Jeff Heidman Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 Originally posted by Chupacabra: My big one is city fighting. At the moment it's really...unsatisfying. I can't really see a way of doing the Eastern Front without pretty much ripping out the existing building code and starting from scratch. For example, like Jeff said, you're going to need buildings that take up more than one tile. Other issues I can see - fire and damage. Both affect the whole building instantaneously, which won't work for factories for obvious reasons. I'd be mightily upset if one squirt from a flamethrower miraculously sent the entire Tractor Works up in a blazing inferno, or if a single tank shot brought it crashing to the ground. *If* they reduce the tile size in half, but come up with a way to link buidling tiles together, than it would be ok to have each tile catch fire/rubble/whatever as individual units. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Goofy: There needs to be something showing c and c on tanks. I can't for the life of me imagine how this could be omitted. If the technology isn't ready to implement this for some reason, better that BTS should skip over CM2 for the time being and go directly to CM3. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Michael emrys: I can't for the life of me imagine how this could be omitted. If the technology isn't ready to implement this for some reason, better that BTS should skip over CM2 for the time being and go directly to CM3. Michael I agree. Especially with the Russians for the first half of the conflict. Very little inter-tank communication, few radios, even flag waving semiphore stuff. You would have to have an equivilent squad leader that would have to stay unbuttoned to keep his men in control. If he gets whacked... there goes the C&C for the whole platoon of tanks. They should have lowered initiative, longer pauses.. lower morale or something like that. As it stands now, Russian tanks would seem to be way too powerful because they could be better organized with better communication than they actually had. just my 2c. -------- Scott Karch: Often wrong..... never in doubt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Michael emrys: better that BTS should skip over CM2 for the time being and go directly to CM3. Michael Over my dead body!!!!! Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Mace: Over my dead body!!!!! Mace *cue sound of gun-cocking * You gotsta ask y'self...Are ya feelin' lucky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roborat Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 I would like to see more realistic and flexible artillery modelling, for fire patterns, etc. And a foo that can move withoout screwing up the fire mission. And a foo who can stay hidden and direct fire. Basically a reworked artillery model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claytonious2 Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 The single biggest improvement I would like to see is the ability to replay an entire battle as a single, long movie. Especially after I play TCP/IP with friends, we would love to just sit and watch the entire battle as a single movie and hoot and holler and laugh at each other's mistakes and surprises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armornut Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 What about a KV 3? I got the following information from Red Steel (http://www.algonet.se/~toriert) In late 1940/41 two prototypes were built, armed with a 85mm F-30 gun and three 7,62mm DT machine guns. Ammo load was 91 x 85mm rounds and 4.032 rounds for the MGs. It was equipped with a V-12 engine, providing 850 hp. It had a total weight of 63.000kg and its maximum speed was 33km/h. Or maybe a PT-1? (Again thanks to Red Steel for the information) In 1932, N. Astrov and N. Tsiets completed a prototype of the PT-1 (Plavayushia Tank-1, Amphib Tank-1). The PT-1 was basically an enlarged BT tank hull, large enough to provide enough buoyancy which permitted the tank to float. A propeller was fitted under the hull, and a large rudder was provided for steering. Trials with the PT-1 totalled two years and there was so many problems that it was decided to develop an improved type, the PT-1A. The PT-1A could be distinguished from the early PT-1 by the lack of a side turret and different tracks. None of the prototypes had their armament fitted during trials. The project was considered to be too complicated to enter mass-production and it was dropped. However, a small production run of the PT-1A was completed to permit trials with amphib tanks. Just my two tracks, Armornut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossGr Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 One word, Lighting, I need some shadows from the birdseye view to highlight terrain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Wisbech_lad wrote: As infantry will have very little ability to kill tanks in 41/42/43, apart from engineers in close assualt, AT guns will become more important in the defense. Anti-tank rifles were common and reasonably effective against most early-war tanks. In fact, ATRs could cause enough damage to even late-war tanks to force them away from battle. (A hit on a track-wheel could knock it out increasing the probability of immobilization. At that point a crew with healthy self-preservation instincts would drive back for repairs). - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Speaking of threnches, I have read somewhere an opinion (by veteran soviet officer) that digging trenches instead of foxholes whenever that was at all possible (ie, not only when they were going to live there for some time) was the single most important improvement in soviet platoon tactics. According to the author, stability of even a single trench defense was by an order of magnitude better than a set of foxholes. Basically, it amounted to a rifleman not feeling alone against the whole world. Plus NCOs could bollock their subordinates close and personal right in the heat of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 As many of you well know, Russian infantrymen were superb at digging and camouflage. German soldiers recognized that if you didn't attack a Russian unit within a day of their moving into a position, they were in for a very hard time. As for infantry not being able to deal with tanks in the early years of the war - the comment on ATRs seem apt, but also look at German Infantry handbook and the many ways in which infantry handled armour - as a normal part of their training. Buchner, the author, personally assaulted T-34 tanks by putting hand grenades down the cannon barrel. Infantry were taught a variety of methods of assault, from putting logs in the tracks, to coating the vision slits with mud, using grenade bundles on the engine deck, wedging Teller mines under the turret overhang on the T-34, etc. Infantry in 1941-42 was not powerless to defeat armour at all, though it was always close-in work. Having said that, the T-34 was very much the "uber tank" of 1941. But the poor radio communication in Soviet tanks is another excellent point brought up here, and severely limited what Russian armour could do. I very much hope this will be represented in the game. Didn't the early T-34 also have an undermaned turret crew? I can't remember now. ------------------ http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Why would anyone who knows how CM is put together persist in asking for 'sewers in the cities'? If it's not entirely impossible, it'd surely add significantly to the complexity (and RAM) of the game, slowing it to a dead crawl on a lot of PCs. Why not add a subway system then, or railroad tunnels, ability to transit under bridges, Ferries for the Leningrad scenarios, or aerodromes with parked planes, or how about the ability to pilot those airplanes? The point opf the phrase "Pie in the Sky" is you won't ever get it until you die "bye and bye". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Mikey D: Why would anyone who knows how CM is put together persist in asking for 'sewers in the cities'? If it's not entirely impossible, it'd surely add significantly to the complexity (and RAM) of the game, slowing it to a dead crawl on a lot of PCs. Why not add a subway system then, or railroad tunnels, ability to transit under bridges, Ferries for the Leningrad scenarios, or aerodromes with parked planes, or how about the ability to pilot those airplanes? The point opf the phrase "Pie in the Sky" is you won't ever get it until you die "bye and bye". Why would anybody who knew anything about WW II urban combat not ask for their inclusion? [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-07-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 If you can tell me how to add buildable 3-D see-thru sewers systems under buildings in CM2 scenarios WITHOUT doubling the game size and slowing down the action by half, I'm with yah. The ultimate game isn't the ultimate game if no machine can run it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 Originally posted by Mikey D: If you can tell me how to add buildable 3-D see-thru sewers systems under buildings in CM2 scenarios WITHOUT doubling the game size and slowing down the action by half, I'm with yah. The ultimate game isn't the ultimate game if no machine can run it. Blah blah blah, don't hassle me with reality! If you could do it (how the heck would I know if it's possible? SHEESH) it could also simulate tunnels - the Germans were using mine shafts during the fighting around May sur Orne for just one example. It would not be an insignifcant feature - we've seen at least four historical examples in this thread. Anyway, my suggestions on this board aren't for CM2 necessarily - ten years from now, everyone will be running P2000s, and the bar will have been raised considerably for everyone. Look where we were in 1991 - I was playing Under Fire on a 386/33. These are all considerations to be made along the way. Personally, I won't be content until I've seen the majority of stuff that ASL had also featured in the CM series. I hope BTS feels the same way. No harm discussing it now a few years in advance. Now, on the other hand, if I were stupid enough to say that I wouldn't buy CM2 unless it had x, y and z in it (my right as a consumer) and it turned out x, y and z were impossible - well, that's my loss. Personally I love CM and will continue to play it. On its own merits, it is a great game - perhaps the best I've ever owned (and I played everything from Up Front to Ambush to Sniper to ASL). But since BTS has committed to constant improvements, the least we can do is commit to nagging them incessantly! ------------------ http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rex_Bellator Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 The big one for me is NON-Fog of War effected stats at the end of the game. Right down to what colour shade of underwear the troops were wearing on turn 24 +15 seconds. Actually I may be able to guess the colour... ------------------ "We're not here to take it - We're here to give it" General Morshead's response to the popular newspaper headline "Tobruk Can Take It" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Mad idea: make two holes on the map - sewer exits. Have a squad enter it on turn X and reappear on the other end on Turn X+N. Something like that. Gamey perhaps, but better than nothing (?) A raw idea, for sure. Tunnel fighting (as opposed to tunnel travelling) was rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Originally posted by Skipper: Mad idea: make two holes on the map - sewer exits. Have a squad enter it on turn X and reappear on the other end on Turn X+N. Something like that. Gamey perhaps, but better than nothing (?) A raw idea, for sure. Tunnel fighting (as opposed to tunnel travelling) was rare. I would agree with this; at Ortona and May sur Orne (the two examples I gave previously), the Canadians never ventured down into the sewers/tunnels, and were quite mystified at how the Germans kept popping up behind them in buildings that had been cleared already. This is an excellent idea, actually. Even if there were rare cases of "sewer combat" you could handle it all off map - no need to give orders or have on screen resolution. Good thinking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucero1148 Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Considering the state of the Soviet army in the early war years I believe toilet's should be included as well as kitchen sinks. For whole armies were encircled and wiped out and they must have all been scared s***less and since many units didn't have rifles for an attack but had to pick up a gun when someone fell, well that kitchen sink would be preferable than bare hands! Lastly a better artillery model for the FO. Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntg84 Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 Completley modeled interiors with chairs, clocks, bathrooms, beds, and a kitchen sink instead of that bleak gray interior. I'd also like some curtains over the windows and some nice wallpaper to dress it up a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest olebooya Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 What about the armored trains? Just imagine a company of Cossacks swooping down on their horses and assaulting an armored train sporting twin 88's. Oops..no horses scrap the train then too. Seriously top bids.... 1. more building options....multi tile 2. smaller tiles so walls hedges and the like can be closer to the raod (nah...Ive got a fast PC no slow down here) 3. vehicle command...reasons already given...imagine a platoon of t34's in 41 not penalized for poor command....berlin would have been in flames by 42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts