What is left to do once CW is released?

[Vark]

They will have to change the coding to represent tank riders in the Eastern front module, surely?

[Myles Keogh]

They will have to change the coding to represent tank riders in the Eastern front module, surely?

I was a bit surprised tank riding didn't make the cut for CMBN because it was always a feature of CMx1. (However, so were flame weapons and terrain features catching on fire which also will purportedly not make an appearance in CMBN and its modules.)

Battlefront's argument for not coding in tank riding in CMBN is their same argument for not coding in horses and motorcycles in CMx1: battle has been joined and thus there's no need to display transport capabilities that would not be important to actually fighting a battle. (Still, I remember many a CMx1 scenario where I would load up my infantry on tanks to rush them into the fight or off the map for victory points.)

[ASL Veteran]

I was a bit surprised tank riding didn't make the cut for CMBN because it was always a feature of CMx1. (However, so were flame weapons and terrain features catching on fire which also will purportedly not make an appearance in CMBN and its modules.)

Battlefront's argument for not coding in tank riding in CMBN is their same argument for not coding in horses and motorcycles in CMx1: battle has been joined and thus there's no need to display transport capabilities that would not be important to actually fighting a battle. (Still, I remember many a CMx1 scenario where I would load up my infantry on tanks to rush them into the fight or off the map for victory points.)

Another thing about tank riders is that they would require special animations. All passengers currenly in CMBN are sitting rigidly upright with their knees together. It would look mighty odd if tank riders were assuming the standard passenger pose currently in the game. Tank riders are going to be hanging on to objects on the tank with their arms and legs in various positions to assist in keeping the soldier from falling off. At the same time you couldn't have truck passengers sprawled about on the interior of a truck using the same poses as tank riders so the game would have to know somehow whether a passenger was a tank rider or a non tank rider. The game would have to differentiate between two categories of passenger and correctly use the right animation when passengers loaded a vehicle. I suspect those difficulties have more of an impact with why tank riders haven't made an appearance yet than some of the other reasons offered so far.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Battlefront's argument for not coding in tank riding in CMBN is their same argument for not coding in horses and motorcycles in CMx1: battle has been joined and thus there's no need to display transport capabilities that would not be important to actually fighting a battle.

I think the real reason is all the work involved in making decent animations of the men climbing on and off.

[Michael Emrys]

I think the real reason is all the work involved in making decent animations of the men climbing on and off.

All the reasons stated are certainly valid concerns, but so far no one has mentioned the one that Steve himself stressed. And that is how to relate incoming fire to tank riders. Depending on the position of the source relative to the vehicle + riders and the position of individual riders on the vehicle, they will be exposed in varying degrees during the course of the turn. Now figure that your computer is going to have to make all those computations hundreds, perhaps thousands of times a second for each rider in addition to all the other work it is doing during the course of a turn and you have some real potential for a major slowdown of frame rate. Now let's see a show of hands: Who thinks that would be a really good thing?

Michael

[Hessian deserter]

It would be nice to see the M-12 155mm Gun Motor Carriage as an on map unit. These were used to fire at point blank range at the Siegfried line and Metz Bunkers and Fortifications.

[LongLeftFlank]

BFC indicated they'd add industrial buildings in a later module. That would certainly seem appropriate for a Market Garden module. Arnhem and Nijmegen were pretty built up in spots; it would also help with the summer/fall 1944 city fights (Paris Liberation, Metz, Aachen, etc.)

This add would open up a lot of new possibilities for scenario design / MOUT and breathe some extra life into the game. Given that CMSF had flat-roofed buildings and CMBN barns are an example of "high bay" structures, these wouldn't seem that hard for Charles to put in. The textures are mainly grimy brick.

Let me quote myself from another thread (*ahem*):

What about a flat-roofed industrial building type? (accessible roofs a la CMSF, grimy brick construction and high bays -- basically a "barn" variant). The Caen area was somewhat more developed industrially than the US Basse Normandie sector; we must also start thinking about the Breakout, Falaise and Leclerc's Liberation drive for/into Paris.

A nice to have would be a black iron "fire escape" balcony type.... Doesn't have to be an exterior stair although this would rockn if Charles is feeling bored (yeah, right!). You might also want a "long window" that doesn't include a door; prewar factories were big on natural daylight to save lighting costs.

Railway rolling stock would be way cool too for railway station / marshaling yard fights.

A (no climbing no LOS nightmare) smokestack flavour object would also look awesome! (thinking it would be a kind of tree so it would cast a shadow and absorb some fire)

A few cover-providing industrial flavour objects off the top of my head might include: large industrial vat (wood and cast iron), drill press or lathe, burnt out civilian lorry, large stack of railroad ties or lumber, kiln/furnace (basically a large brick fireplace with a metal hatch).

...And while I'm thinking about European urban areas, an iron railing (a low stone or brick wall topped by a spiked rail that men can't hop across without breaching) seems like a pretty ubiquitous feature.

The other most common city feature missing at present would be a solid flavour object representing a flight of steps 1-2 meters up to a townhouse. Good solid cover for men fighting in the streets. Making these steps climbable would be even better! -- so mapmakers can sink the ground floors of certain buildings into half basements and let troops enter the second floor directly (hint: you can already "fake" this with a Bridge object!). But that's a wishlist feature.

For the older districts of Gay Paree, a collonaded balcony type would also provide an interesting building facade with tactical properties -- at first floor, instead of posts reaching to the ground you have thick stone pillars and arches (providing solid cover).

Finally, a "T" and "L" angled roof would be very helpful for putting together bigger buildings.

[sfhand]

All the reasons stated are certainly valid concerns, but so far no one has mentioned the one that Steve himself stressed. And that is how to relate incoming fire to tank riders. Depending on the position of the source relative to the vehicle + riders and the position of individual riders on the vehicle, they will be exposed in varying degrees during the course of the turn. Now figure that your computer is going to have to make all those computations hundreds, perhaps thousands of times a second for each rider in addition to all the other work it is doing during the course of a turn and you have some real potential for a major slowdown of frame rate. Now let's see a show of hands: Who thinks that would be a really good thing?

Michael

Doesn't the game already make those calculations when the soldiers are walking? My understanding is that every round is tracked and when a round comes in contact with a polygon in non-abstracted situations a hit occurs. So how does having tank-riders change any of this?

[von Paulus]

Now figure that your computer is going to have to make all those computations hundreds, perhaps thousands of times a second for each rider in addition to all the other work it is doing during the course of a turn and you have some real potential for a major slowdown of frame rate. Now let's see a show of hands: Who thinks that would be a really good thing?

Michael

I simply wish there was less hybris.

Now CMx2 is uber-ambitious but we're talking nothing that can't be done without several years of programming and ultra-powerful computers - and we're losing numerous beloved CMx1 features.

Back in the days, who thought CM would turn that way?

[Holien]

Doesn't the game already make those calculations when the soldiers are walking? My understanding is that every round is tracked and when a round comes in contact with a polygon in non-abstracted situations a hit occurs. So how does having tank-riders change any of this?

Because they are on a moving vehicle and not under their own steam would be my guess. So you have a more complex calculation to do. Also you have to model the height of infantry off the ground that might add more complexity....

But As we do not know how it is coded that is down to BFC

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that tank riders would create a prohibitive performance hit. AFAIK BFC has never said that. What they have said is that it would take a lot time to implement correctly, but they will look into doing it when it becomes more relevant.

[MikeyD]

Infantry clinging to the engine deck of a speeding Sherman with guns blazing is very "Sgt Rock" comic book but not very practical. For most scenarios the infantry would've had the good sense to offload and assemble long before you ever hit "Go". Tank riding is like landing craft for beach invasions. In the orders section simply type "Platoon B has offloaded from their supporting Sherman and..." Voi-la! Tank riding exist in the game ex post-facto.

[Pvt. Ryan]

CM was intended to simulate the actual combat at the front, where tank riders are probably inappropriate, at least on the Western Front, but many players like to make huge maps and simulate getting to the battle in addition to the actual fighting. It would be in those situations where tank riders would be nice to have, but it's not a priority.

