MCS User WISHLIST

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

They can offer all these silly extras they want to please a few people. I WON'T be using them in any sceanrios I play.
Hey Miamieagle, maybe you can create a scenario where trains attack warships. That should be fantastically realistic. [8|]

Wow, that's exactly what we did for **Bootcamp 13!!

Jason Petho

[The Rattler]

In reference to Half tracks the current situation is that they are classified as Hard Targets by game engine in regards to opfire and making a new slot for them as another type of target would be more ideal....so they dont soak up opfire saved to deal with approaching armour.....I use the term medium hard target loosely, realising how vulnerable they actually were.
Thanks

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Deputy

They can offer all these silly extras they want to please a few people. I WON'T be using them in any sceanrios I play.
Hey Miamieagle, maybe you can create a scenario where trains attack warships. That should be fantastically realistic. [8|]

Wow, that's exactly what we did for **Bootcamp 13!!

Jason Petho

JASON: I don't know if you're joking or not. [;)]
But if you aren't, please DON'T put any whacky scenarios like this in the campaigns. I think most of us want realism along with gameplay. We don't need a Von Ryan's Express or some other goofy movie-based scenario ruining a good sim.

Rattler: I wasn't aware that the 1/2 tracks were classified as hard targets. In that case, I'm with you 100%

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

JASON: I don't know if you're joking or not. [;)]
But if you aren't, please DON'T put any whacky scenarios like this in the campaigns.

No worries, I was joking.

There is a bootcamp that deals with trains though. I would recommend playing it anyway, just to get a feel for them.

You won't see trains, planes and ships on a regular basis in my designs, but you may see them occassionally - but rarely together.

Jason Petho

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Deputy

JASON: I don't know if you're joking or not. [;)]
But if you aren't, please DON'T put any whacky scenarios like this in the campaigns.

No worries, I was joking.

There is a bootcamp that deals with trains though. I would recommend playing it anyway, just to get a feel for them.

You won't see trains, planes and ships on a regular basis in my designs, but you may see them occassionally - but rarely together.

Jason Petho

Thank you sir. You're still the best. [&o]

[Ladmo]

Does this mean no one will want to play my scenario wherein Yugoslav partisans capture a Romulan Warbird and launch a daring raid on Berlin? It was so difficult to adjust the concealment rating to accomodate a cloaking device. I guess I'll have to shelve my next piece, "HAL-9000 crosses the Rhine" -"Good morning, Field Marshal, I think you should take a stress pill." or "Open the turret door, HAL!"

[cw58]

ORIGINAL: Ladmo

Does this mean no one will want to play my scenario wherein Yugoslav partisans capture a Romulan Warbird and launch a daring raid on Berlin? It was so difficult to adjust the concealment rating to accomodate a cloaking device. I guess I'll have to shelve my next piece, "HAL-9000 crosses the Rhine" -"Good morning, Field Marshal, I think you should take a stress pill." or "Open the turret door, HAL!"

Finally, someone has designed a scenario worthy of my gaming skills.[:D] Bravo!

cw58

[dgk196]

Don't know if I mentioned it elsewhere...........

Delays in the ability of units to conduct indirect fire when moving to a 'new' locations on the map. The delays should reflect the individual 'nationalities' and era's. I.E..... Radio equipped units, less time, land lines more time, but a delay no matter what the primary communications system is. Additionally, some might not be capable of retaining their indirect fire capability once moved, for most scenario's. Right now, the indirect artillery acts like modern computer controlled, GPS equipped, satellite communications capable units, on time and almost instantly!

Dennis [:)]

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Ladmo

Does this mean no one will want to play my scenario wherein Yugoslav partisans capture a Romulan Warbird and launch a daring raid on Berlin? It was so difficult to adjust the concealment rating to accomodate a cloaking device. I guess I'll have to shelve my next piece, "HAL-9000 crosses the Rhine" -"Good morning, Field Marshal, I think you should take a stress pill." or "Open the turret door, HAL!"

Hmmmm...that IS tempting. But you need to include more assistance for the partisans. And definitely have a train in the scenario. I suggest the train that was in the third "Back to the Future" movie, so that it can jump forwards and backward in time. That way you can have Picard AND Kirk team up to fight the Romulans. [:D]

[dgk196]

Since I have been 'paying more attention' to the 'game', there is something I would really like to be able to do......

I would like to be able to 'set' the 'cost' of 'firing', 'loading'.... etc...

Like I said, and not to 'cast aspersions' on anyone, I feel that some of the 'rates of fire', etc......... could use some 'attention'!

