Kaunitz

Thanks for all the info so far, guys! So it seems as if my assessment about artillery was roughly right? Regarding guns (long barrel, high velocity) and howitzers (short barrel, low velocity), there would be differences in the firing angle and the explosive power. The angle is not portrayed in CM (both come in at a very steep angle). The angle matters as it would create dead ground that artillery can't reach (depending on the terrain and the distance and position/relative height at which the arty is firing), it would affect the chance to hit into trenches, and also it would determine the chance for riccochet fire (coming in at a very flat angle, shells with delay-fuses would bounce off the ground before exploding, resulting in a more effective air burst). We're unsure whether howitzer shells have a higher explosive power in CM compared to gun shells of the same calibre. Regarding the germans, I don't think that the scale is a real issue (batteries vs. battalions/Abteilungen). You can just buy more batteries to simulate a battalion. Would you really prefer not to have battery-strength "un-organic" (i.e. not including the infantry's regimental guns) artillery assets available during force selection? From this and the fortifications thread, I also take away that some people are of the opinion that artillery (and also indirectly firing mortars??) is too accurate and should not be allowed to fire "line" or "point" missions in WWII titles. It seems reasonable to me, but of course it should be backed up by actual data. The question of calibre size is also an interesting topic. The overall lack of fortifications makes larger calibres less worthwhile. Just a small example (from wikipedia): The StuG III's long-barreled 7.5cm gun fired shells containing 0.68 kg of explosives, while the StuH's (assault howitzer) short barreled 10.5cm howitzer fired shells containing 1.75kg explosives (shrapnel would be effective up to 10m to the front and 35m to the sides of the explosion). So the difference is much larger than the calibres suggest. The howitzer fired more than double the amount of explosives. Another aspect that needs to be pointed out: In reality, troops in proper defensive positions would seek shelter in their dugouts during artillery barrages and return to their fighting positions after the shelling. This is a kind of large scale suppression typically caused by the massed artillery rolling barrages that so often preceeded an attack, with the attacking infantry hoping to overcome the enemy's fighting positions before the enemy had even returned. It's not handled by the game's suppression mechanics, but by the player giving orders to move to and from the dugouts. The problem with this is that crew-served weapons cannot be "remounted" in CM for some reason. It has been pointed out several times already in another context (many people would like to have a "fire and immediately hide/flee to safety" option). As a result, the crews have the choice between taking shelter and effectively losing their weapon or staying and getting killed.

By the way, in case you haven't seen it, here is an interesting video on Soviet fortifications (starting at ca. 42:35): https://youtu.be/44KzYWq_3gw?t=2555

Apart from a lack of properly working fortifications, map design plays a large part here too. A realistic map offers lots of small options for cover. It's hard to model that on maps, as the smallest height increment at your disposal is 1 meter and it also affects the neighbouring tiles. What is more, quickbattle maps typically lack important features like road embankments and drainage or irrigation ditches. Also, most quickbattle maps (except urban environments, of course) are way too "dense" with very short lines of sight. Fighting is always happening at point blank range, at which modern weapon systems are an overkill.

I'm sorry but the main problem with trenches remains that they hardly provide any protection, especially against artillery. Also, as they protrude from the ground, they tend to "catch" direct fire HE shells which would otherwise pass harmlessly above a well placed trench (no wall/hill immediately behind it)? This is also where low velocity guns (infantry support tanks/howitzers) should have a slight edge over high velocity guns. The networks of fortifications you mention are impossible in CM quickbattles. All fortifications except for TRPs and wooden bunkers (all soft factors set to a minimum to reduce points - an oversight?) are horribly overprized. It is as if they have been deliberately taken out of the game. Why should I buy so many broken and overprized assets? While fortifications should cheaply funnel the opponent into your troops' kill zone, it's the other way round in CM: securing an area with a half-way functionable wire obstacle (1 line or wire + 1 line of mines; which is still less than what you would see in reality) costs more points than securing the same area with troops. To make fortifications (and related stuff, like engineers!) viable options in quickbattles, I think their point cost would be reduced to a third at minimum! Who buys an AT mine for 25 points that covers a single square (8x8m) and doesn't even trigger reliably?! It's a much better investment to spend the points of 3-4 mines (covered area: 24-32m - lol) on an anti tank gun. Generally speaking, I'd also like to point out that properly priced mines would also help to make H2H quickbattles less (anti)tank-dominated. Of course it's true that trenches should not be invincible against artillery. Especially mortars with their steep trajectories are dangerous for trenches. But I'd argue that the hit rate in the game is over the top. It would take more shells/longer to score hits into a trench. Here is a little diagram I've made for modern mortars: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/123157-improvement-suggestions/?do=findComment&comment=1763553 In his book "On Artillery", Gudmundsson quotes some interesting data from an article in the US. field artillery journal from 1916, which mainly helps to show how howitzers with their more arced trajectories were better at hitting into trenches. Of course it's hard to properly evaluate such tests (what is a "standard trench"?), but I haven't been able to find any other data on this topic. Generally speaking, I think the game would profit a lot if you actually had to suppress enemy positions and assault them, rather than sit it out while your FO calls pinpoint arty on them and knock them out. Also, you will never see infantry in trenches getting rolled over by tanks (letting the tanks "pass"), as it seems to have happened quite often on the Eastern Front. Instead, tanks are able to shell infantry in trenches into oblivion.

Thanks for the answer! I tested it and you're right! The Lloyd can tow the 6pdr (not the 17pdr though). The other carrier variants can't.

Bear with me. I know next to nothing about WWII artillery. But I was hoping that maybe someone here could help me understand a few things? From what I understand, the distinction between "howitzers" and "guns" was already becoming blurred during WWII. The difference is that howitzers fire at higher angles (curved trajectory) at lower velocities (shorter barrel), while guns fired at lower angles (flater trajectory) at higher velocities (longer barrel). This gave the gun a longer range (usefull for counter battery fire) at the cost that it could not hit enemy positions in defilade that well (because of the flat trajectory). This applies to larger scale obstacles (hills), but also to the smaller scale (hitting into trenches). Also, I've read that howitzer shells had more explosive power than similar calibre gun ammunition. Simply because gun shells needed a thicker case in order to bear the stress from being fired at higher velocities. So I was wondering if there is any difference in Combat Mission between howitzer and gun artillery? From what I can tell, both types use the same trajectory (the shells roughly come flying from the "friendly side" of the faction, which is set by the mapmaker). Do howitzer shells pack more punch than gun shells? Also, perhaps one type is more accurate than the other? What's your experience/opinion? Another interesting aspect is that WWII saw the rise of self propelled artillery. Obviously, the benefits are operational and/or related to counter-battery fire evasion and thus have no place in Combat Mission. But it seems as if sp. artillery formations often come with more ammunition? --------------------------------------- Last but not least, I also want to point out that assault guns/close support artillery (including the sp. artillery pieces that can be placed on map in CM) are in a bad spot in Combat Mission H2H quickbattles. Partly it's understandable, as it really was in a bad position and was adapted to fill a broader role during the war. Russian and German assault guns got their longer barreled guns to be usefull in the infantry support as well as the anti tank role. Nevertheless, traditional assault guns (e.g. StuHs) were used in the war. Currently, there is no incentive at all to pick these proper - howitzer armed - assault guns in H2H battles. I think they're in need of a price reduction. They're good at collapsing buildings and knocking out strong points (hardly anyone uses bunkers anyway...) and hitting enemy infantry. But the fact that they can't deal with enemy tanks makes them next to useless in H2H quickbattles. Reducing their cost may help? It's a pity that they are limited to scenarios. The same can be said for (manhandled/towed) infantry support guns and tanks, by the way. The H2H quickbattle is a very tank- and anti-tank heavy environment unless you agree on restrictions that usually include AGs/sp. artillery though. For this reason, I think that AGs (not including those that also act as tank destroyers) and sp. artillery should be much cheaper (compared to tanks). There are just so many vehicles you rarely ever see. This includes the early StuGs and later the StuHs, earlier SUs & ISUs, Sextons and Priests, Wespes and Hummels, StuPa/Brummbär, PzIIIN, Churchills - the coolest looking tank! , Howitzer Motor Carriages and also all sorts of flamethrower tanks, by the way! As their main use is against enemy infantry, they should be in a different, lower price category than tanks and anti tank guns. But maybe it's just up to the community to find new house rules for force composition. Limiting armored fighting vehicles or tracked vehicles is not the solution. Rather (or in addition to that) we'd need to limit the number of guns with AT capability (long barrel/high velocity), which naturally includes not just mounted guns (tanks etc), but also ordinary "infantry" ATGs.

Thanks for the feedback! I've deleted the bridge and instead made the road go over it. Looks much better now! You're right that the small river doesn't warrant a proper stone bridge. I will be reworking both the supposedly swampy areas. I'm not happy with them at all. This will also solve the field too close to swamp problem you mention. I can't see where my roads are overly steep though. Footpaths and minor dirt roads are okay if they're a bit steeper. My main roads are all adequatly "flat", I think? I've laid out the base plan of the little village: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g607gwomwvr84go/Vast_Valley_WIP.btt?dl=0 I think it's nice and also quite realistic that one row of houses is built "into" the hill. Buildings are clumped together to form rows (but I have to admit I think it was not that common in the area portrayed by my map...). The houses stand directly at the street, which makes the street seem quite narrow. The "downhill" houses have some garden areas (not fleshed out yet). There is a chapel (not really a parish church?) at the crossroads. I'm not sure if the village is large enough to warrant its own graveyard. The pastures for the cattle are "downwind". Please ignore the odd wall on the right. Also, the wood "behind" the village will be broken up a bit / less regularly shaped.

I checked and found that I'm using Ari's CM:FB terrain mod. Comparing my landscape with pictures of actual southern Belgium in autumn/winter, I'm not so happy about the "bland" very brownish look. But a modification that slightly changes color of the ordinary ground grass texture will work wonders (I just haven't figured out how I can keep the transparency of the "doodads" grass). What does the RHZ Movie Shader Tweak change? Does it apply only when I press Alt+M or does it alter the "normal mode" appearance? I've tried it but couldn't spot a huge difference. I'm a bit cautious with the movie mode tweaks as most of them just seem to increase the contrast between shadow and light areas, which is adequate for full summer sunshine heat conditions (--> Fortress Italy), but not for more diffused light conditions. thanks for taking a look! Yes, I also think the bridge is a bit unfortunate. There needs to be a bit more space between the crossroad and the bridge. The "turn radius" is too small. Do you have a particular example of the odd roads? I'd like to fix it. -------- I think I will stick to the idea of adding a village to the "axis" side of the map. There will be a wood springing forward from the hill in an L shape, which provides shelter for this village. In the latest version (not uploaded yet), I've paid even more attention to wind conditions and added more windbreaks. Here are some points I think I've learned so far concerning map-making. Maybe it will help other map-makers: Get your scale right; Use google maps street view. Check out how far you can see using the "measure distance" tool; In this particular case, I've gone to excess a little bit - the landscape in southern Belgium and Luxembourg is a bit more hilly/bumpy than my map suggests; but overall, it's still more realistic than most quick battle maps; Getting the overall distances right is important as spotting and weapon accuracy mechanics are based it. In particular, be carefull not to accidentially create dead ground when creating your hills; If there are even slight irregularities in the gradients of a slope (e.g. if you reduce height every 3 squares, then suddenly change it every second square), dead ground is created; Creating gentle slopes is not as easy as you might think. It's not safe to rely entirely on the automatic algorithm of the scenario editor (which fills in the height info between two points you've set) - it will create dead ground. See my post from 3rd November in this topic: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133505-thats-one-vast-valley-hard-edged-realistically-scaled-map/?do=findComment&comment=1768726 Pay attention to the „sharpness“ of your ridges. Sharp ridges create ambush situations (you can spot the opponent only when you're already very close to him). Again, it's a matter of how soft and gentle your slopes and hills are. Check out the real size of the footprint and the height of hills in the region you're trying to portray. It will tell you something about how soft or sharp your ridges should be. Most quickbattle maps feature hills that are too steep and small (--> hobbit shire landscape) which makes them perfect for ambushes at close range. Only place fences and walls where they actually serve a purpose. E.g. keeping cattle on a pasture. Keeping wild animals out (e.g. graveyard). A fence around a field of grain is rarely usefull... Pay attention to how large fields are in reality (again, google maps can help; you might consider how field sizes have changed historically, but this depends a lot on the region). E.g. fields in modern day south-eastern Ukraine (--> Black Sea) often have a length of 1-2km! That's basically a huge map that features nothing but one single field! Needless