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

[skelley]

Fixes:

The main thing I would like to see reworked is the way terrain is edited. I would love to see a paint brush style way of changing height. I hate the number system. A good style to follow is the sim city 4 god mode. Also has a good way of putting trees in. I would like to see open terrain a little less open with random trees, rocks, etc. Also the rivers need to be winding instead of the block like effect you get with squares.

The borg spotting issue resolved.

More control over arty (americans getting TOT targeting)

Leave alone:

Don't limit size of battles.

[Migo441]

Top Wants...

1.) An OB Screen available pre-game (for sure) and in-game (perhaps as an option). This may be less of an issue if the scale of CMX2 games is smaller than the average CMBB/CMAK, but it's sorely lacking in the CM series. Some have said that it's unrealistic and priovides too much information to a commander. But if we know how many and what types of main gun ammunition tank such-and-such has, I can't understand why we can't have ready access to what units we're commanding.

2.) Some sort of order such that a commander can regulate (or attempt to regulate) ammo expenditures. This needn't be more sophisticated than three levels for each unit that would work in concert with the other commands. So, a "standard" level along with "conserve" to simulate harassing fire or the attempt to save ammunition for later in the battle and, of course, "fire-at-will" to simulate desperate moments and quick gambles for decisive results. Needless to say, less experienced troops would be less likely to obey the ammo commands and even highly experienced troops would disregard them if in favor of self preservation, etc...

3.) More players than one per side, AKA multi-multi-player capabilities.

4.) Vastly more sophisticated victory conditions to include independent victory conditions per side (as in ASL), flags giving per-turn points which could be variable, casualty limits, etc...

5.) An overhaul of command and control to include:

- Distinctly different roles for Company and Battalion commanders as compared to Platoon leaders. I don't have a full system in mind, but others have talked about higher level commanders exerting command or influence on lower level commanders rather than just serving as "extra" Platoon leaders.

- More variable command delays.

- A map layer feature where you could cycle through command units and the units under their command would be highlighted in some manner (out-of-command units could be treated as a seperate "command" or perhaps unavailable in this feature as an out-of-command penalty).

[Strider]

Different

1.) Multiplayer that allows more than 1 vs 1.

2.) More control over airstrikes. i.e. similar to arty FO choosing an area.

3.) In addition to purchase-by-points, have option of 'assigning' the full Battalion/Company/Platoon group(s) to a battle. And a setting to allow/disallow changing out individual unit 'adjustments'. Add or remove specific 'individual' unit, and/or change 'abilities'.

4.) Formation Keeping. When you place units in certain positions relative to each other, there is a command that they maintain this as best they can for manuvering.

5.) Player(s) set the number of puchase points.

Wouldn't Like Changed:

1.) The way the turns are processed. I like giving the commands then letting the TacAI do it's thing.

2.) Don't care one way or other about role-playing-campaign. Not against it nor for it.

3.) I don't have a problem with the way ammo is expended.

4.) Variable turn numbers.

5.) The excellant quailty that has gone into these first 3 games

[acrashb]

Remain:

1)it will still play on my system. That doesn't mean dumbing-down the graphics, just making them adjustable.

2) PBEM. No PBEM, I'm out.

3) hang on to the philosophy of simulating conflict instead of glorifying gore. If I have to look at the space lobster's guts dripped off a simulated ceiling, it's a bad thing.

4)keep it smart. I don't want to _have_ to know the physics behind shell penetration on '43 face-hardened armour from the factory where slave labourers sometimes messed with the heat treating, but it's good to know that the game is delivering realistic results in a historical context. In other words, keep it a simulation more than a game.

5) friendly customer service. OK, I'll settle for the current (good) customer service

Change:

1) chain-of-command AI to give orders to. I.E., I should be able to order a company to take a defensive position in a certain spot and get reasonable results (vehicles will use roads while considering cover, infantry will do something smart in response to "go stealthily" vs "get there in a hurry", etc). Then, once the company is in place, pick off a platoon and send it scouting.

2) single-file-exchange PBEM. Many people have shown how this can work while continuing to block cheating. Let's make it happen.

3) individual infantry instead of abstracted squads (not individually controllable, the smallest orderable unit should still be a squad).

4) individual weapon ammo loadouts. I want to be able to run the LMG's (or light plasma guns) dry and still have the SMG's (or gauss pistols) available for close combat.

5) multi-player, chain of command changeable during the game. So Fred gets the Allied armour, Joe gets the infantry, Sally takes the Axis as a whole. When Joe has to leave to go to work, or just drops out, Fred can take over the infantry and slug it out with Sally mano-a-mano.

[pocketrocket]

Change.

1.TCI/IP Multiplayer Server Lobby.

2.Road movement.

3.Campaighn system.

4.Graphic scale for infantry

5. Er, make airplanes crash on the map !?!?!?

Keep.

1.Wego

2.Everything not mentioned in the first list.

[Paul AU]

Don’t Change:

(1) Unit scale.

(2) Turn-Based mode.

(3) WWII Setting. (At least not first-off)

(4) The range of historical and geographical options within the one game.

Don’t create a game that forces you to play in a certain specific year, in a certain specific area. And then release what’s essentially the same game set in another specific year, another very specific place. (You are going to do this, but still).

A large part of the attractiveness of CM:BB was it’s 5 year, six nation, Finland to Sevastopol possibilities. Don’t make the “slice” too thin. Make it thick, and charge me more.

(5) The general "feel" that CMx1 has.

Change/Add:

In order of importance:

(1) More control over A.I. units behaviour in the scenario editor.

Perhaps reate A.I. various “behaviour profiles” and make these random in Quick Battles, or scenario-designer-settable. These would effect A.I. aggression, etc.

Ideally, some system of plot-able ”way points” for A.I. formations, that will force them to make approaches along a designated path, at designated times. “On turn 4, move to this point”.

(2) Improved LOS tool. Manually checking each line of sight, point to point, every time, is so tedious, that games are often won or lost dependant on who can stand doing this the longest and oftenest.

I want a “click here to see what the selected unit/point-on-the-map can see” button. I recall being told “this can’t be done”, but, any improvement in this regard would be an improvement worth making.

(3) Ammo resupply – even if BFC considers this unrealistic

(4) Time delays – for opening fire.

Similar to the 10 sec. delay-units used for movement.

(5) Immobilisation-probability Toggle.

Give the player the option of never getting immobilized on roads or flat hard ground when travelling at normal speeds. Even if you think it’s unrealistic.

[Gordon]

Ok, these have probably already been mentioned, but I might as well get my vote in.

Formations/Convoy movement/Platoon movement - Including better following of roads and traffic jam avoidance. Infantry unit and tank unit formations.

Vehicles as cover, both live ones and dead 'uns.

Better night battles, with illumination from fires, star shells and illumination rounds (including appropriate graphical effects.

Improved aircraft, gliders, helicopters and paratroops. I don't know why, I always felt a little cheated by not being able to see the aircraft, and being able to see their point of view. Paradrops/glider assaults will be messy but cool, just like amphibious assaults.

Resupply during a battle. Even if I have to get an ammo carrier to survive until it can get to my units or my units can get to it or a resupply point. Besides, it would be cool to be able to roll flaming barrels of gasoline down on attacking German King Tigers.

[Pinetree]

Okay,here's my 5 wishes:

1)Better road movement.

2)Ability to scrounge for weapons and ammo plus use captured weapons(maybe with a penalty or sumfink ).

3)Entire game movie playback.

4)Allow images of real maps to be pasted into the map editor so you can trace over them with the map tools(HTTR does this pretty well).

5)More varied Victory Conditions.

[Znarf]

Things I would to see changed:

1) I want to see a campaign system that includes a core group and a "leader" character that increases in rank

2) I want to see more flexible scenario design options by incorporating an "event engine" (similar to the Talonsoft/Kroger Century of Warfare event engine but tailored to tactical map instead of strategic map) (e.g., Reinforecment slot 20 = "Cancelled" if "RR Station" captured by "Axis") (see my old "Stalingrad 2.0" scenario for ACOW to see how powerful this can be)

3) I want to see more flexible scenario design options by incorporating "human v. human/human v. axis/allied v. human" orders of battle so that a scenario can be played from either side of both sides with a challenge.

4) I want to see the same map file type for battles and operations

5) I would like to seen non-LOS for howitzers on map with a forward observer (e.g., a battery of 4 105's behind a hill 2km back and a FO for the battery near the front line).

Things to stay the same:

1) KEEP the "Chance of appearing" on each reinforcement slot. This is an excellent tool for replayability.

2) KEEP the Quickbattle option.

3) KEEP the load file and import troops options for Quick Battles

4) KEEP tactical air support and off-board artillery

5) KEEP the extensive OOB options

[Cull]

Holy Jeebus, I stay away for a few days and I miss the birth of the O-ficcial CMx2 thread.

The one thing I would get most excited about would be a much more flexible/powerful/detailed terrain and map editor.

A very close second would be a campaing system of sorts.

And of course the age-old spotting issue.

Oh and yes, convoy/road movement. Or at a larger level, something of a company/battalion level movement command. Or basically anything to make me want to play bigger scenarios, or at least not go insane playing them.

So I guess that's four. Sorry---I know they're more like wish list items/additions than "changes to current methods", so I'm probably off-track here.

Nothing I can think of that I would say is untouchable. Oh wait: don't make it RTS , and most definitely keep the QB play.

Now to go back and read all the goodness!

