Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 269
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"Follow" command that works in terrain or on roads, and duplicates the waypoints for each following unit so adjustments can be made.

The ability to make annotations on the map. Helps to create some order in the chaos

High praise indeed from our Defender of the Faith!😇 I'm trying to keep my suggestions in the realm of modifying functionality that already seems well established in the CM2 engine. Notice too, th

Posted Images

2 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

Works against a single target i guess...but what if you have 2, 3 enemy incons identified in a forrest for example spred further appart than the size of a TRP.

Now you would need to call in 3 seperate bombarments from 3 seperate assets to be able to target them all...as opposed to one larger bombadment. 

Not ideal...

I'm not talking about artillery bombardment, but about direct fire from tanks for example..

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IanL said:

Could be that items on our lists are not in keeping with the game's design (as decided by Steve not us), not appropriate for the CM time or battle scale or are not easy or possible with the current engine (which means we have to accept that and or wait for some long from now future new game). By all means keep contributing your ideas to these periodic and fun wish list scenarios but please spare us the sanctimony.

Some examples:

The request for command delays is something that Steve has put the kibosh on -  Interestingly he actually likes the idea but has yet to find a way to implement them that fits with the CM design decision that you play the roll, at various times, of every battle field commander.

The request for fixing the area targeting of buildings - There are several threads linked in the FAQ but this explanation from Steve is, well all the words you need https://community.battlefront.com/topic/111851-its-got-to-go/page/2/#comment-1490888

 

 

 

Wish list revision 1:  I wish they would improve their 15+ year old game engine to allow for the stuff the community wishes for.

I understand the limitations as set forth by the devs, but this is a wish list thread, and if we don't ask for things they'll never know we want therm. I'd like Co play, which was actually mentioned in the original shock force manual a decade and a half ago. The engine was built to support it per the devs. It was nixed however somewhere along the way when they decided the juice wasn't worth the squeeze. So it's their product they can do what they wish with it, but that doesn't mean I don't get to critique it in a civil way and ask for features to be added no matter how dead the horse I'm beating is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, purpheart23 said:

I wish they would improve their 15+ year old game engine to allow for the stuff the community wishes for.

Fair

2 minutes ago, purpheart23 said:

that doesn't mean I don't get to critique it in a civil way and ask for features to be added no matter how dead the horse I'm beating is.

Valid point. I suppose I was triggered by the reference to the rudeness by T*****. My apologies to you @purpheart23. I do like these wish list threads actually. OK I like the ideas, not the frequent use of passive aggressive phrasing that shows up in a variety of posts but honestly that should be water of a ducks back - so - I have work to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I would also like to be implemented, is that you could put weapons and ammo back in vehicles, for example if you are mistaken taking the weapon you didn't want or you just don't need the weapons when the inf dismounts (only for weapons you took from the vehicle).

Edited by Stardekk
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Stardekk said:

One thing I would also like to be implemented, is that you could put weapons and ammo back in vehicles, for example if you are mistaken taking the weapon you didn't want or you just don't need the weapons when the inf dismounts (only for weapons you took from the vehicle).

I've lost count of the number of times I've accidentally picked up thousands of full calibre MG rounds when I wanted an RPG or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm not talking about artillery bombardment, but about direct fire from tanks for example..

That would also disallow any recon by fire or suppression of area's you want suppressed, not because of having seen a unit there but because you don't want to see any units there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

That would also disallow any recon by fire or suppression of area's you want suppressed, not because of having seen a unit there but because you don't want to see any units there.

My original suggestion was only about firing HE weapons. Recon by rifle fire and suppression by MG of suspected positions would be allowed, just like it was done in the real war.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

My original suggestion was only about firing HE weapons. Recon by rifle fire and suppression by MG of suspected positions would be allowed, just like it was done in the real war.

There would be plenty of fire at suspected positions with HE fire too. The larger the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lethaface said:

That would also disallow any recon by fire or suppression of area's you want suppressed, not because of having seen a unit there but because you don't want to see any units there.

A very good point. You can always execute area fire anywhere you like. If you know there is a contact icon there, I can't see much point to recon by fire by the AFV. Then it is up to you to use the command-and-control network to ensure the AFV receives the contact marker. It is not hard open near an infantry unit which has the contact icon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, purpheart23 said:

Wish list revision 1:  I wish they would improve their 15+ year old game engine to allow for the stuff the community wishes for.

In fairness, I don't believe some of you here speak for the whole community.

I for one don't want the game to become fiddlier with unnecessary extra added detail; I don't want house-to-house combat to become more complicated (it is a slow enough process as it is); and I don't want extreme contact and command rules imposed.

In short, I like that CM is a fun, realistic game - I don't want it to become a complex and tedious technical simulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an example that an icon shouldn't be displayed on Iron. One of the crew survived and is in panic but reports the Syrian AFV whether we like it or not. I take @Freyberg point the game should be fun. Also, some settings are not for everyone. For the HQ of the Scimitar, he is MIA and whatever he spots shouldn't be displayed on Iron. 

borgspotting.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

This is EXACTLY what @Bil Hardenberger's rules are designed to moderate.....IMHO they do a bloody good job of it too!  ;)

The FOW in Chess is the mind of your opponent that's why Hotseat is my favorite way to play. Long way to go before we can play the game over Skype or Zoom. A conference mode maybe possible in a few years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Freyberg said:

In fairness, I don't believe some of you here speak for the whole community.

I for one don't want the game to become fiddlier with unnecessary extra added detail; I don't want house-to-house combat to become more complicated (it is a slow enough process as it is); and I don't want extreme contact and command rules imposed.

In short, I like that CM is a fun, realistic game - I don't want it to become a complex and tedious technical simulation.

I'm sorry your standards are that low. The game has stagnated features wise and is far from a complete battlefield simulation. I never said I spoke for the community but since you quoted me I'm assuming that's what you're saying. Notice the emphatic and repetitious use of "I" in my posts. Then take note of all of the other wish list threads in all of the game forums here on the Battlefront forums and you'll see a trend of features that have been repeatedly asked for by the community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, purpheart23 said:

The game has stagnated features wise and is far from a complete battlefield simulation.

Hey please don't get offended - I'm not having a go at you :)

I just picked your message because you were commenting along the lines of what a group of really hard-core users have asked for, which is totally cool and that's your right.

I'd just like to make the point that for some of us, the gamesters, more micro-managing is not a feature we would like. I think the balance is good, and I like the level of clicking about where it is now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

Hey please don't get offended - I'm not having a go at you :)

 

I'm not offended. I'm just used to people white knighting anytime critique is leveled at the company, there's a pretty broad history on these forums of it some of it necessary for unruly posters some of it not.  I understand your concerns about the micro management and I'm definitely not advising for more features that need to be player handled necessarily. I'm looking for broader options, like the ones I stated in my earlier post and maybe a multiplayer browser added also. Y'know some QOL stuff. Does anybody really like opening ports for a game anymore, sure it's not difficult but come on, it's 2021. No offense, sorry I got a little defensive, I just assumed you were making it out like I speak for the community which I most certainly do not. I just know what I want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I guess these suspected positions would be suspected for a reason, and represented in the game by a contact marker.

No they would not....as different people suspect different things....

That would be an awful lot of contact marker to cover them all 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...