Ideas that could make CM titles any better!

[iluvmy88]

not in any realistic manner, in order to get them to move in a sort of realistic manner i have to set quick moves 2 squares each then at each move lets say 10 dots for the whole assault 9 teams plus 1 HQ thats 100 dots to adjust so they dont bunch up. when a RL inf formation, the way i trained would move in bounds at a certain spacing. and yes even at 2 square bounds they still get right in line to get mowed down by a single Mg burst.

[iluvmy88]

ive played over 200 games over the past couple years so this is too broad a question, when i do use them to fire i set them well behind with a small cover arc. if he fires and anything can shoot him hes dead. this isnt every single time this is my experience over MANY games multiplayer and single player. in any case nvmd i didnt come to argue here tbh i hate this forum its always a headache if the devs think it has merit they will look at it if not ohh well i dont really care to argue every single little minute detail for the next 4 weeks with 50 different people.

[Michael Emrys]

ive played over 200 games over the past couple years so this is too broad a question, when i do use them to fire i set them well behind with a small cover arc. if he fires and anything can shoot him hes dead. this isnt every single time this is my experience over MANY games multiplayer and single player. in any case nvmd i didnt come to argue here tbh i hate this forum its always a headache if the devs think it has merit they will look at it if not ohh well i dont really care to argue every single little minute detail for the next 4 weeks with 50 different people.

Can't blame you at all and I didn't mean to make your day worse. I was trying to get at the facts, and yes that can be wearisome. Hope you have a pleasant weekend.

Michael

[sburke]

@iluvmy88. Heh that is a really easy handle to remember.   the subject of how soldiers position themselves in buildings is kind of a long standing item that I expect has a lot of issues to alter. Interiors are abstracted to begin with.  Take a building, knock out two sides and then check los through it. Yeah a bummer. One of the reasons we can't really do factories. Anyway yeah I agree it has particular significance for snipers and I generally avoid building positions for snipers if I am not going to just use them for spotting. The one exception is when I have a nice keyhole or long street where there is little cover for my opponent. 

As to the frustration of arguing, well that is kind of the point. Would you prefer folks just saying yeah that sucks and not offering anything in terms of alternatives or suggestions?  My reply is pretty much that - yes it sucks. I don't however have an alternative and the issues of buildings is larger than just sniper related. Not sure it is doing you any good. The one thing I guess I could suggest is, my understanding is sniper doctrine doesn't advocate remaining in one position. Once you fire, the best option is likely to slow move out of sight and reposition. That entails planning in advance alternative locations. 

Edited March 5, 2016 by sburke

[Andrew H.]

In the QB selection screen, we currently have the ability to: (1) select certain specific options (weather type, troops, etc.); or (2) have completely random selections.  

I'd like the ability to select "random" but exclude certain options.  For example, I'd like to be able to select random time of day, but exclude Night. Or random terrain, but exclude City.  Or Random Axis but exclude Italian.  Or Random Weather, but exclude heavy fog.   

[SlowMotion]

In the QB selection screen, we currently have the ability to: (1) select certain specific options (weather type, troops, etc.); or (2) have completely random selections.  

I'd like the ability to select "random" but exclude certain options.  For example, I'd like to be able to select random time of day, but exclude Night. Or random terrain, but exclude City.  Or Random Axis but exclude Italian.  Or Random Weather, but exclude heavy fog.   

This same idea would be useful when puchasing units. Players could select that some units are unavailable and the game would prevent buying those.

During CMx1 there used to be buying rules like:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/57218-fionns-short-75-rule-question/

It would be great if these rules could be somehow selected in the game, maybe stored to a file and then later used by many people afterwards when playing QBs.

[DLaurier]

The ability to import saved games, complete with on map units (imported units are locked until game starts)

[Pike]

Wow this thread growing.  I just realised that I agree with most things you guys suggest. I would like malfunctioning radios so the arty spotter calling in arty can't call in arty... hahaha. The arty is actually to unrealistic. It always always hits in the area you aim for. No correction shells for heavy arty only on map mortars and guns work that way. etc etc

 

Cheers!

[Bulletpoint]

Wow this thread growing.  I just realised that I agree with most things you guys suggest. I would like malfunctioning radios so the arty spotter calling in arty can't call in arty... hahaha. The arty is actually to unrealistic. It always always hits in the area you aim for. No correction shells for heavy arty only on map mortars and guns work that way. etc etc

 

Won't change much, as the spotter doesn't need the radio anyway, under current game rules...

[Bulletpoint]

That's actually not a bad idea. I volunteer to do a mod if there's real interest. Any one have other suggestions for some sound/phrase replace that wav besides birds/crickets?

What about just replacing it with silence?

[landser]

I'd like to see more operations/campaign options. Specifically, I'd love to have a custom campaign generator. Infinite replayability. Essentially the sort of thing I envision is system not unlike the quick battles interface, with most of the same choices. Once the parameters are set the program generates a large map, not unlike the maps in CMx1 Operations, maps that are far bigger than your force can cover completely, forcing the player to choose his positions, conduct recon, have outposts etc. Imagine sending a jeep to a town several kilometers away to determine if the enemy is present.

Both sides then conduct operations to take the key points on the map with accurate, persistent end game states for each battle phase. Since I am dreaming here I'd love to see supply lines modeled which can be cut and reopened. Supply and reinforcement rates can be set by the author, with it cut by a percentage reflecting how open the supply lines are.

I like the 'story mode' campaign system currently available, but it lacks replayability. We probably all agree that a campaign is best the first time you play it, when you don't know what the enemy has. But once you do, the fog is lifted. How many players play a campaign a second time or a third? I know it happens, I've done it. But something along the lines of a custom campaign generator would add infinite replayability.

I'd also love the ability to fire in to areas I do not have LOS. Why can't I fire in to a smoke screen or in to a forest?

Edited March 21, 2016 by landser

[kraze]

Dynamic campaign map like Graviteam Tactics would make a much better (in terms of tactical detail) CM even better. On that map you were free to pick your fights, control over sectors were constantly changing and your force is often part of a larger offensive that was happening on that map

[landser]

Yes, another version of a revamped campaign would be something along the lines of what was done in say, CC4, or was it 5? The Normandy one. There is a strategic/operational level, where you move your various battlegroups around into and out of the zones that comprise the map. When two opposing forces attempt to occupy the same zone a battle is fought. If both are moving in to it a meeting engagement is fought, and if already occupied an attack/assault is fought, perhaps depending on how long the defenders have been occupying that zone.

[A Canadian Cat]

I would settle for just being able to play campaigns H2H via PBEM.  That would make me happy.

[banned]

What would make Combat Mission a better game? Straight talk.

Since nearly a decade I´ve seen in combat mission soldiers, vehicles, and weaponry of different conflicts and eras. However every mission in this game plays nearly like this: Engage a enemy in static defence positions. Most missions were you´ve to defend against an advancing AI look like a tribute to the last stand in an hollywood movie like Fury. Briefly, mission structure has become extremely tedious. However this may be the result of the limited AI and I´m well aware that AI programming is one of the toughest challenges in game developing even studios with triple A budgets don´t get this nearly right (e. g. Total War series). But creative improvement ideas are constantly mentioned by community members. Utilize them.

Next, since almost a decade missions presentation consists basically of a ugly text screen telling me to engage this and that while being supported by a or b. I´m not asking for shiny cutsenes but just for immersion. Most of the stock campaigns may be designed well on the techical side (despite my first point) but lack soul and uniqueness. There are some scenario authors that have proven that with some imagination you´re able to tell exciting stories of individuals or units and their feelings. Get some inspiration from these modders and revamp the missions interfaces so more immersive missions can be created. Also the community hungers for dynamic campaign elements for years. There are fundamentals there (core force units etc.), expand onto it and add a campaign layer. Let the player see a visulization of his progress.

Sound department in a nutshell: Everything sounds the same and not very pleasant since nearly a decade - overarching all modules. The sound engine is extremely limited (e. g. there are occassions were all vehicles of one type share the exact same sound file). Mod creators do a wonderful job in providing sound mods but of course they are hindered by this limitations.     

Finally Battlefront may should rethink their unreasonable price policy and the attitude to monetize every little engine upgrade. Especially when you take into account that most modules are mainly reskins that lack major features at all. They of course have the right to ask what they desire but what you receive is not just justifying the price tag. I know there are easier business sectors than selling strategy simulations but I think they harming themselves with that concerning their revenues.

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, MANoWAR.U51 said:

...laundry list of expensive work some of which (sound) will seriously tax some customer's machines snipped...    

Finally Battlefront may should rethink their unreasonable price policy and the attitude to monetize every little engine upgrade.

So, you want more for less.  Hee, hee I don't see that happening

2 hours ago, MANoWAR.U51 said:

Especially when you take into account that most modules are mainly reskins that lack major features at all.

Spoken like someone that is a ) not really paying attention or b ) who thinks the only features of value are the ones they care about.

[snarre]

can this guy be warclaw ? 

[A Canadian Cat]

I checked his join date and it was 2008 but you know it does seem familiar...

[A Canadian Cat]

No there really are a handful of posts back to 2008.  So not likely who's it back for more.

[AttorneyAtWar]

Are you guys serious?

What the hell did he say in his post that makes you all go on a witch hunt?

I completely agree with his criticism of the sounds, I was shocked when I went back to try out CMx1 that the same sound effects have been in for almost two decades. That is a department that  I think needs a serious overhaul, I can get over graphics for the most part and yes mods alleviate it but it is getting long in the tooth. If your computer can't handle better sounds than I would love to know what hardware you are running, because a computer that can't two decade old sound files has a lot more problems than playing CM this day and age.

I also agree with the briefing screen problems, I can read them just fine, but a lot of people can't because of the font size that is an area that could also be radically improved. Obviously BFC does not have a lot of resources but its absurd how you all respond to some of this stuff, this thread is for posting ideas about improving the game, is the marketing thing going a little to far in terms of feasibility sure, but there's no reason he can't post about it.

 

Edited March 21, 2016 by Raptorx7

[A Canadian Cat]

Well I didn't mean for it to sound like a witch hunt. And you seriously think his post asking for more work, more changes, dismissing the work that has been done all for less cost to him didn't deserve a little push back?  OK - I see - but I do.

So, there not being enough sounds vs how old they might be are two different things.  You and others want newer sounds - great advocate for that - will not object but I also don't care a whit about sounds.  I have other priorities.  That is my point it sounds to me like he is saying things suck because he did not get the changes he wanted.  You will not hear me say things suck because I did not get what I wanted.  I'm a big boy (not being very serious here just in case anyone takes that as an insult).

On the other sound issue - wanting more variety - Steve has discussed this a few times about how much of a resource hog sound is and adding more means performance issues on machines that cannot handle it.

I have no desire to get in to a personal grudge match so a ) no personal attacks or slights meant in any of this and b ) I'm moving on and will not comment further on this thread just so no one gets any more pissed at me than they already are.

[snarre]

well stock sounds are litle down to me but thanks to our greit moderators, sou we get dam good sounds to game . im personaly happy whit thous then 

Edited March 21, 2016 by snarre

[AttorneyAtWar]

44 minutes ago, IanL said:

Well I didn't mean for it to sound like a witch hunt. And you seriously think his post asking for more work, more changes, dismissing the work that has been done all for less cost to him didn't deserve a little push back?  OK - I see - but I do.

So, there not being enough sounds vs how old they might be are two different things.  You and others want newer sounds - great advocate for that - will not object but I also don't care a whit about sounds.  I have other priorities.  That is my point it sounds to me like he is saying things suck because he did not get the changes he wanted.  You will not hear me say things suck because I did not get what I wanted.  I'm a big boy (not being very serious here just in case anyone takes that as an insult).

On the other sound issue - wanting more variety - Steve has discussed this a few times about how much of a resource hog sound is and adding more means performance issues on machines that cannot handle it.

I have no desire to get in to a personal grudge match so a ) no personal attacks or slights meant in any of this and b ) I'm moving on and will not comment further on this thread just so no one gets any more pissed at me than they already are.

I have nothing against you personally Ian, if it came off a bit to aggressive I apologize, but sometimes we all do need to do a double take. That goes double (again ) for the people who have been around for a while.

I acknowledged the fact that the marketing thing does go to far in my edit, sorry if you didn't see that!

Edited March 21, 2016 by Raptorx7

[A Canadian Cat]

OK no worries. I was also not intending to be aggressive. Just a little shove

Edited March 21, 2016 by IanL

[AlexUK]

Here is another vote for improved sounds - they really make a difference to me when playing, and some of the stock sounds could be improved (also some more variety in voices) this really adds to immersion for me. I have tried some sound mods but they tend to cause problems (I guess due to my old Mac laptop).