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

Redwolf · November 7, 2004

Originally posted by Günzel for Kanzler:
Another suggestion,
cover arcs are there, but I'd like -trigger arcs-, that can optionally be combined with cover arcs.
Trigger arc starts the shooting, cover arc defines the area.
So finally we could set up real ambushes.

By extension of the idea, area fire on an actual area, not on a point like me have, would be ideal.

[ November 10, 2004, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

hoolaman · November 7, 2004

That is a great one. It would make firing into smoke and hoping to hit something with MG fire a practical possibility.

Karl Anderson · November 9, 2004

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Karl Anderson · November 9, 2004

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:
No the idea is to do a LOS check for the selected unit only during the orders phase. This way, he can not target what other units have seen. He will only be able to tagrget what he sees.

What the game does is a LOS check for every friendly unit to every enemy unit and therefore, the sharing of spotted units and enemy unit info. This is a means to curtail that.

Egg Zackley!

Mr. Tittles · November 9, 2004

Combined with time limits on planning turns, like online play, this would do a lot to shrink the Borg.

I like the idea of absolute FOW. This reveals almost nothing to the player watching the movie. He gets to see enemy muzzle flashes and generic tanks (only if they are in the open). No details are given as to what is actually firing in most situations.

If you watch the movie with no unit selected, thats what you get. If you click on a unit and watch the movie, you only get his perspective.

After watching a movie from his perspective, you must give orders to that unit. The game could then feed you the next unit to watch from. The thought being, the game gives you units to issue orders to in the order oof units with the least amount of enemy info. No going back to edit orders either.

So the Borg is decreased and the game is basically the same venue.

Mr. Tittles · November 9, 2004

Thanks for your interest. I've been thinking about this system for some time...

I wish I could find that old thread. And it is very old predating CMBB.

But the person had that idea and it was discussed with a Battlefront designer and it was basically poopooed because it was not perfect or something.

It is interesting that people come up with the same ideas independantly.

Mr. Tittles · November 9, 2004

If the future game keeps the 1 minute time frame, I would like to see Area Fire as a timed command. That means I could target multiple area for area fire and the weapon would give each a 'burst'.

This would help flamethowers and bazookas and other weapons so they do not use up all the ammo in one minute.

It would also be nice to spray a treeline with MGs giving several locations along the treeline.

Kip Watson · November 9, 2004

I have to say I think the order-delay is a much more effective way to handle the modelling of information movement within the battle. Sure, no doubt the boffins will tweak it, but a tweak is all it needs.

If I had to play while only being able to see generic opposition tanks at all times that would take a lot of the fun out of the game I'm afraid. (not to mention the historical and educative factor which is a big part of this game for me)

Mr. Tittles · November 10, 2004

Well if it was optional, then you could set the FOW. Hey, isnt that the way it is now? So maybe options are good.

hoolaman · November 10, 2004

Originally posted by Kip Watson:
I have to say I think the order-delay is a much more effective way to handle the modelling of information movement within the battle. Sure, no doubt the boffins will tweak it, but a tweak is all it needs.

If I had to play while only being able to see generic opposition tanks at all times that would take a lot of the fun out of the game I'm afraid. (not to mention the historical and educative factor which is a big part of this game for me)

I agree. The game should be tweaked so that a delay can simulate the inbound and outbound flow of information. Preventing the God-View of the battlefield will ruin the fun. That is not to say you can not limit the units to realistic actions.

ie. Each unit including HQ's should either:

A. Spot a unit themselves.

B. Be told about an enemy unit via realistic communications abstracted down to a time delay in spotting. This also means units out of LOS can be reported to and targetted by mortars or spotters on the basis of a report from another unit.

So spotting and communication should be calculated on a per unit basis. This is for the sake of fixing the autotargetting borg TacAI.

So unit A peeks over a hill and units B & C nearby have what unit A sees plotted on their LOS map after a few seconds or a few minutes if a runner has to go and report to them. Units B&C get a little icon above them to show when the news has reached them. Click on B and the enemy units over the hill are plotted on the map as reported by A.