[ August 27, 2005, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Cull ]

[Mars]

New things I would like to see:

In game unit list. It doesn't need to be detailed but it would be nice to see a list of units and be able to click on a list entry to center on that unit: "where did that smg squad go?"

[Alech]

Campaign system. That's all really.

[Guest Stuart J. Vincent]

To the guys at Battlefront,

I am really looking forward to playing CMx2, all the new features sound amazing. Thanks for all your hard effort and making computer wargaming what it is today.

[flamingknives]

Changes:

(1) Speed of sound modelled. I want to hear the report after the explosion, depending on where the view-point is. Perhaps if I select a unit, I hear what it hears.

(2) Sound attenuation over distance - not just quieter, I'd like to lose some of the frequencies so it sounds far away.

(3) Model machine guns to account for better sustained fire properties - both an MG42 and a Vickers fire 200 rpm on sustained rate but the Vickers has a lower firepower and fires no more often.

(4) Better Line of Sight for light flak/aeroplane interaction. As it is they can see through buildings, woods and the like.

(5) Spotters for on-board mortars.

Keep:

(1) AI control of the minutae; I don't want to be telling each tank

"gunner, tank, fifteen degrees. Loader, sabot..."

(2) Firepower based weapons modelling - nice and abstracted

(3) Cover arcs, although an option to target vehicles rather than heavy armour or everything would be nice.

(4) WEGO. duh.

(5) Random curses, exclaimations and orders - adds to the immersion.

[jim crowley]

I didn't do the "keep" options previously.

They are:

1)Turn based WEGO

2)QBs - hopefully with expanded capabilities.

3)Same/similar scope to CMX1 i.e. up to battalion level.

4)Fuzzy logic - this allows for the unexpected fro time to time.

5)Saving maps and troops from one battle to the next.

[Potential Italian Player]

Changes:

- Introduce the ability to form a core force: the units increase their attributes with survival and success in previous battles.

- Eliminate the pbem system and enhance the multiplayer modes via network.

Keep:

- AI Control

- WEGO

- OOB Options

And thanks for this customer feedback.

[Londoner]

Trying not to mention anything already covered although some obviously have been....

All in order of perceived importance.

Changes:

1. Machine gun tweaks. I.e. firing on fixed lines/grazing fire/area denial etc.

2. Vehicles really need a solid state (not because of the questionable "cover" argument). Please no more vehicles shooting through one another. E.G. Convoys - they are at present not nearly as vulnerable as they should be because of this.

3. Night/low light coding improved, links in with 1. to an extent as well I guess.

4. Dare I dig up this old chestnut again - on board indirect arty fire? It is worth it? Do the old (and very valid) arguments still hold water? Surely with the increased flexibility the new engine will give, we'll see more scenario designers making larger battles and maps. If so it's got to be worth it no?

5. Vehicle stopping and turn rates - vehicles stopping and/or turning on a penny. Sure, this is obviously abstracted to some degree in CM1. However wasn't there a rather interesting discussion on this topic a while back? IIRC many armoured vehicles cannot in fact turn on the spot, the Stug being one of the culprits.

Keep

1. WEGO.

2. Tac AI targeting - threat analysis - ammo expenditure verus effectiveness, target priority and "stickiness". (Not surprisingly) It's taken a long time to get where we are on this (particularly with infantry), please keep as is.

3. General pace of game - suppression times and especially infantry movement/endurance. Slow it down further if need be but don't speed it up, back to CMBO and to a lesser extent CMBB levels!

4. Infantry modelling - nationality specific infantry is not the way to go IMO, the current system is flexible and robust.

5. EFOW. Love the multitude of great tweaks we've seen over the years. To name a single if subtle example IIRC - CMBB - if an enemy tank is firing (given relatively clear LOS obviously) you will see the red or orange target line from the first shot. IIRC in CMAK this is by no means instantaneous. I'm sure EFOW will change substanially but do not take a step back towards simplicity in this department.

I don't want to sound like one of MD's "cheer leaders" but it's marvellous to see that BTS clearly hasn't got their collective head stuck in the sand over the years. You would almost expect a certain arogance to develop after such success. Great times ahead for us wargamers!

[ August 28, 2005, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: Londoner ]

[chico]

KEEP:

1) wego system

2) wwII

ADD / CHANGE

1) convoy rules

2) stick to road option

3) encyclopedia (let me scroll down the units and give me full details + picture of them + description)

4) hit chart: let me see the probability density function of a hit from a 88 vs a sherman at that specific angle.. something far more detailed compared to the kill probability shown in CMX1.. a graph would be nice

point 3 and 4 are not for playing pourposes but for research in order to understand more of what was going on..

[Stoffel]

What I like to see is :

1) better movement of convoys of vehicles along a road.

2) engineers ability to blow holes in barbed wire and roadblocks.

