2.* Wishlist Thread

[junk2drive]

You got your wish.

Did I mention scroll wheel zoom? Someone in COH liked the shift+wheel to zoom in and out...

[dgk196]

Hello...

I'd like to see a little more target type 'accuracy' for attacks by aircraft. By that I mean, if you send out some aircraft to attack tanks at least if they get the target wrong they attack another vehicle.
having your aircraft armed for taking out tanks then promptly attack an adjacent infantry platoon really is kind of odd. I flew in the service, we rarely mistook people on the ground for vehicles of some kind. So, maybe a botched mission would be limited to attacking a similar target, maybe just not the specific one you had designated for attack. When you send out your ac to attack a gun installation it should at least attack some kind of gun. Not a truck, not a tank, not an infantry platoon. It might be over the top for some, but, could you make it an option? Maybe hook it up to a 'slider' that ran from no target type mistakes to a 'drop your bombs anywhere and head for home' attack. Thanks for listening. By the way...installed 2.0... great, very much appreciated. Thank you very much for what must have been some very hard work!

Dennis

[Josh]

ORIGINAL: dgk196

Hello...

I'd like to see a little more target type 'accuracy' for attacks by aircraft. By that I mean, if you send out some aircraft to attack tanks at least if they get the target wrong they attack another vehicle.
having your aircraft armed for taking out tanks then promptly attack an adjacent infantry platoon really is kind of odd. I flew in the service, we rarely mistook people on the ground for vehicles of some kind. So, maybe a botched mission would be limited to attacking a similar target, maybe just not the specific one you had designated for attack. When you send out your ac to attack a gun installation it should at least attack some kind of gun. Not a truck, not a tank, not an infantry platoon. It might be over the top for some, but, could you make it an option? Maybe hook it up to a 'slider' that ran from no target type mistakes to a 'drop your bombs anywhere and head for home' attack. Thanks for listening. By the way...installed 2.0... great, very much appreciated. Thank you very much for what must have been some very hard work!

Dennis

+1
Planes hitting anything *but* your target [:@]
There's this indestructible T-34 and you send in some Stuka's and all they can find and hit is a...truck. Had me cussing a lot at the screen hehe.
Oh and mousewheel zoom please.

Other than that great work with the update, many thanks [&o]

[rpwood]

ORIGINAL: Josh

ORIGINAL: dgk196

Hello...

I'd like to see a little more target type 'accuracy' for attacks by aircraft. By that I mean, if you send out some aircraft to attack tanks at least if they get the target wrong they attack another vehicle.
having your aircraft armed for taking out tanks then promptly attack an adjacent infantry platoon really is kind of odd. I flew in the service, we rarely mistook people on the ground for vehicles of some kind. So, maybe a botched mission would be limited to attacking a similar target, maybe just not the specific one you had designated for attack. When you send out your ac to attack a gun installation it should at least attack some kind of gun. Not a truck, not a tank, not an infantry platoon. It might be over the top for some, but, could you make it an option? Maybe hook it up to a 'slider' that ran from no target type mistakes to a 'drop your bombs anywhere and head for home' attack. Thanks for listening. By the way...installed 2.0... great, very much appreciated. Thank you very much for what must have been some very hard work!

Dennis

+1
Planes hitting anything *but* your target [:@]
There's this indestructible T-34 and you send in some Stuka's and all they can find and hit is a...truck. Had me cussing a lot at the screen hehe.
Oh and mousewheel zoom please.

Other than that great work with the update, many thanks [&o]

+1 for the airstrike.

[TheGrayMouser]

ORIGINAL: Josh

ORIGINAL: dgk196

Hello...

I'd like to see a little more target type 'accuracy' for attacks by aircraft. By that I mean, if you send out some aircraft to attack tanks at least if they get the target wrong they attack another vehicle.
having your aircraft armed for taking out tanks then promptly attack an adjacent infantry platoon really is kind of odd. I flew in the service, we rarely mistook people on the ground for vehicles of some kind. So, maybe a botched mission would be limited to attacking a similar target, maybe just not the specific one you had designated for attack. When you send out your ac to attack a gun installation it should at least attack some kind of gun. Not a truck, not a tank, not an infantry platoon. It might be over the top for some, but, could you make it an option? Maybe hook it up to a 'slider' that ran from no target type mistakes to a 'drop your bombs anywhere and head for home' attack. Thanks for listening. By the way...installed 2.0... great, very much appreciated. Thank you very much for what must have been some very hard work!

Dennis

+1
Planes hitting anything *but* your target [:@]
There's this indestructible T-34 and you send in some Stuka's and all they can find and hit is a...truck. Had me cussing a lot at the screen hehe.
Oh and mousewheel zoom please.

Other than that great work with the update, many thanks [&o]

What if airstrikes "attacked" an entire hex, the way an artillery strike does? Too powerfull?

[junk2drive]

Generated battles allow you to go past 1945 but won't let you select Axis Soviet vs Allied USA. I realize that you want to sell future versions of the game but I wish I could do some post war "what ifs" with what we have.

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Generated battles allow you to go past 1945 but won't let you select Axis Soviet vs Allied USA. I realize that you want to sell future versions of the game but I wish I could do some post war "what ifs" with what we have.

This is not something that has been disabled by design as far as I know, it is rather that only certain original country slots are available for use by the battle generator. Axis Soviet country code 24 is a late addition, that is probably the reason why they are not there.

Perhaps something that can be looked in a future version...

[junk2drive]

WF Bootcamp 11 is 1953, Soviets vs USA. I should be able to generate a battle if I can play a created one.

[Warhorse]

I would like this too, but this is a legacy thing we haven't gotten to yet. No slots past 21(Japanese) usually work, if you modify the campaign file of Germany, Hungary, or one of the Axis to include 24(Russia), they will show up in battles, but no, they are unavailable by themselves for now, I know, it sucks!! The battle generator, as you probably know, uses the same process as the DCG's, utilizing the campaignxx.oob file to choose formations. This has been a problem with the series from jump, I know, one of the first things I tried to do back when EFII came out, was to do what-if battles! I'm a big fan of what-ifs, obviously, I made the K'talan mod, so hopefully we can get this thing to work sometime soon, would be awesome! I have the Raging Bear scenario, but it needs tweaking, and not sure if it's even available, been so long since I tried it out with a few testers!!

[Dumnorix]

PNG file support for all graphics to set an real new JTCS with 2014 3d produced graphics.
tm.asp?m=3586461&mpage=1&key=&#3586461

H.Balck (The 1st (1998 !) and the last modder of JTCS !!!)

[zartanlaw]

The Brazilian-American Campaign at The Gothic Line. This campaign includes the Brazilian Expeditionary Force under the American Fifth Army. Both should be in all maps with the Brazilians at the left flank and the Americans at the Right. Most maps at day time. I can help give details for some of the scenarios which are most under snow and the final one in clear weather. P-47 squadrons also were deployed to sink U-boats when exposed. Lots of mine fields in the final scenario at "Monte Castelo". I would like to see medical units and military tents too.

[dgk196]

Artillery....

Maybe some things to consider related to artillery, such as....

Two different 'deployment' types.. one for engaging direct-fire applications and one for indirect-fire.
Taking into account re-establishing communications... the time it takes to 'register' the guns and so on....

Direct and indirect-fire limits... as per 'Panzer Campaigns'... artillery may not support indirect-fire for units not in their chain-of-command.
A plus-one or plus-two support level above the units chain could be included for army's that had such capability.

Make the 'guns' that are firing indirectly responsive to either a specific forward controller or organization for designating specific.
When 'not just anyone' can call in fire support then that should be reflected in the game.

Thanks for listening

Dennis

[MausMan2]

I second a more fleshed out artillery firing process.

How about this one. You can currently drop smoke and it lingers for a turn or two. Why not, under the right conditions, have ‘smoke’ automatically generated in a hex following multiple artillery strikes? And along that line, heavy traffic, dependent on conditions and terrain, generates a dust screen??

[ThomasBear]

Since we're all dreaming... 'unlocking' of all the many, many, many other units during a Dynamic campaign when selecting your Core unit. Want to command the heavy artillery? Or be in charge of MG Battalion?

The ability to select and command Battalion-level units as your starting Core units (such as when taking charge of a Tiger Battalion when these become available later in the game) would be brilliant - even if it means a very challenging and unusual game.

