Combat Mission Wishlist/Thoughts

[EpicFlamo]

As I play the games I end up musing about what else I would like to see, and ended up putting it together as a list. Thought I would share it and see if anyone else thought of similar things to me - I know that these lists do pop up from time to time! Also, all you WWII fans please excuse the Cold War obsession - it is more prevalent due to the fact that Combat Mission already covers WWII quite well, and thus I have less to wish for on that front.

This isn’t a ‘Battlefront I really want this will you add it please?’ list, just a thought exercise (although seeing these things added would be fun!).

 

1) Combat Mission: Fulda

A Combat Mission game set in Cold War Germany in the 1980s - possibly spanning several key periods, e.g.: Able Archer gone hot (1983), Black Sea incident gone hot (1988) - this would bring slightly different TOE’s to bear, such as the introduction by 1988 of the M1IP and M1A1.

Would also allow for an interesting array of weapons systems from the nations involved (a number which could expand massively to include most of NATO and the Warsaw Pact), especially: US Army, British Army (BAOR), Bundeswehr (West Germany), Red Army (USSR) & NPA (East Germany).

 

2) A core engine with add-on modules

I envision this as a DCS-style system - a (free?) core engine, which could ship with some limited forces (acting as a demo), and then each additional game we see currently is an add-on module. If done well, I imagine this would simplify updates, as well as allowing expanded possibilities: want to see how the 2017 (Black Sea) US Army would fare against the Wehrmacht of 1944 (Battle for Normandy)? I imagine that when in the editor selecting the date would now be independent of the TOE (unlike the current system, say in Battle for Normandy), and an additional tab would allow you to select the TOE’s involved (e.g. US Army - June 1944, US Army - September 1944, US Army - 1945, US Army - 2008, US Army - 2017)

I believe people have asked for this before, and that the response was that the current design of the engine couldn’t allow it, but it is interesting to see that others have thought of this/also play DCS!

 

3) Rework of CQB/building interiors

I am sure that most people would agree with me that the least ‘real’ feeling part of Combat Mission is clearing buildings, where a single man with a bolt action rifle can kill an experienced assault team armed with submachine guns as if they were unintelligent pixeltruppen (… oh… it all makes sense now…!). The ability to at least tell men to clear a building with grenades (i.e. throw a grenade in first and kill off some of the occupants) would make things so much better IMO - clearing a building known to be occupied should always be a risky scenario, but it certainly happens - especially in a more modern counter-insurgency environment.

Either way, at least having outlines of internal walls and staircases so you understand why your squad entered, faced a wall and were all mown down would be nice - but I am sure others have come up with far more sophisticated dreams for how this could be improved .

Another extension to this point would be the ability to have a team lob grenades over a wall into a non-LOS area - say you know the enemy fire team is camping on the other side, breaching and potentially killing yourselves seems foolish when you could just lob a grenade over!

 

4) A ‘formation’ button

The ability to chose the formation your infantry fireteam/squad takes would be great: you can choose say ‘column’ or ‘line’, giving flexibility depending on the scenario - no more machine-gun cutting down a column of men when they could be in a line as they cross an open space. This could even go further - ‘staggered column’ would be great IMO for patrolling troops down roads.

As a side note, having a vehicle movement speed that matches the infantry walk speed would be nice - again for when patrolling, rather than having to effectively sprint-and-drift like a submarine!

 

5) Visible helicopters, drones and aircraft

One of my pet hates of the series is hearing your TACP call ‘inbound for target, weapons hot’, and the only indication of this is a magic laser-beam falling from the sky and exploding things, or a SAM smoke trail reaching out and touching the aircraft - I personally would love to see the actual assets themselves - especially when they are shot down and crash on the map itself - a nice wrecked F-16 or Su-25T would be awesome!

 

6) Counter-battery fires

I feel that for larger artillery pieces in the modern games (where data-links and radio intercepts make tracking the location of an active battery quite feasible, being able to have an FO request counter-battery fire that would impede or stop that deadly M109 fire from stunning all of your pixeltruppen would be nice - and it would just make the massive barrages seem a little more combatable - I assume after all that if you were on the receiving end of such fire you too would be screaming into the radio asking someone to make it go away!

 

7) Combat Mission: Vietnam

It would probably have a similar feel to CM: Afghanistan or CM: Shock Force - a powerful army fighting guerrillas and insurgents, but there were quite a lot of ‘conventional’ battles in Vietnam, especially between the NVA and ARVN once the US withdrew, and the time period is also interesting - there are still WWII weapons floating around, but helicopters and M16’s now rule the field.

