CMAK (Feasible) Wishlist

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by Broken:

It would be REALLY nice if support weapons could be attached to a specific headquarters, even if another HQ is closer. The current system of units willy-nilly attaching themselves to whatever HQ happens to wander closest can be very frustrating.

Case in point: You have an HQ with LOS to an enemy unit. An on-board mortar (out of LOS) is attached to this HQ, allowing the mortar to indirect-fire on the enemy unit. However, a friendly platoon (with no LOS) moving up out of reserve "steals" control of the mortar, rendering it unable to fire.

It would be nice to have an "Attach to HQ" command.

Make it two who have this on their list !

[Epée]

Brazilians!

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Juardis:

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

Dustplumes off vehicles as they move.

And, oh yeah -- Elite jeeps with .50 MGs mounted on the back

Steve

And by the way, did you see the M16? QUAD 50s!! Now you can have your cake and eat it 4 times. Rumor has it that BTS will NOT allow them to be elite though. </font>

[Midnight Warrior]

1.With the big mountains in Italy it would be good to have some improved ways of controlling the vertical dimension of the camera. For instance that it will automatically tilt up or down when looking at points at higher or lower elevations. Or perhaps use the mouse wheel to control camera elevation.

2. IIRC, Rommel mounted aircraft engines on the back of trucks to stir up dust to confuse the British. I don't know if that would translate down to the CM scale, but if it did then it could be simulated by providing a truck that creates extra large dust clouds (and even when its not moving).

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm sure MrSpeaker meant SAS & LRDG vehicles. Very difficult cause they carried whatever they felt like, double vickers K mounts, Vickers watercooled, .50 cal, Boys AT rifle(.55?) etc. I saw a pic with a German counterpart with a 20mm aircraft cannon (not 20mm Flak) mounted in the rear. Want!

But as well as a good variety of weapons mounted on SAS/LRDG trucks/Jeeps I wouldn't mind the includion of the French, colonial French, Greeks and Gurkhas. And CS versions of Commonwealth tanks.

I guess requesting special nightfighting skills for the Ozzies is a bit much.

I'll be giggling insanly all night imagening fighting it out at Beda Fomm. Hihihihi. Dammit! Hihihihi. :

Edited because I forgot to add my voice to the request of portees (both 2pdr and 6pdr) preverably being allowed dismounting the AT guns if needed, but that might be beyond the engine.

[ April 04, 2003, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Tweety ]

[arkai88]

I would like to be able to set the point value of victory locations when I design a scenario.

[akdavis]

Non-tile terrain elements that function the way stone walls and hedges do. For example, streams and arroyos that infantry squads can take cover in but are only several meters wide. Similar terrain elements necessary for fortifications (esp. important in the desert campaign) would include anti-tank ditches and berms. It was these type of small terrain features that allowed infantry to survive in the desert.

Also, an easier way to lay down fortifications in the editor would be greatly appreciated. Would be nice to be able to place minefields, trenches and barbed wire the way you lay down roads.

I don't mean to be a naysayer, but if the best new features of this game add up to dust and a tank with two turrets, then you are going to get trashed in the press for selling an add-on as a new game. The way it's being advertised now, it sounds like a user-made CMBB mod.

Things necessary to do the Mediterranean theatre justice:

Region specific terrain elements/buildings (I think I'll **** a brick if mosques show-up in northern Italy).

Beach landings

Fortifications (examples: desert forts, shore batteries, Tobruk-style fortifications). I've heard the desert campaign described as a naval battle where the forts and cities played the role of islands.

Combat paradrops

Vichy French forces

Mountain troops able to traverse cliff tiles (I'm thinking here of Free French forces, the 10th Mountain Division and German mountain troops).

[UberFunBunny]

Originally posted by Broken:

It would be REALLY nice if support weapons could be attached to a specific headquarters, even if another HQ is closer. The current system of units willy-nilly attaching themselves to whatever HQ happens to wander closest can be very frustrating.

Case in point: You have an HQ with LOS to an enemy unit. An on-board mortar (out of LOS) is attached to this HQ, allowing the mortar to indirect-fire on the enemy unit. However, a friendly platoon (with no LOS) moving up out of reserve "steals" control of the mortar, rendering it unable to fire.

It would be nice to have an "Attach to HQ" command.

"Attach to HQ" command. Yes! Please please please....

Edit: I forgot to add: A "follow vehicle" (convoy) command too please please please....

[ April 04, 2003, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by UberFunBunny:

[Edit: I forgot to add: A "follow vehicle" (convoy) command too please please please.... [/QB]

Shame on you for almost forgetting this function, even though in most scens in CMAK we'll have plenty of room to trundle about with our tanks.