When no units are selected, the "most-spotted" version of the battlefield appears to the player.

Basing order delay on the proximity of coordinating HQ units is logical. The only problem I have with the current system is that currently order delays limit a squad from acting on its own initiative. I had some ideas on how this can be fixed, but the interested listener can check back through this thread if they care.

hoolaman · November 10, 2004

I would also like uncertain terrain. IRL you would not know if soft ground was ahead just by selecting it with your giant mouse cursor.

A proper range of tree densities, different terrain types etc. would mean that you only find out about what type of terrain it is by looking at it on the screen.

No more Tall pines/woods being the only types of trees in the world.

Kip Watson · November 10, 2004

That sounds interesting. But then you would need 'terrain-avoidance' or some-such built into the AI. The point being, I thought, not that the field commander would have detailed knowledge of the whole terrain, but that the vehicle commander would know, when he nearly on top of it, what terrain to avoid.

In that sense the skill/knowledge of the gamer in effect represents Standing Orders or prior training rather than the 'God's eye view'.

(having saud that there was a much earlier suggestion re: map FOW that came with illustrations that is quite brilliant and a must read)

Tarkus · November 10, 2004

I completely agree with more terrain variety, both for buildings and natural features AND a certain way not to know exaclty what type of terrain there is prior to setting foot on it. You sum up reasons that goes beyond eyecandiness and thus are relevant to realism.

That would allow some cool recce scenario, getting points for completing a patrol unharmed while bringing back exact terrain feature infos that would "stick" to the second phase of the battle, the terrain would be "FoW free" (cf. somewhere up the thread, ideas like that are already suggested). Plus extra points for spotting/IDing enemy units. That would be cool: it would make for something like two QBs in one. Purchase you recce assets, your assault assets, and boom, you try at first to know what your opponent is up to (while he, of course, tries to deny you of such knowledge). Then you actually go ahead with the plan.

Defender would get reduced terrain FoW, plus, using nifty command zone feature, SOPs and, of course, an extremely sophisticated preplanning tool , he would be able to set up patrols, OPs and listening post to guard his line againts infiltrations, having only part of his force available for it (based on what ? I dunno...)

Attacker would get to recce and earn point for it, for IDing enemy assets, positions, MLR, foxholes, trenches, you name it;

Prisonners taken would radomly give away certain informations about your opponent set-up/OBs, thus earning you more points;

All this, of course, optionnal to boot, with switches in the QB editor: allow terrain FoW >ON< >OFF<; allow recce >ON< >OFF<
Then some submenus:
-
set % main force, where the player would pick some realistic (EDIT: and/or balanced) values for recce force purchase points.

Recce force type: Infantry, mechanized, armor, etc.; (or simply allow purchase point based on the main force selected in the QB editor);

Set duration of recce: player decide number of turns allowed

Set time of recce: Night, Dusk, dawn, daylight;

Set recce time before battle, enabling limited setup changes for the defender for mobile assets and troops (depending on recce delay.) More recce assets for long delay before attack (gameplay issue);

NOTE: Of course, the scenario editor would allow for even more flexibility on these one-two scenarios

:rolleyes: See what you've done ? Now I've got all these ideas going again and I must flood the rest of the universe with 'em...*sigh*

Nah. Cheers.

[ November 10, 2004, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

hoolaman · November 10, 2004

Originally posted by Tarkus:

Defender would get reduced terrain FoW, plus, using nifty command zone feature, SOPs and, of course, an extremely sophisticated preplanning tool , he would be able to set up patrols, OPs and listening post to guard his line againts infiltrations, having only part of his force available for it (based on what ? I dunno...)

Yay command zones!

I think a terrain recce would be cool. However in some old thread BFC made the point that if you get a couple of guys on top of a hill you can see the whole map on turn 3 anyway, so it wasn't worth it.

