CMX2 Wishlist

[UberFunBunny]

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.

This would be my number one wish....

[UberFunBunny]

Originally posted by Volker:

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.

With this being first equal....

[aka_tom_w]

This thread just would not be complete without this feature request list

The NEW CMII engine possible new features like:

* NO more Borg Spotting (Relative Spotting somehow in some GOOD/REAL way implimented )

* Toggle on/off Contour/Elevation lines on the Map

*Terrain Fog of War, (if you don't have friendlies looking at it (terrain feature that is) you don't know if it is there)

*Make the Map Editor WAY more user friendly, incorporate things like the new Mapping Mission app (only on the PC so far) into the new game engine. Why not try to make the Map Editor in CMII more like the GREAT interface in Sim City. Maybe hire one person JUST to do the Map Editor as it needs a complete overhaul and rewrite from the ground up IMHO

* LOS & LOF blocked by LIVE AFV's (i.e. infantry have "some" cover behind live and dead vehicles that are not burning)

* Same as above, vehicles and other units CANNOT shoot through other live or dead vehicles that are not burning. (Dynamic LOS)

* Full movie replay

* Roster (for those would think they need it)

* Multi-turreted vehicles like the Allied Grant and Lee

* Amphibious units

* Realistic modelling of visibility at night

* Dynamic lighting effects (two fold:

i. As visual effect and more important

ii. Integration into fire- and detection algorithms

*Change PBEM format to only require two e-mails per turn

* Collision detection for all projectiles, even those that would hit

*Smaller terrain tiles ( 10 x 10 m or better )

*Risk of bogging calculated and determined by greater fidelity in Mean Maximum Pressure theory (Model?) (Note: One example he gives is the Elephant having only 12% heavier nomimal ground pressure (NGP, weight per track area) than a King Tiger, but having a mean maximum ground pressure (MMP) approx double, at 370 compared to 184. They more or less have the same weight and track

area, but the suspension designs are quite different.)

From:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=003157;p=1

* Programable SOP's for all units:

(e.g. "Wouldn't it be great if an order could be given to the commander of company "A" to "take that hill" or "move to that position and set up a defense" and watch as the orders are dissiminated down throught he ranks and the varios platoons begin to try and carry out your orders. Yes, much as it happens with "Airborn Assult".)

"with a little help from my friends"

-tom w

AND from:

TSword

Member

Member # 7457

posted October 25, 2002 08:00 AM

1. It is absolutely necessary to give the Scenario-Designer more control over AI behaviour and

setup.

Example: AI in Operations usually does a very poor setup (If there is wood AI will cramp

everything in it), true one can work around, but with open maps this becomes a problem of first

order.

Solution: The designer can suggest zones of terrain suitable for setup.

Also some guidelines for attacking/defending AI would be great, like areas of approach, objective

zones, type of general AI behaviour like stubborn defense, counterattack, timings and the like.

This is a wide field but in general leave AI as is (No hope of much improvement in this field) but

enable more options during scenario design

All this together would enable much more challenging AI-battles and more possibilities to

generate more historic acurate battles (I mostly play the AI, since PBEMs go forever and need a

lot of discipline especially for the loosing side...). Covered arcs set by scenario designer would be

great.

2. Atleast direct firing Artillery pieces should be able to fire delayed fuzed shells (when firing a

flat trajectory shell bounces off the ground, at first impact fuze is activated). This was done very

often on the german side with tanks HE, 88 AT, and all Artillery pieces. If used correctly this

results in devastating fire.

3. It is principally wrong not to enable on-board artillery to fire indirect. In the case of german

heavy howitzers (150 mm) the guns were very seldom placed farer away from the front then 4 km

and often relocated only below 1 km. This of course fits into the dimension of CM. Again this

would allow for additional realism and more possibilities in scenarios (Gamey inbalances can be

corrected by

purchase prizes easily).

4. More terrain types with variyng degree of concealment together with further refined

LOScalculations. More possibilities for open terrain battles. More terrain which give Inf

concealment when being prone while only partly restricting LOS for AVFs.

5. Active visible camouflage of all sorts of weapons for same reason as point 4.

6. Ability for mounted troops to shoot from vehicles, and proper loads for trucks (much more then

1 Squad infact).

7. Dynamic lighting visible and taken into LOS calculations

8. Turret down for tanks or generally fighting vehicles for observation purposes.

9. "Debug"-Mode to check AI-behaviour for scenario designers. Simply an additional battle

parameter where the player can see all the AI units all the time while AI behaves according to set

FOW settings.

10. Vehicle crews can remount an abandoned vehicle

11. Horses, bicycles, bikes

12. A small API-set:

- To read unit database (all values currently

visible during unitselection)

- To write to the map generator or map

selection (All the values currently

editable by the user)

- To write to the unit selection

Thus allowing 3rd party extensions for

campaigns and the like

13. Correct representation of relative plate

sizes on AFVs for hit determination. (eg.

Large T-34/85 turret, small T-34/76 turret).

14. Option to allow same "casualty"-rules as in night battles also for daylight battles. They are

obviously much much more realistic then the daylight rules.

15. More finetune options for Operations in determing new setup zones for next battle. (For

instance in the "Assault" mode the possibility to determine the weight of flank and middle and

treshold for cutoff units), now it's easely possible to have the whole force being cutoff although

not a single enemy unit was behind their line when previous battle ended).

16. New operation type "mixed" where scenario designer can determine the sequence of attacker

(thus operations where attacker can actually change from battle to battle) either unknown or

known to the player. To simulate counterattacks something completely missing now. Actually the

same should also be possible in battles where a certain formation (for instance reinforcments)

event triggered would counterattack.

17. Moving vehicles produce dust dependend of region and groundconditions. Heavy weapons like

tanks, artillery shells and the like produce a lot of smoke which could change a battlefield

dramatically LOS wise..., nice to see in open terrain battles...

Greets

Daniel

[ April 09, 2003, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Boris Balaban]

Mouth full aka_tom_w

[JonS]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

* NO more Borg Spotting (Relative Spotting somehow in some GOOD/REAL way implimented )

I've been idly thinking about this over the last year or so, and have so far come up with the following:

A) DURING ORDERS PHASE:

1) enemy units that all friendly units have seen* show up as a normal unit model.

2) Any enemy unit that not all friendly units have seen shows up as a generic nationality marker.

3) When you click on a friendly unit, all the units that it has seen switch from been a generic marker to being the 3D model for the unit spotted. So, as you click from unit to unit, you get enemy units popping up or reverting back to the icon, depending on what the unit selected can see and has noticed. Also, a unit that hasn't noticed a particular enemy unit can still 'area fire' at the nationality icon (simulating the "Hey Joe - he's in that bunch of trees, just shoot in there" kind of fire-control orders), but this is natually neither accurate nor effective.

DURING MOVIE PLAYBACK:

4) All enemy units that can be seen by at least one friendly unit show up as the appropriate 3D model.

5) All enemy units that cannot be seen by any friendly unit, but which have previously been seen (i.e. they have moved out of LOS), are represented by the nationality marker. Essentially, there is no change to movie playback compared to what we already have. The reason for this is to keep the movies looking attractive (lots of 3D models, relativly few generic icons).

Regards

JonS

* 'have seen' is an important distinction from 'can see.' To be in the 'can see' category, one unit must simply have a valid LOS to another. to be in the 'have seen' category, the 'can see' rule must apply, and the unit must have noticed the target.

[Halberdier]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

This thread just would not be complete without this feature request list

The NEW CMII engine possible new features like:

[snipped a brainfull]

10. Vehicle crews can remount an abandoned vehicle

[snipped a brainfull]

Daniel

I would just like to add:

10.1. Gun crews can re-man abandoned guns.

and

* Ammo resupply during battle (for those long ones)

* Ammo tracking for different ammo types within squads

* Ammo for guns lost when guns are moved during battle

* Sound delays from explosions and gunfire based on distance. Not a big deal, but it adds to depth perception. Seeing thunder and lightning simultaneously (as in most movies) seems so two-dimensional.

cheers!

