The New and Improved Wish List

[Romeo13]

OK... can we get a list of base speeds for the different Infantry units then?
 
And how Rush, advance and other commands affect infantry?
 
 
Your correct... I've been playing Armor campaigns, so really have not noticed the difference between Standard Inf and HMG squads...

[mossicon]

Mine are all visual. I am so superficial

1) buildings get blown up
2) landscape scarred by artillery
3) reduced squads have a graphical representation
4) 3d trees

I would also prefer a campaign where a defeat wouldn't mean you have to replay the same battle.

[z1812]

Hi All,

1. Very Intuitive map editor.

2. More intuitive way to use the 3d map editor to place units. You should be able to jump into the 3d map from the scenario editor.

3. Scenario editor pop up error messages should be more informative to direct you how to solve your problem.

4. Floating Icons should be selectable.

5. More animations as visual cues to a units posture.

6. Units that burn should burn a little longer. Some vehicles should not burn but smoke the duration of the scenario. Not all Units should burn or explode when destroyed.

7. Closed sheaf arty should be more concentrated.

8. Commanders with command effects.

9. Much Better Tac A.I. for units whether human or computer controlled.

Regards John

[NefariousKoel]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
10) Wheeled vehicle hits that read "mobility hit" instead of "track hit".

Hm, this should already work that way. Are you not getting "wheel" and "mobility" hits on your wheeled vehicles?

Regards,

- Erik

Erik-

It's showing non-damaging "Track hit" also. It still says mobility damage but, non-effective hits on the track are displaying in the message box too which is a bit confusing.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel
It's showing non-damaging "Track hit" also. It still says mobility damage but, non-effective hits on the track are displaying in the message box too which is a bit confusing.

Ok, will check. Do you recall what unit this was on? I want to check if it's a data or code issue.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel
It's showing non-damaging "Track hit" also. It still says mobility damage but, non-effective hits on the track are displaying in the message box too which is a bit confusing.

Ok, will check. Do you recall what unit this was on? I want to check if it's a data or code issue.

The Pumas all show tracks IIRC. I'll check again to make sure.

Good Hunting.

MR

[junk2drive]

12) I would like to be able to give a vehicle unit a reliability rating. Poor to Excellent. Poor meaning that the vehicle could go immobile 75% of the time. Excellent meaning the unit performs flawlessly, you know like they always do in wargames. The Panther is a prime example. Any Panthers in an Kursk scenario should be at poor reliability. They broke down and caught fire. During the Battle of the Bulge the Germans were starving for fuel. If a tank runs out of fuel in the middle of a battle it's bad news. The entire 2nd Panzer Division was almost destroyed for that very reason during the Battle of the Bulge.

 
As long as I can toggle this on/off, and the same for bogging/immobile. I play war games to see if my thinking beats the enemy. Random events can ruin that plan and ruin the gameplay for me. Makes playtesting tough too.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The Pumas all show tracks IIRC. I'll check again to make sure.

Huh, I was seeing wheel hits on my Pumas, will re-check.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The Pumas all show tracks IIRC. I'll check again to make sure.

Huh, I was seeing wheel hits on my Pumas, will re-check.

Not in the events box. I just sent you a screen shot.

Good Hunting.

MR

[RocketMan]

1) The ability to toggle a grid on and off.
2) Waypoints with dragable junction/end points (ala Combat Mission).
3) The ability to give orders to individual units that are different from the HQ unit.
4) The ability to cancel an artillery strike the turn it is ordered.
5) Artillery spotters.
6) On map 81mm mortars.
7) I think this one has already been mentioned, but an area of effect circle for artillery instead of just targets.
8) Better targeting by units if they move during a turn and then stop moving. My units always seem to just stupidly stand there.
9) Guns whose gun shields do not protect them damn close to 100% from frontal fire.
10) Bigger maps.
11) Getting rid of the mount command for buildings/foxholes, or perhaps has somebody has already suggested, a move and mount order.

I'm sure I'll think of more later [:D]

[dennisb55]

I'd like to know if a unit has CBE (smoke) rounds remaining shown in the unit information box. 
 
If I'm correct that the usage of ammo is simply an 'out of ammo' die roll you can disregard this, but if there's anyway to denote out/low/high level of ammo remaining, that would be useful, and prevent me from putting units without effective ammo into positions of danger. 

[Mad Russian]

My list....

1) A fully operational editor. Maps and all.

2) A TCP/hotseat mode so I can do playtesting and TCP game play.

3) HT's need to keep the infantry inside and not dump it in open terrain whenever they take fire. Only when the crew would abandon the HT should the passengers try to get out. Not before then.

4) The mount order needs to only apply to vehicles. Not buildings. A movement order that ends at a building automatically has the unit enter. A movement order that originates from a building automatically has the unit leave the building.

5) Order strings. Give me at least 3 orders that I can make continuous. Something besides go to point B and then stop and sit.

6) Infantry combat which I won't get into since I know that's on the list of improvements for the PC3 game release.

7) An aircraft targeting system. I want to tell the aircraft where I want airsupport. Not to within inches but no 800 meters away either.

8) The death clock from other tactical games is nice. A firer often doesn't know when a vehicle has been killed unless it explodes.

8a) Not all vehicles should explode.

8b) The smoke and fire should be variable on a vehicle that has been hit. They could easily burn for the 20 minutes of real time that most PCK games take.

9) I would like to see the units about twice as likely to break under fire. Keep the system the same just move the numbers up to about double what they are now for the initiative check.

Add to that....

10) Wheeled vehicle hits that read "mobility hit" instead of "track hit". ** This has been done in a patch. **

11) Lose almost all enemy identification on the events chart. I would much prefer to see it read "Soviet tank engaged" rather than " 1/2 Tank Battlaion 2". There is no possible way that a commander would know the organizational slot held by a unit that has been targeted by his forces during combat. The best you get is your own guys telling you they are, "fighting with T-34's." The worst you get is, "we are taking tank fire!"

More as I think about them and they come to mind.

And then there are these too:

12) I would like to be able to give a vehicle unit a reliability rating. Poor to Excellent. Poor meaning that the vehicle could go immobile 75% of the time. Excellent meaning the unit performs flawlessly, you know like they always do in wargames. The Panther is a prime example. Any Panthers in an Kursk scenario should be at poor reliability. They broke down and caught fire. During the Battle of the Bulge the Germans were starving for fuel. If a tank runs out of fuel in the middle of a battle it's bad news. The entire 2nd Panzer Division was almost destroyed for that very reason during the Battle of the Bulge.

13) All manner of engineer tasks. Again I think that is slated for PC3 so I'll not go deep into that. But flamethrowers, demo charges, road blocks, wire and mines could all be added. The tasks should be rated both for emplacement and for removal.

14) All manner of specific squad/vehicle crew experience levels. Not just setting the experience levels for the entire platoon.

14a) To the ability to have historical names and to have available all the medals and extra attributes to be available to assign to each squad/vehicle crew. These guys were there not just for campaigns but in actual battles too. One of the things missing in PC is the connection to the pixel troops...giving them their historical names and their attributes will help tremendously. You won't want to see that Panzer Ace lose that gun duel with a T-34 now will you.....?@!!

15) I would like to be able to add map labels. To make the map terrain more personable. To, "put you there".

** Added 5-14 **

16) During game setup I would like to see on the map where my units can go in the 200 meter range. Without having to run the rubberband all over the map.

17) I would like to have the medals and all decorations be able to be applied to units in battles.

18) I would like to be able as the scenario desinger to assign the ammo load outs of the units about to enter battle. Since all my scenarios are historically based there are times when ammo loads become very important.

19) Automatic cannons have a sound file that matches a rapid fire weapon instead of a single shot weapon.

Good Hunting.

MR

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

4) ... A movement order that ends at a building automatically has the unit enter. ..

totally disagree with this. Its quite reasonable for an infantry to NOT want to enter a building , but simply use it for cover as they move.

9) I would like to see the units about twice as likely to break under fire. Keep the system the same just move the numbers up to about double what they are now for the initiative check.

I dont think this is necessary. and if you wanted to try this out to see effect, I think you could edit some units in a scenario and do a test.

12) I would like to be able to give a vehicle unit a reliability rating. Poor to Excellent. Poor meaning that the vehicle could go immobile 75% of the time. Excellent meaning the unit performs flawlessly, you know like they always do in wargames. The Panther is a prime example. Any Panthers in an Kursk scenario should be at poor reliability. They broke down and caught fire. During the Battle of the Bulge the Germans were starving for fuel. If a tank runs out of fuel in the middle of a battle it's bad news. The entire 2nd Panzer Division was almost destroyed for that very reason during the Battle of the Bulge.

