CMX2 Wishlist

[Volker]

Im hoping its Graphics blow the best RTS ones out of the Water for one. I really like eye candy. Keep the current gameplay, but with Graphics like that from Battlefield Command, or C&C Generals.

Im hoping it will take place on the Western Front. From 1939-1945, do Early War, and Late War together. I would even add Poland to the mix, add the Horses and all that. Even have a D-day Mission.

Im hoping that the Buildings become so detailed that you see your squads going in the doors, and shooting out the windows. Squads in close combat engage in hand-to-hand in front of your eyes. Maybe even have some civilians running about in cities (Of course you cant target them tho)

Perhaps have Air-Drops, Reinforcements that persecute into battle, and you can shoot them as they come down too.

Extreem Zoom's, to get right in the Detailed face of your troops, and see the fear, anger, or excitement change in their active face.

What are you guys hoping for?

[ April 05, 2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Volker ]

[Elmar Bijlsma]

My favourite would remain dynamic lighting. Next time I light up a Sherman I want it to light up the area. O howabout sending up flares in response to a sound contact?

And a start-o-war -> end-o-war campaign. Kinda like Talonsofts Westfront. Not like the Steel Panthers campaign though, because I'd be too tempted to purchase a seriously gamey force.

[Alarmer]

1.

Add every soldier visible and leave the dead ones laying in the battlefield. This would create alot of being there feeling. This might reduce the scale of combat mission battles but I would be willing to do that sacrifice.

Anyways really big battles in CM games arent that enjoyable they tend to take lots of time and you allways forgot to move somebody. Ofcourse this is my view only but I think CM has always been ment for little skirmishes not huge battles.

Now if somebody dares to say that the Hardware isnt up for every man modelled in the field I disagree.. R9700pro will be the low end graphic card when CMX2 will hit the streets.

2.

CMBB good in graphic sense and in strategy games graphics dont mean that much but I would like to see improved graphics aswell..

Sadly the graphics are what sells games and CM games have easy and working gameplay in my mind, so why not beefen up the graphics and surely sales will rise too

[lcm1947]

I would much rather it have more action choices ( fighting, moving and firing ) and greater number of equipment ( tanks, building, men, lighting, etc ) then improved graphics. CMBB graphics are just fine with me. My opinion.

[flamingknives]

If you do graphics down to the individual soldier, you need to model to that level too, and that would be time consuming and ultimately not worth the effort. (IMHO, naturally, I think it would detract from the gameplay)

Dynamic lighting would be good.

3d trees and stuff too.

A bit more variety on the landscape, after all, it's the battlefield that determines things as much as the soldiers on it.

[SaTyR]

Variety in the vehicles of same type would be great too. I see no point in using mods with (for example) battle damage, as every tank in (for example) a platoon of battle damaged pzIIIj´s would look identical and that just looks silly. The game could ship with a stock set of bmp´s for each vehicle, just one ofcourse, but modders could make sets with extensions in the bmp names (example: stock bmp 13001-XXXXX, modder makes a set with the letter "a" as the last character in the name, 13001a-XXXXXa, the game checks if further sets are available and then randomly decides between the available sets to bring variety). I´m no programmer, so I don´t really know how hard programming this could be, but it wouldn´t put extra strain on the graphic artist(s). This would be a gift of gawd for (us) modsluts Now we have to decide between our favorite mods, with this variety thingy we could see ALL our favorite mods at the same time (with a bit of luck ofcourse). One could always use mods the old way, replacing the stock graphics (a solution for those with small hard drives).

Just one little thing from the "eyecandy" side of the game, I´ll leave the real issues to those with better knowledge of the war and of programming a game .

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Put all battle theaters together that BTS has researched so far within the current CM engine into the new one.

Would it not be cool to say: "Hmm, should I play Brits vs Germans in Africa? No, how about something with the Finns. Nah. Oh, I know! I think I'll play a German vs American scenario in the French country with some hedgerows for a cat-and-mouse armor game!" :eek:

That, and more terrain types. I'd like to stack crates around a factory, boxcars on a rail-line, and a sniper or a two-man LMG team in a water tower (or church bell-tower). And of cousre: Full 3D trenches and foxholes (with sandbag edges) and 3D craters as well.

[ April 06, 2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ]

[gibsonm]

Simple:

1. NATIVE SUPPORT FOR OS X (whether its Jaguar or the pending Panther).

2. Support for newer Mac graphic cards (especially the PowerBook ones where you just can't buy another one and swap it out).

[MrNoobie]

i want the skins for the models in one sheet! h8 having all these bmps cluttering up one folder

[Engel]

Originally posted by SaTyR:

The game could ship with a stock set of bmp´s for each vehicle, just one ofcourse, but modders could make sets with extensions in the bmp names

You could possibly extend this idea into the game being able to pick things like winter/year mods automatically for you. If the mission is set in winter, it would automatically choose among installed winter/year mods for each vehicle and if no such mod is installed, it would use the default skins.

[citizen]

I'd like to see an option for scenario designers and especially campaign GMs that allows you to turn off the score and attacker/defender information panel. It totally sucks when you can look at that little box on the screen and know with 100% certainty whether your opponent is dug in or not.

I'd also like to have a scenario option for both sides to be dug in at the start of the scenario.

In general, make Extreme Fog of War actually extreme.

citizen

[Echo]

Vehicles that block LOS. My infantry still can't use armor as cover. (biggest disapointment playing first demo years ago.) Vehicles can't use wrecks as cover either.

