Improvement suggestions

[A Canadian Cat]

37 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

And, on top of the above, we see turrets just swing around and shoot within a second or so as if there is no Aiming or Targeting Cycle, etc

Basically, If BF just slows down the actual whole process a little from time it takes to spot, round in chamber, Aim, and fire, then it would seem more realistic.

Quoting your self - cool

When you compare the difference between CMBN and CMBS there is clearly a large difference. The modern tanks have a much faster turret traverse and targeting cycle. This is clearly modelled in the game.

[Kaunitz]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

Quoting your self - cool

When you compare the difference between CMBN and CMBS there is clearly a large difference. The modern tanks have a much faster turret traverse and targeting cycle. This is clearly modelled in the game.

It's even very detailed within each title. For example, in my last H2H game (Final Blitzkrieg), I deployed a Panzer IV, Ausf. J (early). I checked it out on wikipedia and read that it's turret had to be traversed manually. I quickly fired up the editor and compared it with other tanks and indeed its turret was traversing much slowlier!  

The question is whether the whole targeting process is just a tick too fast generally speaking. But I believe that this impression is more related to the relatively short distances on most maps (the quickbattle ones - the scenario maps are often scaled more realistically). Afaik, the time spent on the action "aiming" depends (amongst other factors) on the distance to the target. If you fire over longer ranges, the time taken to aim increases. I should make some tests... (*adds item nr. 1523 to his list*)

Edited October 5, 2018 by Kaunitz

[JoMac]

51 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

It's even very detailed within each title. For example, in my last H2H game (Final Blitzkrieg), I deployed a Panzer IV, Ausf. J (early). I checked it out on wikipedia and read that it's turret had to be traversed manually. I quickly fired up the editor and compared it with other tanks and indeed its turret was traversing much slowlier!  

The question is whether the whole targeting process is just a tick too fast generally speaking. But I believe that this impression is more related to the relatively short distances on most maps (the quickbattle ones - the scenario maps are often scaled more realistically). Afaik, the time spent on the action "aiming" depends (amongst other factors) on the distance to the target. If you fire over longer ranges, the time taken to aim increases. I should make some tests... (*adds item nr. 1523 to his list*)

Yes, CM does model all kinds of those cool things for such Vehicles as the PZIVH vs J Turret Traverse System, etc, etc...However, I think the Targeting is a bit too quick and should be toned-down (maybe up to an additional Action Phase).

I see this in all my games, and You tube Vids with one example; Panther moving up the Road, Stops, Spots, Targets, then Fires at a Sherman a few hundred yards away all in 1-2 Secs Flat...I don't think the Panther even had time to fully Stop (tank was still rocking back-n-forth) when the Round was fired hitting the Sherman.

I have to use 'Conscripts' (maybe, maybe 'Green' with low modifiers) to at least come close to what I think it should be for WWII...Let alone any Moral higher.

Yeah, I know and I was talking about this ever since I started playing CMBN a few yrs ago, but here we are.

Anyways, just my 3 cents.

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by JoMc67

[Bulletpoint]

On 10/4/2018 at 8:08 AM, Ithikial_AU said:

- Fire. Understand some earlier statements from BF around the fear of it being abused by players (area denial) but it's still a tactical problem on battlefields.

In Northern Europe, we don't really have wildfires, because even in summer, the vegetation is usually not dry enough.

If implemented in the game, fires should only be able to spread rapidly if conditions are set to extremely dry. And even then, it still does take some time for fire to spread (and wind speed and direction are very important...)

So, in short, fire would only be a real problem in very few scenarios with special conditions.

But I can live without landscape fires in Combat Mission. What I really want to see is that flamethrowers should set houses and bunkers alight. it should take quite a long time for a building to burn out completely. It shouldn't just go up like a match.

[Kaunitz]

 

20 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Yes, CM does model all kinds of those cool things for such Vehicles as the PZIVH vs J Turret Traverse System, etc, etc...However, I think the Targeting is a bit too quick and should be toned-down (maybe up to an additional Action Phase).

I see this in all my games, and You tube Vids with one example; Panther moving up the Road, Stops, Spots, Targets, then Fires at a Sherman a few hundred yards away all in 1-2 Secs Flat...I don't think the Panther even had time to fully Stop (tank was still rocking back-n-forth) when the Round was fired hitting the Sherman.

I have to use 'Conscripts' (maybe, maybe 'Green' with low modifiers) to at least come close to what I think it should be for WWII...Let alone any Moral higher.

Yeah, I know and I was talking about this ever since I started playing CMBN a few yrs ago, but here we are.

Anyways, just my 3 cents.

 

I share the impression that accuracy and speed of target acquisition might be too high right now. But, lacking any real data, it's hard to verify my gut feeling. (Well, this video, which is without any doubt based on high number of very sophisticated and highly representative scientific studies ( ), claims that the average first shot hit rate for Shermans at 1.500m was 5%: https://youtu.be/7uc-wTlD-_U?t=164  )

Apart from the "realism" issue, one would also need to consider the effects on gameplay. Right now, with very high quality (fast, accurate) tanks, spotting/the first shot is often decisive. If you tone down quality, quantity will probably play a greater role. Also, cover for tanks might work much better - right now, hulldown or not doesn't seem to matter that much at the typical engagement ranges - turrets are hit with deadly accuracy...

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Kaunitz

[JoMac]

Yeah, that's my feeling as well, and toning down the Quality of Crews (and Soft Factors) will at least help a little of what I think the overall Tactical Armor Combat should be like on a turn-by-turn basis...

The above will help alleviate a little for such things like:

- The use of 'Hunt,' that generally almost automagically spot enemy Units at first glance, Stop, Fire.

- When an Armor Unit suddenly Stops & Fires, it seems the First Round is considered Stationary Fire...as if it's no different then an Armor Unit that has been stopped for a whole turn, ready to fire.

- Round is automagically in chamber, but that Round can fire HE or AP depending of circumstances in an instant.

- There seems to be no Delay in between when a round is loaded and when it's fired (round may load fairly quickly, but gunner still has to take some time to adjust his aim in order to get a bonus for consecutive rounds fired at same target. 

- WEGO vs Turn-based feels like to complete different games (I only play WEGO)...At least in Real-Time, you can pause and execute new orders on a whim to combat any situation...However, in WEGO you are at mercy of a complete minute.

This is why I only use Poor Quality Armor, and try and force myself to only engage enemy at 2nd half of turn...This way, I can reverse out of danger the first second of next turn and less likely to loose more Armor (it turns out the unrealistic instant automatic move order each turn, or AI reverse from danger, is what helps in many situations).

This seems to be the only way to truly get rid of that 'MAD MINUTE' that has plagued CM for years. 

Thou, I'm sure CM tries to get close as realistic as possible within the constraints of a Game System, but if just toned down abit...I have always said to myself, One Minute in CM equals about 2-2.5 minutes of RL Combat.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by JoMc67

[sburke]

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 6:54 AM, Mord said:

That's a bad argument by them. And so what if people do? Players can still hug the map edge,  jeep rush, sound recon etc. People that use exploits are going to exploit no matter what is done. Buildings should be able to burn, fires should start and stay lit not just fizzle for five seconds (like they do now). The ground work has been laid it just needs to be followed through on. And I am not not so much interested in the fires that are purposely started than I am the ones that are accidental, like firing a bazooka in a small building, or tracers setting off a patch of dried grass, or a brewed up tank catching some trees on fire.  They could code it in a way so as to keep terrain from going up all the time, or it spreading too much. But in the least buildings should catch, and the little fires shouldn't wink out so quickly. It's one of those features I waited a really long time for and when it finally came it was anemic and mediocre.

 

Mord.

On the one hand I totally agree.  I'd love to see some more effects like this.  On the other hand fire is one more thing for the engine to track and the number of battles I know of that discussed fire spreading and being an issue or noting an AT weapon causing units to displace because it inadvertently caused a fire is well.. pretty much nil.  In the end it becomes icing on the cake.  Yeah the icing is nice, but at what cost in terms of engine and graphics is I think the real heart of the issue for BF.  How much do they spend on coding for icing if it impacts the number of folks who can run it on a current rig.  I'm not saying I know that it will, just that those may be concerns on their part.  Personally I'd love buildings that are burning to be part of the look and feel of urban fights.  They could just be smoldering ruins inaccessible to the player and they would be cool as hell.

[Blazing 88's]

In regards to the title of the thread....   Backtrack the timeline for CM WWII to include North Africa, Barbarossa, France 40.  That would be fantastic and the best improvement I could ever want for CM...

