Three little teeny tiny small improvements for the next CM

[Sgt. Beavis]

Hi everyone. I posted one of these ideas earlier, but I think it was overlooked for the most part. I've since thought of two others.

#1

At the end of a battle, the score and loss data should show up as usual. However, the player(s) should be given the option to continue the battle, and the score and loss values will not be affected as the battle continues. I dislike not being able to sometimes fight a battle to the bitter end/surrender of the enemy. Obviously, for a two player game, both people would have to agree to the continuation.

#2

Allow for AT guns and tanks to occupy houses for cover. This would be a valuable aid for a defender, and was done all the time during WW2. Tanks would drive into a barn, or whatever, allowing them to remain concealed. Same goes for AT guns, and they would benefit from the protection of the surrounding building.

#3

Reduce the spotting for buttoned tanks. Buttoned tanks generally seem to spot infantry/leg AT units quite well, sometimes a little too well. Spotting enemy armored units is reduced quite a bit when a tank is buttoned, but infantry spotting appears to remain the same. I enjoy playing the Wittmann scenario... Villers Bocage. I first noticed the difference in spotting behavior here. Mike would see enemy infantry all the time, at right angles to his forward facing, even while buttoned. However, he would fail to spot the 2 stuarts that were pinging away at his tank over and over while he was buttoned. This has happened a few times, and perhaps the phenomenon needs to be looked into. I will be doing a couple experiments myself out of curiosity.

Anyway, there you go. I think that these three additions/changes will help improve the game a bit without much programming effort.

[Soddball]

Idea 1 - It's interesting but I don't know whether there's much point (if you're not keeping score, who cares?) What I would prefer is a way to retain the final score and a view of the final turn on some sort of scoreboard, so you know how you did and can go back and refer to it again.

Idea 2 - I would like this option aswell. It would be nice to hide vehicles in buildings but I think BTS would have to change the way they model the building to do this (ie how do you model a collapsed wall where a tiger just drove through it).

Idea 3 - Haven't paid enough attention to comment. Soz

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

"Woof!Woof!"

That's my other dog impression.

[Juardis]

Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

Hi everyone.

Hi

#1

At the end of a battle, the score and loss data should show up as usual. However, the player(s) should be given the option to continue the battle, and the score and loss values will not be affected as the battle continues.

I like it

#2

Allow for AT guns and tanks to occupy houses for cover.

I like it but only during the setup phase. During a 30-45 minute battle there is not enough time to put a gun in a building.

#3

Reduce the spotting for buttoned tanks.

Agreed. This is a personal pet peeve of mine. Relative spotting, if done correctly, should fix this problem.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Bullethead]

Sgt. Beavis said:

#1

At the end of a battle, the score and loss data should show up as usual. However, the player(s) should be given the option to continue the battle, and the score and loss values will not be affected as the battle continues.

No comment.

#2

Allow for AT guns and tanks to occupy houses for cover.

I'd like to see this also. Not just guns and tanks, but bunkers and pillboxes too. Maybe they could do it as an extension of "allow defending vehicles to dig in" (which IMHO should be removed from the scenario parameters section and made a set-up phase option for each unit).

Various threads have said this is all possible using the editor in pre-made scenarios. I haven't tried it myself, but the word is, you use the preview mode of the map editor to position the unit on a piece of clear terrain, then go to the terrain editor and put a house in that tile. The result is the unit inside the building. Tweaking the exact position of the unit allows better LOS in some directions than others out of the building.

While this is all very nice, it would be way better to just allow this sort of positioning in the set-up phase, to eliminate the hassle. Plus then it would be available in QBs as well.

#3

Reduce the spotting for buttoned tanks. Buttoned tanks generally seem to spot infantry/leg AT units quite well, sometimes a little too well.

This is already in the game, although indirectly. CM's spotting system is universal and absolute (see various threads on "relative spotting"). Instead of each unit having its own list of spotted targets, apparently there's 1 master list of spotted enemies for the whole side. Thus, every unit knows were all spotted badguys are, it's just a question of whether or not a given unit has an LOS to a given badguy.

To simulate buttoned tanks not being able to see very well, the game gives them a much higher reaction time than when they're unbuttoned. Thus, even though a buttoned tank always knows the badguys are over there, it takes them a relatively long time to do anything about it. This isn't perfect but it's not too bad, either, and is the best we can get with the current spotting system.

BTS has stated that they want to have relative spotting someday in CM. This will solve this and many other problems (although it will no doubt introduce some new ones, at least at first ). But until that day, which appears to be far in the future, we've just got to live with what we've got now.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Sgt. Beavis]

Thanks everyone for the comments and info. Any others who have opinions...join in, tell me what you think

[Tiger]

As for # 2 tanks do not generally go into or through buildings. There is a very great chance to damage/destroy the antenna and vision devices, as well as the possibility of falling through into a basement. Dirt and debri will also clog up the engine air intakes as well. It it also very likely that the tank would get stuck in the falling debri.

