To kick things off... a poll of sorts...

[KG_Swampfox]

Gentlemen,

Almost 100% of my gaming is against human opponents, and 90% of that is PBEM games, many are multiplayer games

#1 on my list has got to be a PBEM platform in the game.

#2 I'd like to see a multiplayer option added.

#3 I think support units like howitzers crews and such use their own organic weapons for self defence more readily.

#4 add the option of observation/spotter A/C to the available equiptment

#5 Allow any on the map arty asset to blind fire based on spotting by the observation A/C (perhaps at the battalion level)

CMBB and CMAK are the finest turn based strategy games on the planet, add PBEM to CMX2 and you will continue that tradition.

KG_Swampfox

Kampfgruppe Clan

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

[snips]

We're curious to know what you guys think are the top 5 things you don't want to see changed from CMx1 and the top 5 things you want CMx2 to do differently.

Things to keep the same:

1. Focus on coy/bn level actions.

2. Dust clouds produced by movement and HE.

3. FOW.

4. Weather effects.

5. Utterly, utterly brilliant user interface design (which I think gets too little credit, because the best interface is one you can ignore).

Things to change:

1. Artillery system should distinguish battery, ammunition and observer, instead of conflating them into a single blob. This should allow for reinforcing fires, limit the amount of special natures and fuzes (smoke, VT) available, and enable proper planned programmes of fire. FOs should be able to sense shots falling anywhere the burst is visible, not just where they can see the point of impact on the ground, and should be able to specify the rate of fire they call for.

2. More comprehensive treatment of field engineering; more kinds of mines, obstacles and booby-traps, provision for demolitions, dropping fascines and assault bridging, and mine-clearing tanks such as flails, ploughs, rollers, and Giant Viper. Make log and concrete bunkers much harder to see and much harder to kill than they now are with tank main guns.

3. Ammunition supply. Make those MG-42s run dry fast, and give jeeps and carriers a useful job to do outloading ammunition.

4. Night visibility. Permit firing on locations not directly visible (and also area fire through smoke and dust) and on gun-flashes; allow for illuiminants, searchlights, silhouetting and skylining.

5. Change the suppression system. I think the current system both permits troops to recover from suppression too quickly, and makes people run away too quickly. The usual reaction to fire should be inertia. In particular, troops dug-in should be practically invulnerable to bullet fire, and should not leap out of perfectly good entrenchments just because a lot of bullets are slicing up their parapet. It should be essentially impossible to clear an area of enemy infantry by fire alone, as can frequently be done now.

All the best,

John.

[Hammer-n-Sickle]

This has probably been said before but it would really be cool if you could stitch all turns together to watch the whole battle and perhaps save for later viewing

[Barrold]

KEEP

WEGO

WWII

Sneak Peeks at Rune's

CHANGE/ADD

Mod switcher utility within game

Full Movie Playback

Borg Spotting

Follow/Road Movement Improvement

Show Casualties

BDH

[MartinEden]

A full movie playback option would be great, Especially if there was a way to save a tcip/ip game's full length movie and share it with others.

[Thompson]

First, the most important things to change from CMx1 have already been changed in CMx2 (from what I gather from various bones thrown to us) - those being banishing borg spotting, improving the handling of C&C, and 1:1 representation (with it I guess/hope "volley fire" has also been banished). Had these not been implemented, they would have been on top of my list. I also think it's redundant to mention better graphics, cause that I take for granted from a completely overhauled and rebuilt game/graphics engine.

The topmost thing to keep from CMx1, I know has been kept in CMx2 - that being the WEGO system (it wouldn't be CM without it). Therefore, I won't mention it on the list below.

CHANGE/ADD (in no particular order)

(1.) In CMx1, Training, Experience and Morale are all bundled under Experience, I'd like them to be separate "attributes." In other words, separate unit Experience from Training and separate Morale (base fighting spirit) from current Morale State/Status (e.g. Shaken or Panicked). This way, we could have e.g. green paratroopers (Experience=Low, Training=High, Morale=High); we could have war-weary veterans who are okay now but are somewhat on-the-edge/brittle (Experience=High, Morale=Low, Morale State=OK); and we could have nearly fanatical conscripts with little skill but lots of determination (Experience=Low, Training=Low, Morale=Very High). If all those above mentioned three units were broken at the same time (Morale State=Broken), they'd (usually) rally in the following order: paras, conscripts (even if their Morale is the highest, the paras with their much better Training have a better rally), burned-out veterans (lowest Morale).

