A vision about fortifications in CMx2

[Cogust]

How about doing away with all the fortification types in the purchase screen (or its equivalence in CMx2) and let the defending player invest in manhours and materiel? It's very hard to plan your defence while in the purchase screen as the choice of fortifications will depend very much on the map, this would be solved if the players bought manhourts and materiel and used them during the setup phase as they saw fit.

This is mor or less how it works in real life, an infantry company is assigned a defensive position and then the CO decides how to spend the time and resources to improve the position as much as possible. Do you have an ideal site for your HMG, but a few patches of trees is blocking what could be a truly amazing LOS (very common and frustrating in CM)? Then just spend some manhours to chop down the trees or at least take away the under vegetation to improve visibility.

This way the defending player can, by spending manhours and/or materiel, edit the map in some ways during setup in addition to the usual obstacles we have in CMx1. One can easily use this in both in QBs and scenarios where the scenario maker can pplan the defensive works himself or leave it up to the player.

Another spiffy thing is that it will be very easy to model a hasty defence by limiting the amount of manhours available, you haven't time to make a proper minefield so you use daisy chains instead etc. The manhour cost for different stuff can also vary with time of year (very hard to make foxholes without dynamite in the Russian winter) and so on. If it's difficult to dig (or not enough time to create trenches for everyone), then perhaps it's wiser to fortify the houses in the village over there instead as you have plenty of materiel (sandbags etcetera)?

A bunker/pillbox would then be made in two steps, first you build it by spending manhours and materiel and later on you place your ATG, HMG, AFO or infantry squad in it.

This is just some early brainstorming on my part and I imagine that it can be expanded and improved upon a great deal, what do you all say? How much does it suck? Honestly?

[Denwad]

Pak40, MG42 and flamethrower team

heh

[melb_will]

This is a really good idea in my opinon. It would be a big change but worth it.

Cheers

Will

[Beta1]

It would be nice if the bunkers were not a unit in their own right but part of the scenery - ie you buy the bunker (log/concrete/whatever) and at setup could place whatever you want inside (AT gun/HMGs/flamethrowers/troupe of dancing girls...)

Would maybe leave open the option of evacuating a HMG from a bunker if you wanted to.

[Michael Emrys]

Seems to me that a much more elegant solution would be to retain the existing system of purchases, but allow each player to see the map before making their final buys.

In other words, you'd have to select your division type first, then see the map, then make detailed selections from your division type. (Optional corps and army level units would have to be worked in here somehow as well.)

But keep in mind, that BFC may come up with something that makes both our notions beside the point.

Michael

[DrD]

I especially like your idea of clearing terrain. I think clearing trees and even pulling down houses was a common practice, certainly if I had days to prepare a position this is one of the first things I'd do in order to clear my fields of fire. I'd also like to see more anti-tank obstacles like dragon's teeth.

[c3k]

I think the manhours idea is fantastic! The scenario designer could allocate how much time the defender was able to improve his position prior to the battle. The player could customize his defenses to the terrain. Kinda like a closer SIMULATION leads to a better GAME.

As well, this idea would fold in nicely with a campaign level. There would be a reward for leaving a company in place for half a day. Just a thought....

Regards,

Ken

[Cogust]

One might wonder if there will even BE a purchase screen in the traditional sense in CMx2, I have a feeling that units picks will be much more limited for the players than they are now (there might be a free for all setting though, to suit the cherry picking crowd). Then one could tie the amount of manhours to the battle type, say a hasty defence get x manhours per platoon while a regular defence would get y>x manhours per platoon. One could also make the output dependent on the quality (conscripts won't dig much except perhaps a foxhole) and give enginneers a larger output of manhours or something to represent their special abilities and equipment.

The material could also be tied to the mission, time period, nation etcetera or it could be a function of the OOB. An infantry battalion might have a certain amount of material available to it while an engineer company has a different amount.

Manhours would indeed work very well in a campaign setting and give a more realistic way of digging in than we have today, the question is if BFC haven't already come up with a far better way already.

[Cogust]

Michael,

I think that watching the map before or right when you're buying your forces will only promote cherry picking and that's not good. It might be the case that BFC will make the choices very limited which might reduce the cherry picking, but I think that the logical way is to get your units first and then look at the terrain as that's how it's done in real life.

But then, as you say, BFC have more than likely decided on their approach to this already so this discussion might well be moot.

[Philippe]

Originally posted by Beta1:

It would be nice if the bunkers were not a unit in their own right but part of the scenery - ie you buy the bunker (log/concrete/whatever) and at setup could place whatever you want inside (AT gun/HMGs/flamethrowers/troupe of dancing girls...)

Would maybe leave open the option of evacuating a HMG from a bunker if you wanted to.

On many occasions I have had infantry squads lurking in the immediate vicinity of a previously trashed bunker or concrete pillbox, and have sat there gnashing my teeth because in real life I would have sent someone in there to take up a firing position.

Bunkers and pillboxes should behave more like trenches and foxholes, and have slightly different characteristics depending on the damage state. If I have a perfectly good heavy machine gun standing next to a ruined bunker, I should be able to move it inside and take advantage of a good firing position. Or if I have a machine gun in a bunker that is about to get trashed by three assault guns, I should be able to tell the guys inside to grab their machine gun and get out of there.

I would also like some more flexibility in the graphics of bunkers. That little square wooden house is a bit weird -- can't some of them be open topped, or surrounded by mounds of dirt and sandbags (and I don't just mean painting them on to flat, vertical surfaces).

As for the dancing girls, I think we need to start a new thread to discuss the most appropriate selection of exotic dancers. And I'm certainly looking forward to modding them.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Cogust:

How about doing away with all the fortification types in the purchase screen (or its equivalence in CMx2) and let the defending player invest in manhours and materiel?

Sounds like an excellent scheme to me, and, as you say, much like the way real armies behave.

Originally posted by Cogust:

A bunker/pillbox would then be made in two steps, first you build it by spending manhours and materiel and later on you place your ATG, HMG, AFO or infantry squad in it.

Right -- and real fortifications come in different sizes. Digging in a 17-pdr is not the same amount of work as making a gun pit for a Bren gun, really it isn't.

If you could devise a field engineering scheme such as you suggest -- and it would take a lot of work -- then the players would have almost unlimited flexibility in their defensive arrangements. The strength of your DZOTs, DOTs, fortified houses and so forth could depend on the amount of work you were prepared to put into them -- and a modest investment in overhead cover means you could laugh at VT or other airburst shell. You could determine what densities of minefield you found acceptable for different tasks, how to mark them, and whether to lay dummies. Decoy fighting positions could be built instead of the old "assault-boat in a wood" trick.

If engineer elements came along with an enhanced allocation of time and stores, they would be even more valuable -- maybe the time tarriffs for fortifications should be divided into "skilled" and "unskilled" labour.

Oh, and let's have reserve demolitions, too.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Cogust:

I think that watching the map before or right when you're buying your forces will only promote cherry picking and that's not good. It might be the case that BFC will make the choices very limited which might reduce the cherry picking, but I think that the logical way is to get your units first and then look at the terrain as that's how it's done in real life.

Apparently you have chosen to ignore what I wrote about having to choose your division type before seeing the map. That would limit cherry picking right there to the more common types of units found within the divisional organization. Plus, you shouldn't neglect the rarity costs.

Michael

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Beta1:

It would be nice if the bunkers were not a unit in their own right but part of the scenery - ie you buy the bunker (log/concrete/whatever) and at setup could place whatever you want inside (AT gun/HMGs/flamethrowers/troupe of dancing girls...)

A bunker needed for a HMG is very different from that required by an ATG or a troupe of dancing girls. There were no "Generic Bunkers" which could accommodate every weapon type available from a single sniper to a Yamamoto. Even different size guns would need different kinds of positioning.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by c3k:

As well, this idea would fold in nicely with a campaign level. There would be a reward for leaving a company in place for half a day. Just a thought....

No, it'd be unrealistic to expect that kind of work to take place WHILE the unit is engaged in frontline. Fortifying while in view of enemy is a very difficult & very dangerous job!

