A vision about fortifications in CMx2

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Cogust:

...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.

We are saying the same thing. Must be a language problem.

The division commander or regimental commander would assign the forces based on the mission and what is available. The player has to assume this role unless there is a gigantic leap in AI programming. Okay? The only way the player can do this is the same way his real life counterpart can do it, namely by looking at a map and at intelligence reports. They didn't just wake up every morning and go "eeny-meeny-miny-moe" which is pretty much what a player in CMx1 is reduced to.

Ergo, I'd have the player pick his division type, which determines what is available, then put on his division/regiment commander's hat, take a look at the map, and decide what forces to commit within his point budget.

But like I say, BFC may brew up something that knocks all this into a cocked hat.

Michael

[Sergei]

You're telling that Charles is coding parts of T-72? :confused: I thought he was all too busy with CM.

[Cogust]

A little difference though Michael, I don't have the divisional/regimental commander walking all over the terrain and place each requested unit, I have him looking at a large scale map while making his decision. You are the guy walking around on the ground placing the stuff you were assigned by your CO (in the purchasing screen).

[Panzer76]

I think BFC role in T72 is limited to marketing processes and certainly not coding.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Cogust:

A little difference though Michael, I don't have the divisional/regimental commander walking all over the terrain and place each requested unit, I have him looking at a large scale map while making his decision. You are the guy walking around on the ground placing the stuff you were assigned by your CO (in the purchasing screen).

Okay. I can certainly live with a facsimile of an actual topo map in, say, 1:25,000 scale. Just as long as there is some kind of map that shows the contours of the land, water, vegetation coverage, roads, and major buildings. I don't require to walk over the actual terrain.

Michael

[Cogust]

It's a deal!

Some further thinking, it would be very nice to lay continous trenches by right-clicking (the trech parts could either be all of the same length or custom length) and finish the trench by left-clicking when placing the last piece.

What is there more? AT-ditches, wire, underground dugouts (might be out of the scope of CM as the pre bombardment has already happened), sand bag walls, walls of packed snow/ice, dug-in tanks that are able to reverse out of the firing position.

John mentioned overhead cover for trenches, this also needs to be in and there might be nice to model quite a few different types of trenches, not all were meant to fight from after all and communication trenches would be really nifty just to mention one additional type.

[yacinator]

Great idea! CM would be much more fun with more flexible fortifications. An idea I'd like to contriubute is that only engineers could do the complicated stuff. Like normal infantry could just dig foxholes or trenches or make sandbags but engineers could build bunkers, more complicated trenches, modify houses, dig tunnels between houses (like the sewer movement thing in CMBB but no risk of casualies). And what about engineering vehicles, like the trench digging thing on the T72 Balkans on Fire website? That would be awesome.

[Cogust]

That's pretty much the "skilled" and "unskilled" distintion mentioned earlier, you´need "skilled" manhours (engineers) for certain tasks like bunkers etcetera. Availibility of engineering vehicles should IMO only be modelled as more skilled manhours per engineer platoon, no need to complicate stuff just to complicate them.

One might argue that the materiel departmet should be specified (x tons of concrete, y mines and z meters of wire for example), but I think that's not necessary and will only make stuff complicated for no real gain.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Cogust:

Some further thinking, it would be very nice to lay continous trenches by right-clicking (the trech parts could either be all of the same length or custom length) and finish the trench by left-clicking when placing the last piece.

Since apparently tiles will not be used in CMx2, there should be no reason for trenches to come in strips anymore. You should be able to paint them on the terrain just like laying tape. They needn't even be straight.

What is there more? AT-ditches...

Yes! including camouflaged AT ditches. That wasn't done often, but parts at least of the AT ditch around Tobruk were covered in plywood and then a thin layer of sand. If you weren't careful, you might try to drive on it only to have your vehicle disappear into the cellar.

...wire, underground dugouts (might be out of the scope of CM as the pre bombardment has already happened), sand bag walls, walls of packed snow/ice, dug-in tanks that are able to reverse out of the firing position.

And proper sangers made of stacked rocks.

John mentioned overhead cover for trenches, this also needs to be in and there might be nice to model quite a few different types of trenches, not all were meant to fight from after all and communication trenches would be really nifty just to mention one additional type.

Agreed.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

And don't forget dragon's teeth, abatis, booby traps, etc.

Oh yeah, and Luxembourgher border guards demanding to see passports.

Michael