MCS User WISHLIST

[ArmyEsq]

Further to my earlier list of 1) a return of the random map generator; 2) fuel shortage; 3) multi level in city, building and industrial hexes; (and I think I had suggested another one but of course I can't remember now):

How about weather effects for weapons systems? For example, extreme winter and extreme heat. Maybe a drop in fire effectiveness to simulate breakdowns? Or same effects as supplies shortage?

And maybe morale is affected by extreme winter? Such that units are even less likely to run out of city, village or suburb hexes? For example, a depleted German company is holed up in a village on the Russian steppe in late January. Extreme winter rules are checked off on the optional rules dialog box (or it's built into the scenario by the scenario designer). The Co (-) morale level is increased twice: once because they're in the cover of a village (terrain modifier), and once because of the extreme cold--as long as they're in the village, they're going to try to stay in the village even if it means they'll die in place because they know that the alternative of exposure in the cold snow also means certain death. In addition, the Co (-)'s fire effectiveness is reduced on the combat results table (or it suffers from permanent supply shortage effects--depending on how you wish to simulate this rule) because the extreme cold is causing weapon systems to breakdown or jam up.

Btw, one more comment about multilevel hexes for city, building and industrial: it would only apply to infantry units (vehicles, guns, etc. can't climb stairs!). This rule would further increase the value of infantry in urban assaults. AFVs would then never be able to take an urban location without the assistance of the foot soldier. This I think would add to the game designers' intent behind making tank assaults in urban terrain more vulnerable without an infantry escort!

[MrRoadrunner]

Ugh! [:(]
Assaulting into towns and villages (and all built up areas) by armor is already effected by the game engine. They are severely restricted by the combat table. Your complexity using multi levels is not truly in the scale of the game.
Keep the suggestions coming. Maybe someone who is developing the Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader computer game is reading your thoughts? [:D]

RR

[ArmyEsq]

Hey Roadrunner. First: you're wrong about not being in scale. If you are already assaulting with a company how does making them go up another level in a hex change the scale of the game?
Second: complexity is handled by our great game engine! So don't be scared!

[scottintacoma]

ArmyEsq,

I would like to know how multi stories would be in scale for the game. At 250 meters per hex, how many buildings in WW2 where that large, except in major cities?

[ArmyEsq]

Scottgibson,

Please tell me of a single city-- large or small--where there is only a ground level. Moreover, the greater the area contemplated, the greater the likelihood that there will be more than one level. Your question assumes the opposite. If the distance covered in that small or large city is 250 meters, then there is a proportionately greater, not smaller, probability that there are buildings within that grid that contain buildings with levels above the ground; certainly greater than if we were talking about a 50 meter hex.

Urban Operations training in the US Army always assume a multi- dimensional environment. My wish list idea only contemplates 3 terrains: city, industrial, and special buildings; not suburbs or villages (which certainly do contain multi levels--even in villages in Iraq for example: rooftops are used for many reasons). Our wonderful game does abstract many aspects of urban warfare, but I think that it could model it just a little bit better if we were given the option to use a multi dimensional city environment. Imagine how different your tactics would be in a hot seat or PBEM if suddenly the city you're tasked with taking no longer is as easy as taking a position in the forest or jungle.

Scale is not affected by this because the platoon and company sized nature of the game is untouched. Nor is the size of the hex changed. Nor is time changed. Does climbing a multi level hill in CS change its scale? Certainly not. Thus, unless your definition of scale deviates from the standard dictionary definition, adding a second level to 3 terrain types won't impact scale in the least. You'll still command the same sized units and the same number.

[scottintacoma]

The point I was trying to make, is the scale means you are not dealing with individual buildings, so adding an additional level make no sense to me. If wthe scale was such that we were dealing with individual buildings, I would agree. And my question to you was other then a major city, where were there individual buildings that size in WW!!.

[ArmyEsq]

Scotgibson,

I understand and I think I answered the question. Cities and industrial buildings haven't changed much from WWII days: buildings in cities are still built tall in order to make use of as much space as possible within the city limits. Urban sprawl didn't exist in WWII Europe or Russia the way it does in the United States, if at all. But even if it did, you still have multi level buildings even if it's only a second story. There are plenty of photographs showing very dense and tall cities, and historical accounts of men fighting soldiers in upper levels of a building.

