wish list (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat – The Bloody First



Message

general_solomon -> wish list (7/25/2013 7:07:57 AM)


Let me be the first to congratulate matrix and team on bringing cc to the modern era.

1. make this game mod friendly.
2. offer a scenario editor along with a map editor.
3. larger maps
4. smarter AI
5. keep all the good things from the current series and add to it.
6. destructible environment

I will let others take it from here.



wodin -> RE: wish list (7/25/2013 12:50:53 PM)

I second everything General Solomon has said.

Keep it feeling like a CC game. (It will be pointless if it was just another 3D WW2 game I think Graviteam Tactics has that 3D view all tied up, so keep it top down).
Make Inf as survivable as they where in CC2.
Sea Invasions and Paradrops.
Add as much moral states and Inf states as possible..love seeing "clearing jam"..or "Running scared" etc etc..I'm sure CC2 had alot more states than the later versions. It gives an attachment to your pixeltruppen and gives them a personality.
Indepth ballistic model.
Clever Tac AI.



SteveMcClaire -> RE: wish list (7/25/2013 5:04:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: general_solomon
1. make this game mod friendly.


Thanks for your feedback. There are some issues with Unity and loading 3D models dynamically, but that is something we are trying to find a way to support. Things like sounds, textures, game data, etc. will all be moddable.


quote:

2. offer a scenario editor along with a map editor.
3. larger maps


There will be a scenario editor with an integrated map editor. Typical Map sizes will be comparable to the existing game.


quote:

4. smarter AI


The AI code is getting a total re-write, and I have some specific improvement planned.


quote:

5. keep all the good things from the current series and add to it.


This is the core concept for The Bloody First. Despite the new engine, players familiar with the current game should immediately know you're still playing Close Combat and know how to play it.


quote:

6. destructible environment


There will be some of this (at least as much as the current CC) but it is a HUGE job to have a really detailed, fully destructible environment. We'll do what we have the time and resources to do, though.

Steve




general_solomon -> RE: wish list (7/27/2013 4:12:00 AM)



since you guys are creating this game from the bottom up , why not expand the multiplayer aspect of the game.

here is my pitch:

allow 10 players or more per side. lets take the 10 player example.

there is a team commander that has access to map that shows all of his squads. each squad will be controlled a live player. The commander will be able to issue order to each squad leader via headsets or commanders from the map. Each leader will control his/her squad.

the game will have an option to play vs other live player ( clans) or player vs IA.

end of pitch.

your base game engine should be built to accommodate ww2, cold war and modern armies. This way the community would grow.

also you company could pitch the game to our military to train their commanders. its a win - win for everyone.




general_solomon -> RE: wish list (7/28/2013 6:26:47 AM)


Squad LOS:

provide an option to select a squad and visually show what they can see. maybe have the squads their view stay clear and everything else they can not see turn blurry.

cover:

add a cover system depending on the type of cover. this would include the tac AI being smart enough to line up on corners and get to cover when on open ground. also, smart enough to take cover from the last know thread.



RD_Knights_X -> RE: wish list (7/28/2013 2:21:17 PM)

Wow Steve. These guys don't much in this new version [X(] Anyway, good to see another project on the "drawing board." Let me know via email if I can help.



thesock -> RE: wish list (7/28/2013 8:01:16 PM)

It's the simple stuff done well that I like.
I like the mortar system in PitF.
In addition I would like a tank, a/tank in ambush with a round loaded ready to fire, rather than go through the load cycle on the fire command.
And a option on what floor level your squad is on. At the moment you can't use multistorie houses if the other guy can pound them from afar with direct fire.
An end to waltzing matilda tanks. Nothing worse than a tank turning side on when you have told it to reverse.
And most of all I love than I can arm each and every guy with any weapons I choose. Re-construct squads. That I can change the Forcepool and Battlegroups.
What would be really great would be if you could reconstruct the maps in user scenario. Not the topograghy or the roads. You know, add a building here, remove a house there, add or move some bunkers. A few changes like that could rejuvinate a map.



SteveMcClaire -> RE: wish list (7/29/2013 5:49:50 PM)

Team multi-player has been discussed many times, and I agree it could be really cool. It's not going to be in The Bloody First but perhaps sometime down the road.

The 'show what a unit can see' feature has been requested many times, and is something I want to look into for TBF. It's a matter of having the time to do it well, and do it without a huge performance hit.

There will be an integrated map editor, so you will be able to adjust maps to your heart's content.

Steve



Hexagon -> RE: wish list (7/31/2013 10:58:42 AM)

For me one of the most wanted things for CC is NOT another west front 1944 title, really, if you want reanimate CC serie search other front, why not The Pacific, North Afrika, Berlin 1945 or pre-post WWII wars??? if you see the mods for CC5 are a lot of good and interesting options out of the overexploited combo Normandy-Bulge.

Apart this, yes, the option of teamgames is great but for multy add the option to save a game when you need it could be a great add to dont limit battles to 15 minutes fights, with this you can fight in same map lets see... a pair of hours with reinforcements arriving and a dinamic and less rigid fight.