Dennis [&o]

[cw58]

ORIGINAL: dgk196

Since I have been 'paying more attention' to the 'game', there is something I would really like to be able to do......

I would like to be able to 'set' the 'cost' of 'firing', 'loading'.... etc...

Like I said, and not to 'cast dispersions' on anyone, I feel that some of the 'rates of fire', etc......... could use some 'attention'!

Dennis [&o]

Adjusting the costs of firing, loading, etc. is something you can do now by modifying the platoon.obx files. But after 1.03 comes out, you'll have to send those files to Jason for encryption.

cw58

[dgk196]

Thanks for the tip! However, what I meant was an optional setting for the 'parameters' of units without going into the 'code' no matter how shallow a trip! I want an editor function that allows me to access the parameters of each unit!

Chaos, I know, but its something I would like to see!

Dennis

[dgk196]

Something else.....

How about keeping track of individual losses in units. Some other JT games (Panzer Campaigns, there I said it, does this get me 'banned'? For reference only, I'm not promoting any other games here!) keep track of the number of personnel in the units. So instead of '6 strength points', you would have the actual number of men in a unit, 50 or whatever the number may be for a specific platoon.

Then when you wandered into a minefield you might take a one or two casualties along with the progress of the unit being delayed. It would also help in taking other loss types, assaults, indirect-fire and so on. Think about this one for a minute, it really does change the outcome in a more positive way! Crew served weapons might have their AP's reduced because of personnel and equipment losses!

Of course, as always, strength points for vehicles and guns should be based on the actual number in the unit, which I think is pretty much as is the current situation!?

Dennis [:)]

[Darthmason]

First I have to say how happy I was when Matrix took over the Talonsoft CS. I support every suggestion so far and have some to add that I found myself wanting many times while playing (sorry if some are redundant):
 
Overall:

• Add a hierarchy level at startup to choose which game (WF, EF, or RS) rather than individual game starts.
• Make all effects available across games (I think there are some mods already for these: terrain availability, night effects, etc)
• Add an internal 24 hr game clock (or display option to add pressure of timed objectives?) to track gametime as turns progress. Visibility will then adjust off of this clock as game progresses: 1 hex night, 2-3 hex twilight hrs, etc as well as air support availability and maybe a combat strength adjustment for night fighting/ capability (airborne and special units plus or stay same, regular, support units negative due to discomfort, shock or lack of training). One of my favorite scenarios has been a full Overlord map with all 5 beaches with airborne landings the first 10 plus turns. There is no night/day transition however, with the airdrops occuring under full visibility. Having visibility issues, increasing/decreasing ranges as dawn and dusk approach, and time pressure before a seaborne landing, etc begins would add a huge amount of flavor and realism.
• Feel like air support needs more flavor. It feels more like an additional artillery piece, but less dependable. How about different types of air support? In addition to the close air on a point target, how about:
  • interdiction availability based on scenario/campaign information. If feasible air superiority were defined, you could set an interdiction mission for a set number of turns between hex 1 and hex 2. IE - set a stretch of road (can set a hex limit restriction?) that will trigger an opportunity CAS if opponent moves along it (or is caught in it) during set period, representing an aircraft patrolling or "on station" looking for targets of oportunity.
  • air superiority - commits unit to attempt to intercept an oponent's air strike
  • high level bombing - there was a suggestion for carpet bombing earlier. I had the same idea, just not the scale of strategic "formation" bomb runs. I envision this working like setting an interdiction range of 2-3 linear hexes, then bombs fall (with standard whistling sound) as part of artillary and air resolution at beginning of next turn. This could be more of a modern ability in later years - I wanted it playing the DG Vietnam mod....which I'm dying for the ability to call napalm strikes as well (fireball graphic on impact, then flaming hex with unit taking continual damage if remaining in hex for certain time length).
  • recon (orbit around a selected hex?) and airdrop resupply options (Bastogne)?
• Ability to link bunkers like a cave complex in RS and DGV to represent connecting trenches and tunnels without losing the bunker graphic. DGV did this to represent VC tunnel complexes well, but changed bunker graphic to cave graphic. Omaha just wouldn't look right if it were all caves.

Graphics/New hex types:

• Airfields (small, med, large)
• Radar/radio/command bunker (with  HQ effects?)
• "Special" hexes: Rocket (V1, V2) site, harbor, docks, railyards, etc
• various roadblock hexes (makeshift - wagons, crates, etc - modern example were Somalies pilling tires and junk in intersections and lighting on fire in Mogadishu). Scale could also be set. Currently when units toggle dig in, time passes until complete. How about a simple fortification scalability (25% - 33% per turn, etc) with a coresponding hex graphic to illustrate progress vs all or nothing currently. Will allow a unit to overrun an incomplete or "hasty" position and continue to upgrade from that point if desired.

