Cmbn Wish List

[Erwin]

Probably too late for Commonwealth, but for reference all in one place in the hope this is useful. Most comments are items copied from BFC or WeBoB forums:

1. Covered armour arc

2. Ambush command (your squad hides except for the guy one guy who is a lookout, he would be the guy with the binoculars)

3. Enter building command (grenades get thrown in, rooms sprayed with bullets....you get the point... been discussed in CMSF)

4. Easier to see Bocage gaps, and the difference between bocage and hedges

5. Toggle to reduce/get rid of underbrush (like the one for trees) so one can see what is going on and find hidden WIA guys to aid them.

6. Flamethrower capability

7. Inf passengers on AFV's

8. "Follow" command that can be given to a formation or road convoy.

9. Click anywhere on a waypoint to select a unit.

10. Share ammo from neighboring units like from vehicles (also without having to waste a WEGO turn to embark)

11. Ability to recrew abandoned guns.

12. Any tank crew to be able to recrew a similar model tank.

13. More info in the initial scenario choice screen re whether it's suitable for H2H, vs AI (and which side(s), Designer name etc etc.

14. The game tells the LOS from the gun itself re shooting capability. (Currently it could be from the 3rd loader or some other non-essential spotter, while the gun itself can't fire at the target.)

15. Vehicles to carry StG44 ammo for resupply (currently only available in bunkers for some reason).

[poesel]

5. Toggle to reduce/get rid of underbrush (like the one for trees) so one can see what is going on and find hidden WIA guys to aid them.

Add to that: toggle to remove trees/underbrush around units. IMHO more useful than the way it currently works.

[Gurra]

14. The game tells the LOS from the gun itself re shooting capability. (Currently it could be from the 3rd loader or some other non-essential spotter, while the gun itself can't fire at the target.)

Is this actually happening? It could then describe some indescribeable problems I have experienced with target and LOS.

[LJFHutch]

Agreed on all points.

[Lt Belenko]

Add to that: toggle to remove trees/underbrush around units. IMHO more useful than the way it currently works.

Toggle to make ALL trees stumps/trunks - is what I've asked for in the past.

In CMx1 when all trees were turned off you could still see the ground type indicating that trees were present. In CMx2 with all trees off you cant tell ground type - very confusing. Thats why all trees stumps/trunks is needed

[c3k]

A concise list.

[pagskier]

I think Point 1 and 2 are the most important

For me especially the ambush point.

[para]

+1 on all points listed. How much better would this great game be, if the above list came to fruition

[Sgt Schultz]

+1 to all.

Number 15 looks to be the only one that could be implemented quickly if not already in the Module.

[Denis1973]

Please Add

16. HIDE or depressed OPEN UP command must force MG gunner in HT to cover under armor.

[YankeeDog]

Pretty good list. I think it's pretty obvious many of these changes are substantial game engine changes/upgrades and as such are almost definitely going to have to wait for a future game family, but there's no harm in wishing.

In re this one specifically:

12. Any tank crew to be able to recrew a similar model tank.

I would put some strong qualifications on this. It is definitely not realistic to allow the player to swap crews willy-nilly between similar vehicle types. This simply wasn't done historically, and it could lead to all sorts of gamey abuses like players buying an elite tank, and then buying a conscript tank as a "backup" ride for the elite tank crew.

However, would certainly be realistic for the game to allow tank crews to take over another vehicle in certain specific situations. Probably the most important for the game to represent is when a tank Platoon or Company commander's tank is damaged or otherwise hors de combat, but the officer himself is unhurt and able to continue with his command responsibilities. In this specific case, it would definitely be realistic to allow the HQ to order a subordinate crew out of their tank and take over a new ride. But there are some qualifications even here. For example, Company and sometimes even Platoon tanks may have an additional radio to facilitate communication with higher formations. So if a tank Company HQ takes over a subordinate vehicle, there might be a degradation of C2 capability. This would need to be taken into account.

EDIT to add: It's also debatable whether the Tank formation commanding officer should take his crew with him when he takes over another tank. In many cases I have read of a tank officer taking over a new ride, only the TC of the new ride gets booted from the tank, and the rest of the existing crew stay in place. But I have read in other cases of the officer's full vehicle crew coming with him. Hard to say which way is the best way to handle this.

[Felix_45]

Edit

YankeeDog pre-empted my post when he says: "I think it's pretty obvious many of these changes are substantial game engine changes/upgrades and as such are almost definitely going to have to wait for a future game family, but there's no harm in wishing" So the logical question is.....what are the chances of this wish list getting to a new family game given that players of CMSF wished for an enter building command for a long time already and that has not happened?

+1 to the list.

I'm surprised the covered armoured arc and the ambush command was not discussed by the play testers. It just seems that it took game players a few weeks to want this. (maybe they did, what do I know what goes on behind closed doors) Enter building command has been begged for in CMSF. (yes there is a workaround by pausing your men, but it's a workaround...why not just give us a command for that)

I don't want to gripe too much because I am thoroughly enjoying CMBN and will pre-order the CW and all the other modules......but CMx2 would be so much more fun with this list implemented.

Question to BFC (or anyone else that is "in the know") Are these realistic expectations to happen in any CMBN module? Or is this a list for the next family of game (Battle of the Bulge)?

[umlaut]

+1 to the list.

I don't want to gripe too much because I am thoroughly enjoying CMBN and will pre-order the CW and all the other modules......but CMx2 would be so much more fun with this list implemented.

+1 to both

and:

17 (my personal aversion at the moment): Abolish suicidal infantry

Meaning:

Infantry with Panzerfausts - and the likes - should only use those instead of favoring small arms when engaging tanks. (and Panzerschrek teams should not break cover and take on enemy squads with one pistol, etc)

[Tread Head]

I would put some strong qualifications on this. It is definitely not realistic to allow the player to swap crews willy-nilly between similar vehicle types. This simply wasn't done historically,

Yes it was... anytime a Pt Ldr or Pt Sgt. would lose a tank and still had the ability to fight it was/ still is USA SOP to jump tanks. Not the entire crew but the tank commander... the tank he takes would move that tank commander to the gunners spot most of the time.

There are countless examples of this in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and I/A.

[General Jack Ripper]

I'm a bit bored this morning, so I figured I'd add my five cents, ask a few questions, and generally be a nuisance.

2. Ambush command (your squad hides except for the guy one guy who is a lookout, he would be the guy with the binoculars)

I thought when you order a squad to hide, they periodically do a spotting check from the kneeling level to simulate troops randomly poking their heads up to spot in front of them. Is not issuing a cover arc, and then ordering the squad to hide the correct way to set an ambush? Or is there something else going on to prevent this behavior?

4. Easier to see Bocage gaps, and the difference between bocage and hedges

Personally, I already think hedgrow gaps are easy to see, you just have to take a few seconds to look for them. Aside from putting a neon green sign over them that says 'here is a hedgrow gap' I don't think there is much else to do.

6. Flamethrower capability

Why? I see people ask for this all the time, and I have yet to hear of a tactical situation where using a flamethrower would be better than the application of high explosives.

7. Inf passengers on AFV's

Personally I think this would be cool for immersion value, but as soon as a tank gets ambushed by a hidden AT gun, and half of the squad riding the tank dies in the explosion, you would stop using this.

10. Share ammo from neighboring units like from vehicles (also without having to waste a WEGO turn to embark)

I don't have problems with this. Mortars and machine guns can already share ammo, and if you need to get more ammo for a squad more than once per battle, maybe you should pass out some ammo at the start. You can also detach a scout team to go pick up ammo, and let the rest of the squad keep fighting. I guess I just don't understand why this is a problem.

12. Any tank crew to be able to recrew a similar model tank.

Why? The only time a tank crew should leave their tank is if it's destroyed. What I'm saying is, how would you have an operational tank without a crew, unless the crew dismounted and got killed?

13. More info in the initial scenario choice screen re whether it's suitable for H2H, vs AI (and which side(s), Designer name etc etc.

What I don't understand, is why the mission select main menu screen is so damn small in the first place.

14. The game tells the LOS from the gun itself re shooting capability. (Currently it could be from the 3rd loader or some other non-essential spotter, while the gun itself can't fire at the target.)

I thought LOS was drawn fron the position of the gunsight or optics mounted on the gun. If it is not, then that needs to be corrected. I would also like to see a clearer difference between LOS and LOF when using the TARGET command. Sometimes I give an area target to a mortar or machinegun, and I just have to hope that the actual gun can see the target. Imagine my surprise when I give a machinegun team an area target, and the spotter opens fire with his rifle, because the machinegun can't actually see the target area.

15. Vehicles to carry StG44 ammo for resupply (currently only available in bunkers for some reason).

Why don't trucks and other vehicles carry this ammo? I'd like to hear the actual decision process that went with this. I'd also like to know what happened to the proposed CP ammo stockpile thing, that was spoken of before the game was released.

I'm not trying to be hostile, I just have some questions.

[Broadsword56]

For me, it would just be swell if CMBN could consistently handle PBEM games with large forces on detailed maps of 2km or so, without crashing or getting an OOM error at some point. These limitations were acceptable in the US bocage sector, but it's really going to hurt if we can't play with Tiger tanks other armor in the more open country of Calvados at realistic ranges.

[pagskier]

I thought when you order a squad to hide, they periodically do a spotting check from the kneeling level to simulate troops randomly poking their heads up to spot in front of them. Is not issuing a cover arc, and then ordering the squad to hide the correct way to set an ambush? Or is there something else going on to prevent this behavior?

agree with you!

Gotta say I totally disagree with you on this one. Flamthrowers were part of Canadian tactics, since they discovered that it had much more effect than the usuall HE. It's mostly psychologic, but it's damn effective. But I'm quite sure this has been after Normandy. Using WASP. There should be a motivation drop/moral drop kicking in as flameweapons would be used.

quoted from wikipedia: The Canadian and Netherlands armies became one of the most active users of the Wasp flamethrowers while fighting in Europe, finding the weapons to be extremely effective in prying German soldiers from their defenses. Indeed, the mechanical flamethrowers, although not impressive by themselves, struck horror into the minds of German troops, who feared them more than any other conventional weapon.[

I think it's useless, it was use for long road, but not on a tactical level as far as I know.