-gabe-

[Robert Isenberg]

The NEW CMII engine possible new features like:

a slider to give the AI in single player games an aggressiveness

* NO more Borg Spotting (Relative Spotting somehow in some GOOD/REAL way implimented ) * Toggle on/off Contour/Elevation lines on the Map

*Terrain Fog of War, (if you don't have friendlies looking at it you don't know if it is there)

>this will only make a big differance if visual range is greatly impeaded

*Make the Map Editor WAY more user friendly, incorporate things like the new Mapping Mission app (only on the PC so far) into the new game engine. Why not try to make the Map Editor in CMII more like the GREAT interface in Sim City. Maybe hire one person JUST to do the Map Editor as it needs a complete overhaul and rewrite from the ground up IMHO

* LOS & LOF blocked by LIVE AFV's (i.e. infantry have "some" cover behind live and dead vehicles that are not burning)

* Same as above, vehicles and other units CANNOT shoot through other live or dead vehicles that are not burning. (Dynamic LOS)

* Full movie replay

Yes this is at the head of my wish list

* Roster (for those would think they need it)

* Multi-turreted vehicles like the Allied Grant and Lee

I believe this is being implmented in CMAK so CMx2 should have it

* Amphibious units

* Realistic modelling of visibility at night

* Dynamic lighting effects (two fold:

i. As visual effect and more important

ii. Integration into fire- and detection algorithms

*Change PBEM format to only require two e-mails per turn

I don't see it happening because other wise you would be making the game a I go /you go game which is what makes CM much better than what has come before

* Collision detection for all projectiles, even those that would hit

*Smaller terrain tiles ( 10 x 10 m or better )

*Risk of bogging calculated and determined by greater fidelity in Mean Maximum Pressure theory (Model?) (Note: One example he gives is the Elephant having only 12% heavier nomimal ground pressure (NGP, weight per track area) than a King Tiger, but having a mean maximum ground pressure (MMP) approx double, at 370 compared to 184. They more or less have the same weight and track

area, but the suspension designs are quite different.)

1. It is absolutely necessary to give the Scenario-Designer more control over AI behaviour and

setup.

Example: AI in Operations usually does a very poor setup (If there is wood AI will cramp

everything in it), true one can work around, but with open maps this becomes a problem of first

order.

Solution: The designer can suggest zones of terrain suitable for setup.

Also some guidelines for attacking/defending AI would be great, like areas of approach, objective

zones, type of general AI behaviour like stubborn defense, counterattack, timings and the like.

This is a wide field but in general leave AI as is (No hope of much improvement in this field) but

enable more options during scenario design

All this together would enable much more challenging AI-battles and more possibilities to

generate more historic acurate battles (I mostly play the AI, since PBEMs go forever and need a

lot of discipline especially for the loosing side...). Covered arcs set by scenario designer would be

great.

2. Atleast direct firing Artillery pieces should be able to fire delayed fuzed shells (when firing a

flat trajectory shell bounces off the ground, at first impact fuze is activated). This was done very

often on the german side with tanks HE, 88 AT, and all Artillery pieces. If used correctly this

results in devastating fire.

3. It is principally wrong not to enable on-board artillery to fire indirect. In the case of german

heavy howitzers (150 mm) the guns were very seldom placed farer away from the front then 4 km

and often relocated only below 1 km. This of course fits into the dimension of CM. Again this

would allow for additional realism and more possibilities in scenarios (Gamey inbalances can be

corrected by

purchase prizes easily).

4. More terrain types with variyng degree of concealment together with further refined

LOScalculations. More possibilities for open terrain battles. More terrain which give Inf

concealment when being prone while only partly restricting LOS for AVFs.

5. Active visible camouflage of all sorts of weapons for same reason as point 4.

6. Ability for mounted troops to shoot from vehicles, and proper loads for trucks (much more then

1 Squad infact).

7. Dynamic lighting visible and taken into LOS calculations

8. Turret down for tanks or generally fighting vehicles for observation purposes.

9. "Debug"-Mode to check AI-behaviour for scenario designers. Simply an additional battle

parameter where the player can see all the AI units all the time while AI behaves according to set

FOW settings.

