RE: wish list (Full Version)

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



Message

Mueller -> RE: wish list (10/14/2013 1:20:07 PM)

Here's my two cents:

1) Platoon level multiplayer would really bring the game to the 21st Century. With (at least) three players per side it would be possible to execute good maneuvers with the 21 units we are used to having. Any more units IMO requires more players executing the moves. Its too often now that you have one platoon waiting for commands somewhere, while the only player is engaged somewhere else.

2) If multiplayer is impossible then at least a "Cover and follow command" is needed. This would mean that you assign a unit to cover (give fire support) and follow another unit. The simple way to do this would be that the covering unit gives fire support and when the covered unit stops (goes to Defend mode) the covering unit moves over to where the covered unit is defending.

The complicated version would involve milestones that the unit would execute in steps (i.e. the covered units Defend mode would be the go code for the covering unit). In the complicated mode the units could for example circle a building in turns etc.

3) Tracks (like we now have) and Go Codes (like Raven Shield). This is another way of enabling concerted maneuvers.

4) Variable sized platoons and platoon shortcuts - so that you could have a for example a motorized platoon of 3 units and two bigger infantry units. And then have keyboard shortcuts to call up the different platoons.

In general - customizable and permanent shortcuts. For example I should be able to assign the mortars to keyboard shortcuts that are stored from battle to battle (or could even be assigned in Options).

5) Placement of (AT) mines during battle. This would enhance infantry capacity against vehicles and allow players to better control the opponents routes of attack.

6) Automatic company War Diaries recording casualties and honours by battles. Also room for player notes on different battles should be provided.

7) More effective smoke screen. Currently the smoke always goes up and is "spot-like". This is completely unrealistic - smoke should be much more effective and spread horizontally (depending on wind direction and velocity, giving either wide and thin smokescreen in strong wind, or spot like and thick if there is no wind).

Also smoke should work differently in different conditions, in buildings it should be inpenetrable (making using smoke inside very effective), in forest it should be more effective than open (because smoke stays under foliage) and of course streets should convey smoke too.

8) Division into Supporting and Advancing units on strategic map. Units that haven't moved for one strategic turn would dig in (like now) and also provide indirect fire support to adjacent maps. Naturally a dug-in unit that is being attacked would also be able to provide itself with indirect fire support.

A units ability to provide fire support would depend on the support armament it has (howitzers, mortars), that the units already now have. They would just be given a more strategic value as well. This armament would still be deployable in battles (if you want fire support piecemeal, not barrage) but then it of course wouldn't be available on adjacent maps. This wouldn't mean you have the same mortar fire as now without having the unit on the map. You'd get for example one barrage per unit in reserve or the same as now if the unit is on the map.

Naturally such heavy weaponry would be lost on forced retreat (disband).

This would allow players to really choose where they put the weight in the strategic map and if they are taking an advancing approach (less fire support as all units are advancing) or a defending approach (more fire support all-around).

9) Redesigned fire support altogether. The availability of fire support should be more controllable by the player (see #8) and more clear altogether. This is particularly important in mods, where documentation may be lacking - you need to see what is and will be available on the Strategic Map screen. If artillery and mortars would depend on other units, this would leave naval artillery and close air support. Ship icons and a clear weather forecast would explain what is available (where there is a ship there is naval artillery) and expected not to be available (cloud cover in the forecast, no planes)

Also, there shouldn't be a requirement to allocate fire support to battles before start. After all, the battles are supposed to take place simultaneously, so you would really have the choice to fire here or there. If you could pick the order in which you fight the battles, it would be possible to start with the (ones you expect to be the) tough ones and use whatever fire support you deem necessary, and then use what remains in the easier ones.

This way you wouldn't have the totally frustrating situation of having fire support where you don't need it (because you didn't know that you won't need it) but you might not have it available because you already used it in a tough place. Either way, at least you got to use it when you needed it!

Geographic limitation of availability (only on shoreline, only within range of aircraft) should of course be there, but clearly visible on the StratMap.



Kanov -> RE: wish list (10/14/2013 4:44:35 PM)

@Mueller

[image]local://upfiles/42115/CC6A9BD491AE41D8B40C896B05D30669.jpg[/image]



TIK -> RE: wish list (10/16/2013 8:12:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ivan Zaitzev
For what I have seen everyone would be happy if you drop GWTC and concentrate all your efforts in this one.


+1



Saturnian -> RE: wish list (12/7/2013 10:53:24 PM)

Perhaps some of these recommendations have been mentioned, but here are some ideas I have:

1. I always liked CC3 because you really get to know the soldiers over the course of time, but one thing I noticed is that they seem to max out at a certain point and their rank just seems symbolic but otherwise they don't have much impact on the battlefield. Perhaps soldiers should become more heroic if led by a particularly experienced veteran who is highly decorated? It seems the most decorated soldiers don't have much impact, but if there was a highly decorated soldier in the real battlefield it surely must have an effect on soldiers, right? Kind of like a celebrity. So perhaps soldiers can become more heroic in the presence of a highly decorated soldier? Maybe there is a bit of that in the programming but I haven't much noticed.

2. There are times in history where there are great charges of infantry. But never in the close combat games have there been screaming heroic charges. When mass amounts of men charge on an enemy position they should, provided the right circumstances, make some noise. This happens in real life. Perhaps this can be worked on? It seems that there is something lacking in that area, where the soldiers in close combat lack "spirit" and heroic moments are few and far between and though occasionally you'll have a few soldiers go berserk or heroic, it just doesn't add up to much. how about if you order a charge when a soldier is heroic and the soldiers can all rush the enemy screaming and drop the enemies morale, if the circumstances are right? Close Combat had it right in psychologically modeling soldiers, but it just sort of left it at the most basic level and hasn't evolved much. It say's "Schultz is heroic" but then the guy just goes "yaaah!" and stands there. what's the fun in that? Typically to be heroic you have to actually do something other than yell "cover me". The soldiers never use their enhanced states to any purpose.

3. Ammo dumps. Shouldn't a defending army have ammo stores? Why would a team be limited to such little ammunition if they are stationary and in a defensive mode? Like in invasion normandy; the Germans are in bunkers but only have something like 1000 rounds. they should be better equipped than the attacking army. Also, we have these trucks in PITF but why not put ammunition on them so they can go around and resupply troops? granted that may draw-out battles but I rarely if ever use the trucks and they seem almost pointless otherwise.

4. Corpses should stay in no-man's land. If a battle is going on and on it would be interesting if the dead could stay there, to give the battlefield a more authentic feel.

5. You should be able to construct your own teams out of your best men, especially if the campaign stretches over a long period of time. In CC2 I recall there would be an automatic merging of units when losses were severe. for example I would have Bren teams with 2 Brens and I always thought this was awesome. They're your soldiers and you should be able to do whatever you want with them. Obviously there are MG, recon and rifle teams for a REASON so giving us the option to mix and match shouldn't be an issue if we need to to suit our purposes. Maybe even the ability to equip with anti-tank weapons like panzerfausts because often this is luck of the draw and you never really know who has such weapons.

6. The ability to divide teams. The ability to give orders to individual soldiers so that the machine gunner in a machine gun team, for example, doesn't stand inside a building while the rifleman stands at the window in perfect view of the enemy.

7. Bring back the ability to put YOURSELF on the battlefield. I always loved that touch in CC1 and CC3.

8. More smoke should linger in the air.

9. "ACT ON OWN" order
That's all I can think of for now but if I think of anything else I will be sure to post! [8D][8D][8D]



Kilovski -> RE: wish list (12/8/2013 6:53:34 AM)

@Steve McClaire
Hi,
I'm looking forward to this. One thing I feel is critical is the multiplayer connection. In PITF it was changed to a lobby system through Matrix as opposed to the previous iterations, direct connection etc. The simple reason I bring this up, is that if at some point in the future(hopefully not)if Matrix Games went bust, then we're all up the Swanee without a paddle. By all means keep the same lobby set up as PITF, but also give people the alternate option.
Less importantly, personally I'd prefer to see the game set up a la CC5 rather than CC3 - great game that it was - what really ticked me off about it though was that you couldn't actually alter things, you ended back in Berlin no matter what. In CC5 and its follow ons/remakes etc, you were dealing with a time frame of weeks at the most, the decisions made were much more relevant to the campaign. With CC3 it was all abstracted with the 4 year timeline.
My two cents worth [;)]
Kilovski



Tejszd -> RE: wish list (12/9/2013 1:53:00 AM)

+1 Kilovski on the direct connection



SteveMcClaire -> RE: wish list (12/9/2013 6:26:01 PM)

Thanks for your feedback on a direct connection option. I will be sure to pass that along.

Steve



Saturnian -> RE: wish list (12/23/2013 12:45:45 AM)

here is an additional request: please do not make the surviving gun and tank crews run off the maps. Put them back in command of the player, like in cc3. especially if they are a command crew or are an experienced crew. There is no reason for them to be armed if they absolutely never use their weapons. do they ever use their weapons when they bailout? I haven't seen it happen. It almost seems glitchy to allow the player to issue orders if there is no chance they'll follow them. And sometimes things get so desperate the weapons crews are all you have.

Also maybe you can make gun crews temporarily abandon their guns upon the player's orders? If players can mount and dismount vehicles, a gun crew should be able to man and unman a gun.



wodin -> RE: wish list (12/23/2013 11:01:00 PM)

I think gun crews maybe in a desperate situation be used as frontline Inf if their gun is destroyed..however I think Tank crews who bailed should move off map, seems far more realistic for them to bail and move off behind the lines if possible.

Really give some chrome to the moral systems..giving soldiers lots of actions through moral and stance.. maybe if your squad is in the third line ambush a soldier could be "cleaning rifle"..or "reading letter"...etc etc. Then have alot of things like "knocked off feet".."dropped rifle".."crying".."berserk and cursing"..."Shouting at Squad\moral recovery" Lots of things like this..gives alot of immersion and player attachment to your soldiers and shows you exactly whats happening to each soldier. Certain things like a Tough experienced sergeant can have a "Shouting motivating bullcrap at Squad" info which gives the sqd a moral boost or improves moral recovery etc...or "Confused"..which if an Officer could drop moral of sqd or make them hesitate before carrying out your orders etc.

Also a poor officer will or may choose poor path to your final waypoint..where as an experienced officer will choose a good path and a heroic Stiener like leader a superb path. Accuracy of fire increases with experience. Though no silly bonuses like longer range or more lethal rounds etc.

This would make the game stand out from other tactical realtime games and really give your soldiers personality and get you attached to them. Of course doing this please make them to the level of CC2 survivability and not cannon fodder they are now.



Saturnian -> RE: wish list (12/24/2013 1:18:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I think gun crews maybe in a desperate situation be used as frontline Inf if their gun is destroyed..however I think Tank crews who bailed should move off map, seems far more realistic for them to bail and move off behind the lines if possible.

Really give some chrome to the moral systems..giving soldiers lots of actions through moral and stance.. maybe if your squad is in the third line ambush a soldier could be "cleaning rifle"..or "reading letter"...etc etc. Then have alot of things like "knocked off feet".."dropped rifle".."crying".."berserk and cursing"..."Shouting at Squad\moral recovery" Lots of things like this..gives alot of immersion and player attachment to your soldiers and shows you exactly whats happening to each soldier. Certain things like a Tough experienced sergeant can have a "Shouting motivating bullcrap at Squad" info which gives the sqd a moral boost or improves moral recovery etc...or "Confused"..which if an Officer could drop moral of sqd or make them hesitate before carrying out your orders etc.

Also a poor officer will or may choose poor path to your final waypoint..where as an experienced officer will choose a good path and a heroic Stiener like leader a superb path. Accuracy of fire increases with experience. Though no silly bonuses like longer range or more lethal rounds etc.

This would make the game stand out from other tactical realtime games and really give your soldiers personality and get you attached to them. Of course doing this please make them to the level of CC2 survivability and not cannon fodder they are now.


I really like those ideas. It would be much more immersing that way! And that isn't exactly difficult to do.

I think that the programmers have gradually lost track of the roots of Close Combat which were that it was about your soldiers with their individual personalities. In that sense no information is redundant.

There really could be so many sounds added as well. It isn't the 1990s anymore and the number of sounds that could be used are essentially limitless. Personally I am quite tired of the same old sounds. It was understandable for there to be 4 or 5 voices but considering how long the series has been out there is really no reason for so few sounds.

Close Combat is supposed to be highly realistic and especially so at the level of the individual soldier. But somewhere along the way that got lost. Now I can't even keep track of my soldiers and you can't pick and choose which soldiers are fighting and which aren't because you generally choose at the company or platoon level. As I said before CC3 seemed to be the one which created the strongest connection with the soldiers over time. Then that info just got less and less important to the programmers, as though we weren't supposed to care anymore but that is the most fun part of the game!

As for the tank and gun crews, I think that perhaps there should be an initial shock where they run off to safety and then 'cool down' so you can use them in combat if you so choose to. Otherwise they go off to safety It just really irks me that they are issued weapons that they don't even EVER use. If that were realistic then they would never have been issued weapons in the first place [X(]. But in real life crews would surely fight for their lives and would follow orders given to them.



