Jump to content

It'd be cool if...


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I know this has probably come up before and its probably not do-able due to game engine stuff but there's always been a couple of things that I wish could happen in CM games.

Firstly some sort of Command & Control restriction if formation commanders get knocked out. In my Soviet campaign game I've just lost a MR Company's commander and I can still merrily give orders to his platoons, it'd be ace if there was some sort of 'lock' on giving them orders for a certain amount of time to add a bit of friction to things - I know I could role-play it but still might be a 'nice' problem to have.

Secondly, it would be great to merge understrength units together in campaigns, so if you end up with say a platoon with sections of 3, 2 & 4 men you could merge them into one large section then possibly merge two understrength platoons into one etc. Just think it'd add an extra bit of realism to the game.

As I said I know it probably can't happen but it'd be the icing on the cake of a great game for me - and CW is the most fun I've had playing CM in ages, thanks a lot to the team behind it and here's hoping we see the rest of NATO & Warpac forces in the future (and the Swedes, Finns & Austrians would be ace too - I have the Austrians in 6mm form for tabletop gaming!).

Edited by Iain Fuller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Iain Fuller said:

Command & Control restriction if formation commanders get knocked out.

The second in command takes over. I don't know how this works in CW. You can't merge units from different platoons. You need to check their morale status. More than likely, they are not suited for combat duties. Great to use them to occupy objectives near the end of a game. I would put them directly under the command of the Company they share the C2 with. He will share the contact icons with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought it would be cool if they brought back command delays. They had them in the CMx1 games. I don't know why they got rid of them. Back then, a veteran squad might take a couple of seconds to get going, but conscripts might take 30 or more seconds. Buttoned-up vehicles with no radios might take even longer to get going, making it a nightmare to coordinate 1941 Soviet tank units for example. The command delays would vary from unit to unit, so you wouldn't have every single unit in your whole force start moving at the exact instant you hit "go" as well, making the movement look more natural compared to CMx2.

They should bring back command delays, and then maybe make it so that the delays are longer when HQs get wiped out. Why not make it dependent on morale state as well? A rattled squad should take a little bit longer to collect themselves and get going. A broken squad out of contact with HQ should have such a long delay that they are basically useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you can. I assume you are a battalion commander, in which case according to the communications chart rest assured that every one of your thirty or so BTRs are sharing the same frequency. You can even talk to one of your individual BTRs, who are mostly keeping silent so you can always talk to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are multiple command nets for a reason.  A battalion commander would pass their orders through several layers to get a single unit.  Orders are not broadcast all on one net for everyone hear.  With the exception of emergencies.  Thats why command vehicles are so important.  Thats true in the 1980s and most true today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Why the Swedes? They're usually neutral and not even a member of NATO.

Isn't it obvious that they would be invaded immediately by the forces of peace and progress in case of a global war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

There are multiple command nets for a reason.  A battalion commander would pass their orders through several layers to get a single unit.  Orders are not broadcast all on one net for everyone hear.  With the exception of emergencies.  Thats why command vehicles are so important.  Thats true in the 1980s and most true today.

You have never seen a Soviet communications diagram - have an attachment? (My last message got eaten by Battlefront - maybe it doesn't like links?)

FM100-2-1 Soviet Comm Net.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Why the Swedes? They're usually neutral and not even a member of NATO.

Well as this game is set in a conflict that never happened and it could possibly have involved Swedish involvement if there was Soviet incursions into Swedish territorial waters, land or airspace so why not? It's the reason 6mm Wargames miniatures are made for their kit. 

Plus who wouldn't want to see S-Tanks, PBV's & IKV's in 'action' not to mention BILL atgm and they had lovely planes too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Iain Fuller said:

Well as this game is set in a conflict that never happened and it could possibly have involved Swedish involvement if there was Soviet incursions into Swedish territorial waters, land or airspace so why not? It's the reason 6mm Wargames miniatures are made for their kit. 

Plus who wouldn't want to see S-Tanks, PBV's & IKV's in 'action' not to mention BILL atgm and they had lovely planes too!

The answer will depend on priorities.  How many Swedes buy the game; how likely is it that Sweden would have been an actor in the conflict compared to say - West Germany, the UK, the French, the Belgians, the Dutch, the Canadians, the Danes, Norwegians and Luxembourg on the NATO side; East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia on the Warsaw Pact side; and, how easy is it to research the TO&Es of the Swedish forces likely to be involved.  Of course if modules focus on the AFCENT area, which is likely, then you can scratch the Norwegians and Danes from the above list.  The answer; therefore, is I'll bet both of my pensions on not seeing the Swedes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Iain Fuller said:
15 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Why the Swedes? They're usually neutral and not even a member of NATO.

Well as this game is set in a conflict that never happened and it could possibly have involved Swedish involvement if there was Soviet incursions into Swedish territorial waters, land or airspace so why not? It's the reason 6mm Wargames miniatures are made for their kit. 

Plus who wouldn't want to see S-Tanks, PBV's & IKV's in 'action' not to mention BILL atgm and they had lovely planes too!

Hmmm good points. I struggle to argue against this.

@umlaut I need backup. What do we have that rivals the S-tank and the Draken fighters?

Karen Wolf cookies?

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Hmmm good points. I struggle to argue against this.

@umlaut I need backup. What do we have that rivals the S-tank and the Draken fighters?

Karen Wolf cookies?

The Centurion tank is the selling point for the Danes in the game period although of course the Dutch, a more likely module candidate, fielded them as well at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M41DK1 Super Bulldogs ;) for the Bornholm campaign. Invasion scenario with Polish Naval Assault Division vs the light forces on the island. Also old 20pdr Centurions acting as tank destroyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I'd love the Swedish forces inclusion in a module, it would only really make sense as a part of a north Norway scenario where the Soviets does a "south hook" through nothern Finland and Sweden to flank the NATO forces in northern Norway.
USMC, UK & Dutch Marines and Canadians along with Finnish and Swedish forces. Soviets get Naval infantry and VDV. Biggus Modulus that one. 🙃

Sweden as a seperate module timeline; When hell have frozen over thrice.  But reasearching the TO&E isnt a showstopper at least... 😁

Danes could be included along with BOAR as they had tasks in northern Germany iirc. Same module could have the Polish forces, including their Naval infantry. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it provides the perfect excuse to include the 82nd airborne, Royal Marines Commandos and the Marine Corps. They are all needed for the relief effort in the CMBB to drive the Poles back into the Baltic Sea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

You have never seen a Soviet communications diagram - have an attachment? (My last message got eaten by Battlefront - maybe it doesn't like links?)

FM100-2-1 Soviet Comm Net.pdf 485.66 kB · 7 downloads

I only looked at the first diagram.  It reinforces what I said.  The battalion command does not go down to the individual level.  It passes through company and platoon command in sequence, unless its an emergency.  That's what I thought and thats what the diagram seems to show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TJT said:

Danes could be included along with BOAR as they had tasks in northern Germany iirc. Same module could have the Polish forces, including their Naval infantry. :)

It is the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR - not BOAR) and the northern Germany tasking piece in terms of a Warsaw Pact attack is not true.  The 1 (BR) Corps northern boundary, which was the fighty bit of BAOR, was around the Hannover area (so about 150 odd klicks south of Hamburg).  The British element slated for the possibility of deploying to Commander, Allied Land Forces Schleswig-Holstein and Jutland (COMLANDJUT) was 6 Field Force from April 1977 until it was retitled 1 Infantry Brigade in January 1982.  The force, which also crops up with the name United Kingdom Mobile Force (UKMF) was a United Kingdom Land Forces (UKLF) asset, not a BAOR asset.

I may or may not have been a part of it in the mid-80s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall Steve saying in another thread that the Swedish S tank would require major programming additions to handle how it operated with all its contortions needed to aim the main canon on occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

 

@umlaut I need backup. What do we have that rivals the S-tank and the Draken fighters?

Karen Wolf cookies?

 

9 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Now we're talking. Combat Mission: Battle for Bornholm (CMBB)

There´s the answer:
Krølle-Bølle trolls! 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

I only looked at the first diagram.  It reinforces what I said.  The battalion command does not go down to the individual level.  It passes through company and platoon command in sequence, unless its an emergency.  That's what I thought and thats what the diagram seems to show.

Well, I thought the first diagram was already pretty clear - note how the R123 is linked from squad to platoon to company to battalion. That indicates they are actually all on that frequency, something that becomes even more clear in the second diagram - note how the Battalion only has a regular AM net and a regular FM net, a grand total of 2 frequencies and the lack of platoon nets or company nets within the organic units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2021 at 8:30 PM, Combatintman said:

It is the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR - not BOAR) and the northern Germany tasking piece in terms of a Warsaw Pact attack is not true.  The 1 (BR) Corps northern boundary, which was the fighty bit of BAOR, was around the Hannover area (so about 150 odd klicks south of Hamburg).  The British element slated for the possibility of deploying to Commander, Allied Land Forces Schleswig-Holstein and Jutland (COMLANDJUT) was 6 Field Force from April 1977 until it was retitled 1 Infantry Brigade in January 1982.  The force, which also crops up with the name United Kingdom Mobile Force (UKMF) was a United Kingdom Land Forces (UKLF) asset, not a BAOR asset.

I may or may not have been a part of it in the mid-80s.

Sorry for butchering the BAOR acronym 😁
I mearly ment the Danes were neighbouring British forces so it would be logic to include in the same module. 🙂
Did the Danes have forward tasks south of the Danish border so to speak or am I remembering that wrong?

Maybe we should take that in pm's as to not derail this thread? I'd appriciate tips on reading on the subject. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...