Matrix Games Forums

It's real exciting news with this up and coming Matrix version of the Campaign Series games. Alot of us over at the Blitz wargaming club are just thrilled with the idea of this allready great game being updated and improved in part with the players suggestions. That in itself speaks volumns as to where this game is headed ... Greatness !!!

Here are few things that I think would work well

1. Tanks and other armored vehicals being able to back up, Allowing their front to continue to face the enemy to their front. ( this would be at additional movement allowence of course ) A nice feature to have I think.

2. Off board and on board artillery being able to fire smoke ammunition anytime during that players turn. ( if the target hex is visually spotted by friendly unit )

3. Make mounted troops not so damn easy to kill. A reduced defense value is fine. But as it is now, I think they may be easier to kill than clay pigeons ! ... Possibly even for the A/I to trigger off a dismount of a platoon that starts to take on losses.

4. Possibly giving some specialized engineer platoons a few more abilities. Such as Bunker and cave destruction abilities. And maybe even bridge repair.

5. Some controlable aircraft for the other modes besides the DG Vietnam one. Observation types and possibly others.

6. Looking over all the existing optional armor facing rules protection values in the game. It isn't hard to figure out how the original designers came up with there values.
The math and devising a formula is simple. But some of those values still leave me scratching my head ? ... I'm not alltogather certain they factored in for bhn or the T/D ratios.

7. A better set up to prevent PBEM cheating

8. Allow certain tank platoons such as M4 Shermans to lay smoke in their own hex. This could be a way to simulate that platoon utilizing their 2" smoke mortar that was internally mounted in the upper front of the turret. This smoke would have to be lesser level of smoke than we allready have though. Possibly allowing visability a hex or so behind it. ( not really sure of the best way to emulate these protective smoke mortars ? )

9. A greater emphisis put into creating more modern war stuff. I really like the WWII games becouse of all the great choices of tanks/equipment and troops. I've worked hard to see that our gamers get to see several more interesting pieces with the PB#3. And Besides I'm a Panzer nut. But over the last year working heavily with the DG Vietnam mode and all the goodies that comes with it. I really feel the modern modes will be the future for this CS game. Particuarily when trying to attract many new players. Many new and young gamers may not wish to relate with Sherman or Panther tanks, as marvelous as they are. But M1A1 Abrams and Apache's will catch their eyes I think. Or how about the idea of them moving about a USAF TACP unit about the map that's simulating the control of CAS !

ORIGINAL: Jumbo


3. Make mounted troops not so damn easy to kill. A reduced defense value is fine. But as it is now, I think they may be easier to kill than clay pigeons ! ... Possibly even for the A/I to trigger off a dismount of a platoon that starts to take on losses.

I absolutely agree with this. A 6 sp unit can be wholly eliminated by a low strength unit firing at medium ranges.

This needs to be toned down.

How about scaling the number of turns a campaign scenario generates by the size of your force. I always laughed to see a division+ sized battle with a 15 turn limit...

Where is the reward in getting promoted if your dynamic campaign becomes unplayable due to too few turns to even get to an objective at the larger organization levels? Even Regiments couldn’t achieve their goals because of the short number of turns generated.

Also please redo the friggin AI set ups in Dynamic campaigns. What a pain to have units spread out all over the place given the limited command ranges modeled. Have organizations set up together, not spread out at random. Heck that alone might improve the AI slightly if its units are all within their command ranges at start.

Jim

4) Possibility to define a Kampfgruppe based on existing OOB and use it in a campaign. Also being able to define the time interval between battles in a campaign to avoid playing the whole EF in 3 days-appart battles!

This guy named Bob Dalton used to design DCGs with custom OOBs....so it can be done...

I remember playing his II Panzer Korps at Kursk DCG...

How'd he do it?

I dunno....[8D]

A small thing - but it would be useful to have a hexside that infantry can cross over - but no vehicles including tracked can.

I'm currently designing a scenario that has a railway embankment that infantry but not tanks can cross. It has night and day turns and Naval support only available for a limited time.

None of these things are possible with the current engine. It would nice to have the ability to model them.

Chris

The one thing that bothered me in Dynamic campaigns was that my units had to go from battle to battle on reduced strength (thanks to limited replacements) while the enemy units (who were often the same ones that fought me in previous scenario) were at full strength.

Either both sides should be filled up (like in Panzer General), or losses from both sides have to be carried on.


Drax

The one thing that bothered me in Dynamic campaigns was that my units had to go from battle to battle on reduced strength (thanks to limited replacements) while the enemy units (who were often the same ones that fought me in previous scenario) were at full strength.

I actually liked the fact that I couldn't always be at full strength. Play a Division and you'll be happy to be at 80% after a few battles, especially if you're attacking the Russians in '44 [:)]
I really hope they improve the way you set up though, it takes far to long to organize your forces at the Division level.

ORIGINAL: James Ward

I actually liked the fact that I couldn't always be at full strength. Play a Division and you'll be happy to be at 80% after a few battles, especially if you're attacking the Russians in '44 [:)]

Oh, I have no problems having to prosecute campaign with dwindling number of troops in my platoons. I am annoyed of watching those pesky French battalions I kept kicking always to return at full strength.

The game mechanism was capable of noting enemy casualties, but it wasn't implemented.


Drax

Going up against full strength enemies every battle in a Dynamic Campaign can be a real pain. No combat unit is ever at 100% on equipment or men. The A/I needs to reflect this in the Dynamic campaigns.

Example - I fought 22 battles in April 1941 alone for the DAK in one campaign I started. I didn't have hardly anything left to continue even with reinforcements while the UK kept setting up in full strength. I didn't think that month would be over.

Seriously, the Dynamic Campaign should overally reflect the average strength of the opposing forces. Some will be at full strength, other won't.

A lot said on my first post in this forum.

Example - I fought 22 battles in April 1941 alone for the DAK in one campaign I started. I didn't have hardly anything left to continue even with reinforcements while the UK kept setting up in full strength. I didn't think that month would be over.

Why didn't you just pass on some battles? If it's a bad situation I set up everything on or next to exit hexs and first turn I'm gone. [:D]

I have to play to see how far I can progress in the game no matter the condition of my forces. A good challenge!

I have to play to see how far I can progress in the game no matter the condition of my forces. A good challenge!

Sometime discretion is the better part of valor! [:)] I think if you fought 22 battles in a month with a division, you'd end up with a battalion [;)]

One other thing to add to the wish list. To tie in to a previous comment about needing more games turns when playing larger units i.e. division size or larger in a dynamic campaign, more game turns are needed in the desert dynamic games in general.

The reason is the board size in the desert dynamic campaigns are anywhere from 1 1/2 times to 2 times as large as in the European and Russian campaigns. Everything from battalion size starts on up are on larger boards. Sometimes you are lucky just get across the board if your exit hex is diagonally across from the entrance hex objective let alone try to exit when you get there.

Don't get me wrong, I like the larger board size for the desert campaign games. And I think the board size should be larger for division units and up in the European and Russian dynamic campaign games.

Well, just my 2 cents worth.

One other thing to add to the wish list. To tie in to a previous comment about needing more games turns when playing larger units i.e. division size or larger in a dynamic campaign, more game turns are needed in the desert dynamic games in general.

I agree. I started a Corps campaign and the first battle was a Meeting Engagement, 22 turns. By turn 9 I finally had a unit at an objective having moved max every turn towards it. Nothing that comes on as a reinforcement from now on will even make it to the battle.

I really hope they look at improving the larger actions and don't just concentrate on Regiments and smaller. For Division and higher they need to improve the set-up method (at least let you move units around in the set up by battalions), lengthen the scenarios (they should be a minimum of 40 turns), have some sense in arrival points (don't have the entire battalion arrive on the left most side of the map and the HQ on the right most side), and improve the reinforcement schedules (so that units don't always arrive in the armor, infantry, artillery, assaut gun, misc order.)

I'm really looking forward to this effort, I hope Matrix can deliver.

First off, major kudos to Matrix for resurrecting these games. OpArt of War and Rising Sun are still on my computer (I keep an old pre-XP around just for "Rising Sun") If I had to give a wish list (And RS is the only one I've played), it would be:

1) De-select air & artillery. I think that one's been pretty-well covered.

2) Fix multiplayer (Hot Seat lets you see everything).

2a) Multiplayer campaigns!!! I have a brother in the Marine Corps and would love to thrash him in Operation Shoestring (Guadalcanal).

2b) More campaigns. Four is a nice start but a few more would be dandy.

3) Merge depleted units. Too often I'll have several rifle platoons or machine guns down to one each, and all they manage to do is die.

3a) Divide units. I want to be able to peel off a squad or two on occasion to keep as a ready reserve without moving the main unit.

4) Some new scenarios. I'm sick of always fighting in the middle of nowhere. How about Wake Island in 1941 or Manila 1945?

That's about it. BTW, feel free to ignore what I just said, since I'll play whatever you release. Thanks again guys!

Wake Island in 1941

Isn't Wake about as in the middle of nowhere you can get;^)

Isn't Wake about as in the middle of nowhere you can get;^)

Point taken. I meant to say "the jungle".

re: 4) Take a look at Wake Island

umbro

So umbro, what are the preliminary plans for the CS games?


What are you guys talking about over at The Blitz?


Keep us updated!!!!