Lord Harmes Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Just been reading the thread CMAK, What Next??? There have been many many interesting ideas thrown about, and I think the CMX2 devs will be very much foolish not to take on some of these ideas, if they haven't already. I also think that as they know the game much better than us mere players, then I assume they would have better ideas than us anyway. I would also suggest that they concentrate on improving the engine, rather than worry about other wars. They already have a vast wealth of information on WW2, so why not stick to that and just make CM an even better experience? Besides, WW2 is the most interesting war, because the two sides were roughly on par in the technological stakes... As for me personally, I would like to see the following improvements to the current game expressed in CMX2. 1) Infantry. Individuals represented as graphics would be lovely! Also, more actions would be great. For example, troops taking cover properly behind walls and trees, proper camo on the foxholes, and sitting in trenches instead of on trenches. 2) Buildings. Buildings should have rooms in them. Why can I shoot across large buildings as if they were just huge hollow blocks? And why can i enter a building at any angle? They should have proper doors and windows, basements and rooms. Then perhaps you could simulate hiding men better, and have a new range of specialist "building" orders, like search, clear, mousehole, demolish (for engineers) etc. Building also don't seem to be destroyed realistically. Why do they explode???? Surely they should just collapse into themselves? and even spread onto the area around them... blocking streets, and making it harder on vehicles? Is it possible to structure the buildings so that you can knock holes in particular walls, or fire your cannons at particular windows? 3) Crews. Why can crews sometimes not go back to abandoned vehicles? Imagine the possiblities of using crews from knocked out tanks, jumping into abandoned tanks, or even enemy tanks! Or maybe normal infantry squads making use of abandoned vehicles or artillery, but of course with much less effectively. 4) Command. The Radio command links seem very short to me. Why can't on map mortars have a radio link to their own spotter or indeed any commander, that extends more than just a few metres??? I think it is a bit silly that they can only do indirect fire if guided by someone who is just on the other side of some trees, or on the top floor of a building. They should be able to be directed by anyone with a radio, but perhaps with differing degrees of accuracy. For example, perhaps a mortar team with their own section leader anywhere on the map, should be able to aim indirect fire to what he can see. However, other commanders should be able to direct them, but maybe with less accuracy and speed??? 5) Graphics. This is the least important area really. But it would be nice to see tanks with their turrets blown off, charred trucks and jeeps, smashed armour plates, blood, individual corpses, strike marks on buildning faces, track marks on soft ground, flipped vehicles, hidden vehicles and guns with branches and nets on them, and planes dipping into our field of view when straffing are just a few ideas off of the top of my head! Anyway developers! Are you doing any of these things or what???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Originally posted by Lord Harmes: 4) Command. The Radio command links seem very short to me. Why can't on map mortars have a radio link to their own spotter or indeed any commander, that extends more than just a few metres??? I think it is a bit silly that they can only do indirect fire if guided by someone who is just on the other side of some trees, or on the top floor of a building. They should be able to be directed by anyone with a radio, but perhaps with differing degrees of accuracy. For example, perhaps a mortar team with their own section leader anywhere on the map, should be able to aim indirect fire to what he can see. However, other commanders should be able to direct them, but maybe with less accuracy and speed???The command links usually don't represent radio links. Even in the American army, which was lavishly equipped with radios compared to other armies, they did not reach down below the platoon level and not always that far even. What command links represent is the radius a leader can communicate with his subordinates through shouts, whistles, hand signals, runners, and what-not. That said, there's something to be said in favor of, for instance, allowing on-map mortars to fire indirectly using their own resources. That is, if there is a point within say 20 meters of the mortar's location that has LOS to a target, the mortar can fire even without an LOS from its own location. This represents a member of the team moving to a location from which he can call back corrections. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harmes Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 The command links usually don't represent radio links. Even in the American army, which was lavishly equipped with radios compared to other armies, they did not reach down below the platoon level and not always that far even. What command links represent is the radius a leader can communicate with his subordinates through shouts, whistles, hand signals, runners, and what-not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscript Bagger Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 "A few hundred meters away" would put the Lt. in some other company's defensive zone. But you can already do what you're talking about with on-board mortars - in fact, they are really even more flexible than that. If you have TRPs, your on-board mortars can fire at them even without LOS from anybody, so long as the mortars haven't moved from their original position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Pete Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I agree with your post as a good idea of the updates to hopefully be seen in the new engine. The only issue I have with some of them is that the minimum spec will have to go up to accommodate (can you tell I have a fairly old pc ). One of my favourite things about CMBO in particular is that it can be run on really low-end machines as well as speedy beasts. Anyway the building updates in particular would be really nice to see. I’d also be interested to see a more variable nature of fire within buildings (ie. Close range fire-fight in a building in Stalingrad, the building is set on fire but does not instantly all burn and the two sides try to hold out the longest in the flames to beat the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harmes Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 The building thing is the most obvious improvement really... and it would be a shame to have to up the spec requirements (i have a fairly slow pc myself), but i suppose we have to move with the times eh? I just think it would be extra cool to have to take buildings room by room, like it happens in real life. And while i think about it... why not have a boobytrap option???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 "You have two radios, one for yourself and one for the mortar section. What is to stop you from leaving the mortars behind cover, and hiding a few hundred meters away and directing fire from there? seems reasonable to me." First off mortar platoons in WW2 did not have two radios, they were lucky if they had one radio. When you see a single mortar crew on map it is just that, one mortar crew, without FDC capability, using direct lay (direct fire) to engage target. We have already made amends to deal with pre-setup mortars using a spotter within Command radius of the tube, and also takig advantage of TRPs (as long as you don't move)simulating wire or hand signals. If you want the full capabilities of a mortar platoon then the game already allows us to purchase the spotter, which abstracts the fact that the platoon is set up somewhere to the rear with commo, with their tubes layed, stakes out and FDC set up. It is the FDC capability that allows a platoon to do direct fire via radio contact, the guy is set up with map, plottter board w/ grease pencil perched upon his knees and radio/land line headset in one hand. This is completely seperate than buying a single crew that is going to accompany a rifle company. Both capabilities were prevalent in WW2 tactical operations and both have been taken into account. "Buildings should have rooms in them. Why can I shoot across large buildings as if they were just huge hollow blocks? And why can i enter a building at any angle?" In the current versions of combat mission the math is hapening behind the engine to take into account terrain effects occuring from firing within buildings at each other. The current engine just doesn't support the graphical representation you are asking for thus I suppose the confusion of thinking it isn't happening.. "Imagine the possiblities of using crews from knocked out tanks, jumping into abandoned tanks, or even enemy tanks! Or maybe normal infantry squads making use of abandoned vehicles or artillery" This isn't Day of Defeat, Kelly's Heroes or the Dirty Dozen. Please provide references other than the one off happenings where this occured within the time frame of the typical CM battle (i.e. 20-60 minutes) to justify inclusion. Los [ January 21, 2004, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Los ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harmes Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 "Imagine the possiblities of using crews from knocked out tanks, jumping into abandoned tanks, or even enemy tanks! Or maybe normal infantry squads making use of abandoned vehicles or artillery" ""This isn't Day of Defeat, Kelly's Heroes or the Dirty Dozen. Please provide references other than the one off happenings where this occured within the time frame of the typical CM battle (i.e. 20-60 minutes) to justify inclusion."" Okay. On D-day, at pegasus bridge a certain para, named Wally Parr used a german anti-tank gun to aid in the defense of the bridge, by shooting at "snipers". Refer to Pegasus Bridge by Stephen E Ambrose, p147. Also, A Bridge Too Far descibes how another group of paras used agerman flak gun to take out a tank. I'm sure they weren't the only examples of troops using enemy equiptment. I now agree with you on the mortar point. But what about if section leaders for mortars had a radio link with their compnay commanders? Could you not then have a quicker way of directing fire without spending extra pointson TRPs? I would assume that the CC would have a radio link with his support elements! And I also understand and exept the way building work right now, i was just expressing how I would love to see the building combat played in the future. It would be much more gritty and tense if you had to take the rooms one by one! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Originally posted by Lord Harmes: Okay. On D-day, at pegasus bridge a certain para, named Wally Parr used a german anti-tank gun to aid in the defense of the bridge, by shooting at "snipers". Refer to Pegasus Bridge by Stephen E Ambrose, p147. Also, A Bridge Too Far descibes how another group of paras used agerman flak gun to take out a tank. I'm sure they weren't the only examples of troops using enemy equiptment.Those were RARE instances. For example, I know a case where a Finnish AT gunner climbed into the turret of a defeated enemy T-26 and used its gun to fire at other Soviet tanks, even scoring a few. Mind you, that was a single case. Allowing it in CM would make it an everyday happening and an advisable tactic, which it wasn't in reality, for reasons like unfamiliarity with equipment, crew destroying or dismantling their gun before abandoning it etc. Crews re-manning their own weapons (or weapons of same type) would be a different thing, as long as they didn't blow it up before they left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Originally posted by Lord Harmes: Okay. On D-day, at pegasus bridge a certain para, named Wally Parr used a german anti-tank gun to aid in the defense of the bridge, by shooting at "snipers". Refer to Pegasus Bridge by Stephen E Ambrose, p147. Also, A Bridge Too Far descibes how another group of paras used agerman flak gun to take out a tank. I'm sure they weren't the only examples of troops using enemy equiptment.But these were elite troops, not only highly trained and motivated, but encouraged to use initiative. This was not universal throughout armies and should not be generalized to common soldiers. If in the new game engine, crack and elite formations can be given special capabilities, then we can talk about this some more. I now agree with you on the mortar point. But what about if section leaders for mortars had a radio link with their compnay commanders? Could you not then have a quicker way of directing fire without spending extra pointson TRPs? I would assume that the CC would have a radio link with his support elements!So what? Do you think controlling a fire mission consists of ringing up and saying "I'd like some shells over here"? The position of the firing weapon has to be accurately known. Then the position of the target has to be accurately known. Then the relationship between them and a few other factors be plotted. Then and only then can the mortar/howitzer/gun be accurately aimed. Even then, corrections usually have to be called in to get the shells falling right on target. In the WW II era, this was a technical skill in itself, requiring weeks of training. This was before lasers and GPS made everything (relatively) easy. Remember, as it now stands in the game, a directing HQ is at basically the same position as the firing mortar. It's not such a big problem in that case to call out a compass bearing and range and have that be a pretty good approximation for the mortar too. Calling out corrections in that case is not too hard either. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanok Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 "This isn't Day of Defeat, Kelly's Heroes or the Dirty Dozen. Please provide references other than the one off happenings where this occured within the time frame of the typical CM battle (i.e. 20-60 minutes) to justify inclusion." Lol. He gave you two examples and you just shrug them off. Can't win with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Too early to talk about this stuff, the engine is still being discussed internally. When the time comes, Madmatt will post the information, but it is a while away. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 And with Rune's remark, let's close this. It's not that we don't listen - we do, and always have. But CMX2 will be so fundamentally different from what CM is currently, that many of the - no doubt well meant - suggestions are simply not applicable. Sit back, enjoy CM 1-3, maybe a little SC and Tacops on the side, and let us surprise you Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts