InsanePerson42

I just played this mission in the demo. When the Italians were coming at me I felt invincible, I was slaughtering them. And then I started to lose the moment the Germans arrived. It really gives you a feel for the difference between the German and Italian armies.

Ditto. But I don't think you will ever find a person who would disagree with that. I'm sure everyone who works for battlefront would love to put in visible air support too(I realize it's not good tact to speak for people you don't know, but this seems pretty universal). But battlefront is a very small company with few resources, so they needed to abstract a few things. If you're willing to sacrifice a bit of ground realism I recommend the Theatre of War series. They do an excellent job on air support, and anti-air ground fire.

I figure the way to do it is have the operational level be turn based(probably essential). Each turn would represent 1 hour, and would be simultaneous move(wego). When opposing forces meet the game would zoom down to tactical level(like the Total War games). Each engagement on the tactical level would last for no longer than one hour(to match the operational level turns). If the engagement is not decided in that one hour it will be resumed next turn. YES!! I have frequently found myself wishing I had better ability to direct suppressing fire. They should certainly add that to the next CM engine. It really would be very useful to be able to order suppressing fire along a linear or area target like you can with artillery.

I was actually thinking a dedicated medic unit would be the ideal way to do it. I know for a fact that there was casualty evacuation in WW2, but it makes sense that it may not have been the first priority of the combat troops. These days the rule is "never leave a man behind". Having never served in the armed forces I can't really say much on modern procedure, but I guess they will teach me that soon enough. I just passed the ASVAB(97%!!) and physical, all that is left is to pick a job, swear in, and wait to get sent off to basic. That last bit isn't really relevant to anything, I just feel like I need to tell everyone whether I know them or not.

Okay. I'm having a thought here. normannobrot- I like your idea of combining the strategic level and the tactical level(have you played the Total War games by any chance?) but I think it might work best to bring it a level down. Combine the operational level and the tactical level. By having larger armies marching around on an operational map dozens of kilometers in all directions that makes room for c3k's fuel levels. Add in a few more logistics on top of that even. Keep the ammo limitations of Combat Mission, in addition require supplies of food(effecting the troops fitness in battle). Maybe troops can even rest on the operational map, and if they don't get enough rest that will also effect their fitness in battle. The player needs to be careful to keep supply routes open, and has a certain amount of control over reinforcements. The players also has control over which units get priority for air and artillery support. Of course this would bring up a serious problem when you get to the battles. Mainly that you cannot have scripted AI plans tailored to an individual scenario, because you have no idea where the AI troops will be or with what kind of force. But I think there is a solution. Having read many WW2 field manuals I think it might be possible to program an AI to follow real "by the book" military tactics, straight out of the field manuals. The problem with this is that real armies don't always fight "by the book", so it is not a perfect solution. But I think it would be a real step forward. Wherever possible it would be best to substitute "by the book" tactics with known common practice. The important thing is that it can be broken down into boolean logic for the computer. I wonder if it might be possible to program an AI to use OCOKA?

That is true. Perhaps combining the strategic and the tactical in a realistic way would be a bit much. The player would simply have to fight far too many battles and would start to get bored(we are talking thousands of individual engagements). It would still be pretty damn cool if someone were to figure out how to make it work. It might work to go one level lower though, combine the operational and the tactical. Edit: Of course the idea here is to post interesting ideas without regard to whether it would actually be practical to implement them. The theory is that a totally free flow of ideas increases the chances of coming across truly creative and ingenious ideas. Even impractical or even impossible ideas may have elements within them that could prove valuable.

(operational) + (tactical) Command ops + Combat Mission! (strategic) + (operational) + (tactical) or Hearts or Iron 3 + Command Ops + Combat Mission!!......might be a bit much, but it would be awesome anyway! Would be nice to be able to participate in the grander operation surrounding the engagements, but still be able to fight the engagements themselves. Sort of a Total War series thing, but far more realistic.

I think the idea is that AI unit groups would have planned paths along which they would retreat. They would make use of these retreat paths if some condition was met(they take too many casualties, moral gets too low, the enemy has more than ?/1 fire superiority). Of course it's not my idea, so it is entirely possible that I am misinterpreting it. But I think (is someone were to figure out how to implement it) it could really enhance realism.

True. I don't really like the King Tiger anyway. You can never get your hands on very many of them. And they aren't that much better than Panthers anyway. Think about it, their capabilities vs allied vehicles are only slightly better than those of Panther tanks. King Tiger- Invulnerable to any allied ATG from the front, but screwed if the allies take it from the flank(although it might take a couple shots, the crew still won't react fast enough to save the vehicle). Can kill any allied vehicle with one shot. Panther- Invulnerable to any allied ATG from the front(except the 76 mm at close range). Screwed if the allies take it from the flank. Can kill most allied vehicles with one shot, sometimes it takes two. The real difference is that there are way more Panthers than there are Tigers. I find I can do much more damage with two Panthers than I can with only one Tiger. Edit: I realize I went off topic in my own thread. Just venting my rage over being unable to keep my King Tiger alive in the Kamfgruppe Engel campaign

I have this problem on occasion as well. I assume it's because I'm usually attacking and therefore my units have not observed the terrain as thoroughly. I find(if I know where the enemy tank is, and have LOS) that it often works to simply give my tank and area target command on the location I know is occupied by an enemy tank. This is naturally less effective than if my tank could actually see the SOB, but it is a useful stopgap.

That would be cool. And I think it should be possible. Maybe it could be done by measuring levels of fire superiority. There must be some way to do that. I remember reading in some WW2 field manuals(as well as Jeffrey Pauldings CMBN tactics video series) the necessity for fire superiority in order for an attacker to advance. It is frequently advised that you retreat and relocate if you lose fire superiority. I think Umpire manuals(umpire in this case being someone who directs the course of training exercises) would be especially helpful for a game designer trying to determine when the AI should advance, when it should be halted, and when it should retreat. I quote from the 1942 U.S. Umpire manual. Bottom of page 7 (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM105-5.pdf) "An infantry element or any element acting as infantry should be permitted to advance only when it has decisive superiority of fire as compared with the elements immediatly opposing it. This superiority never should be less than 2 to 1, and generally should be 3 or 4 to 1. If the defender has good cover and field of fire, or it the attacker has little cover, there should be no hesitation in requiring a superiority of 5 to 1, or even more."

This thread is for things that people think would be really awesome if they were to be included in a realistic wargame engine like that of the CM series. If you're really thinking outside the box then most of you're ideas should be wildly impractical or downright impossible with the current engine or technology. But maybe someone will pick up on some of these ideas and make a game engine that is more realistic for it. So here is my first thought. I think a really cool next step in realism is to require the player to evacuate casualties from the battlefield(instead of the current system where they simply disappear). That would create new tactical challenges, and you get another kind of casualty if you can't evacuate your wounded(wounded POW's). This would make certain vehicles(like humvees and transport helicopters) far more useful than they currently are to modern gamers. In addition, I have been given to understand that the first few minutes to an hour are the most critical for many battlefield injuries. So realistically, the longer a player takes to get first aid to a wounded soldier, the less likely that soldier will survive. Feel free to post any idea you have that you think would be cool if it was part of a realistic wargame engine. Or feel free to comment on any ideas that are already posted.

I wish that combat mission had dedicated medics. Units who are poorly armed but better at rendering aid. It would be nice to be able to attend to my casualties as quickly as possible without reducing the combat capabilities of my forward units.

I often like to give my tanks area targets at AFV's they haven't spotted if I know one is there(some other unit spots it). This does of course depend on my tank having LOS though.

ok, I have a few points to make First, Its a tactical wargame, not a political message! Who is there to offend? As long as the game doesn't take sides or portray either side as "the good guys" who is going to be offended? Set the game in any conflict you like, with any set of opposing forces. As long as both sides are fairly and accurately represented and have playable campaigns I don't think there is any reason to worry about offending people. Take Vietnam(or the Second Indochina War) as an example(I realize that CM might never go to Vietnam, its just an example). American players would enjoy the game because it allows them to relive the bloodiest war for the U.S. since WW2. Vietnamese players would enjoy the game because it allows them to relive part of their (very, very bloody) struggle for independence. As for certain red forces being "too easy" to defeat, CMSF had a unique solution to that problem. Set higher objectives! Once winning is certain you start to think about doing so as elegantly and efficiently as possible. A fight can still be a challenge even if your enemy has 0 chance of winning. The difference is you have higher performance expectations. Not only do you have to win, you have to win with very few casualties and little to no collateral damage. There are scenario's in CMSF in which the blueforce must keep its casualties at below 5%! I am constantly increasing my performance expectations as I get better, the result is that CMSF remains as challenging for me today as the day I bought it. The goal of course is always the perfect mission(all objectives achieved, 0 friendly casualties, 100% enemy casualties or surrender, no collateral damage) but that still remains out of reach for me most of the time. Also, the red force remains playable by simply setting lower performance expectations. Can't defeat the enemy? well do what damage you can and try to keep some of your forces intact. But that may be irrelevant because if your NATO equipment is CONTEMPORARY with the Soviet equipment you're facing, and the Soviet equipped troops are up to Soviet training levels, and are following competent tactical doctrine, the fight will be anything but a walkover for NATO.