A crazy feature idea for the new engine...

[RSColonel_131st]

Okay, before someone tells me to SOD OFF, I *know* this is kinda farfetched, but hey...no damange in trying.

So, what I would want is the chance to be Gunner on the tanks and PAK's.

This should work on a way that, when your tank or PAK spots an enemy, you can either leave the battle to the AI (as it is now) or you can try your luck yourself. Of course, that's kinda an oxymoron, because it would mean user interference during the "movie" part.

BTS would need to get data about the sights of that time, and the methods of shooting. I dont want a simple "point 'n click" interface, it should be something realistic.

It should be compliacted enough that the AI will have an advantage unless you have a very skilled User...then it would become an advantage for the player who choses to do the stuff himself instead of leaving it to the TAC AI.

Why Gunner? Simple, because you are already commanding the tank (spotting targets, ordering movement), and driver would be quite a boring job.

In short, I want more interaction. There hasn't been a good WW2 Tanksim since Panzer Elite, and that one is definitly getting to damned old. CMBB so far is the closest to a tactical tank warfare simulation you can buy at the moment, but it lacks a little bit first person.

An alternative suggestion, BTW, would be to allow you to see trough the *eyes* of your soldiers. Right now the Godlike Top-Down view including Borg Spotting gives you a real lot more knowledge about the Battlefield than a real company commander would have had. Maybe it would be possiple to have "Fog of War", and you couldn't move your virtual eye all over the map like now, but instead only use the LOS of your units.

Both of these suggestions would mean getting the player down at the ground and into his units. Making the thing more personal.

Unless the makers of Steel Beasts go WW2, I think that might be the best we have.

[Bone_Vulture]

Giving the user an opportunity to take part of gun aiming would open up a new venue for cheating, and I really don't think that it would be worth implementing.

On the other hand, a "forced unit LOS" could work as an option for hardcore grog's. Maybe you could have a crude overhead field map of the terrain, but you could only view the 3D terrain through the "eyes" of your troops, or even more realistically, only via the eyes of commanders? It sounds fascinating, although I fear it's too hard to implement without the gameplay suffering.

[aka_tom_w]

Just play Panzer Elite

That is exactly what that game does.

PE is like Iron Man Rules (Frankco's Rules) in CMBB (View 1 ONLY) and when your tank (ALL WWII ) engages the enemy you can choose to be the gunner and it is HARD to get a hit if you set everything to "REALISTIC" settings!

Good Luck

-tom w

[RSColonel_131st]

I think I mentioned in my first post that PE is getting to damned old. CMBB Graphics are okay, PE Graphics simple dont stand the test of time anymore.

Why would player gunning open up cheating possibilitys? Do you think someone would write an aimbot or somefink?

As for the "Forced Unit LOS", yes that's what I had in mind. You would always know your general terrain layout from maps or similar intel, but you would need to SEE it yourself to make it 3d.

In practice it would mean commanding from overhead view takes place on a standard 2d military quality card, but for the exact details you would "beam" yourself into the eyes of a frontline soldier and give your orders from there.

It would be an interesting mental exercise to combine the picture of your 2d map and real view - just as real commanders are doing it I guess.

[hardcampa]

I for one really don't want any of that type of interaction, it goes against the style of CM in every way. If you want that play Battlefield 1942.

[RSColonel_131st]

Just because YOU dont want it doesn't mean it shouldn't be avalable for anyone else.

We are talking about OPTIONS here, if you dont like it, leave it.

And while BF1942 is a nice game, it is in no way realistic.

For what it's worth I just finished a quick 500pts QB following Frankos Rules. For me it is indeed much more immersive that way, plus it reduces the advantage of "Borg Spotting".

[Ellros]

One thing I think the majority of us do not want is an FPS version of CM. Taking control of an individual tank or soldier with that degree of detail has never been part of CM.

[MrNoobie]

y not just keep it the way it is but having a see through the eyes camera angle, you cant control you can only watch. id like to see the inside of a tiger while hunting

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by Ellros:

One thing I think the majority of us do not want is an FPS version of CM. Taking control of an individual tank or soldier with that degree of detail has never been part of CM.

And why not?

