Midnight Warrior

The question is: will the effects of naval blocking forces be also factored into amphibious operations combat results. There are actually quite a number of special considerations that must be made in regard to an amphibious operation. These include: 1. beach suitability (bluffs, rocks, tides, surf, etc), 2. beach fortifications, 3. number of troops at the waters edge, 4. naval gunfire (or lack there of), 5. mobile reserves that can counter attack the beachhead, 6. floating reserves 7. aircraft interdiction of the invasion force while at sea, 8. naval interdiction of the invasion force (while at sea), 9. aircraft interdiction of re-supply shipping, and 10. naval interdiction of re-supply shipping. 11. weather effects on sea lines of communications and sea worthiness of ships (e.g. Rhine River barges vs LST’s) 12. quality of landing craft such as unloading characteristics of landing craft (how close to shore can it go, how hardened is it against mines and obstacles, what is it’s unload time (drive off ramps vs unloading cranes). 13. Training in amphibious ops 14. the distances traveled over water (effect s vulnerability to interdiction, fighter coverage, ship recycle times for resupply, landing craft vulnerability to sea states). In a long game turn (e.g. one month or several weeks) interdiction would happen at once (and not in some next turn counter attack). This would require something akin to how TOAW resolved combat in multi-phases by allowing “nearby” reaction forces to enter into subsequent combat phases rather than having to wait to the next player’s turn to employ them. My question is that if the defender should have naval and air superiority (as was the case in Sea Lion) will this affect the outcome of an amphibious operation or will the defense strength solely be based on the number of the number of ground troops defending the beach. It should be noted that that the interdicting naval and air forces could be many hexes away from the beach hex the are interdicting. What I would like to see is that naval and air forces that are in interdiction range get to add their defensive value to the beach hex if not countered by the attackers supporting naval and air forces. Thus, IMHO, historically accurate amphibious invasion will require rules that are a lot more sophisticated than just totaling up the ground combat forces in the attacking hex (albeit it at reduced strength) and comparing them against all the ground forces in the defending hex. To do so would be to treat an amphibious invasion simply as a river crossing. However, the difference between an amphibious invasion and a mere river crossing is that in an amphibious operation the attacker is not only attacking in boats across water but that air and naval forces can interdict these most crucial and vulnerable sea lines of communication. If all these are not modeled properly then realism of amphibious operations will be in question. Now admittedly all these factors will be abstracted in a strategic game. However, that doesn’t mean that they can be ignored.

I have been reading a book on Operation Sea Lion which has stimulated some questions concerning this game. 1. Will the game allow the Germans to build amphibious prior to the invasion of France so that the Germans would be bettered prepared to follow up after Dunkirk with Sea Lion? 2. for that matter, will the game be able to properly simulate the rapid blitzkrieg campaign that led to Dunkirk? (I remember the AH 3rd Reich I never could really reproduce a historically accurate 1940 invasion of France that knocked France out in 6 weeks- which pretty much ruined the game from my perspective). 3. The Luftwaffe was never nearly as effective at anti-shipping as the nations that had navy owned air forces such as the Japanese or the US Navy. In addition to doing research to build jets, better tanks, etc. will the game have an option to attempt to build better anti-shipping capability for the Luftwaffe? This in part could be more training and better tactics and in part develop better equipment) 4. Due the relatively long turns (i.e. one month) will units be able to respond to events that occur much more quickly than the full turn. For example the British navy had destroyers based in the south of England that were going to sortie within the hour that the invasion fleet was detected. Will the game model reactive events that happen within a game turn where the reaction times are measured in hours of days instead of weeks an months? All in all the potential exists to build a really neat (and realistic strategic game (as opposed to a just an Allies vs. Axis on steroids).

