RE: MCS User WISHLIST (Full Version)

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



Message

Crossroads -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (2/5/2010 8:36:14 AM)

Here's my 0.02 for all three games in the JTCS

In no particular order:

Graphical

Tiger 88
with the double time key - make it so that you can see how far your unit can travel - vs when you hit the key it automatically puts that unit in fatigue mode regardless if you wanted to move that way or not.....

It is a bit annoying as it currently stands, isn't it.

RobertMC
Any interest in working on the 2D maps and counters to make the MCS playable at that scale? I guess what I'm talking about is making the 2D hexes and the counters a little larger. Or "comfortably larger" for old eyes like mine.
I saw the great work someone did to mod a Panzerblitz and Panzer Leader interface, and being able to play comfortably in 2D would really complete the package.

I would definitively like to see PB/PL counters available for 2D gaming!

Busto963
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!

As time goes, this has become a more and more annoying limitation... It would be nice to see all pop up windows to follow the modern Microsoft look-and-feel standards. A lot of programming work, though?

Scenarios

junk2drive
In addition to the main scenario description, separate Allied and Axis briefings ala Combat Mission.

This would be nice! I bet it would be nice to sometimes give a a different and even conflicting briefings to both sides. For an example to provide both sides with often historically accurate briefings to conduct an attack, resulting in an interesting meeting engagement. Then the players would really need to adapt: oops, did not expect that, should I set a defense although I was ordered to attack?

pzgndr
I just got into CS this past week. Scenario selection is a challenge. There are so many! Could something be done to group scenarios by size, complexity level, dates, whatever? Or at least show more of this information in the scenario selection box?

This is the reason I actually came to post here.

I am in the process of selecting a next scenario to play, to continue a theme of playing D-Day + scenarios. Very difficult to get a good view of what is available.

I would like to see more information available for scenarios on a meta-data level: the larger theatre of war, eg West front, smaller theater of war: Normandy, etc...

This could easily be a separate app, like the current scenario selector tool. But more meta data would definitively be handy to support the ever growing list of new and existing scenarios!


New Country

1925
New Country: Allied Finland in West Front (to fight alongside France and the U.K. against the Axis Soviets in a hypothetical 1939 conflict and to fight against Germany at the very end of WWII).

As a Finn [:)] I would argue that an Allied Finland would already be needed (for EF). Winter War (1939-40) should have Finland as Allied (was a neutral) against Axis Soviet Union as SU had the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Hitler where they divided the areas between them among themselves.

The main reason Stalin agreed to peace was his realisation that he was risking England and France to join Finland in defending Scandinavia against Germans and Russians.

A respective what-if scenario could be the Franco-English Expedition force joining in for the battle of Mannerheim line, for an example. With the current logic we would need an Axis France and an Axis England to implement this scenario [:D]

Additionally, or, at least, depending on your view, an Allied Finland would be needed to create scenarios for the so-called Lapland War that took place in late 1944 to 1945 where the Germans were being forced out of Finnish Lapland, according to peace terms.

For the latter, technically that would mean to have the units available in summer 1944 accordingly available to Allied Finland. OOB wise it would be a new ball game however, but something that could be left for the scenario designers.

Engine

Cpl Porter
Tanks able to dig themselves in 'Hull down' I think is the expression. I guess this will have to be done by the tank crews.

This would be nice, although I guess something like this could be achieved if a IP is created for a hex that contains tanks.

Additionally I would like to see a feature where it would be possible to use SPs for additional camouflage.

In this manner a 88 or a tank destroyer or any unit for that manner could bring their concealment level up per every turn they do not perform anything else, and use the APs for hiding their position so that they would be more difficult to be spotted.


EDIT: Compatibility testing for 64bit Windows 7

The Map editor does not work with W7. I am not 100% sure the game works perfectly either... There's been some anomalies on the way that could be user errors, but then again...?

A separate build for 64bit versions?

