Engine 5 Wishlist

[Bulletpoint]

8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Try to test the following, go on hunt on the end of the hunt order have a fast move backwards. Hopefully if he stops his hunt move because he is fired upon, he will take the evasive action.

When a unit on HUNT decides to stop moving, all further orders in the queue are cancelled.

[chuckdyke]

25 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

When a unit on HUNT decides to stop moving, all further orders in the queue are cancelled.

Thank you, I was going to test it myself but you're absolutely right. It would be nice if we could order stack it like that. 

[Glubokii Boy]

8 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

 

Been playing with the AI (CMBN 4.03) a bit as well, and noticed a couple of issues.

(In my proposal above to let the player issue simplified AI plans to platoons, these can be addressed by manually repathing waypoints for egregiously 'dumb' moves. Or not.)

1. Units in an AI group pick their Order destination square at random from those painted on the map. So if you paint a linear or oval zone (phase line) perpendicular to the axis of advance, you commonly get units criscrossing or 'fanning out' across their fronts, with potentially lethal consequences.

2. Units may also pick a destination square with no cover, ignoring good cover in a nearby square. (It would be nice for all AI orders to conclude automatically with a 'seek cover nearby' routine even if the units aren't under fire. But not essential.)

3. Units frequently become Exhausted trying to fulfil AI orders, even when  objectives are not hugely distant. This is especially true in Assault/Max Assault mode. The primary causes seem to be that:
a. they QUICK move right through dense terrain (rather than pathing around).
b. they try to cover long stretches in SLOW crawl and ASSAULT mode.
... But I also think it's realistic that troops get worn out quickly by executing stressful orders under fire, then need a break before moving out again. Here again, extreme cases can be dealt with via micro, or not, as desired.

Lastly, @Bulletpoint's comment above that an intrusive know-it-all AI can be a drag as well is *very* well taken. Just as BFC kept WeGo there should always be an option to micro forces in good order.

Perhaps not fully related to your suggestion for some sort of in-game group command...but what you mentioned above are god examples of the problems that comes with programing the AI and these are some of the reason for me to be advocating for more AI groups.

Problems like fatigue, choise of locations and getting pined down, like Bulletpoint mentiones, complicates any AI attack and the avaliable orders we currently have have thier limitations and problems when using larger AI groups.

Being able to use smaller AI groups with more precisely designated objectives and coordinated using a combination of  terraintriggers and AI group order triggers ought to give better results imo..

instead of having ONE AI group advancing or assulting their way forward....

use two AI groups....A and B

example..

1 befor the assult both A and B spend one turn doing area fire at the intended target location.

2 Group A gets an stationary MAX ASSULT to be ready to suppres any spotted targets.

3 Group B QUICKs forward one 'bound'

4 Ones there group B inturn gets a stationary MAX ASSULT at that location.

5 Using one of the two triggertypes...group A QUICKs to their first bounding location.

6 Ones there they ones again get a stationary MAX ASSULT order...

7 Using one of the two triggertypes...group B QUICKs to their next bounding location.

I belive that something like this will push the attack forward faster and be less tiering compared to using a simple advance or assult order...and stil maintain a base of fire/suppresion element as well as allowing the AI units to 'pick' better locations.

 

 

 

 

[LongLeftFlank]

Yup, I would love to see all that assignable to a platoon (plus 'attached' units) in a '1 paint (map) + 5 click' sequence similar to how artillery is called now....

But I also don't want perfect to be the enemy of good. A crude rewire giving a player the same 'blunt instrument' functionality the AI has right now (4.0), plus ability to repath without dumping the entire order set, would make a huge playability difference already. 

Skirmish lines, etc., if feasible, can be left to a future version. I mean, heck, I want all that stuff too. And I know this is (another) wishlist thread, but I also want what's possible in finite time. And it's close, soooo close.

TL:DR, we must go to war with the disembodied brainjar we have! 

