A few suggestions for CM2

[Dschugaschwili]

Note: All these suggestions should be (from my point of view) reasonably easy to implement. If one of them will already be included, I apologize.

Please don't clutter this thread with very complex ideas.

1. I'd really like to be able to see armor penetration values for infantry weapons, especially machine guns, perhaps also squads. Not knowing if my MG can penetrate an enemy halftrack (or the other way round) can be a pain at times.

2. Per weapon ammo tracking. I'll admit that this may be slightly more work to implement, but I'd really like it if my heavy SMG squad would have some close range firepower left after the LMGs have fired most of their ammo at long range targets. The detailed information would be available in the info screen, for display on the normal user interface this value could of course be averaged out.

3. A completed targeting order for arty (read: the delay timer has already gone down to zero / a small value) should leave a kind of TRP at the target that is usable only for this spotter because all the coordinates have already been calculated.

Any comments? Corrections? Additions?

Dschugaschwili

[Triggerhappy]

Great ideas!

Number 1 should indeed be relatively easy to implement and would be very helpful. Do you think of the same system that the big guns use (kill: rare)?

Number 3 would also be helpful, especially when stopping a wave attack.

As for number 2, this would certainly be great but I think would take a re-write of large parts of the program. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Dschugaschwili]

For number 1, I was thinking about displaying those armor penetration values at 0°, 30° and 60° and 100m, 500m, ... in the info screen, just as it is done for guns. Of course, your idea sounds good too.

As to number 2 being difficult to implement, it will mostly be a matter of having (number of men in the squad) ammo counters per squad instead of one.

Dschugaschwili

[The_Capt]

I for one would seriously like to see a re-tooling of engineer works in CM2. The use of AT and AP Obstacles on the Eastern Front was prolific. I am tired of expending 20% of my points to purchase minefields which are too small and in the case of AP damn near ineffective.

A single Engineer Platoon can emplace 1000m of med density AT minefield (.5-.75 mine/m frontage with about 50-60% stopping power) in about 6 hours. The mine field will consist of 6 rows spread out over a 400m depth. If you do the math that minefield ( will cost (at 6 rows of 30 each) 1800 points to purchase. 1800 points to buy what a single platoon with mines can put in in about 6 hrs or even say 8 in darkness.

Meanwhile a AT gun concrete bunker which takes the same platoon about 3 days (if they are hopping, it is sunny and have heavy equipment support) to construct. But you can get one for a couple hundred points

I also don't buy the "well mines are expensive" argument. A standard AT mine has a much cheaper dollar and deployment cost than an arty round but for 1800 points you can buy oodles of arty.

Minefields need to be cheaper or longer, same with wire. AT ditches (which we know were used extensively) should be included. As should tank run up positions. Craters abatis and dragons teeth, the list goes on.

Ask yourself this, when was the last time you used obstacles and when was the last time you used Engineers to breach a large minefield in a QB.

OK I am done ranting. It is just that almost every wargame out there under uses engineer works or their effect on the battlefield, CM though better than some still has a long way to go.

[aka_tom_w]

Two words

IF Mail order via the web is the only way to go and I assume it will be the same as CMBO.

Then they REALLY really ought to give us.....

ORDER TRACKING!!!!!

Via UPS or FEDEX or something that is automated so we can see the status of our order.

This "when will I get it, how long will it take?" question constantly comes up and it is perhaps the single weakest element of their game and their entire sales and marketing strategy. Many folks here will GALDLY pay extra for over night air and like any other business shippements want and expect to be able to track the progress of the package.

Its NOT that much to ask really.

-tom w

[ 04-25-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Runyan99]

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

2. Per weapon ammo tracking. I'll admit that this may be slightly more work to implement, but I'd really like it if my heavy SMG squad would have some close range firepower left after the LMGs have fired most of their ammo at long range targets. The detailed information would be available in the info screen, for display on the normal user interface this value could of course be averaged out.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes! This is something I have wanted for some time. If a squad holds off an enemy at 300m with the squad LMG, they should be saving much of their rifle ammo, and all of their SMG ammo for close-in work later.

