Secret Weapons Division: CoH Suggestion Box

[konquer]

As it is now,once you have to retreat your paras they lose their value ,they are not great vs anything individually but definatly are useful for quick reinforcemant and harrasing.I would like to see the ability to redploy para troops from the air. Maybe build a building or return them to hq then be able to drop them again for some cost in mp fuel or muntions.Sort of like the space marines in dow.Proably should be limited to dropping one squad at a time though ,so you would be able to drop one existing squad of paras and still have the abilty to drop a new squad, so you could possibly drop 2 squads in 1 spot.

Also a tactical map or being able to draw on the side map during the team setup phase(and in game tactical map) so teams can discuss/draw a plan of action while waiting for game to start.

[BillyVegas]

Suggestion:

Allow each player of multiplayer have their own color on the map, to easily identify which ally/enemy that are dealing with....

-bv

[Der Micha]

-medic or medic squads for healing damaged units
-more sounds for units

[ChocoboKnight88]

I personally think Axis Officers should increase a building's normal Line of Sight by garrisoning inside it. Even more than normal soldiers being inside. I mean did he not have Binoculars during the campaign? He could use them to be on the look out. It could also make the Officer more useful to have in the frontlines.

Using abilities in buildings could make this more useful too.

[wg_emevet]

Elefant atitank gun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant

M2 Light Tank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Light_Tank

Trenches that the engi can build but takes a long time

Snow maps

A light tank besides the sturm for the Axis tier 3 like the Panzer III http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerkampfwagen_III

Wespe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wespe

Sniper rifle upgrade for the axis sniper to the automatic rifle.


M7 or M37 Self propelled arty.
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/sel...fpropelled.html

[BrewerJackson]

/bump the filter idea. Gimme a filter for the MP game list.

Perhaps allow it to filter for highest rank? *I.e. new players filter out expert games, and vice versa*

[PsichoDM]

Please add 2vs2 / 3vs3 / 4vs4 ranked games where the player can choose his/her partner before the game is starts (in other words, non-randomly).

It's such a critical feature that I believe should absolutely be part of one of the next patches.

[Ace40k]

Make it possible to switch off unit/vehicle silhouettes appearing when they're behind a building etc. in the option menu.

[miCroza]

The officer should get some motivation boost ability to scream on soldiers in area of effect to make them build mines, defensive lines etc... much faster

:P

[NDR]

Please please please please please PLEASE add arranged team to automatched ranked games. This should be standard with every RTS game in existence. It's really quite astonishing something like this would have been left out and neglected by this point.

[Kashll]

I agree that arranged team would be an amazing addition.

So I can play ranked 2v2 with my teammates =]

[nsysusoloman]

It is good idea to make the control panel disappear while watching replays, but can you make the minimap stay?

[NoTimeToBeLazy]

Allow Anti Tank Crews to be carried in Half Tracks. Have the crew go inside while the artillery piece is towed behind it.

Have a Tech Level cap like in Red Alert. In the game lobby choose the maximum tech level.

Something along these lines
Tech 1 - infantry, light vehicles
Tech 2 - Medium Weapons Tanks/AT
Tech 3 - The game as it currently is: All Weapons, All Abilities

[Krychek]

delete this

[RR99i]

I have one suggestion. I don't ask for much. I would rather let you, Relic, decide.

I would like to see an option to rename replays. Let's say that I have some 1.2 and 1.3 replays I enjoyed. Now, I have 1.4 version of Company of Heroes. It would be nice, because the game shows some of them. To rename the title of the replay. So, then I'll know if it works or not.

I'll be using CoH Multiversion of GameReplays.org, to watch the older replays. I don't ask for much, but this would make me happy.

[jdblair5]

My Suggestions

Im hoping and assuming that Relic is going to make exapnsions to this game and further its potential seating as the best WWII RTS ever made , I have played probaly every other one made , and It is damn near the best ever , in many aspects no other game compares , however my suggestions do offer insite into what I think could make it hands down the greates WWII game if not RTS ever made (of course in my opinion)

1. Add more factions , even the seemingly mondane

Even if you do not give these countries there own "faction" include units of there's such as:

Allied:

Great Britain (Should Be a Faction)
USSR (Should be a Faction)
France (Units)
Canada( Could go either way)
Australia ( Could go either way)

and several others , I dont need to put down every country involved I know the people at Relic have a research department if not there is always google same with the Axis , Italy , Japan , France ( yes part of France did support the Axis,Vichy France)

I love how you added the campaign in Dark Crusade , and I strongly beleive the same should be done with COH , other games have attempted it but have fallen extremely short , however the lack of it currently in COH is one of its short comings.
Allthough I dont want to refernce another game or game company , The Total War series has yet to touch this era of War , but there system of campaigns is unmatched , implamenting a campaign system similiar to theres would allow you to stage a zone of recruitment gimmic so you could import those other nations and regions mentioned above.

