Jump to content

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

Recommended Posts

A couple of things that come to mind.

1/ Must retain the ability to play PBEM.

2/ Allow units to fire through smoke as an area fire command to try & induce supression of enemy units suspected of being behind the smoke.

3/ Ensure a players order for a unit to fire smoke is actually carried out rather than being continually countermanded by the TacAI.

4/ Better representation of indirect fire that is more in line with WWII reality.

5/ Convoy command is essential.


Jim R.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 292
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic



B - a good balance between realism and playability, with enough weight on the 'realism' part of the syntax

C - PBEM, my primary form of play smile.gif

D - an easy to use editor - however, if there is a choice between easy-to-use tile based editor and a harder to learn vector type terrain editor, I'd rather take the last one!!!!!!111

E - the feel of 'being there' (where, I have no clue, but still...)


A - there could be an ingame unit-o-paedia for browsing unit database to check availabilities etc.

B - better continuous operations, I do not specifically need a random campaign mode or such, but connected, dynamic strings of battles taking place within ('operations') which would be more realistic

C - some sort of modelling of supply connections

D - more indepth modelling of command & control, but not so that the focus changes - for example, if a conscript platoon was close to the Company HQ, they'd have the command delays of a green platoon (a crap example, but I don't know how different the command system will be, anyway)

E - better reactions by TacAI in situations like when routed, hopefully avoiding the headless chicken syndrome

And, finally...


A - Space Lobsters of Doom

B - pseudorandom influence by Jamoomba

C - additional PDF book "Great hair-do tips by MadMatt"

Thanks smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites


1. Full movie playback! This might kick off as an entire new sub-community like modding and scenario creation.

2. Improved night combat. This may very well need rethinking of the entire LOS/spotting thing but wouldn't it be cool!

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

4. Improved arty/indirect system.

5. I would like a map overlay that you can turn on and off easily. On this overlay you can have TRPs, cover arcs, command hierarchies and perhaps even user added phaselines etc.


1. WEGO!

2. Scalability. I might need a monster computer to do monster battles but I don't want coded in limitations against it.

3. Intuitive command system.

4. Yeah, I can chime in on the bias towards realism over gameplay. smile.gif

5. Everything else that is so great about CM and that I have taken for granted after 5 years of continual play!

Link to post
Share on other sites


1.- Traffic management.

To this date the only really horrible side of CM. I don't mind delays, shortcuts and the like, but please get rid of those silly and maddening out-of-the-blue traffic jams.

2.- Terrain rendering/modelling

I think the game deserve a deep overhaul on this count, both on look and substance. A better looking battlefield, as long as it is in line with a more accurate representation of cover, concealment and other factors intimately related to the terrain, will go a long way in making this game so much better. I know you guys are working on it, but this is a vital part of my expectations. That also include fortifications.

3.- Offgame interface overhaul

May sounds simple or irrelevant, but since my "don't change list" include a powerful scenario editor, and I expect battles to be downloaded and played by the dozens (even with a narrower scope), more order and clarity would be called for. Ergonomy could also be improved a lot so to allow usermade content to be more elaborate.

4.- More flexibility in the command structure

Maybe related to play balance and overall implementation, but.... I think being able to reorganize the command structure according to the situation - and within certain realism parameters- would be an important step toward realism AND immersion. For example, to take CMx1 lingo, say I play an operation set in the Battle of the Bulges, I might want to reorganize command of a badly mauled company to better balance overall manpower for following battles.

5.- Slightly widen the game scope

I know this is a tricky one. But by that I mean to allow second line/rear units and some additional aspects of small unit actions to be represented, be it ammo supply, field telephones, command post., combat engineering, wrecks, etc. Or at least provide the tools for scenario designers to implement them.

Don't change

1.- Scenario/map editor

I like you guys a lot, but there is a ton of guys in the community I still want to hear from scenario wise. Some deeply knowledgable grogs or excellente storytellers that come up with pure jewels. Keep the tools for them to create.

2.- We Go

3.- Level of infos given for each unit

I think we know just the right ammount of info on each particular units. It could be devided/presented differently ;) , but generally speaking, I'm happy with what the UI and detail screen tells me about my guys.

4.- TO&E

I know the "big scope" will be narrower. I'm OK with this. But always try to be as thorough as possible within each theater. Making a Bulge module ? I want all units present on that battle available. (Note: this some will include in "change" as they feel previous iterations were not complete, where I choose to assume historical accuracy on TO&E is a goal Battlefront always tended to. You get the point.)

5.- multiplayer flexibility

I know there might be issues with this. But I must only hope you'll do everything you can to keep PBEM in.

Oh... and, emm, 6.- Let me mod the interface please...


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cynic in me suspects the whole point of this exercise is not to collect suggestions, but rather to give BFI ammunition to respond to future grog complaints.

"Tough luck, we asked the community ahead of time, and almost no one even mentioned the S.S. Armored Lobsters of Doom that aren't in the game that you want, so shut up."

Nevertheless, in the spirit of my deep faith in the world's best wargame design company...


1. Make the armor engagement routines more sophisticated. This would include:

a. The tactical A/I does rational point aiming and doesn't just fling rounds.

For example, the TAC A/I has a T-34 or Sherman crew automatically aim at Tiger tracks, rather than wasting rounds on a Tiger hull - naturally at a reduced chance of hit. If possible this could be toggled - "Shoot for immobility kill" or "Shoot for turret", etc.

b. Turret size matters.

For example, a Pz IV hull-down should be a lot harder to hit than a TigerII hull-down. As of CMAK, AFAIK they're the same.

c. Fix the goddam cower routine, already!

At minimum do something so weaker tanks won't cower away from taking an easy flank shot. It would be great if you could toggle this: "Scout" if you want your tankers to back off from anything, and "Breakthrough" if you want them to stand and blast whatever they come up against, no matter what.

d. Armor damage can accumulate

An armored vehicle struck the tenth time by a large caliber round should be more vulnerable to damage, than one struck the first time around.

It seems to me this could be done pretty easily - just assign a counter to each AFV, take a tiny percentage of caliber to each round that hits, penetration or no, and allow the counter to keep track of the accumulated mini-percentages. Then subtract that increasing number from armor quality. As hits accumulate the overall quality of the armor degrades.

e. Increase the random variable for armor engagements.

Make it so that the game gives more of "on the edge" penetrations, and more "it shoulda gone in for sure, but it didn't" penetration failures. Players should be less sure of the results of an armor engagement than they are.

f. Increase substantially the effectiveness of curved and rounded armor.

At present there are far too many flat, penetrating strikes. The armor engagement engine needs to lean much more heavily towards rounded/curved armor giving a high-angle strike.

g. Increase the number of armor faces the game thinks about engaging: for instance not just the turret front, but gun housing, mantlet, and plate seams, for instance.

2. Bigger, badder, fluffier terrain, including:

a. Player can turn relief lines on and off

b. Terrain tiles down to five meters.

c. A toggle for terrain gradiations (this is level one soft ground that will muddy your boots, this is level ten soft ground that will swallow a tank.)

d. Tanks leave tracks in soft terrain

f. It is possible to go UNDER a bridge

g. New terrain tiles including:

* High stone/brick walls

* Three-ring concertina

* Barbed wire that engineers can clear

* Orchard, distinct from scattered woods

* Cobblestone, distinct from macadam roads

* Sandy terrain, distinct from open terrain

3. Building destruction makes more sense, i.e.:

a. Buildings in general absorb HE better, i.e, there are no more "Houses of Cards."

b. When buildings do go smash they usually do so partially.

c. Infantry in a building under fire can bail out of a building under fire on its own accord (or not, have a toggle going from "avoid casualties" to "hold at all costs".)

d. When the building goes down rubble can block streets.

4. The point system needs overhauling. Unit values, especially tanks, should be tied to their actual worth on a CM battlefield, not a summation of their bells and whistles.

5. Make PBEM faster, i.e, less exchanges to get a turn done. I want to receive a file, watch the turn movie, plot my moves, and then and only then to send the file back to my opponent. If I have to be on-line to do this, that's cool with me; but it should not be the case that my opponent MUST be on line as well.


1. A priority on accurate modeling of WW2 combat. It's not a game, it's a simulator.

2. WEGO, turn-based set up.

3. The battle scale

The focus should remain as it is: an average battles battle is about a battalion once you include attachments, but the engine does just fine down to a company or up through a brigade/regiment.

