What do we want in the next Combat Mission game

[Sergei]

REVS,

I find your comments about Allied lack of variety true. But I fail to see how or why this should be 'fixed' in the way you are proposing. No matter what the general situation, there were always cases where the underdog got local superiority and could overwhelm the other party. The 'historical' supply situation could only be determined by a month-basis per front, but this would make no sense at all. Not to me, anyway. Rather just use house rules with your opponent. You're saying that "no Axis player" would agree to that, implying that even you wouldn't find it fair when playing as Axis. Well, maybe invent something fair, then. Like both sides agree to buying only equipment with a rarity modifier of +20% or less. I would be willing to at least try such a rule out.

[Walker]

A "dynamic" dawn-dusk option would be nice.

Meaning you can set the start time to just when day begins to break or dusk begins to fall. Visibility can increase / decrease quite significantly even within the 30 minutes of a shortish game.

[acrashb]

There are a lot of details to look at, and I bet BTS does so. On some larger topcis:

1) Ironman rules enforced as an option during setup. Views 1&2 only, etc. This way the hardcore can get more "realistic" (more constrained as per an actual commander) and the gamers can still have fun.

2) Airbourne Assault-style command and control. Tell your platoon leader to go somewhere and assume a defensive position. Tell your company leader to attack a marked hill. Tell your convoy to move along roads to a certain city square. And so on. You could then manage larger battles, or just manage smaller ones more easily.

3) improved LOS (moving vehicles, bunkers should block LOS).

4) n-based multiplayer. As in "player 1 gets these forces", "Player 2 gets these forces", ..." player n gets the remaining forces". Let one guy do the armour, one the infantry (on a given side), or have individual platoon leaders, etc.

5) what they said about modelling small-arms penetration ( a .50 should degrade it's firepower more slowly through cover than a 9mm smg).

6) SOP. Emulate TacOps as required. This also facilitates larger battles, and adds some realism.

8) keep the ammo abstracted, but on a per-weapon basis. Now your squad LMG's can open up at long range, and you'll still have some SMG ammo for the knive-fight that follows.

9) OOB. Can't the company commander just turn to an aide and say "where did that anti-tank team get to"???

10) better "continuity battles", currently modelled as operations. A series of short conflicts over a few days seems to be a mainstay of WWII, but it's hard to depict in CM.

[30ot6]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 30ot6:

Third, turn based isn't realistic. Real time is. Time to make the switch and throw the binds of table top wargaming forever.

Real Time is so divorced from reality that it is completely laughable.</font>

[flamingknives]

An RTS means that you can only ever play the role of one man, wheras turn-based means that you can play the role of all your commanders in the field.

IMHO, that keeps CM interesting. In addition, I personally dislike the mad click-fest that RTS games invariably devolve into.

[stikkypixie]

RTS is just as gamey as turn-based, you just have to click faster...

[Big Jim]

If you wanted to cover a larger scale battle/operation than CM currently does (except in the huge, and in my opinion, unwieldy, scenarios), a different command and control system may be needed. I enjoy micromanaging my units, but anything much bigger than a few companies of infantry and a few platoons of afvs starts to become an exercise in memory and patience. For the current scale though, I think its pretty damned good already!

For what it's worth, I reckon that CMx2 will be set in one of two time periods- WWII or modern era (1980-2000 say), as most of the research necessary for units, dates etc. has been done. (CM and TacOps) Modern era may show off the new engine better, but WWII has an almost limitless supply of historical battles, OOBs, armour thickness etc. for us to argue about in these very forums.

In an ideal fantasy world where money is no object to BFC, I would love to see a CM series which covered all different wars of (roughly) the 20th century, from World War I through to a future conflict in 2010, with different editions with scenario packs and mods for the seperate wars. :eek:

Not gonna happen though! Still, WWII and/or modern era would be sweet. :cool:

[Sergei]

The further evolution of realistic RTS's is very much dependant on coupla things: AI and multiplayer.

The multiplayer bit is doable already, and it would be great to play a Close Combat -style game with realistic chain of command, with people occupying the posts from platoon level up to battalion. It would also require an advanced interface, so that commanders at each level would be given a realistic and useful view of things (as a platoon leader you're more interested in little things as when you're a company or battalion commander).

What is still missing, is a good AI that doesn't require the player to act as a sheepdog and which is the main reason why RTS's like CC only have a couple of units and why more massive games like CM are turn-based.

But I might find still more enjoyable a turn-based game with lots of players, because for me part of the satisfaction with playing CM is being able to just sit back and watch the combat for a minute!

[Big Jim]

Oh yeah, and the WEGO system is fundamental to CM, and what makes it stand out so much from the crowd. We say NO to RTS!

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by 30ot6:

Explain your reasoning. You sound screwy to me.

Simple. Take a CM game where you command a company (optimum level for CM) or a battalion. If you make it real time, you have a company/battalion coomander issuing orders to individual squads and teams in real time... company/battalion commanders don't issue orders to squads. They issue orders to platoon/company commanders. By making the player micro manage in real time, you have divorced the game so far from reality that it shouldn't be called a wargame anymore. The only instance where I thing real time would work realistically is if the player commanded no more than one squad... and then only if real time kicked in at the point of contact.

