New features wish list!

[Childress]

The reason I posed those questions is that, to the best of my knowledge, CM is unlike the extant games that use SOPs. TacOps and the Panther Games use 'counters' and very coarse grained maps. They lack the granularity characteristic of CM terrain and the 1:1 format. Instructing, for example, a unit to 'retreat' in CM requires greater specificity than in those two sims; there's much less abstraction. You'd need another level of instructions. So the implementation of SOP routines would pose more of a challenge, requiring a lot of additional coding and a comprehensive UI re-design.

[WriterJWA]

The reason I posed those questions is that, to the best of my knowledge, CM is unlike the extant games that use SOPs. TacOps and the Panther Games use 'counters' and very coarse grained maps. They lack the granularity characteristic of CM terrain and the 1:1 format. Instructing, for example, a unit to 'retreat' in CM requires greater specificity than in those two sims; there's much less abstraction. You'd need another level of instructions. So the implementation of SOP routines would pose more of a challenge, requiring a lot of additional coding and a comprehensive UI re-design.

I disagree. No matter whether the games are abstract or represent a 1:1 scale, each game is doing the same basic thing and has to make similar decisions. Any order given to a unit/squad/vehicle wouldn't be outside of the normal set of orders given to a unit by a player (pop smoke, reverse, unload, etc...), it would just be done automatically, and in a sequence. Even now, there is a slight SOP in effect. Think of AFVs that sometimes automatically pop smoke and reverse when hit by small arms or AT weapon. That is, in essence, a loose procedure conducted by the crew without input from the player.

[Steiner14]

I don't understand, why SOPs are seen as exclusive to the current system. I would love to see it as an additional command.

There are (very important, often decisive) tactical situations, the AI can't handle correctly. For example, the AI doesn't know, if there is a simultaneous attack from more than one tank on a much stronger tank. Now it handles each tank individually and this results often enough in retreats, instead of a deathmatch with excellent chances for the weaker ones (if nobody runs away ). In that case it would be great, if the player would have the ability to override the AI's self preservation with a SOP (and also BFC could blame more easily the players, if they were complaining about the Tac-AI: "Learn to use SOPs and do not expect miracles from the Tac-AI, loser" )

[Michael Emrys]

Have you ever tried to interest a friend in CM? Even a friend with some WW2 knowledge? I have. We're accustomed to the density; for an outsider it can be damn intimidating. Even CM1x. So I question the wisdom of adding another layer of user options on to an already complex game however useful they seem.

Frankly I find this a strange way to critique the idea. SOPs in practice reduce the workload on the player. As far as introducing new players to the game, their use would be strictly optional. A player could wait until he has already mastered the basic mechanics of the game before embarking on SOPs. And I always found them to be very intuitive anyway, so what's the big problem?

Michael

[Childress]

Frankly I find this a strange way to critique the idea. SOPs in practice reduce the workload on the player. As far as introducing new players to the game, their use would be strictly optional. A player could wait until he has already mastered the basic mechanics of the game before embarking on SOPs. And I always found them to be very intuitive anyway, so what's the big problem?

Now even the establishment, the country club Republicans of the forum, come out in favor of SOPs. I give up. BF do your worst. Even if the reconfiguration of the interface consumes your every waking hour and no new game or module sees the light of day until 2017. Let's have orders nested within orders like Matryoshka dolls!

[Mord]

LOL. You don't know Emrys if you think he's a Repub...he's still got Dukakis stickers on his walker.

Mord.

[Vinnart]

Ok, doing some brainstorming here. I truly do not think an additional AMBUSH command is needed, and the SoP’s conversation from what I gather is around the lack of such commands. The reason I do not see AMBUSH command needed is that like others have said it can be done effectively with the cover arc, and like others have said, “It is not a one size fits all situation”. For example if left to the AI at what range does the unit open fire? As the user I want to do this, and the arc is an easy way to define that. That being said I do see how the process can be made easier. If you look at the return of a quick 180 degree arc command (Alt+Shift + Arc command makes more sense to access than the Ctrl button in my original thought) that can be easily manipulated once made then it streamlines the process greatly, and becomes something that can be quickly changed on the fly. That makes them more user friendly by streamlining the process of arcs, which means less micromanaging when moving the unit to new positions in regard to the user defined ambush parameters.

Now, as far as the SoP argument goes (I’m not familiar with TacOps) I gather these are different behaviors, or postures. I do feel this could be implemented in a user friendly way. Usually these are done in other war games as behavior toggles. Even though one may give a slow order at the end of a move sometimes not all the guys go prone, and the guy on one knee gets killed because it is out of the player’s control. If one could get them to stay prone then the guy up on a knee would not have been spotted, and killed. If there were a prone toggle (emphasis on concealment) this would assure that the unit always goes, and stays prone when stopped. This removes having to remember to give a slow order at the end of the move, and even slow does not assure that they will stay prone. A prone posture will certainly improve the posture for an ambush.

Perhaps a small toggle button next to the evade button to toggle a few different SoP postures. When a player selects a particular set of SoP behavior the units keeps that behavior until changed by the player. Lots of games have behavior modes that are usually Default, Aggressive, and Defensive. Defensive would mean the unit would remain prone every time it is stopped for example. This would allow the player the ability to change SoP’s on the fly in an easy manner, and would give them more finer tuning of AI behaviors for certain situations.

Here is an example of ease of use that creates less micromanagement:

I put a tank hunter unit in an ambush position, and create the depth, and area easily with the new quick 180-degree arc command. I hold down the Alt + Shift and click ONCE creating a nice symmetric arc set to 50m. I then set this unit’s behavior to defensive which guarantees it always assumes, and stays in the best posture for an ambush. I decide I want to increase the arc depth to 60m, and select the existing arcs waypoint and drag it to 60m easily, and quickly adjusting the arc rather than having to make it again. Next, the ambush is triggered by enemy coming into the arc. It is a big force so I decide to move the tank hunter back to a new position, and give FAST order. The unit runs back to the new position assuming its arc, and going prone without having to add a slow order. Once in the new spot I select the 180-degree arc waypoint, and drag it in to 40m, and rotate it a bit to fine-tune direction even though 180 degree gives good coverage left, and right. You see how that makes it easier, and give more variety for the AI to use as defined by the user. Not much micromanagement there as the arc was created once, and the Tac AI behavior has been adjusted once. Just some food for thought.

[Childress]

LOL. You don't know Emrys if you think he's a Repub...he's still got Dukakis stickers on his walker.

Mord.

A bit insensitive, Mord. You surprised me. 'Walker' departed from the lexicon a long time ago. Along with 'Oriental'. Now it's a Mobility Portable Rolling Device (google it). Using 'walker' gets you fired from MSNBC. And to be honest, I reviewed some of Emry's 18,000 posts recently and there's an unmistakable vein of subversiveness running though them. So I stand, er, sit corrected.

[PaulMG]

I'm in the business and we still call them walkers. Front wheels are not standard and the RX must specify them. 4 wheel walkers are called Rollators. They usually have a seat and hand brakes. Handy for those long lines waiting for flu shots, casino buffet lines, and future govt health care...

[Childress]

I'm in the business and we still call them walkers.

Sure, within the industry. During the heyday of the Ratpack Frank and Dean referred too each other as 'wops'. Much hilarity ensued. But if you're non-Italian and called them that you'd find a couple of Sinatra's goons at your front door the next day. Or the blue-haired ladies at brunch referring to themselves as 'girls. Don't try that either.

[Mord]

Ah, amusement at Emrys' expense...the best kind. LOL.

Happy 4th!...I SAID HAPPY 4TH, EMRYS! HOPE YOU SCORE AT THE BUFFET...TRY THE POTATO SALAD. IT'S MADE WITH ENSURE.

Mord.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Ok, doing some brainstorming here. I truly do not think an additional AMBUSH command is needed, and the SoP’s conversation from what I gather is around the lack of such commands. The reason I do not see AMBUSH command needed is that like others have said it can be done effectively with the cover arc

If you don't hide them. And if they are not spotted first as a result of not being hidden. Then yes, it works great.

[Vinnart]

If you don't hide them. And if they are not spotted first as a result of not being hidden. Then yes, it works great.

As your ambush unit is stationary, and the enemy is MOVING toward you the stationary unit will more than likely spot, and fire first. Also, remember that unit experience has much to do with spotting ability. A green unit is rather bad at spotting, while veterans spot much faster. Terrain has much to do with concealment rating too, and how easy a unit is to spot.

[Baneman]

As your ambush unit is stationary, and the enemy is MOVING toward you the stationary unit will more than likely spot, and fire first. Also, remember that unit experience has much to do with spotting ability. A green unit is rather bad at spotting, while veterans spot much faster. Terrain has much to do with concealment rating too, and how easy a unit is to spot.

Actually, I'm beginning to think that via some code wrinkle, the moving unit gets the first spotting cycle ...

Yes, I've just lost another stationary ( laughably called the "ambusher" ) tank to an enemy that moved into view, went "aha!", and killed me before I saw him.

Veteran +1 crew, unbuttoned, no suppression, pointed directly at the right spot ( 'cos I knew he was coming ).

This causes more screen-screaming and hair-pulling than any other "feature" in the game.

I could live with my shot missing or not KOing the enemy, but when the ambushee gets the first shot ... grrrrrrrr

[Michael Emrys]

LOL. You don't know Emrys if you think he's a Repub...he's still got Dukakis stickers on his walker.

