CMplayer

I've just started using version 1.1 and twice I've noticed something strange. I spot a generic gun marker, but if i click on it, the information window says 'infantry sounds'. It continues calling it 'infantry sounds' even after I watch the generic gun marker belch fire and see a round explode near my running infantry. Is the game supposed to behave this way? regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-13-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob/1: most likly not going to happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because you see problems with the idea? Or it doesn't seem especially important? If so, in what way? regards, --Rett

The present system allows 'defenders' units to be dug in and not 'attackers' units. This is okay for QB's, but in scenarios wouldn't it be better to have each deployment zone tailor-defined instead? (Or even a deployment command, like rotate, padlock, hide, dig in, don't dig in, etc) One possibility this would open up is for there to be a deployment zone out in front of the defenders, which is for units which are out _patrolling_ ahead of the lines. They shouldn't get foxholes. A neat design trick, in case it's not already in use, would be to 'checker' a no man's land with deployment zones from both sides, so that there can be opposing patrols in a forest, or sunken dry river bed, or whatever, at the outset of a game. Again, the defender's patrol must not be allowed to have foxholes in this situation. Also, if the 'attacker' is attacking from a base on the map, he should be able to be dug-in there. thx for listening, --Rett

Pak40: 1. I highly recommend that you download the BETA 1.1, it operates separately from the 1.05 executable so you can have shortcuts to both versions simultaneously. The BETA version fixed a bug that didn't allow the white setup zone to be used between battles. This, however, may not fix the problem completely. Rett: That explains a lot, thanks. At the first night turn, there was a white zone which extended over the bridge into the area of my bridgehead, but it was not possible to set up units there. It added insult to injury because it was like the game was saying, "ha ha, I even know what you should have gotten, but you can't have it." I was quite puzzled by that white zone actually. I designed the operation with the idea that the first two battles should be a "dash for the bridge" type action. In other words the allies need to get as close to the bridge as possible with as many units as possible in order to capture it. I have tested this and it works well, I am consistantly able to get many units to the bride (and several units across it) while taking out most axis forces. Yes I found it the same. Against the AI at +1 experience I got 5 squads over the bridge by the end of the second battle. (But then I had practiced it in CC many times) The issue is not so much whether you take the bridge but how much casualties you take getting there. However, I didn't consider the importance of moving my slower units, MG's and so on, closer to the canal to get their 'weight' into the calcualation. Thx for the explanation. Despite all the things I mentioned above I still witness some strange behavior in the campaigne system. I sometimes see the defender pushed back hundreds of meters in one setup but none in the next setup. There is definite room for improvement here. I think and pray BTS will work on this for CM2. I'm glad that you also express your desire to see the campaign system improved. Your description of 'object orientation' (snipped) was a very clear way of putting what I was trying to say. It would be interesting if the next version of the campaign system would give the campaign designer a simple scripting language for defining 'if...then...' alternatives as to deployment zones, reinforcement and resupply. An example, in your scenario would be, that if the bridge (an object) is held by the allies, then all german deployment is shifted to the far side of the canal. German units trapped on the American side could perhaps stay there, but in a more dire supply situation. The possibilities are staggering. Another way of looking at it, would have to do with the terrain. The bridge is such a total bottleneck on that map, that holding it is, in effect, like holding the whole length of the canal, so it should be much more weighty in calculating the way the lines are shifted forward. But this would probably be too vague to program, which is why these sorts of decisions could be given to the scenario designer with a scripting system. Now that you have explained your take on these issues I'm starting to see some of the ways you worked to make the scenario function within the constraints of the present operation system. For instance, in the Son Allies briefing, it says to expand the bridgehead as much as possible on the far side of the canal. This seems like a decent way to model a 'seize and hold' operation within an 'assault' type campaign. (At least as long as all counterattacks only come from straight ahead) Thanks for that effort and work. Still, I'll bet the game would profit from object oriented campaigns, and a specifically defined 'seize and hold' type of campaign, where counterattacks can come from several directions. Arnhem definitely needs this: the Germs come from over the bridge, the back, the sides... everywhere... And for urban campaigns, we'll have to know we will keep every house we clear. Crossing the street is just too dangerous, to have those small gains traded away. regards, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MERC: Well there are several questions: 1. What version were you playing? There has been a campaign bug that is suppose to be squashed that will draw the front lines better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1.05 but the issue is not just one of drawing the front lines better. They system needs to recognize key objectives, and never just toss them away once taken. Otherwise there is no incentive to assault them. 2. I'm not familiar with Son operation, but you might want to look at how the designer designed the scenario. He is the one that establishes the buffer zone.

