Jump to content

More Pie in the sky questions about CM2:Normandy


Recommended Posts

Yeah, the first WW2 "Family" of games only goes up to the change in the seasons as I sated on the previous page. There's all kinds of things which change about the time the Allies got into the woods along the German border. Far too much to do for a Module, therefore the second WW2 Family of games will cover from Fall 1944 until Spring 1945. We plan on 3 Modules for the second Family as well.

Steve

Then comes the third family, the mother of all fronts, the dreaded Eastern Front.

URRAH!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Modules are designed to be flexible so we're leaving some final details to be hammered out when we get closer to needing decisions made. For now we're going forward with the no-brainer stuff.

Steve

Understood. I was mostly musing how things might come about in the future, you've provided more info then I expected and I thank you for it. Of course, I keep coming up with more ideas for questions, so hopefully you can be a little patient with my insufferable curiosity towards CM:Normandy(or should we start referring to it as CM:France '44?).

Do you foresee any unique Infantry commands or changes to existing Infantry Commands to better model the tactics of the base nationalities? I don't imagine the command Assault will continue to exist(at least in its current form) but I imagine split teams will hang around, as well as the Antitank Team command for the Germans and their pesky Panzerfausts. Which leads to another question....

Will Squads still have all the dedicated teams for Anti-tank weapons (as in the original CMBO) or do you see more use of the Aquire button? for example, will Americans have bazookas stowed on the Deuce and a halfs or will there be company-level Bazooka teams as before?

And I think you answered negatory to this before but, will Tank riding be an option or possibly become an option before or when CM:East Front comes out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eastern front? Who said eastern front?? PANT PANT PANT...

I long for exploding cabbages and parsnips up the panzers tail pipe tactics... and the ability to drink the molotov cocktails for what they were worth in regards to actual battlefield efficacy (that is, convincing soviet soldiers in an inebriated stupor to actually charge a Tiger across an open plain wielding nothing but a handful of beets... as point-Ed stick technology comes later in the cold war)...

: )

Cheers!

Leto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second Family will ride out the war in the West to the very end.

Each time we make a new Family of games we will examine the details to see what existing stuff is not applicable any more and what stuff needs to be added to address specific issues in the new Family which weren't needed before. Some of these things are obvious to users, others will likely be taken for granted. For example, CM:SF has no code to support AT Guns or tank hull MGs. No point delaying Family X to support features that aren't needed until Family Y :D All we have to do is leave hooks for the things we know will come up sooner rather than later.

One interesting thing we can do in CM: Normandy that we couldn't in CMx1... Acquire for Bazookas. German and British forces had dedicated teams for Panzerschreck and PIATs, but US forces kept their Bazookas as general use weapons. In CMx1 we had to create artificial Bazooka Teams by permanently removing two soldiers from a Rifle Platoon. Now we don't have to do that because current US Army doctrine regarding Javelins is identical and therefore the code already exists to allow correct modeling of Bazooka use.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, CM:SF has no code to support AT Guns or tank hull MGs. No point delaying Family X to support features that aren't needed until Family Y :D All we have to do is leave hooks for the things we know will come up sooner rather than later.

Steve

To repeat my question then - now Charles has done the code for anti-tank guns can we please have MT-12s for the Syrians in CMSF added to the NATO Module?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second Family will ride out the war in the West to the very end.

Each time we make a new Family of games we will examine the details to see what existing stuff is not applicable any more and what stuff needs to be added to address specific issues in the new Family which weren't needed before. Some of these things are obvious to users, others will likely be taken for granted. For example, CM:SF has no code to support AT Guns or tank hull MGs. No point delaying Family X to support features that aren't needed until Family Y :D All we have to do is leave hooks for the things we know will come up sooner rather than later.

One interesting thing we can do in CM: Normandy that we couldn't in CMx1... Acquire for Bazookas. German and British forces had dedicated teams for Panzerschreck and PIATs, but US forces kept their Bazookas as general use weapons. In CMx1 we had to create artificial Bazooka Teams by permanently removing two soldiers from a Rifle Platoon. Now we don't have to do that because current US Army doctrine regarding Javelins is identical and therefore the code already exists to allow correct modeling of Bazooka use.

Steve

Hey Steve, thanks for the information. I have been wondering... (it's probably one of the most frequently asked questions that I've never seen)

At the end of the Eastern Front Family development, will there be a way to simulate an ahistorical East vs West continuation of hostilities, as if no agreement was made to divide Germany?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if we'll give the syrians AT Guns for the NATO Module. We'll have to see how that goes. Right now we don't have any animations done yet so until that's done nobody's getting AT Guns :D

The Families can not work together. That's because each Family is "frozen" so we can move onto the next one. The divergence of the underlying code for each Family would mean having to make a special Module (probably for the more current Family) using content from the older Family. I'm not sure that's going to be worth the effort.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the Eastern Front Family development, will there be a way to simulate an ahistorical East vs West continuation of hostilities, as if no agreement was made to divide Germany?

....Or an entirely HISTORICAL Korean War, fought almost entirely with WWII vintage infantry weapons and vehicles.

[Chinese bugle here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One interesting thing we can do in CM: Normandy that we couldn't in CMx1... Acquire for Bazookas. German and British forces had dedicated teams for Panzerschreck and PIATs, but US forces kept their Bazookas as general use weapons. In CMx1 we had to create artificial Bazooka Teams by permanently removing two soldiers from a Rifle Platoon. Now we don't have to do that because current US Army doctrine regarding Javelins is identical and therefore the code already exists to allow correct modeling of Bazooka use.

Will this apply parallel-wise to Panzerfaust deployment/use? As far as I understand, any given squad could have one, two, or even three Panzerfäuste (depending on how well equipped the squad tended to be, that is). Could a Panzerfaust be picked up from an SdKfz 251/1, for example?

On a related note, might it be possible for pixeltruppen to pick up or crew enemy weapons? (It would be great, for example, to see an Airborne squad storm a foxhole, then use the MG42 there to fire on other German positions from the flank.) Or is the weapon model tied to the soldier model, so that they can't be mixed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a related note, might it be possible for pixeltruppen to pick up or crew enemy weapons? (It would be great, for example, to see an Airborne squad storm a foxhole, then use the MG42 there to fire on other German positions from the flank.) Or is the weapon model tied to the soldier model, so that they can't be mixed?

Only cool if another Airborne squad tosses a grenade into the pit with them. ;) (But weapon models are not currently tied to character models, so I'm sure it is possible.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panzerfausts will be treated like AT-4, RPG-18, ILAW, etc. are in CM:SF... they are by default issued to the unit and the unit takes them wherever they go. It would be no problem to have them sit in a halftrack from a code standpoint, but we don't think that would be good from a user standpoint. Players would complain that they have to manually load up their units since why would you not take the Panzerfausts with you? Weapons like Bazookas, on the other hand, are a burden and the player should have the option of taking them or leaving them behind. We're going to have to code something new to allow this to happen for forces that don't have vehicle with them, since at present something can only be Acquired if there is a vehicle present with that particular item.

We've had many long discussions about the use of enemy weapons within the scope of a CM type battle. The conclusion we have come to each time is that it's not worth simulating since it happens so rarely in real life (all kinds of practical issues). Therefore, it won't happen in CM: Normandy.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had many long discussions about the use of enemy weapons within the scope of a CM type battle. The conclusion we have come to each time is that it's not worth simulating since it happens so rarely in real life (all kinds of practical issues). Therefore, it won't happen in CM: Normandy.

Would it be possible to allow troops to pick up enemy weapons in a Red v Red Scenario? I always run out of RPG rounds but can't collect more from the enemy positions I just overrun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panzerfausts will be treated like AT-4, RPG-18, ILAW, etc. are in CM:SF... they are by default issued to the unit and the unit takes them wherever they go. It would be no problem to have them sit in a halftrack from a code standpoint, but we don't think that would be good from a user standpoint. Players would complain that they have to manually load up their units since why would you not take the Panzerfausts with you?

I understand and agree. But what about a situation like where a Panzergrenadier squad has used up all its Panzerfausts yet there's an M8 prowling nearby? It would be nice for the squad (or perhaps a couple guys detached as a sort of ad-hoc "anti-tank team") to sneak back to the SdKfz 251/1 and grab the spare Panzerfaust therein. If that the use of multiple Panzerfausts by a single squad in a given battle would be rare enough, though, I see the wisdom in not bothering to allow for such.

Speaking of issue infantry AT weapons, what other German infantry AT weapons might we see? For instance, was the Hafthohlladung used rarely enough that it wouldn't be worth including it? (For that weapon in particular, I can see how it would be a pain in terms of coding and animations to make it work, especially since everything 1:1 now.) And what about the Panzerwufmine?

We've had many long discussions about the use of enemy weapons within the scope of a CM type battle. The conclusion we have come to each time is that it's not worth simulating since it happens so rarely in real life (all kinds of practical issues). Therefore, it won't happen in CM: Normandy.

Yeah, I suppose that's true. Despite the time and effort the US Army, for one, put into making training films showing how to use German small-arms and such, I reckon such films weren't widely seen or the info in such films wasn't put much into practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weapons like Bazookas, on the other hand, are a burden and the player should have the option of taking them or leaving them behind. We're going to have to code something new to allow this to happen for forces that don't have vehicle with them, since at present something can only be Acquired if there is a vehicle present with that particular item.

This is something I admit I haven't given much thought to. One does not usually see photos of a squad or a even platoon lugging a bazooka around if they were engaged in offensive operations, yet one reads of situations where the lieutenant or the captain calls for one. Normal infantry did not usually have a deuce and a half sitting around nearby, although armored infantry might well have a halftrack they could send back to. Paratroops jumped with theirs.

I get the impression that although it might not have been official, someone within a company was a designated bazookaman. That could have been platoon practice too. But if he wasn't lugging the thing around all the time, where was it, and its ammunition, stashed?

I suppose the whole question revolved around the mission and perceived need. If the company expected to run into German tanks or bunkers, they would bring a bazooka or two along. Otherwise, they would be left behind.

I'm just thinking out loud here, does anyone know anything for certain about actual practice in the field?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I suppose that's true. Despite the time and effort the US Army, for one, put into making training films showing how to use German small-arms and such, I reckon such films weren't widely seen or the info in such films wasn't put much into practice.

There were other reasons not to use captured weapons much. Foremost among them is that they tended to have a distinctive sound and would draw "friendly" fire.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a story I brought into the last time we talked about this issue. It was something that had just happened in Iraq. Some US infantry had flanked some insurgents and a squad member picked up an AK that was in the house they entered (I think his gun had jammed or something). He started firing at the insurgent's position and was almost immediately suppressed by friendly fire. And that's with a high level of communications available, a limited operation, and a small geographical area. In other words, that was a best case situation to NOT get attacked by friendly fire and it still happened.

Having friendly units pick up stuff from enemy units which is of the same type, such as in Red on Red or Blue on Blue, but it isn't necessarily easy to code. Since we've stated from the outset that same force battles are there for entertainment purposes only, we're not all that keen on spending time on such things when there are so many more important things to tackle.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like hand to hand combat! :)

I'm curious about a lot of things regarding H2H combat in CMx2 WWII.

What type of situations will it occur? How will it be resolved in a 1:1 setting? Will parts of the squad go into H2H combat while the remainder continue to use SMGs and firearms?

I can envision a squad with a portion of their members engaged in deadly H2H while the others are oblivious to the struggle. Perhaps firing at an enemy squad across the road.

Will there be men struggling on the floor/ground, ala Saving Private Ryan?

Gpig

h2h001.jpg

By brzzt at 2009-03-20

h2h002.jpg

By brzzt at 2009-03-20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure if this will fall under the same heading as using enemy weapons but what about a side re-occupying (for want of a better word) their own sides equipment.

e.g. a German AT gun is knocked out because of casualties. If I were leading German units, I would want some men no matter what they were currently doing to get that AT gun up and running again. Especially if an enemy tank existed, it would be better for the Germans (or insert any unit) to destroy/suppress that tank than a few more rifles firing at the infantry.

-------

Another simple question - will CM:N still have red vs blue? Since Germans are always Blue will the US/Commonwealth be red? Will this not get equally confusing for the Russian front where you could have the Germans in Red and the Soviets in Blue? I would prefer US/Commonwealth in Green, Germans in Blue and Russians in Red. Very small question, but it would be interesting to hear the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In military convention, friendlies are always blue and the enemy red. Allied troops of another nation might be marked in green. So, if you are playing as the Americans, the Americans are the blue side and the Germans red. If you are playing as the Germans, they would be blue and the Americans red. Confused yet?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

e.g. a German AT gun is knocked out because of casualties. If I were leading German units, I would want some men no matter what they were currently doing to get that AT gun up and running again.

I think it would be rather a break in immersion if a gun whose crew is WIA/KIA but not destroyed cannot be re-crewed.

Also, Canada Guy's above-quoted post illustrates the difference between "knocked out" (combat ineffective but more or less intact otherwise) and "destroyed" (combat ineffective on account of being in many pieces).

will CM:N still have red vs blue? Since Germans are always Blue will the US/Commonwealth be red? Will this not get equally confusing for the Russian front where you could have the Germans in Red and the Soviets in Blue? I would prefer US/Commonwealth in Green, Germans in Blue and Russians in Red.

The "Red versus Blue" concept could work in CM:N. However, in regards to your suspicion that it could get confusing once the Red Army (no pun intended) is included in the force mix, I think "Red versus Blue" should be modified (at the risk of being confusing to players accustomed to CM:SF) to be:

Blue = Axis

Red = Allies

Contrariwise, I suppose it would work for each army to have it's own color. In that case, though, it would make more sense to me for Germans to be grey, since the term Feldgrau ("field grey", which was actually grey with a greenish tinge) was used to describe the characteristic Heer uniform and the term sort of embodied the Heer in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a related note, might it be possible for pixeltruppen to pick up or crew enemy weapons? (It would be great, for example, to see an Airborne squad storm a foxhole, then use the MG42 there to fire on other German positions from the flank.) Or is the weapon model tied to the soldier model, so that they can't be mixed?

I can't comment on the programming viability of it but most of us know that Charles is pretty much the only show in town with all that 1001110000 programming stuff. So surely you've got to be realistic about expectations and probability when you ask for this sort of stuff and also what sort of game this is.

Many of you will have cut your teeth on figures and board games ... how many of you when playing ASL for instance bumped your gums incessantly about these things - you got a 1-0-3 type counter marked 'Airborne' you plonked it on a hex map and chucked a dice of varying faces to resolve combat - and you were pretty content with that.

I've seen debates about hand-to-hand combat, assault ladders and infantry formations for CMSF and yes all these are important ... but in the right context. It is like buying Axis and Allies and whingeing that it isn't ASL in a board gaming context.

The hand-to-hand combat thing has happened in modern combat but this game is not about that level - take Operation Flashpoint - that is/was an FPS - designed for that level (namely the individual) and yet hand-to-hand combat was not part of it unless you D/Ld a MOD. This game is not about that. The figure/model gaming thing is the same - who buys skirmish rules when they want to simulate divisional-level actions?

Things have moved on and expectations quite rightly increase - CMBO, CMBB and CMAK showed the way ahead and we're right to push the boundaries as things improve but we have to be realistic surely? (For realistic I mean pragmatic rather than talking about the number of wheel nuts on a Tiger-II)

So I reckon that you have to ask the question ... on how many occasions did US Airborne Infantry employ captured weapons against the enemy in ... as we are talking about it ... Normandy? If the answer is shedloads of times then of course the 1001110000 bloke needs to do something about it in detriment to including say ... well look at the 'Improving the Look of CM Normandy' thread.

I for one wasn't there but I am a soldier and have been for 24 years and at no point would I ever consider using a weapon other than my personal weapon unless I was out of ammunition. How many of the South Wales Borderers at Rorke's Drift for instance thought ... 'this'll be cool I'll chuck one of those dropped spears back at the Zulus'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have recently finished reading A Bridge Too Far, and the Brits fixed bayonets and cleared landing fields in HtH. Also, Frost's men engaged German troops in some fierce HtH combat in the buildings surrounding the bridge several times, especially during infiltration attempts by the Germans.

However, the ability to re-crew enemy and friendly weapons is not a deal breaker in any way for me, but I would love to see it especially AT guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure - that's why the 11100011100 bloke coded it ... because there were many instances of it ... captured weapons on the other hand ... is it worth, from what I understand, the only dedicated programmer to spend time coding a situation that happened on rare occasions? The answer surely has to be no when there are so many demands for his time elsewhere? This smacks of a 'hey this would be cool' request and that's it. What about the individual capturing the weapon's training on that weapon - at best it would be practically nil - in most cases it would be nil, is the weapon zeroed to that individual and other similar cans of worms which add little to the game as a whole which would only serve to open up so-called grog like discussions about the relative accuracy of an MG-34 or MG-42 in the hands of a veteran Paratrooper in a dark ditch in Normandy at 12 degrees centigrade in the rain at 0300 hrs in the morning utterly pointless-type debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...