Right now you command single units, like StuG's, including their hull rotation, target selection, turret rotation (trough the use of fields of fire), movement speed, firing smoke, you even tell them to open or close their hatches. That's already a LOT of detail.

What's the difference in taking it one step further?

And always remember, what I suggest here is optional. No one forces anybody to use anything else than the good old top down view. If you dont want it to be used against you, disable it in a PBEM or TCP game for both sides.

I think there are two schools of thought at work here. On one hand you have people who dont project themself into the battle. You want to play a godlike entinty hovering above the battlefield and use the avalable means to direct your forces as well as possiple. I'd take a wild guess that the same people also like to play bigger games (Company Size), with less micromanagement on the individual unit.

On the other hand you have people who like to play on platoon size and individual vehicle size, with lots of micromanagement. Instead of having artifical enhanced access to all battlefield information we would prefer having to use our own eyes from the ground floor.

One doesn't exclude the other at all.

[gunnergoz]

The team who create the BFC games are a very small, focused group with extremely finite resources and time to do their job.

Speaking for myself only, I would not care to see the team take a single moment of time away from the massive task of an engine re-write, to take on some new side-path that will appeal to only a minority of CM fans.

Anyway, if your idea appeals to The Team, wild horses couldn't keep the idea from being implemented, no matter what the fan base thinks.

My guess is that the concept, interesting to some as it may well be, will not make the cut because there are far too many other important upgrades to be worked on for the new engine.

Just my two bits...

[Andrew H.]

It would turn the game into a FPS. Think about how the game works now - you give your units commands at the beginning of the turn, and they carry them out *on their own* as the turn progresses. Combat is resolved by the blue bar, and the replay we see is always the same because it's just showing what has already happened.

If BFC added the "gunner" feature, combat wouldn't be resolved during the blue bar phase; it would have to be resolved during the movie instead. Also, the player, not the tac ai, would have to have control over at least part of what the tank does. All of which goes against the heart of CM**, which is that the players issue their orders at the beginning of the turn and then watch to see what happens.

[Kestrl]

I don’t think your option idea would open up cheating but I know I would just let the AI do my targeting for me because I know it could do a better job.

I never want to see a FPS version of CM and I would never purchase it.

I would rather BTS spend time adding in the correct stats for vehicles and equipment.

I'm tired of FPS games.

[Schrullenhaft]

I doubt that CM will ever have the first-person AFV controls like PE and Steel Beasts. It just isn't the direction that development is going in. The extra research, memory requirements, interface changes and just plain pure change to the game to accomodate such features isn't going to happen in my mind. Players in the past have hoped for a strategic down to tactical layering of CM too. This proposal (which isn't new to be honest) is just the reverse - taking the tactical down to the first-person. Both of these are beyond the scope of a single game.

If you spread the scope of a game too much you end up with a 'piece of crap' because you lose the concentrated focus. Several games in the past have attempted such 'multi-layered' approaches to a game, but the lack of emphasis has resulted in mediocre quality at each layer (and even more often - an unfinished/unpublished game). The amount of work (and the astounding amount of code) to do each level/layer properly is far too great for a developer the size of BTS/BFC. It would take too long to develop, if attempted, and by the time it came out it would be considered 'dated' to boot (old graphics engine, etc.).

CM represents BTS/BFC's vision and scope of a tactical combat game. Adding levels above or below this is not their forte and it would result in less time spent with the tactical level that CM currently models. While having levels above and/or below CM's current scope within one game sounds great, it isn't realistically possible, while maintaining the current quality we expect. In my opinion any requests for the change in CM's scope are generally going to fall on deaf ears. The most (and I wouldn't expect it in the next game or two) that may happen is for BTS to possibly add a slightly higher strategic level to CM (the maneuver and employment of units that would encompass several CM-sized engagments). However that would require opening up the data format or bringing in another developer to concentrate on just that portion of the game.

One of the major changes for the next engine (beyond the OpenGL API and other refinements) is the inclusion of relative spotting, which will be very hard to implement. It won't be a perfect spotting routine, but it will add an additional element to FOW and bring CM's engagments to a higher level of realism. Focusing on such changes as this in the what future CM development is about. Adding additional levels of control and play to the game would most likely result in a meandering mess of a game. A road travelled by too many other unsuccessful developers, much to their chagrin.