* Creeks, gullies and ditches * Better A/C graphics such as 3D planes, tracers, puffs of dust from bullet impacts, from the cockpit views, AA fire at planes. * Level 1 only play option with supporting features to enhance level 1 play * Better interiors of buildings such as interior walls doors, stairs, and windows * The ability for players to draw map graphics that are overlaid on the game map * Ability for scenario designers to name units by their actual unit name rather than by letters . e.g. be able to name companies by letter and platoons by number...B Company 1st platoon. * Graphical linking lines to company and Bn HQ's (e.g. if you click on a Platoon HQ you get (In addition to lines to squads) a line to the Company HQ (Perhaps of different color so as to distinguish from the lines to the subordinate units) * Ability to make non square maps (to make edge following harder * A "follow the leader" command for vehicles moving along roads * A unit roster and/or a better unit indexing system that doesn't require having to hit the "+" and "-" keys a million times * The ability to lock the camera position in the level 1 perceptive view to the exact actual position of the viewer so what you see on the computer screen is exactly what the unit can see --right now you can see things at level 1 on the computer screen (even with the view "tab'ed" to a unit) that the unit cannot see (as can be verified by comparing the computer perspective view with the LOS tool) * Sun angle shading of the terrain maps (note this is not quite the same true shadows.. (for the none mathematically challenged. --though perhaps English challenged) the sun angle shading is a modulation of brightness of the terrain surface as a function of its slope in relation with the terrain’s angle with the sun (which in expressed in mathematical terms would be the dot product of the unit vector that is normal to the terrain surface with a unit vector pointing toward the sun). This can be pre-computed for any given maps and thus would not take up processor time . It would make for more realistic looking terrain and also enhance the over all beauty of the scenery * True shadowing (BTW, this would require a lot more calculations than sun angle shading and couldn’t be pre-computed since shadow producing entities such as vehicles can move * interface with an operational level game * amphibious vehicles!!!!! * landing craft * direct fire naval gunfire against tanks (as occurred both Normandy and Sicily (or Selarno (sp?)) * 10 meter grid spacing (for narrower streets in towns/cities, streams, etc * non "boxy" looking cities (to create the winding look of European towns). * trains, armored trains, partisans that can blow up blow bridges, and trains wrecks that run off track and falls into river (industrial strength eye candy) * telephone poles and signs * farm animals (live and dead) * stick on decals to units (mod appliqué) * better textures for water (e.g. pseudo reflections == true reflections would be incredibly hard-- or 3D waves by adding wave doodads) * flares, armored trains, partisans that can blow up blow bridges, and trains wrecks that run off track and falls into river (industrial strength eye candy) * telephone poles and signs * farm animals (live and dead) * stick on decals to units (mod applique) * better water textures (pseudo reflective or wave doodads) * flares and also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! * a spell checker and grammar checker and bigger font size for creating post on the forum so that you don't have to go type your post in MS word However, there probably is no hope for old guys that have spent too much of their adult life making PowerPoint Charts for a living and having long since fried their brains, destroyed or permanently marred their to communicate in a natural language and are thus probably forever doomed to communicate in a brogue bullet chart style totally devoid of any grace or style ... Such is life! [ April 06, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]

My dad was on a LCT at Omaha Beach on D-Day and said that they were not allowed to shoot their 20mm guns because of fear of hitting their own guys. Thus I don't think that the guns on landing craft were used very often. I think they were mostly their for AA use. Even so, Iwould love to see landing craft in CM someday (maybe in CMII).

I second the nomination to use XML for your text files. That is the direction the wargamming industry needs to go IMHO. [ February 26, 2002, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]

I would suggest that you might look at the John Tiller Panzer Campaigns series for general ideas. http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Patch_pages/Patch_panzer_camps/Patches_panzer_camps.html Also you might look at Shrapnel Combat Command series for ideas. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/boku/cc2_danger/ Both of these would beclose to your scale.

Well there is always the CMBB version 1.1

Given there will be no roster something like this would help for bigger battles: Expand the functionality of the "+" and "-" key function where you can type a alt H, cntl H (or whatever isn't used yet) H which causes the +/- keys to step from HQ to HQ a cntl A would cause the +/- keys to just step between arty spotters, a cntl T would cause the +/- to step between tanks, etc With this one could find units without wearing out your +/- keys (and finger as well). Also a cntl L to step back to the last unit selected by the +/- key would be good in that when stepping through units if you click on a friendly unit the step sequence gets reset to that unit and there is no easy way to get back to the unit you last (so laborously) stepped to via the +/- keys. [ February 23, 2002, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]

Thanks for the info. Sorry it didn't make it into CM2 but that is understandable given all the other wonders that appear to be in it. A step to HQ to HQ option would be a good consolation prize. Also, what about the vehicle "follow" command did it make the cut?

Let me bump this back to the top and see if anyone knows the answer to this.

I know there was quite a discussion on this topic a while back but I don't recall the final verdict. Will CM 2 have a unit roster? Also, will it have a follow command for vehiles going down roads so that you can justmove the lead vehicle?

My vote would be this. Since Blitzgrieg period covers such as small span in time (39-40), and since CM2 and CM3 will both cover much longer periods (41-45), and that much of the allies equipment in Italy 43-45 also saw action in France 44-45 that CM4 will be expanded to be the war in the west that covers France and Norway 40 and revisits France 44-45 plus Poland 39 thrown in for good measure. That way one won't have to wait to CM 5 to revist CM1 with all the new cool feaures.

Also, there is no tactical flexibility and/or control in how and where reinforcements are fed into the battle.

There is also the reverse of this where abandoned tanks are re-occupied. IIRC, there was a famous case (I beleive in Clark's Barbarossa)of this where a Russian arty FO hid in an abandoned Russian tank (actually the tank crew were all dead) and called on devastating arty fire on the Germans for some hours before the Germans realize where the arty fire was being called from.

I definaely think that playing CM would help some in th tactics department. However, there are so many other factors that come to play in real combat that CM doesn't model (or should it model). These would include intangiables such as leadership, character, etc. They would also include practical things like not having a nicecomputer view of the battlefield and not being able to move men with a mouse click but rather having to issue clear orders.

My wish list for CAS or CMBB is far a gun camera view. It would simulate the view onewould see from viewing guncamera footage. The gun camera view would only be viewable (by either side)in the action phase. It would show what a forwarded looking gun camera would see from the attacking aircraft's perspective. Tracer lines and bullet impact puffs from the aircraft guns plus appropriate .WAV files would also be cool. It would be no different than the normal camera view that is displayed with a unit when you hit "TAB" except the trajectory would be along that of the aircraft's tracjetory verses a ground unit. This could be a simple straight line wings level dive with a pull up prior to the aircraft hitting the ground. This would not require modeling any aicraft graphics in that the aircraft is not seen in the gun camera view. A hot key could reduce the aircraft speed for slower computers so that the frames don't become jumpy. You can almost simulate this in the current version of CM (for level flight) by rapidly slewing the camera across the map. Even though this is mostly eye candy I think that it would be cool eye candy nor should it be that hard to code. Though I doubt that it could make the CM2 version 1.0 maybe it could go in one of the later updates.

I would imagine that much of the discrepency between Russsian and German performance was due to Russian incompetence and/or lackof experience at higher levels above the CM scale. This could be modeled in the scenarios by giving the Russian player dumb objectives and/or unrealistic time schedules to achieve them that woud preclude even a very good Russian CM frommaking the most tactically sound moves. For instance if it would take 30 min to move X far with Y force against Z opposition, the (wicked, devious, and warped) scenario designer could require the Russian player (who was he? Ah yes,Y) to do it in 15 min so as to reflect bad direction from above. This may force him to move directly to his objective without making good use of cover because of the reduced time schedule. This (plus the other suggestions in this thread) would up his losses without having to jack with his combat factors. (my apologies if this suggestion has already been made in the thread)

Here is a thought how to take some of the edge of the newbies wildly uniformed enthusiasm and smugness. Add some new Instant Graemlins only attach to them the expected newbie comments. That way when the newbie makes is uninformed comment the veterans can most graciously point him to the appropiate extended Graemlin list and ask him to use them to save his own time and that of the reader. For example, (HeHe) a varinat of the Gramelin :eek: -5 could be defind to mean "why doesn't a 155mm arty round do more damage than it does when it lands in the middle of an infantry platoon" or whatever. That way the newbies may figure out that their MOST insightful observation may not be quite as original or as astute as they thought it was when they originally penned it. [ February 02, 2002, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]

more thoughts on this subject: 1.The higher level HQ's probably wouldn't have much impact on the perforance of the platoons, themselves, but they might eect the performance on the platoon leaders. 2.The extra command radious might refect better/more radios andmore staff to manage the battle. 3.I think that what CM needs is some type of action points that limit how manythins a unit can do at once. As the game currently is a platton can do many things atonce. For example one sqaud can split, a HQ can spot for a mortar (while also rallying a broken uit), another squad could mount on a vehicle, and another squad could be given complex orders ALL in the same one minute turn. If each platoon had a maximum of action points and each action used up so many to peforman an action, then there could be some sort of limit to what a platoon could do at one time. Given this a superior HQ could either add to the platoons command points are lower the action points required to perform certain actions.