I'd like to start out by saying that I think CM is an excellent game. However the campaign system is _weak_, which seriously undermines the enjoyment. I was playing the Son campaign as the Allies, and by the end of the second battle had established a bridgehead over the Wilhelmina canal. This required attacking at a pretty fast pace, and even bypassing German units in order to reach and take the main objective. Were my casualties worth it? No, because the campaign system 'adjusted' the lines, and forced me to redeploy a ways back behind the canal. There is no way on earth that airborne would relinquish that bridgehead, however tiny it was. To make things worse, in the next battle I conducted a 'reverse slope' defence at my new front line, and inflicted heavy casualties on the Germans. (I didn't even try to go back over the bridge, since there is no point in taking any initiative with the campaign system as undynamic, and uncreative as it is). Well, having successfully repulsed the Germans, what happens? My line is pushed back again because of some irrelevant halftracks out on my extreme flanks. I say irrelevant, because in this scenario taking the bridge is the goal; it is the center of gravity from which everything should be measured, at least until XXX corps arrives. (holding an open route to the drop zone is also important of course) This sort of thing also would make good urban campaigns impossible. Why would anyone go to the trouble to take an important building, if he's not sure if the campaign system will let him keep it for the next battle? And this is really a big shame, because the possiblities for fantastic urban campaigns in CM are awesome, and totally beat what was possible in CC. For instance initiating night combat and trying to infiltrate a building or two would really increase the dynamic quality of the game. But again, as the campaign system works now, why bother? As it is now, the system seems to be stuck in a very inflexible, World War I kind of thinking, where there is an even advance along a wide front. Tactical mobility and initiative are not rewarded, which is very detrimental to the game, and works against the game's explicit desire to model WWII-style fighting. Sorry for the rant, but as a player, I am really hoping for some kind of improvement, and I hope it will apply retroactively to the original CM as well. I expect these issues have been hashed to death, and that the game's developers, who deserve choruses of thanks, are probably very aware of these issues. But after the frustration of trying to play what otherwise was a promising and interesting campaign, I just had to mention it again. thanks for listening, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 12-28-2000).]

One more thing: Heavy weapons can be KO'd or abandoned. It would be really cool if troops in certain situations could re-man an abandoned weapon. Just because the crew abandons your only AT gun shouldn't mean they can't come back, or other experienced troops couldn't man it in a pinch. Troops sometimes even manned the enemy's weapon systems. Imagine chasing off the crew from an 88 or a quad flak, and then turning it towards the Germans! I wouldn't put it past Airborne, or the Russians for that matter. regards, --Rett

