Jump to content

What do we want in the new CM game, Part Deux!


MrSpkr

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Bannon DC:

Maybe the ability to control the rate of fire for units. For example, a vet 50mm mortar will go through its entire 30-40 rounds of ammo in about 2 minutes. How about the ability to slow them down -- like order "suppression fire" where it shots at about half its maximum rate?

Also, using mortars as an example, does "area fire" have to mean fire at that exact spot? How about within 10-30m... this would help in suppressing a platoon instead of just a single squad. I've grow appreciative of "green" mortar crews of late for this very reason... they aren't on target!

I agree. Being able to select between sustained and rapid fire would be useful.

I've probably mentioned weapon heating in this thread already, so I won't go over that again, other than to say it's a good idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am steadfast in maintaining that any changes which complicate gameplay too much should be able to toggled on/off.
I believe in options, period. They allow low spec machines to work, allow for personal taste, and flatten out the learning curve for newbies. The only down side I can see is reaching agreement over which options to use when playing with or against other humans.

The current level of complexity is already hard enough to handle as is. [/QB]
Not sure I agree with this. Did you ever play Panzer/88/Armor? Combat Mission is a breeze by comparison.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to see true howitzer performance - i.e., indirect, non-LOS fire. Given that we can have 5+km maps, I would like to use howitzers to fire over hills, etc.

Perhaps you could have a "howitzer battery" of 2-3 howitzers with a radioman for spotting. IF the radioman is killed, the howitzers could revert to LOS fire, or fire with a great decrease in accuracy.

Come on, admit it everyone - After you've been ravaged by artillery, wouldn't you like to cross over that hill and visit some payback on the battery that threw tons of HE on you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Znarf:

By the way, do you know if the Battlefront people are even going to read all this wish-list stuff?

FYI:

Originally posted by Moon:

Indeed, and it would be good if you start another if you like to continue. I am going to lock this now. The fact that it'll be locked doesn't mean that your suggestions were useless. Quite the contrary, we've found a number of interesting ideas, as usual.

Now, we also found a number of useless ideas of course , mostly because the assumptions that they were made under are way too close to the way CM currently works, and the new engine will be that - a totally new engine, started from a clean white sheet of paper so to speak. But thanks anyway, and keep posting

Martin

FWIW.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tarkus:

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

By the way, do you know if the Battlefront people are even going to read all this wish-list stuff?

FYI:

Originally posted by Moon:

Indeed, and it would be good if you start another if you like to continue. I am going to lock this now. The fact that it'll be locked doesn't mean that your suggestions were useless. Quite the contrary, we've found a number of interesting ideas, as usual.

Now, we also found a number of useless ideas of course , mostly because the assumptions that they were made under are way too close to the way CM currently works, and the new engine will be that - a totally new engine, started from a clean white sheet of paper so to speak. But thanks anyway, and keep posting

Martin

FWIW.

Cheers </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suggestions for CMX2 v2.

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, and to track the position and current state of any battalion combat team would be a huge plus. 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 in bigger games if one could toggle on and off a terrain grid in the orders phase.

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. 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.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my wishlist:

Tanks/Vehicles:

- tanks have a size -> cover for infantry and vehicles

- riding infantry on tanks can shoot and has partial cover behind the turret

- tank movement: additional option for Schießhalt (stop&shoot) when at full speed and contact to enemy tank appears (an additional option depending on the enemy's vehicle-class would be even better; i.e. Schießhalt only for medium/heavy tanks while ignoring others)

- better hit model - modeling the size of the turret

- crewmembers can leave vehicles for spotting

- turn rates - especially allowing fast turning of tanks after a fast move

- if tanks gotten stuck: possibility for towing out during battle

- additional command(s) for AFVs - now either the vehicle is driving way too slow but cautious (move to contact), or the speed is realistically, then it's like playing russian roulette - so an optional command for vehicles what to do, if they spot enemy armor, would be fantastic

- important for operations: rescueing tank crews by entering friendly tanks

- even better hit calculations? I have the uncertain impression, that the hit-probability (not the displayed, but the effective one) of tanks depends on their stats; i may be wrong, but i have the impression, that the performance of very successful tanks decreases quite drastically during battles

- tanks should not slow down that much over small foxholes

Guns:

- much faster turning around of light-medium AT-guns

- retreat without turning around?

- indirect fire of howitzers and self-propelled guns

Landscape:

- placement of buildings (i.e. rows)

Artillery:

- FOs can be added to vehicles, or FO-function added to certain tanks (don't know about Allies, but common practice in the Wehrmacht; but i guess also for the western Allies)

- possibility to take woods under fire, although no LOS torwards the inner of the woods

- offboard artillery can fire smoke preplanned

Aircraft:

- airforce liasion officers (is that the correct name? smile.gif ); and this function also assignable to tanks (very effective with Stukas - dive bombers); they should be able to call in air-support, determine the target-class and the location)

- better aircraft model - much better tactical effectivity of dive bombers (Stukas) regarding hitting AND identifying friendly tanks compared to overflying planes

- exactly preplanned air-strike like for artillery

Fun/Atmosphere:

- full movie replay; exportable to share with others

- enhanced briefing (possibility of pics, debriefing)

- enhanced audio engine (same redundant principle as for bmp-graphics; optional sounds are only played, if they are present, otherwise the standard sound is played; also for the annoying environment-sounds it would be great)

- more possibilities for scenario designers:

reinforcements, depending on certain aspects; i.e. if certain units are still available; so there could be made scenarios with huge artillery/aircraft use but they stay balanced like the designer wants it; also the scenario designers should be able to give the air-support the target-class: i.e. heavy tanks;

trigger levels depending on hit probability and vehicle class for AT-guns and tanks in Lauerstellung (lurking-positions?))

- optional hiding of the attacker/defender display in the user interface (this setting is determined by the scenario designer)

- realistically timeframes for the included scenarios (as education for the scenario designers to develop longer lasting battles, instead of the usual ridiculous 30 minutes shootouts with 20 tanks without any maneuvering)

Gameplay:

- keep WEGO!

- keep the great user interface

- 1 turn/email

- full movie replay

- grid overlay

- display in GUI if vehicle is transporting a unit

- mouse wheel for level adjustment; remember the horizontal elevation (SHIFT+A, SHIFT+Z) of each level

- no automatically unbuttoning of tanks during battle

- player can make notes on the map during battle

- different scenarios (maps) connected to an operation (a bit larger timeframe than actual operations)

- last file of battle with detailed unit data export possibility for the community (you guess right: for campaigns and operations ;) )

- units and their status on battlefield import (you guess right: for campaigns and operations :D )

- multi-multiplayer mode (gamemaster centralized)

- true-combat mode with optional picture (of a tactical map)

- solved unit-marker problem

- better sound-contact classifications and partial identifications (in doubt, always the stronger, never the weaker)

- new victory condition for one side only instead of flags: destroy enemy

[ December 07, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has probably been mentioned before:

We need the ability to give troop carrying vehicles a "dismount" order. This way, they after troops actually dismount, they are not sitting around for the better part of a turn and then a portion of the next turn "pausing" to digest new movement orders.

The converse is true as well... waiting for new orders once troops load. We need an order something like "load then go." You get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the biggest problem IMO is 'the all seeing eye'. I wish they would put in a friendly unit FOW option. It would mean that is a squad is out of C&C and out of line of sight of all other units, a 'friendly unit fow' takes over. The effects of that would be:

1) you (as the all seeing commander) dont see what this unit spots.

2) He location becomes an estimation based on the last order, not a hard location.

3) Tac-AI takes over for engagements.

4) You can still give orders, but the unit might not be where you think it is,

So you could order a squad to go through some woods out of c&C and out of LOS. When that happens, you lose hard info on that unit. It coudl be that it completes and order, or it could have become engaged with enemy units, or it broken and heading for the back of the lines.

I know not everybody likes this, but I think it would be a nice 'option'. And it would definitely limit the 'all seeing commander' problem in a logical way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bannon DC:

Maybe the ability to control the rate of fire for units. For example, a vet 50mm mortar will go through its entire 30-40 rounds of ammo in about 2 minutes. How about the ability to slow them down -- like order "suppression fire" where it shots at about half its maximum rate?

Also, using mortars as an example, does "area fire" have to mean fire at that exact spot? How about within 10-30m... this would help in suppressing a platoon instead of just a single squad. I've grow appreciative of "green" mortar crews of late for this very reason... they aren't on target!

I agree. Being able to select between sustained and rapid fire would be useful.

I've probably mentioned weapon heating in this thread already, so I won't go over that again, other than to say it's a good idea </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

the biggest problem IMO is 'the all seeing eye'. I wish they would put in a friendly unit FOW option. It would mean that is a squad is out of C&C and out of line of sight of all other units, a 'friendly unit fow' takes over. The effects of that would be:

1) you (as the all seeing commander) dont see what this unit spots.

2) He location becomes an estimation based on the last order, not a hard location.

3) Tac-AI takes over for engagements.

4) You can still give orders, but the unit might not be where you think it is,

So you could order a squad to go through some woods out of c&C and out of LOS. When that happens, you lose hard info on that unit. It coudl be that it completes and order, or it could have become engaged with enemy units, or it broken and heading for the back of the lines.

I know not everybody likes this, but I think it would be a nice 'option'. And it would definitely limit the 'all seeing commander' problem in a logical way.

I like this idea very much!

Here my 2ct: as long as the unit stays out of LOS or HQ-range, only sound-contacts other friendly units receive, are reported ('there's some infantry shooting over there', 'hMG fire').

This would mean finally losing contact to friendly units with all (positive) consequences for realism and gameplay!

If the unit comes back into LOS only, you get a bit more info (think of handsigns) about the contact and the info could be displayed in a different color than usual.

In case the unit comes back into range of a HQ, you receive all information the unit had collected (for spotting crewmembers of radio-equipped vehicles, this could be the case, when they are within a certain radius of the vehicle).

I would really appreciate the possibility to lose any contact to friendly units and that only friendly units can make them appear and receive orders again.

Therefore a new kind of emergency-order would be helpful, the unit can receive, before it is sent away.

i.e. after a certain amount of time the TacAI tries to move the unit along the given path (or direction).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...