MCS User WISHLIST

John Tiller's Campaign Series exemplifies tactical war-gaming at its finest by bringing you the entire collection of TalonSoft's award-winning campaign series. Containing TalonSoft's West Front, East Front, and Rising Sun platoon-level combat series, as well as all of the official add-ons and expansion packs, the Matrix Edition allows players to dictate the events of World War II from the tumultuous beginning to its climatic conclusion. We are working together with original programmer John Tiller to bring you this updated edition.

Moderators: Jason Petho, Peter Fisla, asiaticus, dogovich

Post Reply
Hermann
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:57 am
Contact:

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by Hermann »

purchase/select should really reflect army assets. these are assigned to corps according to mission. rarely would a unit go into battle without mission specific assets.

seems that its doable if you connect each mission to certain types of army assets - a river assault for instance gets briding units - a rail clearing mission gets rail units, defense missions get artillery etc.. rather than having army assets permanently attached to corps regardless of mission attach them to the scenario type
YohanTM2
Posts: 986
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 5:43 am
Location: Toronto

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by YohanTM2 »

Yes please, I was surprised this was not available
ORIGINAL: timshin42

Jason,


I wish for the capabiliy of playing Linked Campaigns versus a human opponent (PBEM)!!!!![:D]

awc
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:58 pm

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by awc »

Jason, I would love to see the Stulg 33B modeled correctly to look like the original assault tank as pictured at the website www.jagdtiger.de. It could be easily made from a panzer III and a 15 cm Schweres Infanteriegeschutz 33auf Pz Kw 1 Ausf B that is already modeled in the game. Also i would like to see a 15cm Schweres Infanteriegeschutz 33/1 auf Gw 38 Ausf M and 33/1 auf Gw 38 T.
User avatar
R_TEAM
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:37 am
Location: Germany

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by R_TEAM »

Hi,
 
from my other Strategic games i play i wish:
 
Possibility for the purchase of Units in DynamicCampaigns.
Possibility to play DHC/LNC between Human players.
Possibility to play 2 or more modem(TCP) players against the AI.(even in DHC/LCN).
(one side with Human players VS the other side under AI control)
Possibility to set units as "Paused", no more select this units by the "next unit" button.
(empty transporters that stay for the rest of the battle in the wood dont need do select[;)])
Make to burn some terrain (wood/buildings) by heavy fights/bombardment or usage of flametrower.
And the possibility to make/remove more fortifications by enginers in long time battles (more than 50-100 turns)
Join DG to CS-Matrix version [:D] (with the nice Vitnam/Post-War Mods)
mmh ... thats all i wish (for the moment [8D] )
 
And -> REALY NICE GAME - Thank YOU all involved !
 
R_TEAM
User avatar
R_TEAM
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:37 am
Location: Germany

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by R_TEAM »

Hi,
 
have forgotten[:'(]:
 
Possibility to store the last Target Hex by artellerie Bombardment and if the art-unit shot the next turn
on the same target hex to incrase the hit ratio.
 
R_TEAM
simpatico
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:29 pm
Location: Ireland

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by simpatico »

Only units with a radio should be able to spot for artillery & planes.
 
Morale should be more sophisticated.  Currently if you disrupt an already disrupted unit nothing happens.  It should either take the second disrupt as a strength point loss or rout towards the map edge if possible.  Killing leaders & HQs should have a affect on overall force morale.  Force morale should also decrease if casulaties are high.
 
I would like to see a major reworking of Rising Sun to bring it up to the same level as WF & EF.  More dynamic & Linked campaigns in Malaya, China & Burma playable as Japanese.  Japanese tank battallions should be available as well as infantry in dynamic campaigns.
Mraah
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:11 am

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by Mraah »

ALL MCS -

Three ideas that I hope will be easy to impliment based on the current design :

1. Artillery Observer
2. New Sighting Rules - Moving Units and Gun Flashes
3. Recon by Fire / Recon on the Move - Move mode ALT/RIGHT CLICK

1. Artillery Observer ;
This comes about from a "bug" or "feature" I mentioned in the MCS User BUGS thread ... see post # 100. It regards the ability of a transport unit to see (but not ID) units better than combat units. If you place a transport on a hilltop far from harms way it can survey the battle field and provide knowledge of enemy locations.

