The Wish List

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

More interesting/informative counters, such as using different designs for air, arty, HQ, etc. Maybe colored bars or gradients or something. More visible, and more variety, for the formation indicators, so we can have more than eight. The OB tab listing could be more clearly displayed; as it is, it's so narrow because of the fixed window that you can't get enough horizontal dispersion to show a real TO&E nicely; unit symbols on the TO&E would be nice too. The scenario selection bit at the start could use work. Instead of just a list of file names, a prettier list with a callout panel when you select one, that shows a map of the area of operations with the scenario area inset.

Stuff like this is pretty cosmetic but would add to the feel and playability of what is already a great game. Oh, and for the map, as noted elsewhere, more landmarks (road names, river names, hills and woods, etc.) would be nice.

[wodin]

Off Map supply source tracing..so if you blew up a bridge (As requested further up) you could in effect cut supply off until a new one is built.

[CapnDarwin]

Loggy functions are on a whole different playing field. To slow that down would mean hitting bridges behind the on map forces. If you could take down bridges I could see resupply efforts being hampered for a time. Not an easy task behind the enemies lines.

[TigerTC]

For the record, I really like the gameplay now. While I like many of the items on the wish list, too many take this game out of the nice niche it's in.

Supply/resupply is very abstract. I like that. Formations on the front may have to take a pause to resupply, but other than that the logistics battle isn't important to an 8-12 hour high-tempo regimental attack. Plus, making logistics "vulnerable" adds another factor that may unduly imbalance a scenario.

The formations/options may need some tweaking and some help with withdrawals and multiple formations with one order (e.g., Deliberate to Point 1, Assault to Point 2), but overall I like the options we have now. Putting yourself in the brigade/regimental commander's shoes, you're not specifying the how for every platoon and company there -- you just tell them where to be and hopefully when.

I would echo the comments above about a better, more manageable OOB roster. And for scenario designers, I would love to see an enemy SITTEMP like would come from an S-2: who's out there, especially more focused on units that are suspected in the area (e.g., 1-2 armored battalions and 1-2 mech battalions) not a list of "30-40 armor units, 1-10 helo units," etc. I want to see what a real commander would see.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: BROJD

And for scenario designers, I would love to see an enemy SITTEMP like would come from an S-2: who's out there, especially more focused on units that are suspected in the area (e.g., 1-2 armored battalions and 1-2 mech battalions) not a list of "30-40 armor units, 1-10 helo units," etc. I want to see what a real commander would see.

That is in reference to campaign scenarios. At the moment the campaign doesn't show the individual briefings. In most cases they were done and just don't show. They have the full briefing. It's one of my wish lists to get the individual briefings to show for each campaign scenario. Much more immersion.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Jo van der Pluym]

Then I have also the following wish

There where differend projectss underway, but they where ended by the end of the cold war in 1991
What about that the cold war has not ended in 1991. But continues. What about to add the Leopard III (140mm) and other of these projects.

[Jo van der Pluym]

In the editor you can set a reinforcement arrival time. I like to see that you can also set a possibilty of arrival en set a possible delay. I mean you can say a tank unit arrives about 20 minutes for 80%, and can have a delay between 1 to 5 minutes. This also possible for withdrawls

[Arnir]

After playing for a while I am really interested in having units from different decades. I wonder how my game would have played out with M60s or M48 instead of M1A1s or M113s vs Bradleys, etc.

[DoubleDeuce]

ORIGINAL: BROJD

And for scenario designers, I would love to see an enemy SITTEMP like would come from an S-2: who's out there, especially more focused on units that are suspected in the area (e.g., 1-2 armored battalions and 1-2 mech battalions) not a list of "30-40 armor units, 1-10 helo units," etc. I want to see what a real commander would see.

For mine (in other game systems as I haven't finished designing and released a scenario in this game yet) I have tried to use the actual US Army OPORD format for the briefing but many people don't like it. When I use it, I tend to get negative feedback via email from those who say it just confuses them, especially those without a military background. I may go with a separate .pdf file with that information so a player can read print it out and have a hard copy to reference while playing. Just a thought.

[Aztec]

Wishlist?

A TT Font or .abr file for Photoshop with basic NATO military symbols

I would love to see some simple programmable SOP's, but I have a feeling those are probably already factored into the unit mode (H,S,M etc)

[Plodder]

A TT Font or .abr file for Photoshop with basic NATO military symbols

Do you mean this: MapSymbs

[Aztec]

[:(] Been all over that but it won't work on my OS, don't know why?



--And as soon as I posted that...I found mil-esri.zip, a collection of 9 TTF's with military symbology!

[wodin]

Why do I love these symbols? Sometimes I think I may have Aspergers..

ORIGINAL: The Plodder

A TT Font or .abr file for Photoshop with basic NATO military symbols

Do you mean this: MapSymbs

[TigerTC]

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

ORIGINAL: BROJD

And for scenario designers, I would love to see an enemy SITTEMP like would come from an S-2: who's out there, especially more focused on units that are suspected in the area (e.g., 1-2 armored battalions and 1-2 mech battalions) not a list of "30-40 armor units, 1-10 helo units," etc. I want to see what a real commander would see.

For mine (in other game systems as I haven't finished designing and released a scenario in this game yet) I have tried to use the actual US Army OPORD format for the briefing but many people don't like it. When I use it, I tend to get negative feedback via email from those who say it just confuses them, especially those without a military background. I may go with a separate .pdf file with that information so a player can read print it out and have a hard copy to reference while playing. Just a thought.

Well, heck. It's the Army. It should confuse them! [8D]

[Hexagon]

One thing i want see is a way to "edit" scenarios only changing the OOB, i refer to something like this:

With a game tool open a scenario you can change the year for scen if you want(and with this you limit hardware selection) when you do this you can in OOB select diferent tanks, APCs, infantry squad etc etc and when changes are done save this as a new scen, with this we have a tool to with a single scen have multiple scens in diferent years or only changing the hardware with minimal work.

The idea is have the same scen except you change the date (well you need change to scen briefing date) and the hardware, with this you can do a new scen for game and with a few minutes of work have the same scen set in diferent years.

Editor is good, of course has limitations but is good enough, but when you want a scen set in a diferent date you need do from zero the scen when you only change the hardware... i know that maybe formations are not the same in different years but i only search that in a battle between LeoII and Leo I VS T-80 have exactly the same but with Leo I and M48 VS T-64/T-72 and T-62.

Point is have a tool where you can edit the OOB in a scen only changing the hardware and scen date, nothing more... maybe could be possible do this in the editor??? open a scen, change date and with right click in the unit have a "change hardware" option??? you have in screen a list of possible usable hardware in the date you select and when you do the changes you want save this as a new scen ummm maybe this is interesting to made editor more powerfull, now if you want a battalion or a regiment with a mixed hardware you need done this company by company or battalion to battalion... maybe a way to add the standar formation and when is on map edit the hardware in subunits is a good point.

Thanks.

[wodin]

Any chance the FOW of enemy units becomes lees as more info comes back on what it is..at the moment we either no all the sub units or we never get to know what the sub units are (unless you follow the the messages when they get destroyed..which then breaks the FOW the counter is representing anyway).

[CapnDarwin]

We plan to address a number of the FoW items in the 2.04 update. This will include counter info, hints, and diary info. Also try to address settings for seeing arty and mine crosses when not seen. We will see what else we can tweak too.

[Hexagon]

A little question, is any plan to expand the "reinforcement" feature??? i refer to define where appear reinforces... not all, you can set the reinforcement units as "variable" and a certain number of turns before their appear game ask you where you want they appear and you select where, this is to add more FOW.

[mb4329]

Ability for the player the designate withdraw/screen retrograde paths (the equivalent of on contact fail back to position/town X)

The ability to add a modifier to the hold and screen commands based on a specified level of contact. For example hold until spotted, fired on, or until unit takes some level of losses (say light or moderate).

Ability to modify the standoff distances. Ideally by general type (ie. different values for tanks, IFVs, APC, SPAAGs). If I am in a helo I want to stay well away from any identified SPAAG, but from a game standpoint I am not as worried about tanks, IFV/APCs, artillery etc. From a tank side I may want to maintain (or close) distance with other tanks, but have less concern over other armor. From an IFV/APC standpoint closing with like armor (especially APCs) may not be so bad, but I want to stay well away from anti-tank and tank units.

Ability to assign a movement path to a reinforcing unit the turn it will arrive. It would be nice to have the units not just sit still the first impulse they arrive. They likely would have been under some sort of order before they arrived and wouldn't just show up on the battlefield and halt. Maybe something like at the end of the players turn, but before any action is undertaken, the player assigns units that are due to arrive that turn orders independent of the players command limits (if the units fail to arrive then the process would begin anew next turn). After that first impulse they would then fall under the normal C2 restrictions.

Merrick

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

I'm guessing that a lot of these requests (which would be good to have, mostly!) would be a bear for the AI to handle. It's easy for a player to assign different values based on intuitive assessments of conditions, but poor AI needs pretty rigorous algorithmic input to make those decisions I'm guessing. And for me, any changes to the game system that the AI can't handle for solo play aren't worth it.