If individual LOS calculations were made for each unit, the out of LOS parts when you click on a unit could be represented by a topographical map as set out in someones post above (might have been me). If reports of unit positions out of LOS were marked on the map after they had been REPORTED to a unit, you could have mortars or artillery firing based on reports of varying degrees of accuracy , and that would be cool.

If the terrain is well known, an arty spotter or mortarman would have grids and major landmarks on HIS individual map. That way a good report of enemy positinos could allow fast and accurate arty fire based on knowledge of the map. Poor terrain knowledge would mean no accurate fire.

hoolaman · November 10, 2004

Originally posted by Kip Watson:
That sounds interesting. But then you would need 'terrain-avoidance' or some-such built into the AI. The point being, I thought, not that the field commander would have detailed knowledge of the whole terrain, but that the vehicle commander would know, when he nearly on top of it, what terrain to avoid.

In that sense the skill/knowledge of the gamer in effect represents Standing Orders or prior training rather than the 'God's eye view'.

(having saud that there was a much earlier suggestion re: map FOW that came with illustrations that is quite brilliant and a must read)

I see your point and you are absolutely right.

However, in my thinking, the different terrain would be represented graphically well enough that the player must identify the type of ground by looking at it on the screen just as the tanker would have to identify the ground by inspection. This way, obvious stuff like tree density could be seen easily, but other things like hidden rocks in thick grass or soft ground may require a "recon by bogging" excercise.

Zemke · November 11, 2004

The bottom line is realism. I would like to see the following:

1. Squad orders that allow flexibility and realism.

2. Curved Armor Modeling

3. Did every Panther G have lots of uppper armor flaws.

4. Better Graphics, more detail, mod-able, more dead infantry, more armor graphics options on armor kills, Turrents blow off

5. Time on target indirect fire modeling

6. Tanks that turn faster, I know tanks can turn faster in emergency than they currently do.

7. Harder to spot Infantry in General. Infantry strength is the ability to hid. This could be done through more variations in terrain, streams, ditches, etc.

8. Tanks that protect Infantry from direct fire if they are behind them.

9. Pre set armor formations.

10. Company TO&E for Armor

11. More importance for Command Elements. Losing the Battalion HQ should create problems, particularly for more armies that had a more centralized command and control system, the Soviets come to mind.

12. Finially a list of sources where the information has been gathered. This would create a certain amount of debate, but would also allow correction in bad data, due to good research.

Tifosi · November 11, 2004

How about being able to commandeer enemy weapons. While many abandoned weapons would have been destoyed either by the enemy fire that forced the crew to leave/die, or been delibarately put out of action by retreating crews, not all of them would be u/s.

I dont mean tanks and things, just the odd MG or AT gun.

C'Rogers · November 11, 2004

Cross posted to its own topic by accident because I didn't see this thread.

Many people on this forum have posted their ideas on what should/could be incorporated into CM2. Though I do not have many posts on this board I have read it for quite some time and greatly enjoy the game (otherwise known as best game ever). And like everyone I have quite a few ideas on what can be done to make the game better; and as some have done I am going to try and pitch one now.

I am unsure how many people play Operations here; but I believe that it is a feature that has a lot of potential. I also know that a lot of people want a single player campaign; and that Battlefront is never going to give them one (unless I am hugely misinterpreting their stance).

So what I suggest is a compromise between these two. Operations could be greatly expanded upon to allow a long (real-time days) game. This would allow players to have a long continuous game like a campaign, yet retaining the realism that makes Combat Mission so great. They would still happen over the same game span time as the current operations, with more intricate options to create a deeper depth of play. In addition I imagine it could make for some interesting multiplayer.

So what needs to be done to expand Operations to the point that they take place of a campaign? Here are my suggestions of just some of many possibilities.

First, quick battle Operations are needed. Sure Operations can be set up in the scenario editor, but allowing a quick battle option with similar settings to allow a fast construction would make operations much more playable.

As well operations need to feel like they are more than just a series of linked battles, but actually one large combat. More concepts need to be put in about the ‘out of game concepts’ that have always been talked about as existing, but not incorporated into the game. Designate supply lines that players need to know about is one example (ie. If we are to keep the armor reinforcements coming in we need to hold that road as it is the only terrain they can come in safely on). As well have a higher focus on resupply issues. Has combat been close quarters, men low on grenades? Could the commander request additional grenades and SMGs perhaps instead of the standard reinforcements? The opponent brought heavy armor; do we need to request additional anti-tank weaponry? Though many parts of the reinforcement would be what had been prepared pre-battle, their should be dynamic elements depended what the commander finds his troops have engaged. I imagine there are many issues that could easily come up in addition to these examples. Of course Battlefront should keep the focus on the battles but there are a number of important tactical issues that a commander in an operation would be responsible for and could enhance the game play.

Lastly the surrounding world of the battle should be defined a little better. Is your battle just a solitary engagement, or is it just one part of a massive series of engagements your side is engaging in? Are you starting off the battle or are your forces coming in as reinforcements to an area with already heavy battle? Though normally this might not affect the game; it could have important issues on what ammo and supplies are available, who could you count on for reinforcements, and what effects have the combat had on the terrain.

In all a player should feel like he is part of a larger world and has control over some of the decisions being made in those periods in-between battle. These decisions should be quick and occur after a combat has finished/before one started; but also not just be limited to before the game choices. This I believe would expand on an interesting game type as well as satisfy some of the desires of those seeking a campaign. Of course it should not be on the scale of units increasing experience, as Battlefront has said many times, but there would be a bigger connection if you had battles were units fought, removed, and than brought back into the battle after being re-supplied than the current model.

Just some thoughts. I have always been intrigued by the concept of the Operations in this game but always thought that it could be improved upon. In CM2 the core of what makes this game great should remain unchanged; but there are meta-game (at least currently) issues that it would be both realistic, tactically significant, and straight out enjoyable to incorporate into the game. I look forward to people’s thoughts and criticisms on my idea.

P.S. Of course there are number of other things that wouldn’t disappoint me. Multiple players to simulate commanders having to work together. An option to set a quick battle to ‘realistic random’ so the game calculates the random factors based upon the actual conditions of the time and area. With a host of other ideas, better graphics and such, but my main focus is on the Operations.

hoolaman · November 11, 2004

I agree and I was going to put forward suggestions about operations myself.

I think there should be no arbitrary turn limits in operations. The battle should continue as long as either side is pressing an attack.

Judging by what has been said about real movement of the sun and stars, I am hoping that operations will just continue on.

I have had units wreaking havoc behind enemy lines only to find they were isolated at the end of the turn limit and the start of the next phase.

A rolling map would also be useful. When a certain objective is reached, the map shifts to the next sector. Many triggering options and zones for scenario designers would allow reenactments of famous battles along real timeframes. eg. Getting to point X triggers action Y or an end to the first phase of the battle. That would be great and I think not contrary to BFC doctrine.

A campaign option is a bad idea IMO in the sense of marching your forces across europe on an operational map. This is adding a dimension to a battle simulator that isn;t required and would create bags of new problems.

Creating the tools for designers to make a series of linked historical actions would be cool though. You could control supply and reinforcement perameters in the editor, say in each lull in the fighting X amount of this or that is distributed to the troops.

C'Rogers · November 11, 2004

I have often wondered if there was a way to make an operation continuous as you suggest. Perhaps when neither side has engaged in combat for a couple turns the time limit per turn increases. If the players are just moving their units around and their hasn't been combat for a long time then you could start issues orders for periods of an hour (if not more). Once serious combat starts to take place the turn timer shrinks down.

Granted there are a whole lot of problems that could emerge from this (mainly calculating the difference between what a heavy engagement is) but a continuous battle; or at least a more continuous version of what currently exists would create a more realistic simulation of a commander's responsibility in battle.

