Engine 5 Wishlist

[db_zero]

One thing I didn't mention that would be nice to see is prepared assaults or defense. If a force knows and prepares for something like an assault then platoons could be equipped with things like more smoke grenades. Now in WW2 games if a unit splits up only 1 of the elements has smoke grenades.

If all 3 could have smoke grenades in some situation that would make things more interesting. In fact trucks, HTs and Jeeps where you can acquire items-mabye let them have things like smoke grenades soldiers can load up on?

For the modern titles-what about portable drones? Or for that matter anti-drone tech and weapon systems?

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, db_zero said:

Was hoping for a Russian Front 41-43 and North Africa

Keep asking...

 

[chuckdyke]

7 hours ago, Ultradave said:

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.

Conclusion from my simple test, 30 rockets don't have much of an impact. I plotted it at a forest area. It was a campaign scenario so my test was with a campaign I already played. Usually I do it on Hotseat playing against myself. You can't play campaigns on Hotseat wish they could changed that. Foxholes provide excellent cover but they quickly become visible in the game. It matters against a human player but not against the AI. Something for the Engine 5 Wishlist? Mathematics a square is 8² Meter a single trooper occupies 1² meter so a the chance is something like 2% to be hit by schrapnel even if schrapnel hits the occupied square. Just unlucky I can live with that. 

[chuckdyke]

17 hours 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?

Take note it is easier to get an LOS with a mortar unit he may get an LOF on an MG but the MG doesn't get an LOS on the mortar. I give you a link to a YouTuber I follow. When it comes to mortars you are better off to use them in direct fire mode in CM but be careful how you position them. Mortars start around the 14:15 mark. 

 

[ncc1701e]

So many things I would like to see. So many things that was said in this thread and other threads.

More AI programming, more AI artillery commands, more AI groups, triggers for reinforcements ... I agree

Ability to split squads in vehicule... I agree

Ability to unacquire ammos or weapons... I agree

But, the most important to me, is to teach the TacAi that when it is done, it is done.

When your pixeltruppen enter in a kill zone, avoid it. Find another way. I know this is not a human player. But, as soon as bullets are coming to you, run, avoid them, don't do like a terminator, you are not a terminator.

And don't continue to try using the same way, it is done. It is done!

[chuckdyke]

7 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

TacAi that when it is done, it is done.

It is a human player who plots the waypoint or an AI trigger. 

[ncc1701e]

46 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

It is a human player who plots the waypoint or an AI trigger. 

I know. But the TacAi continues to follow impossible orders losing waves after waves. It could be less idiot by stopping orders when losing too much personal. Or maybe the scenario designer does not have the necessary tools to do a nice asssault like request pop smoke (my earlier point about more AI artillery commands).

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Have to agree with @ncc1701e

Mitigating the TacAI's suicidal urges can be a major part of one's effort when designing an AI attack.....More AI groups, movement options, artillery options etc. etc. would all help.

We all know the situation when we give what seems like a perfectly sensible order and our pixeltruppen interpret it in their own unique way and get themselves slaughtered.

Now imagine trying to give all those orders blind and in advance! 

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

Or maybe the scenario designer does not have the necessary tools to do a nice asssault

There are very few games in which an assault looks like a real assault. I can't make one and a good designer said to me once even to make a formation maneuver properly is a pain. I hardly play any defensive battles against the AI. When the AI defend they never fall back. Example MG fires at an formation of 5 Panther tanks just because one is unbuttoned. A real MG would never do that. Find somebody to play Hotseat which is my favorite mode of play. The example on the picture is how not to cross a road. All what the AI does is advance from A to B once a unit steps on a trigger. That is my expertise. The AI is tremendously handicapped it can't cease or adjust artillery missions. It can't fall back if you learn too much it stops being fun playing the AI. Kudos to the designer who still make some good battles in which you must attack or assault. Meeting battles, maneuver till contact and wait till the AI makes a mess of its maneuver elements. 

[ncc1701e]

Yes hotseat or PBEM. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

34 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

The AI is tremendously handicapped it can't cease or adjust artillery missions. It can't fall back if you learn too much it stops being fun playing the AI.

That's not strictly true, it can be done, but it's AI Group heavy, requires a lot of AI Orders and is severely hindered by the inability to directly control AI artillery use. 

An AI controlled spotter actually can both Ceasefire and Adjust (apart from initial bombardments which are handled differently), but there's no way to control how they Ceasefire or Adjust.....The best we can curently do is to use on-map mortars (which can be fully controlled).

Edited November 13, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Sgt.Squarehead]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

The AI is tremendously handicapped it can't cease or adjust artillery missions.

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

An AI controlled spotter actually can both Ceasefire and Adjust (apart from initial bombardments which are handled differently), but there's no way to control how they Ceasefire or Adjust.

Actually, come to think of it, you may be right.....I've never actually tested whether AI spotters re-target existing strikes or call fresh ones.

However they definitely can shift their fires around in one fashion or another and we definitely can't control how they do it right now (on map mortars excepted).

Edited November 13, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Aragorn2002]

I only want one thing. Smoke.

[chuckdyke]

22 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

.The best we can curently do is to use on-map mortars (which can be fully controlled).

Thank you that is a good tip. Also in real life mortars don't need an FDC according  a guy on a YouTube channel I follow.

Gordon Cooke - YouTube

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I wonder if the rules currently used for on-map mortars could be broadened to allow Infantry & Field Guns, SPGs, AGLs and other weapons to fire indirectly.....It's been requested before I'm sure (for CM:BS specifically).

[chuckdyke]

39 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

other weapons to fire indirectly

Like the SU 76? It was used also as an indirect fire weapon if I am correct. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by chuckdyke

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That's one of the SPGs I specifically had in mind.....Sturmtiger would be fun too! 

[Redwolf]

1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That's one of the SPGs I specifically had in mind.....Sturmtiger would be fun too! 

Especially the spotting rounds

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Single-Shot Mega-Katuyshas FTW! 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

21 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I only want one thing. Smoke.

Missed this very wise comment.....Me too! 

I guess it falls under the broader bracket of 'artillery that we can control' as the Retreat movement option can be used to deploy smoke for other units (although in a rather all or nothing way with big AI Groups).

Edited November 14, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Ultradave]

3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Thank you that is a good tip. Also in real life mortars don't need an FDC according  a guy on a YouTube channel I follow.

Gordon Cooke - YouTube

Just don't confuse not having a physical FDC with not having to do the calculations for charge, deflection, elevation. 

Dave

[chuckdyke]

6 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Just don't confuse not having a physical FDC with not having to do the calculations for charge, deflection, elevation. 

Thanks but in practical terms if you have on map mortars. Have a good look at firing positions to use them in the direct fire mode. I talk about 60 mm, 3 inch and 81 mm they can be used with good cover just behind a slope in the terrain. In the game they are easily transported by their crew. 

[Ultradave]

39 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Thanks but in practical terms if you have on map mortars. Have a good look at firing positions to use them in the direct fire mode. I talk about 60 mm, 3 inch and 81 mm they can be used with good cover just behind a slope in the terrain. In the game they are easily transported by their crew. 

Yes, I know how direct fire works. Direct fire you wouldn't need an FDC even with howitzers. I was talking about indirect fire. The discussion before was about why it still takes some time to calculate firing data for indirect fire. 

Dave

 

[BornGinger]

On 11/13/2021 at 1:44 PM, ncc1701e said:

... the TacAi continues to follow impossible orders losing waves after waves. It could be less idiot by stopping orders when losing too much personal.

The change of this behaviour could be done with a "if... then" function code, we can call it "find a new way", which would do its magic in the background.

If the designer makes a movement to the AI-group in the editor so it for example moves into a building and when in the battle it turns out that the Player has pixeltroops shooting at the AI-group while it's following the designer's movement the suppression window shows how much pressure this AI-group is suffering from. In this situation the "find a new way"-function could kick in to order the AI-group to not only run away to try to follow that same AI-order again at a later moment but to withdraw to avoid being under suppression and move into that building by following an alternative way.

This alternative way could maybe be something the scenario designer adds when the AI-movements are being done. This will of course mean more work for the designers but could also make the AI behave a bit more like a human opponent.

Edited November 15, 2021 by BornGinger

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

The discussion before was about why it still takes some time to calculate firing data for indirect fire. 

The game is just not using two systems it appears using only one system. The manual is not very clear about this. Especially when you play Soviet, You get the Mortar HQ (No Radio) comes on the Area of Operations. He can call out indirect fire like any other HQ. If the mortars are on the map they come with an HQ with radio who you must keep nearby to avoid out of contact. Better keep an eye on the amount of shells they have otherwise you use them all for spotting. A US armored unit with the infantry in halftracks have 2 radios/ platoon when they dismount. They have the excellent versatile 60mm mortar. But in CM it takes also some time to plot a mission using their own mortar on par with a Soviet unit. My question is what is the function of the radio apart from needing one nearby the mortar itself. It just makes more sense using on map mortars for direct fire not indirect. German infantry preferred their 81 mm mortar above their 120 mm for this reason. Verbal communication was quicker and more effective just that CM calls it direct fire.