Wouldn't it be cool if...

[InsanePerson42]

This thread is for things that people think would be really awesome if they were to be included in a realistic wargame engine like that of the CM series.

If you're really thinking outside the box then most of you're ideas should be wildly impractical or downright impossible with the current engine or technology. But maybe someone will pick up on some of these ideas and make a game engine that is more realistic for it.

So here is my first thought. I think a really cool next step in realism is to require the player to evacuate casualties from the battlefield(instead of the current system where they simply disappear). That would create new tactical challenges, and you get another kind of casualty if you can't evacuate your wounded(wounded POW's). This would make certain vehicles(like humvees and transport helicopters) far more useful than they currently are to modern gamers.

In addition, I have been given to understand that the first few minutes to an hour are the most critical for many battlefield injuries. So realistically, the longer a player takes to get first aid to a wounded soldier, the less likely that soldier will survive.

Feel free to post any idea you have that you think would be cool if it was part of a realistic wargame engine. Or feel free to comment on any ideas that are already posted.

[Northman]

I would like to see a more dynamic battlefield that simulates the push/retreat mechanisms of a real tactical battlefield. Right now it's simply about killing stationary targets, and the casuality rates have, to put it bluntly, nothing to do with reality.

To achieve that, you would need a better strategical AI. A good start would be to allow AI groups to retreat along the same path they are scripted to advance. You could set a certain threshold for how much incoming fire/casualties/morale drop the group could take before halting and then another threshold for retreating. The group would then retreat back to the previous waypoint and face the current waypoint.

When that is in place, weapon accuracy and effectiveness could be reduced to more realistic values. The game would then require a greater deal of maneuvering - not just frantic placing of target orders. You could have realistic probing missions and allow the scenario designer to script delaying actions.

I think the expanded victory conditions/objectives which were added in CMx2 have great potential, but they are rarely used. The game is usually just about killing/racing to capture the flag, like CMx1.

[theFightingSeabee]

Insane person,

Evacuating casualties would be cool. It's a huge part of fighting doctrine of some countries. Getting casualties out quickly is a big deal, especially in a modern setting. You'd have to either get a vehicle to the injured and move to the edge of the map (losing the vehicle) or you'd call in a chopper, pop colored smoke, etc. Without evacuation capabilities, you would have to gather the wounded into a safe spot and guard them. Would be kind of cool to ads that element to the game.

Speaking of choppers, modern settings would include not only medevac choppers but reinforcements could arrive anywhere on map. The advantages might be offset by the danger of losing chipper and all passengers to enemy fire.

[InsanePerson42]

I would like to see a more dynamic battlefield that simulates the push/retreat mechanisms of a real tactical battlefield. Right now it's simply about killing stationary targets, and the casuality rates have, to put it bluntly, nothing to do with reality.

To achieve that, you would need a better strategical AI. A good start would be to allow AI groups to retreat along the same path they are scripted to advance. You could set a certain threshold for how much incoming fire/casualties/morale drop the group could take before halting and then another threshold for retreating. The group would then retreat back to the previous waypoint and face the current waypoint.

When that is in place, weapon accuracy and effectiveness could be reduced to more realistic values. The game would then require a greater deal of maneuvering - not just frantic placing of target orders. You could have realistic probing missions and allow the scenario designer to script delaying actions.

I think the expanded victory conditions/objectives which were added in CMx2 have great potential, but they are rarely used. The game is usually just about killing/racing to capture the flag, like CMx1.

That would be cool. And I think it should be possible. Maybe it could be done by measuring levels of fire superiority. There must be some way to do that.

I remember reading in some WW2 field manuals(as well as Jeffrey Pauldings CMBN tactics video series) the necessity for fire superiority in order for an attacker to advance. It is frequently advised that you retreat and relocate if you lose fire superiority.

I think Umpire manuals(umpire in this case being someone who directs the course of training exercises) would be especially helpful for a game designer trying to determine when the AI should advance, when it should be halted, and when it should retreat.

I quote from the 1942 U.S. Umpire manual. Bottom of page 7 (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM105-5.pdf)

"An infantry element or any element acting as infantry should be permitted to advance only when it has decisive superiority of fire as compared with the elements immediatly opposing it. This superiority never should be less than 2 to 1, and generally should be 3 or 4 to 1. If the defender has good cover and field of fire, or it the attacker has little cover, there should be no hesitation in requiring a superiority of 5 to 1, or even more."

[c3k]

Fuel levels.

[Baneman]

Fuel levels.

Ha ha, that would be awesome.

Briefing : "you have enough fuel to relocate your Tiger across a maximum of half the map"

[Lanzfeld]

Would make you think twice about that king tiger.

[InsanePerson42]

True. I don't really like the King Tiger anyway. You can never get your hands on very many of them. And they aren't that much better than Panthers anyway. Think about it, their capabilities vs allied vehicles are only slightly better than those of Panther tanks.

King Tiger- Invulnerable to any allied ATG from the front, but screwed if the allies take it from the flank(although it might take a couple shots, the crew still won't react fast enough to save the vehicle). Can kill any allied vehicle with one shot.

Panther- Invulnerable to any allied ATG from the front(except the 76 mm at close range). Screwed if the allies take it from the flank. Can kill most allied vehicles with one shot, sometimes it takes two.

The real difference is that there are way more Panthers than there are Tigers. I find I can do much more damage with two Panthers than I can with only one Tiger.

Edit: I realize I went off topic in my own thread. Just venting my rage over being unable to keep my King Tiger alive in the Kamfgruppe Engel campaign

[slysniper]

I think the game player should be hooked up to electronic probes that shock them and make them feel pain each time they lose a man or someone is wounded. Now that would solve many problems.

Lets see guys continue to fight losing battles with those wires hooked up to them.

For some of our poorer players, maybe there would be enough pain that we eliminate these players from our game pool.

[Northman]

What a social darwinistic approach. I bet you prefer playing as the Germans.

[Steiner14]

I would like to see a more dynamic battlefield that simulates the push/retreat mechanisms of a real tactical battlefield.

Do not confuse the asymmetrical war, or a war against armys with 20 and 30 year old equipment, where one side has all the firepower and the other side has no tactical capabilities and no firepower, with WWII, where two more or less equally powerful sides are facing each other and where retreating under fire is a completely different thing.

When the main attack is coming, then for the defender there exists no retreat (except special weapons like HMGs that have preplanned corridors and alternate positions, to change their location, before they attract too much enemy fire).

Not every soldier is equally brave. Even the cowards must be kept under control and keep fighting. A possibility of retreat during an attack does not only reduce the determination and therefore morale tremendously, but is also tactically a HUGE problem: units retreating under enemy fire lose thier cohesion, can easily panick and with a forward pressing attacker would be of no help for the comrades anymore. But what is much worse, the neighbour units suddenly would hang in the air, while trusting in a neighbour. The enemy could move into their back and cause huge problems only because a small platoon leader thought his life was more precious or that he believed to be able to decide about the situation with his limited knowledge.

But a retreat as a reaction of a failing attack, is something different.

I want to add, that i think CMx2 allows to retreat units very well (quick and fast commands), if it is not done too late. Forward positions, single forward squads, can retreat with good chances, as long as the pressure is not too high. If the pressure is high, and they can only move under fire, then retreating becomes a problem like in reality. I think it's very well modeled and should not be made easier for normal infantry.

[Michael Emrys]

I would like to see a more dynamic battlefield that simulates the push/retreat mechanisms of a real tactical battlefield. Right now it's simply about killing stationary targets, and the casuality rates have, to put it bluntly, nothing to do with reality.

Concur.

You could have realistic probing missions and allow the scenario designer to script delaying actions.

That would be exceedingly cool.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Steiner14 makes some good points. But I think that he misses the point that in real life units, depending on such factors as morale, experience, and leadership, would probably be more apt to break and run in poor order than we presently see in the game. Like many other issues though, that one can probably be addressed satisfactorily by more frequent use of green or even conscript troops. It's in the hands of the player.

Michael

[newlife]

Um. I've been playing the scenarios in PBEM and its herding cats with my troops, even when I'm wining, let alone losing. My guys get up and move all the time. In quick battles, the only units I fuss with are the very expensive armor. (I'm a little too desiring to win to leave Tigers under control of low motivation units). You want mobile battlefields, play green low to normal motivation units.

[newlife]

I want a game where you are the company commander and that's it. You want to move your 1st pltn? Get em on the radio or send a runner. You want a better view of the battlefield than what your map tells you? You get to walk or drive over there FPS style. You get hit? Game over. Your side may still win if you left em good enough commands. Otherwise...

This would all be in Real Time as well. I normally don't like RT click fests but getting an amount of time to set up and then RT once the bullets fly and giving orders like a CO would be cool. You click fest all you want, either your pltn Lt got the order or he didn't. You might not even see how he's doing until too late...

THAT would be cool. Keep it company size to keep down on processor demands and AI demands. AI would need to be excellent, but we're wishing here, right?

[Northman]

It's not about panicking/fleeing, but retreating - planned or not. This is currently not modeled in the game.

"When the main attack is coming, then for the defender there exists no retreat"

I don't know why anyone would make such a blanket statement. Much of WW2 combat revolved around carefully planned attacks to push the enemy back. Making him flee in disarray would be a great success - trapping/encircling him even greater. Complete obliteration? Rarely.

