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

[yapma]

AI like that contained in Highway to the Reich. I want to be able to numerous units without the tedium of plotting individual moves for each one.

[Tarkus]

I am reading The Battery Commander, His Batman, And A Cook and while reading Robert Crisp comments on armored warfare in North Africa, it occured to me that mechanical failure would also be something to ponder. Just as the fatigue indicator from CMBB on, breakdowns would be a realistic addition, of course depending of the era depicted. (I might be wrong but I would assume Abrams in Iraq were taken care of a lot more than a Pz I in North Africa, although I've seen shots where some M1s did look battered all right.).

Consider this:

[...] Until then we had been equipped with ancient A10s and A13s, even some A9s dragged out of various war museums and exhibitions. They were ponderous square things, like mobile pre-fab houses and just about as flimsy. By far their worst failing was their complete inabililty to move more than a mile or two in any sort of heavy going without breaking a track, or shedding one on a sharp turn.

Of the 60 odd tanks 3 R.T.R. had taken to Greece at the beginning of the year, not half a dozen were casualties of direct enemy action. All the others has been abandonned with broken tracks or other mechanical breakdowns [...] *

As it is, there is something close in the game when vehicles bog down in difficult terrain. But to go further, why not try to model a tank being in action continually for weeks and therefore very highly at risk of suffering mechanical difficulties at any given time ? It would add a nice twist for a tight defense scenario. ("Should I commit my last two panzer there ? Will they only GET there in the first place ?")

Of course, to develop a realistic and solid model of mechanic reliability is not exaclty easy and shoud most probably rely on some sort of luck, maintenance and reliability estimate based on reputation (since I doubt there is any reliable source on this), which isn't really what BFC usually base its numbers on AFAIK.

Then maybe a value from, say, 1 to 5 (or 100 ?) from best to worst maintenance factor with related breakdown percentage. Breakdown could go from track throws (in which case tanks would still be fully operationnal, only immobile) or engine failure (that could induce crews to abandon ship). This value could also get tweaked for gameplay, i.e. making breakdowns not as frequent as in real life, but still possible. Nothing decisive or frequent, but possibly a realistic addition.

Cheers

__________________

* Robert Crisp, Brazen Chariots, 1959, in Thomas Reiter, ed., The Battery Commander, His Batman, and a Cook, Small Unit Actions From Egypt To The Alps 1940-1945 , Washington, Vsadnik Corporation, 2004, 88-90.

[ October 09, 2004, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[junk2drive]

Some of these ideas sound like some other games I've played with features that can be turned on and off. As long as I have that option, C&C, breakdowns, ammo resupply, etc, are ok with me.

[Andrew H.]

While the reliability of tanks was actually very important (Patton probably couldn't have done his drive across France if he hadn't had Shermans; they were extremely reliable), I think modeling it might be outside CM's scale, as most breakdowns occurred on the way to battle and had the effect of meaning that the tank wasn't there at all. I don't recall reading of any instance where a tank's unreliabilty caused it to break down in battle. Although it may have happened, I suppose.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

While the reliability of tanks was actually very important (Patton probably couldn't have done his drive across France if he hadn't had Shermans; they were extremely reliable), I think modeling it might be outside CM's scale, as most breakdowns occurred on the way to battle and had the effect of meaning that the tank wasn't there at all. I don't recall reading of any instance where a tank's unreliabilty caused it to break down in battle. Although it may have happened, I suppose.

That's my appreciation as well. Once tanks (and other fighting vehicles as well) got within range of the enemy, they tended to take up battle positions and not move all that much during an engagement of CM's length. The "cavalry charges" of British armor in 1940-41 being a duly noted exception.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'd very much like to see a different rarity system. A binary system where units are either available or not available would be simpler and more realistic than the current implementation, where everything is available if you're willing to spend the points for it.

I want the random map generator to make more realistic terrain like it does in CMBO, rather than the homogenous, uniform (boring IMO) maps it was changed to in CMBB. Assuming the change was made to combat the map-peek cheat in CM I see no reason not to change it back in a more secure version of the game.

One thing I hope does not change is the scale of the game. CM's scale is perfect with its ability to cater equally well to those who like small company-sized games as well as those like me who need at least a battalion to command.