As for the scale of it all, my wish is not to add single buildings or room to room fighting. I'm simply suggesting that a city hex can be treated almost like a condensed 2-level hill not an individual building. It's just adding one more (or more as far as I'm concerned) level. And this would absolutely be an abstraction since a 250 meter hex is about the size of a city block, which of course holds many buildings. What I suggest is that all those buildings be treated as a single second location of a city hex. If that is changing the scale then how do we reconcile the reality that there are multi level hills in our game. This would just make an occasional multi story hex.

In any event, villages in Normandy were made up of multi story houses (we're not talking of skyscrapers); Bastogne, Odessa, Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Munich, Moscow, Berlin, Leningrad, Antwerp, Madrid, Toledo, Vigo (small city in Spain), Paris, Rome, etc. The list of WWII cities (and towns) with multi level buildings is extensive. The scale of the CS is so broad and so epic that I don't understand how a suggestion like mine could be offensive to anyone.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: ArmyEsq

Hey Roadrunner. First: you're wrong about not being in scale. If you are already assaulting with a company how does making them go up another level in a hex change the scale of the game?
Second: complexity is handled by our great game engine! So don't be scared!

Hey, ArmyEsq,
First you seem to have no idea of scale or the scale of the game or how the scenarios can be designed.
You see a village or city hex and remember in Squad Leader that you can put a squad on the upper floors of buildings. Wow!
So you come here and whine over and over how "realism" can be put into the game if we just copy what they did in Squad Leader. As Mr. Gibson pointed out it is 250 meters per hex.

You cry for fuel and ammo shortages. But, you must know that the scenario designer is responsible for supply levels?
Then you weep over how weather should have an effect on the game? Huh?
You do know that the scenario designer can set the ground conditions and the visibility of the scenario?

Guys like you have cried for many changes. Until push-back from guys like me we have things like engineers who can build bridges, clear and sow minefields, construct barriers in six minutes (if the game engine rolls great). We get airplanes that do not fly but can attack specific hexes. We also had extreme assault made part of the game non-optional. We had random visibility thrust upon us.
I do not mind that designers have the ability to create dawn into day or dusk into night. That at least gives the opportunity to design a scenario that has more turns and is effected by that type of change. Though, fuel, ammo, and morale are not effected when they should be. But, I do not want artificial insertions to be made without an understanding of the overall effects to the game.

Lastly, remember this is WWII? If you want to model what you learned in Urban Operations I would think that it should be done for the time period of the introduction to UO?

Other than that I simply would ask that someone somewhere design Squad Leader for you. I do not know much about Squad Battles, I have not played it in years. But, I am sure that some of the features you ask for would be better suited to that game scale.

And, BTW, scale is not just distance? But, you knew that too? [8|]

RR

[scottintacoma]

MrRoadrunner,

Thanks, you are much more articulate than I am.

[ArmyEsq]

Wow. If you like, look up the definition of wish list.

As for scale, adding another location to a hex doesn't impact time and distance ratios and therefore, scale is not affected. But I suspect you don't really care about English or ratio or scale. You just want to chill this forum and discourage others with an opinion different from yours.

Finally, my dear, don't be so hostile to those who play ASL. They too might add value to our beloved CS.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: ArmyEsq

Wow. If you like, look up the definition of wish list.

As for scale, adding another location to a hex doesn't impact time and distance ratios and therefore, scale is not affected. But I suspect you don't really care about English or ratio or scale. You just want to chill this forum and discourage others with an opinion different from yours.

Finally, my dear, don't be so hostile to those who play ASL. They too might add value to our beloved CS.

No, Sir.

I know what wish lists are. Look what it has done to American football. Or schools. Or politics.

I am not hostile. I am expressing my wishlist. Simply, do not add or change the game with stupid stuff that someone might want, because they asked for it, or liked it in another game.
I think it might be more safe to say that you are the hostile one? I have addressed points that have been made. I have asked that scale always come first. You, though, seem to think that directly attacking me for my opinion is Okey Dokey?
And, to add enlightenment to my comments about ASL/Advanced ASL, I've only asked that ASL be made into a great computer game that people like you can enjoy.

Good day. Good gaming. [:)]

RR

[James Ward]

Regarding the wish list hopefully some of these things can be added as optional rules, able to be turned on and off as desired. It's not like the game is broken or sucks as it is. It's pretty damn good. But some of the ideas look interesting enough that I wouldn't mind trying them, provided I could turn them off if I wanted.

