aka_tom_w Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 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 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 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 [ February 16, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Let's review my own personal wish list for CM3: Working wristwatches on all troops. Civilians (especially in cities). For modern warfare, random CNN news trucks too. Tall chain link/wooden fencing. Proper railway crossings Female civilians with cloths that go transparent when you get close (like house walls do now). Random appearance of speeding civilian sedan filled wih drunken cossaks, accompanied by the tune "Foggy Mountain Breakdown". Large watercraft (ferrys, barges, gunboats, LSTs). Background music, like in adventure movies. Power crystals hidden under waterfalls. More variety in body type (short solidiers, fat soldiers, tall soldiers, etc.) More and different placeable doodads for ambiance: nonworking 3-D cars, trucks, airplanes, lamp posts, billboards, gas stations, etc.. Architecturally pleasing houses: Sheds, dormers, porches, foyers, stables, garages. AND I'd like it all to run on a 4 year old mac G3. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrNoobie Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 my only wish Keep it at WWII 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Murray Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Just one wish: PROJECTILE VOMITING !!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by MrNoobie: my only wish Keep it at WWII Yes please, and I'll have mine with the "Whole Enchillada" if you don't mind (Thats EVERY WWII theatre except the PTO in CMII ) its nice to dream -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Great idea, Tom. Is this now the official Winecape-endorsed CM3 Request Thread? If so I have much typing (actually cutting and pasting ) to do! - Chris 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 12, 2003 Author Share Posted February 12, 2003 Originally posted by Wolfe: Great idea, Tom. Is this now the official Winecape-endorsed CM3 Request Thread? If so I have much typing (actually cutting and pasting ) to do! - Chris Well actually.... I thought this was "Just Another CMII Feature Request list thread " -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Some real ultimate power Ninjas would be great cos I read this book and it said that the Germans had sum and thats why they kicked so much as at the beginning of the war, that and they were cool... and by cool I mean totally sweet. *terrain fog of war...? Wouldnt that be bad? more C&C like? I mean didnt most people fightin in Russia have a pretty good idea of the terrain features (especially russians??) Other places too... You know reconnaisance and whatnot are used in wars.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 I'd really love to see deformable tree tiles. Arty strikes and tanks and such could leave a nice, stump ridden, broken branch, scorched earth looking ruin of the forests. I'd like to see tall grass or wheat fields afford better blocking of LOS. It may not offer much protection from bullets and such but should be harder to spot soldiers in. I'd also like to see a new orhcard tree tile introduced. Same as light trees but fruit baring. Absolutely no reason other than aesthetics. Stream tiles. A better representation of Bocage. If the tiles are made 10x10 or smaller I think bocage heavy maps would be much more appealing graphically. Scenario designers would be able to get that earthy gully look that you see in all the pictures. Oooh and how about a set of specific buildings that could be placed amongst the other common ones. Kinda like the church. A barn would be a good start. Maybe a couple types of barns. Windmills and haystacks would be neat too. Higgins boats. I know the argument but it would still be very cool. Beach tiles!! Damn I better shut up now before my head explodes! Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigrii Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Clickable planes (so can see kills, see plane itself, damage, etc.). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 aka tom w wrote: * Multi-turreted vehicles like the Allied Grant and LeeFilling in for the normal "Mr Picky" I feel it necessary to point out that the M3 Lee & Grant still only had the one turret but did have multiple guns. I assume what you're looking for therefore is the ability for a single unit to choose multiple targets if they have more than one gun. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: Female civilians with cloths that go transparent when you get close (like house walls do now). Brilliant! If this would be in, who cares about the rest. :cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Juju: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD: Female civilians with cloths that go transparent when you get close (like house walls do now). Brilliant! If this would be in, who cares about the rest. :cool: </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Pusher Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 I would like to see sound effects that change with relation to environment. So that a grenade that explodes in a small heavy building will sound different (and much louder) to one that explodes outside in the snow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Balaban Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Able to print out (or save a text file) the OOB any time and what condition the unit is in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barleyman Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Campaign wrapper for the UI. Would make solo play a lot more interesting even if it's just the same as with original steel panthers. Command line loading of PBEM files. Dammit. Not having this is Just Plain Stupid. Takes 1 hour to code, tops, and then you can associate your pbem files with CMBB! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 *Speed of sound *Cold War Era *Terraces *Extra ammo loads for mechanized mortars and guns, provided transport vehicle is nearby. *Dismountable weapons/vehicle crew (Bren gun carriers, scouting vehicle crews) *AI treating walls etc. as cover. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 My only request would be the option of saving a scenario in an open file format. (PBEM game would still be encrypted). That way tools such as Mapping Mission can be expanded to create entire scenarios instead of just maps. Either that or tools to generate the game file for BCR's campaign rules. Aaron 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Hi, (First an apology, I have not had time to properly read all the above posts, very short of time as usual, so may be repeating comments others have already made. Sorry. ) I think the list that started this thread is a very good one, I would be happy to second it. However, there are two additions that I would place in the top four priority list, after the end to Borg Spotting and some form of Toggled Grid/Contour feature to spot undulations more easily/realistically. They are Live Team Play, and the ability to Save Forces from Battles of any type. By Live Team Play I mean what all have no doubt already realized, 2-4 players on each side in a CM battle. This would be fun, and also add to the confusion of war. If there were four players on each side, then one may play the battalion commander and also control the artillery spotters. The other three could take a company each… something along the above lines. Each player only being able to see what the units he individually commands can see. The ability to Save Forces from Battles, i. e. after a battle was over one could Save the Forces on each side and then use them again, or edit them and use them again in another subsequent CM battle. Importantly, this would allow individuals to construct their own operations with great ease. Combine this feature with the stunning Mapping Mission add-on, from Leland, for CMBB allowing one to build 20km by 20km CMBB maps and then copy and paste any section you wish into the CMBB editor and small groups of CM chums could very easily construct high quality operations. BTW, as I believe someone above suggested, in the perfect world, the ability to play a genuine Operational Game, manoeuvre units being battalions and such, one mile to the hex and all, then zoom down a scale to fight any given contact battle as a CM battle, would be stunning. I have suggested the above to both Steve of BFC and Dave of Panther Games; however, neither is very keen. They both say they would be willing to consider it, but there was not much chance, do not hold your breath. Remember BFC is a very small organisations, just five of them, so a new and even more stunning CM engine is all that can reasonably be asked for , in my view. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Well actually.... I thought this was "Just Another CMII Feature Request list thread "Ahhh. Little did you realize ... Nearly all of these ideas were written down before the CMBB demo came out, so some suggestions may already be covered by the current game engine. I marked the ones that I found are already addressed in CMBB, but left them in for posterity's sake. Hopefully this doesn't repeat too much of what's already been suggested. A few humble suggestions for a great game. Previous suggestion thread: Dream List for CMBB and Beyond Most recent suggestion thread: Some thoughts about the next generation of thie engine Graphics/Rendering Engine * Pre-rendered shadowed areas on map. Allows a unit to "hide" in plain sight in a shadowed area (ala Thief). Shadows at dawn/dusk can be particularly harsh and difficult to see objects in. Could be affected by position of sun (see Editor/Terrain section below). The map itself would likely have to be "compiled" so the game can understand which tiles have shadows, and how dark the shadowed areas are. * Adjustible texture sizes (tiny-huge). Can save lots of VRAM. Would be nice to be able to choose between which textures should be large or small (e.g. have different categories like AFVs, infantry, buildings, ground, and trees to be able to really customize the game). * Adjustible texture LOD slider. This can be adjusted (forced) on many modern graphics cards, but it's nice to have it in-game. * More MIP-map levels. The texture shimmer, particularly in the trees, has got to go. * Alpha blends. Allows blending of alpha textures to reduce texture shimmer. Particularly useful for multi-sample AA cards that can't do super-sampling. * Texture compression. 64MB isn't enough for hi-res mods (particularly the ground) even in CMBO. Outside of DXT1, S3TC is probably the most widely supported (and doesn't cause bad banding on Geforce cards like DXT1). But please don't pre-compress the textures (ala Unreal Tournament) otherwise Voodoo 4/5 owners can't use S3TC. * Polygon compression (or whatever it's called). High-poly count models can saturate the AGP bus as well as kill CPU performance. * T&L can help with high poly models. * Bump mapping can help greatly with the look of ground textures; helping to get rid of that ever-annoying complaint of playing on a pool-top table (though the doodads really do a lot for this; much more than I thought they might). Vehicles could also benefit from bump-mapping. Dot-3 is the most widely supported hardware type of bump-mapping, AFAIK. * Support for Surround Gaming (Parhelia's 3 monitor setup). * Choice of enabling decals (texture patches) showing scorched HE/AP hits (and even penetrations) on buildings and AFVs as well as showing tank tracks on the ground (just for aesthetics, not gameplay). Choice between no decals, temporary decals, and permanent decals. Temporary decals last for one turn; permanent ones throughout the scenario/op. It's fluff, but it's cool fluff. * Vertex/Pixel shaders: only supported in the newest video cards, and is still under development, but can be useful for particle effects and explosions. * Stencil buffer shadows for units. * Some very high polygon models (particularly the more important AFVs (Tiger, Panther, Sherman, etc.)). Allow choice between high-poly models and the lower poly models (like ones that currently exist). So for machines that have the CPU and/or T&L video card to handle it, the high poly models would add some very nice visuals, but not overpower slower machines who could use the lower poly models instead. Of course, the different models would each require a different set of BMPs, which would mean a lot more work, but it would be worth it. * A large in-game menu (a la Serious Sam or Return to Castle Wolfenstein) would be needed to turn on/off many of the new graphical features to fit various hardware setups. It would also be nice to be able to customize controls (re-assign keys to different functions) as well as change behaviour (so screen scrolls sideways rather than rotates when mouse is at the edge of the screen without having to hold down the Shift key). More customization, please. * Dozens of defined resolutions. If CMII is to be OpenGL, I believe you need to define all the resolutions the game can run at rather than just using the default Windows ones like you can for Direct-X. Would like many of the unusual resolutions like 920x690, 960x720, 1080x810, 1200x900, 1360x1020, 1440x1080, 1536x1152, 1704x1278, 1792x1344, 1800x1350, 1856x1392, 1920x1440, and 2048x1536 to go along with 1024x768, 1280x960, and 1600x1200. As well as widescreen ones like 852x480 (or 853x480), 960x540, 1280x720, 1360x768 (or 1366x768), 1920x1080, and 1920x1200. - Chris [ February 13, 2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 ... continued Editor and Terrain/Environment * Essentially all of the suggestions listed in this section are intended to give the landscape more variety and interest (along with enhancing gameplay). The more variety and subtle touches that can be built onto the terrain the better the game will look, feel, and play. [NIX! - already at 1.25m in CMBB?] * Minimum terrain elevations down to 1m in height. * Ability to terraform the landscape while in the 3D view in order to fine-tune the ground. In Terraform mode, the terrain would be sectioned into 1mx1m squares where you can grab a corner of one (or more) squares and increase or decrease the height of this one square. Would make for some very fine detail. May be too much work to bother with, though. * A Terrain mode that allows you to place and orient terrain features (bocage, walls, houses) while in the 3D portion of the editor. In Normal editor mode, you can place and orient the units (same as now). In Terrain mode, you can place and orient terrain objects (houses, etc.). In Terraform mode, you can adjust the underlying terrain height. In Terraform mode, we would need to be able to turn on/off buildings, trees, etc. with the Hide command so you can see the underlying landscape better. * Ability to create long gentle slopes of ground rather than "terraced" areas (in 3D Terraform mode). * Ability to create harshly terraced areas that make movement similar to climbing over a wall (in 3D Terraform mode). * Ability to smooth parts of the ground (get rid of sharp peaks and valleys). * New terrain features like stairs/steps and paths (both affecting movement) and railings (aesthetic only). * Multiple different color grass tile types (same LOS and movement characteristics) for a more visually varied landscape. * Multiple different color water tiles (including muddy) for aesthetics. * Trees with a thick canopy should have little to no lower branches with leaves on them for trees in the middle of a stand. Only those on the exterior of the treed area are fully foliated. * An idea to cover the above: Add a vertical rectangular polygon to the "edge" of dense tree tiles (woods/pines) that is mostly transparent, but will allow you to paint on static trees for the