That's out and out slander! I never supported Dukakis (although I will admit I voted against what's-his-name on the other side) and I don't use a walker.

BTW, how are you getting along with the wiener dogs these days? And are you still living in the Führerbunker?

Michael

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I'm in the business and we still call them walkers. Front wheels are not standard and the RX must specify them. 4 wheel walkers are called Rollators. They usually have a seat and hand brakes. Handy for those long lines waiting for flu shots, casino buffet lines, and future govt health care...

What happened to Zimmer Frame? Does that term not get a run these days?

Regards

KR

[Vinnart]

Actually, I'm beginning to think that via some code wrinkle, the moving unit gets the first spotting cycle ...

Yes, I've just lost another stationary ( laughably called the "ambusher" ) tank to an enemy that moved into view, went "aha!", and killed me before I saw him.

Veteran +1 crew, unbuttoned, no suppression, pointed directly at the right spot ( 'cos I knew he was coming ).

This causes more screen-screaming and hair-pulling than any other "feature" in the game.

I could live with my shot missing or not KOing the enemy, but when the ambushee gets the first shot ... grrrrrrrr

Yes, on rare occasions things do not go off quite as one would expect, but MOST of the time the stationary unit seems to have the edge. Terrain has much to do with it too. I had an M10 in the open in a hull down on the side of a hill pointing toward some woods I expected an enemy tank to approach from. The trees in this case gave the enemy tank some better concealment. It spotted, shot, and killed my tank first. Also, if no face command is given it is my understanding the unit will try to maintain more 360-degree awareness vs. concentrating more in a specified direction. Perhaps though the tank commander model is not showing it his eyes were scanning another direction.

[Steiner14]

Actually, I'm beginning to think that via some code wrinkle, the moving unit gets the first spotting cycle ...

Yes, I've just lost another stationary ( laughably called the "ambusher" ) tank to an enemy that moved into view, went "aha!", and killed me before I saw him.

Veteran +1 crew, unbuttoned, no suppression, pointed directly at the right spot ( 'cos I knew he was coming ).

If you have the turn, i'd recommend to send it to BFC for a closer look.

[WriterJWA]

Actually, I'm beginning to think that via some code wrinkle, the moving unit gets the first spotting cycle ...

Yes, I've just lost another stationary ( laughably called the "ambusher" ) tank to an enemy that moved into view, went "aha!", and killed me before I saw him.

Veteran +1 crew, unbuttoned, no suppression, pointed directly at the right spot ( 'cos I knew he was coming ).

This causes more screen-screaming and hair-pulling than any other "feature" in the game.

I could live with my shot missing or not KOing the enemy, but when the ambushee gets the first shot ... grrrrrrrr

YES! I've had this happen to me on more than one occasion -- with infantry, also. It's like "what's the point?" ;-) I've (ashamedly) broken mouses because of stuff like this.

I don't want to see this turn into a "dump on CM" thread, I love the game, but I've noticed that the closer in proximity that opposing forces get to each other, the .. ahem ... "gamier" the results. Not all the time, of course, but there are some cases where I'm admittedly stupefied by the decisions made by the TacAI. Some examples I've seen include:

1. Troops who break and crawl/run OUT of cover into the open.

2. Troops who come under close range fire in the open and just go prone instead of sprinting to nearby cover (< 10 meters away). This is especially maddening when watching troops do this when they can practically reach out and touch the door to an unoccupied building.

Here's a situation I had a few weeks ago that almost had me melting down my computer:

I was playing the first scenario of the Blue and the Gray/29th ID campaign, landing on Dog Green/Omaha Beach. It was toward the end of the scenario and I had cleared the trenches. One bunker remained right near the draw. I had two formations of troops (calling them squads would be a stretch at this point) ready to go to work on this last bunker. I left one team up top, and then sent the other one down the bluff to the rear of the bunker. When they were within 20 meters or so, the team below put a bazooka round into the rear door and threw a few grenades. After a few seconds, whats left of the German MG team comes out like Rambo (completely shell-shocked and with blown ear drums from the concussion), spraying from the hip, and manages to kill or wound everyone in that team. The team above could see the bunker, but couldn't get an aim point on it for whatever reason, this the boss MG team simply sets up their MG again just outside the bunker, and continues it's harassing fire at broken troops on the beach. Meanwhile, I'm breaking furniture in my house screaming at the second team, "throw grenades down the !@#$in bluff! Seriously!" :-P

[Vinnart]

YES! I've had this happen to me on more than one occasion -- with infantry, also. It's like "what's the point?" ;-) I've (ashamedly) broken mouses because of stuff like this.

