RMM

Can we separate the weapon recovery and first aid? Every German player should have experienced this. The squad that cover a vital crossroad lost the machine gunner Karl to a stray bullet. Karl is incapacitated. Now his comrades begin the first aid to Karl. In the next two minutes , since the MG firepower is gone the whole squad sit there helpless. And, as the first aid almost done, guess what, a spotting round landed nearby so the first aid stopped. That makes your blood boil and all you want to do is yelling at the screen "damn it! grab the MG42 and fire!". In this kind of frustration situation, I would rather to have the poor pixeltruppen Karl killed instantly. At least the MG42 can be recovered in less than 1 min.

I also don't get the point why, an AFV can be recrewed and a gun cannot. Honestly, based on my (WW2) readings, the opposite would make more sense: while I have seen occasions on which an abandoned AT gun was recrewed and manned by the same crew (seeking temporary cover during an artillery bombing, by example), or even by other (friendly) troops, I have never seen any report of a tank being abandoned under enemy fire and then recrewed within the timeframe covered by a CM battle…
My humble opinion is, a tank crew abandoning its vehicle should be broken and stay so until the end of the game. That would avoid the temptation to use these highly trained specialist soldiers as cannon fodder… 😉

The arguement that this simulates the crew abandoning the ordinance in an orderly fashion (ie. having the presence of mind to destroy it while under fire of a level that is forcing them away from it in the first place) doesn't really make sense; it's at odds with what's actually happening - in the game, that act of 'abandonment' is one of the crew breaking and, essentially running away, being driven off by enemy fire. So, it doesn't stand to reason to then ascribe a willful and calculated action as their last act before completely breaking and running away! Abandonment is a deliberate act, but that's not what's happening in the game, so @Silentkilarz is right. This one of the rare, truly dumb facets of the current engine that takes away from reality and leaves the game wanting.

The arguement that this simulates the crew abandoning the ordinance in an orderly fashion (ie. having the presence of mind to destroy it while under fire of a level that is forcing them away from it in the first place) doesn't really make sense; it's at odds with what's actually happening - in the game, that act of 'abandonment' is one of the crew breaking and, essentially running away, being driven off by enemy fire. So, it doesn't stand to reason to then ascribe a willful and calculated action as their last act before completely breaking and running away! Abandonment is a deliberate act, but that's not what's happening in the game, so @Silentkilarz is right. This one of the rare, truly dumb facets of the current engine that takes away from reality and leaves the game wanting.

Imo it should say destroyed if that is what the crew is doing, not abandon. To me abandon makes it seem like you can come back. If you use "detroyed by crew" that makes more sense.
Ok, then add a "dismounted" option like vehicles have. You can recrew vehicles sometimes, you should also be able to do with field guns imo.
Were on the same page here I'm just not as eloquent with getting my point across xD

I find what works well is to order a BLAST plus an immediate FAST move back the way the breaching team entered.  The explosion creates smoke and shock that gives the breach team a few seconds before they would be targeted by any enemy. 

The ability of on map arty/mortars to do line/area direct fire just like calling in from a FO.
Ability of selecting what weapons to target briefly with. IE ordering a tank to use only MGs or Main gun.
Being able to order air support to stay in a area even if they dont spot anything right away.
Returning ammo to vehicles. The amount of times I misclick on ammo the unit doesnt need drives me nuts. Allow us to return the 2k 7.62 my rifle squad took when I need 5.56.
Remanning guns after they are abandoned. We can re-crew vehicles but not ATGs?!
Fix breaching. If you breach a building with a wall the unit likes to run all the way around to the front door when there is a massive hole. Also along those lines, dont force the breachers to move after the breach. I want the wall down so my tank/afv can shoot. Not so the infantry runs through in enemy ambush.

I too use that method but as @Brille points out, it's not ideal.

Just to pile on to what @SlowMotion said, there is now a 'Target Briefly' in the 'C/Combat' panel. From your shoot/scoot waypoint you can plot a 'target briefly' command to engage at least the area/action point you want to engage, setting your 'Pause' duration to match the 'Target Briefly' duration, or not, before your unit reverses/moves into cover.

Mentioned over the years many times, also obtaining/swapping ammo from adjacent leg units - like from ammo dumps - rather than the cumbersome current method with vehicles.  