[Koenig]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

While the reliability of tanks was actually very important (Patton probably couldn't have done his drive across France if he hadn't had Shermans; they were extremely reliable), I think modeling it might be outside CM's scale, as most breakdowns occurred on the way to battle and had the effect of meaning that the tank wasn't there at all. I don't recall reading of any instance where a tank's unreliabilty caused it to break down in battle. Although it may have happened, I suppose.

Generally speaking I agree, modelling mechanical breakdown is quite out the scope of CM.

There is an exception, however.

I think of difficult terrain, that stresses the track/suspension system. Rough is impassable in CM, rocky instead poses no problem... Brush could hide a large stone, too.

Sometimes the effect of terrain could be devastating on tanks.

For instance, during the battle of Gallabat (East Africa, 6 November 1940) the British attack was supported by six cruiser and six light tanks of the Royal Tank Regiment.

Even cross-checking several sources I've been not able to ascertain the exact cause of individual losses in this battle.

However it is certain that after the attack only one cruiser and two light tanks were in condition to fight, all the others falling victim to mines and breaking their tracks over sharp rocks hidden in high grass. (The Italian defenders also used Boys rifles captured during the invasion of British Somaliland, but their effectiveness in this battle remains unclear).

Anyway, according to several sources rocks seem to have been the major issue.

I think it could be worth modelling this chance in CM2: tanks don't just get bogged down, they can throw or break a track in difficult terrain.

Maybe an ad hoc terrain (heavy rocks?), passable by tanks but with a chance of breakdown, could be the solution. Individual rating of tank reliability (I can think of three classes: high, medium, low) could affect the chance of a breakdown.

Regards

Koenig

[Redwolf]

I hope that people realize that some of the suggestions require

more TacAI while others at the same time demand less

TacAI.

Obviously that doesn't fit together.

The people who want Airborne Assault like automatic subunit handling

should take into account that the AA games are the first of their kind

which do a halfway decent job. So to speak, the whole AA thing is a

research project in subunit AI. Battlefront with one developer taking

care of subunits, TacAI, strategic AI (aka programmed opponent),

graphics and combat mechanics cannot pay the same amount of

attention. And with all respect, there are much stronger points in

the CM games than the MicroAI so far.

Some people would like to move CM up, see larger battles, which would

place it around where TacOps is, which single units of controls

representing individual squads/vehicles or platoons.

I don't think that is a good way to go for CM. Moving up to

larger battles would mean bigger maps which would become a pain to

scroll with the existing interface, apart from all the TacAI or in

that case SubunitAI. Also, you would need more turns to cover the

larger areas which is no good, the games become longer.

In addition, tuning CM to do larger battles would also blow a lot more

polygons in the graphics engine. You can spend the polygons only

once, and I'd rather see it used to cover more details in the existing

scheme, e.g. individual men in squads and around heavy weapons, fine

detailed buildings and the like.

The same applies to details versus larger scale in the combat

mechanics. I would rather see more detailed treatment of

house-to-house combat, finer-graded fortifications, better artillery

model, secondary weapons for heavy weapon crews, finer control over

split squads.

[Michael Emrys]

I go along with Redwolf on all his points in the post above.

Michael

[narren2002]

CMX2 X-MASS WHISH LIST:if it stays in the WWII dates

I have looked over much of these post about the new CMX2..and i have put some of my whishes, YAH ..i KNOW that maybe some have been said be for, but the more its asked, the better the chance that we could get it.. so here it is-

1:veh's that block line of sight (inf.hiding behind tank/HT from MG fire).

2:TANKS DRIVEING THROUGH WOODEN HOUSES

(with chance of being stuck or fallen into the basement-hehe)

3:when veh's such as tanks and HT's moveing through scattered trees-haveing the trees fall down.

4:taller stone walls(and haveing tanks able to breck through them-showing the hole where the tank has gone through)

5:house to house fighting(blowing a hole in the side of a building and the such...)

6:tanks with their turets blowned off.

7:trenches/fox holes(when you have ur inf./guns/mortors in trenches-only haveing their heads sticking out-maybe only seen that way by other player).