I love this game. It is excellent, and I keep discovering new finesses in it almost every day or two. I hope that some of these suggestions are useful for the next version: Taking prisoners early on in the game and getting them to a company or higher HQ could be able to yield intelligence about enemy gun positions, etc. One could possibly even have special interrogation officer units. As it is now I can't set up mines in an open ground tile between a blockhouse and and pavement tile. The AI has no problem setting up there, though. It seems that the exact spot to 'point at' is so tiny as to be impossible to hit for a human. Vehicles could be exempted from order delay on movement orders on _first turn_ so that they can start out already moving at full speed (in case you inadvertently start out in LOS of threats) Ability to set up shellholes in map design. I realize this is probably hard to program since the shellholes aren't a feature of a tile, but an alteration of the map datastructure, but it would add a lot to scenario design. Lots more focus on the urban-fighting side of the game, both in terms of terrain and buildings, and the tacAI. In particular, buildings taken in a campaign should be held onto and not erased by the straightening of the deployment lines. This makes night infiltration in an urban campaign a real possibility. Even taking one single building at night could be a significant gain for the next days fighting. In Berlin the standard apartment buildings consisted of four buildings surrounding a courtyard. The 'blockhouse' doesn't model this accurately enough. I don't know about Russian city design but I'd wager it's similar. Lots of LOS issues could come up if, for instance, some but not all of the buildings surrounding a couryard were reduced to rubble. More dynamic rubble. Rubble could be similar to shellholes, rather than just an own tile. That way it could fall part way, or all the way across a street, depending on the way a building collapses, making the LOS and cover situation in urban fighting more intricate. Concrete and stone buildings can burn to a shell, and be both rubble, and block LOS at the same time. New graphics for these gutted hulks. Building tiles similar to the blockhouse tiles, but which, when placed adjacent to each other, are considered to be part of the same building, i.e. permeable for movement inside. (both low and high). Partial collapse for such large buildings. Movement from the upper level of a building to the upper level of an adjacent building. (under the right circumstances) Top-down building clearing. Addition of SOP options for units, or more detailed ordergiving, along the lines that many people have already described. In particular the ability to designate high urgency targets (such as when you need to coordinate suppressive fire with assault movement) and the ability to give orders like 'fire to button' so that the MG knows why, and how long, to fire at a tank. A 'unit editor' making it possible to custom design units, weapons, vehicles and maybe even entire nationalities. The tacAI could be a little smarter about not plotting a course through bocage/barbed wire when it is right at the edge of the obstacle anyway. Especially in fast-move mode. Ice movement shouldn't be penalized for speed if there is snow. The snow makes the ice not so slippery, and it's basically like walking on snowy ground. Differing strengths of ice. Vehicles can move on thick ice. On thinner ice the men could have to move slowly, despite snow, because the ice is making scary cracking noises. Artillery should be able to pound a hole in ice, making it water, and dumping the unlucky guys into the lake/sea. Again, different strengths of ice is a good idea here. There should even be able to be snowy weather with non-ice water, the sea for instance. Civilians, at least as an option. Both hiding in cellars or refugee columns on roads etc. This would do a lot for realism. Medics and medevac issues, at least as an option. Background a factor in spotting, as in skylining vs having forest behind you when you expose your turret, for example. A more clear distinction between area fire and opportunity fire. For example a marker, like an ambush marker, but which means shoot at all infantry targets which present themselves in this area, with preference to moving and exposed targets. As it is now, the area fire command seems useless for sharpshooters, but an opportunity fire marker would be very useful for them. This would be a very realistic addition IMO. Correct location of the sun/moon based on exact date, time and latitude info. This could affect spotting. Dynamic weather, such as scattered showers, making possible weather change during a longer scenario. Long scenarios going from night to dawn, dawn to day, day to dusk, dusk to night. The dawn/dusk looks beautiful, but the rosy fingertips of dawn shouldn't be in a 360 degree spread. Artillery taking out fortifications like barbed wire/mines. The Finns and their skis. Partisans. At the end you are given information casualties/KIA. Shouldn't casualties be divided up according to those that are 'out of the war' and those that will be back soon? The possiblity to recover mortar ammo from a knocked out mortar and take it to another functioning barrel. Same for MG's. Also, if you have two otherwise identical AT guns, set up to cover two streets, and one sees action while the other doesn't fire a shot, the crew could run some ammo over to the other gun, if they were close enough. Tricky to program but it could make the game a lot more intense. This is just the sort of thing that makes a difference if you are fighting a dynamic defence against a superior force, and we want that kind of excitement in CM don't we? regards, --Rett