10. Vehicle crews can remount an abandoned vehicle

It is most likely that some thing is broken that's why they abandoned it(though it might be quickly repaired just not the time frame of a game

11. Horses, bicycles, bikes

this equipment dies quickly and would be abandoned when any shooting started and would panic way too easily

12. A small API-set:

- To read unit database (all values currently

visible during unitselection)

- To write to the map generator or map

selection (All the values currently

editable by the user)

- To write to the unit selection

Thus allowing 3rd party extensions for

campaigns and the like

13. Correct representation of relative plate

sizes on AFVs for hit determination. (eg.

Large T-34/85 turret, small T-34/76 turret).

14. Option to allow same "casualty"-rules as in night battles also for daylight battles. They are

obviously much much more realistic then the daylight rules.

15. More finetune options for Operations in determing new setup zones for next battle. (For

instance in the "Assault" mode the possibility to determine the weight of flank and middle and

treshold for cutoff units), now it's easely possible to have the whole force being cutoff although

not a single enemy unit was behind their line when previous battle ended).

16. New operation type "mixed" where scenario designer can determine the sequence of attacker

(thus operations where attacker can actually change from battle to battle) either unknown or

known to the player. To simulate counterattacks something completely missing now. Actually the

same should also be possible in battles where a certain formation (for instance reinforcments)

event triggered would counterattack.

17. Moving vehicles produce dust dependend of region and groundconditions. Heavy weapons like

tanks, artillery shells and the like produce a lot of smoke which could change a battlefield

dramatically LOS wise..., nice to see in open terrain battles...

Greets

Daniel

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

* NO more Borg Spotting (Relative Spotting somehow in some GOOD/REAL way implimented )

Regards

JonS

* 'have seen' is an important distinction from 'can see.' To be in the 'can see' category, one unit must simply have a valid LOS to another. to be in the 'have seen' category, the 'can see' rule must apply, and the unit must have noticed the target. </font>

[Juardis]

I've posted my suggestions on different threads, but here's some that I can think of off the top of my head.

The ability to model missiles. Mainly SAMs. I'm thinking CMX2 can be used for Korea and beyond, and SAMs (especially shoulder mounted missiles) are somewhat important. Along the lines of looking forward, the ability to model helicopters can be very important depending on how far beyond WWII we go.

Would still like to see cliffs for rangers to climb.

A dynamic lighting system for star bursts, rising/setting sun, moonlight effects.

Modular so that it can easily accommodate new vehicles/units on the fly.

A hook into an operational level game so that we can have a true campaign, which also means troop quality must be tracked and allowed to increase/decrease depending on how long they survive.

Variable movie times. Range from 1 minute to 10 minutes so as to simulate hour long battles in a reasonable amount of time (and for that hands off frustrating feel of commanding troops without God-like intervention).

Borg spotting eliminated (biggie).

Different levels of STRAT AI for single player games....ranging from defensive to all out attacking.

Different victory conditions (like scouting, capturing prisoners, keeping a bridge whole, blowing a bridge, keeping some structure intact (fuel depot?))

[aka_tom_w]

Oh I like that Idea:

!!

"Variable movie times. Range from 1 minute to 10 minutes so as to simulate hour long battles in a reasonable amount of time (and for that hands off frustrating feel of commanding troops without God-like intervention)."

IF (BIG IF) there were some SOPS or additional orders you could give maybe the player/user could like the game play out with the existing orders for up to 10 minutes!!!

I like it.

maybe a setting that allows the length of the movie to be any value in ONE minute incriments between 1 minute and 10 minutes.

I would think a 5 minute movie would be ideal.

