Engine 5 Wishlist

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Because it's more fun for the game to limit the player a bit and because it's more realistic that way. Same as when we play on Elite and Iron difficulty - buddy aid takes longer, why not just get it done fast? Artillery takes longer to call in, why wait? Why is my tank bogging down, why is it running out of ammunition? I want to keep shooting. Why are my troops running away when they take fire? It would be more fun if they didn't. Etc.

Artillery call it in as early as you can, you can always adjust or cancel the mission. You don't spot enemy and then call in the artillery. The procedure artillery is called in before anything is spotted. If you play British in Battle for Normandy it is your key weapon. 

[Glubokii Boy]

48 minutes ago, Freyberg said:

If .50 cal can't deal with occupants of a building, 75mm won't do much better.

Maybe not...but a 122mm or 152mm might...

And everyone may not have a .50 cal...

[chuckdyke]

Just now, RepsolCBR said:

Maybe not...but a 122mm or 152mm might...

And everyone may not have a .50 cal...

Russian tactics. Squad of submachine gunners on a T34/76 SU152 on standby for the bottom floors T34/76 for the upper floors. After the dust settles the squad of submachine gunners do their assault. 

[chuckdyke]

Here is a battle report of a real MOUT operation Armor, APC's and Infantry. Infantry led the way no visual spotting but by taking fire and returning fire at suspected enemy positions. 

Microsoft Word - Binh Ba- by Raymond Gallacher.doc (5rar.asn.au)

 

[JoMac]

5 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

@LongLeftFlankAFV stands for Armoured Fighting Vehicle. There is no such a thing as a poor leader. -1 and a veteran? He is more suited for spotting not to lead an assault. +2 suited for leading an attack. Spotting and recon for Veteran and above. I select - for leadership scouting is a lonely business. 

Yeah, tell em ChuckyCheese ...After all @LongLeftFlank, should know what AFV stands for as he has only been playing CM, John Tiller's (EastFront, Westfront), as well as other Military Board Games longer them some of these Forumites were even born.

Edited February 10, 2021 by JoMc67

[BornGinger]

4 hours ago, Lethaface said:

For example in a PBEM I'm playing I'm defending as the FJ against US combined arms. I have ambushed tanks using Pz Schrecks from buildings... 
My opponent has about 9 tanks left and he is rightfully / wisely shelling the other buildings with anything he can muster

Sound like this could be Chaumont First Round where the US player has 22 tanks against the Fallschirmjäger player who has 1 Stug III, two AT-guns and troops with panzerfausts and panzerschrecks. A fun scenario.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

2 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

Maybe not...but a 122mm or 152mm might...

Now that's Soviet thinking! 

32 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

Yeah, tell em ChuckyCheese ...After all @LongLeftFlank, should know what AFV stands for as he has only been playing CM, John Tiller's (EastFront, Westfront), as well as other Military Board Games longer them some of these Forumites were even born.

Innit! 

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[BarendJanNL]

Also Full-on Call for Fire procedure, with specific round count and shell count per minute + correct fuses, instead of 'medium' 'short' 'personell'

Sidenote: would love to see the possibility for more fire missions per observer team simultaneously. A team of 2 can easily cope with more then one fire mission.

 

[A Canadian Cat]

9 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I'd like to see some incremental features that make the game less 'fiddly' and micro intensive.

Very nice. Best addition to this wish list - IMNSHO.

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, BornGinger said:

Sound like this could be Chaumont First Round where the US player has 22 tanks against the Fallschirmjäger player who has 1 Stug III, two AT-guns and troops with panzerfausts and panzerschrecks. A fun scenario.

Correct, good guess! 

[Lethaface]

2 minutes ago, IanL said:

Very nice. Best addition to this wish list - IMNSHO.

I'd agree fully with that one as well. Sometimes orders for a couple of games can become quite the workload.

Although I don't want to admit that to my younger brother, who doesn't want to get into the CMx2 I gave him a while back. He calls it 'work', even though he never worked an hour yet (he's still studying and he's lucky/lazy/his study doesn't allow working on the side).

[chuckdyke]

8 hours ago, Lethaface said:

I'd agree fully with that one as well. Sometimes orders for a couple of games can become quite the workload.

Although I don't want to admit that to my younger brother, who doesn't want to get into the CMx2 I gave him a while back. He calls it 'work', even though he never worked an hour yet (he's still studying and he's lucky/lazy/his study doesn't allow working on the side).

There are programs which can complement CM for the big battles 'excel' I picked that one up at 'The Few Good Men'. The move orders should be improved. Like 'Follow' a vehicle and 'Fast' to automatically selects terrain (roads) where it can travel fast. With 'Follow' you would click any vehicle you wish to follow. In FB 'War without Mercy' almost takes the fun out of the scenario. 

