What u want to see in CMX2

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Kip Watson:

- some different options for infantry under the same HQ unit using quick fire and manoeuvre tactics, eg: covering fire and assault and 'leapfrogging'. As it is, one minute (plus any additional unit delay) is too long for synchronsing squads really.

You can already do this by editing the delay times for various squads.

[Kip Watson]

You can already do this by editing the delay times for various squads.

...sure, I guess. But (a) being able to add a delay to the beginning of a move only really allows a rough approximation of synchronised squad tactics. ( inserting an explicit and more intuitive menu-item for something the game already handles internally is easy, right? and © don't get me wrong, CM is super-duper-way-cool and it was intended as a 'wish-list' item, not as a criticism...

[Kip Watson]

OK - quite a few minutes of thought later (I'm a slow thinker), what about if you could add pauses between movement segments (instead of just at the start of a move), and even what about if you could add a 'synch pause' so that squads under the same HQ all wait (or shoot or whatever) until the slowest squad reaches the the pause-point - to allow for synchronised tactics.

...sounds complicated, though.

I get a bit lazy sometimes and some effective CM tactics require a lot of micromanaging - it would be cool if there were just a simple menu item that handled that .

Basically just continuing from what CMBB added, which were some additional intuitive infantry commands (assault etc).

As mentioned above, I'd like 'advance by bounds' (leapfrogging), and also 'move using cover' (doesn't add anything just saves clicking).

And to elaborate from an earlier post, a submenu on the move-to-contact command, to allow different things to do when contact is made (at the moment all you can do is hide).

[flamingknives]

The advance command abstracts leapfrogging within a squad. Leapfroggin with a platoon is fairly easy to accomplish.

[Akula2]

There is so many tactical options I would wish to appyl to various "levels" of "experience".

The first of wich is "reverse to hull down"

... "to anything" ... ... ... reverse, advance, assault, ... name it ... would be agreeable indeed.

more to come

[Midnight Warrior]

I'd like to see a smart camera capability. The smart camera would generate a list of events of interest during a turn. Events of interest could be events such as losses taken by a unit, units being fired on, etc. Clicking on an event in the list would position the camera and the clock to view that event. This would be espeacilaly handy for large scenarios and could save a lot of time replaying a turn to catch all the significant events.

[Major Concussion]

First off, I'd like to apologize to the CM community as a whole. I've been absent from these forums for literally two years, inexcusable. I'm posting for the first time since July of 2002 mostly because I see this thread as a fun opportunity. Plus you guys are awesome.

Anyways:

I like a lot of these ideas.

My particular favorites, plus a few of my own which may have been stated and I just forget were:

*The complete replays where you could save as a movie file and watch the entire battle over again (like a movie)

*The post where someone reccomended using short combat footage video clips when certain events happen like artillery fires and it shows a clip of 105's firing or what have you

*The bunker system, and "embarkable" pillboxes

*More fortifications

*Cavalry units

*Perhaps add some trains or something of the like, like the Big Bertha gun or whatever it was (sorry, I just don't feel like researching the real name right now). Of course guns like that are long range, possibly further than even the largest CM maps, but they would make a worthy objective for someone to capture.

*Embarked troopers firing from vehicles. Its always driven me insane when you have a squad in the back of a truck just sit there while the truck is idle and being fired upon. Of course at high speed, precision fire is difficult when you're on the back of a duce and a half, but at least suppression fire, they seem so helpless!

*Buildings that aren't simple squares. Make rooms or stairs or something. When a squad travels to the second floor it seems as if they brought their portable elevators with them or something because they just rise straight up.

*More terrain. There's always something I wish I could add to a scenario.

*Guns that can be placed in buildings.

*I agree with the notion to customize squads to an extent. Changing a squad so it has 10 BARs would be a little dumb, even if you were doing "a Commando mission". On the other hand, if you wanted a certain squad to be missing their leader or one or two soldiers you could select that. Or even mixed units where some troops are experienced and others green. Things like that.

*Pre-set destructions for engineers and the like. For example, if an attacking force gets too close, you can have an engineer squad detonate a bridge.

*Creeping artillery fire, although this can also be done just by adjusting fire every turn but this option would be nicer.

*CM does a lot on strategy, and to an extent logistics, but I'd like to see more of that.

*A lot of little things.

*EDIT: Make it so atleast a limited amount of troops can enter church towers. I think I might have watched SPR one too many times, but a sniper in a tower would be nice.

*EDIT: More scenario editing options. The thing I love doing most in CM other than actually playing is creating scenarios. When CM:BO first came out and I read there was a scenario editor, I was overjoyed. Of course, it has gotten better, and I really like it, but more options would be grand.

Things I don't agree with:

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and I respect that, but then again I'm entitled to mine:

*Making the graphics better. I don't have a really Uber computer or a really old junk one either. Its about normal, but you see, I don't know about you guys, but I don't play CM for the graphics. I play it because its awesome and its all about your tactics and what not. Since when in Day of Defeat can you cooperate a platoon to ambush a Tiger tank or actually outwit your foe rather than snipe him out? Plus I feel pity for some of the lower-lower-lower-end users out there.

*Viewable planes. The shadow is fine for me. Like I just said, I don't play CM for the gfx. Frankly, the planes are kind of annoying. I'm trying to coordinate my attack and all of a sudden some planes come and scatter my forces. Its war, I get it, but that's really annoying. If this was a Combat Flight Simulator versus Combat Mission, i would expect that. But since its Combat Mission versus Combat Mission, I expect my opponent to be worthy enough to bring the fighting to the streets like a true soldier. Not through some sudden blitzkrieg. Yeah I'm sorry, I got carried away, I just really hate those planes... However I like the planes crashing on the battlefield idea!

OK, done. Sorry for the extremely long, slightly redundant, incredibly specific post, but this is two years of suppressed thought compiled into one post here. Anyways... CM is awesome.

[ August 22, 2004, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Major Concussion ]

[mobear]

Here's an idea that might be fairly easy to do. Put a timer into the editor to keep track of how long it takes to build a scenario. Start the clock whenever construction of a new scenario is started and from then on keep track of every time those files are accessed and for how long.

I'm thinking something along the lines of the game Civilization III, which keeps track of how long a person plays a given game.

[mobear]

Actually, might as well put the timer into the game too, although time spent playing a given scenario might not be such an interesting statistic.

[mobear]

Actually, now that I think about it, this is a stupid idea.

[medlinke]

1_ Battlefield Decay

*Dry Grounds decay from fields to flat, desert like areas

*Damp Grounds decay into wet and then muddy ground areas

*Dynamic weather that can change randomly during a battle

*Viewable physical damage to terrain from shelling. Off board naval bombardment created major crators...it'd be nice to actually have that impact play. I know it was a factor on Pointe du Hoc...

2_ More realistic unit AI. Fear is something palpable and simply affecting command is pretty generic. Why not have fight or flight take over and have flight take over PRIOR to getting all hacked up and bloody. If I'm in a unit that needs to defend and I see a much larger unit coming, I don't care necessarily that my orders are to stay...likely I will want to get out of there and that probability should be included in the AI's fight or flight routine.

3_ Player Tendency Tracking! I want to have the game store my tendencies. For example, what I choose to buy on QB's (in general terms like force composition slants). Also how I tend to play...aggressive with armor, and defensive with troops? Maybe I rely heavily on bombardment or smoke? The system would, over a period of time, build and refine a profile of how I play in general terms (do I favor the right of left flank for attacking? how large of units do I tend to move simultaneously together? etc.)

4_ Better Animation - Not meaning more polys per-se, but just smoother animations.

5_ Details - I want to see things like animals, details of life (cars on streets in cities, broken buildings that vary in appearance or destruction, fields with tall grass, shrubs, and gullies...you just MORE and better implementation of the things that already exist in some sense in the game.

6_ Mixed fighting forces - I want to be able to build fantasy battles with germans and brittish fighting russians or Americans and Russians fighting brittish!

7_ Game Map = Game World - I want the size of the map to scale to the world size!. The current configuration with the map as a tabletob in a generic world is okay, but it would be better to think and see the map as the ONLY thing in the world with edges that close off the areas in some way.

8_ Full Scripting Engine - It would be nice to be able to build fully scripted missions. EXAMPLE: Build a mission for the Americans to do Objective 1 then have a set of circumstances arise (reinforcements, mission end, or counter-attack) then do objective 2 that was contingent upon Objective 1 and the new set of circumstances.

9_ Models, Textures, Game Executable as separate entities - This will foster a more open community of resources that will then include folks building custom solutions and implementations of the game! It would be fantastic!!!

10_ XML game output. It would be cool to have the game record the key stats of each battle in an XML file. That file could then be uploaded to a league site and that would report the battle with complete stats so that leagues could do more tracking and create more elegant game recording methods!

[Hans]

Actually

I think I'd be happy just to see it

[JonS]

Originally posted by medlinke:

1_ Battlefield Decay

*Dry Grounds decay from fields to flat, desert like areas

*Damp Grounds decay into wet and then muddy ground areas

What? In the space of 90 minutes max? Someone has been playing too much C&C

*Viewable physical damage to terrain from shelling.

Erm, which game are you playing? This is already in since CMBO.

Off board naval bombardment created major crators...[snip] I know it was a factor on Pointe du Hoc...

No it wasn't.

2_ More realistic unit AI. Fear is something palpable and simply affecting command is pretty generic. Why not have fight or flight take over and have flight take over PRIOR to getting all hacked up and bloody.

Units can already break and rout before they take any cas. Also, the cas in CM are not necessarily folk with bullet holes. They are also people who've thought 'bugger this, I'm off.'

3_ Player Tendency Tracking! I want to have the game store my tendencies. For example, what I choose to buy on QB's (in general terms like force composition slants).

Short term memory 'issues' huh?

4 & 5

Not all of us have the lastest 733+ gaming rig. While improvements can - and no doubt will - be made in this area. Gameplay is what makes people come back to a game. Chess, for example, has particularly crappy graphics, but it seems to ahve stood the test of time.

6_ Mixed fighting forces - I want to be able to build fantasy battles with germans and brittish fighting russians or Americans and Russians fighting brittish!

Might I suggest a fantasy game then?

7_ Game Map = Game World - I want the size of the map to scale to the world size!

eh? :confused:

8_ Full Scripting Engine - It would be nice to be able to build fully scripted missions.

There is nothing stopping you doing that now. In fact, it was done as long ago as CMBO.

10_ XML game output. It would be cool to have the game record the key stats of each battle in an XML file. That file could then be uploaded to a league site and that would report the battle with complete stats so that leagues could do more tracking and create more elegant game recording methods!

I'm not terribly interested in ego-stats. However, the same basic idea could be used to make MMP campaigns much more amenable. Of course, that makes the suggestion about 3 years old

Jon

[Gurra]

Hi,

may I make a suggestion or two.

I have come to notice over the years, that when playing large battles, one shifts focus from determining the right angle of ONE tank to overall tactics and angles of all forces. You can of course still check every tanks angle to perfection, but I find this halting the fluidity of the battle too much. And yet, you really have to do this to be victorious.

I would really appreciate the option of a " seek line of sight " for AFV's, comparable to " seek hull down ". The advantages of this, if desired, I guess, is pretty obvious.

And in the same manner as this " command shortcut ", I would also appreciate the option to select two or three formations for AFV's in platoon size or bigger. Column, side by side, and german keil, for example. Say you could choose where to go and then the appropriate formation. I don´t know if this would be possible with either the current or future engine, but it would nevertheless eliminate some of the parts I find less entertaining.

I know that this last suggestion has been up before in some way. Sorry for emphasizing.

[Kip Watson]

How about these:

- A 'turret down' setting for AFVs!

- The ability for AFVs, while on the defending side, to start a battle fully camoflaged (netting and all? and could we see it??), with a corresponding 'invisibility' factor.

- Designer can assign map labels that are visible to one side only (eg. for recon info)

[Nelson 1812]

..........howabout map grid with references, and

extention of game moves, with the ability to nominate new troops (as in a scenaro).....and being able to create over an existing (end or even middle) game scenaro.

(sorry if these have been mentioned already!)

[medlinke]

WOW! Someone woke up on the jerk side of the bed...

Originally posted by medlinke:

1_ Battlefield Decay

*Dry Grounds decay from fields to flat, desert like areas

*Damp Grounds decay into wet and then muddy ground areas

What? In the space of 90 minutes max? Someone has been playing too much C&C

Hmmmm...Apparently you've never watched a game of football in your entire life... I've played football and let me tell you, even when the ground is slightly damp, in about 30 minutes of running and sloshing around on it, it's a mud pit. So your comment, is not only unwelcome, but inaccurate as well.

*Viewable physical damage to terrain from shelling.

Erm, which game are you playing? This is already in since CMBO.

Erm...I'm playing the games, but there is no physical depression in the ground, just a decal on th ground. Seeing a black splotch, is not nearly as cool as seeing the ground actually taking a beating.

Off board naval bombardment created major crators...[snip] I know it was a factor on Pointe du Hoc...

No it wasn't.

Hmmmm...maybe you need a source photo because you're obviously too busy being a smart mouth to me to look anything up for yourself...

http://www.omahatour.bravepages.com/POINT.jpg

Look at that and tell me that they weren't a factor. I've been there and stood inside them and they were a freakin factor man, some of them are like 8 feet deep! Check out source material before you spout off.

3_ Player Tendency Tracking! I want to have the game store my tendencies. For example, what I choose to buy on QB's (in general terms like force composition slants).

Short term memory 'issues' huh?

Actually no...but it would be cool to be able to play an AI built on your tendencies so you can face off against an ever developing AI. I thought most people would make that leap from tracking your tendencies to some kind of implementation...but I stand corrected....

4 & 5

Not all of us have the lastest 733+ gaming rig. While improvements can - and no doubt will - be made in this area. Gameplay is what makes people come back to a game. Chess, for example, has particularly crappy graphics, but it seems to ahve stood the test of time.

It's a video game. Why re-write the graphics engine and NOT include the small touches that have come to be expectations for gamers?

It could very well increase the popularity of the game and bring in more players with something to contribute and help bts succeed. But apprently in your assessment, they should design for computers that aren't even made any more...Enjoy your PIII...

6_ Mixed fighting forces - I want to be able to build fantasy battles with germans and brittish fighting russians or Americans and Russians fighting brittish!

Might I suggest a fantasy game then?

No...I like how this plays out. Why should reality be a limitation? Once again, It's a video game.... so get off your high horse.

8_ Full Scripting Engine - It would be nice to be able to build fully scripted missions.

There is nothing stopping you doing that now. In fact, it was done as long ago as CMBO.

REALLY???? Wow! Please then script me the following scenario. I would like see engineers blow a bridge when axis reinforcements arrive, but they only arrive if their overall force strength is reduced to 33% and the allies force strength is over 66%.

10_ XML game output. It would be cool to have the game record the key stats of each battle in an XML file. That file could then be uploaded to a league site and that would report the battle with complete stats so that leagues could do more tracking and create more elegant game recording methods!

I'm not terribly interested in ego-stats. However, the same basic idea could be used to make MMP campaigns much more amenable. Of course, that makes the suggestion about 3 years old [Wink]

Again in your fantasy world where BTS only caters to existing customers and doesn't want to see their game market expand that would be great. But I know that it would be really sweet and set this game apart from other games. There are like 4 or 5 sites out there that track battles, how easy would it be to have an automatically generated report pop up. Parsing XML is WAY easier than relying on folks not to have typos, and allows better more complete stat tracking.

In terms of persistent campaigns this would be awesome because it would mean a better coordination of many more users.

------------------

Seriously man. I have no clue why you choose to rain your sour opinions and pissy comments on my feedback. I've been a major advocate for this game with friends, local gaming stores, and in newsgroups in the past.

I really don't think I deserve your crap....

This was a topic intended to generate ideas. Not generate ideas that YOU approve of or think need to be in the game. You come off like a fanboy who is defending something from some vicious attack which I don't see the tenor of my initial post doing...

Additionally...your snide remarks are really off-base and in a few cases completely wrong. You're exactly the kind of person that drives away new players and tries to throw your weight around because you feel some sort of entitlement.

Let me tell you...nobody cares who you think you are, or what sort of entitlement you think you have. But, don't accost me and the ideas I put on this board because you refuse the hear proposals for ideas.

Grow Up.

[Moon]

Point and counterpoint, and may I suggest to leave it at that? I'd hate to have to lock a thread with (many good) suggestions.

Martin

[Alkiviadis]

Originally posted by Gurra:

...And in the same manner as this " command shortcut ", I would also appreciate the option to select two or three formations for AFV's in platoon size or bigger. Column, side by side, and german keil, for example. Say you could choose where to go and then the appropriate formation. I don´t know if this would be possible with either the current or future engine, but it would nevertheless eliminate some of the parts I find less entertaining.

I know that this last suggestion has been up before in some way. Sorry for emphasizing.

Absolutely I 2nd the above, It would be a real time saver

[flamingknives]

I'd like to see ground get broken up by passage of AFVs, particularly deep tracks created by heavy tanks in soft ground that were used by infantry for cover. I think that this is mentioned in "Battalion" the history of the... 5th (?) Seaforths.

Also roads being degraded by the passage of vehicles. Having the whole map change significantly is just daft. Just the tracks, Ma'am.

I think we're going to see a big jump in terms of graphics. Dynamic lighting is already on the cards. A great many people have said that they were happy with top-down hex graphics, then CM came along and whoa! Now people are saying that they are happy with CM graphics. I think that the BFC boys are a little more ambitious than that. Witness all the extra goodies that went into CMBB.

Game map = game world? Not likely. While the maps may well be bigger, I imagine that they'll still be maps. Part of the longevity of CM is the ease that you can rustle up new maps. I can't see many of the talented scenario designers creating a 20km square map for a battalion sized engagement. Not to mention the extra processing power required would seriously reduce what you can actually represent on screen.

Anything that creates extra files (Like AARs) should be user specified, with the default on off

While I'm on a roll, I think I'll go back to an old favourite. Track weapon heat, and code that into the jam probability for automatic weapons. This would really set apart barrel changes and water-cooled weapons. eg. A Vickers MMG would have one heat 'reservior' that has a very large capacity before anything untoward happens, wheras an MG34 would have multiple, small reserviors that would be changed at the discrestion of the TacAI. better quality troops would make better judgements as to when to change barrels. This way you could model sustained and intense rates of fire.

[JonS]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I'd like to see ground get broken up by passage of AFVs, particularly deep tracks created by heavy tanks in soft ground

The tracks created would need to be subject to FOW, though, otherwise you would see disembodied tracks advancing across the map. Would that processing effort be worth the visual payback?

[LongLeftFlank]

Since we're giving free rein to our wish lists, as a kid, I always liked the MacGowan art on the original SL infantry counters showing the little figures advancing like actual combat soldiers (heads ducked, etc.) or lying around on the ground when "Broke 7". This really helped visually confirm that SL was a lot different from previous big unit wargames... that it was all about individual men fightin' and dyin'.

No idea what this does to the polygons, but purely from an aesthetic POV, I'd wish that CM2 infantry showed a slightly more realistic combat "body language", at least when executing "advance" or "assault" commands, as opposed to their current "Redcoats at Bunker Hill" stances. This might also help modders with some of the problems they've had with hats and heads. But then again, maybe not. I shall defer to the experts and enjoy whatever comes.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

I'd like to see ground get broken up by passage of AFVs, particularly deep tracks created by heavy tanks in soft ground

The tracks created would need to be subject to FOW, though, otherwise you would see disembodied tracks advancing across the map. Would that processing effort be worth the visual payback? </font>

[Major Concussion]

On a different note, before I forget:

Railroad crossings. Perhaps not fancy ones with the lights and gates, but when you're editing a map and you throw a railroad through your road and preview it, the road just ends abruptly at its tile, then the railroad, and another abrupt ending. Perhaps instead, there could be road ending pieces where the road (I'm referring to dirt road mostly) begins to blend in into grass and fade in a sense. This would obviously not only be used in crossings, but other places as well. Or I could just ignore the abrupt endings and just play, one or the other.

[flamingknives]

A proper level crossing would be good. As it currently stands, a unit traveling down the road must cross a railway, with the attendant penalties in speed and bogging chance or there is a discontinuity in the railway, which looks odd.