Upgrades/Changes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series



Message

Jason Petho -> Upgrades/Changes (9/27/2006 7:21:59 PM)

Good day.

What do you consider absolutely vital to be added or changed within the Matrix release of the Campaign Series (M-CS)?

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho




awc -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/27/2006 8:21:39 PM)

Jason, one thing i would like to see for sure is several new campaigns, and revised messages at the end of the games. The rest of the changes are on our wish list if there is time. Alan.



JReb -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/27/2006 9:18:43 PM)

I admit, I have not been keeping up with the discussion on this forum much but for me to buy the new version of CS will require a campaign editor with OOB flexibility.

Now, for some magical reason, CS gold runs great on my XP machine and I have no problems in that regard. So, just having a stable XP platform will not be enough to get my dollars.



Jason Petho -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/27/2006 9:38:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: awc

Jason, one thing i would like to see for sure is several new campaigns, and revised messages at the end of the games. The rest of the changes are on our wish list if there is time. Alan.


The wish list has been duly noted, of course.

This posting is for stating what you see as a "must fix" / "must include" as opposed to things you would like to see improved.

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho



Jason Petho -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/27/2006 9:44:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JReb

I admit, I have not been keeping up with the discussion on this forum much but for me to buy the new version of CS will require a campaign editor with OOB flexibility.


Can you give more details on this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JReb
Now, for some magical reason, CS gold runs great on my XP machine and I have no problems in that regard. So, just having a stable XP platform will not be enough to get my dollars.



Yes, CS runs fine on XP machines (19 times out of 20). The issues arise with the annoying random sound looping and the inability to play online when one upgrades their DirectX beyond 8, I believe.

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho






James Ward -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/27/2006 10:16:09 PM)

I think a more intelligent initial set up in random games is needed. It is far to difficult to set up a division or corp campaign and keep any sort of organizational integrity the way it is now.



BAL -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/27/2006 11:48:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward

I think a more intelligent initial set up in random games is needed. It is far to difficult to set up a division or corp campaign and keep any sort of organizational integrity the way it is now.


I second this idea.



AndyfromVA1 -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/27/2006 11:52:11 PM)

More colorful graphics would be great.



Jason Petho -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/28/2006 12:10:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndyfromVA1

More colorful graphics would be great.


While I agree, I do not believe that this will be a priority for the first release.

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho




Jason Petho -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/28/2006 12:11:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward

I think a more intelligent initial set up in random games is needed. It is far to difficult to set up a division or corp campaign and keep any sort of organizational integrity the way it is now.


Very good point!!

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho




RAF -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/28/2006 3:53:27 AM)

I am going to agree that the most vital change for me would be a better initial setup on random games. I simply cannot play a "dynamic campaign game" because the opposition defenses look like somebody just grabbed a bunch of cardboard pieces and threw them on the map.

Another "absolute must fix" for those of us who like to play against the computer - is an end to the computer's habit of driving fully loaded vehicles (trucks, motorcycles, horses) directly in front of friendly line of fire. Even when I make a conscious effort not to shoot these things, my units shoot at them during defensive fire, and they SIGNIFICANTLY throw off the balance of the scenario.

Besides, I like to write stories about my games. And these types of maneuvers make terrible stories.




TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/28/2006 9:24:15 AM)

I'll also throw my vote in for you and your crew to spice up the Dynamic Campaigns.

But don't stop with sprucing up the initial deployments....

I'd like to see the DCGs become, for the lack of a better word, more "dynamic".

I'd like to see my core units fight a depleted and demoralized enemy in preceding battles....I'd like to see surprise flank attacks from the enemy (and vice versa)....I'd like to see hordes of Soviet infantry rushing my Panzer Battalion's untenable position...

The list goes on and on, but my point is, focus your limited time and resources on improving the DCGs!

Oh, and please fix the upgrade bug...[:)]



Chop_Suey -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/28/2006 3:19:49 PM)

Unfortunatly, I fall into that 1 in 20 that cannot get these games to work on XP.  My rig is set up to play some of the most demanding FPS games (Day of Defeat source, BF2, FH) but after trying everything I could find, still no EFII or WF.  I would be more than happy to simply play these games again, bugs and all.

Glad to see that the work is progressing.



Bioman -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/28/2006 7:07:27 PM)

A fix for the armor facing problem during retreats is number one on the list with the looping sound problems as number 2. Fixing the campaign setup problems and the missing German AT units is also important. I can live with most other problems.



Hog of War -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/28/2006 7:21:35 PM)

One of the nice features of Tiller's PzC series is found in the command dialog.  There the hex coordinates of units that recover from disruption, dig in, or clear obstacles are linked to the map and one scroll to those units while still in the dialog.  There is no such link in the CS command dialog and it sure would be nice if there was [&o]  Thanks



Jarexx -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/28/2006 8:01:19 PM)

The one thing i've always thought absolutely vital for CS is some kind of encryption system for PBEM games as lets face it right now its just too open to exploits.

Also i'd like to see this new Matrix version more mod friendly because as CS stands right now with its limited number of sound / graphics / army slots it makes modder's walk a pretty narrow line as to what they can add.



Tiger88_slith -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/29/2006 12:18:47 AM)

Hi Jason - I am a fellow Blitzer (Tiger 88) and one glarring need is to fix it so that someone cannot hack into the .bte file.

Also - fix it someway that someone cannot replay turns! That would be huge!!

I would like to see those units that can fire smoke - be used in the direct fire role for laying smoke as well.

Engineers construct bridges, roadblocks, remove forests/trees, lay minefields.

Have air units destroy some part of every unit within the same hex.

Bring heavy/medium bombers into the air sorty mix - for interdierctory type bombing missions.

More units

Add Navel units - in fact I think with this game engine you could build a whole new game by doing this - that would be way cool!


Thats about it I guess - thanks for asking Jason!




Crapgame54 -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/29/2006 2:00:31 AM)

As one who hasn't had any luck getting the games to run under XP - except West Front, which has the looping sound problem, so I guess I could play with the speakers turned off - I would buy the pack just to have them all work so I could play them again. As to improvements -

Having armored units retreat by backing up so they don't get blasted up the butt would be great.

A decent dynamic campaign game would be wonderful - no goofy maps with roads running in circles going nowhere, streams running over hills, not getting 3 companies of infantry, each from a different battalion, with all 3 battalion commanders showing up, etc.
I gave up on the dynamic campaigns, but as long as PBEM is possible that would be just gravy, not needed.

Changing visibility for dawn or dusk games, or for fog that burns off over time would be very helpful. If the night rules apply to all the games, it would be cool to have scenarios that started or ended at night bur also included day turns.

It would be nice to be able to create a scenario and designate it a "campaign" scenario so that the final turn orders of battle would be saved and could be imported into the editior as the starting OB for another scenario. Something like this is done automatically in campaign games, if OBs could be saved manually it would be possible to make a moderated campaign with a person making each scenario using the survivors of a previous one.

A previous response suggested changes to spotting, but I like it the way it is - if you want to look over the hill or around the woods you have to look THIS turn and respond to what you see NEXT turn. That's better than recon-on-the-fly, where you can use up all of a recon units movement till it bumps into something, then start moving the rest of the army.



Jason Petho -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/29/2006 5:18:22 PM)

Thank you for all the suggestions, gentlemen!

Keep them coming!!

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho



SGT Rice -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/30/2006 12:52:58 AM)

Hi Jason,

I'm also a fellow Blitzer; love the game but ...

1) Can't run it on XP

2) Current retreat rules allow units to cover far more distance during the enemy's turn (due to retreats) than they can cover during their own movement phase.

3) Lack of a Battlefield Integrity rule (ala Advanced Squad Leader) Many competitive CS games see horrendous attrition rates - 70,80,90% - leaving the few grim survivors hacking each other to pieces for a key objective hex. Entertaining, but a far cry from reality.

4) No restraint on replaying turns ... at the very least we need a "No PBEM Save" option like the one in HPS Campaign Series.

Thanks for asking.

SGT Rice



kylenapoleon -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/30/2006 12:59:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BAL

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward

I think a more intelligent initial set up in random games is needed. It is far to difficult to set up a division or corp campaign and keep any sort of organizational integrity the way it is now.


I second this idea.


I will jump on the train with this idea. I really hated trying to set up a whole corps.

One thing I would like to see, and do not know if it is possible, is to be able to advance rank in a campaign series, but not to have to use all of your forces. I would like to be able to pick and choose which units to deploy. Maybe even be able to hold some units in reserve and have them arrive as reinforcements. I would also like to be able to set up improved defensive hexes or pill boxes to different locations when you start a defensive battle. I always hated seeing an improved hex in a middle of forest that would do you no good.



Peacenik -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/30/2006 1:00:19 AM)

Hi Jason,

I seem to remember some issues about the degrading of the halftrack firepower and about the points given for them - the rationalization being that they were not squandered in combat because they were essential for transport.

While this made terrific sense for single event games I'm not sure it made sense in campaign games where at least some of the continuing impact of lost halftracks on the mobility was explicit.

It might make sense to allow for campaign designers to make some range of choices about the firepower and values of these units in their campaigns.



Jason Petho -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/30/2006 10:16:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Peacenik

Hi Jason,

I seem to remember some issues about the degrading of the halftrack firepower and about the points given for them - the rationalization being that they were not squandered in combat because they were essential for transport.

While this made terrific sense for single event games I'm not sure it made sense in campaign games where at least some of the continuing impact of lost halftracks on the mobility was explicit.

It might make sense to allow for campaign designers to make some range of choices about the firepower and values of these units in their campaigns.


Hello Peacenik

If all goes according to plan, there will be two seperate Halftracks to choose from. One with the original settings and the other with the logical MG capabilities but a higher VP per SP.

