Peter Cairns

With the seperation of suppression and moral, will ammo become a factor for unit behaviour. for example. In a 30 minute assault I try to dislodge defenders with cincentrated firepower before crossing open grown. After 10 minutes they are pinned or broken and I can move forward. Problem is that with two thirds of the scenario left I have only a third of my ammo, having used two thirds already. Will troops in that situation even if unshaken or suppressed be reluctant to move or even more cautious when ordered forward. I know that low ammo effects how you target and firepower, but what about advancing. This brings me on to the fearless Bazooka. US Airborne are fighting armour and have either lost or used all their Antitank rounds. In order to stop a PzIV, you order your last team ( perhaps down to one man) with your last round forward to stop it. I feel that a flaw in CM is that the guy always does it even though it's pretty close to suicide. Equally a lot of people seem to post AT teams on their own hidden up front to ambush armour. This is quite effective but the casualty rate for the AT teams is often 90% plus. Would it not be more realistic if they at least from time to time, just stayed hidden and refuse to engage even when ordered too. In the CMBB Demo the russian AT teams and most of the AT rifles seem to get sacrificed for little use. True this might be bad deployment, but I can't help thinking that the two comrades in cover watching the half dozen PzIII's go by would just stay if cover and let them past. I suppose what I am asking is for some way for units to assess the risk and ignore orders if the risk is too high. Peter. Peter.

It was not uncommon for units in W2 to share ammo, ie if a squad with plenty of ammo came across one running low, they would help them out, (trude they would also sometimes say "Bugger off and get your own". Rather than have a complex system of runners and ammo carriers, (have a look at the WIA thread to see how difficult it can become) have simple rule. If two units of the same type are adjacent for a full move they will exchange 1 unit of ammo, but only if the difference between them is greater than the lower ammo. So if two Bazookas are side by side and one has 4 rounds and the other one, next turn it will be two and three. This would allow a limited amount of flexibility and a fair representation of what actually went on. Peter.

In the Hurtgen forest in WW2 the Germans used mortars which when they hit the tree tops sent splinters down into the US troops in foxholes with terrible results. I am not sure if or how do do it, but there is plenty of evidence that artillery can not only change woods but that far from giving the kind of cover it gives from small arms fire, frees can actually make the effects of artillery worse. Peter.

There has been quite a lot of discussion of being able to save QB's and restart them. So if that feature makes it you could sort of convert a good but unfinished battle into round one of an operation, with limited repair, reload and reinforcement. It's a different way to achieve the same thing and it opens up the possibility of new units appearing to counter that flanking thrust, which when you think of it was only possible because you knew... iIt was near the end of a "Game". On a preset "Map". and, with "know Forces". Peter.

What Steve says goes. As I started this thread I'd like it finished and locked please, I said my bit and it's been decided that it doesn't fit with what BF has in mind. Given that I am more than 90% happy with what they have planned so far, I am not going to argue for the inclusion of my 1% of the 10% thats left. I can more than get by with the improvements on the maps and terrain, which sound brillant. 1:1 representation will be an absolute breakthrough, and Relative sighting will be a quantum leap forward for realism. So hang the"Gun View" it's no big deal. Peter.

Why Panzer 76, Are you saying that the gun crew on a20mm flak wouldn't track their target visually. Or that the commander of a tank wouldn't keep his eye fixed on the target even if the gun wasn't brought to bear yet. Or that a pilot who's just dropped a bomb doesn't look back to see if he's hit the target. I don't want Bino views or Tank sights, as if I am prentending to be the pilot I just want the ability to track moving targets by eye rather than have to do it manually by adjusting the camera. Thats not to much to ask is it. Peter.

Given what has been said about the scope of the new engine, I'd have thought the Classic Tripods from Mars was a possible. The time period of 1900's is do able and the tripods themselves though they walk funny would be neat. I've often felt that one way to do it would be to have a 100 year gap, so if we set it in say 1910-15, (so that we could have early biplanes and armoured cars), then "The Martians" could have 2010-15 technology, sort of Apache's instead of tripods. Peter.

Don't know if this is possible but I'd like it. The ability to centre the view on either where your gun is pointing or your target, Centred on gun would let you have a pilots view of an attack run, but blue sky as he pulls up. For AA you would lead the target and with a turning turret you might not see the target, or at least not until you where close to lined up. With target view from a plane you would get the over the shoulder view as you pulled up, For AA it would be cerntered on the target plane, and for a gun you would see your target in the centre even if you hadn't managed to line up on it. I wouldn't want bomb or shell view where you fly to the target, as short of "Dr Strangelove", you can't do it. Peter.

"2006" hell i thought the war was over..... Damned Krutes they never give up... Peter.

Great pictures, and ideal for a game where the effective range of an MP40 was restricted to 30ft, and a Tigers 88mm, 30yards. Peter.

Great pictures, and ideal for a game where the effective range of an MP40 was restricted to 30ft, and a Tigers 88mm, 30yards. Peter.

Having advocated that the AI handles casualty behaviour and that walking wounded look after incapacitated, though it's still my prefered option, i'd happily go along with Zalgiris and other and have a "uniform" dropped body icon, as a start. Peter.

A "black and white", grainy, top view of the battlemap with standard symbols like those TacOp's would be a fairly simple way to give something that looked like an aerial photo/briefing. They could also supliment in with a few angled "Black and Whites", and even a colour ground level , "From your start line" panorama. All these would be good and hopefully not to difficult to put in. Peter.

Plenty of games have multiple options where one side can be made of up a mix of real and computer players. I know that BF have looked and and discussed the idea of multiplayer games of more than two aside. If this comes through then if theory you should be able to have 2v2 with any combination, of human and AI players. Although I wanted "CvC" as a scenario design aid, As a predominantly solo player, I like the idea of a Battalion action where I play one of the three company Co's and the AI handles the other two. The other one i would like to see as i think it would be both realistic and challenging is seperating Infantry and armour, where my inf Coy was supported by a Plt of Shermans outwith my direct control. Peter.

It wasn't a rerun of the movie, but to play the same round over with the same orders, but with all the fire calculations redone, so that you could get an idea of whether a result was realistic or a one off, usefull for balancing scenarios, Peter.

"Combat Mission 3plus, The Search for Combat Mission 4". Peter.

Okay make it "OC", Officer commanding, I don't mind. Peter.

Reasons I 'd think it will be BotB, "The coldest, snowiest weather “in memory” in the Ardennes Forest on the German/Belgium border". To narrow in terms of weather, terrain and time, it only covers four weeks. Good for a module particularly to add advanced weather, but not for a launch. Peter.

Why would Steve be in his underwear? Peter.

What about, "New Combat Mission Premium" Me I fancy "CO" for commanding Officer, Peter.

We have plenty of data, it's just sifting the wheat from the Chaff. or as John Cleese said about Shakespear, "It's all in there, all you need to do is get it in the right order". Peter.

I'd rather have a movie replay of the battle than a detailed report. Peter.

COBRA:- Pattons breakout from Normandy. Why, The Water thread rules out a beach asault till later Modules, so don't expect Omaha. The Paratrooper Thread says, yes to better Para rules, but not yet, so that rules out D-Day or Market Garden, Anything before 1941 rules out Americans and it's a US company with more customers stateside than anywhere else (Though I don't have stats to back that up). The thread on Helicopters tends to lean towards nothing modern for a while. The thread on Horses likewise says pree WW2 sometime, but not yet. Cobra has a mix of terrains, all the most famous allied units and some of the best German ones. It's also got Tigers, Panthers, and Shermans, which for all the variety you can have are very much the staples, most people would raise eyebrows at a WW2 game without them. It's got US, UK and Commonwealth. It covers a crucial period of the war when it was argueably at it's most fluid on the battlefield, (yes 1939 and the Eastern front had that too, but they didn't have Yanks). So I may be wrong, but if I was BF, as a launch module for the new game, I'd choose, Cobra France 44, Beachhead to Belgium Oh and I'd call the game "Company Commander" or just "CO" not Combat Mission 2 Peter.

For me, I think this fits a bit three lvls idea, ie that the further you get from Coy commander, the more abstarct it needs to be to avoid bogging the game down, and complicating things. In my thread about helicopters i thought they should be treated like artillery and targettted with the AI doing the "flying" because they are a couple of lvls above or removed from The Company commander. Likewise I thought "Smoke grenades" should be treated as grenades are now, afeature where you could see them used, but not actually use them, as in Give a team a "Smoke ordef". I think the idea of dead and casualties should be in for graphic purposes but with the AI dealing with them. My idea of wounded looking after other wounded is one way, Another would be for static or none firing units to "Appear" to aid wounded near by, but these should be all outwith player control as they are not really decisions that a company commader would make in the sense that there job is to keep fight the battle not clean up the mess. Peter.

Ah but I am an idiot and i bet you haven't thought to include some of them. Peter.