Wishlist

[Three63]

Now to ask you about that, will only recon units have this ability? Maybe Tank Crews and Rifle Platoons, etc. should have that ability also? Maybe allow Rifle Platoons, and some of the other units to auto see without recon ability any units within a 4-3 hex range while moving into the general area, without them needing to burn APs. Then in order to see the full LOS they use Recon ability. That way they are not always blindly advancing into the enemy that's right in front of their face. Might as well give Rifle Platoons a limited boost with this idea if your going in that direction, and allow Tanks to spot other Tanks, Soft Vec.s, and Platoons the same way Recon units can. Just don't give the ability to anything silly like regular trucks, ATGM teams, etc.

Also false or extragated reports -might- be a good idea to throw in there to happen a minority of the time.

Just my 2 cents. I'm glad this ability will be around to put into EF III also!

[Three63]

Also maybe one idea, maybe units should not retreat out of Bunkers and Pillboxes from Fire. They could surrender or get wiped out, but not retreat at the same rate as units that are in the open.

[76mm]

The recon feature is awesome. Three63's proposal about bunkers also makes a lot of sense.

[Tiger360]

ORIGINAL: Three63

Also maybe one idea, maybe units should not retreat out of Bunkers and Pillboxes from Fire. They could surrender or get wiped out, but not retreat at the same rate as units that are in the open.

Wiping out is not an option...i tend to disagree with you on this one...

[Crossroads]

For what it's worth the new Reconnoiter features certainly gets my vote as well. It really adds a new dimension to game, and to recon in special. It is only available for units that have the "ReconUnit" flag on them, so those few assets become really key to your situational awareness. I mean, for instance Recon Jeeps were earlier a cheap asset VP point wise you could send forward to do some recon-by-getting-shot-at. Now, as there's often not that many of them around, you really want to have them sneaking around the map, carefully, seeing the enemy, hopefully before the enemy sees them. And it is part of the 2.0 relase.

As for the Bunker / Pillobox thing, thanks for the ideas, there's no changes to those in 2.0 (we have in effect finished adding anything new into code anymore). Yet, they are powerfull structures of course, with bot the Combat modifier they provide, and the Fortification bonus they add to the defending units (p. 64 in manual). So it is always more difficult to force the defenders from fortified positions.

[Three63]

idk I'm just throwing ideas out there. How about a limit to the number of units that get a bonus in a given bunker hex with the rest of them assumed to just be in the same area around the bunker and not inside the bunker itself? I doubt irl 1 bunker hex can hold five platoons and give them all an bonus and line of fire for that many men. idk

[Andrea G]

Hi everybody, I hope that CSME 2.0 will be released before Christmas, It would be a perfect gift
One silly question: the reacon feature will belong to specific units (say jeep with MG) or it will be shared also by other members of the recon organization, like the armored infantry platoon and carrier?
Moreover, it would be possible to designate as recon other units while designing a scenario?
Finally, the reacon feature will be added also to the scout helo's? THIS will seriously advance their usefulness in the game, and also it will be a key to accurrately portray the chopper operations in, let's say, Vietnam:

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: Andrea G

Hi everybody, I hope that CSME 2.0 will be released before Christmas, It would be a perfect gift

Hello Andrea! Fingers crossed by Christmas you already have a couple of 2.0 games under your belt!

ORIGINAL: Andrea G

One silly question: the reacon feature will belong to specific units (say jeep with MG) or it will be shared also by other members of the recon organization, like the armored infantry platoon and carrier?
Moreover, it would be possible to designate as recon other units while designing a scenario?

Not a silly question at all. Recon feature will be available (and only available) to units that have a specific "ReconUnit" flag on their database entry. Recon Jeeps, Armoured cars will have that, RCLR Jeeps for instance not (generally speaking). Recon squads, platoons, most Special Forces platoons will have it, regular infantry not.

You will certainly learn to value those assets when you have them, and rue their losses should that happen.

