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

[c3k]

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

You can aim smoke very easily.

First, give a FACE command. Give it where you want the smoke to go.

Next, give the POP SMOKE command. You'll see that it aligns precisely with the previous FACE command.

Presto magicko: you've just aimed your smoke.

Ken

[womble]

You can aim smoke very easily.

First, give a FACE command. Give it where you want the smoke to go.

Next, give the POP SMOKE command. You'll see that it aligns precisely with the previous FACE command.

Presto magicko: you've just aimed your smoke.

Ken

In theory, that's true. I practice it very seldom (IME) works like that. For example: an Italian element with 2 men, eligible for smoke popping; give them the Face order, and they squirm around into position to throw the smoke, taking many seconds to do so, and when they get there, the leader (who's got the "Grenade" task listed, bottom left) can't see past some obstacle or other and doesn't throw the smoke. Or the fact that the angle of lobbing of smoke seems to be anywhere up to 45 degrees either side of the angle of the Face command and extremely variable as to range. "Face + Pop" is the best way of using smoke but it's not in any way reliable. IME.

[AlexUK]

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.

Ah, thanks womble.

[sburke]

In theory, that's true. I practice it very seldom (IME) works like that. For example: an Italian element with 2 men, eligible for smoke popping; give them the Face order, and they squirm around into position to throw the smoke, taking many seconds to do so, and when they get there, the leader (who's got the "Grenade" task listed, bottom left) can't see past some obstacle or other and doesn't throw the smoke. Or the fact that the angle of lobbing of smoke seems to be anywhere up to 45 degrees either side of the angle of the Face command and extremely variable as to range. "Face + Pop" is the best way of using smoke but it's not in any way reliable. IME.

Odd as so far my experience has been pretty much what c3k outlined. My only issue is the distance they'll toss smoke. Sometimes it is further than I want (when I am trying to cover a street in smoke for example and the smoke lands in the building across the street), but generally the direction is good.

[womble]

Odd as so far my experience has been pretty much what c3k outlined. My only issue is the distance they'll toss smoke. Sometimes it is further than I want (when I am trying to cover a street in smoke for example and the smoke lands in the building across the street), but generally the direction is good.

I've also seen the angle of the smoke command rotate as the team that's changing facing (cos I told it to) did, but the Pop Smoke seems to be relative to the way the leader is facing; this can lead to smoke going in very random directions. That was a couple of patches ago, though, and I can't think I've used Pop Smoke since, so it might have been a buglet that got Raided along the way.

[womble]

New feature suggestion: a "time remaining to set up" or a "time spent so far setting up" counter (perhaps a xx:xx/yy.y replacing the yy.y of the setup time currently displayed.

[Erwin]

I have been very impressed with how many issues BF has now resolved with the CM2 series' latest updates/patches. There is very little left that causes (me at least) any headaches.

However...

One big item would help speed up the gameplay process especially for the larger scenarios that many of us prefer...

*Selectable and movable waypoints/lines (similar to the CM1 system). Being able to select a waypoint or line anywhere and immediately have that unit "activated" would help speed gameplay up significantly. Currently one has to go search for the unit and click on the unit itself before we can change/move its waypoint. It may only save a few seconds each orders phase, but multiply that for (say) 25+ units every single turn in a 90+ minute scenario, it would save hours in a longer, larger game.*

In terms of the actual game itself, the only really irritating feature remaining is the LOS system. As I mentioned b4, it is useless to have the third ammo carrier be able to see a target, when the MG, or gun he is crewing cannot be moved a few inches so that the primary weapon can shoot at the target.

I understand that sometimes one doesn't want the weapon to shoot at the target, but that can be handled by giving the weapon a restricted covered arc. Ideally, if a crew-member can see a target, one should have the choice to fire at the target, and if needed, the gun/MG should move under AI control to do so.

[mjkerner]

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).

+1 to that suggestion!

[Erwin]

It's rare that a platoon unit would disperse over too wide an area. So, maybe there should be limit on how far a subunit could wander off from its platoon HQ. There could be an override button that allows one to do that (say) for recon. But, the default would keep formations within shouting distance of the HQ.

[Ithikial_AU]

Spending some more time in the editor and this... (though guessing it's a coding nightmare )

- For dual monitor, the ability to have one set up with the usual editor tools while the second has the 3D preview which updates as make additions.

- Ability to insert reference photos onto the map at grid points (like landmarks), not for the player but just for the designer so they can quickly compare the scene their trying to set while they design a map. (Saves a lot of Alt-Tabing)

[HistoryLover]

Hi everyone.

My impression is, that the CM-model of spotting, as good as it is, compared to all other games, is close to the limit of it's capabilities, when it comes to the somehow unique spotting of guns:

In reality it was mostly the blaze of the gun and the smoke, that showed a gun's position (often not the gun itself). Under certain lighting conditions the blaze could be seen over very long distances and interestingly, the best protection of guns, woods, is also offering the best viewing contrast for the blaze.

