RE: Wish list (Full Version)

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



Message

TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Wish list (10/15/2005 5:22:48 PM)

One more thing:

Rework the AI so it doesn't shoot at everything in range...no matter what the attack strength. You know what I mean...all the '1' and '2' attacks against infantry...
Also figure in terrain and defensive improvements. I wouldn't let the AI fire unless it had at least a 50% attack strength against a unit's modified defense.




Der Oberst -> RE: Wish list (10/15/2005 7:10:41 PM)


Allow player to deselect an airstrike.



Pippin -> RE: Wish list (10/15/2005 7:53:07 PM)

Aye. One thing that really annoys me with some talonsoft games, is once you plot an artillery strike, etc., you're screwed if suddenly you want to change it or realize you made a mistake.




"Joss" Osborne -> RE: Wish list (10/16/2005 6:49:06 PM)

First of all my deepest congratulations to David Heath and the Matrix team! This accomplishment is some of the best news computer wargamers have ever heard. In the annals of classic wargames, Campaign Series and TOAW have got to be ranked among the top - right up there with Steel Panthers, Combat Mission, Panzer Campaigns, and the Decisive Battle series. To now envision the possibility that these games could be upgraded, enhanced, maintained, and supported on an ongoing basis with a certain level of involvement from the original designers is simply stunning.

Here's my wish list:

1. As stated by Matrix already, a thorough dusting and cleaning of the code so it can be brought up to XP and Direct X 9 standards.

2. Complete involvement of the wargaming comunity in development efforts. I already see the StrategyZoneOnline boys manning the forum moderation duties for the new games, and a superb choice of Brian "Siberian Heat" King as the TOAW development manager. Don Maddox team will do an excellent job supporting these forums. I would like to see similar involvement with Jim von Krieg's Blitzers - especially in the area of the Campaign Series. There is some great expertise in that group. This may be a "perfect storm" moment for many members of the wargaming community to come together to create something truly wonderful for all players.

3. Whatever Jason Petho said [:)] Jason has a great deal of knowledge of the game, and his comments should not be taken lightly (and I'm sure they won't). There are more gamers out there as well with good ideas.

4. An affordable game with a single engine for all three games. In effect, combine all of the base scenarios (those that came with the game)for EFII, WF and Rising Sun for $39.99-$49.99 running of a single game engine. This of course would include the XP and Direct X enhancements and at least some of the improvements to the game engine folks have stated. If too much is added to the original offering, and the price get's up int he $60 range it might suffer.

5. Affordable addons. With the base engine deployed a series of affordable add ons very similar in concept to SPWAW's Campaigns would be outstanding if priced accordingly. I would easily pay $20-$25 for say a CD of Gross Deutschland battles, or 4th Armored Division, Battle for Guadalcanal, etc. The Blitz scenarios might be included in this way.

This is truly a great opportunity for wargamers everywhere, and I look forward to the developments with great interest!

Thanks, Matrix!











HoustonAerosFan -> RE: Wish list (10/19/2005 4:51:18 AM)

A few other things that need taking care of :

1) Unrealistic rocket launcher modeling - they fire like regular artillery in the game vs. shooting everything at once follwed by a LONG reload time.

2) Get rid of IGO-UGO and replace with WEGO.

2) Russian units - they retreat rather than stand fast and die.

3) The game uses of odds based CRT. For anti-armor combat, a differential might be better. In general, combat resolution is rather vauge as pposed to say the Steel Panthers series.

4) In general, the game too much resembles PanzerBlitz on steroids. There have been a lot better systems developed since then.



HobbesACW -> RE: Wish list (10/19/2005 2:26:00 PM)

I can't see them changing the game to the extent of making it into the dreadful WEGO.
At least I hope not!

Chris



Adam Parker -> RE: Wish list (10/20/2005 1:45:42 AM)

1. No infantry fire on AFV's > same hex. That is, bring in the Panzer Blitz/Leader inf vs AFV rules the designers wanted but Jim Rose supposedly overruled.

2. No AI crowding of enemy exit objective hexes.

3. No ability to change vehicle facing with 0 action points. Have the AI know to change facing if possible at the end of its movement to face the enemy.