Whenever they DO get around to adding telephone poles I would like them to add lamp post and road signs to the list for city fights. On that same note, I would like to see non rectangular buildings and narrower streets. Also, how about farm animals (alive or dead), farm equipment (e.g feeding troughs, old tractors), junk or abandoned cars, trucks, and and carts, and just the normal junk that one would see randomly lying around a barn or farm house, or town just as mentioned above to keep the scenery from being so empty of objects.

I had a thought on a "compromise" on the Pacific theater of operation. Instead of a Pacific only CM perhaps BTS could do an amphibuous version that modeled the actual landings in the Pacific AND in the West (i.e. Normandy, South France, Sicily, Salerno, etc). The emphasis would be in adding the amphibuous craft such as LCT's, Ducks, LCVP's, etc and the beach defences. Perhaps having both Pacific and Western amphibuous operation would widen the appeal. Just a thought.

Question. I would think that one could use trenches to simulate small streams and gullies. Is this true or false? If so, i wonder if the trench graphics is mod-able o have a stream apperance.

Good point! (Its been quite a while sense I've read the manual. However, 1. If I'm not mistaken, these levels of spotting in the manual apply uniformily to all units where what I am describing allows different units to have a different levels of spotting, i.e. one guy sees (and maybe even ID's) the target and another doesn't. 2. Perhaps one of these levels in the manual could be extended to include the aspects of releative spotting (though it seems that that would be mixing apples and oranges in that these are different aspects of spotting, i.e. to what degree is he spotted and who else sees him.

This is an excerpt from a new thread I started yesterday and just revised (Poor man's relative spotting) but it better belongs here. The idea here runs pretty much with some of the other post in this thread. (He He. I think this is a case of great minds think alike). I would put a link here if I knew how so I will just cut and past the excerpt. excerpt A simple way to create the effect of relative spotting is to introduce a new level of being spotted that is inbetween unspotted and absolutely spotted, called partially spotted. Whenever an unspotted unit first become spotted it has the potential of becoming a partially spotted target. Partially spotted units would be something akin to sound contacts in that there is some random amount of error in its location. However, unlike sound contacts the icon of the partially spotted unit has the proper ID and directioanl orientation (subject to fog of war restrictions). Whenever anyone shoots at a partially spotted unit the TAC AI would randomly decide whether he spotted the target or not. If yes, then the shot is normal. If no, then the shot becomes an area shot directed at some radius around the partially spotted unit's icon (similar to the proceedure that it scatters indirect fire). This area fire may still hit the target but has reduced liklihood due to the uncertainty of where the target actually is. TAC AI could use some simple rules to affect the probability that the firer spots the target (e.g. his chances go up if he is being shot at by the unit or if he is close to it). As time goes on the degree of error of the location of the partially spotted target could decrease. The rate in which it decreases could be a function of target activity such as motion and firing, the terrain that it is in, and whether the shooter spotted the unit the previous turn or not. When the error foes to zero the target becomes absolutely spotted so that everyone knows exactly where it is. Note that the firer could also choose to fire area fire at where it thinks the real location of the partially spotted unit is. He would do this if he thinks he can guess better than having the AI randomly pick for him. However, if it does this then it forgoes the possibility that the AI declaring him to have sighted the target. With this approach it would be harder to game the system and use area fire to defeat the relative spotting mechanics since the target icon's location is randomly displaced from the target's actual location. Thus his area fire would have to cover a wide area with reduced liklihood of actually hitting the partially spotted unit. Implementation of this should not be a problem in the current engine in that it is only adding a few more logic checks to the existing firing proceedure (e.g. is it in Line Of sight, is oit in range, ect). It should be easier to implement than true relatively targeting sense it does not require every unit ro keep track of which targets it has spotted or not but only requires that the TAC AI decree whether the shooter when he shoots at a target actually has spotted it or not by use of some simple rules.

I majorly edited this post so I am bumping it back up. The edited approach to relative targeting is much more simplier than my first iteration.