Edited October 6, 2018 by Blazing 88's

[Warts 'n' all]

7 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

This seems to be the only way to truly get rid of that 'MAD MINUTE' that has plagued CM for years. 

 

And there was thinking that the "MAD MINUTE" was what CM was all about.

[Mord]

10 hours ago, sburke said:

hey could just be smoldering ruins inaccessible to the player and they would be cool as hell.

LOL. Don't get me started on the diet rubble! I am still irritated they improved it over SF1. It was the one graphic that was better than what was introduced in BN and the new engine. But yeah, I want to see more fire! We need some new upgrades in the graphics department to freshen up the game.  Animations etc.

 

Mord.

[Sequoia]

I may be totally wrong but I think just leaving fire outside as it is but having buildings with bigger flames that don't spread might be easier to code. Such a half way measure may not satisfy every one but as long as you have the ability to catch fire to buildings that didn't start the scenario on fire with flame weapons  most players would be satisfied I would think.

[Kaunitz]

On 9/27/2018 at 3:28 PM, Mord said:

If you could draw a line (like we can with arty and mortars) that would be the optimal solution. Call it "Target Line" or something to that effect. Then MGs could sweep from point to point along the line. As far as rifle squads go, they already have the ability to shoot in as many directions as they have men so I don't think it would be outside their ability. Each man would fire at an interval along the line or something.

 

Mord.

On the topic of some weapons being handicapped by the fact that you can fire only at a single area-target per turn (1 minute!) and waypoint: 

There are several ways it could be done. Either by allowing players to chain together several "target briefly" orders without the need to set up a separate waypoint for each order. The target line you're suggesting would also be a solution, but my suspicion is that it is a big deviation from the way we're used to play the game now (drawing lines is reserved for arty missions). Also, I would not see it as a means for riflemen. Only the weapons which aresupposed to provide covering fire should be affected (MGs, HE autocannon in modern titles). 

One solution would be to spread out the suppressive effect of the related weapons around the actual target square a bit more. So that, for example, when you have your MG fire at one square, 1-2 adjacent squares on each side would be affected as well. This would be an abstraction, of course, representing that the MG (whose beaten zone otherwise only has a width of 1-4m, depending on range) sprays left and right a bit. And it would prevent the weapon from firing at two completely separate targets (which would be strange). But range is a problem (at greater ranges, the effect should be smaller?).

In general, I really think that this is a relatively big issue. It's a problem generated by the difference between the scale of time/reaction (intervall = 1 minute), scale of space which determines target size (8x8m) and weapon capabilities. In the end, many weapons cannot perform as well as they probably would in reality. While the weapons' goal is to suppress a relatively large area, what they do is that they overkill a small area. This particularly handicaps the attack, simply because you need more weapons to assault (keep the enemy suppressed) even in a  tiny sector. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Kaunitz

[domfluff]

 

Quote

when you have your MG fire at one square, 1-2 adjacent squares on each side would be affected as well. 

I'm pretty certain that already happens, and not just with HE. The effect seems to be lessened in adjacent squares, but I'm sure there's a spread of suppression effect.

You're quite right about the fidelity though - designing a game system is a compromise, and anywhere you draw these lines will have these issues - there's a reasonable argument to make that one minute turns and 8m action spots are not sufficiently granular to depict the kind of thing that CM is designed for. Obviously changing that would come with significant trade-offs, and any other level of fidelity would come with it's own compromises. In practice, CM is more than good enough, but since this thread is spitballing improvements, your comments are no less valid.

[Bulletpoint]

Would be nice if they would let us toggle all fire orders on/off like we can with movement orders. Would make it much easier to remember to stop area firing units.

[rocketman]

31 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Would be nice if they would let us toggle all fire orders on/off like we can with movement orders. Would make it much easier to remember to stop area firing units.

I like this idea. I often forget and waste ammo

Edited October 9, 2018 by rocketman

[A Canadian Cat]

44 minutes ago, rocketman said:

I like this idea. I often forget and waste ammo

And or suppress your own men.

[domfluff]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Would be nice if they would let us toggle all fire orders on/off like we can with movement orders. Would make it much easier to remember to stop area firing units.

You could just assign "Clear Target" to a keystroke?

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean - you're talking about visibility, not function.

Edited October 9, 2018 by domfluff

[DerKommissar]

One thing I did like from Men of War is how easy it was to toggle rules of engagement.