This would make a great feature for an Artillery Observer (or any unit with high powered optics) if they allowed the hex containing the "?" to be selectable for an artillery attack. I know you can turn on the option to allow artillery to attack an unobserved hex but that results in unwanted scatter. But, used in conjuction with other ideas, such as adjusting the attack hex or subsequent attacks on a hex, I think it would work well.

If this can be done in an update, then I would suggest to Matrix to simplified things and give the transports a firepower factor so they will now be excluded from this change. I've always thought transports should have some kind of firepower capability anyway as they aren't unarmed soldiers. Considering one strength point of a transport equals about 2 men or roughly about 1/6th the firepower of a platoon of men (minus any hard attack and larger soft attack weapons) they could be given a soft attack range of 1, with a soft attack value of 1.

2. New Sighting Rules - Moving Units and Gun Flashes ;
I don't know how the rest of you feel but having a unit become "always revealed" when moving or firing isn't right to me.
Unrevealed Moving Units should be shown as a "?" when first detected and if it moves into another visible hex in the same turn then it will be revealed.
Unrevealed Firing Units (within LOS) should be shown as a Gun Flash when first detected, with subsequent firing revealing it ONLY after a successful morale check is performed on any unit within LOS during the same turn.

3. Recon by Fire / Recon on the Move - Move mode ALT/RIGHT CLICK ;
This subject has been partially mentioned before but I'd liked to go into more detail because I think it's a simply addition (yeah sure).

Currently, my observations show that the only way to "spot" a previously unspotted unit during your turn is to move adjacent to it and try to move into the same hex. For non-combat units (empty trucks) you'll see the "can't move into hex containing enemy" warning and for combat units you'll reveal the unit with the warning as well. The likely hood of seeing this (playing against the A/I) occurs when the unit you revealed just moved into the hex and doesn't have enough OP Fire AP to ambush you.

I propose that a commonly used tactic of Recon by Fire be available simply by allowing Direct Fire units to fire into empty hexes and probe for movement or return fire. By expending fire AP's you're actually triggering the other players OP fire whilst simultaniously doing a concealment check. If the hex contains a unit it will be revealed either by a successful concealment check or it takes damage/disruption/retreats, otherwise you'd see the "unknown result" message.

To activate this you simply ALT-RIGHT click the hex within your attack range while in the Move Mode and it can apply a modified soft attack similar to indirect fire odds. If the hex is beyond the units soft attack range then it will just perform a concealment check without firing, however, it will expend the firing AP without triggering op fire.

Any thoughts?

Rob





simpatico
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:29 pm
Location: Ireland

MCS User WISHLIST

Post by simpatico »

Experience modifiers:
 
It appears that the only benefit units gain from increased experience are:  better morale & leaders combat modifiers will eventually improve.  If you are playing for example as Japanese then you willl gain little benefit from increased experience as they already have excellent morale.  In practice, experienced units should perform better in combat as more members of the unit will actually fire their weapons & they will get more shots on target.
Perchance experience could be used as a modifier for attacks so that fire by 'green' units is less effective & fire from veteran units will be more effective.
User avatar
auHobbes37
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 4:32 am

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by auHobbes37 »

I like mraah's suggestion, especially re: Observers.

Also would love to see Head to head DCG and/or LCG.