7b:dug-outs for the guns(atg/inf.guns suchs as in the assult on the 88's in Band of Brothers)

8:being able to build your map while looking at in the preveiw ( instead of going back and forth)maybe a click and drag consept of-oh hay this house looks better here then there..)

9:ARTY-able to walk artty forward,"fire for efect"

10:fuel dumps(heheheheh- evil grin).

11:other looking types of bridges(like -a bridge too far).

12:being able to place a house(big or small) on the side of a hill.

13:anti-mine veh's(ie. sheman crab, or roller).

14:being able to use ifn.guns as artty(inderict fire).

15:house rubble(its ether house is standing or its flatten...have maybe 1/3 of the roof is gone, or the north wall is missing...)

16:we have three story buildings but only two stories can be used...???humm...haveing a squad or sharpshooter/sniper being able to use the church bell tower).

17:wrecked veh'(able to place on map).

18:train's and boxcars on the track at the rail yard..

i could go on and on.....but thats my whish list for now,

thanks for reading my "WINNING LIST"

[ October 12, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: ladie_from_hell ]

[Pzman]

Originally posted by ladie_from_hell:

2:TANKS DRIVEING THROUGH WOODEN HOUSES

(with chance of being stuck or fallen into the basement-hehe)

This is CM not a movie or FPS, WWII tanks where not made to nor where used to smash buildings. The damage done to the tank from hitting a building would outweigh any advantage in doing so.

[narren2002]

"This is CM not a movie or FPS, WWII tanks where not made to nor where used to smash buildings. The damage done to the tank from hitting a building would outweigh any advantage in doing so."

sence when....have seen many a black and white film/newreals of axis/ and allied armor bulldozzing down houses, shacks in villages town, and even in cities.....i even saw a sherman tank blowing down a house somewhere in the USA after the war was over....

even during the NAM. M113's and M60a1's leveled huts, shacks, and building ... i know that a sheman was not made to level a house but that does not say it was never done ....when i was in CFB gaugetown NB. CND. way back when crist was a cowboy... we did a house clearing training, we had (amazing enough) 5 M113A2's and we did our lil thing to clean out the house(an old one for this reason) then the drivers of the APC's state d(jokingly) that they could do it better and faster..so we(fell for it) said "ok lets see...and the apc's leveled the house with in sec.sby raming the four corners .....

[narren2002]

now granted, the tanks would/might get damaged going through a stone building, but as a 40 to a 80 ton track veh. there is not much a wooden building can do from a driver going right throug to the other side....and even driving over rubble,done this soo many times in lepards and apc......and ur telling me the tank that chases tom hank in Saving Privet Ryan was a compter animation and not real???? come on get real....

[Pzman]

Your again comparing a movie to real World War Two. It was a T-34 made to look like a Tiger, but they most likely didn't make the house it went through anything like a real one either to gain this effect. A shack is one thing, a house is something else. I have yet to see these newreals of WWII tanks going through anything other than outhouses, and I have watch just about every WWII B/W and Colour film. Just because a 80 ton tank can go through a building doesn't mean that it was standard partices either.

Next you comaire WWII tanks to NAM year tanks, again very different. WWIIs where not as well made, and tended to have enough problems without going through buildings to say the least.

[narren2002]

comparing movie from real life????

well then a T34 goes rumping up and ove the rubble.......UMMM??? is that not a tank??????HUMMM???? by joe so it is...you think!

i am not saying to use the tank as a battering rams..(that gamey!) the huts and small wooden building in cmbb and cmak are well in their range where a tiger tank, or even a sherman/t34's could level with ease...

"and I have watch just about every WWII B/W and Colour film. Just because a 80 ton tank can go through a building doesn't mean that it was standard partices either."

dont watch much films ether... i just whish i could remember the news real as to the PzIV or was it a PzIII crashing through a pesents house as part of it was burning and then crashing through a 4 foot high stone wall....oh wait... i remember now it was "WAR YEARS".....now dont tell me that the tv show was made in computer 3D and then put in black and white....

its been nice chatting Pzman....and i thank you for your inputs.......

[Redwolf]

Tanks driving through houses wasn't done often.

