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: 2.* 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: 2.* Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 8/26/2016 9:12:59 PM   
MagellanPOL

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 1/20/2015
Status: offline
In Edit sometimes I use toggle fixed ( fatigue, distributed ). Could change the way modify the status of units.
Now is that: first I put Units on the map and then choose Units and changing status on toggle ( fixed, fatigue, distributed )
New Buttom with new way: first I choose bottom (toggle fixed ( fatigue, distributed )), then every Units J put on the map have automatically fixed ( fatigue, distributed ).

This way is faster when I create new scenario

_____________________________

Sorry for my bad english

(in reply to Big Ivan)
Post #: 91
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 8/26/2016 9:44:39 PM   
Crossroads


Posts: 17372
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline
Well understood, and a neat idea while at it. Thanks!

_____________________________


(in reply to MagellanPOL)
Post #: 92
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 8/26/2016 10:26:29 PM   
carll11


Posts: 791
Joined: 11/26/2009
Status: offline
I dont understand Magellan, are you saying there is a way in 'edit scenario' to press one button then all of the units you place are automatically fixed?

(in reply to Crossroads)
Post #: 93
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 8/26/2016 10:44:56 PM   
Crossroads


Posts: 17372
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline
^^That is his wishlist item, I think.

_____________________________


(in reply to carll11)
Post #: 94
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 8/27/2016 10:24:44 PM   
MagellanPOL

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 1/20/2015
Status: offline
The idea is to first set the unit properties (e.g. fixed or fatigue, distributed) and then set each unit on the map have such properties.

_____________________________

Sorry for my bad english

(in reply to Crossroads)
Post #: 95
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 8/28/2016 1:07:57 AM   
berto


Posts: 20708
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

Or we could hot key it: Place unit, press the f(atigued) hot key, place unit, press the f hot key, ...

And similarly for the other unit modes.

_____________________________

Campaign Series Legion https://cslegion.com/
Campaign Series Lead Coder https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1515
Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles, Civil War Battles Lead Coder https://wargameds.com

(in reply to MagellanPOL)
Post #: 96
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 8/28/2016 1:53:46 PM   
wings7


Posts: 4591
Joined: 8/11/2003
From: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto


Or we could hot key it: Place unit, press the f(atigued) hot key, place unit, press the f hot key, ...

And similarly for the other unit modes.


Excellent idea!

_____________________________

Please come and join and befriend me at the great Steam portal! There are quite a few Matrix/Slitherine players on Steam! My member page: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197988402427

(in reply to berto)
Post #: 97
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 8/28/2016 8:37:51 PM   
carll11


Posts: 791
Joined: 11/26/2009
Status: offline
Yes please, that would be fantastic, a hot key for fixing units ( and others) in edit mode,,,,many cases of cyber beer all around;0

(in reply to wings7)
Post #: 98
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 8/31/2016 7:19:22 PM   
hazxan

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 11/10/2007
Status: offline
Firstly, thanks for all the development work on this. I was late to the party on this, only bought it a couple of years of ago. But it's become one of my favourite wargames and will stay on my hard drive for ever, and I still won't have played all of the scenarios!

Anyway..one little GUI improvement. The message box that reports damage after firing always starts in the lower left and is moveable. Would it be possible to auto-position it near to the action it is describing? Not obscuring, but a little to the right/left and above/below.

(in reply to carll11)
Post #: 99
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/3/2018 7:42:48 PM   
Rake

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: The blue waters of the Chesapeake Bay to
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crossroads


quote:

ORIGINAL: carl11

fine, make it 3 hours, its a Game;)

and with the appropriate equipment,it can be done in less than that, say 4 hours, dig, logs, sandbags.


In case you or anyone else is not aware of this: Construction Engineers already with JTCS can create Trench systems. Trenches are not Bunkers of course, but they are much better than IPs.



I got bored today and started poking around the forums.. I came across this post and just couldn't believe how quickly some posters think engineering functions can be completed. The ability to construct trenches within the time frame of ANY CS game is just wrong, much less bunkers

I have worked in surveying, civil engineering and heavy (highway) construction for over 40 years. Even with modern excavators, it is not possible to create a trench system for the size of a CS hex within a day (240 turns), much less 6 minutes.

Among many other things, I have been extensively involved in the oversight of pipe excavation and installation. Some of my work has involved estimating time and materials necessary to complete a construction project. Many of the tools available for this purpose use 30 cubic meters/ hour as a starting point for estimating trench excavation. This equates to a trench roughly 3.2' deep x 3.2' wide x 100' long. It also assumes using modern track excavators; the 30 CM/hour number assumes the use of a one-half cubic meter bucket. Naturally, there are multipliers for additional work, such as types of soils encountered, if shoring is required to keep the trench from collapsing and whether trucks or haulers are being loaded to move the material to another site. This number corresponds fairly well with the production I've observed over my years in the business.

The 250 meter hex used by CS comprises approximately 13-1/2 acres (actually 13.37 acres, 5.41 hectares). The length of each side is roughly 144 meters. Using the industry standard of thirty meters an hour mean that it would take nearly 5 hours for one excavator to dig the length of one hexside. This certainly doesn't include the timber and other materials necessary to support the trench and provide top cover from artillery and air bombardment. It's also entrenchment solely along one side of a hex, not trenching that will provide all-around coverage.

I haven't been able to determine the number of men in the Construction Engineer platoon used in the game. I'm guessing the number would be approximately 40 -50 men. A search of the US Army TO&E for a construction battalion turned up cranes, front-end loaders; lifts, bulldozers, etc. While a dozer can push material around, they're not generally capable of trenching. Certainly, given enough time, a dozer could create a wide ditch like an anti-tank trench. but it would be nearly impossible to build a trench system with a bulldozer... certainly not within the time limits of ANY Campaign Series scenario. A bulldozer is fine for a tank scrape, but this would be closer to an improved position rather than a trench.

Equipment that I did not find in the TO&E, and that I would assume to be available, were excavators and backhoes. Still, this is at battalion level and neither would likely be available in significant numbers at the platoon/company level. A standard backhoe would be capable of helping in the construction of a trench system, but production rates would be far less than the 30 CM/Hour shown above. Backhoes are generally used for cutting small (1-2' wide) ditches for small pipe installations, i.e., smaller utility lines. I would expect excavators to only be used in areas quite removed from the FEBA and certainly not in the area encompassed by a CS scenario.

I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision to allow trenching to occur during a scenario. As it is, allowing a 20-30% chance of improving a position within 6 minutes is extremely liberal. But this has been that way since the beginning and I don't really see a reason to change. But, after 7 attempts (42 minutes) the probability of having constructed a trench system (encompassing the all-around defense of more than 13 acres) is greater than 50% (52.2%). It's just not possible within the time frame, not even if an entire CB unit took part with all of their standard equipment.

(in reply to Crossroads)
Post #: 100
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/3/2018 8:03:48 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
There is a 20% chance to build an improved position.

Once the improved position is built, there is a 10% chance for the construction engineer (only this engineer) per turn to create the trench system.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rake)
Post #: 101
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/3/2018 10:05:22 PM   
Rake

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: The blue waters of the Chesapeake Bay to
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

There is a 20% chance to build an improved position.

Once the improved position is built, there is a 10% chance for the construction engineer (only this engineer) per turn to create the trench system.


Jason... Okay, I was mistaken about the 20% chance for an IP. The point still remains that it is impossible, Construction Engineer platoon or not, to build a trench over the area of a CS hex within the time limits of a scenario. Unless, perhaps, that scenario is roughly five hundred turns or more.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 102
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/4/2018 2:56:37 PM   
Crossroads


Posts: 17372
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline
Note that the Base Scale (how units are designed) and Scenario Length, including how many turns it has, are two separate things.

As scenarios are played with units having non-stop action, a 30 turn scenario could as well depict the historical result of a delaying rear guard action that took the whole day, or a particular fierce meeting engagement that took three to four hours historically. With the latter, the game would play as the battle played, all out action. With former, the game would play like the action snippets of a day that saw a lot of still moments too.

Hence, for the former, we need a mechanism to turn a hex to a better fortified position, if the scenario so demands. Likely, those field positions would be strongpoints, and not a continuous trench line. That, to me, seems perfectly viable, in this context.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rake)
Post #: 103
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/4/2018 4:51:23 PM   
Jason Petho


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

Note that the Base Scale (how units are designed) and Scenario Length, including how many turns it has, are two separate things.

As scenarios are played with units having non-stop action, a 30 turn scenario could as well depict the historical result of a delaying rear guard action that took the whole day, or a particular fierce meeting engagement that took three to four hours historically. With the latter, the game would play as the battle played, all out action. With former, the game would play like the action snippets of a day that saw a lot of still moments too.

Hence, for the former, we need a mechanism to turn a hex to a better fortified position, if the scenario so demands. Likely, those field positions would be strongpoints, and not a continuous trench line. That, to me, seems perfectly viable, in this context.


+1

_____________________________


(in reply to Crossroads)
Post #: 104
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/4/2018 11:48:49 PM   
athineos


Posts: 146
Joined: 1/6/2017
From: Kansas City, USA
Status: offline
No game can be 100% realistic or perfect. As far as I am concerned, I let my imagination fill in the gaps of a game's slight imperfections.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 105
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/7/2018 12:06:32 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
Let's just try to overthink everything and turn it into a realistic bore fest.

Also, add another ten or twenty hot buttons? Everyone loves those hot buttons?



RR

_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to athineos)
Post #: 106
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/11/2018 2:19:27 PM   
scole

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 8/22/2007
Status: offline
Though the many versions of this game (Talonsoft to Matrix CS 2.0) online play, TCP/IP connection has been problematic. Future updates, to include EF 2.0 would benefit from a reliable online play feature.

(in reply to Big Ivan)
Post #: 107
RE: 2.01 Wishlist Thread - 2/6/2019 8:51:55 AM   
digiartst

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 1/12/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptainHuge


quote:

ORIGINAL: PawelM

something about air strike which I do not like: I plot an air strike at certain location and I loose LOS on the hex=> air strike does not arrive.
I would like the airstrike to be able to occur even then. Imagine and aircraft which was called by ground units arriving and although friendly units have lost sight of the target then air units can still locate it if it is still there! They have their own eyes and if they arrive to the requested sector for support they do not require ground units.... Attack whatever is there they find... this would be a nice and realistic addition to air strikes IMHO...





This seems like a good idea to me. I would think that if an air strike were called in but the target moves out of site just before the aircraft arrive, the pilots would still take a look for targets of opportunity in the area before bugging out.

I found the aircraft the most real thing in the game, not hitting the right hex, hitting your own troops, arriving late, not attacking, missing the target, a convoy on a road was mistaken for the enemy was world war 2.Also forward air command units were unreliable, radios crapped out all the time, or did not have the frequency crystal the aircraft had.
sounds like you want a more unrealistic game of this time period of air support.

(in reply to CaptainHuge)
Post #: 108
RE: 2.01 Wishlist Thread - 2/6/2019 10:58:50 AM   
Crossroads


Posts: 17372
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: digiartst

I found the aircraft the most real thing in the game, not hitting the right hex, hitting your own troops, arriving late, not attacking, missing the target, a convoy on a road was mistaken for the enemy was world war 2.Also forward air command units were unreliable, radios crapped out all the time, or did not have the frequency crystal the aircraft had.
sounds like you want a more unrealistic game of this time period of air support.


IIRC all Airstrikes have a chance to scatter up to five hexes from where plotted. Also, indirect-artillery-by-map (with no LOS to target hex) has a chance to scatter two hexes. IIRC, again. Those are hardcoded into game at the moment.

We're in the middle of revamping the CS Event Engine behaviour, and looking especially for cases like this, where there is a chance something happens (scatter, in this case). Instead of having these hardcoded, we'd like to move the chance (probability %) and effect (in this case, # of hexes to scatter) to Adaptive AI parameter table.

This would allow for two things. First, the airstrike scatter probability and # scattered hexes could vary by nation and by date. Especially for the modern era CS games (1948 - 1985), there's a huge change in how airstrike accuracy improved by year, with some nations especially ahead the curve. But also for WW2 through 1939 to 1945, there's a change how wargoing nations went about airstrikes, that could change by year.

Second, if there's an Adaptive AI parameter, the CS Event Engine can change that, be it by a need to have a certain battle (ie: scenario) play out in a certain manner, or be it there's a certain event that would make something change (say: morning fog evaporating as sun came up). Here, the scenario designer per the scenario need could further tweak both probability % data values and the effect data values.

I am hoping the above would be available by the time CS East Front 1939-1941 ships.

As for your comment above, fully agree. No precision munitions available at the time

_____________________________


(in reply to digiartst)
Post #: 109
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/6/2019 12:19:25 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rake


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crossroads


quote:

ORIGINAL: carl11

fine, make it 3 hours, its a Game;)

and with the appropriate equipment,it can be done in less than that, say 4 hours, dig, logs, sandbags.


In case you or anyone else is not aware of this: Construction Engineers already with JTCS can create Trench systems. Trenches are not Bunkers of course, but they are much better than IPs.



I got bored today and started poking around the forums.. I came across this post and just couldn't believe how quickly some posters think engineering functions can be completed. The ability to construct trenches within the time frame of ANY CS game is just wrong, much less bunkers

I have worked in surveying, civil engineering and heavy (highway) construction for over 40 years. Even with modern excavators, it is not possible to create a trench system for the size of a CS hex within a day (240 turns), much less 6 minutes.

Among many other things, I have been extensively involved in the oversight of pipe excavation and installation. Some of my work has involved estimating time and materials necessary to complete a construction project. Many of the tools available for this purpose use 30 cubic meters/ hour as a starting point for estimating trench excavation. This equates to a trench roughly 3.2' deep x 3.2' wide x 100' long. It also assumes using modern track excavators; the 30 CM/hour number assumes the use of a one-half cubic meter bucket. Naturally, there are multipliers for additional work, such as types of soils encountered, if shoring is required to keep the trench from collapsing and whether trucks or haulers are being loaded to move the material to another site. This number corresponds fairly well with the production I've observed over my years in the business.

The 250 meter hex used by CS comprises approximately 13-1/2 acres (actually 13.37 acres, 5.41 hectares). The length of each side is roughly 144 meters. Using the industry standard of thirty meters an hour mean that it would take nearly 5 hours for one excavator to dig the length of one hexside. This certainly doesn't include the timber and other materials necessary to support the trench and provide top cover from artillery and air bombardment. It's also entrenchment solely along one side of a hex, not trenching that will provide all-around coverage.

I haven't been able to determine the number of men in the Construction Engineer platoon used in the game. I'm guessing the number would be approximately 40 -50 men. A search of the US Army TO&E for a construction battalion turned up cranes, front-end loaders; lifts, bulldozers, etc. While a dozer can push material around, they're not generally capable of trenching. Certainly, given enough time, a dozer could create a wide ditch like an anti-tank trench. but it would be nearly impossible to build a trench system with a bulldozer... certainly not within the time limits of ANY Campaign Series scenario. A bulldozer is fine for a tank scrape, but this would be closer to an improved position rather than a trench.

Equipment that I did not find in the TO&E, and that I would assume to be available, were excavators and backhoes. Still, this is at battalion level and neither would likely be available in significant numbers at the platoon/company level. A standard backhoe would be capable of helping in the construction of a trench system, but production rates would be far less than the 30 CM/Hour shown above. Backhoes are generally used for cutting small (1-2' wide) ditches for small pipe installations, i.e., smaller utility lines. I would expect excavators to only be used in areas quite removed from the FEBA and certainly not in the area encompassed by a CS scenario.

I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision to allow trenching to occur during a scenario. As it is, allowing a 20-30% chance of improving a position within 6 minutes is extremely liberal. But this has been that way since the beginning and I don't really see a reason to change. But, after 7 attempts (42 minutes) the probability of having constructed a trench system (encompassing the all-around defense of more than 13 acres) is greater than 50% (52.2%). It's just not possible within the time frame, not even if an entire CB unit took part with all of their standard equipment.


+100

Possibly the best post ever to describe "real life" versus game fantasy and "wishing".

I would take the word of someone 'who has done it' over someone who wishes to quote the statistics in an algorithm to show what may be done (but can't be done ... but they need it to be done because they wrote it into the program so it could be done).

Players are then stuck with things in the game that can be done in minutes, game wise, when in reality they take many hours, to many days, to accomplish.

RR

_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Rake)
Post #: 110
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/6/2019 12:57:57 PM   
Crossroads


Posts: 17372
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline
^^ There's a 20% chance IIRC to complete a Dig-in process to create first an Improved Position. So in five turns you should have one.

Then, there's a 10% chance for a Construction Engineer to upgrade an Improved Position (need to have that as a starting position) to Trenches, so in further 10 turns you should have that accomplished, too.

All in all, an average of 15 turns to turn a hex to have a trench available.

Given that scenario turns are "battle time", with slack removed, those units may or may not make sense in a scenario. That said, I haven't seen them (Construction Engineers) been made available in many scenarios by their scenario designers, so this is not a common option to have available with your typical scenarios.

I believe I may have used them in one of my monster scenarios with three divisions or more per side.

_____________________________


(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 111
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/6/2019 4:55:37 PM   
dox44

 

Posts: 668
Joined: 5/7/2000
From: the woodlands, texas
Status: offline
fascinating stuff here...i'm sorry to interrupt but not real familiar with JTCS and would like to ask a question. although i did dig some trenches in the USMC--over 45 years ago lol. Of limited value here since no civilian engineers with backhoes were present and we are very concerned with 'game' realism. just shovels and hands and in my limited experiences i never really saw 250 meters of unbroken trench lines but what the hell we were just grunts trying to live.

just curious though is the trench building that's being mentioned the result of modders?


(in reply to Crossroads)
Post #: 112
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/6/2019 5:34:00 PM   
Crossroads


Posts: 17372
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dox44

fascinating stuff here...i'm sorry to interrupt but not real familiar with JTCS and would like to ask a question. although i did dig some trenches in the USMC--over 45 years ago lol. Of limited value here since no civilian engineers with backhoes were present and we are very concerned with 'game' realism. just shovels and hands and in my limited experiences i never really saw 250 meters of unbroken trench lines but what the hell we were just grunts trying to live.

just curious though is the trench building that's being mentioned the result of modders?



Constuction Engineers were added to JTCS 1.03 in 2007


_____________________________


(in reply to dox44)
Post #: 113
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/11/2019 6:15:57 PM   
carll11


Posts: 791
Joined: 11/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rake


quote:

ORIGINAL: Crossroads


quote:

ORIGINAL: carl11

fine, make it 3 hours, its a Game;)

and with the appropriate equipment,it can be done in less than that, say 4 hours, dig, logs, sandbags.


In case you or anyone else is not aware of this: Construction Engineers already with JTCS can create Trench systems. Trenches are not Bunkers of course, but they are much better than IPs.



I got bored today and started poking around the forums.. I came across this post and just couldn't believe how quickly some posters think engineering functions can be completed. The ability to construct trenches within the time frame of ANY CS game is just wrong, much less bunkers

I have worked in surveying, civil engineering and heavy (highway) construction for over 40 years. Even with modern excavators, it is not possible to create a trench system for the size of a CS hex within a day (240 turns), much less 6 minutes.

Among many other things, I have been extensively involved in the oversight of pipe excavation and installation. Some of my work has involved estimating time and materials necessary to complete a construction project. Many of the tools available for this purpose use 30 cubic meters/ hour as a starting point for estimating trench excavation. This equates to a trench roughly 3.2' deep x 3.2' wide x 100' long. It also assumes using modern track excavators; the 30 CM/hour number assumes the use of a one-half cubic meter bucket. Naturally, there are multipliers for additional work, such as types of soils encountered, if shoring is required to keep the trench from collapsing and whether trucks or haulers are being loaded to move the material to another site. This number corresponds fairly well with the production I've observed over my years in the business.

The 250 meter hex used by CS comprises approximately 13-1/2 acres (actually 13.37 acres, 5.41 hectares). The length of each side is roughly 144 meters. Using the industry standard of thirty meters an hour mean that it would take nearly 5 hours for one excavator to dig the length of one hexside. This certainly doesn't include the timber and other materials necessary to support the trench and provide top cover from artillery and air bombardment. It's also entrenchment solely along one side of a hex, not trenching that will provide all-around coverage.

I haven't been able to determine the number of men in the Construction Engineer platoon used in the game. I'm guessing the number would be approximately 40 -50 men. A search of the US Army TO&E for a construction battalion turned up cranes, front-end loaders; lifts, bulldozers, etc. While a dozer can push material around, they're not generally capable of trenching. Certainly, given enough time, a dozer could create a wide ditch like an anti-tank trench. but it would be nearly impossible to build a trench system with a bulldozer... certainly not within the time limits of ANY Campaign Series scenario. A bulldozer is fine for a tank scrape, but this would be closer to an improved position rather than a trench.

Equipment that I did not find in the TO&E, and that I would assume to be available, were excavators and backhoes. Still, this is at battalion level and neither would likely be available in significant numbers at the platoon/company level. A standard backhoe would be capable of helping in the construction of a trench system, but production rates would be far less than the 30 CM/Hour shown above. Backhoes are generally used for cutting small (1-2' wide) ditches for small pipe installations, i.e., smaller utility lines. I would expect excavators to only be used in areas quite removed from the FEBA and certainly not in the area encompassed by a CS scenario.

I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision to allow trenching to occur during a scenario. As it is, allowing a 20-30% chance of improving a position within 6 minutes is extremely liberal. But this has been that way since the beginning and I don't really see a reason to change. But, after 7 attempts (42 minutes) the probability of having constructed a trench system (encompassing the all-around defense of more than 13 acres) is greater than 50% (52.2%). It's just not possible within the time frame, not even if an entire CB unit took part with all of their standard equipment.


+100

Possibly the best post ever to describe "real life" versus game fantasy and "wishing".

I would take the word of someone 'who has done it' over someone who wishes to quote the statistics in an algorithm to show what may be done (but can't be done ... but they need it to be done because they wrote it into the program so it could be done).

Players are then stuck with things in the game that can be done in minutes, game wise, when in reality they take many hours, to many days, to accomplish.

RR




did you read Dox44's reply?

Because nothing in rakes message has to do with folks who've 'done it'....like apparently Dox and myself, in real time, under lets say strenuous and extra-ordinary circumstances.


First lets be clear; the hex size in this case means little, in the sense that you're not building or digging for a hex, you're digging to create positions that provide lower body cover and concealment 2men by 2men.

Maybe a trench isn't even a good name for it, maybe we need a new name? Or an in between fortification, because IF we dont have the ability to acquire/build a Cover and concealment bonus alike a trench ( or at least half again as improved as an IP) in the new Vietnam game, well, it wont be very realistic.

When things got hot, you and your buddy took turns scooping dirt,with your E tool, you'd never get 'armpit wide and titty deep' as we called it unless you had several hours to do it and yes you absolutely could do it, in fact in an 4 hour time frame ( unless the ground was rock hard or the jungle was so thick, roots and all or you were to close to a river paddies etc. ( seepage) .......... but, the point is, you had position that was akin too a trench/foxhole/ fighting position.

I hope everyone is aware that the use of IPs in Vietnam was pretty much exclusively on Firebase's, out in the bush, it was fighting positions/fox holes, which for game purposes is more than an IP but not quite a trench.



(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 114
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/11/2019 6:20:42 PM   
carll11


Posts: 791
Joined: 11/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto


Or we could hot key it: Place unit, press the f(atigued) hot key, place unit, press the f hot key, ...

And similarly for the other unit modes.




Apparently this hot key suggestion never came to fruition in the new CS/Me?


Will we have edit mode hot keys in Vietnam? For example; to fix a unit, or a hot key to activate visibility from that hex?


(in reply to berto)
Post #: 115
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/11/2019 10:49:44 PM   
Warhorse


Posts: 5712
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline
Semper Fi, dug plenty in my time!! 0311 Baby!

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre heißt Treue
www.cslegion.com

(in reply to carll11)
Post #: 116
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 2/12/2019 1:02:18 PM   
carll11


Posts: 791
Joined: 11/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warhorse

Semper Fi, dug plenty in my time!! 0311 Baby!





Back at you bro. *Dap*

(in reply to Warhorse)
Post #: 117
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 4/20/2019 8:01:05 PM   
dxdavieau

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 3/9/2017
Status: offline
I'd like to see printed or printable manuals with the unit lists/stats in them like the originals

(in reply to carll11)
Post #: 118
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 5/21/2019 6:47:38 PM   
rmmwilg

 

Posts: 228
Joined: 5/2/2018
Status: offline
Pls forgive if this has already been proposed, but am only now getting back into CS after finding all these wonderful upgrades from the last 10 years or so!

Anyway - the one *major* irritation I've always had with CS is the guessing involved with Double Time. Maybe it's my ASL background, but can we please, pretty please(!) have a change to where we can 'test' it first, or that the fatigue effects do not actually occur until if/when the unit actually moves in Double Time?

(in reply to MagellanPOL)
Post #: 119
RE: 2.* Wishlist - 11/12/2021 1:46:35 PM   
Firebri


Posts: 291
Joined: 3/9/2011
From: Bristol
Status: offline
Has there ever been talk of a WEGO option ?

(in reply to rmmwilg)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> RE: 2.* Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
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

1.438