I agree, but only if it can be done on a battle basis -- this attribute would likely vary over time.

14a) To the ability to have historical names and to have available all the medals and extra attributes to be available to assign to each squad/vehicle crew. These guys were there not just for campaigns but in actual battles too. One of the things missing in PC is the connection to the pixel troops...giving them their historical names and their attributes will help tremendously. You won't want to see that Panzer Ace lose that gun duel with a T-34 now will you.....?@!!

Cant you do this already- though not sure what good medals would do outside of a Campaign? Perhaps I
m not understanding what youre suggesting.

15) I would like to be able to add map labels. To make the map terrain more personable. To, "put you there".

I always like map labels - but I'm not sure that they really work for a 1000m square maps

17) I would like to have the medals and all decorations be able to be applied to units in battles.

Aren't they already applied for battles?

18) I would like to be able as the scenario desinger to assign the ammo load outs of the units about to enter battle. Since all my scenarios are historically based there are times when ammo loads become very important.

This would be good - on a battle or campaign basis at least qualitatively - ie increase the odds that a unit will run out of ammo.

Rick

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Rick

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

4) ... A movement order that ends at a building automatically has the unit enter. ..

totally disagree with this. Its quite reasonable for an infantry to NOT want to enter a building , but simply use it for cover as they move.

I didn't say you couldn't move up to a building and not go in. I think it's just as reasonable to be able to give an order to go into the building as to move up next to it.

9) I would like to see the units about twice as likely to break under fire. Keep the system the same just move the numbers up to about double what they are now for the initiative check.


I dont think this is necessary. and if you wanted to try this out to see effect, I think you could edit some units in a scenario and do a test.

Thats next on my To Do List.

12) I would like to be able to give a vehicle unit a reliability rating. Poor to Excellent. Poor meaning that the vehicle could go immobile 75% of the time. Excellent meaning the unit performs flawlessly, you know like they always do in wargames. The Panther is a prime example. Any Panthers in an Kursk scenario should be at poor reliability. They broke down and caught fire. During the Battle of the Bulge the Germans were starving for fuel. If a tank runs out of fuel in the middle of a battle it's bad news. The entire 2nd Panzer Division was almost destroyed for that very reason during the Battle of the Bulge.


I agree, but only if it can be done on a battle basis -- this attribute would likely vary over time.

All of these are battle wishes only for the most part. Although there are some that apply to campaigns as well.

For instance, the tank ace Michael Wittmann could very well start a campaign as a Panzer Ace. From the engagement on 12 July 1941, when he destroyed 6 Soviet tanks in an action where he alone took on 18 Soviet vehicles and won the fight, you could make him a Panzer Ace in PC.

That's what I'd like to bring into the game.

14a) To the ability to have historical names and to have available all the medals and extra attributes to be available to assign to each squad/vehicle crew. These guys were there not just for campaigns but in actual battles too. One of the things missing in PC is the connection to the pixel troops...giving them their historical names and their attributes will help tremendously. You won't want to see that Panzer Ace lose that gun duel with a T-34 now will you.....?@!!


Cant you do this already- though not sure what good medals would do outside of a Campaign? Perhaps I
m not understanding what youre suggesting.

You can a bit. The game is set up on unit designations at the moment. You can, and I have in some of my customized scenarios, put the names of the commanders in the place of the unit designation. The game isn't set up for that and after having tried doing some of that I'm not sure what my solution to this is. I need to spend more time in the editor and the game before I push this one too hard.

15) I would like to be able to add map labels. To make the map terrain more personable. To, "put you there".


I always like map labels - but I'm not sure that they really work for a 1000m square maps

So what, the church at Blatzheim, Germany couldn't be named? Or the school down the street? The factory at the edge of town? The roads that lead to the next largest towns? You think a commanders wouldn't show those points of interest? It's just a way to pull you deeper into the game.

Just because the map is small doesn't mean it won't have points of interest on it. There are points of interest to those fighting for them even when they are sometimes only one house. Take Pavlov's House in Stalingrad for instance.

