Heirloom_Tomato

The game is still keeping track of the number of KIA or WIA removed from the field of play correct? If I have 10 guys go down, four KIA and six WIA and I do no buddy aid, the game knows how many bodies are on the ground at the end of the battle. If I give buddy aid to those same 10 guys and there are no bodies on the ground at the end of the battle, the game still knows there were 10 casualties. So this information is being stored somewhere and then recalled at the end of the battle for the AAR page. If this is correct, somehow displaying the data on the AAR page showing how many men were removed from the battlefield would be interesting to see. As an example:
Men Ok:56
KIA: 4
WIA: 6
Buddy Aid Given: 0 or 10 for the two examples given.
I think it would give casualties an ever greater impact in the game if at the end of the battle you saw just how good or bad of a job you did taking care of your wounded men. 
I know it seems simple and often what seems simple would require a complete rewrite of the whole game code so, not gonna happen , but it would be fun to see. It could even be used as a house rule to declare a winner in the event of a draw. The guy who gave more buddy aid wins.

Very well said Vet 0369
That is basically how I looked at this thread.
We live at a time where there is people that have no patience and all of their thoughts are self centered.
 
So this thread is a perfect example of that.
Person likes the game, wants more of the game and is not getting more of the game fast enough for their personal wants. - Thus there must be a problem and that problem must be from the source of who makes the game. They need and must do it faster.
Never in the process of their thinking is there a care or concern about that source or how it would impact that, the thought is focused on getting more faster, nothing else.
Never does the thought cross their mind that the method presently being used is what is already creating the thing they enjoy so much.
They have no respect for the efforts of others if it does not meet their perceived needs.
 
The sad thing is, their view does impact things and how people view this company.
But what is even more sad, I am sure this trait is impacting their life in more aspects than what we see here. I am sure their frustration  with life is constant.
 

https://spark.adobe.com/page/Sk6iKJAIvCQ1H/

Here are my top 3 choices for CM3:
1. The ability to place terrain tiles, trees, buildings, roads all in 3D view. I would like to build the entire map, including laying out AI plans in 3D.
2. The ability to create an AI plan for a map or scenario by saving a play through. For example, I create a scenario and layout the AI plans for the defence but no plans for the attacker. I send out the scenario to several players who try their best to defeat the defenders. Each of those playthroughs is saved and imported into the scenario as an attack AI plan. This will also allow players to swap AI plans with other players. A sort of single player, H2H mode if you will.
3. More of everything EXCEPT graphics. My kids are growing up in the generation with the best graphics processing available and some of the most visually stunning games ever made. Guess what they love to play the most? Minecraft. Anyone take a look at the graphics on Minecraft recently? It is the freedom to do what they want in the game that is appealing and not the graphics that keep them playing. I want a true sandbox mode where I the freedom to put any unit from any title up against each other. I want to see more tanks, more infantry, more experimental equipment that almost certainly never saw any action, airplanes, helicopters, larger maps, brigades vs brigades, you name it, bring it on! Keep the mod abilities in the game so those of you who do want to see every rivet and screw in every gun, the inside of every tank, right down to the grease zerts, can have the ability to mod to your hearts content. Just please dont give us 6 amazingly rendered vehicle models, 3 for each side, and then call that a game. If the graphics don't get any better than what we have now, but we have more freedom and more choice, that is a win for me.

What version of the game are you playing? You should be able to tell by looking in the bottom right hand corner of the main menu screen. The most up to date version is 4.02

That has to be the least helpful comment so far. You are essentially saying "make this game like those other games but with one other thing". Go to those other game forums and advocate for a WEGO feature.
Or talk about what specific features you think would be a good fit in CM.

Well a new one on the top of my list is.
Sleeping troops.
I was playing some different night scenarios at one point and I was trying to infiltrate enemy lines with elite units that were unknown to the enemy.
It dawned on me how unrealistic it was, every enemy unit on the alert , all watching and waiting to ambush my men.
Where as, this is the farthest from the truth.. If no enemy are known to be in a area, most men are in a state of sleep. listening post are set, a percentage of men are on watch and the rest are either trying to get needed task done or needed rest. (And this is not just at night, even in the day, during down times, commanders are trying to make sure their men are getting rest.)
 
So it crossed my mind, the designer should have a feature to put a certain percentage of men to sleep at the start of the battle, providing only a small portion of each squad to be active.
This is the state they remain in til enemy gun fire is heard or friendly troops spot enemy units or things along these lines. Then they awake depending on how close they are to the event and then a little time of not full ability as they get their act together to be able to fight and figure out what is going on.
 
