Engine 5 Wishlist

[Centurian52]

I've been playing a lot of CMx1 recently (CMAK so far, but I'll get to CMBB). Until Battlefront makes CMx2 games that cover the early war I feel that the CMx1 games remain an essential part of the collection for anyone who wants early WW2 content. But I definitely feel that going with no orders delay is better than the orders delay implemented in CMx1. The orders delay in CMx1 feels a little too arbitrary. Rather than being given an arbitrary number of seconds that increases with more complex orders, I imagine the orders making their way from a commander avatar present on the map (sort of like how in SoW there is a commander on the field who is "you") to the intended recipient of that order over the same C2 links that spotting information currently proliferates over. Implementing this properly would require competent subordinate AIs at all echelons which can make decisions without direct orders from the player, either because they need to react to something that the player can't tell them how to react to in time, or because the C2 links are cut and they need to operate independently for a while until the links are reestablished.

I've also been toying with the idea of information delay. Basically the player does not have borg knowledge of everything their subordinates know, or even the positions or activities of each of their subordinates. Information about both friendlies and enemies is updated for the player whenever the commander avatar receives a report from their subordinates (with reports proliferating over the C2 links). The player can directly see the 3d models of the friendly and enemy troops that their commander avatar can see. But otherwise sees icons representing the last reported positions of their subordinates (and clicking on those icons will give their last reported condition and activities (ammunition, casualties, strength, idle, in-contact, retreating, pinned down, etc...)), or last reported positions of enemy forces. The idea is to make the player as blind as an actual commander would be.

The kinds of orders which would be sent would be completely different. You might give each subordinate an objective, a lane, a start line, a start time, and attached support. But since you can't micromanage with a delay and limited information the details will have to be left up to the subordinate AI commanders. At this point it's basically a completely different game, which is why there is no chance of this ever being implemented in Combat Mission. But items don't have to have a realistic chance of being realized to go on a wishlist. Perhaps another developer will take some inspiration from these concepts. Or maybe someday I'll get some game development skills and do it myself.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Centurian52
spelling

[MOS:96B2P]

17 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I've also been toying with the idea of information delay. Basically the player does not have borg knowledge of everything their subordinates know, or even the positions or activities of each of their subordinates. Information about both friendlies and enemies is updated for the player whenever the commander avatar receives a report from their subordinates (with reports proliferating over the C2 links). The player can directly see the 3d models of the friendly and enemy troops that their commander avatar can see. But otherwise sees icons representing the last reported positions of their subordinates (and clicking on those icons will give their last reported condition and activities (ammunition, casualties, strength, idle, in-contact, retreating, pinned down, etc...)), or last reported positions of enemy forces. The idea is to make the player as blind as an actual commander would be.

+1.  I like it. 

[Erwin]

While the "exponentially increasing time delay per waypoint" feature of CM1 was frustrating when all one wanted to do is move units down a twisting road, it seemed like an xnt method of depicting the slower decision cycle or inexperienced troops when embarking on a complex combat maneuver (that required several waypoints).  ie:  It simulated the longer time it takes to explain the CO's intent for a complex maneuver to less well-trained troops.  

The CM1 time-delay feature was a compromise with positive and negative aspects.  But then so is playing on Iron, or trying to utllize the sometimes weird CM2 C2 system.

[ViperAssassin26]

just going to say it. I HATE THE HUNT FEATURE!!! Would it be possible for them to have the troops have there weapons pointed up instead of low ready? Especially when going into a building. because when I'm hunting for the enemy, I'm going to make sure that all i have to do is turn that direction and fire my weapon.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, ViperAssassin26 said:

I HATE THE HUNT FEATURE!!!

It is moving to contact not to find contacts. I usually move towards a contact icon and wish to make a full contact.

[ViperAssassin26]

Either way you want your weapon pointed up

[chuckdyke]

38 minutes ago, ViperAssassin26 said:

Either way you want your weapon pointed up

Makes no difference I tested it out. Units won't fire at friendly units they are in full contact with. Fratricide happens during area fire. The scenario I tried it out on BN Tutorial campaign. On Iron so you need to spot your own units first. To find contacts the Hunt Command is a poor choice in my opinion. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

9 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Units won't fire at friendly units they are in full contact with. Fratricide happens during area fire.

Try area targetting them with a tank. 

Fratricide is strictly HE related as far as I can tell.....Once something explodes in CM the game engine no longer cares which side it was on.

[chuckdyke]

9 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Try area targetting them with a tank. 

I wrote in full contact. I tried it out in BN Tutorial Campaign one squad was Red and two squads were Blue The exercise was spotting and suppressing. Red was on hide inside the farm, small arms fire suppressed them only. Blue closed in on the farm and refused fire orders once Red came into full contact. Thanks for your input. 

[Erwin]

Unless something has changed via updates etc. larger caliber guns (definitely above 50 cal) can cause fratricide.  Can't recall if 50 cal/12.6mm can also cause friendly casualties.

[RMM]

On 9/14/2021 at 5:28 AM, chuckdyke said:

Abandon also means that they disable it. A gun unit could be split like we do with infantry. Split the gun away and split the crew. They can find shelter and can rejoin the gun. With abandon itself I don't have a problem.  

I've mentioned this issue too, and I still disagree. If a crew is taken out, they don't have the opportunity to disable the SW. This inability to use 'abandoned' weapons is a definite drawback to the realism of the game. Disabling a weapon takes time, and is a very deliberate action that's not done by men getting killed or running away broken. I really think this is something that needs to be seriously reconsidered; it's just not realistic as it is now. If a weapon is to be disabled, then that should be a command that takes up the unit's time. I know, I know, more commands, more micro-management, but that's also my point, and I think @BornGinger's too. During combat, SW's are far more likely to just be dropped than disabled, which is precisely why it would be a much better default to allow other unit's, even enemy one's to repossess the SW. ASL used penalties for SW's crewed or picked up by other/enemy units making it more likely the weapon would be 'broken' (jammed). That would be far, far more realistic.

Edited October 19, 2021 by RMM

[RMM]

On 9/14/2021 at 3:21 AM, BornGinger said:

Now let's go to playing the game:

10) It would be great if there could be a cellar to some of them. This would be useful in scenarios where one party's defense line goes through, or very close to, those houses. If the attacker would use a lot of artillery, especially just before an assault of tanks and/or infantry, the defender could rush his troops into those cellars for shelter. There weren't always bunkers or pillboxes in hastily arranged defense lines during WW2, so cellars would be useful. And as bunkers and pillboxes are so easily spotted in the games, defenders inside cellars could hopefully be more of a surprise for the attacker.

11) Another thing about buildings. If the buildings wheren't only one large box with one or more floors but instead one large box divided into different sections on each floor, the destruction of buildings being shot at would have a more proper look and the floors would be more functional for the defending troops inside a building if the building was being destroyed section by section. The result of this would be that the ruined buildings could still be used for defending although some sections were in ruins. Another good reason for this could be that the house to house fighting could become more challenging for the attacker as each floor would have two or more sections (rooms) to clear of enemies.

12) If we could position AT-guns inside large enough buildings and barns, with parts of the walls missing so they can shoot from inside them, the fighting in the game would be more like in WW2 times. The Germans and Russians, and probably the Brits and Americans too, used this way of positioning AT-guns. They seem to often having had the doors to the barns not completely closed or the holes in the walls covered a bit to conceale the AT-guns.

13) Another thing that would be great would be to be able to hide AT-guns and tanks behind ruined buildings so they can be positioned on the side of the building facing away from the enemy, see the enemy through the holes of ruined building, and shoot at the enemy with the shells going through the holes of the ruined building.

The way it works now the inside of buildings is a blocking entity with some kind of invisible wall so the direct fire line gets blocked as soon as it enters the inside of a building even though there are large holes in the walls.

14) To protect the infantry much better, the games would preferably get the kind of shelters which were built into the soil and covered with logs and dirt for some protection against artillery shells. These kind of shelters, and pillboxes, would hopefully not only offer more protection to the defenders but also be harder to spot.

15) It is also a bit silly that 75mm light infantry guns and different AT-guns are so slow to move around. From watching documentary WW2 footage it is obvious that the repositioning of them should go much quicker than they do in the games. The speed in which the crew is able to reposition an AT-gun or a 75mm light infantry gun could often make or break a defensive situation in a scenario.

Below is a test of moving different guns forward 40 meters on a flat and grassy surface. When comparing those minutes of movement to what is shown in the video clip above it's obvious that the crew should be able to use at least quick movement when repositioning their guns. The dash movement should most likely be possible to use too, at least for the 75mm light infantry guns.

  Moving Guns 40 meters

German 75mm light infantry gun IeiG18           2.30 minutes
German 75mm light infantry gun IeiG37           3.15 minutes
German 50mm AT-gun Pak 38                       4.00 minutes
German 75mm AT-gun Pak 40                       4.20 minutes
German 76mm AT-gun Pak 36                       5.00 minutes
German 150mm heavy infantry gun SiG33    5.00 minutes

US     57mm AT-gun M1                                 3.30 minutes
US     76mm AT-gun M5                                4.20 minutes

16) One of the most annoying things in this game, and something that removes the fun of playing it, is the sometimes stupidly bad line of sight function.

Many times a team of infantry, or an armoured vehicle, can be positioned two rows of trees deep into a forest and not see the enemy which is standing, or rolling around, just in front of them and many times a team of infantry or an armoured vehicle can be positioned behind a dense forest with bushes, corners of houses, telephone poles and other things between the other side of that dense forest and the enemy with thats unit being able to see the enemy and even shoot at them.

If you're standing in a part of a forest which is for example two or three trees distance away from the beginning of the forest, you are able to see what's standing or rolling outside of it.

And as far as I know a dense forest gets darker the deeper you look into it from a position outside of the forest. All the things between a forest and a person or a vehicle standing far away from the forest are also making it near impossible to single them out among the blend of different colours and shadows.

So to have a unit being able to see through a dense forest and all the things between the forest and the enemy seems a bit strange, especially if it is part of a game which some people call a good simulation of the reality.

17) A similar notice can be given to windows in houses and how easy it often is for a force to see what is inside the house even from a quite good distance away without using a binocula. From inside a house one can easily see what is happening outside the window as long as it isn't too far away. But if one is standing on a field or a road, even quite close to a house, it isn't always easy to see who or what is standing or sitting inside a house unless they are standing close to the window or the lights are turned on in the evening. Unfortunately the game's line of sight function doesn't show this.

The picture above is showing US soldiers rushing forward in an attack. The house to the left is on fire and so is the ground in front of it. I read somewhere that houses and ground on fire used to be part of the earlier versions of these games and it would be great if that function came back.

18) To have the ground and houses, and maybe even trees, sometimes being able to start burning if they have been hit by a bunch of high explosive rounds or if a vehicle has been hit close by would make the game more fun to play.

If BFC is worried that some players would exploit this function I'm sure there will be some H2H player rules about this. BFC could also make changes to programming the AI-groups and make it possible for the scenario designers to move the AI-forces out of an area if there would be a fire in the woods. I read somewhere that both the Soviets and the Germans put woods on fire especially to force the enemy to leave those areas. So to exploit this function in a game should maybe not be frowned upon too much.

19) Trenches and foxholes that are more correct. Trenches could be a bit deeper so the troops have to stand up to shoot and don't have to crawl to avoid being shot at. If there was an animation which have the troops moving while slightly bending over, they would be able to walk in those deeper trenches to avoid being shot in the head or chest.

To have trenches more correct would also make trench fighting with the troops more fun and interesting while they carefully move along the trench line and clear corners where enemies might lay in wait.

Foxholes could preferably be deeper, single ones and more spread out instead of being shallow and in close groups of four as they are now.

20) It shouldn't be so easy to spot trenches and foxholes. If foxholes and trenches were made different than they are, moving your troops towards or beside them and being shot at would be an unpleasant surprise and not something you expect.

21) If a heavy machinegun-team is wiped out of their pixel life and a squad or a team of other soldiers are close by or are moving into the area where the hmg is standing it would be great if one or two of the men in this squad or team could move to the hmg and use it instead of having the hmg being viewed as abandoned.

22) When talking about machine gun teams I'd like them, and all other troops as well, to be able to move backwards a short distance instead of having them turn around immediately before they move to another position behind them. If you for example have an MG-team that you want to move back a bit to a better position, the team could be able to move to that position backwards instead of having them first turn around 180° and then move. To have troops being able to move backwards a bit would way avoid having them get shot in the back.

Infantry that are tactically retreating doesn't always have to do that by immediately turning their back towards the enemy but could also move backwards a few meters while on the ready to shoot while doing so before they turn and move away.

In a book about the German army during WW2 is mentioned the words "We went on long marches, carrying all our gear... We even had to practise retreating in a series of backward leaps — a skill which might always come in handy". I get it that those backward leaps were exactly the movement backwards during a tactical retreat while keeping their eyes open for attacking enemy soldiers.

23) It would be great if the armoured vehicles, like for example halftracks, could reverse a bit slower. Just as lorries, armoured vehicles and tanks can go forward in four different speeds it could be useful to have them reverse in different speeds. To reverse a halftrack slower could be useful if the crew want to use their machine gun when they are doing a tactical retreat and that way support the infantry which is falling back with them.

24) And to have tanks and other vehicles being able to reverse without shooting out smoke grenades every time would be great too.

25) Infantry units that are using the slow movement (crawling) are often not aware or their surroundings but only aware of what is on the ground. I have read on the forum that units see what the animated troops look at. As the troops who are crawling always look down and thus have their eyes on the ground just below them, they often miss to notice enemy vehicles and troops being fairly close.

26) I wish vehicles wouldn't get stuck in a splash of mud as easily as they do now when the weather isn't soaking wet. Dry weather, damp weather and cold weather would most likely not have the mud sticky and deep enough to cause them to get stuck, especially not if the splash of mud, which is one mud tile, is by the road and there is only one or two mud tiles where the vehicle is going. Mud on the fields on a day with very wet and rainy weather or after a long period of rain would more likely be more treacherous and cause vehicles to get stuck and immobilised. This would especially be true if the vehicle has went over more than two mud tiles as it takes some time for the mud to build up under a vehicle.

If an AI-tank with AI-tankriders would get bogged down and immobilised the result is that the AI-tankriders sit on that AI-tank throughout the scenario. It would be preferable if AI-tankriders could jump off a tank by themselves if it has become immobilised, or been standing still for too long, and later on follow their AI-groups movement orders to make the battles more enjoyable.

It isn't fun to have a look at the map after a battle is over and see a large bunch of soldiers sitting on vehicles that have got stuck in a splash of mud in the beginning of the battle.

27) Armoured vehicles could determine better when to use HE and when to use the MG. It happens sometimes that one single enemy soldier who is running away or popping up from a foxhole for a look is being shot at with HE when it would have been enough to use the MG. A bit stupid to waste HE on that.

28) It would be useful if the different gun crews were be able to abandon their gun and later on man it again. It sometimes happen that a gun crew is being attacked which makes them run for cover just to have the threat gone and them unfortunately not being able to return to and use a fully functional gun.

That's it for my list of changes.

Absolutely love these suggestions, particularly in regards to placing ATG's in buildings. That's a long overdue, missing feature of the game and should also include AFV's. After all, there's plenty of historical precedent for that too.

I do think that foxholes and trenches, the way they are currently portrayed in the game do detract from their protective abilities and make them more visible.

Possessing and being able to use abandoned weapons is also, an absolute must! As well as being able to get ammo off of enemy casualties.

[Commanderski]

Currently it takes the same amount of effort for tanks to go through a stone wall as it does to go through a wooden fence. Maybe it's a programming issue but a wooden fence would hardly be noticed by a tank going full speed. 

Would like to see something more realistic in that area.

[RMM]

14 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Makes no difference I tested it out. Units won't fire at friendly units they are in full contact with. Fratricide happens during area fire. The scenario I tried it out on BN Tutorial campaign. On Iron so you need to spot your own units first. To find contacts the Hunt Command is a poor choice in my opinion. 

Agreed. In general, I use the Move or even Slow command to recon forward. Particularly with vehicles, Hunting is done at too fast a pace. Plus, Hunting tires the Truppen quicker than Move.

[RMM]

1 minute ago, Commanderski said:

Currently it takes the same amount of effort for tanks to go through a stone wall as it does to go through a wooden fence. Maybe it's a programming issue but a wooden fence would hardly be noticed by a tank going full speed. 

Would like to see something more realistic in that area.

One tactic worth considering when it comes to penetrating stone walls, not all of which can be broken through by AFV's - use the MA to blast a hole. Have timed it with a US 75mm, and it takes about 20secs (approx 4 to 5 shells). The hole is big enough for infantry to move through, and if it needs expanding for vehicles to traverse, just blast another hole adjacent, but remember to keep vulnerable personnel (inf. and CE crews) clear enough of the explosions!

[RMM]

5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Try area targetting them with a tank. 

Fratricide is strictly HE related as far as I can tell.....Once something explodes in CM the game engine no longer cares which side it was on.

There seems to be a grey area when it comes to calibers between .50cal (12.7mm) and actual HE rounds that start at the 37mm caliber. One thing to note is that all calibers of friendly fire will pin friendly personnel, even small arms.

[A Canadian Cat]

On 10/18/2021 at 12:02 PM, Centurian52 said:

"You" are one of the officers on the field (presumably the top officer), and all orders to any unit need to travel from you to that unit through some sort of medium (voice, runner, hand signal, radio net, etc...).

And there is the reason why command delays are not a good thing. "You" are not one guy at the top giving orders down the chain. "You" are each and every officer and NCO on the battle field - all the way down.

So, while you are correct that orders given by the battalion Lt Col would take time and filter through the Capt. and Lt.s the orders given by the Sgt right now right now to his squad of guys standing right next to him would not. Well not if the guys in the squad know what's good for them at least

The issues is when you are playing you act as all levels of command. Many of the things you do routinely in game are very low level commanders spoken orders to men right there with you. Those should not be subject to delay. How can the game tell the difference. Yeah you cannot.

@Redwolf hit on some of the other more annoying issues. In fact command delays were a significant obstacle to my enjoyment of the CM1 games. Why should my platoon Lt have minutes of delay just to get his guys out the building they are in and move across the street?  Why should my tank platoon that needs to drive down a road suffer a multi minute delay just because the road has bends in it. I *HATE* that system from CM1.

[BornGinger]

22 hours ago, ViperAssassin26 said:

Would it be possible for them to have the troops have there weapons pointed up instead of low ready?

Are you with the words "have [their] weapons pointed up" talking about the way it is in films with soldiers, and police officers, moving forward and looking down the barell of their rifles which are pointed forward in the direction they are moving? If the hunt movement is for one of the WW2 games, it has been noted that the soldiers during that time never, or at least almost never, used that technique. As that kind of forward movement on the ready is a more modern phenomena it should maybe fit more for Black Sea and Shock Force 2. But then BFC would have to find it a necessary animation to add to those two games.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

One of the most irritating small things about the CMx1 command delays was that if you had a line of AFV's, HT's, trucks, whatever, you can bet that some were normal, some were green, some were vet, etc., and it really made a mess of the give the second vehicle a 5 sec delay, 3rd a 10 sec delay and so on, since different experience levels had different inherent delays.

It made for some serious micromanagement to get down a road.

[Ultradave]

9 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

Are you with the words "have [their] weapons pointed up" talking about the way it is in films with soldiers, and police officers, moving forward and looking down the barell of their rifles which are pointed forward in the direction they are moving? If the hunt movement is for one of the WW2 games, it has been noted that the soldiers during that time never, or at least almost never, used that technique. As that kind of forward movement on the ready is a more modern phenomena it should maybe fit more for Black Sea and Shock Force 2. But then BFC would have to find it a necessary animation to add to those two games.

Exactly right. I made this comment during CW testing as it was not the way we carried our weapons then - it's a more modern change. But it wasn't practical in the time frame until release to make that change. Maybe in a patch? That would be nice.

Dave

[ViperAssassin26]

6 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Exactly right. I made this comment during CW testing as it was not the way we carried our weapons then - it's a more modern change. But it wasn't practical in the time frame until release to make that change. Maybe in a patch? That would be nice.

Dave

Its Modern Combat. so the soldiers should use modern movements. Hopefully in the next patch.

Edited October 20, 2021 by ViperAssassin26

[Ultradave]

7 hours ago, ViperAssassin26 said:

Its Modern Combat. so the soldiers should use modern movements. Hopefully in the next patch.

It's modern combat in the sense it's not WW2, however, US infantry in '79-82 did not carry their weapons the same as what you see in BS or SF2 or any real life pictures of Iraq and Afghanistan. They should look more like this (particularly the right most guy, who isn't sprinting out. 

[t34577685]

guys,any news about engine5.0?

[BornGinger]

As the game requires the one calling in artillery support, being it the forward observer, an officer or someone else with the rights to do it, having a proper view of the area that needs to be covered with artillery shells, it would be great if Engine5, or a wished for future CMx3, could have a feature similar to what is told by Bjørn Lindstad when he describes his work as an artillery forward observer in SS-Regiment Norge during the battle of Narva in the Winter of 1944.

Quote

I spent... four of those months... sitting in a tree. I used to sit at the back of the trees with my scissor binoculars tied to the tree so I wasn't seen... I had a platform I could sit on, but I used to climp higher than the platform all the time so I could get a better view and see further...

 

[Redwolf]

18 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

I spent... four of those months... sitting in a tree. I used to sit at the back of the trees with my scissor binoculars tied to the tree so I wasn't seen... I had a platform I could sit on, but I used to climp higher than the platform all the time so I could get a better view and see further...

Well, that would be overpowered in CMx2.

Because the trees are totally immune even to tank fire

Haha. I let myself out.