Engine 5 Wishlist

[Simcoe]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

Radios should be modelled like they can change channels. PDAs are supposed to keep everybody up to date in a reasonable period.

 

Do you mean a company commander can relay information to another company commander?

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

Do you mean a company commander can relay information to another company commander?

Yes horizontal communication shouldn't only depend on visual contact.

[Combatintman]

7 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Do you mean a company commander can relay information to another company commander?

If we're talking real life then yes.  All subordinate elements in a battalion will be on the battalion radio net as well as having their own dedicated company radio nets.

[Dr.Fusselpulli]

A HQ unit above Battalion level that can be placed on the map. This would not work with the engine yet, but a unit that is not part of one of the map formations, but would become the HQ of all placed formations to establish C2 contact.
Maybe a Regimental HQ and a Brigade HQ unit with a signaler section.

[Simcoe]

3 hours ago, Dr.Fusselpulli said:

A HQ unit above Battalion level that can be placed on the map. This would not work with the engine yet, but a unit that is not part of one of the map formations, but would become the HQ of all placed formations to establish C2 contact.
Maybe a Regimental HQ and a Brigade HQ unit with a signaler section.

I’m up for either letting company commanders communicate over radio or even just putting some fixed radioman on the map that acts as a relay between units.

I’m just tired of having to put my hq’s all in the same room so they can talk. It shouldn’t be that hard to fix.

[Sunbather]

My wishlist is coming up soon but for now I just wanna say that I wish you could call in airstrikes and arty without LOS as well!

Edited January 26, 2023 by Sunbather

[Dr.Fusselpulli]

For one fix I would wish, the inverted shadows in the countryside. Hills and slopes have their shadows on the sunny side, while the sides hidden by the sun are light up. It's not noticeable on missions during the day or night, but in the evening or morning, it looks weird. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Dr.Fusselpulli

[PEB14]

Sorry if the subject has already been discussed, but I didn't found any search function

I think adding some internal walls in building could be interesting. Presently, I find frustrating to become instant targets for units placed in the building beyonf the one you're assulting; while this is OK for empty space buldings like hall factories and barns, for farms or city buildings internal walls shall block LOS until you're on the other side of the building...

Tiles size being 8 m, this should be possible to split big buildings this way, and would make street fighting even more realistic!

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, PEB14 said:

Sorry if the subject has already been discussed, but I didn't found any search function

I think adding some internal walls in building could be interesting. Presently, I find frustrating to become instant targets for units placed in the building beyonf the one you're assulting; while this is OK for empty space buldings like hall factories and barns, for farms or city buildings internal walls shall block LOS until you're on the other side of the building...

Tiles size being 8 m, this should be possible to split big buildings this way, and would make street fighting even more realistic!

I watched a seminar from a specialist in urban combat. Just a four men team for a house and they better hide. The moment they give their position away they are dead meat. The game models this very well. However, the AI just let them sit there as sitting ducks. Ambush or quick hit and run raids and IFVs for heavy lifting.

[PEB14]

9 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

I watched a seminar from a specialist in urban combat. Just a four men team for a house and they better hide. The moment they give their position away they are dead meat. The game models this very well. However, the AI just let them sit there as sitting ducks. Ambush or quick hit and run raids and IFVs for heavy lifting.

I guess you're talking about modern combat.

For WW2 stuff it's clearly not the same thing, infantry has much less firepower and you can pound infantry in concrete building for long before they get "dead meat", thanks to the protection offered by the walls! That's what I observed in mys last game in which I played Russians against Volksturm.

Anyway, your argument is pretty much going in my sense, in the way that adding internals walls to buildings would provide with more opportunities to hide, so it would favor the hit and run tactics as well.

[Artkin]

On 1/26/2023 at 8:36 AM, Dr.Fusselpulli said:

A HQ unit above Battalion level that can be placed on the map. This would not work with the engine yet, but a unit that is not part of one of the map formations, but would become the HQ of all placed formations to establish C2 contact.
Maybe a Regimental HQ and a Brigade HQ unit with a signaler section.

+1, we are at that point in CM development. Regiment sized battles run pretty well even on large maps. 

[Simcoe]

On 1/26/2023 at 9:17 AM, Sunbather said:

My wishlist is coming up soon but for now I just wanna say that I wish you could call in airstrikes and arty without LOS as well!

I’ve thought about this one. From some of the books I read, soldiers could figure out where shells were hitting from sound alone. 
 

Balancing it seems to be the hard part. I can always look up the enemy deployment and where he needs to go. It could get gamey.

[chuckdyke]

3 hours ago, PEB14 said:

I guess you're talking about modern combat.

For WW2 stuff it's clearly not the same thing, infantry has much less firepower and you can pound infantry in concrete building for long before they get "dead meat", thanks to the protection offered by the walls! That's what I observed in mys last game in which I played Russians against Volksturm.

Anyway, your argument is pretty much going in my sense, in the way that adding internals walls to buildings would provide with more opportunities to hide, so it would favor the hit and run tactics as well.

If you test the effects of small arms fire in buildings you will discover it is next to zilch. You need HE and infantry in buildings will remain invisible till they open fire. If you bother to test these things. There is nothing to be gained when you add more walls in the game. To make it safe for your attacking infantry you need to breach walls. HE of tanks, artillery or satchel. The difference with modern warfare is 5% attrition vs 30% in WW2. In a WW2 scenario you can afford to do the final assault with infantry.

[chuckdyke]

29 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

I’ve thought about this one. From some of the books I read, soldiers could figure out where shells were hitting from sound alone. 

When you notice spotting rounds, I use the evade button for nearby infantry. The results are very realistic.

[Simcoe]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

When you notice spotting rounds, I use the evade button for nearby infantry. The results are very realistic.

What are you referring to? The balance issues of letting you put support anywhere?

[chuckdyke]

14 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

What are you referring to? The balance issues of letting you put support anywhere?

If I don't know something I let the TacAi decide. Artillery rounds coming in, I push the evade button for affected units. Not everybody remains cool headed during a crisis.

 

[Simcoe]

51 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

If I don't know something I let the TacAi decide. Artillery rounds coming in, I push the evade button for affected units. Not everybody remains cool headed during a crisis.

 

I'm not talking about receiving rounds. I'm asking, should we be able to send artillery anywhere on the map regardless of our ability to spot it.

[chuckdyke]

7 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

I'm not talking about receiving rounds. I'm asking, should we be able to send artillery anywhere on the map regardless of our ability to spot it.

It is on map missions. I don't see the logic of why we can't do it. I think a unit should spot it but not necessarily the FO. If the FO is available, his shorter call-in times should be made use of. In other words use in game communication only.

 

[Simcoe]

34 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

It is on map missions. I don't see the logic of why we can't do it. I think a unit should spot it but not necessarily the FO. If the FO is available, his shorter call-in times should be made use of. In other words use in game communication only.

 

That's an interesting concept. If an infantry squad spots a target then the FO can call in a mission within a certain area as long as that squad is in radio range. They would have to fix their communication system though.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

They would have to fix their communication system though.

This is after all a wish list. Communications is easily fixed, suggestion a unit with a radio should be able to pass on their tentative contacts to a unit with a radio which is not in their C2.Just an extra command.

 

[PEB14]

10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

If you test the effects of small arms fire in buildings you will discover it is next to zilch.

I certainly won't pretend I tested it extensively, but based my observation in the last urban combat scenario I played I completely agree with you. You have to spend a LOT of small arms bullets to get one kill.

 

10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

There is nothing to be gained when you add more walls in the game.

Looks like you didn't get my point. More walls wouldn't add anything in terms of of physical protection, but it would in terms of LOS obstruction.

As of today, you can see everything inside the building in front of you, from the external wall on your side right to the other side's external wall. THAT is what bothers me, nothing else.

 

10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

In a WW2 scenario you can afford to do the final assault with infantry.

Not only you can afford it, but you pretty much need to do it if, as you rightfully pointed out, you don't have the support of HE of flamethrower weapons (i.e., if you're playing the Russians).

And if you assault a building, you come under instant fire from the units inside the next building (the one one the other side of the back street), beacause they can trace a LOS through the whole building you're assautting. A this point you get under fire from the unit's you're assaulting AND from the unit in the next building. Not very realistic. Which, once again, is the main reason why I think that adding internal walls would be a good thing.

 

 

[chuckdyke]

35 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

Which, once again, is the main reason why I think that adding internal walls would be a good thing.

Friendly unit is inside and spots friendly units outside. The friendly unit outside is unaware of the friendly unit inside. Imo buildings are generic, and the structure has been taken into account. The good thing of playing on Iron you are situational aware. Last picture nothing is selected the player sees every unit.

Edited February 8, 2023 by chuckdyke

[chuckdyke]

Inside multi room building I can assure you the units had to be inside the building before they can spot the other side. Inside they spot right across but not diagonally. It is up the scenario designer, it already exist inside the editor.

[PEB14]

29 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Inside multi room building I can assure you the units had to be inside the building before they can spot the other side. Inside they spot right across but not diagonally. It is up the scenario designer, it already exist inside the editor.

So basically, internal walls DO already exist?

[chuckdyke]

13 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

So basically, internal walls DO already exist?

Yes, I have seen a few more. The tools are there to be used by the designers. 

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by chuckdyke