User Suggestions Topic (Facts/Specs/Etc.)

[Tyrant]

Foreword:

I am aware there are already a lot of suggestions floating around on the forum, some which already have been implemented in the BfM patch. For example my first comment below refers to the UnitData topic. Most topics however have a lot of blabla which is difficult to scroll through. Therefore I'm trying to achieve to create a central-topic for suggestions so all ideas can be centralized in one topic.

So I strive for a clean topic with little or no discussions. (at least not within the topic)

Another topic could be used for that. (for example a "User Suggestions Discussion Topic")

If there already is one of these topics, please inform me. I'll post my ideas in that one and will then delete this one.

I'd like to use this topic to collect ideas for possible changes to the game (even minor ones), that would enhance the reality experience/ historical acuraccy.

Battlefront could then use this info to use in any future mods/patches if they see them to fit the game.

I would like to ask you to strictly post ideas that would increase the reality gameplay/historical accuracy aspects.

Thank you.

[ July 11, 2007, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Tyrant ]

[Tyrant]

I'll start off:

Concerning Historical acuraccy:

Panzerkampfwagen t38 (according to the game encyclopedia) started use this designated name in '40. Before 1940 it still had the Czech/Iranian ID. The game has the post '40 name implemented before this date.

Concerning gameplay:

German panzers working in teams, could have a shorter response time to orders than their enemy adversaries. (crews that communicate through radio have an advantage, opposed to crew that must use handsignals/etc.)

Additionaly, radio-comms using crews could have awareness over enemy units spotted by colleague panzers, non comms using crews would not have this advantage (or a delayed awareness).

[ July 11, 2007, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Tyrant ]

[ColonelBlimp]

·Historically accurate types of unit-for example, SS, specific airborne divisions, police divisions etc.

·Historically accurate unit breakdown, for example Bren groups, scouts, Coy HQs etc. instead of generic terms used.

·Inclusion of MMGs in units instead of separate entities. They would need to be movable but obviously there would need to be a certain amount of time available for setting up etc. They seem to have done this with the 30 cal but not others strangely.

·Inclusion of tactical use of smoke, both through smoke grenades, tank shells, and also mortar rounds

·Inclusion of mortars, of all calibres, used in different ways according to the calibre-for example, the British 2 inch mortar being included in the typical kit of a group, and larger mortars being given a separate designation.

·Inclusion of fatigue (although I have heard this will be implemented at some point)

·Better use of air support. This would take two forms-firstly, fighter cover being taken out of the user’s control and being omnipresent (to stop the enemy attacking, you sending fighters up, and they arriving too late), and secondly, the user being able to select which type of unit the Jabos attack (for example, tanks, infantry, SPGs), as at the moment they hardly ever attack tanks which is pretty inaccurate

·An overhaul of the spotting system, especially concerning tanks. Tanks at the moment seem to see everything which is very inaccurate, when in real life when buttoned up their spotting ability was pretty bad. They therefore should have blind spots in their vision (certainly not 360 degree vision as of now) and, even though alright at seeing tanks and anti tank guns, would be very poor at seeing prone infantrymen. However, tanks should get a spotting bonus if there are friendly infantry within a certain radius, to simulate them talking to the tankists.

·Better infantry/tank balance. This would be achieved in a number of ways, mainly by reducing their spotting ability as above, but also in other ways. Firstly, by when infantry are told to attack a tank there should be a greater variety of possible attacking methods, for example by Molotovs, putting smoke grenades on the engine desk, hammering on the MGs, putting grenades down the gun barrel, firing through the pistol ports, flamethrowing through the pistol ports, blowing off tracks with grenades etc. Obviously, the effectiveness of these attacks would be increased by the unit’s experience and equipment. Secondly, ensuring that they can attack the tanks without the invisible blast wave killing them. This infantry attack will obviously not work in all circumstances, say when there are other enemy tanks or infantry nearby. However, if there are no other enemies in a position to help the tank, this could be very useful indeed.

·PUT MORE BRITISH VOICES IN!!!

·Addition of RPG44 in the Russian inventory

·More artillery pieces-for example Russian 85mm, 17pdr, American 90mm, Flak 88 etc.

