does now it would improve awareness if it stayed, showed “0”, with the text changing to red similar to how it does when a vehicle part gets damaged.

 

 

oohhh I like that my germans are always running out of 9mm lol 

[agusto]

IIRC Infantry units dont run out of ammo. If the ammo count of the whole squad reaches 0, the unit will get a little bit of self-defense ammunation (20, 30 rounds for the whole squad). The unit will use that self-defense ammunation very conservatively and should IIRC refuse target orders. If just a single weapon of the squad runs out of ammo, it will not receive self-defense ammunaiton. But all that is IIRC - If I Remember Correctly.

Edited July 16, 2015 by agusto

[womble]

IIRC Infantry units dont run out of ammo. If the ammo count of the whole squad reaches 0, the unit will get a little bit of self-defense ammunation (20, 30 rounds for the whole squad). The unit will use that self-defense ammunation very conservatively and should IIRC refuse target orders. If just a single weapon of the squad runs out of ammo, it will not receive self-defense ammunaiton. But all that is IIRC - If I Remember Correctly.

My recollection is that's how CMx1 handled it.  CMx2 has ammo sharing instead, and "out of ammo" means "out of ammo". They do get more and more reluctant to use ammo as their count decreases.

[LukeFF]

IIRC Infantry units dont run out of ammo. If the ammo count of the whole squad reaches 0, the unit will get a little bit of self-defense ammunation (20, 30 rounds for the whole squad). The unit will use that self-defense ammunation very conservatively and should IIRC refuse target orders. If just a single weapon of the squad runs out of ammo, it will not receive self-defense ammunaiton. But all that is IIRC - If I Remember Correctly.

 

You remember incorrectly. Units can and will run out of ammo. 

[Erwin]

^{"2) The return of the ability to select a unit by clicking on its movement orders line."}

 

^{This!!!!!!!!!}

 

^{I still play quite a lot of CM1 and in larger scenarios it is a huge time saver to simply click on a waypoint to select a unit when wanting to change or add to a waypoint.}

[womble]

Oh, remembered another one for waypoints/movement lines: the ability to insert a waypoint between existing waypoints.

[slysniper]

I had one I requested along time ago when I first started playing CM and CM2.

 

That had a good amount of interest and it had some good imput as to how to add it in the game.

 

A simple wind gage that shows which way the wind is blowing and the strength of it.

 

It is about as important as a compass but we still do not have it.

 

 

When playing multiple H2H games and I get to a battle where there is no smoke blowing across a field, I have no clue as to which way the wind is blowing.

 

I must go to the briefing, and what is worse, sometimes, the briefing is incorrect because the guy has written it wrong.

 

 

It is a simple addition, but it sure would be a nice game aid to have.

[A Canadian Cat]

Wind direction and strength is listed in the conditions - and that info comes from the engine so you know it has it right.  Use Menu | Conditions instead of Menu | Briefing, I think you will be happy(ier). 

[slysniper]

Wind direction and strength is listed in the conditions - and that info comes from the engine so you know it has it right.  Use Menu | Conditions instead of Menu | Briefing, I think you will be happy(ier). 

 

Thanks,

 

But I still think it would be nice to have a indicator on screen, But hey, that's just me.

 

Maybe its because most games have it and it just seems like it is one of them things you should not have to think about.

 

When your outside, you don't go turn the news on to find out what way the wind is blowing

you just feel it and know

 

That's how easy it should be to know that factor in the game also.

 

 

Now if I wanted to make it hard, the wind should have a chance of changing while the game is being played. But that requires too much effort, so I will not go there.

[A Canadian Cat]

Thanks,

 

But I still think it would be nice to have a indicator on screen, But hey, that's just me.

<snip>

When your outside, you don't go turn the news on to find out what way the wind is blowing

you just feel it and know

 

Oh I do not disagree with you at all - like you said when you are outside it is pretty straight forward to see / feel what direction the wind is coming from.  I was just being helpful and pointing out a way to get your answer faster than you have been.

 

You could make a good argument that being able to tell the wind direction is something that you can "just feel it and know" where as the direction you are facing might actually take a moment to consider - i.e. looking at your compass for a moment.  At any rate that thing that is not a compass that people call a compass could be tweaked to show wind direction.  That would be useful.