pad152 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Troops surrendering - This was something missing from CM SF. Smoke grenades - Something never in the original CM games. Ammo, ammo carriers, special weapons - This was something I liked in CM SF, hope we see it in CM Normandy. Buildings - I hope we see buildings and favor items to create a port/dock/water front, radio/radar station, airfield, rail station. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryphon Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Couple of more questions: - Did German or US half tracks carry ammunition for the dismounts? If so, will be able to pick up spare Panzerfausts and other goodies? - Flamethrowers, are they in? - Is it again possible to have infantry ride tanks? - Can stuff be set on fire? - Is the building damage model enhanced in Normandy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wengart Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 As a general rule of thumb if CM:SF has it CM:N will have it. Furthermore, all games to be produced in the coming years will be using this same engine, so any enhancements made in CM:N will be available in CM:Bulge and those enhancements will be available in CM:SF2 and so on. Troops surrendering - This was something missing from CM SF. I don't believe these will be in as there are several issues with modeling this. Smoke grenades - Something never in the original CM games. Ammo, ammo carriers, special weapons - This was something I liked in CM SF, hope we see it in CM Normandy. Both are being carried over from CM:SF - Is it again possible to have infantry ride tanks? I believe Steve mentioned that this would be possible. - Is the building damage model enhanced in Normandy? IIRC Steve mentioned BF.C's wish to improve this but whether it will be in the initial release is not currently known 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I thought smoke grenades were not often used in WW2? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 How about basements? Cellars, etc? Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Sniping from church towers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Troops surrendering - This was something missing from CM SF. Time and time again, the battle ends right before a big airstrike or arty barrage. Or when your big plan is coming to fruition and the game just abruptly ends. It would be great to see some kind of a "End-of-Mission" option(like the cease fire pop-up box) to either just end it immediately or let the enemy route/surrender. Surrendering troops act the same way as the old CMx1 games and the routing troops could flee towards a random or designer chosen map edge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I thought smoke grenades were not often used in WW2? Right, I remember Steve saying they never found any evidence of smoke grenades being used for cover in WWII. They were too ineffective at it. They were only used for ID purposes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Sniping from church towers? A la Friedrich Zoller? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 A la Friedrich Zoller? lol yes..But then the boards will cry and whine for overmodelling of the uber nazi snipers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 A la Friedrich Zoller? lol yes..But then the boards will cry and whine for overmodelling of the uber nazi snipers Perhaps so, but even if there were a Friedrich Zoller unit -- due to BFC's stated "no national differences" modelling schema -- there would correspondingly be a Pfc. Daniel Jackson unit. No scope on Kar 98k = FPS-style "sniping" at no more than 100-200 yards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Wengart, I'm really hoping to see the goodies that some of the AFV and weapon crews carried with them modeled. For example, a Panzerwerfer 42 carries around a Panzerschreck, an MG-42, grenades, wire (?) and such to provide local security. A PaK-40 detachment has a brace of MG-42s to keep the guns from being overrun, U.S. halftracks carried AT mines in rails outside the main compartment, tripods so the MGs could be dismounted for ground combat, etc. Likewise, I think now's the time to model crew weapons as more than pistols (speaking of CMx1 here). See, for example, Russian artillery crews with every man not an officer sporting a Mosin-Nagant. Am also looking forward to dismounted armed recce by vehicle crews, as described in accounts from multiple theaters, with a particularly good one by HSU Loza. This would also let U.S. cavalry units conduct proper tactics from their jeeps, to include carrying around a 60 mm mortar which could be rapidly unloaded, brought into action to cover the scouts, then hurriedly picked up, dropped into the jeep and driven away from a hot contact. We also need foxholes with overhead cover and the sideways foxholes used by the Germans in Normandy (burrowed into the bocage) and GIs in the mountains of Italy. Proper slit trenches and weapon emplacements would be good, too. S-mines will be spectacular in a game portraying individual soldiers. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Perhaps so, but even if there were a Friedrich Zoller unit -- due to BFC's stated "no national differences" modelling schema -- there would correspondingly be a Pfc. Daniel Jackson unit. No scope on Kar 98k = FPS-style "sniping" at no more than 100-200 yards. Heheh...I think BFC should include a Daniel Jackson vs Friedrich Zoller duel scenario. When Ostfront comes we can also add some other siniping celebrities like Vassili Zaitsev and Major Koenig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
