What have been the most frequently requested features / tweaks

[A Canadian Cat]

IanL and others re "convoy command".  In CM1 the ability to click on waypoints or lines anywhere on the map in order to select the unit makes changing the routes of large numbers of units easier and MUCH more efficient - and hence simplifies convoys.  (Although I agree not having a convoy system is frustrating with large numbers of units.)

On large CM1 maps with large numbers of units one can focus on an area of the map and simply click on waypoints and lines to make adjustments.  In the current CM2 system you have to a: leave the area of interest and go back to where the units may be located - often quite a distance away, then b: you have to select the units, then c: go back to where the "action" is and again adjust waypoints.

I agree the click movement order lines to select units is workable in many cases - like when there are several units moving in a spaced apart formation.  My concern is that when there are multiple units moving in a confined space that it would be frustrating to make adjustments if your selected unit keep changing.  If BFC were to try to implement this it would need careful attention during testing.  I personally would not like to see one situation improve while another gets worse.

The current method is time-consuming.  In a complex game system like the CM series one needs the UI to be as efficient and quick as possible so that we spend the max amount of time doing fun things like tactics etc and not fighting the UI.  (Hence the request for "one-click" 180 degree arcs.)

Indeed.  The flip side of that is: in a complex game system like the CM series one need the UI to be as efficient and quick as possible so that we spend the maximum amount of time doing fun things like tactics etc and not digging around in the UI to find that command we want or to set the multi options we have to play with.  Efficient means more that one thing need to be efficient.  What I am getting at here is you have several behaviours and commands you would like to add and so do others as well plus still more people want various options (such as what weapon system should fire, what formation should be used).  If BFC went all the way on those things then the UI would be so big and cumbersome no one would be able to figure it all out and using it would be slow.  Just saying.

In the mean time while we wait for whatever improvements might come, here are couple of things I do, perhaps they can help you.  I use double click on the map and the tab F12, +, - and v keys a lot for this type of situation.  If you have the a group of units moving through an area you can select then one double click on the map to jump to the location where you want to change orders then press F12 to select the unit again and usually the v key to flip the camera back around forward again. Then I make adjustments. Many times the other units / vehicles are in the same formation so a press or two of the + and - keys often finds the next unit you want to adjust.  If not then tab brings you back to where the units are and you can select the correct one and then double click on the map to get back to the area again F12 v again to get the right unit selected.

In case that helps anyone.

[Bulletpoint]

Turret facing command.

[PanzerPajamas]

+1 to saving QB force picks.

[AlexUK]

1)   Bring back the CM1 system of being able to click on ANY waypoint or line and that action instantly selects that unit.  I still play some CM1, and it is such a useful and efficient feature - especially when you are playing large scenarios.

2)  Bring back the instant 180 degree arc of CM1 - if you move many turreted vehicles around one is constantly having to change the direction of the arc - and the CM2 system is far less efficient and quite irritating after a while.

3)  Allow ACQUIRE between adjacent units - with a time delay to simulate the time it takes.

 

I may have got the wrong end of the stick but you can already click any section of a movement path and it selects that unit?

[sttp]

Turret facing command.

Yep, there's a definite need to be able to control turret facing with something simpler and quicker than a bunch of manually-drawn target arcs. The arcs are especially cumbersome in real time mode. This issue is what I had in mind with my #10, the quick & easy 180 degree arcs. But a hypothetical new kind of FACE command, or 'simply' (haha) tweaking FACE's current behavior would work too. As is, though, FACE often feels more like a movement and positioning command than a true targeting command.

Actually, during my first week or so with CMBN, I played under the impression that FACE controlled turret direction while the tank was on the move, but then controlled both turret and hull direction when the tank reached its last waypoint. And actually, I think it'd be awesome if FACE worked exactly like that. Opinions? But then what about when you have tanks pause at intermediate waypoints -- would it turn the hull too, or just the turret? Control hull direction via waypoint approach direction, or let this hypothetical new FACE command turn the hull, also, any time the tank stops?

Interesting dilemma, and surely not easy for the developers to code for. There'd seemed to be an asymmetry somewhere no matter which way they tried to tackle it, because it'd have to work for both infantry and armor.

