Wish List....

[poesel]

True, but it does have the advantage of being clearly visible in all lighting conditions, and on all terrain types. Some set up zone colours are all but invisible on some reasonably common terrain types.

That's why I made a thick border around the low opacity innards. It (the borderline) could even be a (thinner line) solid colour - it still would be absolutely clear what is in and out and not come into the way.

This would only fail when you zoom far into big setup zones where you cannot see the border any more. Probably a very seldom occurrence.

[SlowMotion]

True, but it does have the advantage of being clearly visible in all lighting conditions, and on all terrain types. Some set up zone colours are all but invisible on some reasonably common terrain types.

I also prefer arc that's CLEARLY visible compared to this 10% opacity alternative.

[Amizaur]

And do you want to see it all the time ? I'm for a hotkey that switches displaying cover arcs between 3 options - "no covered arcs" - "line covered arcs "or "10% opacity ones" - "full and clearly visible covered arcs".

[Rake]

I'd love to have the option to target my (surpressive) fire in a line like i can target my arty. This would work a lot better than the single targets we can do now. (think about a HMG needing to surpress a piece of bocage, i want the whole bocage under fire... not just a piece of it.

To keep talking about surpressive fire, if i manual target a field gun or AFV and want to lob a shell or to into building i usually spend way more than i would like in WEGO. I would love an option, like with arty, that lets me select the intensity of the direct fire order im giving.

A big AMEN to linear suppressive fire!

There are a lot of little things like this that I'd love to see... Tanks firing smoke for instance. It's an absolute pain trying to place smoke in a line across your front.

I'd love to see a way to order "place one (or two...) smoke shells here" rather than wasting the whole loadout of smoke at one time. I know you can give a smoke order with a pause, then move and give a new smoke (or other) order, etc., etc., but you never know if the tank will place none, one or two shells with a pause of a certain length. The other smoke order I'd like to see would be an option place a line of smoke at a certain distance, similar to linear targeting with artillery.

Flamethrowers and fire would be a nice addition, as would orders for various movement formations (although this can be handled through splitting teams and placing them in line, vee, wedge, etc.).

But, my big desire seems pretty simple... probably not though from a programming view. I just want click and drag waypoints to come back. It used to be so simple to give a group order and then just drag the individual waypoints to place the squads/teams where you wanted them. It was a tremendous time saver. Now, I see very little sense in giving a group order.

Oh, and one more thing... Can the size of Landmarks be increased just a bit? I need my binoculars to read them on my tv from my recliner.

[Lanzfeld]

Wish list? Okay.

Smoke. More of it. Alot more of it. More smoke from tank guns firing and impacting and tank engines. The engines should belch more smoke when reving. Lots more smoke from arty strikes and when a building collapses.

The smoke should last longer too.

[Amizaur]

But, my big desire seems pretty simple... probably not though from a programming view. I just want click and drag waypoints to come back. It used to be so simple to give a group order and then just drag the individual waypoints to place the squads/teams where you wanted them. It was a tremendous time saver.

I second that one !! One of the features I miss very much during every play. And it doesn't get better over time...

[poesel]

If a unit gets wiped out its icons should first flash and then vanish.

Currently it just vanishes so the loss may go totally unnoticed.

[Dan Dare]

what i would like to see (also, not on top of "drag waypoints") is foliage attached to tanks and armoured vehicles, with the alt+t option

[Crushingleeek]

Ask one of the crazy modders, though I doubt they could add 3d mass to the vehicles. it'd just be plastered on.

- Oh, how about AI triggers?

[John Kettler]

In CMBO, it was easy to rush machine guns, plus looked cool. In CMBB, BFC fundamentally remodeled MG behavior, to the point that CMBO infantry tactics became almost guaranteed fatal. The closer you got to the MG, the greater its ROF, simulating FPFs (final protective fires) and such. Gone were the headlong rushes to glory, unless you were either crazed or conducting a human wave attack. CMBB also markedly improved the suppression effects of MGs.

Sustained fire weapons, such as the water cooled Browning and the Vickers should be able to lay down withering sustained fires. I've read accounts from WW I where a Vickers unit denied a piece of land for 48 hours after being given unlimited ammo and water. Believe there was one stoppage during this whole area denial campaign.

By contrast, the design philosophy of the MG-34/42 was of very high ROF to catch the foe before he could reach cover, a concept mirrored in the JMEM (Joint Munition Effectiveness Manuals) where the first artillery salvo was always modeled against standing men, with subsequent fire, much less effective, against prone targets.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Crushingleeek]

Does CMBN model the greater ROF of MG42, relative to Browning (either BAR, M1919, or M1917) and allow that to translate to, dare I say, greater suppression and lethality?

More specifically, MG42 vs BAR since these were the corresponding automatic weapons at the squad level. ie, Do MG42 and BAR have the same suppressive/lethality effects (maybe designed that way for game balance)? If so, should we cry out?

[John Kettler]

Crushingleek,

I do not think so. The Mg-42 seems to create excellent suppressive effects, but that's said from only minor observation in scenarios where my infantry on the defense is practically on autopilot. I have only the demo, you see.

Regards,

John Kettler

[YankeeDog]

Does CMBN model the greater ROF of MG42, relative to Browning (either BAR, M1919, or M1917) and allow that to translate to, dare I say, greater suppression and lethality?

More specifically, MG42 vs BAR since these were the corresponding automatic weapons at the squad level. ie, Do MG42 and BAR have the same suppressive/lethality effects (maybe designed that way for game balance)? If so, should we cry out?

BFC has repeatedly stated that they do not "nerf" weapons capabilities for "game balance." Their goal is to model weapons' relative capabilities as they actually were IRL. Of course, it's always possible they missed the mark...

But in any event, if you're really curious as to exactly how they stack up, BAR vs. MG42 especially is very easy to test -- both weapons are available as a 2-man team, and the fact that you can do blue v. blue (or red v. red) in CMBN means you could set them up against *exactly* the same opposition.

For example. set up a firefight of a U.S. Armored infantry squad (8 men, Garands only), vs. a 2-man BAR team. Same thing, against a 2-man LMG42 team. Compare results.

[Crushingleeek]

how do you get an infantry squad of garands only?

[YankeeDog]

how do you get an infantry squad of garands only?

As I noted, U.S. Armored infantry squads have Garands only and so are useful for testing when you want a homogeneous unit.

This if off of the top of my head, so may not by 100% accurate, but IIRC the platoon TOE for U.S. Armored Infantry is something like Plt. HQ, 3 x 8-man Rifle Squads w/ Garands only, and an MG section of 2 x M1919A4 MMGs. Er sumfink like that.

[Crushingleeek]

i didn't notice/know that. that's huge!

is it the same organization for germans? 98k's only for armored infantry?

[YankeeDog]

i didn't notice/know that. that's huge!

is it the same organization for germans? 98k's only for armored infantry?

Nope. Equivalent to U.S. Armored infantry for the Wehrmacht would be Panzergrenadiere. Don't remember their exact platoon TOE for Panzergrenadiere off of the top of my head, but IIRC it's something like 2 x MG42 per squad, at least 1 MP40/squad, rarely an MP44, and the rest k98s.

So German Armored Infantry squads are kind of the opposite of American Armored Infantry -- they have more automatic weapons organic to the squad compared to the straight leg formations, rather than less.

[Georgie]

Being able to change ammo load out in the editor. I started a thread on this.

[jep]

Campaign would be nice. I don't understand why it seems to be that hard to create. I won't need realism. Even a simple implementation would do as far as I am allowed to order my men to dig in until reinforcements arrive (etc). At the very least, Battlefront should implement an API that would allow hobbyists to tell CM to start a quick battle with given troops and map. Actually I would like to Battlefront to tell me why they never implement campaign. Would make a perfect module.

Better modelling for trenches. Seriously, why can I not decide what kind of trench I wish to purchase. I do not want a trench like this (http://www.theworldatwar.info/trench.html). This seems much more practical: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-53455261/stock-photo-trenches-of-ww-real-museum-of-battle-for-kiev-in-ukraine-novie-petrovtsi-near-kiev.html .

Also, it feels kind of stupid that my trenches never connect yet they are way too expensive to create connected defensive system. Separate budget for fortifications would be nice.

flamethrowers.

[Crushingleeek]

Being able to change ammo load out in the editor. I started a thread on this.

and have head-count go all the way down to 10%.

and be able to see the weapons of each soldier in the squad, so I don't have to hit deploy each time I want to double check or see if I got lucky to get what I want to design.

[poesel]

Clicking on a sound contact should highlight the units that created the contact. Just like with visual contacts.

[WynnterGreen]

A different ( ? ) contact for vehicles as opposed to infantry.

Quite often you can tell by distance of the contact and the way it moves, but not always.

It's information clearly different in the field, so should be passed up the chain as such?

Another thing I'd like to see implemented at higher difficulty levels, Elite, Iron, is that you don't immediately get complete enemy unit information.

So that as soon as you make contact you don't know that it's a (Forward Observer), (Breach) or (HQ) unit opposite.

Information could be drip fed according to the experience of the unit in contact.

Initially an (Infantry Generic) symbol of some sort, then after a certain amount of time in contact (relative to how exposed the enemy is), or taking fire, observing it, some extra intel about the unit composition is revealed.

Same could be done for vehicles, (Halftrack Generic) > Further Observation > Stummel.

Of course, player experience can still feed into the mix, discerning the type of incoming fire from certain weapons etc.

[Crushingleeek]

i think that's taken into account at iron level

[WynnterGreen]

i think that's taken into account at iron level

Nah, you're still informed instantly that the contact is:

1st Platoon HQ Machinegun, or, 2nd Team MG Ammo Bearer, etc....

[John Kettler]

ctid98,

Welcome aboard!

For some serious instruction in what we taught our .30 caliber and .50 caliber MG crews, please see pp. 36-50 here

http://www.tankdestroyer.net/images/stories/ManualPDFs/Tank_Destroyer_Gunnery_Pt_1.pdf

then continue here until done with MG portion.

http://www.tankdestroyer.net/images/stories/ManualPDFs/Tank_Destroyer_Gunnery_Pt_2.pdf

You will learn all sorts of useful and even surprising things as a result, which can then be applied to your requests for changes in MG firing behavior. BFC is much more responsive to this kind of rock solid information than it is to personal opinion--unless you happen to be a combat veteran with experience on that particular weapon.

Regards,

John Kettler