hoolaman

When I suggested we all go and post in a CMX2 thread, I didn't said it would be very useful, I said it would be MORE helpful than complaining about things that as it stands now will not be fixed. I agree threads about the new engine are just good fun and pure speculation, but I like a good brainstorming session, and if a glimmer of a new idea finds it's way into the new game, all the better.

There are mods to replace the flags with swastika flags, and mods to replace the little unit icons with the ss runes and swastikas in the scenario screen. As for "waffen granadier" In the unit names, I believe this cannot be changed in CMBO but can be changed with a user made patch in CMBB and CMAK. www.combatmission.com has all the flags and stuff I think. www.cmmods.com will probably have the rest.

Hey everyone! I don't even own CMAK so I am happy. I am still stuck with CMBO until I have some disposable cash, so I will wait for the new engine with intense interest and anticipation. Thanks Madmatt for your reply. I can sense the frustration, and that may not be a good thing, but I think these parts of your post say it all: So maybe everyone should contribute to one of the CMX2 threads. I suspect that will be a lot more helpful.

I saw a cheat where you give your tank alternating MOVE FAST MOVE FAST waypoints 300 times and your tank turns into a Maus. Also getting a HQ to the opposite end of the map brings all of your dead vehicles back to life.

Like all HT's they are vulnerable. But they are really awesome support weapons in an infantry heavy battle. If you ever get the opportunity to rain down mortars on MG positions with one you will be a convert for sure.

It's not so much that it's broke, more that it's a bit old and worn out. I for one expect to see greatly improved graphics but not to the detriment of other areas, and BFC has stated that this will continue to be their philosophy. Looking back through this thread will reveal many non-graphics related ideas and questions. I would like to see a little more control at a sub squad level. I know I mainly play company or smaller level games and the "feel" of infantry battles just doesn't seem right. Having a twelve man squad react like a single entity at all times just doesn't seem right to me. They behave almost like a vehicle. I would like to see each man in a squad simulated better, if not fully represented. Individual ammo load and morale should be shown at the very least, and maybe even squad formations. I think split squads should also be treated a bit better to allow more realistic squad movement. Even at a battalion level attack, the brave actions of just one man can often turn the tide of a battle. There is no scope for this stuff currently, even at some vague abstracted level. I don't think a campaign mode as in "fight your way across europe" should be integral to the game, but that the operations mode should be expanded. Allowing designers the tools to build any historical battle such as resupply, replacements, event triggers. Allowing new objectives such as reaching point x by time y, destroying a selected structure, capturing prisoners etc. should be high priority to allow people to construct (if they wish) one unit's "fight across europe". With a better C&C and communications system you could also have small independant patrols and outposts, and have units behave in realistic ways to help reduce the old borg spotting problem. SOPs would allow all units to behave more realistically in TacAI mode, and scenario designers or QB setup screens could apply all the same principles to the AI to produce a range of behaviours; historical or otherwise. Anyhow, this is not new by any means, but I hope others put forward what they wish and hope a new CM to be.

With the new CMAK patch in place and much new action in the forum, I am trying to resuscitate this (crap?) thread.

I would suggest learning the game with maximum realism on. A good way to learn the ins and outs of the game is to play some hotseat games against yourself. Also start small with a few quick battles and experiment with what all the units are capable of. Happy playing! I am still stuck with CMBO until my financial situation improves and/or the next incarnation of CM comes out.

I only have about a month on the original release of ESB but I like to aquaint myself with the "classics".

Yes I kind of meant "more continuous" rather than continuous. The resupply could occur during lulls in the fighting which would be sort of like the break between battles that exists now, except the period of time between the action could be simulated. An abstracted real-time resupply or a "supply-phase" between operations that still involves control over troop placements would be cool. Even running ammo carriers out to the front would be a mission in itself sometimes. The thing about long operations is that even when the action had died down, often the area was still under enemy observation, and an opportunistic mortar/sniper/arty barrage could take advantage of "between battle" situations. It would be good if, as a commander, you could choose between a hasty counterattack with low ammo and casualties, or waiting for reinforcements and resupply and maybe leaving yourself open to hasty counterattack. These were the sorts of choices made IRL and are slightly lacking from the current game.

