Engine 5 Wishlist

[Howler]

3 hours ago, mjkerner said:

You guys have heard of the editor, right? Best sandbox out there.  If you can’t change the game’s length in less than 30 seconds, you probably shouldn’t own a computer, lol!  But beware, cuz Erwin is spot on regarding time limits.

Spot on.

Also, one is ordered to take a position within 'X' time limit. And, not when one feels like it.

Playing with time is an option in design for balance... YMMV.

[Combatintman]

5 hours ago, mjkerner said:

You guys have heard of the editor, right? Best sandbox out there.  If you can’t change the game’s length in less than 30 seconds, you probably shouldn’t own a computer, lol!  But beware, cuz Erwin is spot on regarding time limits.

But @Erwin is editor averse.

Edited July 18, 2021 by Combatintman

[Centurian52]

Ok, well I'm proud to have kicked off such a heated discussion. I really like some of the points that have been raised so far.

Points I found convincing:

-It takes just a few moments to increase the time limit in the editor anyway.

-The time limit is necessary for scenario designers to employ the 'reinforcements that never arrive' trick in order to prevent the AI from surrendering before the designer intended.

Points I didn't find convincing:

-The time limit helps with balance. While this is true, I kindof feel like balance is overrated (a very fringe opinion, I know). I care far more about realism than I do about balance. And a time limit feels like a very artificial and gamey way of achieving balance.

-Real world orders almost always tell you to accomplish an objective within a certain amount of time. This is also true, but I tend to file this under 'one of the most common parts of the plan to fall apart on first contact with the enemy'. You usually won't give up trying to take an objective just because you didn't take it as quickly as you were supposed to. Engagements don't suddenly end just because they took longer than intended. It is reality, not command intentions, that I want my games to emulate as closely as possible.

Ok, I actually found that last point semi-convincing. The reason is because I like the idea of having some victory points being dependent on winning the battle within a certain time-frame. So while you can take as long as you want if you are content with a tactical victory, if you want a total victory you need to keep an eye on the time. 'You are ordered to accomplish the objective in a certain amount of time' isn't a good reason to have a firm time limit (in my opinion), but it is an excellent reason to tie some victory points to a soft time limit.

[MOS:96B2P]

On 7/18/2021 at 4:19 PM, Centurian52 said:

 I like the idea of having some victory points being dependent on winning the battle within a certain time-frame. So while you can take as long as you want if you are content with a tactical victory, if you want a total victory you need to keep an eye on the time. 

This is an interesting idea and is possible with the current editor when building scenarios. 

The CMSF scenario Coup d'etat has this feature.  The scenario starts at 0400hrs.  The briefing advises that the AI player is awarded 200 Victory Points if the human player continues past 0614hrs.  The human player may fight on until 0800hrs (the 4 hour engine limit to scenario length) at the cost of the AI opponent earning the 200 VPs.  The briefing also advises that regime supporters will take to the streets sometime after 0645hrs (variable timer) which, of course, causes more problems for the human player attempting to consolidate and hold onto gains made during his coup attempt.  So the human can play on past 0614hrs but the longer he plays the more potential consequences there will be that can effect the final Victory Point score.    

 https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-shock-force-2-2/cm-shock-force-2-scenarios/coup-detat/

         

[Dr.Fusselpulli]

What I would like is a new movement type of "Firehalt", being a "Quick" move to a waypoint and then stops there with "Firehalt", a special type of "Pause" until the main weapon, either the cannon or an ATGM got fired.
This could be used for tanks advancing forward for an attack, if the tanks are old WW2 tanks, or soviet cold war tanks, to shoot with maximum precision while on the move.
It would also be useful for perfect shoot and scoot maneuvers. As you could order tanks to move into a fire position, the tank would pick its target, fire, and then reverse back into a hidden position, if this is where a follow up reverse waypoint would be headed.
There could also be a "Firehalt 30" type, to switch through. To "Firehalt" until the main weapon got fired, or continue after 30 seconds, if it did not got fired. For example, if the expected enemy did not show up, is not spotted, or destroyed by another unit. The 30 seconds would give the vehicle some time and a chance to spot, but it would then continue to advance further, if it is in an attack, or go back to the hidden position, if it would be in a defense.

[chuckdyke]

50 minutes ago, Dr.Fusselpulli said:

As you could order tanks to move into a fire position, the tank would pick its target, fire, and then reverse back into a hidden position

You can do that; it works with a strong sound contact. Fast forward to a hull down position and reverse. A five to ten second delay is a calculated risk. 

[Dr.Fusselpulli]

Yeah, but sometimes 10 seconds are not enough. And sometimes the tank shoots immediately, and then waits for several seconds on the spot. I know, that similar behavior can be simulated already, but it isn't optimized.

[Erwin]

I could not agree more.  In CM1 we had a "Shoot and Scoot" order which I found useful.  However, the CM1 order had a fixed time pause for the shoot bit.

For a long time have suggested CM needs an improved "Ambush" order which would functions thus:  "Move to a position, wait in ambush until a target is acquired and fired at, then immediately displace to a 2nd position (chosen by player)."

This would be very useful for snipers, or any unit that is trying to ambush.

Currently, ambushes are not very effective.  Either the unit has a pause that is too short to acquire and fire at a target before it moves away.  Or... the unit fires at the start of a turn, and then sits there for the rest of the turn and gets killed by return fire.

[chuckdyke]

What you guys possibly ask for is that the 'Pause, Stop and Evade Radio Buttons' to be used at any time during the WeGo mode of play. TBH it is a game some issues the TacAI can't deal with. I put my AFV in the hull down and instead of one tank all of a platoon turns up. Sometimes the TacAI reverses and pop smoke and sometimes it doesn't. The evade button could be a solution. Same when you take fire only on hunt and seeing a full contact the units stop. It would be more fun if the evade button could be used.  

[RMM]

Drivers, alone in vehicles with armament (eg. M20 armoured car or jeep with a mounted MG) should be able to 'Open up' and man that weapon.

[Billythegoat]

I know this has been mentioned many times but , maybe a rolling barrage could be set up. Like now you can set pre start point, area, linear zones,with duration, saturation, and purpose. Seems like a rolloing barrage tile could be added under the arty selection ,point,area,linear,...rolling. You can Set these at the beginning , or even mid game , providing LOS after start. Just have the , rolling tile , allow multiple entries ,after you set the the tube, type,duration , general personnel, and the time. The time selection , immediate,  five , ten , fifteen min , could be linked to a adjust fire command , and you set the next waypoints , up to four. just without the spotting and recieving time delay , there could be a briefer preparing delay , coordinate adjustment only.  So with what is currently in the game, almost, you could at least set up four linear,area,or point rolling barrages. And this would most likely have to be set before turn one starts , as LOS , unless you have multiple drones, prevents you now from making just ,coordinate strikes , all over the map.

[Billythegoat]

One more thing, maybe an area or linear target selection four crew manned weapons. So you could give a HMG, MMG, grenade launches, ( crew served), etc. more suppression. It would even be nice for IFV to have this also , not just blasting a single point. You could hose a tree line before the tanks go by.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Billythegoat said:

maybe a rolling barrage could be set up.

It was possible in the 'Main Event' Battle of Normandy. Result the FO was credited with three casualties. Same with HMG and LGM these are suppression weapons. With an IFV it's easy I just do it when a friendly unit is suppressed. A linear target selection is called fire in enfilade. This was all discussed before putting tactics in the engine which are not successful is just a waste of time. Look at the pillboxes in Normandy they are not anything like they showed in saving private Ryan. One side is shielded from the sea and constructed to give enfilade fire. 

Here is a good video about MG tactics.

 

[Howler]

3 hours ago, Billythegoat said:

 It would even be nice for IFV to have this also , not just blasting a single point. You could hose a tree line before the tanks go by.

I think most here achieve this by plotting J (15s burst) or Y (light fire) at waypoints (short bounds of 1-2 actions spots). Insert pauses and the J / Y commands will switch/renew when it reaches a new target order at the next waypoint.

NOTE: Any target (Fire or Arc) commands can be inserted. One is not forced to plot a single waypoint 100m away. You can break that up into smaller distances and achieve a fairly effective recon by fire.