Footnote to (1.): I'd like to see units have the following four attributes: Training, Experience, Morale, and Fitness. These would not change during battle. Then the unit would have two additional attributes that would measure the unit's current condition and these would change during battle, they'd be: Morale State and Fatigue (in CMx1: Suppression and Fatigue). In addition each soldier would have four states: OK - lightly wounded (impaired function) - wounded (out of action, may return in campaigns) - incapacitated/killed (out of game).

(2.) Campaigns. No need for anything overly complicated or elaborate. For me, an improved version of operations would be good. I'm happy with linked battles on different maps with forces carried over to the subsequent battles (continuity!). I really do NOT like CMx1 operations' moving map, it's a nice idea but it doesn't work - separate maps are better. Between battles there would naturally be a resupply and refit phase, and each battle and/or map could have its own briefing. For example, a small campaign would have three separate maps (call them A, B and C) and would last at the maximum 5 or 6 battles (might get the 6th battle, might not - much like variable turn limits in CMBB/CMAK). The campaign starts from map A, from which the attacker must push the defenders off and advance to map B (achieving e.g. a Tactical Victory would be enough to advance). Defender's objective on map A might just be to delay the attacker (having inferior forces in the 1st battle). On the 2nd battle the defender would get more units to put up more of a fight, etc. Map B would be where the defender would have some fortifications. Etc. Etc. You get the picture. Reaching map C and taking the village there could, for example, be the campaign objective and determine the campaign result. Much like Close Combat campaigns worked.

(3.) Customizable hotkeys. I want to choose which key does what.

(4.) Force roster screen in battles. It would show all your units and their current status. Double-clicking on the name would take you to the unit. I'm tired of hunting for some elusive unit that I just can't seem to find and I'm very tired of clicking on each unit on the map just to get a quick update on their condition.

(5.) Better AI. I need a smarter pathfinding and convoy driving TacAI that understands what roads are. I need a TacAI which has some awareness of its surroundings, especially when finding cover or routing. I need a targetting TacAI that sticks to orders and retargets only in self-defense - if I give a MG an order to fire on certain unit (to cover advancing infantry), I do NOT want it to retarget another unit close to the target for no apparent reason (or better yet, have it sit without firing a shot, even with full ammo load!). I need a TacAI that evaluates threats more sensibly, if a tank spots a lonely enemy squad 1500 meters away, I'm not quite sure how wise it is to start blasting them with all you've got (what possible threat do they pose at the moment that justifies announcing your location to everyone and their second cousin). And not just better TacAI, but better OpAI and StratAI as well for those solo games (no more HMGs walking ahead of the platoon, for example).

DON'T CHANGE (in no particular order)

(1.) Game scale (command individual squads, vehicles, guns).

(2.) Realism and playability balance (playable realism!).

(3.) Command interface. Point-and-click, color-coded order lines, 10 (or so) different orders (don't make the list too long and cumbersome by adding dozens of new orders).

(4.) Keep at least some focus on WW2 ETO, please!!

(5.) Your striving for wargame perfection.

[Brian Rock]

As one might expect, coming into this on page 11 means most of the good ideas have been posted, and re-posted. The upside of this is that I basically agree with all the recurring suggestions.

I only have three ideas on my wish list that I don't believe have been posted (although I may have missed them),

1) Asymetrical victory conditions: I'd like to able to set one set of flags for one side, and a different set of flats, or different values on the flags, or exit conditions, or whatever for the other side.

2) Friendly AI to control complete units - eg a company defending on my right flank that I have no control over. This adds another level of frustration that I find appealing ("those morons in Company D are pulling out already?!?!?")

3) The ability to create buildings at odd angles, like you'd find in European cities. The buildings are always too orderly with overlarge gaps to properly simulate WWII urban warfare.

I'll still chuck in five things on my "keep" list:

1) QBs. I don't play very often anymore, but when I do 95% of my games are against the AI, and I prefer QBs to scenarios because I like the unpredictability.

2) UI: Another vote to keep it simple.

3) Realism: gameplay balance as per the later games.

4) Fuzzy logic: have the guys do dumb things (although the modeling of those dumb things can be refined).

5) Mac OSX as well as PC versions: last month I added an iBook to my computer inventory, and it'd be great to have a decent game for business trips.

[Kellysheroes]

1) Stronger and more versatile AI on "offense". It's too predictable always. Add some surprises. Like a reserve of a tank section it hasn't used for most of the game.

