Engine 5 Wishlist

[Dr.Fusselpulli]

54 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Inside multi room building I can assure you the units had to be inside the building before they can spot the other side. Inside they spot right across but not diagonally. It is up the scenario designer, it already exist inside the editor.

The reason for why they can't spot diagonally is, because units can only spot into the next building and never through buildings engine wise. The Diagonal building would need to have a LOS crossing one building completely. This is not covered. I discovered about it, when I tried to create a building with an open passage in the editor, where the first floor was like a tunnel for some parts. Units could not spot through this tunnel to the other side.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Dr.Fusselpulli said:

The reason for why they can't spot diagonally is,

I thoroughly enjoyed that scenario.

[chuckdyke]

Something Company HQ's should be allowed to do which we all do anyway. Horizontal sharing of tentative contacts by radio to another Company HQs even if outside their C2. This could be done by adding another Greenbutton Radio Button to the interface. Company Alpha clicks on Company Bravo which adds the radio button on both companies. This enables their subunits to support each other.

 

[mazex]

How about Unreal Engine 5? Matching version number even though I can live with UE 5.1  Someone has probably already made this lame joke earlier in the thread...

[Simcoe]

24 minutes ago, mazex said:

How about Unreal Engine 5? Matching version number even though I can live with UE 5.1  Someone has probably already made this lame joke earlier in the thread...

If they did unreal 5 I wouldn't want better graphics. Just make it as fast as possible. I wonder how hard it would be to do all the calculations for spotting etc.

[PEB14]

What I clearly would like to see in the next engine is a tool for movement similar to the one used for LOS: the color of the line changes when the LOS is obstructed. Doing it with the straight line between two waypoints would avoid to have tanks, of pixeltruppen, start to move AWAY from where you asked them to go, only because that damned little hedge is finally to high for them to cross, or because that stupid gully a little bit too deep…

 

[WimO]

46 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

What I clearly would like to see in the next engine is a tool for movement similar to the one used for LOS: the color of the line changes when the LOS is obstructed. Doing it with the straight line between two waypoints would avoid to have tanks, of pixeltruppen, start to move AWAY from where you asked them to go, only because that damned little hedge is finally to high for them to cross, or because that stupid gully a little bit too deep…

I rarely debate points so please excuse me for offering a different point of view. Hopefully I can offer a reasonable explanation for my way of looking at it. First I want to acknowledge that the foregoing can indeed be frustrating to the player. However, I believe that is how it should be. What is happening, is the soldiers moving foward towards a hedge or bocage looking for a way through but ultimately unable to find one. From their original starting point, they were unable to discern whether or not there was a way through. They had to go and check it out. I feel this simulates reality. I empathize since most of my creations are maps in Normandy bocage and gaps are difficult to locate. I sometimes try to assist gamers a little by using a contrasting ground ground tile such as yellow grass in the midst of green grass. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

[RMM]

24 minutes ago, WimO said:

I rarely debate points so please excuse me for offering a different point of view. Hopefully I can offer a reasonable explanation for my way of looking at it. First I want to acknowledge that the foregoing can indeed be frustrating to the player. However, I believe that is how it should be. What is happening, is the soldiers moving foward towards a hedge or bocage looking for a way through but ultimately unable to find one. From their original starting point, they were unable to discern whether or not there was a way through. They had to go and check it out. I feel this simulates reality. I empathize since most of my creations are maps in Normandy bocage and gaps are difficult to locate. I sometimes try to assist gamers a little by using a contrasting ground ground tile such as yellow grass in the midst of green grass. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

I would weigh in on this in support of @PEB14. This issue has ruined some games where the troops just do absurd, stupid things that really do not reflect reality in the slightest (ie. walking into an obvious, open-ground kill zone and getting mowed down accordingly) in order to fulfill the move command. I would concede that there is, indeed a reality factor in having troops 'check out' whether they can traverse such barriers, but if we go that route, then if it's not possible, they should just stop, and a notice be made to that effect (that they can't find a way through or over). Either that, or they should just stop, and the game load the new movement course it wants to give the Truppen so that the player can review in the next phase whether they want to enact that or something else. In fact, that last one is probably the best solution of all and would certainly reflect the reality of the troops advising that they need to go another way!

However, in general, there are some places where one has to also concede that it is a game, and the nuances of reality a little too hard to come by. This lack of verification of movement orders before they are carried out is the greatest complaint I have always had against CM, and it really does take away from its playability.

[PEB14]

@WimO I completely get your point. But basically @RMM answered to your comment the way I would have: if troops can't go through the passage intended, then troops should stop (and a notice of that shall be given). THAT would be realistic.

My point is, except if I missed something, in CMBN there is no way to know wether a low hedge is passable or not, even if your adjacent to it!

There is no ambiguity for the big hedges, impassable for vehicles and for pixeltruppen (except in gaps - which can be difficult to find but tha't pretty fine); but it looks to me that there are at least three other kind of hedges, the lowest of which only is passable. And distinction between low hedges and medium hedges is quite... difficult!

[chuckdyke]

56 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

My point is, except if I missed something, in CMBN there is no way to know wether a low hedge is passable or not, even if your adjacent to it!

That's for me one of the purposes for the two men scout team. Place a way point near the bocage and a way point on the other side. The engine finds a way to get through. You can do it on slow the worse thing what can happen is your scouts will be exhausted. Lots of times you can spot rabbit or murder holes, I suspect the designer uses them for ambushes or triggerpoints.

Edited February 13, 2023 by chuckdyke

[PEB14]

Ok but was is true for Pixeltruppen is not for vehicles. I was a little bit upset when my Churchill tanks turned the other way on front of what seemed to be quite a small hedge...

[JM Stuff]

1 hour ago, PEB14 said:

Ok but was is true for Pixeltruppen is not for vehicles. I was a little bit upset when my Churchill tanks turned the other way on front of what seemed to be quite a small hedge...

if the scouts find a place big enough for a man to pass, they can contact the engeneers, to open a gap for the tanks.

Cheers

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, PEB14 said:

Ok but was is true for Pixeltruppen is not for vehicles. I was a little bit upset when my Churchill tanks turned the other way on front of what seemed to be quite a small hedge...

I blasted a hole big enough for a Churchill but the blast area was on a forest tile. You need to study the tiles for your map analysis. 

[chuckdyke]

15 minutes ago, JM Stuff said:

if the scouts find a place big enough for a man to pass, they can contact the engeneers, to open a gap for the tanks.

Correct, using scouts for pathfinding is something what could happen in real life. 

[PEB14]

34 minutes ago, JM Stuff said:

if the scouts find a place big enough for a man to pass, they can contact the engeneers, to open a gap for the tanks.

Cheers

I don't get your point...

Of course, if the tile border is not passable, I shall rely on engineers. Ans so even if there is no place big enough for a man to pass, as the engineers can blast holes upon demand.

My point is, you're not sure that a tile border is passable or not until you tried the hard way. And what you really need is to avoid having your tanks turn around ans pass a dangerous place only because they could not cross the tile border you thought they would!

[JM Stuff]

17 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

I don't get your point...

Of course, if the tile border is not passable, I shall rely on engineers. Ans so even if there is no place big enough for a man to pass, as the engineers can blast holes upon demand.

My point is, you're not sure that a tile border is passable or not until you tried the hard way. And what you really need is to avoid having your tanks turn around ans pass a dangerous place only because they could not cross the tile border you thought they would!

Is true that sometimes is difficult to know what kind of tile we are on the spot, I realise this also, this is incertain that our tanks or wheels will not stay in, for a while.

Sometimes will be usefull to see a picture, like we had it in cmx1, so we could than better prepare our path.

But sorry, for more tactical issue, I cannot give you the real explanation, but I am sure, some of us are bettter prepare to explain better that I do, and very soon, you will have the correct way to explore your terrain.

Cheers

Edited February 13, 2023 by JM Stuff

[mazex]

On 2/8/2023 at 6:16 PM, Simcoe said:

If they did unreal 5 I wouldn't want better graphics. Just make it as fast as possible. I wonder how hard it would be to do all the calculations for spotting etc.

Well - graphics that looks 10-15 year old and still run very slow on modern hardware does not help the sales - and more sales brings more features and modules to the ones that have no problem with the 2006 looks. And with a modern graphics engine you can spend your CPU cycles on spotting etc, with super optimized capabilities built into the engine. But more importantly focusing your time on logic that is not built into UE like unit behavior's under fire. And what to do if you spotted something... Or the tank nearby did with a bad radio. Some small caliber munition ricochets off your turret. Close the hatch or not?

So, for a small team you can focus on what sets you aside from the competition instead of the work needed to do a game engine. And the Battlefront games are truly unique in their value delivery as a tactical battlefield simulation. Even really big studios have stopped building their own game engines as the time spent to build your own is not worth it.

Just imagine something that looks and works like WARNO - but plays like CM2...

Edited February 18, 2023 by mazex

[Erwin]

Graphics are ok.  But wish we had better UI and more useful "auto-commands" to reduce the click-fest eg:

Hide in place in ambush, then shoot, then scoot to a safer location. 

Road convoy command.  

ACQUIRE or SWOP ammo and weapons with adjacent units including vehicles without the cumbersome need to split squads, mount vehicles, resupply, then disembark and join up with original squad...  (Yes, there would be a suitable time delay and limitations of what or how much could be swapped or loaded.)

We used to have a very useful "one-click" 180 degree covered arc in CM1.  Bring it back to CM2.

[Simcoe]

12 hours ago, mazex said:

Well - graphics that looks 10-15 year old and still run very slow on modern hardware does not help the sales - and more sales brings more features and modules to the ones that have no problem with the 2006 looks. And with a modern graphics engine you can spend your CPU cycles on spotting etc, with super optimized capabilities built into the engine. But more importantly focusing your time on logic that is not built into UE like unit behavior's under fire. And what to do if you spotted something... Or the tank nearby did with a bad radio. Some small caliber munition ricochets off your turret. Close the hatch or not?