souldierz Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Well i might as well pop a few questions to see who has the answers.I know the game is somewhat down the road and I'll wait for previews to see what was added, but i can't resist in asking this since there is a thread up, Will the vehicles be able to knock down or breach walls? and also Will there be an increase in map size? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambronne Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Right, I remember Steve saying they never found any evidence of smoke grenades being used for cover in WWII. They were too ineffective at it. They were only used for ID purposes. In fact I remembered I saw an old archive movie with German pioneers assaulting in the open.They had something we may consider a "smoke grenade",in fact a smoking stick with a wisp at one end,soaked into some kind of flammable material.Every man in the platoon had such a grenade and the sequence of actions went like this:throw it a couple of meters,rush forward,grab the stick again,throw it again and run forward again. And from what I've seen,those smoking sticks used simultaneously by the whole platoon deployed in line provided a decent cover. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 We're on the fence about how to handle smoke for WW2. The grenades were made and made in great numbers for all sides. But evidence of them being used tactically, for their intended obscuring purpose, is pretty slim. Which is unusual since it would seem to be a natural thing to be mentioned in nitty gritty, low level detailed 1st hand combat accounts. Back in CMx1 days we didn't want to introduce the feature of infantry popping smoke because of this scant evidence, so we didn't spend the time coding for it. But with CM: Normandy... as Wengart said, the code is already in there. Which means we're leaning towards including it this time around. We'll see how things go during testing. Church steeples will not have the ability to accept snipers/spotters. We feel the special coding necessary to support this isn't worth the effort considering how infrequently Saving Private Ryan moments will come about in the average game. Having said that, nothing in the code precludes support being added in the future. It's a matter of us pushing other things aside to give this feature priority, which right now we don't think it deserves relative to the other stuff we have to do. Tactical surrendering will happen in CM: Normandy, but not like in CMx1. Specifically you will not get to march around captured enemy units as Human shields or decoys. Instead it works similar to Buddy Aid where you have to keep a friendly unit hanging around for a while to take "possession" of the enemy soldiers who surrender, then they disappear from the map. It is presumed rear echelon and other non-essential soldiers take over from there. Infantry would stock up on ammo as best they could before a battle. If they had dedicated rides you could be sure that there would be plenty of extras stashed away in there over time. At least on average, anyway. So yeah... CM:SF's ability to grab more ammo won't be disabled for CM: Normandy. Basically, if something is in CM:SF it will be in CM: Normandy unless there is a compelling historical reason to leave it out. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yair Iny Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Basically, if something is in CM:SF it will be in CM: Normandy unless there is a compelling historical reason to leave it out. What about Javelins??? Can there be an option to keep them in? Please??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 What about Javelins??? Can there be an option to keep them in? Please??? I think that falls under the heading of "compelling historical reason to leave out". See above. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Well, if we get natzee flying saucers I will have no problem with javelins Btw, if BFC runs out of WW2 module ideas (still a bit difficult i reckon ) it will be nice to make something different, like Luca's Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe. A module with JS3's, Maus, night fighting panthers, goliaths, etc. Something like Combat Mission: John Kettler's war 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McAuliffe Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Obviously when I stumble into a tread about 'what should be in ', I need to ask the question: Will there finally be a 'follow the leader command' of any sort for vehicles and units on foot alike. I mean this could be well similar to an embark command, couldn't it? Example. Menu: 1.Plot by means of way points, itinerary of leading unit. 2.Allocate units to group move order. 3.Check box with options: follow in column or in line (or diamond shape or whatever...) 4.Define deployment mode at end point: -stay in column -deploy in line or diamond shape Execution Just like the embark command, the allocated units use shortest route to starting point of leader. Allocated units follow leader in his footsteps or tracks, with off set distance in between, proper to column, line or diamond configuration. At end point, allocated units deploy as per a.m. options. This would help reduce plotting time by 10. I don't care for time penalties in execution, since latter would reflect the time lost in communication of orders, but at least it would reduce ...input time. Please tell me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Steve, Thanks for the update on the surrender coding. That sounds like a good compromise. (Not that I could suggest a better idea!) Right now, units under fire who rout get a "!" icon overhead. Likewise wounded get a "+". I assume there would be some symbology present for surrendering troops. (Otherwise, how would the capturing player know that they've surrendered?) What symbol are you guys thinking of to convey this? Thanks, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicdain Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 What symbol are you guys thinking of to convey this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Hope prisoners will raise hands too. Every detail counts, the (!) is bad enough for the 1:1 scale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryphon Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Steve, what about fire and flamethrowers? Can we set things on fire? And are flamethrowers in? Note: I am not a pyromaniac :') 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Steve, what about fire and flamethrowers? Can we set things on fire? And are flamethrowers in? Note: I am not a pyromaniac :') I am! I really miss the spreading fire of CMBB/CMAK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.