CMX2 Wishlist

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Other Means:

how about having a topo map plus being able to increase the Y axis of the map, much like the shift C for unit size? shift Y perhaps.

toggle it up to see the undulations, then set back to normal to see the movie.

that is a GREAT idea

"having a topo map plus being able to increase the Y axis of the map, much like the shift C for unit size? shift Y perhaps."

to exagerate terrain elevation with shift Y so it would sort of "grow"

I like it!!!

-tom w

[c3k]

Adding in my .02;

A floating window with OOB listed. Make it transparent, take up a small corner of the screen, scrollable, and "hot". By that, I mean when you scroll through your OOB, you can click on a unit and the map centers on it, and it becomes the selected unit.

A loss chart.

At the end of each turn, a list of what units have been lost. Sadly, this is due to the propensity of my soviet tanks to become funeral pyres. In large games, I sometimes, err, forget about them until I see they're gone. I'd kind of like to know what happened, WHEN it happened.

Ken

[Other Means]

expand the OOB window idea so you can see the status of the units. moving, pinned, firing etc.

[Bonxa]

One thing I think is missing but has been discussed elsewhere is better arty modeling. Just designating a point as a target doesn't work well. I know there are arty grogs out there who know a lot more than me about this. Just thought to mention it.

Otherwise the full move playback is at the top of the list. And you should be able to save the replay file so that other people could watch it. Just think of the AAR possible! I think it could be as large as modding on the net, to see good players replays.

[kipanderson]

John, hi,

Well, when it comes to sources it depends which bit you we are talking about. For the general point to do with high combat morale for low combat skills I am sure I could dig up lots of passages from those famous US, 1950s pamphlets based on accounts from German officers. German accounts do not normally hold back on giving credit to the Soviets for a willingness to fight on after heavy losses. Almost any German account of the war in the east will do that.

When it comes to harshness of upbringing, harshness of training, and harshness of discipline helping to build combat morale, this comes from a number of articles and bits of articles over the years in Jane’s Defence Weekly and Jane’s International Defence Review. I can give you one very specific example, that I am “likely” to have got from one of the above but cannot remember for sure. Happily, I would not be surprised if you too are famialr with this example. I have seen it quoted to justify the above view.

After the Korean War there was a study done of mental effects of the conflict on the troops, one particularly on the effects of being held prisoner by the North Koreans. The study concluded that the Turkish UN troops were most unmoved by their experiences in the war. This being put down to harsh conditions in Turkey itself.

Another example that comes from one of the Jane’s journals is that under current Human Rights Law in the EU it is “impossible” to train conscripts for high intensity war. It is not possible to take, what Jane’s call “combat inoculation”, to the real world, required level that a high intensity war would demand. This was quoted as one reason why there is a move towards professional armies throughout Europe. They quoted examples such as what I think the Paras call “milling”, when troops are thrown into a boxing ring and “ordered” to beat the hell out of other troopers. Strictly speaking, this may be illegal under human right law. This brings me on to another qualification.

When you get to professional troops, particularly Special Forces, they are considered of such high quality that they are “self motivating”. This works in two ways. In terms of the raw material you are dealing with they would make high quality soldiers even without a lot of the harshness lower quality troops would require to harden them. Secondly, professional soldiers are far less likely to take a case to the Human Rights courts because it would mean the end of their careers. They want to prove they are tough, so do not get legalistic about what they are ordered to do.

There are a mass of other qualifications. One that brings a smile to my face is what I read one British officer discovered in a New Zealand unit during WWII. Enlisted men and officers were calling each other by there first names. I think we are talking trauma from the British officer present. The New Zealand unit broke all the rules, but still, on the battlefield, had high morale.

Finally, and very recently, I found a book in Waterstones in Guildford that claimed to be the definitive work on stress in combat. They all claim that I know. So I simply stood there for fifteen minuets and read the final chapter. The conclusion was that yes, even taking into account better diagnosis and a positive will to find cases today, modern troops from first world nations do suffer from more stress disorders than their grandfathers in similar situations. The reason being that modern life is softer and does not temper individuals as in past. The mixture of high standards of living, modern schooling methods, and the constant emphasis on “rights” means that even when individuals wish to, they often cannot withstand as much stress as past generations.

