Features I miss. Will we ever get them?

[jonp]

All,

Since we now have an "improved" version of CM, I was wondering if we will ever see the following features back

1) Line of Sight tool

2) Transparent roofs

3) Able to modify existing orders

4) QB random maps

I think I would rather have the above features instead of an "improved" version of CM. Does anyone know if any of the forementioned features are in the pipeline?

I feel like now that each guy is represented, the AI pathing has suffered. I would rather have a group of guys abstracted to one guy if that meant the AI pathing was better.

I really do want to like this game and have that same feeling I got when I first started CM but I have a feeling some of the above features were put off (or abandoned) because they wanted to work on the real time portion of the game.

Thoughts? Am I the only one who feels like this?

jonpfl

[KNac]

Ok I'll skip the sentimental as well as game mechanics questioning part of your post (nothing personal, just getting old, all this have been said and devated allready a lot of times), as for your questions:

1) I think it's gonna make a comeback, not very hard as there is allready a LOS tool in place (when you use target).

2) What's the prpoblem with current roofs?

3) With 1.04 we will have a better UI and mechanism in place for orders allready, being able to queue different orders at same waypoint & use individual pausing. This will improve wego quite a bit. I think modifying orders is the next natural steep.

4) There has been some talk about this, totally random QBs won't be possible anymore, quite udenrstandable given the icnreased complexity. CMx1 random QBs weren't that good anyway. BUT maybe some sort of meta-tile system will take place, you will be able to build metatiles (you or the developers or other users off course), and the game will pick these metatiles to form maps. This is far away if it ever happens anyway.

In short, 1 & 3 will come soon or later, rather soon than later. 2 no idea and as for 4, not exactly but something IMO better, in the mean time I'm sure there will be a lot of community made maps (or scenarios you can convert for use as QB) for playing QBs.

Also there is a problem with random QBs, if you use them to play against the AI, these would be totally useless, as the AI needs strat plans to play.

[jonp]

Originally posted by KNac:

Ok I'll skip the sentimental as well as game mechanics questioning part of your post (nothing personal, just getting old, all this have been said and devated allready a lot of times), as for your questions:

1) I think it's gonna make a comeback, not very hard as there is allready a LOS tool in place (when you use target).

2) What's the prpoblem with current roofs?

3) With 1.04 we will have a better UI and mechanism in place for orders allready, being able to queue different orders at same waypoint & use individual pausing. This will improve wego quite a bit. I think modifying orders is the next natural steep.

4) There has been some talk about this, totally random QBs won't be possible anymore, quite udenrstandable given the icnreased complexity. CMx1 random QBs weren't that good anyway. BUT maybe some sort of meta-tile system will take place, you will be able to build metatiles (you or the developers or other users off course), and the game will pick these metatiles to form maps. This is far away if it ever happens anyway.

In short, 1 & 3 will come soon or later, rather soon than later. 2 no idea and as for 4, not exactly but something IMO better, in the mean time I'm sure there will be a lot of community made maps (or scenarios you can convert for use as QB) for playing QBs.

Also there is a problem with random QBs, if you use them to play against the AI, these would be totally useless, as the AI needs strat plans to play.

Thx for the quick reply. I use random QBs for PBEM games so that is not an issue with me (not feasible with the current AI).

I personally like the option to use transparent roofs (like in the previous CM games) so I can look over the battlefield and get a quick summary of my troops.

Good to hear about the other things.

Thx

jonpfl

[Abbott]

Originally posted by jonp:

Am I the only one who feels like this?

jonpfl

Nope.

A lot of the simplicity of play (I enjoyed) that was Combat Mission was lost. BFC needed to have their new game appeal to a different audience.

[ September 22, 2007, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[flamingknives]

Probably true, Abbott. Not totally different though. There's plenty of old guard who like the new look.

[jonp]

Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jonp:

Am I the only one who feels like this?

jonpfl

Nope.

A lot of the simplicity of play (I enjoyed) that was Combat Mission was lost. BFC needed to have their new game appeal to a different audience. </font>

[Abbott]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Probably true, Abbott. Not totally different though. There's plenty of old guard who like the new look.

Yeah, maybe down the road a bit things will smooth out.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by jonp:

All,

Since we now have an "improved" version of CM, I was wondering if we will ever see the following features back

1) Line of Sight tool

I believe that the line of sight tool was removed because the line of sight of units in the game is so flawed.

Imagine if we could trace a LOS line to a tank and find a "no LOS' tag still on it, as the line snaps to the 8x8 hex grid.

The target line is not the same thing at all because spotting is so different from LOF.

Even so it would be a great thing to have back so we could learn the limitations of the spotting system.

[Huntarr]

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002385

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002991#000000

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php

?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002963#000000

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002692#000000

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002467#000000

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002379#000000

[dalem]

Originally posted by jonp:

Thoughts? Am I the only one who feels like this?

jonpfl

Heck no.

-dale

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by KNac:

CMx1 random QBs weren't that good anyway.

:eek:

That's all I ever played.

Random units did suck, though. Seems that's one thing that hasn't changed in CMx2.

[KNac]

Compared to user made scenarios these were not that good, soemtimes where incoherent. In CMx2 that would get even worse.

[Vanir Ausf B]

QBs were better than user made scenarios because you could taylor them to your preference, whereas you were otherwise at the mercy of the scenario designer. It's better to pick your own units than have someone else do it for you. No one to blame but yourself, then.

They could've shipped the CM games without any scenarios at all, as far as I'm concerned. Don't need 'em.

[Sirocco]

QB's were fun in CMx1. Scenarios felt too pre-planned. But that was the great thing about CMx1; something for everyone, whichever you preferred.

[Canada Guy]

This is a repeat (with additions) of something I said in another thread.

There are 8 other things that I would like to see. I thought some might be in a patch but cannot find the thread.

1. Turn all movement orders on for all units at once so we can see where everyone is going.

2. C & C lines to show who is under an HQ. Even though the units highlight when you click the HQ icon, it would be very useful to have a line (black/red) to indicate whether a unit is in/not in contact and what units are under that HQ.

3. LOS indicator - It would be great to see if a unit has LOS to a point. Now I have to wait until a unit is visible and then check.

4. How many men in a unit are OK and how many have been incapacitated. Yes, I can see that 3 men are OK (maybe 1 wounded) but how many men were there in the unit to begin with. I liked the CMx1 icons of 1/7 where 1 unit is still active and 7 are incapacitated. It told me how much of a beating I was taking. Now I have to search the screen for minutes looking for red bases. It is a waste of time.

5. Detailed hit information. Yes I can see the explosion and the fire and the red base but a bit more information on the hit would be useful.

6. The right mouse button actions. I liked the ability to just right click with all actions and then go from there to the board. Hunting and pecking the bottom info bar is not intuitive or not as intuitive as a right mouse click.

7. Status if a unit is pinned or panicked. I am not yet sure which status prevents orders. This may be that I am just not familiar with the game yet but a red button showing that I canot give ordrs would be helpful.

8. Kill tracking by unit which was very useful in post-game analysis. It also was fun to see which unit was the most effective.

This would be a start.

I have said that this is a good game and a good game engine. Bringing some aspects of CMx1 back does not mean that we do not like this game but that some ideas in User Interface use in CMx1 were inspired design and I do not think you should throw the baby out with the bath water.

I just liked some of the ergonomics of CMx1 better so why not combine both?

[SlowMotion]

Canada Guy:

Isn't #1 of your list already there? Since 1.03. You just have to press that key to enable it.

[KNac]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

QBs were better than user made scenarios because you could taylor them to your preference, whereas you were otherwise at the mercy of the scenario designer. It's better to pick your own units than have someone else do it for you. No one to blame but yourself, then.

They could've shipped the CM games without any scenarios at all, as far as I'm concerned. Don't need 'em.

I meant user made maps sorry.

[Tactical Wargamer]

Any news guys on the possibilty of a WEGO system for MP games......I can't command anything more than a Platoon at best in RT......I wonder is that a hard thing to program in?

Lets face it the AI is good but nothing compared to face to face!

Maybe if RT then a variable speed control to sloooow down things a little?

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Canada Guy:

This is a repeat (with additions) of something I said in another thread.

There are 8 other things that I would like to see. I thought some might be in a patch but cannot find the thread.

1. Turn all movement orders on for all units at once so we can see where everyone is going.

2. C & C lines to show who is under an HQ. Even though the units highlight when you click the HQ icon, it would be very useful to have a line (black/red) to indicate whether a unit is in/not in contact and what units are under that HQ.

3. LOS indicator - It would be great to see if a unit has LOS to a point. Now I have to wait until a unit is visible and then check.

4. How many men in a unit are OK and how many have been incapacitated. Yes, I can see that 3 men are OK (maybe 1 wounded) but how many men were there in the unit to begin with. I liked the CMx1 icons of 1/7 where 1 unit is still active and 7 are incapacitated. It told me how much of a beating I was taking. Now I have to search the screen for minutes looking for red bases. It is a waste of time.

5. Detailed hit information. Yes I can see the explosion and the fire and the red base but a bit more information on the hit would be useful.

6. The right mouse button actions. I liked the ability to just right click with all actions and then go from there to the board. Hunting and pecking the bottom info bar is not intuitive or not as intuitive as a right mouse click.

7. Status if a unit is pinned or panicked. I am not yet sure which status prevents orders. This may be that I am just not familiar with the game yet but a red button showing that I canot give ordrs would be helpful.

8. Kill tracking by unit which was very useful in post-game analysis. It also was fun to see which unit was the most effective.

This would be a start.

I have said that this is a good game and a good game engine. Bringing some aspects of CMx1 back does not mean that we do not like this game but that some ideas in User Interface use in CMx1 were inspired design and I do not think you should throw the baby out with the bath water.

I just liked some of the ergonomics of CMx1 better so why not combine both?

Couldn't agree more. These things made previous CM games fun and playable. I have no idea why they were taken out

[Battlefront.com]

Many of these things will be reintroduced as we go along. Remember that many of these things were not in CMBO. The reason for that is collectively all of this stuff adds a lot to the development cycle. After 3 years of working on CMBO we didn't have time to put in everything that we wanted to, but pretty much got it all into CMBB. The same thing happend with CM:SF and will happen with CM:WW2.

Having said that, a few things will get introduced before then. Version 1.04, for example, already has a status change to show when a unit is pinned or panicked. Version 1.03 brought back "show all moves". There will likely be some more of these in future patches.

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

Smoke Steve. Give me my smoke back.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Many of these things will be reintroduced as we go along. Remember that many of these things were not in CMBO.

Steve, it's interesting to me how you don't think it's relevant for us to mention CMx1/CM:BO when we complain and yet you go back to CMx1/CM:BO almost every time you are explaining or rationalizing.

It's just.... interesting.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Forgot to address this bit of baseless speculation of Hoolaman's

I believe that the line of sight tool was removed because the line of sight of units in the game is so flawed.

Believe all you want, but it doesn't make it true We yanked the idea of a LOS tool 2+ years ago because it was redundant with the Target Command. Which, BTW, blows the biggest hole in your theory because anything we might have been trying to hide by getting rid of the LOS tool (again, that's not true) would be clearly shown with any of the Target Commands because it shows the same information. Hence why we got rid of it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

dalem,

Steve, it's interesting to me how you don't think it's relevant for us to mention CMx1/CM:BO when we complain and yet you go back to CMx1/CM:BO almost every time you are explaining or rationalizing.

I bring it up when it is relevant. People tend to think about the end product of 5 years of development (CMAK) instead of the initial release (CMBO v1.0). To think that we could put in everything that CMx1 had in the first go around, along with an inherently more detailed core engine, is an unreasonble expectation. So I'm reminding people that many of the things they find "missing" from CM:SF were "missing" from CMBO as well. Since CM:SF is about where CMBO is in terms of years of development effort, I think it is reasonable to remind people of that.

What you're confusing this with is when someone says we should have a specific feature in CM:SF for no other reason than it was in CMx1. That's bad logic because the two game systems, themselves, can not be directly compared. For example, "why can't we have random generated QB maps like we did for CMx1? You had them then, why can't we have them now?". Totally different mechanics at work and I've explained countless times why it's not practical to do in CMx2. Asking for something like "show all moves" is something that is directly portable from old to new. Which is why it's in the game now

So it's only "inteteresting", as you put it, if you don't really look at the arguments being made. Or to put it another way, there are times when comparision with CMx1 is relevant because CMx2 came from it. There are times when it is not relevant because CMx2 is not, nor was it supposed to be, CMx1 with a minor facelift.

Clearer?

Steve

[John Catsack]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We yanked the idea of a LOS tool 2+ years ago because it was redundant with the Target Command.

So how do we get line of sight info for a unit with no weapons (recon hummers, for instance)?