Engine 5 Wishlist

[Jkirsen]

Vehicle damage modelling? It would be nice to see the odd turret popping off the tank hulls instead of the huge crater the vehicles make when hit. Also would be nice to see the effects of fire such as carbonized hulls develop as the fires take hold - especially in longer scenarios.

[BornGinger]

On 4/6/2022 at 1:46 PM, Pericles said:

a Syrian BMP decided after detecting an AT unit to speed forward towards the AT unit rather than back a couple meters to get out of its line of fire.

The BMP-crew had probably had a Russian instructor ans used the same solution as Soviet tank crew did during WW2 in a bid to crush the AT-gun under it.

[FinStabilized]

Biggest thing CM needs is a major update to the line of sight system. The LOS/Spotting system is very sophisticated but it can sometimes mess up in extremely frustrating and unrealistic ways. The things below I would personally like to see given attention:

1) The Spotting system needs to incorporate spotting memory. If a unit or units have been spotted in an area before, the likelihood that they are found again if the sight is lost should go up VERY dramatically so long as the units dont leave the area they were spotted in. As an example, I point out the situation I discovered that units in CM cant do this as of now. In one of the CM cold war NTC scenarios, the tank battle between 2000-2500m turned into a very slow affair with tanks losing each other every time dust obscured them. Due to the range, it took some time for each side to spot each other the first time, which I can buy. But the time to spot completely reset each time a tank was unspotted, and tanks just sat there oblivious to each other starring at each other over open desert while the entire spotting process cycled through again. Sometimes tanks were never re-spotted, or it took ten turns. 

2)Sometimes small bits of foliage completely hide units. 

3)The smoke effect needs reworked to more accurately convey to the player the amount of dust or smoke. Very often the spotting system is calculating much worse conditions while to the player it looks like it would not obscure much of anything. 

4) A general improvement needs to be made, there are more weird spotting problems than I know how to list here. 

 

 

 

 

The Second Biggest thing CM needs is for the tank infantry mechanics, especially in towns, to be looked at

-Infantry need some kind of orders set that allows for specifically ordering AT teams to fire and then move. Yes I know you can use pause and movement commands but it leaves too much to chance when firing a RPG and then running away is not exactly a complicated thing to do. 

-AT guns should be re-mountable, and crew able by personnel other than their original crew. There could be penalties if the new crew isnt a trained AT crew, but other personnel should be able to operate the gun, especially against close range targets. 

-AT weapons like the Bazooka should be recoverable by the rest of the squad so that the entire unit does not become helpless versus tanks if the one guy holding the RL dies. 

-In General, infantry aiming at tanks need to miss their targets less when the range is extremely close. I have seen alot of ATRL shots miss at 25m and less, and the unit firing was not being suppressed or anything. The problem seems to affect the world war two titles more. 

-Tanks needs to be inhibited from firing on infantry that would be well outside any known tanks ability to elevate. 

-Tanks are WAY too good at spotting infantry that are behind them, in particular when buttoned up. I cant tell you how many times I have seen a tank that was completely buttoned up notice a infantry squad sneaking around behind the vehicle, and generally instantly. Yes, a TC can look backwards in a cupola, but this would be the most uncomfortable place to look especially for any length of time. It not uncommon for tanks in CM to reliably detect infantry to their six o clock virtually immediately. My suggestion would be that the probability of spotting infantry in the open to the six oclock be dramatically reduced unless there is a target arc or some specific reason the tank would be focusing their like taking fire from that direction. 

 

 

[RMM]

1 hour ago, FinStabilized said:

-AT weapons like the Bazooka should be recoverable by the rest of the squad so that the entire unit does not become helpless versus tanks if the one guy holding the RL dies. 

I have seen BAZ & PzSK recovery from buddy aid, but I would add that in the same event, I saw the weapon recovered but none of the ammo!! Seriously?

There also seems to be another weapon/ammo oddity to buddy aid, where if only one body is being recovered from, quite often there's no ammo addition. Grenades yes, but no ammo. Doesn't seem right and can be really frustrating when trying to restock a platoon leader with .45 ammo, since he's the only one with that weapon! If he buddy aid's another, downed, platoon leader, why wouldn't he recover more .45 ammo?

[transporter]

If memory serves CM1 had a line of sight (LOS) feature.  CM2 's line of sight is for targeting.  In CM 1 you could have a line of sight but not be able to target.  LOS would be a nice feature to return.