Don't have problem too, but would still be nice

Other than Tank Commander, I don't see the use!

Other than that I don't really have an opinion!

[Holien]

4. Easier to see Bocage gaps, and the difference between bocage and hedges

The whole issue with Low Bocage is that to those who are new to the system they think it is hedge and expect to be able to pass through it.

Gaps are not always easy to see and at times you think there is a gap and it does not exist so your men go some where you don't want them to go.

Either make low bocage passable (slowly at more risk ala way handled in CM) which would seem the easiest choice and would allow new players to deal with it as they expect.

Else we are left with designers to make gaps clear as I am not sure how the engine would be coded to make it more noticeable.

Hedges as noted by some designers are just not being used. See this thread....

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=102147

[YankeeDog]

Yes it was... anytime a Pt Ldr or Pt Sgt. would lose a tank and still had the ability to fight it was/ still is USA SOP to jump tanks. Not the entire crew but the tank commander... the tank he takes would move that tank commander to the gunners spot most of the time.

There are countless examples of this in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and I/A.

I don't think you read my entire post thoroughly, as what I said in the second half of my post actually completely agrees with what you wrote above. To reiterate, I think it would absolutely be realistic to allow the commanding officer of an AFV Platoon (or a Company for that matter) to acquisition a new ride from one of his subordinates, as long as said commander is unwounded and able to continue command.

What I don't think is realistic is to give the player the ability to command any tank crew to swap rides at any time -- e.g. to allow the player to tell a Green crew and a Veteran (non-Plt or Coy HQ) crew to swap rides, simply because the Veteran crew's tank has sustained modest damage and is no longer at 100% effectiveness, and the player wants his best tank under his best crew. AFIACT, there isn't any historical justification for this kind of tank crew musical chairs, and as I noted, it can lead to gamey abuses in QBs such as players deliberately buying tanks with conscript crews as "backup rides."

[A Canadian Cat]

Either make low bocage passable (slowly at more risk ala way handled in CM) which would seem the easiest choice and would allow new players to deal with it as they expect.

Another alternative would be to beef up the look of the low bocage. Right now it looks like it would be easy to cross. If it were just a bit higher / wider it would be clearer that it is different from a hedge. I have learned to tell them apart but to do it I go to level 1 and move the camera around quite a bit to verify the burm and the width of the feature. It would be better if we could easily tell from level 2 or 3.

[umlaut]

players deliberately buying tanks with conscript crews as "backup rides."

Maybe I misunderstand your point, but that would mean buying a backup tank, because you´re banking on that when/if your first tank is knocked out, the original crew manages to bail out unharmed?

That seems more gambly than gamey to me

[A Canadian Cat]

I thought when you order a squad to hide, they periodically do a spotting check from the kneeling level to simulate troops randomly poking their heads up to spot in front of them. Is not issuing a cover arc, and then ordering the squad to hide the correct way to set an ambush? Or is there something else going on to prevent this behavior?

Nope, if your guys hide they keep their heads down and don't spot much if at all.

I just experienced a disaster because I had two shrek teams hiding in ambush but I did not have anyone spotting for them (usually from a bit further back) and on team I un-hid when I realized my mistake and the sound contact symbols were 30m away. They managed to hit and destroy a half track before being killed by the squad. The other shrek team just died with their heads down when the other squad came upon them in the woods. To make hiding in ambush work you need to have someone spotting for the ambush teams (i.e. not hiding) and you have to remember to turn off hide for your ambush teams or they will not fire.

[YankeeDog]

Maybe I misunderstand your point, but that would mean buying a backup tank, because you´re banking on that when/if your first tank is knocked out, the original crew manages to bail out unharmed?

That seems more gambly than gamey to me

Depends. If you're playing a larger, armor-heavy battle, I think it would be a very good tactic to buy 2-3 platoons of Veteran AFVs, and maybe 2 conscript AFVs of the same type as backups. Chances are pretty good that, over the course of the battle, at least one of your Veteran crews will bail out of a damaged vehicle without any casualties to the crew.

It also depends on what kind of AFV you're dealing with. Tanks with really heavy armor like Tigers are pretty good at protecting the crew, but have about the same chances as taking track or gun damage from non-penetrating hits as other, less heavily armored tanks. So with Tigers, there's a much higher chance of having a tank becoming combat ineffective due to modest damage, but the crew still being healthy. With thinly armored AFV like an M5 Stuart, the chances of crew casualties are much higher.

[tdogg]

Armor only cover arcs are a must.

I like the select unit by waypoint, lets take it even further and add adjustable plotted waypoints like CMx1....this is a must have as well.

I would say these two additions would have the most positive impact on day to day gameplay.