Expanding the theatre is a must , the Pacific and Arfican Theatres must be added , which means Naval and Air combat must be ushered in as well , though I might suggest going about it a different way then every other rts.
Most RTS's have this system were you can just pump out airplanes which is bs , airfield were not staged every village an army occupied , same needs to be done in the game , and with naval , if you implament it , dont do the same crap everyon else does with Carriers , were they can yet again keep making planes off them as if there was a never ending supply. Buy what you can at a dock and ship out with it.

I think the best way to do air combat is similair to how Empire at War did it , its a seperate battle all together , and only when a plane or bomber is in a certain area can they be called on by the ground forces for support. Other wise if they can be called upon why not just bomb the hell out of that area?

Of course these ideas might be far off , more pressing matters that could be adressed assuming in the near future are not as complex

Army Painter:

the fact that either army is outlined in blue or red is so beneth this game , get it out of it , please , and bring in a army (camo) painter like you have in Dawn of War series

Flag/Banner Editor

If you cant or dont want to add other army's at least put in a flag/banner editor so we can pretend.

Disband Units-self explanatory

great game over all , dont have many beefs with it i give it a 9.5/10

PS. You should have made mark of chaos , that game blows

[HySpeed]

I have created an account here solely to post this one suggestion and a supporting argument.

My suggestion is to implement a third faction into an expansion pack for CoH.

As CoH is an RTS, it will always be compared with a very popular RTS, Starcraft. SC is still popular in Korea and still sells on the shelf in the US after many, many years. One of the core elements of that game is the Rock-Paper-Scissors (RPS) element (discussed elsewhere in these forums) of the races - Terran, Zerg, Protoss.

While the designers of CoH have worked very hard (and done a great job) of creating a complex RTS that is very successful in preventing a simple RPS strategy, it would be a very wise and long-term strategy to add a third faction to the combat formula.

I realize (and understand) that each change in an RTS must be carefully considered and balanced. Simply changing the activation cost of a special ability can decide if it will become abused or unused. It can take a long time to see if a change "shakes out" well. Knowing this, I still recommend adding a third faction. I know it is an enormous undertaking. I make this recommendation knowing that it may cost me $30 to play that version of the game. Adding a well-rounded Russian vs German campaign (for example) will probably be a $29.99 retail "expansion" that completely replaces the existing game. Perhaps it will be a $50 replacement - that's fine too, and hopefully the online multiplayer includes options for choosing factions without limit (e.g. Allies vs Allies).

It is not an insult to recommend that you follow the Starcraft "formula". It worked. It is still working. As designers, wouldn't you love to know that you created the game that surpassed a legend? In my opinion, you can do that by adding and fully implementing a third faction. In a sense, adding a third faction will make faction balance easier. With two options to counter a specific tactic (e.g. riflespam), it will be less likely that a single tatic will be overpowering. If you permit like-faction competition (e.g. German vs German vs German), you will be empowering an entire generation of forum-posting competitions that argue which faction - and which strategy - is best. I've read many posts that claim "you've ruined X" or "Y is too powerful". Certainly adding a third faction will cause more of that. But it will also provide a powerful tool against it - there will be more counters, indeed another entire faction - to counter any strategy.

A basic tennant of Gaming Theory is that A is countered by B, B is countered by C, and C is countered by A. This "triangle" is the Rock-Paper-Scissors model that is proven and works very well. One could study the combat techniques of Mortal Combat and other fighting games and see these realities play out in another genre.

---

I've read rumors that you are developing a Pacific Campaign. If so, I'm sure that will be a fantastic game as well. My hope is that you will use the success and income from that to develop a three-faction RTS. I realize that - historically - it will be very difficult to integrate a German-American-Japanese combat. Adding Russians to the European theatre is probably "easier" from a histroical perspective.

But something that I think you should keep in mind that for a large majority of your players / customers - we don't care. We played a game with "insects" and "energy creatures" and we made it the best selling RTS ever.

