CM:BN: Suggestions

[alan bo]

Thanks for a great new game:)! However I have a few thoughts for upcoming patches/editions:

The marker for TRP´s should be another than actually used (trench-like marker like the real trenches/foxholes). This is quite confusing during the planning proces/orders phase! I suggest a simple "fat" cross (+) like we used to do in the army (or like the one used to mark the location during the action phase). This way you will also be able to reserve the marker "sighting scope" for the sniper - if this marker was to be considered for TRP`s instead (on second thought, the sniper could just as well be marked with an ordinary infantry marker after all!).

I find it very peculiar :confused:that infantry can not ride on tanks/SPG´s! Since this form of transport was widely used I suggest you make this possible.

And what became of the ambush! I noticed we can use TRP-designation, but TRP`s are not in every scenario. I miss the ambush-funktion from the earlier CM-games in as much as any unit need to practice and conduct ambush. This is the essense of firefight.

I would also like to suggest introduction of various man made obstacles for planning and conducting defence in buil up areas and woods. F.inst. felled trees, timber stacks, overturned cars/trucks, furniture, deep/steep dug holes/tanktraps in roads etc. and even blinds (sheets) to obscure the attackers observation/vision through narrow streets and roads in BUA and woods.

And within the generel timeframe of scenarios it could also be interesting to operate with assault bridging equipment at low tactical level f.inst. infantry assault bridge, assault boats, rubber/rubberized boats, floats, and spanning equipment of various pioneer units (f.inst. like the one carried on SdKz 251-7).

And please do not print the next manual (soldiers handbook) in khaki/sand colours! I love the printed manual, which you can study in your armchair - but one has to be able to read it (very stressfull):mad:! But please do print one!

I am now curious as to reactions and thoughts from other players and endeed from developers. Thank you for your time reading this.

Regards, Alan Bo

[Broadsword56]

The marker for TRP´s should be another than actually used (trench-like marker like the real trenches/foxholes).

+1 to that -- but what I find particularly annoying is the bright orange disc that marks TRPs during battle -- nice when you want to use the TRPs, but awful to see the rest of the time. The orange markers stay lit even when you turn icons off (unless I'm overlooking another command to toggle off TRPs). It spoils immersion during play to see those neon orange discs, and it requires more editing of screenshots to keep them from spoiling the scene.

[Pak40]

Ambushes can be done with the covered arc command.

I would also like to suggest introduction of various man made obstacles for planning and conducting defence in buil up areas and woods. F.inst. felled trees, timber stacks, overturned cars/trucks, furniture, deep/steep dug holes/tanktraps in roads etc. and even blinds (sheets) to obscure the attackers observation/vision through narrow streets and roads in BUA and woods.

This can be done by the scenario designer. There are lots of flavor objects that can be done to simulate road blocks etc. The designer will have to mix in barb wire or hedgehogs to make them actual functional stopping walls. Vehicle wrecks can be added also. I'm not sure if any of these things can stop LOS though.

And within the generel timeframe of scenarios it could also be interesting to operate with assault bridging equipment at low tactical level f.inst. infantry assault bridge, assault boats, rubber/rubberized boats, floats, and spanning equipment of various pioneer units (f.inst. like the one carried on SdKz 251-7).

Hopefully some of these things will be added by the Market Garden module.

I find it very peculiar :confused:that infantry can not ride on tanks/SPG´s! Since this form of transport was widely used I suggest you make this possible

Well, it was used for transport and not really for combat so it falls out of scope of CM.

[Vencini]

I wrote in my letter to Santa for antiaircraft cover arc and flammers... ;-D

[alan bo]

Thank you Pak40 for your reply to my suggestions a few days ago. As to infantry riding on tanks/SPG I agree with you that this was for transport only and not for riding directly into combat. However, I do not agree that this is then outside the scope of CM. Some scenarios are of a size in terms of terrain and time that riding on any kind of transport could be relevant f.inst. in order to exit most of a combat force beyond the map edge according to a given task or in order to move units rapidly to a zone of disembarcation close to a regular combat area. In any case it must be up to the commander (i.e. myself) to make the decision whether and when to mount up and dismount.

Regards, Alan Bo

[SlowMotion]

Tank riding would be very useful, especially on those huge maps.

[YankeeDog]

I don't think it's so much that BFC sees Tank riding as irrelevant to CMBN, as BFC considers tank riding as a lower priority for addition to the game than everything else that's in the game, and probably at least several of the many other major features that people are whining for.

Unfortunate side effect of having really cool things like 1:1 soldier representation and modeling is that it makes stuff like tank riding is a LOT harder to program than it was for CMx1. Kludgy graphic of Larry, Moe and Curly kneeling on the engine deck just isn't going to cut it anymore. Now, they have to program all those graphics for how and where the soldiers ride on the hull, animations for mounting and dismounting, decisions about if and how soldiers can fire their personal weapons while riding on the tanks, etc.

So, for now, we live without tank riding. Would I like to see it in the game? Sure. But there are at least 3-4 other major features I'd like to see first.

[SlowMotion]

Unfortunate side effect of having really cool things like 1:1 soldier representation and modeling is that it makes stuff like tank riding is a LOT harder to program than it was for CMx1. Kludgy graphic of Larry, Moe and Curly kneeling on the engine deck just isn't going to cut it anymore. Now, they have to program all those graphics for how and where the soldiers ride on the hull, animations for mounting and dismounting, decisions about if and how soldiers can fire their personal weapons while riding on the tanks, etc.

Probably true. I think it's sad that better looking graphics prevent us from having a game with more *functionality*. Or at least slows down development of those features.

[huhr]

I bought the game and I still go back to the old style cmbb game. I like to see who the unit is targeting on the computer screen. The game is just different so I am not sure I will purchase the next version of the game. Sorry