RE: MCS User WISHLIST

RE: MCS User WISHLIST (Full Version)

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

Message

scottintacoma -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/3/2008 11:42:32 PM)
Calvary units left handelers with the horses. They would not be left unattended. Scott in tAcoma

schaef -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/4/2008 1:01:51 AM)
I was not making funny about the Motorcycles!!! Have studied the German Army organizations for 25 years I know it to be a fact that each motorcyle in the German Army Motorcyle Infantry units had a Driver! This allowed the motorcycles to be available for quick remount for movement if and when needed. (See "KradSchutzen" by Hasso Erb for a detailed listing of all men and vehicles in a 1941 Kradschutzen Kompanie). The motorcycle Platoon of 1941 had 14 motorcycles with sidecars and had 14 drivers (one for each motorcycle which carried the Schutzen and their weapons). Just as all trucks in Schutzen kp's had drivers so did the motorcyles.

Deputy -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/4/2008 2:11:20 AM)
Well either these horses are ridden or dismounted. If they are dismounted, then they shouldn't be moving around at all. I don't care if someone is detailed to keep an eye on them. And if an artillery barrage starts raining down, I guaranty that "someone" is gonna be deep in the nearest hole and to he** with the horses.

borsook79 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/4/2008 7:13:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy Well either these horses are ridden or dismounted. If they are dismounted, then they shouldn't be moving around at all. I don't care if someone is detailed to keep an eye on them. And if an artillery barrage starts raining down, I guaranty that "someone" is gonna be deep in the nearest hole and to he** with the horses. If they is somebody there (at least 1 person per 5 horses), the horses can be moved. But they should move in such a case at a reduced speed.

Deputy -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/4/2008 4:09:49 PM)
The restrictions should be very heavy on movement if it is to be allowed. If they are under fire, whether direct or not, no movement should be allowed, and that should hold for at least two turns. The maximum movement even when not under fire should be 1 hex per turn. That is the only way I could see making this thing work with any realism.

missionman -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/7/2008 12:25:06 AM)
Is there or could there be an objective type that specific troop types (typically engineers) could obtain and hold for a set number of turns to simulate destruction of same and then leave the hex having claimed the objective value? Asset Objectives This item was aired sometime ago, well ok a long time ago (Jason Petho, Craig Foster) apologies for repeating but may be of interest to someone. Generally these units are created as fixed assets such as munitions, vehicle depots and other such assets (radio installations, parked aircraft, V1/V2 rockets, gun emplacements or whatever else you can imagine) and given no movement, and depending on the type of asset a suitable level of VP, limited return fire and strength to suit within the unit files. Similar items as pill boxes and guard towers could also be created to guard the assett objectives. The intention is to provide an alternative to geographical objectives and others that 'run away', to suit the commando/LRDG style raid scenarios of attack, destroy and escape rather than having to hold a location. Even in large campaigns such as the Ardennes,such objectives were present. It also provides an element of search and destroy game play, they could be sought out, located and air strikes/naval bombardment be called in. The asset could even be a historic figure!

Jason Petho -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/7/2008 2:18:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missionman Is there or could there be an objective type that specific troop types (typically engineers) could obtain and hold for a set number of turns to simulate destruction of same and then leave the hex having claimed the objective value? Asset Objectives This item was aired sometime ago, well ok a long time ago (Jason Petho, Craig Foster) apologies for repeating but may be of interest to someone. Generally these units are created as fixed assets such as munitions, vehicle depots and other such assets (radio installations, parked aircraft, V1/V2 rockets, gun emplacements or whatever else you can imagine) and given no movement, and depending on the type of asset a suitable level of VP, limited return fire and strength to suit within the unit files. Similar items as pill boxes and guard towers could also be created to guard the assett objectives. The intention is to provide an alternative to geographical objectives and others that 'run away', to suit the commando/LRDG style raid scenarios of attack, destroy and escape rather than having to hold a location. Even in large campaigns such as the Ardennes,such objectives were present. It also provides an element of search and destroy game play, they could be sought out, located and air strikes/naval bombardment be called in. The asset could even be a historic figure! While not "Asset Objectives", there are high valued, victory point, new platoon types that would fit the bill. Camps, Supply Depots, Supply Trains, Airfield Aircraft, "Personage", etc etc. Jason Petho

dgk196 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/9/2008 6:09:03 PM)
Not so much an item or a new function....... The establishment of a group responsible for addressing the 'airpower' aspects of the game. With the goal of expanding the level of detail relative to 'air units' and identifying and adding the elements for simulating 'airpower' at this level. Dennis [&o]

rich12545 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/14/2008 2:25:37 AM)
Add mouse wheel zoom functionality. You can check with the devs at toaw for help if needed.

Eagle Strike -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/14/2008 5:18:23 AM)
1. Allow the "hot spot" to move onto and/or track artillery when it hits an unoccupied hex during the replay. 2. Have a hot key to toggle the display of hexes reachable by selected unit when choosing to use "double time" movement

Miamieagle -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/14/2008 3:50:17 PM)
Hey Jason and other members of development group. Please can you expand to include all Nationalities in the Generated Battle option for all three Editions in the Future. We also need destructable Infrastruture like you are able to have with other programs. Thank you Jason and Company! Thank you!

kool_kat -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/14/2008 9:04:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jason Petho quote: ORIGINAL: Deputy JASON: I don't know if you're joking or not. [;)] But if you aren't, please DON'T put any whacky scenarios like this in the campaigns. No worries, I was joking. There is a bootcamp that deals with trains though. I would recommend playing it anyway, just to get a feel for them. You won't see trains, planes and ships on a regular basis in my designs, but you may see them occassionally - but rarely together. Jason Petho Deputy - this is just for you since you like calvary in WWII games! [:D] http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/index.php?module=see&lang=uk&code=a59bad22cdfc901fe95a7ebbc87cb48a

anthonykevinluke -> Units for 1.04 (8/18/2008 9:13:43 AM)
Hi Jason, Many thanks for the outstanding work by yourself and the team on patch 1.03. As discussed once before with you, I was hoping that you would be able to add some specific units to the EF DCG for patch 1.04. I would very much like to play a DCG from the start as a specific division and stay with it as it grows and evolves. Specifically I would really like a DCG for divisions Gross Deutschland and Wiking. These are very interesting as you have the opportunity to grow through their development from Mot Regts to Pz Divs. I hope that this is achievable for the next patch. For your consideration, and again, many thanks. Tony

HoustonAerosFan -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/20/2008 3:09:02 AM)
Another vote for the Czechs, plus Switzerland.

Deputy -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/20/2008 3:37:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HoustonAerosFan Another vote for the Czechs, plus Switzerland. Switzerland??????? Which side did they fight on?????

dgk196 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/23/2008 5:22:42 AM)
How about 'proximity shell' effects? 'Interdiction missions' for ground attack aircraft. 'Standing patrols' for ground attack aircraft. Dennis [;)]

kool_kat -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/27/2008 7:32:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dgk196 How about 'proximity shell' effects? 'Interdiction missions' for ground attack aircraft. 'Standing patrols' for ground attack aircraft. Dennis [;)] Dennis: Why don't you just direct Matrix Game Forum users to the Blitz Club forums where these improvement ideas were first discussed and detailed by the original posters? [;)] http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/showthread.php?tid=47564

dgk196 -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/28/2008 3:34:53 AM)
I could, I guess...... It just didn't feel right to tell people to go to another site to have a discussion when we are already on a forum!? Besides, there's nothing wrong with posting my ideas on several sites is there? Dennis [:)]

kool_kat -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (8/28/2008 2:58:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dgk196 I could, I guess...... It just didn't feel right to tell people to go to another site to have a discussion when we are already on a forum!? Besides, there's nothing wrong with posting my ideas on several sites is there? Dennis [:)] I just want to direct persons to the "original" authors of these ideas... I believe the "proximity shells" idea was yours - but did not see a more detailed explanation on either the Blitz or Matrix Games forums. The "interdiction missions" and "standing patrols for ground attack aircraft" were proposed by other authors who originally posted on the Blitz forums.

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (9/2/2008 9:45:25 PM)
This would probably be a nightmare to code, but I've put way too much thought into it so I'm gonna throw it out there anyway.[8D] There needs to be a way to control a unit's firing arc......currently all units can fire 360 degrees depending on LOS. Classic case in point; the two PaK 43/41s that straddled each end of Omaha Beach were mounted in bunkers with a protective wall facing the sea. They could only fire enfilade along the entire beach. Proposal: New unit; call it "Casement". Only during scenario design can this immobile unit be placed and "loaded" with a gun, MG, arty piece, etc. The designer then sets the firing arc using a screen much like the one you get with an engineer attempting to blow a wall or bridge......i.e. six "quadrants". Piece of cake, right?[8\|]

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (9/14/2008 9:59:52 AM)
New hexside defense - barb-wire. Costs some APs for infantry units to cut the wire and proceed. Prohibits movement for wheeled vehicles. AFVs run right over it.[8D]

Rasputitsa -> RE: graphical request: Unit animation speed (9/22/2008 7:10:33 PM)
I would also like to see a variable game speed for all 3 games, scale 1-10 seems good, to be changed during play when faster action may be needed. [:)]

marcbarker -> RE: graphical request: Unit animation speed (9/22/2008 7:16:45 PM)
I would like to interject something, With a covering arc, barbed wire and such and it sounds like a top level combat mission game albeit on a grander scale. It is a good idea for covering arc fire but is it necessary at batallion or company level games? I mean covering src for AT's would be good especially the hearvier caliber. I think , please correct mee but in the Battle ground series they took that onto account by unit facing fire....would this be possible?

GetBackUp -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (9/22/2008 10:40:53 PM)
Can you explain how to do this Jason? Jeff quote: ORIGINAL: Jason Petho quote: ORIGINAL: michammer I like the idea about spending movement points to change the facing of heavier weapons. My own wish is to be able to detach units from their parent HQ and attach them to another HQ to form Kampfgruppen or "Jock" columns. You'll be a happy camper then. Although, this will only be in new scenarios that have the special HQ's present. Jason Petho

junk2drive -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (9/23/2008 1:44:45 AM)
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.

marcbarker -> RE: MCS User WISHLIST (9/23/2008 9:06:58 AM)
What I would like to see on the terrain is black sand in the map editor. for the the volcanic island scenarios. It would give a bit more context

borsook79 -> RE: graphical request: Unit animation speed (9/23/2008 5:24:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barker I would like to interject something, With a covering arc, barbed wire and such and it sounds like a top level combat mission game albeit on a grander scale. It is a good idea for covering arc fire but is it necessary at batallion or company level games? I mean covering src for AT's would be good especially the hearvier caliber. I think , please correct mee but in the Battle ground series they took that onto account by unit facing fire....would this be possible? But the scale of the game never changes actually, one unit always represent a single squad, you just get more of them when commanding a larger unit.

marcbarker -> RE: graphical request: Unit animation speed (9/23/2008 6:46:32 PM)
your right , the idea of using movement factors for changing faces will work on non turret items

Dualnet -> Mined bridge hex (9/29/2008 1:03:50 PM)
Jason Would it be possible to combine the "Mine" code with the "Engineer Bridge Blowing" code to create a mined bridge hex that had a chance of distroying the bridge as you move onto it?

e_barkmann -> Opp Fire (9/30/2008 1:22:15 AM)
I'd like a way to adjust the scenario defender's global Opportunity Fire table prior to starting a PBEM, without having to edit files prior to start of play. It's really annoying watching all your units give their positions away too early, and then seeing them blasted out of existence with accurate artillery fire. cheers

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.032227