4. Air and artillery stays pretty much the same, maybe the point values could use some retooling but in general I'm happy with it.

5. The way TC/IP works, it suits me fine

[ August 25, 2005, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Things to change

1- More fidelity in objects and terrain and vehicles, ie not simply just 'all or nothing' regards sighting and/or damage - includes firing through smoke, AFVs blocking LOS, AFVs being partially seen etc.

2- A more comprehensive and realistic C&C structure including SOPs, Plt-Coy-Bn COs relationship etc.

3- A vastly improved AI to stengthen the solo experience. CM's AI is decent but has a lot of holes that could be filled.

4- A more realistic and rewarding Operational level.

5- An even more realistic simulation, ie Relative Spotting et al. smile.gif

Things NOT to change



3- CM's adapability to play a QB, Scenario or Op from Plt size up to Bn+ size.

4- a WWII theme.

5- Price ;) (JK!)


Link to post
Share on other sites


1. I don't want to feel like a vital part of a larger battle is "missing" because of the narrower focus of the initial release described by Steve in the "module" discussion. This concept is fine, but not if it restricts players to less than historical battles.

Strictly for the sake of an obvious example, I would rather have an initial release game that simulates the entire Normandy campaign, then have a sequel that simulates all of the Battle of the Bulge, rather than having a game that takes the 101st airborne from D-Day to Dusseldorf, then have a sequel that takes a British division on the same trip.

So in essence I want to play any part of a whole theatre, even if it's a small one, not follow a single company "Band of Brothers" style.

2. A realistic 3C model specific for each level of command.

3. A more coherent and consistent operation model where lulls in fighting only happen realistically, such as after an attack is pushed back, or when night falls.

4. Atmosphere! Weather, smoke and fire, dynamic lighting.

5. Some depiction of rear areas including some concessions to logistics. Ammo resupply? Trucks that may be shown as carrying a particular cargo to give them tactical value. In real warfare a large objective was to get back amongst his artillery. I would love to see artillery on map as well as rear command posts, tents etc.



Originally posted by Soddball:

One thing I don't want to see changed:

CMX1's level of scalability: Although it was always envisaged as a battalion maximum, it was possible with CM:AK to scale up to much bigger. I really enjoyed that.

I agree with this for the most part. Up to and including batallion level should still be an integral part of the C&C design. Even if you are playing a single company, I think the batallion CO level of command should still be "in play" in some form.

2. Fully user made battles, maps and "operations" whatever they may be.

That's all I can think of, there is so much in CMX1 that could be better, I hope CMX2 isn't so similar that I am already sick of playing it like what happened when I went from CMBO to CMAK.


[ August 25, 2005, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most everything I want and hate has been covered already, but here goes:


1. Dynamic Campaign. Probably totally unrealistic, but if every other flight sim out there has something akin to a dynamic campaign generator, why can't CM? We don't need to have overall control of the war (though it'd be cool) but it would give us a context of the battles we'd fight.

2. Tied loosely to the above, I'd like an expanded campaign system. Operations are good and all, but I'd like something in a larger context beyond one or two days.

3. Open-ended scenario editor with scripting capabilities. Much akin to what Operation Flashpoint has. With an open ended scenario editor we'd be able to do a lot of the stuff you guys might not want or have the time to make (like a Dynamic campaign).

4. Expanded chains of command - company commanders for tanks, issuing orders to entire companies like entire platoons can be ordered.

5. More flexible FOs. Modern FOs can call for fire from a variety of assets and aren't limited to one firing unit. I'd rather have one FO with multiple assets on call than five FOs for five different assets. This is probably context-dependent, though.

Keep the same:

1. Your maddening attention to detail

2. Wego. Wego rules.

3. Most everything else...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Tarkus:

4.- TO&E

I know the "big scope" will be narrower. I'm OK with this. But always try to be as thorough as possible within each theater. Making a Bulge module ? I want all units present on that battle available. (Note: this some will include in "change" as they feel previous iterations were not complete, where I choose to assume historical accuracy on TO&E is a goal Battlefront always tended to. You get the point.)

Unfortunately I posted before I read this, but this is exactly what I mean with my point above.

[ August 25, 2005, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

In keeping with the request to steer away from technical details, the following are my thoughts on where the game works well, and where it needs improving.

Things that works fine now: -

1. Realistic simulation of warfare.

2. Well researched historical setting.

3. Both multiplayer and singleplayer options.

4. Planning and action in good proportion (WEGO).

5. Scale (company-battalion) right for setting (WWII).

Things that would make the game better (in no particular order): -

1. More intelligent friendly and enemy unit behaviours.

2. More emotional engagement (i.e. less like a board game, more like an interactive war movie).

3. More realistic Fog of War effects (as applied to spotting issues etc).

4. Fewer restrictions on how you can play the game (for example, customizable OOBs).

5. Campaign system that is better than current Operations game mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites


1 - Campaign - I'd like something to play through when my inbox is empty with a bit of continuity and a sense of purpose to each battle.

2 - Driving of map edge - Id like a choice of deciding whether my unit leaves the battle field or not. a misplaced waypoint can be so annoying when you see that KT drive over the edge and into infinity. A simple box with yes or no.

3 - Convoy controls - Im fed up pinpointing each turn for a convoy of half tracks... tell them to follow the bloody road... LOL

4 - A timescale on artillery when purchasing - Again annoying when you buy some heavy gear in a QB and the battle si over before it lands.

5 - Indirect SP Artillery fire.

Dont Change

1 - WEGO System

2 - PBEM

3 - Theatre of Operations - WW2 is fine for the first release... then change it into Attack of the Space Lobsters or whatever..!

4 - Modding capability

5 - Easy to use control system.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for asking for our input.

5 wants

Relative spotting

Vehicles modeled as objects, not points so that:

1. They block LOS

2. Hull down is not an off/on function, but a linear function, so the vehicle can gradually go from turret down, to hull down, to hull up.

3. Turret size is more accurately modeled, giving more accurate hit locations.

Better command and control, especially regarding company and higher HQs. If my company HQ is lost, I want consequences beyond just the cost of the men.

Better/more detailed building models – interior walls, staircases, and better modeling of building collapse (i.e., collapses not so predictable nor always encompassing the entire building)

An off-board set up area – I’d like an area off the map where units can be placed. This would serve 2 purposes.

1. It would allow a player or scenario designer to lay out units in an organized fashion so that it is easy to see what is available.

2. Units that move off the map would show up in this area, allowing both players to check on the unit after the battle is over. In CMx1, you can never find out the kills of a unit that moves off the map. Especially frustrating in exit scenarios.

Not in my list of top 5 (mostly because PBEM Helper allows you to do this somewhat), but I’m surprised there have been so few mentions of full movie playback.

5 keep the same

PBEM – Please keep even the format the same. It works so well with PBEM Helper.

WEGO system

Uncluttered user interface – don’t overload me with too many details. I’m more concerned with being able to see the battlefield than the status of Pvt. Wally’s shoelaces.

Camera controls I think they work well and I’d rather not have to learn a new system.

Your dedication to realism and accuracy – except for the Space Lobsters of Doom module. I want to be able to nuke Alpha Centari from my backyard despite what the eggheads say is within the realm of physics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Things to Keep:

The campaign format (with a few tweaks). I want to lead a company+ and reinforcements to Hell and Back

Quick Battles!!!!!

Quick Battles!!!!

Quick Battles!!!

Quick Battles!!!

New Things:

Better graphical modeling of infantry. I’m not expecting Rome: Total War, but no more robotic cartoon figures.

Make graphical representation of improved positions such as fox holes and trenches

truly 3d –no more infantry sitting atop of brown donuts.

More reliance on HQ’s/leaders rather than individual squads, or at least an easier way to work with leaders --An option to scroll through HQ’s, for example.

As few placeholder graphics as possible—no question marks in my firefights

Link to post
Share on other sites

want added

1. real 3D line-of-fire instead of point targets, so that you get, for example, ability to use MG fire that hits all units in the LOF and have vehicles (operational or not, friendly or not) block LOF.

2. random generated operations.

3. more battle types ("delay and withdraw", "recon areas A and B", "prevent enemy reaching/crossing areas A and B", "patrol from points A, B and C to D" etc).

4. some control of rate-of-fire, so that you can tell rougly how fast to spend ammo.

5. ability to give actual two dimensional area for area target command, instead of just a point target.

don't want removed

1. simplistic UI

2. flexibility

3. random battles

4. "TCP/IP"

5. extraordinary quality (not to be mixed with quantity)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes I'd like to see:

1. During set up troops are deployed in some formation instead of strung out along the edge of the map. Same goes for reinforcements.

2. Distinguish between damaged/destroyed and abandoned crew served weapons or bunkers so that crews who abaondon can go back to their positions once they recover morale if their weapon is still useable.

3. Ability to fire into blind areas such as smoke or into trees even without LOS. Mortars can fire BVR at night.

4. Vehicles provide cover for troops.

5. Working wristwatches on every soldier.

[ August 25, 2005, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Pvt. Ryan ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

At last an opportunity for input!!


1) WEGO System;

2) robust scenario/map editor;

3) large scale battles possible (at least battalion on each side);

4) dedication to realism


1) ADD DATA IMPORT/EXPORT or access to save files to allow for more player-designed campaigns, etc.

2) ADD SOME IN-GAME campaign functionality, although given that 10 players would probably have 25 different opinions on how to implement any campaign feature, I think that #1 (data import/export/file access) is more important, because the community will then be able to develop the various types of campaigns that people want.

3) IMPROVE AI, perhaps with AI scripting or other player-tweakable feature.


5) IMPROVE MAP EDITOR/GENERATION: The current map editor and generator are pretty good and much better than nothing, but I use a lot of max-sized maps and after auto-generating every map I need to basically scrape all the buildings, etc. off of it, and I shudder when I need to create a huge map with a river/stream and a town on it. The amount of effort seems like it will climb exponentially if CMX2 does away with tiles--will I have to place every individual bush, fence post, etc.? I would like the following abilities in the map editor:

a) be able to tell the map generator to create linear features (road, river, etc.) that run from one map edge (or portion thereof) to another.

B) although it will never be perfect, try to improve the map generator's placement of terrain (ie, no swamps on hilltops, etc.)

c) be able to copy, rotate, paste sections of the map. For instance, if you are creating a large map you might create a farmhouse with fences, fields, a barn, etc., then be able to copy this whole farm, rotate say 90 degrees, paste somewhere else, and tweak a bit to individualize. Much easier than placing all of the individual do-dads.


[ August 25, 2005, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]

Link to post
Share on other sites


1. Multi-player – per side, of course.

2. Campaign mode – or some incentive for players not to fight to the last man/vehicle

3. Improved command – some use of HQs above platoon level in their historical role, not just as alternative commanders of squads

4. Re-manning (and capturing) support weapons

5. Terrain fog of war – areas of map “blacked out” until seen, with option for scenario editor to include overlay maps


1. Asynchronous play – pbem or some other method wherein a single player can “send” a turn without the other player(s) being online.

2. Simple user interface

3. Wego

4. Graphics – okay, they can be improved, but this is not a priority for me

5. To be determined at a future date

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of what I could come up with has already been mentioned, apart from letting the player have more control over when CAS (if any is available) shows up. Let us call down death from above when WE need it, not when the AI decides to grace us with it!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Tifosi:

Most of what I could come up with has already been mentioned, apart from letting the player have more control over when CAS (if any is available) shows up. Let us call down death from above when WE need it, not when the AI decides to grace us with it!!

Given the recent discussion on CAS in the CMAK forum, I'd suggest ditching CAS altogether, actually...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Change / add:

1. Ability of crews to dismount from the vehicles (or horses) to do recce.

2. Ability of crews to re-man their vehicle, horse, crew served weapon, etc. if they recover their morale.

3. Mounted organisations arrive mounted. No more dicking around putting a company (or worse a Bn) into their half tracks before you start. Each squad gets a vehicle and the specialists get in with the command element (or whatever you come up with).

4. Option for Team play. That is more than one person per side. Say 2 x Pl comd or an Infantry comd and a Armoured comd.

5. OS X support.

[ August 25, 2005, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Campaign system where you carry your force forward, and (slowly) gains experience. You as commander may arean medals and gain ranks which gives you the ability to command (buy) more forces.

2. Multi-multi player option. 3 or more players able to play at the same time. Commanding their own forces (delegated at start of the game)

3. A point system that reflects the strenghts and weaknesses at the virtual battlefield better than now.

4. Make CM moddable, in the true sense of the word.

5. Multi-multi player campaign system smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...