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

[Halberdiers]

Hi People, I do not want that developers misunderstand what I suggest.

-I'm not talk about "Gore": nor blood nor guts!.You do not see that in the picture below.

-I'm not talk about an animation for the enemy casualties:this can not help us to understand the mechanism of game!

You can understand what I try to say if you make in your mind an equivalent in animation between vehicle and infantry: both are the same.

-Explosion-animation for vehicles

-Wounded-animation for infantry

I'm talk only about OWN wounded infantry . I'm talk about explain the change in the numbers of the Main bar of the player:

-Moral status

-Number of losses

An animation of the enemy casualties do not have any interest.In fact , We can not see the Moral status or the number of Losses of the Enemy units !!

Regards

[ September 25, 2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[Philippe]

Originally posted by Pzman:

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

And I want some kind of modeling for aid stations and the treatment/evacuation of casualties.

For what purpose? That just adds more of the "blood and guts" that BFC doesn't want to show, and in the past has seen as outside the scope of the game. (Not to say that it couldn't be, just a view based on past comments by BFC.) </font>

[Madmatt]

It is very safe to say that amongst all the changes that will be highlighted in CMx2, greater 3d character modeling and animations will be among them.

Thats all I can say for now though...

Madmatt

[Tarkus]

All this is really interesting !

Originally posted by Philippe:

[...]but I do think that, especially if they manage to have 10-12 figures in a 10-12 man squad there should be more bodies lying around on the battlefield.[...]

I tend to agree with Pzman on this. Although I can see your point, *I think* more graphic evidence of dead/wounds would not change --> my <-- perception of the concept as simulated in CM.

On the other hand, I think the medical side of combat may be introduced with some measure of realism and success, although certainly not to send troops back on the line after receiving a 7.92mm bullet in the leg.

But if evacuating troops, protecting medics and managing to get our guys out of the big mess could be tied to the point system, it might get pretty realistic, dont you think ? As for the scope of CM, I'd say it's more of a gameplay thing. Prehaps it would be plain boring to include this side of things.

Another aspect that is somewhat tied to this is the communication side of combat, that could be linked to the borg spotting issue, which, IMHO, is one of the biggest challenge BFC is facing now: every one recognize its presence, but how to tackle it ? Considering what was said after the "realism leap" introduced with CMBB, we should brace ourselves for a huge gameplay change.

Assuming that borg spotting is the fact that a player can decide to act upon an information that would take much longer to reach him in the real world, then I think the whole issue is tighly related to the way communications are modelled in the game. Depending on the era, field telephones, runners, radios, whisles, flags, drums and other means might be of use, and might be related to borg spotting.

One way to deal with the problem might be to deal with the second part of the proposition,. i.e. time required to give orders, but that is not something that will smooth the gameplay, quite the contrary. Leave it as an option then ?

If you could, for example, blow up your opponent's field telephone hub, no doubt you would gain an advantage on his overall C&C capability, and this might be a challenging, even fun aspect of the newer game. I mean, placing and planning your comm network would definitely be an important issue. Researches would be needed to compare various comm set, among other things, like optics did in BB/AK. Not easy, but possibly very rewarding.

... on the comm aspect, although not exactly on the same level as moral/combat leadership... perhaps a Comm bonus for HQ, that would express the ability of the unit to clearly report its findings, would be relevant ?

Time to lurk for some previous discussion on the borg spotting issue.

Best

[ September 25, 2004, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Philippe:

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

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

And I want some kind of modeling for aid stations and the treatment/evacuation of casualties.

For what purpose? That just adds more of the "blood and guts" that BFC doesn't want to show, and in the past has seen as outside the scope of the game. (Not to say that it couldn't be, just a view based on past comments by BFC.) </font>

[Philippe]

To beat the aid stations thing to death, I think troops treated there don't return to combat for another week or two. Even in operations, if someone is so lightly wounded in one battle that he's capable of going back into action several battles later, he probably wouldn't count as a casualty in the first place. Invasive trauma tends to be a lot more unsettling than most people realize. Another reason why I don't like the FPS genre.

The troops that should go back to the front in twenty to forty minutes time are the able-bodied soldiers who evacuated the wounded and then return to their posts, not the wounded themselves.

I remember reading somewhere that one of the symptoms of crumbling morale in a firefight is that four soldiers will feel the need to escort a lightly wounded buddy back to the aid station...

