Wish List!

[Sammy_Davis_Jnr]

Dear Hofbauer

Your command of the English language is sublime

Hofbauer Quotes

no ****?

geez did you stay up all night to write that down

Maybe your right maybe we should dumb down everything in this game.

I cant wait for you to articulate your views.

You are a wordsmith without equal.

As for back pedalling on the issues on Radios..So what if the Russians were technological inferior to the germans and there allies..that means you cannot have them (radiomen).

Guys all i see is Narrow mindness. Im offering options trying to convey that i want change a game that has:

No Mortar

No smoke

Cant enter buildings

Unrealistic Capturing of enemy tanks

No F/O

Im not sure if they have medics. I guess you guys would say hey why have themas well.

When it comes down to it..all i read is no cant have it, oh thats silly, or geez thats not accurate.

When you guys say why???? I say why not.

Lets make this game great or push forward in thinking for other ww2 rts tactical or stratgey games.

I Never said (radiomen) are the difference between winning and losing.

Qoute: Radiomen lets bring that into combat plz. It was such a huge factor for artillery, airsrikes and re-inforcements and other combat issues I believe its relevant.

I believe that they are a factor and were used in those instances and have given proof.

I still believe they could find a place in a more broad use of gameplay.

I love my tanks and Infantry but hey can we dare to dream of including other specialist that were sometimes in the frontline making a difference.

------------------------------

I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. - Winston Churchill.

[RMC]

Ok, just for ****s and giggles....

Let's say they add "radiomen" into the game. What do they do? What effect do they have on how the game is played?

[Tarquelne]

When it comes down to it..all i read is no cant have it, oh thats silly, or geez thats not accurate.

How about "beyond the scope of the game."? And limited application? ("Sammy, you are taking one Army and applying to the world, it just doesn't work that way.")

When you guys say why???? I say why not.

Two answers "why not" given above.

Be careful: There aren't as many rhetorical questions around as most people think.

Qoute: Radiomen lets bring that into combat plz. It was such a huge factor for artillery, airsrikes and re-inforcements and other combat issues I believe its relevant.

True. But with no FO system the "for artillery, airstrikes" part isn't operative. The game doesn't seem to let you call in re-inforcements, so that isn't operative. Given the examples from other posts, "other combat issues" are beyond the scope of the game.

It appears you want FOs, some control over re-inforcements and a game with the scripting to handle "other combat issues." I think just about everyone does. Those are good suggestions and great wishes.

OTOH,

is anyone here really think they were not essential to a fighting force.

At the scale the game is set at, the tight focus on combat, and given the presence of an all-seeing, all-controlling player, and with the forces involved, the role of the radio isn't strong.

I don't think M.H.'s dismissal of the initial suggestion needed to be so err... dismissive.

OTOH, I believe you're mistaken about the relevance of individual radiomen to a game such as ToW (or CMx1). They were essential and important in RL, but you seem to be arguing that importance would translate rather directly into importance in the game.

The examples you gave weren't well matched to the sort of fighting it seems the game will actually cover ("generic" main line combat and/or bumpercars), and the game also seems to lack the infrastructure needed to make radiomen worthwhile even if they are included.

They'd just be some guys with "Radioman" somewhere in the GUI when you click on 'em. (Though CM does have FOs.)

[Sammy_Davis_Jnr]

@Tarquelne

Yes you make some good points but i think you slightly mis-understood ..i didnt want radiomen for every nation, im not saying because the yanks had good success it should be like that for every country you could play. Yes the russians lacked that tech. What i was saying was that just because the yanks had FM radio and had alot more success with radio doesnt mean that you cant include it because it wouldnt seem fair..**** the niether is war.

I do understand now how limited the scope of the game will be, and i can admit that, i thought it would a little more encompassing.Hopefully the developers get to access this type of info from everyone and understand that we want more then just tanks and infantry fighting on a map blasting away.

Yes it does seem that most people want a game that really delivers on a tactical and some what strategic level. I believe it can be accomplished...now that is a wish.

-------------------------------

In politics, an absurdity is not a handicap. Napoleon Bonaparte

[MorgTzu]

Well..that seems like thats a good resolution..not to mention good entertainment.

Hofbauer, I was in 10th ENG BN at Schweinfurt (sp?), conn barracks '93-'95..12B in support of 3/15 INF and sometimes 1/64.. I also was assigned to 3/7 CAV for a time when I made it on the Gold Team for the Boeslaeger Cup (kinda of a militery olympics thing with NATO), did the Macedonia/Serbian border thing and of course the Graf./Hoenfels silliness. Coming from the 82nd and OP "Just Cuz" amongst other stuff, it was kind of like going in reverse, but overall it was fun..just never got a taste for the hefeveisen (sp?).

Back to the wishlist>

MAY I suggest that the OP (original poster) edit his first thread with a updated list of all the summarized wishes/requests from the community. We realy need more COHERANCE (misspelt on purpoise) on the forum (that doesn't mean seriousness and silly neurotic grog firefights all though those are fun to watch from a distance.

A STICKY..A STICKY, my kingdom for a sticky. Newcomers to this forum will get the impression this whole things a joke or stumble through a dozen topics trying to find out whats going on before they actually start a new thread on somefink already discusses ed nauseum.

[Cincinatvs]

Or a FAQ post ,as we can see for other games, giving a summarize of what the game can or cannot do.

[rune]

Sammy,

Last response on this, it is because of an economy of scale. Why put in 2 weeks of coding for a minor detail for one army? You are the commander already and call artillery in, what is the use of a medic on the map or a radio operator when it does not enhance gameplay and the coding time can be spent elsewhere on something else? It is a combat game, not a medic game. Add something to gameplay that affects all sides, like vehicle smoke. A much better allotment of coding time.

So the why not is because you are on a slippery slope. You cannot cover every aspect of war and have the game released in our lifetime. The designers have to make decisions on what to include and not include, and what to put in a patch cause it doesn't work right, and you need more time. Remember, 1C has been working on this quite a while, and haven't been paid for it...at some point it has to be released. CMBO didn't have everything we wanted, but then CMBB added to it. I know we are working on the realism and accuracy... but how realistic is a game where you can buy your units? I cringe when I see people complain about this tank wouldn't be with that tank... well, then don't buy that tank.

Again, great to have wishes, and nothing wrong with putting them down. Just don't be surprised when the answer is no.

Rune

[Sirocco]

1) enterable buildings

2) foxholes (haven't seen them yet)

3) dug-in AT pieces

4) on map mortars

5) smoke (no smoke grenades)

6) seperate UK/US campaigns

[rune]

Sirocco,

I have seen and placed at gun in the trenches and behind sandbags. Is this what you mean?

Rune

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Sammy_Davis_Jnr:

LOL Hofbauer

Well i can say this Hofbauer you make a better script writer then historian.

...

Please Hofbauer dont ever consider being a prosecuter or a historian, leave that to the smart people.

you have no idea just how funny that remark really is.

alas, its all too late now, maybe you should have given me that advice when I was your age.

[Sammy_Davis_Jnr]

@ Rune

rune states:

what is the use of a medic on the map or a radio operator when it does not enhance gameplay and the coding time can be spent elsewhere on something else? It is a combat game, not a medic game. Add something to gameplay that affects all sides, like vehicle smoke. A much better allotment of coding time.

yes i understand what you are saying. But i think you are in the minority when comes to people just wanting a combat game. Alot of people here want a game that will be more encompassing.

would medics or f/o improve gameplay? like i have stated many times I love my tanks and infantry..but i got a stack of games which just have tanks and infantry. It wouldnt hurt stepping outside the box just a little.

yes we all know these things will not be included but is a damn shame we have another line them up and blast away combat game. It just becomes the same **** different smell.

--------------------------

Last say on the matter

Sammy

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by MorgTzu:

I was in 10th ENG BN at Schweinfurt (sp?), conn barracks '93-'95..12B in support of 3/15 INF and sometimes 1/64.. I also was assigned to 3/7 CAV for a time when I made it on the Gold Team for the Boeslaeger Cup (kinda of a militery olympics thing with NATO), did the Macedonia/Serbian border thing and of course the Graf./Hoenfels silliness. Coming from the 82nd and OP "Just Cuz" amongst other stuff, it was kind of like going in reverse, but overall it was fun..just never got a taste for the hefeveisen (sp?).

unbelievable, Schweinfurt, eh?

I wasnt around on Conn too much, Ledward was more interesting anyhow, and I wasnt around a lot after 1993.

Does Askren Manors ring a bell? Kessler Field? Yorktown Village, the Bowling Center?

of course coming from 82nd and Deployment to Just Cause then being in SFT/Conn is quite an antishow, hehe.

oh btw wasnt it the 1/4 Cav on Conn? maybe my memory serves me wrong, you should know better.

btw Hefeweizen is overrated. hate it myself

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by rune:

I have seen and placed at gun in the trenches and behind sandbags. Is this what you mean?

I'd like to see them in a "hasty prepared position", as opposed to standing in open ground, which appears to be the case in some of the screenshots I've seen. If the guns are part of a defensive position I'd expect to see some evidence on work by the crew to improve their spot.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by RMC:

Ok, just for ****s and giggles....

