Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> RE: MCS User WISHLIST Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 11/3/2007 8:21:05 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		Depends.

Some things will, some things won't be implemented.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to sztartur2)
Post #: 61
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 11/3/2007 8:23:07 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sztartur
Playing Steel Panthers a lot one knows that there are different platoon sizes in different armies/eras for infantry units. The infantry platoon size should be from 6 sp to 10 sp. That would mean a platoon would consist from 3 to 5 infantry squad. As far as I know 1 sp represents one half infantry squad.


As you've noted, the SP value is based on a half-squad. The amount of firepower of the squad is reflected in the units assault/defense and weapon values.

Jason Petho


< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 11/3/2007 8:24:17 PM >

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to sztartur2)
Post #: 62
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 11/4/2007 5:30:39 AM   
timshin42


Posts: 63
Joined: 9/6/2007
From: Edgewater, Florida, USA
Status: offline 		Jason,

I wish for (many) more Linked Campaigns in EF, WF, and RS.

I wish for the capabiliy of playing Linked Campaigns versus a human opponent (PBEM)!!!!!

I wish for the capability of doing a real Artillery TOT; entire DIVARTY, CORPSARTY GROUPS, ARMY ARTY even, from any hexes on the map that are within range!!!!!

Not much, right!

_____________________________

timshin42
"Freedom isn't free"

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 63
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 11/4/2007 3:56:03 PM   
maine_raptor

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 9/11/2007
Status: offline 		Here's one for all games:

Hotkeys for Save Action Point for Firing and Save Action points for Loading/Unloading.

And I'll second the suggestion on the Engineer's; let's give them ability to lay a minefield or two.



_____________________________

There you go with them negative waves

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 64
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 11/4/2007 5:10:21 PM   
michammer

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 7/20/2007
Status: offline 		I'd like the ability to form kampfgruppes by detaching units from their parent organization and attaching them to another HQ.

(in reply to maine_raptor)
Post #: 65
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 11/5/2007 9:43:41 PM   
Leopejo

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 11/5/2007
Status: offline 		Hi, I'm new to the forum and thanks for bringing my beloved CS back!

My wish: please update the user manual with all the changes between the original games and the Matrix version. In particular, I hope you update the manual after every new patch is released (as HPS does), unless it only corrects bugs; for example, the upcoming 1.03 patch appears to bring substantial changes, right?

In addition, a comprehensive list of all the changes between original and Matrix is missing, I think - and maybe nobody really knows all of them?  
For example, I only discovered about the difference in dynamic campaign replacements in this forum.

(in reply to michammer)
Post #: 66
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 11/12/2007 2:08:24 AM   
awc

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 9/21/2006
Status: offline 		Gentlemen, I would like to be able to have the replacements that i get during a DCG or a LCG that i don't use carried over to the next scenarios, after all i was awarded them and i should get the right to use them instead of losing them. Thanks.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 67
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 11/12/2007 10:45:22 PM   
Arkady


Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline 		I mentioned my wish before but repetition is the mother of wisdom 

- creating new units (platoons) without altering original platoons and weapons files

Any chance to see this implemented in future patches ? please

Arkady




_____________________________


(in reply to awc)
Post #: 68
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/5/2007 8:12:38 AM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline 		This is for all 3 games:

My wish list is short and sweet. A quick battle creator that was easier to work with...one like in SP:WAW. Not just a battle generator, but one you could custom tailor with the exact units you want. The current editor is way too complex for this old geezer to use effectively.

Dep

< Message edited by Deputy -- 12/5/2007 8:13:34 AM >

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to Arkady)
Post #: 69
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/7/2007 3:09:08 PM   
vadersson


Posts: 139
Joined: 7/12/2006
From: Ohio, USA
Status: offline 		Ok, I have a wish for the list (beside the whole Carrier Rifle Section thing, but I digress.)

It would be nice to have some sort of indicator when you are targeting artillery by map that you are firing blind. If you use the optional rule of artillary by map, you can fire anywhere. However, if no one can spot the target hex, your chance of drift increases. There is no indicator to let you know if you can see the hex targeted or not. It would be nice to have something pop up or an icon change, or something to indicate that this is a blind shot.

Thanks,
Duncan


_____________________________

Carrier Rifle Section should be modeled with their Bren guns!

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 70
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/7/2007 4:08:55 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vadersson

Ok, I have a wish for the list (beside the whole Carrier Rifle Section thing, but I digress.)

It would be nice to have some sort of indicator when you are targeting artillery by map that you are firing blind. If you use the optional rule of artillary by map, you can fire anywhere. However, if no one can spot the target hex, your chance of drift increases. There is no indicator to let you know if you can see the hex targeted or not. It would be nice to have something pop up or an icon change, or something to indicate that this is a blind shot.

Thanks,
Duncan



You could turn on the Line of Sight button when plotting your artillery? That will let you know what is in LOS at the end of your turn when you are plotting artillery. Of course, if a unit is forced out away from the sighting position, and the LOS is lost, when the artillery arrives at the beginning of the next turn, it will drift.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to vadersson)
Post #: 71
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/7/2007 5:17:46 PM   
vadersson


Posts: 139
Joined: 7/12/2006
From: Ohio, USA
Status: offline 		Jason,

I did not know there was a line of site tool except the visible hexes.  Guess I should re-read the manual agian. ;)

Thanks for the responce,
Duncan



_____________________________

Carrier Rifle Section should be modeled with their Bren guns!

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 72
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/7/2007 5:29:36 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vadersson

Jason,

I did not know there was a line of site tool except the visible hexes.  Guess I should re-read the manual agian. ;)

Thanks for the responce,
Duncan




Visibile hexes would be the line of sight tool. As it serves the same purpose.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to vadersson)
Post #: 73
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/7/2007 7:14:41 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		On the subject of line of site, with air attacks, my understanding is that as long as you have a line of site to the target hex, the aircraft has a 65 percent chance of attacking on any given turn until it, in fact, attacks, but the aircraft won't necessarily go for the target hex.  I think it might stray two hexes in any direction.  In that sense, it's always like a by-the-map artillery strike, even when you have a line of site to the target.

If, however, you lose the line of site to the target hex, the air attack will be recalled immediately.  I don't believe there's any fudging on the target hex -- you have to maintain a line of site to the target hex or lose the air attack.  Is this understanding correct?

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 74
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/7/2007 7:28:40 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

On the subject of line of site, with air attacks, my understanding is that as long as you have a line of site to the target hex, the aircraft has a 65 percent chance of attacking on any given turn until it, in fact, attacks, but the aircraft won't necessarily go for the target hex.  I think it might stray two hexes in any direction.  In that sense, it's always like a by-the-map artillery strike, even when you have a line of site to the target.


Airstrikes can drift up to 5 hexes from the primary target. Aircraft tend to target HQ's, Engineers, trucks, tanks - in that order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
If, however, you lose the line of site to the target hex, the air attack will be recalled immediately.  I don't believe there's any fudging on the target hex -- you have to maintain a line of site to the target hex or lose the air attack.  Is this understanding correct?


That is correct, yes.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 75
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/7/2007 7:41:53 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline 		Hmmmm...I know it's a completely different sim, but in SP:WAW, when you call in an air attack on a specific hex, the planes come in and attack no matter if LOS still exists or not. I think that may be a tad more realistic. I don't think aircraft in flight would suddenly return to base if the spottting unit was wiped out or LOS was gone. Much more likely is the aircraft would shoot at "targets of opportunity" in the immediate area. Which is exactly what SP:WAW does
Only way a plane would not attack in SP:WAW is if there were NO targets at all in the immediate area. That does happen and then the plane just flys by.

Dep

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 76
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/7/2007 7:46:15 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Airstrikes can drift up to 5 hexes from the primary target. Aircraft tend to target HQ's, Engineers, trucks, tanks - in that order.