---

You have a fantastic game engine and a great franchise in CoH. I am very happy to see you continue to support it with four patches already. I hope that Relic has the foresight and resources to expand the game to include more simultaneous factions.

Thanks.

[hawk_eye]

Well, i'd love to see an Eastern Front expansion, with the Russians.
Possible a British expansion of some sort.

I'd like to see the 3 allied teams (and maybe another Axis team - Italy) put together in multiplayer games, like Command and Conquer Generals.
You could have a 3 vs 3, with USA, Britain and Russia versing Germany, Germany and Italy or something.
A wee bit unrealistic, but hey.

More infantry units and tactics. The thing that makes this game stand out over all other RTS' is the low-level squad tactics, and the cover idea.
Use it more.

I'd like to see more weapons in general, of course this would be supplied by the expansions with Russia/Britain coming into the game.

Don't put secret weapons or any of that nonsense in this game, as it would just ruin it. BF1942: Secret weapons of WW2 was crap.
Keep the game with realistic units.

[Shortbigtoe]

I hate it when I have a few squads of riflemen or MG squads standing around firing at tanks and other armored vehicles even though they can't harm them. I would like to see where the squads automatically either run away or atleast a warning that tells you that a squad of riflemen or w/e is being attacked by enemy armor.

I would like to draw a specific path for certain units where instead of just running straight to an objective, they would take the path I drew out for them. Of course it would have to be special feature like when you order a tank to pound a certain area, instead it would pull up a strategic map and you just draw a path.

[Thanasis]

Just a link to some discussion that I've started in the general forum.
It concerns the possibility of getting the tools to run online wars (campaings).

http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=127527

[Krychek]

Here I'm going to post some serious suggestions.


- Fair Unit Promotion System -
The Axis side should be using the same unit promoting system when playing a Skirmish or a Multiplayer game. I understand the way it is right now may have helped being more accurate in the level of difficulty of the offline campaign but shouldn't it be easy to disable one building & affecting one code to another entire team.

- Fair Unit Experience Points Distribution -
It is way unfair that only one unit gets the whole experiences points from killing another unit. Here's a good example: Let's say you take a Tiger fighting 3 Shermans with 76mm Guns, 2 minutes later the tiger is almost dead but only 1 of the 3 shermans is still alive. That one is going to die as well, but wait! I made a M10 during that time, comming up from my base at full speed, the M10 once in range, Shot at the Tiger, making a nice hit, destroying it. M10 gets a double promotion while the last sherman doesnt have a single XP Point. Experience should be devided by the number of registred hits from certain targets depending of both targets(Depends of the kind too). Let's make another example: You take those weak Volksgrenadier and make them shoot once at an ennemy tank with their Panzerfaust. This should count as 1 or 2 registred hits, so that way when the unit is killed(especially Tanks (Which gives up alot of XP)) some of the experiance would be split! amongs the units that participated in X fights.

- MG42 vs Cal .50 (M1917 Browning) -
I call this unknown because I don't personally know if the MG42 has any advantage over the Cal .50. In the real war, MG42s were considered the strongest LAND Machine-Gun in the war. Now let's comparate the real.

- MG42 Stats - 1200 to 1800 rounds per minute.
Max Range: 1219m, Initial Speed: 710 m/s, 7,92 mm x57

- Cal .50 Stats - 400 to 600 rounds per minute.
Max Range: 1219m, Initial Speed: 880 m/s, 7,62 mm x63

Now that we know each MGs characteristic, we can finally argue!
Relic deceided to make the Cal .50 a bit stronger (In CoH) by giving them the Armor Piercing ability. This is understandable since the only advantage from the Cal .50 is the initial speed & a slight bigger bullet.

Here's my suggestion, hoping I don't ask something that is already coded lol. The MG42 should be much stronger against Infantry Units & it should Pinn the ennemy more often since of it's incredible rate of fire.

- Allied 76mm Guns -
In the tooltip description, it says that the 76mm Guns has a kind of splash attack, affecting more damages to any ennemy units near the impact. I will be honest I find that default shermans are much better against infantry than Shermans with their 76mm guns.

- Allied 57mm AT-Gun -
I agree there is a balance issue on this one
I've forgot about it so when I seen this thread, sounded like it resumes the problem !
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=126757

Now that I made up all these suggestions, the real question is, are you looking forward to an realistic game or a balanced game. We could also call the between.

I think all my suggestions would enter up in the balance wing.

A patch including only these changes would improve so much this game!

