Improvement suggestions

[Bulletpoint]

31 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

I suppose that the problem with suggestions for the spotting system (whether you like them or not) is that the AI could not deal with it? It is much more dependent on confirmed contacts than the players, and it would not understand how to manage communications between/positioning of its units? I only play H2H, but the majority of CM players is  probably more interested in  singleplayer? It's always the same: The more complex and realistic a game gets, the less the AI is able to handle it.

Let's stop holding the game back because of the AI, because it doesn't exist. It's all the human designer pulling the strings. You won't see the non-existent AI player sending out scouts ahead of its main force. If you see the enemy move, it's because the human designer told them to move from A to B at time xx:xx, or because they are fleeing from incoming fire.

When playing the game in singleplayer, it basically only works when the enemy units stay in human-designed defensive positions where they open fire on the player's units once they are spotted. Those missions are often really fun nuts to crack, but not because of AI.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Bulletpoint

[Bulletpoint]

33 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

If you are a three man team out in the open (hardly anyone uses fortifications) and there is combat all over the place and you don't see any friendly units and haven't heard from/seen your squad leader for half an hour, do you keep fighting or would you rather retreat/try to link up with the squad

I agree with this, and I'd love to see some system in place where units will automatially pull back towards friendly lines if they are a) out of C2 b) isolated - not spotting any friendlies c) low leadership value.

So if you want to split off 2-man scout teams and probe ahead, you need them to stay in C2. And if you want to have a Panzerjäger team wait in ambush by the bridge all alone, they will need a +1 leader.

 

I imagine it could work like this:

Unit is in C2: Stays in place unless under heavy fire (just like the game works now)

Unit is out of C2 but spots friendlies nearby: Needs +0 leader or better to stay in place. Units with negative leadership will start to fall back.

Unit is out of C2 but doesn't spot friendlies: Needs +1 leader or better to stay in place

 

(In this basic idea, motivation is not taken into account. Motivated units are thought of as having motivation to fight the enemy, not to sit out in a forest somewhere with no idea why, and no leader telling them how it fits into the big scheme of things. They'd be motivated to link up with their company and be reassigned)

[Kaunitz]

The question is whether such a movement would need to be automatic as you suggest. If it is automatic, you'll always run into troubles when it comes to choosing the proper path. A retreating unit should still seek to use cover, so "just backwards" is not a good option. Rrather than an automatism, one could ask if it would be better to provide some kind of incentive to the player to move a unit back into a "normal" (as opposed to perceivably isolated/cut-off) situation? Some kind of "pinned/unable to fire because of isolation" rather than "pinned because of incoming fire" status.

Also, being in a fortified place should drastically increase the "will" of a unit to fight on isolatedly?

Edited October 27, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

If it is automatic, you'll always run into troubles when it comes to choosing the proper path. A retreating unit should still seek to use cover, so "just backwards" is not a good option.

True. In an ideal world, they'd use cover intelligently. However, it's basically the same behaviour we have now, with units auto-retreating blindly backwards when taking fire.

And teams would rarely need to fall back very much, as in most cases they'd quickly spot a friendly unit (and the player would actively move up a unit to re-establish the line).

I think it could be a fun thing to add to the optional iron difficulty level. then players could test it out and maybe come to like it. A bit like WeGo was introduced as an optional thing, but now most players only play that mode.

[Michael Emrys]

On 10/27/2018 at 3:10 AM, Bulletpoint said:

A bit like WeGo was introduced as an optional thing, but now most players only play that mode.

Oops! CMx1 was WEGO only. RTS and FPS were only added to CMx2 some time after it came on market.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

Oops! CMx1 was WEGO only. RTS and FPS were only added to CMx2 some time after it came on market.

Michael

Sorry, got it wrong then.

[Michael Emrys]

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

Sorry, got it wrong then.

We're all getting older...

Michael

[user1000]

make tank commanders other people sticking out of vehicles harder to hit while vehicle are on the move, there are way way to many dips and ruts for a ww2 weapon to hit accurately a 25% or less of a person sticking out something on that is on the the move, at a distance Now if a vehicle is stationary for a while and then they pop out, well then they get sighted by the enemy for range of course.

Edited October 28, 2018 by user1000

[user1000]

Add generic animation or button for vehicles that are stuck to be worked on by crew with tools? Maybe after some time, it will become mobile. Or 50/50 percent chance they will make it move again?

[JoMac]

3 hours ago, user1000 said:

Add generic animation or button for vehicles that are stuck to be worked on by crew with tools? Maybe after some time, it will become mobile. Or 50/50 percent chance they will make it move again?

Who are you, and what have you done to the annoying user1000 that we know and love...

Edited October 29, 2018 by JoMc67

[Michael Emrys]

9 hours ago, user1000 said:

Add generic animation or button for vehicles that are stuck to be worked on by crew with tools? Maybe after some time, it will become mobile. Or 50/50 percent chance they will make it move again?

That would be complicated by whether or not the vehicle is or could become under fire. When crews had to bail out of a bogged vehicle, their first concern was self-preservation, and nothing attracts fire like a stationary vehicle. So on exiting the vehicle, they would usually hightail it for friendly lines and leave the machine for mechanics with recovery vehicles who had the responsibility to get it running again. Tank crews were—or were at least supposed to be—highly trained specialists whose lives were not to be needlessly cast aside.

Michael

[Kaunitz]

I don't know whether this was already mentioned when we discussed pre-planned bombardments set by the scenario-designer: It would  be very nice if players in a quickbattle could order several barrages from one arty-asset with time-delays (ideally custmizable time-delays). Or is there any way in which you can recreate a rolling barrage (other than using multiple assets)? It seems as if rolling barrages were really the standard procedure for any infantry-heavy, larger scaled attack. Yet it's quite hard to simulate it in the game? 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Wicky]

17 hours ago, user1000 said:

Add generic animation or button for vehicles that are stuck to be worked on by crew with tools? Maybe after some time, it will become mobile. Or 50/50 percent chance they will make it move again?

A three-part series on vehicle recovery that could be a game / simulation by itself...

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

18 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

I don't know whether this was already mentioned when we discussed pre-planned bombardments set by the scenario-designer: It would  be very nice if players in a quickbattle could order several barrages from one arty-asset with time-delays (ideally custmizable time-delays). Or is there any way in which you can recreate a rolling barrage (other than using multiple assets)? It seems as if rolling barrages were really the standard procedure for any infantry-heavy, larger scaled attack. Yet it's quite hard to simulate it in the game? 

I think rolling barrages would have limited effect in the game due to how suppression currently works - you need to hit quite close to infantry to suppress them and the effect quickly wears off again. 

As I understand it, the effect of the rolling barrage was more that it made gun/MG crew leave their guns and seek shelter in dugouts until the barrage moved on. Something we can't replicate in CM currently. 

[user1000]

On 10/28/2018 at 8:29 PM, JoMc67 said:

Who are you, and what have you done to the annoying user1000 that we know and love...

Got anything to contribute or improve instead of the  off topic trolling again? You guys are a dime a dozen anymore.

[JoMac]

Yeah...Now, if you said something that is far more important, like "It would be nice if BF Modeled Crew Refueling Animations", then I would agree...But, No, instead you went on a Rant and thought that "Crew working on Stuck Vehicles" is far more important...Forum Members here almost had faith in you, userof1000

Sorry, but I left my FPS shoes at home...

Ok, and if you haven't noticed yet, my first post (and this) was just a joking aside...Carry-On 

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by JoMc67

[Kaunitz]

16 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think rolling barrages would have limited effect in the game due to how suppression currently works - you need to hit quite close to infantry to suppress them and the effect quickly wears off again. 

As I understand it, the effect of the rolling barrage was more that it made gun/MG crew leave their guns and seek shelter in dugouts until the barrage moved on. Something we can't replicate in CM currently. 

You're certainly right that in the case of artillery, "suppression" refers more to forcing the enemy into their dugouts/trenches. Why do you think we can't replicate this in CM? For infantry (unfortunately, crew-served guns can't be re-manned....) I think it's possible once the panic-issue will be fixed with the upcoming patch?

Right now, I often defend in that way in villages or cities: I only man the actual fighting positions once the attacker's artillery barrage is over and the enemy is coming close. Wooden shelters could be used in a similar way if there are no houses close by. Perhaps those wooden shelters need a point reduction, but they do offer some protection against artillery (better than foxholes and trenches...). More generally, I think that fortifications should be part of the force-structure of regular infantry formations, so that you can get them at a reduced price. Digging in was just such a common thing. 

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

Probably too late and not relevant for a larger audience, but it keeps bugging me out (these are specific to CM:FB/editor):

• Treetrunks are too thick in general. 
• The crowns of all the deciduous trees (G,D,A,C) are located very close to the ground. I really miss a tree version with a higher trunk (no dirty jokes guys ^^). The lack of such a tree means that any deciduous wood will allow only very limited LOS, especially if the ground is slightly uneven. Also, it doesn't look good if you want to create a proper wood (as opposed to thickets) 
•  For the conifers (B,E,H) it is the other way round. Here, I lack a tree with a low crown. That means that you have no means to create a graduated edge/a rising canopy for a cornifer wood. The conifer-bush (bush B ) does not fill the gap and isn't voluminous enough. Combining deciduous (low crowns) with conifer (high crowns) trees looks very strange in the autumn-setting.
• I'd love to see more terrain like the light and heavy wood that come with some foliage on them. Some kind of "forest-edge"/undergrowth terrain would be nice, with many thin young "trees" (not actually represented as trunks).

For comparison:

With deciduous trees, you can create nice thickets. By placing the trees in their proper order (from small to high), using bocage fences and heavy wood terrain at the edges, you can get a nice canopy. However, what you can see here is also the maximum height for a deciduous wood. All the tree crowns/foliage is very close to the ground. It's a thicket, not a proper wood.

https://imgur.com/a/51x4cFU

With cornifers, it is the other way round. Note the large gap in between the ground-foliage and the tree crowns. The bushes and the few deciduous trees I have placed so helplessly look quite out of place. The lack of low-crown-cornifers enables you to look very deep into the wood from the outside. I suppose that this can be used (for great effect, if you add tree stumps) to represent a very well kept commercial timberland, but you cannot build a slightly more naturally looking wood-edge. 

https://imgur.com/a/bm0eMf8

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Bulletpoint]

8 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

You're certainly right that in the case of artillery, "suppression" refers more to forcing the enemy into their dugouts/trenches. Why do you think we can't replicate this in CM? For infantry (unfortunately, crew-served guns can't be re-manned....)

Well definitely because of the lack of crew-remanning, but also because artillery arguably would suppress much more in real life.

In CM, troops have nerves made of steel - they disregard any shells that don't fall very close to them - so it's very possible for MG positions to just sit and fire away while shells are falling left and right. A real-life barrage suppresses more than that, because even though nothing fell on your head yet, you know it could happen any moment.

Also, even if troops do get suppressed by a close hit, the effect evaporates very quickly.

[Hardradi]

- cellars 

- staircases/stairwells

- fortified buildings 

- buildings with internal extended lines of sight (open factories horizontal and vertical)

- camouflage (vehicles, guns, men, fortifications)

- improved trenches (strong points where you shoot from and maneuver trenches (where you can move out of line of sight)

 

[Bulletpoint]

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.

[Warts 'n' all]

Try giving them a linear end point with the AS's.in a row along the wall, fence etc, that is on the same side as their start point. It seems to work for me even in v.4.  

Edited November 6, 2018 by Warts 'n' all

[Bulletpoint]

15 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Try giving them a linear end point with the AS's.in a row along the wall, fence etc, that is on the same side as their start point. It seems to work for me even in v.4.  

If you mean making a long string of waypoints along the wall, yes it keeps them on the right side. But it also slows them down immensely, because they have to stop and regroup at each waypoint.

[c3k]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

If you mean making a long string of waypoints along the wall, yes it keeps them on the right side. But it also slows them down immensely, because they have to stop and regroup at each waypoint.

True. Eliminating the hopping would be best. Given the hop, the string of pearls type of movement order can be improved...by sending the squads up one team at a time. 

The delay at each waypoint is caused by the squad waiting for each team to join up. By splitting up into individual teams, that wait is eliminated. Yes, the team will still pause at each point, but it is much less of a delay than that shown by an entire squad.

Again, eliminating the hopping would be the best solution...but that is beyond our control.

[Bulletpoint]

13 minutes ago, c3k said:

Again, eliminating the hopping would be the best solution...but that is beyond our control.

Well, that's why I posted it here in the "improvement suggestions" thread...

[Warts 'n' all]

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

If you mean making a long string of waypoints along the wall, yes it keeps them on the right side. But it also slows them down immensely, because they have to stop and regroup at each waypoint.

No, the End or Destination Point is linear. Three AS for a full squad. Two AS for a squad that has detached a Scout or AT Team. And there are NO intervening way points.