 

[Bulletpoint]

I just want my troops on HUNT to reliably go to ground when they take fire, like they are supposed to. But I guess that should be a wish for the current engine, not for a coming version 5.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Bulletpoint

[fireship4]

1. Co-op support (each player commands a section of the force, a squad being the minimum size).

2. Support for larger maps.

3. Support for formations.

4. Artillery more lethal, destructive against infantry, vehicles, buildings.

5. Artillery able to target areas out of direct LOS with appropriate penalties.

6. Map with contour lines.

7. Slow movement should not be as tiring.

8. AI should exhaust themselves less often.

9. LMG/MMG/HMG effectiveness reappraisal. 

10. Sniper effectiveness reappraisal.

11. Resupply system for off-map artillery and on-map units, or easier ways for mission makers to accomplish this.

12. Reappraisal of LWS implementation in Black Sea.

13. Indirect fire with grenade launchers.

14. AI better at attacking and defending in quick battles.

15. Smaller grid sizes for map creation, more building and road orientation options.

16. Personnel less vulnerable/exposed when turned out in vehicles.

17. Spotting individual units should be harder, AI should target areas with suspected enemy.

18. Data export for external campaign support.

19. More modding support.

20. More smoke available, including reloads.

21. Developer focus switches to improving and unifying game engine, with more support for modding allowing more content to come from third parties.  Business model of "niche market means finding ways of getting current users to pay more often/pay for patches" should be re-appraised.  Base should be expanded through Steam, payment for content only, turn more users into content creators via modding support.  Developers should not focus so much on content with a small team.

22. Allow easier targeting of buildings that are only partially visible.

23. Some MLRS sytems where appropriate (ie those which form part of brigade artillery group supporting a battalion)

24. Artilery supports more than 700m line.

25. Spotter adjust fire on one artillery unit where they have others firing for effect.

26. Better fortifications/fortifications system, including slit trenches, overhead cover, vehicle trenches etc.

27. Recon vehicles and other appropriate vehicles able to reliably spot while turret-down.

28. Updated artillery system in general, including more options for timing, delaying, etc. with artillery moving between fires and counter battery fires modeled or abstracted if possible (or left to external campaign).

[Alchenar]

1. More than 10 FPS when the cameral moves.  

2. Actually just more FPS in general.  

[chuckdyke]

On 2/8/2021 at 9:13 PM, Xorg_Xalargsky said:

1. Shoot n' Scoot command 

2. Pre-configurable fallback point to be used when a unit retreats or combined with Shoot n' Scoot

3. UI element or command that lets you disable special weapons like ATGM's on a BMP or Panzerfausts in a Grenadier squad

Abandon means leave and disable the equipment. The enemy can't capture and use the weapon, and neither can friendly forces. Crew of AFV's when they bail out of an AFV only they can remount the vehicle nobody else can.  You need to test these things the manual doesn't explain everything. We can configure most tactical moves by order stacking. I like to enter buildings through windows and breach walls by driving an AFV through it. All these things are possible in RL, engineers can't lay mines, we don't have claymores. Maybe one day happy gaming. Things for you to examine. The dismount order, bail out, and abandon. Look at the tutorial's scenarios, and training roadblock scenario in CMBN. 

[fireship4]

29. Damage to map exportable as above for external campaigns.

30. Halftrack (and other appropriate vehicle) passengers firing and disembarking over the sides when vehicle opened up.

31. Strela launchable by operator inside/on top of BMP!

32. Crew reloads external weapons only when it is safe enough to do so, or pauses when under fire.

33. Tracer effects only for appropriate weapons.

34. Indirect fire with HMGs.

35. Fire.

36. Spotting: slower movement less likely to be seen when in view.

37.  Vehicles able to conduct short stop and fire, when on the move and depending on doctrine.

38. Shoot and scoot re-implemented.

39. Finally fix weapon deployment and infantry over-exposure when firing from ridgeline.

40. While focusing on the engine, one of the main concerns should be terrain, building rotation and grid size making it possible to represent real terrain more effectively.  This would encourage map-making, without the frustration /discouragement of having to adapt terrain so much to the engine limitations.  For example, halving the grid size and doubling the number of cardinal directions a building can face, would bring us forward into the realm of 90s tech :P

[Bubba883XL]

tank riders!!!

[atshii]

Polygon.com article about CMCW mentions that engine upgrade 5 should come "late 2021":
https://www.polygon.com/2021/2/19/22291238/combat-mission-cold-war-announcement-release-date-price-advanced-squad-leader

[Thomm]

Wish 1:  Some form of CM:BO-style shockwave visualization. When in doubt, make it optional!

Wish 2:  Persistent map damage

Wish 3:  Fulda Gap ... Oh, wait! Already preordered!

Best regards,
Thomm

[BornGinger]

I finaly found my notes so here is my little wishlist of changes for engine 5 or a possible future CMx3 game engine.

 

Trees could be a bit thinner and have a broader variety in general. I often get the feeling that the trees are too thick and look too much the same. Instead of only having one single tree, two trees and three trees of each type to choose from there could also be trees of different height and thickness to each type. This variety could be randomly decided by the AI. If I for example would choose to place two single trees of the same type beside each other the AI could choose two different ones. Maybe one thinner and smaller which is slightly bent towards the east and one thicker and larger which is pointing straight up.

 

Have houses sometimes being able to start burning if they have been hit by a bunch of high explosive rounds or if a vehicle has been hit close by. If a certain part of the grass close to the house burn too it would be even better.

 

It would be good to have the ability to set an AI-artillery fire order anytime in the AI's battle plans and not only for the first three minutes. The ctrl + c command is only for small arms fire, armoured vehicles and mortars. But sometimes it could be challenging for the player if there was a heavier AI-artillery barrage a few minutes before the AI-troops are sent forward to assault a position. If BFC would like to limit this the editor could require that the scenario map is either large or huge for this function to work.

 

Trenches and foxholes that are more correct. Trenches should be a bit deeper so the troops have to stand up to shoot and don't have to crawl to avoid being shot at. It would be good if the troops could crouch when they walk in those deeper trenches to avoid being shot in the head. Foxholes should preferably be single ones and more spread out instead of being in close groups of four as they are now.

 

If a hmg-team is wiped out of their pixel life and a squad or a team of other soldiers are close by it would be great if one or two of them could move to the hmg and use it instead of having the hmg being viewed as abandoned.

 

When talking about machine gun teams I'd like them, and all other troops as well, to be able to move backwards instead of having them turn around before they move to another position and that way avoid to get shot in the back.

 

Have the ability to use triggers without a timed move order, The way it works now we use a trigger, for example trigger by enemy, and a timed move order. This timed move order seems to work as an insurance that the AI-group will move. And the AI-group will later on move even though no enemy has touched the trigger. This behaviour could mean that the AI-group moves away from its position to the new position and thus opens up a hole in the defense line. 

 

If there could be triggers without a timed move order. The AI-group will stay in position and move only when an enemy has touched the trigger. If the AI-groups could be connected to not only one trigger at a time their ability to defend could be better. An AI-group could for example be connected to two triggers which would mean that group 3 stays in the position where it's been placed. But if the enemy would enter any of the trigger areas it moves to the position for defense which the scenario designer has decided for the group to move to in cases of necessity.

 

If both triggers areas would get activated at the same time there could maybe be another string of code, or strings of codes, which would make group 3 move to the position where the threat seems to be the most severe.

 

For this to work It would maybe be helpful if the trigger areas were able to count the amount of enemy soldiers that enters them so scenario designers could decide in advance how many soldiers that are needed to enter to be counted as a threat and cause the AI-group to leave its position to move towards the threat. It would probably have to work a bit differently when it comes to trigger by enemy armour as one or two armoured vehicles can cause a lot of damage.

 

But for this to work we would need to be able to paint more trigger areas and we would need more AI-groups.

 

I would like AT-guns and tanks to be able to hide behind buildings with large holes in the walls so they can stand on the side of the building facing away from the enemy, see the enemy through the ruined house and shoot at them from the other side. The way it works now the inside of the house is a blocking entity with some kind of invisible wall so the direct fire line gets blocked as soon as it enters the inside of a building with large holes in the walls.

 

I would also like to be able to position AT-guns inside large enough houses and barns with parts of the walls missing so they can shoot from there. The Germans and Russians, and probably the Brits and Americans too, used this way of positioning AT-gunss. They seem to often having had the doors to the barns not completely closed or the holes in the walls covered a bit to conceale the AT-guns.

 

I sometimes feel that it's a bit strange that units without a binocula often can stand quite far away from a house and see enemy soldiers inside it from that long distance. It's usually only possible to stand outside a house and from a distance see someone inside it if it's the evening and at least one lamp is lit in the house or if someone inside the house is standing in front of the window and gawking on birds or something.

 

During daylight it's more often that the only thing visible from inside a house, when standing further away outside of it, is darkness. For the people inside a house it is of course not dark at all because of the daylight brightening up the rooms. But that daylight doesn't effect the ability to see whether someone is inside the room if he is further away from the windows.

 

I wish vehicles wouldn't get stuck in a splash of mud as easily as they do now when the weather isn't wet. Dry weather, damp weather and cold weather would most likely not have the mud sticky and deep enough to cause them to get stuck, especially not if the splash of mud is by the road. Mud on the fields on a day with wet and rainy weather or after a long period of rain would more likely be more treacherous and cause vehicles to get stuck and immobilised. 

 

Units who are using the slow movement (crawling) are often not aware or their surroundings but only aware of what is on the ground. I have read on the forum that units see what the animated troops look at. As the troops who are crawling always have their eyes on the ground by their chest, they often miss to notice enemy vehicles and troops being fairly close.

 

If an AI-tank with AI-tankriders get bogged down and immobilised the result is that the AI-tankriders sit on that AI-tank throughout the scenario. It would be preferable if tank riders could jump off a tank by themselves if it has become immobolised, or been standing still for too long, and later on follow their AI-groups following orders to make the battles more enjoyable. It isn't fun to have a look at the map after a battle is over and see a large bunch of soldiers sitting on vehicles that have got stuck in a splash of mud in the beginning of the battle.

 

Campaigns (most likely for a CMx3 engine): It could maybe be fun if a campaign could start with a recon team/platoon going out on a large or huge map to find out about the opponents troops. Depending on how well the player does his recon/probe and how well he manages to return his recon team/platoon by exiting them from where the recon scenario started, he will in the next scenario, the battle scenario, of the campaign get the amount of troops seemed necessary to take on the enemy on the same map as in the recon scenario. 

 

This could be done by using a system where the player must spot enemy troops. When the player spots enemy troops he gets points and those points can be used to aquire the amount of extra troops seemed necessary based on the recon points.

 

For the battle scenario in the campaign, the scenario designer prepares the minimal amount of troops the usual way. Then he prepares certain batches, for example three, of additional troops that the player can receive depending on how many points he got from playing the recon scenario. Batch one could require 200 to 500 points, batch two could require 700 to 1000 points and batch three 1200 to 1500 points.

 

Reinforcements (most likely for a CMx3 engine): It could be fun and maybe interesting if reinforcements arrived only if the AI calculated that there was a need of them. The scenario designer would set up troops of reinforcements the usual way. If the AI's calculations reached a certain value during the scenario it would send in a batch of reinforcements. This would of course have to be limited so that the player or AI didn't get more than one batch of reinforcements unless a certain critical values was met and also if the scenario time was the correct one. If the scenario is close to the end the reinforcements wouldn't maybe make much of a difference and are therefor canceled by the AI.

 

There is of course from me also the usual rambling about how line of sight works. But I'm sure the people in BFC read about that subject often enough so I won't say more about it now.

 

This was my little list which I have written down while playing and making scenarios for Final Blitz.

 

[Vacillator]

1 hour ago, BornGinger said:

As the troops who are crawling always have their eyes on the ground by their chest, they often miss to notice enemy vehicles and troops being fairly close.

Choosing only one of your extensive list , this may explain why last night two Shermans drove straight over my Pioneers and departed, never to be seen again.  No shots were exchanged...

[Glubokii Boy]

BornGinger...

As for the triggers and movement...you as the designer are already free to set the timings as you please....If you want the AI group to remain in place until the trgger is activated...simply set the exit after time to the last scenario minute.

 

[chuckdyke]

I like to see the introduction of medics. If they are successful, we could see a recovery of combat shock. 

[BornGinger]

16 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

As for the triggers and movement...

I now noticed that I had written that wrong. What I wanted to say was that we can now only have a team or squad (or maybe a single vehicle) being in waiting for one trigger area at a time. I would like us to be able to have a unit being in waiting for more than one trigger area at a time so that a unit can sit on a spot and depending on which of the two or three trigger areas that are becoming activated the unit moves.

Edited February 24, 2021 by BornGinger

[BornGinger]

On 2/20/2021 at 8:02 AM, atshii said:

Polygon.com article about CMCW mentions that engine upgrade 5 should come "late 2021":

For a while now I have been thinking about buying Red Thunder as I would like to see how it is to meet and fight the Soviet armoured vehicles. But if that article is correct I think I'd better wait until Red Thunder is upgraded and sold with engine 5 so I don't have to pay for an upgrade later on.

[Glubokii Boy]

18 hours ago, BornGinger said:

I

 

Have the ability to use triggers without a timed move order, The way it works now we use a trigger, for example trigger by enemy, and a timed move order. This timed move order seems to work as an insurance that the AI-group will move. And the AI-group will later on move even though no enemy has touched the trigger. This behaviour could mean that the AI-group moves away from its position to the new position and thus opens up a hole in the defense line. 

 

If there could be triggers without a timed move order. The AI-group will stay in position and move only when an enemy has touched the trigger.

 

Maybe we meen the same thing...

My post was a reply to this suggestion...and this you can do already using the current timing options.

I agree that more options with regards to triggers would be most welcome though...And not only being able to use several triggers for the same action but rather have several seperate triggers and actions to chose from at each waypoint...allowing the AI groups to chose between multiple possible ways forward...dependant on the current situation....

 

 

[BornGinger]

As there in the game is no option to set explosives for a mission to blow up a bridge, as it according to Steve & Co. in real life would take too long time to set this up than the time we have in the scenarios, maybe we among the different bridge options in the editor could have a few bridges already ready to blow up? Then the scenario objective could be about doing the last preparations and leave the bridge, while the enemy is shooing at them, and then finaly blow it up. 

The End

Edited March 1, 2021 by BornGinger

[Mr.X]

Personally, I would like to see some more variations of explosions, especially when tanks/vehicles are hit. From the view of the programmer, would it be possible to show turrets, flying away ?

[slippy]

11 hours ago, Mr.X said:

Personally, I would like to see some more variations of explosions, especially when tanks/vehicles are hit. From the view of the programmer, would it be possible to show turrets, flying away ?

Yes definitely, also better smoke and fire from destroyed objects

 

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

Conservative list that I am pretty sure is going to happen:
- UI scaling with resolution. No more postage stamp sized main menu...
- Different map heatmap filters (Hight, terrain)
- ability to completely customize key bindings
- Graphics: render distance (CM looks good close up, but with far distances detail gets lost fast), performance (60fps standard even medium hardware)
- Modern mapmaking tools and other QoL improvements for the devs
- some sort of LOS-visualization tool
 

 

[Anonymous_Jonze]

I think grenades could be more intuitive. I'd like to see if they could increase the grenade throwing distance a bit. Also, it would be nice if the AI was inclined to throw grenades more or even held a grenade and had it ready anticipating close combat. Secondly a "breach and clear" command for (at least the modern titles) rifle squads who don't have demo charges would be cool. Something that differs from assault by having your soldiers always throw grenades first.

[Bulletpoint]

15 hours ago, Anonymous_Jonze said:

I think grenades could be more intuitive. I'd like to see if they could increase the grenade throwing distance a bit. Also, it would be nice if the AI was inclined to throw grenades more or even held a grenade and had it ready anticipating close combat. Secondly a "breach and clear" command for (at least the modern titles) rifle squads who don't have demo charges would be cool. Something that differs from assault by having your soldiers always throw grenades first.

I'd like to see the choice to use a grenade or not depend more on circumstance. Right now, it seems the most important factor is how many grenades the pixeltrooper is carrying. More grenades = higher chance of using one.

But in real life, if you have just one grenade and you detect an enemy behind a window or a low wall, you're probably going to use it, even if it's your last one.