Does anyone else here agree that might "sort" of be more realistic and combined with the elimination of the "borg" spotting problem that would offer ONE helluva a THRILL ride if you could leave your units alone (after your carefully chosen ORDERS!) to fend for themselves for FIVE (5) (or up to TEN 10) action packed minutes of white knuckle/nail biting combat action???? :eek:

Does anyone else here see the FUN or value of that???

-tom w

[ April 10, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[tar]

Another idea inspired by some of Tom_W's

Not only have live AFVs intefere with Line of Fire, but also have a danger zone from small arms fire along the line of Fire.

This would require setting up fire lanes and assault lanes on the attack. No more cavalierly shooting "over the heads" of your assaulting troops. The danger of shooting at the enemy from two completely opposite directions.

[tar]

While I'm at it, a couple more scenario design ideas:

Allow players to purchase troops in designed scenarios. Allow this in addition to troops provided by the scenario designer. In other words, allow scenario designers to give players the ability to purchase some additional optional troops to allow for some differentiation of designed scenarios.

For example, the scenario comes with say, two companies of troops along with 250 unrestricted points. Or with 200 fortification points and 120 armor points.

[flamingknives]

tar, you can do this in CM:BB, AFAIK.

Load a QB with options to buy forces set as you wish, then import a map with troops already on it.

Cake. Piece of.

[Juardis]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Does anyone else here agree that might "sort" of be more realistic and combined with the elimination of the "borg" spotting problem that would offer ONE helluva a THRILL ride if you could leave your units alone (after your carefully chosen ORDERS!) to fend for themselves for FIVE (5) (or up to TEN 10) action packed minutes of white knuckle/nail biting combat action???? :eek:

Does anyone else here see the FUN or value of that???

-tom w

I agree that 5 minutes would probably be ideal. But I guess it depends. And yes, the pucker factor would increase greatly . Would be a good way to simulate a 4 hour fire fight in a reasonable amount of time too.

[Volker]

Well, what I think you guys are looking for is not a 5 Min, or 10 min replay but rather Fast Forward, and Rewined Buttons, that way you can speed up if you wish. And to add to that, you could go the WCIII replay way, by adding a Speed button, you could watch everything at x2 times the normal speed, or x3 or even x4, to really speed watch the whole battle again.

[Victor Semensi]

I'd like to have the ability to have random reinforcements enter quick battles. Something like, '500 pts mech enter from turns 5 - 20' with a percent chance of arrival.

[Bruce70]

I like the 5 minute turns idea but only if the friendly AI is significantly improved and more autonomous.

If the AI is improved (and in the spirit of some sort of campaignm ) the ability to command only some of the friendly units on the battlefield would be good also. eg. 'You are in command of a tank platoon following the orders of the coy commander' or 'you command one coy in a btn assault'. There would have to be some penalties for not following orders and/or failing to achieve objectives. This would be one way of being involved in larger battles without having to wait forever for your opponent to issue his orders.

And still on the subject of improved AI, you should be able to give orders to a unit and allow that unit's CO to give the appropriate orders to units under his command (and so on) ala Airborne Assault. Again this would speed up large multiplayer battles. Maybe it would be a good idea to say that you can only alter the orders of X units per turn, that way you would need to concentrate on giving orders to the units under your direct command and could only take direct control of some small number of sub-units.

PS I think CMX2 needs its own discussion forum.

[Brent Pollock]

Here're a couple ideas for additions to have in CMX2:

In the OB section, I'd like an option for random platoons of vehicles. What I have in mind is a line that might read something like, "Heavy Tank Platoon", "Armoured Car Platoon" or "Assault Gun Platoon". Its cost would reflect the troop quality and weighted availability of all relevant vehicles. It would be a bit of a gamble; you might get the good stuff for a cut price or you might end up with crap.

Also, on a more detailed level, I'd like randomly mixed vehicle platoons. For instance, if you bought a Pv IV F1 platoon, you might get a few substituted with Pz IV E. This would reflect the heterogeneity that might occur due to incomplete delivery of replacements, battle damage repair rotation or formation of ad hoc battlegroups.

Similar randomisation could occur for gun sections or infantry units. For example, if you purcahsed a Rifle Company, it might have on of the platoons replaced by a SMG platoon.