to say that these conditions give a different perspective on combat (even modern weapon systems will not create the total carnage you typically get on the tiny, dense maps). Fields on most quickbattle maps are by far too small. Fields follow slopes – when ploughing a field, you go paralell to the slope, not up and down. The same goes for the direction in which vines etc. are planted Wind is a factor: many landscapes are formed by considerations of wind/erosion. Hedges that you can see between fields serve as windbreakers. Houses and villages should also be placed somewhere where they're protected from wind (or have their own windbreakers - a treeline). On most hilltops, you will find woods, not fields. Wind might also have something to do with the famous bocage terrain in Normandy, or maybe even with high walls built around orchards (--> more sensitive fruit trees...?). So in general, I'd suggest you pick a wind direction and built the whole map around it. think how the features on your map would be protected from wind. Drainage. Especially if your map features hills, you should consider drainage. On a slope, water runs downhill and thus doesn‘t stay long enough to be soaked into the ground. So in most cases, hills will create little rivulets. Woods come in all shapes and forms. How old is the wood? Is it well groomed and fostered and used economically (like virtually 100% of the woods in Europe at that time) or is it a primeval wood? Based on that, woods can come in many varieties, with varying degrees of undergrowth and tree height and tree density. Some woods feature a "rising canopy of leafes" at their border (mostly "shelter belts" between fields), which should block all LOS into and out of the wood, others are more open. As usual, do consider the overall realistic size of woods. The size of the footprint of a wood matters a lot (a small wood can be saturated by artillery easily, a small wood is a "suspicious" position and dangerous even to FO teams)? You may also consider to add (tactically quite important) firebreaks to your wood. You could even consider to consider whether a hillside is north or south - the flora will differ slightly. [Note that the game's shadows are cast quite realistically respective to the cardinal directions; the direction and the length of the shadows will changed based on the date and time of your scenario! Even the sun will be visible correctly on the skydome] If your map is very mountainous, the aspect plays a big role. In central Europe, settlements would be found on the southern slope, woods on the northern slope of a mountain. For gentler hills, it's not such a big isse. Metalled roads, rails: are usually embanked/traced-out (especially on swampy terrain); this is an important feature as it provides infantry with some cover Keep the gradient of major roads and rails as low as possible. Roads follow the terrain. Be aware that the selection of the area has implications for gameplay. E.g. don‘t cut away "support positions" (hills/elevations in the "rear" area) carelessly. Some weapon systems ought to be employed at greater distances (tanks, ATGs, HMGs, etc). By cutting them away, you force these assets into close combat, which is not totally unrealistic, but still less plausible. Of course it raises the question of whether you build a map around a particular force-size or around the plausible employment of weapon-systems. Even a small force needs a large map if it features tanks and HMGs that should be deployed at their optimal range ... On the other hand, a small troop density on a large maps also raises some issues... Consider "reverse slope fiddlyness". Unfortunately, in order to spot (for arty) and/or area target a square, units need to be able to see its ground. This can create a variety of gameplay problems. E.g. in tall grass, even when your unit cen see "above" it without problems, if it cannot see the ground, then it cannot area-target. You can end up with very absurd situations in which a MG or even a large calibre gun cannot shoot over tall grass or through a lousy little wooden wicker fence (come on, you would be able to see the "splash" of a 75mm HE shell 1 meter above the ground!!). It also creates problem for calling in artillery fire. So I'd propose to give the attacker a slight hill – if you make him just fight uphill over reverse slopes, then he won‘t be able to call in arty unless he has TRPs. It‘s rather bad map design imho, as you'd need to warn players beforehand (take TRPs, otherwise you will not be able to call in arty). And in general, reverse slope fiddlyness makes you fight the game rather than your opponent. Some wiki-links to usefull map-creation topics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_(geography) // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windbreak // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebreak // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer_strip // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contour_plowing // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge

Nah, rarity is represented by ... rarity! (In case you don't know, there are rarity point costs, which are separate from ordinary point costs) The ordinary point costs ought to represent the actual game play "power" of the unit.

I also tested whether the map could be converted to CM:RT. Success. Black Sea and Normandy work too but need some minor adjustments. If you wonder how:

Latest screenies:

Minor update, mainly some work on the agricultural area: I added a ditches and hedges/windbreakers between the fields (crossing points for tanks not implemented yet). The agricultural area looks much more natural and organic. Should also make spotting much more interesting than the "vast open space" suggests and provides some cover for infantry. I still don't quite know what to do with the other side of the map. A village might be nice. And I will reconsider my approach to fleshing out woods (how many bumps in the ground? how many trees?) based on some gameplay tests. https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ye66l5xgdb3z4x/Vast_Valley_WIP.btt?dl=0

I hope John Kettler as the original author of the post is not mad at me if I continue to post tactically relevant stuff. I've come across this article that describes the german defensive setups in 1944 on the Eastern Front: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/trench-warfare-eastern-front.html I suppose most of you know about “The Lone Sentry”? Lots of interesting stuff can be found in the "Tactical and Technical Trends" series, published by the U.S. Military Intelligence Service in WWII from June 1942 to June 1945. http://www.lonesentry.com/intelbulletin/tt_trends.html And an interesting read for german defensive tactics on the Eastern Front until March 1943: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a187901.pdf (takes long to load)

Just a small update after a quick test. I do think that there is a tiny issue here: Units can be hidden to you behind dustclouds that you cannot see. The way I tested it: Set up a tank on dirt ground, very dry conditions. Let if fire its maingun and let one of your units observe. At first, the unit will see the tank. Once it starts firing, the tank begins to throw up durst. As your unit can see the tank, it can also see the dust created by it. At some point, the continous firing has raised up so much dust that your unit loses sight of the tank. From this moment on, your unit can longer see the dust created by the tank, because it has lost sight of the tank. And it can't see the tank, because of the (from now on invisible) dust.

I know, I know. That's why I've said that I've also left the more "crazy" ones in. Maybe not so crazy one and I'm sure it must have come up somewhere already: What about friendly fire? While the AI probably can't cope with it that well, it would add some interesting depth, i.e. complicate planning in a realistic way, for H2H battles. Some weapons could play their strengths (arced trajectory), other would show their weaknesses more and require more complicated plans --> infantry forced to leave fire corridors clear unless the support comes from an elevated position.

To be honest my only major gripe with the game is the lack of fortifications and the related over-the-top casualty rate of infantry and the tactical implications that come with it. That is assuming that the "let's leave this perfect cover during the artillery barrage" behaviour is considered a bug and will get fixed some day. My other gripe, map design, is up to me (and other mapmakers if they think the same) to change. Stricter fog of war would be nice to have, but the graphical effects (tracers, icons, bullet impacts) can be modded, as you've begun doing in your realism pack mod. Only sound-pinpointing remains a problem. But most players are gentleman enough that I'd trust them not to make any use of it. CM titles are still light years ahead of other games. I don't see any competition anywhere remotely close on the horizon. And I'm actually very happy with the game so that I don't really feel the need for competition. Most of the things listed here refer to rather minor problems. I'd say that improvement suggestions are proof of the passion and love that players have for CM. Love and frustration are always closely intertwined.

Okay, so I’ve made my last summary of this thread on 27th September here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/123157-improvement-suggestions/?do=findComment&comment=1763655 Since then, a lot of new suggestions were brought up by the community, so it’s time for another summary. Note that I try not to repeat anything from the old summary (fortifications, fortifications! ^^) and I’m not listing title-specific stuff that only applies to a single particular title. There is no particular order, no detailed reasoning - it's just a quick list. I also included the more radical/crazy ideas. Force selection/quick battle set-up Let us input the point budgets freely Scroll(wheel) function in force selection screen “random anything but night” option for daylight selection The ability to attach smaller formations to larger ones The ability to set all vehicles as either genuinely dismounted or as ammo dumps across all the games Aesthetical/graphical Fix the light/shadow issue where terrain has light/shadow on opposite sides of the shading for houses and troops. (especially occurring under dusk/dawn conditions?) More movie modes (although they don´t necessarily need having a movie style touch) from the ALT-M key combo. User Interface A wind direction indicator on the compass tooltip - Ground type is displayed alongside mouse pointer when plotting movement/fire orders. Further possible options from the ALT+I key combo could be "only show enemy AFV", "only show enemy ARTY" and similar when things on the map become somewhat confusing. Would be nice if they would let us toggle [the visual indicators of] all fire orders on/off like we can with movement orders. Would make it much easier to remember to stop area firing units. Gameplay/Aircraft Anti Aircraft: Some kind of indication (animation, onscreen message) whether you have shot down, damaged, forced away, or missed enemy aircraft. (MOS:96B2P has andwered that there is some kind of feedback) Aircraft shadow flying over the battlefield. Editor/map, scenario and campaign creation (also see Force Selection) Ability to import map states from saved games. Ability for map states to carry over to the next battle in the same campaign. Shortcut/functions Ctrl-S (save) & Ctrl-Z (undo) If/then triggers for the AI Random map generation Better interface for flavor objects Let us place minefields/foxholes/barbed wire etc. in the 2D view of the editor Let us lay out AI plans in the 3D view of the editor A script (or something) that allows a map designer to quickly create a ruined version his map. A brush tool that randomly assignes craters and damages buildings it goes over? Reserves arrive on map when position on map is reached. Opens up possibilities for designers both in terms of when friendly/enemy units arrive but also narratively like position reached = prisoners located. New Victory Condition - Objective Held/Taken within 'X' period of time. 32 Ai groups instead of only 16 Dynamic weather that can change during the course of a battle. (Pre-set by Scenario Designer). High chainlink fence. A fence you can see and shoot through but infanry can not climb over/move through. Ability to place dead soldiers on the map in the editor Treetrunks are too thick in general. Gameplay/vehicles Make vehicles take longer to fire off the first shot (a loading task prior to rotating/taking aim; linked to the issue that vehicle crews have magically pre-loaded the appropriate type of round for their target) Functional fire-ports, crews should be able to toss hand grenades out of slits etc. Tank-riders should be allowed to area-target “directionally”, i.e. not aim at a fixed point but instead fire in a certain aspect/direction (that stays the same while the vehicle moves). Gameplay/soldier behaviour Have infantry stay on one side of a low wall when running along it. Right now, they jump back and forth over it. Also often affects hedges etc. infantry behaviour under any kind of shelling (even if in perfect cover, units decide to leave their cover to run around in the open and get killed like headless chicken) - this really is a major issue Squads should stay within say 3x Action Spots max (1x Action-Spot per Team), and not spread out half-dozen Action Spots when moving Gameplay/LOS related A visual display/overlay of the LOS map in-game, so that you can tell which spots can be seen from this spot, unambiguously. Improved line of sight so the squads see through the woods exactly what the player can see from the same spot would be great to have. And improved line of fire so the squads can shoot at what they see even if they are further into the woods. Gameplay/new features & commands Road/formation following Fires Un-acquire command Ability to sync up commands between units. For example - Unit Y does not try to complete waypoint A, until Unit Z reaches waypoint B. Off map support - "Repeat last mission" option for off map artillery and mortars. ROE-toggle for units: fire-at-will, return fire and hold fire 'checkbox' that could be ticked when placing any kind movement order wich would instruct the selected unit to NOT halt at the waypoint but rather move straight through to the next one Cellars, staircases Camouflage for vehicles, guns, men, fortifications Another speed mode [i.e. movement order], called mixed speed or jinking via a colored line armor or soldiers can do it, should throw the AT gunners aim off nicely. Crouched run. Some way of moving faster than the crawl while keeping a relatively low profile. A new target order exclusively for throwing grenades (while staying prone/in cover, if possible). An easier way (requiring fewer clicks) to make soldiers stay prone but NOT withhold their fire. for improved fortifications, esp. bunkers: shutters (might work similar to open up/button up orders for vehicles) Gameplay/general The assignment of soldiers to “split” units: The binocular-equipped squad leader should rather stay with the MG/gun group rather than with the rifle/assault group. Assault-orders: the gun group should be doing the overwatch. If only one unit sees incoming enemy fire, and that unit gets destroyed during the turn, then those enemy bullets/shells should not be visible to the player during turn playback. make tank commanders other people sticking out of vehicles harder to hit while vehicle are on the move, The crew of a tank or halftrack should be able to operate any vehicle of the same kind (tank for tank crew and halftracks for halftrack crew) Any crew or squad unit should be able to drive a lorry. Smaller = more action spots: The square areas where to move units (men and technical equipment) could be smaller as a way to have more variation in where to position them Ability to use destroyed buildings as concealment for vehicles and guns while waiting for enemy vehicles and troops to come close enough. Other “Achievements”: For battles and campaigns a way to determine if you beat it or not a check mark or dot and for which side. Locking the cam to friendlies in first person view, as well as an automatic zoom (6x) for units having a binoc with just one key press. Maybe adding a special view for AFV gunners would be equally nice. This is to enable seeing of what you´d see in real life, without having a free flight cam or any the view modes above 1 to your avail in the game. To ease movement plotting in such a mode I´d add the same time sort of bitmap map layer (similar or equal to the one loadable in map editor) covering the real 3D terrain, but let you use any the view modes (1-9), inluding free flight./// Would be nice if such a mode could be enforced by a scenario maker, maybe with the addition of a bonus to victory points. Sound improvements fog of war improvements: no tracers option, no sound-pin-pointing of units, option to disable enemy icons completely, no fire impact effects (tiny fires, explosions when bullets hit trees, splashes of dirt when they hit the ground, etc) generated by the fire of unspotted units contacts shared via C2 are never updated ( http://community.battlefront.com/topic/126539-test-indicates-c2-contact-sharing-is-broken-when-enemy-moves/?tab=comments#comment-1739798 )

