Jump to content

What fixes will be in Commonwealth?

Recommended Posts

They should really go all the way to rattled or worse, regardless of initial state. By inclination all they probably want at that point is a bottle, a clean pair of shorts, and a hole to drink it hide in. They were also considered far to valuable to fritter away, at least until another Ronson, I mean tank, could be procured.

Maybe the crews could be assigned a large preserve point value, just to align everyones incentives in the direction of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another option would be to have bailed out crews have Scarce levels of ammo in their small arms (how likely are they to be wearing or grab ammo belts when their vehicle is destroyed?) to inhibit their combat power while retaining the player's choice to have them hide, flee or fight. A 1 level Experience (not Morale) drop outside the vehicle might make sense too. Even if they've left their vehicle voluntarily to scout or Spot, they have no business (or incentive) seeking out or staying in major firefights. Self defence or rounding up enemy surrenderees they may stumble across is another matter and there are ample historical accoumts of both.

I definitely agree with both of these ideas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing WEGO, you dismount an unit from a vehicle with a move order. In the same turn, you can't give to another unit the order to move inside this vehicle (suposed to be empty during the repetition of the turn)

You can't give "face" orders, when you set a waypoint into a house or dismouting from a vehicle. You have to do it manualy at the last way point of the movement...


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this.

I think the problem is that the game quite correctly determines the quality of cover and ratios that against the penetrative ability of the weapon, but it does not - it seems to me - take into account internal walls, hard objects inside the building (particularly floors/roofs) and the physics rule that a flying object is less likely to fly straight, the more objects it hits.

Essentially - and again, this is my impression - the game treats cover as a single layer, without any benefit of depth of cover. This is just fine when computing an engagement where the defender is behind a wall; there is no depth to his cover.

But if you're talking the average house, the game seems to be assuming infantry behind the building are pressed up against the house's exterior wall.

Glad to be corrected if I'm wrong in how the game computes this. But I think this could certainly be improved, as at least sometimes is seems like guys inside a building are at a disadvantage in a firefight with guys outside a building behind a wall.

Personally I'm hoping that the defensive properties of houses gets looked at. I'm tired of my men in houses getting mown down by enemies in the open.

Negates the whole concept of "cover". It's weird when a garden wall provides more protection than a structure wall.

I know the point has been made that the bullets from infantry weapons of the time could theoretically penetrate walls of some of the buildings ( isn't this why CMx1 had "Heavy" and "Light" building categories ? ) but nowhere have I read WWII accounts of street fighting where they simply hosed a building suspected of containing enemy troops with a convenient MG and wiped them out.

As it stands now, I'm using the completely ahistorical tactic of waiting behind a building for the enemy to occupy it because then I can massacre them.

Edit: +1 for the idea of making crews automatically "broken" or something similar to prevent their banzai charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am hoping that the super human tank crew's abilities are toned down a bit. In scenario after scenario I have seen american pistol-wielding tank crews which have abandoned their vehicles, rampage around the area taking out tank commanders, killing and wounding troops in halftracks, gunning down troops equipped with MG42's, and making an overall nuisance of themselves. Highly unrealistic, considering they bailed out of their burning wrecks in the first place.


Veteran tank crew =! veteran infantrymen. Would be logical if tank crew had moral, skill and leadership penalty being dismounted. And it would be nice if AI wouldn't send tank crews in attack. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I myself am still hoping for fire being introduced, but I'm afraid it won't happen.

I'd also like if the game was less bocage-centristic, in a way that also other forms of cover become more effectiv. Right now, houses, foxholes, trenches, craters, etc. are far inferior to bocage in terms of cover.

Also the effectiveness of rifle grenades seems a bit off to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one small bug IMO: a German antitank gun sees a new target and the crew starts rotating the gun towards it. Then mortar shells start landing near the gun, the visible crew member (no idea how many are alive) hits the ground BUT the gun keeps rotating.

So the bug: if the gun crew is hiding, I don't think they should be able to do any aiming at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...