So, for a small team you can focus on what sets you aside from the competition instead of the work needed to do a game engine. And the Battlefront games are truly unique in their value delivery as a tactical battlefield simulation. Even really big studios have stopped building their own game engines as the time spent to build your own is not worth it.

Just imagine something that looks and works like WARNO - but plays like CM2...

My concern with graphics is the increased development time they require. I would rather have more content over a photo realistic panzer IV.

[PEB14]

As a matter of fact, I was surprised when I discovered that the interior of tanks is modelled as well !!!

[A Canadian Cat]

Just a quick explanation set: engine 5 is a tweak to the existing engine not a replacement with some other 3rd party system.

It will still use Open GL and be based on the current engine. I'm sure there will be improvements and cool stuff but not Unreal 5.

[Blackhorse15A]

Hold fire command button, and open fire (although Clear Target is basically that) setting an ambush with sectors of fire being very short is a hassle - a simple hold fire would be much easier.

Minefield instead of a single mine. As a way to place the mines, could be a 50m long box with mines inside it at some density to match doctrine. Perhaps even with frat fences built in. Would make defense much easier to set up.

Hescoe barrier walls, T walls, concertina wire in modern games.

Squads and Fireteam moving in formations rather than gaggling everywhere. Would need some commands for file, wedge, vee, online.

Set a sector of fire or targeting *at* a waypoint that doesn't take effect until you reach the waypoint.

Instead of having to always select the highest BN level formation and back off from there- build up from a smaller unit. You can already add single vehicles and small teams into a formation - if there was a command to add a HQ level (which ties into the chain of command flow) we would be able to build up a task org/ORBAT

Or, perhaps have an option for what level of formation to show. So instead of BN level, click a button for CO and only see the company type formations.

Resupply vehicles. Make acquire something that can happen automatically at a resupply vehicle/unit. Move a unit there and soldiers will reload up to max combat load without having to go through the acquire command.

Medical ambulances. An ability for any unit to move wounded (to a casualty collection point) then have ambulances that can pick them up, and if they make an exit point the wounded have much higher chance of not dieing.

Wreckers- allow recovery of vehicles. If evaced out to a exit point (or hooked up at mission end) the vehicle can be repaired for next mission in a campaign.(less important than medics given the shorter timeframe of the battles)

Terrain objective that is the opposite of occupy. Gain points for making sure enemy never reaches it

If this then that branching in AI plans!!!

Export the elevations from the map as a greyscale bmp or some other elevation matrix file

Export the map as an image file- without us having to take screenshots

In scenario editor- be able to edit text right there instead of export, open in another editor, save, re import. For the one line text- like scenario title - be able to move cursor around without backspacing and deleting them retyping.

For Deploy in the scenario editor- a way to save/set the camera start position instead of just being the last position when the deploy was ended. This would help with going back in and making edits without having to go back and make sure camera was moved back to desired start position every time you make a tweak or check something.

Clean up the AI plans and what happens "in" a step. Could probably move some things to be clearer what is set at start of step (perhaps move to prior step for entry) and what happens at end of step.

Know how we can combine teams back into squads - what about something like that for platoon, or even company level?? But not like the squad combine that actually makes them group together- more just a UI thing. Default now is that icons are shown at "squad" (and team/crew) level. If we bump it up to platoon level then one icon would be shown over the center of each platoon, and clicking it selects the whole platoon (like double click the HQ) so you can easily give commands to the whole unit. Maybe even bump up a level for Company icons. Just a way to declutter the UI and early in a battle when moving whole platoons around it could ease things. Simple button/keypress to move the display level up and down the chain of command.

 

[PEB14]

6 hours ago, Blackhorse15A said:

Medical ambulances. An ability for any unit to move wounded (to a casualty collection point) then have ambulances that can pick them up, and if they make an exit point the wounded have much higher chance of not dieing.

Wreckers- allow recovery of vehicles. If evaced out to a exit point (or hooked up at mission end) the vehicle can be repaired for next mission in a campaign.(less important than medics given the shorter timeframe of the battles)

Honestly I don't think this would add much to the game considering the time scale.

I'd better just have the WIA not counted the same as KIA in terms of victory conditions (perhaps not for the Soviets); it would be a realistic incitation to medic!

[CarlXII]

10 hours ago, Blackhorse15A said:

Set a sector of fire or targeting *at* a waypoint that doesn't take effect until you reach the waypoint.

You can do this already.

Simply click on any waypoint in the string and asign target or target arc orders as you please for that waypoint.

[Blackhorse15A]

On 2/20/2023 at 7:02 AM, CarlXII said:

You can do this already.

Simply click on any waypoint in the string and asign target or target arc orders as you please for that waypoint.

Thanks CarlXII. I thought I'd seen that in some videos online, and could never figure it out myself.