Engine 5 Wishlist

[Ultradave]

2 hours ago, RMM said:

Another suggestion along  the lines of arty issues:

Shouldn't a mortar's direct HQ be able to have an almost immediate response (ie. at most a minute) to an OBA request is the mortar is actually in their LoS? It seems bizarre that a company's mortar section should have no faster reaction time to a request from their immediate HQ that is in sight, or at least in speech-contact than the Company's actual HQ that has to go through that mortar's HQ for access?

As they like to say in the Army, "it depends on the situation"  Most of the time spent is calculating firing data, once they receive a call for fire. You're just saving the time for the RTO to write down the call for fire data. HOWEVER, if the mortar section has LOS to the target, and the mortar hq is directing them, like many light mortars (60mm for example), then it's different than plotting and calculating. They'll know what to put in to achieve the estimated range so response is really quick. If they have to plot, like almost always an 81mm section or larger does, then it's going to take a couple or more minutes. IRL you'd pretty much never have your Co mortar section set up in LOS of the enemy. Just a bad idea.

Dave

[Benni]

I wish to have in the game:

1. Better fighting from the vehicle. Armored infantry should use small arms fire to secure the flanks of their vehicle when penetrating the enemy (untill firing is forbidden)

2. A new subordination system. To make it possible to put units under a single command.

Example: Armored infanty company + tank platoon + pioneer platoon (Led by the company commander of the armored infanty)

I am looking forward on this excellent game.

[Erwin]

33 minutes ago, Benni said:

Example: Armored infanty company + tank platoon + pioneer platoon (Led by the company commander of the armored infanty)

You should try CM1 games.  That is exactly what was easily possible.

[chuckdyke]

7 hours ago, IanL said:

If someone has tests that show otherwise lets see them. Such claims have to be near the top of the ridiculous pile of BS made on here.

I  did it 'Hammers Flank' first battle. I played it before and checked it on Iron. As I played it before I knew where the Foxhole of an MG42 was. Plotted a barrage of Katyusha rockets exactly on the spot of the Foxhole. Once I crossed the river the troops were still shot to pieces by the MG42. I accept when you test it on testers mode the results will be otherwise. I never said it as fact only I am suspicious of it. You can try it for yourself. On testers mode you can't test on the higher difficulty settings. 

[sttp]

My gosh, I have never seen one person share so much bad information on these forums!! But then again I've only been here for 7 years, so I'm sure I missed some real doozies back in the day.

[chuckdyke]

18 minutes ago, sttp said:

bad information

A personal experience is bad information? Most people test issues on testers mode but you can't test when the AI is on Iron and the Icons are invisible. Apart from replay it and check it out a few times. Katyushas are inaccurate and the odds that their shell goes in a Foxhole is extremely remote. I tested something else again this time with an JS2. Shelled a house where I knew a German sniper was. Sure enough the patrol found the died Germans. Sharing players experiences is not bad information. I never stated anywhere which was not objective. The editor can paint triggers which could cause enemy units to occupy trenches and outposts later in the game. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by chuckdyke

[BeondTheGrave]

Not sure if these have been posted or not, but my short wishlist (all in the editor lol)

1) HVTs out of the box in all games

2) Related, some way to represent echelon's above battalion. This would help with larger missions to have some linking C2 link between battalions, but IMO it should go up to the corps or even army level. Why? What if this is a decapitation attack, or if a general randomly drives up the wrong road, or something. I can understand not wanting, or needing, to set up the C2 an entire division when most it it wont be on map BUT it would still be nice to have the option of dragging the division commander out of bed for special scenarios. 

3) More flexibility with ammunition loadouts and levels within the editor. Personally I think there should be an option to just specify my own desired ammunition loadout. Maybe I think artillery should just have more smoke in general, or in this scenario I intend for an M2 to have loaded up on ammunition for a long defensive battle. This specifically hit me recently as I wanted to add in a Soviet CW era 100mm towed AT gun. I thought it would offer a fun change of pace and give players a weapon they normally dont get to play with. But it only comes with 6 HE rounds at maximum ammo. Maybe thats doctrinally accurate, IDK, but it would be more fun for a player if I could double or triple that and take less AT ammo. Maybe work in an encumbrance value? A fit level squad can carry 3k rounds max and at the cost of higher fatigue? Elements of this are already in the game already. Really I just want to be able to play with this through the editor interface itself. 

4) more buildings, assets, and flavor items generally. Moreover I would really like to see the editor standardized to include all assets across all titles. I have seen in screenshots and gameplay that many of the games have beautifully done unique buildings for, say, Normandy. Or really nice fountains for Italy. They would look great worked into my Cold War Germany map, but theyre mysteriously not all included. I understand that some may feel that it could break immersion to have a WWII era Italian church in the middle of a chocolate-box German dorf, but I say let the scenario designer decide and make it look natural. It will only make for more varied, richer maps. Take a problem I had today. I wanted to make an old German manor or palace estate. But there isn't in CMCW any 'old stone' skin for the modular buildings in that game. Yet Ive seen that skin in CMBN! At least I think its a modular building asset in that game. Or another scenario idea I've had, CMCW would make for a fantastic Yom Kippur War scenario, especially if the British forces and the Centurion tank get added in to the game. But as it stands, the Chinese Farm will have to be renamed thanks to all the split timber construction! I think it would be nice for some of these assets to get standardized across all the games, and again for scenario designer to have the freedom to pick and choose what they think works. 

Really my overarching suggestion for a future engine update would be to suggest that the scenario designer should be redesigned to maximize the designer's ability to create new and interesting maps. From the standpoint of a commercial product, I think the biggest attraction of CM really is the ease in which both official devs and unofficial weirdos like me can make new maps to play. It seems like it would be healthy for the series overall help make maps better and more interesting. And I assume that the official mapmakers are also using the same editor I do, so improvements there would help improve official releases as well.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On 11/8/2021 at 3:57 PM, IanL said:

Such claims have to be near the top of the ridiculous pile of BS made on here.

Don't worry.....We're all fine! 

TBH that isn't actually a pre-planned barrage (it's something much nastier than that), but its presence in this thread is no less appropriate than the silly comment that promoted it (not yours @IanL). 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On 11/8/2021 at 11:09 PM, chuckdyke said:

I  did it 'Hammers Flank' first battle. I played it before and checked it on Iron. As I played it before I knew where the Foxhole of an MG42 was. Plotted a barrage of Katyusha rockets exactly on the spot of the Foxhole. Once I crossed the river the troops were still shot to pieces by the MG42. I accept when you test it on testers mode the results will be otherwise. I never said it as fact only I am suspicious of it. You can try it for yourself. On testers mode you can't test on the higher difficulty settings.

WTF are you on about? 

Testing mode changes the visibility of enemy units to 'Always' thus rendering all the other C2 modes irrelevant.....It has no effect whatsoever on the behaviour of weapons, enemy units or indeed, the Tac AI**. 

Rather than waffling on about Engine 5, a few folk in this thread need to learn how the current one actually works.

** It acctually does have some minor effects, such as increasing the time it takes to perform buddy-aid, but nothing even resembling what is suggested by @chuckdyke.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[chuckdyke]

33 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

WTF are you on about? 

How do you test something when you play on Iron? In test mode everything is visible so artillery strikes are very effective. I replayed the first mission of Hammersflank just to check how effective Katyushas were. I played it on Iron but I know where the MG42 position was. The rockets had little or no effect on the MG42. I suspected it had to do with the mode of play. All what you get with the Katyushas is some spectacular explosions but that is all. I can only write what I personally experienced. As it was a campaign I can't play on Iron against myself which is the manner I usually do my testing. Funny 30 rockets on the area of a known position have no effect. I don't experience it on Hotseat playing a scenario. My subjective observation was the AI somehow could be the cause. Testing area fire with an JS2 was no problem. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

11 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

How do you test something when you play on Iron? In test mode everything is visible so artillery strikes are very effective.

They would be equally effective in Iron Mode, you just wouldn't be able to see it. 

11 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

I replayed the first mission of Hammersflank just to check how effective Katyushas were. I played it on Iron but I know where the MG42 position was. The rockets had little or no effect on the MG42. I suspected it had to do with the mode of play.

You suspected wrong. 

Trying to take out a point target with a Katuysha and then basing any sort of conclusion on the apparent outcome is sheer lunacy! 

PS - @chuckdyke  I'm not trying to get at you dude, but you keep making authoratitive sounding statements about the games that are not supported by the facts.  As I've said before, the best way for you to get your head around all of this is to open up the editor, make a single player vs. AI scenario and then test it to death.  You'll learn a lot more about how the game actually works and we'll have gained another scenario designer. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[chuckdyke]

19 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Trying to take out a point target with a Katuysha and then basing any sort of conclusion on the apparent outcome is sheer lunacy! 

A stray rocket actually took out one of my own troops. It is not a very efficient weapon. 

[Redwolf]

9 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

A stray rocket actually took out one of my own troops. It is not a very efficient weapon. 

But that is expected. If you look at the catalog of artillery and the tradeoffs of the different systems in there you will see that the rocket launchers are less precise than tube artillery. And hence cheaper. Expected outcome.

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

will see that the rocket launchers are less precise than tube artillery.

300 meters away borders on the ridiculous. The modern versions can have precision munitions. I appreciate in WW 2 you need to employ them at the rear echelon. Right now no need to pot area fire they go all over the place. 

[BeondTheGrave]

50 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

But that is expected. If you look at the catalog of artillery and the tradeoffs of the different systems in there you will see that the rocket launchers are less precise than tube artillery. And hence cheaper. Expected outcome.

This is the right way to look at it. These Russian rocket units (which still exist today in the BM-21, a successor to the legendary Katuysha) arn't designed for precision fires like the American MLRS system or even Russian equivalents. I'm not aware of any kind of ammunition for the Katuysha type (including here this entire family WWII and Cold War type weapons) which is guided. Their application isn't in the delivery of precise fires or heavy shells, jobs filled by tube and guided missile arty, but rather to conduct saturation attacks. Imagine OpFor is conducting an infantry attack. An entire battery of Katuyshas could open up on them and deliver immediate fire to totally smash that exposed infantry. Its less effective against tanks, obviously, but still could knock out tracks or get a lucky engine shot. Of higher concern are Halftracks and APCs. Think too about the psychological effect. One BM-21 has 40 tubes. A battalion has over 700. Firing off the all the rockets for the battalion would take, what, less than a minute? And those rounds will all land over that same space of time on your enemy. I cant think of any tube based arty, especially in the WWII era, that could drop that many rounds on a position that fast. I've read that Katuysha volleys, above and beyond their destructive effect which could be quite limited, scared the hell out of Germans because it was such a traumatic thing to go through.  Later Katuyshas have a more consistent spread of rounds, but still were talking about a pretty big coverage area because its designed to saturate an entire position or attack. And WWII era Katuyshas were pretty much junk from a quality & control standpoint. So even if you looked at the paper dispersion of a WWII era Katuysha, it wont tell the whole story about how accurate the weapon was. 

Personally I think of Katuysha (the M-8 version is only 82mm!) less like 122mm or 152mm artillery, which for me is designed to do precision smashing, and more like a mortar team. Most mortars wont really smash up an enemy defensive position, and they shouldn't be used to root out dug in infantry. Excepting a direct hit mortars wont reliably kill infantry in a foxhole, and almost certainly wont reach infantry in buildings or bunkers. But they will suppress infantry and get their heads down, which is in itself valuable. Mortars are also good at smashing up exposed or maneuvering infantry. 

So like with everything else if you want to maximize your rocket artillery, use it like was done historically. Put Katuyshas on big enemy positions, dont use them for targeted strikes, and immediately follow up the bombardment with infantry attacks or suppressive MG and tank fire. And if a round falls short? Dont get too mad, it was probably made by a person working a 12 hours shift in a factory with no shoes for half rations lol. 

[Ultradave]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

A stray rocket actually took out one of my own troops. It is not a very efficient weapon. 

Sounds pretty realistic, considering the map scale of most CM scenarios. How many defective (stray) rockets might you expect from a barrage? A few would be my guess. Danger close for a Katyusha battery is going to be a bigger number than for tube artillery or mortars.

[RMM]

On 11/8/2021 at 10:00 AM, Redwolf said:

Yes. Instead of LOS we could also use the in-command link, which we already have.

Right, but at the mo, it can still take more than 5min for a mortar HQ to call in fire from one of its own units that it actually has visual, C2 contact with, which obviously, doesn't make a lot of sense. Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?

[RMM]

On 11/8/2021 at 10:55 AM, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

This used to be so in the CMx1 games and I really miss it, if the on-board mortar were in C2 with a HQ unit they could call in direct fire from the on-map mortar as long as the HQ had LOS. In fact the tutorial for CMAK had you do that very thing: drive a HQ and mortar up to a ridge, set the mortar up behind the ridge, HQ peeks over the top and mortar fires direct to knock out an AT gun if memory serves.

MMM

Right. Well, you can still do it, my issue is the time it takes. The mortar's direct HQ gains no time benefit from being in visual, or at least, verbal C2 command as the company's HQ that has to radio the mortar's HQ, etc. The mortar's HQ should have, essentially, instant access, particularly if it's in visual and/or verbal C2 range.

[RMM]

On 11/8/2021 at 12:02 PM, Ultradave said:

As they like to say in the Army, "it depends on the situation"  Most of the time spent is calculating firing data, once they receive a call for fire. You're just saving the time for the RTO to write down the call for fire data. HOWEVER, if the mortar section has LOS to the target, and the mortar hq is directing them, like many light mortars (60mm for example), then it's different than plotting and calculating. They'll know what to put in to achieve the estimated range so response is really quick. If they have to plot, like almost always an 81mm section or larger does, then it's going to take a couple or more minutes. IRL you'd pretty much never have your Co mortar section set up in LOS of the enemy. Just a bad idea.

Dave

Fair 'nuff, but it still seems like the mortar's immediate HQ should be able to call in OBA from one of their own units much quicker than even the Co. HQ.

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

4 minutes ago, RMM said:

Right. Well, you can still do it, my issue is the time it takes. The mortar's direct HQ gains no time benefit from being in visual, or at least, verbal C2 command as the company's HQ that has to radio the mortar's HQ, etc. The mortar's HQ should have, essentially, instant access, particularly if it's in visual and/or verbal C2 range.

You didn't even have to call for fire in CMx1, just plot the fire direct from the mortar team with the Target command. Worked just like they had LOS themselves.

But yes, it does take too long IMHO.

MMM

[RMM]

On 11/8/2021 at 2:21 PM, Benni said:

1. Better fighting from the vehicle. Armored infantry should use small arms fire to secure the flanks of their vehicle when penetrating the enemy (untill firing is forbidden)

I think they already do so, but it also depends whether they can be CE or not. Hmm, will have to check the next time I come across it, but am pretty sure I've seen truppen firing from vehicles they're riding in.

[Redwolf]

14 minutes ago, RMM said:

Right, but at the mo, it can still take more than 5min for a mortar HQ to call in fire from one of its own units that it actually has visual, C2 contact with, which obviously, doesn't make a lot of sense. Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?

What I mean is that I want this mode to be faster than the generic indirect fire interface in CMx2. Basically I'd like the CMBB/CMAK mechanism re-introduced.

Also with a price rise for on-board mortars, of course 

[RMM]

5 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

You didn't even have to call for fire in CMx1, just plot the fire direct from the mortar team with the Target command. Worked just like they had LOS themselves.

Ohhh, well absolutely that would be perfect! Maybe I should look into some CM1 games, despite the lessor graphics. On the other hand, that's why this forum thread exists, and God willing, the developers are taking notes. 

[RMM]

1 minute ago, Redwolf said:

What I mean is that I want this mode to be faster than the generic indirect fire interface in CMx2. Basically I'd like the CMBB/CMAK mechanism re-introduced.

Also with a price rise for on-board mortars, of course 

Ok, yes. Agreed

[db_zero]

 I'd like to see better infantry animations. Ambush command.

Better 4K resolution support. I'm playing it at 4k now on a 34 inch monitor. Its playable, but for some reason it doesn't feel as smooth as when I was running at 2056x1080.

What does the move to engine 5 mean for the current engine? No more modules? Was hoping for a Russian Front 41-43 and North Africa.

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by db_zero