CGGrognard -> RE: wish list (12/24/2013 2:05:57 AM)

Please give surviving tank crews the sense to run away from the enemy, not directly into their gun fire.



LitFuel -> RE: wish list (1/6/2014 1:55:07 AM)

With this new engine any plans to finally make a title down the line with Pacific battles? A little island hopping title would be great as it's so long over due in the Close Combat line. Give the Marines some love.



SteveMcClaire -> RE: wish list (1/6/2014 4:04:51 PM)

We have discussed doing a Pacific game several times. I'd like to do one, but we don't have one in the pipeline at this time.

Steve



Saturnian -> RE: wish list (1/6/2014 8:00:51 PM)

What would be really great is if you, perhaps at the end of a campaign or whenever you see fit, have a list of all the soldiers and those that won the most medals, racked up the most kills, etcetera. If this screen does exist I haven't found it. It just seems pointless for soldiers to earn medals and such if you can't even keep track of them. It would be a nice treat to cap off a long campaign instead of a simple "END OF GAME!" message. because in all honesty the exclamation point doesn't do it for me [:D]



SteveMcClaire -> RE: wish list (1/7/2014 6:35:45 PM)

Saturnian,

Maybe we need to make the exclamation point bigger? :) Point taken, though. The Bloody First campaign design is going to be more focused on core force and you will have more of a chance to review results at the end of the game.

Steve



LitFuel -> RE: wish list (1/8/2014 12:22:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

We have discussed doing a Pacific game several times. I'd like to do one, but we don't have one in the pipeline at this time.

Steve


Please keep discussing...It would be a nice change of pace and a chance to be really creative with an island hopping campaign and use of banzai charges, tunnels, etc.



junk2drive -> RE: wish list (1/8/2014 1:47:36 AM)

Pacific fan here too. I used to have the mods for CC2 and CC5 and played them more than the WF game.



Saturnian -> RE: wish list (1/8/2014 2:17:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LitFuel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

We have discussed doing a Pacific game several times. I'd like to do one, but we don't have one in the pipeline at this time.

Steve


Please keep discussing...It would be a nice change of pace and a chance to be really creative with an island hopping campaign and use of banzai charges, tunnels, etc.


And that would be helpful in getting another market interested in Close Combat! The Japanese/Pacific Market! More sales for Matrix $$$$$$$ [&o][X(][8D]



Astonvallio -> RE: wish list (2/9/2014 9:30:17 PM)

My wish list is:

_On airstrikes, naval or artillery barrage, small builings (like wood floor) can be totally destroyed (raze at ground level i mean...)
_In Maps not contested, the defender that occupies it, can build trechs and small fortifications where he wants.
_If i capture an airfield my opponent can not lauch airstrikes against me, until he recaptures it. This, will also affect my opponent supplies
_During a battle, the possibility to "lock a target to fire at..." when i order my team to move
_The captured vehicles, tanks and weapons must me available on the force pool of the winner, for the next battles



Saturnian -> RE: wish list (2/15/2014 12:38:33 AM)

quote:

_On airstrikes, naval or artillery barrage, small builings (like wood floor) can be totally destroyed (raze at ground level i mean...)
_In Maps not contested, the defender that occupies it, can build trechs and small fortifications where he wants.
_If i capture an airfield my opponent can not lauch airstrikes against me, until he recaptures it. This, will also affect my opponent supplies
_During a battle, the possibility to "lock a target to fire at..." when i order my team to move
_The captured vehicles, tanks and weapons must me available on the force pool of the winner, for the next battles


Those are great ideas. I especially like the ability to fortify!



incrediblestone -> RE: wish list (2/15/2014 3:02:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ivan Zaitzev

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.



Don't think so. The Commandos series were ruined because of free camera and other issues. They added too many effects which brought too much difficulty in developing the game and lost what they were always good at and totally changed the way of original fun. Pyro was criticized by media and lost lots of fans. I think changes should be taken step by step because the new 3D CC is just a new try.

There is a game called Squad Assault West Front, which presented what you want. There are lots of problems on graphics, like facial expression, trees and terrains . It will also cost a lot of money and time to design 30+ delicate maps with free camera mode.

I guess focusing on AI and game mechanism might be more realistic as core concept, as Steve said.