--
Thanks for the great work! Let us keep this game going for another 15 years [:)]

Any news on the 1.05, btw? [8D]



CaptainHuge -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/11/2010 12:48:02 PM)

One thing I would like to see fixed is leader movement rates. It is a little frustrating when a leader cannot keep up with a tank formation across difficult terrain. You would think that, no matter what unit type it is, the appropriate leader would be able to move as fast as his troops.

What do you think?



1925frank -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (4/13/2010 3:31:50 PM)

Currently in the OOB editor, there's a list of all the countries on the left.  Some countries have to appear twice because sometimes they acted like Allies and, on other occasions, they acted like the Axis.  This requires duplication of the OOB.

Has any thought been given to being able to simply drop a country into an Axis side or Allied side, depending upon what the scenario designer wants?  This would remove the need to duplicate OOB.  It would also make it simpler when designing a scenario.  For the duplicate countries, I can never remember which is Axis and which is Allies.

And on a not-necessarily-related note, I would like to see Tito's communist partisans have their own OOB, bases, and objective colors.  I could be wrong, but I believe Tito effectively fought against the Germans and the Fascist Italians, although there may have been instances when he fought against the Allied Chetniks.



kool_kat -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (6/4/2010 8:12:03 PM)

Mine is a rather "modest" list compared to others? [&:]


Mike’s Wish List for MCS 1.05 Update

All Games

Double Time – Select Reachable Hexes to graphically illustrate all the hexes that the currently-selected unit can reach utilizing Double Time BEFORE committing the unit to Double Time. Toggle (off or on)

Unit Bases – Program “remembers” last Unit Bases setting toggle (off or on) for all 3D unit icons on any 3D map view.

Bunkers and Pillboxes – Have a “front” facing. Units inside these structures may only fire in the front arc – front hex + 2 adjacent hexes out to their weapons range.

Special Concealment (Anti-Tank Guns) Fog of War – Anti-tank guns smaller than 57mm, reduce 50% maintaining concealment when they fire or move to 35%.

Save Game Warning – Eliminate this warning from the PBeM Command Report.

Extreme Assault – Compromise on a setting “harder” then the pre-1.03 assault rules and “easier” then the 1.04 update. Extreme Assault, in its current form, reduces games to a Direct Fire “slug fest” and essentially eliminates the Assault option for players.

Variable Visibility – Eliminate this optional rule.

Reduce the 5% chance of mortars disabling AFVs to 3%. (I think these are the correct percentages?)


Rising Sun

Caves – Have a “front” facing. Units inside these structures may only fire in the front arc – front hex + 2 adjacent hexes out to their weapons range.

Banzai – Eliminate this rule.


All Games

Include all H2H Approved scenarios in 1.05 patch.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (6/4/2010 8:34:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest
Double Time – Select Reachable Hexes to graphically illustrate all the hexes that the currently-selected unit can reach utilizing Double Time BEFORE committing the unit to Double Time. Toggle (off or on)


I'm neither with or against this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest
Unit Bases – Program “remembers” last Unit Bases setting toggle (off or on) for all 3D unit icons on any 3D map view.


This I like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest
Bunkers and Pillboxes – Have a “front” facing. Units inside these structures may only fire in the front arc – front hex + 2 adjacent hexes out to their weapons range.


This I much like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest
Special Concealment (Anti-Tank Guns) Fog of War – Anti-tank guns smaller than 57mm, reduce 50% maintaining concealment when they fire or move to 35%.


I actually like the way they stay hidden. I would not like to see any changes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest
Save Game Warning – Eliminate this warning from the PBeM Command Report.


I think it should stay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest
Extreme Assault – Compromise on a setting “harder” then the pre-1.03 assault rules and “easier” then the 1.04 update. Extreme Assault, in its current form, reduces games to a Direct Fire “slug fest” and essentially eliminates the Assault option for players.


I'd like to see it changed as you state. Though, I am happy with it as an option in addition to the current two. Have a light, medium, and hard assault.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest
Variable Visibility – Eliminate this optional rule.