[Cogust]

Michael,

Not ignoring per se, being restricted to a certain type of division will indeed reduce the cherry picking to a minimum. I should perhaps use the term 'tailored force' instead? What you suggest would represent an officer drafting his unit from his division/regiment/battalion depending on what he wanted to place where.

I think the other way around is a better way to do it, you design your unit based on the mission ahead, say an assault on a town in fair weather with relatively flat ground, and this will represent your basic units and the attachments you have received from division. When you have taken command of your taskforce, then you have to adapt to the actual terrain without calling division to swap two HMGs for another AC or something similar.

The end results might be similar in the end as both methods will reduce cherry picking, but I don't like forces that risk being as optimized as your suggestion can lead to.

[Brent Pollock]

And some adjustment for environment, too (e.g. frozen, muddy, boggy, bedrock, availability of lumber).

Something to account for unit fitness would also be good.

[Cogust]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

Right -- and real fortifications come in different sizes. Digging in a 17-pdr is not the same amount of work as making a gun pit for a Bren gun, really it isn't.

You're right, the simplest way would be to have a size variable for all fieldworks that can hold a unit of similar or lower size (exactly like towing works in CMx1).

If you could devise a field engineering scheme such as you suggest -- and it would take a lot of work -- then the players would have almost unlimited flexibility in their defensive arrangements. The strength of your DZOTs, DOTs, fortified houses and so forth could depend on the amount of work you were prepared to put into them -- and a modest investment in overhead cover means you could laugh at VT or other airburst shell. You could determine what densities of minefield you found acceptable for different tasks, how to mark them, and whether to lay dummies. Decoy fighting positions could be built instead of the old "assault-boat in a wood" trick.

If engineer elements came along with an enhanced allocation of time and stores, they would be even more valuable -- maybe the time tarriffs for fortifications should be divided into "skilled" and "unskilled" labour.

"Skilled" and "unskilled" would indeed be a good division, certain tasks like making concrete pillboxes etcetera should require skilled labour while other tasks would only take engineers less time to construct. The possibilities are many but everything depends on what BFC thinks of it as it's they who'll have to integrate it with their design, I'm only brainstorming some and that's the easy part.

[MikeyD]

What sort of bunker/pillbox you need depends a lot on on what theater of action you're in. A North Vietnamese jungle underground trench/pillox system is certainly a different animal than the fortified U.S. embassy in Saigon. The Maginot line would be considerably different than the Hitler line. The 'Green Zone' fortifications in current Bhagdad would be very much different than the Iraqi sand trench/bunker system in Gulf War 1.

BFC's getting some much-needed experience with a complex bulding maker in the T72 game. It's likely (and very much hoped-for) that we'll see a fortification editor in CMx2 that will grind the CM1 generic bunkers into dust.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

BFC's getting some much-needed experience with a complex bulding maker in the T72 game.

How? By the simple act of releasing it? They're not coding it, you know.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

BFC's getting some much-needed experience with a complex bulding maker in the T72 game.

They're just publishing the game, nothing else. Or maybe they'll hire a bunch of Ukrainian co-programmers, hmmmmm...

Damn you, Dorosh! :mad:

[Michael Dorosh]

Watch what you say about Ukrainians, you never know one may be lurking.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Sergei:

(snip) There were no "Generic Bunkers" which could accommodate every weapon type available from a single sniper to a Yamamoto.

Actually I think Admiral Yamamoto was about the same size as most single snipers. I suspect you intended to type Yamato, the Japanese uber-battleship. Small difference in spelling, big difference in meaning.

[Sergei]

This is why I am dead set against any Pacific Theater games. Yamato, Yamamoto, Yamaha Motors. Who cares???

[Philippe]

I care. This has a big impact on how many dancing girls we can squeeze in.

[MikeyD]

You should read the BFC posts. The original Russian T72 doesn't have a built-in buildings editor. BFC's adding a buildings editor for players as well as doing considerably more work besides. I don't think T72 can be considered simply a 'Translate/Publish" job. BFC should have their fingers in the coding enough to learn a couple tricks from the experience - if there are any tricks in there for them to learn. If CMx2 and T72 are going to be parallel game platforms that they're publishing they wouldn't want both games to look alike - neither would they want CMx2 to take second-place.