Anyway, as someone that has done this for real, I know for a fact its only because of this that we were able to do such feats. Literally were able to get right inside enemy camps.
I knew of one sniper team which actually waited in some scrubs for hours near a commanders tent for them to go to sleep and snuck in and obtained planning documents right of the tables in there and then managed to get out of there in time before it was noticed, which was at about 4:00am, then it was like a ant bed. that has been stomped on.
They had every troop on that mountain side patrolling and searching, their commander was pissed and he was willing to risk his men to try and catch  who did it.

I like your thinking.
I agree with you on all three areas. ( I construct 3d models for a living and that is exactly how you can improve the map making ability for the game) what could be a easy start to that is providing the ability to split screen, meaning two views, one for the 3d view and one for their present 2d systems. Then they could take their time getting abilities to do thing directly in the 3d environment.
I love your concept to programming battle plans for item 2. I think AI scripting is very unnatural in its present forms. But a system of memory that repeats moves of what a person shows for each unit would be a interesting way of approaching it. (still would need trigger overrides and such) but I would love to just show how I want the units to move and where to exactly locate and have the machine try to carry out the plan.
Freedom to create is always on the top of my list also. (any restrictions is always a negative in my book)
So I don't even like it when they try to limit it to just the historical units present at only certain times (that's great when you want a historical set up but why not allow for a button option where that can be removed. basically any unit available for any time or any army). It would allow crazy stuff but also some interesting things that are historical also.Like use of captured equipment .
 
 
 

Here are my top 3 choices for CM3:
1. The ability to place terrain tiles, trees, buildings, roads all in 3D view. I would like to build the entire map, including laying out AI plans in 3D.
2. The ability to create an AI plan for a map or scenario by saving a play through. For example, I create a scenario and layout the AI plans for the defence but no plans for the attacker. I send out the scenario to several players who try their best to defeat the defenders. Each of those playthroughs is saved and imported into the scenario as an attack AI plan. This will also allow players to swap AI plans with other players. A sort of single player, H2H mode if you will.
3. More of everything EXCEPT graphics. My kids are growing up in the generation with the best graphics processing available and some of the most visually stunning games ever made. Guess what they love to play the most? Minecraft. Anyone take a look at the graphics on Minecraft recently? It is the freedom to do what they want in the game that is appealing and not the graphics that keep them playing. I want a true sandbox mode where I the freedom to put any unit from any title up against each other. I want to see more tanks, more infantry, more experimental equipment that almost certainly never saw any action, airplanes, helicopters, larger maps, brigades vs brigades, you name it, bring it on! Keep the mod abilities in the game so those of you who do want to see every rivet and screw in every gun, the inside of every tank, right down to the grease zerts, can have the ability to mod to your hearts content. Just please dont give us 6 amazingly rendered vehicle models, 3 for each side, and then call that a game. If the graphics don't get any better than what we have now, but we have more freedom and more choice, that is a win for me.

Here are my top 3 choices for CM3:
1. The ability to place terrain tiles, trees, buildings, roads all in 3D view. I would like to build the entire map, including laying out AI plans in 3D.
2. The ability to create an AI plan for a map or scenario by saving a play through. For example, I create a scenario and layout the AI plans for the defence but no plans for the attacker. I send out the scenario to several players who try their best to defeat the defenders. Each of those playthroughs is saved and imported into the scenario as an attack AI plan. This will also allow players to swap AI plans with other players. A sort of single player, H2H mode if you will.
3. More of everything EXCEPT graphics. My kids are growing up in the generation with the best graphics processing available and some of the most visually stunning games ever made. Guess what they love to play the most? Minecraft. Anyone take a look at the graphics on Minecraft recently? It is the freedom to do what they want in the game that is appealing and not the graphics that keep them playing. I want a true sandbox mode where I the freedom to put any unit from any title up against each other. I want to see more tanks, more infantry, more experimental equipment that almost certainly never saw any action, airplanes, helicopters, larger maps, brigades vs brigades, you name it, bring it on! Keep the mod abilities in the game so those of you who do want to see every rivet and screw in every gun, the inside of every tank, right down to the grease zerts, can have the ability to mod to your hearts content. Just please dont give us 6 amazingly rendered vehicle models, 3 for each side, and then call that a game. If the graphics don't get any better than what we have now, but we have more freedom and more choice, that is a win for me.

Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used.
But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used.
So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy.
 
But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.)
 
But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but  game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and  graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.
 
