2.* Wishlist Thread

[Jason Petho]

There is a 20% chance to build an improved position.

Once the improved position is built, there is a 10% chance for the construction engineer (only this engineer) per turn to create the trench system.

[Rake]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

There is a 20% chance to build an improved position.

Once the improved position is built, there is a 10% chance for the construction engineer (only this engineer) per turn to create the trench system.

Jason... Okay, I was mistaken about the 20% chance for an IP. The point still remains that it is impossible, Construction Engineer platoon or not, to build a trench over the area of a CS hex within the time limits of a scenario. Unless, perhaps, that scenario is roughly five hundred turns or more.

[Crossroads]

Note that the Base Scale (how units are designed) and Scenario Length, including how many turns it has, are two separate things.

As scenarios are played with units having non-stop action, a 30 turn scenario could as well depict the historical result of a delaying rear guard action that took the whole day, or a particular fierce meeting engagement that took three to four hours historically. With the latter, the game would play as the battle played, all out action. With former, the game would play like the action snippets of a day that saw a lot of still moments too.

Hence, for the former, we need a mechanism to turn a hex to a better fortified position, if the scenario so demands. Likely, those field positions would be strongpoints, and not a continuous trench line. That, to me, seems perfectly viable, in this context.

[Jason Petho]

Note that the Base Scale (how units are designed) and Scenario Length, including how many turns it has, are two separate things.

As scenarios are played with units having non-stop action, a 30 turn scenario could as well depict the historical result of a delaying rear guard action that took the whole day, or a particular fierce meeting engagement that took three to four hours historically. With the latter, the game would play as the battle played, all out action. With former, the game would play like the action snippets of a day that saw a lot of still moments too.

Hence, for the former, we need a mechanism to turn a hex to a better fortified position, if the scenario so demands. Likely, those field positions would be strongpoints, and not a continuous trench line. That, to me, seems perfectly viable, in this context.

+1

[athineos]

No game can be 100% realistic or perfect. As far as I am concerned, I let my imagination fill in the gaps of a game's slight imperfections.

[MrRoadrunner]

Let's just try to overthink everything and turn it into a realistic bore fest.

Also, add another ten or twenty hot buttons? Everyone loves those hot buttons?

[:'(]

RR

[scole]

Though the many versions of this game (Talonsoft to Matrix CS 2.0) online play, TCP/IP connection has been problematic. Future updates, to include EF 2.0 would benefit from a reliable online play feature.

[digiartst]

ORIGINAL: CaptainHuge

ORIGINAL: PawelM

something about air strike which I do not like: I plot an air strike at certain location and I loose LOS on the hex=> air strike does not arrive.
I would like the airstrike to be able to occur even then. Imagine and aircraft which was called by ground units arriving and although friendly units have lost sight of the target then air units can still locate it if it is still there! They have their own eyes and if they arrive to the requested sector for support they do not require ground units.... Attack whatever is there they find... this would be a nice and realistic addition to air strikes IMHO...

This seems like a good idea to me. I would think that if an air strike were called in but the target moves out of site just before the aircraft arrive, the pilots would still take a look for targets of opportunity in the area before bugging out.

I found the aircraft the most real thing in the game, not hitting the right hex, hitting your own troops, arriving late, not attacking, missing the target, a convoy on a road was mistaken for the enemy was world war 2.Also forward air command units were unreliable, radios crapped out all the time, or did not have the frequency crystal the aircraft had.
sounds like you want a more unrealistic game of this time period of air support.

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: digiartst

I found the aircraft the most real thing in the game, not hitting the right hex, hitting your own troops, arriving late, not attacking, missing the target, a convoy on a road was mistaken for the enemy was world war 2.Also forward air command units were unreliable, radios crapped out all the time, or did not have the frequency crystal the aircraft had.
sounds like you want a more unrealistic game of this time period of air support.

IIRC all Airstrikes have a chance to scatter up to five hexes from where plotted. Also, indirect-artillery-by-map (with no LOS to target hex) has a chance to scatter two hexes. IIRC, again. Those are hardcoded into game at the moment.

We're in the middle of revamping the CS Event Engine behaviour, and looking especially for cases like this, where there is a chance something happens (scatter, in this case). Instead of having these hardcoded, we'd like to move the chance (probability %) and effect (in this case, # of hexes to scatter) to Adaptive AI parameter table.

This would allow for two things. First, the airstrike scatter probability and # scattered hexes could vary by nation and by date. Especially for the modern era CS games (1948 - 1985), there's a huge change in how airstrike accuracy improved by year, with some nations especially ahead the curve. But also for WW2 through 1939 to 1945, there's a change how wargoing nations went about airstrikes, that could change by year.

Second, if there's an Adaptive AI parameter, the CS Event Engine can change that, be it by a need to have a certain battle (ie: scenario) play out in a certain manner, or be it there's a certain event that would make something change (say: morning fog evaporating as sun came up). Here, the scenario designer per the scenario need could further tweak both probability % data values and the effect data values.

I am hoping the above would be available by the time CS East Front 1939-1941 ships.

As for your comment above, fully agree. No precision munitions available at the time [:'(]

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: Rake

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

ORIGINAL: carl11

fine, make it 3 hours, its a Game;)

and with the appropriate equipment,it can be done in less than that, say 4 hours, dig, logs, sandbags.

In case you or anyone else is not aware of this: Construction Engineers already with JTCS can create Trench systems. Trenches are not Bunkers of course, but they are much better than IPs.

I got bored today and started poking around the forums.. I came across this post and just couldn't believe how quickly some posters think engineering functions can be completed. The ability to construct trenches within the time frame of ANY CS game is just wrong, much less bunkers

I have worked in surveying, civil engineering and heavy (highway) construction for over 40 years. Even with modern excavators, it is not possible to create a trench system for the size of a CS hex within a day (240 turns), much less 6 minutes.

Among many other things, I have been extensively involved in the oversight of pipe excavation and installation. Some of my work has involved estimating time and materials necessary to complete a construction project. Many of the tools available for this purpose use 30 cubic meters/ hour as a starting point for estimating trench excavation. This equates to a trench roughly 3.2' deep x 3.2' wide x 100' long. It also assumes using modern track excavators; the 30 CM/hour number assumes the use of a one-half cubic meter bucket. Naturally, there are multipliers for additional work, such as types of soils encountered, if shoring is required to keep the trench from collapsing and whether trucks or haulers are being loaded to move the material to another site. This number corresponds fairly well with the production I've observed over my years in the business.

The 250 meter hex used by CS comprises approximately 13-1/2 acres (actually 13.37 acres, 5.41 hectares). The length of each side is roughly 144 meters. Using the industry standard of thirty meters an hour mean that it would take nearly 5 hours for one excavator to dig the length of one hexside. This certainly doesn't include the timber and other materials necessary to support the trench and provide top cover from artillery and air bombardment. It's also entrenchment solely along one side of a hex, not trenching that will provide all-around coverage.

I haven't been able to determine the number of men in the Construction Engineer platoon used in the game. I'm guessing the number would be approximately 40 -50 men. A search of the US Army TO&E for a construction battalion turned up cranes, front-end loaders; lifts, bulldozers, etc. While a dozer can push material around, they're not generally capable of trenching. Certainly, given enough time, a dozer could create a wide ditch like an anti-tank trench. but it would be nearly impossible to build a trench system with a bulldozer... certainly not within the time limits of ANY Campaign Series scenario. A bulldozer is fine for a tank scrape, but this would be closer to an improved position rather than a trench.

Equipment that I did not find in the TO&E, and that I would assume to be available, were excavators and backhoes. Still, this is at battalion level and neither would likely be available in significant numbers at the platoon/company level. A standard backhoe would be capable of helping in the construction of a trench system, but production rates would be far less than the 30 CM/Hour shown above. Backhoes are generally used for cutting small (1-2' wide) ditches for small pipe installations, i.e., smaller utility lines. I would expect excavators to only be used in areas quite removed from the FEBA and certainly not in the area encompassed by a CS scenario.

I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision to allow trenching to occur during a scenario. As it is, allowing a 20-30% chance of improving a position within 6 minutes is extremely liberal. But this has been that way since the beginning and I don't really see a reason to change. But, after 7 attempts (42 minutes) the probability of having constructed a trench system (encompassing the all-around defense of more than 13 acres) is greater than 50% (52.2%). It's just not possible within the time frame, not even if an entire CB unit took part with all of their standard equipment.

[&o] +100

Possibly the best post ever to describe "real life" versus game fantasy and "wishing".

I would take the word of someone 'who has done it' over someone who wishes to quote the statistics in an algorithm to show what may be done (but can't be done ... but they need it to be done because they wrote it into the program so it could be done). [8|]

Players are then stuck with things in the game that can be done in minutes, game wise, when in reality they take many hours, to many days, to accomplish.

RR

[Crossroads]

^^ There's a 20% chance IIRC to complete a Dig-in process to create first an Improved Position. So in five turns you should have one.

Then, there's a 10% chance for a Construction Engineer to upgrade an Improved Position (need to have that as a starting position) to Trenches, so in further 10 turns you should have that accomplished, too.

All in all, an average of 15 turns to turn a hex to have a trench available.

Given that scenario turns are "battle time", with slack removed, those units may or may not make sense in a scenario. That said, I haven't seen them (Construction Engineers) been made available in many scenarios by their scenario designers, so this is not a common option to have available with your typical scenarios.

I believe I may have used them in one of my monster scenarios with three divisions or more per side.

[dox44]

fascinating stuff here...i'm sorry to interrupt but not real familiar with JTCS and would like to ask a question. although i did dig some trenches in the USMC--over 45 years ago lol. Of limited value here since no civilian engineers with backhoes were present and we are very concerned with 'game' realism. just shovels and hands and in my limited experiences i never really saw 250 meters of unbroken trench lines but what the hell we were just grunts trying to live.

just curious though is the trench building that's being mentioned the result of modders?

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: dox44

fascinating stuff here...i'm sorry to interrupt but not real familiar with JTCS and would like to ask a question. although i did dig some trenches in the USMC--over 45 years ago lol. Of limited value here since no civilian engineers with backhoes were present and we are very concerned with 'game' realism. just shovels and hands and in my limited experiences i never really saw 250 meters of unbroken trench lines but what the hell we were just grunts trying to live.

just curious though is the trench building that's being mentioned the result of modders?

Constuction Engineers were added to JTCS 1.03 in 2007 [:'(]

[carll11]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: Rake

ORIGINAL: Crossroads




In case you or anyone else is not aware of this: Construction Engineers already with JTCS can create Trench systems. Trenches are not Bunkers of course, but they are much better than IPs.

I got bored today and started poking around the forums.. I came across this post and just couldn't believe how quickly some posters think engineering functions can be completed. The ability to construct trenches within the time frame of ANY CS game is just wrong, much less bunkers

I have worked in surveying, civil engineering and heavy (highway) construction for over 40 years. Even with modern excavators, it is not possible to create a trench system for the size of a CS hex within a day (240 turns), much less 6 minutes.

Among many other things, I have been extensively involved in the oversight of pipe excavation and installation. Some of my work has involved estimating time and materials necessary to complete a construction project. Many of the tools available for this purpose use 30 cubic meters/ hour as a starting point for estimating trench excavation. This equates to a trench roughly 3.2' deep x 3.2' wide x 100' long. It also assumes using modern track excavators; the 30 CM/hour number assumes the use of a one-half cubic meter bucket. Naturally, there are multipliers for additional work, such as types of soils encountered, if shoring is required to keep the trench from collapsing and whether trucks or haulers are being loaded to move the material to another site. This number corresponds fairly well with the production I've observed over my years in the business.

The 250 meter hex used by CS comprises approximately 13-1/2 acres (actually 13.37 acres, 5.41 hectares). The length of each side is roughly 144 meters. Using the industry standard of thirty meters an hour mean that it would take nearly 5 hours for one excavator to dig the length of one hexside. This certainly doesn't include the timber and other materials necessary to support the trench and provide top cover from artillery and air bombardment. It's also entrenchment solely along one side of a hex, not trenching that will provide all-around coverage.

