Wishlist for future versions

[pkh]

A couple of things I'd like to see in the future for this series:

- Multicore support

- Playable in window mode

- More predictable loadouts for aircraft (f.ex. displayed as x Heavy bombs, y Medium bombs, z cannon rounds).

- Similar for artillery (x rounds left)

- More detailed Quick Battle (ability to pick forces)

Also are there plans at the moment for a Shock Force 2 ?

[Jonny(FGM)]

I don't think you'll ever see any of those features in CMSF, they are just too big a feature to be simply patched in.

Multicore support won't be seen until at least the game (not module) after normandy from what i've heard from BF on the subject. But we will see a much improved QB system in normandy

Oh and I believe there are plans for a CMSF2 set in a temperate climate

[akd]

- More predictable loadouts for aircraft (f.ex. displayed as x Heavy bombs, y Medium bombs, z cannon rounds).

- Similar for artillery (x rounds left)

Pretty sure the above are already tracked in the game. We simply denied the information for the purpose of "better UI." Of course, I disagree. I think the abstracted UI is just frustrating and in no way makes the game easier to play or more accessible.

[LJFHutch]

I want multicore support :3

[c3k]

Agreed: imaging a FAC calling in a strike and not knowing what's enroute? Or calling for arty and having little idea how many rounds are coming or how long the strike will last? Hopefully this will get improved in the future.

Ken

[toxic.zen]

sooooo what is "multicore" support?

[MeatEtr]

It's multiple CPUs, either dual(two) or quad(four) core. Yes I'm definitely for multi-core support since I gotta Q9550(four) 2.83GHz CPUs and only one is used. Understandable for CMSF not supporting it since it was released in 07. But I'd bet most of their customers now have at least duo core. So would love to see duo core support for CMN but with the QB update, not gonna happen. That leaves hopefully multi-core support with the East Front game. (fingers crossed)

Also, as for showing more details for loadouts, I think they should bring back the info box(already been requested plenty). But they could add loadout details along with kill info into it.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The arty/air information is indeed too meagre, as has been discussed a couple of times. No disagreement from me there.

As for multi core support: I get why they've held off. There just doesn't seem to be too big a pay off.

I've got a few games that have it or had it patched in and it's not having that much of an effect. The overhead on juggling that data from one core to the next seems to be large enough to undo most potential gains. So while I would like to have it at some stage I don't think there will be enough of a boost to make it worth BFCs efforts, for now. Too many other things to code that are more beneficial to the experience.

Except for draw distance being at times underwhelming, it runs just fine on my rig in any case.

[YankeeDog]

IIRC, one of Steve's recent comments on multicore optimization was that the performance increase going from one core to two cores for a game like CMSF wasn't very much and therefore wasn't worth the considerable effort, but that the performance increase from one core to four cores was, in theory at least, more worthwhile.

So I suspect we probably won't see BFC put much time into multicore optimization until a significant proportion of the potential CM market is running quad core rigs. (Or better!) This will definitely happen someday, but we're certainly not there yet...

[LJFHutch]

In ArmA2 I noticed a good enough jump when they went from dual to quad-core support, mostly with large numbers of AI, but it was definitely a good enough increase. I notice the AI seems to affect the frame-rate a bit in larger CMSF scenarios too: here's hoping it gets implemented at some stage

Edit: there are $300 (AUD) six-core AMD chips running at 3.2ghz at the moment, I'm currently running a quad 2.6 overclocked to 3.2 and like MeatEtr said, I reckon most people would have at least dual-core now.

[pkh]

I wasn't thinking of these things being patched in for CMSF, but more thinking ahead for CMSF 2 or whatever comes after this.

With regards to aircraft ordnance, it feels like at the moment there is just one 'resource' value, and using heavy weapons uses up the resource faster. After dropping x amount of bombs the plane lands, although it should still have cannon rounds left f.ex.

With regards to multicore support I would think it could matter a since there is so much line of sight, ai and hit detection going on. The developer would know better since I don't know if it's the rendering or the calculations which is the bottleneck.

I realize CMSF is done now that NATO is relased, but I vote for the French and Russian army to be added in version 2.

[canadianleaf]

In the next "CMSF" it would be kinda neat and sometimes helpful if there was a more detailed equipment pick-up option.

[Praetori]

Not very important. But it would be nice to have little tickboxes next to all of the equipment (like grenades, soldiers rifles, javelins and so forth) so that I can prevent or encourage use of certain weapons. The Target and Target light commands just doesn't cut it.

I don't know how many times I've had AT teams killed because the spotter thought it was a good idea to open up with an AR at a BMP before the AT gunner even deployed his weapon.

It would also be nice with a "LOS" movement order (ie move from current position in a straight line until the unit gets LOS of target).

[Allan Wotherspoon]

It would also be nice with a "LOS" movement order (ie move from current position in a straight line until the unit gets LOS of target).

Doesn't the "Hunt" command do that?

[Praetori]

Doesn't the "Hunt" command do that?

Afaik it only works if the unit actually spots something. I'd like a LOS movement order to terrain features and units alike.

[Noltyboy]

Doesn't the "Hunt" command do that?

But then cancels all further movement, not good for shoot and scoot. And will cancel if it sees any enemy, perhaps leaving out of LOS of the enemy you want to shoot at.

I have so many ideas this is ending up a book, it almost seems pointless as BF get so many from us 99% of them get lost or forgotten about.

Some things that i would like would be a "behaviour setting" that would change the way the Tac AI handles encounters, a Recon setting where the unit advances at set speed but is wary, when coming under contact will fall back, try to get out the field of fire by getting out of LOS or popping smoke etc. A defensive setting where the find cover from the enemy and an assault version where the unit will react aggresivly, higher rate of fire to surpress the enemy and will try to go through enemy fire untill surpressed, where the others they would more likely try to find effective cover.

The ability to queue orders on a waypoint, something like "target X, pause 10, target Y, pause ten, popsmoke" all on the one waypoint.

The ability to tell the unit to use a "special" weapon and how many to use. Officers can tell people they want "1 jav fired at that house" in the real world so it isnt unrealistic. They units can still fire them at there own discretion if they want to.

The ability to "unaquire things" and also for vehicles to be able to aquire things from other vehicles. So vehicles wont run out of ammo, they can be resupplied by trucks. Also smaller amounts of ammo to be aquired at one time or we type in what amount we want.

The ability to break off one or two men from a squad (unless its a realy small one) that can be used as "runners" to fetch ammo, act as sentries and so on, they are small enough to not realy be combat effective and be quite brittle if under fire. If from a HQ unit they will give a C2 boost to other units by "passing on" commanders orders and intent. This would be useful for a force like the syrians where C2 isnt brilliant.

Plus it should be set in 1980's NATO vs Warsaw Pact.

[canadianleaf]

Not very important.

Yes you are right Praetori for the most part equipment pickup isn't very important except for when you don't have any vehicles to resupply from and your dead soldiers don't resupply your squads. So it would be nice if you could steal ammo and weapons from your enemy.

[vincere]

Not a sexy request but getting older and so a larger font option in the brieffings would be apprecialted

[Erik Springelkamp]

> a larger font option in the brieffings

Yes, and especially in the scenario selection screen.

I can't read half the words of the descriptions.

[finalcut]

> a larger font option in the brieffings

Yes, and especially in the scenario selection screen.

I can't read half the words of the descriptions.

Who reads the briefings,I just go blow up stuff.I was a 13 Foxtrot(Observed fire specialist) in the U.S.Army.Thats how we did stuff.Let the big brass worry about briefings and such. I am kidding of course.As I get older(40 next year)I would appreciate bigger fonts as well.

[vincere]

He he, given the age group of CM I thought maybe not just me. One or two briefings have had me sqinting. Maybe specsaver time.

[Waaarg]

1. "Better reactive AI"

2. "Better reactive AI"

3. "Better reactive AI"

4. "Better reactive AI"

5. "Better reactive AI"

I really would like to see enemies react to units, and go up a flight or two in order to gain LOS. Would also like there to be less recon by fire. It's either recon by fire or recon by dying.

I don't like it that a unit will say at the far end of a building, denying Los, while all around the their allies are engaged b/c of smaller houses.

6. Special Forces. Specops gets the lions share of the press and media, throw fans a bone.

7. AC130 - Nuffield said

8. Work around to 6, allow scene editors the ability to apply custom skins to any and all units, and rename the unit, leaders etc.

9 Deep unit details screen

10. Animations. Fast roping, FR breach, kicking dow doors.

[Jonny(FGM)]

I really would like to see enemies react to units, and go up a flight or two in order to gain LOS.

For the scenario AI im totally in agreement, for tac AI no way, if I want my troops to get a better LOS i'll tell them to.

Some movement in the AI plan plotting zones would be very nice too.

So has no one mentioned it yet?

AI triggers

The way I seem them is a simple leave after command for each order in an AI plan

So you'd have

Leave after:

Contact

Firing once

Firing for x seconds

Time

This would allow for half decent fighting withdrawals

[Praetori]

Game

* Water

* Bridges

* Combat bridges

* Battalion R3 (at least the rearming of vehicles and troops)

* Weather (and yes it should also affect C2)

* LOS tools

* OOB browser (with unit details)

* Multiple targets and arcs for different weapon systems for each unit (colored max/optimal ranges)

* Friendly fire by small arms (as suggested above)

* More granular difficulty settings (IL-2 flightsim comes to mind)

* Better LOS calculations (unbuttoned commander has higher vantage point, same with masts on recon vehicles).

* Window/Ladder entry (no one goes through a door if it can be avoided)

* UAV/Air/Sat intel/spotting

* Breach command for vehicles

Editor

* Detailed equipment control (weapons, ammo, radios etc)

* Water/Road/Powerline/Railroad path tool.

* Flavor objects (moar because moar)

* Import height maps

* Dynamic unit deployment/reinfoce (ie Wildcard units with trigger based or percent based chances of appearance).

* Bring back operations from CMx1 (or make it possible to divide a scenario into different scenes with the ability to expand the map).

* More AI plans and groups

* Advanced LOS tool in editor (possibly like a 360 LOS tool to everything)

* Campaign organizer (a nice graphical one for managing campaigns on the development stage).

* Ability to "hide" terrain features, buildings and so forth until spotted.

Would be nice but a bit ambitious

* Full battle recording/playback (replaying a battle from first to last turn, or entire wego would be awesome).

* Dynamic AI (possibly for subordinates as well?)

* Stances/Behavioral commands (Hold fire, fire at will, stay low, spot, careful, careless and so forth. Would probably need above AI?)

* Co-Op (Battalion combat in WeGo with platoon leaders would be wicked).

* Narrator mode (Play against a dungeonmaster)

* Electronic warfare settings (at least the option from editor or mission designer to affect radio based C2 elements).

[c3k]

I think at a minimum, the improved LOS due to cupola vision blocks would be critical to modelling German vs. Soviet AFV's. Not just the vision improvement, but the height from which it originates. This would mean more than the current ELOS' 5(?) levels.

Ken