Please close this topic.

[eichenbaum]

<HR><table width="80%" border="0" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2"><tr> <td width="10%"><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox" value="checkbox"></div></td><td width="90%">Horses (with or without wagons)</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox2" value="checkbox" checked></div></td><td>Motorcycles</td></tr><tr><td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox3" value="checkbox"></div></td><td>Bicycles</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"></div></td><td>Bulldozers</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" checked></div></td><td>Telephone poles</td></tr><tr> <td><div align="center"><input type="checkbox" name="checkbox8" value="checkbox" checked></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>

[ August 14, 2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: eichenbaum ]

[eichenbaum]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

I can only imagine the childhood traumas and disappointments of 'no pony under the Xmas tree' that have given rise to this enduring, if wrong-headed, demand.

I'm not that fond of horses.

[Wunsche]

I think Other Means has called me out. If beavers are allowed to build damns, why can my little German fellows not block river crossings with wire and roadblocks?

I do agree that that stuff should be destructible by HE (are you already able to destroy wire?).

P.S. Can BFC put in some program that doesn't allow you to pick your forces when drunk? This is very high on some peoples' bug list.

[ August 14, 2003, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Wunsche ]

[eichenbaum]

Originally posted by Pak40:

I'm afraid Motorcycles and bicycles will be used for a gamey recon purpose by a lot of players the same way jeeps have been used. I don't see any need for them in CM because they were basically used for messenger service and transporting troops while NOT in a combat situation. (oh yea, I almost forgot, they were also used by escaping POWs to try to get to Switzerland )

You might want to consider the possibility that people like to play campaigns with CM. I could make one up where the Russians made some progress by capturing a general of the German army (which has happened). What kind of vehicles would you expect in the final attack ?

And what is wrong with Motorcycles as recon units ?

[ August 14, 2003, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: eichenbaum ]

[JonS]

You could make one like that, I suppose, if you wanted to. And you thought anyone would play it. In that case you would want to use plenty of Kubels and trucks - which are already in CMBB.

However, for the "Hey Look, I Captured The Big Nazi General And Won The War" type scenarios you might be better off using MOH or some other FPS.

Regards

JonS

[eichenbaum]

[JonS]

oh dear

[Other Means]

Wunsche:

P.S. Can BFC put in some program that doesn't allow you to pick your forces when drunk? This is very high on some peoples' bug list.

oh come on. i'd never get to play.

besides, i'm sure it's Soviet doctrine.

[KyleG]

I think dragons teeth should be incorporated.

As for horses in CM I think that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) might object.

[Private Bluebottle]

While not absolutely necessary, they do add to the flavour of the game somewhat.

Personally, I'd like some means to individualise vehicles. Not every vehicle was identical and its something I miss from my days as a miniatures gamer. Perhaps the addition of a number of "skins" (say 10?) which overlay the existing surfaces of each type of model's surfaces, which can have different slogans/items of equipment added, to give the "lived in" flavour so apparent in most pictures? The uniform nature of vehicles might be nice on the parade ground but once you get into the field, creature comforts become rather important.

I'd also like to see some consideration to, as someone mentioned, pioneer tasks. Bulldozers did exist and they were utilised but they were mainly a western allies' piece of equipment.

As to the matter of motorcycles/dispatch riders, they'll more than likely need to be modelled once we get rid of, whats it called again? Borg sighting rules. There will need to be some means of moving information about the battlefield and I can't think of an easier way to do so than via what was really used - dispatch riders. It will also lead to the interesting situation where tactical HQs will have to be established and maintained.

As far as buildings go, I think we need some means of showing where doors are, inside the buildings and have them as the primary means of entry/exit. No door, no getting out, except via a window and that slows your movement appropriately.

[Bastables]

Hah can you believe it, I'd almost become to weary with the flu to bother but I shall never be too tired to cut and paste. Because by golly horses annoy the heck out of me.

A.D. Did you ever attack on horseback?

There were mounted attacks only at the academy, we didn't use our sabers, and never encountered enemy cavalry. The horses at school were so trained, that even after hearing a pitiful "Ura!" they charged forward, all you did was try to hold them back... No, we didn't. We fought dismounted. Horse holders stayed under cover with the horses. Although, often they paid for it, since Germans sometimes shelled them with mortars. There was one horse holder for a squad of 11 horses.

A.D. How were you armed?

We were mostly armed with carbines, but in the beginning of 43 they gave us SMGs.

(Lt Nikolai Dupak 11 Cav Div Later 8th Guards Cav).

Also

Here is an excellent primer on horses

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=012807

One of the funny things about the Western front was that the Infantry were even more reliant on horses than the Eastern front.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=000580

You could also try the fantastic Search engine.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

As to the matter of motorcycles/dispatch riders, they'll more than likely need to be modelled once we get rid of, whats it called again? Borg sighting rules. There will need to be some means of moving information about the battlefield and I can't think of an easier way to do so than via what was really used - dispatch riders.

Argh. Dispatch were not used on the battlefield. Well...almost never. They were used between headquarters, usually no lower than regimental HQs. They were just too apt to draw the enemy's attention...and an artillery mission. To send messages on the CM battlefield you use radio, wire, or more commonly, runners (as in guys on foot who know how to use cover and stealth as well as speed).

Michael

[Pak40]

You might want to consider the possibility that people like to play campaigns with CM. I could make one up where the Russians made some progress by capturing a general of the German army (which has happened). What kind of vehicles would you expect in the final attack ?

And what is wrong with Motorcycles as recon units ?

Well, you havn't been around these boards since the beginning of the CM craze so I'll have to fill you in... I'm sure you're aware of the term "gamey" by now. This term is used when someone exploits a weakness or bug in the game or sometimes, in Combat Mission's case, where someone does something that wasn't done historically. For example, using crews of destroyed vehicles as cannon fodder to reveal hidden enemy positions. In reality these crews would find the nearest safe area back behind the front lines, not charge forward towards the enemy with no regards to their life.

Earlier in the days of CM, a lot of online players (including me once or twice ) used jeeps as a cheap way to recon on the enemy's side of the battlefield. This was an effective but unhistoric tactic to try and see what type of units the enemy had behind trees, hills and buildings. It usually was effective at finding hardware such as tanks but the jeep unit had no hopes of surviving for long before it was undenyably killed. It is considered "gamey" because historically, it didn't happen in WWII. No man would volunteer for such a suicide mission and no commander would ask a soldier to kill himself just to radio what types of tanks he had seen.

Most serious online games have since banished this gamey tactic but I'm sure some people still use it, especially those new to CM.

I think motorcycles will be used in the same way as jeeps were. I can really see no reason to have motorcycles because they wern't used in combat situations. Even if you wanted to depict an attack on a German General's company HQ, the motorcycles present wouldn't be used in a combat situation, it's just too suicidal. The most the bikes would be used for is to escape the attack. So why waste the time and energy adapting them when BFC can develope more imortant units or even improving the game system?

just my 2 cents

[ August 14, 2003, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

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

I can only imagine the childhood traumas and disappointments of 'no pony under the Xmas tree' that have given rise to this enduring, if wrong-headed, demand.

I'm not that fond of horses. </font>

[manchildstein (ii)]

there was a website about the u.s. cavalry squadrons (battalions) of wwii, where jeeps were integral to recon and special 3-man crews were trained to drive forward and abandon their jeep, fighting on foot when they came under fire.

i would also think that motorcycles came into direct contact with the enemy, every bit as much as trucks did.

the german 1941 'to&e' has motorcycle battalions integral to most if not all of the division-sized formations... i think those would be a good addition to a later version of cm... also for the west front it would be great to have the u.s. recon jeeps with their 3-man crews laden with mines, radio gear, and rifles (bars?)...

the main thing i would like to see terrain-wise would be an easier-to-use editor with a 'user-settable' granularity as far as tile size ... it would also be great if every building on the map could be custom-designed within an overall set of allowable parameters... same with bunkers...

[Ruthless]

Well, I probably know less about WWII than most of the posters here, but since I've had a few drinks that won't stop me from making an observation:

Jeeps, trucks, motorcycles, cavalry and horse-drawn units, ninjas, pirates, etc. probably all came into enemy contact in the real battlefields of WWII (ok, maybe not ninjas and pirates...but admit it--you want to see these in CM) however, they were not useful primary fighting forces, correct?

It seems to me that some here want them because they really were there and would at times come under fire, others are arguing that they weren't historically used as frontline forces for combat.

So I guess I think both sides have a legitimate argument.

My 2 cents is that BFC should fix things that they already have before complicating the system with units they don't need: Fix spotting/command problems, fix morale/tacAI/troop rating problems (for example, I think many would agree that CM treats unit statistics--edited to clarify: I mean rating systems for how soldiers and crews will behave-- too shallowly which is why people argue endlessly about not being able to achieve certain things on the battlefield with their men: "They're elite! They should not break in an attack!" Arguments like that lead me to believe the rating system is not taking into account enough variables (for example, there is no separation between a highly-trained green soldier and a regular-trained semi-experienced soldier.)), and one that bugs me most of all: Vehicles do not provide LOS blocking.

I'd work on improving those areas before putting horses in. Even if they put horses and motorcycles in, though it might be fun to have them for historical reasons, they wouldn't be fun to have to control in battle because they would be babies you'd have to coddle instead of fighting units. So I don't think people would enjoy having them that much.

Just my two cents...now back to drinking.

[ August 15, 2003, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: Ruthless ]

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Ruthless:

Well, I probably know less about WWII than most of the posters here, but since I've had a few drinks that won't stop me from making an observation:

Jeeps, trucks, motorcycles, cavalry and horse-drawn units, ninjas, pirates, etc. probably all came into enemy contact in the real battlefields of WWII (ok, maybe not ninjas and pirates...but admit it--you want to see these in CM) however, they were not useful primary fighting forces, correct?

It seems to me that some here want them because they really were there and would at times come under fire, others are arguing that they weren't historically used as frontline forces for combat.

So I guess I think both sides have a legitimate argument.

My 2 cents is that BFC should fix things that they already have before complicating the system with units they don't need: Fix spotting/command problems, fix morale/tacAI/troop rating problems (for example, I think many would agree that CM treats unit statistics--edited to clarify: I mean rating systems for how soldiers and crews will behave-- too shallowly which is why people argue endlessly about not being able to achieve certain things on the battlefield with their men: "They're elite! They should not break in an attack!" Arguments like that lead me to believe the rating system is not taking into account enough variables (for example, there is no separation between a highly-trained green soldier and a regular-trained semi-experienced soldier.)), and one that bugs me most of all: Vehicles do not provide LOS blocking.

I'd work on improving those areas before putting horses in. Even if they put horses and motorcycles in, though it might be fun to have them for historical reasons, they wouldn't be fun to have to control in battle because they would be babies you'd have to coddle instead of fighting units. So I don't think people would enjoy having them that much.

Just my two cents...now back to drinking.

You're remarkably cogent for a Texas drunkard...

Carry on.

[Yeknodathon]

I wouldn't add donkeys... they don't really want to move on account of a very lengthy setup time. And a hull-down donkey is a very difficult thing to see... and there's no "poop and scoot" command.

Yeknod

[ August 15, 2003, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Yeknodathon ]

[THumpre]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

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

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

I can only imagine the childhood traumas and disappointments of 'no pony under the Xmas tree' that have given rise to this enduring, if wrong-headed, demand.

I'm not that fond of horses. </font>

[eichenbaum]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

Yes, lad, but is that because of a recurring dream in which your older, bossy sister is riding a horse, her hair flying in the wind, with a strange, bemused expression on her face, and she doesn't seem to hear what you are saying to her about the necessity of bicycles and motorcycles in combat, and although you talk louder, and louder, and become more and more concerned about the fact that she is riding the horse, she still seems to pay no attention to you?

Because this sort of psycho-sexual dream trauma almost invariably leads into the need to use indirect artillery fire on an 800 by 800 meter map...

Strange ideas you have there.

You don't have to reflect your psychomimetic visions of incestual situations to me. That your sister didn't paid attention to you in your childhood is not the issue here. Looks like you're having a sister-mounts-anything-but-me-syndrome. Do you get angry if you hear or read the word Horse ?

[eichenbaum]

Capturing a General is just one example of many situations that occurred in WW2. If you only want to play Tiger v.s. IS-2 battles that's fine with me. I know that there are a lot of other players who would like to manage the whole operation and not only the tanks and guns on the front. There are players who would very like to practice Blitzkrieg in CM. This can't be achieved on a 800x800 map but I certainly can be done on a 3000x3000 map. (max. 3000x4000)

<center>

</center>

The Germans found it very important to scout the area before entering it with tanks and guns:

OPERATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE (Operatieve Aufklärung)

Operational reconnaissance, penetrating over a large area in great depth, provides the basis for strategic planning and action. This type of reconnaissance is intended to determine the location and activities of enemy forces, particularly localities of rail concentrations, forward or rearward displacements of personnel, loading or unloading areas of army elements, the construction of field or permanent fortifications, and hostile air force concentrations. Identification of large enemy motorised elements, especially on an open flank, is important. Operational reconnaissance is carried out by the Air Force and by motorised units. Aerial photography units operate at altitudes of 16,500 to 26,500 feet. Since missions assigned to operational air reconnaissance are generally limited to the observation of important roads and railroads, reconnaissance sectors and areas normally are not assigned. The motorised units employed for operational reconnaissance have only directions and objectives assigned.

