One set of changes that would guarantee my money would be some interface design improvements to allow complete operation without a mouse.
1. A mode where the arrow keys move the hotspotted hex rather than scrolling the map would make it much easier to move around and, for instance, check LOS.
2. Some mechanism to make it easier to select units (hotkeys to rotate through units in hex, or select all in this hex for example) would also make a big difference.
And please, please keep using standard Windows object/menus. I can't use a mouse so I use voice dictation (Dragon NaurallySpeaking) to interact with the computer. The CS games, which don't have their own graphical mode, are the only ones I can play (and it is much easier to simulate keyboard commands than mouse commands, hence the requests).
I realise that is a niche request, but those two improvements would have made the games a smoother experience even when I could use my hands...
Wish list
Moderators: Jason Petho, Peter Fisla, asiaticus, dogovich
RE: Wish list
[:)]Hello,
I'm new to the forum, so if some, or all of this has already been covered....
In no particular order, I would like to see...
1.) That all of three of the games function as one game. This way you could make the russian vs. japan scenario's, among others!
2. A unit editor, where you could assign your own parameters to existing units, or make up your own.
3. A graphics editor, change the colors of units and or camouflage patterns. Create your own units, 2D and 3D.
4. Create your own combat results table.
5. Include parameters for, training, experience, morale, combat capabilities, among others...
6. Make 'waypoint' orders available for units or formations. Assign 'column' positions to units that don't change unless ordered to.
7. Create a map that can be 'scaled' up or down. That is, one level may be 1 hex = 250 meters (5 min turns), the next could be 1 hex = 1 kilometer ( 20 min turn). Also the minimun organizational size would be 250 meters = squads, 1 kiliometer = company. In this way, you could play the game with companies and battalions which would move similar to their basic components. Let the 'scales' and turn times be selectable either from a table or assigned by the player.
8. Include an Organization editor. Decide to 4,5 or 6 tank platoons.... number of platoons in a company... and so on...
9. Variable climate conditions that can be scheduled to change or randomly change...
10. Incorporate variable parameters for unit abilities, such as... communication types and procedures... unit capabilities... Indirect fire, yes/no... transport limitations...
11. Make the program more windows-like in terms of being able to open files... etc.
A little long-winded, I know... but what the heck... I enjoyed playing this game and still do... if improvements can be made this could develope into the best game ever....
I'm new to the forum, so if some, or all of this has already been covered....
In no particular order, I would like to see...
1.) That all of three of the games function as one game. This way you could make the russian vs. japan scenario's, among others!
2. A unit editor, where you could assign your own parameters to existing units, or make up your own.
3. A graphics editor, change the colors of units and or camouflage patterns. Create your own units, 2D and 3D.
4. Create your own combat results table.
5. Include parameters for, training, experience, morale, combat capabilities, among others...
6. Make 'waypoint' orders available for units or formations. Assign 'column' positions to units that don't change unless ordered to.
7. Create a map that can be 'scaled' up or down. That is, one level may be 1 hex = 250 meters (5 min turns), the next could be 1 hex = 1 kilometer ( 20 min turn). Also the minimun organizational size would be 250 meters = squads, 1 kiliometer = company. In this way, you could play the game with companies and battalions which would move similar to their basic components. Let the 'scales' and turn times be selectable either from a table or assigned by the player.
8. Include an Organization editor. Decide to 4,5 or 6 tank platoons.... number of platoons in a company... and so on...
9. Variable climate conditions that can be scheduled to change or randomly change...
10. Incorporate variable parameters for unit abilities, such as... communication types and procedures... unit capabilities... Indirect fire, yes/no... transport limitations...
11. Make the program more windows-like in terms of being able to open files... etc.
A little long-winded, I know... but what the heck... I enjoyed playing this game and still do... if improvements can be made this could develope into the best game ever....
RE: Wish list
Invisible Objective Points.
As I remember it, the AI will direct its units towards the objective points, and will do so with an energy commensurate to the value of the point.
Right before the great "Talonsoft Exodus" I suggested that "invisible objective points" be available for the scenario designers. These would be objective points that designers could place on the map to channel the AI, but would not be visible to the player. In this way, the AI would be able to move with something of a purpose, and yet not have that purpose be transparent to the player.
I was too late, the discs were about to be manufactured. A few weeks later the development team all walked out, and that was that.
As I remember it, the AI will direct its units towards the objective points, and will do so with an energy commensurate to the value of the point.
Right before the great "Talonsoft Exodus" I suggested that "invisible objective points" be available for the scenario designers. These would be objective points that designers could place on the map to channel the AI, but would not be visible to the player. In this way, the AI would be able to move with something of a purpose, and yet not have that purpose be transparent to the player.
I was too late, the discs were about to be manufactured. A few weeks later the development team all walked out, and that was that.
-
kylenapoleon
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 4:54 am
- Location: manitoba canada
- Contact:
RE: Wish list
I like the idea of the Japanese being able to fight it out with the soviets. It would be interesting to see how either side would have made out.
I also would like to be able to combine the defeated German forces with the victorious Allies to create a "what if" campaign of the Western powers against the Soviets.
I also would like to be able to combine the defeated German forces with the victorious Allies to create a "what if" campaign of the Western powers against the Soviets.
-
darkentrees
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:03 am
RE: Wish list
The combined German and Allied offensive against the Soviets is one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time for a 'what if' scenario.
Way to go kylenapolean! [:)]
Way to go kylenapolean! [:)]
Crom!
RE: Wish list
One of the things I always loved about the Campaign series was the ability to "progress". You earned medals and promotions as you went through the war. In that way, it really combines some of the best elements of wargaming with the progression model of RPGs. The real disappointment was that as you commanded larger units, it was essentially the same game with more pieces on the board. What I would love to see is a series of games that create a true campaign with progression so that I get the feel that I am moving up the chain of command. Why can't I have a tactical squad leader game where I command at the platoon level and can earn medals and promotions. Eventually, I am promoted to command a company and I "import" my character into the next game and continue my progression. Eventually, I might command a battalion or even a division with the subsequent imports. Each game could stand alone by itself, or they can allow you to grow throughout the course of the war or even transfer from one theater to another. Imagine leading a squad through Poland. Then taking control of a company under Rommel, first in France and then in Africa. Perhaps a Battalion in Russia is the next stop before ending up leading a Division or a Corp on the beaches of Normandy.
Now, look at Matrix's stable of titles. CoI, which is really looking for a reason for living. Campaign series, an excellent company level game that can stretch to the Battalion level. TAOW, a wonderful Division/Corp level title. The pieces are largely all there if someone could just find a way to tie them all together. And imagine the hours of entertainment in seeing just how far you could advance over the course of a war. Do you retire with a General's star? Or meet your end on the field of battle somewhere along the way?
Now, look at Matrix's stable of titles. CoI, which is really looking for a reason for living. Campaign series, an excellent company level game that can stretch to the Battalion level. TAOW, a wonderful Division/Corp level title. The pieces are largely all there if someone could just find a way to tie them all together. And imagine the hours of entertainment in seeing just how far you could advance over the course of a war. Do you retire with a General's star? Or meet your end on the field of battle somewhere along the way?
RE: Wish list
Wow, I just discovered this--I had no idea the Campaign Series would be re-issued.
I agree with many of the items mentioned here, especially adding more variables to the Dynamic Campaign games (they end up being the same battle over and over). I also agree the AI needs improvement, though I understand this is difficult to do.
I also agree heartily with making it more possible for disrupted units to survive assaults, as Mr Petho mentioned.
Finally, MORE huge scenarios with combined operations. I love the big airborne/amphibious invasions of Crete, Malta, etc., and am currently enjoying the big Operation Overlord scenario. The bigger the better (for me)--more maneuvering, more chaos.
I agree with many of the items mentioned here, especially adding more variables to the Dynamic Campaign games (they end up being the same battle over and over). I also agree the AI needs improvement, though I understand this is difficult to do.
I also agree heartily with making it more possible for disrupted units to survive assaults, as Mr Petho mentioned.
Finally, MORE huge scenarios with combined operations. I love the big airborne/amphibious invasions of Crete, Malta, etc., and am currently enjoying the big Operation Overlord scenario. The bigger the better (for me)--more maneuvering, more chaos.
-
tmanmerlin
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:04 am
RE: Wish list
Hi,
I would like to see a smarter tactical AI. I think the AI gets caught up in strategic issues and loses it on the tactical level.
For instance, running troops across the open ground in front of my troops in defensive terrain.
... Does not know how to use transport, it always seems to dump it's riders way to early, the AI does not know how to transport troops, keeping them " behind the line" until they are needed.
... Does not know how to mass tanks at the spearpoint of an attack.
... Does not know how to disrupt the enemy behind the line
... Never seems to outmanuever, sneaky end rounds, flak attacks, etc...
... does not know how to pull back and re-group
just my thoughts on what I would like to se fixed in the AI
I would like to see a smarter tactical AI. I think the AI gets caught up in strategic issues and loses it on the tactical level.
For instance, running troops across the open ground in front of my troops in defensive terrain.
... Does not know how to use transport, it always seems to dump it's riders way to early, the AI does not know how to transport troops, keeping them " behind the line" until they are needed.
... Does not know how to mass tanks at the spearpoint of an attack.
... Does not know how to disrupt the enemy behind the line
... Never seems to outmanuever, sneaky end rounds, flak attacks, etc...
... does not know how to pull back and re-group
just my thoughts on what I would like to se fixed in the AI
RE: Wish list
Like many, I would like to see a better AI. However, I know how difficult this can be to program. So, I thought that, perhaps some specific options would be useful.
(1) I would like to see an improved starting setup, with units organized into companies and battalions placed together. That is to say, identify a piece of terrain (the crest of a hill, a farm) as "key terrain" then place a company there -- lined up -- facing the advancing enemy. The next company in that battalion gets placed to its right or left, in the next available piece of decent terrain, with entrenchments or trenches forming terrain where needed.
(2) I would like to see combat units advance as units. For example: The computer identifies an objective (not necessarily an official game objective, but a tactical objective), it assigns a group of units to "capture" that objective, and those units all converge on that objective. Perhaps the simplest form of advance would have a majority of the units provide covering fire, while a minority of units advance -- picking a different unit to advance each turn. Also, artillery could be focused on that objective.
(3) I would like to see the computer use something like programmatic waypoints to perform flanking maneuvers; e.g., Objective 1 is Hex 6,32. Objective 2 is then a 90 degree turn to the right to take hex 15,34.
(4) I would like to see the computer AI unload its vehicles under cover, so that loaded units do not get shot at so often. In other words; search for buildings, woods, or ridgelines behind which to move and unload.
(5) I would like to see the computer send forward scouts -- a company on a wide front that moves forward until it spots enemy units, then heads for cover, and calls in a gaggle of artillery or air strikes against visible targets.
(6) I would like to see the computer use a tactical reserve -- a company or two that sits in a nice safe place on a road behind the lines, waits for a threatened enemy breakthrough (indicated by significant losses on a particular part of the line and/or enemy units "sited" as having crossed a particular trip wire -- at which point the reserves are committed and moved to that area.
(7) I would like to see a way for scenario designers to program multiple strategies into a scenario for the computer player. That is, the designer targets particular units (companies) to move on specific locations. This could be done through a set of waypoints objectives and a timetable for reaching those objectives. It would be particularly nice if the designer could program in more than one possible strategy with the computer picking (by means of a random number) which strategy it will use in a given scenario.
Of these, I would like to put particular emphasis on the last one. Artificial intelligence is hard to program. However, players here like to create and implement strategies. So, I would like to suggest a way of putting this to use.
To whatever degree possible, allow players to "write a strategic program" for the computer player and save those computer programs with the scenario. This would be kinda like a general preparing a strategy for a battle, then seeing how well it survives contact with the enemy without any further human intervention. This strategy will tell the units where to go, where to unload, where to advance to after they unload, whether to be "aggressive" or "defensive" (perhaps using different scales), whether to move quickly (do not save points for firing), slowly (save points for firing), or very slowly (1 hex per turn).
I think that would increase the value of the game significantly.
(1) I would like to see an improved starting setup, with units organized into companies and battalions placed together. That is to say, identify a piece of terrain (the crest of a hill, a farm) as "key terrain" then place a company there -- lined up -- facing the advancing enemy. The next company in that battalion gets placed to its right or left, in the next available piece of decent terrain, with entrenchments or trenches forming terrain where needed.
(2) I would like to see combat units advance as units. For example: The computer identifies an objective (not necessarily an official game objective, but a tactical objective), it assigns a group of units to "capture" that objective, and those units all converge on that objective. Perhaps the simplest form of advance would have a majority of the units provide covering fire, while a minority of units advance -- picking a different unit to advance each turn. Also, artillery could be focused on that objective.
(3) I would like to see the computer use something like programmatic waypoints to perform flanking maneuvers; e.g., Objective 1 is Hex 6,32. Objective 2 is then a 90 degree turn to the right to take hex 15,34.
(4) I would like to see the computer AI unload its vehicles under cover, so that loaded units do not get shot at so often. In other words; search for buildings, woods, or ridgelines behind which to move and unload.
(5) I would like to see the computer send forward scouts -- a company on a wide front that moves forward until it spots enemy units, then heads for cover, and calls in a gaggle of artillery or air strikes against visible targets.
(6) I would like to see the computer use a tactical reserve -- a company or two that sits in a nice safe place on a road behind the lines, waits for a threatened enemy breakthrough (indicated by significant losses on a particular part of the line and/or enemy units "sited" as having crossed a particular trip wire -- at which point the reserves are committed and moved to that area.
(7) I would like to see a way for scenario designers to program multiple strategies into a scenario for the computer player. That is, the designer targets particular units (companies) to move on specific locations. This could be done through a set of waypoints objectives and a timetable for reaching those objectives. It would be particularly nice if the designer could program in more than one possible strategy with the computer picking (by means of a random number) which strategy it will use in a given scenario.
Of these, I would like to put particular emphasis on the last one. Artificial intelligence is hard to program. However, players here like to create and implement strategies. So, I would like to suggest a way of putting this to use.
To whatever degree possible, allow players to "write a strategic program" for the computer player and save those computer programs with the scenario. This would be kinda like a general preparing a strategy for a battle, then seeing how well it survives contact with the enemy without any further human intervention. This strategy will tell the units where to go, where to unload, where to advance to after they unload, whether to be "aggressive" or "defensive" (perhaps using different scales), whether to move quickly (do not save points for firing), slowly (save points for firing), or very slowly (1 hex per turn).
I think that would increase the value of the game significantly.
-
James Ward
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
RE: Wish list
"1) I would like to see an improved starting setup, with units organized into companies and battalions placed together. That is to say, identify a piece of terrain (the crest of a hill, a farm) as "key terrain" then place a company there -- lined up -- facing the advancing enemy. The next company in that battalion gets placed to its right or left, in the next available piece of decent terrain, with entrenchments or trenches forming terrain where needed."
YES YES YES to this! [:)]
It's the main reason playing a campaign with a unit larger than regiment is not worth the hassle. It can take a few hours just to sort out a Corp!
I like all the other suggestions too. Anything to improve the AI is good with me.
YES YES YES to this! [:)]
It's the main reason playing a campaign with a unit larger than regiment is not worth the hassle. It can take a few hours just to sort out a Corp!
I like all the other suggestions too. Anything to improve the AI is good with me.
-
rhondabrwn
- Posts: 2570
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:47 am
- Location: Snowflake, Arizona
RE: Wish list
ORIGINAL: James Ward
"1) I would like to see an improved starting setup, with units organized into companies and battalions placed together. That is to say, identify a piece of terrain (the crest of a hill, a farm) as "key terrain" then place a company there -- lined up -- facing the advancing enemy. The next company in that battalion gets placed to its right or left, in the next available piece of decent terrain, with entrenchments or trenches forming terrain where needed."
YES YES YES to this! [:)]
It's the main reason playing a campaign with a unit larger than regiment is not worth the hassle. It can take a few hours just to sort out a Corp!
I like all the other suggestions too. Anything to improve the AI is good with me.
I do not have this series installed on my hard drive at present and it has been... years since I played one of these games. I can't recall but is there an option to highlight all units of a specific organization (as in the Battleground and HPS Campaign series)? If not, then that is definitely something I want to see added.
I tend to be a bit obsessive about keeping my units in good order, whether it is a modern game or earlier.
I think that having units all neatly lined up for you in good defensive terrain at the start of a game is unrealistic though. In a fantasy scenario perhaps, but the real world was never that neat. It might be good to have setup boxes with the units organized for you which you could then drag onto the map to place. However, just being able to click on a unit and instantly see all peer and subordinate units in it's chain of command would be super.
Again, I haven't played this in quite awhile so this may be way off the mark. If so, I apologize.
Love & Peace,
Far Dareis Mai
My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics
Far Dareis Mai
My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics
-
James Ward
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
RE: Wish list
"I tend to be a bit obsessive about keeping my units in good order, whether it is a modern game or earlier.
I think that having units all neatly lined up for you in good defensive terrain at the start of a game is unrealistic though. "
It really pays to keep them close to the hQ units as your units rally easier and get supplied better. I TRY to keep the close
As far as lining units up neatly in terrain, I think that's unrealistic but they should be grouped together during the deployment phase so that you can set up quicker.
I think that having units all neatly lined up for you in good defensive terrain at the start of a game is unrealistic though. "
It really pays to keep them close to the hQ units as your units rally easier and get supplied better. I TRY to keep the close
As far as lining units up neatly in terrain, I think that's unrealistic but they should be grouped together during the deployment phase so that you can set up quicker.
RE: Wish list
While having the units set up in defensive terrain, creatively, may be unrealistic, it would be still a big improvement if the battalions were deployed in a standard pattern, all together, regardless of terrain. And preferably with artillery in the rear. The problem is having all the units randomly scattered across the board, willy-nilly.
-
James Ward
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
RE: Wish list
"The problem is having all the units randomly scattered across the board, willy-nilly."
Ain't that the truth.
I also hope they mix up the arrival order of reinforcements or increase the number of turns based on map size. I mean what's the point of having Corp artillery if it always arrives just before the end of the scenario!
Ain't that the truth.
I also hope they mix up the arrival order of reinforcements or increase the number of turns based on map size. I mean what's the point of having Corp artillery if it always arrives just before the end of the scenario!
RE: Wish list
You don't get the impression that anyone at Matrix ever actually looks at these messages.
If they do - as a scenario designer a variable visibility would add so much to the game
and would surely be fairly easy to do.
I would love to make a scenario that covers the first few days of the D-day landings without having to ask the players to amend the visibility by editing a file.
The idea that each turn represents 6 minutes is very debatable - an hour or two is
more realistic in my view.
Chris
If they do - as a scenario designer a variable visibility would add so much to the game
and would surely be fairly easy to do.
I would love to make a scenario that covers the first few days of the D-day landings without having to ask the players to amend the visibility by editing a file.
The idea that each turn represents 6 minutes is very debatable - an hour or two is
more realistic in my view.
Chris
-
rhondabrwn
- Posts: 2570
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:47 am
- Location: Snowflake, Arizona
RE: Wish list
ORIGINAL: hobbes
You don't get the impression that anyone at Matrix ever actually looks at these messages.
If they do - as a scenario designer a variable visibility would add so much to the game
and would surely be fairly easy to do.
I would love to make a scenario that covers the first few days of the D-day landings without having to ask the players to amend the visibility by editing a file.
The idea that each turn represents 6 minutes is very debatable - an hour or two is
more realistic in my view.
Chris
Of course they do! I've never seen a more responsive company! [&o]
Sometimes they drop the ball, but I'd score Matrix a big 98% for listening!
Of course, the poor old Campaign series is about last on their list of priorities so I don't expect a lot of feedback right now, but it will come when a developer is actively working on this title. Meanwhile, keep the suggestions coming... they will be looked at and given consideration. [:)]
Love & Peace,
Far Dareis Mai
My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics
Far Dareis Mai
My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics
-
TAIL GUNNER
- Posts: 1156
- Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:10 am
- Location: Los Osos, CA
RE: Wish list
Of course, the poor old Campaign series is about last on their list of priorities so I don't expect a lot of feedback right now, but it will come when a developer is actively working on this title.
Which is kind of sad....I've always thought the Campaign Series were Talonsoft's most popular games and one of, if not the highest sellers.....judging by the amount of posts on their old message boards anyway...
Also I'm pretty sure there are some peeps working on these titles right now....maybe they're just shy about posting here...[:D]
Now the dev of BtR and especially the devs of TOAW really know how to hype their respective titles! Hopefully the same will happen here one of these days...
"If you want peace, prepare for war."
RE: Wish list
I hope they add the campaign where you can start with Operation Case Blue and continue until the end of the war.
Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears - Winston Churchill
-
Danish Rommel
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:58 pm
RE: Wish list
[font="times new roman"]I just love this game. Five years in a row. Looking forward to the release – If something like these changes would be implemented I would most certainly buy the game:[/font]
[font="times new roman"]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- Much more infantry/tanks modifiers in manoeuvre-restricted areas. Tanks should certainly not be able to assault infantry in a cityhex without getting a major penalty (unless co. assault with inf.) In that way infantry unit and coordinated attack will be much more valuable [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- Stealth move mode for infantry – (can move one hex without detection – unless moved into zone of control of an enemy unit)[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- Opp. Fire. Should be programmable in regards to direction and distance[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- Additional Engineer options – building tank-barricades, setting up barbed wire and lay down mines. Should take about 5-6 turns[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- Weather can change = Line of sight can change during battle.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- Better protection against cheaters in PBEM games[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- A zoom-out and up-speed replay when finish (like in Sid Meier’s Gettysburg )[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Danish Rommel[/font]
[font="times new roman"]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- Much more infantry/tanks modifiers in manoeuvre-restricted areas. Tanks should certainly not be able to assault infantry in a cityhex without getting a major penalty (unless co. assault with inf.) In that way infantry unit and coordinated attack will be much more valuable [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- Stealth move mode for infantry – (can move one hex without detection – unless moved into zone of control of an enemy unit)[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- Opp. Fire. Should be programmable in regards to direction and distance[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- Additional Engineer options – building tank-barricades, setting up barbed wire and lay down mines. Should take about 5-6 turns[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- Weather can change = Line of sight can change during battle.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- Better protection against cheaters in PBEM games[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]- A zoom-out and up-speed replay when finish (like in Sid Meier’s Gettysburg )[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Danish Rommel[/font]