TIK -> RE: wish list (2/15/2014 5:51:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: linlishuo

Don't think so. The Commandos series were ruined because of free camera and other issues. They added too many effects which brought too much difficulty in developing the game and lost what they were always good at and totally changed the way of original fun. Pyro was criticized by media and lost lots of fans. I think changes should be taken step by step because the new 3D CC is just a new try.

There is a game called Squad Assault West Front, which presented what you want. There are lots of problems on graphics, like facial expression, trees and terrains . It will also cost a lot of money and time to design 30+ delicate maps with free camera mode.

I guess focusing on AI and game mechanism might be more realistic as core concept, as Steve said.


There's plenty of games that have freedom of camera movement which aren't ruined by that factor. Look at Total War, Combat Mission or Achtung Panzer.

Don't get me wrong, AI and gameplay is more important, but the ability to see the battlefield from every angle is important to.



Saturnian -> RE: wish list (2/15/2014 7:47:11 PM)

quote:

andos series were ruined because of free camera and other issues. They added too many effects which brought too much difficulty in developing the game and lost what they were always good at and totally changed the way of original fun. Pyro was criticized by media and lost lots of fans. I think changes should be taken step by step because the new 3D CC is just a new try.


what I am worried about is some choppy, glitchy, generic and cruddy 3d engine graphics totally lacking in the detail and character of Close Combat. Something is telling me that might be what we get, though. [:@]

soldiers standing in place, spinning around with dumb looks on their faces, walls disappearing people running through each-other at 50kph and defying laws of physics etc etc etc.

Close Combat can be improved yet kept in 2D or quasi 3d. But this idea of a 3d engine... I dunno.

I would much rather see an improved/overhauled 2D engine with more advanced, photo-realistic graphics(satellite/aerial photos, actual photographs of people and weapons instead of animations) used to render soldiers and "layered" buildings so one can simply toggle through the different floors/elevations of the structures. Maybe a very limited 3d view changing is alright. Original Close Combats were like works of art but I am yet to have EVER seen a 3d map engine in any game that really impressed me.

But maybe this will be different.



incrediblestone -> RE: wish list (2/16/2014 2:24:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TIK


quote:

ORIGINAL: linlishuo


There is a game called Squad Assault West Front, which presented what you want. There are lots of problems on graphics, like facial expression, trees and terrains . It will also cost a lot of money and time to design 30+ delicate maps with free camera mode.

I guess focusing on AI and game mechanism might be more realistic as core concept, as Steve said.


There's plenty of games that have freedom of camera movement which aren't ruined by that factor. Look at Total War, Combat Mission or Achtung Panzer.

Don't get me wrong, AI and gameplay is more important, but the ability to see the battlefield from every angle is important to.



I really know what you mean since we've played games like Total War series, Company of Heroes, RUSE, etc. But
1. These companies are experienced in making 3D games.
2. These companies have large teams of development and fund strength.
3. The mechanism of games didn't change much in all versions.

I think CC is quite different from those popular games, but more like WITP (War in the Pacific) or TOAW (The Operational Art of War). It focus mainly on real experience of war.

As for CM and AP, I think
1. If a team don't have fund or time for graphic design. The final effect won't be so satisfied, comparing with those big companies. I think you may be not happy with the graphic of CM and AP, right? The effect is even worse than 2D graphics. Sometime I even think the the best Holmes game is made by EA games (The Case of the Rose Tattoo), not the 3D version made by Frogwares Studio. (Personal understanding)
2. I think fancy, dynamic, realistic graphics and shades, as well as fun, real, and fluent game experience are what makes the game popular in the future. A game made within one year is a great challenge.

I really want to post some pictures of what Unity3D can do and I've finished writting but I still don't have the permission to post images. I will post one once I can.
In fact my desire is same as yours. I really want to see a free camera Close Combat someday in the future, and we can dream bigger - A game in which you can not only control the whole troops in battlefield, but also you can control one unit. But I don't think it can be realized in recent times.

Hey TIK, I really like your 25 suggestion thread posted in PITF forum.



incrediblestone -> RE: wish list (2/16/2014 3:10:50 AM)

Can't wait to see work in progress screenshots. [:D]



MikeAP -> RE: wish list (2/16/2014 11:22:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Saturnian

quote:

andos series were ruined because of free camera and other issues. They added too many effects which brought too much difficulty in developing the game and lost what they were always good at and totally changed the way of original fun. Pyro was criticized by media and lost lots of fans. I think changes should be taken step by step because the new 3D CC is just a new try.


what I am worried about is some choppy, glitchy, generic and cruddy 3d engine graphics totally lacking in the detail and character of Close Combat. Something is telling me that might be what we get, though. [:@]

soldiers standing in place, spinning around with dumb looks on their faces, walls disappearing people running through each-other at 50kph and defying laws of physics etc etc etc.

Close Combat can be improved yet kept in 2D or quasi 3d. But this idea of a 3d engine... I dunno.

I would much rather see an improved/overhauled 2D engine with more advanced, photo-realistic graphics(satellite/aerial photos, actual photographs of people and weapons instead of animations) used to render soldiers and "layered" buildings so one can simply toggle through the different floors/elevations of the structures. Maybe a very limited 3d view changing is alright. Original Close Combats were like works of art but I am yet to have EVER seen a 3d map engine in any game that really impressed me.

But maybe this will be different.


Need to hire the artist from Ultimate General: Gettysburg

http://11fc9vasy8fou131.zippykid.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ultimate_general_gettysburg_jan_2013.jpg



Asterix of TWC -> RE: wish list (2/20/2014 3:26:49 PM)

Hi, I am a CC fan from Day 1 and helped test Panthers in the Fog.

Besides Graviteam Tactics, which I think is too hardware intensive and has many imperfections I want to give feedback in two strands, first what things must be kept to make the ideal CC game from previous versions, and second what things need to be added.

What to build on:

1) The Campaign in Bridge too Far and Last Stand Arnhem was incredible, this type of ongoing campaign keeps me coming back and back again like no other game in the genre. No one has reproduced this, and if there was any chance to take this to multiplayer (anyone can log in an play against you concept for instance?) this could bring down all of the competition.

2) The UI, CC has a better UI than any of the competition. A clean button-based intuitive UI like only the Decisive Campaigns series has, and Battlefront does not match CC in.

3) The AI, although the competition competes here (Battlefront for instance) so this needs constant innovation.

4) the freedom of action that CC games have over competition, you can choose your forces rather easily and you watch them develop... CC is still the only game where I learn my soldier's names :)

5) Panthers in the Fog took a good turn with real time multiplayer, keep it, but put up a better UI for the service so that users can find opponents easier.

6) The coverage... CC games used to cover more ground, now they cover less than the competition. Why has no one attempted to take this model to the Pacific yet? (Close Combat in itself would need to be improved)

7) The overall design elements: The Sound (quality of sound effects), the morale, the screams, the weapon sounds, the little details that made CC one of my (and many others) favourites.

8) Keep weapon jams, random events, and unpredictable battlefield variants.

New elements:

1) If you go 3D, make sure you put as much work into the campaign (Wacht Am Rhein and Last Stand although the latter was best) were the best. None of the competitors have made as good of a campaign. With a campaign comes a personal story to the player, it makes you think about Scenarios in a completely different way, as you have to watch losses and gauge your resources.

2) More complex command and control... men react differently to different officers, but if their squad leader the most.

3) Vary the squads weapons loadout... late war German Units for instance had very diverse squad composition.

4) Some element of complex resource allocation, and quartermaster decisions.

5) VASTLY improve hand-to-hand and close-quarters combat, this has been the weakest element of the game thus far, and is a weak element of other games. Use stock animations like the Total War Series, or anything, but its time.

6) ADD more unpredictable battlefield variants, as in late reinforcements, disease (soldiers could get the flu during a campaign reducing effectiveness and morale for instance), breakdowns and unexploded ordonance (duds that could go off later).

7) ADD more units to the battle map, its time, and this is where CC really is getting left behind, with the sheer number of units in game. Use sprites in 3D to keep the graphics from overheating.

8) ADD a real-time campaign feature, so that commanders could choose times of re-engagement, including dawn, dusk or night. Combined with the increased variants and resource (quartermaster) management feature this should really allow for making another classic.



TIK -> RE: wish list (2/21/2014 10:13:51 AM)

Are we keeping the ability to rename units?

Please say yes [:)]



SteveMcClaire -> RE: wish list (2/23/2014 1:56:35 PM)

Yes, you will be able to rename your units.

Steve



NZgunner -> RE: wish list (3/30/2014 7:32:29 AM)

while the devil is in the detail, the one critical success factor for me is the linked campaign

I've played other tactical games where the battles are great, but ultimately the one-off nature of them detracts from the overall experience as wins and losses count for nothing when you move on to the next battle



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7036133