suggestions (long)

[elementalwarre]

kudos to Big Time Software, it's been fantastic fun so far! i've raved about it to all my friends who play anything like wargames

it would be great if Big Time Software could publish The List - only features already discussed on the forums, of course - so all those voracious users stop whining for the same ones. well ok, so at least this voracious user will stop whining for them

i think even abstracted or partial versions of each of the following would be fun. if the answer's 'no time (yet)!' - cool, we've all been there, but otherwise IMHO they could add a lot to the game

i read the manual, searched the discussions, and experimented. nonetheless, advance apologies for whenever my ignorance shows. i'm just a gamer, not even wargamer let alone historian or (ex)military

1. more unit types - no, not more vehicles

- civilians. they could really limit fire and movement, especially if they affect victory conditions. they could also

- obscure dismount movement - by accident but they still could, and not necessarily in the allies' favor for scenarios in germany, austria, or alsace-lorraine!

- help observe in battles, or build and supply in operations

- take commands - er, i mean suggestions, these -are- civilians after all it could make spotting units more interesting since you might know about opponent units that yours don't see/hear directly

yes, on 99.3.20 the BTS moderator said no to civilians. however, imho doing urban or guerrilla combat without civilians leaves out a possibly decisive factor. in at least paris and arnhem, civilian crowds hampered the allies

- guerrillas. could make life really interesting if civilians are implemented. how do you tell who's ducking for cover...after noting your force has only light armor?

- neutral forces. only spanish, swiss, and swedish forces come to mind for western europe, but they'd be interesting constraints. also good for hypothetical scenarios

- horses. in CM, infantry support weapons and towed artillery could be horse-drawn. german forces were not fully motorized and everybody's equipment can break down

- unmanned fortifications. this lets dismounts and some support units use them so a player has more flexibility about who uses and when to use

- command-detonated mines, AP and AT. perhaps these could be done like ambush markers - when target gets -here-, go off - if ambush markers can be removed

2. scenario play suggestions

- digging in. this means more position prep choices - slit trench, foxhole, trench, tunnel, vehicle firing position, tank trap, fortified house - as well as choosing to dig in or not. i distinguish slit trench from foxhole because a foxhole with elbow rests, ammo/grenade shelves, sump hole and perhaps even shrapnel cover is a lot more than hasty defilade. this would be an option for anyone, not just defenders. not all of an attacker's units may be attacking, especially for meeting engagements. i see these as 'units' the same way that unmanned fortifications could be

- flares. this was discussed in september '99 on the forum, but postponed as too complex. well, in case it never made it on The List i'll mention it again to me, using starshells (from on-map and off-map units), flare pistols, and trip flares to blind, distract and target seems too useful for night fighting and often too precise an effect to abstract as twilight

- wind. just abstracted, not fully modeled! perhaps just high wind or not, which general direction, and whether the vector's steady or not. it could displace/scatter smoke, smear/minimize sound, and displace floating flares. i'd rather have this factor abstracted and present than not at all

- smoke shells to mark targets, ie increase accuracy for whoever sees it. to me it might realistically extend what can be accurately targeted - or not if the wind's up!

- lock on any unit's move point - ie including transported units - or at least the next move endpoint as well as current position. i see this as a compromise forced by turns. it's not realistic, but how else can a player accurately tell if a unit is in cover or LOS from a given vantage point before it's shot for being a meter or two off?

- have the TacAI be more selective about which vehicle mg fires. most vehicle .50-cal flex have rather little ammo which the TacAI will cheerfully use on targets that a .30-cal can rip up on its own

- 'actions on' conditionals, ie planned reactions to probable events. a unit might have these for actions on: 'sprint for those woods if you take fire from here on, sneak to the house if you see a vehicle from here on...' perhaps it could be implemented as potential action(s) per move segment. this isn't officer commands so much as a noncom thinking about possibilities for each move. platoon and higher commands would still be direct and no more than once per turn. the idea is to have a chance of units reacting to unforeseen events with some player control vs unit AI alone

3. game features

- when creating a scenario, vary unit value with loadout, morale, fatigue, and skill bonuses, not just experience. to me, a regular squad with max loadout is significantly different. ditto a captain with combat, morale, and command bonuses. vs no point variation even a very crude variation would better reflect the unit's value, ie just scale down the same for weary or exhausted and ignore the others as transient