Jason Petho



And my impression is airstrikes drift only to hexes to which you have a line of site and to targets that are not concealed. For example, if I target a tank in my line of site, and if there is a HQ within five hexes of the targeted tank, but I have no idea the HQ is there (either because it's outside my line of site or because, although within my line of site, it remains concealed), the airstrike will never attack the HQ to which I am oblivious. There's never a windfall. If the HQ bolts into my line of sight, I see it, and then bolts outside my line of site, even then the airattack won't go after the HQ notwithstanding the fact the HQ is within five hexes of the target hex.

With by-the-map bombardments, you might get lucky and destroy something you didn't know was there, but that's not true with airattacks. Is this correct?

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 77
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/7/2007 8:40:44 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

With by-the-map bombardments, you might get lucky and destroy something you didn't know was there, but that's not true with airattacks. Is this correct?


Although I could be wrong, and have been many times before, yes, that is what I understand.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 78
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/7/2007 11:02:22 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy

Hmmmm...I know it's a completely different sim, but in SP:WAW, when you call in an air attack on a specific hex, the planes come in and attack no matter if LOS still exists or not. I think that may be a tad more realistic. I don't think aircraft in flight would suddenly return to base if the spottting unit was wiped out or LOS was gone. Much more likely is the aircraft would shoot at "targets of opportunity" in the immediate area. Which is exactly what SP:WAW does
Only way a plane would not attack in SP:WAW is if there were NO targets at all in the immediate area. That does happen and then the plane just flys by.

Dep


These are good observations. I don't know what the designers were thinking. The only explanation I can think of is that these particular air attacks are specifically tied to ground support, so perhaps the game theorizes that in the absence of confirmation from the ground, the pilot won't attack, or, if the pilot sees another target, the pilot defers to the expressed needs of the ground forces. I would tend to agree with Deputy that pilots were probably not instructed to exercise that much discipline.

I think there are new air units that can be used for spotting. I don't know if they would impact air attacks more along the lines that Deputy has noted.

As an aside, I think the ability to coordinate air attacks with ground units varied widely from country to country and from the beginning to the end of the war. At the start of the war, I think the Germans were probably unique in their ability to coordinate air attacks with the wants of ground forces. I could be wrong, but my impression was the French and Soviets, at least at the start of the war, were virtually incapable of any kind of cooperation between air and ground forces.

< Message edited by 1925frank -- 12/7/2007 11:03:21 PM >

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 79
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/7/2007 11:13:09 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline 		Frank: I think you are exactly right with your observations. The Luftwaffe was always just considered a "long range artillery" arm of the Army. Hence the lack of a 4-engine strategic bomber for most of the war. The US was also quite good at air suppport for troops. While the Soviets had some excellent ground attack aircraft, I think it was much later in the war before they were effective. Even more so when the Luftwaffe no longer could supply air cover for the ground forces. Even when Germany started building jets, the Me-262, which was a fantastic fighter, started out as a "Blitz Bomber".

Dep

< Message edited by Deputy -- 12/7/2007 11:15:33 PM >

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 80
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/8/2007 12:03:02 AM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		Regarding recall, I think perhaps Campaign Series wanted to implement an element of chance to air strikes.  I doubt every call for an air strike resulted in an air strike.  This element of chance could have been done on a percentage basis.  (Imagine that, a high percentage for Germans and a low or virtually nonexistent one for the French and the Soviets early in the war.) 

But that wasn't done.  Instead, the element of chance was apparently tied to a LOS.  This might not be historically accurate, but it does require more skill on the player's part.  I guess as long as ground forces have a LOS to a target, they would pester for air support, and perhaps it's the repeated requests that ensure an air strike.  I don't know, but I doubt a single request for air support rarely got the job done.  I would imagine there was an element of prioritizing that was probably done by who was screaming for support the longest and the loudest. 

I don't remember how recall works in SPWAW or whether there even is a recall aspect to SPWAW.

I've never really had a complaint with how air strikes work in Campaign Series, and I've always found it required some skill to do right, which was part of the fun.





