The Wish List

[Radagy]

Freely placing minefields and fortified areas each time you start a scenario would be welcome.

[CptHowdy]

need more info about the battlefields. I just started black horse scenario as nato. briefing tells me there are two soviet elements that got split up on way to Nordheim von der Rhon. one took highway 285 and one took 279. where is bad neustatd in relation to von der rhon? north, south? where are routes 285, 279? do they both lead to von der rhon? kinda hard to stay between the 113th and 66th if I don't know the lay of the land. im assuming bad neustatd is north because my units start in the northeast and northwest and van der rhon is southeast, southwest of those. so I should expect the 66th to come in from the north as well? also not clear on my objective for the mission. is it to keep the two elements from joining in von der rhon? since im recon do i avoid the fight in von der rhon and just try to cap VP's outside of town or am i itching for a fight?

[nukkxx5058]

one wore wish:
Been able to search [ Ctrl-F ] in the diary.

[Hexagon]

I dont say that, i say that in game there is only one type of casualty, this is kill, but not all casualties need be kills... i explain better, a tank can lose his gun (a major damage) or only lose the thermal module, fire computer (Leo II for example can use manual system), turret damage or lose a crew member not all the damage in a tank means it retreat from battlefield specially for NATO, yes, is better retreat damage units but this is more tactical combat and even a damage tank can offer more on battlefield than in rear... i remember when in SP i use tanks with no gun to distract enemy and force him leave units to cover a flank for example. Maybe after think on it a little more i see that if a tank has 100% combat value (only count hardware) is possible that you can damage them and degradate it combat value, for example a heavy hit can finish in a 70% reduction in combat value or a light hit reduce a 10% the tank combat value (main advantage of NATO tanks over soviet tanks is that they survive more on battlefield, this means that hits that kill a soviet tank for them ends in damage or heavy damage).

If you dont want see heavy damage tanks in battlefield is easy set a rule that says if a tank has a damage over 30-40-50% the unit appear as send to repairs, same as destroy the unit because is not present in battlefield but count less for victory purpouses apart that you can recover the unit for next battles in a campaign.

When i talk about merge i refer that i prefer have 1 counter with 3 tanks than 3 counter with 1 tank... and well, what is more effective, 3 tanks fighting in separate sections or 3 tanks fighting in same section??? when you join 3 tanks from diferent units in a single unit... well, i think that improve morale and performance have 3 tanks with physical support apart that in long battles you can mantein number of counters in relation with the true power of units in battlefield.

Two players campaigns... well, i dont know if you play Tiller games... in campaign between battles you take decisions that send you to a battlefield or other, maybe is possible create variants from a basic scen where casualties from previous battle and tactical decisions from players send them to one of the variants of the scen... you have the same campaign structure, battle 1-2-3-4 but previous battle and players decisions can send you to 1-2a-3b-4a.

[CapnDarwin]

ORIGINAL: Radagy

Freely placing minefields and fortified areas each time you start a scenario would be welcome.

Not to burst a bubble here, but this will not be happening any time soon for mines or obstacles (you can move fortifications and PPF markers now). The game had "free" placement until I took all the mines and obstacle markers and made a 5 deep wall at few key objective areas effectively stopping the enemy from even getting close.
We may entertain having a limited number with placement restrictions down the road, but it will need to be looked at so it can't be abused as a gamey mechanic.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Some good, some iffy ideas here--par for the course for wargamers! [:)]

My $0.02 mostly concerns UI/info display. Highlighting a formation, and better indication of formation and command relationships in general. I'd like to see, for instance, an option to visually trace the command route from a HQ to its subordinates, and vice versa; click on a unit and it shows a line to its subordinates, if any, and to its superior HQ. Right now it's a bit difficult to visualize how to position command elements so that everyone is in command. BTW, what does making a formation independent actually mean in game terms?

The F6 unit info page functionality is also in need of enhancement I think. For instance, if the vehicle side of a counter is showing, you get the vehicle info, but not the passenger info. Generally, if I have Territorial infantry units in a truck, I don't want to see the capabilities of the truck! So making it either display both, or have a quick toggle would be useful.

I agree with those who want more map info. I understand it's a battle between info density and clutter, but water obstacle names (if any), important road designations, etc. are nice to have. Also, the way text is displayed on the map (place names) as it is done now needs improvement. Craters, shell impacts, crosses, smoke, etc. all overlay the names in an irregular fashion and results in a definite degradation of readability at times.

The OB list in the tab on the right is fairly sensitive, and I've often mistakenly re-attached a unit to some other unit when all I wanted to do is click on something. The hierarchy is also sometimes ambiguous, in that what is subordinate to what is often hard to tell, exactly. Partly that's nomenclature, particularly with Pact forces, and partly it's a limitation of the narrow width of the OB window.

But really, the game is spiffy. Needs more unicorns, rainbows, and poodles, but other than that, not much beyond the stuff that's planned for the future already.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: CptHowdy

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

What about the turns when you have 20 minute command cycles?

Good Hunting.

MR

doesn't really matter the cycle time. i want my arty to pound that hex whenever it can for as long as possible. perhaps im preparing for an assault. if it can only do it 4 times in twenty minutes then so be it. ill order it to do more on the next turn.

So, you want a barrage order. One that has the artillery fire until told to stop?