Let's say they add "radiomen" into the game. What do they do? What effect do they have on how the game is played?

Oh I can very well see Juniors idea, how he wants little radiomenlets, infantry with a PRC strapped to their back. It makes a lot of sense, also gamewise:

The radioman gets shot, you lose your artillery and air strike buttons. No more fire support for you, unless somebody else picks the radio up (if its undamanged).

Maybe you could only isse artillery fire missions and air support that close if the radioman has LOS to where you want to place your fire mission. Makes a lot of sense.

BUT ONLY IF WE'RE TALKING VIETNAM '68, or COMBAT MISSION SHMOK FORCE.

not for WW II,

because simply, for most of the war and most theaters of operations, you would be hard pressed to find any radiomenlets, let alone have such an effective, reliable radio-connection setup with artillery and air force waiting at hand just to support your company of people.

WW II is more than just GI JOE in France and encompasses more than the timeframe from mid-1944 to spring 1945.

radios were no secret. I suspect all armies at the outbreak of WW II had them - BUT ONLY IN THEORY.

I am still waiting for examples where frontline regular infantry platoons or companies used radiomenlets in POLAND 1939 or RUSSIA 1941+.

It is not a rhetorical question. I would be interested in hearing about it. Maybe it did happen. Though I doubt strongly there will be any number of such reports around -

BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A RARE EXCEPTION and NOT REPRESENTATIVE for the style of tactical combat communications of WW II in general.

Now, his idea about medics - thats a wholly different story. But his idea on how radios were used in WW II and what role they played is just so off, I can only repeat myself here and I put it mildly when I said that is is

"a skewed perception of the role and character of radio use in "WW II" "

Originally posted by Tarquelne:

OTOH, I believe you're mistaken about the relevance of individual radiomen to a game such as ToW (or CMx1). They were essential and important in RL, but you seem to be arguing that importance would translate rather directly into importance in the game.

Tarquelne,

OTOH, I believe you're mistaken about the relevance of individual radiomen to a game such as ToW (or CMx1). They were essential and important in RL,

I beg to disagree strongly. You are only giving Junior wrong ideas. Keep in mind he is still learning.

THEY WERE NOT ESSENTIAL AND IMPORTANT IN RL.

Not in that GENERALITY. Only under certain special circumstances did radiomen on a platoon level play any role at all, and only under very special exceptional cirumstances were they essential and important.

The only circumstances under which they play any role at all would be LATE WW 2 for the US and UK/Commonwealth Armies.

For the main part of WW II, the early war in Poland and France, the deciding HUGE war on the eastern front, platoon or company-level radiomenlets simply WERE NOT A FACTOR of any relevance or ubiquity.n What dop you think all the radio vehicles were for? Reliable radio with useful distances and quality could not be put into a small PRC just like that.

Apart from that I agree with the rest of your post, but I had to make this clear or else Junior will only be reinforced in his skewed perception.

[M Hofbauer]

lets get back to

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

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

E.G Germans Actually had better tanks at the start of the war

keep going, you're actually getting quite good at this.

</font>

[Sirocco]

FO's would be nice to bring some more perspective on air and artillery support, but medics, well, we've had that discussion here time and again.

[Sammy_Davis_Jnr]

lol hofbaurer the start of the war was 1939 what year did russia come into it?

Junior, could you please elaborate on that? How do you think, say, a PzKpfw II or PzKpfw III Ausf. D/E/F or a PzKpfw. IV Ausf. D/E were so much better than, say, a Somua S-35, amn early model T-34 or a KV-1 M1939 ?

russia were not even at war with Germany in 1939 idiot !

Iam very entertained

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Sammy_Davis_Jnr:

the start of the war was 1939 what year did russia come into it?

1939.

[MorgTzu]

I thought this was resolved. Sammy, why are you trying to beat a dead horse over debatable features that very likely will never be in this game for many reasons. This is titled wishlist, but as can be seen from the context, it's a wishlist with somewhat realistic expectations. Maybe we need a stickied "(a)historical boxing room"..or at least Sammy could start another topic...and some people are starting to get excited 'nuff to start misspelling and stuff.

Hofbauer.. We moved to Ledward, I think sometime in 94. I'm prety sure it was 7th cav over there, but it's from memory. Yep, went to some crazy parties at Askren Manor (that was the main housing outside of Ledward, right?) where those ..um unfaithful spouses hang around preying on young soldiers.

[ComradeP]

russia were not even at war with Germany in 1939 idiot !

You're trolling, and I hope you will get banned if you continue.