(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 81
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/8/2007 3:02:43 PM   
british exil


Posts: 1686
Joined: 5/4/2006
From: Lower Saxony Germany
Status: offline 		It would be nice if the air support would patrol the skies and attack enemy armour in the open or roads. How often was the German Panzer forced to move at night. LOS wasn't always needed as the air forces ruled the skies and probably flew behind the land frontlines.
I don't expect to have the airpower always there, bad weather would of course restrict it.

Plus it's not really fair to those players who choose to fight as the axis. Maybe there could be a possiblity to toggle air support on/off before a battle, or restrict air power to a certain amount.

Just wondering. Dreaming of the perfect game where everything fits my expectations.

Mathew

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 82
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/8/2007 5:00:40 PM   
Lionfish

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 10/16/2003
Status: offline 		PBEM....Random Side

Sometimes people only want to play one side in a scenario. If you could set up Random Side selection - it might be a good idea.

Graphics

I read (I think Sarge) updating the graphics to 24 bit. Would it be hard to update them all to 24 bit or even 32 bit?

(in reply to british exil)
Post #: 83
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/12/2007 3:01:02 PM   
major_at

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 12/10/2007
Status: offline 		Ok...so...this is the first bit lol didnt have time to finish it as im in university right now and have to go to class. I would like to point out that im more than willing to, and in some cases already, make the unit information profiles for each one. Im a history student love it lol

West Front

FOR ALL FORCES - Construction Engineer Platoon, Bridging Engineer Platoon, Rail Engineer Platoon, Pontoon Ferry, Foward Observer Team, Support Platoon, Field Ambulances, Signals Platoon, Field Hospital

-UK Forces - Royal Military Police Platoon, Blacker Bombard (290mm spigot mortar anti-tank) Section, Ulster Home Guard Platoon, Ulster Special Constabulary Platoon, A39 Tortoise Heavy Assault Tanks, Beaverette Armoured Cars, Armoured 30cwt Anti-Tank Lorry,A43 Super Churchill Black Prince Tanks, SAS Troop, Battleship, Heavy Cruiser, Destroyer, Frigate, Corvette, Motor Torpedo Boat, Troop Ship, Submarine, 9.2" Mark IX Coastal Artillery, 6" BL Mark X Coastal Artillery, Home Guard Improvised Armoured Cars, , Canal Defence Light (used at night to illuminate the battlefield) on Matilda and Grant chassis, Mark V Heavy Tanks (thats right the WW1 one)

-German Forces - Feldjäger Platoon, Hitlerjugend Platoon, Legion Volunteur Francaise Platoon, Flammenwefer Platoon, Goliath Radio Controlled Bombs, P1000 Rätte Land Cruiser, P1500 Monster Land Cruiser, PzKpfwgn Löwe, PzKpfwgn Bär 30.5cm mortar, Flakzwilling 8.8cm auf E-100 Maus SPAAG, Battleship, Heavy Cruiser (Pocket Battleship), Destroyer, Frigate, Troop Ship, U-Boot, E-Boot,

- New Nations - Irish Free State (hypothetical allies), Czechoslovakia (hypothetical allies), Denmark (allies), Turkey (hypothetical axis), Sweden (hypothetical allies), Romania (axis), Hungary (axis), Irish Republican Army (axis)

(in reply to sztartur2)
Post #: 84
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/12/2007 6:47:35 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: major_at

Ok...so...this is the first bit lol didnt have time to finish it as im in university right now and have to go to class. I would like to point out that im more than willing to, and in some cases already, make the unit information profiles for each one. Im a history student love it lol

West Front

FOR ALL FORCES - Construction Engineer Platoon, Bridging Engineer Platoon, Rail Engineer Platoon, Pontoon Ferry, Foward Observer Team, Support Platoon, Field Ambulances, Signals Platoon, Field Hospital

-UK Forces - Royal Military Police Platoon, Blacker Bombard (290mm spigot mortar anti-tank) Section, Ulster Home Guard Platoon, Ulster Special Constabulary Platoon, A39 Tortoise Heavy Assault Tanks, Beaverette Armoured Cars, Armoured 30cwt Anti-Tank Lorry,A43 Super Churchill Black Prince Tanks, SAS Troop, Battleship, Heavy Cruiser, Destroyer, Frigate, Corvette, Motor Torpedo Boat, Troop Ship, Submarine, 9.2" Mark IX Coastal Artillery, 6" BL Mark X Coastal Artillery, Home Guard Improvised Armoured Cars, , Canal Defence Light (used at night to illuminate the battlefield) on Matilda and Grant chassis, Mark V Heavy Tanks (thats right the WW1 one)