- let a player mark - at least a paintbrush but symbols would be great - and make collapsible notes on the map. to me, notes and marks directly on the map are much clearer than separate notes. for all us novices, especially with larger maps and more units we can lose track of why who's doing what to whom. jeez, maybe even worse than soap operas

- might Big Time Software ever sim modern warfare? as much as i like CM, i also grabbed TacOps at the same time because i'm interested in current and near-future sims. i realize electronic warfare, passive/active sensors, RPVs, nonlethal weapons, etc make such a sim much more complex but hey, i can hope

- multiple sides. mostly for imaginary scenarios, but however you rationalize it multiple opponents would make interesting gameplay. germans with and against yugoslav partisans, vichy vs free french vs british, germans suppressing mutiny...

i'm still learning from the AI and exploring how terrain, weather, etc affect units so that's all for now. well ok - like anyone else i'd love to be a beta tester!

[Guest Mirage2k]

A pretty good list. Some of it has been discussed before. My comments...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>- neutral forces. only spanish, swiss, and swedish forces come to mind for western europe, but they'd be interesting constraints. also good for hypothetical scenarios<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure, given CM's scale, how this would be implemented. In company-sized engagements, it's hard to imagine a neutral force of any significance caught in the middle. The few units that might be there would simple be destroyed and any blame would be put on the "heat of battle."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>- command-detonated mines, AP and AT. perhaps these could be done like ambush markers - when target gets -here-, go off - if ambush markers can be removed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not very familiar with WWII mines, but were these in widespread use?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>- digging in. this means more position prep choices - slit trench, foxhole, trench, tunnel, vehicle firing position, tank trap, fortified house - as well as choosing to dig in or not. i distinguish slit trench from foxhole because a foxhole with elbow rests, ammo/grenade shelves, sump hole and perhaps even shrapnel cover is a lot more than hasty defilade. this would be an option for anyone, not just defenders. not all of an attacker's units may be attacking, especially for meeting engagements. i see these as 'units' the same way that unmanned fortifications could be<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For a game of CM's length (average of 30 to 40 minutes) a "dig in" command was deemed impractical. It can take about that long to dig a good foxhole (depending on ground conditions), so there wouldn't be much of a point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>- might Big Time Software ever sim modern warfare? as much as i like CM, i also grabbed TacOps at the same time because i'm interested in current and near-future sims. i realize electronic warfare, passive/active sensors, RPVs, nonlethal weapons, etc make such a sim much more complex but hey, i can hope<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is something many people here are hoping for. However, BTS does have its hands full for a couple of years, as CM2-4 are already planned. One of the stumbling blocks, if BTS were to make a "modern" CM right now, would be CPU power. Given the range of modern weapons, maps would have to be much much larger than their current size, adding burden to the CPU. However, once Steve and Charles get done with CM4 (which will be a couple of years off), we'll see what happens, given the pace of increasing computer power.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

Your one-stop-shop for gaming news is www.SiegersPost.com ! Hit it!

[This message has been edited by Mirage2k (edited 08-21-2000).]

[argie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elementalwarre:

3. game features

- when creating a scenario, vary unit value with loadout, morale, fatigue, and skill bonuses, not just experience. to me, a regular squad with max loadout is significantly different. ditto a captain with combat, morale, and command bonuses. vs no point variation even a very crude variation would better reflect the unit's value, ie just scale down the same for weary or exhausted and ignore the others as transient

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is already in the game. You can change all that parameters when makes a scenario.

Ariel

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

- For a game of CM's length (average of 30 to 40 minutes) a "dig in" command was deemed impractical. It can take about that long to dig a good foxhole (depending on ground conditions), so there wouldn't be much of a point.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i'm thinking of these as setup phase options, not during play!

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie:

This is already in the game. You can change all that parameters when makes a scenario.

Ariel

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

certainly i can change those parameters. i'm saying that a unit's point value currently only changes with experience, -not- loadout, morale, etc. to me that may not reflect a unit's value well enough

[Phoenix]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elementalwarre:

i'm thinking of these as setup phase options, not during play!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "dig in" command is already in the game.

I've used it.

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phoenix:

The "dig in" command is already in the game.

