New features wish list!

[Childress]

I hope that BF will address the apparent unbalance between Dead and Wounded soldiers which *appears* to overplay the former. Not a critical issue to be sure, except in the realm of immersion, and likely difficult to fix (if indeed it needs fixing) with the existing engine particularly given the Medic routine.

[SlowMotion]

Maybe there are more dead than wounded because *player* is using soldiers so aggressively? If you see just a single battle/scenario that you're trying to win, you may use those pixel soldiers taking more risks than if you were playing a whole_war/campaign where a skipped casualty means one more soldier in fighting condition in the future.

[JonS]

It may also be a simple case of CM not quite counting the same things people in WWII counted.

KIA is obvious, but WIA isn't. I'm pretty sure CM only counts the 'red' wounded for the WIA total. I don't think the 'yellow' WIA are included in the end-game WIA total. And, on top of that, there's also all the slightly wounded that are completely ignored by CM but if they ever went near a medic for so much as a bandaid would have been counted during WWII.

Plus there's the environmental differences, as Slowmotion mentioned, and the fact that theatre-wide WWII casualty stats are, duh, theatre wide, whereas CM only deals with the folks at the pointiest of the pointy end. I don't know if the ratio of KIA to WIA shifted the furtherback from the FEBA you got, but I suspect it did. And the vast majority of soldiers in WWII were not at the FEBA, but that's exactly where every CM battle is located.

[c3k]

Look at the casualties as a percentage of the unit. If you look at the division, they're not so bad. By the time you dig down to platoons, you see that entire platoons get destroyed and remanned, only to be sent in again and again. The division exists only to keep the platoons in the line of battle.

The casualties at the platoon level don't do well. The OVERALL divisional casualties do better. Men not on the line are closer to the rear area. They are cleaner, better rested, closer to aid stations, have a better likelihood of being found, recovered, and delivered to medical personnel. The road network exists in the rear. Etc. Shrapnel, fragment and blast injuries are more easily survived than machinegun bursts, grenades, flamethrowers, landmines, entrenching tools, etc.

My .02.

[Baneman]

Also, ingame, routing men cannot currently leave the map ( I hope that's being looked at - after all, according to the manual they should at least disappear a la the surrendering guys ).

This tends to skew the KIA "bag" in the victor's favour since a fair few of these get mown down without a chance to surrender during the "mopping up" phase.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It would be nice if soldiers with rifle grenades did not have to fire off the HEAT round first before the HE rounds can be used.

[GerryCMBB]

Hello All:

When "Unit Lock" is on, and the unit is in a building, it is easy to swivel the camera around that unit and get a 360 picture of that building.

When a unit is not in a building I cannot see how to do this. One needs to plan ahead in a town by checking where doors and windows are in the buildings. So I would like to be able to "unit lock" a bit of terrain, say a building, and then be able to swivel the camera around it for a 360 view.

Gerry

[nachinus]

I wish that ammo on the back of knocked out lorries or transports would still be accesible for 'acquiring'. Unless they are really damaged or destroyed, of course.

I've read many reports -and I've experienced it too- of a single burst that cripples a vehicles engine and disables it -which is all very fine-, rendering the vehicle to its 'knocked out' status, where you can't access its inventory again. If it was made 'immovilized' -or 'disabled' or something like that- things would be better, and the ammo should still be accesible.

[womble]

I would like to be able to see the "Combat Victories" of units that are no longer on the game field at game end, whether that be because they exited, or have been hoovered up, I mean "compassionately given emergency trauma aid" by their comrades. There are a couple of units in my current PBEM which I want to see how well they actually did before they got themselves wiped out, but which are rich veins of 9mm for a lone Tank Hunter, and I'm reluctant to "wipe them" from the face of the game by Buddy Aiding them... but I will and it's a shame I won't be able to see how many or few casualties they actually inflicted.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I would like to be able to see the "Combat Victories" of units that are no longer on the game field at game end

I seem to recall reading on the forum that you can do that by cycling through the units using the + and - keys. I haven't tried it myself yet.

[JonS]

Hello All:

When "Unit Lock" is on, and the unit is in a building, it is easy to swivel the camera around that unit and get a 360 picture of that building.

When a unit is not in a building I cannot see how to do this. One needs to plan ahead in a town by checking where doors and windows are in the buildings. So I would like to be able to "unit lock" a bit of terrain, say a building, and then be able to swivel the camera around it for a 360 view.

Gerry

I'm pretty sure right click while turning gets the camera to pivot on a point.

[StoneAge]

I would like to see an ammo dump.

could look like a mound on the ground with a door. It is treated in the same way as a bunker/vehicle you must enter to aquire the extra ammo it holds.

This way we could have static resupply points for longer battles.

[nachinus]

I would like to see an ammo dump.

could look like a mound on the ground with a door. It is treated in the same way as a bunker/vehicle you must enter to aquire the extra ammo it holds.

This way we could have static resupply points for longer battles.

Good idea!

And a pretty realistic touch for creating fortified positions.

[womble]

I'm pretty sure right click while turning gets the camera to pivot on a point.

It does, but it pivots on the point you're looking from not the point you're looking at.

You can get it to circle round a given point by using the strafe key and rotate function in combination. Strafe left, turn right, and if you coordinate the two you can get some funky camera movement going.

[ZPB II]

Is there any way to see casualties caused by off-map artillery? The spotter team doesn't show it atleast. If you use several different batteries it's really hard to tell who hit what especially since the casualties will most likely be removed by buddy aid.

Also the use of the acquire command from outside the vehicle and being able to chain it would ease the problem of accessing ammo in KOd light vehicles that didn't suffer much damage. It would also streamline turn-based play.

[Glubokii Boy]

Hello.

Maybe this has already been mentioned but one thing i would like to see

would be the ability to reassign units to specific HQs in scenarios to like you can do in quick battles...

Examples:

Would be nice to be able to assign HMG and AT-guns from the weapons

companies to a specific platoon HQ.

Assigning a couple of snipers and a bazooka or two to a section HQ.

Giving a companie that gets a complicated task an extra platoon under its

command.

I understand that this might mess up the C2 links if you reassign units more or less every turn but if you could do it during the SETUP atleast...This would not be very different from the way it works in QBs now.

Maybe something like this (during the set-up phase):

1. you select the unit you want to reassign by left-clicking on it

2. to assign that unit to an other HQ you just left-click the HQ you wish to assign it to

3. the selected unit is now assigned to the new HQ and the new C2-net can

be 'saved to memory' when you press the GO-button for the first time.

[MikeyD]

Would be nice to be able to assign HMG and AT-guns from the weapons

companies to a specific platoon HQ.

Assigning a couple of snipers and a bazooka or two to a section HQ.

I just tried it out. In the scenario editor currently you select your TO&E force, then you can go to the menu for 'specialist teams'. In my case I grabbed a .50 cal Browning team. If you have 1st platoon seleted in your TO&E they'll fall under command of 1st platoon leader, if you have 2nd platoon selected they'll fall under command of 2nd platoon leader.

...and I just tested it in QB force picker and it works the same way. So you got your wish!

[Glubokii Boy]

MikeyD

Thanks for the tip...Maybe not as simple as beeing able to do it during setup in the game...but I will give it a try.

[WriterJWA]

Hello.

Maybe this has already been mentioned but one thing i would like to see

would be the ability to reassign units to specific HQs in scenarios to like you can do in quick battles...

+1

This is a great idea, especially if we could do it on the fly, or during setup! I like to take apart my company weapons platoon and spread out the machineguns to the rifle platoons, sometimes even mortars. Probably a ways off as a dedicated feature in-scenario, though.

Is there any way to see casualties caused by off-map artillery? The spotter team doesn't show it atleast. If you use several different batteries it's really hard to tell who hit what especially since the casualties will most likely be removed by buddy aid.

+1 this as well!

[Steiner14]

I do not agree, that reassigning units to other HQs before a battle is a good idea.

1. Scenario designers invest great amount of time to make the battles how they are. If you receive an organization that doesn't fit your wish, learn to life with it and make the best from it. This leads directly to

2. Making everything fit perfectly to the players tactical wishes is no good idea at all. A good part of the fascination of CM is a result of forced compromises and that things are NOT available as someone wishes. Learn to make the best from what you've got. Perfectly streamlined C2s would take away a very nice and important aspect of the game.

