What do we want in the next Combat Mission game

[REVS]

Gosh, Michael. This (CM, etc) is the only game I play, apart from racing around in Gran Turismo in Playstation. I love CM, and I've been a wargamer ever since model soldiers of US Civil War vintage back in the late 1970s. Squad Leader and ASL since then. All of them are just games.

I wasn't thinking of reducing everything in CM to STGIIIs V Shermans. That would be dull.

I was just hoping to introduce a little "Gameyness is good" into the debate.

This is still mostly a game for urban boys, isn't it, or are we all taking the 'military seriousness' just a bit too far?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by REVS:

I was just hoping to introduce a little "Gameyness is good" into the debate.

So you did.

This is still mostly a game for urban boys, isn't it, or are we all taking the 'military seriousness' just a bit too far?

I would agree that it is entirely possible to take the seriousness way too far. Like when bullets begin to fly out of the screen and buzz around your head.

Where we draw the line is of course a matter of personal taste when you come right down to it. But to relate to the specific question at hand, I can't honestly say I like your idea too much, but would very much like to see something like a topo map offered in the game. That would give you a better idea of the contours of the ground at a glance without raising too many questions about realism.

And anyway, as it is, I can place the camera at any point on the map and take a look around. It may not be exactly what the game engine sees when it's calculating LOS, but it is definitely good enough for government work. I can't recall any serious problems I've had using that technique.

But then, I don't expect everything to go perfectly when I play CM. I assume that I will run over mines, my MGs will jam at critical moments, my TCs will get whacked by sharpshooters at least now and then, my artillery will run out of ammo just as the enemy reinforcements come over the hill, etc., etc. ad infinitum. And generally at least one of those things happens. In every game. So I try to plan and play my games so that I can absorb those misfortunes and still prevail.

YMMV.

Michael

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Uzi:

I think the next Combat Mission game should return to Normandy. This needn’t be a repetition of CMBO if you take into account the possible enhancements that could be included such as;

1. Amphibious beach assaults and terrain; LCT’s, sand, dunes, obstacles etc

Why? There weren't so many besides D-Day in Europe

2. Strongpoints and more elaborate bunkers

Strongpoints? Do you mean sets of bunkers and trenches? I'd be satisfied with trenches with overhead cover and bunkers where the crew can take cover in a 2nd room.

3. Bangalore torpedoes

Explosions (arty, demo) tearing apart wire would do.

4. Enhanced soldier animations

Don't need the animation - but morale, fatigue, health, ammo and wpn tracked for every soldier would be great - plus an option to leave tired soldiers behind as casualties.

5. Enhanced building graphics and broader, more detailed town building possibilities ie; fountains, mills, sheds, haystacks, higher walls etc

pure eye candy... I want buildings and streets that do not represent Mannheim or Manhattan (ie rectangular city blocks)

6. Option to play game in 2 modes; turn based or real time

No!

7. Option to record video of battle for playback like in Bungies’ Myth series

It would be enough if I could have a movie of the full game - even vs. the AI.

8. Inclusion of; Nebelwerfers, Schwimmwagens, British 25 pounder gun and tractor, DUKW, motorbike and sidecar,

motorbike and sidecar... the new toy for recce by explosion.

Bikes only if borg spotting is removed and runners are allowed to use bikes.

Schwimmwagen maybe, the rest is in there or abstracted.

9. Option to include bomber formations (Carpet bombing)

Use lots of 300mm+ FOs with little ammo. Rocket are best. Give the enemy a few, too, to simulate friendly fire. Make sure the pre-planned barrage fires 1 round per 100m^2 spread equally across the whole map.

Especially with the new minimum morale levels (20% casualties and the attack stops) this will finally give me a chance to play long scenarios in 1 day

10. Enhanced uniform graphics (Distinction between 101st and 82nd airborne for example)

Do you know how many CDs you need for all those bmps? Ever counted the divisions fielded in WW2?

11. Option to limber and unlimber artillery to vehicles for movement after firing

??? embark/disembark is in the current engine (except for 88)

12. Glider landings

A glider btn landing on a company of infantry... anything landing on map will be shred by MGs before landing. Anything else will be off map.

13. Dead Cows and telegraph poles

Yes... this is the ultimate addition.

I’m sure people can think of some more…..

There are many more, but they include refinements of current modelling.

SOPs would be fine...