edge of a stand of trees. That way, the individual tree sprites in the middle of the tile can still face the camera, but the edge trees stay static and provide more visual cover. Does that make any sense? * Light Trees: compromise between scattered trees and woods. Prevents mortars from firing inside because of canopy (see Unit Behavior section below), but field guns are not prevented from firing at targets they can see (see Unit Behavior section below). LOS is more restricted than Scattered Trees, but not as much as Woods. Allows slow movement of AFVs, but provides better hiding capabilities for AFVs and cover for infantry than Scattered Trees currently does. * Orchard: Like Light Trees tile, but allows mortars normal operation. * Swamp: a marsh with tall thin trees and a high canopy. Mortar fire restricted. [NIX? - already in CMBB?] * Tall grass: same as wheat, but different BMP texture. * Cornfields: essentially very tall grass with very limited LOS. No way of seeing over unless you're on a higher level. * Vineyard: like a series of closely spaced hedges; allows normal movement in one direction, but slows it going over/through the vines. * Tall brick/stone wall: completely blocks LOS and hinders movement, but not as badly as bocage. Has a dedicated gate tile that is easily moved through. Can be rubbled (wholly or partially, creating a smaller wall) by HE. * Tall hedge: blocks LOS like bocage, but easier to travel through. * Ability to place soft ground, hard ground, muddy, churned muddy, rocky, rough, wet, snow, flooded, grassy, etc. areas over existing tiles which can affect that specific tile (i.e affect the chance of bogging rather than have whole map as "mud"). These tiles are an "Overlay Tile" and are placed like laying a minefield in the center of a tile, but overlay (and therefore modify) the entire tile. It modifies the existing tile's features so you can have -say- a forest tile that is more rocky than the surrounding forest. Allows more interesting and varied maps without having to create additional dedicated terrain types. A BMP of the overlay would show which type of overlay it is (mud, water, etc.), but would mostly be transparent so you can also see the regular tile underneath. And when viewing the area with the LOS key, the display would say "Rocky Tall Pines" or "Muddy Road" for that tile. The overlays won't always make sense, of course (a wet tile on water would be pointless), but it gives a scenario designer much more flexibility without adding three trillion different terrain tiles for every conceivable circumstance. ... * soft ground - Increases chance of bogging, but doesn't affect movement. BMP similar to mud or choppy ground or maybe marsh. ... * hard ground - Decreases chance of bogging (useful to modify soft sandy areas that might bog a vehicle), and prevents foxholes and buried minefields. BMP could look like gravel. ... * muddy - Slows movement and increases chance of bogging. ... * churned muddy - Intended for roads and near roads. Really slows AFV movement and significantly increases chance of bogging. ... * rocky - Makes spotting on-surface minefields (e.g. daisy-chain) harder. Slows vehicle movement and increases bogging chance. Does not add to cover. ... * rough - Prevents foxholes/minefields and prevents vehicle movement. Adds to cover. Essentially the same as the current rough tile type. ... * wet - Prevents foxholes/minefields. Increases chance of bogging. ... * snow - Adds snow to tile or deepens existing snow in tile. ... * flooded - Prevents vehicle movement through. No foxholes/minefields. Severely slows movement. ... * grassy - Adds to concealment. Useful for river deltas, marshes, adding to tree undergrowth. * Not sure if the overlays should be allowed to overlay each other. A rocky grassy wet Scattered Trees tile? Hmmm. Maybe allowing only one overlay per tile would be best. * The snow overlay tile could have light, medium, and heavy snow overlays that not only have different BMPs, but are shown at different levels above the existing ground. Light snow lays directly on the ground like existing tree bases. Medium would come up to an infantry man's shins or knees. Heavy could be waist-deep (though that may cover up sitting MG units or any prone troops, so maybe the unit bases could still be visible above the snow level?). Or maybe the "Snow Depth" can be toggled on/off, just showing the snowy BMP sitting on top of the ground like tree bases currently do. I really do think it's important to find some way to give snow some real visual depth without destroying playability. * Streams, paths (through woods), and gully/ditch features that are placed just like trenches. * Trenches/ditches/gun pits/foxholes/streams that are truly 3D. * Like the above overlay tiles, some textures that can be placed on a map just for aesthetic purposes (i.e. seaweed on beach which neither affects LOS nor movement, just sits there and looks pretty). Foamy water where water meets the beach (would be nice if it were animated too). Fields of low-growing wild flowers, vegetable gardens, etc. * Change the existing "Snow" tiles that are used when snow is on the ground to a map-wide "overlay" type that lays on top of existing ground like tree bases. Unlike the above overlays, this is for the entire map, and not just for one tile. This gets rid of the existing dedicated white snow tiles whenever snow is on the ground in a scenario and replaces them with normal winter ground (brown grass, wilted brush, and partly frozen marsh tiles instead of all winter white or ice). These tiles would then be overlayed with the partly transparent snow overlays. Light snow would still show through a good amount of ground underneath. Medium and Heavy snow would be opaque, and hover higher above the ground to show their depth (height could be toggled on/off). * In addition you could also use the Snow overlay (the individual one that is laid like a minefield) on top of "normal" snow to create deeper snow on some tiles. So you would have the brown grass underneath, a partly transparent (Light snow) or opaque (deeper snow) map-wide overlay and then the Snow overlay on top adding to the depth of that particular tile. If the snow depth is already at max, however, the additional Snow overlay doodad would do nothing. * And how about small 'snow drift' doodads set at an angle to the ground they sit on next to buildings and walls. The wind direction would determine where these "drifts" are placed on the map. So, like pre-rendered shadowed areas on a map mentioned above, the map would have to be "compiled" in order to place the drifts. Or maybe they could be like units: placed and oriented like barbed wire? * Separate BMP files for lightly snowy trees and tree bases (when light snow is on the ground) and heavily covered trees/bases (medium and heavy snows). * Ability to set in editor whether the trees have snow on them or not when snow is on the ground. If not, then use a separate tree BMP set that has no snow. All this allows a scenario author to create a widely varied snowy terrain. * 3-story buildings (or just ones higher than currently available). * Building walls should affect LOS and movement differently than the interior of the building (e.g. walls behave more like low stone walls: slows squad movement significantly, exposes infantry to incoming fire, and prohibits any useful return fire). This would obviously require the building wall to have a thickness of its own, making the useful interior space of the building smaller. Once the squad is inside the building, it can then receive the normal benefit of the structure. Also, the building wall could act like a stone wall: allowing a prone or hiding unit to have near zero exposure to fire, regardless of which side of the wall the unit is on (though the unit on the interior would naturally have more cover). This exposure percentage would change depending on whether the wall was partially destroyed or intact. * Movement through building walls