[A Canadian Cat]

I just tried it out. In the scenario editor currently you select your TO&E force, then you can go to the menu for 'specialist teams'.

<snip>

So you got your wish!

Naw he wants to be able to tweak the C2 structure as the player during the setup phase after starting a scenario.

You are right the scenario author can do this but not the player. Unless of course the player edits the scenario before starting it.

[WriterJWA]

I do not agree, that reassigning units to other HQs before a battle is a good idea.

1. Scenario designers invest great amount of time to make the battles how they are. If you receive an organization that doesn't fit your wish, learn to life with it and make the best from it. This leads directly to

2. Making everything fit perfectly to the players tactical wishes is no good idea at all. A good part of the fascination of CM is a result of forced compromises and that things are NOT available as someone wishes. Learn to make the best from what you've got. Perfectly streamlined C2s would take away a very nice and important aspect of the game.

I see and respect where you're coming from there.... but it doesn't fit with battlefield realities at all. Tactical commanders constantly shift and move supporting assets where needed and place them under the command of subordinate officers and NCO's. In fact, that's practically a staple of modern maneuver warfare (which WWII combat fits within). Machine gun sections don't operate as a completely separate maneuver element within a rifle company, but they are administratively linked together. The machine gun teams are parceled out to the platoons and placed under the temporary command of a platoon leader. (Heavy weapons companies are exceptions to this rule.)

I could definitely see this coming in handy in the event of a leader casualty. If I lose a leader unit, then it would be nice to place operation control of those units under another leader, or have a leader rise up from the squads (the senior sergeant, that sort of thing). At the end of the day, though ... it isn't a game-stopper not having it.

[Glubokii Boy]

I do not agree, that reassigning units to other HQs before a battle is a good idea.

1. Scenario designers invest great amount of time to make the battles how they are. If you receive an organization that doesn't fit your wish, learn to life with it and make the best from it. This leads directly to

2. Making everything fit perfectly to the players tactical wishes is no good idea at all. A good part of the fascination of CM is a result of forced compromises and that things are NOT available as someone wishes. Learn to make the best from what you've got. Perfectly streamlined C2s would take away a very nice and important aspect of the game.

I see your point but i don't feel the same way.

1. in most scenarios i have played the designer has not made any or atleast very few changes to the default assignments...They often remove some platoons and other units that they don't want but thats it (not much in the way of reassignments that i can see...but thats absolutely fine though...

but i would like to be able to reassign them myself as i se fit.)

2. The way i see things is that i am after all the commander of my force and i should be allowed to deploy it the way want (unless i recieve some restriction from my CO...then that could be put in the briefing)...

I'm no military expert but i do think that it would be pretty common for lets say a company comander to tell one of his platoon commanders wich he is sending out on a patrol "things might get rough out there...I will give you a HMG from the weapons platoon to give you some extyra firepower"

3. If you have the option to reassign units doesent mean that you have to do it...and in a MP game you could agree to allow it or not...

"Naw he wants to be able to tweak the C2 structure as the player during the setup phase after starting a scenario.

You are right the scenario author can do this but not the player. Unless of course the player edits the scenario before starting it."

Ian...You are right..thats what i meant...I tried it the way MikeyD suggested and edited the scenario and it is doable but requires a bit of work...

[sburke]

I see your point but i don't feel the same way.

1. in most scenarios i have played the designer has not made any or atleast very few changes to the default assignments...They often remove some platoons and other units that they don't want but thats it (not much in the way of reassignments that i can see...but thats absolutely fine though...

but i would like to be able to reassign them myself as i se fit.)

+1 on the idea and I agree. I'd be amazed if any designer planned on your C2 connections, hell most of us can't figure out when we are impacting them. I'd love being able to task orient my force and know the C2 comms are still applicable.

[Michael Emrys]

I'm no military expert but i do think that it would be pretty common for lets say a company comander to tell one of his platoon commanders wich he is sending out on a patrol "things might get rough out there...I will give you a HMG from the weapons platoon to give you some extyra firepower"

Not disagreeing with your main point, but I am having a little trouble envisioning taking an HMG on patrol. Even taking an entire platoon would be slightly odd, but not at all unheard of, depending on what the patrol was expected to do and what the conditions were.

Michael