Here's my 0.02 for all three games in the JTCS
In no particular order:
with the double time key - make it so that you can see how far your unit can travel - vs when you hit the key it automatically puts that unit in fatigue mode regardless if you wanted to move that way or not.....
It is a bit annoying as it currently stands, isn't it.
Any interest in working on the 2D maps and counters to make the MCS playable at that scale? I guess what I'm talking about is making the 2D hexes and the counters a little larger. Or "comfortably larger" for old eyes like mine.
I saw the great work someone did to mod a Panzerblitz and Panzer Leader interface, and being able to play comfortably in 2D would really complete the package.
I would definitively like to see PB/PL counters available for 2D gaming!
2. Better and larger interface screens. The current dialog boxes are fixed in size and were made in an era of 14" monitors!The scenario selection and F2 unit description screens for example are microscopic and require scrolling to reaveal the contents of the dialog boxes. This is ridiculous in an era of large flat screens and projectors. I do not want to have to "scroll" through anything, except a massive list of scenarios or campaigns!
As time goes, this has become a more and more annoying limitation... It would be nice to see all pop up windows to follow the modern Microsoft look-and-feel standards. A lot of programming work, though?
In addition to the main scenario description, separate Allied and Axis briefings ala Combat Mission.
This would be nice! I bet it would be nice to sometimes give a a different and even conflicting briefings to both sides. For an example to provide both sides with often historically accurate briefings to conduct an attack, resulting in an interesting meeting engagement. Then the players would really need to adapt: oops, did not expect that, should I set a defense although I was ordered to attack?
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?
This is the reason I actually came to post here.
I am in the process of selecting a next scenario to play, to continue a theme of playing D-Day + scenarios. Very difficult to get a good view of what is available.
I would like to see more information available for scenarios on a meta-data level: the larger theatre of war, eg West front, smaller theater of war: Normandy, etc...
This could easily be a separate app, like the current scenario selector tool. But more meta data would definitively be handy to support the ever growing list of new and existing scenarios!
New Country: Allied Finland in West Front (to fight alongside France and the U.K. against the Axis Soviets in a hypothetical 1939 conflict and to fight against Germany at the very end of WWII).
As a Finn I would argue that an Allied Finland would already be needed (for EF). Winter War (1939-40) should have Finland as Allied (was a neutral) against Axis Soviet Union as SU had the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Hitler where they divided the areas between them among themselves.
The main reason Stalin agreed to peace was his realisation that he was risking England and France to join Finland in defending Scandinavia against Germans and Russians.
A respective what-if scenario could be the Franco-English Expedition force joining in for the battle of Mannerheim line, for an example. With the current logic we would need an Axis France and an Axis England to implement this scenario
Additionally, or, at least, depending on your view, an Allied Finland would be needed to create scenarios for the so-called Lapland War that took place in late 1944 to 1945 where the Germans were being forced out of Finnish Lapland, according to peace terms.
For the latter, technically that would mean to have the units available in summer 1944 accordingly available to Allied Finland. OOB wise it would be a new ball game however, but something that could be left for the scenario designers.
Tanks able to dig themselves in 'Hull down' I think is the expression. I guess this will have to be done by the tank crews.
This would be nice, although I guess something like this could be achieved if a IP is created for a hex that contains tanks.
Additionally I would like to see a feature where it would be possible to use SPs for additional camouflage.
In this manner a 88 or a tank destroyer or any unit for that manner could bring their concealment level up per every turn they do not perform anything else, and use the APs for hiding their position so that they would be more difficult to be spotted.
EDIT: Compatibility testing for 64bit Windows 7
The Map editor does not work with W7. I am not 100% sure the game works perfectly either... There's been some anomalies on the way that could be user errors, but then again...?
A separate build for 64bit versions?
Thanks for the great work! Let us keep this game going for another 15 years
Any news on the 1.05, btw?
< Message edited by Crossroads -- 2/5/2010 9:24:04 AM >