New features/feature ideas for CM for the next few years thread

[womble]

Where's the difference if "Plus 50!" is shouted from 10 meters further away?

The difference is, I'd suggest, mostly and potentially (potentially, because it won't always be, but knowing us gamey bastidges, if BFC don't assume it's always the case, we'll abuse the bejazus out of it), in describing the initial point of aim. An integral team leader is seeing largely the same things the tube layer is, so can say things like "By the big oak to the left of the gate" and the aimer just has to put his sight on it, for bearing at least, whereas an observer who could be looking out of a window in a building which completely obscures the target area for the gunner is going to have to shout estimated coordinates (estimates include both the distance and bearing from the observer's position and the tube's relative position to the observer). And then there will have to be some sort of interpretation of that by the gunner. All of which takes more time than an integral, close-by team leader. And that's assuming that the bleedin' Rupert knows his left from his right and what the mortar team need to know to get rounds headed outbound.

Yes, it should be quicker than going up the comms chain to get the Old Man at Battalion to let you play with his tubes (oo-er) but it's more involved than the practised coordination of a single team that's trained and worked together.

As you say, correction of fall of shot may be that straightforward, but that's already true of all fire missions direct and indirect in the game, once the observer and battery have made contact and initial fall has been observed to give shooter and observer a common, calibrated frame of reference not subject to own-location errors etc. One round per minute. Ish.

[Ithikial_AU]

Hi,

i know your great work to collect battle data in Overlord Campaign on the FGM site, but what i search is something that extract automatically, from current pbem turn, all relevant data of own units (and also rebuild the current OOB).. at the end of the battle i would also like enemy data.

Sorry not my work that in battle stuff or the Combat Recorder app that runs over the top of a game. I know Excel and statistics not how to program software.

[poesel]

One of the really strange quirks of the engine is that if two buildings are wall to wall to each other and one building has only a wall on its side while the other has a door or a window then the game assumes a wall or window from both sides.

Obviously that is VERY important for urban combat. But as it is now you have to 'fly' through both rooms to see if there is a connection or not.

It would be super useful if the game would put a symbol of a door or window on those walls (or both sides). That would leave no ambiguity about what paths or LOS are possible.

[Whiterider]

One of the really strange quirks of the engine is that if two buildings are wall to wall to each other and one building has only a wall on its side while the other has a door or a window then the game assumes a wall or window from both sides.

Obviously that is VERY important for urban combat. But as it is now you have to 'fly' through both rooms to see if there is a connection or not.

It would be super useful if the game would put a symbol of a door or window on those walls (or both sides). That would leave no ambiguity about what paths or LOS are possible.

+1

I´d add a toggle shining or flashy color for any other doors.

[WynnterGreen]

New Floating Icon: Linked Detachments

When you have a single Detachment highlighted, the other detachments from it's Section get a change in symbol allowing you to quickly identify them.

As an example, the triangle added to the image below.

Currently you have to sift through the Chain of Command in the Unit Info Panel. Which is an extremely cumbersome and time consuming way to reform split units, especially when you have quite a few Sections in an area all with separated Detachments.

The new symbol would help with quick identification of a Sections own Detachments and therefore help greatly with unit coherency and reforming Sections.

Armour Last Known Location Fire.

Currently infantry units will continue to fire for a short time on a last known enemy location when contact is lost.

It's a continuing frustrations that tanks (when left to their own devices) will instantly stop firing on a building full of enemy infantry as soon as they go prone or begin to cower.

I'd like to see Armour fire a couple of a speculative rounds, or at least some light fire, at the last known enemy position in the same way infantry currently do.

Same for Armour firing on enemy Armour that has popped smoke and reversed.

A speculative round should be fired at the last known location as there's reasonable chance a hit can still be made as the enemy tank reverses away.

wynnter

[Michael Emrys]

I'm not sure this assertion is true... "voice" command range is a) quite long and can have the commander and commanded with very different frames of reference.