Pixeltruppen not in action should ideally reload/top up their weapons after a while of inactivity, e.g. reload the coaxial MG in tanks and the such.
AFVs part of core units in campaigns should redistribute ammunition between themselves between missions where they haven't been resupplied, instead of having e.g. Stryker A proceed with 100% ammunition to the next mission whilst Stryker B proceeds to it with just its remaining 2-3% ammunition. On the same note, AFVs with a weapons system destroyed and not repaired in time for the following mission should offload as much of its remaining ammunition to other AFVs in the unit, instead of Stryker C moving on with 100% ammunition for a destroyed .50 cal whilst Stryker D proceeds to the same mission with 0 .50 cal ammunition remaining.
AFV crewmen of open topped vehicles, or vehicles where the crew needs to unbutton to reload (e.g. Strykers) really, really should have some kind of option/command to delay the reloading process until the player instructs them to do otherwise. It really is unreasonable to have crewmen fanatically/suicidally expose themselves even to intense fire from nearby enemies when their weapon is out of ammunition.
 
The first and the last suggestions could probably be solved by adding a "Reload belt/weapon" and disabling/providing an "off toggle" for automatic reloading of exposed weapons on AFVs. Additionally, crewmen reloading such weapons should ideally be subjected being forced to button up in response to enemy fire, just as turned out crewmen/passengers in general already are.

"Cumulative/organic" TRPs ought to be a thing: if you've called in fire missions during a mission, the FO should realistically be able to call for a "repeat" fire mission on the same coordinates as opposed to having to start all over again.
It would also be nice if TRPs could have some more visible icon in mission. In large missions such as the Neuhof defensive mission in the Cold War campaign, the TRPs are pretty much invisible on such a large map.
Ideally aircraft should also have an "adjust" option, instead of having to be sent back to a holding pattern again when the TACP should be able to simply say "ok, now bomb the treeline next to the village you just bombed".

Adds to the wishlist:
- adjustable/alternative firing times for pre planned artillery.
5/10/15min are not that flexible. In fact as the oponent I know exactly when I need my forces to hunker down and when not.
Plus some maps are very big or you want to move more cautiously. 15min maximum here is just to short sometimes.
So either you should be able to adjust the minutes yourself or have at least a wider variety. Maybe it could even be possible to synchronize with the ingame clock.
So for example that you can Type in the exact daytime as it is. "I want that artillery firing at 12:35 on that hill !")
 
- different/ more tac ai behavior especially concerning tanks.
I often witness that tanks duell things out even when they are heavily outclassed or in a bad situation.(Side to the enemy)
So user input is often required to make them retreat. 
So for example If a Sherman (short 75mm Canon) encounters a (King)Tiger up front at medium to long range, He should more often than not have the tendency to drive the hell out of there and /or smoke. Especially when Said Tank is already aiming and firing at him. 
As it is now usually the tac ai often evades other Tanks when damage is already done (partial Penetration, wounded crewmember).
A better Crew morale would add to this.
Often times crews seem to be unimpressed from non penetrating hits.
And Im Not saying that they should always abandon their vehicle. But it should at least have more of an impact in their ability to fight back.
I remember in CMBB you could knock on a T34 with multiple Panzer III at a time. You rarely would penetrate him but the constant plinging of shells often drove the Crew inside crazy,forcing them to retreat or even abandon their tank.
Another thing would be the other way around: In the old games crews would get more nervous when they repeatedly hit a tank without penetrating him. Untrained crews even could get shaken uppon that to a degree that they would steer their tank out of the way.
Also to this: Cover arcs should be Not as absolute as they are now. In the older games it was dependant on the experience and current morale of the unit if they hold on to it.
So it could be possible that Units would negate the arc entirely if they feel threatened.
So in general what I am trying to say is that units should be more acting in self preservation than they do now.
 
 
 

In Edge of Darkness the sniper gets a full contact with the bunker but the Tactical Air FO even after five turns in the same spot as the sniper doesn't get a full contact only has a tentative contact. Things like this start to annoy me.

I agree, but if something is impassable, then it should show the same "no go" graphic that it does it woods, as an example. I don't know why that simple thing can't be done, as the code engine knows the vehicle can't go through when it's plotting the paths.

It gets frustrating when you can't make out the paths though very blurry hedge graphics and at times, spoils the enjoyment of the game.

Regards,
Doug

- Vet movement orders/paths as they're plotted. Having the system slow down to do this would surely be better than watching a unit run off into death by taking a route that one specifically had plotted to avoid! This would also avoid idiotic movements like units taking off half way round the map, because there's one hedge or some such that they can't cross even though the plotted path goes right across it! There are so many instances in when having the game do this pre-plotting/vetting would save countless heart and headaches and make it so much more fun!
- (More WW2 specific) AI should not use SCW (eg. bazooka) against infantry/targets that are not behind some sort of solid surface (eg. steel or brick). Would never happen in RL, coz the charge/warhead would probably just bury itself in the ground and not go off at all! These weapons needed hard surface to work against.
- Have a way to order a vehicle to wait for pax to load/unload before moving.
- Ability for crews to re-crew abandoned ATG's, etc. For AFV's, they would usually have to be qualified to do so (ie. a Tiger crew could crew most any Tigers), but for things like ATG's, if a penalty were applied, it doesn't seem unrealistic (quite the opposite) that they would attempt to use enemy weaponry, especially if in a desperate position!
- Ability to 'Buddy aid' fallen enemy for their ammo and weapons. Obviously, a penalty would have to apply to using foreign weapons, but would certainly add to the realism factor.
- Indirect Fire observers should, absolutely not call for FFE unless they've actually spotted a round land at least somewhere close to the intended target, no matter how long it's been!
- Have the ability (in Options section) to disable the groups-orders function! That way, those of us who just have this create headaches and not ever, otherwise use it, can just turn it off, and not have it ruin a battle.
- Have the ability to select between normal Smoke and WP. WP had an offensive capability. I haven't really had an opportunity to see it in the game, but are its affects reflected in the game?
- When ordinance used to Area Fire, have the ability to specify what kind of ammo to use. It can default, but there should be an ability to change that if so desired.

Maybe also allow soldiers from the same side speak freely with other troops from the same side.  Seems to me that if I have infantry within 10 feet of a tank, and the infantry sees enemy tanks moving towards their position while their own tank does not (in my experience, a very high probability with Soviet Forces in CMCW for example), that information is not passed onto the tank.  You would think there should be no problem hollering this out to the tank crew parked nearby. 
Seems to me this does not happen because of chain of command things - information has to be passed up the chain and then back down again.  Which is fine for information from a squad 500 m away from said tank reporting tank movement near their position and that this information then eventually makes it way to said tank as a contact in that area 500 m away as it gets passed up to the overall HQ and then back down to other units.  But it just does not look like these same infantry units directly relay the information to other units within voice range of them, at least not to units under a differnt command chain.

The game does seem to be lacking in this. Foxholes and trenches seem to provide a minimum of protection and are far too easily spotted, presumably because, unlike their RL counterparts, they stick up above the ground, instead of into it.

This may roll some eyes, but nevertheless, it would do a lot for understanding ordinance capabilities in the way that we could figure out in ASL using the 'To-kill' charts. If the LOS tool were to give some (colour?) indication of to-kill effectiveness against the target it's being drawn too. This would certainly reflect the knowledge that the troops manning the weapon would certainly have. For example, does a Russian ATR have a resonable chance to kill a SPW at 300m? Currently, I have no idea, beyond the fact that the unit does not take the initative to take the shot of their own accord.
If the LOS tool had some indication for just Good, Average, Poor (, 4th: impossible?), that would be a huge assist to people who haven't been playing CM for years.

Units that are completely out of ammo and become adjacent to enemy units should surrender.

If there will ever be a new game engine for Combat Mission or at least a better updated version of the current one, it would help a lot if there was a similar movement order as there is in the Mius-Front game where you choose to move vehicles to a certain point with the order to "follow the road" to that point.

Units that are completely out of ammo and become adjacent to enemy units should surrender.

Units that are completely out of ammo and become adjacent to enemy units should surrender.

Oh mercy. Can we give, like two thumbs up and fireworks!

Some scenarios I just won't play because they involve babying a gigantic column of vehicles down a single lane road. It takes so much time and clicking that it just isn't worth it, especially since you have to save every turn to make sure a vehicle's pathfinding won't break and create a 20 car pileup. A working convoy command is one of my biggest asks too.