In a modern setting, I would think the possibility of retreating was smaller, since weapons have longer ranges and the chance of heavy munitions ending the day before a reaction can take place is bigger.

[newlife]

I'm not understanding what your asking. Is this a request for AI retreating or planned scenario retreats? Is it a tac AI request for fighting withdrawal (and how is that different than quick move?) I retreat my guys all the time if I have to (hopefully before they panic).

[InsanePerson42]

I think the idea is that AI unit groups would have planned paths along which they would retreat. They would make use of these retreat paths if some condition was met(they take too many casualties, moral gets too low, the enemy has more than ?/1 fire superiority). Of course it's not my idea, so it is entirely possible that I am misinterpreting it. But I think (is someone were to figure out how to implement it) it could really enhance realism.

[normannobrot]

much more grand scale,

like, say, a huge dynamic campaign system....to put it across simply...

Hearts of iron 3 + combat mission

this would be a sensational war game of the period...not only would you feal the length of the war but also the economic struggle and production of war material..

then, once the battle starts, you go to the most awesome 3D battle field simulator.

[Northman]

My idea is to have a more dynamic battlefield where soldiers fight over ground without necessarily obliterating themselves. One, simple way to get the game in that direction would be reversed AI group paths.

[InsanePerson42]

much more grand scale,

like, say, a huge dynamic campaign system....to put it across simply...

Hearts of iron 3 + combat mission

this would be a sensational war game of the period...not only would you feal the length of the war but also the economic struggle and production of war material..

then, once the battle starts, you go to the most awesome 3D battle field simulator.

(operational) + (tactical)

Command ops + Combat Mission!

(strategic) + (operational) + (tactical)

or Hearts or Iron 3 + Command Ops + Combat Mission!!......might be a bit much, but it would be awesome anyway!

Would be nice to be able to participate in the grander operation surrounding the engagements, but still be able to fight the engagements themselves. Sort of a Total War series thing, but far more realistic.

[Michael Emrys]

much more grand scale,

like, say, a huge dynamic campaign system....to put it across simply...

Hearts of iron 3 + combat mission

Thing is, you'd have to live to be 150 and never have to work, sleep, eat or do all those other things that constitute a normal life to be able to play it to the end.

Michael

[InsanePerson42]

That is true. Perhaps combining the strategic and the tactical in a realistic way would be a bit much. The player would simply have to fight far too many battles and would start to get bored(we are talking thousands of individual engagements). It would still be pretty damn cool if someone were to figure out how to make it work. It might work to go one level lower though, combine the operational and the tactical.

Edit: Of course the idea here is to post interesting ideas without regard to whether it would actually be practical to implement them. The theory is that a totally free flow of ideas increases the chances of coming across truly creative and ingenious ideas. Even impractical or even impossible ideas may have elements within them that could prove valuable.

[Michael Emrys]

Edit: Of course the idea here is to post interesting ideas without regard to whether it would actually be practical to implement them. The theory is that a totally free flow of ideas increases the chances of coming across truly creative and ingenious ideas. Even impractical or even impossible ideas may have elements within them that could prove valuable.

People like to think so, and in truth it has been known to happen. But I think as far as this board is concerned, most of those "ideas" just serve to clutter up the mental landscape and divert attention from the few ideas that have actual merit. What I think is needed is a bit of discriminating judgement applied by posters to their ideas before they throw them up to the general audience. They need to take thought whether their ideas have genuine merit or not instead of simply assuming that they do just because they have thought of them.

Michael

[InsanePerson42]

Okay. I'm having a thought here.

normannobrot- I like your idea of combining the strategic level and the tactical level(have you played the Total War games by any chance?) but I think it might work best to bring it a level down. Combine the operational level and the tactical level.

By having larger armies marching around on an operational map dozens of kilometers in all directions that makes room for c3k's fuel levels. Add in a few more logistics on top of that even. Keep the ammo limitations of Combat Mission, in addition require supplies of food(effecting the troops fitness in battle). Maybe troops can even rest on the operational map, and if they don't get enough rest that will also effect their fitness in battle. The player needs to be careful to keep supply routes open, and has a certain amount of control over reinforcements. The players also has control over which units get priority for air and artillery support.

Of course this would bring up a serious problem when you get to the battles. Mainly that you cannot have scripted AI plans tailored to an individual scenario, because you have no idea where the AI troops will be or with what kind of force. But I think there is a solution. Having read many WW2 field manuals I think it might be possible to program an AI to follow real "by the book" military tactics, straight out of the field manuals. The problem with this is that real armies don't always fight "by the book", so it is not a perfect solution. But I think it would be a real step forward. Wherever possible it would be best to substitute "by the book" tactics with known common practice. The important thing is that it can be broken down into boolean logic for the computer. I wonder if it might be possible to program an AI to use OCOKA?