 
 

No, it's not difficult at all. There are firing tables and "slide rules" that will calculate trajectory to the target impact point. For a timed fuse airburst, there is a correction to make so that the elevation to fire makes it so it passes over the target at the desired height, rather than hits the target. The first calculation is to the target ground point so you know the time of flight. Set the time fuze for that time of flight and BOOM, it goes off 10m (or whatever you calculated) right over the target as it passes over. 
VT is a little different in that you don't need the time setting, just the correction for 7m height above the target point. The transmitter will receive a strength signal from the ground return and explode at 7m height (not sure what that height was in WW2 but in my artillery days it was 7m). There IS a time setting so it doesn't go off prematurely, but you don't need exact time to the target.
All the firing data is well tabulated. Just a matter of running some calculations, which don't take long, just a few extra seconds for the calculations (10-30), and a few (less than 10) on the gun to set the fuze (top of the fuze rotates - just match the hairline to the time desired). My artillery experience predates GPS and computers - all manual calculations, so my experience is MUCH more like WW2 and Korea than it is present day artillery (which is all computerized whizz-bang magic 🙂  )
So the answer to your question is any competent fire direction center can make the calculations in little more time than a PD (point detonating) mission, and you should get a battery sheaf of airbursts all at once. Devastating to troops in the open, and effective against trench lines. Adjusting rounds are done with ground bursts to make it easier for the FO to see where the round landed (hard to judge and airburst). Then FFE with the time or VT rounds.
Hope that helps.d
Dave (ex-US Army CPT,  2/321st FA (Abn), 82d ABN DIV)
 
[edit] one other thing I thought of. We only carried about 20% time and/or VT fuzes with us. The rest were PD. Don't know what the ratio exactly was in WW2 and probably varied but my understanding is that they were probably about the same and VT was rare.

Our time fuzes had 0.1 second increments. You'd need that to get the detonation where you want. I can't say for sure about WW2 but I would expect they'd have to be the same just to have any chance of exploding where you want it to. I really don't think time fuzes changed from WW2 to the 70s.
Super accurate timepieces - not really that necessary. The firing data has been accurately tabulated for each model howitzer. For example, we had "firing sticks" that were essentially slide rules that gave elevation and time for the range. There is a different stick for each charge (number of powder bags used). Typically we tried to fire at a range requiring charge 4 or 5 - most accuracy. Then you make a correction to raise the elevation so that the round passes over the target. My experience was with M102 105mm howitzers (the 82d Abn is a light unit so no heavy artillery). Smaller rounds, lower airburst, only because the effective radius of the burst is less for smaller caliber artillery. 
Given time in a position, we would add corrections to individual guns for their position so that the grouping of rounds came out evenly, and additional corrections to hit a center point. We also flew weather balloons to get winds at altitude levels and added corrections for those (daily). And corrections for the rotation of the Earth, which of course varies by 1) latitude, and 2) the primary axis of fire (direction the guns are pointing). Howitzers are low velocity, relatively high elevation weapons so all these things make a difference. 
Adjusting fire - stopwatch is handy in the fire direction center. We know time of flight. In game you can here shot, splash over the radios. Shot is obvious. Splash means 5 seconds to impact. So if the FO is keeping his head down, the splash gives him 5 seconds to take a look, and re-orient himself to the direction. Then he quickly decides corrections, covers again and radios the directions in (left 200, drop 400, etc).
The one time you really need accurate timing is a time on target mission. One battery is 4 or 6 guns. A battalion is 3 batteries. A battalion time on target requires each battery to calculate its time of flight to the target, the battalion fire direction center to synchronize everyone (whether time of day mark or a say, 60 seconds to TOT). Then the batteries each fire at the right time for their time of flight so all rounds arrive together. It can be even more interesting if one battery is firing time rounds and the other two PD rounds. The battalion fire direction officer coordinates all that (I did that job too as  the asst ops officer for the artillery battalion). 
It can get pretty technical but really it's no more than high school math level, and knowing what to do with the data. It helps being good at mental math and visualizing things spacially - being able to know instantly that data sounds incorrect (biggest fear was hitting your own troops accidentally). Today things are much different of course, but I was there in the late 70s and 80s. Computers were just coming in. We had one GPS in the division and it took up the whole back of a jeep. We had an analog computer but it never worked after being dropped in the back of a truck so we stuck with "charts and darts". Batteries were surveyed in position from landmarks. No GPS. You really had to be good (excellent really) at map reading.  So I suppose you could say it was pretty "intellectual"  It doesn't feel that way really. You practice and practice so calculating firing data becomes routine. 

They seem about right to me. 7m for VT, for time fuzes we would set the gun elevation to achieve a certain height. 10 meters usually for time rounds.
Also, you can't fire VT over water. The return from the water will be too strong and set off the round.