I hope any Relic representant read this, it seems to be accured conclusions & facts to me =)

[Sothalor]

Not sure if these have been mentioned before, but how about some filters for the game lobby in Relic Online? It'd be nice to filter out stuff like passworded games, Vire River Valley, etc.

[BazzO]

Love to see Finnish vs. Russians in Winter War

-finnish infantry one of kind, example in snow, skiing ability to attack mobile and fast.

-russian army 10 times bigger, but finnish infantry and unbelievable ambush strategies and cold resistance abilities nullified the russian army.

-this could be some special mission.

more info:
from wikipedia -> Winter War

[nsysusoloman]

Make fog of war optional in replays, please

------------------------

It is not necessary to view the replay from only one player's aspect.

[Jamos]

Issue: Line of sight is only checked in two dimensions. hence someone above or below you on a cliff can be shot at through the ground. Walls or movement block shot block only objects, either block all shooting no matter the height, or do not block shooting.

Possible Solution: The trick is to not have the bullets shooting into the ground in the first place. Hence why a shot blocking only object would be the best choice. It tells the unit it cannot shoot at the target and they then move to a different location to shoot at the target. No collision code needed, and no cpu power calculating every shot. Even if you some how made the terrain block shooting it would not solve the whole issue, as you would still have units shooting into the ground at each other and getting no results.

A shot block only object would work just like the movement block shot block object except it would NOT block movement. Also needed is a edit state for the object of the max. height to block the shot. It would only need to draw a 2d line to the object and check the height of the shooter and the height of the target, and compare to the edit state number of the object, and if either is less than this number then the shot would be blocked.
i.e. if the edit state for the shot block object was set to 20 you would have to be at height 20+ to shoot at a target or be shot by a target also at height 20+. This could be done easily with the current engine i.m.h.o. without adding collision code and drastically changing the engine that would tax most processors that are out today.

For example with the logic from above I would place shot block only objects like this to block shooting from one side of the hill to the other, and to block shooting to opposite sides of the top of the hill where there is no LOS from the bottom of the hill. Then set the edit state height to 19 (1 less than height of the hill).

currently this is the movement block shot block only object. There are two issues with using this as shown.

One it blocks movement so moving on top of the hill would be impossible.

two if both sides are on top of the hill they could not fire across any of the red lines, hence making it very unrealistic. thus the need for a edit state of height.

http://img182.imageshack.us/my.php?i...otblockpz4.png

[Dark_Avenger]

filter system for online games, being able to filter through victory point games/ non victory point games, high resources and not, certain maps, etc

[Pershing720]

I wanted to thank you for improving the AI in the game. Hard and expert are now much more challenging. I have some suggestions...

I like how the computer is very offensive but maybe you could make it so sometimes they do some defensive actions. Such as the computer can make a forward base near key locations (like big fuel and ammo dumps, bridges and other small access points) and have units guard it (only if he has some to spare)(the computer can take or replace these units when needed). Also infantry should replenish it's numbers while in these areas. Engineers/pioneers should build more defenses in these key areas too (could be tank traps, barbed wire, sand bags, more bunkers, more machine gun emplacements.

The easiest way to take out a comp (besides artillery) is flanking and taking out it's base and then mopping up. So I think engineers/pioneers should make defenses at there bases. Also if the computer's base is being attacked it could send units back to help defend base.

Engineers/pioneers should repair there tanks/vehicles (if there not doing anything better). I was also thinking that when the computer attacks it should not always be random. For example a couple tanks could be attacking you while a couple other tanks come around to flank you.

All of these things I mentioned could be random, as if the computer decides to do them or not. You could also make it random weather the computer is more offensive than defensive too. Thanks for listening and keep up the good work!

[19Bravo]

One really annoying item I'd like to have changed:

THEY ARE NOT RIFLEMAN SQUADS, THEY ARE RIFLE SQUADS.

Hardware:

air cooled .30 cal tripod and bipod mount
air cooled .50 cal tripod mount

Given the timeframe of the game, disregard any suggestions for late 1944 or 1945 weapons and systems.

Could you do an expansion with the British/Free French/Allies that will integrate with the current game? Russians are another, different game. Same with Marines/Japanese/British/US Army, different game.

Thanks for the upgrades.

[imckay]

I apologize if such things have already been suggested;

1. Engineers should be able to repair map buildings (for example, forward operating bases)

2. Forward operating bases should be able to be upgraded in some way--stronger walls, big machine gun, etc.. If the enemy captures the f.o.b., the upgrades should still be there.

