What we need in CM(X), railroad tracks that work!

[Ryan Crierie]

In CMBO, CMBB, we had railroad tracks, but they

were more of a "chrome" thing that really didn't do much.

I for one, would like to see armored trains

make an appearance in CM(X) to give those railroad

tracks some functional use, or similarly, railroad

boxcars that you can use as cover for units.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Try Railroad Tycoon II or III.

Now boxcars, engines, and tenders (and damaged versons to simulate train wrecks) that can be placed on tracks (or off to the side for the derailed wrecks) to simulate rail yards and such would be great!! But functional trains don't make sence, even the armored types.

[ October 03, 2003, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ]

[Michael Emrys]

For Mace's sake, we need lots and lots of sheep.

Michael

[gautrek]

How about my mouse wheel working on the scenario screen.That would cheer me up no end.

In fact if they only fixed this that would do for the new engine

[Mace]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

For Mace's sake, we need lots and lots of sheep.

I love you, Michael! *sniff*

Mace

[Monty]

Recently, i played a scenario in which was a heavy forested area.

I had to attack and i had 2 tanks which i only could advance via 2 durtroads or via a railroad.

One of my tanks used the railroad, on both sides were forests so he could not have escaped IF there would appear a train

So i was glad there are no working trains in CMBB but if would be very cool i think

Monty

[Ryan Crierie]

But functional trains don't make sence, even the armored types. [/QB]

Vader, Armored trains were used extensively by

both sides on the Eastern front to patrol the

very large stretches of land that needed patrolling

and to keep supply lines open. it would be very

interesting to do a armored train vs partisan

scenario...

[Andrew Kulin]

Not quite on topic, but one terrain feature missing from CMBB are railway-road crossings.

[coe]

actually howaobout this for an idea (not related to trains).

Company commanders are more effective in rallying troops in their own company.

Broken HQ's can get rallyng benefits from higher level HQ's.

Company headquarters for tanks.

A better way to deploy guns - e.g. for the 88m it's impossible to unload the guns into an adjacent woods because the truck/prime mover can't move directly on it. There should be a little bit of leeway or an indicated arc where you know you can deploy it.

I wouldn't mind if there is some way to enter

in elements of the same company over several turns. Right now it seems each platoon that comes in is independent.

I think it'd also be cool if you could get reinforcements in the middle of an individual battle in an operation.

An option for "fire one then run like heck" for

panzerschreks...they seem to stick around waay too long.

I'd still love to see non-mortars be able to do

indirect fire (I assume there'd have to be some minimum range for them though right?)

maybe some sort of gradual ammunition replacement that goes on (reflects somebody from the rear comin up with the ammo) I'd assume you could set the rate from none to high.

A covered retreat or fighting withdrawal command that is the equivalent of advance....(in advance your troops turn their backs if you use it to). retreat).

And planes which can target strafe a bunch of squads (right now with the excpetion of bombs/missiles, they strafe one target. what would be neat of course is if a plance is doing an attack run, trooops who are in the attack path dive for cover and stay motionless even if the plane hasn't fired yet.

Cannibalizing another weapon - an abandoned/immobile tank can give it's ammo to another tank (provided it takes a few minutes, the transfer is slow)...I suppose if either tank takes fire while that is happening, the risk of crew casualties could be much much higher, or something like that and that the reaction time of the tanks is incredibly slow while the transfer is going on.

Of course if a weapon is destroyed there might be some left over ammo left (e.g. perhaps if it is destroyed, there could be some stochastic pick of leftover ammo).

Just some ideas

Conan

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by coe:

Company headquarters for tanks.

Agreed.

An option for "fire one then run like heck" for panzerschreks...they seem to stick around waay too long.

Why can't you just give them a movement order with or without a delay?

A covered retreat or fighting withdrawal command that is the equivalent of advance....(in advance your troops turn their backs if you use it to). retreat).

I haven't tried this so I don't know for sure if it works, but somebody posted a few weeks back that if you give them a CA to the front and an Advance order to the rear, they move retrograde while firing to the front.

And planes which can target strafe a bunch of squads (right now with the excpetion of bombs/missiles, they strafe one target. what would be neat of course is if a plance is doing an attack run, trooops who are in the attack path dive for cover and stay motionless even if the plane hasn't fired yet.

When one of my Stukas attacked my own men, :mad: that's exactly what happened. Every squad within 40-50 meters of the targeted squad hit the dirt and started crawling.

Cannibalizing another weapon - an abandoned/immobile tank can give it's ammo to another tank (provided it takes a few minutes, the transfer is slow)...I suppose if either tank takes fire while that is happening, the risk of crew casualties could be much much higher, or something like that and that the reaction time of the tanks is incredibly slow while the transfer is going on.

This may have happened under fire somewhere or other, but it was uncommon enough that I've never heard of it. I think if it were allowed it would turn up in the game far too often to be regarded as authentic.

Michael

[coe]

hmm as for the fire one then get the hell out of there, or a hit that target then go back to hiding (for AT guns).....

in the panzerschrek thing, it's hard to time the fire and move delay - especially if you don't know when the enemy will come within your target area. Thus you could start running before even firing...(that would be bad)....as for the AT gun,

if you hit and kill the enemy vehicle early in the turn, you might want it not to start firing at other things that come into view towards the end (especially if they are like in packs of 5 or more)....it's kind of the pick of the isolated one then hide again.....or it is the hit one and destroy it before everyone else has a chance to figure where you are.

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by gautrek:

How about my mouse wheel working on the scenario screen.

Ditto. They made CMBB much more user friendly, but why not include this? :confused:

[Ryan Crierie]

How about multiple moon phases being available

for night scenarios:

"No Moon, Quarter moon, Full Moon", because a full

moon shows a lot more light than no moon at all.

[Pzman]

Originally posted by MeatEtr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gautrek:

How about my mouse wheel working on the scenario screen.

Ditto. They made CMBB much more user friendly, but why not include this? :confused: </font>

[David Chapuis]

Back to trains.

Did the Finns use their armored trains and railway guns in the continuation war?

[tooz]

I'll have to cast a yes vote for the trains, their inclusion in CMx2 will allow more options for scenario designers. Both sides (German and Russians) used these. Most of the Russian usage was early in the war--were they didn't last long, and the Germans used these continuously in their occupied areas. I could envision quite a few nasty Partisan battles. :cool:

[Jaws]

And if we have the trains working I like to see real aircraft and not just shadows And to al of those fast thinkers.. I own FS 2004, IL-2, IL-2 FB, Combat flight sim 1,2,3

[Sergei]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

Back to trains.

Did the Finns use their armored trains and railway guns in the continuation war?

I don't think Finland had any railway guns. But armoured trains were used to secure rail lines.

I haven't heard of an armoured train ever taking part in a frontline operation in WW2. They were too expensive for being wasted on something like that, as they were needed for other purposes.

[Ryan Crierie]

Originally posted by Jaws:

[QB] And if we have the trains working I like to see real aircraft and not just shadows

Hmm, I dunno. That's a lot of extra work, for something that will only be briefly glimpsed as

it whizzes into the area and looses some cannonfire...

Perhaps a simplistic 1,000 poly only model?

[Ryan Crierie]

We also need some special victory point rules

that can be implemented in the scenario for

partisans. See, partisans don't play by the

same rules as we do. While a conventional military

force might seize ground, a partisan might just

want to blow up a specific building or do some

other task.

Also, such rules could be used in non-partisan

scenarios.

To give an example:

You set a Victory Location on some house,

which you name the "Kommandants house", and

you specify that the partisans must take

that victory location and hold it for x amount

of turns in the first x turns of the game to

gain x amount of victory points, representing

the various partisan stuff that was time

sensitive, such as snatch n grab operations,

grabbing specific papers, etc etc.

This could also be used to simulate other

stuff such as spirited defenses, IE, if you

can hold the seelowe heights for longer than

it was held historically, you get x amount

of VP points.

[Ryan Crierie]

double post (delete this)

[ October 10, 2003, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Ryan Crierie ]

[Beta1]

That is a good idea.

[Ryan Crierie]

Originally posted by Beta1:

That is a good idea.

Yeah, we can do this already, but we have to

do it manually with pen and paper. It would be

great if the next iteration of the game engine

took that off our hands

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Finland had and used railway guns in the winter war - dont know about later. They also used their armored trains against frontline Russian troops. But that might have been just a desparation measure. That is why I was wondering about the continuation war.