For the CMx2 "wish list" - 'multiple choice' bunkers?

[Foreigner]

The season "Dear Santa" letters is well over, but I guess for this community BFC/BTS is the next best thing... And I apologize if any of the questions and suggestions below have been addressed/discussed before.

There's a couple of things I would be glad to see in the new CM installment(s). The main one comes from a question that's been vaguely, but persistently haunting me - why are we limited to MG/ATG bunkers only?

I don't know how much complexity it would introduce (and whether it would be worth the trouble), but what if we had a pick of several types of bunkers ("empty shells" only) and then at setup choose to man them - with a squad and a HMG, an infantry gun plus a flamethrower, or any other combnination the sick imagination of a CM player can conjure ? This way, the attacker at least for a while will not know what to expect from the binker/pillbox. It might even be left unmanned (like a trench) to make the attacker expend time, ammo and effort. If it's not returning fire, is it empty, or is it "playing dead"? Do you feel lucky today? Do you...?

Of course, there would be limits to what (and how many) units can be in a bunker at the same time. Mortars would definitely be out, AAGs would not be able to shoot at planes, squads would not be able to throw hand grenades/satchel charges out, etc. But why not FOs? So it might be worth pounding that 'empty' pillbox after all... Whether units inside of a bunker can leave it during the battle and other units move inside belongs more to the "abadon/recrew weapons" debate. Which reminds me - what if one was able to use/purchase extra vehicle/artillery crews to replace the worthless cowards that run as soon as a mere couple of comrades are torn to pieces in front of their eyes?

I would also like a greater variety of bunkers/pillboxes with different protection levels and capacity (and different prices, of course). Some of the more expensive ones could be hexa- or octagonal, with wider fields of fire. Heck, it's wish-list season, let's also have two types of trenches - a "flimsy" and a reinforced one, but let them both be "collapsible" by HE fire, much like a light and a heavy building. That's how HE became popular in WWI, you know.

Other items on my list:

- the small possibility (depending on experience) of mistakenly identifying an enemy vehichle as knocked-out/abandoned (the shock when it comes to life!);

and while we are at it...

- 'small fires' and other minor damage to vehicles that disables them, but that could sometimes be repaired by crews during the battle when not under attack (this way even some immobilized out-of-enemy-sight vehicles can still hope to get into action). Maybe not that often, but it certainly happened IRL. Codename: Panzers repair trucks need not apply!

- the ability of infantry (but not heavy support weapons) to "swim" across rivers where there's no ford - like sewer movement in cities, extremely slow and hazardous, but still possible;

- the probability of an engineer unit detecting a minefield before someone steps/drives over one. Dependent upon experience and alert status, of course;

- the ability of engineers to clear/blow up wires/roadblocks;

- a 'stand-your-ground' command for defending units, similar to 'assault' - morale bonus, shoots more often, but takes casualties faster;

- a 'fighting withdrawal' command - similar to 'advance' - slower, more tiring, but potentially taking less casualties.

Thanks for reading! All comments and suggestions are welcome - as long as they agree with me!

[c3k]

Foreigner,

I agree. In the past, I've advocated the idea of pillboxes with a "passenger" status similar to trucks. In that manner, you could load and unload different units into and out of your pillboxes. Just like you said.

Cheers,

Ken

[throwdjohn]

wow. foriegner. you blew my mind dude. great ideas. they are in a way so great because unlike many suggested "improvments", they don't require that much more computing capability.

[rleete]

Some nice ideas, very well stated.