People don't like to fall into cellars (that even wooden houses have often).

In a tank with no collapsible tin in front of you and the front plates and optice very close to your head it really really hurts if you hit the wall at speed and happen not to break through it. That actually kills you, it's like a car accident with no soft decelleration, no belts, no airbag, no space, no arms in front of you.

In addition, the rest of the risk of breakdown due to thrown tracks is non-neglectible.

[ October 12, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[Pzman]

Originally posted by ladie_from_hell:

comparing movie from real life????

well then a T34 goes rumping up and ove the rubble.......UMMM??? is that not a tank??????HUMMM???? by joe so it is...you think!

I think you are only looking at the fact that it was a tank. Yes it was a real tank, but you forget that in a movie they tend to use matterals that create the affect they want to show. If that means making a house out of straw to have their T-34 smash through, then they will. As I said before, the drawbacks of damage to the tank and as you yourself pointed out, the chance of gamey tatics, outway adding this feature IMO.

[Grimly Fiendish]

I think the sharp-rock terrain is a fine idea. It would be no different from the soft ground terrain and probably wouldn't need much changing code-wise. You would simply see a TRACK DAMAGE/IMMOBILIZED message instead of BOGGED. You'd think they would have put such terrain in North Africa, where there must be damned few wetlands.

[hoolaman]

Hello again, I thought I might give a link to this other thread which is relevant to the earlier discussion. movement command interface

Anyhow, here is another picture to illustrate my grand plan .

The "topographical map" parts are out of LOS as I explained above in this thread. It also allows for intel to be marked in advance (ie. bunker) to represent info from divisional recon or something some farmer told you yesterday.

The large arrows represent orders from the company commander for each platoon of infantry. They are general corridors of advance for the platoons, and act like "company level" waypoints, which are of a certain width, say 200m.

As long as the platoon remains within this area, it is following the last orders given to it by the company commander. Within this area, they are able to move around as the platoon commander sees fit, giving no command delays. If an order changes at company level, you can adjust the large waypoints to reflect a change in battle plans, but this would be subject to a long delay as order comes from the HQ.

This would prevent the squad diverting to intercept infantry that they can't actually see, unless the higher HQ orders them to do so, and also prevent command delay for things that are just simply common sense, like minor adjustments in direction to get into better cover.

Obviously there would be a lot of details to work out, but this allows different levels of command delay, right down to the level of the squads own initiative, which should have no command delay.

I hope I have explained it a bit better than before!

[Pzman]

Hoolaman, that is a very interesting idea. I like the your ideas about the map with topo info, but not sure about the C&C ones.

[Alkiviadis]

Originally posted by ladie_from_hell:

comparing movie from real life????

well then a T34 goes rumping up and ove the rubble.......UMMM??? is that not a tank??????HUMMM???? by joe so it is...you think!

i am not saying to use the tank as a battering rams..(that gamey!) the huts and small wooden building in cmbb and cmak are well in their range where a tiger tank, or even a sherman/t34's could level with ease...

"and I have watch just about every WWII B/W and Colour film. Just because a 80 ton tank can go through a building doesn't mean that it was standard partices either."

dont watch much films ether... i just whish i could remember the news real as to the PzIV or was it a PzIII crashing through a pesents house as part of it was burning and then crashing through a 4 foot high stone wall....oh wait... i remember now it was "WAR YEARS".....now dont tell me that the tv show was made in computer 3D and then put in black and white....

its been nice chatting Pzman....and i thank you for your inputs.......

This not something any TC would want to do in real life because of possible: damage to sighting optics; gun / gunsight misalignment (they have to boresight the main gun again); turrent jamming.

[hoolaman]

Thanks, I am not sure that some of my ideas would work 100% either. I think it is unlikely that BFC will allow units to go "out of contact", or that true relative spotting could be implemented, but it would be nice if C&C could be improved so that the command delays from the HQ 500m down the road are separate to commands for basic manouvres that squads or vehicles can accomplish by themselves.

Preventing units from deviating from an original plan unless they are told to do so would be a good way to prevent exploitation of borg spotting. It allows the player to be both "god" and grunt while still simulating the units being blisfully unaware of what is happening 1km away.

