Wish List of Desired Improvements to CM

[radcliffe]

CM is, without a doubt, the finest wargame I've ever played. My own taste in gaming runs to strategy games like Sid Meier's fantastic Alpha Centauri and Civilization games. That said, it's wonderful to experience a game like CM that truly lets you think through your moves, and then experience the chaos of action in real time. OK -- enough of the kudos. Here, in my humble opionion, are a few thoughts on what could put the next iteration of this game in another league.

(1) Beef up the Quick Battle random battle generator. The ability to dial up a battle with a few keystrokes is one of the masterpiece functionalities built into this game, one that practically guarantees near unlimited playability. What I would love to see added to the options supported on the game setup screen are:

-- inclusion of rivers in the landscape;

-- inclusion of bridges (large or small) in the landscape;

-- optimized landscapes. The idea here is to enable players who aren't skilled enough to use the scenario editor to nevertheless generate more complex game situations than they can currently generate with the tools available. For instance, wouldn't it be great if you could select "high ground for defender" if you were setting up an attack or assault Quick Battle, with the computer playing on defense so that you had a real challenge to overcome CM's good but not great computer AI? An alternative to this approach would be to optimize terrain designs for some specific battle situations, such as river crossings, mountain passes, heavily forested areas (like the Ardennes), heavy fortifications, mountain fortresses with big guns (wouldn't you love to try traversing a Greek village to take out the guns of Navarone in this game !?!), castles, and ruined cities (Stalingrad). The more powerful Big Time makes the Quick Battle generator, the more unique and wonderful this game will become for the rookie-to-midrange user, without sacrificing any of the power of the Scenario Editor for the geniuses who have developed the game's terrific scenarios and operations.

(2) Improve the AI so that the computer opponent in a single-person game:

-- commits troops, vehicles, armor and artillery in attack and assault situations to move QUICKLY, and TOGETHER, to secure objectives. The big problem in the game right now is that squads are committed in driblets, so they are quickly and easily overpowered at the point of attack by a human opponent. This is where the rubber meets the road. To make this game truly great, the human opponent needs to feel more of a sense of urgency from the computer-controlled side. When I'm on the attack, I invariably beat the computer to the punch in deploying troops, either on the ground or conveying them to a spot using vehicles. It wouldn't bother me at all if the computer took a few turns at the beginning of a battle to scout my moves, as long as -- like Longstreet -- it pulls its forces together and launches them in a Sunday punch right in my face, going hell for leather right for the objectives, one after another. The computer AI needs to be relentless, to develop a mystique, like Rommel's in North Africa. Maybe the computer AI's brains and aggressiveness could be scaled as a "degree of dicculty" that the player could select from in the setup phase of the game. But what CM desperately needs right now is a Patton-like, "take no prisoners" mentality on the attack, and a desperate capacity for hanging on and taking punishment on defense.

(3) Add intelligent (or not so intelligent) agents to the game. Wouldn't it be terrific if you could select a "strategic" approach to playing the game, in which you shared the command against a computer opponent WITH a really smart, an average, or a really tactically challenged subordinate to whom you could give orders to take specified objectives, but who otherwise acted entirely on their own to accomplish these objectives? Imagine giving yourself the job of laying down suppression fire with half your force, while your "other half," under command of a brave commander, takes on the tough job of crossing a river? Or you doing the river crossing, with a stupid sidekick handling the fire suppression assignment, wondering if the idiot would come through or not?

Anyway, it's really a testament to the incredibly fine architecture and foundation that's been built into CM that these ideas have any potential merit at all. What d'you guys think?

[David Aitken]

BTS would doubtlessly love to do (1) and (2) if (a) they had time, and ( it were possible. (3) sounds a bit superfluous.

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Guest Mirage2k]

It's very easy to say, "Wouldn't it be really cool if the AI were a better player?" It's not so easy to code it that way. IIRC, BTS has said that it would have taken another 6 months to marginally improve the AI.

I'm not sure what you mean by #3. Another AI within the strategic AI?

-Andrew

------------------

VOTE BLAH FOR PRESIDENT!

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

BLAH IN 2000!

[M. Bates]

Point number one is very good though, I definately would want to see that implemented.

------------------

[This message has been edited by an international conspiracy of Euro-Anarchists.]