4. Bring the UI up to HPS Panzer Campaigns standards. Unit boxes, Hex Info Area and Toolbar etc.



HerzKaraya -> RE: Wish list (10/20/2005 11:50:19 AM)

Some more things in addition to what you all already mentioned,
1) I remember the A/I would not move his artillery forward to support an advance or back to save it from assault. If artilllery or AT guns come in as reinforcements, the A/I just unloaded them in the first hex instead of choosing a suitable and "in-range" location.
2) A/I on the offensive was really slow moving the units forward, it should move full speed or save just enough AP for 1 shot until contact is made with the enemy.
3) AFV should avoid approaching entrenched infantry closer than 2 hex to avoid bazookas and panzerfausts unless they are in disposition to assault.
4) Possibility to define a Kampfgruppe based on existing OOB and use it in a campaign. Also being able to define the time interval between battles in a campaign to avoid playing the whole EF in 3 days-appart battles!

I still had EF/WF installed on my computer, thanks Matrix for extending their playability even further!!!



HoustonAerosFan -> RE: Wish list (10/20/2005 8:19:04 PM)

Also, need to be able to combine transport units. Two 3 SP truck units can't transport a 6 SP infantry unit, which is flat out ridiculous.



Andreas Leandoer -> RE: Wish list (10/21/2005 9:10:50 AM)

1:Make all hardware accesible in the editor for every country. As Russians used captured german equipment and vice-versa, it should be easier to do it in the editor. This should apply to all countries.

2:Make hardware units repairable in longer scenarios.
3:Make morale repairable in the same way.
4:Make FLAK/AA units more "noticable" for air units.

5:AA should be able to fire indirect
6:AT should be able to fire indirect
7:Breakable platoons of all units.
8:Breakable down to single points.
9:Loadvalues per point of carrier instead of per point of cargo.
10:Repairable bridges.
11:Pontoonbridging options on engineers
12:Destructable terrain, not just potholes or wrecks.
13: Minelaying ability.
14: Recovery tanks.

Andreas




Jumbo -> RE: Wish list (10/22/2005 2:41:42 AM)

It's real exciting news with this up and coming Matrix version of the Campaign Series games. Alot of us over at the Blitz wargaming club are just thrilled with the idea of this allready great game being updated and improved in part with the players suggestions. That in itself speaks volumns as to where this game is headed ... Greatness !!!

Here are few things that I think would work well

1. Tanks and other armored vehicals being able to back up, Allowing their front to continue to face the enemy to their front. ( this would be at additional movement allowence of course ) A nice feature to have I think.

2. Off board and on board artillery being able to fire smoke ammunition anytime during that players turn. ( if the target hex is visually spotted by friendly unit )

3. Make mounted troops not so damn easy to kill. A reduced defense value is fine. But as it is now, I think they may be easier to kill than clay pigeons ! ... Possibly even for the A/I to trigger off a dismount of a platoon that starts to take on losses.

4. Possibly giving some specialized engineer platoons a few more abilities. Such as Bunker and cave destruction abilities. And maybe even bridge repair.

5. Some controlable aircraft for the other modes besides the DG Vietnam one. Observation types and possibly others.

6. Looking over all the existing optional armor facing rules protection values in the game. It isn't hard to figure out how the original designers came up with there values.
The math and devising a formula is simple. But some of those values still leave me scratching my head ? ... I'm not alltogather certain they factored in for bhn or the T/D ratios.

7. A better set up to prevent PBEM cheating

8. Allow certain tank platoons such as M4 Shermans to lay smoke in their own hex. This could be a way to simulate that platoon utilizing their 2" smoke mortar that was internally mounted in the upper front of the turret. This smoke would have to be lesser level of smoke than we allready have though. Possibly allowing visability a hex or so behind it. ( not really sure of the best way to emulate these protective smoke mortars ? )

9. A greater emphisis put into creating more modern war stuff. I really like the WWII games becouse of all the great choices of tanks/equipment and troops. I've worked hard to see that our gamers get to see several more interesting pieces with the PB#3. And Besides I'm a Panzer nut. But over the last year working heavily with the DG Vietnam mode and all the goodies that comes with it. I really feel the modern modes will be the future for this CS game. Particuarily when trying to attract many new players. Many new and young gamers may not wish to relate with Sherman or Panther tanks, as marvelous as they are. But M1A1 Abrams and Apache's will catch their eyes I think. Or how about the idea of them moving about a USAF TACP unit about the map that's simulating the control of CAS !