17) I would like to have the medals and all decorations be able to be applied to units in battles.


Aren't they already applied for battles?

No, they aren't but I adderesed this earlier and need to remove this one from the list more than once.

18) I would like to be able as the scenario designer to assign the ammo load outs of the units about to enter battle. Since all my scenarios are historically based there are times when ammo loads become very important.


This would be good - on a battle or campaign basis at least qualitatively - ie increase the odds that a unit will run out of ammo.

Rick

Or increase the odds that they won't run out of a particular type of ammo on a particular type of mission. For instance, the German attacks around Kharkov in 1942. Do you think the Germans started the attack against the Soviet armored columns with a mix of 30% AP and 70% HE or would it more than likely have been the other way around.

In the early battles in 1941 the T-34s and KV-1s often had NO AP rounds! Thats right ZERO. Does PCK allow for that? It doesn't right now but it should IMO.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
3) HT's need to keep the infantry inside and not dump it in open terrain whenever they take fire. Only when the crew would abandon the HT should the passengers try to get out. Not before then.

Is this really happening to you whenever they take fire or only when an unpinned halftrack-mounted squad routs?

14) All manner of specific squad/vehicle crew experience levels. Not just setting the experience levels for the entire platoon.

This is unlikely to change, as a lot is designed around platoon experience and how a platoon works together.

Good suggestions overall though and most are not only feasible but planned for the next release.

Regards,

- Erik

[Bil H]

Re: map labels, I agree these would be very handy; these could easily be built into the map and then applied as just another .x file.  They would always be there, unless you use the JSGME utility and have a map with and a map without the markers (again easily done with a duplicate scene.xml file without the references to the text .x model).  What would be real handy would be to have the ability to turn these off interactively.

Bil

[Erik Rutins]

I agree, map labels are a must do.

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Rick

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

4) ... A movement order that ends at a building automatically has the unit enter. ..

totally disagree with this. Its quite reasonable for an infantry to NOT want to enter a building , but simply use it for cover as they move.

Then don't put the end of the movement inside the building. Simple.

[433tom]

First let me say I think the game is outstanding and has the potential to evolve into the best of it's genre. My feedback is based on the limited experience of thus far only playing one scenario and 5 battles in the 1st infantry division random campaign. So if any of my suggestions are a result of incorrect assumptins, I apoligize in advance.

1) A good, relatively easy to use map maker. The random campaign feature is great for re-playability, but in my opinion map making is the key to building a long term following similar to that of a game like CM (sorry the camparison is unavoidable).

2) On screen destruction of buildings and shell craters. Helps create and maintain an immersive atmosphere during the battle,

3) A numerical display for the status of your Infantry squads and perhaps kills. I would like to know whether I have 2 or 6 men left in a squad before I have them assualt a trench. The current status system is a bit to abstract for me.

4) A campaign status screen listing all the units that have participated in the campaign to date and their kills (perhaps numerical values for infantry kills/wounded).

5) Have a total FOW during setup. In my last three battles in the random campaign, I have been able to see Russian ATG's during the setup, then setup one of my infantry guns or mortars accordingly and taken the Russian gun out on the first turn.

6) The ability for ATG's to mount. In the random campaign they are often setup in a rather useless location. The player should have the ability to move ATG assets. Place time(turn) penalties on the mount/unmount command for them to simulate the time it takes to break them down and set them up.

7) The ability to properly orient open sheath fire. I saw a good suggestion in another thread where the author proposed using the mouse to change the orientation of the target icons.

8) Better AI for enemy movement. I think the enemy AI is actually pretty good, but as with any game, it can always get better. In my opinion, the AI could do a better job of using available cover during movement.

Again great game.
Regards,
Tom

Edit: An obsevation related to suggestion #3 and 4 above. Through the first 5 battles of my campaign, my only losses have been due to Russian mortar fire or in one case friendly fire from my 81mm mortars. To date, the hundred plus Russian rifle squads I have faced have not recorded one kill. Now I have no doubt they caused some casualties, but with the currect squad status system, it appears they will seldom get credited with a kill. Another plug for a numerical infantry status. [:)]

[NefariousKoel]

I'd also like to add:
 
In-scenario listing of medals & abilities for each specific unit.  Not a game breaker but it's nice to know where my crack units are & their capabilities.