[Alkiviadis]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

Hello again, I thought I might give a link to this other thread which is relevant to the earlier discussion. movement command interface

Anyhow, here is another picture to illustrate my grand plan .

The "topographical map" parts are out of LOS as I explained above in this thread. It also allows for intel to be marked in advance (ie. bunker) to represent info from divisional recon or something some farmer told you yesterday.

The large arrows represent orders from the company commander for each platoon of infantry. They are general corridors of advance for the platoons, and act like "company level" waypoints, which are of a certain width, say 200m.

As long as the platoon remains within this area, it is following the last orders given to it by the company commander. Within this area, they are able to move around as the platoon commander sees fit, giving no command delays. If an order changes at company level, you can adjust the large waypoints to reflect a change in battle plans, but this would be subject to a long delay as order comes from the HQ.

This would prevent the squad diverting to intercept infantry that they can't actually see, unless the higher HQ orders them to do so, and also prevent command delay for things that are just simply common sense, like minor adjustments in direction to get into better cover.

Obviously there would be a lot of details to work out, but this allows different levels of command delay, right down to the level of the squads own initiative, which should have no command delay.

I hope I have explained it a bit better than before!

Actually you're talking about a hell of a lot of work, software developement wise. On the other hand this perfectly mirrors my own desires re: formations.

[Tarkus]

Sorry to get back a little in the middle of these interesting mapping/command ideas but allow me to briefly digress and refine an idea...

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

That's my appreciation as well. Once tanks (and other fighting vehicles as well) got within range of the enemy, they tended to take up battle positions and not move all that much during an engagement of CM's length.

Michael

I suppose you are right, but I would have thought that a tank that have not been taken care of properly would rather breakdown in battle instead of before or after since it is in battle that the crew ask the most of its machine, travelling full speed off road, turning sharply and so on.

Also, I realize it would not be right (and very difficult at that) to set the focus on relative mechanical reliability of given vehicules. Rather, the interest in this would be to try to measure/represent maintenance. Just like an "unfit" squad tells us that supply are scarce and combat frequent, I thought a mechanical value might help set the larger scope without actually showing it.

I am not saying this should happen all the time though, far from it. In fact, even a very rare occurence would make it an even more realistic factor.

All in all, maybe a cosmetic feature. I don't know.

Cheers

[narren2002]

i am glad to see otheres talking about this- tank leveling a building/house thing....i would like to add to this is -

1: your right that a tank commander would not just ram his tank into the house just for the fun of it....and the basement thing...not too many farmer shacks had basements...

2: the gun sights... thats why the gun is not pointed at the building as it goes through it.the TC or gunner who use's his gun barrel to act as a battering ram would be on KP duty for the rest of the war.....

3:all i was saying is "some of the buildings in the game could be leveled out by such veh's and or running over the rubble(track veh's)

4: and the movie verson of saving pvt ryan/ and or band of brothers where all made under stricked management to be as real as posable..hence the retired col. who co-stars as the BATT HQ commander in Band of Brothers..hand gernades dont blow up in a mushroom cloud, or a tommy-gun dont kill a tank .....

it has been a long time sence i have had a good picking.. i read alot on here and there are days where i just shake my head... and othere days where i just ROFL.....i an not a vet of WWII ...BUT the time that i have served and the places i have been and the stuff that i have seen...as i read the response to my post ..... i think to my self...hummmm?????what are these PPL thinking....movies..in real life...basements...games/FPS......

all i am saying is ..if your where a tank commander in a combat zone, only rounds u have left are AT rounds, and 100 rounds of MG...there is a house/hut/shack(what ever...) and to kill the enemy tank/gun inplacement-pillbox is to run your tank through the house and hitting your target....your telling me that it wuld not happen...come on now lets pull our... out of our _ _ _ and get with the program....as i had said befor, to use the tanks in the role as a bulldozer to level all the house's would be gammie...put the chances of getting stuck in the rubble or the house chrashing down on the tank and it hsa to be abandened for reasons of "what ever"..the same as crossing a ford/river crossing or soft ground or a wet/damp muddy/snow groung.....