cover me Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Oh no... a "suggestions" thread... look out... I am a huge fan of CMBO, but I have to admit I have not played CMBB or CMAK! I just like the classic western european battles... Anyway, I have seen a couple posts mentioning a new engine (CMX2?), and I've got a couple of suggestions... >units will carry out their previous orders as they received them up to the point that they recieve new orders (ex- squad told to advance out of "command range" of their HQ will continue to do so even if those orders were "erased" during the orders phase until the command delay catches up and they recieve their new orders) >option to see all infantry in the squad >infantry can seek cover behind walls without being in "open ground" >infantry can seek cover behind and even "follow" vehicles >the ability to record a game and watch it all the way through without interruption - this would be great for forum posts >when paniced or routed, infantry squads may split without orders, leaving some and making the others run off >animated water tiles >wind to blow around smoke Forgive me if some of these ideas have been implemented in CMBB or CMAK... I have only played the demos once or twice. I am actually very happy with the game the way it is, even if it is time to move on to bigger and better CMs. Big Time's effort to make it as realistic as possible is greatly appreciated, as I do not frustrated as I do with other strategy (and even action) games. These are just a couple ideas, and I'm sure there are more out there. Feel free to follow my lead! I am also curious about Big Time in general. Where are these masters of realistic combat sims hiding out? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Originally posted by cover me: I am also curious about Big Time in general. Where are these masters of realistic combat sims hiding out? We have it on good authority that Charles occupies a jar of nutrients in a closet at BFC HQ where he never sleeps. Steve flits around in the North Woods somewhere in his Weasel, Madmatt hangs out in bars of dubious reputation, the rest are all furriners and so live in perpetual twilight beyond the wire. BTW, I do believe that BTS officially does not exist as an entity anymore. BFC took over all its functions, properties, and liabilities some time ago. Of course, I could be lying... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 No, BTS was sold to a group of Russian businessmen, after which BTS bought Yukos... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 ...and set up a branch office in Cyprus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffsmith Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 So now they have a huge fleet of oil tankers and freighters 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scheer Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 ... with that fleet ,they transport their even bigger fleet of black helicopters ... [ December 23, 2004, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Scheer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 ...which is being used to smuggle pork bellies into Moslem countries... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Bolt Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 I really like the split squad thing on the route/break. Great idear. The "cover behind/follow vehicles" is also a good thing. In my first few battles of CM, I lost more thar a few squads "hiding" behind the imaginary point in space that is an AFV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DzrtFox Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 The ability to record battles for later viewing start-to-finish is my #1 wish for the new CM. There is no better way to learn new tactics and strategies than by watching good players play. It would also be great to re-watch classic battles and tournament games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 Originally posted by DzrtFox: The ability to record battles for later viewing start-to-finish is my #1 wish for the new CM. There is no better way to learn new tactics and strategies than by watching good players play. It would also be great to re-watch classic battles and tournament games. I'm disturbed by reading anything by someone who calls himself 'Dessert Fox'... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 Hello "cover me"! Thanks for the suggestions! We are making a totally new engine for CMX2 partly because we do want to improve some of the areas you mentioned. Trying to do so with the old current CM engine would have in fact been more complicated and taken more time. And with regard to BTS - Big Time Software is essentially part of Battlefront.com, and all the masters of realistic combat sims are still here Martin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 Originally posted by Seanachai: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DzrtFox: I'm disturbed by reading anything by someone who calls himself 'Dessert Fox'... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Mittens Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 I like all those suggestions, especially having the full movie at the end and previous orders continuing until new ones arrive. One more suggestion. The underplayed 1997 game M.A.X. had a brilliant solution to turn based time limits. When you start the game you set two time limits. A Max, and a Countdown. If one person finishes early, and end's their turn, the time remaining instantly changes to the "countdown" amount. For example, if countdown was 1 minute, and max was 3: At 30 seconds into the turn, player 1 finishes their moves and ends their turn. The clock goes from "2:30" to "1:00". I thought it worked very well in MAX, and you could play around with the timers to have different kinds of games (like a 15 second countdown, when ending your turn quickly was part of your strategy). Also, I'd like to still be able to issue commands if I'm the first one to end my turn, up until the point that my opponent ends his. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpwase Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 Originally posted by Colonel Mittens: One more suggestion. The underplayed 1997 game M.A.X. had a brilliant solution to turn based time limits. When you start the game you set two time limits. A Max, and a Countdown. If one person finishes early, and end's their turn, the time remaining instantly changes to the "countdown" amount. For example, if countdown was 1 minute, and max was 3: At 30 seconds into the turn, player 1 finishes their moves and ends their turn. The clock goes from "2:30" to "1:00". I thought it worked very well in MAX, and you could play around with the timers to have different kinds of games (like a 15 second countdown, when ending your turn quickly was part of your strategy). Also, I'd like to still be able to issue commands if I'm the first one to end my turn, up until the point that my opponent ends his. That's very confusing, but I have a vage idea of what you're saying. I don't think CM would work very well with more time pressure, however. I have a few ideas for CMx2: </font>Rooms, doors and stairs in buildings - uncomplicated stuff, but still enough to get rid of the 'enter a building anywhere' feature.</font>Individually model trees and shrubs to clarify LOS - if your unit can see him, they can shoot him etc.</font>Individually model each soldier in a unit - not their position, just what weapon they have, how much ammo they have in their clip/overall, whether they're moving, taking cover, firing etc.</font>Improve the artillery model...somehow.</font>Improve air-strikes - let players call in airstrikes in certain areas, or tell the aeroplanes not to strike this area etc.</font>Improve tank movement physics - for example, if you send a tank over a ridge at full speed it should rear up at the crest, then crash down on the other side, possibly damaging vehicle parts.</font>Let infantry hide behind AFVs - and let things be squished by AFVs too. </font>Improve the TACAI - I think this is very important. Infantry shouldn't run towards cover and almost reach it, get shot at and run back 50m to the cover they departed from.</font>Implement a feature that lets you move vehicles in convoy, rather than having to plot individual waypoints along a road and mess around with pauses.</font>Allow scripting for reinforcements and airstrikes in the editor.</font>Possibly have a feature in the editor that allows you to pull up, push down or level the elevation of land, like silly putty.</font>Allow designers to place damaged buildings.</font>Let wheeled ATGs and howitzers etc. move at infantry walking speed on roads.</font> That's all. I have great hopes for CMx2, even if none of that stuff is implemented, but even one of them would improve the game significantly. I still enjoy the current games immensely, however. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Anderson Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 I'd like to see more attention paid to the infantry model, ie individual names and intelligence and strength and experience in the model of "Close Combat". I'd also like it if a picture of each soldier was available in the roster, with the ability to mod your own with unlimited slots so there would be no duplicates. I really love the CM approach to the genre, but as an old Close Combat player the biggest thing I miss is the feeling of soldier individuality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarkus Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 I'm fond of these suggestion threads. I share the views of mprwase here. Whatever happens with the next iteration of Combat Mission, I will be on it the day it is out, yet I feel expressing ideas about improvments can't hurt, and while I certainly do not expect any of this to be taken into account specifically, if it fires an idea in the high circle, all the better. </font>Allowing scenario designer to actually mark some ennemy units, namely fortifications, minefields and other fixed assets to be known to the player to simulate recce patrols and intelligence could add more flexibility while staying out of the FoW setting.</font> </font>Realizing that a 3D import feature or 3D building tool is no small undertaking (But a worthy addition IMO), perhaps a huge enhancements of buildings available in the editor would suffice ? I really feel this would enhance the game tremendeously. See also this thread.</font>Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: ...which is being used to smuggle pork bellies into Moslem countries... <font size=0>who are these twits that keep hijacking our fantasy BFC thread anyway?</font> ...to pay off Muslim warlords in exchange for a steady supply of... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: ...which is being used to smuggle pork bellies into Moslem countries... <font size=0>who are these twits that keep hijacking our fantasy BFC thread anyway?</font> ...to pay off Muslim warlords in exchange for a steady supply of... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roqf77 Posted December 25, 2004 Share Posted December 25, 2004 i personaly would like to see the ai improved a bit. firstly with infantry instead of having to baby sit your troops around the map instead control a group select a point on the map and they automaticaly find suitable cover. rather than where ever the point is on the map, a move to and find cover order. similar concept with tanks too so it is easier to move them in groups. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted December 25, 2004 Share Posted December 25, 2004 </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I'm disturbed by reading anything by someone who calls himself 'Dessert Fox'... I mean, what does that involve? Custard? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 25, 2004 Share Posted December 25, 2004 Originally posted by tar: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I'm disturbed by reading anything by someone who calls himself 'Dessert Fox'... I mean, what does that involve? Custard? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted December 25, 2004 Share Posted December 25, 2004 I wouldn't care if the game was identical to how it is now, but just made compatible with Mac OSX! As my old Mac slides into obsolescence, I hold off on buying a new Mac because none of the new ones boot into OS9 anymore. Waiting, waiting, creaky old Mac taking water in the bilges, pumping hard to keep her afloat. Couldn't someone accidentally tip a bit of speed into Charles's brain jar? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted December 26, 2004 Share Posted December 26, 2004 Hi, my wish list. 1) Borg Spotting ended. Speaks for itself. 2) Multiplayer feature. Would not only add to the fun, especially with the more widespread use of domestic networking, but help with Fog Of War. 3) Operational features. I am a huge fan of Static Operations. But in my view they model a series of individual assaults, within a single “battle”; as opposed to operations in there normal meaning, manoeuvring battalions. Some features to allow the setting of “battles” in greater context, to track the position and current state of battalion combat teams. For example, the ability to track a group of battalions through a part of the Ardennes offensive. Unit files saved/edited separately would greatly help. 4) Universal map file format/Mapping Mission features. Such that any map file could be imported into the editor and used in any type of game. 5) Toggled map grid overlay. Through no fault of BFC… it is very difficult to spot undulations. I know the graphics engine will change but I still think it would help if one could toggle on and off a terrain grid in the orders phase. Save a huge amount of time just trying to spot small dips in the terrain. 6) Unit firepower/data editor. One feature that I have always had in mind, but simply assumed was a non starter, is a basic unit/firepower data editor. Now with the new engine all is up for grabs, so here goes. Firstly, one objection that has been made is that it would cause confusion if players were able to edit units’ firepower. However, all it would take is an option to use “default” unit data in the games launch/options screen. Thus ladder players, or those who disagree about any unit tweaks, or do not trust their opponents, could always ensure they play with the shipped values. The reason I think a unit editor, a basic one, would be a huge plus, is that it would add a massive dose of fun, plus act as an anti-frustration kit. When you get two or three military history nuts in the same room you will get half a dozen different opinions on any given subject. This all adds greatly to the fun. However, it does mean many will not agree with “every” firepower/penetration figure in CM. This does not mean that BFC got it wrong, on many matters it is not a case of right and wrong, just a difference of opinion on a topic for which there can be no definitive answer. 7) Reduced units and situational awareness. All units to start with zero casualties. Currently… when units start a battle with reduced strengths they start with their casualties recorded to the right of the + sign on the unit information bar. Be this as a result of enemy action in a previous battle in an ongoing operation, or as a result of editing by the scenario designer. The problem is that when your units first start to take incoming fire it is very difficult to spot which units have taken casualties in the current battle. You are attacking with a company of infantry, there is scattered enemy long range MG fire, and large numbers of your units hit the deck. It is near impossible to spot which of your units have taken casualties as a result of the fire if they nearly all started the current battle at reduced strength. Because nearly all will already have “casualties” marked up to the right of the + sign in the information bar. I suggest all units start every battle with zero casualties, even if at reduced strength. So an infantry squad starting a battle at a reduced strength of seven men, as opposed to it full strength ten men, would start the battle with a strength of seven… but with no casualties recorded to the right of the + sign. 8) Edit morale separately from experience levels. When units from roughly similar cultures oppose each other this is not such an issue. There is a correlation between training/skills/quality/experience and morale. So assuming that “regular” German, British and US troops had similar morale is not overly wild when also subject to Fanaticism editing. But when very different cultures oppose each other, such as on the Eastern Front, this rule no longer holds. BFC recognised and overcame this problem by giving Soviet forces in CMBB lower skill levels up until January 44, for any given experience rating. However, in my view, others will differ, this was not a success. In the majority of scenarios I have seen you still find German troops with an average experience between Regular and Veteran, Soviets with an average close to Green. The result is that in most CMBB scenarios I have seen, the Soviets have far lower morale than the Germans. This is not historical accurate. I would like to be able to edit unit morale by one level relative to its experience rating. Such that a Regular unit in experience could have morale of Veteran, Regular or Green. There would still be a correlation between experience and morale, but also some room for limited flexibility. If this feature were there one could in a future Eastern Front game have German forces with average experience ratings between Veteran and Regular, Soviet forces with an average experience rating between Regular and Green, but with both sides having equally high morale. Far more historically accurate. This would also help in many other game settings I can think off. 9) Less movement from Strategic defending AI. The defending AI should rely more on ambush, which it does very well, plus if it feels the need plug to gaps, it should send units round behind cover, under cover, to plug the gaps. Not move them in the open in front of the attackers units. This includes less counterattacking. A cunning initial placement, plus ambush, can in itself produce a fine AI control defence. Overall, less movement by the defending AI would be better. But of course, there is no perfect solution. All good fun, All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy Lurking Posted December 26, 2004 Share Posted December 26, 2004 Hi REVS! ...I wouldn't care if the game was identical to how it is now, but just made compatible with Mac OSX! I'll drink to that! David 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.