I hate to explain such a useful discussion of rare German weaponry, but throwdjohn should note that our primary reference material is "VOL. 5 of LUCAS, George's" excellent series about this type of vehicle.

I agree and I was going to put forward suggestions about operations myself. I think there should be no arbitrary turn limits in operations. The battle should continue as long as either side is pressing an attack. Judging by what has been said about real movement of the sun and stars, I am hoping that operations will just continue on. I have had units wreaking havoc behind enemy lines only to find they were isolated at the end of the turn limit and the start of the next phase. A rolling map would also be useful. When a certain objective is reached, the map shifts to the next sector. Many triggering options and zones for scenario designers would allow reenactments of famous battles along real timeframes. eg. Getting to point X triggers action Y or an end to the first phase of the battle. That would be great and I think not contrary to BFC doctrine. A campaign option is a bad idea IMO in the sense of marching your forces across europe on an operational map. This is adding a dimension to a battle simulator that isn;t required and would create bags of new problems. Creating the tools for designers to make a series of linked historical actions would be cool though. You could control supply and reinforcement perameters in the editor, say in each lull in the fighting X amount of this or that is distributed to the troops.

I see your point and you are absolutely right. However, in my thinking, the different terrain would be represented graphically well enough that the player must identify the type of ground by looking at it on the screen just as the tanker would have to identify the ground by inspection. This way, obvious stuff like tree density could be seen easily, but other things like hidden rocks in thick grass or soft ground may require a "recon by bogging" excercise.

Yay command zones! I think a terrain recce would be cool. However in some old thread BFC made the point that if you get a couple of guys on top of a hill you can see the whole map on turn 3 anyway, so it wasn't worth it. If individual LOS calculations were made for each unit, the out of LOS parts when you click on a unit could be represented by a topographical map as set out in someones post above (might have been me). If reports of unit positions out of LOS were marked on the map after they had been REPORTED to a unit, you could have mortars or artillery firing based on reports of varying degrees of accuracy , and that would be cool. If the terrain is well known, an arty spotter or mortarman would have grids and major landmarks on HIS individual map. That way a good report of enemy positinos could allow fast and accurate arty fire based on knowledge of the map. Poor terrain knowledge would mean no accurate fire.

I would also like uncertain terrain. IRL you would not know if soft ground was ahead just by selecting it with your giant mouse cursor. A proper range of tree densities, different terrain types etc. would mean that you only find out about what type of terrain it is by looking at it on the screen. No more Tall pines/woods being the only types of trees in the world.

I agree. The game should be tweaked so that a delay can simulate the inbound and outbound flow of information. Preventing the God-View of the battlefield will ruin the fun. That is not to say you can not limit the units to realistic actions. ie. Each unit including HQ's should either: A. Spot a unit themselves. B. Be told about an enemy unit via realistic communications abstracted down to a time delay in spotting. This also means units out of LOS can be reported to and targetted by mortars or spotters on the basis of a report from another unit. So spotting and communication should be calculated on a per unit basis. This is for the sake of fixing the autotargetting borg TacAI. So unit A peeks over a hill and units B & C nearby have what unit A sees plotted on their LOS map after a few seconds or a few minutes if a runner has to go and report to them. Units B&C get a little icon above them to show when the news has reached them. Click on B and the enemy units over the hill are plotted on the map as reported by A. When no units are selected, the "most-spotted" version of the battlefield appears to the player. Basing order delay on the proximity of coordinating HQ units is logical. The only problem I have with the current system is that currently order delays limit a squad from acting on its own initiative. I had some ideas on how this can be fixed, but the interested listener can check back through this thread if they care.

Another possible "command-zone" type idea is to assign units to a frontage. Imagine a line is calculated on the map to represent the front line, and every unit is either assigned a relative zone of the front, or committed to reserve. Then the order of units cannot be changed except by HQs. Reserves cannot be committed to an area on the front except by HQs. This would also prevent reshuffling or unrealistic commitment of forces.

Most sources and historians confirm this version of events. They performed well in the winter of 1942. All of the completed prototypes were pressed into action, they were assigned to the 4th panzer army under General Hoth. Several were lost to these tow cable attacks. I also heard that the panzerkampffußgänger programs were abandoned after a soviet IL-2, in an amazing display of force, fired a rocket down the small ventilation shaft and into the core of the Fuhrerbunker, causing it to explode in a massive ball of flame. Some historians dispute these events however.