Recon_slith -> RE: Wish list (10/23/2005 3:37:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jumbo


3. Make mounted troops not so damn easy to kill. A reduced defense value is fine. But as it is now, I think they may be easier to kill than clay pigeons ! ... Possibly even for the A/I to trigger off a dismount of a platoon that starts to take on losses.





I absolutely agree with this. A 6 sp unit can be wholly eliminated by a low strength unit firing at medium ranges.

This needs to be toned down.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Wish list (10/23/2005 4:00:11 PM)

How about scaling the number of turns a campaign scenario generates by the size of your force. I always laughed to see a division+ sized battle with a 15 turn limit...

Where is the reward in getting promoted if your dynamic campaign becomes unplayable due to too few turns to even get to an objective at the larger organization levels? Even Regiments couldn’t achieve their goals because of the short number of turns generated.

Also please redo the friggin AI set ups in Dynamic campaigns. What a pain to have units spread out all over the place given the limited command ranges modeled. Have organizations set up together, not spread out at random. Heck that alone might improve the AI slightly if its units are all within their command ranges at start.

Jim



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Wish list (10/24/2005 3:58:20 PM)

quote:

4) Possibility to define a Kampfgruppe based on existing OOB and use it in a campaign. Also being able to define the time interval between battles in a campaign to avoid playing the whole EF in 3 days-appart battles!


This guy named Bob Dalton used to design DCGs with custom OOBs....so it can be done...

I remember playing his II Panzer Korps at Kursk DCG...

How'd he do it?

I dunno....[8D]



HobbesACW -> RE: Wish list (10/31/2005 9:58:32 PM)

A small thing - but it would be useful to have a hexside that infantry can cross over - but no vehicles including tracked can.



HobbesACW -> RE: Wish list (11/2/2005 2:27:16 PM)

I'm currently designing a scenario that has a railway embankment that infantry but not tanks can cross. It has night and day turns and Naval support only available for a limited time.

None of these things are possible with the current engine. It would nice to have the ability to model them.

Chris



Drax Kramer -> RE: Wish list (11/3/2005 11:24:13 AM)

The one thing that bothered me in Dynamic campaigns was that my units had to go from battle to battle on reduced strength (thanks to limited replacements) while the enemy units (who were often the same ones that fought me in previous scenario) were at full strength.

Either both sides should be filled up (like in Panzer General), or losses from both sides have to be carried on.


Drax



James Ward -> RE: Wish list (11/3/2005 4:16:48 PM)

quote:

The one thing that bothered me in Dynamic campaigns was that my units had to go from battle to battle on reduced strength (thanks to limited replacements) while the enemy units (who were often the same ones that fought me in previous scenario) were at full strength.


I actually liked the fact that I couldn't always be at full strength. Play a Division and you'll be happy to be at 80% after a few battles, especially if you're attacking the Russians in '44 [:)]
I really hope they improve the way you set up though, it takes far to long to organize your forces at the Division level.



Drax Kramer -> RE: Wish list (11/3/2005 10:13:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward

I actually liked the fact that I couldn't always be at full strength. Play a Division and you'll be happy to be at 80% after a few battles, especially if you're attacking the Russians in '44 [:)]


Oh, I have no problems having to prosecute campaign with dwindling number of troops in my platoons. I am annoyed of watching those pesky French battalions I kept kicking always to return at full strength.

The game mechanism was capable of noting enemy casualties, but it wasn't implemented.


Drax



Bazooka Bob -> RE: Wish list (11/4/2005 1:52:41 AM)

Going up against full strength enemies every battle in a Dynamic Campaign can be a real pain. No combat unit is ever at 100% on equipment or men. The A/I needs to reflect this in the Dynamic campaigns.

Example - I fought 22 battles in April 1941 alone for the DAK in one campaign I started. I didn't have hardly anything left to continue even with reinforcements while the UK kept setting up in full strength. I didn't think that month would be over.

Seriously, the Dynamic Campaign should overally reflect the average strength of the opposing forces. Some will be at full strength, other won't.

A lot said on my first post in this forum.



James Ward -> RE: Wish list (11/4/2005 4:58:40 PM)

quote:

Example - I fought 22 battles in April 1941 alone for the DAK in one campaign I started. I didn't have hardly anything left to continue even with reinforcements while the UK kept setting up in full strength. I didn't think that month would be over.


