What do we want in the new CM game, Part Deux!

[CentaurII]

Heres my Wish list its actually not to based on new engine requirements but enhancements to gameplay and feel.

1. Hard armoured vehicles. Blocking Los and fire.

With infantry only able to fire through abandoned and Ko'ed vehicles only. (To account for squad dispersion)The fact 5 shermans in a row on the level can all fire FF makes ambush tactics a bit pointless if you kill the first the next 4 get you.

2. Vehicle specific location hit modelling. Based on relative hull and turret size on the facing.

In extremis Lees have a tiny but well armoured turret I have played a game when a lee in the open got hit 15 times out of 15 in the turret and they bounced they would have pentrated the hull but Hey Ho.

3. tweak the after armour effect 75L70s should be transferring as much if not more energy per hit than an 88L56 but the 88 kills more regularly.

4. Increase the crew of tanks bailing out on a penetration. sometimes a sherman will be hit 5-6 times with penetration and still be active. The lucky survivable hit seems to be a norm in some scenarios rather than the exception.

5. US 76.2 please recheck the damage and pen modelling. It seems to be more effective than front line reports indicate. Also 76.2 Soviet seems under modelled in CM BB

6. allow purchase of infantry support units MGs mortars etc in sections. Or allow the deletion of a company command unit without the whole lot going.

7. Increase variability in infantry units Give the option of higher smg numbers for example in US para units or randomise it (randomised small arm load out will make it interesting)

8. give supporting infantry in Mg squads mortar teams a rifle. also give crews a chance of having 1or 2 smgs and give gun crews rifles. It may enhance gamey tactics but its more realistic (keep ammo very low)

9. allow small arms fire from embarked infantry in vehicles. ( automated only)

10. pintle mount Mgs. many were removed or added in theatre. Shermans on Us should have a 80% chance of a 50 cal Uk 20% chance of a 50 cal Other tanks should have a 10% chance of an LMG added. ( or something like it )

The Germans loose out PZIV s did carry pintle guns on occasion. and I would love to see a cromwell with a pintle bren.

11 Buildings make them hard at all points Im getting a bit fed up of manouvering tanks to fire through corners which can be seen but dont block los.

12. Smaller blocks as an option on the editor to allow a fence to reach a house and add smaller detail for realism. In addition please make up some hedge with gate or wall with gate tiles.

13. Borg spotting. I would be happy if everone with a chance of spotting attempted after 10 seconds at a reduced chance those not successfull

but a member of a platoon that has seen can observe in 45 seconds time.

tell me what you think

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by CentaurII:

6. allow purchase of infantry support units MGs mortars etc in sections. Or allow the deletion of a company command unit without the whole lot going.

I understand why they do this, but I find it is VERY difficult to model historical OOBs. (The platoon view for buying armored vehicles was a vast step forward.) And the arbitrariness of some decisions is revealed by changes between CMBO and CMAK in the size and number of squads in a German platoon or HQ squad, even when they have pinpointed the arm and month. of course the historical OOB revisions are notorious for the Germans.

Conversely, it would be great if you could edit a unit to be an HQ unit, thus allowing you to form an actual tank company.

[Philippe]

After-battle historical reports that can't be read until after the battle.

It's been mentioned before but may slip through the cracks.

When a game ends it would be nice if there were three buttons to click on instead of two: Map, Score, and Historical AAR. That way people who don't care about such things won't have to read it, and the rest of us won't be subjected to a potential spoiler.

Part of the learning experience of playing an historical scenario is comparing what happened in the game to what happened in real life. Putting the historical AAR in one of the two initial briefings is a bit frustrating: you want to know what really happened when the scenario ends, not before. The historical AAR is a spoiler, and is very annoying to have to skip over during play when you go back to consult the briefing (to remind yourself of little details like where you are, what units you're commanding, etc.).

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Philippe:

After-battle historical reports that can't be read until after the battle.

Agree. The fact is that the whole briefing case would benefit from a redesign job.

