A couple things I'd like to see added

[Bimmer]

First off, I'm really enjoying the game thus far. I've spent more time in the editor than playing, but that's nothing new. Hopefully I'll have some scenarios ready soon.

Anyway, a couple things that seem like they might be useful additions:

- Allow reinforcements to optionally start on-map but locked. This would allow the designer to establish an on-map reserve that the player could not control until a set time, but that would unlock on contact with the enemy. Not a major thing, but it would give scenario designers another set of options.

- Allow the designer or player to set levels of fire. Something along the lines of suppressive/normal/harassing. This would allow more control over ammunition expenditure as well as giving more tactical control of the battle.

My .02.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bimmer:

[QB] - Allow reinforcements to optionally start on-map but locked. This would allow the designer to establish an on-map reserve that the player could not control until a set time, but that would unlock on contact with the enemy. Not a major thing, but it would give scenario designers another set of options.

And if stray artillery fire fell on them, wouldn't that represent kind of a bummer to the owning player, who would be powerless to do anything about it? I don't think this is a great suggestion. The player has the ability to tell troops to "hide" or whatever; I'm not sure I understand the real world rationale you would have for freezing troops onto the map outside the player's control?

Allow the designer or player to set levels of fire. Something along the lines of suppressive/normal/harassing. This would allow more control over ammunition expenditure as well as giving more tactical control of the battle.

It would be good to see Area fire commands beefed up a bit in this way, and also in the size of the area to be brought under fire - for example, if you wanted to hose down the entire face of a building rather than a single floor or window.

In Canada as I'm sure elsewhere, we do give fire commands based on rate of fire - slow rate, normal rate, rapid rate, etc., so this would be a realistic addition, though I think the TacAI may be better suited to figuring this out in the majority of situations. In CMX1, for example, ammo usage shot up when in close contact if I am remembering correctly as self-preservation kicked in. I think the desire for the interface at this point is fewer commands, not more!

[Cid250]

The map editor, and current artillery features, are good enough. This developers team shouldn't spend much time with them, while we have CORE engine faults, like the fake WEGO design.

[SlowMotion]

Two things I'd like to see changed in Scenario Editor (which is very good mostly):

-When purchasing units it's possible to delete units from a larger formation (like individual tanks from a tank company). It would be very useful if this delete would be a toggle.

So a unit that has been deleted could be undeleted. This way if one decides that for example you'd need 6 tanks instead of original 4, you wouldn't need to add a new formation. Unit list would stay shorter.

-I'd like to see map scrolling done in some way which works if you have two monitors.

Now it scrolls when you move mouse pointer to the edge of display. If you have two monitors this works quite badly in one direction out of four. Instead of scrolling the map the mouse pointer moves to other monitor. Actually the same problem is while playing also.

[Pandur]

hm, why not, always a good time to support WeGo!

but i would allready be "happy" with the wego mode we have now with better pathfinding and better tacAI(i dont want em do everything alone but they shouldnt make things more complicated)in TCP/ip (!!!).

well,lets see...time will show

[Darkmath]

The first things I think it needs to be improved :

1-Self preservation TacAI routine for WEGO playing. Overall, a real TacAI in WEGO is welcome.

2-Walls not blocking LOS/LOF issue

3-Pausing commands on specifical waypoints should work (it's featured but doesn't work).

Face command for vehicles on a waypoints need to be fixed too.

4-QB bugs and poor AI problem fixed.

5-Routing or surrendering soldiers while panicking.

In fact, there are few recurring problems which entirely mess up the game from some player's (Panzer76,Cid250,dalem are the main constructive complaining posters here as far as I know) and reviewer's POV.

From their POV, TacAI is completely broken, but thesame examples are brought to explain it such as suicidal Stryker behaviour with no evasive action or poor pathfindings problems in MOUT environmen.

Moreover, I don't think a blue bar for AI computing would be necessary to have a decent AI, or even at the same CMX1 level, which itself is NOT perfect.

[Bimmer]

Wow, off-topic in two posts. I'd like to think that's some sort of a record, but sadly...

Anyway, the idea for my first suggestion came from reading an AAR of 2/5 Marines in Fallujah, where the company tank reserve was held within 200m or so of the objective area. If you want to force the player to keep the reserve as a reserve, you must either rely on the player to adhere to conditions in the briefing or set the reserve as a reinforcement that magically appears on the map when you want it to. Either one of these is a serviceable choice; IMHO a locking option for on-map reinforcements would be preferable in recreating such a situation.

As to the levels of fire, I'm referring to direct fire, not artillery (the artillery system is fine the way it is). I for one am not bothered at all by the number of available interface commands, and would gladly trade a slight increase in interface complexity for more control over what my forces do. Direct fire, being considerably more common than artillery, would benefit from more direct player control.

[Cid250]

Originally posted by Darkmath:

Moreover, I don't think a blue bar for AI computing would be necessary to have a decent AI, or even at the same CMX1 level, which itself is NOT perfect.

I've studied advanced AI algorithms in the university... and the "time" matters.

The more time that you have of exclusive CPU, the better that your AI will perform.

Believe me... no RTS in the history of videogames, had a good AI. Every AI algorithm that you run over the constrictions of real time, sucks...

The human brain is more powerfull than any computer AI on real time over any game with complex rules... some games balanced the stupid real time AI solutions, by adding some "un fair" rules.. like speed up their units, to place the problem on the "computer-mouse-interface-skills". Other games, just make their AI "un fair" by doing all your units visible removing fog of war for the computer CPU.

But even with those unfair tricks, the real time AI is way stupid than the most stupid of the humans...

In real time you can build a good AI if you expect to face laboratory trained monkeys... but humans with some kind of wargaming skills, will be bored as i am now after finishing the campaign.

An AI with a dedicated CPU time of 5 to 7 minutes, may be can perform as an idiotic player. But our current real time AI constricted to 1 minute of Real Time is sub-idiotic.

[ARRPEEGEE]

I'd like to be able to withdraw units on friendly map edges, and re-instate exit zones.

It'd be even better to link withdrawn units to scoring conditions (i.e.: syrian player withdraws X%, US player X points)

I'd just like to have some options..Every scenario you play you tend to end up with garbage troops and vehicles.I'd like to send them back to fight another day, not force them to fight and die.

Exit zones would be handy scenario design tools

(i.e.: drive through ambush zones and exit map)

[Guest]

Cid, in terms of strategic AI you're right in my experience (I didn't study advanced AI algorithms in college, but I do work on design and implementation of them on a regular basis).

The strategic abstractions are pretty complex to handle properly in realtime. That's why the planning during scenario design makes sense as a first choice.

The tactical AI, however, has a limited set of abstractions based on current surroundings and perceptions. Real soldiers in combat react based on their training for such situations and their morale, both possible to define within narrow parameters. Either they do the right thing and follow their training or they don't.

You don't need to have the AI troops decide whether or not to think about their girl back home or listen to their iPod, you just need it to decide between hitting the dirt or continuing on to the objective, then returning fire or cowering.

A simple set of states would cover practically every corner case.

Note that I'm not saying it's easy. It's just possible to do in real-time within reasonable limits of CPU power and memory.