Engine 5 Wishlist

[RMM]

22 hours ago, ncc1701e said:

And this is it, you can do plenty of AI plans, if your AI group is entering the enemy kill zone, guess what, it will continue again and again using the same path. There is something missing that more AI plans won't help with.

An human would stop, think and try another path. Plan A, plan B for AI group? I don't know. Maybe the TacAI directly should be the one to enhance to simplify scenario author task.

Right now, PBEM is the way to go. AI is for training imo.

Yeh, AI is always going to have its limits, barring our entering a Terminator or Matrix phase of history, which...yeh, no thanks 

That said, I think it fair to say that CM's AI provides some pretty good gameplay all things considered, partiicularly when  compared to some other, real clunkers out there!

[RMM]

On 5/12/2022 at 11:09 AM, Pelican Pal said:

CMBB moment

CMBB?

[Vacillator]

7 minutes ago, RMM said:

CMBB?

Barbarossa to Berlin, a CM1 title.

https://community.battlefront.com/forum/27-combat-mission-barbarossa-to-berlin/

[RMM]

Ah. Tks. Been a busy week, but looking to get back to the battle this weekend!

 

[chuckdyke]

On 2/9/2021 at 6:50 AM, Erwin said:

Currently, scouting is a virtual suicide mission - at least in WEGO.)

??

[RMM]

This may roll some eyes, but nevertheless, it would do a lot for understanding ordinance capabilities in the way that we could figure out in ASL using the 'To-kill' charts. If the LOS tool were to give some (colour?) indication of to-kill effectiveness against the target it's being drawn too. This would certainly reflect the knowledge that the troops manning the weapon would certainly have. For example, does a Russian ATR have a resonable chance to kill a SPW at 300m? Currently, I have no idea, beyond the fact that the unit does not take the initative to take the shot of their own accord.

If the LOS tool had some indication for just Good, Average, Poor (, 4th: impossible?), that would be a huge assist to people who haven't been playing CM for years.

[DanonQM]

Honestly at this point just TO&E editing. The current lists are replete with minor and major errors, there are whole formations missing from Quick Battles in Fortress Italy (Heer Gebirgsjager), others that cannot be taken properly (BR Recce Regts missing all their vehicles because they're only in the Infantry Only tab), other formations just don't correctly represent units or simply can't represent interesting or historical practices of those units that could make for fun or interesting play.

All of this would be so easy to fix if BF let us crack the TO&Es open and make the changes ourselves, I don't care if it's as limited as doing it by simple text editing on a scenario by scenario basis (though obviously this would mean the QB issues would remain unsolved, it would at least give better tools to scenario and campaign makers and obviate any worries of having to implement any kind of points validation system). We know they can do it in Professional Edition, and that asking for any individual changes to TO&Es to get made here is at best a glacially slow process that might take literal years until a patch is pushed including something as simple as an incorrect ammunition load.

Hell, BF's done it themselves with official scenarios and campaigns, the South African Motor Platoons in First Blood at Celleno for example can't be made with the normal force selector because each one has a Stuart Recce with a 2 man crew while the single vehicles tab version of it comes with a full 5 man and thus cannot serve as a transport.

Even if everything else stayed exactly as it is, I would pay for an engine upgrade for this feature alone.

[A Canadian Cat]

On 5/21/2022 at 11:53 AM, RMM said:

If the LOS tool had some indication for just Good, Average, Poor (, 4th: impossible?), that would be a huge assist to people who haven't been playing CM for years.

I do see your point and your desire. I highly doubt this will be done though. First many times the soldiers would not really know that information either. If you are Soviet 45mm AT gunner and you think a Tiger is coming at you, you might not fire at it if your game player has perfect information even-though you really should - it could actually be an PzIV or you could hit a track, or the tank crew could think they just got it by a 75 and not a 45 etc. etc.

Second, they really don't want to commit to an outcome and disappoint you (much better to keep it all hidden and be up front about disappointing you :-). A round striking a target at different angles (in 3D) creates situations with significant differences, the is variable behaviour of shells and armour as well so by the tables may well say good chance of a kill but you don't get one. You would be sad - especially if that happened two or three times. But if you don't know you will not have any expectation and you can be sad about something else.

Third the effort will be quite high to factor in all that. I suspect Steve would prefer to spend the effort in other places.

[chuckdyke]

Choice of direct targeting or area fire eg Mgs. @Haplessdo showed how to do this in one of his videos. You move the mouse pointer a little away till it shows area fire. I found it a little finnicky. After direct targeting an MG stops firing after the full contact becomes a tentative contact. This problem can be overcome by fiddling with the mouse pointer. An assault team could be more at risk when the Bren gunner stops firing. 

Edited June 1, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Simcoe]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but having a second hunt command with the following functionality would fix quite a few of my gripes with the game:

"Unit moves forward until an enemy is spotted. Unit will engage target if in range or hold position. If the enemy goes missing for 5 seconds the unit will continue forward along the original path until spotting another unit or reaching the end of it's order"

Too many times I move up a tank with the hunt command, it sees a unit for a brief second, stops, loses contact and sits there until the timer runs out. This would cut down on a ton of micromanagement.

 

[chuckdyke]

42 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

This would cut down on a ton of micromanagement.

 

What do you think if the Pause, Cancel all, Or Evade Buttons where available anytime during a turn when you play on WeGo? 

[Simcoe]

52 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

What do you think if the Pause, Cancel all, Or Evade Buttons where available anytime during a turn when you play on WeGo? 

Feels like it goes against the spirit of the WeGo system. Making your plans and then chaos happens. 

It would be fun to experiment with though. Especially in a small game.