I think this is fine as an option. Though, scenarios should be created with it's use in mind and stated in the descriptions as such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mwestReduce the 5% chance of mortars disabling AFVs to 3%. (I think these are the correct percentages?)


I think mortars smaller than 120 mm should be reduced in their disable effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest
Rising Sun

Caves – Have a “front” facing. Units inside these structures may only fire in the front arc – front hex + 2 adjacent hexes out to their weapons range.


I'm not sure I agree. I think the scale would give the ability of the defenders to fire from outside the "cave" and thus have a more all around type fire? Unless the developers believe that the cave is more like a pillbox?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest
Banzai – Eliminate this rule.


I never like this rule. I think it was ill conceived and not well thought out.

RR



berto -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (6/26/2010 10:42:17 PM)

[pardon me if this has been suggested before...]

Please tell me that JTCS Modern Wars (and all future updates of previous games in the series) will have Hot-Seat play with extreme Fog of War.



berto -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/21/2010 11:19:54 PM)

More wishes:


  • Variable ending (end-of-game turn limit varies a la HPS Squad Battles)
  • Ability to play beyond formal end-of-game (irrespective of whether player has won or lost)





MrRoadrunner -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/22/2010 1:37:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

More wishes:


  • Variable ending (end-of-game turn limit varies a la HPS Squad Battles)


I hope you do not mean for PBEM? This would be almost as devastating to the game as extreme assault. Every scenario would be effected in terms of balance. I would hate to see this added. [:-]

quote:

  • Ability to play beyond formal end-of-game (irrespective of whether player has won or lost)


    • Isn't this the same question as the first?
    I'd rather see play against the AI having the ability to end the game sooner when the AI runs out of troops. Nothing worse than playing a campaign and scrolling through three or four turns waiting for the AI to realize that it has no troops left, when the game is not over only due to the amount of turns left? [8|]

    Add to that your variable turn ending that would increase it further? [X(]
    No thanks. [:)]


    RR



    berto -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/22/2010 2:40:23 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto

    More wishes:


    • Variable ending (end-of-game turn limit varies a la HPS Squad Battles)


    I hope you do not mean for PBEM? This would be almost as devastating to the game as extreme assault. Every scenario would be effected in terms of balance. I would hate to see this added. [:-]


    As in Squad Battles, it would be an optional rule. If not applicable to PBEM, don't select it.

    quote:


    quote:

  • Ability to play beyond formal end-of-game (irrespective of whether player has won or lost)


    • Isn't this the same question as the first?

    No. The two are separate.

    For the first, imagine that a scenario formally set to end after 25 turns ends instead at 24, or 25, or 26, or ... 25 turns plus or minus a few.

    But when the game ends, it ends. There is no option to play beyond that point. Period.

    What I'm asking is the option to play out the scenario as long as I want, all the way to the bitter, or glorious, end. The current CS doesn't give me that option. When the (fixed, unvarying) scenario turn limit is reached, that's it. Done. Finis.

    quote:


    I'd rather see play against the AI having the ability to end the game sooner when the AI runs out of troops. Nothing worse than playing a campaign and scrolling through three or four turns waiting for the AI to realize that it has no troops left, when the game is not over only due to the amount of turns left? [8|]

    Add to that your variable turn ending that would increase it further? [X(]
    No thanks. [:)]


    RR

    Optional rules only. Again, if you don't like them, then don't choose them.



    MrRoadrunner -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/22/2010 4:15:11 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto

    Optional rules only. Again, if you don't like them, then don't choose them.


    Sorry to disagree. I think there are enough optional rules that already ruin the game. Why add more?
    If you like the way Squad Battles plays, then play Squad Battles? Why ruin a game that is not Squad Battles?
    If you've finished the scenario, abiding by it's rules and victory conditions, why play beyond it?
    If you cannot complete the task in the allotted time then it may be a "how you play the game" issue rather than a "how the game plays" issue.