I see it like this: A first "target" to indicate wich unit is to be followed. A second "waypoint" to indicate the distance it should roughly keep to the lead vehicle. The last wapoint could be implemented as distance indicator only and thus not follow the lead vehicle but the route the lead vehicle takes. Ideal for moving down zig zag roads. An even more complicated system would be that the "waypoint" indicates relative position to the lead vehicle that the following vehicle should keep. Ideal for advancing in line and adequate for moving down straight roads. But both would require serious programming (especially what should happen if enemy action occurs while units are following each other across the map, or what would happen if two units try to follow each other because we are bastards and we WILL order it )and are unlikely to make it in CMAK.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Tweety:

I'm sure MrSpeaker meant SAS & LRDG vehicles. ..

Since you're in the Netherlands, I will forgive you for this gaffe. As every TV watching red blooded American boy of a certain age knows, the elite jeeps with .50 cal machine guns will be "The Rat Patrol"!!! I hate to think how many German tanks, halftracks, SP guns, and trucks were lost to four guys (three American, one English) driving all over North Africa in two jeeps. The really scary thing about the show was that the same German commander was always in the same place as our heroes. Afterwards he changed his name and went into daytime soap operas.

[Aacooper]

One thing the info alluded to which is very important is the ability to map mountains. Currently, the game engine can go 5m x 20 = 100m from top to bottom. That often isn't enough to map a topographically correct map if there's a river in it.

MacDonald's Three Battles tells about the fight for Altuzzo. The topographic map shows that within 1000m German and US forces are on elevations >300m apart, and the mountain itself can go 500m vertical difference within 1000m.

Infantry is going to move very slowly across mountainous terrain -- nobody will want to play a scenario where the attacker has to climb 500m. However, for mapmaking verisimilitude and LOS reasons (e.g. can the spotter at the crest see down into the valley 400m below?) I suggest the top-to-bottom spread of the map be extended to at least 500m.

The side benefit is that with 100 elevation levels the 1.25m scale can cover 125m top-to-bottom.

Another mapmaking bonus would be to borrow a feature from Mapping Mission v1.05 (though BTS might want to ask Leland) and pull a bitmap into the mapmaking utility. That helps make mapmaking much easier when you have a topographic map to go off of.

[UberFunBunny]

Originally posted by Tweety:

Shame on you for almost forgetting this function, even though in most scens in CMAK we'll have plenty of room to trundle about with our tanks.

I see it like this: A first "target" to indicate wich unit is to be followed. A second "waypoint" to indicate the distance it should roughly keep to the lead vehicle. The last wapoint could be implemented as distance indicator only and thus not follow the lead vehicle but the route the lead vehicle takes. Ideal for moving down zig zag roads. An even more complicated system would be that the "waypoint" indicates relative position to the lead vehicle that the following vehicle should keep. Ideal for advancing in line and adequate for moving down straight roads. But both would require serious programming (especially what should happen if enemy action occurs while units are following each other across the map, or what would happen if two units try to follow each other because we are bastards and we WILL order it )and are unlikely to make it in CMAK.

I was reading along happily until I saw your last 6 words.... Can't BTS just tell that guy who lives in a jar no more brain fluid till it's done?

[UberFunBunny]

Troops using vehicles as cover:

A feature update for CMAK?

(I doubt it but I can dream I guess....)

[SaTyR]

I too will keep my wishes feasible:

More different kinds of fortifications ! IMHO the fortification types available in previous CM games are lacking and (again, IMHO) make certain historic scenarios very hard to portrait correctly. (dragons tooth, antitank ditches, different types of fortified shelters from rifle pits to , as we now have multiturreted vehicles also, full blown AT pillboxes with MGs etc.)

The bunkers we have in CM now are spotted too easily at ridiculous ranges, so camoed versions would be great. I´m not 100% certain, but I have the impression, that soldiers around the world tried their best to camo fortified sites and these sites were not spotted from 750m by the first light tank and destroyed before even firing back by a burst from a wimpy pop gun.

And my last request, the infamous "Iiik, a monster tank ! I can´t shoot him in the side/rear after carefully manouvering 20 minutes for the shot but must back away as I´m petrified with terror !" feature IMHO needs a bit fixing.

Just wishes and requests, can live without `em.