Still... Artillery officers served with just as much distinction as infantry and tank commanders.

[XLVIIIPzKorp]

Well..... while were wishing, once again, separate bases for the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS so I can see something like this without resorting to Photoshop. [:D]

[Rake]

I'm relatively new here in that I don't post often. Nothing against the board; I just don't post very often on any of the multitude of forums that I frequent. I have, however, been a fan of this game since the original EF. I really appreciate how Matrix has picked up and supported this game... [:)] Now, my wishlist:

ORIGINAL: lecrop

My wish from the Dawn of Time; I would like to see the info screen (F2) of the units carried by vehicles.

^^^^^ THIS!!! And the ability to set Op Fire for transported units before they unload.

ORIGINAL: **budd**

another zoom level and mouse wheel zoom

Another good one. I see that another 2D zoom level will be added to the new Middle East game; I hope it can be added to the original CS games without too much delay.

The mouse wheel zoom is a carryover from my play of JT's Panzer Campaigns and I find myself constantly attempting to scroll thru the zoom levels using the mouse wheel.

ORIGINAL: Bigeard

Please please please... the ability to keep the 'Find Org' dialogue open, with the organization tree expanded, while moving/firing the selected units on the map. As per this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3522335

For as long as I've played this series, my greatest complaint (at least in larger scenarios) has been my inability to keep units organized. I always play with the "Highlight Organization" function on and this is fine for lower levels of command. The "Find Org" dialogue is cumbersome to say the least. Coming from Panzer Campaigns, what I'd really like is to have organizations color coded similar to the way "Divisional Markings" work in PzC.

It wasn't until quite recently, while reading about CS Middle East, that I even realized that the color code used in 2D modes was related to the unit type. I suspect that many others have become used to this, so my wish would be for a toggle to change the color so that it could be used to denote units from the same battalion.

Given a choice in any game, I always play with NATO symbols on. I'm not sure how this could be handled using other icons or in 3D, but it would be a nice option in 2D mode.

Thanks again for all the updates... I'm waiting somewhat patiently for Middle East to see the improvements to the game. But, what I'm sure that I'll really be impatient for is to see the improvements ported to the original series [&o]

Edit: Just one more thing (Not really, but for now [;)]: Some way to show reachable hexes using double time movement without actually having to become fatigued would be sweet. I thought someone else had mentioned this, but I couldn't find the post in this thread when I looked back through...

[Jafele]

When seven units are stacked in one hex is impossible to see the seventh in the info box. Would be cool an arrow to move between the units and the terrain info.

[berto]

Not true. By holding down the left mouse button, you can drag the Info Box display up or down as you please.

[Jafele]

Thanks, I didn´t know. Great! [:)]

[Big Ivan]

Please consider these issues for the new upgrade to CS-EF/WF/RS

1. In the scenario editor a range display (like in playing a scenario the "G" key) for units. Also a range display in both editor and playing a scenario for off-board artillery.

2. Clearing the org file of units placed for off board artillery. Ex: right now you can place off-board artillery in the editor and the guns show not available in the org file.
But when you save the scenario and come back to it to work on the scenario, the off board artillery units previously placed are in the org file.
This would prevent accidental re-replacement of the artillery which in turn could prevent the dreaded "ghost" artillery unit.

3. Eliminate the on board aircraft units. They don't really work considering the game scale and time frame.

4. Increased visibility with increased height advantage.
That is if a unit can see 6 hexes at ground level would it be prudent that at a level 1 or 2 higher than ground level it could see 7 or 8 hexes baring terrain obstructions?

5. View menu: Right now I have my view set at "Last View" for a scenario but if I have rotated my map 180 then save it and I come back to a scenario the last view is not the last view, it is not rotated.

6. We've talked extensively about fixing the org files for DCG scenarios so I won't dwell on that.

7. Random scenario generation (Setup): Right now a meeting engagement appears the be a meeting engagement and a river crossing appears to be a river crossing.
Could a bridgehead be randomly setup as a bridge head over a minor river??
As for a pocket breakout/delaying action/highway clearing I don't think changing the random setup could do much there.

Just some of my thoughts I would like to have considered.

Thanks dev team

Big Ivan