MCS User WISHLIST

[Miamieagle]

Hey Jason and other members of development group. Please can you expand to include all Nationalities in the Generated Battle option for all three Editions in the Future.

We also need destructable Infrastruture like you are able to have with other programs.

Thank you Jason and Company!


Thank you!

[kool_kat]

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

Deputy - this is just for you since you like calvary in WWII games! [:D]

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/index ... bbc87cb48a

[anthonykevinluke]

Hi Jason,
 
Many thanks for the outstanding work by yourself and the team on patch 1.03.  As discussed once before with you, I was hoping that you would be able to add some specific units to the EF DCG for patch 1.04. I would very much like to play a DCG from the start as a specific division and stay with it as it grows and evolves. Specifically I would really like a DCG for divisions Gross Deutschland and Wiking.  These are very interesting as you have the opportunity to grow through their development from Mot Regts to Pz Divs.  I hope that this is achievable for the next patch. For your consideration, and again, many thanks.
 
Tony

[HoustonAerosFan]

Another vote for the Czechs, plus Switzerland.

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: HoustonAerosFan

Another vote for the Czechs, plus Switzerland.

Switzerland??????? Which side did they fight on?????

[dgk196]

How about 'proximity shell' effects?

'Interdiction missions' for ground attack aircraft.

'Standing patrols' for ground attack aircraft.

Dennis [;)]

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: dgk196

How about 'proximity shell' effects?

'Interdiction missions' for ground attack aircraft.

'Standing patrols' for ground attack aircraft.

Dennis [;)]

Dennis:

Why don't you just direct Matrix Game Forum users to the Blitz Club forums where these improvement ideas were first discussed and detailed by the original posters? [;)]

http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/ ... ?tid=47564

[dgk196]

I could, I guess......

It just didn't feel right to tell people to go to another site to have a discussion when we are already on a forum!?

Besides, there's nothing wrong with posting my ideas on several sites is there?

Dennis [:)]

[kool_kat]

ORIGINAL: dgk196

I could, I guess......

It just didn't feel right to tell people to go to another site to have a discussion when we are already on a forum!?

Besides, there's nothing wrong with posting my ideas on several sites is there?

Dennis [:)]

I just want to direct persons to the "original" authors of these ideas... I believe the "proximity shells" idea was yours - but did not see a more detailed explanation on either the Blitz or Matrix Games forums. The "interdiction missions" and "standing patrols for ground attack aircraft" were proposed by other authors who originally posted on the Blitz forums.

[TAIL GUNNER]

This would probably be a nightmare to code, but I've put way too much thought into it so I'm gonna throw it out there anyway.[8D]

There needs to be a way to control a unit's firing arc......currently all units can fire 360 degrees depending on LOS.

Classic case in point; the two PaK 43/41s that straddled each end of Omaha Beach were mounted in bunkers with a protective wall facing the sea.
They could only fire enfilade along the entire beach.

Proposal:
New unit; call it "Casement".

Only during scenario design can this immobile unit be placed and "loaded" with a gun, MG, arty piece, etc.
The designer then sets the firing arc using a screen much like the one you get with an engineer attempting to blow a wall or bridge......i.e. six "quadrants".

Piece of cake, right?[8|]

[TAIL GUNNER]

New hexside defense - barb-wire.


Costs some APs for infantry units to cut the wire and proceed.

Prohibits movement for wheeled vehicles.

AFVs run right over it.[8D]

[Rasputitsa]

I would also like to see a variable game speed for all 3 games, scale 1-10 seems good, to be changed during play when faster action may be needed. [:)]

[marcbarker]

I would like to interject something, With a covering arc, barbed wire and such and it sounds like a top level combat mission game albeit on a grander scale. It is a good idea for covering arc fire but is it necessary at batallion or company level games? I mean covering src for AT's would be good especially the hearvier caliber. I think , please correct mee but in the Battle ground series they took that onto account by unit facing fire....would this be possible?

[GetBackUp]

Can you explain how to do this Jason?

Jeff

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: michammer
I like the idea about spending movement points to change the facing of heavier weapons. My own wish is to be able to detach units from their parent HQ and attach them to another HQ to form Kampfgruppen or "Jock" columns.

You'll be a happy camper then.

Although, this will only be in new scenarios that have the special HQ's present.

Jason Petho

[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.

[marcbarker]

What I would like to see on the terrain is black sand in the map editor. for the the volcanic island scenarios. It would give a bit more context

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: barker

I would like to interject something, With a covering arc, barbed wire and such and it sounds like a top level combat mission game albeit on a grander scale. It is a good idea for covering arc fire but is it necessary at batallion or company level games? I mean covering src for AT's would be good especially the hearvier caliber. I think , please correct mee but in the Battle ground series they took that onto account by unit facing fire....would this be possible?

But the scale of the game never changes actually, one unit always represent a single squad, you just get more of them when commanding a larger unit.

[marcbarker]

your right , the idea of using movement factors for changing faces will work on non turret items

[Dualnet]

Jason
 
Would it be possible to combine the "Mine" code with the "Engineer Bridge Blowing" code to create a mined bridge hex that had a chance of distroying the bridge as you move onto it?

[e_barkmann]

I'd like a way to adjust the scenario defender's global Opportunity Fire table prior to starting a PBEM, without having to edit files prior to start of play.

It's really annoying watching all your units give their positions away too early, and then seeing them blasted out of existence with accurate artillery fire.

cheers