Gruß

Joachim

[Sergei]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1. Amphibious beach assaults and terrain; LCT’s, sand, dunes, obstacles etc

Why? There weren't so many besides D-Day in Europe</font>

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1. Amphibious beach assaults and terrain; LCT’s, sand, dunes, obstacles etc

Why? There weren't so many besides D-Day in Europe</font>

[c3k]

My thoughts, for what they're worth ($.02+/-),

1. A simple campaign "memory" system. After you finish a battle or op, all your forces are recorded in a spread-sheet format along with their respective kills, casualties, etc. You can then change your forces IN that spread-sheet. (For the anal among us who would add replacements, replace lost HQ's, etc.) Then, you could use that force and import it, intact, into another battle or op.

2. A separation between cover and concealment. I would like to see the difference in penetration of a .50 and 7.62 smg. (To see a building dismantled by a Ma Deuce is a beautiful thing.) This would result in a much more "realistic" portrayal of various weapon's effectiveness. I will expand on this idea if there's interest.

3. The ability to move units in and out of fortifications. Thus, I could purchase a bunker, then put my choice of units in it. (This is very similar to the treatment in ASL.)Some units would have to start IN the fortification (large guns), others could enter and leave.

Regards,

Ken

[flamingknives]

(To see a building dismantled by a Ma Deuce is a beautiful thing.)

I strongly suspect that this view depends on whether or not you happen to be in said building

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Joachim:

Did they hit resistance upon landing that had a real chance of pushing them back?

Well, probably not, in RL nobody uses 1.7:1 assault odds...

The fighting in the Viipuri Bay area was successful for the Soviets in the archipelago (deploying defenders onto islands was a mistake in the first place), but they weren't able to gain a bridgehead on the mainland. The German 122nd Infantry Division "Greif" fought there among others. Here's a map.

In Lake Ladoga a marine brigade got into Finnish rear. The assaults went unopposed and just as Finnish counter-attack might have succeeded, a follow-up brigade came ashore.

Then there were various battles in the Gulf of Finland and naturally river assaults.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by c3k:

2. A separation between cover and concealment.

Would you explain how this would differ from the current separation between cover and concealment?

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

Did they hit resistance upon landing that had a real chance of pushing them back?

Well, probably not, in RL nobody uses 1.7:1 assault odds...

The fighting in the Viipuri Bay area was successful for the Soviets in the archipelago (deploying defenders onto islands was a mistake in the first place), but they weren't able to gain a bridgehead on the mainland. The German 122nd Infantry Division "Greif" fought there among others. Here's a map.

</font>

[Ryan Crierie]

Do you know how many CDs you need for all those bmps? Ever counted the divisions fielded in WW2?

Not really. Just make the divisional markings

a separate decal file that's overlayed over

the base texture. See IL-2 Sturmovik for a good

example of this.

[Cessna]

This is sort of a cross-post, but:

If they could make a game that combined and cleaned up all three of the games we have now - plus filled in gaps like France in 1940 - well, I'd be a very, very happy man. I'd drop $100 for a fully integrated CMBO/BB/AK.

[MikeyD]

Did anyone mention yet through-the-sights viewing option with reasonably accurate military binocular/sniper rifle/tank optics sights represented, with appropriate magnification?

I'd want to see a CMBO redux game ONLY if the AI's so thoroughly and utterly overhauled gameplay's unrecognizable. Reworking the CMAK engine to update CMBO would be mostly Shermans vs StuGs all over again, just like Italy.

[ March 30, 2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[WWB]

We all have our wishlists. But we should be thinking big and earth shaking, not just prettier CM.

So, with that said, a few neato things I would like to see:

1) Some kind of events handling in scenarios. So, when one side approached a certain point, took a certain amount of casualties, took a certain flag, etc, etc. one could then trigger things like messages, reinforcements, bonuses, new flags, and all manner of goodies. Would be best if this was wrapped in a nice, extensible events engine using some sort of scripting.

2) Ditch the tile based mapping system. Go with a vector based system instead. Bye-bye square blocks, curveless roads and more.

3) If we must stick with tiles, break it out into terrain and objects upon the terrain. EG, you could have a brush tile with a wooden house. The ability to tie the objects to points rather than gird squares would be really cool in this scenario.

4) Allow for multiple combinations of forces, etc, within one scenario file. This would let designers make one map the tweak it for AI or human play without posting multiple battles.

5) For the campaign types--build in an XML schema for CM Units. This would allow for easy import and export of units, making somewhat automated campaings possible.

6) True multiplayer. In addition, a spectator mode would be very, very cool. Imagine fulltime CM servers.

7) Not earth shattering, but quite important--allow the game to be started with command line switches. That would allow 3rd parties to make utilties, such as PBEM helper, much better. And allow for an application like hyperlobby. Manually entering IP addresses is so last century.

Thats all I have to say for now. Carry on.

WWB

[Michael Dorosh]

WWB - agreed on all counts.

Especially the "events trigger" in scenarios. That makes for a fun game, and SL did this well, manually. Not historical, but this is indeed a game. For example, friendly armour reinforcements couldn't enter until you reached a certain point (read this as "clearing the start line" in real terms).

I'd also like to see the scenario designer be able to create random force compositions, and have the scenario pick one at random before game start. In SL they did that with a chit based system in a couple of scenarios. It created suspense (especially compared to other scenarios where all the forces were seen on the scenario card before you even started play) and replayability.

[MikeyD]

As a modder, let's not forget ease of modability. I recall BFc saying something about purchasing a new type of software to do much more interesting polygons. I do not have any idea whether the traditional 'bmp art wrap' will work with the new system.

I've been looking at the aircraft mod templates for IL-2. VERY convenient all-in-one art with the computer taking care of the fiddly dynamic shading. If something like that were included with the new system it would be SWEEEEEET!

[c3k]

Sergei,

Expanding on the cover and concealment issue: currently, all weapons are given a firepower value. The sum of these values are then applied to their target. The value is decreased according to range and the terrain benefit. The terrain "blocks" a certain amount of firepower. It also blocks LOS. These values seem to be the same.

Check LOS and you'll see that the deeper into un-clear terrain you penetrate, the less clear the LOS line becomes. The same for a "target" line. In fact, the "target" line will show the amount of firepower applied at the endpoint. This decreases as the line dims.

It's evident that LOS and firepower application should not be directly linked. Just because I can't see into the back of that straw pile doesn't mean I can't apply effective firepower against it.

I like the current LOS application. It "feels" right. But that should only apply to the concealment side of the equation.

Cover needs to be treated differently. In addition to a generic firepower value, each weapon needs to be rated for an "energy" value. Each piece of cover would be rated for a "energy absorption" value. Call it what you will. This would make an SMG platoon ineffective vs. a concrete building (allowances for windows, etc., notwithstanding), but a harder hitting round, be it a full power rifle round or a .50 cal. would penetrate and be able to apply its firepower against that target. (Targets which are out of LOS would be treated the same as in the current engine where you use the "Area Target" command vs. out of sight units.)

(All the above is my opinion and reflects no known facts. )

Regards,

Ken

[mrpwase]

Agree with WWB - an improved multiplayer with spectator mode would be great.

Improved graphics would be good IMHO - while looking good at the moment, buildings etc. sometimes look a bit dodgy.

How about doors and rooms inside buildings? Would make for a slightly more tactical game, especially city fights. Or would that be too much change?

[The Hapless General]

Myself, I would be quite happy with the ability to view a movie of the entire game, with FOW on or off for both sides. Think of AARs and of learning for newbs like me.

just my 2c...

THG

[Kilroy Lurking]

Hi there!

Would'n't it be nice if the game engine did'nt take control over the screen after the "Go" button is hit - one could zoom and roam all over the map and enjoy all those great mods etc. while'st that little blue line crawls along its appointed path.

(How about a thread titled "How I pass the time while the AI ponders".)

[Ales Dvorak]

Corn fields?

:eek:

[Sergei]

c3k,

I'm not really sure about the CM calculations, but it would seem to me that the concealment given by a heavy building is equal to that given by a light building, but the protection provided is much greater. Similarly brush and grain fields offer good hiding places but no protection from fire. Which would mean that these two are not treated as a single value. Or am I missing your point? My brain's not very agile today...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Joachim:

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

1. Amphibious beach assaults and terrain; LCT’s, sand, dunes, obstacles etc

Why? There weren't so many besides D-Day in Europe</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by c3k:

2. A separation between cover and concealment.

Would you explain how this would differ from the current separation between cover and concealment? </font>

[Peter Cairns]

I don't know if this could be a patch for CMAK but I'd like to be able to lock the camera so that you could only view from above your own units when you toggle through.

In addition what height you could see would depend on the unit type and status.

So a pinned squad or support weapon might be restricted to 1, while a squad out of command 1 or 2.

A company HQ could go all thwe way up to five, but again it would only be able to do so from it's current position. This would stop that paniced MG jeep crew in no mans land acting like a spotter plane.

Occationally in small quick battles I play the whole thing with the camera at 1, and it's actually like a whole different game.

I think the ability to look over the next hill and work out the ideal route of advance tree clump by tree clump, is one of the least realistic parts of the game.

i've lived across the road from a forest for ten years and i can still get disorientated in it, so the units in CM must consist of daniel Boone's...