At the moment as artillery finishes it's fire missions it moves. This is to keep it from being targeted by counter battery fire. The type of mission you are describing would put your own artillery at very high risk to counter battery fire.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: CptHowdy

need more info about the battlefields. I just started black horse scenario as nato. briefing tells me there are two soviet elements that got split up on way to Nordheim von der Rhon. one took highway 285 and one took 279. where is bad neustatd in relation to von der rhon? north, south? where are routes 285, 279? do they both lead to von der rhon? kinda hard to stay between the 113th and 66th if I don't know the lay of the land. im assuming bad neustatd is north because my units start in the northeast and northwest and van der rhon is southeast, southwest of those. so I should expect the 66th to come in from the north as well? also not clear on my objective for the mission. is it to keep the two elements from joining in von der rhon? since im recon do i avoid the fight in von der rhon and just try to cap VP's outside of town or am i itching for a fight?

That's a shortcoming of the scenario designer not the game.

I'll look into fixing that for you.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

I dont say that, i say that in game there is only one type of casualty, this is kill, but not all casualties need be kills...

That's not entirely correct. There are three types of vehicle casualties in the game.

Those that are killed, those that have heavy enough damage to pull out of the fight (non-runners) and those that take light damage but can stay in the fight. You see all three types of damage now. At the end of the scenario the after action report shows how many dropped out. Those that were lightly damaged stayed in the battle and don't get reported.

When i talk about merge i refer that i prefer have 1 counter with 3 tanks than 3 counter with 1 tank... and well, what is more effective, 3 tanks fighting in separate sections or 3 tanks fighting in same section??? when you join 3 tanks from diferent units in a single unit... well, i think that improve morale and performance have 3 tanks with physical support apart that in long battles you can mantein number of counters in relation with the true power of units in battlefield.

I understand merge. I'm just telling if you do that you won't be getting any performance improvements. If anything their morale and training would go down not up.

Two players campaigns... well, i dont know if you play Tiller games... in campaign between battles you take decisions that send you to a battlefield or other, maybe is possible create variants from a basic scen where casualties from previous battle and tactical decisions from players send them to one of the variants of the scen... you have the same campaign structure, battle 1-2-3-4 but previous battle and players decisions can send you to 1-2a-3b-4a.

Like I said, it's something we are looking at.

Good Hunting.

MR

[CptHowdy]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: CptHowdy

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

What about the turns when you have 20 minute command cycles?

Good Hunting.

MR

doesn't really matter the cycle time. i want my arty to pound that hex whenever it can for as long as possible. perhaps im preparing for an assault. if it can only do it 4 times in twenty minutes then so be it. ill order it to do more on the next turn.

So, you want a barrage order. One that has the artillery fire until told to stop?

At the moment as artillery finishes it's fire missions it moves. This is to keep it from being targeted by counter battery fire. The type of mission you are describing would put your own artillery at very high risk to counter battery fire.

Good Hunting.

MR

shoot and scoot is fine, it saves me the trouble of having to remember to move a unit but after it moves I would like it to continue to fire on the same hex and not pick another target. after the arty moves maybe a pop-up "Sir, would you like us to continue to fire on hex 1819 or select our own targets?"

[nukkxx5058]

I almost forgot on my wish list :
TCP/IP multiplayer games [&o]

[CapnDarwin]

Once PBEM is stable and working it will give us the foundation to go after LAN style play and more.

[budd]

How about when your on the new game screen and make your picks i.e. WP or N, single or campaign the next screen is filtered by your choices, so if you pick nato and single scenario the only things that show are the scenarios best played as nato and that are single scenarios, i'd also like to suggest a filter by size of the scenario on the new game screen. With all the possible add-on scenarios, user made and official scenario hopefully on the way[;)] a filter might be nice to have.

[Waz]

Great game. I've seen a lot of good ideas above and for my inaugural post I have a simple suggestion.

Please give us a Hold Fire order of some sort.

It makes me crazy to see a scout section open fire at 2 km and expose their position when often the smartest thing to do is lie low, watch, and report. The order could be cancelled if they are approached by an enemy, maybe a chance to fire as a function of their training level and the distance to the enemy.

[Plodder]

ORIGINAL: **budd**

How about when your on the new game screen and make your picks i.e. WP or N, single or campaign the next screen is filtered by your choices, so if you pick nato and single scenario the only things that show are the scenarios best played as nato and that are single scenarios, i'd also like to suggest a filter by size of the scenario on the new game screen. With all the possible add-on scenarios, user made and official scenario hopefully on the way[;)] a filter might be nice to have.

+1

[Radagy]

Another suggestion: the colored triangle on the upper right side of a counter should have two colors. On the vertex the regiment's color, at the base of the triangle, a stripe reporting the batallion's color.
This way It should be much easier keeping unit in command.

[76mm]

Please give us a Hold Fire order of some sort.

Given the lengths of the turns, I don't think that Hold Fire would be adequate, re really need an Ambush order (as mentioned by others previously). Ideally you'd be able to draw a "covered arc" similar to in the CM games.

In addition to Ambush, my top three wishlist items are:
--allowing different orders for each waypoint;
--showing command relationships on the counters; and
--individual leader names/characteristics.

[wodin]

76mm..are covered arcs right for this scale? 500m hex and platoon size units? I'd like an ambush order though. However not sure covered arcs are necessary.

[76mm]

76mm..are covered arcs right for this scale? 500m hex and platoon size units? I'd like an ambush order though. However not sure covered arcs are necessary.

I think so. I was a tank platoon leader in Germany in the late eighties, and as a basic part of any defensive planning platoons were assigned sectors, which are basically the same as covered arcs.

An ambush order needs some mechanism to be implemented such as a trigger range, and a covered arc is basically just a graphical representation of a trigger range.

Or maybe I'm missing something, dunno...

[wodin]

OK cool.