[Agua]

Mentioned this about a year ago, but the ability to have the squads within a platoon align in formation (e.g., wedge, V, line, column, etc.) by clicking on the organic HQ unit then choosing the formation from a popup menu would be WAAAY helpful during setup, saving tons of time. I suppose ideally, the distances between the squads could be user-customized as well.

[30ot6]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 30ot6:

Explain your reasoning. You sound screwy to me.

Simple. Take a CM game where you command a company (optimum level for CM) or a battalion. If you make it real time, you have a company/battalion coomander issuing orders to individual squads and teams in real time... company/battalion commanders don't issue orders to squads. They issue orders to platoon/company commanders. By making the player micro manage in real time, you have divorced the game so far from reality that it shouldn't be called a wargame anymore. The only instance where I thing real time would work realistically is if the player commanded no more than one squad... and then only if real time kicked in at the point of contact. </font>

[Ace Pilot]

Building on Agua's idea, I'd like to see an off-map set up area where your forces could be deployed. It would make them easier to see and could also be used to show units that exited the map during the game. I hate exiting units and being unable to check their stats after the game is over.

[yacinator]

how bout have an ai that can control boats?

it would work for a ww2 game and (even more importantly) a game happening in nam. can't resist the temptation to ambush a couple of pt boats hehe.

[Schoerner]

@yacinator:

if you want to play such a battle against a German attacker, then you have an opponent, if you want.

[Gpig]

I'd LOVE to see more realistic animation (being an animator, myself).

Can't you just see the troopers jumping walls. Lobbing grenades. Tank commanders swaying in the cupola as the tank descends a river bank.

Atmosphere, baby!

Gpig

[Teratogen]

I would like to see soldiers have the ability to take over enemy field pieces and machine guns.

[Cessna]

Buildings laid out in an irregular pattern, with rooms and stairways...

[dalem]

I want proper cigar stub modeling. Everyone knows that all American General Officers were issued the Cigar, Unlit, M6A4E6. The British called it the "Stubby", although that name was never used by the American army until after the war. The Germans referred to it as "The Little General".

The Stubby was usually field modified by its officer. The higher the rank it seems, the shorter the M6A4E6.

The M6 should not be confused with the Cigar, Lit, M22A1, which was based on a similar form but issued only to American non commissioned officers. No known nickname for this Cigar is known.

-le dale

[Jim Boggs]

I want a feature that if one is playing a PBEM game and your opponent goes more than two days without sending a turn, the computer will create an electric field and shock the fox pee out of the slacker until he sends a turn.

Please BFC. Surely this is something Madmatt would enjoy working on.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by 30ot6:

I was suggesting that micro management and the things that make it possible(gods eye view, instant orders), be eliminated entirely and be replaced with systems much more realistic: limited ground level view and a communications and command system that actually resemble reality.

To make it realistic would...

A) ...require the most amazing AI yet developed (you're subordinate commanders (computer controlled) would have to act/react like human beings

...be the most intensly boring game imaginable. You control one unit, Company HQ (assuming company level scenario), and the only effect you have is the orders you issue (which may or may not be followed. At the point of contact, you have almost no control what-so-ever... enjoy being a spectator.

[yacinator]

Originally posted by Teratogen:

I would like to see soldiers have the ability to take over enemy field pieces and machine guns.

now that's a great idea. if u had civilians, in an operation they could be like nva sympathizers(?) in the first battle they could be unarmed and then picked up some guns from dead us or arvn troops and started fighting in the next battle. of course their experience level would be always conscript. even better idea: say there's a surrounded hill in an operation, at night a raiding party sneaks out they steal an enemy gun and turn it on it's former users in the next battle.

Another idea:having separate ammo points for each weapon.

also the second guy in a bazooka team should have like a submachinegun or something.

[samurai man]

I love the existing CMAK engine as it is for the most part. However, as a fan of huge detailed two-player operations (particularly Battle of the Bulge because of the desperate stakes, weather, and terrain conditions) I'd like the following.

1) A revamped CMBO with King Tigers and an extensive ability to handle huge operations involving multiple taskforces over a huge area. Thus allowing whole battlegroups to get cut off and attacked from the flanks while relief attacks try to break through to them.

2) A larger map: expanded to say 6000m X 12000m or larger (the larger the better).

3) Engineers that can set explosives and blow up bridges (currently this can only be done with artillery) as well as clear obstacles.

4) Highly desired for operations, a more flexible set-up zone boundary. One that would allow for counter attacks, reinforcements, and holding of ground from any side of the map besides the friendly side only.

5) Improved commands: such as a follow road command or a follow the leader command - to have a group of units follow a lead unit whose path the player plots out - this would be useful for advancing multiple units along winding roads.

6) Improved weather graphics allowing for more dynamic fog effect such as when its snowing would be nice.

7) Any combination of those changes would push the game way over the top in my joyous opinion. The addition of fuel supplies would push it way way way over the top.

[yacinator]

samurai u can tell engineers to blow up a bridge in cmak. everything else are good suggestions. would be cool if they were applied to a game happening in vietnam or perrsian gulf. the fuel thing would be cool. for ground vehicles it should be only in operations, but a helicopter could run out of fuel in a battle

[Melnibone]

yacinator it would be so cool if the juiceless helicopters then crashed into trucks carrying napalm dont u think?