RE: 1.05 Content

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: 1.05 Content

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: 1.05 Content

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 1.05 Content - 2/13/2009 5:22:56 PM

Jason Petho

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
Although this is a Patch 1.05 thread, I've another question regarding Modern Wars II - NATO/Warsaw Pact:� I always thought a NATO/Warsaw Pact conflict would be fought in Germany, so I would expect hypotheticals to take place there.� What other possible hypotheticals are being considered?�

There are many situations that provide possible conflict between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces, while many revolve around Europe, they don't have to be limited to Europe.

The usual reasons for escalation:

Berlin Air Lift 1948-1949

Korea 1950-1953

Hungarian Revolution 1956

Berlin Crisis 1961

Bay of Pigs, Cuba 1961

Cuban Missile Crisis 1962

Vietnam

Czechoslovakia 1968

Yom Kipper 1973

Grenada 1983

Other Potential Reasons:

Greek Civil War 1946-1949

Yugoslavia's breakaway from the Soviet Union 1948

Stalin's Death and the power struggle that followed 1953

Guatemala - CIA-backed coup started guerilla war 1954

Suez Crisis 1956 (Soviets threatened intervention)

Coup in Iraq 1958

Poor Sino-Soviet relations and border clashes - 1960's

Six Day War 1967

Coup in Libya 1969

Of course, the usual reasons for conflict:

Resources: oil, water, food, etc.

Pre-emptive

Assassination

Accidents (Faulty computer chip detecting ICBM's: June 1980)

Misinterpretation of events (Able Archer 83)

Of course, the above list is not complete nor does it mean that a nuclear exchange is imminent, but provides the basis of potential storylines for conventional fighting.

Jason Petho

< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 2/13/2009 5:56:45 PM >

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to 1925frank)

Post #: 31

RE: 1.05 Content - 2/17/2009 6:03:33 PM

Busto963

Posts: 20
Joined: 1/18/2009
Status: offline

Love the game.

Here are some ideas:

1. A more sophisticated zoom function would be a welcome tweek to the interface, as would a wider selection of animation speeds, and sound volume control. What about a clock!

2. Better and larger interface screens. The current dialog boxes are fixed in size and were made in an era of 14" monitors!The scenario selection and f2 unit description screens for example are microscopic and require scrolling to reaveal the contents of the dialog boxes. This is ridiculous in an era of large flat screens and projectors. I do not want to have to "scroll" through anything, except a massive list of scenarios or campaigns!

3. How about an "ambush" or "point blank fire" setting for opportunity fire. Essentially the unit will hold fire until a given target is in the adjacent hex, perhaps two. Late war high velocity guns like the 17 pounder make a mockery of "short range" op fire. It is very disappointing to set the op fire so your 8.8cm PAK 43s will engage soft targets at close range; only to have them start engaging trucks at 5-hexes and use up a turns shots. Short is relative...

4. How about the ability to set opportunity fire *before* the game starts. It stinks to be the defender and go second only to watch a defense collapse because the default op fire does not make sense for current conditions.

5. I am dissatisfied with indirect artillery and the artillery spotting rules. Large caliber guns can be put into action too quickly, are too responsive, and arrive too quickly on target. Others have posted solutions - I am just voicing an opinion.

6. The unit descriptions and photos need freshening up. Many descriptions and photos are missing, show the wrong unit, or are just bad pictures.

7. I am in favor of reducing the number of units. For example, the proliferation of truck types adds very little to the game, especially when the difference between the units is minimal.

GAB

< Message edited by Busto963 -- 2/17/2009 6:15:56 PM >

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 32

RE: 1.05 Content - 2/17/2009 7:14:59 PM

Jason Petho

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

Welcome Busto983

Many of these you may want to add to the Wishlist.

Jason Petho

_____________________________

CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Busto963)

Post #: 33

RE: 1.05 Content - 2/17/2009 11:48:36 PM

marcbarker

Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline

I would like to see larger dynamic way points for units. such as way points for battalions to attack a certain flank etc. Delay artillery bombardment for example call in a bommbardment on turn 3 at these crossroads etc.

_____________________________

games:
1. AGEOD Blue and Gray
2. John Tiller's Battleground Series
3. Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
4. Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
5. V for Victory Games
6. Silent Hunter III
7. Silent Hunter IV
8. Rise and Fall of the Third Re

(in reply to Jason Petho)

Post #: 34

RE: 1.05 Content - 2/18/2009 3:40:15 AM

akish

Posts: 1
Joined: 2/18/2009
Status: offline

I love this game.

Please make 'animations speed option' in 1.05.

(in reply to marcbarker)

Post #: 35

RE: 1.05 Content - 3/2/2009 7:50:09 PM

Ron Belcher

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/21/2005
From: Clovis, CA USA
Status: offline

hmmm.. an animations speed option. Heard of many requests, I've not
seen this one though.

Jason, your thoughts on this...

(in reply to akish)

Post #: 36

RE: 1.05 Content - 3/8/2009 12:55:12 PM

Big Ivan

Posts: 1963
Joined: 6/9/2008
From: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Status: offline

Hello again Jason, I hope all is well with you!

I'd like to throw a couple of things in to look at for 1.05or beyond I'm not sure if they have been discussed before but I'll go ahead here:

1. Range display when a scenario is being setup would be a big help in positioning guns. Also bore-sighting might be a possibility.

2. Something has to be done with the A/I. I'm not sure in computer detail/jargon what that is but I can tell you some of the questionable things the A/I does. a) Shoots all of its smokes early and I've never seen the A/I use smoke with engineers. b) Places HQ's in extreme harms way. c) Piles on a ton of artillery on one hex usually an empty one. d) Tends too much to hold AP's back for firing in the oportunity phase. The only exception to this is MG units which it tend to shoot all the AP's available in its turn. e) Wild or what I would call crazy artillery shots in the middle of no where. f) Does not move non-combatants like trucks far from harms way. g) Attacks with tanks to soon or alone w/o giving consideration to combined arms. h) Attacks with direct fire the enemy unit closest to the unit performing fire ignoring in most cases better targets beyond that point. In otherwords it gives little thought to WE (Weapons Effectiveness). h) The A/I has little concept of Armor Facing if that optional is used. i) Does not retreat well in the face of superior firepower. In other words in a piched battle it tends to leave a lot of its units out in the open long after they have been disrupted and damaged only to take more damage rather than getting out of there. j) Sometimes it puts leaders out in the open by themselves. k) The A/I as the defender in a scenario with exit objectives, the A/I retreats most of its units towards the exit hex objectives forsaking all else.

3) Mines need to be hidden somehow from the attacker in a scenario possibly something like is done with AT Guns until the hex they are in is entered. Its unrealistic to see mines 10 hexes away. The defender in a scenario would have a better handle or knowledge as to where mines are placed. Also I'll leave it open to discussion whether or not mines can be reduced by artillery strikes.

4) Defensive terrain (ie Bunkers and Pillboxes) There needs to be a game routine where under conditions of massive firepower these can be reduced or totally destroyed. I'd hate to be in a bunker or pillbox with 16" shells coming in! More often than not the roof would be on your head.
I'll leave it open to discussion whether or not engineers can reduce these structures.

5) The map-Gullies: Right now gullies hinder movement. This needs to be changed where infantry can gain some defensive benefit or LOS benefit. Can we push this idea to certain vehicles? Possibly.

7) Dug in armor. My beloved Russians did a lot of this. At the very least it made the tank harder to hit or kill.

8) I like the idea of infantry quality (Green, Regulars, Veterans) and infantry year. However there is no good conversion or work around for scenarios made pre-JTCS. It doesn't seem right to have 1942 American Rifle Platoons in January 1945. I'm concerned with this shortcoming regarding inherent firepower and AT capability. A mix at the very least would be better.

That's it for now, thanks for hearing me out Jason.
Best of Luck to you!!
Big Ivan

(in reply to Ron Belcher)

Post #: 37

RE: 1.05 Content - 3/8/2009 6:09:31 PM

V22 Osprey

Posts: 1593
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline

Big Ivan has some nice ideas, artillery and engineers should be able to reduce mines and destroy pillboxes and (maybe) bunkers.Mines should not be seen 10 hexes away.I like the idea of dug in armor and infantry quality.

a few things I have in mind:
Campaign Setup mode for generated battles.
Abilty to place things like trenches and bunkers in the map editor instead of just in the scenario editor.

(in reply to Big Ivan)

Post #: 38

RE: 1.05 Content - 3/9/2009 9:25:21 PM

Borst50

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline

for DCG...you are able to adjust bunkers, pillboxes, et al., for the engagement. Depending on what type of engagement it is....meeting....highway ...attack or defend...etc.

When the game gives you the option to modify your placement of troops at the begining of a senario, (in DCG only), not only can you change location of your troops, but also defensive formations...bunkers....improved hexes...etc., click on the hex of the fortification....then press the control key...select the desired hex you wish to place the fortification in....and while holding down the control key....i believe its the left click....and viola....you have changed the location....if the fortification diasppears when you place it in the new hex...its because you do not have a current line of sight to it...but trust me...its there.

Please be advised...you cannot place more than one fortification in the same hex....and also...if it is out of the range in which you can place your units as far forward....then it is considered to belong to the other side and you will not be able to move it.

(in reply to V22 Osprey)

Post #: 39

RE: 1.05 Content - 3/10/2009 3:26:06 AM

V22 Osprey

Posts: 1593
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borst50

for DCG...you are able to adjust bunkers, pillboxes, et al., for the engagement. Depending on what type of engagement it is....meeting....highway ...attack or defend...etc.

When the game gives you the option to modify your placement of troops at the begining of a senario, (in DCG only), not only can you change location of your troops, but also defensive formations...bunkers....improved hexes...etc., click on the hex of the fortification....then press the control key...select the desired hex you wish to place the fortification in....and while holding down the control key....i believe its the left click....and viola....you have changed the location....if the fortification diasppears when you place it in the new hex...its because you do not have a current line of sight to it...but trust me...its there.

Please be advised...you cannot place more than one fortification in the same hex....and also...if it is out of the range in which you can place your units as far forward....then it is considered to belong to the other side and you will not be able to move it.

No, I was talking about regular generated battles.

(in reply to Borst50)

Post #: 40

RE: 1.05 Content - 3/10/2009 4:01:27 AM

junk2drive

Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline

Scenario Selector program allows setup. Generate the battle, save as... (whatever)
Open the SS prog, check Random Only, theatre, and find your Random# battle. Select the battle, check Setup Phase, click launch as scnpick.scn

(in reply to V22 Osprey)

Post #: 41

RE: 1.05 Content - 3/10/2009 5:57:21 AM

V22 Osprey

Posts: 1593
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline

Yes, thats what I have been using Scenario Selector to add a campaign setup mode....but it would be nice to not have to do that.....

(in reply to junk2drive)

Post #: 42

RE: 1.05 Content - 3/15/2009 10:47:50 PM

borsook79

Posts: 477
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline

any chance something will be done about reachable hexes when multiple units are selected? Currently it is highly misleading, often showing larger move range than it is in reality.

(in reply to V22 Osprey)

Post #: 43

RE: 1.05 Content - 4/11/2009 8:13:35 PM

Arkady

Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline

well for my czech(o-slovakian) ego, I'm fine with slot 01 for others Warszaw pact nations :D

equipments and unit organization was almost identical to Soviet Army, with few exceptions (better reliability of non-Soviet made equipment :D )
I think that it is not necessary (for original release) create separate nations...they can be added in future enhancements but they will slow development of the title

_____________________________