Why didn't you just pass on some battles? If it's a bad situation I set up everything on or next to exit hexs and first turn I'm gone. [:D]



Bazooka Bob -> RE: Wish list (11/5/2005 3:01:58 AM)

I have to play to see how far I can progress in the game no matter the condition of my forces. A good challenge!



James Ward -> RE: Wish list (11/5/2005 5:38:04 PM)

quote:

I have to play to see how far I can progress in the game no matter the condition of my forces. A good challenge!


Sometime discretion is the better part of valor! [:)] I think if you fought 22 battles in a month with a division, you'd end up with a battalion [;)]



Bazooka Bob -> RE: Wish list (11/6/2005 4:50:12 AM)

One other thing to add to the wish list. To tie in to a previous comment about needing more games turns when playing larger units i.e. division size or larger in a dynamic campaign, more game turns are needed in the desert dynamic games in general.

The reason is the board size in the desert dynamic campaigns are anywhere from 1 1/2 times to 2 times as large as in the European and Russian campaigns. Everything from battalion size starts on up are on larger boards. Sometimes you are lucky just get across the board if your exit hex is diagonally across from the entrance hex objective let alone try to exit when you get there.

Don't get me wrong, I like the larger board size for the desert campaign games. And I think the board size should be larger for division units and up in the European and Russian dynamic campaign games.

Well, just my 2 cents worth.



James Ward -> RE: Wish list (11/7/2005 6:16:31 PM)

quote:

One other thing to add to the wish list. To tie in to a previous comment about needing more games turns when playing larger units i.e. division size or larger in a dynamic campaign, more game turns are needed in the desert dynamic games in general.


I agree. I started a Corps campaign and the first battle was a Meeting Engagement, 22 turns. By turn 9 I finally had a unit at an objective having moved max every turn towards it. Nothing that comes on as a reinforcement from now on will even make it to the battle.

I really hope they look at improving the larger actions and don't just concentrate on Regiments and smaller. For Division and higher they need to improve the set-up method (at least let you move units around in the set up by battalions), lengthen the scenarios (they should be a minimum of 40 turns), have some sense in arrival points (don't have the entire battalion arrive on the left most side of the map and the HQ on the right most side), and improve the reinforcement schedules (so that units don't always arrive in the armor, infantry, artillery, assaut gun, misc order.)

I'm really looking forward to this effort, I hope Matrix can deliver.



palmdogg -> RE: Wish list (11/11/2005 3:08:43 AM)

First off, major kudos to Matrix for resurrecting these games. OpArt of War and Rising Sun are still on my computer (I keep an old pre-XP around just for "Rising Sun") If I had to give a wish list (And RS is the only one I've played), it would be:

1) De-select air & artillery. I think that one's been pretty-well covered.

2) Fix multiplayer (Hot Seat lets you see everything).

2a) Multiplayer campaigns!!! I have a brother in the Marine Corps and would love to thrash him in Operation Shoestring (Guadalcanal).

2b) More campaigns. Four is a nice start but a few more would be dandy.

3) Merge depleted units. Too often I'll have several rifle platoons or machine guns down to one each, and all they manage to do is die.

3a) Divide units. I want to be able to peel off a squad or two on occasion to keep as a ready reserve without moving the main unit.

4) Some new scenarios. :) I'm sick of always fighting in the middle of nowhere. How about Wake Island in 1941 or Manila 1945?

That's about it. BTW, feel free to ignore what I just said, since I'll play whatever you release. Thanks again guys!



lancerunolfsson -> RE: Wish list (11/11/2005 3:43:14 AM)

quote:

Wake Island in 1941


Isn't Wake about as in the middle of nowhere you can get;^)



palmdogg -> RE: Wish list (11/11/2005 3:52:25 AM)

quote:

Isn't Wake about as in the middle of nowhere you can get;^)


Point taken. I meant to say "the jungle".



umbro -> RE: Wish list (11/11/2005 3:44:28 PM)

re: 4) Take a look at Wake Island

umbro



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Wish list (11/11/2005 4:59:37 PM)

So umbro, what are the preliminary plans for the CS games?


What are you guys talking about over at The Blitz?


Keep us updated!!!!



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.953125