[Glubokii Boy]

Biggest thing CM needs is a major update to...the AI !

 

[purpheart23]

UI/briefing scaling please, I"m getting old and my eyes are failing and this 1440 res makes it really hard to read briefings.

[warrenpeace]

My list:

Little things:

1) Follow road command

2)  Adjust fire mission length not just location.

3)  Better survival skills for routed troops (i.e. hide more, run less)

4)  SOP type order for what to do at first contact with enemy (important for turn based play).

5)  Ability to decompile campaign core unit and briefing file.  Important for being able to modify campaigns.

 

Bigger things:

1) Combat medics.  Dealing with wounded is not "optional".  An aidman is assigned to every platoon.  Also, the killed to wounded ratio needs to be tweaked.  The ratio seems way off.  Lastly, there should be incentive to try and save wounded in the points calculation.

2)  Be able to split squads in vehicles.

3)  Be able to use aquire command as part of order string, i.e. run to vehicle, aquire Javelin, come back.

4)  Shading to show what terrain a unit can currently see.  I.e. light areas would be potentially visible to Unit.  Would make it a lot easier than using the FIre command tool.

5)  Some sort of news feed to let you know when important stuff happens. For instance you might get a message that says "Stryker destroyed".  If you click on message it would take you to the right place on the map.  Would be extremely useful in large scenarios.

6)  Be able to see path that AI will take when clicking on end point.  

7)  Some sort of way to let the AI headquarters take over part of command.  Would involve accessing part of the AI plan for the scenario editor for a particular formation.

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by warrenpeace

[RMM]

6 hours ago, warrenpeace said:

My list:

Little things:

1) Follow road command

2)  Adjust fire mission length not just location.

3)  Better survival skills for routed troops (i.e. hide more, run less)

4)  SOP type order for what to do at first contact with enemy (important for turn based play).

5)  Ability to decompile campaign core unit and briefing file.  Important for being able to modify campaigns.

 

Bigger things:

1) Combat medics.  Dealing with wounded is not "optional".  An aidman is assigned to every platoon.  Also, the killed to wounded ratio needs to be tweaked.  The ratio seems way off.  Lastly, there should be incentive to try and save wounded in the points calculation.

2)  Be able to split squads in vehicles.

3)  Be able to use aquire command as part of order string, i.e. run to vehicle, aquire Javelin, come back.

4)  Shading to show what terrain a unit can currently see.  I.e. light areas would be potentially visible to Unit.  Would make it a lot easier than using the FIre command tool.

5)  Some sort of news feed to let you know when important stuff happens. For instance you might get a message that says "Stryker destroyed".  If you click on message it would take you to the right place on the map.  Would be extremely useful in large scenarios.

6)  Be able to see path that AI will take when clicking on end point.  

7)  Some sort of way to let the AI headquarters take over part of command.  Would involve accessing part of the AI plan for the scenario editor for a particular formation.

 

Absolutely amen to all that!

[Holman]

7 hours ago, warrenpeace said:

1) Combat medics.  Dealing with wounded is not "optional".  An aidman is assigned to every platoon.  Also, the killed to wounded ratio needs to be tweaked.  The ratio seems way off.  Lastly, there should be incentive to try and save wounded in the points calculation.

 

I like all of your suggestions except this one. I think it would add unnecessary and distracting fiddliness.

The way I see it, in CM even "KIA" soldiers are not necessarily dead. They are simply hurt enough to be out of the war in the near term. WIA soldiers have a chance of being available in future campaign battles, so their wounds (if treated) must be relatively slight. If the KIA/WIA label were strictly accurate, none of them would have a chance of returning in the time frame of a CM campaign.

The addition of dedicated medics would encourage players to keep a group of unarmed teams behind the lines until the scenario was almost finished, at which point they would be rushed forward to score points by tagging wounded soldiers. That seems gamey and ahistorical.

[RMM]

2 minutes ago, Holman said:

The addition of dedicated medics would encourage players to keep a group of unarmed teams behind the lines until the scenario was almost finished, at which point they would be rushed forward to score points by tagging wounded soldiers. That seems gamey and ahistorical.

I could go along with the idea of not having dedicated medics; although again, this game has the potential to offer players differing levels of complexity if only that were built in as options such as this, but I absolutely agree with the idea of points for buddy aid. Particularly in a German v's Russian scenario, it would most certianly be historical in reflecting the value the different sides put on the lives and value of their troops. Western nations not only had a different moral standard when it came to individual lives, but also were not in a position to afford the same kind of losses as the Russians. As Stalin himself is infamously quoted as saying "Quantity has a quality all of its own."

I would also suggest that the scenario of 'rushing people forward' could very well backfire unless the player had already essentially conquered and dominated the battlefield, making such a move rather moot. 

[Erwin]

8 hours ago, warrenpeace said:

5)  Some sort of news feed to let you know when important stuff happens. For instance you might get a message that says "Stryker destroyed".  If you click on message it would take you to the right place on the map.  Would be extremely useful in large scenarios.

Have read all the other requests for years.  But, 5) is original and may be a useful idea.  

[Erwin]

59 minutes ago, RMM said:

I could go along with the idea of not having dedicated medics

It would be helpful we could split squads into more subunits. Most squads (under 10 men) can only be split into two teams.  If one splits off two men, on is often left with a large remnant team that cannot be split any further.  It would be good it one could always split off an extra 1-man or 2-man team to use as medics.

IIRC in CMBS the Red force squads of 7 men can be split into 2+2+3.

[Codreanu]

1 hour ago, Holman said:

WIA soldiers have a chance of being available in future campaign battles, so their wounds (if treated) must be relatively slight.

I thought this wasn't the case? WIA/KIA are treated as the same and don't come back, unless it's just a very lightly wounded "yellowed" soldier, but they still don't ever recover from that status. This makes sense to me because anyone with a gunshot wound or similar is not going to be back on the field in the hours or days most scenarios last, and would probably be transferred to a different unit when they did recover.

[Anxel Torrente]

In the post above Steven says that the Combat Mission games are hyper realistic simulators. With those words Steven is most likely talking about a simulator in terms of how bombs, howitzer and cannon shells, AT-gun shells and AT-rockets and small arms bullets and more behave and penetrate different surfaces.

It would be great if the games weren't only great battle simulators when it comes to weapons and surface penetration but also a great simulator in other ways.

The simulation could for example be better in how soldiers behave in battle, with that I mean not only the soft factors, when they follow orders although they're almost dirtying the insides of their trousers.

Although a CM-game fanatic with high hopes of success may behave more recklessly when he fights it seems that the more experienced and more motivated troops often cower and wheep a bit too much and for too long. It would be great if the troops that aren't conscripts could allow their sense of duty to override their whish to run to their mothers boobs a bit more often.

I would also prefer to have trenches which aren't so shallow that the troops have to crouch down to be protected and where troops become exposed when they are walking or running in them. A "hyper realistic" battle simulator should preferably have somewhat hyper realistic trenches.

It would also be great if the game editor could allow the scenario map makers to make better and greater environment simulators for the troops and vehicles to move around and fight in. I understand that some people who use the editor are more interested in making scenario maps than making a full scenario with AI-movements and adding troops.

If the scenario maps could be looking a bit more beautiful and be more of a simulator of how forests, villages, towns and so on really look it would probably be more fun for some people to make scenario maps while other people could have fun while they focus on the troops and battle-AI.

Edited April 23, 2022 by Anxel Torrente

[RMM]

12 hours ago, Anxel Torrente said:

I would also prefer to have trenches which aren't so shallow that the troops have to crouch down to be protected and where troops become exposed when they are walking or running in them. A "hyper realistic" battle simulator should preferably have somewhat hyper realistic trenches.

The game does seem to be lacking in this. Foxholes and trenches seem to provide a minimum of protection and are far too easily spotted, presumably because, unlike their RL counterparts, they stick up above the ground, instead of into it.

[chuckdyke]

First learn how to play the game. You can make it as realistic as you want it. See a trench or a foxhole? The odds you kill actually anything inside is extremely low if your reference is by borg spotting. I made some house rules like other players do to overcome this. First tell which level you play before we know you're on the same page. I play WeGo on Iron and play on Hotseat with some other persons. The Basic Rule is respect the C2 system at all times and make sure the highest ranked unit will get all the battlefield intel. Latest test an MG42 inside a foxhole 36 Katyusha rockets plotted on that very same spot but with out a contact or tentative contact. The MG 42 survived 9 out of 10 barrages. Write the level you play the scenario that way you may very well publish a bug which will be gratefully accepted. Once you get a full contact the unit spotted is on borrowed time. For the AI I like units spotted to make an intelligent withdrawal instead of defending a hopeless position to the last man. Borgspotting in any shape or form is outlawed besides it is a recipe to waste ammunition. Area fire is fine as long as there are no contacts in the area, once there are contacts the player has a responsibility to see it get passed on. Once a HQ gets a tentative contact any unit under his command can do area fire. Find players you can trust to make a great game even greater. Your foxhole is a no contact, a unit with a LOS has C2 with an FO before a mission can be plotted. This encourages to plot artillery on positions before the game starts. 

[RMM]

Borg spotting?

[chuckdyke]

12 minutes ago, RMM said:

Borg spotting?

Is what you spot on the screen and not what a unit spots in the game. @Bil Hardenberger has an excellent blog with suggestions. I read it and took inspiration from it https://battledrill.blogspot.com/

[RMM]

24 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Is what you spot on the screen and not what a unit spots in the game. @Bil Hardenberger has an excellent blog with suggestions. I read it and took inspiration from it https://battledrill.blogspot.com/

But...if one can see it on the screen, that's only because a unit has a visual on it, so how does one enforce an 'honest' C2 in that case? Not mocking; it's an honest question; I'm not sure I understand what rules you're describing as making for a better game based on what players will do or not do.

A player only fires units that can actually see those enemy units as opposed to blind area firing at the general area by units that can't actually see or have spotted the enemy unit, but that the player can 'see' because of another unti's LoS?

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, RMM said:

so how does one enforce an 'honest' C2 in that case?

I you click unit A with the contact and then you click unit B with superior firepower (example an artillery FO with no actual contact) to plot a mission. I regard that action as borg spotting and a definite no. Before you set up the game organize the communication. You need to pass on full contacts as tentative contacts using the C2 structure to share your intel. Practical Example an Infantry Platoon is the security platoon of a company. Their task is to make contacts these contacts need to be passed on to their company. Embedded with the company are the support units (artillery armor) who need to be in verbal communication with the company. Suggestion of a task for the Company XO, you could give him a jeep or access to a radio unit. So that a tank can fire from 1km away on the enemy HQ your security platoon had contact with. Naturally a player can cheat just be selective who you play with. I bought the games to enjoy myself. Playing WW2 Soviet the C2 is a really challenge the best C2 is with their armor so most attacks are organized around them. Their artillery even to adjust fire can be up to 10 minutes. Most planning needs to be set piece to achieve victory. 

[RMM]

Some things from ASL could still be incorporated to enhance the experience:

- Beserk units

- Russian, Human Wave attacks

[Pelican Pal]

On 5/6/2022 at 9:17 AM, RMM said:

- Russian, Human Wave attacks

CMBB moment

[ncc1701e]

On 4/18/2022 at 9:55 PM, Glubokii Boy said:

Biggest thing CM needs is a major update to...the AI !

 

I am puzzled now. I was willing more AI plans, more triggers, ... but after several testing; no plan survives first contact with the enemy.

And this is it, you can do plenty of AI plans, if your AI group is entering the enemy kill zone, guess what, it will continue again and again using the same path. There is something missing that more AI plans won't help with.

An human would stop, think and try another path. Plan A, plan B for AI group? I don't know. Maybe the TacAI directly should be the one to enhance to simplify scenario author task.

Right now, PBEM is the way to go. AI is for training imo.

[BornGinger]

7 hours ago, ncc1701e said:

And this is it, you can do plenty of AI plans, if your AI group is entering the enemy kill zone, guess what, it will continue again and again using the same path. There is something missing that more AI plans won't help with.

An human would stop, think and try another path. Plan A, plan B for AI group?

I mentioned something similar a few months ago and thought that the option to sometimes give more AI-movement paths to each AI-group than only one could give the AI the chance to try different ways into an area if the initial one is met with too hard resistance.

Now we can for example change an AI-groups movement path if the enemy enters a trigger in front of the AI-group. But if the change of movement paths could be done based on other situations, for example too much fire from the enemy on a certain spot, the AI would be able to change how to entre an area or "decide" to move around a certain spot to avoid being shot at.

If each change of a movement path was based on different conditions, even the scenario designer wouldn't maybe know which movement path the AI will choose as each time he plays that sequence of the scenario different conditions might be fulfilled.

An option like that would of course mean more work for the designer but could result in more interesting scenarios.

Edited May 13, 2022 by BornGinger