2)The ablility to save each turn in some sort of movie file and then be able to watch the entire battle from start to finish without pause. That would like be the most awesome like Medieval Total War did for their campaign game battles.

3)More use of air support

4)More cheats for AI (hehe I know this will go over good)

5)Oh Oh and prevent the AI when on defense from leaving it's entrenched positions as many times it's clearly had the advantage and near the end of the mission it decides to do some stupid banzai "offensive".

(As you can see most of my concerns are about the AI, the rest of your game has always been great to me, I've enjoyed everyone of them.)

[ September 03, 2005, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: Kellysheroes ]

[pad152]

1. Infantry Editor

Example: Ability to edit the crew weapons from a pistol to a SMG for tank crews, ability to re-name the men in the squad/crew and unit. Give more than the ability to just change the color!

2. Supply/Fuel

Ammo and fuel carriers, Any thoughs on ammo/fuel supplies (re-supply), fuel rating for tanks. Example: Allow infantry to resupply from a stock pile or truck or ammo carrier. New mission types such as protect the ammo and fuel carriers.

3. Man/Unman vehicles/weapons

Ability to man/unman vehicles/weapons. Example: Start a mission with the tank crews in a building down the street from their tanks.

4. New mission Types

Any new mission types? raids, blow up a ammo/fuel dump, bridge, etc. Rescue mission find a downed airman, POWs.

5. New building and objects

Any New building types and objects. Expample: Ports, Docks, Airfields, Guard Towers, Ammo/Fuel Dumps, docked ship/boats.

6. New Toys

What about Trains, Gun Boats, Staff Cars, Grounded Aircraft, horses, motorcycles, fuel carriers, repair vehicles, command vehicles, cars.

[GJK]

1. No doubt its been mentioned, but fix the LOS/LOF bug; being unable to fire/area target upper level of a building if the lower level is out of the LOS.

2. Add more building levels

3. Buildings that can span more than one tile without being a warehouse (user defined shapes, both wooden and stone)

4. Bypass movement

Er, skip #4, wrong game.

[Baron von Beergut]

Don't Change:

1) current turn-based/WEGO system.

2) option for varible rarity on purchase points

3) include a printed manual as the current games have, or at least the option of having one at an extra cost.

4) the excellent variety of units, plus add those multi-turret varieties not in CMBB, etc.

5) Can't think of what to say, probably something we won't miss until we see it's not there anymore!

Do Change or Add:

1) follow the road or follow the leader order option.

2) horses/wagons for cav and towing. Also motorcyclists.

3) vehicle/gun crews ability to voluntarily abandon and recrew their gun or vehicle.

4) Though unrealistic, a campaign system to follow a core group through the war, along with the ability to edit unit/commander names.

5) Do not have fortification purchases affect the victory level as they do now from the start of a scenario.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by GJK:

1. No doubt its been mentioned, but fix the LOS/LOF bug; being unable to fire/area target upper level of a building if the lower level is out of the LOS.

2. Add more building levels

3. Buildings that can span more than one tile without being a warehouse (user defined shapes, both wooden and stone)

4. Bypass movement

Er, skip #4, wrong game.

Steve has already said that at least six level buildings (with no more abstractions as to levels) will be in CMX2.

[Richie]

4. The ability to set up vehicle units as "broken down" or "out of gas"

5. Infantry Smoke might be nice

[cyrano01]

5 to change.

(1) Artillery Support. Both the mechanics of firing (shape of beaten zone, number/type of rounds etc.)and the mechanisms for calling and allocating fire. Ideally this latter should reflect the artillery doctrines of the various nations (Yoke target anyone?), distinguish between guns in direct/general support, under command etc. Need to be careful here to reflect what tended to happen in reality rather than the theoretical advantages of one system over another.

(2) Suppression mechanisms. I'm with John Salt here, at times suppression just doesn't quite seem ring true, more inertia under fire needed.

(3)Which leads nicely to - Command,control, communications. Possibly more inertia here. It is just to easy to set up and co-ordinate complex attacks in a single minute or so. Obviously there is a need for care here, if the real world difficulties in C3 were reflected it might make for a far less entertaining game, as well as stressing the issue of which level does the player really command at.

(4)Dismounting. Ability of crews/weapons to dismount to reconnoitre or fight dismounted.

(5) Scripting. Possibly the ability to issue some form of scripted instructions to one side in a scenario for solo play.

5 tok keep the same

(1) The User Interface. It remains a model of its type in terms of cleanliness and elegance.

(2) Easy to use editor.

(3) Company/battalion level focus.

(4) Fog Of War

(5) WEGO

[RockinHarry]

Keep:

1. Easy to use interface

2. Moddability

3. FOW system.

4. Keep WW2 period topic

5. PBEM

Add/Change:

1. Briefing map in briefing screen, based on real CMx2 battle map. (Should give a 2D topography of the battle area, complete with contour lines, feature names, current frontlines, recconed enemy positions ect. ) Off course this one should as well be accessible during game play!

2. Campaign system that enables to lead a core group through # number of battles. ( spiced up with some RPG stuff, like adding medals, additional perks for units (leaders) ect.)

3. More realistic and fun victory conditions (going away from that silly capture the flag stuff) where victory conditions could be different for both opponents and possibly unknown to the opposing player.

4. A good AIP that knows to use the terrain better and possibly reflect national combat doctrines (optional difficulty setting)

5. A more lifelike formation order movement system , incl. setting of particular formations for tank units (wedge, column ect.) and infantry (well...line and column). Something like move to #landmark (a particular hill, town ect.), follow road ect. Thta should remove much of unnecessary micromanaging of units and speeds up game play.

[Ruthless]

Suggested Changes:

(1) Campaign: IMO, the best way to achieve the illusion of taking part in a digital war is to have the outcome of what you are doing reflected in a high level. I would suggest Falcon 4.0 as a case study, even though it is not a wargame; nonetheless, when the player, for example, destroyes a bridge that the enemy needs, it affects the enemy supply, their ability to move forward, the enemy has to repair it or else use bridging units, etc. It isn't necessary that the player be able to control anything on a level higher than the individual scenarios, but there should be some indication that the battle being fought actually fits into the war (and I don't mean to suggest something unrealistic like a single talented company CO changing the course of the war on the eastern front.)

(2) Triggers and events/more flexibility in scenario design (more flexible victory conditions included in this.) The Operational Art of War is a good case study of that. This would give the scenario designers more flexibility and allow them to work around game engine quirks.

(3) Make scenario files open so that the community can read the outcome of battles (what units remain, where they are, how the map is laid out, etc. This does NOT mean that the proprietary, underlying game stats for each unit need to available. This DOES mean that the game would produce a file that is readable by a spreadsheet program that would say, for example, terrain square 23 is "woods" and unit 52 is a 37mm anti-tank gun at coordinates xyz.) This could largely reduce the burden for Battlefront to do more for (1) and (2). Also, the game should be able to read scenario files in this format, as well, so that the community can write their own freeware to generate scenarios.

(4) More useful tools to read terrain. I don't mind viewing the game from level 1 on occasion, but as it is, it is very time consuming to have to go to level 1 or 2 just to see what the elevation and terrain is to plot moves. One thing I'd like is a floating LOS tools that shows the height and terrain type under the cursor and if the user draws a line, it shows the height and terrain under the anchored point and under the moving end. Others have complained that a floating LOS tool is unrealistic, however, the user can already do something very similar just be moving to level 1 at the place in question and looking around, the LOS tool would just make it easier. Also, the AI already has the ability to do this. In short: There's no difference in realism, but there is an increased amount of frustration without. Alternatively, how about showing the LOS of a unit for its last waypoint that the user places? An elevation grid would be a helpful alternative, as well. Currently, however, elevation changes are virtually unreadable from levels 3 or higher (basically, useful levels.)

(5) Better TacAI and/or better orders system. For example, aside from the oft-mentioned "convoy" command, it would be nice to be able to tell a platoon of tanks to move to an area (perhaps bounded by a rectangle the user selects), find positions within that area that are hull-down to a point(?) selected by the user, and to fire if enemy units come within a certain range. Unfortunately, it's somewhat like herding cats with the orders we have. There just isn't a way to convey to the units what you want them to do.

And I would like to also second Dorosh's request for more cowbell.

[Watten]

Hello All,

The things I would like to see added or improved are:

1. Co-op Multiplay: More than one player per side. I think essential in some of the larger maps and campaigns, makes management and deployment more engaging as well. Also, the more people invloved in CM the better for all

2.Artillery / Aircraft Management: Needs some improvement in general game play. Just feels a bit "hit and miss" (pardon the pun) when implementing.

Thats all at the moment.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

To Add:

Mid battle orders.

Scenario designers can then write revised orders/objectives in reaction to the arrival of reinforcements. The orders will appear on screen at a predetermined turn (Usually on the same turn as the arrivl of reinforcements)

CDIC

[TheVulture]

Joining the thread late in the day...

Things to keep:

Turn based WEGO system

For me it's the perfect mix of being able to make your plans in your own time, and set everything up, while still giving the exictement of seeing things evolve in real time

The interface

Obviously it will need changes and refinements to work with the new engine, but the basics of the current system, with waypoints, targets, cover arcs is very easy to use and flexible enough that I very rarely find myself unable to get a unit to do what I want.

Things to change:

Convoying

Traffic management is a headache. Following a road should have low command delay overheads. Vehicles should be able to follow the one in front intelligently - queueing behind it without getting into the reverse/forwards traffic jam nightmare.

AI scripting in scenarios

Not full scripting, but the ability to tweak the AI's behaviour to make it fit in with what you want from the scenario. There are tools to do some of this - use of victory flags, reinforcement times and locations (to make the AI lead with infantry, for example), and various other tricks that scenario designers have come up with. But being able to inform the AI of key points to defend, which defenders should stay put, which should be ready to fall back, which are the counterattacking reserve force; all of these are useful tools that good designers could use to make scenarios significantly more challenging.

Campaigns

I suspect that anything even vaguely mentioning specifics would be wasted due to limitations imposed by the game engine design, but any kind of campaign is good in my book. Either the kind where you need to win a series of tactical fights to gain a strategic objective, or the kind where you have to keep your core of a battalion intact as it gains experience.

Better terrain system

More flexibility in laying out terrain, particularly with villages. The kind of closely packed streets and alleys you find in western europe simply can't be modelled with the current system that well.

[Snow Leopard]

How about improve alert like order soldiers to not open fire or out of it's gun range if spot enemy just notify commanders where they are. "Spot enemy at..."

[handihoc]

I'd like to see:

1) a full campaign system, and/or more extended ops.

2)Continuous action (at least as an option), with the option to pause, but NOT the current stop-a-minute play.

3) I know it's kinda trivial, but full visuals for squads, not three-to-a-tile, which looks a bit cartoonish.

4)Expanded Victory Conditions, as per others' suggestions here.

5) Yes, convoy commands, with stick to roads options.

[handihoc]

Oh, something else (sorry).

Please add: more scenarios/ops at medium and large size. Cut the huge ones.

[Xenophile]

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

2) Friendly AI to control complete units - eg a company defending on my right flank that I have no control over. This adds another level of frustration that I find appealing ("those morons in Company D are pulling out already?!?!?")

I think that this is a great idea for reducing the artificiality of the map edges. Might not always be appropriate for a given scenario, but one way of approaching the problem.

[spartan1]

KEEP:

- WE GO system,

- ability to mod (scenario editor, graphics mods),

- WWII,

- Turn-based game and movie playback,

- PBEM

CHANGE:

- Ability to import OOB from an external file such as a spreadsheet or db file. Ability to export that same OOB a the end of the battle.

- Export OOB battle file to a new editable file, so to be able a user to create a series of battles,

- Open up the scenario and save game files to allow for 3rd party modification, import/export,

- improve AI,

- campaign mode

[Redwolf]

Do not change from CM1:

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

</font>

• 3D environment, navigation in space, VCR controls, sound positioning</font>
• Menu system in editor, OOB and elsewhere was very good</font>
• Game was very robust, no crashes, no annoying copy protection</font>
• Liked the basic terrain modeling (except later additions like trenches, sandbags, and the low-effect foxholes)</font>

Things I would like to see:
---------------------------
</font>

• SOPs, ala TacOps's SOPs. Have fewer command instead of all that move, hunt, fast etc stuff, but have the few commands with SOPs.
  </font>
• Integrate multi-shot weapons better. In CM1 there is an annoying functionality break between single-shot guns, burst guns (FlaK guns) and heavy MGs. This is very artificial and tuning durign CM1 games added to the chaos.</font>
• Please no artificial resolution limit. And no dropping of software rendering because it is too small. Software rendering in CM1 would be fast enough now for some purposes and would help Mac people a great deal. As you see, people enjoy your games a lot longer than short-lived games, don't understimate screen and speed progress.</font>
• Please be more careful, aka tune down, automatically issued orders, e.g. tanks in panic charging towards the enemy, auto-sneak etc. In doubt, just cancel orders. Comes out more realistic.</font>
• Towed gun that make a fast turn while traversing within the carriage and switches to slower rate when the carriage has to be turned (you can reuse vehicle code).</font>