I guess what I was trying to get across in with all my narrative was that while artillery is an area weapon because of it's circular error probability (CEP), in general, firing data from howitzers used for the calculations is VERY VERY accurate. The powder is of high quality and consistent, so you can be pretty well assured that firing round after round they will perform very much the same. The data and the calculations for trajectory, time of flight, etc are very accurate and can be done very precisely. That would be the part you are maybe missing, - maybe I didn't emphasize it enough.
I would never be surprised that ALL of the time rounds from a battery exploded in the air over the target. In fact, I'd be surprised if there were a lot of "misses" where the rounds hit the ground. It is MUCH more likely for that to happen because of an error calculating the data, than the variations or inaccuracies in the rounds and fuzes. They are very consistent. Muzzle velocity of our M102's from my era was about 500m/s. Impact velocity a little less due to air resistance. So yeah, they are moving but nowhere near a tank gun velocity. But we can calculate the trajectory and the time very precisely. 
When I was the Bn FDO we did battalion TOT missions with a combination of ground and airbursts. 3 batteries, (18 guns), 6 rounds each. ALL the rounds landed in a 200m diameter and the time rounds made a cloud of explosions over the target. Frightening in its effectiveness. Satisfying as the man in charge 🙂  Think of that as an enemy infantry company or two in the open and 18 rounds explode all at once, then 5 more volleys spaced about 5 seconds apart. After the first round of TOT the guns fire when ready so it's a continuous series of explosions for the rest of the 108 rounds. It works like a charm.
Note that I can only speak for the US, Canadian and British armies as those are the only ones I have direct experience with.  Also, I'm not trying to oversell the FA. Only that I have experience that's pretty similar to calculating firing data was in WW2. The main big difference we had was an FO (sp4 in this case) with each infantry platoon and a FIST chief ( 2LT) with the infantry company commander, so we could control more missions and were more responsive to what was going on right in front. Each infantry LT platoon leader had an FO from the FA battalion attached to him. It's no problem controlling more than one mission in a battery at once. Gets hectic but we were required to handle two simultaneously. 

Dang you couple hundred year old brits are touchy.   2 items. A general issue in all titles that needed to be fixed and a secondary issue with hedgerows in CMBN.  One is done, the other is acknowledged. There is a bit of other stuff going on like CMFI and CMRT so just maybe calling the one guy who has been doing a great job lately in providing updates Johnny underpants isn’t the best way to reward the effort to be more communicative.   Unless you’d prefer BF to just go back to the old method. 

In the course of dozen playthroughs and experiments with Blender/CM2 Tools (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118928-combat-mission-modding-tools/) several assets were created which I want to share with the community:
Big Cargo Ship

 
BF109

 
Radar Station

 
Downed Blackhawk

 
Fire Truck

 
Ambulance

 
Barricade + optional Smoke/Burn Stash (Wreck, an invisible alternative is created by 37MM)

 
Barricade (three sizes)

 
Humvee V3 Woodland (Randomized Gear)

 
Humvee V3 Desert (Randomized Gear)

 
Humvee V2 Geardo Desert (Permanent Full Gear) 

 
AFRICAN UNCON (now also including conventional African Forces conversion by 37MM, original work by MikeyD) 

 
Falklands War Scorpion, Scimitar, and Argentinian LVTP-7 conversion

 
Makeshift VBIED

 
Humvee Wreck

 
Uncaged M2 Stryker

 
Marines to Army Special Forces or Navy SEALS conversion skins (including work of mjkerner, Combatinfman, Blimey)

 
BMP1/2 to BMD1/2 conversion (with corrected hatches)

 
Desert KAMAZ Skin

 
Marines frankensteined Armored MTVR Skin

 
New Syrian Special Forces and Woodland vehicles (based on the work of various modders)

 
Syrian Winter Mod (just terrain and partial "winterization" of vehicles, created for a Hasrabit Campaign playthrough)

 
PK Pickup to PK UAZ conversion

 
Russian Forces (original work Euroscape + various modders)

 
US Army & Marines Woodland Forces (original work Euroscape + various modders)

 
All these mods and many more can be found in this Dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1tviryry89g6py7/AAAJpSvGH6u1iEx4WzwVLSnJa?dl=0
Credits to modders, 3D-Artists, and Battlefront.
For better quality footage and more information about 3D custom models check out the recent videos & descpriptions here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeK7fSyoEE8aorVLlVfNcAQ
The custom flavor objects have a "crate1" box placed into their center. Click it to interact with its placing. Zoom into the model if difficult. There are some FOV issues with bigger flavor objects can perhaps fixed by making the original "crate1" box bigger in Blender/CM2tools. Combine flavor objects with "visible/invisible" wreck objects to give them obstacle characteristics.
Good free library of 3D models you could use for importing. .max does not work with Blender. There are others.
http://www.cadnav.com/
Tutorials on Blender and CM2Tools can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkbTOSIrNV0&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXVAMaELSao&feature=youtu.be
The main intent was to explore the possibilities of this method. As I see this as accomplished I´ll step back now and hope it will motivate others to get into it. Prior getting into custom CM models I had absolute zero experience in 3D modelling, Blender or whatever but found my way into it in a short period of time and once you figure out the specifics it is not that difficult. Give it a try.  Anyone interested in custom CM models can reach out on Discord.
Happy wargaming.