New features curiosity

[Oliver_88]

2 hours ago, 3j2m7 said:

*My big wish will be one man one picture instead a group of 3 men represents 5 men for exemple...but i think in this case all the system have to be recreated...

Forgive me though is that not already the case in CM2?

I've read on here that in CM1 represented units in that manner, for example the 10 man British Rifle Section being shown graphically as 5 soldiers instead. But in CM2 each soldier you see is an individual soldier, the 10 man British Rifle Section are indeed shown graphically as 10 soldiers in CM2.

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by Oliver_88

[JM Stuff]

7 minutes ago, Oliver_88 said:

Forgive me though is that not already the case in CM2?

I've read on here that in CM1 represented units in that manner, for example the 10 man British Rifle Section being shown graphically as 5 soldiers instead. But in CM2 each soldier you see is an individual soldier, the 10 man British Rifle Section are indeed shown graphically as 10 soldiers in CM2.

 

I wish this will be but is not, sadly to let you know...

[Chudacabra]

5 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

There is actually a way to do that indirectly. If you want to increase the point allowance for the defender, just increase the size of the engagement at the beginning. Then you can use all those points or only some of them until you get the force size you want. And you can do the same with the attacker until you have the balance that you seek.

But I agree that it would be nice if you could simply set the point allowance directly as you pick forces.

Michael

But I want BIG battles!

[sttp]

4 hours ago, 3j2m7 said:

*My big wish will be one man one picture instead a group of 3 men represents 5 men for exemple...but i think in this case all the system have to be recreated...

For CMx2 titles, each man on the battlefield has his own soldier animation, at least so far as I've ever known. I would be extremely surprised to hear that this were not the case. What is it you're seeing in-game that makes you think that 5 men, for example, are being represented by 3 animations? 

Edited February 28, 2018 by sttp

[mjkerner]

Sounds like 3j2m7 is looking at the enemy and seeing only some of, say, a squad. Which reflects what your men can see, and a bit of the fog of war, of course. Can't imagine what else he's seeing.

[JM Stuff]

As i know there are more anims but more soldiers are doing the same things on the same time... deduction... not every soldiers have a personal anim...

I know there is a thread  talking about this in details but dont remember where is it I m sure soon we will have more knoledges about your question I'm sorry to don't tell you more for the time...

I will make some researsh on the forum...

[JM Stuff]

2 minutes ago, mjkerner said:

Sounds like 3j2m7 is looking at the enemy and seeing only some of, say, a squad. Which reflects what your men can see, and a bit of the fog of war, of course. Can't imagine what else he's seeing.

Cannot explain better ...well dificult to explain in the Shakespeare language😊

[Erwin]

37 minutes ago, sttp said:

For CMx2 titles, each man on the battlefield has his own soldier animation, at least so far as I've ever known.

Correct.  CM1 simulated a squad with 3 men which could get whittled down to 2 and then 1 as casualties mounted.  It was fine for that somewhat larger scale of game (where one could play with a regiment of infantry plus a battalion of armor on each side on an 8K x 4K map),  That's a major reason why CM1 is still played:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/webandofbrothers/invitiation-to-participate-in-bb13-round-4-t19054.html

 

[JM Stuff]

3 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Correct.  CM1 simulated a squad with 3 men which could get whittled down to 2 and then 1 as casualties mounted.  It was fine for that somewhat larger scale of game (where one could play with a regiment of infantry plus a battalion of armor on each side on an 8K x 4K map),  That's a major reason why CM1 is still played:

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/webandofbrothers/invitiation-to-participate-in-bb13-round-4-t19054.html

 

Suppose have to say thank  to your buoy👍😊

[A Canadian Cat]

5 hours ago, Chudacabra said:

But I want BIG battles!

Here is a description on how to setup arbitrarily big "Quick Battles" (20 000 is not so big for CMBS but it sure is for CMBN, so go for 60 000 for CMBSs :-):

 

[earlydays]

shoot and scoot command, target light briefly, and a real AI that react to what the player do, makes plans, understand how to attack etc

[Sulomon]

On 2/28/2018 at 8:49 AM, 3j2m7 said:

As i know there are more anims but more soldiers are doing the same things on the same time... deduction... not every soldiers have a personal anim...

I know there is a thread  talking about this in details but dont remember where is it I m sure soon we will have more knoledges about your question I'm sorry to don't tell you more for the time...

I will make some researsh on the forum...

I haven't come across anything ingame that suggests it might not be 1:1 for soldiers and whatnot.

[sfhand]

64-bit windows exe... oom issues derailed my plans for a long campaign(CM1 style) on a huge map.

[sburke]

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 9:01 AM, Sulomon said:

I haven't come across anything ingame that suggests it might not be 1:1 for soldiers and whatnot.

Until someone can post a save to look at I don't believe it.  I suspect from some of the posts above that a basic misunderstanding of how spotting works in the game is at play.

[Oliver_88]

Not sure whether this would count as being an relevant one for this thread, but would wish for the quick battles purchase screen to more closely match the scenario editor purchase screen, for most part because saddens me an bit that in the quick battles purchase screen (for CMBN) some formations are not available (for example Machinegun Battalion and Parachute Battalion for the British Army) and some cannot be purchased with their transport (for example Air Landing Battalion and Antitank Battery [independent] for the British Army). But also as I think in quick battles would be good/interesting to be able to choose formations from more than one Army be able to tailor the supply, headcount and vehicle status for my units.

[sttp]

--- We need an option to immediately Undo any type of "Split Team" order we've just given.

This one's really affecting a little project I'm working on right now -- creating a spreadsheet of a bunch of the different unit types that shows how all the team members and important equipment (satchels, bazookas, binoculars, radios, ammo, etc.) are divided up with the various split squad commands.

(If anyone else happens to have already done this, would you mind please letting me know? Thanks.)

[Baneman]

1 hour ago, sttp said:

--- We need an option to immediately Undo any type of "Split Team" order we've just given.

This one's really affecting a little project I'm working on right now -- creating a spreadsheet of a bunch of the different unit types that shows how all the team members and important equipment (satchels, bazookas, binoculars, radios, ammo, etc.) are divided up with the various split squad commands.

(If anyone else happens to have already done this, would you mind please letting me know? Thanks.)

If you're doing it on a Setup screen, just leaving them be for a few seconds should let them recombine. If not, place one section in the same Action Spot as the other and they will shortly recombine.

Giving either section a movement order will prevent them from recombining ( which can be useful in other circumstances ). Hope that helps.  

[Bulletpoint]

21 minutes ago, Baneman said:

If you're doing it on a Setup screen, just leaving them be for a few seconds should let them recombine. If not, place one section in the same Action Spot as the other and they will shortly recombine.

Giving either section a movement order will prevent them from recombining ( which can be useful in other circumstances ). Hope that helps.  

Once in a while though, I will order team A and B into the same action spot, and they just refuse to recombine again. Any idea what might cause this?

I usually then give them various combinations of facing orders, move one team out of the square and back again, and eventually they'll combine. But I'd love to know what exactly it is that prevented them from merging in the first place...

[Baneman]

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Once in a while though, I will order team A and B into the same action spot, and they just refuse to recombine again. Any idea what might cause this?

Not really - I would have to look at a specific example ( ie. savegame ) and if not obvious, pass it on to the Brain.

[c3k]

38 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Once in a while though, I will order team A and B into the same action spot, and they just refuse to recombine again. Any idea what might cause this?

I usually then give them various combinations of facing orders, move one team out of the square and back again, and eventually they'll combine. But I'd love to know what exactly it is that prevented them from merging in the first place...

I've run into this and tested it. AFAIR, every time the teams eventually combined. I tried every combination I could think of regarding terrain, morale status (linked, due to quantum physics and spooky interactions), pinning/non-pinned, command status, etc. 

Some cases took longer than others. But, I never found a case where the teams did not finally merge. Again, it's just a matter of time. (Apologies to sub-atomic physicists, everywhere. But, then, they already knew that apology occurred, didn't they.)

[Kaunitz]

1. Embrace field fortifications wholeheartedly, not as an addition to the "core" gameplay. Ideally, players should be allowed to place trenches and the like into the ground-mesh, and they should not be visible to the enemy at the start. Players should have a good selection of fortifications (hastily dug firing positions, foxholes, slit trenches, AT ditches, hesco blocks, etc.), a choice of fortification shapes (it's fiddly enough to place them with the current size of action squares) and all fortifications should work properly (versus direct and indirect fire). That being said, I could also imagine to give the defender some options before the scenario starts (blasting through housewalls, perhaps even cutting a few trees to get fields of fire, laying down telephone wire (--> info sharing), barricade some doors/windows, etc.). But I understand that this might be a bit extreme.

2. Shoot and scoot/fire and run orders (as mentioned above)

3. Ability to chain together multiple "fire briefly" orders in one turn without using waypoints. This is a bit related to point 2. I often find myself wanting to give several targets to a vehicle in one turn (mostly for suppressive fire), i.e. I want to chain together "fire briefly" commands. Right now, it's quite tedious to achieve what I want (by setting lots of short waypoints, moving back and forth if I want the vehicle to keep it's position). 

4. LOS needs to become more reliable in some cases - Right now, it can be very bad when your unit decides to go prone instead of kneel down behind an obstacle. In case of doubt, give us an override button ("force kneel/stand" - unless suppressed/under fire, of course).

5. Give us the option to camouflage weapons/vehicles/positions. I know it's already in the game for AT guns, but it would be great if we also get it for other stuff and get a visual indicator.

6.  Let us area-target "reverse slope" spots.

7. UNIT SELECTION: Give us a 3D preview of the unit in the unit selection menu.

8. EDITOR: Greater variety of wall/fence variations (new options to make them run at the border of an action square, not in the middle of it). More bushes/trees in between the size of the tallest bush and the smallest tree. Narrow ditches and dykes as mentioned in point 1. Right now, terra-forming ditches is not really very satisfying due to the large size of action squares. 

9. EDITOR: Add info about all kinds of effects (movement slow-down, LOS shape/effect, etc.) to all terrain pieces.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Kaunitz]

10. Attack sectors - Unless the map-designers place some restrictive terrain on purpose, the attacker can often "exploit" the border of the map. He can easily keep one of the flanks clear by hugging the border. It feels a bit cheap, so I think it might be worth to consider a movement-restricted zone for the attacker (i.e. on each flank of the map) He should not be allowed to order movements into these out-of-bounds areas and stick to his attack sector (ie. the center of the map) instead.  Unvoluntary movement into the restricted area  - a squad panicking, e.g. - should still be allowed, of course.

11. Flares.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Bulletpoint]

8 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

10. Attack sectors - Unless the map-designers place some restrictive terrain on purpose, the attacker can often "exploit" the border of the map. He can easily keep one of the flanks clear by hugging the border. It feels a bit cheap, so I think it might be worth to consider a movement-restricted zone for the attacker (i.e. on each flank of the map) He should not be allowed to order movements into these out-of-bounds areas and stick to his attack sector (ie. the center of the map) instead.  Unvoluntary movement into the restricted area  - a squad panicking, e.g. - should still be allowed, of course.

+1 That's actually an interesting and creative idea. I think it would make it difficult for the attacker to secure his flanks, though.

Currently, if you manange to dominate the map edge to edge, you know the defender won't be able to slip past and attack you from the flanks or rear. If using your attack zone idea, you'd have to post a lot of troops along the edge of the attack corridor to guard against flanking moves. In some ways I guess it would be realistic (for breakthrough scenarios), in other cases it would be unrealistc (there would be assumed to be friendly troops advancing to your right and left).

[Kaunitz]

34 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

+1 That's actually an interesting and creative idea. I think it would make it difficult for the attacker to secure his flanks, though.

Currently, if you manange to dominate the map edge to edge, you know the defender won't be able to slip past and attack you from the flanks or rear. If using your attack zone idea, you'd have to post a lot of troops along the edge of the attack corridor to guard against flanking moves. In some ways I guess it would be realistic (for breakthrough scenarios), in other cases it would be unrealistc (there would be assumed to be friendly troops advancing to your right and left).

In scenarios in which the defender is supposed to preserve forces and not launch a counter-attack, we could give a sector to him as well.

Of course we don't want to lose the tactical options that we all love in Combat Mission. So this idea is not supposed to make the game duller. I think it would need to be compensated by a slightly larger map-width across the board. Despite being restricted to his attack-sector, the attacker should still have some options  to choose from - to make sure that this is the case, the attack sector needs to be large enough. 

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

12. Pre-planned bombardements (set by the scenario-designer). Especially for smaller scenarios, when you're but a captain or lower, arty support might be decided by the higher echelons.  

13. Another slightly weird idea: More factions per side. What I mean is that there could be troops on the battlefield that are controlled by friendly AI. They could represent different units, units to whom there is no direct or only very difficult communication, units of a different sector, brigade, division, etc. etc. I think that some "WTF are they doing?!" moments could enhance realism. Also, it would allow us to play a smaller part in a bigger, plausible battle. I'm always a bit overwhelmed by the micromanagement required to control a single company. With friendly AI, I could take command over a smaller unit in a larger battle (patrol actions get boring after some time...). So this would actually make me play the game more often. Right now, I'm often overpowered by the amount of brainwork I have to go through before I click to start the first turn (so much time spent on terrain analysis... the bigger my force/the map, the more time-consuming it gets...).

Edited June 6, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

the attacker can often "exploit" the border of the map. He can easily keep one of the flanks clear by hugging the border.

A good designer can create maps that make this impractical/impossible.  Doesn't really matter if one is prevented from hugging the edge by a game feature or a terrain feature.  The point is that both sides will know where the "practical edge" of movement is.  (Perhaps the best solution is larger maps where one has room to maneuver and not so much of the WW1 style assault scenario where one has a continuous line from left flank to right flank.)

Regarding recombining teams, AFAIK I have never had that issue.  Have noted however, that it is easy to think the teams are in the same action spot when they are very slightly different.  Also enemy fire/presence - even if the player isn't aware of them - may stop the combining.