I haven't been able to determine the number of men in the Construction Engineer platoon used in the game. I'm guessing the number would be approximately 40 -50 men. A search of the US Army TO&E for a construction battalion turned up cranes, front-end loaders; lifts, bulldozers, etc. While a dozer can push material around, they're not generally capable of trenching. Certainly, given enough time, a dozer could create a wide ditch like an anti-tank trench. but it would be nearly impossible to build a trench system with a bulldozer... certainly not within the time limits of ANY Campaign Series scenario. A bulldozer is fine for a tank scrape, but this would be closer to an improved position rather than a trench.

Equipment that I did not find in the TO&E, and that I would assume to be available, were excavators and backhoes. Still, this is at battalion level and neither would likely be available in significant numbers at the platoon/company level. A standard backhoe would be capable of helping in the construction of a trench system, but production rates would be far less than the 30 CM/Hour shown above. Backhoes are generally used for cutting small (1-2' wide) ditches for small pipe installations, i.e., smaller utility lines. I would expect excavators to only be used in areas quite removed from the FEBA and certainly not in the area encompassed by a CS scenario.

I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision to allow trenching to occur during a scenario. As it is, allowing a 20-30% chance of improving a position within 6 minutes is extremely liberal. But this has been that way since the beginning and I don't really see a reason to change. But, after 7 attempts (42 minutes) the probability of having constructed a trench system (encompassing the all-around defense of more than 13 acres) is greater than 50% (52.2%). It's just not possible within the time frame, not even if an entire CB unit took part with all of their standard equipment.

[&o] +100

Possibly the best post ever to describe "real life" versus game fantasy and "wishing".

I would take the word of someone 'who has done it' over someone who wishes to quote the statistics in an algorithm to show what may be done (but can't be done ... but they need it to be done because they wrote it into the program so it could be done). [8|]

Players are then stuck with things in the game that can be done in minutes, game wise, when in reality they take many hours, to many days, to accomplish.

RR

did you read Dox44's reply?

Because nothing in rakes message has to do with folks who've 'done it'....like apparently Dox and myself, in real time, under lets say strenuous and extra-ordinary circumstances.


First lets be clear; the hex size in this case means little, in the sense that you're not building or digging for a hex, you're digging to create positions that provide lower body cover and concealment 2men by 2men.

Maybe a trench isn't even a good name for it, maybe we need a new name? Or an in between fortification, because IF we dont have the ability to acquire/build a Cover and concealment bonus alike a trench ( or at least half again as improved as an IP) in the new Vietnam game, well, it wont be very realistic.

When things got hot, you and your buddy took turns scooping dirt,with your E tool, you'd never get 'armpit wide and titty deep' as we called it unless you had several hours to do it and yes you absolutely could do it, in fact in an 4 hour time frame ( unless the ground was rock hard or the jungle was so thick, roots and all or you were to close to a river paddies etc. ( seepage) .......... but, the point is, you had position that was akin too a trench/foxhole/ fighting position.

I hope everyone is aware that the use of IPs in Vietnam was pretty much exclusively on Firebase's, out in the bush, it was fighting positions/fox holes, which for game purposes is more than an IP but not quite a trench.

[carll11]

ORIGINAL: berto


Or we could hot key it: Place unit, press the f(atigued) hot key, place unit, press the f hot key, ...

And similarly for the other unit modes.

Apparently this hot key suggestion never came to fruition in the new CS/Me?


Will we have edit mode hot keys in Vietnam? For example; to fix a unit, or a hot key to activate visibility from that hex?

[Warhorse]

Semper Fi, dug plenty in my time!! 0311 Baby!

[carll11]

ORIGINAL: Warhorse

Semper Fi, dug plenty in my time!! 0311 Baby!

Back at you bro. *Dap*

[dxdavieau]

I'd like to see printed or printable manuals with the unit lists/stats in them like the originals

[rmmwilg]

Pls forgive if this has already been proposed, but am only now getting back into CS after finding all these wonderful upgrades from the last 10 years or so!

Anyway - the one *major* irritation I've always had with CS is the guessing involved with Double Time. Maybe it's my ASL background, but can we please, pretty please(!) have a change to where we can 'test' it first, or that the fatigue effects do not actually occur until if/when the unit actually moves in Double Time?

[Firebri]

Has there ever been talk of a WEGO option ?