Love the game!

[Graphain]

For perhaps selfish reasons I would like to see the Australians in even if part of a Commonwealth force (including Canada, NZ etc.). I definitely think the British as mentioned should be in the game with a comparable Russian or Italian (but which side..) force. I wouldn't mind seing a FFA mode either even if it did sacrifice historical accuracy. I think the Allies need something comparable to the Goliath (which on an unrelated note seems to be the one fictional element of CoH). Perhaps a Japanese implementation too could have powers focusing on honour and fearlessness and perhaps a kamikaze power although for inland maps this seems a little unusual (perhaps implement an island map or two think PNG, Iwo Jima etc.).

[dranos]

My friends and I all agree , that there should definatly be the option to pause and save the game in multiplayer. I don't know how it would exactly work as far as modding it, but i think this is one of the only RTS games i've played without being able to save and pause multiplayer games.

[Defenstrator]

One or two new races is the obvious addition, with the Soviets and British being the obvious choices. Finish off the European war before heading off to the pacific.

I very much like the smaller scale of CoH and think that things like aircraft and ships artillery should remain off screen call ins rather than actual units.

The campaign I really want is the Canadian liberation of the Netherlands. Imagine slogging through flooded fields, or the danger of having a dyke being blown to flood you out (or doing it to another player). Plus you could introduce resistence units. They would be weak but great spotters since they are local guides, or could act as camoflauged saboteurs.

[>Rubberduckie<]

Battle of the Buldge, and actually get to play a campaign as the axis, or maybe the start of the russian campaign, then force the player to switch sides and beat back his own attack. You never get to play as the axis in WWII games, would be different.

[Defenstrator]

You're right. A Battle of the Bulge campaign would be pretty wicked. Especially since you could do the campaign from both sides.

Still want to see those resistance fighters though.

[Gremlin Shoota]

Maybe in the expansion they could have close combat fighting or as we all know hand-to-hand combat like Bashing each other with the Rifles butt-end or bayonets or just plain fists

One or two new races is the obvious addition, with the Soviets and British being the obvious choices. Finish off the European war before heading off to the pacific.

Well, the Pacific war started when the Japenese bombed Pearl Harbor in... 42 I think... so anyways it happened DURING the war in europe so it would be like wise that they would and should finish the Europeon Campaign/Europeon Threatre before the Parcific, and I have a pretty good picture of the pacific threatre. . . Island after Island, people barfing, dense jungle warfare, and alot of suicide bombers (Kamikazi's)

You're right. A Battle of the Bulge campaign would be pretty wicked. Especially since you could do the campaign from both sides.

Also if they did then it would be altered (I.E: Lighting and Shaders)
because awhile ago some winter skins we're made and it didn't work out because of the lighting so yea. . . it'd be to different.

[Caffienatedjedi]

I think it would be cool if on some maps teams would get special unit entries I.E. map with a sea on one side allies could call in reinforcements via landing craft or map with airfield Axis reinforcements would come off a plane.

[Mistenth]

Engineers and pioneers while idling, autorepair any damaged tanks near them. But make it a toggle option. It's possible I believe, since they already help build buildings if they are idling.

[Willie]

Seriously, the ping and voting system should be fixed.

I resided in East Asia. There is no sign of lag at all during gameplay with friends in Europe but the game always indicates 400+ ping and the system automatically invite a kick vote either against me or my friends.

This is one very annoying piece of trouble!
I'm quite sure about this is to be blamed for the game component design, as the tcp connectivity between me and the same group of fds in EU is doing just fine in AOE3. (around 280-400 ping)

As I acknowledge, the in-game voting primary objective is to prevent game failure due to sudden change in connectivity. It's fine, if done well just like the one in AOE3. But seems it's not the case in CoH, even the game is running smoothly, the system starts the vote, and some people abuse it, it is no doubt very time wasting and disappointing for oneself to get in game and then just get booted.

Besides, it's very problematic in nature, say if the system acknowledges the ping in between the group is high, then at least it should prompt the host or even disallow to launch, but not letting players boot each others in game.

[Svenna]

Would love the option to disable tanks in multiplayer/skirmish games, so people can enjoy the excellent infantry fighting.

[k0r3]

not being able to see whats on the other side of a building, or wall

sure a sniper can see far, but it shouldnt be able to see through walls, units should only be able to see around them, not whats in their sight radius

[Seregon]

A reasonable suggetion would be, to buff the 88's a bit.

Only needs manower 600 ~ 700.
Its off map reinforments, when using the Flak 88 reinforcement, a halftrack carries the 88 with a wagon. you can place your 88's by moving the halftrack to that location and press ''deploy''.

[Fr3Nzy]

For 1.5.

Rotatable Buildings.

Fix Callopie spam by either charging a fuel cost or rendering the stock turret useless.

Fix the 'Smoke Bug'.

Fix the 'shoot through Sherman with panzershrek' bug.

Make an option to view both sides simultaneously in a replay.

Create a button allowing infantry squads to drop (let go of) a heavy weapon (Mortar, MG, AT, Flak, Howister etc).

Make Tank Traps dismantleable by engineers but make it take some time to achieve (for balance purposes - after all a small gap is all that's needed, where as the player blocking a section typically requires the building of many).

Sort out, for good, the various online issues, particularly the 'drop bug'.

Release a Model Importer/Exporter.

Long Term Goals

Expand the game with a third faction and campaign. Eastern campaign (Germany vs Russia) seems most appropriate. Make all combinations of the three factions available in multiplayer and skirmish modes (so not just Germany vs Russia, but Allies vs Axis and Russia vs Allies and Russia vs Axis also). And even a 3 way mode for 3 player and 6 player games.

That's all that is REALLY needed, the rest is generally subjective. Balance at this point, unit vs unit, is quite good and commendable. Just the few bugs above are universally wished away and the model importer/exporter (or plugin, whatever) is desperately wanted.

[Pershing720]

I would like to see missions with the 3rd armored division and eventually receive M26 Pershing’s later on in a mini campaign. It would be awesome if you can also be able to get a Super Pershing on the last level. I would like to see German paratroopers in an the expansion.



Making the calliope cost some fuel sounds good but you might as well make ALL call off map tanks cost fuel then (which might be a good idea). You should limit how many calliopes you can call out to 2 or 3 at a time. Also maybe you could make the Sherman smoke cost more munitions and make it dissipate a little faster, since people complain about it so much. In my opinion the Sherman even with an upgraded barrel needs a smoke defense considering how weak it is (until it gains experience) against other tanks.



I would like to be able to reverse my tanks from a longer distance. Instead of them turning around to show there vulnerable rears when I want them to fall back. I would like my tanks/vehicles to not try and take a longer way around instead of simply waiting in line for its turn for the shortest rout.



I think that hard and expert German computers should upgrade their experience levels. But upgrade them very slowly and only go up to experience levels 2 since they are already really hard. I would like for the allied computers to cut back on how many AT guns they make. I think they do need a good amount of AT guns, but sometimes I find it overwhelming how many they have on the field when I play as German. Also I would like to see the American computer (when it chooses armor company) call out Pershing’s maybe 1 at a time. Thanks for listening!

[wteening]

Not sure if this is easy to fix: beating the ai in maps with bridges generally consists of:

Blowing up the bridges,

Sealing off the remaining parts of the map with tank traps, AT and machine gun nests.

The ai will attempt to break through the parts which it thinks are the only available, instead of fixing the bridges...

I'd like the ai to at least sometimes try to fix the bridge, I've never seen them do that, not even on expert.

Merry christmas everyone!

[Camphlobactor]

-Enhance vehicle AI so they dont collide with each other when moving in a group.

-Disable the possibility for a unit launching a projectile to fire when the unit does not have a clear line of site, preventing a waste of a shot or potential friendly fire.

-Reduce the duration between voice acknowledgements so the unit's voice do not overlap.

[Brendan]

it makes sense to do battle of the bulge and market garden in expansions, and then go on to a russian campaign, probably Kursk or Kharkov onward.

[JohnJigsaw]

I suggest for a notice, either on the left part of the screen or by voice, that a recently-retreated squad has arrived on destination. Just to remind the player that a squad is idle near the HQ, ready to be reinforced and/or brought back to the front line.

edit: a notice that your airborne supply drop is ready would be nice too. This isn't an ability that requires you to pay anything so I personally always want to use it as soon as it is available. Maybe make it blink or a notice on the left part of screen.

[blackrook]

I just registered, and I believe I have a couple good ideas. I have other suggestions that I will post later though. I did have all three of my ideas and a master list of my suggestions, but a lousy quirk in login deleted my entire thing. Then I redid just my ideas and then my computer froze. This will still be a monster post, so bear with me. Hopefully the idea won't destroy the game.



