Infantry needs a lot of work...

[SlapHappy]

Continued....

By way of example, perhaps the player could choose to initiate a base of fire maneuver using a few troops to provide covering fire and then left, right or double flank the enemy with the other parts of the squad. All this would be done automatically (read sans micromanagement) by simply choosing the target and an attack option button.

So there would be 3 distinct options right there:

1. Base of Fire - Heavy flank Left.

2. Base of Fire - Heavy flank Right.

3. Base of Fire - Split flank right and left.

I'm just throwing these out as examples. The way I see it, the more tactical options for infantry, the more gratifying the play experience and depth to the simulation. The existence of fully separate squad members allows so many more tactical permutations than CMX1 which abstracted everything down to an animated infantry icon.

[SlapHappy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

. Too many Commands choices can be a problem in and of itself.

Steve

Agreed. I was just thinking of a half-dozen or so classic infantry maneuvers which were commonly used by most combatants in the WWII theatre.

I like the assault command, but the maneuver element almost seems to resolve it's approach frontally, which can be suicidal for those units if a different approach was called for.

Basically, I'm just hinting that a few more tactical options might really open up the role of infantry even more. Especially in the Normandy game where there will most likely be more cover and concealment variables than in the current CMSF game.

[Battlefront.com]

Too much micromanagement kills the game for most people. And yet optional micromanagement usually works against multi-player. In all cases, the amount of coding, testing, and supporting time necessary for such features comes at a price. This means we have always, and will always, have a very high standard for incorporating new micromanagement features, no matter what form they take.

This is not to say there isn't a good case to make for any one particular feature request. There usually is. The problem is that if we threw the door open to such things we'd quickly have decent suggestions for 50 or so new Commands. Implementing them all can't possibly be a good thing, so where to draw the line? Always difficult to do, but generally the more utilitarian a Command suggestion is the better, the more specific it is the less of a chance it would be a net benefit.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

I agree that the more smooth and user-friendly UI is, the more enjoyable the game experience is. Of course you have to balance it with a number of options you have to control the game enviroment.

Some games do it better then others. Feedback to the player is important. More hotkeys=simulator= more difficult to pick up and play.

I personally prefer controling as much as possible on screen with a mouse. CM1 games did it very well, and adjusting to CMSF was difficult. There was about as much micromanagement as before, with a more difficult control scheme (until return of the pop-up menu)

Its a little better, but I wish I can direct infantry a little more. Some type of formation control would be great, unless you get the tacAI to the point they can do it themselves

I also miss ability (you might say micromanagement) to fire main weapon (main tank gun,AT missile) and small arms. That was a great feature

[ChrisND]

IMHO, a really nice command would be like a Hunt mode, but instead of all the orders erasing, it would simply stop the current Hunt order and have the unit go to it's next order.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

NormalDude,

Yeah, that shouldn't be a problem any more. Sounds like you're sure you saw it with v1.08 so we'll look into it and see what's up with that. Obviously what you saw shouldn't have happened.

Steve

I am also seeing infantry having LOS and shooting through the blank walls of buildings (no windows or doors) (but only area immediately adjacent to the building.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

Continued....

By way of example, perhaps the player could choose to initiate a base of fire maneuver using a few troops to provide covering fire and then left, right or double flank the enemy with the other parts of the squad. All this would be done automatically (read sans micromanagement) by simply choosing the target and an attack option button.

So there would be 3 distinct options right there:

1. Base of Fire - Heavy flank Left.

2. Base of Fire - Heavy flank Right.

3. Base of Fire - Split flank right and left.

I'm just throwing these out as examples. The way I see it, the more tactical options for infantry, the more gratifying the play experience and depth to the simulation. The existence of fully separate squad members allows so many more tactical permutations than CMX1 which abstracted everything down to an animated infantry icon.

But surely that kind of tactical application of fire and manoeuvre is what the player does by combining commands?

Currently to have base of fire and flanking, we have 2 units firing and 1 unit moving. The commands you've indicated would be a multi-unit type thing which, given the plethora of options available for where to go, how much fire to apply, what route to take etc is best done by the player?

I know they're only top of the head examples you've given but it's something I've been mulling over to, so forgive me if you think I'm pissing on your chips

IMHO the unit level commands would be things like "bounding movement", "covered overwatch", "point man 5m separation" etc. Things that the unit, rather than a group of units does.

[SlapHappy]

Yes, I was going to say in a follow-up post that you can accomplish these things manually utilizing two or three squads...However, you cannot necessarily pull off such techniques within the squad itself.

I'm not trying to propose something that would add more micromanagement to the game (not by intent anyway) rather, most of the heavy-lifting would be done by the AI. Basically adding more predefined options like ASSAULT, but with different permutations. But I'm especially hinting at maneuvers which utilize flanking, again, with the AI doing the work, not the player. More options, but with no more babysitting that we have now.

If such a thing is actually codeable...

[Pandur]

again, with the AI doing the work, not the player.

i would think this is one hell to code, also players like me would chime in after its done and complain why the AI is moving around in silly situations without my order.

better to not have it then semi perfect implemented.

after all i also like to do that myself, i dont like the AI to play for me.

[Secondbrooks]

Should TacAI be allowed to fire on movement like move, crawl, quick? Right now it does that just on assault... Assault could be just most optimal version of it.

Firing would be higly inaccurate or low in volume. Main focus is the movement and firing is pretty much for selfdefence, closer they are from enemy more fire they would use in cost of speed. I think i liked this in CMx1, where my men were capable of shooting enemies they met in middle of turn. Somehow it felt natrual (saving me from micromanagement).

[c3k]

Late to the posts.

Regarding the infantry ignoring the door near the rubbled door: I complained about a similar situation months ago. The answer from BF.C (I believe) was that rubble may be blocking access to the door. The door seems intact, but non-rendered rubble has been internally coded to make the door inop. Your troops know this. You are, in effect, ordering them into a building through a wall. They attempt to enter the building, per your order, but find a different entrance.

If you notice the next screenshot, the troops were able to enter the rear door of the neighboring building as ordered. That door was not obstructed by rubble.

The problem here is the fidelity of the model is NOT carried over by the fidelity of the rendering. I would be happy with a large neon red "X" painted across any door coded as blocked. I'm sure there are other graphical solutions. Giving the visual feedback to the player is what is needed.

I have no idea if this issue is on the oft mentioned "list".

Regards,

Ken