You haven't answered a single question that people asked you for at least one page and your use of the English language is tedious at best.

Either answer questions, or beat it out of a serious thread. Trolling=death.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by rune:

Sammy,

Last response on this, it is because of an economy of scale. Why put in 2 weeks of coding for a minor detail for one army? You are the commander already and call artillery in, what is the use of a medic on the map or a radio operator when it does not enhance gameplay and the coding time can be spent elsewhere on something else? It is a combat game, not a medic game. Add something to gameplay that affects all sides, like vehicle smoke.

rune,

beg to disagree re. your above statement as far as it regards medics.

I know I know, but IMO medics, better: buddy aid and casualty management, fit your criteria above of enhancing gameplay (casualty management adds a whole new layer for you as the commander, requires different tactics etc.; puls it fits in very very well with ToW and its RPG element re. the individual soldiers...), and it is something that affects all sides.

I do concede that casualty management might not be very convenient for the typical gung-ho players who want to press on regardless of consequences, it is much more gratifying to rush your tanks forward instead of having to care for all the mess of even a few casualties.

Hence I concede it might not fit into a fast-paced tank rushfest.

I do not mean this derogatory but as a factual characterization w/r/t micromanagement in the sense of casualty management, or even automated casualty management that would via buddy aid interfere with the combativeness of your non-injured healthy soldiers.

Thats why I am not pressing for this issue, but I did want to remark the above.

cheers

M.H.

[M Hofbauer]

MorgTzu.

interesting description of Askren Manors, *g*, you sound like a "victim" of those predators

havent really been there after '93.

still, shows again how small the world is...

take care,

M.H.

[rune]

Hof,

It has to do with amount of coding time vs. gameplay impact. I think Steve said it best in the CMSF forums.

I quote:

The problem with showing serious WIA is that we would then have to do a ton of other things to simulate what happens with them after. Animations for dragging boddies (not easy!), animations for administering some sort of first aid, and the worst is the rather substantial stuff for dealing with the WIA after they have been left behind. In real life there are guys who follow up who move WIA around, so now we'd have to simulate these guys and all that entails. KIA is almost the same, but there is a lot more room for abstraction and still show something.

Don't get me wrong, in theory we would love to have this stuff simulated to the nth degree. We do understand that it is an important part of a battle, so much so that it is almost an entire simulation within a simulation. And that my dear friends is where desire and reality have a really nasty fight and reality winds up winning. We simply don't have the time nor the resources to do a battlefield casualty simulator.

Other points: If you rush in this game, your troops will die-a-lot . The pace for a successful battle is much slower then the CMX1 series. Besides, I have to worry about casualties already if I want the unit and troops in my next battle. I don't want to have to get a man to drag each soldier out. Bottom line: Hard to do correctly, lots of animations, low gameplay influence over already worrying about casualties.

All that being said, you never know. 1C has done a good job with the game. There are changes to be made, and other features I would love to see in long before I have to micromanage a medic to drag Hans off the battlefield, but they may surprise both of us yet.

Rune

[RMC]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

btw Hefeweizen is overrated. hate it myself

Warsteiner wuss.

[MorgTzu]

GETS MY VOTE FOR POST(S) OF THE WEEK:

From MANX (in Tanks and Vehicles topic):

"Camouflaging tanks & guns would be great, but as yet i haven't seen much in the way of terrain elements for them to camouflage into, and mask themselves against. A few scattered trees here and there, or single rows of trees lining roads/fields doesn't look as if it is going to provide much in the way of cover or concealment. Add this to un-enterable buildings, and i fear we are going to be fighting in the "open" most of the time.

This is my only major gripe about TOW from what i have seen so far."

"Since a very high proportion of would-be buyers will probably be coming to TOW from CM, i guess it's natural, but not necessarily right, to want to compare the two.

In CM, terrain plays such a key role in everything you do and the decisions you make during a battle:

I need to hold the ground around that farmhouse. Is it empty though? Should i send a recon squad over to find out? Perhaps i could go through that small copse over there to give them some cover. Hold on! What if there's a mg nest dug in there!? I need smoke, but it will take at least five minutes for my mortars to get into firing position and i need that ground now!! No, maybe i'd better bring up my assault gun and give the farmhouse a few rounds first, and just hope that there isn't a hidden AT gun trained on my positions.

Not expecting TOW to be the next CM, but in a tactical wargame, i want to have to make decisions like these."

(in my opinion) THAT about sums up 95% of the serious posts in the entire forum and probably the sentiments of the majority of CC/CM style players. I know the dev-dreaded word "COMPARISON" is in there...but that is the reality of making a tac-tac real time sim thingy or somefink...