Upgrades/Changes

[kylenapoleon]

ORIGINAL: BAL

ORIGINAL: James Ward

I think a more intelligent initial set up in random games is needed. It is far to difficult to set up a division or corp campaign and keep any sort of organizational integrity the way it is now.

I second this idea.

I will jump on the train with this idea. I really hated trying to set up a whole corps.

One thing I would like to see, and do not know if it is possible, is to be able to advance rank in a campaign series, but not to have to use all of your forces. I would like to be able to pick and choose which units to deploy. Maybe even be able to hold some units in reserve and have them arrive as reinforcements. I would also like to be able to set up improved defensive hexes or pill boxes to different locations when you start a defensive battle. I always hated seeing an improved hex in a middle of forest that would do you no good.

[Peacenik]

Hi Jason,
 
I seem to remember some issues about the degrading of the halftrack firepower and about the points given for them - the rationalization being that they were not squandered in combat because they were essential for transport.
 
While this made terrific sense for single event games I'm not sure it made sense in campaign games where at least some of the continuing impact of lost halftracks on the mobility was explicit.
 
It might make sense to allow for campaign designers to make some range of choices about the firepower and values of these units in their campaigns.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Peacenik

Hi Jason,

I seem to remember some issues about the degrading of the halftrack firepower and about the points given for them - the rationalization being that they were not squandered in combat because they were essential for transport.

While this made terrific sense for single event games I'm not sure it made sense in campaign games where at least some of the continuing impact of lost halftracks on the mobility was explicit.

It might make sense to allow for campaign designers to make some range of choices about the firepower and values of these units in their campaigns.

Hello Peacenik

If all goes according to plan, there will be two seperate Halftracks to choose from. One with the original settings and the other with the logical MG capabilities but a higher VP per SP.

Hope that helps
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho

[HobbesACW]

[font=arial]Hi Jason, a few of my wishes :-[/font]
 
[font=arial]The ability for the designer to set changes during the course of a scenario in visibility, supply levels, weather, terrain status, etc [/font][/align][font=arial](One of yours as well
A new hexside feature that infantry can slowly cross over - but no vehicles including tracked can.
Allow the players to set global ranges before the scenario starts [/font][/align][font=arial]Starshells in all games. Only allow artillery delivered starshells to be
used by artillery capable of firing smoke or small mortars. [/font][/align][font=arial]Engineers can clear 1 wreck per turn. Dozers as well?[/font][/align]
[font=arial]Make as many changes as possible up to the scenario designer or optional to the player. I would hate to see the game ruined![/font][/align][/align][font=arial][/font] [/align][font=arial]Many thanks, Chris[/font]
 

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: RAF

I am going to agree that the most vital change for me would be a better initial setup on random games. I simply cannot play a "dynamic campaign game" because the opposition defenses look like somebody just grabbed a bunch of cardboard pieces and threw them on the map.

Another "absolute must fix" for those of us who like to play against the computer - is an end to the computer's habit of driving fully loaded vehicles (trucks, motorcycles, horses) directly in front of friendly line of fire. Even when I make a conscious effort not to shoot these things, my units shoot at them during defensive fire, and they SIGNIFICANTLY throw off the balance of the scenario.

Besides, I like to write stories about my games. And these types of maneuvers make terrible stories.

My vote is going to have to goto this one also.

[Bazooka Bob]

I have to agree with the atrocious setup in the dynamic games. There is no unit integrity.  Companies from the parent battalions should setup or enter near each other.
 
Personal peeve in East Front II.  Why a single anti tank gun or mortor enters on one part of the map and the truck enters or is deployed on the opposite side on the same edge.  I do like to use them before the scenario is over.
 
Extend the scenario lengths especially for the larger maps in general when larger units are in play and especially for the desert.  Units that enter on one corner on the map take all game just to move across the board to the opposite corner just exit off.
 
Some kind of strength generator for the opposing force.  It is a pain when playing in the dynamic game to go up against full strength forces every scenario when it sometimes takes a while to get replacements for your own forces.  It was very rare for any unit to be a full strength.