For example, many a designer now uses an abstract header to summarize the main infos, i.e. date, type, weather, best played as and so on. Those informations are very useful in picking up a scenario, picking sides etc. Maybe they could be made standard, requiring a field or a dropdown menu to be picked in the editor. That way a certain consistency in presentation would be easily achieved.

Also, if the briefing could be made from a more flexible text editor, or HTML, or whatever, then people would be free to include pictures, maps, diagrams or whatever they deem useful. That way, very prolific designer *or designer team* could include some trademark images, hyperlinks, signature that would make them easily recognizable and would provide some sort of exposure to those who helps making the game so replayable.

Still on the briefing case, other potentially interesting addition would be

- tabs to switch from, with strategic background*, mission, OB list, [printer friendly]map, why not a summary of ennemy unit spotted (to overlay with map, as suggested earlier by someone);

* The strategic background screen could be great to campain people. I remember playing the excellent Any Port After The Storm from Patrick T. Ware, and a stategic overview with each battle would have been an outstanding feature to already very, very good campaign style battles.

- text editor (very basic) especially for multi-PBEMers to writes things downs as they go, like unit spotted, their estimate of enemy intention, basic plan or whatever. Just a notepad to keep their ideas along the proper game.

- On the same line, a "tactical timer". Basically a tab where you could note something down, like, say, "move A company toward road junction" and choose, from a drop down menu, something like "notify me on turn 14". That way, that well laid plan made on setup phase could be reminded to you after three weeks of slow play via email. I don't know, just a thought...

Cheers

[Philippe]

Tactical Sketch Maps.

Hoolredux's idea is fascinating, and it would be great to have all or some of it implemented.

But on a lesser note, I've often found myself wishing for a very simplified commander's tactical sketch map. I don't like to zoom out anymore than necessary (though I don't play with Franko's ingenious rules only because the current interface and method of unit handling is a bit too clumsy to accomodate them) but I often find I need to know basic information to get myself oriented, like how that river runs acrcoss the battlefield, does it get crossed by the main road, and where exactly is that town that I'm supposed to capture again ?

The map should be linked to a sides briefing, because the tactical map shouldn't necessarily be the same for each side.

[Le Tondu]

IF it hasn't already been said, I'd like to see the firing of smoke rounds by off map artillery not count against the artillery rounds that the spotter has available.

If he has 150 HE rounds available, smoke rounds shouldn't count against that.

Maybe smoke rounds should have their own total like armour has?

[poppy]

I agree, after battle reports, historical or not, belong in the after battle report,not in the pre battle briefing.

[Cpl Carrot]

These may have been mentioned, but I would like to see the following:

1) Either add notes to the map (while playing), or a clipboard sort of thing where you can enter notes etc. Granted you can just write on piece of paper, but think of the trees.

2) Landmark/notes on the map that are side dependant.

For whats it worth

Cpl Carrot

[DBaron]

Forgive me if any of these have been fixed in CMAK. Saw this post and thought I would add my two cents.

Something needs to be done about roads & rivers, & railroad tracks. I hate their current appearance. You can't have a long curved road, you have to make one straight, one angled, one straight etc. The biggest improvement should be for AI. Also, plotting waypoints for roads needs to be improved. It would be nice to be able to remove barbed wire, was it really that hard? Stuff is indestructable right now. Someone mentioned the sortable scenario selector, which sounds like a good idea. One other thing...I always see signposts (Berlin 500km, etc) in movies and photos of WWII, but have never seen them in CMBB. Don't know about CMAK.

My own personal wish is for a campaign system, or barring that, at least the ability to edit and retrieve information from saved game files. Maybe have a secure save game file for pbem games, and an open one for folks like me.

[Dennis Grant]

Another new feature:

LOS "paint" that shows all the areas a unit can/cannot see at one go, rather than dragging the cursor around with the LOS tool activated.

As for wire... wire is a SONOFABITCH to deal with. Removing it under ideal circumstances (assuming it has been staked and wired in, tanglefoot is wired up, etc) is a job that takes HOURS, not minutes. Doing so under fire.... not likely.

Even artillery and explosives don't necessarily do the job. It tends to throw the wire around, tangling it worse, rather than actually cut it.

I've seen hasty wire (a couple of rolls of concertina dropped over a couple of pickets) stop tanks and APCs. It gets jammed into tracks and sprockets, and gets worse with time, because the tracks crush the wire into the moving bits. I remember in particular a Leopard that needed to have the drive sprockets removed from the tank and then the wire mass cut away with a torch....

DG

[Noiseman]

My top ten list:

1). Individual infantry figures.

2). Contour lines/drawable features for the scenario builder.

3). Ability to save surviving troops for another battle.

4). Shadow/light contrast to show LOS for units.

5). Terrain grid toggle.

6). Mousewheel scroll height adjustment for camera.

7). Adjustable graphics scale separate for vehicles and soldiers.

8). AFV's as cover

9). Better city/town maps/buildings for QBs.

10). Dynamic lighting, flares etc.

I'd be surprised if most of these features didn't make it into CM 2. The most important for me are improved infantry graphics (naturally probably the hardest thing to do). I am not particularly bothered if the animations are tiny and hard to see, highlight them with triangles like Rome: TW.

[Gen. J-sun]

I got 1, how about AI controlled friendly units sort of a combined OP and the chat feature can be used such as a radio. Also a nice theatre, i.e the Pacific(sorry for the shameless plug), or 'nam, or Afghanistan

[hoolaman]

Hello, I posted above as hoolredux, but I have found my old password.

From the bits and pieces thrown to us by BFC, I think it is clear that the new game will have a very different graphics engine, which will be much more sophisticated. Perhaps we can discuss the standards of graphics we expect or care about as compared to some current games.

I would like to see terrain that compares "codename panzers". http://www.panzers.de/index.php?page=screens.us.panzers#mpdemo08

or something like the new ground control 2 game, or this as I mentioned before: http://www.codemasters.com/games/uploadedimages/battlefield_command_battle.jpg

Starting with the scenery and the map, I would like to see:

- A map editor with tiles (or the equivalent) that allow much more organic roads, slopes, rivers etc. (certain to happen anyway)

- More destructible terrain and scenery, especially buildings which can have holes blown in walls.

- Better lighting effects including dynamic lighting and decent reflective dynamic water and mud.

- 3d Particle model for smoke and dust.

- Little touches like civilian vehicles and breeze blowing flags and such. Dead cows, but maybe even live ones.

In short, an believable immersive environment with all those little touches that get you in the game.

Graphics are not all important, but they are very important, and it seems BFC are looking at making the new game up 2004 standard.

I will be glad to see the change from the horrible 1998 CMBO graphics that persist even in CMAK.

[hoolaman]

As for gameplay issues, well that is probably a lot more complex, but I find the main problems with the old system are as follows.

- Relative spotting.

- Command management, ie. Playing as both omniscient being and yet still having to steer that tank around that rock. (closely related to the borg spotting issue)

- Treating a squad as an indivisible unit. (okay, there are half squads, but they are all treated as one entity)

- The simulation of real command and control.

- One minute turn time.

On relative spotting and command management, I can see the problem the developers must have had in the first place. You cannot simultaneously be the panicked tank crew behind enemy lines, observing the enemy columns march past, and also have the limited situational awareness of a platoon, company or brigade leader. The problem is you can send other units to deal with something you shouldn't know about.

There is the option that all methods of battlefield communication be simulated, but this would require that the player take on a certain rank, below which he does not directly see what the front line units see, which I think is what BFC wanted to avoid, lest you end up playing half the battle with your out-of-command units shrouded in darkness and controlled by AI.

I think, a "paper map" would help solve this problem as I mentioned above with a few additional possibilities. I think areas out of LOS to any units should be invisible, whether they are black or represented by a situational map or cartoon 3d symbols or whatever. To elaborate on my idea, a stylised paper topographical map could be rendered over the unseen parts of the map. It would still be rendered in 3d with all the slopes so you can get an idea of the terrain you are approaching. Imagine a "topographical map mod" where the grass is all a paper texture, and there are black lines at the gaps between each elevation and you will get the idea.

There is a way to partially implement battlefield C&C. All panicked units or even maybe even suppressed units would lose their ability to spot, similarly, all vehicle crews lose the ability to spot, unless they are at their vehicle and it has a working radio.

These units may disappear from the map, and be marked on the paper map as "lost contact" or "last known position", until they regain contact. OR They may stay on the map to be commanded things like retreat or whatever, to allow for the fact that you, the player still control them, but the units they see would not appear to you the player, unless they return to friendly lines, in which case their observations appear on the map as "enemy infantry sighted" or "tiger tanks", which may or may not be a correct or helpful observation.

This may require some better simluation of battlefield comms. Runners, radios, heliographs, semaphore, three blasts from a whistle, three quick shots. All these can give varying levels of info to be marked on a map. Maybe your runners get killed. Maybe a squad is truly cut off, and no inbound or outbound communication is possible, should they dissappear from the map and be marked out of contact, or should you have the option of controlling them. Maybe there is a delay in getting orders out, maybe the radioman eats a mortar shell and no further radio comms are possible. All these would be interesting if they could be implemented without limiting the players involvement adn immersion.

This also would make it more essential to model every man. I would like to see a 2IC take over command if the HQ is killed, taking on new bonuses. Runners would have to be selected individually and taken from the ranks, reducing firepower. One guy would have to carry the radio, and if he bites it, no more radio. Also, if a squad is panicked, it is unlikely that allof them would be panicked, one guy who is made of sterner stuff, or more experienced, may either rally them or run to get help.

This would make it possible to model entry points to buildings. Each man must get in the door one by one. Maybe through a hole you just blew with satchel charges. Also very basic fortifications, like build roadblock or something like it that is possible within the timeframe of one game.

My last point is about the 60 seconds turn time. Either much smarter tac AI or much more fine control in the orders system must be included for it to be truly effective.

For example, you give an order to an on board mortar to fire at some infantry. The platoon commander and the company commander are right next to him observing the target. The mortar fires, and after the first shell hits, the enemy soldiers run away, but the mortar fired all his ammo at nothing because you can't stop him within the 60 seconds, even if all the top brass are there, but he should know himself that he is firing at nothing. It is a silly arbitrary amount of time anyway. Why not 30 seconds.

If the 60 sec we-go is to be retained, there needs to be a vast new range of orders. Setting dispositions, like what do do on enemy contact, what cover to seek under fire, specifying how many rounds to fire, firing for effect, ie fire 3 rounds, wait and see if anyone moves, then fire another three rounds. A hold fire command. A ammo conservation disposition. Also lots of formations for squads, platoons, companies.

[Tarkus]

Hey Hoolaman, that's one bunch of nice ideas you have there. Your map (and screenshot refs) ideas are very interesting.

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

[...]panicked units or even maybe even suppressed units would lose their ability to spot, similarly, all vehicle crews lose the ability to spot, unless they are at their vehicle and it has a working radio.

These units may disappear from the map, and be marked on the paper map as "lost contact" or "last known position", until they regain contact.

Very interesting. Disapearing units... losing contact and trying to regain it. I don't know about the impact on the gameplay, but it seems to me that would still enhance the feel for the battlefield chaos. From the top of my head, I'd say it would slow down the game tempo, of course depending of the era BFC pick, with its impact on comm model, should they go this way. The challenge is to keep it playable, which is not that obvious I guess...

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

[...]model every man. [...]2IC take over command if the HQ is killed, taking on new bonuses. Runners would have to be selected individually and taken from the ranks, reducing firepower. One guy would have to carry the radio, [...] Also, if a squad is panicked, [...]one guy who is made of sterner stuff, or more experienced, may either rally them or run to get help.