This might be a little farfetched, but I think that vehicle crews should be able to abandon their vehicles if that vehicle is damaged from at least one critical hit (i.e. engine damaged, main gun destroyed, or engine destroyed). After exiting the vehicle crew should be selectable as with any other squad. That vehicle crew has two options: destroy the vehicle with explosives and retreat to HQ, or retreat to HQ. Destroying the vehicle before retreating involves a small munitions cost, but denies the use of your vehicle to the enemy (if this abandonment feature is done then the enemy should be able to repair, crew, and capture empty enemy vehicles). The vehicle crew should be weak, unable to pick up any weapons, and only supplied with pistols for self-defense. After the vehicle crew retreats to the HQ, the player can make a new vehicle of the same base type for a ~10% decrease in manpower cost as long as the vehicle crew is in the command area. After the crew-less vehicle is produced the crewmembers can enter the vehicle. The decrease in manpower cost is lessened if there are less surviving crewmembers. So for example, if my Sherman crew is all alive, I can produce a crew-less Sherman for 380 manpower and have my crew enter the Sherman.



This same principle can be used to solve the AT gun problem. Right now, if 2 crewmembers die, then the 3rd sees fit to commit suicide. I think that the 3rd crewmember should not die after the 2nd is killed. But neither should he be able to move and operate the AT gun. So he has two choices: destroy the AT gun for a small munitions cost and then retreat, or simply retreat. After reaching the command area another AT gun can be made for maybe a 5% decrease in manpower cost.



But this is the idea I am most fond of. Right now, infantry combat is good, but it could become so much deeper. I think that a part of the problem is squad size. Right now we have squad sizes of 3, 4, 5, and 6. And yet the game manages to balance the action by giving the smaller squads (KCH) a LOT of HP. I am asking for more realistic squad sizes like 12 or 9. In exchange make individual soldiers weaker, as in dieing in a couple hits. This wouldn't horrifically upset the balance, at least not to my eyes. Here are my potential figures:



US Units:

Engineers (3)-

Cost: 140 mp, 3 pop count, 12 mp each for reinforcement

Default weapons: M1 Carbines

Available at HQ



Riflemen (12)-

Cost: 280 mp, 8 pop count, 12 mp each for reinforcement

Default weapons: 1 BAR, 1 Thompson, 7 M1 Garands, and 3 M1 Carbines

Available at Barracks



Airborne (12)-

Cost: 350 mp, 8 pop count, 30 mp each for reinforcement

Default weapons: 2 Thompson, 4 M1 Garands, 6 M1 Carbines

Available through Airborne Company



Rangers (12)-

Cost: 375 mp, 8 pop count, 16 mp each for reinforcement

Default weapons: 2 BARs, 2 Thompsons, 6 M1 Garands, 2 M1 Bazookas

Available through Infantry Company



German Units:

Pioneers (2)-

Cost: 120 mp, 2 pop count, 15 mp each for reinforcement

Default weapons: 2 Kar98ks

Available at HQ



Volksgrenadiers (9)-

Cost: 250 mp, 6 pop count, 14 mp each for reinforcement

Default weapons: 3 MP40s, 6 Kar98ks

Available at Whermacht Quarters



Infantrie (9)-

Cost: 300 mp, 6 pop count, 17 mp each for reinforcement

Default weapons: 1 MG42 w/bipod, 1 MP40, 6 Kar98ks

Available at Kriegs Barracks



Grenadiers (9)-

Cost: 320 mp, 6 pop count, 18 mp each for reinforcement

Default weapons: 1 MG42 w/bipod, 2 MP40s, 2 STG44s, 3 Kar98ks

Available at Sturm Armory



Waffen-SS (or Knights Cross Holders) (12)-

Cost: 400 mp, 9 pop count, 20 mp each for reinforcement

Default weapons: 2 MG42s w/bipod, 2 MP40s, 2 STG44s, 2 Panzershrecks, 4 Kar98ks

Available at Panzer Command



The engineers should be kept the same size, making them more valuable and more risky to use in combat. Leave most of the fighting to the combat infantry. I changed the names and manpower cost just for kicks. Here I have the Grenadiers taking the place of the Nebelwerfer. For the default weapon loadouts, I tried to show the reliance of German squads on the MG42 and to a lesser extent the reliance of American squads on the BAR. In real life, the MG42 is significantly better than the BAR. But the M1 Garand is also superior to the Kar98k. So the German squad is very dependent on its MG42 for most of its firepower, while the American squads have a more broad fire distribution through their semi-auto rifles.