 

[womble]

I may have got the wrong end of the stick but you can already click any section of a movement path and it selects that unit?

Yep, you're remembering CMx1. In CMx2 you have to select a unit before you can click on its movement path to highlight waypoints.

A solution to machine-confusion about what you're trying to click on might be to allow <[modifier-key]-Click> functionality. <LMB> remains the same, but <Shift-LMB> will pick up the movement path you're hovering over. Still you have to be precise with your mouse to get the right path in a mess of chicken-scratches, but at least your subsequent LMB clicks to highlight different legs of the path in the same bottleneck won't change the selected unit.

[poesel]

Wishing time!

In QBs have the units you already bought show up on the preview map (blank map if preview not allowed). Bonus point if CM remembers where you put your units for the first turn.

When you are not sure what exactly you will get (how much ammo does the on map IG have?) or if that is enough infantry or not? I sometimes make a test QB just to see how my picks play out. Which is of course a PITA because I have to take a picture of the original pick, start a new game, pick them all again, play, look, quit and then do the same for the original again.

[womble]

Absolutely, an on-map preview of what you've got would be great. It would reduce the need for "Moar informations" in the purchase screen for when you can't remember whether the 250/9 has a 20mm cannon or a 37mm PaK36. Or what the difference between the high Rarity UC and its low Rarity cousins in the same platoon is. Or whether the particular month's PzGr have 1 or 2 MG42s per squad. All that stuff.

[Erwin]

Not sure how others do their plotting when moving large numbers of vehicles (or inf for that matter) along the same route.  But, for those of us who play huge scenarios (the current BB13 CM1 tournament at WeBoB has something like a couple of Regiments (yes seriously) of troops and vehicles to plot turns for), a major challenge is convoying large formations to get to the front in the most efficient way. 

Being able to click on any waypoint amidst the spaghetti collection of waypoints in order to select units and adjust their movements - without having to relocate hundreds of meters on the map every single time to the actual unit itself - is a huge time saver.

I think that the current CM2 system is xnt.  The major challenge is how to simplify the ergonomics of HOW one plays - especially large scenarios - ie: reduce the amount of clicks, and the amount of time-wasting having to hunt around the map to find units.

That's also why the complex ACQUIRE system and the method of giving a turreted vehicle a 180 degree arc need to be streamlined.  (However, I do understand that these are not big issues if one primarily plays small scenarios.)

[hobo]

Sorry to be a broken record, I simply want a return to the way that operations were done in CM1 (with a few fixes and enhancements of course):}  

[CAS]

A new move (fx. Advance) 

Speed like normal move, when the unit gets under fire instead of changing to "fast" the unit should take cover and return fire. If the unit is out of contact it should proceed with the move order.

[Bulletpoint]

A number to tell you how many shells a fire mission will expend. Currently, you can only choose options such as "Quick" or "Short", but you have to know from experience how much ammo will be expended. It also varies a lot depending on artillery type.

Or maybe make it so that the mission durations will always expend a fixed percentage of the available shells. So that you'd know that you could always make, say 10 "quick" missions, or 3 "medium" ones.

[DLaurier]

Boobs.
And the ability to import units from a saved game.
In CMX1 I used this to turn many a QB into a prolonged campaign.

[z1812]

A lot of the items mentioned would be nice.

I like the idea of toggling options on and off.

An option to toggle red crosses on and off would be helpful. Sometimes I want to see them and sometimes not. It would be nice to be able to toggle it.

The same for a method to see elevation more clearly. I know it has already been mentioned but a contour map or grid that could be toggled would be nice.

[Bozowans]

Well here's my wishlist. 

1) Better artillery interface, for adjusting duration/intensity during the middle of a fire mission.

2) Fortified buildings. Not bunkers, but up-armored versions of buildings that simulate things like sandbag reinforcement, furniture removed and space set aside for AT guns, MG nests and mortar positions inside, etc. Bullets go through walls, and it's usually not a good idea to set up in buildings, or stick your face in front of a window without some kind of reinforcement. This was pretty common practice. I'm reminded of George Orwell's account of the street fighting in Barcelona he took part in. When the fighting broke out, pretty much everyone on both sides just ran into the nearest buildings and fortified the hell out of them, then camped out there and took pot-shots at each other for the next few days. In WW2, whole towns would be turned into fortresses, with networks of fortified buildings with communication trenches in between, but that's impossible in the game.

