Inspired by the thread on BFC. BFC said that engine v5 will be about technical modernization of the engine.
Importance of potential CMx2 Engine v5 features?
- Thread starter Redwolf
- Start date
IN ASL you could control multiweapon vehicles to target multiple units. I think that would be a big bonus for CM.
Shoot and Scoot you can kind of do with way points and pauses. The problem is not knowing how long of a pause to give. Too long and you're dead to short and the unit moves off with never firing.
I don't know what kind of more detail you can give in the AAR but I'm all for it.
Needless to say Bug fixes should be a priority always.
Other - Not sure if this is possible but it would be great to be able to target second floor buildings in obvious LOS with artillery spotters.
Or any improvement to LOS for that matter.
Shoot and Scoot you can kind of do with way points and pauses. The problem is not knowing how long of a pause to give. Too long and you're dead to short and the unit moves off with never firing.
I don't know what kind of more detail you can give in the AAR but I'm all for it.
Needless to say Bug fixes should be a priority always.
Other - Not sure if this is possible but it would be great to be able to target second floor buildings in obvious LOS with artillery spotters.
Or any improvement to LOS for that matter.
I would like to have the stats like "n men OK, m men dead, o men wounded"... for
- 10 out of 20 tanks lost
- armored vehicles
- unarmored vehicles
- x out of y guns
- other crew-served weapons
- aircraft
My understanding is that the professional edition has something like that, at least via a system-wide log of activity.
L
Larsen
Guest
I want BFC to let us modify the unit prices in QBa.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,138
- Reaction score
- 1,616
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
That TAC AI will do that now for units - you just cannot direct multiple target orders. Personally I don't think this would be that interesting. The vast majority of the time you are better off letting the TAC AI choose its own targets and they already use weapons independantly.
Oh that would be so nice - to popup, wait to acquire an actual target, shoot and then bugger off. Man I would love that.
L
Larsen
Guest
I also would like them to improve teh Tac AI for the infantry. Right now the teams are all bunched up one on of top of the other one. It would be great if they fina;y; will be ab;e tos spread them out.
K
Kacper
Guest
i wish the hull down command would work with vegetation and objects, not just elevation. so that you can have a tank move until it can see through a wood around a house, that sort of thing
4m (or 2m if possible) action squares instead of the current 8.
Squads able to break down to a maximum of 6 teams instead of 3.
Fix targeting problems with buildings.
Fix targeting problems with "no aim point".
Semi-automated vehicle road movement.
Improved infantry interaction with terrain.
Tanks more likely to use HE against infantry in hard cover and less likely against infantry in the open.
Rebalancing of QB prices.
Etc.
Squads able to break down to a maximum of 6 teams instead of 3.
Fix targeting problems with buildings.
Fix targeting problems with "no aim point".
Semi-automated vehicle road movement.
Improved infantry interaction with terrain.
Tanks more likely to use HE against infantry in hard cover and less likely against infantry in the open.
Rebalancing of QB prices.
Etc.
Last edited:
I don't particularly like these two. This would lead to so much micromanagement that large battles would become impossible/unenjoyable.
I'd prefer if "Improved infantry interaction with terrain" and intelligent TacAI spreading out the teams and troops took care of the issues that - I think - you seek to address by this.
It could be a pre-game setting, if you're playing a tiny platoon vs platoon game and want to micromanage individual soldiers I can see why the smaller grid would be attractive, however if you're spooling up a multi-battalion monster then I can see how leaving the larger grid would be preferable to all but the most hardcore grognards.
It wouldn't mean more micromanagement - just greater precision when doing a move order. You could still select a whole company and send them on their way with just one click, but if you needed the extra precision, it would be there.
True, but you could still just order a whole squad around if you didn't need to micromanage.
However, I would of course prefer that the game just be better at positioning the troopers. For example, if I wanted my infantry to crest a hill, I could place a waypoint on the very crest and then put a facing order on that node, then click on a specific square in the distance, and my troops would then only just come up to peek over the hill so they had maximum protection but could still see the actual square. An "infantry hulldown" command if you will.
An alternative would be troop formations, and thinking about it, it surprises me why this - to the best of my knowledge - has never existed in CM. Line abreast, single file, echelon left, echelon right, V, reverse V, etc - and the TacAI would do its best to meet your commands. Obviously some of those are more useful for crossing an open field where you don't want half your squad to get wiped out by a single burst of MG fire when the enemy chooses to reveal himself, rather than assaulting into a building but you get the point.
Also, assault being available for fire teams. I've never been in the military but I reckon that there's nothing in the manual that says you require at least X people to conduct an assault, 2 x 2 bounding should work just fine.
Also, assault being available for fire teams. I've never been in the military but I reckon that there's nothing in the manual that says you require at least X people to conduct an assault, 2 x 2 bounding should work just fine.
It would certainly be great if that worked well. But an experienced human player tends to do better at these tasks than AI, so there is always the incentive to micromanage. I still think it would drive down the size of battles played towards the platoon level. Also, I am not sure how the 2m or 4m square would affect mapmaking - the amount of work needed to make a new map... anyway, it is certainly an option to consider.
It's true that the moment you can do something, there's also an incentive to use that option. Especially in competitive games.
But about mapmaking, I don't think it would need any more work, as the amount of control nodes would likely be the same.
More ideas:
Improved scenario editor
Improved scenario editor
- Copy/paste
- Undo function
- "spraypaint" brush for painting irregular patches of woods etc.
- Raise/lower terrain in realtime inside the 3d view
I think I get the idea now - the maps would stay the same, just our freedom to place units would increase. That would be good.
Yes, and the maps would be higher resolution, so smaller and more detailed terrain features could be made, such as roadside ditches, better placement of walls, raised bocage below hedges etc.
- Roads that can take any shape and run at any angle
The trick to achieve this would be to make the road only a visual layer on top of invisible road squares. The player would see a completely realistically curving road, while the game engine would see a jagged path of squares. Road movement and pathfinding would also be calculated based on these.