The weapon loadouts are also for another portion of my idea. I think there should be customizable weapon loadouts in addition to the default ones. This would give the infantry aspect of the game a refresher, in my opinion. Here is a list of how much each weapon could cost:



M1 Carbine: 25 mun.

M1 Garand: 40

Thompson: 55

Grease Gun: 45

BAR: 75

M1 Bazooka: 100



Kar98k: 25

MP40:40

Gewher 43: 45

STG44: 75

MG42 w/bipod: 100

Panzershreck: 110



The cost would be calculated by adding the differences between the cost of the original weapon and the cost of the substituted weapon. It would be possible to gain munitions out of this if a higher value weapon was substituted for a lower value one.



For example:

If I wanted a Ranger squad (2 BARs, 2 Thompsons, 6 M1 Garands, 2 M1 Bazookas) dedicated to close-range infantry combat, I would outfit all of them with Thompsons. 2 BARs are worth 150, while 2 Thompsons are worth 110. 40 munitions. 6 M1 Garands are worth 240, while 6 Thompsons are worth 330. -90 munitions. 2 M1 Bazookas are worth 200, while 2 Thompsons are worth 110. 90 munitions. So overall, I would receive 40 munitions as well as a Ranger squad deficient in medium-long range and tank combat.



If I wanted to give my Riflemen (1 BAR, 1 Thompson, 7 M1 Garands, 3 M1 Carbines) some better long range combat abilities, I could exchange my shorter ranged and less accurate M1 Carbines for M1 Garands. The cost for 3 M1 Carbines is 75, while the cost for 3 M1 Garands is 120. So I would pay 45 munitions for this.



Maybe I want to go base destroying, and I have a shitload of munitions. Then I would have a Waffen-SS (Knights Cross Holders) squad (2 MG42s w/bipods, 2 MP40s, 2 STG44s, 2 Panzerschrecks, and 4 Kar98ks) beefed up entirely with Panzershrecks. 2 MG42s w/bipods are worth 200, while 2 Panzershrecks are worth 220. -20 munitions. 2 MP40s are worth 80, while 2 Panzershrecks are worth 220. -140 munitions. 2 STG44s are worth 150, while 2 Panzershrecks are worth 220. -70 munitions. 4 Kar98ks are worth 100 munitions, while 4 Panzershrecks are worth 440. -340 munitions. So it would cost a huge 570 munitions for a 12-man July 4 rocket show extravaganza.



Think you can simply use Volksgrenadiers for a cheaper 9-man show? Think again. 6 Kar98ks are worth 150, while 6 Panzershrecks are worth 660. -510 munitions already. 3 MP40s are worth 120, while 3 Panzershrecks are worth 330. -210 munitions. 720 munitions for a Panzershreck 9-man squad. As you might see, the better the unit, the less expensive it is to upgrade weapons since they come default with high-value weapons (except for Airborne, but their value is not in their firepower).



Through this system I believe that squads will become much more versatile and deep. Instead of having weapon upgrades specific to the unit define its usefulness, it should be the unit's training, efficiency, and loadout opportunities.



So any comments?

[Pershing720]

I was thinking from my last post that it would be great in the expansion if you could upgrade 1 of your Pershings to a M26A1E2 (Super Pershing). The upgrade could be in a revised armor company. It could be below the Pershing on the company command tree and cost 4 or 5 experience points. Once you receive it you can pay a big cost in manpower and fuel to upgrade 1 M26 Pershing. Since the King tiger will probably be in the expansion I'd love to see them go head to head.

[>Rubberduckie<]

I was thinking from my last post that it would be great in the expansion if you could upgrade 1 of your Pershings to a M26A1E2 (Super Pershing). The upgrade could be in a revised armor company. It could be below the Pershing on the company command tree and cost 4 or 5 experience points. Once you receive it you can pay a big cost in manpower and fuel to upgrade 1 M26 Pershing. Since the King tiger will probably be in the expansion I'd love to see them go head to head.

It all depends on what year they want the expansion to be in. Strictly speaking the pershing shouldn't even be in the game, but I see why it is. The units for both sides are really quite inclusive without getting a bunch of units with different names with the same stats. A couple of goodies should be added to each side, but I owuld rather see increased functionality and new features then new units. THough I think the russians just have to be in this game. I want me a T34.

I would like to see the luftwaffe incorporated in someway as well.