Tarkus · November 11, 2004

The "problem" with continuous battle is that it would somehow force BFC to actually model resupply. In the course of several hours, a platoon in urban combat, for example, might have to resupply a few time. If the battle doesn't stop, it must be in somehow, and the we get on the edge of "BFC doctrine" The idea of tying turns to actual combat is a good solution...

Originally posted by C'Rogers:
Though many parts of the reinforcement would be what had been prepared pre-battle, their should be dynamic elements depended what the commander finds his troops have engaged.

Very valid suggestion.

Cheers

hoolaman · November 11, 2004

Yes I kind of meant "more continuous" rather than continuous. The resupply could occur during lulls in the fighting which would be sort of like the break between battles that exists now, except the period of time between the action could be simulated. An abstracted real-time resupply or a "supply-phase" between operations that still involves control over troop placements would be cool. Even running ammo carriers out to the front would be a mission in itself sometimes.

The thing about long operations is that even when the action had died down, often the area was still under enemy observation, and an opportunistic mortar/sniper/arty barrage could take advantage of "between battle" situations.

It would be good if, as a commander, you could choose between a hasty counterattack with low ammo and casualties, or waiting for reinforcements and resupply and maybe leaving yourself open to hasty counterattack. These were the sorts of choices made IRL and are slightly lacking from the current game.

C'Rogers · November 13, 2004

I was reading over some earlier posts and noticed the discussion on medics. As we have been recenlty talking about resupply issues for Operations it gave me a thought.

What if medics were incorporated into the resupply system (instead of getting things into battle, how are we getting guys out). Of course this assumes that there is a resupply system of some sort.

The second question is, why bother? What effect do medics have on the game.

I do not think that medics should have an effect on the battle, per se. Okay, maybe one of every hundred casulties the doc sees that it is a minor problem that looks much worse and does a quick fix and sends the guy back out. And maybe for a long term battle it has a slight effect on how fresh the unit's are and fighting quality (minor wounds are properly bandaged and such).

However both of the above are just minor issues. I think there is a very important thing medics have done historically that could be simulated; and that is after the battle how many people go home to their famalies, and how many get buried.

In many cases the promptness in which a casulty receives medical attention is almost as important to his chances for survival/better recovery as the quality of the service itself. Thus I think if a player succesfully managed medics he would see a lower KIA amount.

Overall this would have an affect on the score. Dead soldiers are much worse than injured soldiers (even if both get sent home). Thus the medics result would not be seen until battle end.

Of course this all requires there being a desire for medics in the game; one that I do not particularly have. However if it was to be done, and for those who support it, I hope you consider the above reasons for doing so.

Kip Watson · November 13, 2004

Here's a cool idea. What about a timer on the movement phase of game moves. One that was fairly flexible and that applied even to PBEM. Maybe even one that could be paused...

It would be cool, it would limit the amount of orders to something similar to what a commander could truly give, and it would mean in an engagement between a large low quality force and small high quality force, the low quality force would by necessity be working with simpler commands.

Tarkus · November 13, 2004

Originally posted by C'Rogers:
Of course this all requires there being a desire for medics in the game; one that I do not particularly have. However if it was to be done, and for those who support it, I hope you consider the above reasons for doing so.

My feeling is that when we discussed it, most didn't want it. Although some confused the proposal with power packs hidden in crates :rolleyes:

, the idea was to add something that is a fundamental part of the frontline and actual combat. IIRC, Philippe added that evacuating a serious casualties could require up to 4 able, fit soldiers, thus reducing upfront manpower momentarily and suggested an abstarction of it instead of having to plot medic waypoint on the map (of the same kind, I suppose, as when a bren gunner get it and his buddies are assumed to pick his weapon up).

Bottom line is: I have the feeling that if this was ever intended, it is a lowest of lowest priority.

[ November 13, 2004, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Announcements