[Danish Rommel]

Hi Jason

My Vital Changes
--------------------
My absolutely vital changes deals with the way tanks behave in manoeuvre-restricted areas such as city, forest, building ect.
It’s just not very realistic to see heavy armoured vehicles assault a group of infantrymen in a city hex. Just can’t imagine a tiger tank climbing up a narrow staircase at 5th floor. One way to address this: Armoured vehicles can only participate in an assault on a city hex together with an infantry unit.

I also think that the tanks defensive values and soft attack values in cities should be altered so the game reflects the fact, that infantry is very hard to spot or hit in a city due to the limited view and manoeuvrability and therefore also represent a significant risk to the tank. The best solution would be to give the tank a variable def. and soft attack values. If the tank is alone in a cityhex it should have very low values, if there is a friendly infantry unit to support it - the values go up. This would reflect how the infantry can both defend the tank and guide its heavy weapons platform to the enemy targets.

I’m not a code expert and I could imagine that it would be hard to code such a mechanism. The easy solution could be to give the city hex a much higher terrain combat modifiers which would only apply to non-vehicle units (like the way building hex are done today – but with higher modifiers).

[:-]
In 1945 or today – it’s absolutely vital to have infantry support in cities.

I think that this modification would benefit the game in a way where combined arms tactic would have a greater role, so a bunch of tanks can’t dominate the whole map in an unrealistic wonder weapon fashion. Also, in various degree this modification should be used in other manoeuvre-restricted areas – forest, industrial, village ect.

[&o]
For This modification alone = I’ll promise to buy two copies of the new CS …and press on to make it mandatory for all members of www.theblitz.org … [:D]


Less Vital Changes
--------------------------
Additional opp. Fire programmable features = Direction

Stealth move mode for infantry – (can move one hex without detection – unless moved into zone of control of an enemy unit)

Weather/LOS can change slightly during the battle.

Make it harder to replay turns

Laying smoke from a distance more than one hex = the effect can fail due to wind.

Additional Engineer options – building tank-barricades, setting up barbed wire and lay down mines. Should take about 5-6 turns Hobbes great idear - Engineers can clear 1 wreck per turn. Dozers as well



looking forward to release...no rush though ... would not mind to wait a year to see the worlds best game growing to the best game in the universe... [:)]

[Arkady]

ORIGINAL: Jarexx

The one thing i've always thought absolutely vital for CS is some kind of encryption system for PBEM games as lets face it right now its just too open to exploits.

...

YES
I second this request

and as someone mentioned in other post, replaying turn protection should be present too (similar to Steel Panther for example)

[SurrenderMonkey]

The whole problem with horrendous attrition rates is a big deal. Most scenarios end with just a few units still alive, pummeling each other to death. In reality, morale/cohesion would have broken long before.

Some sort of rudimentary morale/cohesion model is desperately needed. (SP does a great job.)

[Krec]

1) fix the dynamic camp
2) armor facing thingy
3) infantry in citys higher def value
4) arty need to be fixed, not quite right
5) i would raise the point value of trucks and ht so if they are used in assaults you pay a price.
6) lower shot value for at guns ( basically more shots)
7) revamp assault rules
8) engineers being able to clear wreckage / rubble
probably more , those are just off the top of my head

[wolf44]

Some way to stop the cheats! Block replays, the code has been around so long and I fear cheating is easy for some who have the know how!

[Peacenik]

Units need to have a limit placed on the number of times they can execute a retreat as a result of combat in a single turn. On several occasions I have seen targeted units record track records without injury because of successive combat retreats without injury over virtually impassable terrain. After one or two retreats subsequent retreat outcomes in the combat table should instead cause unit loss.

[vadersson]

Hey gang,

Just wanted to add my two cents on the retreat issue. Here is something I have seen in some other games that might work for CS.

When I unit retreats it must pay normal movement costs and takes these cost (action points in this case) from thier allowance next turn. When they run out of next turns APs they are stuck and further retreat results tend to destroy them. (Or the surrender, or maybe just lose men and equipment, whatever works.) The other kicker is that on you next turn any AP expended in retreating are used and you can't use them. So if a unit retreated twice into terrian that cost 40 AP, next turn the unit would only have 60 AP left for you to use on your turn. Not sure how to implement that in the game, but something to think on.

ALso I suggestion I have is to redo the Assaults in the game to perhaps match to old AH Panzer Blitz/Leader games. Infanty and such can make close assaults while Tanks and armored vehicles make overruns. Overruns don't work in non-clear (or at least open) terrian. Just a thought since this game is so much like PB/PL already.