[Hamstersss]

I have to disagree with David, as the ability to have seperately controlled allied forces would be a great feature, though I think it would be better to have it for multiplayer, not single player. I'm surprised you can't see how much fun it would be to play as one company commander working with another company commander to take a position.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[Rob Deans]

This point has been raised before, I know, but it really should be implemented for both computer and human. Simultainious, coordinated movement. As it stands units will move after the familiar 13 second (+ -) pause. After that the individual units' own speed takes over. There should be another choice in the interface which enables "coordinated movement" The selected group of units, if in command, will stay moving at the rate of the slowest unit through the terrain that is covered. A platoon advancing accross a field with a tank in intimate support, The company with an intimate support troop of tanks advancing on a hill. The arguement has been made that this is "too much control"....It simply isn't. Movement is coordinated like this all the time. The platoon commander ensures that his sections do not get misaligned (within reason) and the section commanders do the same. A tank advancing with infantry will not take off leaving the infantry behind. It will measure its advance against that of the accompanying troops. Once contact is made this becomes much more difficult and so it should in the game (impossible comes to mind). But up until that point it should be an option. The same feature open to the computer (my ignorance of how the computer actually plots its moves and the like is quite high) would rid the game of the example that was stated at the beginning of the topic.

Thanks

Rob Deans

[radcliffe]

Gentlemen: your responses are enlightening, especially the one regarding BTS's needing 6 months to achieve even a marginal improvement of the AI. I submit my opinions for what they are worth, but I admit I am chastened by this fact. Maybe my suggestions in Point 2 would be strengthened if CM offered an option in the set-up game to put a computer attacker in "all-out attack" or mode, with supplemental support, say, from fighter-bombers or artillery, so that you really had a tough time deploying your troops, moving your tanks (on defense), or holding your carefully set-up defensive positions. When I play defense in CM (especially playing the Germans), it's just too much fun NOT to select a pillbox with 88 mm cannon and work it into a defense with interlocking zones of fire, with "hull down" Panzers ready to pop up and smoke the opposition's armor into next week! When the computer's on the attack in a single-player game, it needs some way to overcome the fanatical care that demented players like me put into designed defenses. And it would be great if, on defense, the computer could spring at least limited counterattacks, or (failing that) would spring nasty tricks like blowing up whole houses if you were stupid enough to put more than one or two squads in there at a time. Just a thought...

As for Point 3, I like the idea of being put in the position of surrendering some of the control of playing AGAINST the computer TO the computer. Everyone has read about battles and campaigns where the commander had a terrific battle plan but was let down by one or more of his lieutenants. If this idea were implemented in CM, you might have the option in the pre-battle or setup phase of selecting 1, 2, 3 (or no) subordinate company commanders to carry out your orders, and then assigning each company commander the forces from your total force to command. In the setup phase, you could also select a specific level of ability for each company commander, or let the computer assign these levels at random. Then, once the battle is begun, you would simply click on the company commanders -- who would be identified on the field with little flags -- and then click on the flag(s) of the objective(s) they were detailed to capture. If the company commanders were knocked out, the forces under theitr command would be substantially slowed (say, by at least 50%), with a big hit also in battle force, morale, and efficiency. Anyway, that's what I meant by this idea. It may be great or lousy as an idea for the game. What do you guys think?

[radcliffe]

Great comment from Dean on "simultaneous, coordinated movement"! This really gets at a core issue and would go a long way towards tuning the computer AI to commit whole mixed GROUPS of infrantry, armor, vehicles and artillery to action at the same moment in time. Of course, this cohesion would all go to hell in a handbasket as soon as heavy contact (say, to more than one unit in the group) was established, but chaos sets in anyway in actuall battles, so why not here as well? Anyway, Dean's comment sounds good to me!

[Dittohead]

Yea and add some fuzzy logic.

[Mikeydz]

Here's my take of point three. Sounds like you are asking to take the place of the Strategic AI. You tell the AI to take the bridge, but it's up to the AI (OP and TAC) to figure out how to get there, and carry out the mission you gave it. Sounds interesting, but the problem is that until the Operational AI is beefed up, especially on the attack, more often than not, you be left cursing at the screen while the AI bumbles about trying to carry out the mission. I personally would prefer that co-op play with multiple humans on each side be implemented instead of allowing co-op play with the AI.

[The Commissar]

I like the all of the points made, but of course, there are problems with point 2 and 3.

Basically, time limitation and computer limitation.

Did you notice how in some large battles it sometimes takes over 2 minutes for the computer to calculate a turn's movements? Imagine how bad it would be with 3 other computers planning away at the same time? You would consider yourself lucky if your machine didn't crash!

I like point 3 a lot, but I also think it would be better used with multiplayer. I'd LOVE to get a 6 player+ game going, and having to argue with my sub-commanders what's the best way to take out the enemy

[The Commissar]

In fact, I think point 3 with multiplayer capabilities would work superbly well with CM2.

Playing as the Russians, you would have to deal with many inexperienced or just plain stupid field commanders. What better way to represent this then playing a PBEM game with several inexperienced or just plain stupid people responcible for 1/3rd of your total forces?