suggestions (long)

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a common misconception. No doubt people assume that the horses will survive on the grass that grows everywhere. But as Jim Dunnigan once put it, "You can't haul artillery on a grass diet." For heavy work, horses need grain fodder. A comparison shows that that the tonnage required to haul fodder for a division's worth of horses exceeds the tonnage required to haul gasoline for a division's worth of motor vehicles. The German army didn't use horses because it was more efficient, but because their automotive industry was never close to producing enough motor vehicles to fulfill their requirements.

Michael

[IntelWeenie]

I like the concept of unmanned bunkers, but after some thought, I think it might be hard to fit into the CM1 game engine. Did some thinking on how they could be implemented and shot all my thoughts full of holes:

Unmanned pillboxes as terrain type: can't move/orient them in game setup (maybe a good thing?), but then you have 2 totally different implementations of pillboxes (manned -like vehicles- & unmanned) causing different problems (LOS issues come to mind)

Unmanned pillboxes as immobile vehicle type: crew/passengers can't embark on abandoned(unmanned) vehicles. Passengers not allowed to fire.

Hmpf. Either way requires major exceptions/modifications to the game engine. Anyone else have better ideas?

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

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

[Jarmo]

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

This is a common misconception. No doubt people assume that the horses will survive on the grass that grows everywhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant that literally, it wasn't a question of hauling the

fuel, it was a question of not having it in the first place.

While there was a shortage of food as well, it wasn't as bad.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[elementalwarre]

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

I like the concept of unmanned bunkers, but after some thought, I think it might be hard to fit into the CM1 game engine. Did some thinking on how they could be implemented and shot all my thoughts full of holes:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

um. this gets into CM's design, which i won't even pretend to know anything about. perhaps it's easy to shoehorn these in, perhaps another unit class is the most elegant way - i've no idea and it seems a bit early to ponder. for all we know BTS is laughing their heads off at such a silly idea, or so far ahead they already have a working implementation

as far as how it looks to the player, i just see these as fortification units, same as pillboxes or mines. if a scenario designer doesn't want a player to move them, exclude them from setup zones

[elementalwarre]

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

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, it feels like micromanagement. i'm used to having to do every !#%@# thing because other games' unit AIs were oxymorons, but so far CM's unit AI is amazingly good. forget actions on

[elementalwarre]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

perhaps when a player puts units into a pillbox in setup phase, the player can choose whether they're the pillbox crew or just some teams using the bunker? if that's done then for the sake of the scenario designer's sanity a team would have the same point value whether placed in a bunker (fewer guys, more ammo) or not during setup phase. i like that better than having a bunch of pillbox crews to position, but all of this may be getting too picky

[Guest aka PanzerLeader]

Hmmm...Before implementing all of these goodies you seem to forget one fundamental problem that is often overlooked:

GHOST VEHICLES!!! Aaarrghh!!

[BasilD]

Heh yah the ghost vehicles. Am playing a snow/night battle now with someone and there was supposedly a sound contact on top of my tank

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

As the victors define history, so does the majority define sanity...

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

perhaps when a player puts units into a pillbox in setup phase, the player can choose whether they're the pillbox crew or just some teams using the bunker? if that's done then for the sake of the scenario designer's sanity a team would have the same point value whether placed in a bunker (fewer guys, more ammo) or not during setup phase. i like that better than having a bunch of pillbox crews to position, but all of this may be getting too picky<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about making a distinction between pillboxes and bunkers? Pillboxes come with crews and can only be manned by those crews. Bunkers can hold a squad or two teams. Same for a length of slit trench. Something like that...

Michael

[thomasj]

Just to keep this one alive a bit longer. Some things I would like to hear more on.

[elementalwarre]

pillboxes manned, bunkers/trenches/etc not - yeah, that sounds like a plan. charles/steve/somebody/anybody at BTS, does any of this sound useful or are we just typing keys to hear them click

a quick summary (strictly my preference from the original list, feel free to add/change to fit!):

- sim civilians as abstracted info

- guerrillas

- empty fortifications. suggested are bunker, trench, foxhole, vehicle firing position, tank trap, fortified (light/small/whatever) building

- change manned fortifications so crew is separate from pillbox. IMHO this is a scenario designer feature so BTS can more readily do more variety, not for players to change in setup phase

- flares

- wind

- vary unit point value with more factors than experience

- some version of CM engine used for current/near future sim

- multiple sides

[Guest Michael emrys]

One more quibble. Though I feel fairly comfortable with most of the items on your list, the multiple sides thing doesn't seem at all appropriate for what CM is trying to model (as I understand it). Plus, it seems to me that it could only be purchased at the cost of significantly increasing the programming overhead.

Michael

[elementalwarre]

again, i'm just asking for what i think might be fun. i'd rather ask than not - perhaps BTS knows a way to do it

what model do you think CM is trying to fit? IMHO they've broken quite a few conventions, and i'm much happier because of it!

[Guest Michael emrys]

Well, I *think* they are trying to model *plausibly historical* warfare on a tactical scale. Your multiple sides idea doesn't seem to me to fit that well. What I mean is there were only very rare occasions when you had more than two sides present on a battlfield as small as CM's and thus worthy of inclusion.

Now if we were playing with divisions instead of squads, it would make a lot of sense. You see what I mean?

Michael

[elementalwarre]

sure, more than 2 sides was rare. like i said in the original post, 'mostly for imaginary scenarios'

[Faust]

1.) CM is a great step forward. Still needs a faster/more convenient/responsive means to move around the screen. Suggest a look at HOMEWORLD which has a tremendous 3D movement engine largely operational at all visual planes from a mouse.

2.) An ongoing access to current casulties. It doesn't have to be exact. One's own KIA , captured and destroyed armour can be reasonably accurate. The enemy's would be more of an estimate, (FOW), but some indication would be of help re surrender and/or cease fire decisions.

Also important because immediate knowledge of casulties etc., (albeit mostly a calculated guess), did play an important role in dictating short term stratergies, (although Rommel would not, perhaps, agree.)

[Emos]

Originally posted by Faust:

1.) CM is a great step forward. Still needs a faster/more convenient/responsive means to move around the screen. Suggest a look at HOMEWORLD which has a tremendous 3D movement engine largely operational at all visual planes from a mouse.

I second the motion to have the in-game camera work like the one in HOMEWORLD. It was very easy to learn and gave you quick acess to your units. Zooming and changing angles and directions was incredibly simple too. I've thought about buying the sequel HW: Cataclysm (HW spent close to a year on my hard drive) but I'm currently addicted to CM.

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

"You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"

--Dr. Strangelove--