Features that we have already seen and should continue.

[Kanov]

How about before we start asking for new features we list some essential features from all the series, things we have used that we have liked that maybe got canned the further the series progressed or got changed but would like to see again or just some essential features that you would hate to be lost:

-Bring back unit descriptions. A small paragraph of what the unit is about, what weapons contains and an example on how to use it would be nice, specially for novice players. I saw this feature present in CC2 and CC3. Example from CC2 when you select a sherman tank:

"The Sherman is the most versatile tank in the Allied arsenal. The M4A1 has a 75-mm main gun and two .30-caliber machine guns. Use it to destroy light and medium tanks, infantry, and enemy strongholds."

-Change the level bar designator for attributes for more easy reading. Since CC4 the bar is just one solid color with out delimiting the possible levels available for easy reading. How experienced is that guy? is that morale bar at half or less? in CC2 and CC3 you could easily tell the level of experience and morale at least. In CC5 a fantastic mod called rank-mod was made so you could very easy tell the level of the ranks of your men and the level of their attributes by adding a number for each level at the top of the bar of the attributes and in the upper corner of the rank graphic.

-Keep an introduction video or at least a text detailing your objectives and what is expected from you. Maybe the whole actual history of the operation you're playing can be made available apart on the cd or install application for further reading. The best with out a doubt was CC2 with its daily video briefings on how things progressed in reality so you could see how good or bad you were doing, also that amazingly well done interactive manual/history and game encyclopedia. In CC3 you were given briefings on the objectives and sometimes the overall picture at the start of the operations and on every map, like what unit you were attached to, your supposed location etc. Not all of us are experts in history nor experts in weapons. I didn't even know about the Mortain offensive before PitF.

-Allow for more variety of soldier designations, not just the usual commander, leader, asst. leader, gunner, loader, crew etc. This was done in CCM and CCMT. Likewise separate between sides so you can have a Commander, Kommandant, Komandir.

-Sharing teams between two battlegroups that occupy a single map. A feature from LSA.

-Easy drop and use custom maps. In cc3 you could just download a map and put it on your maps folder to make custom scenarios in it.

Add to the list! [:)]

[SteveMcClaire]

Thanks for your suggestions, Kanov.

There will be custom maps for The Bloody First. There will not be a strategic map / battlegroup system as in previous releases, so sharing teams between BGs isn't really applicable. Details like intro videos or descriptive text are still under discussion.

Steve

[Kanov]

About infantry survivability, I know I have said it too many times but then I think we need to find a middle ground here, If you guys say that CC2 was too much in terms of inf. survivability, then I think a compromise must be reached between IMO the better CC2 Inf. Surv. and the total disregard of it by PItF.

[wodin]

CC2 was perfect I found for Inf surv. Felt alot more realistic and fun long firefights.

[Tejszd]

Since the game will be closer to CC3/COI between battles what will the in battle code be based/built on (CC3/COI or CC5/WAR/TLD/LSA/PiTF) as I don't believe it is being done from scratch?

[Tejszd]

Infantry survivability should be between CC2 and PiTF by tweaking element values to make cover and protection better for select elements.

[Kanov]

Other features I liked from CC2:

-Medals images where in order on the After Battle screen so you could see what medals where harder to get.
-Hurt or injured men improved after one day had passed. Since CC4, injured men don't recuperate, probably because the whole campaign is treated as a battle or operation (In CC3 they where OK after the current operation was over).

About inf. surv. in CC2:

It was very hard to kill Inf. with small arms (Rifle team vs Rifle team), Machine guns being the exception, the MG42 could make short work of a running Inf. team in the open. CQB is intense on that game, I fire up the GC once a year or so and it is always a good challenge against the AI, always get a good rush when defending Arnhem against the SS retreating across buildings and ambushing the jagdpanthers.

[wodin]

One reason why I like it..it is also far more realistic with regards to casualties. The new boardgame Screaming Eagles: Band of Brothers has a superb mechanic for small arms thats all about suppression rather than body count..which makes for a very realistic experience.

The body count in the later CC games is just way to high.

ORIGINAL: Kanov

Other features I liked from CC2:

-Medals images where in order on the After Battle screen so you could see what medals where harder to get.
-Hurt or injured men improved after one day had passed. Since CC4, injured men don't recuperate, probably because the whole campaign is treated as a battle or operation (In CC3 they where OK after the current operation was over).

About inf. surv. in CC2:

It was very hard to kill Inf. with small arms (Rifle team vs Rifle team), Machine guns being the exception, the MG42 could make short work of a running Inf. team in the open. CQB is intense on that game, I fire up the GC once a year or so and it is always a good challenge against the AI, always get a good rush when defending Arnhem against the SS retreating across buildings and ambushing the jagdpanthers.