Other interesting add is that finally squads on map deploy as squads and dont move as chickens with no head where they are unable to use proper terrain and cover.




wodin -> RE: wish list (7/31/2013 12:27:17 PM)

I agree..please not another West front game...if you want to do a popular theater first do East front..you've done West front to death recently.



Kanov -> RE: wish list (8/6/2013 9:52:46 PM)

I will just say that I wish you guys luck. [:)]



Kanov -> RE: wish list (8/16/2013 7:00:24 PM)

If possible, try to come up with more statistics. These are fun to see and can help to balance a mod and help you with how you play it:

-Kills and loses per type of unit and BG
-Deaths inflicted by weapon, type of ammo etc, differentiating friendly fire incidents
-# Rounds fired, # rounds that hit, # rounds missed. Per type of ammo, weapon, unit, BG
- # of prisoners, # VL taken per battle, per day, per BG. Maybe show a graphic of sorts.



Kanov -> RE: wish list (8/22/2013 10:47:52 PM)

Steve and also other people involved, from the last post you made in the other thread it seems that you already have a better idea on what this game is going to be. Could you give us a more precise insight about the direction you are planning to take this game and what will it be capable of so we know what would be inside the realm of possibilities to ask for and not look like pipe-dreamers when pitching out ideas or wishes?

Thanks! [:)]



SteveMcClaire -> RE: wish list (8/23/2013 10:32:34 PM)

Hi Kanov,

I've discussed some of the high-level design decisions (like the concept for the campaign system) in a few places on this forum. Yes, there is a design document with a lot of specifics about how I plan to have things work, but right now it is still a little early to commit to more detail than that.

Steve



steelwarrior -> RE: wish list (8/24/2013 4:27:08 PM)

Make XP more visible and let it count in battle - always love RPG effect - so XP gain should do great - maybe even leveling troops up manually so I can form sepcialists for scouting or tank busting or supression?

Let us upgrade units to better equipment in mega campaigns spanning several years of the war - also love that aspect of RPGs ;-)



Tejszd -> RE: wish list (8/24/2013 6:54:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire
The 'show what a unit can see' feature has been requested many times, and is something I want to look into for TBF. It's a matter of having the time to do it well, and do it without a huge performance hit.


What is the target hardware?

Dual cores are pretty much entry level.
Quad cores are probably the majority
Six to Eight are the higher end

Video (graphics cards and Monitor)
cards pretty much all have 1GB+ of memory
Monitors are all 1024x768 or higher



SteveMcClaire -> RE: wish list (8/27/2013 5:38:47 PM)

The exact requirements are still TBD. They will be somewhat higher than for Panthers in the Fog, but despite going to 3D, our more distant top-down perspective is easier on the graphics card than a crazy-detailed first person game. So I don't think many recent PCs will have a problem with The Bloody First.

Steve



Stwa -> RE: wish list (8/28/2013 6:58:36 AM)

OK,

For once, I am really pumped for this project. I really hope this game will completely obsolete CCMT. I heard this game was going to be Modern? [:D]

How will the maps differ, will the game still play out on 2d maps like now? I know this questions seems stupid, because the first thing you think of, is that each map will be generated by the 3D engine during execution?

If there are 3d maps, then 3d (explodeable) structures will popluate the maps?



SapperAstro_MatrixForum -> RE: wish list (8/28/2013 11:54:35 AM)

Everyone else has just about covered what I would like.

One more thing...

How about coding it in SDL so that it can be played across multiple operating systems? More money/markets for you, more choice for us.



Kanov -> RE: wish list (9/7/2013 6:54:32 PM)

I would like an improved sense of continuity in battles, which is already very good with things like the terrain gained in previous battles and the carry-on of damage on maps as well as wrecks of vehicles destroyed previously. Also would like an improved logistic system. What I mean with this:

Continuity:
-Teams surrounded after battle ends (that is, can't trace a path towards a friendly exit VL) start with whatever weapons and ammo they ended the battle with, even scavenged enemy weapons. Can't be removed from active roster and can't be repositioned next battle.
-Instead of fixed time in turns, make it like CC2 in which you could choose how long to wait for next battle. The least amount of hours chosen among the two sides is the time in-game that the next battle will take place. More time = more reinforcements, rest, ammo and fuel for you and your enemy.
-Now with 3D Would be cool if active teams showed some kind of visual representation of continuous battle, like worn out dirty uniforms and helmets and worn out paint or rust/mud on tanks etc.
-Continuous real time, if a battle starts at 5:00am and lasts long enough you get to see the sun rise slowly.