Again, very interesting. The way you put it, it does sounds like good gaming still

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

[...]about the 60 seconds turn time.[...]Why not 30 seconds. [...]If the [...] we-go is to be retained,

This again will have huge impact on gameplay, but I agree this should at least be thought about. Maybe make it just like when you start a TCP/IP game and you select a time limit. That way, PBEM could make longer turns, TCP/IP game much shorter. But again, I have know idea how these things work around the code...

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

[...]a vast new range of orders. Setting dispositions, like what do do on enemy contact, what cover to seek under fire, specifying how many rounds to fire, firing for effect, ie fire 3 rounds, wait and see if anyone moves, then fire another three rounds. A hold fire command. A ammo conservation disposition. Also lots of formations for squads, platoons, companies.

I would suggest the use of switches on the interface instead of order panel for some of your suggestions. Instead of being a binary option (selecting "target" or not), a switch controlling fire discipline could present more flexibility. You could select "do not return fire" to "fire at will" and include in between options ("Harassing" or "Sporadic" fire, support weapon only, etc), keeping in mind that this is always relative to troop experience and HQ caps.

Also, I was playing CSDT-Lonely Country, from Panzerman yesterday, an infantry only battle, where part of my troops stayed a good 25 minutes in one position, exchanging fire with the enemy. It came to me that a progressive cover model would be interesting. I can easily imagine that these troops strived for better cover during a fire fight, and staying in one place longer, although not always a good idea, at least has the advantage of allowing one to enhance one's cover. I'm not talking about entrenching frenzy, just the fact that instead of woods having a generic cover and concealment value, this could improve with time up to a certain level, depending of unit experience, HQ bonus and other factors.

[Dennis Grant]

Something that has to be kept in mind with some of these suggestions is that the CM games are "God Games" in so far that your job is the control of all the units on your side.

You aren't playing the role of a Field Marshal or some other very high ranking officer - such a role would involve only selecting objectives and letting the local commanders figure out how to accomplish them. Even the role of a batallion commander still winds up delegating a good deal of the battle plan to subordinate commanders.

For example, as the troop leader for Regimental Recce, I'd get boundries, phase lines, an idea of what the objective was likely to be, and a description of the commander's concept for the operation, plus the usual command/control/service/support information. How I arranged for my troop to carry out the recce mission was completely up to me.

In a game context, this would require handing over a lot of control to the AI. The higher your "rank" in the game, the more control over the action the AI gets.

This might be interesting from a historical modelling standpoint, but I doubt it would be much fun....

Accordingly, the requirement to give the player control over everything limits the amount of realism that can be worked into the game. Things like "Borg spotting" are a necessary side-effect of the requirement for player control.

I can't tell you how many times in RL I had to leave a perfectly wonderful position because I was in some sort of odd radio shadow and couldn't talk to everybody I needed to talk to. Those sorts of problems don't model well in a "God game". If I lost contact with a patrol, he was for all intents and purposes GONE (unless somebody I _could_ talk to could talk to him, and could relay). But in game terms, a unit out of contact with his commander is not out of contact with "God", snd can still be manipulated.

The trick to play balance is to ALLOW micromanagement if you really want to, but not to REQUIRE it in order to function well. You can make units do formations right now - you just have to do all the waypoints individually, which is tedious. Formations, road following, unit following etc are houskeeping shortcuts that reduce the amount of micromanagement that the player would have done anyway - and that's goodness.

DG

[Philippe]

One concept that I always found intriguing from some of the old Napoleonic boardgames was that of limiting the number of orders you could give. In an earlier period the order limit would have a lot to do with how many ADC's were milling about with fresh horses.

One way of applying that to CM might be to allow an unlimited number of orders to a single unit, and with no penalty for waypoints, but a limit per hq or per hq in command (however that would get redefined). The idea would be to make it difficult to intervene on the ground once the shooting starts.

I can see some merit in the command delay system that we use now, but I don't think it is a fully adequate simulation of command and control issues. Limiting the number of units that you can give commands to (and the circumstances under which you can give them commands) would put more reliance on the AI and leave the player with a bit less god-like control. As it stands now every squad seems to be wired in to their hq's with headphones.

The kind of rules that you would need to make something like this work would be a nightmare in a board game, but could be fairly invisible and unobtrusive in a computer game. As a practical matter, just how many detailed orders can a platoon hq actually issue in the space of sixty seconds? And how powerful do someone's lungs have to be to shout that far (assuming they aren't using the headphones ported from Jagged Alliance).

[i still love the fact that in Jagged Alliance you could set the game to only allow you to see what the selected unit sees. It didn't make an enormous difference, but every now and again you would forget that there was someone crouching on the other side of that wall...]

[Dennis Grant]

just how many detailed orders can a platoon hq actually issue in the space of sixty seconds?

You see, that's just it - in RL, a Platoon HQ doesn't _need_ to issue all those detailed orders, because the subunits are (to a certain extent) autonomous.

Even in my own callsign subordinates didn't need a ton of direction:

"Driver, see that little brown patch about 4 fingers left of that big tree about 600 metres out?"

"The tree with the kinda yellowish bush at the base?"

"That's the one."

"Yup. Got it"

"I want a turret-down right about there. Best ground. Driver prepare to advance, driver advance"

And then my concentration would go back to the radio/scanning the ground around me for bad guys.

I didn't need to specify the driver's exact path, because she knew what she was doing, knew where we expected the enemy to be, and could be trusted to find a path that would keep us concealed and (as much as possible) keep the thick armour towards the bad guys. My full awareness wouldn't really come back to the movement of the callsign until it was time to adopt the turret-down - because it was my eyeballs that needed to project above terrain, so the driver physically couldn't tell where to stop.

CMxx isn't like that. When you, as a player, click on a unit and start issuing movement orders, for that period of time you're actually the DRIVER more so than the commander. You "become" that unit, and as such, the level of control you get is entirely appropriate.

With that in mind, I don't think ANY movement delay is appropriate. It doesn't accurately represent command and control issues, because when an order is issued to a unit, the play "is" that unit at the time.

DG

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Philippe:

One way of applying that to CM might be to allow an unlimited number of orders to a single unit, and with no penalty for waypoints, but a limit per hq or per hq in command (however that would get redefined). The idea would be to make it difficult to intervene on the ground once the shooting starts.

A similar idea that could accomplish that is to assign units a corridor of advance to their objectives at the setup. This could be like a 100m wide waypoint or like those big arrows you see on war maps. Any manouvering inside this area would be considered the initiative of the commanders on the ground, but any change to "the plan" from the company or battalion level would be subject to an appropriate level of command delay.

So to totally reroute a platoon would require changing their axis of advance, which may require 2 or 3 or 10 minutes to get the orders from Major Bloggs. But while they are following "the plan" orders, Lieutenant Goober can order his men around all he likes.

This would prevent a platoon from responding to something on the otherside of the map without getting an order from their (simulated) CO to do so. They would be locked into their last known orders, but still allowing for micromanagement.

Another idea for spotting would be to limit the view to a units POV in certain circumstances, as per those rules whose name eludes me.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

Another idea for spotting would be to limit the view to a units POV in certain circumstances, as per those rules whose name eludes me.

Might be wrong but I believe there were rules from Frank "Franko" Radoslovich. The rules were dubbed "Franko" true combat rules . But Don't know where they can be found now...

:confused:

[junk2drive]

Here are some rules at Band of Brothers website

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

If the 60 sec we-go is to be retained, there needs to be a vast new range of orders. Setting dispositions, like what do do on enemy contact, what cover to seek under fire, specifying how many rounds to fire, firing for effect, ie fire 3 rounds, wait and see if anyone moves, then fire another three rounds.

I have always wanted SOPs, as in TacOps. However, this is not so much so I can control them, but so they are set realistically for the scenario. They should be set in the editor. Standard operating procedures would also allow an expression of a unit's historical character or discipline or ideology: German tanks would unbutton as much as possible and use radios intensively (moving independently); Volkssturmtroopers' SOP would be to duck on contact and stay down. Green American tanks would fail to kill disabled enemy tanks; veterans would not. Green infantry under mortar fire would hit the dirt; veterans would run through it---and I don't mean because they aren't afraid, they're not just tougher---I mean that experience has taught them how to survive bombardment, they consciously choose to run forward. Italians after '42 would desert (joke, but seriously). Bastogne defenders could be told to save ammo.

Dennis is right about the theory behind CM command control, and I accept the basic combination of Goddishness and gruntishness. The problem is that, while I "am" the tank driver, I'M A LOUSY TANK DRIVER. By that I mean, not that I don't know what I'm doing or how to do it---that is true but theoretically I can learn (Not with the current interface . . .). The problem is I don't have the feedback I have when I drive a car or walk across a room. i don't know how close I can get to a patch of woods without getting caught in its pixels, because I didn't grow up in pixel-land!

CM needs more competent drivers. Tanks might live long enough for civilians to learn to use them.

[ October 06, 2004, 05:07 AM: Message edited by: Dave Stockhoff ]

[Sanok]

I'd be happy if off-map artillery was remodeled so the shells would actually land where ordered, instead of spread to the four winds. I'm talking when the FO has LOS to the target.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff:

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

If the 60 sec we-go is to be retained, there needs to be a vast new range of orders. Setting dispositions, like what do do on enemy contact, what cover to seek under fire, specifying how many rounds to fire, firing for effect, ie fire 3 rounds, wait and see if anyone moves, then fire another three rounds.

I have always wanted SOPs, as in TacOps. </font>

[Dennis Grant]

Hmm. Movement.

I have a couple of problems with the current movement speed system, although they are pretty minor. The existing system isn't bad.

If I could redo it myself though, it might look like this:

Vehicles:

1) Road March: follow road tiles to waypoint. Top speed of vehicle, poor (but not no) spotting. Enemy encounter not expected.

2) Move: Slow speed (about infantry advance speed) good spotting. Engage infantry/soft vehicle targets with no break in movement. Engage armour targets and stop. Engage "scary" armour targets and reverse back along previous path to hull down.

3) Bound: Maximum safe vehicle cross country speed, varying on terrain type (driver slows down to below "throw track" speed) Spotting slighly poorer than "Move". Action on contact same as "Move"

4) Fast: Same as "Bound" but do not stop on contact - priority is to reach waypoint. Fire on move for vehicles capable.

5) Sprint: Maximum vehicle speed. Poor spotting. Do not engage. Run like hell!

6) Contact: As per "move" but stop on contact. Heightened spotting.

7) Hunt: Slower than "move". Very good spotting to front. Expected contact with armour, so gunner ready to fire immediately (smallest possible fire delay on contact)

For infantry:

1) March: Fastest possible speed with no fatique increase. Upright and walking. Contact not expected. Spotting poor. Density high.

2) Double Time: Faster than "March", slow increase in fatigue. Contact not expected. Spotting very poor. Density high.

3) Advance: Slighly slower than "march". Spotting very high. Upright and walking, but scanning for the enemy and contact expected. No increase in fatigue. On contact, drop to ground, fire off a burst, and then crawl to cover.

4) Run: As per current.

5) Assault: "Up he sees me down" WHILE PUTTING OUT FIRE (ie, half the squad/half squad puts down supressing fire while the other half moves) In game terms, this could probably be represented with a burst of fire, then run 10 metres, then a burst of fire, run 10 metres etc. Spotting poor to the flanks, but very good near the waypoint, and if enemy spotted within 10 metres of the waypoint, shift from area fire at the waypoint to aimed fire at the unit.

Perhaps "Assault" is a FIRE order, not a move order.

DG