[dkchapuis]

On 5/30/2022 at 2:26 PM, IanL said:

I do see your point and your desire. I highly doubt this will be done though. First many times the soldiers would not really know that information either. If you are Soviet 45mm AT gunner and you think a Tiger is coming at you, you might not fire at it if your game player has perfect information even-though you really should - it could actually be an PzIV or you could hit a track, or the tank crew could think they just got it by a 75 and not a 45 etc. etc.

Second, they really don't want to commit to an outcome and disappoint you (much better to keep it all hidden and be up front about disappointing you :-). A round striking a target at different angles (in 3D) creates situations with significant differences, the is variable behaviour of shells and armour as well so by the tables may well say good chance of a kill but you don't get one. You would be sad - especially if that happened two or three times. But if you don't know you will not have any expectation and you can be sad about something else.

Third the effort will be quite high to factor in all that. I suspect Steve would prefer to spend the effort in other places.

This functionality exists in CMx1 games. 

[slippy]

It would be good if there could be more cover bonus added to all map tiles. 

In reality even what looks like flat terrain is rarely so, and some kind of at least basic cover can mainly be found, whether by slight undulations, dips, rises, bases of hedges, etc

In game unless the map designer actually includes all of these slight differences then the terrain is considered flat and offers no cover at all.

I think this impacts on the amount of heavy casualties seen in CM as a lot of time there is no cover and targets can be seen and engaged from long distance.

It would be too large a task to adjust all maps. A better alternative may be to adjust all cover values up, so that even flat ground has some potential to at least partly protect your troops.

Next time your out and about, take a look at what appears to be a flat field or the like, and if you can get your view close to the ground. You will find it is generally difficult to see that far due to the reasons mentioned above.

 

[ViperAssassin26]

Any update on when engine 5 will come out?

[ncc1701e]

Maybe for Christmas. But since I have no idea what's inside, I'm not too worried.

[Vacillator]

Looking back at the '2022 update' thread, unless I missed something all questions about progress with Engine 5 went unanswered.  I take that to mean either not much was/is planned for Engine 5 this year, or BFC wish to surprise us with an unexpected release.

Take your pick but I'm not sure we can guess at a date.

[SlowMotion]

After watching lots of videos from the current war in Ukraine about what happens when tanks or vehicles are hit with antitank weapons, I would like to see a new kind of way of damage handing. That sometimes when a tank/etc is hit there is little damage immediately, but it starts getting worse and then destroys it after some time. Like a moving tank starts smoking a little first but the fire spreads and stops the tank after some random distance which could be 20-200 meters in the game. 

This would add thrill to movies because you don't immediately know how badly the enemy unit is damaged and whether it will stop right now or later. So, a vehicle damage that progresses from minor to worse as time progresses.

Here is a good example:
a tank is hit, stops after a while

[weapon2010]

One of my wishes , and there are many , but this is at the top of the list.

One view lower than the current lowest which is 1. 

The lowest level 1 causes players to misinterpret what they are seeing and they say "LOS is broken". It isn't broken , but  one elevation lower, the current lowest level is 1, which is about tank gun level or the height of a normal soldier .A level 0 would be ground view or what a prone soldier can see, this level would cut out most of the "LOS is broken" chatter and would be really cool.

 

•  
• Quote

[Glubokii Boy]

1 hour ago, weapon2010 said:

One of my wishes , and there are many , but this is at the top of the list.

One view lower than the current lowest which is 1. 

The lowest level 1 causes players to misinterpret what they are seeing and they say "LOS is broken". It isn't broken , but  one elevation lower, the current lowest level is 1, which is about tank gun level or the height of a normal soldier .A level 0 would be ground view or what a prone soldier can see, this level would cut out most of the "LOS is broken" chatter and would be really cool.

 

•  
• Quote

Given the way the terrain and LOS is abstacted in the game i'm not sure that that would be all that helpful...

Personally i would prefer to have a drop down menu when checking the LOS from various waypoints...

For regular rifle units the options could be something like Standing, kneeling and hugging the grond and for AFVs and crew served weapons it could be Gunner, Crew... or something like that.

 

 

[Erwin]

That still would not solve the issue that a soldier or AFV may not be able to see the ground at a location, but can see and target a vehicle (or standing soldier) at that same location.

[fireship4]

43. Split squad option: lone volunteer.  We see videos from Ukraine of single soldiers breaking cover to launch AT etc.

[chuckdyke]

On 11/11/2022 at 3:01 AM, Erwin said:

That still would not solve the issue that a soldier or AFV may not be able to see the ground at a location, but can see and target a vehicle (or standing soldier) at that same location.

It is all relative. Soldiers in a building give only their position away when they fire. Same with units under concealment or cover. They only become visible and become a full contact when they break cover not when you plot an LOF to a tentative contact which is a forest or shrub tile rightfully you read no LOS.

 

[Simcoe]

Sorry if this has already been requested but it would be nice if the off map higher headquarters can relay information between it's subunits. This would cut down on having company commanders and XO's hanging out with eachother to relay information. 

If you want to show the higher headquarters as being cut off then give it a red icon and it will act like it does now. I don't code but I'm not sure why this would be so hard.

[chuckdyke]

38 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

Sorry if this has already been requested but it would be nice if the off map higher headquarters can relay information between it's subunits. This would cut down on having company commanders and XO's hanging out with eachother to relay information. 

If you want to show the higher headquarters as being cut off then give it a red icon and it will act like it does now. I don't code but I'm not sure why this would be so hard.

Radios should be modelled like they can change channels. PDAs are supposed to keep everybody up to date in a reasonable period.