MCS User WISHLIST

[Jason Petho]

Depends.

Some things will, some things won't be implemented.

Jason Petho

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: sztartur
Playing Steel Panthers a lot one knows that there are different platoon sizes in different armies/eras for infantry units. The infantry platoon size should be from 6 sp to 10 sp. That would mean a platoon would consist from 3 to 5 infantry squad. As far as I know 1 sp represents one half infantry squad.

As you've noted, the SP value is based on a half-squad. The amount of firepower of the squad is reflected in the units assault/defense and weapon values.

Jason Petho

[timshin42]

Jason,

I wish for (many) more Linked Campaigns in EF, WF, and RS.[:)]

I wish for the capabiliy of playing Linked Campaigns versus a human opponent (PBEM)!!!!![:D]

I wish for the capability of doing a real Artillery TOT; entire DIVARTY, CORPSARTY GROUPS, ARMY ARTY even, from any hexes on the map that are within range!!!!![&o]

Not much, right!

[maine_raptor]

Here's one for all games:

Hotkeys for Save Action Point for Firing and Save Action points for Loading/Unloading.

And I'll second the suggestion on the Engineer's; let's give them ability to lay a minefield or two.

[:D]

[michammer]

I'd like the ability to form kampfgruppes by detaching units from their parent organization and attaching them to another HQ.

[Leopejo]

Hi, I'm new to the forum and thanks for bringing my beloved CS back!
 
My wish: please update the user manual with all the changes between the original games and the Matrix version. In particular, I hope you update the manual after every new patch is released (as HPS does), unless it only corrects bugs; for example, the upcoming 1.03 patch appears to bring substantial changes, right?
 
In addition, a comprehensive list of all the changes between original and Matrix is missing, I think - and maybe nobody really knows all of them? [;)] 
For example, I only discovered about the difference in dynamic campaign replacements in this forum.

[awc]

Gentlemen, I would like to be able to have the replacements that i get during a DCG or a LCG that i don't use carried over to the next scenarios, after all i was awarded them and i should get the right to use them instead of losing them. Thanks.

[Arkady]

I mentioned my wish before but [size="-1"]repetition is the mother of wisdom [:)]

- creating new units (platoons) without altering original platoons and weapons files

Any chance to see this implemented in future patches ? please [&o]

Arkady


[/size]

[Deputy]

This is for all 3 games:

My wish list is short and sweet. A quick battle creator that was easier to work with...one like in SP:WAW. Not just a battle generator, but one you could custom tailor with the exact units you want. The current editor is way too complex for this old geezer to use effectively. [:)]

Dep

[vadersson]

Ok, I have a wish for the list (beside the whole Carrier Rifle Section thing, but I digress.)

It would be nice to have some sort of indicator when you are targeting artillery by map that you are firing blind. If you use the optional rule of artillary by map, you can fire anywhere. However, if no one can spot the target hex, your chance of drift increases. There is no indicator to let you know if you can see the hex targeted or not. It would be nice to have something pop up or an icon change, or something to indicate that this is a blind shot.

Thanks,
Duncan

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: vadersson

Ok, I have a wish for the list (beside the whole Carrier Rifle Section thing, but I digress.)

It would be nice to have some sort of indicator when you are targeting artillery by map that you are firing blind. If you use the optional rule of artillary by map, you can fire anywhere. However, if no one can spot the target hex, your chance of drift increases. There is no indicator to let you know if you can see the hex targeted or not. It would be nice to have something pop up or an icon change, or something to indicate that this is a blind shot.

Thanks,
Duncan

You could turn on the Line of Sight button when plotting your artillery? That will let you know what is in LOS at the end of your turn when you are plotting artillery. Of course, if a unit is forced out away from the sighting position, and the LOS is lost, when the artillery arrives at the beginning of the next turn, it will drift.

Jason Petho

[vadersson]

Jason,

I did not know there was a line of site tool except the visible hexes.  Guess I should re-read the manual agian.

Thanks for the responce,
Duncan

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: vadersson

Jason,

I did not know there was a line of site tool except the visible hexes.  Guess I should re-read the manual agian.

Thanks for the responce,
Duncan

Visibile hexes would be the line of sight tool. As it serves the same purpose.

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

On the subject of line of site, with air attacks, my understanding is that as long as you have a line of site to the target hex, the aircraft has a 65 percent chance of attacking on any given turn until it, in fact, attacks, but the aircraft won't necessarily go for the target hex.  I think it might stray two hexes in any direction.  In that sense, it's always like a by-the-map artillery strike, even when you have a line of site to the target.
 