[LongLeftFlank]

9 hours ago, IanL said:

Very nice. Best addition to this wish list - IMNSHO.

High praise indeed from our Defender of the Faith!

I'm trying to keep my suggestions in the realm of modifying functionality that already seems well established in the CM2 engine. Notice too, this is all *optional*: nobody is obliged to use it if they prefer the way it works today. Or even use spreadsheets  (oof, talk about sounding like work!)

1. The Artillery/Air interface already exists. Add a tab with a command 'flag' on it, accessible by each platoon HQ. When clicked, all subunits in the platoon are lit. You can 'attach' or deselect certain subunits if you wish, via right click. (What the AI is doing in the background is creating an AI group)

2. Once the place (destination) is painted, you get some pages of buttons presenting much the same menu of choices you get when programming the AI Editor:

>> Assault / Advance / March

>> Aggressively / Cautiously. (Perhaps HQs and mortar/MG/spotter teams are always Cautious and do a 20 second delay so they aren't walking point)

>> At Destination: Hide/Set Ambush/Normal

>> Seek top floors/low floors/mix (default, but HQs, MGs and Spotters always go to top floors).

3.  Set timing parameters for moving out, similar to the arty tab and hit CONFIRM.

For new orders not given at game start, there could be an execution delay based on (a) platoon HQ in good order and 'in command' (b) radios - US best, Russia worst (c) unit experience, so e.g. Elite commandos respond instantly (I agree with @chuckdyke, let's not use leader ratings in this)

4. So in effect, in the background the computer is going to assign the selected units to an AI group and auto-assign them movement paths to the objective as though they were computer-controlled. They will follow these orders unless and until the owner alters them.

5. Less important, but still interesting would be to allow a scenario designer to preprogram AI orders to formations on both teams. This would allow, for example, scenarios where the player can just focus on commanding the tanks in support of an infantry operation, which proceeds on its own (although he's also free to intervene).

(Or even a 'war movie' where you just hit play and watch the troops slug it out, or just micro one sniper, etc. But that's just gravy....)

[Sgt.Squarehead]

4 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

(Or even a 'war movie' where you just hit play and watch the troops slug it out, or just micro one sniper, etc. But that's just gravy....)

TBH just being able to see both sides at once in 3d mode within the editor would be good. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[LongLeftFlank]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

TBH just being able to see both sides at once in 3d mode within the editor would be good. 

Well sure, but the convenience of the scenario design subcommunity isn't how BFC expands its gamer base. We oddballs already 'speak the language' anyway, such as it is.

Now that CM is on Steam, it's about lowering 'barriers to entry' asap for gamers who want the authenticity but didn't grow up with ASL counter stacks and multi-volume rulebooks.

[chuckdyke]

@LongLeftFlank Thank you. The solution is simple under move we would select 'Follow' and you need to plot only one unit. Not only with AFV's a tank or tanks would follow an advancing in infantry unit. What I see in the editor I find 'Advance' very neat. Why we can't do this in player mode? It enables to make huge battles more fun. In "A war without mercy" the first half hour is spent plotting it can be much faster with tools available in the editor. Any hints for multi-unit road travel are welcome.

[LongLeftFlank]

Disagree (respectfully). You seem to be thinking about a fix to vehicle pathing, which has been asked for again and again since CMx1 ancient times. But a 'follow me' order doesn't help infantry behave more 'tactically' than they do today, which is my priority (maybe it isn't yours).

1. Right now, for both infantry and vehicles, you can double click a platoon (or company) leader and then assign every subunit an identical move order along a vector and distance that exactly mimics the leader's. That's what passes for a 'formation order' today, and that hasn't changed since 2007.

So then the units just mindlessly walk/crawl/run along in as straight a line as the terrain allows until they:

(a) reach their end point and stop; 

(b) get exhausted and slow to a leisurely walk, which happens quite rapidly with any of the self-protective commands (SLOW/HUNT/ASSAULT) when covering any kind of distance;

(c) are forced to ground by enemy fire, at which point they dump their orders and putz around in place until they take enough of a beating to panic and break for cover.

.... Until I happen to notice and intervene. Which in a battalion scale action in complex terrain means me constantly cycling through, checking and adjusting.

Which becomes freekin' tiresome after about 12 WeGo turns, as I realized after playing my first not self-designed CM scenario in 3 years (the Hampshire 'Elefant' hunt, out of the CMFI demo) and realizing it was 3 am and after 7 hours of play I was feeling irritated and cranky, even though I had only lost 1 man lightly wounded and was doing well. And that's just 1 company!

2. Again, what *I* am asking for (by all means feel free to ask for something different mate!) is for us as players to be given a few of the AI programming tools that already exist in the editor. You have duly noted the ADVANCE AI command, but for most purposes in the AI that basically means a series of QUICK moves, so to quote an old saw 'I don't think it means what you think it means', unfortunately.

