Random casualties/equipment changes

[Cpl Steiner]

For CM:SF and the next games I would like an option to purchase units in the scenario editor or QB setup screen that have percentage losses, as in CMx1. It seems strange that in every scenario I play the US side has every position in the formation filled as if on a parade ground. We should have the option to have missing vehicles and/or men, and some men "yellow" status.

Another cool feature originally seen in CM:BB would be for units to sometimes carry non-standard TO&E weapons. How about a couple of M14s amongst the M4s, or maybe an extra M249 instead of an M4?

The units in CM:SF look like they are on parade rather than in a war zone to me.

[Apocal]

For CM:SF and the next games I would like an option to purchase units in the scenario editor or QB setup screen that have percentage losses, as in CMx1. It seems strange that in every scenario I play the US side has every position in the formation filled as if on a parade ground. We should have the option to have missing vehicles and/or men, and some men "yellow" status.

Agreed. Even if it was simply a function of expanding the squad rosters and deleting individuals soldiers.

Another cool feature originally seen in CM:BB would be for units to sometimes carry non-standard TO&E weapons. How about a couple of M14s amongst the M4s, or maybe an extra M249 instead of an M4?

Can't say I agree here. When you carry an M-14, you are carrying it for a very specific reason. Same with an M249. Especially nowadays, since neither is fantastic for going room-to-room. More likely your designated marksman/AR would carry an M4/M16 instead of their DMR or SAW than the other way around.

[cmfan]

I know this has probably been debated before, but I miss the flexibility of the old unit selection system. I know the current setup probably gives allows us to choose more "realistic" unit formations, but it takes some of the fun away in constructing and playing scenarios.

I also agree with Cpl Steiner, being able to purchase units with loses and even casualties would be nice.

[jenrick]

I would much prefer that for unit selection, especially in the editor that I can pick whatever I want down to the squad type armed with or operating a specific weapon/vehicle. In QB I can understand choosing a formation and giving it to the player, but for creating scenarios it seems wrong to not be able to choose an exact unit easily.

-Jenrick

[cmfan]

Is the current unit selection setup a balancing decision or limitation of the game engine?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Is the current unit selection setup a balancing decision or limitation of the game engine?

I guess it's a "limitation" in that it's a deliberate design decision. The current unit selection setup is so that each side ends up with a realistic force allocation, as far as I'm aware. Personally, I don't consider it that annoying, and it actually helps me somewhat with scenario design. A more flexible system might be better, though.

[Cpl Steiner]

Is the current unit selection setup a balancing decision or limitation of the game engine?

As far as I know it's due to the way units use "Command and Control" (C2). You have to buy the whole battalion and then prune it down to what you want because all the communication links are built into the battalion TO&E. This is also the reason why you can't delete an HQ if there are units under its command - you have to make it a reinforcement with an arrival time longer than the scenario instead.

It would be better if we could pick what we want and designate which units are in command of what. In other words, if I pick a battalion sniper team and B Company of that battalion, the editor would warn when saving that the battalion sniper team is not attached to any unit. You could then attach it to any HQ you've bought, probably B Company HQ but in theory any HQ, even a Platoon HQ.

[John Kettler]

Since vehicles are modeled at the system level, I think it would be very cool to have random glitches show up, some possibly tied to certain environments and pounding vehicle receives, whether in combat or smashing its way up the block. My reading suggests that such woes are all too common and that units have to fight with what's working at the time. It might be one thing on one AFV, and something altogether different on another. Am thinking black boxes, zeroing, etc. At the infantry level, GENERATION KILL had the unit w/o batteries for NVGs. Bet that might affect the battle some!

There was a naval wargame rule set called Battle Stations which had an array of such situations, both good and bad, and each player had a certain number applied, depending on uncertainty factor desired, as well as quality of pre-battle intel the ref wished to model.

A clean hull might give better speed, dud rate might go up, the rangefinder guy might be eagle-eyed that day, damage control more on the ball, etc. Something like this would, if doable, go a long way toward removing the cookie cutter sameness people seem to be upset over.

Am I in my favored track, or is it shot up, leaving me with the unit dog? Are my vetronics all working properly, or is my (insert here) on the blink? Can I trust my autoloader, or is it going to hang in combat? Did that wheel bearing I reported get fixed? Is this idiot light a problem or a bad connector? Who last zeroed the (insert here), and where's the data card?

In reality, the soldiers and Marines have their typical days, their good days and bad days, too, but I figure it won't be until WW II that we have a prayer in this regard. Still, one can dream!

Regards,

John Kettler

[cmfan]

As far as I know it's due to the way units use "Command and Control" (C2). You have to buy the whole battalion and then prune it down to what you want because all the communication links are built into the battalion TO&E. This is also the reason why you can't delete an HQ if there are units under its command - you have to make it a reinforcement with an arrival time longer than the scenario instead.

This makes good sense from a technical perspective. I see why things would be set up the way they are. Thanks for the tip on delaying the entry of HQ units! I didn't know this.

Great ideas John! One can always dream. Hey, I remember that in CM1 vehicles could get bogged down. I've yet had that happen in CM2. Was that not included in the modeling?

[ChrisND]

Great ideas John! One can always dream. Hey, I remember that in CM1 vehicles could get bogged down. I've yet had that happen in CM2. Was that not included in the modeling?

Yes it was. I have had vehicles bog many times, including immobilizations.

[Chainsaw]

go and Play the Battle for Grozny campaign... as soon as my vehicles moves out from the roads they get stuck in the mud, worst case immobilized.

So yes its there :/

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Ooh, my drivers wish it wasn't included in the modeling . . .

[Apocal]

Hey, I remember that in CM1 vehicles could get bogged down. I've yet had that happen in CM2. Was that not included in the modeling?

The very first mission, the one where you are taking over a Special Forces barracks, if you drive off-road near the entrance, you stand a very good chance of getting bogged down and immobilized.

[cmfan]

Sounds like fun! I'll give it a try.

[Secondbrooks]

EDIT: damn. Like totally wrong topic!