Blaze and powder smoke seem not to be modelled and therefore IMO creates all kinds of unrealistic consequences.

Once you recognize someone has shot on you and if you haven't seen the blaze, maybe because it was coming from the back or the crew was not fully concentrated or the tank was moving, then the most important thing the eyes in the vehicle are searching for are any indications of the shooting. The amount of smoke a gun produces is therefore also very important if the blaze was missed. The smoke the gunpowder produces, in situations where the blaze was overlooked, gives a second chance of spotting the gun from a single shot.

Because the blaze and smoke seem not to be modelled, units, especially tanks, have big difficulties to spot guns that have opened fire in the game. Therefore spotting units are needed at quite close distances which IMO is not realistic.

The bigger the blaze, the higher the chance the tank crew spotted the gun aready while the grenade was flying! With a preloaded HE grenade the tank with the turret showing into the correct direction (a few words later on that topic), the chances were high, that the second shot in this duel was not shot from the ATG.

As a rule of thumb I have read: an ATG that opens fire also must hit.

It's a surprise weapon and it's biggest advantage is, that it can determine when it begins the fight (somehow different are high precision long range guns, like the German 88 in open terrain, which could dominate the battlefield without any camouflage because it simply could hit over such a distance, where no other gun could hit back quickly enough, but that's another topic).

A gun (sometimes even tanks) placed among woods and very well camouflaged usually could not be spotted unless it opened fire. But once it fires, the blaze of the gun against the black background of the wood could be seen immediately.

CM seems to search for a compromise because the blaze is not modelled and as a result guns on one hand are too easy to spot if they have not opened fire and on the other hand they are too hard to spot, when they shoot (and produce smoke).

On the Western front with the also up to date western technology this seems less a problem, with both sides somewhat equal, but especially for modelling the Eastern front the sharing of blaze positions seems very important to me if the Russians do not have radio in their tanks or AFVs:

In the case of the German radio net, critical information about ATGs was shared within seconds, while units without radio, could simply not communicate this information.

Especially if a tank spots a gun's blaze, it must react immediately and shoot back as quickly as possible. There is no time for the commander to shoot a flare in the direction of the threat. Radio equipped tanks get the information immediately while the tank simultaneously is engaging and until the gun gets off a second shot (if it even comes to that) already a multitude of eyepairs are watching the area when the second shot is fired.

It should also be noted, that tank commanders ofcourse know very well where ATGs are to be expected. This means that tank commanders advancing already know not only roughly the location, but also the distance where the threat could come from.

With that in mind it becomes even better understandable that a blaze of a gun can be spotted even by buttoned down tanks over long distances depending on the light conditions and position of the sun.

On the other hand this fits well, why single ATGs were not that useful for denying the advance of tanks over open terrain. They simply were spotted easily once they opened fire. If ATGs were used to stop tank advances, several of them were used and they were about to open fire at the same time (PAK-Riegel).

What is also critical when it comes to simulating this phase of a firefight is the hit probability of the first shot:

A highly focused tank crew in overwatch position while the others are moving can notice already the very first blaze of a ATG while the projectile is still flying as noticed. In the next second all other moving tanks hit the brakes and know the position. If the first shot of the ATG misses, the chances of the gun to survive diminish dramatically once spotted. But not only the accuracy of the gun plays a huge role:

It can make a huge difference, if a gun and it's crew have a ROF of 3 or 7 seconds. The chance for a second try does not raise proportionally with the ROF because one second in a gunfight duel can be like an eternity. Every tenth of a second can count.

The modeling of the spotting of the blaze and smoke becomes even more important!

Without simulating the blaze and smoke and it's impact on spotting and without giving guns tremendous camouflage bonuses that make them nearly invisible in the right terrain until they open fire, I don't see how much better simulation results could be achieved.

But back to the the problem of too low camouflage bonuses and the planned CM-series of the war in the East:

In Russia the German term "Schweigepak" (silent-ATG) was used for Russian guns, which had the task to let German spearheads or tanks pass and open fire on the following troops. Without great camouflage bonuses rendering ATGs almost invisible until they open fire, I don't see how these nasty but doomed units could be modelled well in CM.

This would be my main feature wish for improvement of the simulation model.

[poesel]

When a gunner of a tank takes aim could he tell the driver to &%$/& stop turning the tank?

I guess this is connected to the 'AI-can't-stop-to-fire' thing but could please at least the case with a stationary but rotating tank be fixed?

[womble]

When a gunner of a tank takes aim could he tell the driver to &%$/& stop turning the tank?

I guess this is connected to the 'AI-can't-stop-to-fire' thing but could please at least the case with a stationary but rotating tank be fixed?

Yeah, have the tank turn its glacis to face the threat while the gun is being reloaded. Or have the turret rotation counter the hull rotation. I'm sure most turrets could turn faster than their hull could, especially given the reluctance or even inability to have one track in forward and the other in reverse...

