Sitting Duck

Battle of the Bulge - in miniature: http://vimeo.com/85204639 Tank Brake Test (a bit unnerving): http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b4f_1390833010

You'll probably get better answers from Google than this lot...

I like it. Some additional items to consider: - Vertical scroll bar - Include icons for off-map arty/air - Perhaps use "twisties" at leader level to collapse/expand formation elements. This control could also be leveraged for split squads and units that are being transported.

That would be an awesome hear the German tank commander say when getting plinked by small arms fire from a Ami Bazooka team from a (formerly) nice ambush position... Just as he rotates the main gun and eliminates "that man."

My jeep can't turn for sh!t. In fact it has a warning...something like this: Perhaps CMBN roads should get these installed to avoid convoy problems:

I guess spalling would result in similar complaints.

I think you probably meant "seconds"

Point-to-Point LOS Tool Details... Perhaps the default should be motionless (but not hiding) infantry. Another option would be to require the selection of a unit, first - just avoid placing the false movement point. Point-to-All-Points LOS Tool In most cases, I would agree. But it seems fairly realistic for the defender in prepared defense battles. The observer height complication would need to be addressed, too.

Nice to have features... Movable Waypoints. I personally think this is more important than nice to have, but some think moveable waypoints are convenience only, so I'll put it on the nice to have list, too. More than one pre-plotted indirect fire mission per asset. When I tackle a battle, I would like the ability to pre-plot indirect fire more than just 1 mission per asset. As it is now, I think I can only pre-plot one mission for each asset. For example, I'd like to pre-plot a smoke mission to cover an advance on Turn 1. Then I'd like to bring down some death and destruction on suspected enemy battle positions when the smoke clears on turn 5. Unconnected LOS tool Because plotting a spurious movement point first is just inconvenient. There could be different tools for LOS depending on how "omniscient" terrain spotting should be. Point-to-Point LOS Tool Pretty much what we have now w/o the bother of first plotting a movement point. Could be easily initiated using key stroke (ctrl+alt+left-click?). Point-to-All-Points LOS Tool Another solution is to allow selection of a spot on the map (ctrl+alt+left-click?) and then show the player what other terrain spots on the map have obstructed (dark), partially obstructed (less dark) or unobstructed (bright) view to/from that spot. This would be a pretty powerful tool for a defender - but probably mimics what would happen in a prepared defense scenario where the defender selects choke/ambush targets and then looks around to figure out out where to position defensive assets. Non-Omniscient Terrain Spotting Other than the defender in a prepared defense scenario, players shouldn't be able see terrain detail that their units cannot see. Even defenders should not be able to see changes in terrain caused by unit action that their units cannot see. Expected Movement Path Information It's kind of frustrating to plot a movement only to discover that the actual path the unit takes is silly or worse suicidal. Even worse for the WEGO player, being unable to do anything about it for 60 seconds except scream "STOP!" at the monitor. There might be a couple of ways to tackle this... Unit Cannot Enter/Unit Cannot Cross It seems most of the movement issues occur when a unit cannot cross a terrain type. The movement pointer does show when a unit cannot enter a terrain. But as far as I can tell, the movement pointer does not show when a unit cannot cross a terrain. So perhaps one solution would be to have the movement pointer show when a unit cannot cross a terrain. Another possible solution along these lines is to change the color of terrain that a unit cannot enter or cannot cross when plotting movement orders. Show Expected Movement Path Once movement is plotted, allow the player to see the path the unit expects to take to reach the various waypoints. That would allow players to easily spot anticipated silliness. Maybe this could even help with vehicle congestion since units can interfere with each others movement path. Copy Movement Commands Select a unit and have the option to copy the movement path of another unit beginning at a selected waypoint. For example, the player has plotted movement for Unit1. When plotting movement for Unit2, the player has the option to "copy" the movement commands of Unit1, beginning at a selected waypoint. Combined with moveable waypoints (described above), this would be extremely powerful.

I am another WEGO player that would like to see the return of movable waypoints as a high priority. Yes, I guess it may only be a matter of convenience. But the same could be said for the mouse...

I'm still learning the ropes with CMBN and I'm looking for recommendations on which files I should download from the Repository. I prefer smaller combined arms battles vs the AI - no easy way to tell this with the current repository interface, so I'm asking here. Thank you! If this isn't the right forum to ask, please let me know and I'll re-ask in the right place.

I think I would rephrase this... If I understand correctly, the game already handles constant LOS checks from every unit to every other unit. I think what's is being discussed is a LOS check from each unit to every terrain tile. This could probably be handled in the way you suggest, but rather than use 100% real-time calculations, it might be faster to figure out terrain LOS and store it in a table. When "compiling" a map, a table is produced indicating LOS from each terrain tile to every other terrain tile. As play ensues, spotting rules can be applied that leverage the baseline terrain LOS data in the table to determine if a given unit can spot terrain/changes. If I understand the point correctly, currently "terrain spotting" is instantly known to all units and players. We all know every detail of the maps we play on - including changes due to unit activity - before our units have LOS. We might call the current situation Omniscient Borg Terrain Spotting. One possible implementation of less omniscient terrain spotting would be to implement 2 additional maps, for a total of 3 maps for each battle: the "real" terrain map with full detail and then one terrain map for each player that is changed as the player develops LOS to individual terrain tiles. Note that the respective player terrain maps would need to updated as a player's units develop LOS to individual terrain tiles that have been changed since they were last observed. [bTW - Since there is only one terrain map for each side, I guess this would really be like Borg Terrain Spotting, but it does get away from omniscient spotting since there must be some unit with LOS to view the terrain/change.] Another possible implementation of relativistic terrain spotting would be to implement an additional map for each unit. I'd guess fully relativistic terrain spotting would be too taxing. Furthermore, I don't think fully relativistic terrain spotting is really too different from the previous idea.

"It is a game engine limitation (right now)." For grins, what would be needed to model Upper Gun Elevation Limits (UGEL) and Lower Gun Elevation Limits (LGEL)? Vehicle Data Upper and Lower Gun Elevation Limits. For AFVs with rotating turrets, would the LGEL vary as the turret swings around? I presume this data is available with some research, but not tracked in the game. Situation Data Shooter Vehicle Attitude (pitch, yaw - probably derived from terrain data) Shooter Vehicle Altitude Target Altitude Target Attitude (pitch, yaw - not strictly needed for this calc, but important for determining impact zone) Target Distance How much of this data is already tracked in the game? Base line gun elevation can be determined from the Target Distance and difference between the altitude of the Shooter and Target. That part seems pretty simple. Base line gun elevation would then need to be modified based on the Shooter attitude (pitch, yaw) - and perhaps for turret angle of the shooter. This part seems a lot less simple...consider. Shooter Vehicle Attitude would probably have to be determined from the terrain ("lay of the land" so-to-speak, say 5% grade @ 90d) and further modified by position of the AFV on the terrain (are you behind the low wall, climbing the low wall or coming down off the low wall?)...and then Shooter Weapon orientation on the terrain (for turreted AFVs). And probably more besides... For my own part, I think I'd be OK just leaving this abstracted as it is.

There must be some criteria used by scenario creators now, yes? How do they decide how many "soldiers" to show when you select a scenario in the Battle interface?

That doesn't seem like a problem to me. Pick something arbitrary - it doesn't matter because it would be better than the current state.

Excellent suggestions! Now, how about ideas for the unit info tabs? :-) ...and maybe the indirect fire GUI?

I have seen this happen, too.

Hello - Is is possible to show "Battle Size" in the repository? Even better, would it be possible to allow sorting based on "Battle Size" in the repository? FWIW - I generally only play Tiny or Small battles. So it would be nice to be able to filter or sort based on battle size. Thanks.

Heh...I saw something last night that had me yelling. I had a panzerschreck team lying in ambush behind a wall. This PS team was working in tandem with a HMG team (located in bocage at a 90-degree angle). The HMG would fire at Sherman tanks as they rounded a blind corner, forcing the tanks to button up and slow/stop - right in front of the PS team. BOOM! There go 4 Shermans over ~2 turns... Well...too many tanks rounded the blind corner and the PS team took some fire from a tank. The wall did provide some cover, but one member of the PS team was injured. Fortunately, the 4 burning/smoking Shermans provided some cover and after performing some buddy aid and scrounging the remaining 2 rounds for the PS, I ordered the remaining member of the PS team to run Fast through the smoke to a new position. The drama occurred when the remaining PS team member crossed the wall moving fast to his new position...but...another Sherman rounds the blind corner and spots my man through a small lane in the smoke! Crap! The HMG can't see the Sherman due to the smoke. But the fellow with the panzerschreck calmly pauses as he is moving fast across the wall and gets off a shot that takes out the tank! Then he continues running...tank crew bails and the HMG mops up in the next turn.

