Objects still mising in CM

[eichenbaum]

Maybe some of you remember this topic. There were a lot of good reactions to it, positive and negative. You didn't got fooled by some nice pictures but tried to give some real arguments. If you couldn't respond to that before but you would like to, go ahead...

It's not a list of 'what I want' but 'what might be missing' :

<HR><table width="80%" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"><tr> <td width="10%"><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox" value="checkbox" disabled></div></td><td width="90%"><s>Horses (with or without wagons)</s></td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox2" value="checkbox" disabled></div></td><td><s>Motorcycles</s></td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox3" value="checkbox" disabled></div></td><td><s>Bicycles</s></td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox43" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Antitank objects (Concrete Pillars, Steel Crosses etc..)</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox42" value="checkbox" disabled></div></td><td><s>Bulldozers</s></td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox4" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Closed trucks (with canvas)</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox5" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Train Station</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox6" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>2 meters tall stone walls</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"> <input type="checkbox" name="checkbox7" value="checkbox"></div></td><td>Telephone poles</td></tr><tr> <td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox8" value="checkbox"></div></td><td>Stairs for slopes</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox9" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Dirt tiles</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox102" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Abby's / Cloisters</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox103" value="checkbox"></div></td><td>A Real dropping of paratroopers (falling out of the sky)</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"> <input type="checkbox" name="checkbox10" value="checkbox"></div></td><td>On map artillery (for use with target referention points)</td></tr></table><HR>

[Sergei]

Another thing still missing in CM:

:mad: My T-26 misses every time!!! :mad:

[theike]

, good of u to come back on this.

I wouldnt want a tile just to go for that maybe one in a map train station, id rather have some new general usable building in the set.

Ive been hearing more people miss the ability to make real fortifications...there are some ways to get there...one that i would love is to be able to make 'walls' by elevating the terrain, and still build on and 'underneath' it. And for that mather...what about the engine straightening up the roads laign on elevations like it does with the buildings and water?...but not 3 wide, but just the one road tile wide. (tricky with the roads, i know: it should only work at its side, not in its length)

If that got changed, i could make a more dense buildup inviroment in a heavy rural setting; good for all sorts of natural obstacles to take.

A second tile for roadblocks would be cool,being steel crosses.

Lanters?...i say, not usefull(...and on what tile to put them? only a new tile abbles u to not get them all over the place, and a new tile just for a lantern, that would be odd.)

sand: i say; yes, usefull...but we all know thats gonna come now anyways.

It leaves me more to ask; why do we just have corn? why are the cornfields in winter all gone?...wouldnt there be sand in the winter? and not plain grass?

I want fields, plowed-up dark and extremely muddy on rainy days....

(not for cmak that is...i would have wanted it for cmbo)

Good thing is; we can finaly make beaches after cmak comes out

whoops, u said OBJECTS...hmm, objects........

(maybe those invinsible things flying through the air that make my tanks burst and my infantry drop? ...)

elsehow none i believe...

[ September 02, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: theike ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Re: the train station - I like the idea behind the factory; ie you can construct them into various shapes. I think instead of specific "station" type buildings we need to see some stuff like

split-level buildings

three and four level buildings

small steeples that can be occupied

round buildings

warehouse type buildings (ie two or three levels high, but with only a ground floor that you can drive vehicles into)

occupiable rooftops

Other "strange" looking buildings with acute angles on the corners

ie - more of a construction kit for buildings that can let us simulate European urban terrain much more accurately, from "government buildings" (as Steel Panthers called them) like the Reichstag to train stations to factories, warehouses, cathedrals, etc.

As it stands now, the building sets are kind of boring; the factories have helped out a great deal, but there is still a blah to them.

Also, we need to be able to reduce the width of a street from 20 metres. In Italy especially, streets were often only 20 feet wide. At least we're not at the 40 metre wide streets of Squad Leader, but there is more work to be done!

[Pud]

Probably came up in last thread but road/rail crossings. I know we can mod it (and have done) to simulate it but its still coded as rail/rail crossing with its increased chance of being immobilised.

Another would be sandbags, eg for gun emplacements etc :cool:

[JasonC]

Elevation type terrain. Right now the smallest elevation change feature has to be 1 level over 20m. But many tactically significant terrain types involve small elevation changes in a much shorter space.

I am thinking of gulleys, berms, railway embankments, hedgerows etc. Each of them effectively plus or minus half to one elevation level, but only along a narrow linear feature, laid down like a hedge.

Building interior terrain.

Enterable and exitable fortifications, not treated as vehicles but more like trenches are now. In place of the existing bunker model.

Tunnels simulated using the "sewer movement" feature but place-able in many kinds of terrain.

Mountain terrain types like - caves, bare rock (little cover, no vehicles), morraine (a "super rough" that is hard to move across, like rubble).

Combination terrain types, like scattered trees in soft ground or marsh, or rocky brush, or trees right up to the edge of a house without a little open ground strip around it, or a wall running through wheat. Some sort of 2 key procedure to specify it, rather than tons more tiles in the editor.

Heat haze, sun glare, etc. I can tell they already have vehicle dust from the CMAK screen shots. (I hope they have more HE kicked up dust, too). Get the rest of the LOS effect "kit". Very important for the desert.

[WWB]

The only thing on the list you cannot do with the current editor is 2m high stone walls. Everything else is a graphical fourish (closed trucks, train station, stairs, telephone poles), beyond simulation (bulldozers, stairs, telephone polls) or easily done (rough as AT obstacles).

That said I would love to see gullies of some sort, as well as "empty" bunker type units that squads could "occupy."

WWB

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Also, we need to be able to reduce the width of a street from 20 metres. In Italy especially, streets were often only 20 feet wide.

Sometimes less than that even. Just last night I came across a picture of what I take to be an M7 Priest parked in an alley in a Sicilian village and it has maybe an inch to spare on either side. How they got it in there is wonder enough; getting it out must have taken a miracle.

At least we're not at the 40 metre wide streets of Squad Leader...

That was one of the things I truly hated about that game. Even worse were the man-pack flamethrowers with 40m range because, as designer John Hill put it, "they need to be able to reach across streets."

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Also, we need to be able to reduce the width of a street from 20 metres. In Italy especially, streets were often only 20 feet wide.

Sometimes less than that even. Just last night I came across a picture of what I take to be an M7 Priest parked in an alley in a Sicilian village and it has maybe an inch to spare on either side. How they got it in there is wonder enough; getting it out must have taken a miracle.

At least we're not at the 40 metre wide streets of Squad Leader...

That was one of the things I truly hated about that game. Even worse were the man-pack flamethrowers with 40m range because, as designer John Hill put it, "they need to be able to reach across streets."

Michael </font>

[lucero1148]

Has anyone mentioned main roads with curves in them? At present mainroads are straight lines or 90degree turns. No way to make gradual curves or rondabouts. That would add realism to city maps. Case in point is a map on the Reich Chancellory and the main road isn't straight at all but has a gradual bend in it.

My 2 cents.

Patrick

[Cabron66]

Eichebaum, shouldn't you be somewhere making huge maps? Not enough to do with the whole Storfang thing? Anyway, I hate to suggest additions because the list simply grows and grows to absurdity, but a few well-placed suggestions might make a difference. Avoiding the inclusion of eye-candy, my list would look something like this:

1) Defences: Give me the ability, as a designer, to do fortresses, the Atlantic Wall, the Maginot Line, Dunkirk, Tobruk, etc. with some degree of realism. Nothing excessive, but improved minefields, bunkers, trenches and barbed wire would be a start.

2) Military Structures: I like the idea of more buildings, but I think things like depots, command posts, radar towers, barracks, tents, etc. need to come first. I don't mind simplified urban environments, but I do wonder how much more depth could be added to scenarios by including, say, airfields or large gun emplacements. CM promises to become grander in scale, but with features like these smaller actions could be portrayed as well.

3) Improved Close Air Support: The mass use of radios in WWII allowed the battlefield commander to do things impossible in any previous war. One of these, call upon air support and reasonably expect it to arrive and do its job under decent conditions. CMBB included more planes (a glaring gap in CMBO), but still did not give the player any control over the planes. This is not a simple thing to do (and I expect would require a great deal of coding), but would make a tremendous addition to the game.

That's it. If CMAK has a bit of this, I'll be a happy camper. A better scenario editor is good for everyone involved. Just include the options and see what designers and modders do with them.

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

How about BTS making some of their code available via an API into a dynamic link library. This would allow programmers amongst us to develop add-ons to perhaps integrate some of the manually driven campaign rules that people have developed. Another example could be a utility to read a zip file containing a bunch of mods and render the object in 3-D just as it would appear in CM - the user could then decide if he wanted the mod or not.

Of course creating these DLLs may not be easy, but it would allow the game to extend in much the same way as having all the bitmaps public for the modders to manipulate.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

At least we're not at the 40 metre wide streets of Squad Leader...

That was one of the things I truly hated about that game. Even worse were the man-pack flamethrowers with 40m range because, as designer John Hill put it, "they need to be able to reach across streets."

</font>

[klapton]

Road-railroad crosses could be made already in CMBO. Just join the road and the railroad at a tile corner.

I would like to see railroad bridges. Are they in CMBB?