I don't want to see this turn into a "dump on CM" thread, I love the game, but I've noticed that the closer in proximity that opposing forces get to each other, the .. ahem ... "gamier" the results. Not all the time, of course, but there are some cases where I'm admittedly stupefied by the decisions made by the TacAI. Some examples I've seen include:

1. Troops who break and crawl/run OUT of cover into the open.

2. Troops who come under close range fire in the open and just go prone instead of sprinting to nearby cover (< 10 meters away). This is especially maddening when watching troops do this when they can practically reach out and touch the door to an unoccupied building.

Here's a situation I had a few weeks ago that almost had me melting down my computer:

I was playing the first scenario of the Blue and the Gray/29th ID campaign, landing on Dog Green/Omaha Beach. It was toward the end of the scenario and I had cleared the trenches. One bunker remained right near the draw. I had two formations of troops (calling them squads would be a stretch at this point) ready to go to work on this last bunker. I left one team up top, and then sent the other one down the bluff to the rear of the bunker. When they were within 20 meters or so, the team below put a bazooka round into the rear door and threw a few grenades. After a few seconds, whats left of the German MG team comes out like Rambo (completely shell-shocked and with blown ear drums from the concussion), spraying from the hip, and manages to kill or wound everyone in that team. The team above could see the bunker, but couldn't get an aim point on it for whatever reason, this the boss MG team simply sets up their MG again just outside the bunker, and continues it's harassing fire at broken troops on the beach. Meanwhile, I'm breaking furniture in my house screaming at the second team, "throw grenades down the !@#$in bluff! Seriously!" :-P

Yes, I am sure more fine tuning of this in programming along with the occasional path finding stupidity will be done in the future. The KEY word in the occurrence is ON OCCASION, and I think rare at that. The important thing at the moment is that MOST of the time all goes down, as one would expect. Like I said though there are more factors to the units spotting beyond what the player is seeing. For example scanning in another direction left, or right under the hood despite what the player sees in the model. Leadership rating , and experience too factors much.

When stupid stuff on OCCASION happens like this just chalk it up to the Tac AI taking a dump now and then in an imperfect world. As each patch/build comes out I think we can expect improvement in Tac AI, and pathfinding.

Getting all upset about it does you no good. It is just a game. In cases of troops doing something dumb like taking illogical paths, and dying just re-do your turn to see if things come out better next time if you change a few things. When it is the AI doing stupid instead of my orders I will sometimes re-do it since it is not my fault. I also learn, and experiment this way. If the turn comes out bad through my giving bad orders I will not re-do. To redo though, you must save the turn. This is why I would like to see the return of autosave for single player. In regard to redo when they do stupid stuff obviously for RT, and PBEM you are S.O.L.

[WriterJWA]

Yeah ... it's definitely an OCCASIONAL thing ... not a ROUTINE one. A time-definable autosave would be a great feature on all fronts, though! Especially for RT. Right now, re-doing a turn is re-doing a whole scenario.

[SlowMotion]

Maybe that item #1 simulates unit doing silly thing because it is in broken condition?

[Albe Pavo]

It will be interesting to have a more detailed "ongoing campaign" status report between a mission and another.

[c3k]

Ya' know, reading that, I didn't see anything that was broken. Sure, your guys suffered. Too bad.

Imagine the Germans in the bunker. The incoming is getting worse. Then, there're explosions at their one way out. It's closing in on them. Hans looks out the peephole. "Ami's at the exit!" None of them want to die. They agree: time to charge out and take their chances in a firefight rather than be roasted or toasted in a pre-made concrete coffin. Out they run, guns spraying...and they survive.

As to the "top" US unit not having an LOS, I cannot comment on that. That's map and unit specific.

But yeah, savegames and restarts have probably saved me from more micro-strokes than I'd care to admit.

[sburke]

Ya' know, reading that, I didn't see anything that was broken. Sure, your guys suffered. Too bad.

Imagine the Germans in the bunker. The incoming is getting worse. Then, there're explosions at their one way out. It's closing in on them. Hans looks out the peephole. "Ami's at the exit!" None of them want to die. They agree: time to charge out and take their chances in a firefight rather than be roasted or toasted in a pre-made concrete coffin. Out they run, guns spraying...and they survive.

As to the "top" US unit not having an LOS, I cannot comment on that. That's map and unit specific.

But yeah, savegames and restarts have probably saved me from more micro-strokes than I'd care to admit.

LOL Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Much as I absolutely love the game, it is still a computer game and occasionally it glitches. I think less and less so as time goes by, but it is what it is and you can't expect you will never run into stuff. Broadsword and I have a battle now where if I exit an MG team from a bunker they cant seem to move. There is an adjacent wall and I suspect where they exit from the bunker is somehow too close and allows the AI no path. Oh well. Maybe the wall will get blown down and they can escape if need be. I am definitely not going to have a stroke over it, but it is noted so in the future we can check placement and movement out before the battle kicks off.