[ April 07, 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Echo ]

[tar]

From the scenario design front:

1) Time variable flags. Flags with point values that change over time. Whoever ends up controlling the flag gets the points for the time at which they get control. This would allow incentives for a phased pull-back as flags near the attacker become less valuable with time.

2) Something similar but for troop exiting. For the defender, the number could go up with time. For attackers it could go down.

3) Conditional reinforcements based on the presence or absence of enemy forces in particular locations. This would allow, for example, the designation of reinforcements appearing on a map edge unless the area is guarded by troops. This would help to eliminate the lack of need to garrison the flanks when covered by the map edge, since there is no way for the enemy to maneuver off-board.

4) The ability to designate a point on the map which is considered "friendly" so that troops will retreat toward that location rather than a map edge. Useful for battles while surrounded.

5) Hidden flags. The option for a scenario designer to designate flags as hidden. This is obviously most useful for the first time play of a scenario. Combined with dynamic flags, though, it could still be viable.

6) Dynamic flags for both sides.

7) An option for both sides to start with foxholes!

8) The ability to apply a weight or scaling factor to troop losses. You can make one side's troops worth say, 150% of their normal value and the other side's worth 50% to reflect differing needs to preserve troops versus achieve other objectives.

9) Higher echelon command control.

[BFCElvis]

My biggest wish.....I had always dreamed of an incredible WW2 game that gave me all the feel that I had with SL/ASL and then CMBO came out and exceeded my woldest dreams.....My wish now is for a game that takes that to a level I haven't even thought of.

[Abn Air Cav]

I like the ideas for improved graphics and variety in the vehicles of same type. :cool:

[Engel]

I think this has been mentioned before, but true multiplayer would be great. While chatting with a friend yesterday, we thought about the possibilities, with each player commanding let's say a company, batallion or even just a platoon or two (depending on scale); coordinating assaults, fire support, friendly fire, etc.

[Bogdan]

Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

Put all battle theaters together that BTS has researched so far within the current CM engine into the new one.

Would it not be cool to say: "Hmm, should I play Brits vs Germans in Africa? No, how about something with the Finns. Nah. Oh, I know! I think I'll play a German vs American scenario in the French country with some hedgerows for a cat-and-mouse armor game!" :eek:

OH YES ! From 1939 to 1945 !

The game will come with 2 CD's ? It's a little bit expensive..? Oh come on ! That doesn't matter !

Nations involved :

</font>

• Germany</font>
• USA</font>
• Germany</font>
• Great Britain</font>
• USSR</font>
• Poland</font>
• France</font>
• Italy</font>
• Finland</font>
• Romania</font>
• Bulgaria</font>
• Yugoslavia</font>
• Albania</font>
• Greece</font>
• Hungary</font>

...and all the others I have forgotten !

Congratulation to BFC staff for CMAK ! Let's continue this way !

All the best !

[Wallybob]

Flares, illum from burning vehicles or terrain at night, vehicles (live and dead) blocking LOS, turn one to end movie ability, a non gamey way to do horsies, er, cavalry, streamlined PBEM, a toggle for the old CMBO arty burst (I miss that).

oh yeah, nekkid chicks on harleys too.

[Volker]

Just think how cool it will be to fight in a city at night with lights in the buildings, street lights, and burning fire lighting up areas. And to see Civs moving about too to get out of the way.

And I would like their to be a "Watch Replay" after the end of the Battle, so you can watch the whole battle at the end.

[Boris Balaban]

Originally posted by Engel:

I think this has been mentioned before, but true multiplayer would be great. While chatting with a friend yesterday, we thought about the possibilities, with each player commanding let's say a company, batallion or even just a platoon or two (depending on scale); coordinating assaults, fire support, friendly fire, etc.

Same for me. :cool:

[Bruce70]

My biggest wish is for some kind of grand campaign. And don't tell me its not realistic because a) I don't particularly care, and following the career of one officer throughout the war is perfectly realistic

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

My biggest wish is for some kind of grand campaign. And don't tell me its not realistic because a) I don't particularly care, and following the career of one officer throughout the war is perfectly realistic

I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it not realistic. It's just difficult to implement and would come at the expense of many other features. It could happen for the re-write I suppose.

[benpark]

Another vote for some sort of campaign structure.

Also: "Import Map" for operations, and "Import Troops" for maps- 2 options that would be as good as a campaign in my book.

[Sergei]

Let's hope it offers even greater possibilities for scenario designers. Something like in Steel Panthers, so that you could do stuff like change weaponry, armour, speed, etc. or place dead tanks onto the field in the scenario editor. And then more flexibility, eg. you should be able to try Brits vs. Yankees. And some slight programming options for the AI in scenarios (at least being capable of adjusting how crazy or carefully it acts), yet the AI should be improved in QB's as well.

Plus, you should be able to convert a scenario into an operation, somehow.

[ April 09, 2003, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it not realistic.

Well many moons ago (no pun intended) people were asking for a Close Combat (or insert Title of your choice) style campaign. Battlefront rightly claimed that it was unrealistic and would not be considered. I got the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that this was the major argument against a grand campaign of any type.

Now personally I could live with an unrealistic CC style campaign (well like CC1 or CC2, I never cared much for the rest) because it would be fun, but if they must make it realistic then there are many other options to consider.