There's one button that lets you toggle between fire-at-will, return fire and hold fire. The button also shows the current rules of engagement and changes when it is clicked.

3 modes -- one button.

Or they can be just added like modifiers to waypoints, working much like OPEN UP. You can see which one is pressed, and therefore, your current ROE for your units.

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Would be nice if they would let us toggle all fire orders on/off like we can with movement orders. Would make it much easier to remember to stop area firing units.

As I recall, this was a feature of CM1. When it was turned on, combined with borg spotting, the map could get pretty cluttered at times.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

As I recall, this was a feature of CM1. When it was turned on, combined with borg spotting, the map could get pretty cluttered at times.

Michael

I think you're mixing it up with lines showing who is firing at whom. I'm talking about lines showing where the player has manually ordered a unit to fire.

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think you're mixing it up with lines showing who is firing at whom.

If you are a "ferner", am impressed with your English grammar.   

I had to look up the rules LOL:

"Where things get really messy is in statements in which the object or subject status of the pronoun is not immediately obvious. Example: “The police gave tickets to whoever had parked in front of the fire hydrant.” The object of the preposition “to” is the entire noun clause, “whoever had parked in front of the fire hydrant,” but “whoever” is the subject of that clause, the subject of the verb “had parked.” Here’s a case where the temptation to use “whomever” should be resisted."

[Zveroboy1]

17 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

This particularly handicaps the attack, simply because you need more weapons to assault (keep the enemy suppressed) even in a  tiny sector. 

This is interesting because for me, it is the complete opposite.

I find that compared to CM1, the whole paradigm has shifted and the offence is now too strong compared to the defence.

I could probably develop this if I had more time but I think even if you assume one CM turn is a abstraction and lasts more than a real time minute, kills still happen too fast and the defence is too weak. It is probably caused by several factors, such as the inadequate fortifications, the decreased stealth of shooters, the toned down morale effects (pinned down could last several turns) the disappearance of special leader bonuses that CM1 had. While it could be argued that the last two elements worked both ways and affected the attacker as well as the defender, in practice, it was a lot harder to attack an entrenched position before than it is now. A squad in a trench or a line of foxholes supported by a +1 or +2 morale leader last a lot longer than it does now.

Maybe CM1 favoured the defence too much and it is also possible that CM2 is less frustrating and more fun to play. That's an entirely different matter. However for me, if anything has to be done, it is to improve the defence and tone down the lethality of weapons, not increase it.

[JoMac]

4 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

This is interesting because for me, it is the complete opposite.

I find that compared to CM1, the whole paradigm has shifted and the offence is now too strong compared to the defence.

I could probably develop this if I had more time but I think even if you assume one CM turn is a abstraction and lasts more than a real time minute, kills still happen too fast and the defence is too weak. It is probably caused by several factors, such as the inadequate fortifications, the decreased stealth of shooters, the toned down morale effects (pinned down could last several turns) the disappearance of special leader bonuses that CM1 had. While it could be argued that the last two elements worked both ways and affected the attacker as well as the defender, in practice, it was a lot harder to attack an entrenched position before than it is now. A squad in a trench or a line of foxholes supported by a +1 or +2 morale leader last a lot longer than it does now.

Maybe CM1 favoured the defence too much and it is also possible that CM2 is less frustrating and more fun to play. That's an entirely different matter. However for me, if anything has to be done, it is to improve the defence and tone down the lethality of weapons, not increase it.

Who are you, Zboy1, and what have you done with JoMc67 :-)

[Kaunitz]

6 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

This is interesting because for me, it is the complete opposite.

Well what you're saying here is not the opposite. Rather, we seem to be agreeing. I've said that it handicaps the attack, but not that the attack per se is underpowered. 

I'm an avid activist for more/better fortifications and implementing measures to decrease the infantry casualty rate. In fact an increase of area-suppression should also help to reduce casualties. And, as you've also mentioned, it can also be very usefull for the defender, whose knowledge of the exact whereabouts of the enemy is usually not that clear. A larger area of suppression could help to pin down the guys that "must be moving somewhere around these bushes".

Edited October 10, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Aragorn2002]

Better (deeper) trenches. Smoke. Fire. Fog. Ability to place dead soldiers on the map in the editor, like the ability to place destroyed vehicles.