should not be uniformly slow for all infantry; smaller squads/teams should be able to move through walls more quickly (e.g. fewer men have to fit through the same door). * Governmental building that is multi-story and has thick, nearly impassible exterior walls (e.g. behaves like bocage). One tile has dedicated door to allow ease of movement in and out. Upper and lower floors are separate, and cannot be fought between (e.g. you have to go upstairs in order to be able to see or engage enemy units on the upper floors). * Hmmm. Maybe travelling through a "door" into a structure could also be simulated for normal buildings too. Currently when you place buildings there is an orientation indicating a front of the building. So long as the BMP representing the front has a door on it and the "wall" section of the front actually indicates it is a door or passage when the LOS feature is used, maybe its movement characteristics can indeed be different than that of the other 3 walls. So a "door wall" could still raise a unit's exposure rating, but not inhibit movement or limit return fire nearly as much as a "wall" would. This could be disconcerting at first, but I think people could get used to it, particularly if the door side of the structure were truly 3D (i.e. have a step outside or have the door slightly inset into the wall). * Buildings of all sizes that have flat roofs which can be occupied by infantry. The flat roof could provide complete cover (like a wall) for units that are hiding or prone on the roof. * Buildings whose walls (all 4 sides and upper and lower segments) can collapse independently of each other. So you could have a 2-story building with a collapsed lower front and a collapsed upper rear of the structure, but the remaining part is still standing. And the segments can partially collapse, hindering LOS and providing some cover or wholly collapse, allowing full LOS into the interior of the structure. * Collapsed walls should be able to create Rubble on nearby tiles. * Light, Medium, and heavy rubble. Light rubble can be driven over by vehicles and is 2D. Medium is impassible for vehicles, and slows infantry, but doesn't provide much cover, and is somewhat 3D. Heavy rubble prevents vehicle movement and severely slows infantry movement, but provides very good cover, and is very 3D in nature. * More varied rubble types (wood, brick, and stone/concrete types depending on what type of building created them) within each category (light, medium, heavy). * Create a chance that the roof (and upper floors) can still remain standing if only one wall (or opposing, non-adjacent walls) collapses. * A small chance that the roof will collapse (from direct arty hit) without taking down any of the walls. * A small chance that buildings that have previously been damaged can collapse without being hit by further explosions (e.g. it falls just because of the previous damage). Chance increases with more damage to structure. * A small chance that damaged buildings can catch fire without receiving further fire or damage. Chance increases with more damage to structure. * Buildings/walls being rubbled should be a bit more random. Now it [seems like] it's a perfectly linear relationship between HE blast and building strength. A bit more randomness in when buildings collapse would be nice. * Ability to edit building walls individually to delete some or make some partially destroyed. Same for roofs. * Allow mortars to fire from within buildings that don't have a roof. * Ability to place and rotate buildings like a unit (will get rid of a number of redundant tile types). * Ability to "dig-in" a building (into a hillside) so only one side of the building can be entered. And the second story (or roof for flat 1-story building) can be entered directly if the adjoining terrain is high enough. * Set the phase of moon (full/half/quarter/new) in editor to affect overall LOS at night. * Set time of year and latitude/longitude in editor so it affects position of sun placement in the sky and therefore shadows. Ok, that's probably asking a lot. * The sun can change positions every 15 minutes, changing the shadowed areas of a map. * Express battle turns as time rather than turns (e.g. begins 6:45am, and ends at 7:15am). Toggleable option. - Chris 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 ... continued Editor and Terrain/Environment [NIX? - already in CMBB?] * Add light drizzle and driving rain to weather types. * Haze. Heat from desert ground can obscure distant objects. * Be able to specify which edge of the map friendly artillery is firing from and have the shell dispersal pattern match that. * In Operations, when deciding to draw the front lines for an attacker, the game should take as-yet uncrossed bridges into account, preventing areas of land across the bridge from being occupied at the beginning of a battle simply because the attacker is near the land. The river should prevent this from occuring unless the bridge is held. Would likely be messy as the bridge would probably need to be seen as an invisible flag to determine who holds it, but I think it is important to not allow an attacker a "free pass" over a river in an Op just because he holds land near a bend in the river. Ran into this in the Carentan Op in CMBO. * In Operations, not all friendly units should be pushed back to the "friendly edge" of the map if some are far behind enemy lines. Would be nice to be able to attack from multiple directions throughout an Op. * Ability to set reinforcement flags anywhere on a map in an Operation (so these units cannot be repositioned by the player). But keep the current Op Reinforcement system too. * Ability to orient reinforcement flags so units will be properly oriented when entering. * Ability to place "Trigger" flags that trigger specific events (arrival of reinforcements, higher/lower morale for one or both sides). Trigger flags can be invisible, viewable to one, or both sides. Flag can also be named with two different names (one for each side). Flag vanishes after goal met, and has no impact on game scoring. Can be used in Scenarios and Operations. Could be useful for "guiding" the AI. * More different size flags that have different point values. Click on flags to find their value (or have it displayed on or above the flag with text). * Ability to set number of turns a unit is present in a battle/op, afterwhich it vanishes whether it's been used or not (e.g. artillery assets). * Ability to set amount of ammunition a certain unit can have during an Operation (so no re-supply for that particular unit during the Op). * Major and minor terrain labels. Major labels are as they are now. Minor ones would be smaller, a different color, and fade with distance so they don't clutter the screen. * Ability to label reinforcement markers so the stupid scenario author can remember what the Hell they are for. * Hitting Return on a reinforcement marker should bring up a window (like the unit statistics window) that lists what units make up that reinforcement marker and what formation they are to arrive in (wedge, vee, column, etc.). * Reinforcement markers should display the reinforcement slot number (game already does this) as well as the nationality it represents (if multiple nationalities, use the predominant one). * Ability to randomize where reinforcements show up on the map. Multiple reinforcement markers that represent the same reinforcement units that allows you to place the flags at different spots on the map and give each flag a percentage (liklihood the reinforcement will show up at that spot). If you can split a squad, why not split a flag? * Be able to tell in-game which edges of the map are friendly (maybe like Landmarks). * Ability to customize reinforcement text messages (something other than "Reinforcements have arrived"). * Reinforcement slots could have an "Airborne" checkbox. For these flags, units would be placed on-map over a wider area to simulate air drops. How far away units