Hope that helps
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho



HobbesACW -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/30/2006 11:21:45 AM)

Hi Jason, a few of my wishes :-

The ability for the designer to set changes during the course of a scenario in visibility, supply levels, weather, terrain status, etc (One of yours as well :)
A new hexside feature that infantry can slowly cross over - but no vehicles including tracked can.
Allow the players to set global ranges before the scenario starts Starshells in all games. Only allow artillery delivered starshells to be
used by artillery capable of firing smoke or small mortars. Engineers can clear 1 wreck per turn. Dozers as well?
Make as many changes as possible up to the scenario designer or optional to the player. I would hate to see the game ruined! Many thanks, Chris



ravinhood -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (9/30/2006 1:47:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RAF

I am going to agree that the most vital change for me would be a better initial setup on random games. I simply cannot play a "dynamic campaign game" because the opposition defenses look like somebody just grabbed a bunch of cardboard pieces and threw them on the map.

Another "absolute must fix" for those of us who like to play against the computer - is an end to the computer's habit of driving fully loaded vehicles (trucks, motorcycles, horses) directly in front of friendly line of fire. Even when I make a conscious effort not to shoot these things, my units shoot at them during defensive fire, and they SIGNIFICANTLY throw off the balance of the scenario.

Besides, I like to write stories about my games. And these types of maneuvers make terrible stories.




My vote is going to have to goto this one also.



Bazooka Bob -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (10/2/2006 12:54:25 AM)

I have to agree with the atrocious setup in the dynamic games. There is no unit integrity.  Companies from the parent battalions should setup or enter near each other.

Personal peeve in East Front II.  Why a single anti tank gun or mortor enters on one part of the map and the truck enters or is deployed on the opposite side on the same edge.  I do like to use them before the scenario is over.

Extend the scenario lengths especially for the larger maps in general when larger units are in play and especially for the desert.  Units that enter on one corner on the map take all game just to move across the board to the opposite corner just exit off.

Some kind of strength generator for the opposing force.  It is a pain when playing in the dynamic game to go up against full strength forces every scenario when it sometimes takes a while to get replacements for your own forces.  It was very rare for any unit to be a full strength.



Danish Rommel -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (10/2/2006 12:53:36 PM)

Hi Jason

My Vital Changes
--------------------
My absolutely vital changes deals with the way tanks behave in manoeuvre-restricted areas such as city, forest, building ect.
It’s just not very realistic to see heavy armoured vehicles assault a group of infantrymen in a city hex. Just can’t imagine a tiger tank climbing up a narrow staircase at 5th floor. One way to address this: Armoured vehicles can only participate in an assault on a city hex together with an infantry unit.

I also think that the tanks defensive values and soft attack values in cities should be altered so the game reflects the fact, that infantry is very hard to spot or hit in a city due to the limited view and manoeuvrability and therefore also represent a significant risk to the tank. The best solution would be to give the tank a variable def. and soft attack values. If the tank is alone in a cityhex it should have very low values, if there is a friendly infantry unit to support it - the values go up. This would reflect how the infantry can both defend the tank and guide its heavy weapons platform to the enemy targets.

I’m not a code expert and I could imagine that it would be hard to code such a mechanism. The easy solution could be to give the city hex a much higher terrain combat modifiers which would only apply to non-vehicle units (like the way building hex are done today – but with higher modifiers).

[:-]
In 1945 or today – it’s absolutely vital to have infantry support in cities.

I think that this modification would benefit the game in a way where combined arms tactic would have a greater role, so a bunch of tanks can’t dominate the whole map in an unrealistic wonder weapon fashion. Also, in various degree this modification should be used in other manoeuvre-restricted areas – forest, industrial, village ect.

[&o]
For This modification alone = I’ll promise to buy two copies of the new CS …and press on to make it mandatory for all members of www.theblitz.org … [:D]


Less Vital Changes
--------------------------
Additional opp. Fire programmable features = Direction

Stealth move mode for infantry – (can move one hex without detection – unless moved into zone of control of an enemy unit)

Weather/LOS can change slightly during the battle.

Make it harder to replay turns

Laying smoke from a distance more than one hex = the effect can fail due to wind.

Additional Engineer options – building tank-barricades, setting up barbed wire and lay down mines. Should take about 5-6 turns Hobbes great idear - Engineers can clear 1 wreck per turn. Dozers as well



looking forward to release...no rush though ... would not mind to wait a year to see the worlds best game growing to the best game in the universe... [:)]



Arkady -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (10/2/2006 3:13:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jarexx

The one thing i've always thought absolutely vital for CS is some kind of encryption system for PBEM games as lets face it right now its just too open to exploits.

...

YES
I second this request

and as someone mentioned in other post, replaying turn protection should be present too (similar to Steel Panther for example)



SurrenderMonkey -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (10/2/2006 6:17:36 PM)

The whole problem with horrendous attrition rates is a big deal. Most scenarios end with just a few units still alive, pummeling each other to death. In reality, morale/cohesion would have broken long before.

Some sort of rudimentary morale/cohesion model is desperately needed. (SP does a great job.)



Krec -> RE: Upgrades/Changes (10/3/2006 11:47:55 PM)

1) fix the dynamic camp
2) armor facing thingy
3) infantry in citys higher def value
4) arty need to be fixed, not quite right
5) i would raise the point value of trucks and ht so if they are used in assaults you pay a price.
6) lower shot value for at guns ( basically more shots)
7) revamp assault rules
8) engineers being able to clear wreckage / rubble
probably more , those are just off the top of my head



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.140625