[Firefly]

Originally posted by Martyr:

I'm curious:

If CMAK actually goes to 1945 in Italy, won't we be getting the entire slate of nations, OOBs and vehicles (barring a few UK Funny Tanks and the Free French)

The Free French fought in both North Africa and Italy. One of the first LRDG actions was a joint raid, with Col. Leclerc's Saharan troops, on an Italian fort at Murzak in early 1941. This was before either the Germans or Americans arrived. None of Hobart's funnies will be around of course, but Hobart was responsible for the training of the 7th Armoured Division when they were officially known as 'The Mobile Force' and unoffically as 'The Immobile Farce'. Of course it wasn't long until Hobart annoyed his CO and was sacked as usual .

[ April 05, 2003, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

[Hans]

CMAK suggestion

Due to the very mobile nature of the war in North Africa may I recommend that artillery on both sides will need to shown - up to corps level. ie the heavier weapons will need to modelled as they will tend to be over run more often.

[Tom TCMHQ]

Just a request for some eye-candy:

1.) Pleeease use 4 sky box bitmaps to create the sky background ( one for each direction ) Makes it much easier to mod. Can we have 16 bit pics instead of the usual 8 bit stuff ?

2. ) Greek buildings look different than Italians ( not to speak of the complete different architecture of North African buildings... flat roofs for example). A European church in the Sahara would look crazy. So I think we would need at leat 3 different sets of buildings. Can this be done ?

And...will you include the Pyramids ( just kiddin...)

Tom

[Cpt. Cook]

The attatching on board mortars to specific HQs would be nice.

The Battle of Assoro.

And this might seem lame but how about a nice cd case insert (I realize that shipping cases must be problematic) so you don't look like you bought the game second hand?

[Michael Dorosh]

Stuart Recces - ie the Stuart "Kangaroo" from CMBO, but with a .50 cal.

Also, the ability to fight the crew dismounted.

I met an MM winner from Lord Strathcona's Horse, who won his award in Italy as a crewman in a Stuart Recce. They had a crew of five, and often dismounted to fight with a PIAT and a Bren Gun. Trooper Funk of the Strats knocked out a Panther with a PIAT and also won an MM, during the Melfa River crossing.

The Recces were armed with a .30 in addition to the five-oh machine gun.

Letting the crew jump in and out of the vehicle would provide a realistic touch. Would be nice to dismount tank crews the same way, so they can recce forward on foot...

[Slater]

Dear BFC please may I have the following:

1. An option to turn a time limit in the orders phase, I enjoy it in Tcp/ip so why not put a option in SP

2.When gun crews abandon there gun because of heavy fire and route I would like to order the crew to man it again after they recover, I dont know weather this one could work but could be nice

3.Gurkas!!!!!!!!

4.Better operations and possibly a campign

5.big sand worms that come out the sand and eat your tigers :eek: , mayby not realistic but would be fun

I've been good all year

these are just Ideas nobody else has mentioned I want all the others mentioned too PLAESE!!

[ April 05, 2003, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Slater ]

[Engel]

Remanning abandoned guns and MG's. Capability of voluntarily abandoning the same.

[ April 05, 2003, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: Engel ]

[Jaws]

Originally posted by Broken:

It would be REALLY nice if support weapons could be attached to a specific headquarters, even if another HQ is closer. The current system of units willy-nilly attaching themselves to whatever HQ happens to wander closest can be very frustrating.

Case in point: You have an HQ with LOS to an enemy unit. An on-board mortar (out of LOS) is attached to this HQ, allowing the mortar to indirect-fire on the enemy unit. However, a friendly platoon (with no LOS) moving up out of reserve "steals" control of the mortar, rendering it unable to fire.

It would be nice to have an "Attach to HQ" command.

I could have written it myself.

[flamingknives]

Make it easier to hide vehicles.

I get fed up of my hull-down StuG in scattered trees gets spotted instantly by enemy tanks almost a kilometre away.

[SaTyR]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Make it easier to hide vehicles.

I get fed up of my hull-down StuG in scattered trees gets spotted instantly by enemy tanks almost a kilometre away.

Seconded ! And don´t forget about the bunkers and such. They suffer from the same problem. For both vehicles and fortifications, the option to HIDE is useless the way it works now.

[Determinant]

The Indian Army must be included. It would be impossible to prepare a complete range of, say, Monte Cassino scenarios without including the Indian Army.

The Ghurkas in particular, but many other different regiments were involved in Mediterranean theatre. They made a very important and valuable contribution, and they were much more than just 'Brown Brits'.

It seems a bit unfair to reflect, perfectly properly, the contribution and sacrifice of the white Commonwealth (ie Canada and ANZAC) in the Med theatre while passing over that of the Indian Army.