WW2 title. How to turn it into a classic?

[panzermartin]

Despite some minor flaws I really like the engine of CMSF. The more balanced weaponry and historical theme will give the series a big boost when Normandy arrives.

Apart from the new QB system which are the possible improvements you think can turn the title from a good tactical game to a wargaming masterpiece?

In my opinion CMx2 should add some more wargame elements than CMSF. Not that it is bad that CMSF is mostly a modern war toolkit but the historical theme will need some more wargaming touches than just a solid 3D 1:1 engine. BFC should take the very good base they have now and expand it. I'd like to see:

More roleplaying elements. It was nice having the Plt HQs in CMx1 with stealth/morale bonuses. I'd love to see an improved return of this system. The game imo needs more soul and human factor to avoid feeling like a sterile statistical formula. It is still better than most simulations in morale/fanatism etc but there is still room for improvement.

More atmosphere. Not hollywood romantism but it would be nice to see some touches that are not essentially first priority like some new random chatter for infantry, a more picturesque and colorful 3d world, positioned ambient wavs like the dogs barking in TOW and some extra care for the buildings and objects.

The return of the missing CMx1 features, like sound contacts, MisIDs(I miss that!) and maybe the damage text and, of course, the kill list which I'm pretty sure its coming back.

Lastly I hope for a pausable RT for multiplayer since WEGO is hard to go TCP/IP right now.

Thats all I can think for now

[Michael Emrys]

More roleplaying elements. It was nice having the Plt HQs in CMx1 with stealth/morale bonuses. I'd love to see an improved return of this system. The game imo needs more soul and human factor to avoid feeling like a sterile statistical formula.

Leadership was very variable in WW II (like in most armies during most of history) and I think it is valid to ask for this to be modeled in the game.

Michael

[MarkEzra]

A step in this direction would be to allow player changes in the unit leaders names (not talking units...that's already in)

Modifying the existing CMSF "spy" to be both male and female. It's high time a wargame acknowledges the courage and sacrifice of woman in WW2

[Taki]

I agree with you Ali-Baba. QB Improvment (symbiont from Cherry Picking/Super-Duper-New-NormandySelection) is the basis for the next title. As Cmx1 was very well balanced in all aspects on Strongpoints and weaknesses of the Equipment of that time im very optimisticly looking onto WW2 Title that they will do the trick one more time.

bring more life to the game enviorment would be appriciated. Hope that spotting doesnt stay the same as it is modelled in game right now (like inf in hiding pos cant be spotted) and the right modell of equipment wich are the two greatest flaws in the game right now.

Hope they bring back all that small advantages/disadvanteges those WW2 Tanks had wich where greatly modelled in Cmx1. Hope the Tiger (or similar) dont get that UBERtank like the M1.

[MikeyD]

One thing that would turn the WWII game into a classic is strong use of actual tactical maps and Google earth images to build a 'real world' instead of generic 'representative' game maps. The British book series "Through the Lens" is simply amazing in this regard, taking you from a famous iconic wartime photo to the actual point of territory where it was taken. If they could build maps that gave the impression that you could stand on that very street corner in that real town in real life, that would turn the game into a classic.

I'm less certain about some suggestions here regarding altering the game engine. The goal is to produce a classic, not a fiasco.

[benpark]

Properly modeled hedgerows.

[Drusus]

I don't think the game really needs anything special except for the kill list and improved quick battles to be a classic. Of course there is an endless list of things that could be improved, but they are not essential to the game. In fact, it would be appropriate to say that the engine is fundamentally fixed...

[Cpl Steiner]

First of all, add in all the things from CMx1 that were inexplicably dropped in CMx2:

Prisoners

Adjustable waypoints

On-map mortars

Water

Fords

Bridges

True Foxholes

Fall-back Foxholes

Command Delays

Tank Close-Assaults

Exit Zones

Invisible Vehicles Toggle

LOS Tool (not every unit has a weapon)

Pre-Battle Casualties

Detailed Armour Hit Text

Kill-Tally Statistics

"Reserve" Reinforcements (CMx1 Operations)

Trenches that have to be spotted

Trenches that can be set up by the player, not the scenario designer

Fire

Visibly Routing Units (sometimes routing off map edges)

Building Damage Textures/Decals

Fences and Hedges

Fences/Low Walls not impassible to Tracked Vehicles

CMx1-style Quick Battles (cherry-picking of forces, random terrain)

Terrain Damage/Vehicle Wrecks Carried Over between Battles (CMx1 Operations)

Cover Armour Arc (restrict AT fire to enemy vehicles)

Target and Face command Separated (so vehicles can engage targets and still pivot).

[MeatEtr]

The WWII game will be completely broken unless there is cowbell in it.