New Units:

• Special operations units. I'm partial to these as an op veteran myself and would love to see these not only more available, but closer to realistic capabilities.
  • Types: commandos, udt - underwater demo teams  (imagine being able to send a frogman team forward of your amphib landing to recon the beach, id and remove obstacles like an engineer, call for fire, etc while trying to stay undetected),snipers, pathfinders, guerillas (outside of population centers), partisans, underground/resistence fighters (more recon and sabotage than direct fire)
  • Modern and into DG era could be: SOG teams, Seals, Rangers, SAS, Delta, SBS, etc by nation equivalents. IEDs, suicide bombers, NBC attacks
• These units would need special abilities to make them true to their names:
  • special recon/concealment ability/bonus/modifier/range
  • sabotage (basically stealthy engineering abilities in mine laying/clearing/demo)
  • withdrawl bonus to break contact
  • amphib ability (swimmers - underwater approach) for certain units
  • and a strong ability to ambush

Other unit stuff:

• agree with needing to set direction of fire limits on pillboxes, bunkers, etc and the use of movement points to turn dismounted artillery. I hate when a bunker fires on me when I'm behind it. Set field of fire in scenario/campaign design so still can be flexible - 45, 90, 180 degrees, etc?. Will create interlocking defenses as well as dead space for cover.
• stronger ambush impact. Maybe an attack multiplier effect on units moving fast, doubletime, careless. A unit moving with saved ap's for firing is expecting contact to me, so they would not be considered the above. Just not enough for me when waiting off of a trail/road, etc. Needs a concealment adjustment because I hate getting fired up from three hexes away. Maybe I'm doing it wrong with the hard/soft target settings? But a well executed ambush should all but eliminate an unsuspecting unit - just like mounted units take when caught on vehicles.
• Agree with morale and disruption impacts. HQ units need more of an impact. How about this? Give HQ units the ability to "dismount". Add a toggle that allows an HQ unit to set itself up (like artillary does). The unit graphic changes to command tents or a series of camoflage net "tents". Their supply and command/control range/ability/impact then increase as a result. They would be less effective otherwise. This would also make them more vulnerable if detected, as they would have to "break down" to move out. Loss of these units should have a greater impact on their subordinate units morale, supply=attack/defense numbers, etc.

That's all I can think of right now. Hope these help...
 

[dgk196]

@Darthmason

Great stuff! I always look forward to the posts here, and yours is a beaut! I like the attention to special forces, so to speak.

Dennis [&o]

[TAIL GUNNER]

For Normandy scenarios would like to see the following new units for Germany.
 
PzKpfw 35-H 734(f) - captured Hotchkiss H-35 tanks
PzKpfw 35-S 739(f) - captured Somua S-35 tanks
PzKpfw B2 740(f) - captured Renault B1-bis tanks  (flame version is in already?)

[TAIL GUNNER]

also needed for Normandy scenarios:

add for Germany-
10cm leFH 30(t) - battery of 4
7.62cm FK 295/1(r) - battery of 4

And please fix leFH 302(f) and sFH 312(f) from battery size max of 3 to 4?

Thanks,
ChadG

[Ron Belcher]

Aw Ladmo.. in that case, I'll have to scrap my "I am Nomad give me your weapons / Star Trek type" of scenario.
Hold the cheese too, please! [>:]

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: tactician93612

Aw Ladmo.. in that case, I'll have to scrap my "I am Nomad give me your weapons / Star Trek type" of scenario.
Hold the cheese too, please! [>:]

Well this is totally unacceptable. ANY suggestions have to take into account both Star Trek and Star Wars scenarions. Otherwise, they should be shot with Klingon disrupters.

[dgk196]

I have the IL2 1946 game, one of the features it has is 'skins'.

There is a 'template' for each aircraft type. Now, all you need is a 'paint' program and you can reproduce any camouflage or markings you wish. Save it with a defining name and incorporate them into a scenario! The various functions of the paint programs can give a very realistic look without a whole lot of work!

So, how about a similar system for the various 3D models. You could have a template for each type! Then you could have several camouflage schemes, of your own, and use them as desired! You could paint several different defining variations, turret number variations or symbols and so on, and have each of your platoons appear different from one another! I think adding this feature and allowing the average Joe to modify his units appearance would add a whole lot to the game!

Dennis

How about adding this to the unit types.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fb2O9pL ... re=related