If, however, you lose the line of site to the target hex, the air attack will be recalled immediately.  I don't believe there's any fudging on the target hex -- you have to maintain a line of site to the target hex or lose the air attack.  Is this understanding correct?

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

On the subject of line of site, with air attacks, my understanding is that as long as you have a line of site to the target hex, the aircraft has a 65 percent chance of attacking on any given turn until it, in fact, attacks, but the aircraft won't necessarily go for the target hex.  I think it might stray two hexes in any direction.  In that sense, it's always like a by-the-map artillery strike, even when you have a line of site to the target.

Airstrikes can drift up to 5 hexes from the primary target. Aircraft tend to target HQ's, Engineers, trucks, tanks - in that order.

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
If, however, you lose the line of site to the target hex, the air attack will be recalled immediately.  I don't believe there's any fudging on the target hex -- you have to maintain a line of site to the target hex or lose the air attack.  Is this understanding correct?

That is correct, yes.

Jason Petho

[Deputy]

Hmmmm...I know it's a completely different sim, but in SP:WAW, when you call in an air attack on a specific hex, the planes come in and attack no matter if LOS still exists or not. I think that may be a tad more realistic. I don't think aircraft in flight would suddenly return to base if the spottting unit was wiped out or LOS was gone. Much more likely is the aircraft would shoot at "targets of opportunity" in the immediate area. Which is exactly what SP:WAW does [:)]
Only way a plane would not attack in SP:WAW is if there were NO targets at all in the immediate area. That does happen and then the plane just flys by.

Dep

[1925frank]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Airstrikes can drift up to 5 hexes from the primary target. Aircraft tend to target HQ's, Engineers, trucks, tanks - in that order.

Jason Petho

And my impression is airstrikes drift only to hexes to which you have a line of site and to targets that are not concealed. For example, if I target a tank in my line of site, and if there is a HQ within five hexes of the targeted tank, but I have no idea the HQ is there (either because it's outside my line of site or because, although within my line of site, it remains concealed), the airstrike will never attack the HQ to which I am oblivious. There's never a windfall. If the HQ bolts into my line of sight, I see it, and then bolts outside my line of site, even then the airattack won't go after the HQ notwithstanding the fact the HQ is within five hexes of the target hex.

With by-the-map bombardments, you might get lucky and destroy something you didn't know was there, but that's not true with airattacks. Is this correct?

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

With by-the-map bombardments, you might get lucky and destroy something you didn't know was there, but that's not true with airattacks. Is this correct?

Although I could be wrong, and have been many times before, yes, that is what I understand.

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

Hmmmm...I know it's a completely different sim, but in SP:WAW, when you call in an air attack on a specific hex, the planes come in and attack no matter if LOS still exists or not. I think that may be a tad more realistic. I don't think aircraft in flight would suddenly return to base if the spottting unit was wiped out or LOS was gone. Much more likely is the aircraft would shoot at "targets of opportunity" in the immediate area. Which is exactly what SP:WAW does [:)]
Only way a plane would not attack in SP:WAW is if there were NO targets at all in the immediate area. That does happen and then the plane just flys by.

Dep

These are good observations. I don't know what the designers were thinking. The only explanation I can think of is that these particular air attacks are specifically tied to ground support, so perhaps the game theorizes that in the absence of confirmation from the ground, the pilot won't attack, or, if the pilot sees another target, the pilot defers to the expressed needs of the ground forces. I would tend to agree with Deputy that pilots were probably not instructed to exercise that much discipline.

I think there are new air units that can be used for spotting. I don't know if they would impact air attacks more along the lines that Deputy has noted.

As an aside, I think the ability to coordinate air attacks with ground units varied widely from country to country and from the beginning to the end of the war. At the start of the war, I think the Germans were probably unique in their ability to coordinate air attacks with the wants of ground forces. I could be wrong, but my impression was the French and Soviets, at least at the start of the war, were virtually incapable of any kind of cooperation between air and ground forces.

[Deputy]

Frank: I think you are exactly right with your observations. The Luftwaffe was always just considered a "long range artillery" arm of the Army. Hence the lack of a 4-engine strategic bomber for most of the war. The US was also quite good at air suppport for troops. While the Soviets had some excellent ground attack aircraft, I think it was much later in the war before they were effective. Even more so when the Luftwaffe no longer could supply air cover for the ground forces. Even when Germany started building jets, the Me-262, which was a fantastic fighter, started out as a "Blitz Bomber".

Dep