Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this is the place to post this but, these are some things I'd like to see considered for the 4.0 upgrade or future updates.


Installer:
- A common installer for all games i.e.(expansion, Map, Scenario, vehicle, etc, packs) and upgrades. (BF as continued to release stuff with different file formats with sometimes no installer. Maybe something like the game launcher (matrix games) where you input your key and the launcher installs all modules/updates in the right order.


Quick Battles:

- Give us the same options for Quick Battles as in the scenario editor such as reinforcements, ability to reduce the number of soldiers in a squad, naming units, etc. when we select forces in Quick battles. or ability to Save a Quick Battle at start and be able to edit it with the scenario editor.
- Ability to set your own level of points (type in number) for equipment & rarity.


Supply:
- The ability to buy/add extra ammo for a weapon, like a Jeep/truck/trailer with extra mortar, AT or inf gun ammo, buy an Infantry Gun then have the option to buy extra ammo (extra ammo bearers, Jeep w/ammo, truck w/ammo) for it. The current supply options don't allow you get the ammo you want/need for specific weapons like mortars, recoiless rifles, AT-rifles, inf/ATG guns etc.


Map:
- Add some military base type map/objects like an airfield, radio or radar site, command post, army post, supply depot, etc.
- How about some Flavor objects likes abandoned wrecked trains,  downed/wrecked aircraft,  cars, etc


Editor:

- Ability to Save a Quick Battle at start and then be able to edit it with the scenario editor.
- Supply jeep/truck/trailer with ability to add/edit ammo (infantry/crew weapon) types carried.
- Ability to have vehicle crews start a scenario outside of their vehicle or squad weapon, like a tank crew in a building across the street from their tank.
- Ability to add/buy a radio for a squad and/or vehicle. It's just too hard to find/remember which vehicles/squads have a radios in the editor.
- Ability to add/buy a extra Bazooka or PanzerFaust to a squad and/or vehicle in the editor
- Ability to select/buy standard infantry weapons for vehicle crews such a rifle, SMG or machine pistol, etc.
- More filters like (tanks, armor cars, guns, radios, etc) to the editor to help find what you are looking for. Having to buy a battalion and then deleting 99% of things you don't want just is get a specific vehicle is well, just dumb.


Weapons:

- Bomb/IED for future Partisan/Commando units (CMFI, CMRT)


Vehicles:

- A rating for tanks/armored cars with a copula that reduces chance of commander/gunner casualties from small arms fire.
- Some more non fighting Vehicles (B IV Demolition Carrier, LaFrance M-1 Wrecker Doge WC Series of Command Cars/Recon Cars/etc. (WC-51, WC-52,  WC-32, . . ., WC-63, Patton's command cars).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_WC_series#WC51


Game play:
- Option, Allow battles to continue  after time runs out.
- Neutral/third party unit (Civilian/prisoner/downed airman, etc) that you can hunt/capture/rescue/exit off map. Trigger in editor for capture/kill/rescue of unit, new mission types.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have an idea that I would like to throw out to see if there is any significant body of informed opinion that agrees with me. I frequently play with a company of infantry reinforced with a platoon of tanks. Thing is, the game views these as separate, independent forces. What I would like is to have one overall commander for the combined force. What would that change in play? For one thing, spotting information might get moved between the two arms faster. Would that be a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. In the real war, there were often very real problems in sharing information between the two arms. Incompatible radio nets, lack of working familiarity between the subordinate commanders of the two arms, and other factors could lead to a breakdown in communication and the two arms each fighting their own battles without much cooperation. But sometimes, depending on which army, what period of the war, and the individual initiative of the local commanders, these problems got worked out and close cooperation between two or more arms worked smoothly enough to make a decisive difference in how battles got fought. Would BFC consider this issue as one worthy of their attention?

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like all of these ideas - but, with respect to @pad152 , I gotta say I LOVE @Michael Emrys http://community.battlefront.com/profile/36738-michael-emrys/

It should be rare, only for elite, crack or veteran commands I'd suggest.  Would skillfully enhance the scale and command realism of game in a VERY nice way.

(Yes I know, it makes my flesh creep to agree with Michael, but .........HE'S RIGHT - gulp :) )

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an idea that I would like to throw out to see if there is any significant body of informed opinion that agrees with me. I frequently play with a company of infantry reinforced with a platoon of tanks. Thing is, the game views these as separate, independent forces. What I would like is to have one overall commander for the combined force. What would that change in play? For one thing, spotting information might get moved between the two arms faster. Would that be a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. In the real war, there were often very real problems in sharing information between the two arms. Incompatible radio nets, lack of working familiarity between the subordinate commanders of the two arms, and other factors could lead to a breakdown in communication and the two arms each fighting their own battles without much cooperation. But sometimes, depending on which army, what period of the war, and the individual initiative of the local commanders, these problems got worked out and close cooperation between two or more arms worked smoothly enough to make a decisive difference in how battles got fought. Would BFC consider this issue as one worthy of their attention?

Michael

that is essential for recreation of a task force or Kampfgruppe......someday...someway...

Link to post
Share on other sites

that is essential for recreation of a task force or Kampfgruppe......someday...someway...

Yeah, that was the essence of my thinking. The Germans were good at it pretty much all the way through the war. The Allies performance was spottier, depending on how much the local commander was on the ball. While it was an established part of doctrine, I'm afraid it was honored more often in the breach than in the practice, and a lot of arm or unit snobbery hurt cooperation.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would give so much more flexibility to some of the German forces and reflect one of their major advantages in this time period.  I'd see it as similiar to how the simple decision to NOT allow Italian squads to split limits their use without crippling them through gamey modifications. 

To anyone who has read any grand tactical or operational histories of the 2nd world war, this springs out over and over again as a prime difference between how they sides operated on the ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this game.  However the command sequence is too tedious.  If platoon formations such as wedge, column, Vee, etc could be used, things would improve.  For instance, you could click on a rifle platoon leader, give him a route via waypoints and choose a platoon formation.  HIs squads would attempt to maintain the ordered formation.  I would be a much happier camper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought about having a Linear Target command for units in general, just like it is for arty. This would make it easier for example:

- shoot at several windows of a building during one turn

- clear units standing behind a hedge

- put some harassive fire to a larger area, not just one action point
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some pretty good suggestions/wishes in this thread. But we need to keep in mind that CM can evolve at only a certain pace due to its limited programming staff and the need to get as much value from each iteration of the game engine before dropping it. That's why I think it was a very good thing that the OP specified the hope that some of these issues would get resolved in the fourth version rather than right away. So I believe we should keep the wishes/suggestions coming, but we should also be patient in the realization that BFC is limited in its ability to get them to us speedily.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an idea that I would like to throw out to see if there is any significant body of informed opinion that agrees with me. I frequently play with a company of infantry reinforced with a platoon of tanks. Thing is, the game views these as separate, independent forces. What I would like is to have one overall commander for the combined force. What would that change in play? For one thing, spotting information might get moved between the two arms faster. Would that be a good thing? Maybe, maybe not. In the real war, there were often very real problems in sharing information between the two arms. Incompatible radio nets, lack of working familiarity between the subordinate commanders of the two arms, and other factors could lead to a breakdown in communication and the two arms each fighting their own battles without much cooperation. But sometimes, depending on which army, what period of the war, and the individual initiative of the local commanders, these problems got worked out and close cooperation between two or more arms worked smoothly enough to make a decisive difference in how battles got fought. Would BFC consider this issue as one worthy of their attention?

Michael

I assume you play a lot of quick battles if this is how you prefer to fight. If this is indeed the case how about trying to add a forward observer team to your platoon of tanks, This will make him a part of the tanks formation and he will share any spotting info he has across the tanks radio net.  He will come equipped with a radio and if you keep this observer in close contact with your Infantry company CO, ( move together as if they were one team) these two men will share information with each other and often times within one minute of either force spotting something, the other force has the same information. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Editor:

- Ability to have vehicle crews start a scenario outside of their vehicle or squad weapon, like a tank crew in a building across the street from their tank.

Game play:
- Option, Allow battles to continue  after time runs out.
- Neutral/third party unit (Civilian/prisoner/downed airman, etc) that you can hunt/capture/rescue/exit off map. Trigger in editor for capture/kill/rescue of unit, new mission types.

 

 

 

 

 

The ability to start vehicle crews outside of their vehicle is currently possible. All you need to do is order the team to bail out and you can put them anywhere on the map you wish. I made a rough scenario where an Elite Tiger tank crew parked their tank on the edge the woods outside of town and went to the bar in town. They start the mission as "unfit" from drinking too much and need to get back to their tank to join the fight. I can't remember if they were able to recrew their tank or not. But for an H2H style scenario this would certainly add an element of tension to the battle. 

As for the game play continuing after time runs out, how do you design a scenario to allow for these kinds of conditions? Or do yo wish to have the battle continue but have the AI do nothing? I can see how this would be applicable for H2H missions but not too sure it work for single player.

I think your other suggestions are great ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you play a lot of quick battles if this is how you prefer to fight. If this is indeed the case how about trying to add a forward observer team to your platoon of tanks, This will make him a part of the tanks formation and he will share any spotting info he has across the tanks radio net.  He will come equipped with a radio and if you keep this observer in close contact with your Infantry company CO, ( move together as if they were one team) these two men will share information with each other and often times within one minute of either force spotting something, the other force has the same information. 

Yeah, I've done that and intend to continue whenever possible. Also, when I have had a company each of infantry and armor that the captains of the two arms were parked close together in hopes that information might make it across the gap a little quicker. In that engagement, it was not obvious that it made any difference, but I will keep trying when the opportunity presents itself.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this game.  However the command sequence is too tedious.  If platoon formations such as wedge, column, Vee, etc could be used, things would improve.  For instance, you could click on a rifle platoon leader, give him a route via waypoints and choose a platoon formation.  HIs squads would attempt to maintain the ordered formation.  I would be a much happier camper.

These 'formations'- not on the parade ground but on the battlefield-  were largely mythological and undocumented by accounts or photos. However, I recall that Steve did consider adding a 'line abreast' formation for Veteran+ troops at one point. But the battle evidence even for that is slim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"These 'formations'- not on the parade ground but on the battlefield-  were largely mythological and undocumented by accounts or photos. However, I recall that Steve did consider adding a 'line abreast' formation for Veteran+ troops at one point. But the battle evidence even for that is slim."

Childress, that is just not correct.  Those formations were documented, trained, and used by those of us in the Vietnam generation.  They were a product of the pre-WWII doctrine developed at The Infantry School in Ft Benning in the 1930s and perfected during WWII.   I bet an old 1940s FM covering them can be found on the internet.

If a Line Abreast formation can be added to CM, it should be.  The formation was taught with live ammo in basic training and used for final assault situations.  What the program now calls assault is basically "Fire and Movement", which is fine, but not the same thing.

Now I can understand if the software simply does not allow a complicated platoon formation and multi waypoint tracking.  My point is that, if possible, it would be a big help.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Absolutely Rafter11.

I was taught different pre-contact platoon and company formations at Sandhurst. It's basic infantry doctrine and dictates how units move across different terrain in different risk settings.

I too would love the game to take a little of the micro-management of such things away from me, because most of the campaigns (inc. the new Battle Pack 1) are btn level, and it's just so tiresome having to manage each section's formation and orders on an individual basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Artillery

I would like to have a function added to artillery in form of a Target Reference Point memory. As this; FO calls in a strike at a hill without a TRP. 10min later the shells splash down. After say 30minutes you want the FO to strike that hill again and this time there is a TRP on the hill.

Conversation between FO and Arty staff.

F0 ”I want a salvo at that damn hill again”’

Art: ”Roger, we already have the calculations for that target from the last fire mission so it will splash down much faster than before.”

FO: “Perfect”

Totally unrealistic, unhistorical?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds realistic to me. Ive read sooo many accounts from all sides involved (except I will admit no accounts from the Japanese or Axis minors ;)  )

where a cmdr on the ground gets on the radio and tells them to lay it on more etc.

Also in MacDonalds company cmdr which covers Oct 44 to May 45 theres mention of TRPs quite a bit but theyre called concentrations. E.g. his first command theyre on the Siegfried line and theres a pillbox they had trouble with it became Queen 1 etc. So he.d call up and say I want it on Queen 1 or whatever.  In this period they keep trying to hit by noise what they think is a tank though they eventually decide its a ration vehicle.  MacDonald in that part of his memoir gets on the radio a few times to tell them lay it on more etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Childress, that is just not correct.

There was a lengthy thread on the topic which I'm too lazy to look up. All the usual suspects chimed in, pro and con, including Steve and JasonC. Emrys had a good post. Check it out. Someone included this archival photo that showed British paras advancing line abreast in Operation Fustian. But it turned out to be posed.

File of soldiers advancing over desert terrain

Edited by Childress
Link to post
Share on other sites

Childress,

As for documentation, I downloaded FM 7-10, "Infantry RIFLE COMPANY, INFANTRY REGIMENT" dated 18 March 1944

Chapter 5, titled "RIFLE PLATOON" details the platoon formations used in an "approach march".  It lists and schematics Platoon Column, Line of Squads, Two Squads Forward, One Squad back, and One Squad forward Two Squads back.  This information can be found in Para 114 beginning on page 137.  It also mentions the two platoon echelon formations and their uses.

During the Vietnam War, I served as an infantry NCO and led an 81mm mortar section.  I was trained by NCOs who had served in Korea and one in WWII.  Somewhere along the line, post WWII, the one squad forward - two squads back turned into the platoon wedge and the two squads forward - one squad back became the platoon vee.  Different names, same idea.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 It lists and schematics Platoon Column, Line of Squads, Two Squads Forward, One Squad back, and One Squad forward Two Squads back. 

You can do that right now in CM. I suspect WW2 units in small unit formations, like the Vee, broke down on contact with enemy fire and sought cover. Unless you're talking about mine sweeps or recon where the opps weren't anticipated or very disrupted. And most soldiers were draftees.

Furnish an anecdote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, as FM 7-10 states, these were approach march formations.  The great news about the later versions of CM is the "Assault" move command.  It is a fire and movement command and that is what FM 7-10 suggests when approach turns into contact.  If CM 4.0 could include assignable platoon formations, I would be an even more happy camper than I am already.

In any event this is a really great game series.  If you use real world tactics in this game, you do well.  I don't know what better complement I could give.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds realistic to me. Ive read sooo many accounts from all sides involved (except I will admit no accounts from the Japanese or Axis minors ;)  )

where a cmdr on the ground gets on the radio and tells them to lay it on more etc.

Also in MacDonalds company cmdr which covers Oct 44 to May 45 theres mention of TRPs quite a bit but theyre called concentrations. E.g. his first command theyre on the Siegfried line and theres a pillbox they had trouble with it became Queen 1 etc. So he.d call up and say I want it on Queen 1 or whatever.  In this period they keep trying to hit by noise what they think is a tank though they eventually decide its a ration vehicle.  MacDonald in that part of his memoir gets on the radio a few times to tell them lay it on more etc etc.

 

Artillery

I would like to have a function added to artillery in form of a Target Reference Point memory. As this; FO calls in a strike at a hill without a TRP. 10min later the shells splash down. After say 30minutes you want the FO to strike that hill again and this time there is a TRP on the hill.

Conversation between FO and Arty staff.

F0 ”I want a salvo at that damn hill again”’

Art: ”Roger, we already have the calculations for that target from the last fire mission so it will splash down much faster than before.”

FO: “Perfect”

Totally unrealistic, unhistorical?

these.  Spot on for me.  As an ex 81mm mortarman and MFC once you have called in a FM on a target and are happy with adjustments if u need to call fire on it again it would basically be, "hello 4.2 Alpha, fire mission, xray one two 10 rounds super quick, ffe, followed by a rate 6 over."

Those rounds would be literally being dropped down the barrels in about 40 seconds.  However things do change if the mortar line has moved, you have to re-spot fall of shot, so it would take longer then.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...