RE: MCS User WISHLIST (Full Version)

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



Message

Hermann -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (12/30/2007 5:50:16 AM)

purchase/select should really reflect army assets. these are assigned to corps according to mission. rarely would a unit go into battle without mission specific assets.

seems that its doable if you connect each mission to certain types of army assets - a river assault for instance gets briding units - a rail clearing mission gets rail units, defense missions get artillery etc.. rather than having army assets permanently attached to corps regardless of mission attach them to the scenario type



YohanTM2 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (12/30/2007 2:54:21 PM)

Yes please, I was surprised this was not available

quote:

ORIGINAL: timshin42

Jason,


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






awc -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (1/15/2008 3:33:14 AM)

Jason, I would love to see the Stulg 33B modeled correctly to look like the original assault tank as pictured at the website www.jagdtiger.de. It could be easily made from a panzer III and a 15 cm Schweres Infanteriegeschutz 33auf Pz Kw 1 Ausf B that is already modeled in the game. Also i would like to see a 15cm Schweres Infanteriegeschutz 33/1 auf Gw 38 Ausf M and 33/1 auf Gw 38 T.



R_TEAM -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (1/15/2008 7:33:58 AM)

Hi,

from my other Strategic games i play i wish:

Possibility for the purchase of Units in DynamicCampaigns.
Possibility to play DHC/LNC between Human players.
Possibility to play 2 or more modem(TCP) players against the AI.(even in DHC/LCN).
(one side with Human players VS the other side under AI control)
Possibility to set units as "Paused", no more select this units by the "next unit" button.
(empty transporters that stay for the rest of the battle in the wood dont need do select[;)])
Make to burn some terrain (wood/buildings) by heavy fights/bombardment or usage of flametrower.
And the possibility to make/remove more fortifications by enginers in long time battles (more than 50-100 turns)
Join DG to CS-Matrix version [:D] (with the nice Vitnam/Post-War Mods)
mmh ... thats all i wish (for the moment [8D] )

And -> REALY NICE GAME - Thank YOU all involved !

R_TEAM



R_TEAM -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (1/16/2008 5:58:55 AM)

Hi,

have forgotten[:'(]:

Possibility to store the last Target Hex by artellerie Bombardment and if the art-unit shot the next turn
on the same target hex to incrase the hit ratio.

R_TEAM



simpatico -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (1/19/2008 9:38:40 PM)

Only units with a radio should be able to spot for artillery & planes.

Morale should be more sophisticated.  Currently if you disrupt an already disrupted unit nothing happens.  It should either take the second disrupt as a strength point loss or rout towards the map edge if possible.  Killing leaders & HQs should have a affect on overall force morale.  Force morale should also decrease if casulaties are high.

I would like to see a major reworking of Rising Sun to bring it up to the same level as WF & EF.  More dynamic & Linked campaigns in Malaya, China & Burma playable as Japanese.  Japanese tank battallions should be available as well as infantry in dynamic campaigns.



Mraah -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (2/22/2008 8:58:08 AM)

ALL MCS -

Three ideas that I hope will be easy to impliment based on the current design :

1. Artillery Observer
2. New Sighting Rules - Moving Units and Gun Flashes
3. Recon by Fire / Recon on the Move - Move mode ALT/RIGHT CLICK

1. Artillery Observer ;
This comes about from a "bug" or "feature" I mentioned in the MCS User BUGS thread ... see post # 100. It regards the ability of a transport unit to see (but not ID) units better than combat units. If you place a transport on a hilltop far from harms way it can survey the battle field and provide knowledge of enemy locations.

This would make a great feature for an Artillery Observer (or any unit with high powered optics) if they allowed the hex containing the "?" to be selectable for an artillery attack. I know you can turn on the option to allow artillery to attack an unobserved hex but that results in unwanted scatter. But, used in conjuction with other ideas, such as adjusting the attack hex or subsequent attacks on a hex, I think it would work well.

If this can be done in an update, then I would suggest to Matrix to simplified things and give the transports a firepower factor so they will now be excluded from this change. I've always thought transports should have some kind of firepower capability anyway as they aren't unarmed soldiers. Considering one strength point of a transport equals about 2 men or roughly about 1/6th the firepower of a platoon of men (minus any hard attack and larger soft attack weapons) they could be given a soft attack range of 1, with a soft attack value of 1.

2. New Sighting Rules - Moving Units and Gun Flashes ;
I don't know how the rest of you feel but having a unit become "always revealed" when moving or firing isn't right to me.
Unrevealed Moving Units should be shown as a "?" when first detected and if it moves into another visible hex in the same turn then it will be revealed.
Unrevealed Firing Units (within LOS) should be shown as a Gun Flash when first detected, with subsequent firing revealing it ONLY after a successful morale check is performed on any unit within LOS during the same turn.

3. Recon by Fire / Recon on the Move - Move mode ALT/RIGHT CLICK ;
This subject has been partially mentioned before but I'd liked to go into more detail because I think it's a simply addition (yeah sure).

Currently, my observations show that the only way to "spot" a previously unspotted unit during your turn is to move adjacent to it and try to move into the same hex. For non-combat units (empty trucks) you'll see the "can't move into hex containing enemy" warning and for combat units you'll reveal the unit with the warning as well. The likely hood of seeing this (playing against the A/I) occurs when the unit you revealed just moved into the hex and doesn't have enough OP Fire AP to ambush you.

I propose that a commonly used tactic of Recon by Fire be available simply by allowing Direct Fire units to fire into empty hexes and probe for movement or return fire. By expending fire AP's you're actually triggering the other players OP fire whilst simultaniously doing a concealment check. If the hex contains a unit it will be revealed either by a successful concealment check or it takes damage/disruption/retreats, otherwise you'd see the "unknown result" message.

To activate this you simply ALT-RIGHT click the hex within your attack range while in the Move Mode and it can apply a modified soft attack similar to indirect fire odds. If the hex is beyond the units soft attack range then it will just perform a concealment check without firing, however, it will expend the firing AP without triggering op fire.

Any thoughts?

Rob








simpatico -> MCS User WISHLIST (2/22/2008 2:07:45 PM)

Experience modifiers:

It appears that the only benefit units gain from increased experience are:  better morale & leaders combat modifiers will eventually improve.  If you are playing for example as Japanese then you willl gain little benefit from increased experience as they already have excellent morale.  In practice, experienced units should perform better in combat as more members of the unit will actually fire their weapons & they will get more shots on target.
Perchance experience could be used as a modifier for attacks so that fire by 'green' units is less effective & fire from veteran units will be more effective.



auHobbes37 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (2/27/2008 12:01:00 AM)

I like mraah's suggestion, especially re: Observers.

Also would love to see Head to head DCG and/or LCG.

Also a LCG editor feature for those of use who are, uh, computer-torially challenged.




awc -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/6/2008 3:43:13 AM)

Gentlemen, I would like to be able to specify what planes are available when i design a scenario say to arrive or be available only during say turn 5 thru 8 and the plane would not show up as available in the air support table until that turn. Also i would like to have a maintence battalion in larger games that would add 1 platoon per every 3 turns to the unit that was in the same hex as it. The same for a medical unit, it would add 1 platoon every three or so turns to an under strenth infantry unit that remained in it's hex space.



Eagle Strike -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/6/2008 5:14:49 PM)

Two requests: Graphical:

(1) Slow down the speed of the airplane attacks so you can at least see them for more than a couple of seconds. Even set at "Normal Speed" on the game they attack and leave the map far too quickly.

(2) Make the artillery shot (tracer) a more visible color



Lesbaker -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/6/2008 10:36:49 PM)

awc, i like your idea of a Maintenance unit but i think the '1 platoon per every 3 turns' is a little to much when you consider that the most likely type of repair to armoured units will be to supension units that have sustained damage, this type of repair will take a minimum of an hour for field repair units to complete an have the vehicle ready for use. in game terms each turn equates to six minutes therefore you should only be able to generate 1 strength point every Ten turns maximum. Repairs to vehicles that are more severely damaged ie engine or gearbox damage/failures will take a field repair unit a minimum of about 4 hours to repair, any damage to the turret such as turret race or gun elevation rack will take up to 12 hours to repair in the field.



awc -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/7/2008 3:07:41 AM)

Lesbaker, About 10 turns sounds all right to me, that would add a neat dimension to larger scenarios and campaigns on top of reinforcements. Also i like Eagle Strike's idea for the airplanes, in addition to that i would like to see the ground explode like it does during an artillery strike.



dgk196 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/10/2008 3:39:22 AM)

Hello,

I am currently using the individual, EFII / WF / RS games. My CS is 'in the mail'. From what I gather its a great success. I like it that you actively ask for customer feedback. As with all things everyone has an opinion as to how things should be, so, here we go.

I like the ease of applying indirect-fire on a target. However, I think maybe some additions would be helpful.

1.) Have units representing the chain of command (like the current HQ units) and the fire control team associated with the artillery commands. Give them specific control over the use of the guns under their command. Also, make them responsible for responding and co-ordinating the use of their guns in support of units not directly in their parent command. Have the loss of such units interrupt or stop the indirect-fire support for their subordinate units.

2.) Detail those units as to what they control and / or can request, and from whom, for 'more assets' to be applied to any given attack. Some nationalities where limited, either by design or circumstance. Guns in specific organizations should be limited to supporting that organization. Efforts to use guns from 'another command' should incur additional delays, unless they are preplanned.

3.) Incorporate time delays reflective of the doctrine or capabilities of the various nationalities. The americans, rapid response and accurate. The british, rapid response, less accurate. The germans, one or two turn delays, but very accurate. The russians, preplanned and not very accurate, the number of target area's limited to one hex per gun, but unlimited as to how many fire at the hex. In particular the russians should be limited to preplanned attacks, prior to the start of the opposing forces beginning their turn. Other nationalities may use preplanned attacks to reduce the delay or increase the accuracy of an attack.

4.) Units not starting the game already deployed for indirect-fire, including the artillery chain of command, the FO's and in particular the guns may not conduct indirect-fire attacks. FO's should be able to move about. Delays related to them doing so should be based on the type of communication utilized by them.

5.) Artillery field of fire. Similar to unit facing. Unless the weapons type is that which is deployed on a turn-table or in a turret, the artillery field of fire may not be changed during the game. If they do, they can no longer give indirect-fire support. Of course, the exception to this would be preplanned alternate firing positions. These would be specified in the scenario and made apparent to the owning player only. The number of preplanned firing locations should be limited to one, or at most two sites per gun. Of course the positioning of these should be restricted to areas within their 'own lines'.

6.) Reduced effect against armored targets, particularly those that are in motion.

7.) Allow users to specify which units, in existing scenario's, can be used for indirect-fire support. Have only those gun types which were capable of indirect-fire support, enabled to do so in the game. Make the 'artillery command rules' capable of being turned on or off at will. Like fog of war and indirect fire by map.

Well, enough for now, if anyone cares to continue the discussion about any of this, I'm up for it! I'll monitor the e-mail replies.I believe this is the best wargame ever, computer or board. Your willingness to pursue constructive feedback and act on it, will only make it better. It really is the standard by which I judge other games.


                                                                                                                                                                Thanks for listening

                                                                                                                                                                         Dennis  [:)]




timshin42 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/10/2008 5:30:33 AM)

WOW! Awesome![&o] An FSO/FSC dream come true! At least partially: I want to do TOTs, have NFLs, FSCLs, Groups of Targets, Series of Targets, H & I on bridges, and so on. Oh well, I can dream can't I? Field Artillery tactics deserve some detail too![sm=00000959.gif] Probably need a distinct Artillery specific game, or at least the ability to turn the FA option off [>:] for Maneuver dudes [sm=tank2-39.gif]who aren't interested! [:D]



dgk196 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/10/2008 8:34:10 PM)

Hello,

Seems a whole bunch of ideas come to mind once I start in on 'modding'. I've been gaming for a little over 40 years. So, there are many things that I've seen tried when gaming. Some of the idea's worked, some not. Here is something we use when playing PanzerBlitz / PanzerLeader.

Hopefully, I can describe this so that it can be 'visualized' in the way we use it.

The concept is rolling terrain. The map editor allows you to make elevation changes in set increments. That is fine but its not what I'm talking about. Undulations in the terrain can be accounted for within the game without having specific terrain features representing them.

What I'm talking about are the variations in the height of the terrain in a given area. This could be as gradual as say a one meter vertical variation every couple of kilometers. This would be very 'flat' terrain. Or it could be ten meters (or more) every hundred meters or so, definitely 'rolling terrain'. It could be even more severe. A vertical variation equal to the horizontal distance (whatever the numerical value may be), would be classified as 'broken ground'!