    There is so much that the Campaign Series needs that will make it much more visually appealing, as well as improving playability, that I think it would be a waste of time and effort to fundamentally change it, by adding chrome, so that it could be more like "other games".

    Better graphics and more units would go a long way to improve the game. A better thinking AI would improve the game. A more effective game engine would improve the game. More scenarios and campaigns would improve the game.

    Changes to the game are not always improvements. Making something an option is no excuse for doing something to the game that does not improve the game. The last "optional" change to the game fractured the player "community".
    I'd rather not see something like that again.

    Upgrades, improvements, and additions are not always bad. Change that doesn't upgrade, improve, or add to the game are often bad.

    Staying within game scale would also help the game.

    [:)]

    RR



    berto -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/22/2010 7:34:14 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto

    Optional rules only. Again, if you don't like them, then don't choose them.


    Sorry to disagree. I think there are enough optional rules that already ruin the game. Why add more?

    "Ruin the game"? These are suggested optional rules. Don't you think your remark is a little overboard?

    quote:


    If you like the way Squad Battles plays, then play Squad Battles? Why ruin a game that is not Squad Battles?

    I like and play both. What's wrong with a little cross fertilization? Both Squad Battles and the Campaign Series are John Tiller games, BTW.

    quote:


    If you've finished the scenario, abiding by it's rules and victory conditions, why play beyond it?

    Because at the formal "end" of the scenario, by then I've invested hours playing it. Maybe I find the situation interesting, and am unhappy to be forced to leave it?

    Because maybe I recognize that victory conditions (and scenario time limits) are arbitrary, that I decide for myself whether I've won or lost, indeed that I really don't care about the concept of "winning" anyway? For me, the journey's the thing, not so much the destination.

    quote:


    If you cannot complete the task in the allotted time then it may be a "how you play the game" issue rather than a "how the game plays" issue.

    We each "play" these "games" for our own individual reasons. My reasons are obviously different from yours. One size does not fit all.

    The Campaign Series of games already offer several optional rules. What's wrong with adding a few more?

    quote:


    There is so much that the Campaign Series needs that will make it much more visually appealing, as well as improving playability, that I think it would be a waste of time and effort to fundamentally change it, by adding chrome, so that it could be more like "other games".

    What's "fundamental" about offering the option to play beyond a fixed, or optionally varying, scenario time limit?

    quote:


    Better graphics and more units would go a long way to improve the game. A better thinking AI would improve the game. A more effective game engine would improve the game. More scenarios and campaigns would improve the game.

    I agree with all of those things. Wonderful, worthy improvements all. And all undoubtedly requiring much more coding and developer time than what I suggest. (I am a coder, and I can't imagine that the suggested optional changes would require all that much added coder time and effort.)

    quote:


    Changes to the game are not always improvements. Making something an option is no excuse for doing something to the game that does not improve the game. The last "optional" change to the game fractured the player "community".
    I'd rather not see something like that again.

    Upgrades, improvements, and additions are not always bad. Change that doesn't upgrade, improve, or add to the game are often bad.

    Staying within game scale would also help the game.


    This is a "WISHLIST" thread. Are you this scornful of all the dozens of other wishes in this, by now, 270+ long message thread?

    Your Mileage obviously varies.

    We agree to disagree.



    MrRoadrunner -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/22/2010 10:41:40 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto
    This is a "WISHLIST" thread. Are you this scornful of all the dozens of other wishes in this, by now, 270+ long message thread?

    Your Mileage obviously varies.

    We agree to disagree.


    Scornful? LOL! Dude you need to lighten up.

    If you did not know it Extreme Assault, six minute mine laying engineers, and six minute wreck clearing, was on someones "wish list" at one time.

    I choose to defend myself and the game.
    I referred to the ideas in your post, not to you personally? If you find that to be "not in good taste" just plug my name into your block list. Then you will not have to read what you preconceive to be scorn or personal attacks?

    I can assure you that I only have the game scale and game integrity at heart. Fundamental changes that do not make sense will be commented upon.

    If you feel picked on, or wish to attack me, I would suggest you not respond to this message. Or, go to the movie thread and make a movie? [sm=happy0065.gif]

    [:)]


    RR



    kool_kat -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/23/2010 3:55:25 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto

    More wishes:


    • Variable ending (end-of-game turn limit varies a la HPS Squad Battles)
    • Ability to play beyond formal end-of-game (irrespective of whether player has won or lost)




    These two "wishes" would unbalance all existing CS scenarios... much like the optional Extreme Assault rule does for all scenarios developed prior to the introduction of EA.

    I have developed several CS scenarios for PBeM and inclusion into the 1.05 update. Force mix, terrain, victory objectives / levels, reinforcements and especially game turns are all developed with play balance as a high priority. Introducing a random game end turn would destroy this balance... and might even "break" the existing game engine.

    These two "wishes" would also destroy PBeM - especially ladder standings.




    Jason Petho -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/23/2010 4:16:28 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto
  • Ability to play beyond formal end-of-game (irrespective of whether player has won or lost)


    • You can do this by manually editing the BTE file.

    Jason Petho



    MrRoadrunner -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/23/2010 10:33:31 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: berto
  • Ability to play beyond formal end-of-game (irrespective of whether player has won or lost)


    • You can do this by manually editing the BTE file.

    Jason Petho



    Jason,

    Doing that will have an effect and consequence in clubs that use ladders?
    For beer is one thing. In competition is another? [:)]

    RR



    Jason Petho -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/23/2010 10:47:59 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

    Doing that will have an effect and consequence in clubs that use ladders?
    For beer is one thing. In competition is another? [:)]



    It's a handy tool for playtesting scenarios, I use it frequently to see if "a few extra turns" would make a difference or help balance a scenario.

    Unfortunately, editing the BTE file can be done by anyone who can figure out how to open NotePad, and the amount of information you can edit in your sides favour (my Tiger platoon regained 2SPs!, my morale is 10 for all the frontline units!, I feel like adding another company of Shermans!, I have more smoke now!, I have more airstrikes now!, where are all my opponents units - are they dug in, do they have AP's left, do they have OP fire settings set? ... and so on), that would have an effect and consquence in the clubs that use ladders.

    Is a ladder system the way to go? For me, it is a handy way to see which scenarios I have played and whom I have played them against. But that's really the only information that is relevent for me.

    Jason Petho



    MrRoadrunner -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/24/2010 10:52:22 AM)

    Jason, I once played a scenario where my opponents unlimited number of airplanes (which were not included in the original) strafed me over and over. Then his invisible Stalin's (not included in the original) blasted me from one over stacked hex. I think I watched three minutes of opt fire as I moved my undisrupted surviving units forward.
    I saw first hand what could be done. LOL! [:D]

    Thankfully it was an exercise in learning what a "cheater" could do. Otherwise I might have gained a inferiority complex. [8|]

    If I played opponents, on a regular basis, who cracked open files to see where I was and what I had set then I would probably not be playing the game.
    Most ladder rules cover cracking open the files? If I cannot trust an opponent I don't play them. [X(] Believe me, they are very few and very in between. [:)]

    RR



    Jason Petho -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/24/2010 2:28:27 PM)

    Oh, I know. Been on the receiving end myself.

    On the other hand, editing the BTE is necessary to operate the von Earlmann style campaigns.

    Regardless, the capability is already there if one wants to extend a game.

    Jason Petho



    qbert55 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/24/2010 4:48:58 PM)

    It would be nice to be able to display AT units just like you can currently display indirect fire units. 



    kool_kat -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/24/2010 5:22:23 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

    On the other hand, editing the BTE is necessary to operate the von Earlmann style campaigns.

    Regardless, the capability is already there if one wants to extend a game.

    Jason Petho


    A wish come true? [;)]



    Deputy -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (10/30/2011 4:05:17 PM)

    I am still unhappy with the way the computer does the initial placing of units in the Dynamic Campaign for each scenario. The most vulnerable units are placed right in the front lines and the most durable combat units are placed way in the back. That simply doesn't make any sense. It requires wasting a lot of time protecting trucks and headquarters units at the start of the scenario, as well as bringing forward all the combat units. Also, if the assignment for the scenario is to protect certain objectives, than the initial placement of the units should reflect that. Right now the AI just seems to "scatter" units all over the place and you have to replace nearly every one of them for best protection.

    I really like the Linked Campaign for the Fallschirmjager. But even if they do a magnificnet job of carrying out their orders, no awards are issued!!! I don't care if, as a player, I don't get any awards, but I would like to see the commanders of my units receive some awards. The awards should reflect the improved morale within the units they are located with too. Automatically giving a bonus for placement of a commander with a unit is not realistic. There were plenty of bad commanders on all sides that were incompetent.



    rjcme -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/12/2013 10:11:24 PM)

    I know it´s not possible to add the possibility of using simultanenous turns. But, if possible, I would like that the IGOUGO effect would be minimized, to give more the sense of realism. Despite opportunity fire, it still feels much like a chess game.



    LoneWulf63 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (5/19/2013 12:21:44 PM)

    Okay call me dumb, but what is MCS?



    Deputy -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (5/19/2013 4:26:00 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: resinslinger

    Okay call me dumb, but what is MCS?


    Just a guess...Matrix Campaign Series?



    junk2drive -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (5/19/2013 4:28:32 PM)

    oops wrong answer

    Deputy is correct.



    LoneWulf63 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (5/19/2013 6:43:17 PM)

    Sounds good to me.



    Skryabin -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (10/14/2013 4:58:35 AM)

    ALL
    When you see the REPLAY in big scenarios sometimes it takes forever until you see the actions in your LOS. All your enemy movements that out of your LOS are taking so much time. If there is a way to make a shortcut and see only what is happening in your LOS that would be great! Or if the game engine for some reason can't handle this, at least make it posible to switch to the windowed mode, so you can do some other stuff on the computer untill your opponent move all his countless units that I don't see anyway probably hex by hex, lol. Because I am starting to think sometimes that my 2.70GHz can't handle this any faster!!!



    junk2drive -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (1/18/2014 5:30:46 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: junk2drive

    3D icons twice the size as now with a hotkey to switch between current and large. Basically the artist around here could make icons with lots of detail and the game engine would shrink them to current size. We might not need bases on to find camo units in trees and jungle. I think the original design was to save space back when HDDs were 8.4GB and floppys were KBs. Alternative would be for one more zoom level.

    Speaking of zoom, add a zoom out button next to the zoom in button in the bottom tool bar. The original design was for the days of 640x480 and 800x600 so only room for so many buttons.


    Six years ago... wow

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: qbert55

    It would also be nice to have retrograde movement that allows armor to "back up" (reverse gear) without exposing their rear.


    Good idea if you play with armor facing on. Somewhat addressed by Jason in post 248 before it.

    The last page has some interesting posts from 2010. Some by berto.

    One of my ideas was separate briefings for each side. Still like that one.

    Counting down the days.




    Jason Petho -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (1/18/2014 5:35:44 PM)

    Me too!!

    Getting closer as the days go by.

    We're still on target.

    Jason Petho



    Crossroads -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (1/27/2014 2:14:47 PM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: benpark

    One for the wishlist-

    I would really like to see the white box removed from the on-map text. I love the look of the game in most areas, but this is one where it looks about as 1990's as Andrew Dice Clay. The newer John Tiller games have the option to have just the lettering of place names without the white text box.

    I realize you can turn the text "off", but it's nice to see the place names- just not in the way it has been done.




    Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
    1.0625