[YankeeDog]

3) Improved Close Air Support: The mass use of radios in WWII allowed the battlefield commander to do things impossible in any previous war. One of these, call upon air support and reasonably expect it to arrive and do its job under decent conditions. CMBB included more planes (a glaring gap in CMBO), but still did not give the player any control over the planes. This is not a simple thing to do (and I expect would require a great deal of coding), but would make a tremendous addition to the game.

Every time a "what is CM missing?" thread is started, someone brings up the issue of player control over Tac Air assets.

BTS has stated in the past that the reason why there is no direct player control over Tac Air in CM is that there is very little, if any, evidence that air assets could be controlled on a short-term, tactical basis by local commanders during WWII. Radios and Forward Air Liasons notwithstanding, I have yet to read an AAR or first person account where a commander of a forward ground formation was able to request airstrikes on a a specific ground target and get his request fulfilled in less than 15 minutes. The major exception to this is the US Marines in the PTO from mid-1944 on - they had a much more developed Tac Air support system that allowed for rapid and accurate responses to requests for support from ground units. As near as I can tell, this system never made it over to the ETO, though.

What I do read about frequently is Tac Air assets being called upon by local ground commanders on slightly longer timeframes - say between a half-hour to a couple of hours between when the local commander puts in a request and the air assets actually show up. The Germans seem to have been doing this from from the beginning of the war, especially with Stukas and foward air liasons attached to Panzer columns. Others seem to have caught on to a greater or lesser extent as the war progressed.

So what I would advocate is some sort of system that allows Tac Air to be controlled by the player in a way similar to the way very high level Arty assets are now in CMBB - basically only useful as pre-planned strikes, though probably with some randomness in arrival time, and a wider area of affect than your typical Arty strike. For example, Air Strikes might have a minimum target area of about 400m x 400m, and an arrival range of +/- about 5 minutes. Upon arrival, planes would drop bombs and strafe within their assigned target area, whether or not they actually saw enemy units there (and even if they did see friendlies in the area!).

Basically, I would like to see something in the model that allows you to create a scenario wherein a Panzer column pulls up to an enemy held town, finds it too strongly held for immediate assult, and so hunkers down and waits for a Stafflen of Stukas to come in and work over the town before moving in. I've read multiple accounts of this sort of thing happening IRL. IIRC, among others, Panzer Aces recounts and example of it.

You can kind of create this situation now by asssuming that the air strikes have already happened at scenario start and simply assigning casualties, etc. to the defending force in the town, but this doesn't quite cut it. Part of the point of such a preparatory air attack is that the ground attack commences even as the last the bombs are falling to take maximum advantage of disruption to the enemy forces.

If someone can show me decent evidence that WWII ground commanders were able to call for air support upon a specific target AND have said request reliably arrive in time to be useful within the timeframe of your typical CM battle (less than a half hour), I will be the first to jump on the bandwagon and support a change to CM that gives the player this kind of control. If anyone does have such evidence, please do post it - I would love to see it. I my reading I have yet to find anything that would support this degree of control over air assets.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

If someone can show me decent evidence that WWII ground commanders were able to call for air support upon a specific target AND have said request reliably arrive in time to be useful within the timeframe of your typical CM battle (less than a half hour), I will be the first to jump on the bandwagon and support a change to CM that gives the player this kind of control.

I don't know if this counts as evidence, YD, since I can't provide a specific quote, but I have read that in the breakout from Normandy and pursuit across France, and also during Market-Garden, the tactical airforces were often able to maintain cab ranks of fighter bombers over the advancing columns that were in contact with air controllers in special vehicles equiped with VHF radios. They could be called in on designated targets, often within minutes. The system wasn't perfect, but apparently it worked well enough that the guys on the ground felt that they were better off with it than without it.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Well, it definitely counts as a start. . .

If the type of system you describe was commonly used by the Brits and Americans after Normandy, then this would tend to support allowing at least late-war Americans and Brits to call on Air Support with a shorter response time.

I suspect BTS will want specific references, etc. before they'll actually consider changing anything, but your information at least gives an idea of where to look.

Cheers,

YD

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Re: the train station - I like the idea behind the factory; ie you can construct them into various shapes. I think instead of specific "station" type buildings we need to see some stuff like

split-level buildings

three and four level buildings

small steeples that can be occupied

round buildings

warehouse type buildings (ie two or three levels high, but with only a ground floor that you can drive vehicles into)

occupiable rooftops

Other "strange" looking buildings with acute angles on the corners

ie - more of a construction kit for buildings that can let us simulate European urban terrain much more accurately, from "government buildings" (as Steel Panthers called them) like the Reichstag to train stations to factories, warehouses, cathedrals, etc.

As it stands now, the building sets are kind of boring; the factories have helped out a great deal, but there is still a blah to them.

I'll second Michael's suggestions. When I first saw the factory tiles in CMBB, I was hoping that they could be used to simulate solid interior walls so you could create a maze-like factory. As it stands now, the closest you can get is by mixing heavy buildings inside a factory complex to create solid barriers.

