Col Deadmarsh Posted May 26, 2001 Share Posted May 26, 2001 I assume the other one was lost when the server was hit and I have yet to see anyone else start up another so I'm taking the initiative. Same rules apply. Just give out your ideas. No debating anyone else's. Uneven and random deploy zones to prevent flag rushes at beginning of games. I'd like to see random and bigger zones of control when deploying. This means I could be one square away from a vl as opposed to now where I am an equidistant amount of squares away from the vl just as my opponent is. This will cut down severely on each player racing his men to the flags in the center of the map on turn 1. I think it will add a lot of realism, as soldiers in real life don't know the exact location of the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Posted May 27, 2001 Share Posted May 27, 2001 Is a bump in order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorBeef Posted May 27, 2001 Share Posted May 27, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader: Is a bump in order?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Evidently.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted May 27, 2001 Share Posted May 27, 2001 CAMPAIGN GAME!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar Posted May 27, 2001 Share Posted May 27, 2001 I would like off board fire(from FO's) to be able to be called down as both area fire OR as a point target for a target location. It shouldn't matter whether there is a enemy unit at the location to be able to concetrate fire, or just a patch of ground. Most target groups move from location to location but putting a good show on the target path, on time, isn't reflected by the area target command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae Posted May 27, 2001 Share Posted May 27, 2001 Realistic auto force selection! Select your basic components (e.g. guards tank battalion vs. heer reinforced rifle company) and the program uses the year and formations to determine the OOB from a realistic set with possible variations, as well as experience levels! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted May 27, 2001 Share Posted May 27, 2001 I'm not sure if this thread will get a response from BTS like the last but just in case - draws big breath - FULL UNIT KILL STATISTICS AT THE END OF FOG-OF-WAR EFFECTED BATTLES. Phew, I'm actually quite shy you know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted May 27, 2001 Share Posted May 27, 2001 * While awaiting for a TCP opponent to finish plotting his turn it is easy to miss it when he finishes. My buddy and I don't (and won't) play with a time limit. A quick soft beep (or something) would be nice to let us know when the opponent is done. * A "No Restriction" choice for QB troop Quality like there is for troop Type. When buying my Regular infantry I'd like to have that lone tank commander with an Elite or Crack quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted May 27, 2001 Share Posted May 27, 2001 I'd like to see CM IV capability. What I mean by that is, hook me up to an IV that drips CM directly into my nerve centers. Feel that? that first drip of CM just stabs into your arm...ahhh, sweet addictive bliss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar Posted May 28, 2001 Share Posted May 28, 2001 Eek..here goes.. I would like the withdrawal command to be changed. IMHO a unit wouldn't withdraw TOWARD THE ENEMY LINES(i.e. the enemy map edge)or visible enemies. Withdrawing to the friendly map edge isn't what I would consider a high priority for a unit needing to use a withdrawal (It is but the map is made of squares). Change the 'withdraw ' command to disallow a unit from withdrawing TOWARD the enemy map edge and away from the visible enemy units instead of only allowing a withdraw TO the friendly edge and away from visible enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juha Ahoniemi Posted May 28, 2001 Share Posted May 28, 2001 I'd like to see Steel Panthers-style unit list- window (when wanted, of course)where you can pick the unit You want in command phase (why not when watching the movie, too) and see the condition of all of my units by one quick look... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted May 28, 2001 Share Posted May 28, 2001 I'd like to see all command links for all friendly units highlighted at once. I ditto request for unit list floating window, preferably hyperlinked so that one can go directly to unit on map. This could also have some marker to reflect how many enemy units are sighted by this particular unit, or are currently firing at the friendly unit. These enemy unit icons should also be hyperlinked to the units on the map. Finally, (for now at least) I'd like the capability to see shaded in color overlay what the viewing area of a particular unit would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted May 31, 2001 Author Share Posted May 31, 2001 More from the wish list... 1. When re-directing arty fire, I'd like to see the time it will take for the order to be carried out wherever I move the cursor instead of having to issue the order to do so and then seeing it in the orders box. 2. Infantry smoke I am still in disbelief that WWII soldiers didn't use this to some effect. Imagine the possibilities that this would open up if implemented in CM2... 3. Mulitiple pauses and firing orders during a turn If I have an infantry squad that needs to get to one patch of woods to another, and I believe the enemy is going to ambush me from one of two points, I need to be able to smoke both points first before advancing. The same goes for area fire. As for the pauses, it would be nice to be able to move first and then pause and then move instead of only being able to pause at the beginning of a turn. Its no more micromanagement than issuing a pause at the beginning of a turn but it will give the player more flexibility. 4. The option to view the map before playing Options are always the best because it pleases all parties. With this option, you and your opponent would be able to view the map beforehand. Is this realistic on all occasions? That may be debatable. But for defenses, the terrain is definetly known to the defender in an attack-defend scenario. In addition to this, the defender must know how to defend the victory locations so seeing the map beforehand is most important. If people don't want to see the map beforehand, they will have that option too. 5. Adjustable handicapp points by 1% What I mean by this is that we need to be able to fine-tune the adjustments in case CM2 comes out like CM1 did with unequal point ratios for attack-defense scenarios. In fact, let's get rid of the drop down boxes for these options and have fields where we can enter a number. That's all I can think of for now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roborat Posted June 1, 2001 Share Posted June 1, 2001 I would REALLY like to see realistic handling of artillery. There are enough artillery types posting here to be able to give advice, if the powers that be are that unfamiliar with artillery ops and capabilities. I don't know how many times it would have been perfect to set up a rolling barrage to advance behind, or lay a diagonal line to hit a road. And once a battery is registered, they can hit (reasonably accurately) anything they have a map reference for. And, for the love of god, allow different patterns, ie; boxes, circles, diagonal lines, etc. rather than the standard line we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted June 1, 2001 Share Posted June 1, 2001 The 2 man FO teams seem unusually brittle. I can't speak for other armies but your typical Commonwealth OP team was four. Each Battery had three or four Observation Post (OP) parties that advanced with the infantry or tanks they were directly supporting. Target information was sent to the Battery command post by wireless or in certain conditions, field telephone. Each OP party comprised an Officer, an assistant (NCO) two Gunner signallers, one of whom acted as driver for their radio fitted bren carrier or jeep. Each member of the OP crew was cross-trained to do the job of any other, so that if the officer should become a casualty for example, the driver/operator was capable of ordering fire support. Vehicle mounted radios were generally used because they were more reliable. Along with a host of changes to arty I'd like to see the size of FO/OP teams actually reflect the practises of the relevant nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 1, 2001 Share Posted June 1, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Each member of the OP crew was cross-trained to do the job of any other, so that if the officer should become a casualty for example, the driver/operator was capable of ordering fire support. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was this in a perfect world, or were they able to keep a steady supply of Private-drivers trained in radio use and calling down fire support even as the campaigns progressed and casualties were incurred? I have no clue, but my fuzzy memory of Blackburn's book seemed to indicate smaller teams - but my memory is far from perfect. It seems odd that a private or corporal would be permitted to call down supporting fire. Is this general knowledge type stuff (ie is it referenced in many places and I am just too dense to remember), or do you have a specific source for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted June 1, 2001 Share Posted June 1, 2001 * The choice to have same side Battles. (German vs. German, USSR vs. USSR) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer Leader Posted June 1, 2001 Share Posted June 1, 2001 Okay, how about a very simple drop down on the parameters screen in QBs to allow you to pick the map as Long, wide, square, or random? The default could be random. That seems pretty easy to include, if it doesn't screw up the map generation process. I don't think I've seen it mentioned, and while we're on the subject, when you pick an email QB, how about the receiving end of the email getting to see the parameters? I do think that has been mentioned. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted June 2, 2001 Share Posted June 2, 2001 AI-hint flags: Why? Some background: It would be nice if scenario designers could create scenarios with just one or few goal flags that count in the final score, BUT also assist AI troop placement (useful mainly in defense) by telling that some parts of the map are TEMPORARILY important for the enemy when it tries to reach the goal. For example, it might be important to keep the enemy from reaching a cross roads, from which a road to the goal flag branches. Currently it's possible to mark such important places with flags, but there are some cons: -To get a high score, attacker has to leave troops to guard the flags -Both sides know the flags. At the moment it's easy for the human player to guess that if there's a flag, then it's likely that sooner or later there will be enemy troops nearby. Also, if all important places are readily marked, choosing attack strategy becomes much easier. SO (The suggestion), It would be useful if scenario designers could place new kind of flags to the map. There would be different sets of flags for both attacking/defending sides, and they would be "visible" only for the AI playing that side. Human players could see them only in scenario editor. The flags would mark places that are temporarily important for the enemy. When planning its (defense) strategy, the AI could consider using troops to keeping enemy from these temporary goals (or causing damage there), while keeping in mind that there may be other ways of reaching the real goal flags. Maybe this feature would be used only on some AI experience levels or maybe it would be just an extra option to the setup phase. Of course, the AI shouldn't regard hints as orders, but as suggestions that it may ignore if it has better ideas. [ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: SlowMotion ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted September 7, 2001 Author Share Posted September 7, 2001 Rise from your grave! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted September 8, 2001 Share Posted September 8, 2001 For the sake of completeness as well as a complete wish lists reference, please take SOME time (Warning: it is quite long!) in reading this comprehensive thread of CM2 and ~ wish lists as well as BTS' official reply. Steve and Charles have noted all suggestion there -- very gracious of them! Regards, Charl Theron ------------- Nothing more excellent or valuable than wine has ever been granted by the gods to man. -- Plato, Greek philosopher (427 - 347 B.C.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts