Engine 5 Wishlist

[danfrodo]

I still play, currently doing the old Courage Conquers campaign from CMFB.  But ready for some new goodies.  Or promises of new goodies.

[Vacillator]

2 hours ago, RMM said:

TotH garnered a lot of initial interest, but then the one developer of that refused to do anything more

To be fair I think Peter was unwell for quite some time and maybe lost the 'urge' when he got back.  But I now what you mean.

I was enjoying that game when I very belatedly found CM.  I haven't played it since.

[RMM]

26 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

To be fair I think Peter was unwell for quite some time and maybe lost the 'urge' when he got back.  But I now what you mean.

I was enjoying that game when I very belatedly found CM.  I haven't played it since.

Oh, for sure; from what I could glean in the forums, he almost died of a stroke! I could only enjoy it in its smallest scenarios however, because anything bigger just completely bogged down after a number of turns. One would end up waiting a minute (literally!) for a unit to move! Plus there's was no real multiplayer. Pity, since it really was a solid effort at eASL; however now, there's 2nd Front which is eASL in everything but looks and without the bugs of TotH

[Vacillator]

Fair enough. 

I'm not sure about Second Front - I gave it a try but the graphic side of it is not to my liking.  CM gets a lot of criticism for graphics but it is more to my taste than Second Front.

More importantly though my friend, I think I was supposed to be suggesting a new PBEM?

[RMM]

17 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

Fair enough. 

I'm not sure about Second Front - I gave it a try but the graphic side of it is not to my liking.  CM gets a lot of criticism for graphics but it is more to my taste than Second Front.

More importantly though my friend, I think I was supposed to be suggesting a new PBEM?

Indeed, you were

Yeh, I think 2nd Front purposely kept the graphics to a minimum to focus on game play and keep some sens of a board game.

[Anthony P.]

On 12/31/2023 at 11:52 AM, Bulletpoint said:

Out of curiosity, when was the last time any there was any meaningful change/update to the game rules or fundamental features?

I guess maybe also the change to AT minefields not being traversable for vehicles even after being marked?

Likely fairly realistic... but so far I know of at least two campaigns with missions which are somewhat broken because they pre-date that change and specifically rely on marking anti-tank mines to allow your AFVs to proceed.

[Bulletpoint]

11 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

I guess maybe also the change to AT minefields not being traversable for vehicles even after being marked?

Likely fairly realistic... but so far I know of at least two campaigns with missions which are somewhat broken because they pre-date that change and specifically rely on marking anti-tank mines to allow your AFVs to proceed.

I don't think AT minefields were ever safe to drive through, even when marked?

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I don't think AT minefields were ever safe to drive through, even when marked?

That is my understanding as well.  (Same for Personnel MF's for leg units.)  IIRC Minefields can only be neutralized by blowing em up with heavy arty.  

However... there have been so many updates that could have changed things.

[Anthony P.]

On 1/2/2024 at 1:06 PM, Bulletpoint said:

I don't think AT minefields were ever safe to drive through, even when marked?

I recall reading that they were either here on the forums, or elsewhere, but I can't say for certain since I hadn't played any game where there was a need to traverse minefields with AFVs before the engine upgrade.

One of the missions in the Task Force Thunder campaign has the briefing explicitly mention that engineers should be used to clear anti-tank mines on the near side of a bridge (every single bridge span is mined), and the Polish campaign in CMFI has a mission where you have a number of Sherman tanks which can only be brought into more than a tiny part of the fight by crossing a valley road which is entirely blocked off by anti-tank mines. Those examples have reinforced the idea that anti-tank mines used to be safe if marked (it seems strange that anti-tank mines actually can be marked since doing so seemingly has no effect).

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, Anthony P. said:

I recall reading that they were either here on the forums, or elsewhere, but I can't say for certain since I hadn't played any game where there was a need to traverse minefields with AFVs before the engine upgrade.

One of the missions in the Task Force Thunder campaign has the briefing explicitly mention that engineers should be used to clear anti-tank mines on the near side of a bridge (every single bridge span is mined), and the Polish campaign in CMFI has a mission where you have a number of Sherman tanks which can only be brought into more than a tiny part of the fight by crossing a valley road which is entirely blocked off by anti-tank mines. Those examples have reinforced the idea that anti-tank mines used to be safe if marked (it seems strange that anti-tank mines actually can be marked since doing so seemingly has no effect).

I agree it seems strange that they can be marked if there is no effect, but to the best of my knowledge, marking AT mines has never had any effect for the last 10 years. At least not in the WW2 titles.

Some scenarios tell you to demine but mostly as an immersion thing. And other scenarios cheat a little by placing some barbed wire across the AT minefield. You can then blow up the minefield using engineers (who are also blown up in the process unfortunately).

[Anthony P.]

Huh, in that case I'll bow to your longer experience.

I did notice that anti-tank mines can be blown up like that, though when I've tried it it's actually quite rare that the engineers are killed or wounded (which seems mighty strange), but it seems to frequently leave some mines intact anyway.

[A Canadian Cat]

49 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

marking AT mines has never had any effect for the last 10 years. At least not in the WW2 titles.

How could it? If you take the time to mark a human sized path through a mine field how do you figure you can drive a truck or a tank through it. That's the issue. Marking AT mines still does not show a path for vehicles to get through.

CMBN has flail tanks so you can do some clearing of AT mines but engineers manually clearing them is not in the game.

[Brille]

1 hour ago, Anthony P. said:

Those examples have reinforced the idea that anti-tank mines used to be safe if marked (it seems strange that anti-tank mines actually can be marked since doing so seemingly has no effect)

True BUT you will discover a difference here between AP and AT mines.

While engineers need several minutes to mark a AP minefield, an AT one is marked in an Instant as soon as the engineers reach that waypoint.

Maybe it was considered at a point in development to be able to remove them but finally decided that it is out of scope for a CM Battle.

And while it makes sense to a certain degree it would be nice to at least have some kind of mechanic like the AP mines. The AT field is still dangerous but the tanks can march on at slow speed. Maybe they could traverse on the spot to simulate that they move along a cleared/marked path . Maybe engineers can shove 3 to 4 mines slightly aside to make a tiny passage but the time to mark/move them takes considerably longer than AP mines...whatever.

 

 

 

[Anthony P.]

2 hours ago, IanL said:

How could it? If you take the time to mark a human sized path through a mine field how do you figure you can drive a truck or a tank through it. That's the issue. Marking AT mines still does not show a path for vehicles to get through.

CMBN has flail tanks so you can do some clearing of AT mines but engineers manually clearing them is not in the game.

Because minefields in CM are an approximation. Anti-personell minefields contain 20 mines IIRC. If you'd pack that many mines into a 6x6m square IRL, they'd likely all go boom once just one is triggered. Same for anti-tank mines.

I don't think it's more realistic to be able to clear/mark paths through anti-personnel minefields than anti-tank minefields in the space CM missions take place in. All cases I can recall reading of regarding minefield clearance (not an expert, might be wrong) has been virtually separate missions taking place several hours if not days prior to the attacks traversing them. Really, the only exceptions, where mines have been cleared on the spot, has been anti-tank mines, not anti-personnel mines, placed openly on roads.

Edited January 3 by Anthony P.

[Artkin]

I think its less than 20 mines, and the grids are 8x8

[arprince31]

Apologies, I'm coming to this wish list late, I don't know if it's already been covered in the 38 pages of wishes (Santa has it easy!), or if it's something that can already be done and I haven't seen it. It's really great that there are pretty much 360 degrees of view movement, turn/move left/right, elevate/descend, look up/down etc.

But I find it a bit too freeform and fiddly at times. I find myself sawing forwards beyond and backwards beyond, then sideways each ways beyond the sweet spot I want to view from, especially with the mouse, so a micro move view option as well as the current standard sweeping move views would be handy.

I'd also like to have a view that I'm looking at, say a particular landscape from a particular angle, then to quickly use a hot button to view down on the whole map from immediately above for literally an overview, then a hot button to go back to my previous view of the landscape.

Apologies if this is already available.

I also recognise that Engine 5 is going to be fixes only, but I thought I'd record my idea whilst I have it.

[amidali]

Just a curiosity…

Any plans for a Apple Silicon (M1-M2-M3) native version?

[McKay173]

A breach command makes the assigned unit throw grenades into the building before making entry and does this from the ground floor up to the floor assigned during the move.

Edited January 11 by McKay173

[Erwin]

My recollection is that if you order TARGET FIRE at the desired location you are blasting into, the unit will use grenades.  

However, the BLAST itself will suppress anyone on the other side for a few seconds at least - so the same effect. 

My SOP (since engineers with charges are valuable and I don't want them to get into combat when there are less valuable inf units available) is to place a FAST MOVE waypoint for the eng back to the original starting point immediately after the BLAST waypoint.  

In this way the unit BLASTS the wall which suppresses any enemy there for a few seconds enabling the engineers to enter and immediately run out to safety.  I always place an inf unit at the same waypoint that the engineers started from and it is that inf which can fire into the room if there are any enemy there.  

This tactic also neutralizes a tactic used by cunning designers (and players) who place the enemy not IN the room, but on the other side of a far wall. The way this tactic works is that your eng BLASTS into the room that is empty.  But, enemy units behind a (2nd) wall on the far side of the room are unaffected.   So, in this tactic, the enemy are able to mow down any friendly unit that stays in the room after the BLAST.  

However, since the SMOKE from the BLAST obscures visibility for a few seconds, that gives your eng unit time to run back the way they came before the enemy can see and shoot them.

Hope that explanation makes sense...

[glilley]

Combat towing recovery of undamaged immobilized vehicles.  Would like to see capability for appropriate vehicles with tow cables to recover using said cables vehicles it can tow out.  For example, M1 Abrams towing another M1 that has become immobilized due to terrain issues and not damage so it can get back in the fight.  I am aware that there would be programming challenges regarding towing vehicle size/power vs vehicle to be towed, crew experience affecting time to perform recovery, terrain/weather impacts, crew exposure to enemy fire, etc.  When playing 45 min + game duration, would be nice to have ability to pull a critical vehicle asset out of the mud even if it takes 20 minutes and takes the towing vehicle out of the temporarily out of the fight. Might be too big a challenge but thought I'd ask!

[RMM]

On 1/6/2024 at 8:00 AM, arprince31 said:

Apologies, I'm coming to this wish list late, I don't know if it's already been covered in the 38 pages of wishes (Santa has it easy!), or if it's something that can already be done and I haven't seen it. It's really great that there are pretty much 360 degrees of view movement, turn/move left/right, elevate/descend, look up/down etc.

Apparently, in CM1, there was a 180 degree option. In many of these forums, it seems like there were a number of things in CM1 that should be brought back.

[RMM]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

My recollection is that if you order TARGET FIRE at the desired location you are blasting into, the unit will use grenades.  

However, the BLAST itself will suppress anyone on the other side for a few seconds at least - so the same effect. 

My SOP (since engineers with charges are valuable and I don't want them to get into combat when there are less valuable inf units available) is to place a FAST MOVE waypoint for the eng back to the original starting point immediately after the BLAST waypoint.  

In this way the unit BLASTS the wall which suppresses any enemy there for a few seconds enabling the engineers to enter and immediately run out to safety.  I always place an inf unit at the same waypoint that the engineers started from and it is that inf which can fire into the room if there are any enemy there.  

This tactic also neutralizes a tactic used by cunning designers (and players) who place the enemy not IN the room, but on the other side of a far wall. The way this tactic works is that your eng BLASTS into the room that is empty.  But, enemy units behind a (2nd) wall on the far side of the room are unaffected.   So, in this tactic, the enemy are able to mow down any friendly unit that stays in the room after the BLAST.  

However, since the SMOKE from the BLAST obscures visibility for a few seconds, that gives your eng unit time to run back the way they came before the enemy can see and shoot them.

Hope that explanation makes sense...

Have used this tactic too.

[Vacillator]

1 hour ago, glilley said:

Combat towing recovery of undamaged immobilized vehicles.  Would like to see capability for appropriate vehicles with tow cables to recover using said cables vehicles it can tow out.  For example, M1 Abrams towing another M1 that has become immobilized due to terrain issues and not damage so it can get back in the fight.  I am aware that there would be programming challenges regarding towing vehicle size/power vs vehicle to be towed, crew experience affecting time to perform recovery, terrain/weather impacts, crew exposure to enemy fire, etc.  When playing 45 min + game duration, would be nice to have ability to pull a critical vehicle asset out of the mud even if it takes 20 minutes and takes the towing vehicle out of the temporarily out of the fight. Might be too big a challenge but thought I'd ask!

As I totally hate having immobilised vehicles (usually in a useless place) I like this.  The reason given for not having it was previously was that timescales for CM battles would not allow such recovery.  However, I'm in the middle of a 3 hour battle just now, so I don't think that's always the case.  If as you say it's only stuck in the mud and another vehicle can pull it out, why not?  Particularly if it's in the 'useless place' I mentioned where no enemies can see the recovery.  I would feel a great sense of accomplishment if I dragged a tank out of the mud.

I'm not sure we'll see it all the same.

[glilley]

Once a towing vehicle is in position and given the crew is not under hostile fire (and factoring in crew experience)  it only takes 5-10 minutes to attach towing cables to the towing clevis (2 on towing vehicle and 2 on towed).  Attaching cables would probably require some form of the "Dismount" function to make realistic. After this, now its a matter of whether the towing vehicle can perform the function of getting the other vehicle unstuck.  This process can take another 5-10 minutes and may not be successful (in which case player makes decision to continue trying or cut losses and get towing vehicle back into the fight).  Now I'm talking about a straight forward tow evolution, not something more complicated using multiple vehicles or extra tow cables.

Edited January 11 by glilley

[Anthony P.]

4 hours ago, Erwin said:

My recollection is that if you order TARGET FIRE at the desired location you are blasting into, the unit will use grenades.  

However, the BLAST itself will suppress anyone on the other side for a few seconds at least - so the same effect. 

My SOP (since engineers with charges are valuable and I don't want them to get into combat when there are less valuable inf units available) is to place a FAST MOVE waypoint for the eng back to the original starting point immediately after the BLAST waypoint.  

In this way the unit BLASTS the wall which suppresses any enemy there for a few seconds enabling the engineers to enter and immediately run out to safety.  I always place an inf unit at the same waypoint that the engineers started from and it is that inf which can fire into the room if there are any enemy there.  

This tactic also neutralizes a tactic used by cunning designers (and players) who place the enemy not IN the room, but on the other side of a far wall. The way this tactic works is that your eng BLASTS into the room that is empty.  But, enemy units behind a (2nd) wall on the far side of the room are unaffected.   So, in this tactic, the enemy are able to mow down any friendly unit that stays in the room after the BLAST.  

However, since the SMOKE from the BLAST obscures visibility for a few seconds, that gives your eng unit time to run back the way they came before the enemy can see and shoot them.

Hope that explanation makes sense...

 

I played around with this a couple of years back and came up with the below example. Obviously it's too manpower intensive to use regularly, but it can easily be scaled down and still be quite devastating.

It's also worth pointing out that you can place the breach waypoint outside the building, next to the wall you're breaching. That way the unit will blow up the wall but will stay outside it instead of entering.

 

 

Edited January 11 by Anthony P.