I see the solution as not tracking ammo for each member of the squad, but simply tracking for each seperate type of weapon in the squad.

As you mentioned, an average of these totals could be shown when the unit is selected, with the exact ammo numbers available in the unit info screen.

[ParaBellum]

Good ideas, Dschugaschwili!

I don't think that the first two points should be that hard to implement in CM2.

And I think that the whole arty targeting system should be changed a little bit.

Like to see an option to drop a certain ammount of shells when ordering a fire mission.

[MikeyD]

How about a little buyable pyramid polygon about 5 scale feet high, under 'fortifications' that could have alternate Dragons Teeth (concrete), or tank barrier (steel beam) skins? You'd buy them like you do barbed wire now. Might be destroyable after repeated high caliber pounding? Could be VERY useful for a Stalingrad or Berlin-type scenario.

[rleete]

I gotta agree here. Mostly obstacles are a waste of points. They need to be larger or cheaper, or both. I often see the AI buy them, but rarely see them placed in a logical manner. Usually not even a factor. I like the idea of the tank/vehicle barriers (i.e. dragon's teeth), but they would have to be fairly cheap, too.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I agree, I would like to see more fortifications and mines that are worth the money. But hey if we get bigger minfields in CM2 we gonna need mineclearing tanks. And as far as I know the Germans did not have one. Only a prototype. Come to think of it, did the russians even have one?

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

I agree, I would like to see more fortifications and mines that are worth the money. But hey if we get bigger minfields in CM2 we gonna need mineclearing tanks. And as far as I know the Germans did not have one. Only a prototype. Come to think of it, did the russians even have one?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both Russians and Germans had mineclearing units. They were called 'Prisoners of War'...

but I don't think they were armored :eek:

About cheaper minefields - I understand and agree to you're thoughts from the point of realism, and from the point of the defender. On the other side: have you thought about the fun if you must attack through a gigantic minefield???

BTW, Dschugaschwili, I like your ideas!!!

[Stacheldraht]

Another vote for a reexamination of fortifications for CM2.

I'd like to suggest the inclusion of as many vehicles and variants as possible. Armor is a big part of CM's appeal for a lot of us, and that will presumably be even more the case in the CM2 milieu.

[von shrad]

While this thread is circulating I should like to add a few of my (hairbrained?) suggestions if I may.

1) Display Unit Info in the purchase screen. I feel this will really help to better understand the forces you are choosing. Sure it's possible that it could lead to more Min/Maxing, although most avid players or grogs know their stuff, but it would also be helpful to instantly know the composition of selected units.

2) A covering fire command. One of the hardest things for me to do is advance towards a known enemy without suffering horrendous casualties in the process. I understand that this is a very difficult task in reality but, is there a more disciplined command that we lack?

I envision a Covering Fire command that directs so ordered troops to lay a base of fire, with the sole intention of pinning it's targets, to allow an 'In Command' unit to advance more freely. This could simulate a squad, or group thereof, letting 'all hell break loose'.

Of course the squad would have several penalties while doing so, such as;

a) Greater exposure to targeted units and especially other enemy units in LOS.

Increased chance of Jam's for eligible units

c) Increased chance of enemy 'correctly' identifying unit.

d) Possibly the unit laying the covering fire might only fire for a determined period of time, depending on experience, and then lay low for the remainder of the turn. This would simulate the exposed squad seeking cover after leaving themselves open so much.

This could all be abstracted with a heavy burst of fire set to start at a pre-determined time, much like the pause command.

I feel that this would help create a more realistic feel to the game and allow some more control over an urgent situation.

3) Clear Mines command. This great feature in CM separates the engineers from all others. As it stands now it is hard to tell if your engineers are going to try to clear mines out in the field. With this command players no longer have to guess if their units are close enough or are going to try to clear them. It would also give the player a sense of more involvement in the process IMO. You could place a traceable line to the mines in question, within LOS, and the chosen squad would move to them and start the mine clearing process. (all within the same turn?)

4) Editor suggestions;

Several buttons on the interface, Change to terrain mode, Change to elevation mode in the same screen.

Change elevation buttons within interface and

change to Deployment Zone.

A scrolling map and terrain bar.

Zoom in/out to see more of the editor map?

1 click to purchase screen (again with stats displayed). Sure it might seem a little lazy to click it only 2 more times each way but do it a few hundred times and you will get my point. A back button from the purchase screen too.

These are just a few of my humble suggestions that come from a guy who does not know what is involved to code such a great game like Combat Mission, or anything for that matter. Please feel free to bring me back down to Earth if I am asking for something that is not possible with the current engine or if it all just seems stoopid.

If you don't do this { Insert hollow threat} I just might not buy CM 2 BB {Exit hollow threat}

Who am I kidding? I would name my second born after you guys to get a chance to play CM

'Com'on Combat Mission 2, your supper is getting cold'

"Dad, what did I ask you? Please call me Commie in front of my friends!"

Time for my medicine. Somebody pass me the Hemp Bazooka . That's better. :confused:

vs

[Dschugaschwili]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von shrad:

1) Display Unit Info in the purchase screen. I feel this will really help to better understand the forces you are choosing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I knew I had forgotten something.

I can only second this one.

Dschugaschwili

[von Lucke]

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

How about a little buyable pyramid polygon about 5 scale feet high, under 'fortifications' that could have alternate Dragons Teeth (concrete), or tank barrier (steel beam) skins? You'd buy them like you do barbed wire now. Might be destroyable after repeated high caliber pounding? Could be VERY useful for a Stalingrad or Berlin-type scenario.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to detract from this thread (which has some rather useful suggestions), but you do realize that Roadblocks are impassable to all vehicles and can be placed anywhere, not just on roads?

[Straif]

How about a possibility to pre-define (before movement order) how the given unit will react for an enemy contact. It may be very simple choice menu like: 1. hide, 2. attack, 3. find a defensive positions, 4. withdraw.

It may be possible this way, for example, to use same units just for recon tasks, or for fire support.

Obviously, it would be a "fuzzy logic" decision and an usobordinate green unit may open fire instead to hide themselves in an ambush.

Straif

[AUSSIEJEFF]

Hi chaps,

Anyone interested in seeing the proper use of AT ditches, minefields etc should look at Clubfoots DFDR Scenario titled "Out of Gas".

Very realistic, but you need to use the DFDR converted tilesets to get the best results.

One big wish for CM2 would be to allow capturing of enemy guns, vehicles and armour and the ability to re-use these. Given the huge amount of use of captured weapons in both World Wars, I can't see why this should not be an important part of CM2 gameplay.

What do you think???

Jeff

[Michael Dorosh]

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

One big wish for CM2 would be to allow capturing of enemy guns, vehicles and armour and the ability to re-use these. Given the huge amount of use of captured weapons in both World Wars, I can't see why this should not be an important part of CM2 gameplay.

What do you think???

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did this actually take place at a tactical level? While many foreign weapons were used by the Germans (for example), I don't think this really applied to the 30 minute time frame after their capture. Many of these weapons were rebored/rechambered or otherwise altered before being issued, others were mated with German equipment (ie the Russian 76.2 gun used on the Marder).

[Panzer Leader]

Wasn't there a story about a German officer who leapt onto the hull of a Russian T-34 and used its co-axial MG to hold of an enemy regiment until his men were able to safely retreat. Now THAT is bravery.

I would agreee with M. Dorosh that it does not fit the time-frame of a normal battle, but hey, they are making the maps bigger, why not make the time-limit bigger? In fact, why have a time-limit for battles? Make them go up to 240 turns

I DO think captured weapons would be PERFECT for operations, since their uses are much more tactical than strategic.