Thanks,
Duncan

[HobbesACW]

It might be a bit risky as it could unbalance existing scenarios but I think heavy artillery should have slightly more chance of at least disrupting armour. I have researched a few scenario's that just did not seem possible to make as armoured formations were stopped in their tracks by artillery concentrations. It can't happen in the current game.
 
Airstikes should have more effect as well.
 
Chris
 

[TOCarroll]

Basically I agree with the others. I do have a qusetion. German troops run out of smoke as soon as they fire shell # 2 or 3. (realisrically), Russians, Americans, Brits get a little more. I know the Germans used more smoke than the scenarios allowed, but I have also heard stories that WW2 was not a BBQ, and the overuse of smokeshells by players created an unplayable smog situation. I don't know the answer, just interested in a realsitic assault capability if it doesn't create other playing problems.[:D]

[HobbesACW]

From recent experience with a fast new PC :-

EF2 is now too fast. I got used to playing with fast human player on but it's now so fast you
can't watch the opponents replay easily. Without fast human on it seems painfully slow.

Can we have something in the middle?

Thanks, Chris

[HoustonAerosFan]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


What do you consider absolutely vital to be added or changed within the Matrix release of the Campaign Series (M-CS)?

I'll throw in my usual pitch for better rocket launcher modeling. Currently, they fire like regular artillery, which is not realistic.

[rictavian]

I've only played the Germans but :
1) Close Air Support must have historically accurate a/c. Henschel 129s in 6/41?
2) Improved awards system. Knights Cross w/oak leaves and swords all at once?
3) Flexible OOB to choose from while starting a campaign eg maybe I would like to start out a campaign with an assault gun battalion instead of tanks only.
4)An advanced speed for full campaigns. Instead of a battle every 3 days (which is fine) but and option say to have a battle once per week, that would still be some 240 engagements per campaign.
5) Actual time of day display would be nice. Visibility is reduced because it's 5pm and near dusk.
6) Historical units. 3rd SS Panzer Korps in 1941? 23rd panzer Bn.? etc.
7) Advancement in rank is too fast. 30 days from captain to colonel?

Still though I do love this game.

[Dugger]

I would like to see the campaigns check out i felt that the big problem was with the reserves after a battle . Your next battle in the the campiagn was short on the reinforcement and you always were put up against a full strenght army.

I guess to put it simple the oppenent you fought in the campiagn got full reinforcements and yours didn't.

And yes i know the battles weren't all even but i know i fought some battle that were just a butching for them because i could field a strong enough unit to defeat or even scratch them.

Dugger

[PaladinSix]

This is just a copy/paste from something I posted in an earlier discussion, but it would go a long way towards eliminating what is (for me) the single most frustrating aspect of the game:

Something that always bugged me about the original WF (and this may have been fixed in RS, which I haven't played) is the fact that enemy units are spotted only:

1) when they open fire
2) when you bump into them, or
3) at the end of your turn when the system checks line of sight and spotting.

If possible, I'd like to see a system in which a moving unit has a chance to spot an enemy during the friendly's move, rather than waiting until all units have moved and its the next turn. For instance, a unit is ordered to move down a road and halfway through the movement, they spot a infantry unit in the farmhouse ahead. It would allow for more tactical flexibility and require greater care in laying out defensive positions, not to mention be more realistic. Under the current system, its as if a moving unit is blind until they stop and wait for the end of the turn, or unless they literally bump into someone. This leads to situations in which an entire formation moves towards an objective and only then realizes that they are only two hexes away from dug-in defenders.

Ideally, the chance of spotting someone would be based on terrain and weather and the type of unit, both friendly and enemy. It would be great if recon units had higher spotting percentages than infantry, which would have higher percentages than armor, etc. That would provide a use for all those divisional cavalry units which now tend to do "reconaissance by death."

By the way, I realize that one could just put a recon unit in a position with good line of sight and wait for the turn to end, but they tend to draw fire from every enemy and rarely survive long. Plus, as discussed before in this thread, the larger scenarios don't usually leave a lot of turns to spare. Kind of annoying to burn an entire turn while the recon guys sit on some hilltop with binoculars and the rest of the division sits lined up on a road.

PaladinSix