[junk2drive]

on the medic aide subject, although not practical for normal battles, in operations it could be an important option.

i've lost or killed arty spotters, knowing that there wont be any in reinforcements. you learn to use them, but protect them. same would apply to medics. use them to "repair" a squad, random plus in number of soldiers. a ten man squad gets shot down to 4. they panic and rout to the rear. a medic move to them, reduces suppresion, and brings the man count up to 6.

make sense?

[MrSpkr]

Ugh. All this talk of aid stations or incorporating medics makes me think of powerups in RTS games. Why don't we just have a couple of ammunition crates and invulnerability shields lying around the battlefield, too, and be done with it?

Steve

[junk2drive]

why not eliminate infantry and revise "steel beasts"

[Peterk]

Allow the OOB and state of the units on board after a battle to be exported to a text file

of some sort. Allow OOBs to be loaded by text file. This allows motivated people to attempt

to program campaigns, simulate battles larger, deeper and more complex than what can be

done with operations.

Allow maps to be stored seperately from scenario files. You import a map when you build a

scenario or operation. Allow a map to be damaged/rubbled or modified in other ways in

the scenario and not on the original map.

Buildings higher than 2 stories.

During replay, if an enemy appears to go to ground or appears to be pinned, display it in a text label as is done for friendly forces. This makes it easier to judge suppression of the opponent in a 2D view without having to click on each enemy unit and see if they're upright or hugging the ground.

[Philippe]

There's a thin line here, and you have to be careful not to cross it.

Medics repairing a squad sounds a bit more like a simulation of a video game than a simulation of WWII. I don't think the normal function of a medic would be to restore morale of a panicked squad. Or eliminate supression. The game already has a mechanism for that.

I've often wondered about the concept of global morale, and thought it might be more appropriate to keep track of it on a different basis. It seems to me that the morale crisis of one larger than squad level body of soldiers shouldn't necessarily effect everyone else. Company A could have a morale rating of 10, Company B could have 35, and Company C could be a pristine 80. Not sure its worth simulating on this level, though through the use of aid stations I've hinted at a way to show the distinctions.

Aid stations, their equipment, and their wounded need trucks to move around (and even to function, to some extent). And the same goes for ammo dumps and field kitchens (did I mention that I want full modeling of field kitchens, staff headquarters equipment, and latrines?). So if you start modeling stations, kitchens, and dumps a little more accurately, perhaps with some kind of a transport requirement that has to be preserved at the end of the game (or the system counts the asset as partially lost and you get penalized extra points), you won't see many people doing recon with trucks. Or even jeeps, for that matter.

[Tank Ace]

I WANT KOREA!!

[Pzman]

I want Western Front WWII!!!!!! Who wins?

[Death Commando]

What I would like to see is a Ironman option. Where I wouldn't be able to save during battles against the AI.

[c3k]

My own "want": an indexed scenario file. If I want to play a '44, German vs. Russian, northern theater, no armor, vs. AI, I can check the appropriate boxes and "VOILA", CM will show me the entire list of scenarios meeting my criteria.

Obviously, the more indices available, the better this system would be. I think this would be much better than the huge, monolithic, alphabetic system now in use.

Thanks,

Ken

[stikkypixie]

Also a minor thing, and i could be wrong on this, but here goes:

When playing QB tcp/ip, the host chooses his forces first and then has to wait until his opponent chooses his forces (which can seem like an eternity), before they can deploy.

I may be impatient but if they can program it so that both players chooses his forces simultanously that would be great.

[Philippe]

Scenarios sorted by date.

If there were a required date field when you design a scenario, you could have all the scenarios appear in date or alphabetical order.

The field should be explicit about prompting you for month, day, and year, so non-Americans don't get confused about which to put first. If the scenario is fictional it should probably default to the last day of the month unless specified, and then sort alphabetically.

The date wouldn't have to display on the scenario list.

[Mr. Tittles]

I think a mission statement about the game (or a Combat Mission statement..) from the developers could certainly show the path for what to expect (and what to suggest).

A general statement about scope, scale, etc. would help.

PS: Remember, a proper Mission Statemnt must contain at least two run-on sentances.

[Philippe]

Mission statements tend to stifle innovation by encouraging people to think inside the box. I think we should all prefer to have BFC maintain a studied silence on the subject. They're perfectly capable of winnowing the wheat from the chaff on their own, and somebody might accidently trigger a useful train of thought. So let's give them our tangentially relevant ideas, but without interfering in their creative process.