I see what you are driving at. Perhaps a limit could be set in this case of, say, 24m (three AS)? In the case of a platoon leader commanding his own troops, those commands are probably simple and easily understood. Trying to convey the necessary information to lay a mortar whose crew can't see the target is quite a bit more complicated, so the information would have to be clearly understood over the noise of a battlefield.

Michael

[womble]

I see what you are driving at. Perhaps a limit could be set in this case of, say, 24m (three AS)? In the case of a platoon leader commanding his own troops, those commands are probably simple and easily understood. Trying to convey the necessary information to lay a mortar whose crew can't see the target is quite a bit more complicated, so the information would have to be clearly understood over the noise of a battlefield.

Michael

I don't have a problem with the concept of direct mission call right out to the extent of voice range, which is only an AS or 2 more than you're suggesting, but only with the concept of that being "as fast" as a team leader's. Even 24m is plenty of distance to make the observer's perspective sufficiently different to the gunner's that the only economy in time is from not having to manage the radio and all the other hoops that calling offboard (or just plain distant, onboard) tubes entails.

[poesel]

Same for Armour firing on enemy Armour that has popped smoke and reversed.

A speculative round should be fired at the last known location as there's reasonable chance a hit can still be made as the enemy tank reverses away.

+1 - I wanted to post something along these lines a few days ago but I wasn't sure if it was an outlier.

Another speculative shot especially when the first one had already connected would be very welcome. Sometimes even the dust build up from a hit will kill LOS.

[StkNRdr]

WynnterGreen

As far as a new symbol to indicate associated units, are you aware if you double click on a unit all associated units also get highlighted? Of course you have to reclick on just the unit(s) you want to give orders to.

[Michael Emrys]

WynnterGreen

As far as a new symbol to indicate associated units, are you aware if you double click on a unit all associated units also get highlighted? Of course you have to reclick on just the unit(s) you want to give orders to.

That gives all the units in the platoon though, right? Or are you thinking of something else? If I read WynterGreen right, he just wants to show all the teams in a squad.

Michael

[owenjones]

Mission 3 of Road to Nijmegen, my kingdom for a 'Follow' command...

[WynnterGreen]

WynnterGreen

As far as a new symbol to indicate associated units, are you aware if you double click on a unit all associated units also get highlighted? Of course you have to reclick on just the unit(s) you want to give orders to.

Yep, aware of double clicking, and it does nothing to address the issue of it being currently very cumbersome and difficult to quickly identify detachments in a Squad/Section.

The lowest level at which double click functions is the Platoon.

The symbol change I proposed is specifically targeted at helping to quickly identify dispersed Detachments with their parent Squad/Section.

It would do a lot to help with unit coherency, C2 and reforming Squads, especially when there are multiple Detachments from different Squads in an area (Which I experience frequently as I always split Squads during combat).

[poesel]

I find it difficult to give correct 'blast along' orders in urban settings. In small streets you can't make sure on which side of the street they blow. Or when the houses are on AS borders you might blow the wrong one.

Only way out is to 'blast into' the AS but this usually leads to dead pioneers.

Could the blast order be changed so that as soon as the blast has been executed the next waypoint (the 'blast into' AS) is automatically deleted? The pioneers would then proceed to move to the next waypoint or stay put if none. This way there is no ambiguity about where to blast through and you could move them away from the blast ASAP with another waypoint after the blast.

The only downside I see is that you could not order them directly into the blasted AS. But who would do that anyway?

[A Canadian Cat]

I find it difficult to give correct 'blast along' orders in urban settings. In small streets you can't make sure on which side of the street they blow. Or when the houses are on AS borders you might blow the wrong one.

Only way out is to 'blast into' the AS but this usually leads to dead pioneers.

I would suggest changing the blast order to be more like the face or pop smoke command. That way you could specify the thing you wanted blown up and no movement would be part of it at all. The only difference would be that it would need to automatically pause at the way point with the blast command until the blast command was done and then execute the next move order.

