Desired detail level for future Commander series

[firepowerjohan]

We are now starting to work on patches and despite we cannot add too many features, this is also a interesting question for the future of the Commander series. Despite that this is not a random sample from the player population it still could give a rough hint.

We want to find out whether the games should be simpler, more advanced or just like now.

[lesthesarge]

I'm hoping stacking makes an appearance myself. but, I suspect the best is to just learn from the current game, add what seems like good ideas that might have been missed, and not worry about reinventing the game, just to make it look like it isn't a super expansion.

[ungers_pride]

I would suggest patch the current game as best you can using many of the suggestions given, such as fixing bugs, balancing CV strength, getting Allied AI to randomly invade France and Med area, etc....

Turn the Med/North Africa area into a real theater of conflict and strategy: naval action, Afrika Korps, British reinforcements, etc....

As well, I would suggest implementing a scenario, unit and tech editor.

Add more weather affects.

And for any additional features, I would suggest implementing them as options that the player can toggle on/off.

[davetheroad]

I voted for more detail etc but whatever is done needs to be elegant and in a way simple. We are talking long term here but Iwill throw in a few ideas:

1. Multi player games - the concept here is you run two parallel games which at least have to share a common map scale and overlapping maps, you could for instance have a more detailed maps of russia and western europe overlapping in germany, these could be user developed. The programming bit involves developing a 'strategic' reserve and the tools to use it. A player may move resources, pp, manpower, oil and units into the reserve, or draw from the reserve. So you can run multiple parrallel games, e.g. 4 player - east and west germans, western allies and russia. the different fronts could run out of sequence if the strategic reserve was date stamped.Of course the devil is in the detail!.

2. Stacking - Develop a new unit type called tactical reserve which can be deployed in ways similar to commanders but only adds combat value of some sort to the unit it is attached to, this has the virtue of no complex re-writing of stacking code and the deployment mechanisms etc are simply variants of those used for commanders. It may be possible to do this with the editor as there are spare unit type slots?

3. The butterfly effect - the old chaos theory, a small change in initial conditions can make a BIG difference later on in the game. For example I played a TCPIP game recently which was superb fun but we finished in 1942 because the germans were running out of manpower. We could have continued if we had the ability to add a couple of hundred german manpower points, but did not want to just start again, after all it it a long scenario. The ability to dip into the scenario and change some of the values would be VERY useful, of course the opposing player would have to agree and any changes would be have to generate a message to keep players honest. This would be a very useful tool for playtesting as well.

Thinks - suggestion 1. might cover this if the strategic reserve Was editable!

Dave

[sagji]

I voted for same detail.
However the only reason I didn't vote for more detail is that I have a mid spec laptop and it struggles to play the game even on the low performace setting.

[alaric318]

greetings, at this time the detail for a first release is Very Good, i do not like much features that can disrupt a clean and easy system of play, however i will like to see some things implemented, artillery for a level more of combined arms, and mech infantry or panzergrenadier, between armor and motor units, althoug i think this to be implemented can be a lot of work, adding to the wish list, maybe mech infantry can have some degree of can make limited or minor fortifications at a cost in Production Points.

aside, maybe will be a good idea that neutrals start at entrench from turn 01 onwards to make them a little more tough to invade.

and for what as been speaked by the developers from the upcoming scenario editor it will be a great adding to the game, very few games enjoys of an editor "all free" to make scenarios and mods, once and if possible it is released it will make the game on my thinking upgraded to the highest turn based and overall strategy war simulation games on the market, i am enjoying the games that i are playing and gameplay is very fluid and clear, as the graphics,

with best regards,

alaric.

[Fireball_ps]

I would like to see stacking, marine invasions (attack land hexes fromy sea with troops), better AI, paratroopers, possibility to build fortifications, more detailed technologies or at least dont name anti tank technology level 2 "anti tank technology" but name it 50 mm PAK or something like that.
Call dogfiht level 2 = FW 190 etc.

You already did a great job by giving real quantities when it comes to casualties. I didnt lose 12 "tank" points but i lost 1250 tanks. those details give the game a much better "feeling" and they enhance the atmosphere a lot.

[IanF1966]

Why would you want stacking? A hex is 32 miles and a full Corps (along with any factored-in Corps-Level Support) fits in.

[vypuero]

I would like the same scale - expanded to include the Pacific, with additional options and features like more robust diplomacy, direct naval invasions (needed for pacific islands) and the like.

[IanF1966]

I would like the same scale - expanded to include the Pacific, with additional options and features like more robust diplomacy, direct naval invasions (needed for pacific islands) and the like.

A full-world war 2 global game would be awesome.

In my opinion some features that would really add to the game would be:

--Named Units - this adds more immersion e.g. 1st Panzerkorps. It would be essential for detailed AARs!

--Weekly Turns - I modded this and although I've yet to fine-tune the costs and production, this makes for a very deep and intensive game. Perhaps include an option at game start to choose length of turn, which iin turn chooses different starting data files.

--Paras. Would work well at this hex size.

--Carriers, Battleships and Destroyers but no Heavy or Light Cruisers? Why not! Also naval units represent fleets and groups of units so why not name them as such?

[ijontichy]

I don't want more detail, or a more advanced simulation. I want:

1) Better strategic AI. I can live with the tactical AI, but the strategic AI needs to be improved.
2) A GUI that recognises that we live in an age of large wide-screen monitors.

[Magpius]

Could not agree more ijontichy.
1024x768 absolutely sucks. Compare it to Conquest of the Aegean, the GUI should be a small percentage of desktop real estate compared to game map.
The elusive A.I.; yes make it tougher, more strategic, but keep the game as it is.
I can never understand the criticism of being 'too gamey', ...it's a game. If you want history; watch a documentary.
I don't see why CEAW should become a clone of TOAW III, if you want more geography, build in a map editor and start modding, the scale of the current game is plenty.
Bring in a nice clean scenario/ unit editor, to future proof this great game.
Leave out detailed diplomacy, and all the other bells and whistles. too many people want to turn these sort of games into civilization with hexes.