SdKfz 981 "panzerkampffußgänger 1" Prototype produced by Krupp factory 1938. Mounted prototype KwK/99 proton blasters.

That is a great one. It would make firing into smoke and hoping to hit something with MG fire a practical possibility.

I think a short search through the forums here would reveal that many many people are just as interested in learning the underlying probabilities and calculations even in CM. CM is still a pretty steep learning curve. The main difference is you don't have to calculate everything yourself. I don't think I have ever played a superficial PBEM game. Quick battles seem to run quicker and maybe are superficial, but sometimes overthinking is not such a good thing either.

I like the idea of "ready combatants". This also leaves open the possibility that not all of a squad would be panicked at the same time. I think some more experienced guys would always be firing their rifle while the green replacements cowered in fear. Animating every man in a squad would also make this very interesting. Not to have corpses everywhere on the map, but to tell at a glance the strength and armament of a unit. As someone suggested above, maybe only animating the selected squad in a separate window would save processing power.

No, I was never an army man, but I would like to see possibilities for smaller scale action in CM. This allows things like commando raids and small patrols. I can see your points, but I am most definitely not arguing for any increased awareness for the player. I realise that the current CM system shows the player far more than the individuals in a real squad would see. But it is a game after all, and limiting the player to seeing a few muzzle flashes and a face full of mud is not very helpful. In ww2 enemy units and the size of the elements facing off were often known to higher commands. I know an individual soldier would only have seen the odd enemy infantryman, or a muzzle flash, or hear a MG, but when you are abstracting individuals up to a squad acting as a single entity, and then giving the game player control of whole companies, the awareness level and FOW of the current CM is ok. Perhaps not perfect, but OK. As I said, my ideas are aimed at allowing the player to "be" the squad (or AT team, or sniper), and allow the range of independant movements available to a real squad of 10 or so men with an experienced NCO. But at the same time to not allow these small elements to rush off on rambo missions unrealistically.

I have very very briefly played close combat 4. After playing CM I didn't like its scale or controls or 2Dness. CM as it is now is a good simulation. I do not "hate the game". I did not say I wanted squads to have no FOW and for CM to be a RTS. I am simply discussing some ideas to improve the concept. The player currently controls all squads. The player sees almost all a squad sees within FOW constraints. There is no possibility of restricting the player to the situational awareness of an infantryman in a foxhole, that it quite silly. Laying a fairly unobtrusive C&C element across what is already there can only add to the realism. In their most simple form command zones would work anywhere I think. They only represent previous orders, not C&C ability. If a unit was ordered to take path X down the map, that is what they would do. Not having LOS or a radio is not an insurmountable problem.

I don't want to see anything that limits the ability of the player to see, in real time, exactly what his squads see. The best way I can think of to do this is to confine the squads to the localised area they are fighting in, unless a higher order comes to change position. Limiting what the player sees also implies that the player takes on some level of rank. Do you limit his view to company level or batallion level? I think a larger command delay at the higher HQ levels is most appropriate. Even green troops, if they decide to run to a house to take cover, will run there instantly. The distinction between orders from the player that simulate the "will" of a higher level HQ and orders from the player that simulates the "will" of the squad is the hard thing to distinguish. If the player is to have control over squads on the front lines at all, he must be able to see what the squad sees as they see it. Even if all you do is to put more command delay on orders from a HQ. While still allowing the player to order unrealistic borg movement, you have slightly improved the situation by limiting borg advances to orders from an officer. The command delay would be dependant on communications more so than experience. So you do simulate info coming UP then DOWN the chain of command with a simple command delay on higher level HQ orders. Maybe it would work simply making the command delay proportional to the distance a HQ is from any enemy plus the distance they are from the element they are trying to command. This way if the HQ is far from any enemy, commanding the units close to the front would take longer, and if the HQ were close to the enemy, commanding units far from it would take longer, but if the HQ was both close to an enemy, and close to a unit, command would be quick. This is not based on spotting, but proximity to the action vs proximity to the unit. Just another idea.......