Where this breaks down is when the unit involved wishes to remain in place. But, if you can rock them back and forth over a distance of a single action spot... the above works.

Disclaimer: I'm a Luddite not wanting 'lazy' commands such as 'Shot & Scoot' or 'Halt and Fire'. There's already too much blamed on the TacAI as is. As long as everyone has the same toolkit (or limitations) - then we can blame each other (ie 'gamey play') rather than the engine.

Also, there is an realtime play mode where this isn't necessarily the same issue. We WEGO players sometimes forget this when posting.

[Combatintman]

@Howler - the last sentence is bang on the nail - have a like mate.

[Glubokii Boy]

7 hours ago, Howler said:

I think most here achieve this by plotting J (15s burst) or Y (light fire) at waypoints (short bounds of 1-2 actions spots). Insert pauses and the J / Y commands will switch/renew when it reaches a new target order at the next waypoint.

 

 

6 hours ago, Howler said:

 

Also, there is an realtime play mode where this isn't necessarily the same issue. We WEGO players sometimes forget this when posting.

 

Even though you can sort of work your way around the lack of a linear (or zone) area target command i still think this would be a nice addition to the target commands....to limit micro-manageing somewhat ...

The AI already has this feature (sort of) via the area-fire order.

And with regards to RT-play...What works or does not works in RT really does nothing to help the guys that prefer to play WEGO...

A linear areatarget command...Thumbs up from me  

[CaptainTheDark]

I'd wish for the ability to play back an RT saved game. I don't like to play RT, mostly because I miss too much of the spectacle, the pretty lights, the thing that blew up over there or the awesome firefight my platoon won while I was looking elsewhere. I would like to play RT but be able to play back a saved game file.

Or even just a way to package the finished game into a file I can play back and rewind, whether it's RT or turn-based. I really enjoy seeing it all play out from different angles. Big part of the fun for me.

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, CaptainTheDark said:

I'd wish for the ability to play back an RT saved game. I don't like to play RT, mostly because I miss too much of the spectacle, the pretty lights, the thing that blew up over there or the awesome firefight my platoon won while I was looking elsewhere. I would like to play RT but be able to play back a saved game file.

Or even just a way to package the finished game into a file I can play back and rewind, whether it's RT or turn-based. I really enjoy seeing it all play out from different angles. Big part of the fun for me.

Ooh yes!! Definitely this!! I always play real time because I find it more convenient for command (I like being able to cancel orders that I have only just realized are about to get an entire squad killed). But I am currently playing through some of the gen 1 games (CMAK at the moment) which only have WEGO, and I'm getting a taste of what I've been missing. I'm still going to keep playing RT once I work my way forward to the current gen games, and it would be amazing to be able to save a replay of a battle I played in RT and go back and watch it and get all of the spectacle from all of the angles that I didn't get to see the first time around.

[IMHO]

Incendiary pigs!!! May be different flavors for NATO and Warsaw Pact! 

Edited August 2, 2021 by IMHO

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

Secondary fire sectors. Would be nice to be able to set a cover arc as a primary fire sector and have another as a secondary and units would engage enemy on the secondary sector if there are no contacts in the primary. 

Anything outside these sectors would be ignored as it is now with cover arcs  

MMM

Edited August 2, 2021 by Monty's Mighty Moustache

[BornGinger]

The Combat Mission games are often mentioned to be simulations of the battlefields of WW2 and more modern days. But although they probably are good simulations I feel that there are too many limitations to these games. The list contain 28 things that probably could be added to the promised engine 5 of CMx2 or to a hoped for, but not promised, future CMx3 engine.

Most of the things that follows are the same as I have mentioned earlier in this thread. The difference is that I now have added a few pictures and a link to a video.

We begin this with a few changes I'd like to the editor:

1) Trees could sometimes have a broader variety. I often get the feeling that the trees are too thick and look too much the same. Instead of only having one single tree, two trees and three trees of each type to choose from, there could also be trees of different angle, height and thickness to each type. This variety could be randomly decided by the AI. If I for example would choose to place two single trees of type A beside each other the AI could choose two different looking type A trees; for example one thinner and smaller which is slightly bent towards the east and one thicker and larger which is pointing straight up. There could also be the options to choose different type A trees just as there are options to choose a fence which is going in different directions or are to be used as corners.

2) When talking about placing trees in the editor it would help tremendously if there in the 3d environment was the possibility to mark a section of different trees with for example Shift key + clicking on trees, just like how we mark groups of infantry, and copy them to be pasted where ever we want to have more trees in woods or a forest. If we wanted to make some changes to the copied and pasted trees we could maybe remove some of them with Ctrl + clicking just like we remove props we don't want. An option like that would make the tedious work of placing trees much easier and quicker when the scenario map is supposed to have larger forests or many smaller woods. If it would be a problem for a 2d map to register those copied and pasted trees, the copying and pasting could maybe be done on the 2d map.

3) The possibility to make the direction of roads more like they are on the maps we use as a reference would be great instead of having roads that only go straight to the left/right or up/down and bend in 45° and 90°.

4) It would be great if the update of the current engine, or a new CMx3 Engine, could add some more editor props, like for example abandoned cars and lorries which can be placed on the roads and in villages and towns, and more buildings, for example cafes, more shops and houses of different sizes than there is now, which will help make towns and villages become more interesting to fight in.

5) It would be good to have the ability to set an AI-artillery fire order anytime in the AI's battle plans and not only for the first three minutes. The ctrl + c command is only for small arms fire, armoured vehicles and mortars. But sometimes it could be challenging for the player if there was a heavier AI-artillery barrage a few minutes before the AI-troops are sent forward to assault a position. Another thing that would be great is if it was possible to choose how intense that AI-barrage would be, just like how the player does when fighting the AI, and whether it should be to harass the player or a short, medium or heavy barrage.

One thing that would help in this would be to have the ability to make the off-map artillery part of an AI-group so it's possible to use the Ctrl + C command with the off-map artillery AI-group. The AI-officers and FOs seem to prefer to choose the on-map artillery when they request artillery support. When the AI-officers and FOs choose the on-map mortars instead of availabe off-map artillery, the on-map mortars, which have been assigned to the Ctrl + C order by the scenario designer, don't shoot as much on the red marked areas as hoped because some of them have been ordered by the AI-officers to shoot somewhere else although there is off-map artillery available. Being able to make the off-map artillery part of an AI-group would be of help to avoid the trouble with the AI and on-map mortars.

6) AI to be able to use smoke shells which we order by painting an area on the 2D map with for example Ctrl + S or similar.

7) Have the ability to use more than one trigger area for an AI-group. If we could connect more than one trigger area to an AI-group at a time the AI-group will stay in position and move when the enemy has entered any of the two or three trigger areas.

An AI-group could for example be connected to two trigger areas which would mean that an AI-group stays in the position where it's been placed. But if the enemy would enter any of the trigger areas it moves to the position for defense which the scenario designer has decided for the group to move to in cases of necessity.

If both triggers areas would get activated at the same time there could maybe be another string of code, or strings of codes like a counter tied to the trigger area, which would make the AI-group move to the position where the threat seems to be the most severe.

If the trigger areas were able to count the amount of enemy soldiers that enters them, scenario designers could decide in advance how many soldiers that are needed to enter to be counted as a threat and cause the AI-group to leave its position to move towards the threat. It would probably have to work a bit differently when it comes to trigger by enemy armour as one or two armoured vehicles can cause a lot of damage.

8] More than 16 AI-groups, preferably at least 32 or 40, so the scenarios can become more tactical, more interesting and more fun to play against the AI. It's sometimes a bit frustrating when you need to decide which units are "less important" so they all can be put into one or two groups when you really would like to have them in four or maybe six different groups to make them able to for example surround the player's troops.

Sometimes it would also be useful to have an officer responsible for off-map heavy mortars as his own one-team group, or their own groups if there are two batallions with such an officer in each, so they can sneak up to a good position where they are more able to hide, being only a three or four man team, and direct requested off-map heavy mortar artillery fire on the Player's troops.

9) Most likely for a CMx3 engine: If there was the possibility to go between the 2d map and the 3d environment without having to exit and load any of them, making maps would be much easier and go much quicker. One way to make this possible could be to have a tab system in the editor where the 2d map is on one tab and the 3d result of the 2d map is on another tab. To control the result and make other changes one would only have to go between those two tabs. To go between the 2d map and the 3d environment without having to exit and load either of those two would also make it much easier and much quicker to do the AI-orders as one sometimes have to go to the 3d environment to make sure that what is planned for will be possible, for example to make sure a unit hopefully will be able to have eyes on a certain area from a certain spot.

Edited September 14, 2021 by BornGinger

[BornGinger]

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.

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, BornGinger said:

It would be useful if the different gun crews were be able to abandon their gun and later on man it again

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.  

[Lethaface]

On 7/21/2021 at 9:19 AM, Dr.Fusselpulli said:

What I would like is a new movement type of "Firehalt", being a "Quick" move to a waypoint and then stops there with "Firehalt", a special type of "Pause" until the main weapon, either the cannon or an ATGM got fired.
This could be used for tanks advancing forward for an attack, if the tanks are old WW2 tanks, or soviet cold war tanks, to shoot with maximum precision while on the move.
It would also be useful for perfect shoot and scoot maneuvers. As you could order tanks to move into a fire position, the tank would pick its target, fire, and then reverse back into a hidden position, if this is where a follow up reverse waypoint would be headed.
There could also be a "Firehalt 30" type, to switch through. To "Firehalt" until the main weapon got fired, or continue after 30 seconds, if it did not got fired. For example, if the expected enemy did not show up, is not spotted, or destroyed by another unit. The 30 seconds would give the vehicle some time and a chance to spot, but it would then continue to advance further, if it is in an attack, or go back to the hidden position, if it would be in a defense.

The 30sec is already possible. Just give m a waypoint where you want them to fire (and optionally a facing or arc), reverse after.

If you want them to keep engaging if spotted an enemy, use hunt to move up to the fire waypoint.

Not perfect, but quite workable.

[Lucky_Strike]

15 hours ago, BornGinger said:

1) Trees could sometimes have a broader variety. I often get the feeling that the trees are too thick and look too much the same. Instead of only having one single tree, two trees and three trees of each type to choose from, there could also be trees of different angle, height and thickness to each type. This variety could be randomly decided by the AI. If I for example would choose to place two single trees of type A beside each other the AI could choose two different looking type A trees; for example one thinner and smaller which is slightly bent towards the east and one thicker and larger which is pointing straight up. There could also be the options to choose different type A trees just as there are options to choose a fence which is going in different directions or are to be used as corners.

2) When talking about placing trees in the editor it would help tremendously if there in the 3d environment was the possibility to mark a section of different trees with for example Shift key + clicking on trees, just like how we mark groups of infantry, and copy them to be pasted where ever we want to have more trees in woods or a forest. If we wanted to make some changes to the copied and pasted trees we could maybe remove some of them with Ctrl + clicking just like we remove props we don't want. An option like that would make the tedious work of placing trees much easier and quicker when the scenario map is supposed to have larger forests or many smaller woods. If it would be a problem for a 2d map to register those copied and pasted trees, the copying and pasting could maybe be done on the 2d map.

Very impressive and some great ideas here, I can see you've spent a lot of time thinking about this BornGinger.

Trees and other flora are something I'm especially interested in, so if I may, and this is probably for CMx3, I'd add that it would really help to have a way of generating an area of woods or forest in the editor that doesn't require lots of clicking and which is filled with a random selection of variously sized trees. I think some kind of drawing tool that could be used to outline an area which could then be auto-filled with the desired woodlands. The fill could be generated randomly by the editor engine, with a selection tool to choose from coniferous, deciduous or mixed forest and a choice of density, perhaps controlled by a slider or more simply by a choice from a list ... dense, light, scrub, whether there's undergrowth, how much undergrowth etc. The selected area and choice of fill should remain editable so that manual tweaks and edits can be made.

Same could apply to fields and open ground where a mix of grass, weeds, flowers, brush, dirt, etc might be desirable. Anything to avoid crazy clicking to generate random mixes.

There should also be a choice in all landscapes to include areas of destroyed vegetation, burnt grass, trees and bushes, this could be painted onto the map as an editable overlay or layer; overlays might also be a useful way for adding destruction to a map that is used for a campaign.

TA