-German Forces - Feldjäger Platoon, Hitlerjugend Platoon, Legion Volunteur Francaise Platoon, Flammenwefer Platoon, Goliath Radio Controlled Bombs, P1000 Rätte Land Cruiser, P1500 Monster Land Cruiser, PzKpfwgn Löwe, PzKpfwgn Bär 30.5cm mortar, Flakzwilling 8.8cm auf E-100 Maus SPAAG, Battleship, Heavy Cruiser (Pocket Battleship), Destroyer, Frigate, Troop Ship, U-Boot, E-Boot,

- New Nations - Irish Free State (hypothetical allies), Czechoslovakia (hypothetical allies), Denmark (allies), Turkey (hypothetical axis), Sweden (hypothetical allies), Romania (axis), Hungary (axis), Irish Republican Army (axis)


Great list, thank you for the input.

West Front and Rising Sun will both be getting major OOB expansions with the 1.04 and 1.05 future UPDATES.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to major_at)
Post #: 85
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/15/2007 7:24:17 AM   
Hermann

 

Posts: 571
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		Ok let's get technical. The AT Guns ar3e totally fubar. Specifically the 75mm. It's irritating to play the 44 east front screnarios and get nothing but the silly "modded in" pak 41/75mm at guns. First the Gun was the 75mm Pak 41 not the pak 41/75 second their were only 150 guns produced during the entire war and they were scrapped as the ammo supplies ran out. What guns were issued were issued to special duty units. They were never general issue and by june 44 the numbers remaining were almost nil. The gun was much more effective than the 75mm Pak 40 and using it throws off historical balance. Using it as lavishly as it's used in the current TOE is ridiculous.
Now we get to the Halftracks.

whats with the sdkfz 251 ( MG ) ? an sdkfz 251 is an sdkfz 251.. period. ausf a,bc,d etc... its all the same.
each company had 3 platoons. the platoon had 3 squads and a HMG section - it contained 4 vehicles. The First was the platoon leaders vehicle armed with the sdkfz 251/10 37mm AT gun. Next 2 had 2 mg 34 in LMG mounts the last vehicle carried the HMG and the Liight mortar section and had 1 MG 34 in a HMG at the front and the second an LMG 34 mount at the rear. The difference being the the HMG mount was capable of ranged fire to 500m the LMG 34s had substanstially less range. The designation of the last vehicle was 251/1 ( s.MG ) - the others had no special designation they were 251/1.

Lets look at your 1941 OOB for a 1941 Schutzen Company ( mechanised )
Company headquarters was a 251/3 communication vehicle and a 251/1 ( s.MG )
You guys put the 251/10 there.. good call put the company commander in an AT halftrack with no radio equipment and have him engage tanks, that'll really fly.
Each company had 3 Platoons as described above.
Basically to get the 1941 Schutzen company ( mech ) right you need:
1. HQ Platoon Strength 2 with HMG range ( Much longer than a 251/1 ) use the 251/3 designation.
2. 7 units per platoon. 1 251/10 Str. 1, 1 251/1 strength 6 each with a platoon of mot inf., 1 251/1 ( s. MG ) strength 2 with an HMG 34 section - again longer range than the other MG34s ) and 1 251/1 str. 2 for the 50mm nortar section.

that makes 22 units per company. lots of numbers there but its fairly accurate. it would be much more accurate if there was a way to load 2 sections into 1 vehicle. Im not sure about the coding difficulties but it would allow towing vehicles and combine a lot of these smaller sections for better playability.
currently there are 7 units per company.
lets examine the pros and cons of adding 15 units to play
1. pros - more historical accuracy
2. cons - totally oversaturating the game system with minor detail and making it unplayeable at the campaign level.
we can assume the HMG and Light mortar sections are part of the integral firepower of the dismounted infantry and dont have a major bearing on mounted action.
by doing so we can determine that its really unecessary. The single 37mm at track per platoon doesnt constitute a major tactical application other than adding a slight anti-tank defense value to the Halftack at point blank range. It was used more for hitting bunkers than engaging enemy armor. a weak antitank value at short range is another option. The HMG value again is integral and doesnt necessitate and additional unit - the 50mm mortars were short range weapons so adding a 1 hex indirect fire ability to motorised infatry platoons would fix that issue.

in summary :

keep the schutzen company at 4 vehicles. replace the 251/10 company hq with the 251/3 ( same net effect as the normal 251 maybe add 1 0r 2 to range )
keep the 3 tracks and 3 platoon system but add a 1or 2 hex indirect fire ( no armor effect ) to the Mot inf platoons - i think this is really uneccasary but would be accurate - we need to examine the 50mm mortar a little closer for the exact range and if the firepower warrants it. Add a slightly higher anti-tank modifier to the halftrack to reflect the single gun - this would be very useful in bunker busting and would probalby be a hit with the palyer base.


in addition the Panzer engineer bridging units should use the sdkfz 251/7 for bridging rather than the generic engineer trucks. this would only work for the hexside rivers ( dark blue ) and posibly give tanks swamp mobility at a large movement cost having a full blown enginner column in the army train is great but lets face it the bridging units werent combat formations and were used to facilitate the movement of the divisional trains rather than the combat elements. the game simply isnt set up to simualate effective large scale river crossings yet and the bridging companies are unnessary. just load the 251/7 with a bridge section.


< Message edited by Hermann -- 12/15/2007 7:33:31 AM >

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 86
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/15/2007 8:43:59 AM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		Hello Hermann.

A few comments/answers.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann
Ok let's get technical.


Excellent! Constructive criticism is appreciated. Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann
The AT Guns are totally fubar. Specifically the 75mm. It's irritating to play the 44 east front screnarios and get nothing but the silly "modded in" pak 41/75mm at guns.

You've played a Barbarossa Campaign to '44 already? Holy, good job!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann
First the Gun was the 75mm Pak 41 not the pak 41/75


I just changed the name for you, you will notice it in 1.03.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann
second their were only 150 guns produced during the entire war and they were scrapped as the ammo supplies ran out. What guns were issued were issued to special duty units. They were never general issue and by june 44 the numbers remaining were almost nil. The gun was much more effective than the 75mm Pak 40 and using it throws off historical balance. Using it as lavishly as it's used in the current TOE is ridiculous.


That makes sense. Any suggestions of what would be a better replacement? The Pak 40?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann

Now we get to the Halftracks.

whats with the sdkfz 251 ( MG ) ?


It is an alternate halftrack, with higher firepower at greater range but costing more Victory Points. There are both sets of halftracks in there for those who like to remain using the old ones.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann
<snip>
it would be much more accurate if there was a way to load 2 sections into 1 vehicle.


1.03 includes that very thing. A 3SP Halftrack or Truck will now be able to carry a 6 SP infantry platoon (or infantry type platoon) and there are new oobs coming for the German motorized and mechanized units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann
Im not sure about the coding difficulties but it would allow towing vehicles and combine a lot of these smaller sections for better playability.
currently there are 7 units per company.
lets examine the pros and cons of adding 15 units to play
<snip>


While I see your points, it might be best to include the stock set of Campaign OOBs and the additional set of Campaign OOBs, then leave it up to the player if they wish to play with what was originally intended by Talonsoft or with the new additions.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann
in addition the Panzer engineer bridging units should use the sdkfz 251/7 for bridging rather than the generic engineer trucks. this would only work for the hexside rivers ( dark blue ) and posibly give tanks swamp mobility at a large movement cost having a full blown enginner column in the army train is great but lets face it the bridging units werent combat formations and were used to facilitate the movement of the divisional trains rather than the combat elements. the game simply isnt set up to simualate effective large scale river crossings yet and the bridging companies are unnessary. just load the 251/7 with a bridge section.