As a side note, I feel that a CM: Vietnam would require the introduction of UH-1 Hueys as a vehicle that you can land and transport troops with or provide overwatch/gun runs, just because of their prevalence for landing in ‘hot’ LZ’s to provide ‘dust-offs’. Also, who doesn’t want to recreate the Apocalypse Now helicopter scene?!

 

8 ) Combat Mission: Korea

Maybe it is just me and my love of all things Cold War, but an early Cold War game focusing on Korea would be fun IMO - it would play in a similar manner to CM: Fortress Italy I imagine, with big mountains limiting vehicle mobility and nasty trench warfare - which is why it appeals to me: this is where Combat Mission really shines in creating the ‘perfect storm’ of games for me (and a stark contrast to the rapid maneuver warfare that we see in CM: Black Sea or would in a hypothetical CM: Fulda!).

 

9) Combat Mission: Pacific

Now that amphibious vehicles (and flamethrowers) are tried and tested, a focus on the WWII Pacific front would be excellent - my biggest 'loss' in CM: Battle for Normandy was the lack of LCP's and LVTP's with which to do amphibious assaults. I also like the idea of a more infantry focused battlefield, where cover can be sparse or thick jungle, and where bunkers are king (perhaps this would have to ship with some fortification/trenchline improvements and expansions). 

 

Other interesting things (I hope!)

As I said above, this is all hypothetical, and I don’t expect Steve to look at this and say - lets do that! It is more getting my thoughts out there to see if anyone else has similar ideas, and perhaps recommendations of games I might enjoy because they fit those ideas. Sadly it seems Cold War games largely went out of fashion with the coming of 2000, but there are a few left out there!

Not directly Combat Mission related, but because they fit the things that interest me and perhaps others, here are some games I recommend or am watching closely:

• Command MANO (especially the Northern Inferno campaign)
• Cold Waters
• Flashpoint Campaigns
• DCS (as already mentioned!)
• Men of War AS2
• Wargame (EE, ALB and RD are all excellent, though more RTS and less tactical than CM for sure)
• Escalation 1985 (the trailer really gets the vibe right IMO, has a bit of a Deutschland 83 feel: https://youtu.be/9nupkXjbaok)

I have tried Graviteam Tactics, but didn’t really enjoy it… I should go back and try it again though methinks!

Edited July 23, 2018 by EpicFlamo

[Warts 'n' all]

This really has nowt to do with CMBN. And there are plenty of other "wishlist" threads already.

[EpicFlamo]

3 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

This really has nowt to do with CMBN.

Oops my bad! I meant to post it in the 'General' page...

Posted it, went off to eat and just before you replied I thought '...hang on, did I post that in the correct topic...?'

[AlexUK]

I found out recently that you can throw grenades over a wall (I think from a forum post). You need to be careful of squad placement if I recall. If I remember correctly, the grenades can also take down the wall itself after a time.

[sttp]

A few weeks ago, the CMx2 ww2 forums went almost an entire day without a single post -- something like 20 hours with no new posts anywhere in the CMBN, CMFB, CMFI, or CMRT forums. So I'm wondering if discouraging new threads from new members just because those topics have been discussed before is really what we want here??? Yes, there've been tons of wishlist threads. However, in almost every single one there's a new feature suggested that no one had ever mentioned before. So, at least my opinion, these are pretty useful every now and then. It's possible, though, that it should be moved to the general discussion forum.

Edited July 24, 2018 by sttp

[sburke]

agreed @sttp and in that vein

8 hours ago, EpicFlamo said:

1) Combat Mission: Fulda

Long standing request from a lot of folks but so far BF hasn't shown any interest.  Maybe if we all start randomly showing up in Steve's neck of the woods and start badgering him.

5) Visible helicopters, drones and aircraft

While interesting from an eye candy perspective I think this is more applicable to WW2.  Watched a few Iraq videos of precision strikes and you rarely see a plane, just the sudden detonation in a building.  I did once  while testing CMBS track the very very tiny dot that I think represents an aircraft.  Drones seem to just be a spot off map that is a source.  Honestly not real thrilled with how drones work in game, but I expect it is done about as well as can be.

7) Combat Mission: Vietnam

I used to think I wanted this but some testing in dense forest conditions quickly did away with that.  For sure there are other conditions to fight in- urban etc, but there is precious little armor, it is primarily an infantry fight and while that appeals to me I think it would not sell all that well.

Welcome to the forum @EpicFlamo

[Warts 'n' all]

10 hours ago, EpicFlamo said:

Oops my bad! I meant to post it in the 'General' page...

Posted it, went off to eat and just before you replied I thought '...hang on, did I post that in the correct topic...?'

No problem.