[tora75]

There will not be a strategic map / battlegroup system as in previous releases

I'm sorry to read this. I'm new to the series (I just purchased The Longest Day) and have played it non-stop. The battle group system added to the immersion and the strategic map made me feel like I had some control over the campaign...unless I'm totally misunderstanding what the strategic map/battlegroup system is. I am admittedly a newb.

There seems to be so many cool features added, subtracted, then added back again across different iterations of CC. Many of the additions have been fantastic. Some of the subtractions have been disappointing. Simple things, like showing what the different medals are in the GUI. I know this isn't important to those familiar with the series, but for those new to the series it would be helpful.

Hovering over icons,units, etc to get tool tip info on units would be nice too. This may be in the latest iteration of CC, but not sure as I've only got the one game.

Are the subtractions a product of the dev schedule or is it done in order to lighten the tax on one's machine?

[SteveMcClaire]

ORIGINAL: tora75
Are the subtractions a product of the dev schedule or is it done in order to lighten the tax on one's machine?

The work involved in creating a whole new engine did influence how much time was available to work on the campaign system, yes. But the primary reason it is different is because The Blood First's focus is different than previous games. You will be leading a rifle company (plus attachments) through several major campaigns, rather than fighting a single operation, ordering large units around at the strategic level. So the new game will be much more focused on the tactical combat.

Steve

[tora75]

Thanks for the reply, Steve! I'm glad the idea of a campaign isn't going away entirely and that you're developing a more intimate experience (with rpg elements from what I've read in another thread). If the unit stat tracking and medal system stays in place, I'm over the moon and will be first in line to purchase when this comes out. Looking forward to the new installment of CC.

[Nomada_Firefox]

ORIGINAL: Steve McClaire

ORIGINAL: tora75
Are the subtractions a product of the dev schedule or is it done in order to lighten the tax on one's machine?

The work involved in creating a whole new engine did influence how much time was available to work on the campaign system, yes. But the primary reason it is different is because The Blood First's focus is different than previous games. You will be leading a rifle company (plus attachments) through several major campaigns, rather than fighting a single operation, ordering large units around at the strategic level. So the new game will be much more focused on the tactical combat.

Steve

What is the amount of soldiers from a company in the game?

[tgierut]

Steve,
I understand your reasons for not including the campaign screen for now. But in future installments of
the game will you be including the battle group campaign style map that is very popular among the fan base.

[tigercub]

There will not be a strategic map lost me there....

[SteveMcClaire]

ORIGINAL: tgierut

Steve,
I understand your reasons for not including the campaign screen for now. But in future installments of
the game will you be including the battle group campaign style map that is very popular among the fan base.

It is entirely possible, though we don't have plans for specific features in the versions down the road yet.

Steve

[TIK]

ORIGINAL: Kanov

-Keep an introduction video or at least a text detailing your objectives and what is expected from you. Maybe the whole actual history of the operation you're playing can be made available apart on the cd or install application for further reading. The best with out a doubt was CC2 with its daily video briefings on how things progressed in reality so you could see how good or bad you were doing, also that amazingly well done interactive manual/history and game encyclopedia. In CC3 you were given briefings on the objectives and sometimes the overall picture at the start of the operations and on every map, like what unit you were attached to, your supposed location etc. Not all of us are experts in history nor experts in weapons. I didn't even know about the Mortain offensive before PitF.

Agree completely with this, especially the way it was done in CC2. Those videos with the guys narrating it provided a lot of context and also made it more immersive.

I've asked for this before, but I'll say it again - keep the ability to rename units! [:)]

Also, I quite liked the way you could reinforce/upgrade squads in CC3/COI and not lose experienced members of the squads. I guess this will be a feature of The Bloody First since this is a CC3/COI type campaign?

[sesto]

In the old CC Marines trainer there was a soldier editor ingame where any soldier could be completely customized, with name, rank, experience, weapons and so on, that would be a great addition to the editor. It could also be used before each battle to customize squads by using a weapon pool or similar, to give more smgs to units who are about to enter a city for example.

[SteveMcClaire]

ORIGINAL: sesto
In the old CC Marines trainer there was a soldier editor ingame where any soldier could be completely customized, with name, rank, experience, weapons and so on, that would be a great addition to the editor. It could also be used before each battle to customize squads by using a weapon pool or similar, to give more smgs to units who are about to enter a city for example.

This was a desired feature for the USMC so they could tailor their training scenarios, but we won't see this level of micromanagement it in The Bloody First. Always something to keep in mind for a future version / addition though.

Steve

[Nomada_Firefox]

When will we know more about the game?

[DAK_Legion]

TOP SECRET NOMADA;)

Summer 2015 youcan play TBF