MCS User WISHLIST

[e_barkmann]

also another vote here for adjusting speed of animations - currently, fast is too fast, and normal is way too slow. Need something a bit slower than the current 'fast'. Things happen in PBEM replay that you just can't see due to the speed of replay. Sure, you can replay repeatedly, but with something a bit slower than the current 'fast', it shouldn't be necessary.

cheers

[marcbarker]

Would it possible to slow down the animation , add air raid siren sound for an air attack

[kool_kat]

Chris:

Excellent suggestion!

Preset opportunity fire prior to start of a PBeM game - Yes! [&o]

What you describe has happened to me in many PBeM games! [:(]

[Miamieagle]

I disagree with you Gentelman. What we need is more speed options. Some times we need more speed to be able to settup our units in a Battle senerio. Most of us do not have the luxury of four or five hrs a day to play a senerio. So I believe we need more options added to our speed option.

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: Miamieagle

I disagree with you Gentelman. What we need is more speed options. Some times we need more speed to be able to settup our units in a Battle senerio. Most of us do not have the luxury of four or five hrs a day to play a senerio. So I believe we need more options added to our speed option.

Miamieagle:

Sorry, but what are you specifically referencing?

Do you want AI-aids to assist in the set-up of YOUR units? [&:]

In CS, there currently exists some methods to speed up play. In player vs. AI games, you have a "Fast Computer Player" option and in PBeM, you can bypass the turn replay (not recommended in my opinion!).

[Miamieagle]

No! I just want the ability to move my units in the Battlefield settup mode quicker than it is now available as a option. I own several Combat flight Simulators and they all have options in the rate of speed you can reach the combat area in long range missions. I would like to the same option in this series. I do not mean super fast eather,just a bit faster option including what we already have. For example normal speed 1x1,a bit fater 1x2.quick fast1x3. faster1x4.

It will alway be up to the player when he wants to employ this faster option.

[Abqjohnd]

I'm new to the series and the Forum so if I'm being redundent, I appologize. My major concern has to do with a game-play concept that based on my reading has become a standard 'tactic' that lacks realism. When a tank, or other AFV, takes fire that has a retreat result, the game engine retreats the unit by turning it 180 degrees which puts the most vulnerable portion of the armor 'front-on' to continued enemy fire. A more realistic withdrawl would be in reverse, especially since the retreating vehicle is only moving one hex. Perhaps a random chance that the vehicle would turn and run could preserve the current tactic with the majority of the vehicles actually reversing away.

Thank you for considering this modification.

Being new to the series I have only played East Front but expect this to be a function of the game engine and not limited to one game of the series.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Abqjohnd

I'm new to the series and the Forum so if I'm being redundent, I appologize. My major concern has to do with a game-play concept that based on my reading has become a standard 'tactic' that lacks realism. When a tank, or other AFV, takes fire that has a retreat result, the game engine retreats the unit by turning it 180 degrees which puts the most vulnerable portion of the armor 'front-on' to continued enemy fire. A more realistic withdrawl would be in reverse, especially since the retreating vehicle is only moving one hex. Perhaps a random chance that the vehicle would turn and run could preserve the current tactic with the majority of the vehicles actually reversing away.

Thank you for considering this modification.

Being new to the series I have only played East Front but expect this to be a function of the game engine and not limited to one game of the series.

While this may be an option available in a future UPDATE, a few things to consider in the meantime:

ORIGINAL: MCS_HINTS_TIPS.doc in the Manuals folder

Armour Facing Rules
________________________________________
This is based on my experiences playing on the Eastern Front, generally playing larger scenarios.

Armour Facing Rules are optional, although most players tend to play with them ON. There are a few proponents of leaving the rule turned OFF, and design their scenarios accordingly.

Personally, I play with them turned ON. Those familiar with platoon tactics for the combatants during the war understand that most platoons operated as a unit typically in formations. Formation types includes; line, row, wedge and double row. The wedge most often used when conducting an attack. With these formations, the vehicles tend to be facing in one direction, although the turrets may be turned to one side or the other.