Just last night I read in "Enemy at the Gates" where a Russian general (Zhukov IIRC) held off the germans with a captured Infantry gun while his troops hastily made their way to the train station in Stalingrad to prevent capture.

[The_Capt]

One the obstacle "fairness" issue. I see it as one of common agreement between players. Kinda like Fionn et al rules for armour. But the ability should be there.

In reality a lot of assaults had to be done thru minefields.

Good point on the roadblocks which can be used like AT ditches but a re-visit of the expense has to be done.

[rleete]

Does this sound familiar? A platoon of rifle squads battle it out over a VL. You lose a squad, and send reinforcements. Your enemy does the same. Close assaults ensue. More reinforcements. Bloodbath. Eventually, your pixel-grunts take the flag, (Woo-Hoo, way to go, guys!) ending up with a mostly intact squad, low on ammo. They sit there, no longer under fire, on top of 30-40 of their fallen buddies, (sit down,Bauhaus!) and remain low on ammo. There ought to be rifles and ammo littering the tile, but they won't pick it up! I realize that low is intended to represent scrounging, exchanging , etc. But with that much laying around, there ought to be a command for scavenging. It's not like they need to go to the rear areas. It's in the same tile. They're all rifle squads, so use the same ammo. Maybe a delay of one or two turns to sort it all out. I hope this is coded into CM2. Any thoughts?

[Runyan99]

Here are a few more suggestions:

1. Personal weapons for teams and crews. They carried 'em, let's see them use 'em.

2. The ability to play Quick Battles on pre-made maps.

3. Variable ammo supply in Quick Battles. (High, Normal, Low)

4. The ability to start squads at less than full strength at scenario start, both in Quick Battles and created scenarios.

5. The ability to place wrecks/knocked out vehicles at scenario start.

6. I'd like to have the ability to fix units in place for a certain number of turns. This could be used to simulate things like squads which are unprepared, mustering, ordered not to move (historically) or even vehicles which are out of petrol.

7. New terrain tiles. The more the merrier.

[Robert Mayer]

I would also like to see better modeling of obstacles and fortifications. I do, however, see some issues with them in quick battles. In "real life," does every defense involve mines and wire and roadblocks? I do not know, but I do think that given effective and inexpensive mines, wire, and obstacles, nearly every defender in a QB would buy them like crazy, making every QB attack an engineering fest, unless there was a gentleman's agreement, etc. Heck, even meeting engagements might be the same way, if one side planned to lay back and force the other to attack.

Still, I think those issues could be worked through. They're not enough in my book to mitigate against improving the engineering aspects of the game.

[von shrad]

Very good suggestions Runyan99. I do like the idea of playing QB's on pre-made maps and the allownace of understreangth squads at start.

Lets keep this thread alive so there are not 50 'I have some suggestions' threads. That is why I posted to this one already.

What do you guys think of my Covering Fire command?

And to BTS, a question if you will.

How will huge factory complexes be handled in CM2 BtoB? Will 'mouse-holeing' be allowed?

I know its early but I am dying for some details.

vs

[Panzer Leader]

I have a simple-but-dirty solution for cellars in buildings. Model them like foxholes. They can provide extra cover when firing from them, and an increased concealment when the enemy enters the building.

Of course, the graphic itself could look somewhat different, maybe a foursided reverse bunker type look or something - I don't know.

It is a way to keep cellars abstract while still adding to the variety of city combat.

I would also like to see dynamic damage to buildings, and what would be SUPER-COOL would be partially destroyed buildings where maybe only one or two walls remain standing at the edge of a square of rubble.

I would guess trenches are probably gonna make it in, so a way to abstract tunnels might just be to use trenches. These could even connect to cellars in various buildings, giving moving infantry a way to travel safely betweeen buildings.

Oh, other building types, like towers (three stories maybe?) grain elevators, and I want some super cool 3D looking rubble, maybe 3 diferent levels: debris (2d, tanks but not vehicles can cross), rubble (3d but as it is now) and big-freakin' mounds of destruction, 3d and totally impassable

Wow, I'm on a roll or something