3) Better sound design. I am a sucker for good sounds. Somehow I doubt this will ever be a priority for Battlefront, since they still use that same damn artillery thumping background effect from all the way back in Shock Force in 2007. Still, I really wish that the sounds would change according to distance. You would want a couple of different sounds for each weapon - one for distance, and one for up close. A gun firing from 500 meters away should not use the same sound effect as one firing right next to the camera. A lot of games have had this feature for many years now.

I always loved the way Red Orchestra did it. Every weapon had two sounds. Simple as that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQSkcZn8i3

 

[womble]

For me, the artillery interface needs making easier to use and more informative, before any additional features are added. Having a spotter's current mission first in his array; allowing "Go to Spotter" from any unit, not just ones that are allowed to use the asset; having inactive modules appear before active ones for spotters who don't have a mission under way; display of expected rounds expended and duration of fire upon FFE for a given mission weight, duration and tube count.

[RockinHarry]

Well here's my wishlist. 

1) Better artillery interface, for adjusting duration/intensity during the middle of a fire mission.

2) Fortified buildings. Not bunkers, but up-armored versions of buildings that simulate things like sandbag reinforcement, furniture removed and space set aside for AT guns, MG nests and mortar positions inside, etc. Bullets go through walls, and it's usually not a good idea to set up in buildings, or stick your face in front of a window without some kind of reinforcement. This was pretty common practice. I'm reminded of George Orwell's account of the street fighting in Barcelona he took part in. When the fighting broke out, pretty much everyone on both sides just ran into the nearest buildings and fortified the hell out of them, then camped out there and took pot-shots at each other for the next few days. In WW2, whole towns would be turned into fortresses, with networks of fortified buildings with communication trenches in between, but that's impossible in the game.

3) Better sound design. I am a sucker for good sounds. Somehow I doubt this will ever be a priority for Battlefront, since they still use that same damn artillery thumping background effect from all the way back in Shock Force in 2007. Still, I really wish that the sounds would change according to distance. You would want a couple of different sounds for each weapon - one for distance, and one for up close. A gun firing from 500 meters away should not use the same sound effect as one firing right next to the camera. A lot of games have had this feature for many years now.

I always loved the way Red Orchestra did it. Every weapon had two sounds. Simple as that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQSkcZn8i3

 

+1

If BFC can´t harden particular buildings through change of core data, then maybe a switchable modifier for such buildings could be implemented. Since units are tracked and registered for beeing in buildings (i.e HMG deploy and pack up times), one could i.e in a defend (vs. attack or assault) game declare buildings to be fortified, when a unit starts deployed the game in them. An abstracted defense modifiers then can be applied (friendly to be hit chances reduced vs. small arms and some small caliber HE). This could also be implemented as mission designer feature in the editor, with free selection of what building gets fortified bonus and which not.

I´m as well a sound freak, beeing musician for more than 30 years and it would be great if more distant sounds get muffled, or sounds adapted on the fly, when beeing in urban terrain, within buildings, in forests or in changed environmental conditions (fog, clear nights....). I´ve no idea about OpenGL audio filtering features, but I´m fairly sure that these features can be added without adding gigabytes of new sounds to the game. I´d expect additional lag and dropped frame rates though, so this should better be then a switchable option, in case some people have less powerful hardware and such.

Oh.... and some more from my wishlists (sorry if I repeat):

1. Freely configurable split teams, so one can create custom compositions during game play. This can be connected with a feature that enables squads to be more dispersed. If the current maximum split is 3 teams a squad, then it should also be allowed to split compose teams, that i.e a squad that by default only can be split into 2 teams, can be configured to be split in 3 teams, just for a whole squads movement and deployment purposes. I could also think of a stand off range for each team to be configurable. By default a non splitted squad disperses its teams to the next adjacent AS, if squad size is big enough. I think the current treshold is 6 men and anything below makes a squad unsplittable. So the switchable stand off would allow for teams to be 2 AS away from each other, not just one. That wouldn´t be applicable in any case and terrain, but the player could decide whether it makes sense by use of the face command, which anyway makes much of the deployments of a squads components, when face is put on (final) waypoints. Surely, the AIP again would have no use for it, but in H2H games or human players generally could benefit from any such improved options.