·More tank/SPG variety- IS2m, T44, Sherman Firefly, greater variety of armament for British Tanks, normal Churchill, etc.

·Proper animations for hand-to-hand combat

·More variety of ammunition types-APDS for 6 pounder, canister, M71 for ROQF 75mm

·Proper gun pits

·Enterable buildings NATURALLY-this is not as important as most of the above posts as I know that it would take so much hard work that it would preclude it from being included in anything other than TOW2. Especially the AI needed-most of the crouching and cover taking would need to be automated and that would be bloody hard work.

Phew. I hope at least some of these are implemented in an addon/patch/mod to make this game a real classic.

[ July 11, 2007, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: ColonelBlimp ]

[Slapaho]

Great list ColonelBlimp

If I could choose just 1 thing from it to 'fix' - the tank spotting ability. This, above all others is the one thing I h8 in the game. And one addition - SMOKE!

Make trees more of an obstacle that can damage a tank/vehicle if it hits it rather than simply snapping lke a match-stick.

MP variety - mentioned many times in other posts. The type of units, choice of battle types and more maps.

[Gnasher]

Originally posted by ColonelBlimp:

·Historically accurate types of unit-for example, SS, specific airborne divisions, police divisions etc.

·Historically accurate unit breakdown, for example Bren groups, scouts, Coy HQs etc. instead of generic terms used.

·Inclusion of MMGs in units instead of separate entities. They would need to be movable but obviously there would need to be a certain amount of time available for setting up etc. They seem to have done this with the 30 cal but not others strangely.

·Inclusion of tactical use of smoke, both through smoke grenades, tank shells, and also mortar rounds

·Inclusion of mortars, of all calibres, used in different ways according to the calibre-for example, the British 2 inch mortar being included in the typical kit of a group, and larger mortars being given a separate designation.

·Inclusion of fatigue (although I have heard this will be implemented at some point)

·Better use of air support. This would take two forms-firstly, fighter cover being taken out of the user’s control and being omnipresent (to stop the enemy attacking, you sending fighters up, and they arriving too late), and secondly, the user being able to select which type of unit the Jabos attack (for example, tanks, infantry, SPGs), as at the moment they hardly ever attack tanks which is pretty inaccurate

·An overhaul of the spotting system, especially concerning tanks. Tanks at the moment seem to see everything which is very inaccurate, when in real life when buttoned up their spotting ability was pretty bad. They therefore should have blind spots in their vision (certainly not 360 degree vision as of now) and, even though alright at seeing tanks and anti tank guns, would be very poor at seeing prone infantrymen. However, tanks should get a spotting bonus if there are friendly infantry within a certain radius, to simulate them talking to the tankists.

·Better infantry/tank balance. This would be achieved in a number of ways, mainly by reducing their spotting ability as above, but also in other ways. Firstly, by when infantry are told to attack a tank there should be a greater variety of possible attacking methods, for example by Molotovs, putting smoke grenades on the engine desk, hammering on the MGs, putting grenades down the gun barrel, firing through the pistol ports, flamethrowing through the pistol ports, blowing off tracks with grenades etc. Obviously, the effectiveness of these attacks would be increased by the unit’s experience and equipment. Secondly, ensuring that they can attack the tanks without the invisible blast wave killing them. This infantry attack will obviously not work in all circumstances, say when there are other enemy tanks or infantry nearby. However, if there are no other enemies in a position to help the tank, this could be very useful indeed.

·PUT MORE BRITISH VOICES IN!!!

·Addition of RPG44 in the Russian inventory

·More artillery pieces-for example Russian 85mm, 17pdr, American 90mm, Flak 88 etc.

·More tank/SPG variety- IS2m, T44, Sherman Firefly, greater variety of armament for British Tanks, normal Churchill, etc.

·Proper animations for hand-to-hand combat

·More variety of ammunition types-APDS for 6 pounder, canister, M71 for ROQF 75mm

Phew. I hope at least some of these are implemented in an addon/patch/mod to make this game a real classic.

Fantastic list! I almost thought I'd written it myself!