3) button to add vehicle damage in a game /QB same as with ammo and headcount

4) better representation of vehicle chokepoints,i.e. not so simple for a 60 ton Kingtiger to cross a small wooden bridge without troubles

5)an extra command ,unload/retreat if unit comes under fire(same as the items in the tacops sop menu.

Thats all I can think of for now

[Hat Trick]

Originally posted by Other Means (snipped):

The main thing that stops me playing games is the setup. There are countless ones I've started and abandoned (sorry Elmar), therefore;

[4]Default layout of own troops done by the AI - this would at least give you a start point if everyone was in a reasonable formation

Yes, yes, yes! Big battles are a huge pain to get started, and for new players this can be a real turn off. Even though the AI set up is not perfect, is would be a great improvement to have that as a base line from which create my own set up.

[Tiger II]

Things to change:

1. Add 'Campaign' option to allow progression of units throughout a 5+ series of scenarios, ala Steel Panthers/Panzer General.

2. Replays: I would love to see a replay option for the WHOLE BATTLE. That, and allow replay saves of TCP/IP games [right, Mark? ]

3. Command Relationships; similar to what Buq-Buq mentioned, higher to lower, but with a chain-of-command commensurate with the overall troop quality [i.e., Veteran troops automatically replace killed commanders quicker than Regulars].

4. AI common sense [i.e., no "dancing KV's" on the battlefield]. No AFV crew worth it's salt, like a Regular KV crew, would do a slow 360 pirouette in the face of GE SP guns.

5. Better modelling. Yeah, I'll have to buy a new graphics card, and it's already pretty good, but could DEFINITELY be improved.

Things to keep:

1. Fog of War - the more 'extreme', the better.

2. I like relatively 'human' reactions of troops under fire, e.g. 'panic', 'shock', etc.

3. Environmental effects.

4. Game style: Turn-based, tactical combat.

5. Replays. I love watching my T-34 shrugging off pathetic 37mm rounds by the dozen...

~Jim

[Joachim]

- Relative spotting

- Terrain

- Long campaign

And of recent experience:

- Tank cowering fixed when at a good angle and/or from ambush

- "Hunt&scoot" instead of "run&scoot"

Gruß

Joachim

[Hulldown]

Keep PBEM please

[OBJ]

Thanks for asking- Hope these haven't already been announced/are redundant

Keep:

1. WEGO

2. Emphasis on realism

3. Ability to command individual units

4. Infantry and armor modeling (although if true that all tanks use the same frontal and flank silhouette to determine if/where a hit is made, it would be nice if at least different turret and hull dimensions could be modeled in addition to armor quality, angle and thickness)

5. WWII focus (at least initially)

Add/Change:

1. Campaign feature - select one from a choice of historical divisions to follow a group of representative core units at co/bn level through the division's historical battles/campaigns; core units start at historic levels of unit experience and leadership quality then are impacted by battle (unit experience and leadership quality improve or decrease depending on unit and leader casualties, time to rest, refit and train between battles, quality of replacements, battle results [win, lose, casualties inflicted], national preparedness/military character); each unit and leader in the core group (including replacement units/leaders as they come in) has a randomly assigned experience/leader quality potential (not viewable by the player) less than or equal to the game allowable maximum biased by nationality and branch of service (i.e. most core units and leaders will end a campaign with something less than game maximum traits in all categories, e.g. more German infantry and armor units and leaders will have experience and leader quality potentials near or at game maximums than will Russian infantry and armor units and leaders); unit/leader experience/quality can not advance beyond its potential; allow some 'realistic' degree of unit non-doctrinal equipment/ammo augmentation over time(e.g. more BARs/sqd, more ammo per MG) and internal non-doctrinal reorganization (e.g. add two BAR teams to the plt HQ), allow portability of core units to follow-on CMX2 games

2. Artillery and CAS - planning, control, responsiveness (e.g. plot FPFs; Inf and armor Plt,Co,Bn level HQs capable of calling for situation realistic level of arty support; refined accuracy, volume of fire and delays for planned vs unplanned fires and targets based on historic national artillery branch quality)

3. Command and control - allow player set pre-battle chain of command (task organize); battle field succession (someone has to be in charge, occasionally an improvement); also 'realistic' Inf/Ar HQ control of artillery (see 2 above)

4. Infantry squad and Platoon level formations/commands - column, line, wedge, Vee, and related movement, firing and engagement impacts

5. Dismounted scouting - Infantry scouts/OPs vs half squads; dismounted TCs; leaders recon; prone stationary position

[Thin Red Line]

No Change

PBEM (but less files)

Historical warfare Realism

Scale (from platoon to regimental combat)

WWII context ? But myabe i'm a little conservative

Customer service and CM spirit !

Change

2+ Multiplayer

Borg spotting

Detailed orders (anticipating different situations)

More realism (ie : still too many fights to the last man in the current system)

Improved scenario editor