[kool_kat]

Gents: [8D]

Lots of interesting ideas!

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: James Ward
Regarding the wish list hopefully some of these things can be added as optional rules, able to be turned on and off as desired. It's not like the game is broken or sucks as it is. It's pretty damn good. But some of the ideas look interesting enough that I wouldn't mind trying them, provided I could turn them off if I wanted.

Some of the stuff that has been brought up is OK.
Others are not worth opening Pandora's Box for.

Things that rile me are the "dead bodies" left on the map. Why not add dead animals too? Play Close Assault or Para 101.
Medics or Medical units that affect morale. Play Candy Land or Shoots and Ladders. [;)]

How about airplanes doing a victory roll, before they exit the map, if they hit anything but a wagon or truck? [:D]

There are things that I like that are being added (in case anyone thinks I do not want them to add anything).
Extending map elevations is a great idea. Map shading and other graphics really enhances the look. New labels without the white background are more modern looking. And, the Large toolbar buttons.

I do like the thought of Nato symbols and/or Panzer Blitz/Leader counter art. Though I play very little in 2-d.

RR

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: James Ward
Regarding the wish list hopefully some of these things can be added as optional rules, able to be turned on and off as desired. It's not like the game is broken or sucks as it is. It's pretty damn good. But some of the ideas look interesting enough that I wouldn't mind trying them, provided I could turn them off if I wanted.

Some of the stuff that has been brought up is OK.
Others are not worth opening Pandora's Box for.

Well it is certainly up to those who are still supporting the game what they want to add and what they don't. I make no claim of knowing anything about how hard and time consuming it is to modify the game and what can and can't be done.
If changes can be turned on and off at will then anything that can be added could be worth something to someone. I use some of the optional rules all the time, others only sometimes and some never. I'm sure other people play it different. That is the beauty of them.

[dgk196]

Hello....

It looks like its been awhile since this thread is receiving responses, but here goes.

I would like the 'objectives' of the two 'sides' to be invisible to each other. Part of defending or attacking is trying to figure out
where the other guy is headed, or not. I mean how many commanders had a detailed map of the enemies objectives, and could therefor surmise the attack plan of the enemy forces.
I'm sure there where a lot of instances where that little piece of information would have come in handy to the field commanders.

Also, relative to that, I would like to see variable victory points and alternate objectives, in a scenario. Have a 'Plan A' or 'Plan B' and so on.
This would alter the play of scenarios so that there where not situations where the players would know these because of having played them before.

Dennis

[Jason Petho]

Great idea, Dennis!

Jason Petho

[MausMan2]

I can agree with points on both sides of that discussion about urban elevation. I do believe if within the 250m area, your platoon has access to a grain silo/water tower/minaret/bell tower, that while it may not get additional defensive points, it would provide additional visibility. But that creates the problem where you want to prevent a player from using all its direct fire at that higher lever, while at the same time, allowing him to use that advantage to call indirect fire.

[Deepstuff3725]

New to Campaign Series and I really impressed with the game.

Wondering if the Aircraft capabilities could be enhanced in the future to include dogfighting? Realize the game is more focused on ground warfare, but this would be fun.
Not sure of the naval warfare limitations as of now, but the manual described ships to be of limited use. Could we see some improvements here so we could have naval warfare? More variety of ships, perhaps aircraft carriers able to launch planes?

Like the suggestion where each player would have their own objectives not known to the other player. I've played a board game that has this feature. Perhaps a long with that have an objective, or objectives, that have point values hidden to both players?

Thanks to everyone working on this game. I've played quite a few war games and I really this one.... Covers all theaters, tons of scenarios, huge database of units all with individual ratings. The random scenario creator is awesome.

[Jason Petho]

Welcome aboard, Jeff!

We continue to support the Campaign Series, with a new very significant UPDATE coming near the end of 2016. We are presently working on a new game for the series, Middle East, which covers the conflicts of the region between 1948 and 1982.

Don't forget to ensure you are updated to the 2.02 UPDATE, which you can find here: 2.02 DOWNLOAD LINK. You just need the 2.02 UPDATE, as they are cumulative.

Thank you for adding to the wishlist.

Jason Petho