[ExurbanKevin]

Battlefront's argument for not coding in tank riding in CMBN is their same argument for not coding in horses and motorcycles in CMx1: battle has been joined and thus there's no need to display transport capabilities that would not be important to actually fighting a battle. (Still, I remember many a CMx1 scenario where I would load up my infantry on tanks to rush them into the fight or off the map for victory points.)

I found tank-riding in CMv1 was very useful in two circumstances: Getting my forces up to their first defensive positions in Meeting Engagement battles, and similarly, moving reinforcements up to the thick of the fight after they appeared on the map.

Both of those situations occur after the battle has "officially" started and having the ability to move a squad of infantry at the same rate as my armor would be very useful in both circumstances.

After all, if the infantry can hitch a ride off the map, why can't they hitch a ride ON the map?

[sfhand]

Troops on tanks are entirely inappropriate for CMBN and most especially for the CW module...

[sfhand]

An interesting tidbit, re: tank riding infantry, can be found here:

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/hedgerowbreakout.aspx

...

Between the 19th and the 25th of July, the 22nd Infantry and Combat Command A's 66th Armored Regiment conducted mock attacks and rehearsals in preparation for Operation Cobra. Tankers conducted classes on the proper distribution of main-gun and machine-gun fire and the correct way to use the rhinoceros hedge cutters mounted on 75 percent of the 66th's tanks. Platoons from the 22nd Infantry constantly practiced tank-infantry coordination with the 66th Armored. Infantry units learned how best to mount, dismount, and ride on tanks and taught their soldiers how to use the new external telephones mounted on most of Combat Command A's tanks. Infantrymen also found ways to camouflage themselves with vegetation while riding on the Sherman’s. Leaders generally found that infantrymen easily adapted to the new tasks involved in working with armor.

...

I've got to wonder why the infantry would want to camouflage themselves with vegetation while riding the Shermans if there was no enemy around.

[Holien]

I've got to wonder why the infantry would want to camouflage themselves with vegetation while riding the Shermans if there was no enemy around.

American Airforce?

[Holien]

BTW Tank riding would be good if it could be incorporated in the game but not something I will lose sleep over if not in game...

[para]

American Airforce?

Very good

[sfhand]

American Airforce?

Are you suggesting the planes wouldn't notice the tanks but they would notice the soldiers without camouflage?

[Michael Emrys]

Are you suggesting the planes wouldn't notice the tanks but they would notice the soldiers without camouflage?

Well...you know how hard it can be to identify targets from the air.

Michael

[ASL Veteran]

Are you suggesting the planes wouldn't notice the tanks but they would notice the soldiers without camouflage?

If the soldiers are on the tank, then the vegetation that the troops are wearing would serve to camoflage the tank while they are riding on it .

[Michael Emrys]

If the soldiers are on the tank, then the vegetation that the troops are wearing would serve to camoflage the tank while they are riding on it .

Good to know those buggers are good for something at least!

Michael

[sburke]

This is all a common error. These troops were part of a little known elite unit that was formed prior to the demise of the luftwaffe. They were the "instant tank camouflage force" or ITCF. They would move along with the armor and if anyone sighted german aircraft they were to immediately leap onto the tank turning it into a large shrub. Initial tests in the western desert seemed to produce poor results though no one knows why.

It is a common mistake to refer to these guys as Hobart's funnies, they were not actually part of Hobart's units.

[Shorker]

Here are more suggestions - maybe you like them too :-))

1.) It would be great if in a German HQ-team (e.g. Battalion Commander) there would be a commander with a leather longcoat. And if this team is activated and you click on the "deploy weapon"-button they are setting up a folding table with a map on it or they are installing a rabbit-ear telescope (scissor scope).

2.) The German Kubelwagen is a very small car. It would be great if the player could also choose the SdKfz 15 "Horch" from the car pool in order to carry a group of men and anti-tank guns.

3.) American and German motorcycles and German motorcycles with sidecar.

4.) German Kettenkrad.

5.) Medics and their vehicles.

6.) US Rangers.

7.) German Flakpanzer "Moebelwagen" and "Wirbelwind".

8.) German SdKfz 8, 12 tons Halftruck to tow the 8,8 AT Gun and Flak.

9.) Moveable 8,8 AT Gun and Flak "on wheels".

10.) French Resistance.