Couple of thoughts...

[StkNRdr]

I am posting this in CMBN but it applies to CMFI as well. Maybe these have been considered before but I didn't find anything in the search.

These occurred to me as I play an pbem.

First is waypoints. These are currently very flexible to work with, adjust, etc. One thing that would be helpful is the distance to the waypoints and an estimate of time for a unit to reach each waypoint. Showing the distance would be similar to the distances reflected in the targeting. If you click on a unit with three waypoints 50 meters apart it would show the additive distance at each, i.e. 50m, 100m, 150m. The time estimate would be based on the type of movement intended, i.e. Slow, Move, Quick, etc., the current level of fatigue of the unit and the grade of the terrain. In the example above the time estimate might reflect 1min, 2min, 3.5min. It would obviously only be an estimate. Other factors would effect the estimate versus what actually occurs, such as coming under fire during the movement phase, etc. There are times however, when you are just moving over safe ground or coordinating troops and knowing an estimate would come in very handy. There could be keyboard toggles to turn the distance/time estimates on/off. I would think a field commander would have a good idea of the distances involved and an estimate of the amount of time it would take a unit to traverse a certain distance, be it 20 seconds or 3 minutes.

The second item is full battle review. Currently, with the turn based game, you get to review the movement and combat resolution of each turn. What I think would be a great addition is the ability of a cumulative review of the entire battle. In flight sims you can record an entire sortie that may last over an hour with many aircraft. You can then go back and review from any aircraft or angle in a 3D environment. Some have a slider to simply get to the frames you are looking for. It's all there, every bullet fired, every bomb dropped. Play back can be in slow motion or fast forward. I am not saying it should work the same way. The current turn playback is fine if it could somehow show all the turns consecutively without interruption. Playing another person is great fun and it would be great if you could save each full battle to be reviewed in the future. It could be part of the game or a separate utility.

OK, time to get out the tomatoes.

[agusto]

1) Good idea. However i think the answear is gonna be that giving even only a fairly accurate ETA would be impossible due to the huge amount of factors involved in such a calculations. On the other hand, its ETA, Estimated Time of Arrival, so a certain amount of inaccuracy would be acceptable.

2) This has been asked for ever since there is CM. Wont happen.

[winkelried]

1) +1 from me. An ETA would be a nice feature. Just an estimate not more, not less.

2) Could be a bit extensive with 4 hours of battle at the max. as above - won't happen (probably).

[SlowMotion]

1) if you go for a walk IRL and see a point some hundreds of meters away, do you know how far it is? If not, do you think WW2 infantry had some devices that could tell the distance to all sort of places? I think CMx2 WW2 games need more FOW, not less.

[agusto]

1) if you go for a walk IRL and see a point some hundreds of meters away, do you know how far it is? If not, do you think WW2 infantry had some devices that could tell the distance to all sort of places? I think CMx2 WW2 games need more FOW, not less.

An experienced seargent with military binoculars could easily estimate distance with relatively good accuracy. I have german ww2 miliatry binoculars at home wich i inherited from my grandfather and i can estimate distances pretty accurate with it (i used a map for comparision), +-50 meters and better. Basically you take an object of wich you know the lenth and compare it to the lines inside the binoculars. The formula is length/lines=distance in kilometers, if i remeber correctly. Average human man has a height of 1,80m. So for example 1,8m/2 lines = 0,9 km. Or take a Sherman tank: 5,84 m length, so if it has 2 lines inside the binoculars, it is 2,92 km or 2920 meters away. The door of a house may have an average height of 2,0m, a fence may be 1,0m high, and so on. As long as there are objects suitable for comparision, distances can be estmated relatively accurate.

Besides that, germans and allies both had pretty accurate maps i guess.

[SlowMotion]

Maybe so. But do you think when giving orders during battle they were constantly measuring distances that way in order to have this as-accurate-as-possible information? Like if a squad is supposed to go to a building in some direction did they give the order making sure the squad knows WHERE they are supposed to go or "wait, I'll measure the distance first".

The game gives you perfect data all the time without any delays that would be involved IRL.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You can always use the target command from a waypoint to see the distance to any other point, if you really need to know.

[agusto]

Maybe so. But do you think when giving orders during battle they were constantly measuring distances that way in order to have this as-accurate-as-possible information? Like if a squad is supposed to go to a building in some direction did they give the order making sure the squad knows WHERE they are supposed to go or "wait, I'll measure the distance first".

The game gives you perfect data all the time without any delays that would be involved IRL.

It takes less than 10 seconds to estimate the distance if you have some training. If knowing how far an object is away was relevant for a commander, i am sure he would measure it first before issueing an order. Besides that we already do have a perfectly accurate measuring tool, the target command, and in both RT and WeGo you can just pause the game and measure the distance between waypoints as much as want, so having it displayed for each waypoint wouldnt change gameplay at all but only reduce the necessary amount of clicks to get the information wanted. I think it should be possible to toggle it off an on, for people like you who dont want it to be displayed all the time. But in general i dont think there is any arguement against having this feature except that it might take some time to programm that could be invested elsewhere.

[Paulverisor64]

I like both ideas.

However I would see it difficult to estimate the time to an objective from just the effects of fatigue alone. Sure would be great for coordinating assaults though.

It would be great to be able to rewind to the beginning of the battle and watching it all the way through. This would certainly add to the cinematic quality of the game.

[StkNRdr]

The idea is that since the distances are known, per the targeting info, why not make that information available within the waypoints? This way you don't have to keep switching back and forth and you know the total distance the unit has to traverse. Even a basic infantryman would know that a tree that is 100 meters away is not 30 feet nor 1 mile. Even if the game gave distances +/- a degree of accuracy would be nice.

The estimated time that I mentioned would be just that, estimated. It would help to get a rough idea. It would not be expected to be perfect, if fact, I wouldn't want it to be perfect. If an officer knows a unit has to cross a 100 meter field, they would also know what to expect it to take time wise for a unit to get there. In the game as it is now I really don't know how long it will take. That is all I am looking for.

Right now, the game has neither of these and I think this info would have been known on the field.

EDIT: One last thing, more of a question, would it make sense that the distances only be determined if there is a clear LOS?

[SlowMotion]

Like I wrote in my first post, IMO CMBN needs MORE FOW. All this digital age perfect information that is constantly available and up to date changes the feeling of game play. CM games can be played in turn based mode where you have all the time in the world making perfect plans to minimize risks. But the real battles work in real time mode where things change every second. You may try to make perfect plans but once you've gathered your data the situation may have changed while you were thinking. I'd be ok for seeing those distances *if there was a delay involved*. Like when you deploy a weapon if takes a moment. The same way, you could have your perfect distances, but it would slow you down (like it really does). This way you wouldn't do it all the time - only when you think it's worth the pause - just like in real situation.

I have no problem with such stuff being part of CMSF, but not the WW2 games. Just an example from the days before computers changed warfare - During the 1980 Falklands war Brits made the longest bombing flight in history from Ascension to Falklands. Thousands of miles. They had no digital computers in the plane, but used a pocket calculator to assist their navigation calculations. And found the target without major navigation error.

[JonS]

CM games can be played in turn based mode where you have all the time in the world making perfect plans to minimize risks. But the real battles work in real time mode where things change every second.

i agree. BFC should get rid of the pause button from RT.

[SlowMotion]

I've tried RT mode in CMSF, but like turn based better. So pause or not in RT mode, don't care.

When players have to make decisions based on incomplete information (partly because of limited time) you sometimes make bad decisions and unexpacted things happen. -> More exciting game play. = The reason I keep playing CM games.

Before CMBN was released I was waiting for it exactly because during WW2 weapons and other equipment weren't so good. You could have tank duels where either side could win. There might be several misses or hits with ricochets. Especially from long range. Instead of the common CMSF case of one shot, one kill.

[StkNRdr]

SlowMotion, I agree with your comments. I am not looking to make this have perfect information of the modern battlefield.

WWII soldiers however knew estimated distances (for sighting a rifle) and they also knew whether it would take them 30 seconds or 5 minutes to cover a section of ground. All I am looking for is the game to let me know what they would have known, in the same approximation.

Lastly, as I mentioned in the OP, there would be an on/off toggle, for those who wouldn't wish to use it.

[Holman]

Having a calculated ETA is too gamey, especially in a game where time calculations are already ahistorically visible.

"My MG team will take precisely 21 seconds to set up, and now I see that it will take them 19 seconds to run to that spot. If I give this squad a 15-second fire order at this way point, then run them ten seconds here and give another 15-second fire order, I can have these two teams over here wait precisely 30 seconds before moving out under the cover of the MG, which will be active right at that moment."

This is especially gamey in WeGo, where decision points for orders come at precise 60-second intervals.

Waypoints should be about locations in space, not precise calculations of time.

[winkelried]

Maybe so. But do you think when giving orders during battle they were constantly measuring distances that way in order to have this as-accurate-as-possible information?

YES - In RL this is one of the first things you learn - make qualified estimates of the distances in the area you're in or you move into - you will be much better at hitting a target when you approx know how far away it is.

There are different methods like adding smaller distances you can estimate (e.g. in certain areas the spacing between telephone poles is pretty much constant) or then by using your binoculars and measuring.

This is important not just to get an estimate on how far you need to walk/drive, but also which distances you will have when coming under fire or seeing a target of opportunity. So you can already prepare your weapons. In my life as soldier i did probably nothing more than estimate distances - followed closely by asking myself "where the f*** is north".

Like if a squad is supposed to go to a building in some direction did they give the order making sure the squad knows WHERE they are supposed to go or "wait, I'll measure the distance first".

We had what we called three point orders - where to go? how to get there (path)? and what to do when arriving there? ... usually these orders involved also distances and timing ... so you got an idea how long you would e.g. exposed ...

The game gives you perfect data all the time without any delays that would be involved IRL.

No. But estimates - eg. 3-5 minutes.

[Pak40]

WWII soldiers however knew estimated distances (for sighting a rifle) and they also knew whether it would take them 30 seconds or 5 minutes to cover a section of ground. All I am looking for is the game to let me know what they would have known, in the same approximation.

And why can't you just estimate this yourself like most of us already do? You already have more information that soldiers IRL would have, for example, the exact distance to the waypoint. Once you've played CMBN enough estimation becomes second nature.

[StkNRdr]

And why can't you just estimate this yourself like most of us already do? You already have more information that soldiers IRL would have, for example, the exact distance to the waypoint. Once you've played CMBN enough estimation becomes second nature.

Did soldiers have to use binoculars, etc. to always estimate distance. No. Why should I have to go to another mode to do the same when I am only moving?

And as far as knowing how long it will take to get from A to B? No, I usually don't have a clue, I just watch the time tick away whereas they would have had an idea. So what is wrong with letting me in on their estimation?

[agusto]

And as far as knowing how long it will take to get from A to B? No, I usually don't have a clue, I just watch the time tick away whereas they would have had an idea.

Well you could not just watch your soldiers walking and the clock ticking but look how far they get in one turn and then use that as estimate how long it will take them to get from A to B. That should be accurate enough to time it with the effect of a smoke screen for example.

[Holman]

I just feel that having estimates down to the second is too much information, while having a rough estimate doesn't tell me anything I don't already know from experience (just as experienced soldiers would).

There's no need for a change.

[mjkerner]

I like them both, but I think the time estimate would take alot more programming. the distance should be easier, since targeting tool already does that...but what do I know about programming?

IL2 Sturmovik playback wasn't a capture of the video, which of course uses a lot of comp resources, but "simply" a copy of the original computer calculations replayed--so in actuality, the mission was being done over. This meant that at times, the replay was a little off from the original mission, but not enough to hardly notice (the path of the cannon/mg bullets might not intersect with the plane you shot down, etc.). Supposedly that is why it was relatively easy to have full replay without a lot of comp resources being used. I can only assume that BFC is fully aware of that procedure and that it won't work or otherwise not possible with the CMx2 engine. Too bad though...who wouldn't want the ability to replay the whole battle.

[Wodin]

SlowMo..careful what you ask for..I've played games that have severe FOW..It sounds great on paper but doesn't make for a more enjoyable game...to do this right the whole game design would need to be changed. I do have a game design idea along those lines...though it has little in the way of eye candy and alot in the way of text and intel and orders with an operational map where your forces get updated as info comes in from runners and radio contacts. Highly realistic and but also immersive and nerve wracking. Again though a game like this it really wouldn't work well and end up being a real pain.

[mjkerner]

As for FOW...play against a human! Ideally, play against a human in RT without pauses. But for me, it's enough just to play a regular pbem against a real person. Man, do you ever slow down and scout, scout, scout! Your plans will fall apart in no time, and you are constantly making adjustments and counter moves wouldn't have to make playing the AI.

[The Steppenwulf]

SlowMotion: - What fow features for CM2 do you suggest WOULD make the game more realistic!!

[General Jack Ripper]

OK, time to get out the tomatoes.

Forum Rule #101 - If you know you will get burned, and you start the thread anyway, then you deserve it.

Thankfully, I am not a pyromaniac.

Let me just say I completely disagree with the time/distance idea for waypoints.

It's just not necessary. This isn't Flight Simulator, it's Combat Mission.

I was going to add some burning vitriol in order to indulge in the throwing tomatoes bit, but my head started to hurt.

As far as the full battle review idea, everyone wants it, but it will never happen.

Good Day, Sir.