kipanderson Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 My CM2 feature wish list. Hi, Now that the team at BTS are hard at work on CM2 it seems appropriate to post up a list of my “wished for” features to be included in CM2. As CM2 is to be a tweaked version of CMBO, i.e. not a new engine, there is nothing very grand about my list, nor very original. If just one of the BTS team read it, and consider the requests for a moment, I will have for-filled my aim. I should say that a straight conversion of CMBO to the Eastern Front would be more than good enough for me, but as it is being heavily tweaked here is my wish-list of features. As suggestions I make are invariable turned down I am not holding my breath, but here they are in no particular order. 1) Full-feature mine warfare. Mines are handled very well in CMBO. However, as they played an even bigger part in warfare on the Eastern Front, imagine modelling Kursk without mines, one or two extra features would be useful. It would be nice to give engineers the ability to crawl forward and clear lanes through minefields. I have heard the argument of this not being within the time scale of CM, but I disagree. In one of my many books on the Eastern Front, most likely one of David Glantz’s, the statistics on Soviet mine clearing are given and when I read them I remember calculating that “lanes” through 10m-20m deep minefields were cleared within 30-60 minutes with relatively few losses. (I have been racking my brains trying to remember in which of my books I saw the data, but I not remember.) As the powers that be at BTS seem to agree with those that argue this is outside the time scale I suppose it will not happen, however, there is another mine warfare feature I have high hopes of. It would be a very great shame, and somewhat puzzling, if the Soviet PT34 mine roller was left out. These mine rollers were a common feature, during the second half of the campaign, and their inclusion would allow a far more realistic modelling of breaching operations. Fingers crossed, this one may happen. 2) Engineers with small explosive packs for blasting through walls. During WW2 the standard way to assault from one adjacent building to another was to blast a small whole in the wall between the buildings and then assault through it using grenades. It would make street fighting a lot more realistic if this tweak were included, in my view. 3) Trenches. It would be fun to see trench systems modelled. From the maps I have seen of Kursk, and other battles, these were a common feature on both sides. 4) An increase in the maximum length of battles in operations. I find the 30 turn maximum length of battles in operations rather restricting. I know a lot of people like shorter battles but I believe 40-50 turns would be more realistic. I am not too keen on the “truncated” nature of battles in operations. “Assaults”, which is really what each “battle” in CM is, seem to have a natural rhythm of around 40 minutes, in my view. Anyway it would be nice to have the option to design operations with longer battles than 30 minutes. 5) Smaller minimum elevation step change. Currently the minimum step change in CM is 2.5m. For CM2 I would like to see that reduced, to say, 1.25m. From the many photographs and maps I have seen of Russia and the Ukraine a step change of 1.25m, combined with a total of some twenty different elevations, would produce very realistic terrain. The 2.5m minimum is just too server for the Eastern Front. 6) Finally, do not forget, what the British called, the RPG Model43 anti-tank grenade. This was a hand thrown grenade that contained a 76mm shaped charge and was designed to land “nose first”. It had a penetration of three inches, 76mm, and according to a vast, 1947 British report on Soviet equipment, was very useful. It was widely available. With CM tracking each grenade individually, the sort of feature I still find hard to believe very time I watch it on a one minute movie, this would be ideal. It means that if, and it is a big “if”, one could separate the Panzergrenadiers from the armour, Soviet infantry would be quite a threat to German tanks. Imagine one of those landing on the roof or decking of a Tiger, unhealthy. I will leave you all alone now. All the best, Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 Originally posted by kipanderson: 4) An increase in the maximum length of battles in operations. I find the 30 turn maximum length of battles in operations rather restricting. I know a lot of people like shorter battles but I believe 40-50 turns would be more realistic. I am not too keen on the “truncated” nature of battles in operations. “Assaults”, which is really what each “battle” in CM is, seem to have a natural rhythm of around 40 minutes, in my view. Anyway it would be nice to have the option to design operations with longer battles than 30 minutes. Kip. All good wishes, but I'd like to add support to number 4. Also, if we could have variable turn battles that would be good. First battle 40 turns, 2nd battle 30 turns, Last battle 10 turns for example. ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busboy Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 If I recall, grenades AREN'T tracked individually in CM, what you see is merely a graphical abstraction of the real. Maybe those grenades could be handled like gammon bombs and so forth are handled now. And for that matter... what about moletov cocktails? Other than that, good list IMO. I'd personally like to see the terrain tile size be cut in half for some things, so buildings can be closer to walls for example. ------------------ busboy CO, 99th Dragons A Warbirds Squadron 'We will heat you up' "It is well that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it." -Robert E. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 10m-20m deep minefields were cleared within 30-60 minutes engineers can already clear minefields in CMBO I believe. Engineers with small explosive packs for blasting through walls. I'd like to see tanks be able to drive through light one and two-story houss. For blowing holes into walls, first BTS will have to model walls (I *think* they are doing this for CM2) Trenches. Already going to be done according to Steve or Charles. I find the 30 turn maximum length of battles in operations rather restricting. I know a lot of people like shorter battles but I believe 40-50 turns would be more realistic. Operations can be 2-20 battles in length, Battles can be made for up to 120 turns already. Smaller minimum elevation step change. Currently the minimum step change in CM is 2.5m. For CM2 I would like to see that reduced, to say, 1.25m. From the many photographs and maps I have seen of Russia and the Ukraine a step change of 1.25m, combined with a total of some twenty different elevations, would produce very realistic terrain. The 2.5m minimum is just too server for the Eastern Front. Smaller steps in elevation making more realistic terrain? Not sure about this, as the terrain in CMBO is abstracted somewhat anyways and designed as such. Would changing the elevation step require a rewrite of the map code though? What does "too server for the Eastern front" mean?? RPG Model43 anti-tank grenade. This was a hand thrown grenade that contained a 76mm shaped charge and was designed to land “nose first”. It had a penetration of three inches, 76mm, and according to a vast, 1947 British report on Soviet equipment, was very useful. It was widely available. Not sure about this weapon. I have sources listing the RPG-40 & 42 AT grenade, and it says "these were largely ineffective against a modern tank." As a matter of fact, they go further and write "In the absence of novel anti-armour technologies, and especially the shaped charge, the soviets made a number of attempts to develop improvised anti-tank weapons." There's no mention of the RPG-43. "Red Army Handbook 1939-1945" by Zalgoa & Ness. I'm wondering if this rpg-43 was used in the war or even existed as a shaped charge. I'll look around some more. It'll be intresting to see how BTS models the soviet anti-tank rifles, which became less and less effective as the war progressed. What damage will an AT-rifle actually do to a Tiger or Panther, for example and how will this be handled in the game? Lend-lease bazookas and piats as well as molotovs (for both German and Soviets) were available as well later on. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JOEY Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 I think it would be cool if you could do everything that we can now, but have an option to take control have any unit on the battlefield. How cool would it be to drive a Tiger tank around. IMAGINE THAT!!!! Later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radcliffe Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 I have probably already made a fool of myself on the issue of new features for Combat Mission. However, I must say that using the Quick Battle generator is the greatest kick for me in the game, and it would be terrific to be able to dial up more interesting kinds of terrain options -- with rivers, fortifications, and bridges -- using a radically beefed-up version of this screen in CM2. ------------------ Nathan Wilbur 39 Federal Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 Yeah, and how about flares, be it off map or from tanks, troops, etc.I was playing a game during night time the other day and thought WoW! how cool would it be to be able to use flares to expose the enemy that was just walking across the open knowing that I couldn't shoot them. Also I am hoping the Russian KV-1 will be in the new game. Sure it will, it's the neatest looking tank the Russians came up with, well actually I think it was the neatest any country came up with. I don't know if it was any good but man it was sharp! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow 1st Hussars Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 What I'm hoping for is a type of mine that you can place in a house. Not one that will demolish the house, but one that would go off if say, the soldiers went up to the second floor, because the door to the stairs is mined.... ------------------ Charlie don't Surf shadow@jagdtiger.de Canada For CM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 For me...some kind of representation of partisans; either as units or abstractly. I know this has been discussed before. By abstractly, perhaps affecting the amount of reinforcements due to arrive in any given scenario. ------------------ Webmaster http://www.trailblazersww2.org http://www.vmfa251.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow 1st Hussars Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 I just thought of something, I don't know if this has been mentioned before in the hunreds of millions of billions of CM2 threads, but being able to designate units and "captured" and "unarmed" in the scenario editor. As a scenario desginer this would be neat to use in designing "rescue the prisoners" type games. ------------------ Charlie don't Surf shadow@jagdtiger.de Canada For CM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 Originally posted by Tiger: Not sure about this weapon. I have sources listing the RPG-40 & 42 AT grenade, and it says "these were largely ineffective against a modern tank." As a matter of fact, they go further and write "In the absence of novel anti-armour technologies, and especially the shaped charge, the soviets made a number of attempts to develop improvised anti-tank weapons." There's no mention of the RPG-43. "Red Army Handbook 1939-1945" by Zalgoa & Ness. I'm wondering if this rpg-43 was used in the war or even existed as a shaped charge. I'll look around some more. Chamberlain & Gander in Anti-Tank Weapons, p. 59 show the RPG 1940 and the RPG 1943, which were hand thrown, and the VGPS 1940 rifle grenade. They agree that the RPG 1940 was not successful. It was a stick grenade with an impact fuse. The VGPS 1940 had a hollow charge that reportedly would penetrate 30mm of armor with a range of 65 yards. The RPG 1943 was also a stick grenade, but with a hollow charge. No info on penetration, but it was two ounces heavier than the RPG 1943. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Williams Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 I'll also add a wish: a "withdraw" command. What I am looking for here is some way to quit a scenario without surrendering your remaining forces. The "cease fire" option only works if your opponent agrees to it. This has been discussed in more detail in another thread, and I sure would like to see it in CM2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Warrior Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 I would like to have the ability to attach a user defined text for each unit that could be displayed in a small message window. This would allow the player to specify verbal orders, make mental notes, and/or record event of interest. For instance if for unit you could enter, "scout out top of hill then wait for rest of platoon" Or "was shot at by MG fire on north ridge while crossing clearing" This would particularly ne useful in the big scenarios to help jog ones memory of what the plan was, be used to enhance roll playing, or just note little details of interest such as "This bazooka team belongs to B Platoon" "Yikes, I just lost 4 men to arty fire!!!" [This message has been edited by Midnight Warrior (edited 02-22-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted February 22, 2001 Author Share Posted February 22, 2001 RPG Model 43 AT Grenade. Hi, Just a few words to confirm what Michael Emrys wrote about Soviet WW2 anti-tank grenades. During WW2 the Soviets used three main types of anti-tank grenade. The RGP 40, the RPG 43 and lastly the RGP 6. The RPG 40 was indeed a stick grenade with just a conventional explosive charge. As such it lacked penetrating power. The RPG 43, and later RPG 6, both had the same 76mm shaped charge and a penetration of 76mm. Both the latter two designs were extremely clever and if you could see the illustrations I have of how they worked, you too, would conclude that they did in deed stand a reasonable chance of striking nose first. At this point it may be appropriate to give a brief explanation of why it was that the Soviets were so behind the other major players in hand-held anti-tank weapons during WW2. The reason is that during one of Stalin’s purges the entire team responsible for designing such weapons was wiped out. No one thought to build up a new team until a year or so into the war. The problem was not with shaped charge technology, which the Soviets made widespread use of and had a sound grip on. (In CM2 you will find a lot of HEAT rounds available to Soviet artillery. Or you should do if Steve and Charles model things correctly which I am sure they will.) Just post war, in 1946, the Soviets introduced a number of bazooka type weapons. My main source for all information on WW2 Soviet weapons is a stunning document I came across in the archives of the Tank Museum in Bovington, Dorset. Record of Foreign Weapons and Equipment, Volume One, USSR. It is about one thousand pages long and was produced by British intelligence in 1947. Everything you could possibly wish to know about the subject. Makes even the best books on the subject look amateur. I approached Greenhill Books, the publisher, but they said it would be far too expensive to produce properly for the size of the market. All the best, Kip. PS.I had the entire document photocopied and sent to me by the staff at the Tank Museum. They will do the same for you, at a price. If you are interested ring and ask. [This message has been edited by kipanderson (edited 02-22-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 My simple wish for CM2 is that it'll run properly on my mac G3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts