Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: berto

Optional rules only. Again, if you don't like them, then don't choose them.

Sorry to disagree. I think there are enough optional rules that already ruin the game. Why add more?

"Ruin the game"? These are suggested optional rules. Don't you think your remark is a little overboard?

If you like the way Squad Battles plays, then play Squad Battles? Why ruin a game that is not Squad Battles?

I like and play both. What's wrong with a little cross fertilization? Both Squad Battles and the Campaign Series are John Tiller games, BTW.

If you've finished the scenario, abiding by it's rules and victory conditions, why play beyond it?

Because at the formal "end" of the scenario, by then I've invested hours playing it. Maybe I find the situation interesting, and am unhappy to be forced to leave it?

Because maybe I recognize that victory conditions (and scenario time limits) are arbitrary, that I decide for myself whether I've won or lost, indeed that I really don't care about the concept of "winning" anyway? For me, the journey's the thing, not so much the destination.

If you cannot complete the task in the allotted time then it may be a "how you play the game" issue rather than a "how the game plays" issue.

We each "play" these "games" for our own individual reasons. My reasons are obviously different from yours. One size does not fit all.

The Campaign Series of games already offer several optional rules. What's wrong with adding a few more?

There is so much that the Campaign Series needs that will make it much more visually appealing, as well as improving playability, that I think it would be a waste of time and effort to fundamentally change it, by adding chrome, so that it could be more like "other games".

What's "fundamental" about offering the option to play beyond a fixed, or optionally varying, scenario time limit?

Better graphics and more units would go a long way to improve the game. A better thinking AI would improve the game. A more effective game engine would improve the game. More scenarios and campaigns would improve the game.

I agree with all of those things. Wonderful, worthy improvements all. And all undoubtedly requiring much more coding and developer time than what I suggest. (I am a coder, and I can't imagine that the suggested optional changes would require all that much added coder time and effort.)

Changes to the game are not always improvements. Making something an option is no excuse for doing something to the game that does not improve the game. The last "optional" change to the game fractured the player "community".
I'd rather not see something like that again.

Upgrades, improvements, and additions are not always bad. Change that doesn't upgrade, improve, or add to the game are often bad.

Staying within game scale would also help the game.

This is a "WISHLIST" thread. Are you this scornful of all the dozens of other wishes in this, by now, 270+ long message thread?

Your Mileage obviously varies.

We agree to disagree.

ORIGINAL: berto
This is a "WISHLIST" thread. Are you this scornful of all the dozens of other wishes in this, by now, 270+ long message thread?

Your Mileage obviously varies.

We agree to disagree.

Scornful? LOL! Dude you need to lighten up.

If you did not know it Extreme Assault, six minute mine laying engineers, and six minute wreck clearing, was on someones "wish list" at one time.

I choose to defend myself and the game.
I referred to the ideas in your post, not to you personally? If you find that to be "not in good taste" just plug my name into your block list. Then you will not have to read what you preconceive to be scorn or personal attacks?

I can assure you that I only have the game scale and game integrity at heart. Fundamental changes that do not make sense will be commented upon.

If you feel picked on, or wish to attack me, I would suggest you not respond to this message. Or, go to the movie thread and make a movie?

[:)]


RR

ORIGINAL: berto

More wishes:

• Variable ending (end-of-game turn limit varies a la HPS Squad Battles)
• Ability to play beyond formal end-of-game (irrespective of whether player has won or lost)

These two "wishes" would unbalance all existing CS scenarios... much like the optional Extreme Assault rule does for all scenarios developed prior to the introduction of EA.

I have developed several CS scenarios for PBeM and inclusion into the 1.05 update. Force mix, terrain, victory objectives / levels, reinforcements and especially game turns are all developed with play balance as a high priority. Introducing a random game end turn would destroy this balance... and might even "break" the existing game engine.

These two "wishes" would also destroy PBeM - especially ladder standings.

ORIGINAL: berto
[*] Ability to play beyond formal end-of-game (irrespective of whether player has won or lost)

You can do this by manually editing the BTE file.

Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: berto
[*] Ability to play beyond formal end-of-game (irrespective of whether player has won or lost)

You can do this by manually editing the BTE file.

Jason Petho

Jason,

Doing that will have an effect and consequence in clubs that use ladders?
For beer is one thing. In competition is another? [:)]

RR

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Doing that will have an effect and consequence in clubs that use ladders?
For beer is one thing. In competition is another? [:)]

It's a handy tool for playtesting scenarios, I use it frequently to see if "a few extra turns" would make a difference or help balance a scenario.

Unfortunately, editing the BTE file can be done by anyone who can figure out how to open NotePad, and the amount of information you can edit in your sides favour (my Tiger platoon regained 2SPs!, my morale is 10 for all the frontline units!, I feel like adding another company of Shermans!, I have more smoke now!, I have more airstrikes now!, where are all my opponents units - are they dug in, do they have AP's left, do they have OP fire settings set? ... and so on), that would have an effect and consquence in the clubs that use ladders.

Is a ladder system the way to go? For me, it is a handy way to see which scenarios I have played and whom I have played them against. But that's really the only information that is relevent for me.

Jason Petho

Jason, I once played a scenario where my opponents unlimited number of airplanes (which were not included in the original) strafed me over and over. Then his invisible Stalin's (not included in the original) blasted me from one over stacked hex. I think I watched three minutes of opt fire as I moved my undisrupted surviving units forward.
I saw first hand what could be done. LOL! [:D]

Thankfully it was an exercise in learning what a "cheater" could do. Otherwise I might have gained a inferiority complex. [8|]

If I played opponents, on a regular basis, who cracked open files to see where I was and what I had set then I would probably not be playing the game.
Most ladder rules cover cracking open the files? If I cannot trust an opponent I don't play them. [X(] Believe me, they are very few and very in between. [:)]

RR

Oh, I know. Been on the receiving end myself.

On the other hand, editing the BTE is necessary to operate the von Earlmann style campaigns.

Regardless, the capability is already there if one wants to extend a game.

Jason Petho

It would be nice to be able to display AT units just like you can currently display indirect fire units. 

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

On the other hand, editing the BTE is necessary to operate the von Earlmann style campaigns.

Regardless, the capability is already there if one wants to extend a game.

Jason Petho

A wish come true? [;)]

I am still unhappy with the way the computer does the initial placing of units in the Dynamic Campaign for each scenario. The most vulnerable units are placed right in the front lines and the most durable combat units are placed way in the back. That simply doesn't make any sense. It requires wasting a lot of time protecting trucks and headquarters units at the start of the scenario, as well as bringing forward all the combat units. Also, if the assignment for the scenario is to protect certain objectives, than the initial placement of the units should reflect that. Right now the AI just seems to "scatter" units all over the place and you have to replace nearly every one of them for best protection.

I really like the Linked Campaign for the Fallschirmjager. But even if they do a magnificnet job of carrying out their orders, no awards are issued!!! I don't care if, as a player, I don't get any awards, but I would like to see the commanders of my units receive some awards. The awards should reflect the improved morale within the units they are located with too. Automatically giving a bonus for placement of a commander with a unit is not realistic. There were plenty of bad commanders on all sides that were incompetent.

I know it´s not possible to add the possibility of using simultanenous turns. But, if possible, I would like that the IGOUGO effect would be minimized, to give more the sense of realism. Despite opportunity fire, it still feels much like a chess game.

Okay call me dumb, but what is MCS?

ORIGINAL: resinslinger

Okay call me dumb, but what is MCS?

Just a guess...Matrix Campaign Series?

oops wrong answer

Deputy is correct.

Sounds good to me.

ALL
When you see the REPLAY in big scenarios sometimes it takes forever until you see the actions in your LOS. All your enemy movements that out of your LOS are taking so much time. If there is a way to make a shortcut and see only what is happening in your LOS that would be great! Or if the game engine for some reason can't handle this, at least make it posible to switch to the windowed mode, so you can do some other stuff on the computer untill your opponent move all his countless units that I don't see anyway probably hex by hex, lol. Because I am starting to think sometimes that my 2.70GHz can't handle this any faster!!!

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

3D icons twice the size as now with a hotkey to switch between current and large. Basically the artist around here could make icons with lots of detail and the game engine would shrink them to current size. We might not need bases on to find camo units in trees and jungle. I think the original design was to save space back when HDDs were 8.4GB and floppys were KBs. Alternative would be for one more zoom level.

Speaking of zoom, add a zoom out button next to the zoom in button in the bottom tool bar. The original design was for the days of 640x480 and 800x600 so only room for so many buttons.

Six years ago... wow

ORIGINAL: qbert55

It would also be nice to have retrograde movement that allows armor to "back up" (reverse gear) without exposing their rear.

Good idea if you play with armor facing on. Somewhat addressed by Jason in post 248 before it.

The last page has some interesting posts from 2010. Some by berto.

One of my ideas was separate briefings for each side. Still like that one.

Counting down the days.

Me too!!

Getting closer as the days go by.

We're still on target.

Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: benpark

One for the wishlist-

I would really like to see the white box removed from the on-map text. I love the look of the game in most areas, but this is one where it looks about as 1990's as Andrew Dice Clay. The newer John Tiller games have the option to have just the lettering of place names without the white text box.

I realize you can turn the text "off", but it's nice to see the place names- just not in the way it has been done.