MCS User WISHLIST

[paulsalayko]

EXCUSE ME DEPUTY, but what YOU seem to be losing sight of is that the name of this forum is "USER WISHLIST". Just because in your oppinion these suggestions seem silly or not needed does not mean that other players wouldnt like to see them or i should say WISH for them. You may want to switch to decaff, and let people say there peace.
Yours truly from another Deputy...

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: paulsalayko

EXCUSE ME DEPUTY, but what YOU seem to be losing sight of is that the name of this forum is "USER WISHLIST". Just because in your oppinion these suggestions seem silly or not needed does not mean that other players wouldnt like to see them or i should say WISH for them. You may want to switch to decaff, and let people say there peace.
Yours truly from another Deputy...

Let's clarify WISH LIST from DREAM LIST then. I would like to have the smell of gunsmoke emanate from my screen every time there is rifle fire and when snow is on the screen I would like to have flakes fall on my keyboard. Those are about as unreaslitic a request as many that have been presented so far. Don't get me wrong, some of these suggestions people have posted have been excellent. But many are so far-fetched that they are just plain ridiculous. Many seem to be just people trying to get more stars by their names by posting repeat posts all over the forum or asking for what is obviously way beyond the scope of this game. All I ask is people conside the size and scope of the game and what is REALLY needed to help make it more enjoyable.

[dgk196]

Gentlemen, please.....

I don't believe in 'trolling'. Neither do I believe in belittling anyone else's comments or positions, even if you disagree with me. Its non-productive and in my opinion unnecessary. I don't think this is what the 'site' people had in mind when establishing this forum, do you!?

Yes it is a forum! And everyone's opinion should be heard! I try to limit my responses to either factual information that someone may be looking for, or an opinion in either a direct question or a general response. But that's just me!

Jason (et all) must have his hands full already. I'm sorry that I have even posted some of the questions I did. If this has caused you 'problems' Jason, I apologize. I try to ask relevant questions, to some they may not seem so, I can't help that!

For instance, several responses are along the lines of 'not applicable to this game' or 'not a tactical application' or responses along those lines. What does that mean? I posted a question to answer that question. Lots of lookers but no takers. And still the same replies to 'tactical situations'! Nobody owes me any answers! It would just be nice, and helpful, if I knew what the ... people mean!

I believe that all of my suggested 'mods' / additions to the program where to be all 'optional'. This prevents anyone from having to play a game with complexities that may not be desirable to them. So all of my suggestions where meant to be along the lines of, if it where to be incorporated, how should it look, and what needs to be included!

Again, no 'trolling' is meant by this post and I'm not looking to run anyone down for their opinions. I'm just surprised at the level of intolerance, on the part of some!

Jason, I did not intend to start a fire-storm with any of my posts, including this one. Again, I sincerely apologize to you and anyone who has felt put upon for responding to my inquires!

Dennis

Dennis [&o]

[osiris_slith]

Hi 3 things I would like to see:

1: craters hexes for scenario designs

2: Movement:

• Any Armor and motorized units should be expending movement points for players who adjust the direction in which their unit is facing. All the tanks in a platoon usually face in the same direction unless they are stationary.

• Where this game is unrealistic is with artillery units of greater than 85mm or greater (all armies). To change the facing of an 88mm platoon require a HT to load it up and than change the directions its facing in. See rules in Panzerblitz and Panzer leader. A 88 mm platoon cannot shoot at you if you attack it from the rear. German 88mm pak fronts were well supported by infantry and had thier flanks protected by infantry and light at units

• Infantry units  and artillery units under 81mm do not expend movement points if a player changes their facing direction.

3. Opportunity fire:
This may be hard to build in: Opportunity fire should not be initiated against attacking units which ambush the defending unit from the rear. If a german tank platoon with a strenght of 4 and ambushes a 3 strenght T-34 platoon..from the rear..there will be no opportunity fire because all the russian tanks are dead...

thats my wish list

[Miamieagle]

Deputy I repectively could not disagree with you more. The more you make this program to mimic what really happen in World war two from a military point of view the more facinating it will be. Carpet Bombing and the other features that we have requested are reasonable and comply with conditions of the Battlefield in World war two.

As for Balance, I do not care one bit for Balance I think is a lot more fun if you make it as close to historical facts than to make this series just a simple arcade tacticle WW2 game. Those types of games we already we have by the tons. Iäm not interested in having the Japanese win the Battle of Iwo Jima or the German win in Stalingrad because the campaign or the scenerio is balance or fair to both sides. One can create ones your own scenerio and make it balance if one wishes.

I think its a lot more challenging if you can win the Battle of El almain with the resources available to Rommel in Novemember 1942, than if you make it fair and balance. It just will make you a better harmchair  General. Won"t you Agree!LoL

I believe Immersion and historical accrucy is what makes this Operational tacticle program special.

This is not a personal attack. We are just having a disageement or a exchange of opinion on a program that we both care about.

Have a great day and I mean it!

[Deputy]

Miamieagle: I sure see an awful lot of "I" in yor post. This game is not just for YOU. And you missed my point completely about play balance. Some folks play this game against OTHER people and not just the computer. Giving one side a huge advantage in material and manpower over the other would turn playability into chaos. NOBODY would ever want to play an Axis power if what you suggest is incorporated into the game. I'm NOT talking about making both sides EQUAL. But how often can you play the game and have the Alies WIN every single time? Quite honestly, I like to move that slider all the way over on the German or Japanese side just to see what happens. And then I try it from BOTH sides to see how difficult it would be if things were different. I DON'T like starting a game knowing full well that the Germans or Japanese are destined to LOSE every battle and every campaign just because the Allies have all kinds of manpower and material advantage. Keeping games strictly to historial facts means you are just repeating history over and over again. What fun is that? [&:]
Carpet bombing was NOT common in WW2 as far as MILITARY combat. It was used mainly by the ALLIES, and even then, mainly against CIVILIAN populations and not military targets. What's next....a nuclear bomb for US forces to use against the Japanese??? That's something that was present in WW2. Are you gonna ask for that too? [8|]

[michammer]

I have to agree with Deputy. The game has to retain its playability. Introducing all of these wish list items would make the game unplayable; it would take too long to complete a turn. Some of the ideas I like, but introducing all of these air parameters would ruin the game for me, as would all of the suggestions for managing logistics in greater detail.

I like the idea about spending movement points to change the facing of heavier weapons. My own wish is to be able to detach units from their parent HQ and attach them to another HQ to form Kampfgruppen or "Jock" columns.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: michammer
I like the idea about spending movement points to change the facing of heavier weapons. My own wish is to be able to detach units from their parent HQ and attach them to another HQ to form Kampfgruppen or "Jock" columns.

You'll be a happy camper then.

Although, this will only be in new scenarios that have the special HQ's present.

Jason Petho

[michammer]

Outstanding! Looks like I'll be playing a few new scenarios!!!

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: michammer

Outstanding! Looks like I'll be playing a few new scenarios!!!

Ditto for me. Sounds great Jason!!!

[dgk196]

I haven't read all of the posts and somebody has probably already mentioned this....

1.) How about the ability to 'clear' wrecks from roads.

2.) The ability to set opportunity fire by company or battalion, instead of each unit individually, or a 'global' setting of all units.

Dennis [:)]

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: dgk196

1.) How about the ability to 'clear' wrecks from roads.

This is available with the 1.03 UPDATE.

As noted above, this will only work with newly created scenarios that feature the units with the capability.

Jason Petho

[Miamieagle]

Gentelmen all this prupose new features with a little imagination and creativity they could be implemented. This in no way it should effect those that prefer balance scenerios or play online.

Special rules could be made for those that play online tournaments. There are the conditions and restrictions in the name of fairness when one flies in a Combat Flight Simulators online. Similar rules of retrictions in the name fairness could be apply to this program.

There is no reason to favor one group over another.

Mostly what this program needs is a way to speed up the troops movement by I guess 25% to 50% as a added option and have the ability to move three or four units at the same time.

The only reason it cannot be done is if you lack imagination.

Just look at what Jaon and his team have already been able to acomplish with patch 103.

Thank you guys!

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Miamieagle

and have the ability to move three or four units at the same time.

Have you tried getting efficient at using the organization movements; column movement and echelon movement? See page 38 of the existing manual.

Jason Petho

[Miamieagle]

I will take a look. Thank you for the Tip Jason!

[The Rattler]

I dont know if its at all possible with the game engine but maybe an extra variable for OP FIRE classifying halftracks as medium hard targets and having that extra option to set so tanks dont shoot at HT'S currently assigned hard target classification......to go further maybe the possibility if leaving enough action points for 2 OP FIRE shots assigning one for hard targets and the other for infantry(other targets). Also maybe other targets is a bit too generic ?
Just some thoughts
Thanks

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: The Rattler

I dont know if its at all possible with the game engine but maybe an extra variable for OP FIRE classifying halftracks as medium hard targets and having that extra option to set so tanks dont shoot at HT'S currently assigned hard target classification......to go further maybe the possibility if leaving enough action points for 2 OP FIRE shots assigning one for hard targets and the other for infantry(other targets). Also maybe other targets is a bit too generic ?
Just some thoughts
Thanks

Just curious, but why would you classify halftracks as "medium-hard" targets? The don't have good armor and even a grenade can take them out.

[Miamieagle]

You are right!

Now patch 103 has TRAINS (1.00): A variety of functioning train platoon types that operate exclusively on rails.
WARSHIPS (1.00): A variety of functioning warships including transports, frigates, destroyers, etc

How dare they.

Warships how dare they.

Whats next Carriers?

Sea Battle?

Troops attach to Trains!

Trains!

This is a tactical game please!

Deputy Iäm sure you are going to complain to Jason aren"t you!

This is a tactical game after all!

To keep your moral point of view high you have got pleldge that you are not going to use patch 103!

You have to make a moral statement!LoL 

I do not know about you but Iäm looking forward to patch 103!

I know it will improve this program by leap and bounds.

[Deputy]

Trains....nice targets for airplanes. Has little to do with actual gameplay or tactical situations. Show me ANY individual "train battle" in WW2 that had any kind of decisive impact on anything.
Ships would be okay for beachhead scenarios, but could easily destroy game balance. A bombardment with warships could easily wipe out huge numbers of land units. Like I said, these elements are already in other combat games. Nothing revolutionary here.

They can offer all these silly extras they want to please a few people. I WON'T be using them in any sceanrios I play.
Hey Miamieagle, maybe you can create a scenario where trains attack warships. That should be fantastically realistic. [8|]

[Miamieagle]

You Bet!
 
Great Idea!LoL