would be from each other would be configurable (near, moderate, far). Units would also always land in half squads, forcing the player to reassemble them. A 'Flak' rating could also be set (none, low, moderate, high) causing casualties in some units and others to never actually arrive. Any units that land in marsh, flooded, or water tiles would be lost or suffer casualties. Would be really neat to see a unit float down with a parachute attached, but that may be pushing it. For glider troops, they would be whole units, but might take some casualties (or even be completely eliminated; showing up as a dead body graphic) when they appear on-map. * Fully transparent buildings. Especially in urban areas, it would be nice to be able to 'turn off' the buildings so you can more easily see all your units. Or make the structures semi-transparent as if they all have infantry in them. * Better visual identification of factories (which can be travelled between) vs. individual 2-story structures. Maybe make factories inherently taller so two buildings sitting next to each other can be more easily distinguished. * Auto terrain generator: ... * Don't place random water holes on the map. They look funny and just aren't needed, IMO. ... * Have options for selecting deep and very deep maps for long-distance engagements. ... * Better clumping of trees. ... * Less regularity of hills. And it would be nice to be able to select both the number of hills (few, average, many) as well as thier average size. Visuals, Sound, and Camera Stuff * Better particle effects (flying debris) for explosions and artillery impacts. Though it's much better in CMBB, collapsing building debris still looks too much like an explosion to me. * Different explosion graphics depending on what is hit. Rounds impacting water should send up a shower of water. Don't know if this would warrant a change in LOS like the dust clouds above, though. Rounds impacting ground should throw up dirt, not a fireball. Rounds impacting buildings should throw dirt and some chunky debris. [NIX? - already in CMBB?] * Different fire and smoke (shape of fire/smoke and color), depending on what is burning. Buildings that can "smoulder", not just burn intensely. Existing black oily smoke is good for vehicles. * Explosions at distance should not be heard immediately (speed of sound). You see the flash, then hear the sound after a short delay. Obviously only useful for explosions large enough to be heard at distance. Toggleable feature; some folks may find real-world physics disconcerting. * AFVs belch exhaust when starting movement. * Some dust is thrown up from ground when a tank/gun fires (unrelated to the smoke from the shell's propellant, which can hang around for a bit and obscure LOS. The dust is only for visual effect). * "Worm's-eye" view of the battlefield (Level 0) so tanks can roll-over the camera. * Toggleable Mouse-look feature to be able to turn the camera view with the mouse instead of having it controlling the cursor. Movement forward, back, left, and right would be handled by the keyboard. Toggle back (Shift-Whatever) to return to normal mouse control. * Smooth zooming. Use Shift key for smooth zoom, no Shift for regular transition. * More zoom levels. Including zoom out to create fish-bowl effect. Also would like to see more camera movement available when fully zoomed (currently very limited when looking up/down when zoomed). * Smooth level transitions between adjacent levels (i.e. from 3 to 4); like smooth zooming above. Currently exists if you click the on-screen buttons, but would be nice to have as keys. Use Shift key for smooth level transition. * Ability to look up into the sky. * Ability to lock view to tank hull as well as its turret (i.e. you can watch from the tank but not have the viewpoint turn along with the turret). * Ability to lock onto and "ride" the shell from a gun or tank into the target. Fun! * A command that sends you back to the last camera position. So if you select a unit and hit the Tab key to lock the view to that unit but then be able to go back to your previous spot by hitting the 'Previous' key. * More incidental sounds (e.g. "chatter" for a gun crew while reloading the gun. MG crew member pointing out the enemy squad moving on the right, causing the MG to turn and engage the target, etc.). * Doodads that fade and then disappear as distance increases (a la Serious Sam 2) instead of popping on and off as they do now. * Enemy 'Eliminated' text in green (or some other color than red) so it's easier to tell them apart from your own. * Different color text for low and out of ammo units. * Different color font for eliminated units (say grey) so it's easier to see the panicked/routed unit text. * Different colored bases for enemy sound contacts. * Different color bases for captured enemy units. * 3D bases. - Chris\ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 ... continued Unit Interaction with Environment * Glare from sun affects LOS/spotting when looking into the sun. * Skylining. Spotting (but not necessarily identification) of enemy units is increased if they're silhouetted against the sky. Very handy at dawn/dusk. * Snow on the ground increases (slightly) spotting ability at night. * Secondary vehicle explosions affect nearby units (possibly injuring, but mostly supressing). * Heavy shelling of forested areas can reduce the area to a different tile type (e.g. Woods turn into Scattered Trees, but with logs on the ground). AFVs would still not be able to go through the "new" tile because of debris on the ground, but LOS would change, and so would cover, along with chance of getting airbursts from any further artillery. * Be able to cut holes in bocage by driving tank with hedge cutter on it. * Be able to blast holes through bocage and hedge with HE (and arty) blasts and by engineers using demo charges. Bocage should obviously be more resistant to HE than hedges. * Units riding on back of tanks when tank drives through bocage should hop off the tank. * Ability of tanks to shoot through smoke. Would be a very low probability shot, especially if the enemy tank moved even slightly. * Ability of MGs to area fire through smoke and at places they can't see at night. Would significantly reduce MG's FP, but is important for supression. * Guns with small shells and a high ROF (e.g Flak guns) can fire through or into a building using AP in order to suppress enemy infantry units inside like MGs currently can. Right now, the fired shell always impacts on the front facade rather than penetrating. * LOS tool should be able to see a known minefield. Currently, it only shows the ground underneath. * Outgoing firepower for squads within buildings should be lowered to simulate not all units being able to fire effectively out of the structure at the same time. * Mortars shouldn't be allowed to fire from deep within heavily treed areas (Woods, Tall Pines, etc.) because of dense canopy. Mortars would have to get within -say- 5m of the edge of a forest to be able to fire out, and fighting inside of forests would be impossible. However, light mortars which can fire directly can still do their thing in a forested area. This restriction would not affect mortars in Scattered Trees or Orchard tiles (no canopy). * Field guns within a heavily treed area must be within X meters (say 10m) of the edge of the woods in order to be able to fire. Currently, if the gun crew can see out of the forest, they can fire at targets. But in reality, just because you can see a target through the trees doesn't mean your gun can actually get a shell out of the forest. IOW, LOS and ability to fire would be disconnected for these units. Just like the restriction on mortar teams above who need to be within 5m of the edge. * A gun shooting through, over, or into some woods along a very flat trajectory should have a chance of accidentally hitting one of the trees in the wooded area, generating an airburst. Would affect guns shooting into a wooded area