[warrenpeace]

1) Follow command, (or a follow the road toggle attached to move commands).

2) Improved editor AI scripting. Specifically the addition of additional triggers such as location triggers, and casualty level triggers (to keep AI from needlessly destroying itself). One could imagine being able to have an AI that tries plan 1, but if casualties get to a certain level could retreat and try plan 2.

[womble]

I would suggest changing the blast order to be more like...pop smoke command.

Please God, no! That's so flaky you would never get a satchel charge sent where you want it.

[StkNRdr]

Ahh...roger that Wynntergreen

[poesel]

Can't let that slip to page two

A 'what if' button in the 'menus' menu. Only available vs the AI. Gives you the outcome if you would hit the 'cease fire' button right now without actually doing it. Would not give the complete result screen but a simple info like: 'you would achieve a draw'. No spoilers.

Saves one the hassle of saving the game, cease firing and reloading again.

[poesel]

Another one: a 'retreat to'-button in the movement section. Gives the TacAI a strong hint where to run if it thinks it shouldn't follow the given orders. Can be set on any AS. If set on the unit itself it is disabled (standard setting, as is currently).

[Michael Emrys]

Another one: a 'retreat to'-button in the movement section. Gives the TacAI a strong hint where to run if it thinks it shouldn't follow the given orders. Can be set on any AS. If set on the unit itself it is disabled (standard setting, as is currently).

Interesting idea, but wouldn't that add significantly to the workload if you are adding it to the list of orders any time your unit is engaged or you expect it to become engaged soon? My own preferred solution would be to have the AI behave in a more sensible manner when receiving fire, but I have a hunch that would be no picnic to code and debug.

Michael

[womble]

Interesting idea, but wouldn't that add significantly to the workload if you are adding it to the list of orders any time your unit is engaged or you expect it to become engaged soon?

It would, but probably wouldn't be that necessary if you just issue one or two (depending on the size of the battle and general situation) group directives at the game start. At least then you could hope that they'd retreat towards a predetermined rally point, rather than towards the enemy...

[poesel]

Interesting idea, but wouldn't that add significantly to the workload if you are adding it to the list of orders any time your unit is engaged or you expect it to become engaged soon? My own preferred solution would be to have the AI behave in a more sensible manner when receiving fire, but I have a hunch that would be no picnic to code and debug.

I think that generally the AI does a good job at running away. Most of the time if they do run away in the wrong direction it is because the scenario designer/QB map has the wrong friendly edges.

There are some special situations where you have to cross an area which you know is under enemy fire. What happens then is that half your men are across, then one gets shot, they get scared and run back all the way - again through enemy fire.

If that could be handled by the AI then there would be not much need for a 'retreat to' command.

Since the standard behaviour is the current behaviour there is no additional involved unless you see the need. Also, what womble said, you could set the rally points en masse at the beginning and then forget about it.

[Rocky Balboa]

When using the target ordr from a waypoint. Please make the target line originate from the waypoint and not the unit.

Add the ability to toggle elevation relief lines on the map. This will help you to read the terrain better.

Add FOW terrain at higher difficulty levels.

[AlexUK]

How about infantry having a small chance of spotting mines in an adjacent action spot, cumulative over time (or even just engineers).

Not sure how realistic this is though...

[womble]

How about infantry having a small chance of spotting mines in an adjacent action spot, cumulative over time (or even just engineers).

Not sure how realistic this is though...

Pretty sure engineers already do; I have a strong recollection of actively probing a briefing-warned minefield with engineers, finding it without anyone getting blowed up and clearing a path through the belt for the following infantry. I have a vague recollection that even normal troops have a chance of spotting mines they're adjacent to, but that it's so vanishingly small that you'll, for all practical purposes, never want to leave PBI in place long enough to spot 'em.