+1.0000000

+1.0000000

I think the first two steps in the second quote sentence are typical: 1. I have a problem over here (enemy unit) 2. Some mortar fire would be nice. It's the "Do I have a spotter (in communication)...?" question/step that I think Cirrus wanted to be handled by the UI differently. I'm not advocating this but how about icon shading? I haven't played a lot (yet), but I thought I saw some application behavior similar to this when I select an enemy unit. Friendly unit icons that have LOS to the selected enemy unit are bright, and friendly unit icons that do not have LOS to the selected enemy unit in a darker color. Maybe that application behavior differs with different FOW settings. In any event it doesn't seem to be too difficult to use bright icon color to represent enemy units directly visible by the mortar and darker enemy icons to represent those available via indirect fire. Is that borg spotting? Seems like you can accomplish exactly the same result with the existing interface albeit with more steps when there is more than one spotter with LOS to the enemy unit (i.e., select enemy unit first, select potential spotters in LOS (bright icon), click indirect fire dialog to see which indirect asset available, decide whether to try another spotter with LOS, issue targeting commands). Ok, the indirect fire UI works fine.

For my own part, I'm not suggesting anything other than a change to the UI that makes it easier to use indirect fire. I am not advocating a return to borg spotting in any way. I think the key is that some users "think" about targeting by selecting the firing resource, first. The easiest example of this is for direct fire. Select the firing resource, issue the target command, then select the target. In the case of indirect fire, the process is complicated by the fact that the spotter is not the firing resource. The current UI solves this by requiring the player to select the spotting unit first, select the firing resource using the indirect fire dialog, then issue mission commands. A suggested alternative would allow the user to start with the selection of the indirect firing resource, then the target. If there is only one valid spotter, then the user can simply issue the remaining indirect fire commands. If there is more than one valid spotter, then the player would need to select that spotter. This is required because the spotter is essential to targeting resolution. No borg spotting. Since off-map indirect fire resources do not have on-map icons, they would have to be selected differently. I guess it could be done using the indirect fire dialog - but without selecting a spotter first. I was trying to add some light to my understanding of Cirrus' post. I am interested in improving the indirect fire interface - I am definitely not interested in a return to borg spotting. :-)

Thank you, Steiner14. I've actually give this UI some thought separately. I find the current indirect fire UI a little clunky. How I use the current UI depends on the situation - which is probably an indication that improvements could be made. If I understood Cirrus' point, I think it stems from his approach to indirect fire. He first figures out a target, then immediately jumps to the indirect fire resource he would like to use. He prefers to use a high POV so he can see enemy unit icons and friendly indirect fire icons. FWIW - this approach (select firing unit, select target) is very similar to the approach for direct fire. If I understand Cirrus' approach, given the way the UI works, he might accomplish his task by selecting the enemy icon first, rather than the indirect fire resource. If I understand the UI, by selecting the enemy icon first, he would see which of his units can "see" the enemy, and then "figure out" which of them would be a valid spotter for his various indirect fire resources. I can see that this could be a bit cumbersome, especially if there are lots of friendly units with LOS to the enemy unit. I mentioned one complication for off-map indirect fire resources. I think there might be another, namely that spotters have their own impact on resolution of the targeting. So, even if the UI were to allow the player to start with selecting the indirect fire resource first, there is still the issue of selection of a spotter if there are several with LOS & command. I don't want to seem like I'm bashing the current UI, at all. This is a complex concept. To summarize my understanding... Direct Fire Process (high level) Select Firing Unit Select Target Indirect Fire Process (high level) Select Enemy Unit Select Spotting Unit Use Indirect Fire Interface to select Firing Unit My Best Guess at Cirrus' Indirect Fire Process (high level) Select Firing Unit Select Target <need to select spotting unit, if more than one has LOS and command> <need interface to select firing unit if off-map>

I think I might understand the point. Maybe. In order to "shoot indirectly," the CMBN indirect fire interface requires that you select a valid spotter, first. That spotter must have LOS to the "position where" the enemy unit is and have a communication line to the indirect shooter. I think that Cirrus is suggesting that these steps would be better handled by the engine in the background. So, rather than first selecting the spotter, the player would just select the indirect fire weapon. Enemy icons that are visible to some valid spotter (in command) would remain on the map, either in bright color (direct fire, visible to the unit) or dark (indirect fire, visible to a valid spotter). Enemy units that were not visible directly by the unit or indirectly by a valid spotter would not be visible on the map. Did I summarize that correctly, Cirrus? If so, this isn't "gamey," nor "borg spotting." This is simply a user interface issue. I'm not sure how off-map resources would be handled. I guess they could be called upon using the current interface or an adaptation of the above (i.e., select the resource from the list, then enemy icons would remain on the map or not depending on valid spotter. Note there would only be "dark" colored units since by definition off-map resources don't have direct LOS). Is that close, Cirrus?