What I was saying is “all things being equal”, harshness in up-bring, training and discipline lead to higher combat morale. But there are mass of qualifications. To give one more example. Cultural differences matter. The Vietnamese were not just highly nationalistic communists, if there is such a thing. But in Vietnam the warrior has always been highly valued, thus both consciously and subconsciously the Vietnamese where particularly highly motivated.

I agree that we could all go on all day about this, yes, cohesion of the primary unit and so on…. all matter, the list of factors that effect morale, and the qualifications, would cover pages. I could also spend hours actually digging up quotes from books on the eastern front, the odd article and paragraph in old copies of Jane’s in the library at the War Museum in London, and even books on the shelves in Waterstones book shops. But I suspect in the end we would both reach the same conclusions anyway.

From what I have read, again and again in various versions, what I said was totally uncontroversial. At this point you have to try and take off your Mr.Pickie hat as I would probably agree with any points you mentioned anyway.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. To give one example. Bullying is bad for morale. Harsh discipline yes, but it must be even handed, the rules of the game must be evenly applied.

[Binkie]

This is an easy one for me, because I have been thinking and whining about it for years now. In fact, we were led to believe that some of these things would make it into CMBB, but they weren't, and I did not buy that product as a result. Let's hope they want my money more for the engine rewrite!

There are five must haves:

1) Full-game movie replays

2) Group waypointing, especially for infantry (god knows how much of my life has been consumed by plotting the same lines over and over again for each squad), but also including a special "fast as the slowest" command for AFV groups that move them in formation as fast as the slowest vehicle can travel

3) Togglable grid overlay for enhanced topographic height perception

4) PBEM system that accepts orders every round, eliminating every third mailing. Who really cares if one player always gets to see the movie first? Just swap for next game.

5) A "fire for effect" command that allows limited ability to fire beyond LOS. Like for when you want to bring a building down that you had been firing at, but there is an evil smoke cloud there now that somehow confuses you as to where the building might have gone...

[RSColonel_131st]

Okay, some pet peeves of mine (sorry if they have been mentioned already):

1) Give Infantry the chance to fight from HTs, or use the cover of other vehicles. This could be something similar to the "embark" command, but different from that it would allow the units to still fire. You'd see them crawling on the ground next to the vehicle, keeping the vehicle between them and the enemy to provide cover.

Of course only works when the vehicle is standing, or moving slow.

Right now I have a PBEM going with infantry in the open, but tons of tanks and HT's around. They wouldn't need to suffer from lack of cover if that was realistically modelled.

2) Related to 1): When a MG Gunner on a HT dies, allow him to be replaced by another member of the mechanized squad. I dont think in real life they'd have that powerfull MG Gun unused if anyone of the dismounted squad could get in and use it.

3) Of course also related to 1) Allow vehicles to find cover behind other vehicles. Also would require more realistic formation handling by the player, if you can't shoot trough your leading tank etc...

4) That is a mean one, but give us the option to lock the player to "first person view" (view level 1 or two, as per Francos Iron Man Rules), to better simulate the tactics from the perspective of a commander on the ground.

5) As has been said already, ability to replay the whole battle in one single movie, and give us the ability to take multiple screen shots without the need to paste them from the clipboard. That way you could watch the battle, and click away at the screens you need for your AAR. Would also be cool if the replay option for after the game has all enemy units visible from the start.

[Steiner14]

Just saw the BattlefieldCommand demo-video and YESSSS, CMX2 definately will need that, too:

motion captured, historically correct hand signals, at least from the tank-commanders.

Doesn't affect gameplay, but looks fantastic.

[ June 10, 2003, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[JasonC]

Interface wishes - an all unit report screen (accessed by hotkey), in table format, with units listed, losses, morale state, ammo remaining, delay seconds or "moving" or "none" for their current order. To see on one page what right now one has to click all around the battlefield to see.