Could they do it? Sure. But there was great risk involved and probably was not worth the danger. It was not sop nor encouraged.(source: Panzertaktik)

[Abbott]

I agree Tiger. Tanks into buildings are great Hollywood entertainment. I would think it was done on an emergency basis or on a rare occurrence when the situation dictated. As an ex-tanker myself I would have great concerns if that was attempted. There is nothing but hardened steel inside the vehicle, normal off road traveling is like taking a butt whooping on most occasions let alone crashing into or through somefink . Main guns can be damaged as well as the gear you mentioned. Imagine touching off a round with some plaster or some other debris stuck in the end of the barrel or hanging over the muzzel?

ATG guns are large. Think about putting a large object through a doorway or wall. Tools available to do this would be limited. You could try hooking a chain through windows and/or doorways and pulling out a section of wall. Or try crashing into the wall with a heavy vehicle to make an opening large enough. If the building/house was still standing, a squad of troops would be needed to clear debris. Then posts or braces of some type would be needed to shore up the damaged area in some instances. Interior walls would need to be demolished. A squad of troops or gun crew would be needed to clear debris and build a firing position. This could be done but how often?

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-19-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

#2

Allow for AT guns and tanks to occupy houses for cover. This would be a valuable aid for a defender, and was done all the time during WW2. Tanks would drive into a barn, or whatever, allowing them to remain concealed. Same goes for AT guns, and they would benefit from the protection of the surrounding building.

#3

Reduce the spotting for buttoned tanks. Buttoned tanks generally seem to spot infantry/leg AT units quite well, sometimes a little too well. Spotting enemy armored units is reduced quite a bit when a tank is buttoned, but infantry spotting appears to remain the same. I enjoy playing the Wittmann scenario...

"Allow for AT guns and tanks to occupy houses for cover."

Check this out:

see this thread for Pic of how to do this:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/017277-2.html

"Reduce the spotting for buttoned tanks. Buttoned tanks generally seem to spot infantry/leg AT units quite well,"

Spotting from buttoned tanks is already VERY poor, and limited.

BUT your observation is result of the way "absolute spotting" is modeled, which means if you have ANY other units anywhere near the tank (some infantry for example) they "tell" the tank right way about ANYTHING they can see. All units instantly share spotting intel with all other friendly units almost instantly.

What you are actually asking for is "relative spotting". We are not likely to see this improvement anytime soon and certianly not in CM2.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-20-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Abbott:

ATG guns are large.

Actually, at least the German PAK38, PAK40, IG75, and 20mm FLAK38 (?) are definitely small enough to be put in houses. The PAK38 can not be more than 1m high and is very compact.

11th Armoured reported being fired at by guns from roof-tops in Antwerp.

It should only be possible in the set-up phase for the defender, and restricted to small guns, but possible it should be, IMO.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Actually, at least the German PAK38, PAK40, IG75, and 20mm FLAK38 (?) are definitely small enough to be put in houses. The PAK38 can not be more than 1m high and is very compact.

11th Armoured reported being fired at by guns from roof-tops in Antwerp.

It should only be possible in the set-up phase for the defender, and restricted to small guns, but possible it should be, IMO.

I have placed a bunker in a house in the set-up phase while desiging a scenario.

It is possible.

In the map editor

place the unit in an open tile

in the middle of the tile where a house "would" go then change the tile to a small building

Viola! Unit it now in building, works for almost any unit in any buidling

Anti tank guns on the third or forth floor? (upper section of the large building?)

OK thats a new challege, I have not tried that one yet

(mission accomplished in the map editor/ scenario builder)

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-20-2001).]

[LimShady]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

11th Armoured reported being fired at by guns from roof-tops in Antwerp.

Actually, in Citizen Soldiers, there is a story about how the Germans lugged PAK40s into a church steeple. I think the story also came from Death Traps too.

LimShady

[Colin]

I've got quite a good photo of Russain troops with AA guns on the roof of a warehouse.

If anyone is interested I'll scan it at some point.

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

And if we abandon any platform, I can assure you it will not be the Macintosh.

-Steve

My website!

A major source of Wild Bill scenarios!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Actually, at least the German PAK38, PAK40, IG75, and 20mm FLAK38 (?) are definitely small enough to be put in houses. The PAK38 can not be more than 1m high and is very compact.

.

I helped restore a Pak 38 - they are about 1.5 metres high, but very compact as you say. The 6 pounder is no bigger, to extend the example.

[Abbott]

I understand what you are saying. My point is, was it the norm? Even though the silhouette was low the width (wheels for towing) was wider then a doorway, thus needing time to remove the wheels and man-handle the gun tube or widening of the entrance site. I believe there were instances of guns being placed inside buildings when time allowed if it fit into the defensive structure of the unit. Hoisting to a rooftop or church steeple was even possible I am sure, but a few instances do not make it an everyday happening. The small rural towns and villages of 1940’s Europe did not all come with the necessary equipment laying about, nor was hoisting equipment part of the TO&E of the units in question. Special circumstances prevailed at those times or the necessary gear happened to be about.

I would enjoy this feature myself (guns in buildings) from time to time. Nevertheless we deal mostly (in CM) with normal battlefield tactics, to fit these norms CM abstracts cover and concealment issues. How many times were ATG found on rooftops or inside of structures compared to the times they were deployed in the field?

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I want guns in buildings. I want light guns even on the upper floors of buildings (check the transport class - 6 or less would be OK upstairs). As for bunkers, I don't want them in buildings, but I do want them to be as hard to spot as guns are now, not as easy to spot as vehicles. They were not houses, and they were well covered with earth and foliage.

At the moment, it is ridiculously easy for tanks to spot and KO every sort of gun and fort position. Guns in buildings, and harder to see bunkers, would do a lot to realistically improve defender's fighting chances.

And yes, placing guns in buildings was common. In rubble too. Right now, the only "flexible" form of cover that defenders have, is the foxhole, which is simply not historical. Overhead cover of one kind or another was not a rariety in prepared defenses, and it is in CM.

I'd also like to see bunkers or blockhouses (bunkers without firing apertures, effectively) that units can move into or out of. Not guns, but infantry and MG units. These too were common in prepared defenses, used to ride out artillery fire for example.

[Abbott]

Check out this reply from BTS, way back in March 1999 (Thread was called "buildings",

there are dozens of others).

"ATs can be put inside buildings, but only ruined ones. This is realistic. Tanks can do this as well, but they will be hit with a MASSIVE time delay to get themselves out, and a decent chance of throwing a track.

[grunto2]

more improvements:

1)break the 20mm flak down into single shots, and have 6 tiny craters instead of just one crater on the receiving end; or 24 instead of 1 on the quad 20mm.

2) when shelled, have the buildings distintegrate in stages. while the 'exploding/imploding' building is fun at first, after awhile it doesn't seem realistic. it's either a building or rubble in cmbo. i know there are the * and ** markings but until the 'collapse into rubble' the building remains 'the same' from a game standpoint.

3) keep track of the ammo for every individual soldier, instead of using one abstract number for the entire squad

4) have a 'doom' mode where squads can get more ammo and 'upgrade' their weapons as they go along.

example: lieut duke doesn't like his carbine. he picks up a .45 smg from the member of some other eliminated unit, and the hq unit he is a part of now has one more .45 smg and one less .30 carbine.

4) allow certain gun and vehicle crews the ability to scavenge infantry weapons and 'join the fight on foot.' while this didn't happen 'all of the time,' or even, 'most of the time,' i'm sure that it did happen some of the time. i would think that crack and elite units would be most capable of continuing the fight with whatever would be at their disposal.

i've read of real-life battles where there were ammo and small arms everywhere, littering the battlefield. when trying to represent such battles in cmbo, it's frustrating when your squads start out with 60 (modified) and still get to LOW over the course of the longer battles. they should be able to scavenge.

5) recovery of abandoned enemy mgs and light guns, 'ala' squad leader.

6) light guns in buildings as a feature instead of a workaround.

7) pillboxes as buildings; 'man' them with your choice of units.

8) u.s. cavalry squadron (or troop) as a unit type.... oh i guess that would be a cmbo upgrade and not cm2.... but 'cav jeeps' would be cool, with 3-man crews trained to bail and fight on foot after taking fire.

scenario editor:

1) ability to set the ammo for all like units with one click, instead of having to edit them all by hand.

2) if that can't be implemented, at least increment the FO ammo by the number of tubes represented, instead of one shot at a time. as it is it takes forever to set for instance a u.s. 81mm mortar to max ammo (800?) from the default (200?).

workaround: put some sort of weight on the mouse button and go get yourself a cup of coffee. when you get back, the FO's ammo will be maxed out.

3) pay for the ammo instead of having standard allotments; as a default for instance, tungsten would be bought by the round instead of given at random.

4) pay for demo charges, rifle grenades, and panzerfausts.

5) make the hq bonus ratings (combat, stealth, morale, leadership) cost points.

andy

[Sgt. Beavis]

The idea of artillery shelters is also interesting. I believe jason pointed that out. Obviously this wouldnt apply to meeting engagements, but for defensive scenarios they would be interesting to see. In addition, the attacking forces could make use of them upon capture.

It would be fun to play CM2 in a little town, and having those nasty little Russian 45mm ATGs hidden all over. Interesting early war stuff on the eastern front.