CMx2... a little more to chew on...

[pad152]

CMx2 comments

Platoon Level - this sounds great, there hasn't been a good tactical platoon/squad level game sense X-Com.

Platoon/Squad Editor - I hope you consider the ability to create/edit platoon/squads, pick the number of men and add the type of primary and secondary weapons you want. I didn't like the sameness of platoon/squads in CM1 series.

Map/Tile Editor - I hope we see airfields, ports, watch towers, and have more varity in what we see on maps.

Has there been any talk about having the ability to inport/edit tiles or import/export 3D objects to create building/bunkers/etc?

Any thought of having a more interactive environment with distructable tile sets for map objects?

[junk2drive]

MD, what was going through my mind at the time is the "excuse syndrome"

When someone asks why does or why doesn't something happen in CMx1, the answer sometimes gets the excuse "it's already in there, but it's abstracted".

Yes it is hard to draw the line on a lot of issues.

[Kip Watson]

I like the idea of some kind of ammo re-supply, small ammo dumps (some sort of bunker?), ammo carrying vehicles - as an aid to verisimilitude and as additional potential targets, and I can see the potential for some really really cool explosions...

But the actual act of resupplying troops I would strongly prefer not to have to think about - ie. as long as I look after the asset/s and prevent my squads getting cut-off, the pixel-guys take care of distributing ammo themselves.

It doesn't have to be 'abstract' - just hands-off.

[JonS]

Originally posted by RMC:

I think prepared positions could be handled easily enough, by giving the unit a larger ammo stock of its own.

Notwithstanding J2Ds comments above, this actually is already in CM.

[Wartgamer]

any ammo replenishment was proven to break the code in CMBO, CMBB and CMAK. even just a series of code that queried each unit during a pre turn would have overturned the apple cart. its impossible and can not be considered. its not that it would have been work, its just impossible. whats wrong with you people? think a computer can just opposite shoot (-ammo expediture) before a turn? you are not game designers and should be flogged.

[Tarkus]

Re: supply lines

Lots of interesting ideas here, but I submit to you the following observation:

Even though WEGO is in, there is no indications about the average time-per-battle and, more importandly, there is no certainty that a battle will be just that, a battle.

Perhaps the engine will allow a certain "battle context" with objectives, parameters (including supply) and some duration agree upon by the players, with agreed lull in the fighting for reorg. That would mean various phases in this "battle context" where supply would be taken care of, as would be consolidation, counterattack, patrol and such.

The effect would be a time period with moments depicted in the game, and the player would be forced to think about more than just slugging it out until all cartidges are spent, all the bad guys are dead, and all the map is occupied.

Say a battle last 30 turns. Now, it last 30 turns right ? More or less. But still, no one cares about what happen next. But what if the game last 30 turns, and you get the chance to continue, attack again, defend yourself at a later time ? Then you would think again before sending your last fresh platoon in an all out assault, no ? You'd also look at the ammo level and headcount to see if this particular unit would be worth anything in further action.

What I'm saying is one of the thing that would be a very worthy addition to the game scope and context, as I think others are implying with discussion about supply, is that without enlarging the scope to larger unit, finding a way to expand on the time frame for these front line small unit would be very interesting. Nothing would prevent action-oriented player to stick to QBs and scenarios, but longer engagements with lull in the fighting and reorgs would be completely out of this world. We would really make history in a sense. Taking a company into combat would be something else, to say the least.

An example, from the top of my head, would be the Battle of the Bulge. I recall playing ops in this context and saying to myself that so much of the whole experience (as I envision it from readings) was not in the game but would be tremendeoulsy interesting to look at and control.

I'm not saying to start plotting the exact path of the field telephone here. I don't want to have to take care of the chow either. But you see my point. And we haven't even talked about more flexible, different victory conditions/objectives.

Cheers

[ February 15, 2005, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

And we haven't even talked about more flexible, different victory conditions/objectives.

Has Steve?

[dalem]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Problem with simply random resupply is that positions with no possible line of communication could receive resupply.

I definitely don't want to have to plot movement waypoints for every damn ammo runner in a company. OTOH, I don't want squads in forward positions, which would realistically have their resupply routes interdicted, unrealistically getting additional ammo when they shouldn't be.

And therein lies the challenge, I guess. . .

Cheers,

YD

Exactly why I asked. Abstractions are probably more okay with a player such as myself. If the occasional out of supply squad gets a resupply then that would balance out the occasional squad right next to the Company HQ building not getting any.

Weird crap happens in combat, so I've read.