[Dennis Grant]

OK, my wish list in no particular order:

1) Formations, both infantry and vehicular. More for setup purposes than during combat (formations kinda go to hell once the shooting starts)

So I want to be able to double-click on the platoon commander, highlight the platoon, select "extended line" and the facing, and Bob's yer uncle.

See the UI for "Total War" (specifically, "Shogun- Total War") for a good way to do this.

2) A "follow leader" command, useful with formations. Double-click the platoon commander, highlight the platoon, select "follow leader" and then all in-command subunits move on a parallel path to the HQ unit, taking on the leader's movement type as well.

3) The ability to define phase lines and/or objectives. (probably only during setup) Draw a circle on the map with the mouse, once circle defined stick a flag (visible only to me) in it. Select units, use a command "assault objective", click on flag. Units now Move towards objective if they don't have LOS, Advance if they do, and switch to Assault the correct distance away.

4) Have a camera position "unit view". Click on unit. Click the "unit view" button, and now my POV jumps to that of the unit. Can tilt/pan the camera, but otherwise can't move it.

For vehicles, 2 camera views. 1 for main gunner, another for unbuttoned TC.

BONUS: for units with augmented vision (telescopic gunsights or binos) provide magnified view at correct magnification.

5) Visual damage to vehicles. Shell holes on knocked out tanks. Broken tracks on mobility kills. Vehicles sunk into ground on bogged/immobile. Where historically accurate, popped turrets (hatches blown out, or turret blown into the air) Crew bailing out animations.

In other words, make it more visually obvious when a vehicle is dead or immobile.

6) Vehicle tracks! Tanks chew up ground and can be spotted that way. Enough tank traffic (especially in wet or soft ground) turns ground into mud or hopelessly ruts it up and makes it Rough for infantry. On harder ground, a tank pushing through (for example) Brush or Scattered Trees makes its own road that is easier to follow in another tank or a wheeled vehicle.

7) Contact reports. When a unit makes contact, pop up a little window detailing who spotted the bad guy and jump the view to where he is (make this an option)

8) The artillery spotting model is overly restrictive. It is historically accurate (for some nations) to allow junior officers to call in and direct artillery via a spotter who could not see the target ("Target not identified send corrections") These corrections could be relayed from unit to unit - if there is a communications path from the unit to the spotter, the unit should be able to direct artillery (perhaps with some accuracy penalty)

9) Medics are a bad idea. Typically, if you are hurt bad enough to drop out of the fight and seek a medic, you ain't getting back into the fight anytime soon. A soldier's sense of guilt/duty/loyalty is so powerful that he will ignore minor injuries and keep fighting rather than let his buddies down. When he needs a medic during combat, he's DONE.

After a fight, a medic suddenly has his hands full with all the "fighting wounded" that show up, but during a fight, a medic only sees the combat casulties who can no longer fight.

10) The ability to load in actual terrain profiles - there are several open formats that can be downloaded. Being able to play scenarios on the actual ground contours would be amazing....

That's enough for now.

DG

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Philippe:

The field should be explicit about prompting you for month, day, and year, so non-Americans don't get confused about which to put first.

Why not be explicit about prompting you for day, month and year, so Americans don't get confused?

[simovitch]

10) The ability to load in actual terrain profiles - there are several open formats that can be downloaded. Being able to play scenarios on the actual ground contours would be amazing....

Do you mean downloading a pre-existing digital terrain model, or digital contours from aerial mapping (in say, dxf format) and then have the game create a map from that?.

That would indeed be awesome.

I'm not counting on Battlefront including this option, but... since pyewacket can break the code on the BO/BB/AK map editors I would think a third party program could be developed to read a dxf file that could be interpreted by the CM editor. It's all just X, Y, and Z coordinates... you would also have to generate an algorythm that will "fill in the blanks" between the hard elevations and then write it all to the CM map editor.

[Mr. Tittles]

The developers are clearly taking a top down approach since they have started with the moon and the stars and such.

[Philippe]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

The field should be explicit about prompting you for month, day, and year, so non-Americans don't get confused about which to put first.

Why not be explicit about prompting you for day, month and year, so Americans don't get confused? </font>

[Philippe]

More engineering functionality.

I want bangalore torpedoes to blow gaps in barbed wire entanglements. I want to move from building to building by blowing holes in the walls and not exposing myself in the street. I want to stub my toe on dragon's teeth. And I want to at least see if not build several different kinds of pontoon bridges, ranging from the very simple kind that is infantry only, to the larger vehicular type.