I'm aware that weapons will sound very differently depending on the "atmospheric" situation (humidity, echo, etc). However, that does not change my opinion that the stock sounds are rather "meh" and there is a reason why practically every CM game found on youtube uses a soundmod. And as mentioned, it would be nice if - in a future new engine - there were at least a "close to camera" and a "distant to camera" (cutting down the higher frequencies a bit?) sound for a shot/explosion.

UUh. I've never paid attention to it either. Nice.

But apparently there were people who lived in the same time under the same circumstances who decided differently. Also, being in the Waffen-Schutzstaffel is not the same as being in the Wehrmacht. I'm not saying it was easy. But I don't buy the "You cannot judge anyone other than yourself, as you can't possibly understand their situation" argument. It's a killer argument that relativizes everything until it evaporates. I do think that people are alike and can empathize. Else how could our society judge any criminal?

I largely agree with RockinHarry. Some (mostly young and/or undeducated) people are naive, uncritical and easily manipulated because they don't know it any better. But then there are others who should know it better and still stick to/work for (even if they don't believe in it) whatever ideology/set of belief makes them feel better, give them self-esteem or any other material or social benefit. Depending on which ideology they adhere to, and how much they're really prepared to act on its principles*, the results can be what I'd describe as "evil". What's evil? Incompatible with natural law, live and let live, and some basic "liberal" standards (this is the ideology I worship, this is my standard). I guess it largely depends on the freedom that these ideologies give to the individual. Some ideologies - including the NSDAP's (--> "Lebensraum") - are just inherently evil in this respect. Worst of all, of course, are those people who deliberately propagate such ideologies and take special proud in it. If many people turn a blind eye on or actively stick to such an ideology, thoughts can turn into actions at some point. Regarding changing one's mind, I think it's a matter of "giving up" (if I give up this ideology, I give up parts of my self-esteem and something that makes me special in the eyes of others) and "mental lazyness" (I don't care if what I think can be proven wrong, or has logical flaws, --> cognitive dissonance). Neither of these two points are a valid excuse in my opinion. I don't know whether these "decisions" are made subconsciously. I doubt it. To me, the strange smirk of the interviewee was a tell-tale sign that he was enjoying his being "special", "shocking". Take that away from him and he'd just be an old man. So many evils come from the desire of admiration. Ideologies create admiration in many ways and forms (all ideologies have their martyrs). You don't kill (primarily/exclusively?) because your want him dead. You also kill because you want everyone to see you kill. * When it comes to actual behaviour, the psychology and the situational factors come into play too. Just take a look at the famous Milgram experiment which allied psychologists conducted to understand Nazi-ism (the "authoritarian personality").

Regarding sounds, it would be nice if the devs could include sound in the "fog of war". I.e. if you have no contact on a unit at all, you should not be allowed to hear its fire sounds and pinpoint the location of otherwise hidden enemy units very accurately just by listening (because the volume of the firing sound decreases very quickly over distance, so you just need to figure out where the sound is the loudest). I suppose that this sound-pinpointing is unintended? It could be fixed elegantly if the volume of the sounds would stay at maximum for a longer distance from its source, so that players could only locate the origin of the fire sounds more roughly ("MG fire is coming from this village!" NOT: "MG fire is coming from this house!").

You seem to know much more about this "audio stuff" than me. I think you're right that it may be caused by the sound effects being played so close to each other (just miliseconds). I will try to add variations of the sound. Oddly enough, for the affected weapons, none of the common sound mod features more than one variations; so I'm in doubt as to whether they will work... You're also right that shorter sounds are necessary for high rate of fire weapons. Unfortunately, this means you have to accept some inconsistency if you're using longer sounds for shots of weapons of a slower rate of fire (e.g. rifles), as most sound mods do (their bullet shot sounds include some reverb/"echo" of the shot). So a rifle shot will have a nice reverb, while a MG shot will not. Playing completely without reverb is no option for me. Then again, I've just recently discovered the "shot trail" files which seem to simulate the reverb of shots and are not used by any sound mod out there. I need to pay more attention when they're triggered. Maybe they would do a fine job (so that the shot and the reverb sounds can stay in separate files) but are just too silent?

Bursts of 1-2 belts? All I can say is that the volume of fire delivered by 2 obliquely cross-firing HMGs in the game is high enough to force enemy units to the ground consistently. If you have just one MG, wire obstacles might help, but I admit they are incredibly overprized in quickbattles. Once the enemy is down, he might crawl backwards or forwards. Hit him with indirect fires. Again, while the HMG unit's "aim" task are very short even at longer distances, the rate of fire can be modified by bringing the area-target aimpoint closer to the gun (and vice versa). A high accuracy is not ideal for fixed line firing as very accurate fire could be "jumped over" and evaded by the enemy more easily. Here, too, in some situations you might be lucky enough to be able to influence the "spread" of the MGs shots by shifting the aimpoint closer (more spread) or farther away (less spead) --> see diagram. But in most cases, shifting the aimpoint makes your fire go too high (no grazing) or fall too short, so you don't get that choice. (Note that individual bursts, not individual shots, will be aimed at different points within the area-targeted action square) I'd love if the defender was allowed to "modify" the map a bit. E.g. breaking holes through house walls, altering the layout of the windows (to simulate blocked windows, etc), removing some trees/bushes/parts of walls to improve his fields of fire, etc. I also wonder whether it would be a good idea to automatically include a (organical/cheap) target reference point when you buy a mortar squad/artillery battery.