Also a LCG editor feature for those of use who are, uh, computer-torially challenged.

awc
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:58 pm

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by awc »

Gentlemen, I would like to be able to specify what planes are available when i design a scenario say to arrive or be available only during say turn 5 thru 8 and the plane would not show up as available in the air support table until that turn. Also i would like to have a maintence battalion in larger games that would add 1 platoon per every 3 turns to the unit that was in the same hex as it. The same for a medical unit, it would add 1 platoon every three or so turns to an under strenth infantry unit that remained in it's hex space.
User avatar
Eagle Strike
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:50 am

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by Eagle Strike »

Two requests: Graphical:

(1) Slow down the speed of the airplane attacks so you can at least see them for more than a couple of seconds. Even set at "Normal Speed" on the game they attack and leave the map far too quickly.

(2) Make the artillery shot (tracer) a more visible color
Thx,
Eagle Strike (aka Reddog)
User avatar
Lesbaker
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:06 pm
Location: Southampton, UK

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by Lesbaker »

awc, i like your idea of a Maintenance unit but i think the '1 platoon per every 3 turns' is a little to much when you consider that the most likely type of repair to armoured units will be to supension units that have sustained damage, this type of repair will take a minimum of an hour for field repair units to complete an have the vehicle ready for use. in game terms each turn equates to six minutes therefore you should only be able to generate 1 strength point every Ten turns maximum. Repairs to vehicles that are more severely damaged ie engine or gearbox damage/failures will take a field repair unit a minimum of about 4 hours to repair, any damage to the turret such as turret race or gun elevation rack will take up to 12 hours to repair in the field.
awc
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:58 pm

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by awc »

Lesbaker, About 10 turns sounds all right to me, that would add a neat dimension to larger scenarios and campaigns on top of reinforcements. Also i like Eagle Strike's idea for the airplanes, in addition to that i would like to see the ground explode like it does during an artillery strike.
dgk196
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:30 am

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by dgk196 »

Hello,

I am currently using the individual, EFII / WF / RS games. My CS is 'in the mail'. From what I gather its a great success. I like it that you actively ask for customer feedback. As with all things everyone has an opinion as to how things should be, so, here we go.

I like the ease of applying indirect-fire on a target. However, I think maybe some additions would be helpful.

1.) Have units representing the chain of command (like the current HQ units) and the fire control team associated with the artillery commands. Give them specific control over the use of the guns under their command. Also, make them responsible for responding and co-ordinating the use of their guns in support of units not directly in their parent command. Have the loss of such units interrupt or stop the indirect-fire support for their subordinate units.

2.) Detail those units as to what they control and / or can request, and from whom, for 'more assets' to be applied to any given attack. Some nationalities where limited, either by design or circumstance. Guns in specific organizations should be limited to supporting that organization. Efforts to use guns from 'another command' should incur additional delays, unless they are preplanned.

3.) Incorporate time delays reflective of the doctrine or capabilities of the various nationalities. The americans, rapid response and accurate. The british, rapid response, less accurate. The germans, one or two turn delays, but very accurate. The russians, preplanned and not very accurate, the number of target area's limited to one hex per gun, but unlimited as to how many fire at the hex. In particular the russians should be limited to preplanned attacks, prior to the start of the opposing forces beginning their turn. Other nationalities may use preplanned attacks to reduce the delay or increase the accuracy of an attack.

4.) Units not starting the game already deployed for indirect-fire, including the artillery chain of command, the FO's and in particular the guns may not conduct indirect-fire attacks. FO's should be able to move about. Delays related to them doing so should be based on the type of communication utilized by them.

5.) Artillery field of fire. Similar to unit facing. Unless the weapons type is that which is deployed on a turn-table or in a turret, the artillery field of fire may not be changed during the game. If they do, they can no longer give indirect-fire support. Of course, the exception to this would be preplanned alternate firing positions. These would be specified in the scenario and made apparent to the owning player only. The number of preplanned firing locations should be limited to one, or at most two sites per gun. Of course the positioning of these should be restricted to areas within their 'own lines'.

6.) Reduced effect against armored targets, particularly those that are in motion.

