MCS User WISHLIST

[RJMI]

Wish List

I have played many war games, and I believe that Campaign Series is one of the best for several reasons. It is on the top of my list. For example, it is better than Steel Panthers and WinSPWW2 for several important reasons. I may post these reasons in a separate post. I will concentrate here on some suggestions on how it can be made an even better game although others may have already listed them.

Make it possible for vehicles to go in reverse. Not only when moved by the player but also when the AI moves it on retreat in OP fire so it does not expose its rear.

Allow turreted vehicles to move their turrets but not their bodies. And when OP fired on to have its front face its most deadly enemy. Not on the first shot, of course, but once fired on.

Have an OP fire setting not only to fire on armor vehicles only, as you already have, but also to set a minimum or maximum armor type to fire at according to the armor value. Hence a heavy tank can omit firing at a half track or light tank and be set to fire only on a medium or heavy tank. Or an light tank can be set to fire only at half tracks or light tanks but not medium or heavy tanks.

Have a notice on units that they have been set for special conditions for OP Fire. As it is now, you have to remember which ones are set. If not, you have to check them all. Maybe there can be a place to list it in the unit box.

It might be a good idea to have a list of all friendly units in which one can see their status regarding several aspects and set them from the list for special OP Fire. Or at least select a CP HQ and tell it to set all the units under it.

Some times when playing back a turn or on the AI turn, it is not easy to see the firer and target as the line does not stay up long enough. I use high detail. It may be a good idea to leave the line up until click for the next combat. Or highlight the firer and target hex so it can be easily seen.

Make it possible to sneak up on an enemy and not be exposed until you fire. Maybe you can set a percentage chance of being seen depending on terrain and the units ability to hide and maybe make the unit expend more movement points into the hex it wants to hide in order to simulate a sneak mode. Of course, when it fires, then it is exposed.

When building bridges, the percent chance should increase every turn the engineer tries to build one. If not, then it would be possible for a bridge not be built for extremely long time.

Mark the units that are isolated so that they can be easily recognized in the unit box and maybe also a highlight option on the map.

On generated battles, allow for a set up phase in which units can be moved within certain areas and in which fortifications and mines can also be moved.

Have a separate highlight for Supply HQs and one for CP HQs.

Have a separate highlight for units under a CP HQ without leaders also being highlighted.

Thanks for all the good work put into the game,

RJMI

[MrRoadrunner]

Please don't turn my CS into Advanced Squad Leader.

Please?

RR

[ArmyEsq]

Can we have the random map generator back? Please?

Platoons being able to split into smaller strength point sections? (Sorry, purists)

Machine guns on the tanks that fire separate from the main gun?

Fuel shortage. This happened to Peiper (among others). IG would be really cool if we could simulate this in scenarios!

[ArmyEsq]

Here's one that's sure to anger some: how about building level simulation for special buildings, city hexes, and industrial hexes?
I think it would be fun to see whole companies go into a city block, survive combat on the first level of the hex but suffer frightful casualties on the upper level of the hex as it attempts to clear those tall buildings.

[ArmyEsq]

Allow a player the option to be able to set up his own side the way we're able to in a DCG.

[ArmyEsq]

Did I mention multi levels for city, special buildings and industrial hexes? Even if only 2 levels per? Imagine the impact on urban scenarios!

[Big Ivan]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

Please don't turn my CS into Advanced Squad Leader.

Please?

RR

I agree with RR, ASL and Panzerblitz are different. CS does not need to be ASL.

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: ArmyEsq

Here's one that's sure to anger some: how about building level simulation for special buildings, city hexes, and industrial hexes?
I think it would be fun to see whole companies go into a city block, survive combat on the first level of the hex but suffer frightful casualties on the upper level of the hex as it attempts to clear those tall buildings.

Pretty much an answer to all your posts so far.
No anger. Your presumption, of anger, is specious at best.

My only comment to you is that you play Squad Leader. That would be more fun than morphing a different scaled game into Squad Leader. Don't ruin a pretty good game and game scale by making it something it is not just to satisfy your personal preference.
I, too, would like to see an Advanced Squad Leader computer game. Not so much as to play it. Rather it would get all the ASL fan-boys to stop posting in CS forums.

There is a Tiller offering called Squad Battles that you might like?

Just sayin'. [8|]

RR

[ArmyEsq]

RR: If we are not supposed to publish our personal preference on a wish list, what should we write? Your idea of what should be written?

In any event, I don't believe that adding another dimension in the form of multi levels to a city or industrial hex changes CS into ASL. I think it would just force our electronic commanders to more seriously strategize around urban areas--similar to what we now have with urban assaults unaccompanied by infantry: we now have to be careful not to carelessly enter a village without some infantry support.

Besides, CS has air support, naval artillery, height difference modifiers, etc. How would adding perhaps a second level to urban hexes change our beloved hobby into another game? Anyone who knows ASL, knows that even adding all the wishes expressed here would not come close to changing into SL or ASL.

Emphasis: IMHO

[Crossroads]

Yes, this is a Wish List, nothing more, nothing less. Keep'em ideas coming [:)]

[ArmyEsq]

A compromise for those CS purists out there could be to simply add some of these game addition suggestions as optional rules. Those who play JT's games know that the optional rules dialog on some of his games are very big offering many variations on the same game (and IMO add greater historical flexibility). Our hobby (CS) is my favorite. What elegance. Flexibility. Fun. Adding some if not all of these suggestions (assuming they're technologically feasible) won't change our game. What I'm confident it'll do is attract more players and therefore, ensure the game's future (more players = more people buying the product = continued Matrix Games interest in selling it).

The game remains the same: the best platoon level tactical and fun simulation game with the most historical reach ever made! John Tiller, Jason Petho, Crossroads, scenario designers, a personal thank you to you all for this game.

PS: you can tell I like this game, right?

[Hexagon]

My wishlist:

1- add the option to see infantry units strenght in soldier numbers (not use a number of half squads, use number of soldiers and casualties by multiples of half squad size).

2- remove the white background in localizations names, only leave the names.

3- option to increase the 3D units image size, simple made them a little bigger even is they lose definition.

4- zoom controled by mouse wheel.

5- rework the scenario selection screen to made the dialog bigger, using all screen size.

6- in the scenarios list, is possible add like in SP a number to the scen slot to find it easier???

7- use as counter background colour the battalion to diference better between units.

And well, this is the things i have now in mind.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: ArmyEsq

A compromise for those CS purists out there could be to simply add some of these game addition suggestions as optional rules. Those who play JT's games know that the optional rules dialog on some of his games are very big offering many variations on the same game (and IMO add greater historical flexibility). Our hobby (CS) is my favorite. What elegance. Flexibility. Fun. Adding some if not all of these suggestions (assuming they're technologically feasible) won't change our game. What I'm confident it'll do is attract more players and therefore, ensure the game's future (more players = more people buying the product = continued Matrix Games interest in selling it).

The game remains the same: the best platoon level tactical and fun simulation game with the most historical reach ever made! John Tiller, Jason Petho, Crossroads, scenario designers, a personal thank you to you all for this game.

PS: you can tell I like this game, right?

I agree. If some of the suggestions can be made as optional rules, to be turned on and off as desired, then why not try them? I like the game the way it is. I wouldn't mind a few improvements if possible but given that ALL the support is being done by a few dedicated people I don't think it is right to ask them to make really big changes. I"m just happy the game has them, it would be dead meat without them.

[MrRoadrunner]

God I pray that Squad Leader, or Advanced Squad Leader gets made into a solid computer game.

Too much idiotic and out of scale pieces have been already added to CS over simple, and some what wanted, suggestions such have been offered here.

Purist is not the negative that anyone thinks it is, or should be. I will take pride in it.
I believe that someone should always offer push back against changes, even optional ones, that do not make sense to the simple scale of the game. Some of the optional changes even caused chasms that splintered the CS community. All over a simple suggestion that was enacted upon without considering it's impact upon the community.

Because it is an owned product the Team can do what they wish, within the parameters that Matrix sets. Right or wrong, optional or not optional, the Team owns the responsibility for whatever they do to the game.
I believe the longevity of the game is because of it's simplicity and scale. I do not believe that the changes made to it have garnered the interest that others might believe. And, there is a difference between changes and upgrades and/or fixes to problems within the game.
The scale of the game never needed to be fixed or upgraded. It's foundational principle should be always embraced and cherished.

Therefore, my wishlist will always be to keep the scale pure and provide scenarios, campaigns, graphic upgrades, and fixes to known (and unknown) problems.

The team can do what they want with Modern Wars. That is their creation, along with all future releases based on their work.

I would like the team to respect CS and not morph it based on the latest "kewl" thing that someone thought up after playing some board or computer game.

LOL!

RR

[ArmyEsq]

"Purist" is usually not a bad thing--certainly not for me, and certainly not as it relates to CS! I can see how things like wanting a tank unit to be able to reverse or be able to fire machine guns separately from (and in addition to) firing its main guns can arguably be regarded as things that are inconsistent with the scale of CS, but most of the suggestions here do not conflict with its scale. If a squad has to do it, so too does its parent platoon, which is still very much a tactical unit. A platoon or company is still the standard tactical unit that has to clear a village. I don't think that providing these options change or conflict with the scale of our great hobby.

[MrRoadrunner]

Years ago a member of The Blitz created a program that allowed armor that retreated to "spin around" and have it's frontal armor facing "forward". Some players used it during PBEM, some did not. After a while it got lost and/or unusable due to future upgrades to the game engine. IIRC, most players did not use it. There were plenty of arguments back and forth over it's use and how it fit (or did not fit) into the game's scale.
There is "armor facing off" as an option available to all players? Which has been part of the game since I first installed it on my computer.
Not quite the same as spinning around and facing forward, but it does take away the sweet rear shot.

If you look at a unit from a cohesion point of view, a unit may retreat and lose it's cohesion as a unit. Thereby providing multiple rear shots during it's involuntary retreat.
The voluntary move to the rear would be a different story altogether and can be overcome by the game play of the individual. But, that is another issue altogether?

My only wishlist is to have "the team" not listen to every suggestion and implement them. Just fix the bugs, clean up the graphics, add in scale units, create scenarios & campaigns, and not mess with game scale. [:)]

RR

[James Ward]

Would it be possible that when a scenario ended the all the units on the map were exposed instead of just getting the victory points screen?

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

Would it be possible that when a scenario ended the all the units on the map were exposed instead of just getting the victory points screen?

I think you are speaking of the last turn in a campaign's scenario?
I know that when you play by e-mail you get to see what remains of the enemy. [;)]

I never really thought about seeing if the AI had anything left. [:)]

RR

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

ORIGINAL: James Ward

Would it be possible that when a scenario ended the all the units on the map were exposed instead of just getting the victory points screen?

I think you are speaking of the last turn in a campaign's scenario?
I know that when you play by e-mail you get to see what remains of the enemy. [;)]

I never really thought about seeing if the AI had anything left. [:)]

RR

Yes in the Campaigns it just ends. I think in any scenario against the AI it just ends. At least with a scenario you can put the AI on manual just before you hit you last turn but the whole ending just seems blah to me.

[budd]

I second mouse wheel zoom.