So, for each terrain elevation level, you could assign the rolling terrain factor. It would consist of two numbers. The vertical variation and the horizontal distance between these. So, when sighting units at the same 'level' you are on, the distance you would be able to do this is limited. The two numbers are used only to help visualize what I'm trying to describe.

In reality, I would like to be able to assign a limit for sighting units that are on the same terrain level.

The shorter the sighting distance, the greater the vertical variation in the terrain. It would work similar to visibility distance, only different. You could have a 'same level' sighting distance of say three hexes, point to point (in all directions of course). At the same time you might have a 'visibility range' (due to atmospherics) of twelve hexes. So, two units that where four hexes apart would not be able to see each other when occupying the same terrain 'level'. However another unit at a distance of eight hexes, but occupying a terrain level higher than the other two, would be able to see both of them. And of course they would be able to see him. Remember, it only takes a vertical variation of about three meters or so to 'hide' even the largest tank used in WWII, or today for that matter. The use of this can really make possession of the high ground a significant factor.

Thanks for listening

Dennis[:)]



pzgndr -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/12/2008 2:32:33 AM)

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?

Other than that, I've found the game to be pretty intuitive.  Playing some of the old Panzer Leader scenarios is a blast. [&o]



1925frank -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/12/2008 3:18:37 AM)

If you click on the buttons on the right side, the button will turn red, and the scenarios will become organized according to the button.



e_barkmann -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/12/2008 3:19:25 AM)

yep there are order buttons on that selection page that allow you to do just that...



pzgndr -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/12/2008 3:30:41 AM)

Ah, thanks!  [8D]



vadersson -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/12/2008 3:50:28 AM)

Also note the spreadsheet available in one of the stickied threads.  It should help a lot.  You can use the autofilters in Excel to narrow down what you want.

Thanks,
Duncan




dgk196 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/16/2008 1:46:08 PM)

Hello,

How about the German helicopters?

The Fl-282, aerial observation, and later fitted with a pair of air-to-ground anti-tank missles.

The Fa-223, a troop carrier and equipment / supply aircraft capable of carrying up to 8,000lbs.

Like all german weapons what be the earliest date for use in the game?

Dennis  [;)]



The Rattler -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/18/2008 5:08:40 AM)

Hi Maybe some more terrain options/variables.....for the maps. Maybe not to change the game but just for display purposes have some different tree types.
Would be great to see some more naval units and i imagine a cruiser/battleship could be represented with a higher SP value. The invasion of Norway comes to mind as well as the efforts of the Prince Eugen late war in providing fire support for retreating german units and civilians.I realise that fire support can be represented as off map artillery but it would be nice to have a visual representation for some scenarios and the option for airstrikes against these naval units. Just some thoughts anyway.
Oh and the option to replay own turn visually :-)



Polbot -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/24/2008 1:51:24 AM)

Hey! Great job so far on the series, excited about 1.03
Here are some things that would make a worthwhile difference for me:

Linked Campaigns- Possibility of enemy "core" organizations. ie enemy losses are remembered.

Dynamic Campaigns- Smarter enemy deployment. Okay the AI doesn't have to be perfect, but it doesn't stand a chance if rifle platoons and trucks are strewn randomly across the battlefield. Something simple like keeping companies together and placing them close to objectives sounds achievable.

The ability to scroll the scenario description in game would be great too. Especially when playing an LCG with many objectives, you want to go back and read the full description.

And a pause button during enemy turns would help so so much.

Thanks again,
AFS



Mraah -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/24/2008 2:28:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Polbot

And a pause button during enemy turns would help so so much.

Thanks again,
AFS


AFS,

Pausing is available now. Just press the little computer button (see screenshot) and wait for the A/I to stop it's current move. It could take a few seconds.
EDIT : click the button again to unpause the A/I's turn.

Rob

[image]local://upfiles/28390/D2E55B2374164368B2C8D53E801C59DD.jpg[/image]



Polbot -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/24/2008 4:58:38 AM)

Woops, I knew one of those had to be already available. Thanks!



Dualnet -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (3/31/2008 3:17:20 PM)

Couple of things

Make artillery fire dependant on chain of command and add a delay factor for firing from one hex spotted by one unit, to another spotted by another unit. It seems to me a bit ridicules that you can shift the entire artillery from one side of the map to another and then back again each few minutes.

Do something about scouting at the moment the only way you can scout is, scout by death, you should be able to move one or two hexes in scout mode, to peer over a hill or round a wood hex without immediately being blown to pieces



Borst50 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (4/1/2008 7:56:58 PM)

I personally would love to a total Dynamic Campaign game for all nationalities covering the entire war from start to finish. Give players the option of choosing the Nation, unit preference, tank, infantry, etc. and have that character play thru the entire war. Give players the option of being able to transfer to different divisions, theatres of war, etc. Start at Battalion level and work up. Give players the option to pick any battalion as their respective core unit. If players choose to stay with their orginal division, the division can ber transferred to other theatres of war, for example; 1rst SS Panzer served on the east front, in Italy and on the West front at variouys times during the war. As the players progress up the Chain of command and command larger and larger formations, increase the number of turns in a battle, especially for Corp engagements. Possible even adding an Army level formation, commanding multiple Corps. Granted the map would have to be huge and the number of turns dramatically increased. (persoanlly, I would love to command the entire 6th SS Panzer Armee in an engagement!)

I would also like to see in this dream campaign, the Italian campaigns in east africa, the subsequent british conquest, and a middle east section dealing with the british conquest of vichy frence holdings in palestine--even the italian occupation of albania!!! (at the very least, make the option to transfer the players character there the players choice!)

The units I would love to see added:

Japanese Guards Division
1rst Parachute Brigade (Japanese)
Japanese SNLF's (Like the Kobe Brigade)
Japanese Tank Divisions (1 was in Manchuria, the other I believe was in the philippines)
All SS Divisions
Hermann Goring Panzer Parachutte Division
Panzer Lehr and Grossedeutchland Divisions
Brandenburg Division
All US Marine Divisions ( 6 of them I believe)
wellll....basically the entire OOB for all nations for the entire war....a very daunting task indeed, and one which may never happen considering units were formed, upgraded, and disbanded constantly throughtout the war...however, something even remotely rersembling that would be a welcome addition.

For the Japanese, open up the China war, include the manchurian front, and the battles in india.....such as the Imphal Campaign...all this can be handled by additions...conversely....since we are talking abut a dynamic campaign, all battles are randomly generated....we only need to keep an eye on historical dates, some battles or transfer options cannot occur past a certain date, or before a certain date, but maybe a few week time fudge can be ok....for the sake of playability, but it is something that has to be worked out.

Please keep in mind this is only a brain fart, not a hard and fast expose....whether this is feasible or not I havent a clue, but it something to at least consider.

Perhaps...only perhaps....it would be possible to add a feature to create their own dynamic campaign games????? to alter replacements rates...upgrades to units....things like that....just musing again.

for randomly generated battles on the pbem...hotseat, or standard mode....allow players to pick the formations they want to use, as it is now...if you click on a generated batttle...the computer will choose the units, I would like to pick my own tank battalion, not wait on the computer to decide its going to be an infantry battle...we get to pick the year, terrain, and the nationalities....so why not the units?...or at least the core unit...the support units can be picked by the computer...or create a pool of points and assign a value to the unit you want to purchase for the battle...that may work...much like the game Panzers: Phase 1....just an idea.

In any event, I hope I havent bored you all to death with this. Just the musing of an overworked mind....but still....would mind seeing it in the game. I hope to get somegood feedback. let me know your thoughts.






Warren -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (4/10/2008 7:56:43 PM)

I would like ATG's that do not automatically become visible after the first shot. There should be progressive chance after each shot of being spotted by a non disrupted enemy unit. Give them a greater chance of drawing first blood.



Jason Petho -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (4/10/2008 8:05:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Warren

I would like ATG's that do not automatically become visible after the first shot. There should be progressive chance after each shot of being spotted by a non disrupted enemy unit. Give them a greater chance of drawing first blood.



quote:

HIDDEN ANTI-TANK (1.03): This provides small anti-tank guns (57mm – 6pdr or SMALLER) a 50% chance to remain hidden when it fires. This also applies to Bazooka/Panzerfaust/AT Rifles


It is included for 1.03.

Jason Petho



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9379883