Bushtucka95

Combat Mission is clearly unique in it's realism and attention to detail, and with the addition of these features I believe it would blow all of its competition out of the water: I believe all of these features could be implemented with the current engine: - Add ICM and IDPCM artillery to Black Sea and Shock Force 2 (where relevant, we know the UK, Germany, Holland all have signed an agreement against cluster munitions). - Add the ability to call in map fires, without line of sight or a target reference point (based on just having a grid reference), depending on ROE relating to collateral damage. (Perhaps a setting in the editor to enable/disable map fires to suit the scenario maker). These fires would be adjustable and less accurate than artillery walked in by observers. - The introduction of both MLRS and Mine (AP and AT) artillery and helicopter missions to Cold War, Black Sea, and SF2. - The introduction of loitering munition drones that can be fired from vehicles, mortar tubes, aircraft, be given orders to observe, seek and destroy armour, or strike target. - A chance based algorithm (similar to the AA shooting down aircraft) to determine if your artillery was knocked out by counter battery fire, influenced heavily by the scenario designer of course. Please share your thoughts and ideas

Hi all, I wanted to share my thoughts on some features that I believe would improve future iterations of the game. I would appreciate everyone else's thoughts, other ideas, criticisms, etc. A new or greatly upgraded engine would elevate Combat Mission above all other RTS games and sims. I'll expand on all of these shortly, but the three areas I would love to see are: A - A turn based Operational Campaign map covering multiple Brigade Combat Teams. Ideally covering the entire operational theatre. A campaign editor where designers can also place/select strategic goals and win/lose conditions. Think Steel Division 2 or Total War. B - Increased scope of tactical battles, with map sizes increasing to enable more movement options for larger units. C - Fully modelled and selectable/'playable' support at the tactical and operational level. So modelled aircraft, artillery, and logistics. To expand on the above 3 points: A - A Steel Division 2 or Total War style campaign would be amazing. If done well, it would allow us to put into practice all the tactics of today's modern day tactical units (either the Brigade Combat Team in the West and parts of the East, or the Regiment in some more dated Eastern militaries). Movement to contact (and setting up your tactical depth, rear and flank security, logistics, arty/anti air, cavalry/recce to screen the main effort and probe the enemy, and of course choosing where and when to commit your main effort in both offence and defence). From there you have the all important push for a breakthrough, and the exploitation phase (envelopment of enemy units, harassment/destruction of logistics, support units, and routed combatants), or if on the receiving end of such a defeat then decision of when and how to retreat to avoid a route, and where to redeploy. At the operational level we would also be able to launch an airborne or amphibious landings to open up new fronts and harass the enemies' tactical and operational rear and hold out until heavy units can be flown/shipped in, or until friendly units link up with them from the original front. Operational (and larger scope tactical) missions such as deep fires, SEAD, CB, missile strikes, and EW would all be implemented at this level of gameplay, not just your typical manoeuvre, recce, and logistics like in other operational/strategic games' campaigns. Imagine coordinating EW, operational/strategic strikes (cruise missiles, long range precision fires, air strikes, SEAD, and Counter Battery Fires) with the manoeuvre of your Brigades in formation on the march, in the movement to contact, at the decisive engagements, and the exploitation/retreat phase? Not only would a game with the attention to detail and realism of Combat Mission pull this off better than any other game, but it would also reflect the reality of modern combat so much more realistically too. In combat mission we take for granted that our units have arrived onto the battlefield, though sometimes with a backstory to explain their low morale or strength (e.g. strafed on the march by enemy air power the night before). But what both Russian and Western reports from the Russo-Ukrainian conflict today are telling us is that (at least for Russia) the majority of their losses are taken on the march and in staging areas due to the prevalence of drones mixed with networked, deep precision fires. Whereas before you may have been vulnerable within your tactical depth of say 5-60km from the front depending on how well your screens and AA were performing, you are now vulnerable all throughout your operational depth, and everywhere needs to be considered dangerous (though I expect developments in anti-drone warfare and EW to even this out again somewhat shortly). B - Large tactical battles and maps. First off I'm not suggesting a conversion of the game to a more arcade-y, logistics based RTS. Many of us quite prefer smaller company and even platoon level engagements (myself included). What I am suggesting is increasing the scope to make more possible. As to whether pitting entire brigades against each other on 60kmx60km maps would be possible/enjoyable at the tactical battle level, or whether this scale of conflict would be better implemented on the operational campaign map I'm not too sure. If I'm realistic it would make more sense for this scale of conflict to be played out in a turn based campaign mode like Total War or Steel Division 2, but I just played an arcade-y game of Warno where I was able to use my Paladin m109s in a counter battery role on a known enemy artillery position and then enveloped the enemy by calling in half a company of helicopter borne infantry with AT weapons to cut off their escape. Imagine that in combat mission!? C - All support units to be modelled the operational level, and when feasible (such as aircraft), at the tactical level too. Plane and gunship sorties would be directed on map (avenue of approach and exfil) to avoid AA fires. Hovering/loitering aircraft (UAVs and Helos) can be issued movement commands (or circular area loiter commands), at high and low altitude. UAVs and Helos given face commands to take advantage of amazing sensors from altitude. The ability to keep transport and attack helicopters behind terrain cover at low altitude, before popping up briefly for 30 seconds or so to fire ATGMs would be amazing, as would flying in a platoon or company of airborne infantry fast and low using terrain for cover. Brigade level arty, naval guns, mrls arty, and some mortars will likely remain off map unless the map sizes and battle scope is greatly expanded, but mission designers should have the ability to place a chance on these being taken out by counter battery fire, and tactical battles resulting from decisions made in the operational campaign map should automatically replicate this (along with SEAD and EW).