2. Freely configurable supply/ammo depots, incl. ammo for weapon systems, that aren´t available yet. I.e tank gun, or Arty ammo, as well as hand grenades and more.

3. Indexing system for fortifications. I.e if you have many of them in a self made mission, I oftentimes find it hard to delete some again if required, as the forts do not have unique identifiers. Would come handy when i.e I want to delete trench (foxhole, barb wire, hedgehog obstacle...) #14 again when deploying the stuff and when back in activated unit list to see at a glance where and what this #14 is, so I can delete it quickly. Off course one CAN organize his mission making better, but the larger maps/missions get and the more changes need to be made during creation process, the more one can loose track of objects in 3D deployment mode and find them again in the 2D unit editor.

4. Branching AI triggers. So i.e one could script a particular AI force to switch to another movement path variant, when the trigger condition is met. More trigger conditions. So far we have triggers that rely on map zones and group order start/execution. AFAIK the data from "Force parameters" (casualties, condition, ammo) ain´t used nor recognized by the AIP. Some triggers could be tied to these parameters, so that in example the AIP would stop its attack overally, or retreat from defense, when some the treshold data applies. Reinforcement triggers could also be applied here. There´s lots to think about possibilities, so I better stop here.

5. Fallback area (collection points), to be marked (zone or line) in the editor, so that routing/really bad shape units have a reasonable place to rout to and not sit in the landscape and get furtherly slaughtered, when the enemy advances (or from a failed attack). This mostly would benefit the AIP, which needs every help it can get.

6. Extract just the map data from a saved game, so these maps can be furtherly used for other missions or within the chain of a campaign structure.

7. Click destroy trees (bocage, walls...) capability either in 3D map editor, or something comparable in the 2D map editor. I.e if you put craters in the same AS as Trees (...), get them the same looks that are created during game play, when a number of HE falls into the AS. Broken walls, tree stumps, leaves removed from trees and bocage ect.

8. Automatic "rubble object" creation for buildings that receive certain damage levels during game play. I mean those rubble objects, that you can already place from the doodads menu and that are placed automatically within damaged buildings already. I could also think of automatic ground tile replacement in this case, where the tile under and/or beside a damaged/destroyed building changes to rubble looks. Me and others use this map design feature (rubble ground tiles) already, so it´s thinkable that this process can be also applied automatically during game play.

So far...

Edited October 15, 2015 by RockinHarry
typos, #8 added

[Bulletpoint]

5. Fallback area (collection points), to be marked (zone or line) in the editor, so that routing/really bad shape units have a reasonable place to rout to and not sit in the landscape and get furtherly slaughtered, when the enemy advances (or from a failed attack). This mostly would benefit the AIP, which needs every help it can get.

Doesn't really need dedicated fallback lines... just make the TacAI keep retreating the panicked unit until it reaches reasonable cover/concealment - don't let them stop while they are sitting in the open. Walls, hedgerows, shellholes.. all qualify as reasonable cover.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[sttp]

Well, I guess someone's gotta say it.... a way to disable opening move arty for Quick Battles against the AI. Especially during meeting engagements. Please. I want the AI to have arty, but on the first move it really is such a downer. There's a reason so many PBM players agree to not do it. I realize this issue has like been a little controversial here, and that many folks think first move arty is realistic. But the fact that it is a little controversial is the perfect reason to make it an option.

[delliejonut]

I would love to have a hotkey to select previous/next waypoints in a path similar to how + - select teams. Sometimes you have to assault across open terrain with a lot of small teams, making a 10-15 second pause every few action squares. With multiple companies of infantry a single turn can take up to 30 minutes.

Also, a "repeat last orders" command, when your infantry cancels their orders under fire and you have to redo the whole thing

Also, I've wanted more customizable ROE, similar to TacOps.

Edited October 15, 2015 by delliejonut
Addition

[womble]

Well, I guess someone's gotta say it.... a way to disable opening move arty for Quick Battles against the AI. Especially during meeting engagements. Please. I want the AI to have arty, but on the first move it really is such a downer. There's a reason so many PBM players agree to not do it. I realize this issue has like been a little controversial here, and that many folks think first move arty is realistic. But the fact that it is a little controversial is the perfect reason to make it an option.

What most players agree not to do is shell the deployment zones on T1. They often agree for no pre-planned if it's a meeting engagement, but the important thing is that you're not allowed to shoot fish in the barrel of a potentially restrictive setup zone. Having interdicting fire fall across your route of advance on T1 sent by the AI is just a pause on your headlong rush for VLs. Hang back for the first minute, and you'll know where not to drive through.

[RockinHarry]

Doesn't really need dedicated fallback lines... just make the TacAI keep retreating the panicked unit until it reaches reasonable cover/concealment - don't let them stop while they are sitting in the open. Walls, hedgerows, shellholes.. all qualify as reasonable cover.

The problem with routing units is that they directly rout away from the source of the rout, the enemy unit. If it was enemy flanking fire, then it could happen frequently that when considering that something like a "frontline" exists during battle, the routing unit, running away in straight path from the enemy causing the rout, moves diagonally or even parallel to the "virtual frontline", straight into the LOS/LOF of other enemy units. That´s most the time a death march. Since friendly/enemy map edges have no effect on units rout behavior, the TacAI needs something like a compass point (general rally location) towards and behind friendly "frontline". It could also be the (last known) position of the Bn HQ, or any other highest echelon HQ. I understand that "panicked" units are of the headless chicken kind, but I´d even assume those soldiers to generally know where the "friendly" compass direction is. In the attack, they generally would know where they moved from (assembly point) and in defense, every unit would know where the friendly rear area is and such. Thus it it is not sufficient to just move into next available cover, as it could happen that just this cover is in LOS/LOF of another enemy unit. It could also happen, without any enemy influence, that a rallied unit breaks again and starts a further rout. So the rout path IMO should be a combination of "rout away" from most dangerous known threat (causing the actual rout) AND a set friendly map location, the rallying point.

[Bloody Bill]

I would like to see two things be added/changed in the game series.

1.  I would like to see a better unit integrity when it came to individual model space.  I notice a lot especially in woods I will have two or three infantry all mixed into one blob.  In a CMBN battle I had three CW soldiers killed by the same bullet all looking out the same window and all three models were mushed into one blob looking thing.  In another fight I took out a German tank in the gap of a hedgerow perfectly blocking the gap from being used by vehicles.  Other German tanks just morphed right through the knocked out tank.  So I would like to see a better individual model integrity so units  could not mush up into one another.

2.  This one is just my want from many fights.  I know with the move commands we have fast, quick, move, hunt and slow.  I would like to have a move option that was similar to quick and than acted like hunt for the purpose when taking fire.  I would like to say throw some troops across and area they take fire and go to ground immediately as an option instead of running to their death in a straight line.  You could still have the normal quick move and all the others but adding a quick/hunt move order could keep your men a live better.

[womble]

For clipping to be stringently enforced, you'd need to have pushing... Pushing would be good. So long as there was a big warning bubble that said "Are you sure you want to do this? It could break the unit that is pushing!!!" so that when people whine about immobilising their tanks while trying to clear a wreck out the way, they can at least be told that they were warned. Oh, and the AI needs to be improved so it doesn't foul its own nest...

[RockinHarry]

From what I observe in the game, the various game objects appear only to check for a small center point to be collided with another one, not something like a big bounding box. It could be well seen in forests, when tanks squeeze between trees while slowly moving, only avoiding the 3D center point of each other, while it looks like trees go half through the tanks 3D geometry. It´s surely a simplification for path finding and collision check purposes, but beeing not a programmer myself, I do not dare to ask for something better, if it´s such a difficult and time comsuming thing to code.