My suggestions:

On the issue of tanks vision I'd like to see 2 settings: buttoned down where tanks vision is reduced to approx 40% of what it is now to simulate looking through the vision slits & unbuttoned where vision is increased to approx 125% because of the commander's higher vantage points. This should only apply to the tank's commander, unbuttoned crew could have the same vision as an infantryman. Of course unbuttoned crewmembers would also be vunerable to small arms / artillery fire so that there is both an advantage & a penalty for both buttoned and unbuttoned crew.

I want flamethrowers to clear out trenches properly.

Jabos should have either rocket or bomb loadouts in addition to just strafing, & bombs should have bigger explosive effect than at present IMHO. Rockets should be death on tanks. Also we desperately need more aircraft, especially for the RAF, Blenheims & Hurricances are just crap for late war scenarios, as is B17s providing tactical support. Typhoon, B25 (RAF/USAAF/VVS), A20 (RAF/USAAF/VVS), & Stuka (Bomb or 37mm loadouts) immediately come to mind as the highest priorities.

Also I've noticed what seems to me to be a disproportionate amount of 100% damage to tank guns rendering them unable to fire. IMHO this should be lessened with maybe an accuracy penalty to simulate hits on optics to compensate. It would be nice if units especially the M10 would refuse to attack if they have lost the main gun. I hardly think IRL they would charge into an attack solely using the MG which wasn't coaxial or hull mounted. :mad:

Combat engineers able to lay/clear mines, use flamethrowers & satchel charges.

[666]

SS, specific divisions, and other stuff would be nice, but what is really needed (and it would satisfy me):

pzIII with 50mm(kz), ie pzIII ausf G, ausf H or ausf J (early model)

88mm flak18/36

and maybe pzIV ausf E or F1, but it is less important...

[Gnasher]

Ability in MP to have players on the same side to both be the same country.

Or better, ability in editor to fix nations to teams.

[Flanker15]

Tanks and vehicles that burn for the whole game.

Better anti-armor weapons on planes.

Flame-throwers?

[nachinus]

-A Line of Sight tool to easily check LoS in a matter of seconds with just drawing a line with your mouse, like in CM or in CC. I think that Madmatt said this was a possibility, but I'd like to see it implemented as soon as possible.

-Automatic loose battle condition that makes one side loose the battle when all its units are retreating/broken. This would be better than having to exterminate ALL units on the map to win a battle.

-Surrender. Soldiers that surrender when reasonable.

-Retreat out of map. Broken/ retreating units should be able to exit the map.

[Mastiff]

I think the engine that runs a check and monitors the AI and Palyers units and equipment and stats needsd to be faster. I watch the system checking everything and it seems a bit slow.

[666]

completely agree with nachinus. These features are the most important; I'd rather have LOS tool, surrender, morale, autovictory implemented than new units and eyecandies...

[MajorProblem]

I cannot agree more i think these features would make a realistic war sim better than ever, the game is missing that extra attention. The more realism the more added the better to me. Medics blood letters to families with loss the lot. I appreciate the work thats gone into making this game but if the makers take it to that extra height your have a winner of a game to play and play for time.CM was a longterm game because it had many varients of vehicles i think this game could really take the battlefield to a new level.You want many many factors to consider in a battleplane to make a dynamic realistic feel to a game so when you make decisions its based somewhat on how you think if it was in a real life war situation. I wish for more urban fights too like entering buildings like the other fans, buttoned and unbuttoned tanks, medics,engineers ect.I hope battlefront is taking notes of these suggestions. I guess i like realism in a game and i dont think i'm alone.

[Reichenberg]

Originally posted by 666:

I'd rather have LOS tool, surrender, morale, autovictory implemented than new units and eyecandies...

Absolutely right here!

Let me just add that I miss a VCR-like replay function. You saw your troops attacking a tank and blowing it to pieces..... jump back by 1min and watch it again from a different angle/perspective and keep playing from the point where you jumped back.

I can live without new units. Get the LOS-tool up and running, add a replay function in a ToW2 and then you can think of new units.

Uwe

[12Bravo]

These are from one of my previous posts, but I think they fit well under this thread:

1- Program armored vehicle AI to go around trees when it makes sense. I've seen armored cars knocking down full grown trees, which isn't possible.

2- Add a "Move on Roads" order for vehicles and troops.

DV

3- Add a "Hull-Down" position order for armored vehicles. The AI would find the best hull-down position given the ending point and direction assigned by the player.

