Suggestion for the new engine.

[JunoReactor]

The "we-go" turn based system employed by Laser Squad Nemesis allows players to 'test' orders before sending the turn in. It's a nifty feature where a lot of the troubles associated with the relative ambiguity of the LOS system (especially when tank turrets and ridgelines are concerned) and movement orders such as shoot and scoot would be resolved in a CM context. What is does is that it 'acts out' player's orders while keeping the enemy completely static, allowing one to plot into the next turn with almost complete technical foresight.

[Wendigo]

While this would be a nice addition, I'd say that we're not going to see this as BFC has repeatedly said that they aim for maximum realism and "testing" your moves wouldn't be exactly realistic. I mean, the real commanders just gave the orders and hoped for the best.

I'm for this feature because trying out some trickier moves beforehand (columns and roads anyone?) might reduce the wailing and gnashing of teeth..

There might be problems because the moves that you test out might not be replicated in the "real" phase due to randomness.

[JunoReactor]

It has nothing to do with realism. Sure, real commanders dont get to 'test' out their orders, but then again, real tank crews are a bit smarter than the TacAI. The core simulation aspect of the game lies in the accuracy of its data and the complexity of the engine using that data, not in its interface.

Furthermore, I see it would be useful precisely because there is a random element that goes in during the resolution phase. The player would know, if everything goes according to plan, where his units would end up and a 'likely' resolution to the upcoming engagements in the next 60 seconds, but thats it.

[Bruno Weiss]

Sounds gamey to me.

[Goose]

I'd like this too. I think play-aids like this "move preview" would help a lot reducing the steepness of the learning curve. The problem is that some - BFC probably included - would define aids like these as gamey.

So how about introducing realism/difficulty settings? Then the veterans can disable all these naughty, gamey functions, while newbies can setup coordinated tank assaults in less than 100 tries.

[B.B.Toys]

You might be able to try out a set of similar moves by creating a scenario on a map imported from the ongoing game. You don't even need to have an opposing force in that case; perhaps just an enemy trench to keep the AI in the game. Although exact placement of vehicles duplicating their location in the game will be tricky, you can still explore the terrain and test LOS etc. This solution somewhat resembles a live exercise and so should seem less gamey than having the ability to make a "dry run" (a.k.a. "try until you succeed")...

[JunoReactor]

I dont quite get this. What's gamey about it beyond the extent that CM is already a game? We are discussing about an interface, which already reduces CM to gamey bits, and those you have to learn, bit by bit, to get what you want during the next turn. If the question is as trivial as 'will I be able to see beyond the ridgeline if I move there' then there is nothing gamey about testing it out.

Trouble is, CM is a game. There is no easy way to seperate what is gamey and what is not, and there are bigger problems still when one tries to pinpoint the source of 'gaminess' as to whether it lies in the interface, the data, limitations of the TacAI, or basic issues arising from the structure of the game. One could say that making the interface more powerful will make the game that much more exploitable, but it would then become clearer where the problem lies, and 'gamey' symptoms could be eliminated during testing of the upcoming game.