That would let us assign the units a reasonably granular plan of attack which, while it will never be as good as micro-ing every last move path and pause, saves a bunch of time at least until things 'get real', and is a lot kinder on the pixeltruppen than (1) above. IMHO.....

Edited February 11, 2021 by LongLeftFlank

[Glubokii Boy]

I have also been longing to try something simular...that is formation orders.

But I belive that for it to be of all that much use other then simply a move to contact function then the AI will need to perform at a fairly high level.

43 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

That would let us assign the units a reasonably granular plan of attack which, while it will never be as good as micro-ing every last move path and pause, saves a bunch of time at least until things 'get real', and is a lot kinder on the pixeltruppen than (1) above. IMHO.....

Especially in a competetive multiplayer game....If one of the players  chose NOT to use the group commands and the other player do indeed use them...he will probably be at a notable disadvantage...maybe forcing him to also 'skip' the group commands if he want to win the battle.

Group command is indeed an intresting idea but if it is implemented i belive it will need to be implemented VERY WELL !

 

 

[chuckdyke]

You decide when units enter area of operations. No need for too much clutter in the preparation area. Let's you organize a Troop Leading Procedure. Counter Fire (Artillery) the job has some risks attached at present they have a cushy number. Just brain storming

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by chuckdyke

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

2. Again, what *I* am asking for (by all means feel free to ask for something different mate!) is for us as players to be given a few of the AI programming tools that already exist in the editor. You have duly noted the ADVANCE AI command, but for most purposes in the AI that basically means a series of QUICK moves, so to quote an old saw 'I don't think it means what you think it means', unfortunately.

I'm not sure if I understand correctly. You're asking for an in-game formation move order based on the way you can program orders in the editor. But you're also rightly saying that those orders are basically just giving all the units a quick move order to make them run towards their destination. How is that different from selecting a platoon with a doubleclick and then ordering them to move forward?

I know the assault order in the editor make teams leapfrog, but it's done in a "blind" automatic way - they end their movement paths in random positions with or without LOS and cover, and the movement paths are often too long. I don't think it would help me micromanage any less. I'd still need to babysit the formation and make sure to adjust the movement orders all the time to fit the actual terrain.

[Glubokii Boy]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

but it's done in a "blind" automatic way - they end their movement paths in random positions with or without LOS and cover, and the movement paths are often too long. I don't think it would help me micromanage any less. I'd still need to babysit the formation and make sure to adjust the movement orders all the time to fit the actual terrain.

This is my fear also....In order for this to work the AI will need to be improved...The AIs situational awareness is currently not good enough.

Half decent (at best) might be good enough for some...in singelplayer but I doubt that they will be as forgiving when playing multiplayer.

 

 

[A Canadian Cat]

9 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

High praise indeed from our Defender of the Faith!

LOL don't be too flattered by that. My tittle is pure sarcasm but I suspect you knew that

Cool suggestions. I don't think we will get AI programming type orders during game play. But your point about formation level orders is well taken. Even if now you create good orders for a platoon once they make contact you have to revisit them because some squads will have stopped others not. If the game gave us better ways to order a whole formation that on its own would not solve that problem.

My normal SOP is to only give orders for a short distance and then revisit them regularly. I get that you are looking for something that elevates at least some of that.

Like I said cool.

[chuckdyke]

It is a computer program. In Photo Editing you have "Acions". If you do something very often you can record it like a video and apply it whenever you feel the need. What took you before an hour or more is now done in less than a second. 

[BornGinger]

6 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

What I see in the editor I find 'Advance' very neat. Why we can't do this in player mode?

I think that the advance order we give the AI-troops in the editor is very similar to the quick order we give the troops we play with.

You can test this by having a platoon or squad belonging to the AI and a platoon or squad belonging to the player. The AI-troop is given the advance order, leave between 00:30 and 01:00, from the south edge of the map up to a large wall which runs from the west of the map to the east. The player-troop is positioned on the north edge of the map. Before you push the button to start the game you order the player-troop to pause 30 seconds and then quick move to the large wall.

You then see if there is any difference in how they move until they reach the wall.

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

I think that the advance order we give the AI-troops in the editor is very similar to the quick order we give the troops we play with.

You can test this by having a platoon or squad belonging to the AI and a platoon or squad belonging to the player. The AI-troop is given the advance order, leave between 00:30 and 01:00, from the south edge of the map up to a large wall which runs from the west of the map to the east. The player-troop is positioned on the north edge of the map. Before you push the button to start the game you order the player-troop to pause 30 seconds and then quick move to the large wall.

You then see if there is any difference in how they move until they reach the wall.

Thank you for the information.