Logistics:
-You get a limit of whatever measure unit, percentage or whatever you want to call it of ammo and fuel (could add more things like actual number of men for reinforcements, water and food if you want to get real grognard) and after each battle you units expend a certain amount of ammo and fuel. You then decide how to distribute your remaining reserves among them. This reserve of ammo and fuel could be static or can be replenished over time. e.g. Operation 1 starts and you get 20 units of ammo and 20 of fuel, first battle is very hard and you end up with expended teams, each rifle unit for example needs 0.5 units of ammo to be at full and each truck unit needs 1 fuel to be full but tanks need 1.5, since you have more days ahead to accomplish your objective you must plan carefully if you want them to replenish them full next battle or just at some acceptable level to save for a counterattack by the enemy or a full on attack by you later. These ammo and fuel measure units or percentages can be static and set for the whole OP or they can be restocked on certain days, like how replacement ratios are managed in PiTF. Teams expend their share of ammo and fuel in real time, if you move a tank a around, it wastes more fuel than a vehicle that stays stationary for the majority of battle, if you use a lot of suppression fire or artillery then your ammo level drops dramatically.



Kanov -> Better representation of numerical superiority (9/9/2013 6:39:38 PM)

Better representation of Numerical Superiority.

While I like how different sized formations are treated in PITF, I think this is kind of a cheat to represent numerical superiority. You have a set of 21 teams max that you can control for big formations representing full regiments (please correct me if I'm wrong) and then you treat smaller formations as a function relative to their size so they can only command a fraction of the max slots available. The problem is that we now have these big sized maps and limiting a regiment to just 21 teams and the smaller formations to even less to play (or get lost?) in those maps is just no fun. Exception to this are of course, BG's representing actual companies but then you can't use all of its teams at once because tactically they would be the same size as an in-game regiment.

I want to assault that hill or strong point with all of my force if I want, all of my available companies to overwhelm the enemy. How to do this with out putting a strain on the player for managing over 30+ teams? I think it is time to give AI a chance.

Give the player two options: either all your reinforcements beyond your allotted 21 teams are directed by the AI or they come-in piecemeal after one of your original 21 units is routed or destroyed. This may sound familiar to some because it is the system used in the Total war series.

This could be out of question now because there are not going to be BG's or a strategic part of the game as we know it, but it may warrant some consideration for the future.



SteveMcClaire -> RE: Better representation of numerical superiority (9/9/2013 7:36:55 PM)

We're not going to have 'Battle Group' units moving around on a strategic map, but there are still going to be varied friendly and enemy forces available. I understand what you're saying about having realistic numerical superiority. There are still game play concerns that make it very difficult for a player to control a large number of units in a real-time game, but I think TBF will be somewhat closer to what you're looking for. The scale of the forces involved will be smaller (company level) so there will be a lot less abstraction. You won't be fielding 10% of the teams in you 'Battle Group' as in past CC games, but more like 80%.



SteveMcClaire -> RE: Better representation of numerical superiority (9/9/2013 7:37:44 PM)

We're not going to have 'Battle Group' units moving around on a strategic map, but there are still going to be varied friendly and enemy forces available. I understand what you're saying about having realistic numerical superiority. There are still game play concerns that make it very difficult for a player to control a large number of units in a real-time game, but I think TBF will be somewhat closer to what you're looking for. The scale of the forces involved will be smaller (company level) so there will be a lot less abstraction. You won't be fielding 10% of the teams in you 'Battle Group' as in past CC games, but more like 80%.



Kanov -> RE: Better representation of numerical superiority (9/9/2013 7:48:11 PM)

Yes, I guess less abstraction is the goal in the end, going back to the "Close Combat" aspect of the game is very good and the one other direction that I would have liked this game to take, as opposed to the, excuse the borrowed word, embiggen of it to some sort of "Operational Combat" . Thanks for responding Steve.



Tejszd -> RE: Better representation of numerical superiority (9/10/2013 3:18:05 AM)

Good suggestions guys! Kanov, you're on roll and have a lot of great comments/ideas posted!



Kanov -> RE: wish list (9/10/2013 4:30:45 PM)

I sure would like to say that I made them up but the ideas I've posted are for the most part things that I like from other games I've played, even from within the CC series itself!



Tejszd -> RE: wish list (9/22/2013 11:12:59 PM)

Since the strat map will be AWOL in this game and it unknown if/when it will come back can you make the next few releases add ons instead of stand alone games (example V for Victory by Atomic)?

Since there is limited development resources bug fixes and new features could be added over multiple add ons which would give the original game and the previous add ons all the improvements. In addition it should reduce some work for each release as the core interface could remain and just the new countries, units, maps req'd for the add on need be created.

Imagine COI with Western Europe, Africa,Italian and Pacific campaigns following a single battle group/division in each theatre over time so there would be seasons and vehicle/weapon upgrades over time.



Kanov -> RE: wish list (9/23/2013 4:32:09 PM)

Yes I like that modular add-on idea.



TIK -> RE: wish list (10/2/2013 2:48:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: general_solomon
3. larger maps


NO! Same or smaller, unless you're increasing the number of units available to both sides.



Ivan Zaitzev -> RE: wish list (10/14/2013 2:15:02 AM)

First let me say that I'm really excited about this game. For what I have seen everyone would be happy if you drop GWTC and concentrate all your efforts in this one. Now, the game is going to be 3D but top down only? I really hope not. If you are going 3D then give us a free camera.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.28125