Tank sides vary in armour thickness. They tend to have more armour in the front as that is the general direction of the enemy. The weakest area tends to be the rear. Maneuver to shoot at the sides or preferably the rear of armoured vehicles will rest in more “kills”.

“I hate the way the tank rear armour is exposed when they are forced to retreat!” I have heard time and again. A few comments on that:

1. Terrain is your friend. Try to fire from the edge of a town, forest, field, or hillside where if you have to retreat, the terrain blocks your opponent from firing at your rear.

2. Smoke is your friend. If you have to operate in an area of open ground, use a line of smoke to retreat into. Planning ahead with engineers and artillery can save the day!

3. Forethought is your friend! Plan ahead; do not unnecessarily expose your armour to sustained fire from your opponent that will cause retreats and losses. Overwhelm and be victorious!

Take care and good luck

Jason Petho

[Fierce]

I don't know if these were mentioned, if so I'll say it again.
I was thinking about visibility of units in open terain. In real life a tank may move around a corner and have a full field in view. At that time he would see any enemy within his sight. In the game when a unit moves into an open area that it didn't originally have any line of sight no units are visible until it "bumps" into it. In effect its a blind driver.

Could the game be adjusted to have units in the open become visible when an opponent drives past and not necessarily bump into them? This would give scouts allot more importance when they drive around.

they other is, why do tanks fall out of supply so much so soon even after firing only once? Don't they have enough ammo stored for many, many shots?
It seems to me that they could be fully supplied more often.

Dave

[1925frank]

I think tanks go low-on-supply sooner because they tend to stray farther from their battalion headquarters.  Conversely, tank battalion HQ have a harder time keeping up.  Battalion HQ are easy kills and expensive losses.

I'm not sure what the thinking was behind the visibility question. 

[Fierce]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

I think tanks go low-on-supply sooner because they tend to stray farther from their battalion headquarters.  Conversely, tank battalion HQ have a harder time keeping up.  Battalion HQ are easy kills and expensive losses.

I'm not sure what the thinking was behind the visibility question. 

The visibility would apply to a small infantry platoon that I moved up over a ridge and saw a wide open space. I saw no enemy so I moved my forces over the ridge to be the first to wait. The next turn I was cut to ribbons by MANY tank platoons. the only way to "light the area up" was to have my scout car drive around like an idiot risking op-fire. So unrealistic.
Perhaps an option for the visibility thing could be made?

Why would tanks even go out of ammo? I can understand going low on fuel bt re-supply seems a bit random. I can see infantry being out of supply after firing many times and after advancing through the game. How many shells can a tank hold anyway? I'm not trying to be a mal-content, just thinking of ways to improve the game for all now that good folk like Jason's Brigade are working on it. Perhaps he even thought about this...

What do you think?

[1925frank]

If I remember correctly, low-on-supply status reflects more than the availability of ammo.  I think it also reflects something akin to coherence.  If contact with the HQ is tenuous, the units effectively become more timid or less coordinated.  I don't think it's strictly a question of the availability of ammo.

It sounds like you were playing against a really skilled opponent.  I've often regretted leaving opportunity fire on for this very reason.  I can see where infantry could remain concealed even in the open.  I would imagine vehicles would have a more difficult time remaining concealed even when they know an enemy is approaching unless they are in a woods or a suburb/village/city hex.

[TAIL GUNNER]

So now that we have 3SP transports for a full platoon of troops, I'd also like to see the landing crafts get this same treatment.

For example, a single LCA or LCVP can carry a platoon of men.....a LCT carries a full platoon of vehicles.


Ideally I'd like to see a single landing craft carry multiple types of units, but I'll take what I can get.

ChadG

[FM WarB]

New Units request, USA:
I&R platoon modelled after rifle platoon 44 but 4 strengthpoints
Jeep scout section, same as above but 2 SP
Willies jeep MG both 30 and 50 cal versions.
Willies jeep MG (armored) 2, 0, 0 and a bit slower.