The 251/7 would make more sense. The complete abilities of the engineers is still being resolved. Hopefully in a future update engineer capabilities will be available with all of our wishes.

Thanks again for your time.

Jason Petho


< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 12/15/2007 8:44:29 AM >

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Hermann)
Post #: 87
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/15/2007 10:44:22 AM   
Hermann

 

Posts: 571
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		im aware of what the vehicle is - in the campaign games its arbritrarily issued - every unit gets 251/1 (mg) key point here is that there is no 251/1 (mg) its the 251/1 (sMG) and its a custom vehicle modified and equipped solely for HMG sections - not for the ordinary squad.

i can give you a more complete list of engineering vehicles if you want. bridging vehicles were built on every AFV chassis the germans made not including the heavy panzers ( recovery vehicles )
each german tank division had an inherent obstacle crossing ability through its engineer battalion. a bridging column though is a whole different monster.

Oob stuff is really getting very messy.

needs to be cleaned up. i think having unit types reserved to support mods is a better solution. as you'll never be able to adequately represent all the different variables. making the different unit types more editable by the modders for instance. for instance a generic 1941 russian infantry battalion info and sound file connected to a german graphic could be modified to represent almost any ost battalion - they used Russian arms. currently we try to have a seperate unit for each and every one. I know modders can change unit names. So it stands to reason a new unit series called ost units based on russian units info and sound files tied to german graphics would work. in campaigns it would simply revert to ost platoon/ost company etc... but thats ok.

< Message edited by Hermann -- 12/15/2007 10:45:35 AM >

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 88
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/15/2007 5:06:00 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline 		This is more in the form of a question/request....
When a new scenario in a campaign is started, I ALWAYS have to move the transport trucks to the map's lower edge or into heavy forest to keep them from getting blown to pieces. I suspect that during the war, transport trucks moved troops up to the front lines and then LEFT THE AREA. Especially if an attack or advance was anticipated. Having all those transport vehicles up front just provides a target-rich environment for the AI to take pot shots at. The ONLY time I could MAYBE see having transport up close to the front lines would be if your mission was to move to an exit hex. And even then, they should be out of sight of the enemy....not parked right out in the open. This situation is bad at battalion level, but becomes an agony at division and higher levels. Also, I doubt very much that HQ units parked right out in the open. But this also happen frequently. If trucks MUST be present at the beginning of a campaign scenario, wouldn't it be better to either hide them behind mountains or trees, or put them at the lowest edge of the map so that they could be removed as a target?

Thanks,
Dep

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to Hermann)
Post #: 89
RE: MCS User WISHLIST - 12/15/2007 6:47:52 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann
i can give you a more complete list of engineering vehicles if you want. bridging vehicles were built on every AFV chassis the germans made not including the heavy panzers ( recovery vehicles )
each german tank division had an inherent obstacle crossing ability through its engineer battalion. a bridging column though is a whole different monster.


That would be very handy, please do.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann
Oob stuff is really getting very messy. needs to be cleaned up.


I am trying to clean it up. I have reorganized them (Germans, Soviets and Americans)so they make more sense as to how Talonsoft originally coded them. Wait til 1.03 and then take a look at the files and offer some recommendations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann
i think having unit types reserved to support mods is a better solution. as you'll never be able to adequately represent all the different variables. making the different unit types more editable by the modders for instance. for instance a generic 1941 russian infantry battalion info and sound file connected to a german graphic could be modified to represent almost any ost battalion - they used Russian arms.


Would they use the Soviet MG's as well, or use the German?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hermann
currently we try to have a seperate unit for each and every one. I know modders can change unit names. So it stands to reason a new unit series called ost units based on russian units info and sound files tied to german graphics would work. in campaigns it would simply revert to ost platoon/ost company etc... but thats ok.


I will try adding a set and look for it 1.03 and tell me if I am going in the right direction with it.

Thanks again
Jason Petho



_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Hermann)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> RE: MCS User WISHLIST Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.781