[The Steppenwulf]

DCS modular system is at best not particularly user-friendly, at worst it's a pig with all kind of issues. Consider the problem with optimistion across all on these modules. Best example being the problem playing the Normandy map that requires much lower texture/AA/shadow/lod settings as opposed to Caucasus - too much p***ing around adjusting these every time you switch modules! 

Obviously the reason why DCS went down this route is because of the business model where the core game can benefit from expanded content produced by 3rd party Devs. It comes with it's inherent disadvantages. Still I'm not saying it's a bad idea for CM, just that DCS is not some great example of a game where this works great, it doesn't!

Besides that, the idea of a modern US force fighting Waffen SS forces is novel but I strongly suspect players would try it once (for the novelty) and that would be that. Most CM players possess a keen sense of realism and focus on detail, they are likely to find such anachronistic novelties anathema, more suited to an arcade shooter!

The one thing I do agree with is that more love needs to be given to depiction of close quarter battle and the control the player exerts over these situations. Improved animations alone would take up the CQB immersion a couple of notches. Anyway I recall some acknowledgement of this for the battle for Berlin module, since it's almost exclusively focusing on urban battle. I certainly hope that we get an engine upgrade with that release that enhances game play in this area!      

[Erwin]

Before one can consider what may or may not be a good idea, the question is how many employees/programmers does DCS have?  Then compare that to BF and their respective budgets.

[DerKommissar]

19 hours ago, EpicFlamo said:

Oops my bad! I meant to post it in the 'General' page...

Posted it, went off to eat and just before you replied I thought '...hang on, did I post that in the correct topic...?'

I did the same for my first post. Welcome to the forums! Great to see another Cold War obsessive.

I haven't seen many people ask for counter battery fire. Nobody wants their arty assets to just go missing, xD. It's a good idea, though.

I like how Number 1 is Fulda Gap. Fulda Gap! Fulda Gap! Fulda Gap!

Surprised that the inclusion of an Operational Layer or Steam integration aren't up there. xD

IDK about the formation button. I kinda trust the TacAI to adopt the right formation for the terrain. They generally do a good job, and I don't want the headache of updating all squads' formations every turn. Wasn't always fan of the feature in the Theatre of War series. As an entirely optional feature? Sure.

[Warts 'n' all]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

Before one can consider what may or may not be a good idea, the question is how many employees/programmers does DCS have?  Then compare that to BF and their respective budgets.

Nail well and truly hit.

[IronCat60]

Well let's see,

>Resupply:

*Why can't the amount be broken down into basic loads for a platoon, squad, fire team? Why does it have to be like 5000 rounds?

*Hand Grenades, Smoke Grenades and Rifle Grenades why are they not carried in the ammo count?

*Being able to have the option to load out vehicles with more ammo. Would help with some units like a recon jeep or a halftrack with a squad  screening a far flank or approach. This would also help with AT Gun units.

>M2 Heavy Machine Gun:

*The tanks and the jeep mounted configurations do not carry enough spare ammo for that weapon. And for that matter neither does the MMG configuration.

>Tank Destroyer:

*The American TD's used a lot of HE when supporting infantry. It would be great to assign certain vehicles with HE support and some with a mix to handle enemy armor.

>Formations:

*It would be great if the same TO&E procedure was used in Quick Battle. Why should I have to spend points on outfitting a British Carrier Platoon with vehicles they should already have. And the same for AT Gun units. They are useless without a prime mover.

* How about having the ability to detach support units units and have them fall under the command of the unit they are assigned to. That way I can just move a HMG Team with its carrier and ammo bearers from Weapons to a unit of my choosing without having to delete and then rebuy the HMG Team which will now not have the advantage of any spare ammo that might have come with the original vehicle. This is especially true for AT-Guns.

*Being able to separate a unit from a chain of command and have it rely on it's own NCO for command. This would have to be done before the game begins and that way you could place a isolated heavy weapon to cover certain areas where line of sight may be hampered or too far. This would be especially handy when assigning engineer support.

>Being able to cross load certain items. For example a AT Gun team has its HQ get hit while in transit. A near by infantry unit sends a scout team to apply aid and recover the radio. If you did this with a AT Gun team then the gun would be abandoned. So now these scouts have the AT radio. Would be great if they could go up to the AT unit and give the next person in charge the radio.

>Machine Gun plunging fire:

*I know there is a sort of a work around because small arms fire will not hurt a team from the same side. But to have a machine gun in defilade, directed by their HQ would be really handy.

> Icons:

*Different Colors identify different platoons. It would make finding out who belongs to which squad when the troops are divided up into smaller units.

 

[A Canadian Cat]

15 hours ago, IronCat60 said:

*Why can't the amount be broken down into basic loads for a platoon, squad, fire team? 

