wish list

[Nomada_Firefox]

ORIGINAL: Kanov

ORIGINAL: Miro

My wish list:

1. The sound of engine vehicle
2. Order "Reversing" for all vehicles

Sound would be nice.

You can already reverse, just use move or sneak order on a short distance behind the tank. It will keep its front fixed.

I would add these, some of them already presented by other members of the community:

3.- Tank tracks prints on terrain. Different texture for different terrain.
4.- Buttonned/unbottoned vehicles. Buttoned = less visibility, more protection for crew. Unbuttoned = more visibility, less protection. Unbuttoned commanders could potentially be picked out by snipers or shrapnel from an explosion. (this was planned way back in CC4 btw, but canceled for unknown reasons)
5.- For unbuttoned tanks (M10 f.e.) or vehicles (halftracks,artillery) it would be nice if we could see the soldiers manning the equipment, not just standing there or non-existent.
6.- Modular damage to tanks. Thrown tracks are already there, but lets see damaged optics, traversing turret damage, engine failure etc.
7.- A way to order them to use certain ammo against certain targets or ordering them to not engage certain targets.
8.- "Abandon" command. (for vehicles and artillery guns. Mortars too). No sense to keep a veteran crew on an immobile tank/vehicle/gun that faces certain destruction for example.
9.-Turrets can be blown away if a powerful enough explosion occurs.
10.- If the camouflage command is carried away from GtC, I would like it to be a visual representation in the form of leaves or cammo nets etc fixed to the tank.

You should have written these wish two years ago, at this moment, at least for the first version from the game, I do not see the point from them because it is very advanced and clearly reaching the end of the proyect.

[Kanov]

Dreaming is free. [:D]

[CGGrognard]

I believe there is already a method to choose why type of ammo a tank uses. When you select a target, the tank will load the appropriate ammo. Also, if you put the tank in Ambush mode, it will not engage, unless the target is within range (forget the distance, but the target will have to very close).
As for crews abandoning their tanks, most will after they reach a certain state of panic (i.e. commander killed). Historically, the policy for German tank crews was to stay with the tank but there's nothing to prove this policy was followed on the battlefield.

[Saturnian]

if you're going to do ragdolls when the soldiers are hit i hope you are willing to create dismembered corpses! and soldiers that move for a bit and then just die after a few minutes. or any variation thereupon that theme. and i know that sounds morbid but we all know it would be cool so let us stop with the morality spiel.

though i have heard there will not be multi-storey buildings in the first release i very much hope that the engine will be capable of having them and that you will have them in future releases. it would be devastating for the series if you do not have multi-storey buildings.

also it would be cool if soldiers could lose their helmets and then scavenge them.

[Nomada_Firefox]

ORIGINAL: Kanov

Dreaming is free. [:D]

I prefer think at things which I can reach. By example we need edit the 3D models when the game be released, it can be made at this moment.

[Kanov]

ORIGINAL: CGGrognard

I believe there is already a method to choose why type of ammo a tank uses. When you select a target, the tank will load the appropriate ammo.

The tanks in CC always have by default their best ammo loaded into the barrel, the one that offers the better penetration regardless of range. If you target infantry with a Panther f.e. it will fire its AP round and then reload HE because in the data HE has better performance against terrain & infantry (bigger blast area).

In CC2 the tank would keep its HE round chambered into the barrel until it fired against another vehicle.

This was somewhat corrected since CC3, tanks that fired HE and then stopped targeting while reloading (because given another order or target was unreachable) loaded again an AP round.

Sometimes the tank will stay in status "Reloading", this is corrected by giving it a reverse movement order. This also prevents the tank from reloading another HE round, if you're firing against soft targets or terrain, give the tank a sneak order behind it and it will load an AP round.

What I meant by #7 was that there should be a way to tell the tank to for example, fire only the machine guns at infantry or to suppress a position, keeping its main gun for other tank. Or to tell it to not engage infantry at all.

As for crews abandoning their tanks, most will after they reach a certain state of panic (i.e. commander killed). Historically, the policy for German tank crews was to stay with the tank but there's nothing to prove this policy was followed on the battlefield.

Sometimes you find yourself in a situation where the tank crew has enough morale to withstand another 1 or 2 casualties you could have avoided if they bailed early.

Not saying that they should only bail out when ordered but that it should be an available order to command them. You could have them run for the nearest map exit after bailing out so as to not use them as extra infantry teams too.

[wodin]

CC2 for me had the best campaign system.

Infact CC2 is my favourite out of all the original games.The one where it felt infantry actually had some survivability compared to the cannon fodder of later games.

ORIGINAL: Kilovski

With you on that nzgunner. It seems they are going for a CC3 style campaign on this one, I myself would prefer a CC5 style campaign. As battles fought in CC3 didn't really have any effect on the game, it all ended in Berlin one way or the other. CC5 was much more engaging IMO.

[vobbnobb]

Smarter AI
Temporary spiting up a team to a sub team to scout ahead or check an area out, plant something.
Joining teams to current team
Different types of ammo, more satchels, tnt and special grenades
More minefields
More unique abilities for different squads like how engineers defuse mines. Making other teams have them example pioneers/engineers planting a landmine on a road fixing or repairing vehicles to blowing bridges or structures or creating roadblocks

Having infantry weapons completely break, from bullets, fire or explosions.

[Nomada_Firefox]

ORIGINAL: wodin

CC2 for me had the best campaign system.

Infact CC2 is my favourite out of all the original games.The one where it felt infantry actually had some survivability compared to the cannon fodder of later games.

ORIGINAL: Kilovski

With you on that nzgunner. It seems they are going for a CC3 style campaign on this one, I myself would prefer a CC5 style campaign. As battles fought in CC3 didn't really have any effect on the game, it all ended in Berlin one way or the other. CC5 was much more engaging IMO.

I agree, the best campaign was at CC2.

But here, my unique wish is see more screenshots, I would like see specially one screenshot with the zoom more closest to the terrain and the most far. Another curious screenshot can be a air attack and of course, units firing. However a video would be better. At the end, if the game is so good as it looks, I would like promote it around all the sites that I know.

[heizlegend]

I know somebody has already mentioned multiplayer and the indication was it would still just be 1v1, but at the very least as a consideration for games after this one... a co-op campaign mode would be huge for me personally, and probably many other people. Especially with the iterations possibly being on steam.

It wouldn't have to be overly complicated. Just have player 1 control all the campaign menus and maps and then 2p joins in during the actual battles (although separate control of squads in menus would be even better). Wargame: AirLand battles did this very well.

[Troger]

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire
In other situations a specific soldier can earn an award/bonus by achieving something noteworthy, and this may include a weapon. For example, causing X enemy casualties in one battle with your rifle might award a sharpshooter title, and a scoped rifle.

That sounds a bit arcade-ish. What's to stop someone giving the men of a squad each a machine gun or sniper rifle? That would just take away from the realism. I could see different units/loadouts being available at different times ('42 BAR squad versus '43 BAR squad), and/or something that is already done now in CC: same unit type (e.g., a BAR squad) with different variations in terms of number of men and weapon loadouts.

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire
Some other comments:

The zoom system in the new engine is done via the camera in the 3D engine, so it can be set to any arbitrary level between the minimum and maximum camera heights. The minimum height will get you a closer look than the existing engine, but you will not be able to get right down to ground level. Lost weapons are also a little small to be easily visible. They're tied to the soldier who was carrying them, ala the existing game.

Will you be able to rotate the camera?

[Nomada_Firefox]

In other situations a specific soldier can earn an award/bonus by achieving something noteworthy, and this may include a weapon. For example, causing X enemy casualties in one battle with your rifle might award a sharpshooter title, and a scoped rifle.

I like it a lot and it remembers me to the CC3 where you upgraded your teams after battles.

Will you be able to rotate the camera?

Steve has told before how you can not rotate the camera and it is not a bad idea. I can say you how the poorer graphics cards usually do not accept this type of movement very well.

[Saturnian]

These are complaints I have about the current engine that I hope don't carry over into the new engine.