A fine tune adjustment to camera view, jumping in smaller steps than now. Could be as simple as "with shift held down, increments are 1/5th normal". Also, I'd prefer the ability to specify whether I want mouse movements to rotate or translate-scroll. The "rotate at top, translate at bottom" feature in CMBB is awkward for me. Ability to zoom in any view, including top down. The "plus" to jump to the next unit could use a ctrl hotkey variant that jumps to the next HQ instead of stepping through every unit. It would also be nice if the "stepping order" took into account current HQ control lines.

Modeling wishes - beyond borg sighting.

Dust from vehicle movement and explosions. Other visibility issues like heat haze, sun direction, horizon outlining, level of lighting, camo. Spotting less absolutely dependent on range, less predictable, more probability based. With optics, quality, hiding ability of the spottee modeled in greater detail.

Tac AI able to notice LOS based cover effects, like using walls or getting out of LOS into dead ground. Cover panic stuff mitigated by range and LOS degradation, not just looking at the terrain tile one is in.

AI improvements - less bunching along single routes of advance, infantry scouts ahead of armor, armor moderately spread instead of bunched, AI FO choices that make more sense, heavy weapons that move to overwatch positions then sit and fire at targets, instead of the "mortar charge", HQs hanging back behind their men instead of rushing ahead of them, etc. Globally, greater awareness of the value of keeping its units alive, compared to rushing flags or pushing forward (plus value for being in good cover and for having LOS to any enemy unit e.g.).

Ammo supply adjustable above 100% as well as below it.

"Sewer" movement system used to represent tunnels between pillboxes, trenches, dugouts. Connections between trenches and nearby bunkers.

Fortifications as their own unit type, not as vehicles. With enter-exit of units, morale inside, remanning, capture. A wider varity of types - gun pit, small dugout (holds a squad), large dugout (holds an entire platoon), fort (multi-tile size), etc.

Such a type might also allow things that aren't really "fortifications", but also aren't vehicles or guns. Supply dumps as destroyable objects e.g.

Fortified placements that alter underlying terrain - cleared field of fire e.g. that turns woods into scattered trees, trees into brush, brush into open. Tank traps and anti-tank ditches. Fortified building that e.g. turns wood into stone level of protection, or makes stone much more resistent to rubbling effects. Either could allows gun placement inside that building. Larger fortification markers to represent 40x40 minefields, 100m belts of wire.

Wire crossing tweaks, modeling path clearing by engineers, tank crossing, cutting by artillery fire or demo charges.

Placeable shellholes and shellhole patterns for scenario designers.

Greater varity in artillery support modeling, instead of the one battery FO standard.

E.g. battalion FOs that give "target wide" shoots by 12 guns. Options at purchase time that vary the rounds per FO (e.g. a 50% ammo 105mm battery module, or a 150% ammo 76mm battalion module).

"Harassment" fire order that shoots 1-2 rounds per gun per minute instead of full ROF.

Small adjusts out of LOS allowed without full retargeting time, to allow accurate missions at dead ground areas.

Variations in axis of fire from fixed E-W, randomly or at player discretion.

Rolling barrage as a pre-planned fire type, falling on the initial aim point as planned fire does now, but with a second aim point set by the player and the point of aim moving between them every minute. The interface aspect would work like "shoot and scoot" for tanks.

Tactical ammo resupply. It could be set as a "reinforcement" event, using the existing "% arrival" system - reinforcement group 2 as a 20% chance of +30% base ammo starting on turn 10 e.g. Then when "rolled", all non-panic units get extra ammo, once. Designers could set the amount in 10% of ammo load increments, the chance as they do now for all reinforcements.

A grab bag of ideas, for whatever they are worth.

[Patrick Moore]

I would like to see the CMAK/CMX2 subject index listed alphabetically and not by sections as in CMBB.

As one who does not get to play CMBB too often on occassion it can be difficult to find a specific topic in the game manual.

I like the move by scenario designers to list the map size and total points! Please keep this going in CMAK.

[ June 10, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Patrick Moore ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Just saw the BattlefieldCommand demo-video and YESSSS, CMX2 definately will need that, too:

motion captured, historically correct hand signals, at least from the tank-commanders.

Doesn't affect gameplay, but looks fantastic.

can you post a link?

where did you see it?

-tom w

[Steiner14]

http://www.codemasters.com/battlefieldcommand/uk/downloads.php

Didn't want to promote it to much, but in the meanwhile i read throught the forums and found out, that it will only contain ~300 units for the whole war and all fronts.

Units will fight only within ~1.5 km x 1.5 km, while maps can be much larger.

Still no info about infantry modeling, but it already seems, that as much as possible realism is NOT the main target.

I think it's the best that could happen for BTS: a tactical WWII game, with a major distributor getting all the attraction for that genre. Tenthousands of people will discover, how absurd the 'wargames' are they are playing right now and how fascinating tactical wargaming could be.

And a some months afterwards, the real thing will appear...

[ June 10, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Patrick Moore:

I would like to see the CMAK/CMX2 subject index listed alphabetically and not by sections as in CMBB.

As one who does not get to play CMBB too often on occassion it can be difficult to find a specific topic in the game manual.

There is already a dl'able 'proper' index for CMBB in pdf format available somewhere. I printed it out, cut it up, and stowed it in the back of my manual.

Something I would find useful is some info on infantry AT weapons ('fausts, grenade bundles, molotovs, RPGs, plain old grenades, etc). Basic stuff, like ranges and penetration. AFAICS its not available in the game, and I'm damned if I can find it in the manual. I've managed to work it out empirically, but that leaves me with the nagging suspicion that I'm not using them to best advantage.

Regards

JonS

Edit: sorry, I don't have the link to the proper index. Hopefully some kind soul will be along shortly with a pointer to it.

[ June 10, 2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Patrick Moore:

I would like to see the CMAK/CMX2 subject index listed alphabetically and not by sections as in CMBB.

As one who does not get to play CMBB too often on occassion it can be difficult to find a specific topic in the game manual.

There is already a dl'able 'proper' index for CMBB in pdf format available somewhere. I printed it out, cut it up, and stowed it in the back of my manual.

Something I would find useful is some info on infantry AT weapons ('fausts, grenade bundles, molotovs, RPGs, plain old grenades, etc). Basic stuff, like ranges and penetration. AFAICS its not available in the game, and I'm damned if I can find it in the manual. I've managed to work it out empirically, but that leaves me with the nagging suspicion that I'm not using them to best advantage.

Regards

JonS

Edit: sorry, I don't have the link to the proper index. Hopefully some kind soul will be along shortly with a pointer to it. </font>

[Patrick Moore]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I am wondering about that myself

Martin (Moon) posted it once

I printed it out now I have lost both the link and the hard copy print out.

anyone?

-tom w [/QB]

PUNT! Thanks for the info, Tom W and JonS!

[FunkyMonkCP]

I feel damn stupid when I say this but I don't even know what CMX2 is. I assume its a follow up to the combat mission series. Anyways, here is the biggest thing I would wish for:

-topo map option

Or maybe an option that toggles the map to color code the elevations. For example if you have two points of terrain at the same elevation it would be the same color. This would help in judging height and planning your defenses and attacks. Trying to judge heights is why I haven't won on the attack not even once against the TACAI. Even though I never won on the attack, I generally do better in citys because of not having to judge height or units LOS...

[ June 11, 2003, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: FunkyMonkCP ]

[PaulS]

And I want to have these fields of crystal

and harvester and tank factory with a lot

of upgrades , which I can buy for harvested

crystal , and smash my enemy by my brand new sonic tanks

[c3k]

Gents,

Adding another wish (other than using my mouse scroll-wheel to directly control gun elevation), the ability to see EXACT unit stats while purchasing units. Just like the unit INFO screen while playing, but in the editor and purchase screens.

As it is now, you get a very brief description at the bottom of the page. I'd like to see a unit 3-D picture and all the other beautiful stats and numbers. Also, blast and penetration data for the infantry secondary weapons (grenades, MC's, 'fausts, etc.).

Ken

[legend42]

My wish would be the ability to tap into a tcip game as a live 3rd party ghost.The "ghost" could move around the entire map with no restrictions seeing everything on both sides with no fow regardless of what fow setting was on.The purpose would be for entertainment and learning the game.I know I would have loved to "tap in live" and watch some veterans slug it out when I first started out.The amount of ghosts could be limited from say 1-5 per game.You would browse the internet list of who is playing each other and the list would tell you if "ghosts" are welcome.Both players must agree for their game to be open for "ghosts".