Too goofy?

[gibsonm]

Another one for the list:

Buildings with interior access.

I'm getting bored with house to house fighting where the squad wanders out into the street (fire lane) in order to move into the next building (even though they share common internal walls).

It would be good to let suitably equipped units (say engineers) create breaches within and between buildings with substantial walls (say rowhouses) and ordinary inf could breach less well built walls.

[Volker]

I would like top see buildings with some furniture, and when two enemy squads meet in close combat, you can watch them use the furniture as cover, while fighting.

[Meach]

I agree with Brent. I would love to be able to purchase a AT Platoon or a AA Platoon with it's own command unit, as it is they seem to be attached but with no one to look after them apart from a Company commander who would have his hands full co-ordinating his attack. The random squad idea is good too and I like the idea of mixed tanks in a platoon as well. I hope his ideas are carried on and implemented.

What about replacing a LMG with an anti-tank rifle in a platoon? or the SMG with a sniper rifle. Make them integral to the squad rather than individuals? Veteran squads would have picked up various pieces of kit as they went from battle to battle and should be allowed some ability to reflect there unorthodox methods of fighting through there equipment.

[MrNoobie]

i didnt read everything but i want lockable views. uhm what else ah yes, i would like to use the numbers as a way of organizing like in other RTS games. example: shift-1 group 1 shift-2 group 2 etc, dont like the plus and minus sign to get to everybody

[pcpilot]

I would like to see amphibious vessels and vehicles like the Dukw, LCVP, and LCM's, as well as Duplex Drive Shermans. There was a LOT of amphib warfare thru out Europe and the Med. To not have this ability is not being able to play some key fights like Anzio, The Torch landings, Sicily, Dieppe, Norway for the Germans, and of course Normandy and Southern France. The Dukw would carry a squad, the lcvp a platoon, and the LCM a tank, truck, etc. Have maybe gunfire support modeled for offshore rocket lauching boats, forgot what they were called, as well as DD's, CA's, BB's.

I would also like to see paratrooopers that are dropped into combat. If we cant watch them come down, at least allow us to choose the drop zone and model the area winddrift, etc. Then have the units appear where they came down. Maybe with a turn to recover from the drop. There would also be their arms canisters. Dont forget gliders too. If they cant be modeled, (you wusses, you call yourselfs programmers?? :0) ), you can at least model again the drop areas where they come down and have the unit appear where it landed. These gliders would also allow you to carry light vehicles like the jeep or Bren carrier, and also light ATG's.

One last thing, when I was trying to make a scenario from Squad Leader, I found that having a simple "Y" road junction would have helped a LOT! Add a damn "Y" road junction fer cryin out loud, hehe.

It would also be nice once CMAK comes out with multi turreted support, if BTS would kindly model the Soviet land battleships for use in CMAK. Why? Because the terrain in CMAK Italy is similar, though no steppe I understand, to Russia. This, and an ability to import models from CMBB would allow scenarios to be made for the east front with the new game.

...just a thought.

[ April 11, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: pcpilot ]

[Runyan99]

Here is the wishlist for one long time CMer:

1) Model each soldier within the squad, if not graphically, then at least 'under the hood'. The current method of all men in a squad firing at the same time in a burst is really quite an abstraction that needs to be improved.

2) More detailed and realistic buidlings. The square block houses that CM currently has are beginning to look pretty tired.

3) 3-D trenches, foxholes and shellholes. CMBB trenches in particular are pretty ugly.

4) Smaller terrain tiles (10x10 meters or better)

5) More flexibility in the scenario editor. The ability to cut and paste terrain. The ability to exchange maps between scenarios and operations.

6) Burning tanks that 'cook off' their ammunition occasionally.

7) Dynamic lighting for fires, flares, explosions, etc.

8) Full battle replay.

[ April 12, 2003, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[Volker]

I would like to see Dynamic Water effects too, running rivers, and seeing bullets hit the water, and Arty making a huge splash. lets not forget Lightning for them rainy nights.