1)It really annoys me when the force pool says I have, let's say, 3 tanks and when I choose that platoon I get 1 tank(or squad, or whatever). That makes no sense. I understand there is some sort of "logical" reason for it, but really it just is annoying. At least in cc3 it made sense where you are responsible for everything you have and everything you put into battle.

If I only get 1 tank, don't tell me I have 3, you know what I mean? I'll select a company from my force pool which has 3 units but I only get 1 of them, or even NONE! what is that?! just makes no sense. maybe this is a difficulty setting thing. personally I don't want to mess around with it but if it is that forgive me. But even so, if I only get one tank, don't tell me I have 3.

Also, when I choose a new platoon for some reason sometimes it draws from my support. Why would that happen? I'll click on a company(or platoon, or whatever they are) to fill my roster and I'll lose support squads. But I am not using any of those support squads in that company I chose, so why did I lose them from my support? It seems like it is because I am drawing too much from one company(or whatever) and somehow that isn't allowed, but it isn't like they are even the same units so i don't see what difference it makes. they aren't doing anything but sitting around along with hundreds of other men while 25 or so men do the fighting on a huge map. like, what? seriously? Am I missing something?

2)Enemy is not aggressive enough. makes a little push in the last 5 minutes of the battle but it is ridiculous. Enemy is just not aggressive enough and that makes it predictable and boring. I understand it is being cautious, but most of the time its cautiousness is not enjoyable and ISN'T intelligent because it is not taking the map even if it is on the offensive.Maybe there should be different commander styles for enemy battlegroups, some more aggressive than the others?

3)There are not enough troops per battle considering the size of the maps. This is one of the most absurd things about the games. If you have literally hundreds of men in a battlegroup and that group is SOLELY committed to that map, then why do we only fight with 3 companies(or platoons or whatever you want to call them)? The survival of the WHOLE battlegroup is at stake in a single battle and there are sometimes dozens of tanks available but I only get like 2 or three? how does that makes sense one bit? There are times where an entire battlegroup will be lost when only a tiny fraction was committed to a HUGE map. I mean, where are these soldiers?! they are just sitting around sipping tea? PUT THEM TO BATTLE! It makes no sense to lose a whole battlegroup like that. If you are going to have huge maps you should put more soldiers to battle.

4)Also, CC3 had it right. It recorded EVERY KILL and EVERY MEDAL of EVERY SOLDIER through the WHOLE GAME. It had a top category of total kills and it had a bottom one most recent. it also had a little ribbon for every campaign fought in so you knew how old they were. and are soldiers even promoted anymore? maybe they are but it isn't even noticeable anymore. soldiers have no more identity yet despite that battles feel very small. that makes no sense. Close Combat 3 already perfected soldier history, so why are soldiers histories sabotaged in all the recent games? Is it so difficult to just keep the soldier stats for the whole game? that is one of the things that made the game cool! So why is that not there anymore!??! is the game better without it? no, it is WORSE!!!!

5)And here I will say it again: You may as well equip vehicle crews with WHITE FLAGS instead of guns because all they do, if they do anything other than run around like idiots, is SURRENDER. They NEVER use their guns so why do they even have them? I know some people don't like the idea of being able to command a vehicle crew, but if all they are going to do is run around like an idiot and into enemy fire and not even use freaking GUNS they have, then you may as well just make them panic a moment and then, after a few seconds, rally and go under command of the player. This is a SERIOUS problem with the game not to be overlooked [X(]. there is NO reason to make vehicle crews as stupid as they are and if you can't get them to act realistic then just put them under the command of the player when their tank gets blown up. or just issue them with white flags and make them surrender right off the bat or just drop dead because it cheapens the game play to have them act the way they do.

6)And finally: the game is too easy. the enemy needs to be much more aggressive. I understand the enemy is being cautious but it is cautious to a fault. even if it is on the offensive it barely does anything and that is just not challenging. so it is better to make the enemy risk itself than to be too afraid to make a move.

hope i wasn't too much of a jerk!

thanks.

[SteveMcClaire]

ORIGINAL: Troger

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire
In other situations a specific soldier can earn an award/bonus by achieving something noteworthy, and this may include a weapon. For example, causing X enemy casualties in one battle with your rifle might award a sharpshooter title, and a scoped rifle.

That sounds a bit arcade-ish. What's to stop someone giving the men of a squad each a machine gun or sniper rifle? That would just take away from the realism. I could see different units/loadouts being available at different times ('42 BAR squad versus '43 BAR squad), and/or something that is already done now in CC: same unit type (e.g., a BAR squad) with different variations in terms of number of men and weapon loadouts.

That would be silly, I agree. Which is why you won't be able to get more than one of any given award.

Steve

[SteveMcClaire]

ORIGINAL: Saturnian
hope i wasn't too much of a jerk!

Not at all. Thanks for your feedback.

Steve

[Kanov]

3)There are not enough troops per battle considering the size of the maps. This is one of the most absurd things about the games. If you have literally hundreds of men in a battlegroup and that group is SOLELY committed to that map, then why do we only fight with 3 companies(or platoons or whatever you want to call them)? The survival of the WHOLE battlegroup is at stake in a single battle and there are sometimes dozens of tanks available but I only get like 2 or three? how does that makes sense one bit? There are times where an entire battlegroup will be lost when only a tiny fraction was committed to a HUGE map. I mean, where are these soldiers?! they are just sitting around sipping tea? PUT THEM TO BATTLE! It makes no sense to lose a whole battlegroup like that. If you are going to have huge maps you should put more soldiers to battle.

Agree on this.

What use is to have supposed control over sometimes a full battalion (3 companies, meaning 9 platoons) when you can only field 2 platoons + support units? What are the other guys doing? why can't they come in and reinforce me? why can't I command more than 21 units if I want? why the AI can't help me in managing another 21 unit force to overwhelm isolated enemy units?

Glad its going back to company level command but please don't use pitf/gtc unit selection. Much prefer the CC2/CC3 points, but I would really like it to be better, I don't have any ideas right now but I'm sure that system can be improved.

[rickier65]

This may not be something that current CC fans think is needed, but it might attract others to the game if there was a mechanism to save a game during a battle was possible, rather than having to complete a battle.

There really are a fair number of folks that need to be able to save a battle and continue at a later time.

Thanks
Rick

[Kanov]

Yeah, a mid-game save feature would be nice.

[Huragan]

[&o]There is so much good stuff mentioned here, that even if only a small fraction is included in the new engine, it will revitalize interest for so many veterans who have lost their way and bring in a boat load of new recruits.

My vote is for multiplayer capability (2-3 per side) on bigger maps (a concept dreamed of by most die hard fans)

[FrankerMN]

Hi I have been playing since CC first came out.. somethings I would like to see are:
A Series of connected maps lets just say the equivalent of 6 PitF maps for example, cut up in halves so that an operation for a company sized unit would be to seize and hold some feature maybe 3 maps in (intermediate Victory areas would be added to break things up for play-ability) , in your force pool would be something matching the TOE by year by army .. attachment of support platoons as scenario design and/or a function of difficulty (an option to make a full custom force could be on or off depending on the player choice at game start}. During game play, bring back the retreat command, hitting that shifts you back a half map or a full map depending on your force moral and damage. If moral forces a retreat by one force a comparison of moral levels would dictate the number of half maps to retreat, a joint cease fire would be handled pretty much as it is ... but you could add a time of cease fire- so resupply and reinforcement would be a function of time. I would suggest a moving "minimum" time depending on moral and damage, so that the "winner" could pick a shorter time than the "loser" and keep the pressure on. This way one could essentially play a "campaign" covering a few days, and deal with counter attacks that were common as small units wrestled or some land feature, or town or road net.
Last I vote for a CC or more appropriately a NECC (New engine)Covering Guadalcanal since the terrain can be mapped accurately historical units strength is known, its nearly all infantry fighting with some arty support... and it allows for some "what if" variants based on the resupply of forces, for example if Japanese transports got though, or the US resupply did not...
Good luck with your project I look forward to see it.