[_Axe_]

Originally posted by legend42:

My wish would be the ability to tap into a tcip game as a live 3rd party ghost.The "ghost" could move around the entire map with no restrictions seeing everything on both sides with no fow regardless of what fow setting was on.The purpose would be for entertainment and learning the game.I know I would have loved to "tap in live" and watch some veterans slug it out when I first started out.The amount of ghosts could be limited from say 1-5 per game.You would browse the internet list of who is playing each other and the list would tell you if "ghosts" are welcome.Both players must agree for their game to be open for "ghosts".

Excellent idea!! I know there are games, like one of my favorites Jack Nicklaus 6, where you can do this. What a great way to learn tactics.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by legend42:

My wish would be the ability to tap into a tcip game as a live 3rd party ghost.The "ghost" could move around the entire map with no restrictions seeing everything on both sides with no fow regardless of what fow setting was on.The purpose would be for entertainment and learning the game.I know I would have loved to "tap in live" and watch some veterans slug it out when I first started out.The amount of ghosts could be limited from say 1-5 per game.You would browse the internet list of who is playing each other and the list would tell you if "ghosts" are welcome.Both players must agree for their game to be open for "ghosts".

Opens all doors for cheating.

IMO the better solution is the full game replay.

[legend42]

"Opens all doors for cheating"

I totally agree and that would be the biggest stumbling block,I'd much rather see full movie replay at the top of the priority list as well.

[c3k]

Some more thoughts for CMX2:

The current "To Kill" mechanism for armor is pretty good. (Understatement!!) However, the process "To Hit" needs to be vastly improved.

Turret hits are given a basic percentage chance. It doesn't matter if it's a T-70 frontal aspect or the side of a King Tiger's turret, the chance of hitting the turret is the same. The actual, currently visible/exposed surface area of the different portions of the tank need to be calculated and used. Aiming techniques and weapons scatter would bias the spot on the tank which is hit.

Using the same area calculation for soft vehicles would allow them to actually be hit by HE rounds, instead of using blast effect. Right now, if I zap a high-velocity HE round at a truck and it goes through the side, it will carry quite far, resulting in no effect. The aim point now is a spot under the truck.

An added benefit of using actual profile area calculations would be exposure criteria. If a vehicle is hull down, instead of the current "all hull-down or no-hull-down", the variable percentage would be used. A deep depression would be more valuable than a shallow depression.

The trajectory of rounds does not (as far as I know) matter. The range (therefore velocity) and aspect angle matter. Take an 88L71 round impacting a target 200 meters away: if the target is straight on to the gun, on level ground, the angle of impact from the vertical is solely dependent on the target's armor. (The shot is assumed to hit parallel to the ground if both target and firer are on level ground.) Now take a 75L12 gun. Same target, you need to loft that shell. It's impact angle would be dramatically different. That's not taken into account. (If the target front were sloped, the stubby 75 shell would actually hit with less effective slope than the 88.)

Another issue is high-trajectory fire targeting dead ground. I see a house. I cannot see the ground beyond the house. I am reasonable confident that the ground beyond the house exists. My tactical sense tells me that the enemy is massing a platoon back there. My 81mm mortar cannot fire there. I should be able to do so.

I typed well more than I should've. If anyone other than JasonC actually read all this, and followed it, thanks. Comments?

Ken

[c3k]

Edited to note that it would be good if CMX2 would eliminate the dread "double-post" syndrome.

Ken

[ June 11, 2003, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by legend42:

My wish would be the ability to tap into a tcip game as a live 3rd party ghost.The "ghost" could move around the entire map with no restrictions seeing everything on both sides with no fow regardless of what fow setting was on.The purpose would be for entertainment and learning the game.I know I would have loved to "tap in live" and watch some veterans slug it out when I first started out.The amount of ghosts could be limited from say 1-5 per game.You would browse the internet list of who is playing each other and the list would tell you if "ghosts" are welcome.Both players must agree for their game to be open for "ghosts".

Opens all doors for cheating.

IMO the better solution is the full game replay. </font>