4- When assigning men to a gun, the system should automatically assign each to the best position per each man's ability (gunner, loader, etc.).

5- If replays are not an option, offer a 3d free camera view of the battle field after a senario ends, complete with the hit locations of gun rounds for vehicles (similar to SBPE and T72).

[MajorProblem]

Keep those suggestions flowing, they all count to make a awsome game but be kind to the dudes who program the game its not like they can just make these changes overnight. It seems like alot of CM fans just want to expand on the CM series and features and not loose what was a wining formula like the hull down option and replay features. I know its not CM but i guess there were some features that are not there like smoke too. This is a basic tactic used by a army and dont know why is not used. I mean would you want to advance on a open field into deadly fire without any cover and there is alot of trench assault missions in TOW.Smoke screens dont cost that much in war and i know smoke graphics are used in the game so why not a option?

[GriffinCheng+]

Could not have agreed more.

My list:

"Hide" command (especially for non-foot soldiers)

More deliberate and auto use of secondary (?) weapons at targets (use zook on vehicles, grenades in trenches)

Victory conditions other them "kill'em all" (victory flag, anyone?)

Heavy weapon teams, not just another guy carrying a special weapon.

AFV should reverse and duck under fire, other than just freeze.

Exposed soldiers in trenches should be treated the same to AFVs

More comprehensive OOB chart

Better FoW implementation (trenches should not be visibile kilos away)

Random battle generator (mentioned elsewhere)

Pre-planned batteries and pre-sight markers

Include rivers as terrain (I have yet to see one) and possibly assault boats

Of course, I want desert.

So much for now.

[von Ribbentrop]

Binoculars view would be great.!!

[ColonelBlimp]

Some more:

·Critically wounded soldiers not being able to move/fire, and dying after a certain length of time.

·Medics who stick to a particular group of soldiers, and automatically search out wounded soldiers to treat and stabilise. Therefore, when they reach a critically wounded soldier, they stop them dying. I think it would be best if they treat people and take cover automatically, tagging along with their squad, but with the player being able to make them treat specific targets.

I just hope the devs read this thread! There's so many superb ideas coming through that would make a stupendous difference to the game. I particularly like the different levels of damage to the gun/optics-I'm sick to death of my tanks all being blinded by one tiny ricochet!

[ColonelBlimp]

Just one more I promise!

·Greater variation in landscape. I'm even more sick to death of seeing, whether the battle is being fought on the Steppe, in the Bocage, Central Europe, the same old basic smattering of relief, trees and villages. I'd like more distinctive landscape features, and also more use of the landscape-for example, beach landing scenarios, river crossings etc. I can understand however that the devs would be limited in this by the engine's capabilities.

PS the AT grenade I mentioned in my first post is not the RPG44 but the RPG6 (with a penetration of 100mm)

[MajorProblem]

I hope these suggestions are taken seriously into account and if possible within the limitations of the engine are seen through to completion and released into a patch. I get the impression that all the suggestions are within reason and not too ambitious to achieve. Most sugestions are actually features that are used common in alot of ww2 strategy games so why minus these. Games should be expanding not subtracting especially when proven successful.It seems TOW has really put alot of emphasis on penetration values more than scope of options of controls,terrain and units to use in variable battlefield. Its natural to want more and think of all the negatives so i will give my praise to the creators of this unpolished gem. This game could really take ww2 strategy to a new height and please the hardcore player if notes are taken. Be great to hear the reactions of the creators to these remarks.

[Tofke]

Originally posted by nachinus:

-Surrender. Soldiers that surrender when reasonable.

Yeah ! i hope "surrender statut" in the next patch...

[Gnasher]

BUMP

& Map Object similar to trench but able to take a hull down tank. Tank's must be able to drive into & out of the hole.

[ColonelBlimp]

What I'd really like is some sort of Operation Sealion campaign-it would be so immense to have some sort of landing battles and mowing the invaders down!

Or inclusion of landing stage battles for D-Day, with AVREs, DDs etc.

[oho]

tanks always seeing infantry is the biggest problem for me.

No grass to cover is in the same caegory.

[Gnasher]

BUMP

& Rifle Grenades