Unit change.
US cannon companies are given the wrong gns in the new unit files.

[1925frank]

What about a unit that effectively represents supplies that can't be moved without the help of wagons, trucks, or horses (or boats) and the loss of which would be expensive?  It wouldn't be a supply unit in the verb sense (supplying other units, like HQs) but a supply unit in the noun sense (a unit that is valuable but vulnerable). 
 
I can see scenarios where your side has a supply depot that the enemy is threatening.  If you lose the supplies, you take a hit in VPs.  With units that represent supplies (whose only function is vulneralbe VPs), you'd have the option of trying to transport the supplies to safety.  The transportation itself would be risky, because wagons, trucks, and horses are easy kills -- and they'd be expensive kills if loaded with supplies. 

[junk2drive]

Frank

[1925frank]

Thanks, Junk2Drive.  I took a quick look in the US WF OOB for June 1945 and didn't see this unit.  I looked in the plattoon files, and I looked for "Mobile Supply."  Where do I find them?  Are these available just for certain countries and for certain time periods?  It looks like they are supply units in both the verb (like HQs) and noun sense.
 
Is there anything comparable like I described?  Something that can't be moved without the help of another unit?  I was thinking in terms of scenarios involving partisans or some other aspect of the war where vehicles or fuel were in short supply -- like in China or Burma? 

[junk2drive]

As I understand, things were added to EF from 1.02 to 1.04 but WF and RS haven't been done yet. I expect that WF will be done for 1.05 and RS sometime after. The shot above is from a generated battle in EF with me as Soviets. I was surprised to see it and wondered what the heck is this?
 
I suppose you could make your own for WF and RS and have Jason add them/encript them.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

Thanks, Junk2Drive.  I took a quick look in the US WF OOB for June 1945 and didn't see this unit.  I looked in the plattoon files, and I looked for "Mobile Supply."  Where do I find them?  Are these available just for certain countries and for certain time periods?  It looks like they are supply units in both the verb (like HQs) and noun sense.

Is there anything comparable like I described?  Something that can't be moved without the help of another unit?  I was thinking in terms of scenarios involving partisans or some other aspect of the war where vehicles or fuel were in short supply -- like in China or Burma? 

Many of the special units (such as the one above) found in East Front will be added to the other games as UPDATES progress.

Jason Petho

[Busto963]

Corps level+ artillery barrages. This would allow some interesting scenarios, campaigns.

Instead of apportioning individual off-board artillery assets for player employment, how about barrage concentrations of large caliber off-board artillery assets (rolling barrages, Time on Target, FPF etc). These might or might not be under player control depending on the scenario designer. The preplanned nature of fire, might allow for more effect on hapless units, but less control over key factors like start/stop time. They might be continuous in nature affecting every unit in, or passing through a hex.

Example 1: an attacking player is given a rolling barrage concentration of 25pdr guns. The specified width is four hexes, speed is two hexes per turn, direction is east. The player gets to select the start/stop time, and start/end points at the start of the game. Player elects to attack behind the rolling barrage with some negatives from direct fire attacker and defender fire that crosses through the rolling barrage.

Example 2: defending player has a preplanned defensive fire of 17cm guns. Player selects a final protected fire line. During the enemy movement phase, an infantry regiment crosses the FPF line triggering off-board artillery fire. Every unit passing through that FPF line is attacked.

Example 3: Attacking player is given two Time on Target barrages for his supporting 155mm and 105mm artillery. Player selects two heavily fortified hexes and proceeds with his attack knowing that he can call in the coordinated fire of several batteries.

Needless to say this would be a rare item. The rolling barrage might simply a line graphic stretching from hex center to hex center. These rules could force players to deal with trying to keep to schedule or abandoning the the benefit of a barrage due to changes in enemy disposition. Could be quite interesting.

GAB