more than gun shooting out because a gun shooting out would have a pretty good idea of his surroundings and could better judge whether his shell would get through the trees and low-hanging branches and under-brush. * Unit firing out of woods should have better accuracy than unit shooting into the woods (see above about a gunner in the forest knowing his surroundings). * Always show type of ground unit sits on, not just crater/foxhole. A unit sitting in a crater that is on scattered trees can hide and fight effectively. A unit sitting in a crater that is on open ground is easily supressed and will readily flee to the nearest cover when panicked. Unit behavior * Light Mortar teams that have no minimum range for their mortar and that are within X meters (say 20m) of an enemy unit should fire directly at that unit rather than lob the shell high in the air (assuming the mortar can actually be used in that manner). It's an uncommon occurance, but still ... * Modify gun turning rates so carriage comes into play. i.e. treat most guns like a StuG: tube can traverse +/- X degrees, but beyond that the carriage must turn at its own rate. Some guns (like Flak guns on pintles or guns on platforms (25pdr)) can turn at its fastest rate all the time. * Split squads should remain split unless ordered to rejoin (would obviously need a new 'Rejoin' command). Just because they're close together doesn't necessarily mean I want the squad to recombine. * Running total of kills as movie plays back rather than having everything listed on the kill screen at the beginning. Not very important, and may be hard to do, but would be nice to see. * Allow Infantry units to squirt less ammo per blast (results in lower FP), but faster blasts on multiple targets for close-in fighting. Ammo would naturally drain more slowly (per blast), but would add more hectic sound to close-in fighting. * If each full squad were essentially treated as two half squads (just currently joined), this would allow the squad to target up to two enemy units, giving more opportunity fire (rather than waiting 10~11 secs to fire a full blast). Each "half-squad" burst would drain less ammo per blast (as above) and put down less FP, but would add a good deal to the cacophony of sound and wouldn't completely miss some juicy targets. Watching an enemy unit run safely across a street without receiving any fire whatsoever gets old after a while. I realize you have to reload and don't always get the chance to fire on each enemy unit exactly when you want to, but even in CMBB the delay between bursts seems painfully long to me, particularly for city fighting. * Water-cooled MGs should be capable of long periods of uninterrupted fire. * MGs (including ones on tanks) should be able to cause friendly casualties even during the day when firing close to friendly units. * MG grazing fire. Along the entire flight path of the MG bullets, squads who are near a defined horizontal cylinder of radius 'X' can be affected by the MG fire lane. This horizontal cylinder can have 2 radii: one small that can cause real immediate panic to the whole squad, and one larger radius that can cause supression or even induce the squad to split, each half deciding for themselves whether to continue on their previous path, drop and become pinned, or retreat back where they came from. If an MG fires through smoke, the suppression effects on the other side of the smoke would significantly lessen due to the inherent lack of accuracy. * Infantry should be able to mistakenly target friendly units during dawn/dusk hours. * PIATs, zooks, etc. that re-hide after firing a shot if no other targets are in the immediate area. * Higher ammo loads allowable in the editor (particularly for onboard mortars). Defending units run out much too quickly, even at max loadouts. * Units should not switch targets simply because a more expensive target has appeared. Should only switch if there is a good reason to switch, especially if they've already fired at the current target. The decision to switch targets should also take into account the time it takes to turn and re-aim. Self-preservation (i.e. tank shelling infantry and then an enemy tank shows up), however, would obviously overrule most any current target. * Allow option for units to Abandon (or Destroy) their support weapon or AFV in a scenario. Would be a Scenario/Op-only option (not for QBs), and must be enabled by scenario designer for each unit to have this capability (kinda like Exiting for Points or Digging in vehicles). * Allow capture of intact enemy guns (those not knocked out; only abandoned) to count for more than just their point value in the end. This would not allow you to use the captured gun in the scenario/op, but would simply count for more points. Might also be combined with Abandon command above for enemy to choose whether to abandon or even destroy the gun before retreating (destroying would take longer to abandon and may not succeed, but would deny your opponent the extra points for capturing the gun intact). * Units currently Area firing (e.g. a gun) can stop its area fire command to engage an important target, but then will go back to its previous area fire assignment if no other juicy targets immediately appear. Not just for direct-fire units either; mortars that are currently firing at an out-of-LOS target using an HQ as spotter but temporarily switch to an in-LOS target should be able to resume its firing on the previous target. This is real handy for off-board arty in CMBB (reset target key), but I'd like to see the TacAI be able to do this too. * Tanks or guns can be placed in buildings, but only in the editor or during setup (and only if allowed by the scenario author). No moving into/out of structures during battle. But unlike pillboxes during Ops, allow them to be moved between battles. * If a tank/gun fires from inside a building, there should be a chance the crew will be supressed or button up because of the blast. Same for other units inside the same structure. * When Assaulting a building, infantry should regularly throw grenades in just before entering the structure to try to supress/kill any enemy units hiding inside. * Squads riding on tanks that are KOed automatically split into half-squads when getting off the destroyed vehicle. * After throwing a demo charge, engineers should duck until after the blast. [NIX - already in CMBB] * A pillbox should have a small chance of exploding catastrophically from a hit to its ammo. * Allow squads to be initially mis-identified as teams, not just as 'Infantry?' to simulate only a couple of squad members being spotted initially. * Muzzle flashes from MGs at night; even when the unit hasn't been fully spotted yet. [NIX - CMBB already does this] * Show tracer fire from MGs at night even before the unit has been spotted. * An extra level of spotting between sound contact and knowing the exact location. This new level would place a unit somewhere in the correct 5mx5m tile, but not fix its exact location. The AI would be allowed to target the not-yet-firmly-fixed unit with area fire. Would be especially nice for night fighting. * Infantry should not be able to run directly through a tank, but should have to go around. [NIX? - Already in CMBB?] * Show units that normally lie down when fighting (MGs) as laying on the ground. It shouldn't be that difficult to see the difference between a unit ready to fight and one that is hiding/supressed. Though the head of the AT-Rifleman needs to be elevated a bit more, IMO. * Be able to set different levels of aggressiveness for close air support (Cautious/Normal/Aggressive) in editor. More cautious pilots are less likely to attack for fear of friendly fire incidents (or simulates lack of ground controller to coordinate the attack). More aggressive attack posture indicates positively IDed target or presence of FAC. * Forward air controller - Editor option only (not for QBs). Option to have a TRP associated with an airplane. Could be fixed spot on the map (marked with TRP and colored smoke; both sides would be able to see the smoke) by the scenario designer so it can't be moved or allowed to be placed by player like current TRPs. Plane shouldn't necessarily attack exact spot, however. It should look for enemy positions near the TRP and, if it can spot the target unit, attack. If it can't spot the enemy, it should have the choice of either assuming the ground controller knows what he asked for and simply release its payload onto the target point. Or fire at a nearby spotted enemy unit if the plane thinks the ground spotter got it wrong or mis-placed its smoke marker. In most cases it should just follow orders and attack the TRP. [NIX - already in CMBB] * Ability to play Tophat/Lowsky with SPA. A Hummel firing then retreating to reload would be a beautiful thing. * For that matter, give AFVs the ability to area target while out of LOS, give a move order, and then have the unit begin firing when it can see the target area. * An infantry unit that isn't moving (particularly if it's currently hiding) shouldn't be forced to get up and move when a new unit (particularly one that's routed) occupies its space. The unit that most recently moved into the space should have to find another area to sit down. * When an MG is firing at enemy units, it should be strongly inclined to concentrate on those units that are nearest (esp. within 150m) rather than snipe at an exposed MG or mortar team moving at 400m+ away. * Instead of a single-point attack for strafing planes, have the plane pick two units, start it's attack run at one unit and end at the other. Infantry units in the strafing path should dive/run for cover even if they're not yet being shot at. - Chris 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 ... continued (last one, thankfully!) AFV Fighting * Wind that affects shell flight. * Some shells (not just tank rounds, but artillery, grenades, everything) should have small chance of being complete duds due to manufacturing defects. Basically I'm asking for more overall randomness, not a nationality-specific degradation of quality. * Shell graphic color changed to black or dark grey (already done in CMBB) except for back end of shell, which can remain orange to simulate tracer burning. Would make it look more like a solid object traveling through the air rather than a cone of light. * A "gun hit" where the shell completely overpowers the target (i.e. KwK43 vs. Stuart or 17pdr vs. 251/1 HT) should be able to cause crew casualties and vehicle abandonment or even destroy the AFV. * Show "Shot Trap" penetrations separately from "Weak Point" hits. * Show "Mantlet Hit" separate from front turret hit, where applicable. * More detailed armor plates on various tanks (gun shield on Ferdinand, etc.). * Armor rating should not necessarily be uniform over entire tank (e.g 85% on all Panther armor in CMBO). Some plates other than the glacis should be normal rating. In fact, the rating doesn't even have to be listed since neither the tank's crew nor the enemy unit firing at it would have any idea of how good or bad the armor was. * Force switching between shell types when the wrong shell is in the tube (either fire the one in there or take longer to switch). * ROF of open topped AT vehicles should probably be higher than closed-top ones (StuG vs. PzIV vs. Marder; Sherm-76 vs. Hellcat) in many cases, not just the obvious ones like the Hetzer. * Open-topped vehicles should have better chance of detecting an enemy AFV as a sound contact (useful in fog). * Chance of main gun jamming. * SOP of AFV firing HE shell at enemy tank after getting a kill to try to eliminate the crew (but only if there is no other juicy target in immediate area). * SOP of CS (close support) AFVs retreating when enemy tank emerges (e.g. StuH shouldn't sit there and duel with a Sherman; it's not what the tank was intended to do). It's ok for the CS tank to fire at the enemy while retreating or in ambush (not yet targeted by enemy tank), but it shouldn't just sit there and duke it out. * Same for recon vehicles; they shouldn't sit there and take on a thin-skinned tank destroyer. * SOP of CS tanks ignoring small recon vehicles (so long as the recon vehicle isn't a real threat). CS tank should continue on its current task unless it is specifically ordered to engage. * Tanks, when stopping, should lurch forward and not stop on a dime. * Light fast tanks and vehicles, when going over small hills, should be able to "fly" short distances and bounce around on their chassis a bit after landing. Ok, it's completely superfluous, but would be :cool: to see. [NIX? - already in CMBB?] * Between battles in operations, all vehicles should automatically unbutton. * AFVs (and other support units for that matter) should be allowed to decide whether to continue firing at a target that has disappeared (e.g. an enemy MG nest in a building where the MG is pinned because of the fire it received). Would allow the tank to fire at the "last known" location instead of just stopping and waiting for the unit to reappear. * Model gun depression. * Allow for differing levels of hull-down: Track down where the tracks cannot be hit and the lower hull is not exposed. Hull down where only the turret/superstructure can be hit and the hull MG is blocked. Turret down where only the TC and flex MG are visible. For StuGs, "track down" does not exist; only hull-down where the main gun and bow MGs are still exposed. The hunt-to-hull-down command would move tank forward until its main gun is exposed. Hunt-to-observe would move until only the TC/flex MG are exposed. * Tanks that block LOS and incoming fire. Maybe only mostly blocks LOS/incoming FP to represent some of the unit behind still being visible (e.g. inf squad that can't fully hide behind a vehicle). * Some excellent points about tank fighting (e.g. stationary tanks should have better aim than moving tanks and be able to fire very accurately at closely stacked enemy AFVs) can be found in this thread: Biggest Shortcoming of CM System. * When tanks lose a gun, cross out that gun/MG in the stats window. * Allow neutral steering (turning in place) for tanks whose engines allow it. Turning rates for tanks without it should be utterly abysmal (to encourage using reverse and then forward (instead of rotate) in order to change a tank's facing). * Guns that have large allotments of HE relative to its amount of AP (e.g. 75HE vs. 20AP) should not switch to using ineffective HE until the AP becomes critically low (only a few shells left). Preferrably, it would move to cover more often than not if its rounds are repeatedly demonstrated to be useless against the target. Commands and Battlefield Management * Target Wide should have a different color line than normal area fire. It should also let you known via text that it is target wide and not just area fire. * Target Wide option for arty smoke. * Suppressive Fire command for small caliber direct-fire units: like Area fire, but gun (either Flak or MG) sweeps back and forth over entire tile rather than shooting at one point on the ground. Would deliver less FP, but would cover a larger area. Useful against buildings. * Ability to Reverse guns instead of having to move them where they turn around to move back and then turn around again to face forward. * Ability for player to place labels on the ground during a battle to use as markers. Viewable to one side only. Handy reminders for plan of attack. * Ability for player to label individual units. Viewable to one side only. Can be set in-game or by scenario author in the editor. If set in the editor, still must be editable during the battle by player. Can use existing Shift-G to choose the type of unit info to display. * Allow covered arcs to remain on-screen permanently (shouldn't have to hit Shift-X every time you start the game). It's easy enough to turn them off. * Directional wind gauge that changes with camera position. * Have a mode in Infantry labels (Shift-G) that shows which units are hiding/supressed/resting so it's easier to find any units that are/aren't hiding when you want them to. Units * Wider range of naval artillery (not just big 12"~16", but smaller stuff too). * Show difference between US 75mm gun (derived from French 75) and British version (bored out 6pdr). * Show difference between US 57mm AT and Brit 6pdr as well as different 6pdr versions. * Show difference between German 20mm guns (ROF between Flak30 and Flak38). * As many different AFV variants as possible (esp. the different riveted/welded varieties of Stuart, Grant/Lee, etc.). * Model the croc fuel trailers for their explosive qualities. * List of crew positions for AFVs in statistics window. * Include turret speed of all turreted vehicles, even those armed only with MGs. * Show silhouette of support guns in data window. * Tall TDs (e.g. Marders and JagdPanther) should have both an upper hull and a superstructure, even if they are the same armor plate. Short vehicles (e.g. Jagdpanzer IV) should only have upper and lower hull (like StuGs). * Some crazy ideas for representing armor: Have different ratings for armor plates expressing their relative size. A 'Small' upper hull would be less than the size of the lower hull (e.g. M3 Stuart (Stuart I to the Brits)), and would be statistically more difficult to hit than the lower hull. A 'Medium' hull where the upper and lower hull are about the same size (e.g. Tiger). And a Large upper hull (most other tanks) where the UH takes the majority of hits. * Turret fronts that can be Small (PzIV, King Tiger), being half the size (or less) of the upper hull; Medium (Panther), being between 50 and 75% the size of the upper hull; Large (Tiger), being 75% to 100% of the size of the UH; or Very Large (British Bishop, Soviet KV-2) where it is significantly larger than the hull. * Mantlets that can be small, medium, or large. Small mantlets cover less than 50% of the turret front, and allow more shells to hit the turret than the mantlet (JagdTiger). Medium mantlets cover a good deal of the turret front, but not all of it (King Tiger). Large mantlets cover the whole turret front (Panther, PzIII). * Include 'Cheek' turret armor (I don't know a better name for it) that slopes away from the front of the turret like on the King Tiger. This armor would have a thickness and angle rating, but the angle would be how far it slopes away from the front of the turret. Any vertical slope that this plates also possesses would be the same as the side turret armor slope. The 'cheek' armor would also take up part of the turret front reducing the number of hits to the turret (or mantlet). Small cheek armor (Tiger), Medium cheek armor (King Tiger), and Large cheek armor (I can't think of any examples off-hand). * So taking these altogether: ... * The King Tiger would have a Large upper hull, a Small turret, Medium cheek armor set at [approx.] 80 degrees slope (along with the inherent 21 degree vertical slope for a compound angle) that covers about half the turret "front", and a Medium turret mantlet. ... * A Panzer IIIL would have a Small upper hull, a Medium turret, a Large curved mantlet, and no "cheek" armor. ... * Churchill III would have a Medium upper hull, Medium turret, no cheek armor, and no Mantlet (I think ???). ... * The M3 Lee would have a Large upper hull, a Medium Superstructure, and a Small turret. The Superstructure would contain the Large turret front (the 75mm gun) with a Large curved mantlet. The Small turret (containing the 37mm gun) would have a small mantlet. * Camo option in QB and editor screens allows you to buy units with or without camo covering. No camo is less expensive. Camoed unit would naturally be harder to spot. Camo would also use a different set of BMPs (see Mods section below). * Show HQ bonuses that a squad receives on the individual squad's status bar (so you don't have to click its HQ to see what bonuses it is getting). * Show max range, penetration, and blast stats of squad AT weapons in stats window. Other * In QBs it would be nice to be able to select Early war, Mid-war, or Late war which would randomly select a month within a specific time period. Both players should have to input their passwords before they are shown the date selected by the game. * Separate the BMP/WAV files into different compressed files (e.g. different RARs for vehicles, tanks, infantry, support, terrain, buildings). Having to search through one enormous file takes way too long to find and extract a file, especially using RAR. Mods * Renumber all the BMPs to a more convenient format like 0003390c.bmp so BMPs of the same unit are always listed in order. The zeros in front are important. * Multiple slots (a, b, c, d, etc.) for mods for each unit. So one side of Tiger tank in different mods would be 0003390a, 0003390b, 0003390c, etc. allowing a choice between which texture sets are used in-game. Would be nice to get rid of the current BMP swapping when changing texture sets on a vehicle. If the entire alphabet were used, that's 26 different texture sets per unit. :eek: Mod mania! Mod slots A through E could be used for normal summer textures. F through J for summer camo versions. Winter could be V through Z and winter camo Q through U. If no camo exists for a unit, game defaults to summer (or winter, whichever is appropriate) texture. If no winter, then summer texture is used. This would obviously require a screen within the game allowing us to choose which mod slot (A~E) we wish to use for each unit. And the game would also have to check which files are actually present in the BMP directory. And this would be a helluva lot of work, but it's worth it. Trust me. * Alternatively, separate directories for the different mod sets could be used instead of letters at the end of the filename. * Choice between using different textures for both sides of a tank or just one (as it is now in CMBO/CMBB) to save on VRAM. * Moddable bases, mortars, schrecks, etc. * More units portraits (one for each infantry type). * Each gun has its own sound slot. Currently (in CMBO) many of the different 75mm guns share the same wav file. Would be nice if these were different. Even if the game comes with the same sound repeated for all similar 75mm guns (less work to create), having individual slots for each gun will allow much modding goodness. * Choices of different color in-game text and font styles (and background colors for text screens). * Ability to resize text for higher resolutions (oversize 50%, 100%). Also re-sizes in-game toolbar. * Larger menu screen background images for use with higher resolutions. * Choice of grey (or other color) for off-map terrain (the background BMP). * Create a transparent rectangle that is placed *just* overtop of the side BMPs of the turret and hull to allow mod makers to create numbers for each vehicle. All vehicles of the same model could have a series of mods to choose from to use as ID numbers (would be randomly assigned for each new game). Shouldn't take up too many polys and BMPs would be very small, so hit on VRAM wouldn't be severe. Damn, I'm glad I don't have to program this game! - Chris 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZealotBurner Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Hey wolfe, I think we were looking for a well thought out list here, not just some random ramblings of a mad man. Take this post for example... posted February 12, 2003 09:41 PM -------------------------------------------- Originally posted by MikeyD: Female civilians with cloths that go transparent when you get close (like house walls do now). -------------------------------------------------- Now on with the serious discussions. Lasers, and Powered Armor. :eek: 'nuff said. Seriously, great post almost everything you said I either thought "of course, that needs to be in", or "I never thought of that, but now I just have to have that feature." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.