Because I only know CMx1 mechanics I'm just activating the discussion about "what level of resupply representation would you find satisfactory?" If the only thing that floats one's boat is actual ammo carts and runners, then that narrows down options, even hypothetical options.

-dale

[Halberdiers]

Revolution, or evolution?

I have a lot interest in how developers will think to make a revolution in the victory conditions. IMHO this could be a key in the philosophy of "model warfare, don't model wargames" too ,because the victory conditions could have a critical influence in the rest of improvements in the game and how the players will play.

Very few games broke the fundamentals known to core wargame designs, and therefore wargames have remained largely unchanged for decades.

In a same way as the hexes , I expect that the old victory flags (dynamic or not ) disappear finally in the game. Or say it in another form,for example the strategical AI (not the scenario designer) will put the flags during the turns under certain rules , and then the victory conditions (not the "Mission") will be defined during the play. Is a part of the decisions of the battle in warfare , Isn't it ?.

Moreover in the warfare do not exist the certainty of the victory, furthermore the definition of what is a victorious battle, once appears when the strategical conditions decided later what was a win and what was a loss. But not by the result of the battle it self as suggest the results in CMX1. "Accomplished Mission" could be a better definition for CMX1.For example, it is possible a battle defeated with an accomplished Mission of 90% ? . Yes , as Montmogery say about Market-Garden operation.

In the same way tactical and strategically with a level of battalion could be defined the accomplished mission and the result of the battle for CMX2.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Halberdiers:

I have always considered the idea of the standard CMx1 "victory flag" somewhat like a prototype OR a preliminary concept sort of like crude and simple, but effective.

Like the rest of CMx2 I hope we can find far more elegance and fidelity and variability in the new victory flag replacement (be they invisible or otherwise) AND new victory condition options and settings in the scenario editor.

I guess (as always) we will just have to wait and see...

-tom w

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

And we haven't even talked about more flexible, different victory conditions/objectives.

Has Steve? </font>

[Folbec]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hmmm.... well, there is probably a lot more stuff that I've touched on in other posts, but these are the big things I can think off right now. Hopefully the totality of the stuff in this post will give you an idea of what CMx2 is intended to be, both in general terms and in some specifics.

Steve

Just one thing you forgot, that often frustated me : more control on victory conditions, both for scenario design and for QBs.

A system that would allow to design "delaying actions" or "desperate defenses" scenarios at real bad odds for the defender and still allow him to win "by fullfilling his mission" would be great.

Maybe allow the scenario designer to specify the win / loose formula ? And/or add a loss formula simulation to the editor ? Win by capturing n out of p flags (selected by the attacker) ?

[flamingknives]

Ammo resupply opens up a whole raft of features.

Keeping ammo away from the gun means that the speed of the gun need no longer be abstracted to keep the ammo supply with it. Emplacing and displacing from a gun position will be possible over short distances, tractor vehicles become more important as they can carry the ammo about instead. The 3" mortar ammo load will finally make sense.

Resupply in a 30 minute battle is unlikely, but then the battle ought to last longer anyway.

[JonS]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Resupply in a 30 minute battle is unlikely

And more to the point, it's unlikely to be necessary. Those folk mumbling about 'I don't want to spend 5-10 minutes of a 30 minute scenario doing ammo resup' need to think about the kind of battles you play now. Then consider whether ammo resup would be useful in them or not. If you come up with 'not' then fine, it doesn't apply to you.

If, OTOH, you come up with an answer along the lines of 'yeah, I often play 45-60 turn scens, and by about turn 30 I often have platoons who are pretty well spent. The ability to bomb them up so they can participate in the last 10 minutes of battle would be very handy' would probably appreciate a well modelled, elegant, yet appropriately abstract ammo resup model.

I believe that most folk suggesting this are viewing it as a scen design tool - i.e. something that would be in, or not, at the discretion of the scen designer - not something you have to contend with regardless of the situation.

JonS

[gibsonm]

Ammo resupply limitations might also impose on players the requirement for - wait for it - a reserve!

Instead of having absolutely everyone in the line, you could conduct a relief in place and the unit you pull out could be resupplied when out of contact.

Amour could do linear replenishment or if need be “battlefield replen” where individual call signs withdraw, bomb up (usually no need for fuel or rats) and return to their battle position - you have sighted these so they are mutually supporting so therefore if one call sign moves the engagement area is still covered by another one, haven’t you.

Maybe I’m too grogish but the whole idea of everyone in a company forward (I’m not talking about depth in a position - that’s a different thing again) in some sort of linear defensive position or attacking “3 up” and blazing away as if there is no tomorrow seems a bit too unrealistic at the moment but that is what happens because there is no reward in game terms for having reserves (or an echelon for that matter).

Anyone for a jaffle?

[ February 16, 2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[flamingknives]

Is a jaffle like a waffle?

Incentive to keep reserves would be good.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Is a jaffle like a waffle?

Maybe.

Here in Aust a waffle is either a noun (a round or square piece of flour based mixture that people cover in ice cream or maple syrup) or a verb (to waffle on about something).

A Jaffle on the other hand is two pieces of bread with a filling that is toasted in a “jaffle iron” and the toasting process seals the join so you end up with a a toasted sandwich type thing usually with a meat based content (bacon and egg, beef curry, whatever).

Jaffles are the primary food group (along with brews) of armoured crewman because:

1. The are quick to make.

2. They are self contained (no cans, plates, etc.).

3. They make the contents of ration packs edible.

4. The Infantry don’t have the equipment to make them.

[Stan Hope Park]

Originally posted by pad152:

Platoon/Squad Editor - I hope you consider the ability to create/edit platoon/squads, pick the number of men and add the type of primary and secondary weapons you want. I didn't like the sameness of platoon/squads in CM1 series.

Agreed. It was hinted, a while back, that this was going to be in, but I have not been able to find the source. Does anyone have a link to it?

Map/Tile Editor - I hope we see airfields, ports, watch towers, and have more varity in what we see on maps.

Hope so too: quays, cantilever bridges, tall walls and a wider choice of buildings. A reliable way of flattening out roads in hilly terrain would be useful. Design your own buildings is unfortunately out. :'o(

Has there been any talk about having the ability to inport/edit tiles or import/export 3D objects to create building/bunkers/etc?

Any thought of having a more interactive environment with distructable tile sets for map objects? [/QB]

Don't know about this.

On the subject of ammunition resupply, have faith in the maxim of "model warfare, don't model wargames".

On the other hand, if this proved impossible to implement, is it not something we might be able to fix ourselves? In making this suggestion I am assuming that units (survivors), as well as maps, are going to be saveable to file at the end of each game. As far as I am aware, Battlefront have not confirmed this yet, so I may be spouting hot air.

If units were saveable, we could effectively continue the battle on the same ground using the same troops in a follow-up game, but we'd've had the chance to use the editor to resupply units according to perhaps pre-suggested house rules.

... still leaves the question of the enemy's resupply open I know, assuming you want FoW to be maintained.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by CSO_Talorgan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pad152:

Platoon/Squad Editor - I hope you consider the ability to create/edit platoon/squads, pick the number of men and add the type of primary and secondary weapons you want. I didn't like the sameness of platoon/squads in CM1 series.

Agreed. It was hinted, a while back, that this was going to be in, but I have not been able to find the source. Does anyone have a link to it?</font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Why? Surely if we are modelling warfare rather than wargames then the squads / sections have a “normal” weapon allocation.

Obviously this might change as weapons are lost or “scrounged” but I don’t see the point in a 10 man squad all armed with MG-42’s or 30 Panzerfausts.

Obviously people will abuse any system that gets created. However, squads equipped entirely with Brens and Stens is quite realistic for NWE - if rare - but also currently impossible. It would also allow us to fix for ourselves howlers such as the CW infantry being equipped with the Sten in the Med, or the fantasy gebirgs and jager squads. For example.

[ February 16, 2005, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

Why? Surely if we are modelling warfare rather than wargames then the squads / sections have a “normal” weapon allocation.

Obviously this might change as weapons are lost or “scrounged” but I don’t see the point in a 10 man squad all armed with MG-42’s or 30 Panzerfausts.

Obviously people will abuse any system that gets created. However, squads equipped entirely with Brens and Stens is quite realistic for NWE - if rare - but also currently impossible. It would also allow us to fix for ourselves howlers such as the CW infantry being equipped with the Sten in the Med. For example. </font>

[JonS]

yeah - I knew I'd have to be quick to get in before you got here

[gibsonm]

Yes I agree these non standard weapon allocations existed but aren’t we talking about the extreme of the bell curve?

If 0.000000000X% of squads in NWE had these weapon allocations why open the flood gates for those who will tinker with every squad they own (and then complain about how long it takes to setup)?

Perhaps a compromise. Maybe if the troop type is “special forces” or something they can tweak the setup otherwise they turn up with what they were issued at the armoury? Or maybe the scenario designer can do this but the player can’t?

Or am I getting too interested in the cup holder again?

[gibsonm]

Can’t wait for someone to ask to be able to fit out his Shermans with paint rounds and big speakers.

[JonS]

I'm thinking it'd be most useful/practical as a scen design tool.