[MikeyD]

First of all, add in all the things from CMx1 that were inexplicably dropped in CMx2:

Those items couldn't have been 'dropped' from CMx2 because they were never in. The game engine is a total rewrite from a ground up - its a different game. You could make a list 3 times as long of features in CMx2 that had been 'dropped' from CMx1 (Why did CMx1 drop 1:1 unit representation?). If Charles had taken the time to code-up everything including the kitchen sink for CMx2 we'd be probably getting the initial v1.0 release about next week!

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, MikeyD is correct. It's not balanced to look at only one type of difference between CMx1 and CMx2. Some things familiar to CMx1 were not included, others were. Lots of things not included in CMx1 are included in CMx2. It's also useful to remember that CMBO had a lot less things in it than CMBB/CMAK in terms of features.

As for "inexplicable"... well, we have an explanation for everything The short answer is "we had to make decisions about what to do and what not to do based on the full range of desired features, not just what we had already done". For some of these things I've already gone into great detail about why they weren't prioritized higher. Water, bridges, fords, Face/Target, on-map mortars, etc. etc. That's not to say people necessarily liked or agreed with our prioritization, but it's not the same as there being some sort of inexplicable mystery.

CM:SF has way more features in it than CMBO did. Obviously some of the things not in CM:SF, but in CMBO, are missed, so one can make a case for relative importance of this or that feature. It still doesn't change the balance, though. Plus, we plan on putting in most of the important "missing" features into CM:Normandy. That means CM:Normandy will have basically have the features of CMBB plus a ton more. Since CMAK was basically the same feature set as CMBB, that means every CMx2 release that comes after Normandy will further the overwhelmingly larger feature set than CMx1 had to offer. We're happy with that

Steve

[C'Rogers]

Roleplaying elements/Platoon leaders: I might have be a considerable minority, but I never really cared for the platoon bonuses from leaders. Yes, a good leader is incredibly important. But I just felt like the method used was too abstract and seemed kind of like every other wargame, not CM.

Cpl Steiner,

As MikeyD said, nothing was dropped. Things either weren't on the top of the priority list or conflicted with other game elements. But I thought I would take a look at your list, and at least see how important each element was to me.

Prisoners - I enjoyed taking prisoners. I would like to see it come back into the game. On the other hand I don't think taking prisoners ever really effected the overall battle/game for me. I would actually expect to see it more in CMSF than WWII (where conscripted Syrian militia decides it might not be a great idea to make a stand).

Adjustable waypoints - Well I suppose that would be a little bit more convenient.

On-map mortars - Yes. Though I think the improved artillery system is so much better I was glad to play without on-map mortars if it was a necessary trade off.

Water - Other than a few scenarios I don't remember water being very important (this might have been due to my tendency to play QBs over scenarios). It is certainly an important scenario designing tool and can create interesting tactical situations.

Fords/Bridges - As per water

True Foxholes - By this I suppose you mean foxholes that are not just craters that the enemy can see off the start of the map. Yeah, they would be nice to have.

Fall-back Foxholes - If by some weird engine design they were able to get foxholes in were the defender started and not fall backs, I doubt I'd mind.

Command Delays - I loved command delays. I thought they were on of the key elements that made CMx1 what it was. But I haven't really missed them with CM:SF. I would be interested to know if there is even any possibility of them coming back.

Tank Close-Assaults - Not sure what you mean.

Exit Zones - Really?

Invisible Vehicles Toggle - Don't think I ever used it.

LOS Tool (not every unit has a weapon) - I think the simplest solution would be to allow all units to use the target command and an error message if the player tries to select anything.

Pre-Battle Casualties - This seems more like a flavor element than anything concrete with the game. If you are into detailed reconstructions I can see the point. But on the actual gameplay, seems like a minor issue. Might be helpful in campaigns.

Detailed Armour Hit Text - I am always surprised people use the CMx1 armor hit text and the word detail in the same phrase. We have an incredibly details armor system now, far better than CMx1. If I know one of my tanks is being hit that is enough for me, and I can usually tell this by graphics/sound (with the frequency some of my Abrams get hit by small arms fire I would've gone crazy if there was a text message)

Kill-Tally Statistics - Yes.

"Reserve" Reinforcements (CMx1 Operations)/Terrain Damage/Vehicle Wrecks Carried Over between Battles (CMx1 Operations) - I enjoyed operations, I played quite a few. That said, I seemed to be in a considerable minority. I'd rather have operations instead of campaigns, most people seem to disagree, and BFC is not going to waste their time coding for it.

Trenches that have to be spotted - That would be nice. But trenches were usually spotted pretty quickly. In terms of enemy information that an attacker might know already I can see a number of ways in which the attacker would know were the trenches were. It would be good if they could be hidden, I understand that isn't going to be possible, and I can easily live that.

Trenches that can be set up by the player, not the scenario designer - To me CM is about the battle. There are a lot of factors that go on before the battle, such as building trenches/fortifications. I'd like to have control of them, but am fine if I don't

Fire - If they do fire, I want them to spend a lot of time on it. I want fire that spreads at a realistic manner. As flamethrowers are pretty necessary for WWII I hope they do this.

Visibly Routing Units (sometimes routing off map edges) - I'd like more routing units. I never wanted units routing off the map edge. It was weird to think that if a unit was on Hill A and routed I'd get him back, but on Hill B I wouldn't because he was too close to the map edge.

Building Damage Textures/Decals - Hmmm?

Fences and Hedges - They weren't necessary for CM:SF, but should go in for WWII.

Fences/Low Walls not impassible to Tracked Vehicles - If it can be simulated accurately with the appropriate dangers, I'd like to see it.

CMx1-style Quick Battles (cherry-picking of forces, random terrain) - If cheery picking came back, and it was the only thing, I'd be very happy. Any programmer I have talked to has said random maps are incredibly complex and time consuming and I can understand why we won't be seeing them again (at least in a 'true' form).

Cover Armour Arc (restrict AT fire to enemy vehicles) - While I want my tanks to open up on pretty much any target, with AT guns I think armor arcs are pretty critical.

Target and Face command Separated (so vehicles can engage targets and still pivot) - This hadn't even occurred to me as a problem. Most of the time I think you want your unit facing what is shooting at (unless on the move). But it would be nice.

To make the game a classic, for me, it only needs a few things. Cherry picking QBs (or some form thereof) is at the top of the list.

[panzermartin]

I agree that the game doesnt need that many things to become classic. But with this great engine it would be awesome if BFC had the time and resources to expand it to something never seen before in the wagaming universe. Some other extras that come to mind are 2v2, 3v3 etc multiplayer, additional unscripterd AI for the enemy and AI triggers,

a basic map generator maybe with the use of pre set tiles etc. Or what about AI controlled units on your side? Playing a platoon alongside with an AI company could be an immersive experience.

About the platoon leaders, personally I used them a lot in multiplayer games and could decide victory or defeat sometimes with a +2 morale platoon holding till the last man or

a stealthy ambush against enemy armour. Surely some bonuses were a bit overabstracted, like a pzshreck having more accuracy when in visual contact with a +2 combat HQ but it didnt matter as it added an extra dimension in gameplay. I dont want to see an exact replica though, just a revamp of it that will add more human factor in gameplay. Even in tank crews for instance it would be interesting to see variable leader/crew qualities beyond the experiences level. Could be a better spotting green crew, or a veteran crew with a not so great gunner, a stubborn leader that will keep its tank up against overwhelming odds etc.

And I will agree with MikeyD that detailed maps would be essential to recreate the atmosphere accurately. Some stock CMSF maps were below my expectations and as it turned out the editor was much more capable than that. There is an excuse thought that at the time the game was still in bad shape with bugs and low FPS and the editor something completely new.

Lastly, I hope the Cherry picking in QBs retains the randomness of CMx1, with variable rarity/experience. Pre battle casualties were not to my taste. Could ruin the balance sometimes when it was decided to strip you of your FO for instance. Some suprises with a small bonus unit (a sniper team or a recon car) here and there wouldnt be a bad idea at all though.

In general I think the fact that wargamers are gamers too and that many of us view the whole thing partly as our more mature(? ) version of playing with scale mininatures shouldnt be overlooked. In CMSF that was harder to do, since connection with reality is inevitable and "gaminess" not very fiting with the theme

but with the classic WW2 some more freedom and a few imaginative "gamey" touches would not be that bad imo.

[GSX]

Those items couldn't have been 'dropped' from CMx2 because they were never in. The game engine is a total rewrite from a ground up - its a different game. You could make a list 3 times as long of features in CMx2 that had been 'dropped' from CMx1 (Why did CMx1 drop 1:1 unit representation?). If Charles had taken the time to code-up everything including the kitchen sink for CMx2 we'd be probably getting the initial v1.0 release about next week!

Actually, theres a couple of things wrong with your statement there.

1. Things that were in CM-1 seem to have been put back in. The use of the spacebar to bring up unit options was the old right click in CM-1 brought into CM-2 when guys asked for a similar thing. As has WEGO and the Blue Bar recent additions.

2. Perhaps if they had taken the time to code it up as you say and it was released next week, it wouldn't have been the initial flop and failure that it was when it was released in beta form last year.

Still its good enough to play now though.

[Gryphon]

Now what I would finally like to see is some renders of the equipment from Normandy; get a taste of what's to come. Also, BFC, when are you guys planning to open a WW2:Normandy forum? Any time frame on that?

[Gryphon]

Shameless bump It's been a while since we had some WW2 news I will always be here to pester BFC about it, well unless they ban me of course

So.. when are you guys planning on announcing the title? CMSF was announced about a year before it came out, I would imagine a similar fully new product would be announced well in time as well, wouldn't it? And CMSF had those great renders of equipment too, seeing something similar for CM:N would be great