A few suggestions for CM2

[Panzer Leader]

Basically (after reading my last post)

I want Stalingrad to look like the freaking APOCALYPSE!

[AUSSIEJEFF]

Some good ideas Runyan99...

I'd like to add to the extra texture tiles the following types:

(1) Sandbag tiles (3 heights - low / medium / high to allow proper representation and LOS to/from dug-in weapons pits, machinegun nests, HQ shelters.

(2) Piled rock/earth tiles to represent as above in different environments.

Added to the above, how about a DIG IN order that allows infantry units to create a shallow foxhole over say, 5 turns and for vehicles/armour say 10 turns to drop a couple of feet into a shallow dugout.... since in reality the humble spade/trenching tool is one of the most valued tools available to both an attacking OR defending infantry force in many situations.

Jeff

[AUSSIEJEFF]

Hey Capt.....

I agree entirely with your comments........the value and useage of engineers / minefields / obstacles IS much underrated in the current CM model.

It would be great if CM2 could place more emphasis on that aspect of warfare (would make the simulation EVEN MORE interesting than it is now!)

Cheers,

Jeff

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

[Eric Alkema]

I don't want to nag BTS, but I also want them to know what I want. So here goes.

I love the move orders described in Charles' interview. Add a "Move toward this point until you can see it" (for vehicles and infantry) and a "Move no faster than X mph" (vehicles) and I'm a happy camper. BTW, item two would make it much easier to convoy/escort other vehicles at faster than a walking pace. I realize that the current game engine is not likely to support those things, but I want them anyway.

When doing area fire (that includes indirect fire) I would like to be able to say, fire no more than X rounds.

Another vote for per weapon ammo tracking.

Displaying unit info on the purchase screen is a good one for those of us who have not yet achieved groghood.

Another vote for all 7 of Runyan99's suggestions.

This really isn't important but for the sake of my own personal morale, I would like another option for the looser of a battle. As it is now I can either surrender or hang around and force my opponent to wipe me out or run out the clock. I would like to be able to do what a real commander could do (ok, all you Monty Python fans out there, say it with me...) RUN AWAYYYY! True, it is still a loss, but not as bad a loss as surrendering or being wiped out. Actually, in a situation where the defender was trading land for time (like maybe Russians) there might be few to no flags and if the defender did enough damage, it might even be a victory.

[Dschugaschwili]

Another idea: Let the player setting up a QB specify the length and width of the battlefield instead of just having small, medium and large to choose from.

Dschugaschwili

[Panther G]

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

Some good ideas Runyan99...

I'd like to add to the extra texture tiles the following types:

(1) Sandbag tiles (3 heights - low / medium / high to allow proper representation and LOS to/from dug-in weapons pits, machinegun nests, HQ shelters.

(2) Piled rock/earth tiles to represent as above in different environments.

Added to the above, how about a DIG IN order that allows infantry units to create a shallow foxhole over say, 5 turns and for vehicles/armour say 10 turns to drop a couple of feet into a shallow dugout.... since in reality the humble spade/trenching tool is one of the most valued tools available to both an attacking OR defending infantry force in many situations.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I coudn't agree more. Another thing I would like is smaller streets. Not all the streets in Stalingrad were 20 meters wide! I also think that they should make rubble 3D Instead of 2D

Panther G