[A Canadian Cat]

When a gunner of a tank takes aim could he tell the driver to &%$/& stop turning the tank?

I guess this is connected to the 'AI-can't-stop-to-fire' thing but could please at least the case with a stationary but rotating tank be fixed?

Oh, that would be so nice. When ever that happens I always think "wouldn't the tank commander tell the drive to stop so the gunner can get the shot before continuing". Actually I usually yell at the driver to stop

[A Canadian Cat]

Blaze and powder smoke seem not to be modelled ...

Upon what do you base that conclusion? I am curious. I see no reason to assume such a thing.

It's a surprise weapon and it's biggest advantage is, that it can determine when it begins the fight (somehow different are high precision long range guns, like the German 88 in open terrain, which could dominate the battlefield without any camouflage because it simply could hit over such a distance, where no other gun could hit back quickly enough, but that's another topic).

I am not sure exactly what your point here is but remember that many maps we play on are not big enough for the long range capabilities of AT guns to shine. Not to mention that the terrain has lots of LOS obstructions so many maps do not have a location that could dominate the entire map.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Upon what do you base that conclusion? I am curious. I see no reason to assume such a thing.

I'm doing some testing in the " 20 mm AA guns, Tanks, and Spotting" thread in the CMBN forum that so far suggests he might be correct.

[womble]

I'm doing some testing in the " 20 mm AA guns, Tanks, and Spotting" thread in the CMBN forum that so far suggests he might be correct.

I'd say, rather, that the modelling of "smoke and flame" is flawed, and the AA gun case highlights this. You are seeing (when there's no dust kicked up), if I'm reading it right, a decrease in the time to spot (TTS?) for firing weapons, and "the general experience" seems to be that the like of ATG do become more likely to be spotted once they begin firing.

Is it also worth considering that the Germans, or so it has been reported on this forum, used smokeless, flashless powder, so it might be a one-sided problem...?

[Vanir Ausf B]

and "the general experience" seems to be that the like of ATG do become more likely to be spotted once they begin firing.

So far it is not clear if this is true. It appears that there is either no difference or only a small difference. More testing is needed, unfortunately.

Is it also worth considering that the Germans, or so it has been reported on this forum, used smokeless, flashless powder, so it might be a one-sided problem...?

That would be cool were that the case, but I have never heard anything from BFC regarding this so I doubt that is a factor in the game.

[poesel]

Could the AA guns please get a dedicated sound? As I understand it now they use one sound file which is rapidly played for each single shot. This creates a lot of stutter on my machine and the sound and visuals get severely out of sync.

If there was a single file for a burst this would probably much lower the load on the sound system.

[Glubokii Boy]

Flashing incons...

- taking fire (flashing orange)

- taking casualties (flashing red)

Currently we have the floating incons flash when a unit is taking casualties wich helps alot in locateing troublespots when zomed out.

Maybe we could also have the incons flash (in a different colour) when a unit is taking fire to help us locate wich units is being fired upon before they are taking casulties.

This could be a toggable option in the setup menu (maybe not all players will like the incons flashing all over the place).

[Erwin]

"...maybe we could also have the incons flash (in a different colour) when a unit is taking fire to help us locate which units is being fired upon before they take casualties."

+1 for some sort of indication. It's a PITA going through every unit during playback to figure out which unit is being fired on (b4 they take any casualties).

[poesel]

How do you determine if a unit is being fired at? How does the unit know if the fire is directed at them or just recon by fire or stray bullets or a mortar gone wrong?

The icon could indicate that a soldier got wounded (yellow) and this may be an indication that they are shot at.

Apart from that: yes, a lot more could be done with icons. They provide an opportunity to convey more information and not just flashing.

While at icons: if the last man of a unit dies could the icon not stay a bit longer? The red cross is also post mortem why can't the units icon not flash and then vanish?

[Glubokii Boy]

My thinking was...

Whenever the suppresion indicator in the UI goes from zero to showing the first step of suppresion for a unit...That would trigger the 'taking fire' flashing incon.

Could be done in other ways i'm sure...

I agree that the incons could be used for additional information...

Maybe some way of showing that the unit is out of C2 for example...

[Sandokan]

+1 for Repsol idea.

Especially in rather large scenarios would be quite useful.

Checking 3-4 separated groups every turn take some time and, on the long run, sometimes is a little boring.

[womble]

My thinking was...

Whenever the suppresion indicator in the UI goes from zero to showing the first step of suppresion for a unit...That would trigger the 'taking fire' flashing incon.

Could be done in other ways i'm sure...

I agree that the incons could be used for additional information...

Maybe some way of showing that the unit is out of C2 for example...

I get the feeling that would be too much for some units and not enough for others. Low soft factor troops seem to get that first bar from hearing firing, and keep it the entire game. High soft factor troops take more than just a bullet zipping past their ears to get any suppression...