I've used it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, but that only lets vehicles go hull down. most of what i mean by digging in is for dismounts

again, the variety i see as useful is only for setup phase, slit trench being the possible exception

[David Aitken]

elementalwarre wrote:

> i think even abstracted or partial versions of each of the following would be fun. if the answer's 'no time (yet)!' - cool, we've all been there, but otherwise IMHO they could add a lot to the game

IMHO they would add very little to the game.

Just offering a contrasting opinion.

David

------------------

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

elementalwarre wrote:

> i think even abstracted or partial versions of each of the following would be fun. if the answer's 'no time (yet)!' - cool, we've all been there, but otherwise IMHO they could add a lot to the game

IMHO they would add very little to the game.

Just offering a contrasting opinion.

David

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok...why? i agree -none- of this is necessary, but i'm not convinced they're all pointless

[David Aitken]

Some of what you've suggested, I'd expect to see in game-games, rather than simulation-games. CM is - surprisingly enough - about combat. Civilians, guerillas, neutral forces, horses etcetera have no place on a battlefield. Unmanned fortifications you could turn against your opponent, and remote-detonated mines are the stuff of movies.

Besides all else - you wouldn't see any of this stuff before CM2 - and CM2 will have plenty of new features specific to the theatre of war. These aren't the kind of things - as I've said - that would 'add a lot to the game'.

David

------------------

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Some of what you've suggested, I'd expect to see in game-games, rather than simulation-games. CM is - surprisingly enough - about combat. Civilians, guerillas, neutral forces, horses etcetera have no place on a battlefield. Unmanned fortifications you could turn against your opponent, and remote-detonated mines are the stuff of movies.

Besides all else - you wouldn't see any of this stuff before CM2 - and CM2 will have plenty of new features specific to the theatre of war. These aren't the kind of things - as I've said - that would 'add a lot to the game'.

David

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ah, wait a minute. are you truly suggesting that

- all battlefields, or even most battlefields, are carefully cleared of civilians first? civilians in ww2 paris, arnhem, etc would disagree rather strongly. sure a battle's tidier without civilians. too bad, reality says different

- both sides are always ready to fight and thus no horses/trucks/other supply units would dare be around? then what's an ambush? how -do- you supply? isn't a big point of armored or motorized troops punching past front lines to cause havoc in rear areas?

- claymores and their relatives and ancestors didn't exist?

certainly unmanned fortifications can be used against you if they're facing the right way. the point of unmanned fortifications is a possibly easier way to create a variety of fortifications than having a unit for every single variation - this one has 2 mg's, that one has 2 mg's and an 88, another has a squad and flamethrower... it also means you can move the troops if the fortification's untenable or you need them elsewhere

if i see none of this before CM2 - or CM17, or ever - oh well. i'm making suggestions that i hope BTS will at least consider for -some- game. i'm having a lot of fun - maybe too much fun - with the game as is, but i'd still like to try scenarios with any of what i suggested

[David Aitken]

elementalwarre wrote:

> are you truly suggesting that

> - all battlefields, or even most battlefields, are carefully cleared of civilians first?

Yes, but what purpose would civillians serve in Combat Mission? And do you expect BTS to spend the considerable amount of time that would be required to program their behaviour, as well as creating graphics for them all?

The only thing civilians can do is get in the way and get shot. This may be realistic, but in a combat simulator it is unnecessary and distasteful. Using them as scouts or otherwise aiding the battle is more akin to games like Command and Conquer, not realistic simulations like CM.

David

------------------

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Quark]

Civilians could be abstracted so that

one side could gain intelligence about

enemy forces in the same way as the sound

contacts currently work.

Only the rough location of ennemies and approximate type would be known.

This addition would be only useful in

scenarios like the one featuring the battle

of Paris so I do not think it is a priority.

[Hiram Sedai]

Regarding adding civilians to the game:

I've been playing Baldur's Gate and I noticed how my PC slows down when there are so many people moving around. I hope that this game does not get too complicated because I am enjoying the game the way it is now, i.e. me vs the other guy without spies or extra targets that you are not supposed to shoot at.

PS..I only play that other game when the neighbors complain about all the tank and artillery fire coming from my living room.

------------------

-Work Hard

-Type Fast

-Save Often

[Guest Chris B]

>- neutral forces. only spanish, swiss, and swedish forces come to mind for western europe, but they'd be interesting constraints. also good for hypothetical scenarios

OT but, FYI, neither Spain nor Sweden was neutral, only non-belligerent.

Spain was essentially pro-German sent a force to the eastern front during the russian campaign the Blue Legion(?).

Sweden was anti-Soviet and sent "volounteers" and ordonance to take part in the Winter war, something like 9,800 (including 700 norweigans)+20 aircraft+300 artillery pieces. Some troops took part in the retaking of Hangö in 1941 and a handful took part in the russian campaign. Germany was allowed to transfer some troops through Sweden.

On the other hand, Sweden broke the german telegraph code and some decoded information was released to the western allies. Something like 40% of the swedish merchant fleet was locked out of the Baltic when Germany captured Denmark and Norway and performed shipping duties for the western allies during the war.

So a correct game of the eastern front should include spanish and swedish troops, and finnish ordonance might be swedish in origin. Of course it could be possible to use finnish or germans and say in the read me that they are spanish or swedish troops.

I doubt it would be worth the effort for BTS to research the spanish and swedish ordonance. But it would be interesting to see some way for players to add their own troops in a mod.

[elementalwarre]

<whew> as always, more than i knew

i just meant neutral the same way the US was 'neutral' in 1940-1941. by the time lend-lease started it was pretty clear what side the US was sliding towards

[Guest Mortiis]

Dont see the addition of civs being worth the extra processing power and time to code to include them. I too would like to see horses, that way you can decide wether or not to be cheap and get horse drawn arty or spend the bucks for motorized. I think with horses though all we need to do is wait for cm2. Fortifications would be a nice addition, and the ability to use points for trenches when buying forces in the setup phase for defenders would be a plus.

[IntelWeenie]

I would like to see horses (or at least hose-drawn wagons) in CM1, at least if the rumblings about an expansion pack with additional vehicles are true. I would think the coding would not be real hard, they would work similar to any truck, but with a different 3d model.

Of course, then some folks would want them to stampede when shot at. (which would be hard to do, I think)

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Guest Michael emrys]

My, my. Quite a list. Well, I'll throw in my 2¢ worth too...

"1. more unit types - no, not more vehicles

- civilians. they could really limit fire and movement, especially if they affect victory conditions. they could also

- obscure dismount movement - by accident but they still could, and not necessarily in the allies' favor for scenarios in germany, austria, or alsace-lorraine!

- help observe in battles, or build and supply in operations

- take commands - er, i mean suggestions, these -are- civilians after all it could make spotting units more interesting since you might know about opponent units that yours don't see/hear directly

yes, on 99.3.20 the BTS moderator said no to civilians. however, imho doing urban or guerrilla combat without civilians leaves out a possibly decisive factor. in at least paris and arnhem, civilian crowds hampered the allies"

Not worth including. When the war got close, the civilians either cleared out or went to ground. Yes, there are exceptions, some of them famous. But not enough to justify a fundamental alteration of the game. The phrase "Keep It Simple, Stupid" applies to few things as much as to computer code. The likelihood of something breaking is roughly proportional to the square of the number of its parts. That's something we should all keep in the forefront of our thinking.

"- guerrillas. could make life really interesting if civilians are implemented. how do you tell who's ducking for cover...after noting your force has only light armor?"

I'm with you somewhat on this one. Especially on the Eastern Front, partisan and anti-partisan activity was a big part of the war. I don't see how it can be ignored.

"- neutral forces. only spanish, swiss, and swedish forces come to mind for western europe, but they'd be interesting constraints. also good for hypothetical scenarios"

As has been indicated by another poster, this would be pointless in CM.

"- horses. in CM, infantry support weapons and towed artillery could be horse-drawn. german forces were not fully motorized and everybody's equipment can break down"

I don't know. At first glance, this looks good. The Germans and early Soviets used a *lot* of horse-drawn vehicles, and sometimes they got involved in the shooting. But, for the most part, they were held back from the front lines. So probably not worth the trouble of putting in.

"- unmanned fortifications. this lets dismounts and some support units use them so a player has more flexibility about who uses and when to use"

Still not clear what you are after here. I would be in favor of a greater variety of field works though, including AT ditches.

"- command-detonated mines, AP and AT. perhaps these could be done like ambush markers - when target gets -here-, go off - if ambush markers can be removed"

Not common enough to warrant inclusion.

"2. scenario play suggestions

- digging in. this means more position prep choices - slit trench, foxhole, trench, tunnel, vehicle firing position, tank trap, fortified house - as well as choosing to dig in or not. i distinguish slit trench from foxhole because a foxhole with elbow rests, ammo/grenade shelves, sump hole and perhaps even shrapnel cover is a lot more than hasty defilade. this would be an option for anyone, not just defenders. not all of an attacker's units may be attacking, especially for meeting engagements. i see these as 'units' the same way that unmanned fortifications could be"

Addressed this above.

"- flares. this was discussed in september '99 on the forum, but postponed as too complex. well, in case it never made it on The List i'll mention it again to me, using starshells (from on-map and off-map units), flare pistols, and trip flares to blind, distract and target seems too useful for night fighting and often too precise an effect to abstract as twilight"

Would be nice to have. Hope that continued upgrading of hardware will permit such things. Other considerations might take precedence, however.

"- wind. just abstracted, not fully modeled! perhaps just high wind or not, which general direction, and whether the vector's steady or not. it could displace/scatter smoke, smear/minimize sound, and displace floating flares. i'd rather have this factor abstracted and present than not at all"

Same as for flares.

"- smoke shells to mark targets, ie increase accuracy for whoever sees it. to me it might realistically extend what can be accurately targeted - or not if the wind's up!"

Not needed. Existing artillery routine already accounts for such things, I believe.

"- lock on any unit's move point - ie including transported units - or at least the next move endpoint as well as current position. i see this as a compromise forced by turns. it's not realistic, but how else can a player accurately tell if a unit is in cover or LOS from a given vantage point before it's shot for being a meter or two off?"

I don't find this a problem. Thus no need for a cure.

"- have the TacAI be more selective about which vehicle mg fires. most vehicle .50-cal flex have rather little ammo which the TacAI will cheerfully use on targets that a .30-cal can rip up on its own"

Haven't found this a problem yet either.

"- 'actions on' conditionals, ie planned reactions to probable events. a unit might have these for actions on: 'sprint for those woods if you take fire from here on, sneak to the house if you see a vehicle from here on...' perhaps it could be implemented as potential action(s) per move segment. this isn't officer commands so much as a noncom thinking about possibilities for each move. platoon and higher commands would still be direct and no more than once per turn. the idea is to have a chance of units reacting to unforeseen events with some player control vs unit AI alone"

Some kind of user-defined SOP might be nice. Not sure if the implementation overhead would be justified though. Can't say I like your version of it. It sounds unwieldy somehow; or maybe you just haven't clearly defined what you have in mind.

"3. game features

- when creating a scenario, vary unit value with loadout, morale, fatigue, and skill bonuses, not just experience. to me, a regular squad with max loadout is significantly different. ditto a captain with combat, morale, and command bonuses. vs no point variation even a very crude variation would better reflect the unit's value, ie just scale down the same for weary or exhausted and ignore the others as transient"

If I understand you correctly, that would be alright with me. Doesn't sound too hard to implement and it gives players one more tool to fool around with.

"- let a player mark - at least a paintbrush but symbols would be great - and make collapsible notes on the map. to me, notes and marks directly on the map are much clearer than separate notes. for all us novices, especially with larger maps and more units we can lose track of why who's doing what to whom. jeez, maybe even worse than soap operas "

Not much demand for this. Probably not worth bothering with.

"- might Big Time Software ever sim modern warfare? as much as i like CM, i also grabbed TacOps at the same time because i'm interested in current and near-future sims. i realize electronic warfare, passive/active sensors, RPVs, nonlethal weapons, etc make such a sim much more complex but hey, i can hope "

Been discussed. We'll see. Maybe the way to go about this is to license the CM engine to Major Holdridge, if all parties are interested.

"- multiple sides. mostly for imaginary scenarios, but however you rationalize it multiple opponents would make interesting gameplay. germans with and against yugoslav partisans, vichy vs free french vs british, germans suppressing mutiny..."

Yeah, well...maybe...someday...

Anyway, that's my take for the moment.

Michael

[guachi]

Check out:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000257.html

for a look at the use of horses and their possible inclusion in CM2.

Jason

[elementalwarre]

yes, many of those suggestions - civilians, flares, etc - are nontrivial code and/or potential graphics hogs. i listed them purely as a user, ie i carefully ignored my experience screaming at me about the work they require

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

My, my. Quite a list. Well, I'll throw in my 2¢ worth too...

<snip>

"- unmanned fortifications. this lets dismounts and some support units use them so a player has more flexibility about who uses and when to use"

Still not clear what you are after here. I would be in favor of a greater variety of field works though, including AT ditches.

<snip>

"- 'actions on' conditionals, ie planned reactions to probable events. a unit might have these for actions on: 'sprint for those woods if you take fire from here on, sneak to the house if you see a vehicle from here on...' perhaps it could be implemented as potential action(s) per move segment. this isn't officer commands so much as a noncom thinking about possibilities for each move. platoon and higher commands would still be direct and no more than once per turn. the idea is to have a chance of units reacting to unforeseen events with some player control vs unit AI alone"

Some kind of user-defined SOP might be nice. Not sure if the implementation overhead would be justified though. Can't say I like your version of it. It sounds unwieldy somehow; or maybe you just haven't clearly defined what you have in mind.

<snip>

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

re unmanned fortifications - perhaps it would be clearer if i describe them as empty stationary APC's if a scenario has an empty concrete bunker, the player(s) can choose who's in it. might be 2 MG's, or a panzerschreck and a sniper, or nothing yet but put a reserve squad nearby. this seems more flexible since the player can choose who's in and when they move from/to the bunker. it's easier for BTS than doing a 'different' bunker for each weapon set that a bunker might contain. at least sometimes only the weapons are different, not the bunker

re 'actions on' - this isn't really unit SOP, IMHO TacAI does that already. hmm. for a recent example of 'actions on' see _Bravo Two Zero_ by Andy McNab. the idea is deciding in advance what to do when possible events happen, thus actions on enemy contact, actions on loss of commo, etc. an event might be a vehicle comes over that crest and sees the squad, indirect fire starts while the squad's running across this field, etc. i don't much like my suggested implementation either but i don't see an elegant way to do it. perhaps conditional orders just for the next turn, not for each move segment?

[This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 08-23-2000).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elementalwarre:

re unmanned fortifications - perhaps it would be clearer if i describe them as empty stationary APC's if a scenario has an empty concrete bunker, the player(s) can choose who's in it. might be 2 MG's, or a panzerschreck and a sniper, or nothing yet but put a reserve squad nearby. this seems more flexible since the player can choose who's in and when they move from/to the bunker. it's easier for BTS than doing a 'different' bunker for each weapon set that a bunker might contain. at least sometimes only the weapons are different, not the bunker<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking only for myself then, that's cool.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>re 'actions on' - this isn't really unit SOP, IMHO TacAI does that already. hmm. for a recent example of 'actions on' see _Bravo Two Zero_ by Andy McNab. the idea is deciding in advance what to do when possible events happen, thus actions on enemy contact, actions on loss of commo, etc. an event might be a vehicle comes over that crest and sees the squad, indirect fire starts while the squad's running across this field, etc. i don't much like my suggested implementation either but i don't see an elegant way to do it. perhaps conditional orders just for the next turn, not for each move segment?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I still can't quite seem to grasp what you are after, unless it's a degree of micromanagement that has already been ruled out for conceptual reasons. Maybe I'm just thick today.

Michael

[Jarmo]

One thing to consider about empty bunkers.

To create an MG Pillbox with 3 HMG's, you'd need to stuff about

15 men into it. (3 squads). A ready-made bunker-unit gets

away with less, as they don't need to carry ammo.

I still like the idea, though.

Horses would be good thing to have in CM2, at least the finnish army

relied heavily on them. Proved to be a good choice too, as horses

work better than trucks when you have no gas.

IMHO, civilians would be a "nice" thing to have around.

"Movement over there, should I shoot there with 105 or go see

if they're enemies." As for the recon info they might provide,

this'd be IMHO best handled in the scenario briefing.

Not during the fight.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

(just correcting typos)

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 08-24-2000).]

[thomasj]

I have to side with the idea that manable defenses would be a very good thing to add.

Example would be you had an AT/MG bunker that the gun/team was destroyed/abandoned. Why couldn't a squad/team move in and use it for a fighting position.

On to the expantion pack for CM, I have heard many a rumor on this. Aynone know if there is any truth to it?

[Phoenix]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thomasj:

On to the expantion pack for CM, I have heard many a rumor on this. Aynone know if there is any truth to it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quote Steve back in January.

"Yes, we are planning on an expansion pack. More vehicles are part of that plan."