CM2 Wishlist: Sewers, multi-dimensional buildings

[Dar]

I was contemplating last night what great fun it would be to have CM2 (after I've worn out my copy of CM1, of course) to recreate some great slugfests on the Eastern Front. One of the things that came to mind were the battles in the sewer systems in Stalingrad.

I was thinking how neat it would be to have a split-level battlefield in which the ground-level and above would remain roughly the same in appearance as in CM1. Then some hot key combination would reveal the underground sewer system portion, much as the buildings and roofs are stripped away in the current version. Something similar to the layered battlegrounds in X-Com, I guess, would be what it'd look like.

Additionally, I thought that the Russian player, as the home turf defender, would initially be the only one to view the entire system. Naturally, he would only see Axis units that were in LOS, but he would be aware of the entire sewer layout. The Axis player would only be familiar with the sewer system in his startup zone, for the most part. By moving units through the unexplored tunnels, he would reveal the rest of the system (and have a good chance of stumbling across Soviet units in the sewers, too).

Of course, just like in the old Squad Leader scenarios, the idea would be to move into the sewers and pop up behind the enemy in some unexpected location. Only, unlike SL, you could actually fight underground and have a true 3-D battleground.

Another thing I hope to see in the next CM is much larger buildings. I'd like to recreate some of the battles in Stalingrad for the tractor factory and the like.

It'd be great simply to be able to lay out a building tile by tile and let the game engine wrap a wall around it, meaning it could be any dimension I choose and not of some stock size. I'd like to able to specify type of building (stone, mortar/brick, wood, metal--e.g., corrugated metal warehouse/storage) and number of floors. In this fashion I could lay out a long, narrow building housing an assembly line, or a U-shaped, stone, monolithic government building.

It'd be nice to have the ability to create multiple stories within a building, too, so one could create something like a cathedral or university building that would be mostly one height except for a tower in the center or turrets on the ends.

Anyway, these were things I was mulling over and thought I'd post here for feedback from the board.

Dar

[Cuchulainn]

All good ideas. You have my vote.

[Guest Germanboy]

Can you please stop that? Now I've drooled on my iBook.

Ever heard of the name Tantalus? Nothing he had to go through compares to the suffering I have perceived on this board.

Please note that all smilies on this iBook died of boredom watching a Japanese baseball game.

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

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[aka kingtiger]

WOW.

Sends a shiver down my spine just thinking about it. Really Really cool. I hope CM will focus on enhancing the gaming system to include tunnels and sewers, especially for CCCR. Good Call.

Ricahrd Kalajian

[Jeff Heidman]

Sounds cool.

Could you imagine your squad of Pioneers creeping through the sewers. They come around a corner, only to be met face to face with a squad os Soviet rifleman.

Whomever "wins" the ensuing firefight will only be very slightly better off than whoever loses...

[Chris Jenkins]

I think that CM2 can be done with the current engine with some additions. OOBs, new terrain, new weather, advanced river settings, sniper temas, trenches, human waves and sewers would get us most of the way there. I think it would be more than enough if they added two more building levels in addition to the sewer level.

[Guest aka PanzerLeader]

Hmmm...I think you can't properly recreate sewers with CM's current engine, where there are no individual soldiers. It would be too rough, too approximative.

And also what you're describing there is too specific to Stalingrad. It would be useless in all other scenarios. Very cool and even essential for any Stalingrad only game, but I would like the engines of CM1,2,3 and 4 to be roughly coherent.

Oh and BTW, I think you can make bigger buildings in CM1. You just need to stick a building block or square next to another and the result will be a bigger building. I *think*...

[robertpat1]

Great ideas Dar, I'm drooling already.

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

A 2x4 and a kind word work better than just a 2x4

[Dar]

Panzerleader:

As I understand it, it's not possible to get the bigger buildings in CM1. My beta tester friends have tried building a "Monte Cassino"-type monastery on a hill by clustering several two-story buildings together, and while they do form one consecutive wall for all outside appearances, they are not treated as one building. Rather, your units must exit one building and enter the adjoining one much like rowhouses.

That's why I'd like to have that ability to make a building in any shape and dimension I want, and let the game engine wrap walls around it and cap a roof on it. I could make L-, X-, and U-shaped buildings to my evil heart's content!

Somebody mentioned trenches, and that was another thing I was mulling over today. You could perhaps simulate them using water, but they'd be barriers to both vehicles *and* infantry. (Maybe a row of fords would be a workaround?) However, it'd be nice to have an anti-tank trench terrain tile that could conceivably be breached.

I believe other people have mentioned in other threads the desire to see Molotov cocktails and ski units. I sure hope handheld AT magnetic mines are included, too.

Regardless, these are just musings for the future versions. I want to get my mitts on CM1 ASAP!

Dar

[This message has been edited by Dar (edited 06-13-2000).]

[Dar]

One more thing I was mulling over:

In doing river crossing operations, it would very, very cool (in my opinion) to simulate a bridge construction from battle to battle within the operation (as I understand operations to be). In other words, bridges would be constructed piecemeal from battle to battle, several tiles at a time, as the time to build the bridges generally takes longer than the battles at CM's scale.

For example, the first part of a the operation would consist of seizing a bridgehead on the far-side of the river using your assault boats, DUKWs, DD tanks, or whatever other means you have to ferry your units across. Having secured a bridgehead by the end of the first battle, you are given the option in the Setup phase of the next battle to begin building a bridge across the river. Say, two tiles worth of bridge or so.

In the next battle, you want to expand your bridgehead and, naturally, protect your bridge under construction. The enemy will be shelling the bridge, trying to knock it out (much like shellfire reduces houses to rubble in CM now). You'll want to expand your bridgehead and clear the enemy out so he can't shoot at your engineers or spot for arty.

Having survived that battle with your bridgehead intact, you may get another two tiles in the setup of the next battle, and so on until your bridge spans across and you can drive the big stuff over to continue the advance.

Just a thought... What do you all think?

Dar

[Speedy]

Great idea Dar, I have actually seen footage of an operation similar to what you are describing. It was a crossing of the river Meuse in 1940, first of the German assault troops went across under fire in dingies(sp?)

, then the film showed the combat engineers building a replacement bridge under fire while an armoured column waited in the background. It was amazing stuff to watch and I agree it would be great for a CM operation.

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

IN VINO VERITAS

[Dar]

I just recall some of the old Squad Leader river crossing scenarios, and I'd really like to do some of those with CM. I think placing a couple of bridge tiles between battles would be a good abstract way of handling that and make for some real tooth-and-nail, no-holds-barred operations!

Dar

[137th Gebirg]

Why, Austrian Mountain Troops, of course

(137th Gebirgsjaegers, 2nd Mountain Div, to be precise)

[:USERNAME:]

I would like to see the soviet armor modeled to reflect its lack of command and control. Maybe something like only being able to give platoon orders. Click on one sov tank (platoon leader lets say) and the whole platoon becomes highlighted (like the infantry do now). You could only give general commands for platoons. Execution of commands would then be up to the computer. This would simulate the sov lack of Command-n-Control and crappy/nonexistant/recieve only radios. Buttoned up tanks not in command line control would not be subject to player control but rather totally computer. they would of course always try to get a LOS to a command tank while under comp control.

I think the game might need an overhaul to really capture the distinct differences in sov/german abilities. This was Close Combats weakness to me.

The way it is now where the player can micromanage equally for both sides would not play out very well in the East. Limitations on the number of units that get orders or limiting command menu items or something else radically different from CM might need to be implemented.

Of course, as the war progresses the sovs should become more capable tactically and it becomes a more technology and numbers game.

Lewis

[nijis]

Cossacks. Don't know if it was done in real life, but I'd like to try and execute a sabre charge against an 88 crew. Also little commissar HQ units that shout out inspiring slogans.

[This message has been edited by nijis (edited 06-14-2000).]

[robertpat1]

I want to see bridge layer tanks myself.

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

A 2x4 and a kind word work better than just a 2x4

[DrD]

Username,

I think that lack of radios is best simulated by having tanks have to obey command rules just like infantry does. In fact, I seem to recall reading somewhere that vehicles don't have C+C because they all have radios.

[Dar]

robertpat1:

Yeah, I agree. I'm hoping that BTS will, down the line, release an upgrade for CM1 that will include some of the British "funnies" and various engineering vehicles. The mine rollers, DD Shermans, flail tanks, dozer tanks, AVREs, and the bridge layers would all be great add-ons that I'd gladly pay additional $$$ for.

Can you imagine trying to take out a dozer with a front shot? That'd be great to take out an MG bunker with a dozer tank by plowing into it!

Dar

[Maastrictian]

I want to see NKVD units behind the front linse that will automatically MG routing friendly units. That will put a stop to those pesky units that won't fight!

--Chris

[killmore]

It is one of a kind great game. I already bought it and I will play it for months to come.

But I have my own reservations.

Some of these are due to insufficient CPU speed - I understand that.

I would like to see:

1) simultanious turns - no need to wait for other guy (Am I wrong about this? I have not played PBMs)

2) Option to play in real time. (Or do turns if you like)

3) "Move toward the target until you are hulldown" button

4) "Real trees" and their positions. Not just "woods"...

5) No LOS through vehicles.

6) No "my shot went right through sherman and killed one on the other side".

7) Better Strategic AI that can flank your forces (just try CE +150% for GE AI) (AI is still great)

8) Multistory buildings. Maybe ability to be on the roof.

9) Every infantry man by himself. Not a group of men. More like Close combat.

[:USERNAME:]

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

Username,

I think that lack of radios is best simulated by having tanks have to obey command rules just like infantry does. In fact, I seem to recall reading somewhere that vehicles don't have C+C because they all have radios. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are speaking about CM2 and the soviets right? The soviets fielded early armor with both two man turrets and no radios and recieve only radios.

You cant compare a platoon of infantry without squad radios and a platoon of tanks without radios. Its alot worse being in a tank for a couple of reasons.

1. Noise. I have worked around armor and your senses are limted primarily to the visual. You cannot speak with someone on the ground next to you let alone someone in another tank. So it is much worse being in a tank platoon without commo than being squads of infantry that can readily see and hear.

2. LOS. In a tank that is buttoned up, your field of vision is extremely limited. Believe me, its bad enough in an open field but its much worse in smoky close terrain and crappy light. A squad of 10 guys can all be on the look out for command relays etc. In a tank it is usually just the commander that can see whats going on well enough.

Tanks didnt really mature till there was three men turrets and two way radios. Tank platoons were then teams that could coordinate the plays. The game should strive to bring this out either with some abstraction or close modeling.

Lewis

[DrD]

I was talking about CM2 since all tanks in CM1 have good radios.

Your points are all well-taken. I'm not sure, though, if this would be modeled in such detail. I think that simply requiring tanks to obey C+C (i.e Russian tanks with no or inferior radio) would give them enough disadvantage vs.German tanks who don't have to obey C+C (like all tanks in CM1) to model this without too much abstraction. Perhaps C+C radii could be smaller when BU.

As far as 2-man turrets, I agree this is important also. Probably you could just have tanks have to BU to fire main gun like in ASL.

I can't wait to see how they model all this, I'm sure they'll do a great job!

[This message has been edited by DrD (edited 06-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by DrD (edited 06-14-2000).]

[patboivin]

I bet the modelers have developed headaches while reading this list.

Aim high, as they say!

[Midnight Warrior]

My wish list.

1. I'd like to see a really user friendly map editor where you can load in a scanned map and then build the game map over the scanned map using it as a guide. It would be also neat if the map buidler would provide a contour line tool that you could trace contour lines and the map builder would automatically compute the terrain elvations.

2. I would like to see an area LOS tool that allowa one to see LOS from a overhead view in all directions. What would even be cooler is if you could select two view points and the line of sight map would show both views with the overlap highlighted. This would be useful in laying down fields of fire.

3. I think it would be neat if there was a map annotation tool (one for each side). This would especially be useful for very large maps where you could overlay unit sector boundaries and moves orders, phase lines etc.

4. Better buildings with better interiors and framed see-out windows. (Also interior tanks views with persisope views would be cool)

5. Better damage models and graphics for buildings.

6. Better Commnad and control rules. Actually I think some sort of variant of the old AH tactical card game, Upfront, could be adapted to CM to abstreactly model command and control, moral, trainning, doctrine, personality characteristics, national differences, command ability, and workload factors issues. A "cards" option could be invoked that would be additional limits (due the above factors) that each unit could do in addition to the physical limits currently modeled. It could also be used to add more color, scenario variation, and support a bit of role playing (e.g. getting lost). Unlike the old Upfrant game the cards would be integrated into the CM engine so that the actual physical layout, geometris, and line of sights would not be abstracted (only the psychological factors.

7. Individual soldier zoom box. When a unit is selected a zoom insert box could be selected that shows each soldier in the unit and his status.

8. It would be cool to be able to see aircraft strafing runs from the pilot view. (Hopefully this is in CM1).

9. Presettable/relocatable cameras location with hot key selection (e.g. function keys)

10. The ability to import CM scenarios from a higher level game and to export CM gake results (including movie) back to the higher level game.

11. The ability to export game stats (e.g. individual unit kills, etc)to a spreadsheet or word document or an auto after action report generator.

12. Programmble AI decision policies and programmable event engine.

13. Team play mode

14. Beyond CM4: Pacific War, WWI, Korean, and Vietnam war variants.

15. Auto rauting mode where you can specify where a unit needs to go (with a time on target) and it figures out the best way to get there.

16. A variant that depicts American civil war small unit engagements (example skirmishers a company of infantry with a squadron of cavalry and a couple of artillery peieces)Note: This should not be so much of a stretch for the game engine and graphics as compared to the big battles.

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

March To The Sound Of The Guns

[Dar]

One other thing I really hope to see in subsequent releases that has been mentioned elsewhere: the capability to print out battlefield maps.

I'm not requesting anything overly fancy--just a basic contour map following perhaps the odd or even numbered elevations only. A basic square for buildings and a tree for woods and tall pines, and other such symbols for various terrain would be a plus. And black-and-white, not color, would suit me fine.

Dar