ORIGINAL: Andrea G

Finally, the reacon feature will be added also to the scout helo's? THIS will seriously advance their usefulness in the game, and also it will be a key to accurrately portray the chopper operations in, let's say, Vietnam

Absolutely! Recon Helo + Gunship Helo pairing will be deadly for that reason alone. Without their recce asset, gunships too will be bound to Concealment rules, but with their small buddy reconnoitring for them, they can appear out of nothing, kill you, then disappear again.

[Three63]

I was playing a game and it brought a couple of ideas that I would like to request. How Op fire is right now there are only three options: Hard Vec., Soft Vec., and Other Units. While advaning my tanks came in contact with AT units and regualr rifle platoons. How it is now the Op fire would have my tanks shot at any of them moving or that fire. Why not add a 4th op. fire option where only AT (and/or AA units) units are the target? That way Tanks can take out those AT/ATGM threats that are a danger to them and not waste fire at any platoon that moves in front of them. Also it seems like my AT Jeeps always gert thrashed when fired upon. They're small targets so why not give a better agile boost bonus like the recon units you guys are going to redo for CS:ME 2.0?

[Crossroads]

Hello Three63

ORIGINAL: Three63

I was playing a game and it brought a couple of ideas that I would like to request. How Op fire is right now there are only three options: Hard Vec., Soft Vec., and Other Units. While advaning my tanks came in contact with AT units and regualr rifle platoons. How it is now the Op fire would have my tanks shot at any of them moving or that fire. Why not add a 4th op. fire option where only AT (and/or AA units) units are the target? That way Tanks can take out those AT/ATGM threats that are a danger to them and not waste fire at any platoon that moves in front of them.

That's a neat idea. Op Fire settings are already quite a matrix to fill, so we need to consider what to add there, as it has a ripple effect to other categories as well. Let us see if we can work around this...

ORIGINAL: Three63

Also it seems like my AT Jeeps always gert thrashed when fired upon. They're small targets so why not give a better agile boost bonus like the recon units you guys are going to redo for CS:ME 2.0?

So in this case, with the above (AT-units vs tanks) in mind, it would perhaps work like this. Side A has an AT-gun set to ambush any units passing a road front of it. It has its Op Fire setting set to fire only at Armored targets, and at Close range only.

Side B is advancing along that road with a Tank Coy, led by a Recce Armored Car. Armored Car uses some Action Points for active Reconnoitring, and spot the hostile AT-gun already at Medium (or Long) range. Now, as Side B is aware of the AT-guns, he advances a couple of his Tanks to same hex with the Recce unit, and destroys the AT-gun before it had a chance to fire (at close range).

Before the new Reconnoitring rule, likely scenario would have played that the Armored Car would have performed the recon-by-getting-shot-at mission and have been wiped out by the AT-gun, but the tanks would have then destroyed the AT-gun in turn.

There's no changes in CSME 2.0 to survivability (combat modifiers) of any Recon Unit, as such.

[budd]

Ability to play campaigns pbem, seems like there would be a bunch of cool options playing a campaign pbem with the event engine.

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: budd

Ability to play campaigns pbem, seems like there would be a bunch of cool options playing a campaign pbem with the event engine.

Ah, an interesting idea. I would think it would be quite a big feature to implement, with atm the Player side only receiving reinforcements at intervals, upgrades even with Dynamic Campaign Games (which hopefully make a return with EF).

Something to keep in mind for sure.

[Deepstuff3725]

Just want to mention a possible source to help with the research and development of the Vietnam War mod. Recently PBS aired a series entitled "The Vietnam War" which was comprised of about 7 episodes, each one either 90 mins or two hours long.

I've watched the first 4 and I'm impressed with how well it's put together. They're setup chronologically, with the first episode covering the full history leading up to the conflict, with plenty of coverage of the French occupation of Vietnam. It goes on to cover how the US gradually got more and more involved until it was a full scale military operation. As time wore on, President Johnson and the military leaders were faced with a war they couldn't win, yet they couldn't find an easy way out of either.

To help with the Vietnam mod creation, this documentary covers in detail many aspects of the military strategy and tactics used by both sides. Battles are covered with tons of live footage. And many veterans from the Vietnam War talk about their actual experiences they faced during the war. Very interesting. For example, one US Marine said with all the engagements he had with the Viet Cong, in every one he can remember it was always the Viet Cong initiating the fighting. They would choose the location and they knew the terrain. Sometimes they would start firing only to draw the Marines into an ambush. The Marines would prefer to keep the enemy at enough distance to be able to call in air support or artillery, but later in the war the Viet Cong figured out how to get in close very quickly, knowing the Marines would not want to call in air support or artillery on themselves.

In the process of making the Vietnam War mod, I highly recommend watching this documentary.

[Deepstuff3725]

Have a few other wish list items:

In the map editor, how about allowing rivers to be placed through the middle of hexes as well as the sides? This may have been brought up before.

With reinforcements, perhaps a new feature where a player can choose from a number of reinforcement options in a given turn. A scenario can be setup when reinforcements become available, a choice option will be active so on this particular turn a player has a certain number of units to pick from, but only a certain number the player can choose. For example, four units showing available but the player can only pick two of them. The player picks the ones he wants based on how the scenario is going and the units not selected are not available for the rest of the scenario.

Also with reinforcements, could there be an option to select a variety of hexes for placing the reinforcement in the scenario when played. During game play, when the reinforcement becomes available, the player can choose from those available hexes where he wants to place the unit and place the reinforcement in the hex he wants.

And how about adding civilians into the Vietnam game? When calling in air power or artillery, if civilian units take losses from it then have this negatively impact the players score that is doing the attacking. This would hurt the ability to win the "hearts and minds" of the people and thus show up in the scenario scoring. And with the civilian units allow them to sometimes attack US units or place mines. The civilians could be Viet Cong units disguised as civilians.

Thanks, keep up the great work.... Jeff

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Deepstuff3725

In the map editor, how about allowing rivers to be placed through the middle of hexes as well as the sides? This may have been brought up before.

Already being implemented. [;)]

Applicable more to Vietnam and later, however.

[berto]

Also here.

Those are old, work-in-progress screenshots BTW. We have further refined the graphics etc. since then.

[Crossroads]

As of Middle East 2.0, the new In-hex waterway options are:

[*] Major River
[*] Major Canal
[*] River
[*] Canal

In addition, the previous hex-side waterways remain:

[*] Minor River
[*] Stream

Below are two samples from CSME 2.0:

[*] Oued Cheliff, an in-hex River, with new River Joins joining it to dry gullies in the area

[*] Suez Canal (suprise!), an in-hex Major Canal, with some man-made berms (Dune hex-sides) covering it from both sides, as was the situation in 1973.

These will feature more in the upcoming CS Vietnam and CS East Front games, I am sure.

[Jagger2002]

For wishlist, I think it would be interesting to have separate objectives for each side. I should know my objectives but not know my enemies objectives except by conjecture. Would produce an interesting game of deduction as to what my opponent needs to achieve while simultaneously achieving my objectives.

[Jason Petho]

For wishlist, I think it would be interesting to have separate objectives for each side. I should know my objectives but not know my enemies objectives except by conjecture. Would produce an interesting game of deduction as to what my opponent needs to achieve while simultaneously achieving my objectives.

Ah, but now we can with the Campaign Series Event Engine.

The scenario designer will now be able to assign Event Points for each side, for each location (using the lua scripting), which will allow a 5VP location on the map be worth 50EP (Event Points) for one Side and 100 EP(Event Points) for the other.

[Jagger2002]

Ah, but now we can with the Campaign Series Event Engine.

The scenario designer will now be able to assign Event Points for each side, for each location (using the lua scripting), which will allow a 5VP location on the map be worth 50EP (Event Points) for one Side and 100 EP(Event Points) for the other.

Very nice!

So what is the difference between event points and victory points? And can one side have a VP objective without the other side knowing of that objective?