- Terrain Reconnaissance (Gelandeerkundung) : The Germans place great emphasis on terrain reconnaissance, realising the influence terrain has upon the conduct of operations. Most of their usual reconnaissance missions include terrain reconnaissance tasks. Terrain may be so important at times as to require reconnaissance by special units. Ground and air reconnaissance units give special

- Battle Reconnaissance (Spahtruppen) : The Germans send out reconnaissance patrols consisting of a non-commissioned officer and three or four men, to get such information as the location of enemy positions and minefields. They generally avoid contact and retreat when fired on.

(Blitzkrieg Doctrine)

The term Motorised for Germans also meant the use of motorcycles. If you look a few postings back you'll see a typical German motorcycle. With 2 man crew and a MG mounted, this vehicle is much more effective then a truck or kübelwagen. It's armed, it's fast and has good off-road ability's. Now way you can compare a motorcycle to a kübelwagen or a truck.

Playing a huge battle with Blitzkrieg tactics creates the need of vehicles that can keep up with the reconnaissance task that some units have. I would rather not use a truck or kübelwagen in enemy territory. You cannot get off the roads and hiding such vehicles is almost impossible. The MG mounted on the fast motorcycles also give the units enough firepower to get the hack out of dangerous situations.

Reconnaissance is a tactical move and is not 'gamy'. How it's done by CM players is an other thing. Of coarse does the scenario need to have the space to use these moves.

Eichenbaum

[Bastables]

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

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

Yes, lad, but is that because of a recurring dream in which your older, bossy sister is riding a horse, her hair flying in the wind, with a strange, bemused expression on her face, and she doesn't seem to hear what you are saying to her about the necessity of bicycles and motorcycles in combat, and although you talk louder, and louder, and become more and more concerned about the fact that she is riding the horse, she still seems to pay no attention to you?

Because this sort of psycho-sexual dream trauma almost invariably leads into the need to use indirect artillery fire on an 800 by 800 meter map...

Strange ideas you have there.

You don't have to reflect your psychomimetic visions of incestual situations to me. That your sister didn't paid attention to you in your childhood is not the issue here. Looks like you're having a sister-mounts-anything-but-me-syndrome. Do you get angry if you hear or read the word Horse ? </font>

[Bastables]

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

[(Blitzkrieg Doctrine)

The term Motorised for Germans also meant the use of motorcycles. If you look a few postings back you'll see a typical German motorcycle. With 2 man crew and a MG mounted, this vehicle is much more effective then a truck or kübelwagen. It's armed, it's fast and has good off-road ability's. Now way you can compare a motorcycle to a kübelwagen or a truck.

Pl[/QB]

[eichenbaum]

Cloisters and Abby's

If CMAK will be released and you want to play a scenario where you can attack or defend Monte Cassino (Anzio, Italy), a few tall buildings and a church doesn't look the same as the real Abby. There's also a big difference in the construction of these kinds of buildings. The basements beneath the structure for example. In CMBO and CMBB you can't put any units in basements because there aren't any.

After bombing by the allied this complex was turned into ground zero :

How do you want to hide the Germans ? With the sewer-move ?

There are a lot of Abby's and Cloisters in Italy.

[theike]

This is turning out to be a most interesting topic...

(i dont care for low hits on dream-trauma's(???) though.)

Im guessing most of us played about a 100 and more battles in cmbo and cmbb...and if the game wants to provide us with the will to play on to a 200 it will have to go into depth's in some places.

May it be in the engine, may it be in the editor...

I would as some others like to see, not only more variation in buildings, but also a means to be abble to build some towns in a way they make up for a sort of natural forts. as sometimes the case in ww2 europe, russia, and africa.

That means more different, and clustered builings and more and better use-able walls.

Also the one bunker we have doesnt make for a descent wall of defence. Some ways to make for a real structure of concrete would make for a new way of battle-ing...

Recon was very important ofcourse.

And probably motorcicles were used in them, alot, in early days...

JUST for gamey issues i wouldnt leave them out.

And the point about there being trucks and kubelwagons, i think is a good one...isnt it?

But what does one want?

more types of units again?

ore maybe now, more ways to make differend landscapes?

I would go for the improvement of the landscape this time.

Because with the same enviromental tiles, one can only make the same enviroments, (and cmak is not going to be more then a change in looks and units then.)

But then again: Yes, it would be most welcome to hide my little-recon-vehicle behind that 'Huge-Wall-of-Tank' just there....

Oh and: Yes, the going in and out of buildings can be very confusing and deadly...a improvement there would also be most welcome.

So...hmm...i dono :mad: im confused now as to what i want.

Please dont make me choose!!?

[ August 15, 2003, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: theike ]