Wish List....

[Lanzfeld]

If you Live Leak or YouTube any combat footage you will see that even the highest trained men fire that MG in wayyyyy longer bursts when the **** hits the fan.

I have wanted longer bursts since CMSF but they never have listened.

Only when a team is really really close do the MG's let er rip in the game.

[dieseltaylor]

Weight of small-arms fire needed for various targets.

"These figures are exceedingly tentative, and it should be realised that even if correct, they may have little value in the Infantry battle, where the weight of fire needed is in general decided more by what is available, and then corrected empirically."

Targets are considered to be in slit trenches, exposing an area of ½ sq ft to fire, or pillboxes, exposing an area of ¼ sq ft to fire from an embrasure.

Two levels of neutralisation are recognised."Light neutralisation" is defined as the minimum weight of fire to appreciably effect the accuracy of enemy fire. The enemy will suffer casualties at a rate of 2½% per minute, or one man per platoon per

minute, if they stay in a firing position for more than a third of the time they are fired on.

"Heavy neutralisation" is defined as the weight of fire needed effectively to stop any retaliatory measures on the part of the enemy, with a casualty rate of 10% per minute, or one man per section per minute.

It is estimated that a bullet passing within 3 yards sounded near enough to be dangerous.

Sections are assumed to be at full strength, 1+9, with Bren, Sten and 8 rifles, although it is acknowledged that rarely in battle will section strength exceed 1+6. Brens are assumed to fire 120 rds/min, rifles 18 rds/min. The range of engagement is assumed to be 100 to 200 yards. The effect of 2-in mortars is neglected.

Rounds per minute required to achieve neutralisation on target frontages in yards are:

Cover Slit trenches

Frontage ---100-- 20-- 4 yds

Light neut ---250-- 50- 10

Heavy neut -1000- 200 -40

Pillboxes

100 --20---4yds

500---100 --20

2000- 400-- 80

You can probably calculate what an HMG need do for the task.

[womble]

You can probably calculate what an HMG need do for the task.

Of course, the game displays the opposite correlation: as you get closer, RoF increases, where the tables you show suggest that it would, in a theoretical world of ideal suppression, decrease... Is suppose you could draw a range:suppression graph for a given system.

[slysniper]

I don't think they pop out and back, but they look/fire round corners and I see bullets ricocheting off the corner of the house that would have gone through the mass of the team if the house wasn't in the way. Or at least I think I do. Maybe I'll go back and watch the last few minutes of my most recent scenario just to check.

Edit: and it appears that I have been deluding myself. The example I remembered they were shooting round/through a hedge, not a wall, and I couldn't get any of 3 teams to shoot round a corner. I'll keep looking as I play, cos I'm sure I've seen it, but it's obviously not something that's "commonplace", probably needs some special geometry of target-wall-team, if it happened at all.

I find the only way to work around corners is to put a slow movement to the next actiom spot after the corner of the Bldg.

Hopefully they spot the enemy after they start working around the corner and stop, they only retreat if they get shot at.

Just did it today, Two man team sent on slow around a corner to fire on a tank with a faust from behind. First man gets part way around the corner stops, second man has faust, about 15 seconds later he starts to work his way up to also see the tank that the first guy can see. he manages to do it and then the fun begins.

Does not always work out well, but it is a risk I like to take. Some say just run out into the street, that can work also, but I will crawl if I think I might not get spotted.

[Ryujin]

As far as I'm concerned it's a team-level game, so splitting squads is just breaking up "administrative" units into the units the game's meant to be played with.

The problem isn't with scale entirely, but also the types of things the player has to worry about. Even for a team level game, the player shouldn't have to do extra management to babysit their troops through simple actions. Basic coordination of the teams when grouped as a squad could be handled by the TACAI via orders or states (squad level formations, spacing, etc as orders). The assault order is a step in the right direction, the more simple actions that can be "automated" the better.

I don't mind managing the teams to actually implement my tactics, that's the interesting part. That's the core gameplay the player should be concerned with. Lots of waypoints and hand holding to do very simple things is another matter.

Spacing and formations could even be as simple as steering behaviors to give flocking and offset pursuit while moving.

Most of the time my pTruppen seem to use corners fairly well, staying on the 'safe' side of them if the corner's in the Action Square they've been told to stop in and firing round it with one or two at a time. Or did you mean something beyond that?

I'd like them popping in and out of cover (around corners, over walls, etc). It'd probably help urban combat a fair amount. With bullets being 1:1, better use of cover matters.

[LRC]

About Group commands ( Ryujinpost),does anybody know if it is somehow in the plans ? This is a weakness of the game and basic group commands (like deploy along this line, follow this unit,...) shouldnot require to much code.

[sburke]

About Group commands ( Ryujinpost),does anybody know if it is somehow in the plans ? This is a weakness of the game and basic group commands (like deploy along this line, follow this unit,...) shouldnot require to much code.

Really? The command or the actual instruction for the AI?

[Vinnart]

Send urgent to the front: More 45 cal ammo.

[LRC]

Really? The command or the actual instruction for the AI?

Sburke,

Coding should be basic because it is a matter of autogenerating waypoints ( the actual routing algorithms, ie "how to reach way point", are unchanged) .

See the attached pictures:

step1: select units, click1 +click2 to define objective line.

step2: way points are autogenerated and distributed along objective line.

step3: default routing.

[sburke]

Sburke,

Coding should be basic because it is a matter of autogenerating waypoints ( the actual routing algorithms, ie "how to reach way point", are unchanged) .

See the attached pictures:

step1: select units, click1 +click2 to define objective line.

step2: way points are autogenerated and distributed along objective line.

step3: default routing.

Forgive me if this is just a dumb question, but I don't do any programming of this type (if you want to talk least cost routing globally on a VoIP system with tail end hop off, now then I might be your guy).

Is this a basic drawing of how it would work and if so is the coding of it to create that effect that simple? We know how difficult pathing issues can already be and my initial reaction is you have now multiplied those difficulties significantly. Right now I can click on a squad, hover the mouse over where I want them to move to and the action spots will highlight so I have some idea that they will line up behind a hedgerow. I can generally assume they will all follow the same path to get there. (with some of the inherent problems that will create (bunching up etc).

If the paths are now auto generated I have to worry, okay is one team going to swing wide, going to the left side of that obstacle and right into line of fire?

I realize for a lot of gamers this type of group pathing would simplify things for them and make for a lot faster game in effect. My way of dealing with this is I simply split my squads into teams. I can independently path them, with each having it's own pause, covered arc etc. CM allows you to give really fine tuned orders, this to me seems to want to take that and make the AI do that work and for the AI to do it as well as I already can is not going to be as simple as this.

That being said, for those who want simpler AI so they can command larger units and not micro manage them, this might be of interest. For me it feels more like dumbing down CM to faciliate scale. Then again everybody plays it different. I just still don't think this is as simple as presented nor that the side effects in behavior won't create their own issues.*

*from someone who really has no idea so don't put much weight to this.

[WinOrLose]

I would like a "transfer" button. You walk into the same square as another unit and swap whatever equipment and ammo you like. For example you squad with no bazooka but rockets could give them to a squad that has a bazooka but no rounds.

[patboy]

I would like a new model truck like ford v3000s very present in Normandy, it would be nice to have columns of different vehicles!

[Bradley Dick]

I would like a "transfer" button. You walk into the same square as another unit and swap whatever equipment and ammo you like. For example you squad with no bazooka but rockets could give them to a squad that has a bazooka but no rounds.

I could see the arguments for and against this. We already have something similar when you put units that are in the same formation adjacent to each other and they share ammunition. You could argue against it by saying how many platoon sergeants would be willing to handover their assets and familiar weapons to strangers (people not in their formations). There's also the possibility for abuse where you use conscript units as glorified ammo runners for Elite troops.

It does get a little frustrating to watch a PIAT gunner with no rounds and a squad with PIAT rounds stand by as a tank rampages through your lines.

[WinOrLose]

It does get a little frustrating to watch a PIAT gunner with no rounds and a squad with PIAT rounds stand by as a tank rampages through your lines.

Exactly!!! In that situation you would expect the squad leaders to put their handbags away and get the job done!!

[SlowMotion]

When playing PBEM it would be nice if I could send one message to my opponent per turn. Just like in RT mode you can use chat. The same kind of message, but it would be included in the turn file.

[dieseltaylor]

I could see the arguments for and against this. We already have something similar when you put units that are in the same formation adjacent to each other and they share ammunition. You could argue against it by saying how many platoon sergeants would be willing to handover their assets and familiar weapons to strangers (people not in their formations). There's also the possibility for abuse where you use conscript units as glorified ammo runners for Elite troops.

It does get a little frustrating to watch a PIAT gunner with no rounds and a squad with PIAT rounds stand by as a tank rampages through your lines.

The answer surely would be either the PIAT operator hands over the weapon or the squad hand over the ammo. In both cases the object of uniting weaponless ammo and ammo-less weapon is accomplished. And that criteria could form the basis of a rule within the coding.

[umlaut]

It does get a little frustrating to watch a PIAT gunner with no rounds and a squad with PIAT rounds stand by as a tank rampages through your lines.

A related problem/frustration - though minor - is about sharing of mortar rounds: Why don't ammobearers hand their ammo to the mortar team? Or could the mortar team at least spend the bearer team's ammo first? It would be nice to be able to send the bearers off to acquire more ammo while the mortar is still having rounds to use. Now, the ammo bearers can only go for more when both teams are out of rounds.

[Georgie]

One of the things that I think would make a crowded scenario more fun is if tanks are destroyed and in the middle of the road is to be able to push them aside.

[Allan Wotherspoon]

When playing PBEM it would be nice if I could send one message to my opponent per turn. Just like in RT mode you can use chat. The same kind of message, but it would be included in the turn file.

You can do that if you use H2HH to exchange turns. It has a built-in messaging feature.

[Lanzfeld]

A related problem/frustration - though minor - is about sharing of mortar rounds: Why don't ammobearers hand their ammo to the mortar team? Or could the mortar team at least spend the bearer team's ammo first? It would be nice to be able to send the bearers off to acquire more ammo while the mortar is still having rounds to use. Now, the ammo bearers can only go for more when both teams are out of rounds.

Same with MG ammo bearers.

[ExurbanKevin]

1. On-map 75mm pack howitzers. The Germans can have infantry guns, why can't airborne troops have their support weapons on-map? I used to love setting up QB's in CMBO where misplaced glider infantry has to defend an artillery position from a German counterattack.
   
2. Allied anti-aircraft guns.
   
3. Troop casuality reports for off-map artillery. If they're already in the game, I can't find them.
   
4. Agree with the single file infantry columns 100%.
   
5. And the shooting around corners thing as well. There' a word for infantry that runs into the middle of the street to engage the enemy: Casualties.
   
6. More half-track variants. Where are the M16's and T12's?
   

[SlowMotion]

You can do that if you use H2HH to exchange turns. It has a built-in messaging feature.

I know, but all people don't use H2HH. What I'm requesting should be quite easy thing to add. Maybe the msg could be shown when you've entered the password but before the movie begins?

[sburke]

I know, but all people don't use H2HH. What I'm requesting should be quite easy thing to add. Maybe the msg could be shown when you've entered the password but before the movie begins?

Or you could just email/IM them and we use that coding time for something else.

[SlowMotion]

The problem with email is that I use email in one computer and play CM in another. Personally I like H2HH, but for some reason all people just don't use it.

But seriously, adding this kind of msging would be trivial thing to do.

[WynnterGreen]

Replay Compiler:

For a game so steeped in strategy and tactics I'm amazed there isn't a mechanism for compiling a finished games wego turns into a single watchable, pause-able, rewindable, share-able replay of the entire mission.

I first encountered game 'replays' with the replay feature built into the 'Red Baron' flight sim more than twenty years ago and have probably spent thousands of hours since then watching, scrutinising, evaluating and consuming as pure entertainment the replays of various games from other franchises that I, and others, have played.

Not the least of the reasons why I think this is a must add feature is that CM is a very technical game to play. Watching how others play games has taught me countless tricks and tactics for better play in other games and the same would surely be true for CM.

Expanded Multiplayer:

H-H-2-H-H.

Being able to play 2 humans vs 2 humans, or 3vs3.

Awesome, 'nuff said.

Objectives:

The one man spoiler.

Objectives that get halved or failed because you're opponent is able to hide a tiny unit, bailed tank crew, whatever, in an objective to spoil the victory condition.

An example is a game I played where I controlled 95% of the objective, which was a town, with approximately 1800 points worth of units in the area and the objective failed because there was a disabled P.IV on the extreme edge of the objective in a lightly wooded area.

My opponent wasn't purposely flaunting the mechanic and I'm sure would have conceded that the objective was clearly held by me, but the inflexible rule says otherwise.

The answer could be as simple as a points value comparison between forces holding the objective at the end of the game.

If force B has <15% (for argument sake) of the points value that force A has on the objective, then A is considered to be in control.

Spotting WYSIWYG.

Something here is broken, badly.

It might be the visual representation of forest or the way spotting is handled, or the abstraction, whichever way, it's broke.

This panther, is on a hunt move, the Sherman in front of it is never spotted by the Panther, which only stopped because it spotted another target.

There's a unit in the forest just to the right of the Panther, that can see the the Sherman and has been able to for a couple of turns.

The Sherman was firing in the previous turn and Panther was only 20m further back, stationary, with a view of the Sherman just as clear as in this image.

This unfortunately seems not to be a particularly uncommon occurrence. This needs fixing, seriously.