7.) Allow users to specify which units, in existing scenario's, can be used for indirect-fire support. Have only those gun types which were capable of indirect-fire support, enabled to do so in the game. Make the 'artillery command rules' capable of being turned on or off at will. Like fog of war and indirect fire by map.

Well, enough for now, if anyone cares to continue the discussion about any of this, I'm up for it! I'll monitor the e-mail replies.I believe this is the best wargame ever, computer or board. Your willingness to pursue constructive feedback and act on it, will only make it better. It really is the standard by which I judge other games.


                                                                                                                                                                Thanks for listening

                                                                                                                                                                         Dennis  [:)]

User avatar
timshin42
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:21 am
Location: Edgewater, Florida, USA

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by timshin42 »

WOW! Awesome![&o] An FSO/FSC dream come true! At least partially: I want to do TOTs, have NFLs, FSCLs, Groups of Targets, Series of Targets, H & I on bridges, and so on. Oh well, I can dream can't I? Field Artillery tactics deserve some detail too! Probably need a distinct Artillery specific game, or at least the ability to turn the FA option off [>:] for Maneuver dudes who aren't interested! [:D]
timshin42
"Freedom isn't free"
dgk196
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:30 am

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by dgk196 »

Hello,

Seems a whole bunch of ideas come to mind once I start in on 'modding'. I've been gaming for a little over 40 years. So, there are many things that I've seen tried when gaming. Some of the idea's worked, some not. Here is something we use when playing PanzerBlitz / PanzerLeader.

Hopefully, I can describe this so that it can be 'visualized' in the way we use it.

The concept is rolling terrain. The map editor allows you to make elevation changes in set increments. That is fine but its not what I'm talking about. Undulations in the terrain can be accounted for within the game without having specific terrain features representing them.

What I'm talking about are the variations in the height of the terrain in a given area. This could be as gradual as say a one meter vertical variation every couple of kilometers. This would be very 'flat' terrain. Or it could be ten meters (or more) every hundred meters or so, definitely 'rolling terrain'. It could be even more severe. A vertical variation equal to the horizontal distance (whatever the numerical value may be), would be classified as 'broken ground'!

So, for each terrain elevation level, you could assign the rolling terrain factor. It would consist of two numbers. The vertical variation and the horizontal distance between these. So, when sighting units at the same 'level' you are on, the distance you would be able to do this is limited. The two numbers are used only to help visualize what I'm trying to describe.

In reality, I would like to be able to assign a limit for sighting units that are on the same terrain level.

The shorter the sighting distance, the greater the vertical variation in the terrain. It would work similar to visibility distance, only different. You could have a 'same level' sighting distance of say three hexes, point to point (in all directions of course). At the same time you might have a 'visibility range' (due to atmospherics) of twelve hexes. So, two units that where four hexes apart would not be able to see each other when occupying the same terrain 'level'. However another unit at a distance of eight hexes, but occupying a terrain level higher than the other two, would be able to see both of them. And of course they would be able to see him. Remember, it only takes a vertical variation of about three meters or so to 'hide' even the largest tank used in WWII, or today for that matter. The use of this can really make possession of the high ground a significant factor.

Thanks for listening

Dennis[:)]
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by pzgndr »

I just got into CS this past week.  Scenario selection is a challenge.  There are so many!  Could something be done to group scenarios by size, complexity level, dates, whatever?  Or at least show more of this information in the scenario selection box?
 
Other than that, I've found the game to be pretty intuitive.  Playing some of the old Panzer Leader scenarios is a blast. [&o]
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
1925frank
Posts: 1015
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:57 pm

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by 1925frank »

If you click on the buttons on the right side, the button will turn red, and the scenarios will become organized according to the button.
User avatar
e_barkmann
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by e_barkmann »

yep there are order buttons on that selection page that allow you to do just that...
Scourge of War multiplayer group

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/sowwaterloo
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: MCS User WISHLIST

Post by pzgndr »

Ah, thanks!  [8D]
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
Post Reply

Return to “John Tiller's Campaign Series”