That would be nice.

15 hours ago, IronCat60 said:

*Hand Grenades, Smoke Grenades and Rifle Grenades why are they not carried in the ammo count?

+1

15 hours ago, IronCat60 said:

*Being able to have the option to load out vehicles with more ammo. Would help with some units like a recon jeep or a halftrack with a squad  screening a far flank or approach. This would also help with AT Gun units.

Maybe. There are supply platoons that could get you close. I don't find AT guns running out of ammo much.

15 hours ago, IronCat60 said:

>M2 Heavy Machine Gun:

*The tanks and the jeep mounted configurations do not carry enough spare ammo for that weapon. And for that matter neither does the MMG configuration.

Same

15 hours ago, IronCat60 said:

>Tank Destroyer:

*The American TD's used a lot of HE when supporting infantry. It would be great to assign certain vehicles with HE support and some with a mix to handle enemy armor.

Well technically tank destroyers are not supposed to be supporting infantry

15 hours ago, IronCat60 said:

>Formations:

*It would be great if the same TO&E procedure was used in Quick Battle. Why should I have to spend points on outfitting a British Carrier Platoon with vehicles they should already have. And the same for AT Gun units. They are useless without a prime mover.

?? I cannot check ATM but ii a QB infantry formations have no vehicles on purpose. The mech infantry formations should.

15 hours ago, IronCat60 said:

* How about having the ability to detach support units units and have them fall under the command of the unit they are assigned to. That way I can just move a HMG Team with its carrier and ammo bearers from Weapons to a unit of my choosing without having to delete and then rebuy the HMG Team which will now not have the advantage of any spare ammo that might have come with the original vehicle. This is especially true for AT-Guns.

*Being able to separate a unit from a chain of command and have it rely on it's own NCO for command. This would have to be done before the game begins and that way you could place a isolated heavy weapon to cover certain areas where line of sight may be hampered or too far. This would be especially handy when assigning engineer support.

>Being able to cross load certain items. For example a AT Gun team has its HQ get hit while in transit. A near by infantry unit sends a scout team to apply aid and recover the radio. If you did this with a AT Gun team then the gun would be abandoned. So now these scouts have the AT radio. Would be great if they could go up to the AT unit and give the next person in charge the radio.

An often requested feature. BFC have so far decided no to spend resources doing the work. Maybe one day but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

15 hours ago, IronCat60 said:

>Machine Gun plunging fire:

*I know there is a sort of a work around because small arms fire will not hurt a team from the same side. But to have a machine gun in defilade, directed by their HQ would be really handy.

Would be cool

15 hours ago, IronCat60 said:

> Icons:

*Different Colors identify different platoons. It would make finding out who belongs to which squad when the troops are divided up into smaller units.

You can double click a unit and that will highlight thier platoon. Just in case you didn't already know.

My worry would be that this would lead to too much colour and not enough differentiation.

[Erwin]

12 hours ago, IanL said:

*Different Colors identify different platoons. It would make finding out who belongs to which squad when the troops are divided up into smaller units.

As with all your other (xnt) suggestions, this one has also been discussed b4.  IIRC players with color blindness expressed concern.  

[Oliver_88]

15 hours ago, IanL said:

?? I cannot check ATM but ii a QB infantry formations have no vehicles on purpose. The mech infantry formations should.

Erm yes and no from what I've seen. I believe the intent is indeed to be able to create battles that do not use vehicles but just infantry. But the problem is the "Infantry Only" formations are not also shown in the "Mech Infantry" categories also. The various formations and the categories that they are assigned to in Quick Battles mirrors somewhat how they are assigned in the Scenario Editor. However in Quick Battles compared to the Scenario Editor the "Infantry Only" and "Airborne Only" get their vehicles taken away. That paragraph probably does not make sense ha. There's no "Air Landing Battalion" in "Mech Infantry" for example only in "Airborne Only" so you can only choose them with their vehicles taken away.

 

I've asked for the same thing in another thread.

[Bulletpoint]

On 7/23/2018 at 9:21 PM, EpicFlamo said:

The ability to at least tell men to clear a building with grenades (i.e. throw a grenade in first and kill off some of the occupants) would make things so much better IMO - clearing a building known to be occupied should always be a risky scenario, but it certainly happens - especially in a more modern counter-insurgency environment.

A basic problem with grenades in this game is that they are only thrown after your guys actively spot an enemy unit. Whereas in real wars, they are often thrown into rooms before the attacker knows if there's anyone there or not. Or he knows there's an enemy in there somewhere, but not exactly where.

[Warts 'n' all]

You can get your men to throw grenades over walls, without a clear target. It is a shame that you can't do the same thing for buildings.