I'd also like to see staircase tiles for buildings and factories. It doesn't seem reasonable that you should be able to get to the second floor (or roof if Michael's suggestions are used) from anywhere in a building or factory (especially a factory). I realize there are other techniques that can be used to get to upper floors without a staircase, but it seems to me that controlling the only staircase in a building involved in house-to-house fighting should provide some sort of tactical edge.

[Charlie Rock]

Recommendations:

1) Speed up movement in trenchs. Defender should be able to run from point to point in a commo trench. Unless it's wet or mud, trench floors are usually pretty fast to run down.

2) Illume rounds for night scenarios. Maybe leaders, maybe FA. Either/or.

3) Night rules: Does a burning tank or house or tree illuminate anything nearby in the night scenarios? Just wondering. For that matter, shouldn't muzzle flashes make it easier to spot a firingunit at night?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Well, it definitely counts as a start. . .

If the type of system you describe was commonly used by the Brits and Americans after Normandy, then this would tend to support allowing at least late-war Americans and Brits to call on Air Support with a shorter response time.

I suspect BTS will want specific references, etc. before they'll actually consider changing anything, but your information at least gives an idea of where to look.

Cheers,

YD

I say again

START....THE <font color="purple">PURPLE</font>!!!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

I'll second Michael's suggestions. When I first saw the factory tiles in CMBB, I was hoping that they could be used to simulate solid interior walls so you could create a maze-like factory. As it stands now, the closest you can get is by mixing heavy buildings inside a factory complex to create solid barriers.

I'd also like to see staircase tiles for buildings and factories. It doesn't seem reasonable that you should be able to get to the second floor (or roof if Michael's suggestions are used) from anywhere in a building or factory (especially a factory). I realize there are other techniques that can be used to get to upper floors without a staircase, but it seems to me that controlling the only staircase in a building involved in house-to-house fighting should provide some sort of tactical edge.

Hiding in a two story building should also be much easier to do; I would suggest (this has nothing to do with objects, btw) some sort of "mopping up" command for a squad (yeah, yeah, just like ASL).

I think the biggest overall thing is what JasonC suggests - multi terrain tiles. Hedges and walls are another sticking point; incorporating them with other terrain would be terrific rather than having a 20metre wide swath wherever you want your wall.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I say again

START....THE <font color="purple">PURPLE</font>!!!

Huh? I've obviously missed something. What's the reference?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I say again

START....THE <font color="purple">PURPLE</font>!!!

Huh? I've obviously missed something. What's the reference? </font>

[YankeeDog]

Ah. I don't remember that part. Suppose I should rent that fine old chestnut again sometime. . .

[Cabron66]

Yankee Dog

You're correct in demanding evidence for this kind of thing, but sadly I cannot give it to you in a concrete form. I will keep an eye open, though, and when next I see something credible, I will let you know. Just recently I read an excellent article on the importance of radio communications and as soon as I dig it up I will post it. There is a whole section dealing with the Canadian efforts to learn how to set up a reliable network for requests for air support from battlefield commanders and another section detailing a similar learning process undergone by the Americans in their first adventures in North Africa. Hence my wish to include it in CMAK (the Canadians didn't require a complex air support system until Italy and didn't dee their efforts rewarded until late in 1944).

I can only say that I am convinced of the importance of close air support even in its beginning stages. The effects of air power are not easily understood and often underated, but does anyone seriously contend that close air support is realistically portrayed in CMBO or CMBB? Wether or not the actual battlefield commander had control over these strikes is irrelevant. Air power is arguably the most important factor in WWII or any war since and CM does not come close to showing this. The Stukas were as feared a menace as any both for their actual deadliness and for their psychological impact on troops. The 22nd Panzer Division was forced to counterattack on D-Day with a fraction of its tanks because allied strikes hounded them the length of their journey to the battlefield. The Germans habitually made airfields (something not included in either game) their number one priorities. In North Africa, air power was perhaps not as important as in other theatres, but it was still vital. During the bulk of the fighting in the desert (Rommel had won his last victory before Montgomery even took command) tanks were a precious commodity matched or outnumbered by aircraft in many battles. And despite the fanfare attached to the American "invasion" of North Africa, it was only their inexperience and early incompetence which allowed many of the later battles of that conflict to become more than footnotes in history. I mention this because air power was not a huge part of the later stages of the war in the desert. Why? Mainly because the Americans were still learning to use it and the Germans had already been beaten by the British.

It seems to me that a WWII game which does not give due attention to the role of air power is a game which, no matter how well designed, is sadly lacking.

I expect to see a huge improvement in CMAK, mainly because I think the designers at BFC are fully in agreement with me, but if you ask me what is the most glaring shortcoming of CMBO or CMBB, well, now you know.