Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

JTCS - Comments & Suggestions

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> JTCS - Comments & Suggestions Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/9/2007 1:46:54 AM   
JoMc67

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 7/21/2007
Status: offline
Jason & CS Gamers,

I have played all the older EF, WF, series years ago and recently purchased CS.

I know this has been discussed to a degree by other players, my intention is to try and make this game alittle more realistic yet still playable 'if possible' then it is now. I would like to hear from other CS players their Comments & Suggestions, likes or dislikes, about the game.
What would you like to see in future patches, do not ofcourse include patches already out.
What House Rules do you use or would like to see used against the AI or Human opponent.
One example is from Our very own ' Jason the Great ' responding to a thread on how to change the Opp fire of the AI, players can now change the Global Settings from the default long range to whatever they see fit.
Another example comes from member Arkady, bringing us instructions on how to use his Unit Viewer.
I have a partial list of my own that I will post shortly and more as they come to mind.

Joe



< Message edited by JoMc67 -- 8/9/2007 2:45:40 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/9/2007 4:01:29 AM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
I must have missed the thread on how to change the opportunity fire for the AI.  Does anyone have it handy?  When creating a scenario, I thought it was odd I wasn't able to do that.  This would be a great addition.

(in reply to JoMc67)
Post #: 2
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/9/2007 4:13:28 AM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 13386
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

I must have missed the thread on how to change the opportunity fire for the AI.  Does anyone have it handy?  When creating a scenario, I thought it was odd I wasn't able to do that.  This would be a great addition.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1495862&mpage=2

Voila.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 3
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/9/2007 7:17:48 AM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
Que c'est chouette!  Merci.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 4
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/9/2007 5:40:38 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
That post is great.  I'm always amazed at how clearly everyone writes. 

I have one question though:  The post says that global opportunity fire overrides individual opportunity fire.  If that were true, then there would never be a point to setting individual opportunity fire.  I'm thinking the writer meant to say something else.  I'm assuming it works the same as the regular means of adjusting opportunity fire, that is, the more restrictive of the two (global and individual) will control.

This is a great addition.  Thanks for sharing it.  I'm assuming this is not the type of thing that could be added in a patch.

There's a Norwegian scenario (And We Shall Stand?) where you play as the Germans, and the German tanks successfully pass up a mountain road without drawing opportunity fire, but the German trucks loaded with troops that came after the tanks drew opportunity fire and were decimated.  Because the Norwegian troops were in the hex adjacent to the road (I'm using the dictionary definition of adjacent, not LarryP's defininition of adjacent, which can be found in his assault thread, although I believe LarryP has -- by virtue of the school of hard knocks -- come around to the dictionary's definition of adjacent), I was certain the scenario designer had adjusted the AI's opportunity fire to produce just that result -- to sucker the German troop trucks in after the tanks had successfully passed by turning off the opportunity fire for hard vehicles.  When designing my own scenarios, I discovered I could not adjust the AI's opportunity fire, which surprised me.  This clears up that mystery about how the designer did that.  Great work! 

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 5
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/9/2007 5:50:49 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 13386
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

I have one question though:  The post says that global opportunity fire overrides individual opportunity fire.  If that were true, then there would never be a point to setting individual opportunity fire.  I'm thinking the writer meant to say something else.  I'm assuming it works the same as the regular means of adjusting opportunity fire, that is, the more restrictive of the two (global and individual) will control.


The writer is correct. Global Opportunity fire will override Individual Opportunity fire.

I wrote a little blurb on Opportunity Fire at Game Squad, here it is:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

A few notes on the use of OP Fire.
(Based on my experiences in East Front II)

There are two settings for OP Fire; global and individual. Global OP Fire sets the firing type and ranges for all units, where individual allows you to set OP Fire for any individual unit.

Global OP Fire. Without selecting a unit, if you press ‘D’, a dialogue will appear. This is the Opportunity Fire Dialogue. You will see the Firing Unit types available on the left and the Target Unit Types available along the top. The rest of the dialogue displays firing ranges broken down into the following classes: N (Never), S (Short – 33% of the units Maximum range), M (Medium – 66% of the units maximum range) and L (Long – 100% of the units maximum range).

Firing Units: Hard Vehicles includes any vehicle that has a RED defence number. Tanks, SP Artillery, Halftracks, etc.
AT and Heavy AA includes all AT and AA units over 40mm.
Other Firing Units comprises of everything else from Infantry to HQ’s.

There are a few ways to use OP Fire.
1. Default Settings
2. Global Settings
3. Global and Individual Settings
4. Individual Settings

Default Settings will let you use whatever the designer set up the OP Fire to be. If one takes the time, the designer can also set up Individual OP Fire for each and every unit for their scenario.


Global Settings. On the very first turn, while you are looking at what forces and force mixture you have, one can up their Global Settings. This will vary depending on the scenario, but some general settings I would use are:

Early War
Hard Vehicles: Hard Vehicles: M Soft Vehicles: N Other Targets: N
AT and Heavy AA: Hard Vehicles: M Soft Vehicles: N Other Targets: N
Other Firing Units: Hard Vehicles: M Soft Vehicles: M Other Targets: M

Mid-Late War
Hard Vehicles: Hard Vehicles: M Soft Vehicles: N Other Targets: N
AT and Heavy AA: Hard Vehicles: M Soft Vehicles: N Other Targets: N
Other Firing Units: Hard Vehicles: L Soft Vehicles: M Other Targets: M

You will note that these are pretty much the same with the exception of the Other Firing Units vs Hard Vehicles. The late war Infantry units have a higher punch versus armoured vehicles and can be used effectively in ambushes. For this, the L setting MUST be used.


Global and Individual Settings. This uses the above with a little tweaking by using the Individual Settings. When using these settings, one must keep in mind that Global Settings will take precedence over any Individual Settings you make. For example, by using the Mid-Late War Global Settings above, and you set an armoured vehicle platoon to fire at Soft Vehicles a Short range, the Global Settings will remain in effect and the unit will NOT fire at Soft Vehicles at any range.

Using this setting would be the basis for creating basic ambushes, or utilizing hidden units. To adjust the Individual Settings of any unit, select it and ensure it is highlighted. Press the ‘D’ key and the Opportunity Dialogue will be opened. Any adjusts made will only affect the selected unit! Creating a hidden unit is to ensure any unit never fires by selecting N for all firing options. These types of units are ideal when defending a city or forest where the opposing force is forced to mass assaulting. It is best to keep a unit that can fire at all unit types to prevent the hidden unit being “bumped” into and revealed.


Individual Settings. This is the setting that I use most often, primarily because I generally play larger scenarios and like to micromanage. My Global Settings will be as follows:

Hard Vehicles: Hard Vehicles: L Soft Vehicles: L Other Targets: L
AT and Heavy AA: Hard Vehicles: L Soft Vehicles: L Other Targets: L
Other Firing Units: Hard Vehicles: L Soft Vehicles: L Other Targets: L

Notice they are all set to maximum range. Once this is done I will take the time to set up each unit with Individual Settings. The setting chosen will completely depend on the missions at hand, meaning there are infinite combinations that can be created. I generally set up my Individual Settings on a per Company basis, these in turn would be decided on the Company composition and the Companies mission in the grand scheme of the scenario.

Some examples:

Infantry Company, Early War, Attacking
1st Platoon - Hard Vehicles: N Soft Vehicles: M Other Targets: M
2nd Platoon - Hard Vehicles: N Soft Vehicles: M Other Targets: M
3rd Platoon - Hard Vehicles: L (if leader present) Soft Vehicles: N Other Targets: N
MG - Hard Vehicles: L Soft Vehicles: L Other Targets: M

Infantry Company, Early War, Defending
1st Platoon - Hard Vehicles: N Soft Vehicles: M Other Targets: M
2nd Platoon - Hard Vehicles: N Soft Vehicles: M Other Targets: M
3rd Platoon - Hard Vehicles: L (if leader present) Soft Vehicles: N Other Targets: N
MG - Hard Vehicles: N Soft Vehicles: N Other Targets: N

Infantry Company, Late War, Attacking
1st Platoon - Hard Vehicles: L Soft Vehicles: M Other Targets: M
2nd Platoon - Hard Vehicles: N Soft Vehicles: M Other Targets: L
3rd Platoon - Hard Vehicles: L Soft Vehicles: M Other Targets: M
MG - Hard Vehicles: L Soft Vehicles: M Other Targets: M

Armour Company, Early War, Attacking
Light Platoon - Hard Vehicles: N Soft Vehicles: L Other Targets: M
Medium Platoon - Hard Vehicles: M Soft Vehicles: S Other Targets: S
Medium Platoon - Hard Vehicles: M Soft Vehicles: N Other Targets: N
Medium Platoon - Hard Vehicles: M Soft Vehicles: N Other Targets: N

As you can see, different tasks require different settings.

When supported by additional units, or working as part of a larger force, the values can again change. For example, the inclusion of an AT platoon with the infantry above may change the requirement for having one of the Infantry Platoons designated to taking out armour.

Hope that helps
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho




quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
This is a great addition.  Thanks for sharing it.  I'm assuming this is not the type of thing that could be added in a patch.


Apart from adding the instructions as part of the eventual revised manual, no. Probably not.

Jason Petho

< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 8/9/2007 5:51:42 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 6
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/9/2007 7:15:34 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
Thank you for clarifying that. 

Jason, I imagine it's this type of intimate familiarity with the engine that motivates you to attempt a 19th Century Warfare game with it.

Regarding formations, if you jettison the Napoleonic era, I don't think you have to worry about squares, although I'm not sure.  Regarding being in line or column, that's usually a part of wargames for the 18th and 19th Centuries, but it's never been a part of the Campaign Series, and no one's ever complained, and I don't believe anyone has ever requested its addition to the game, although, in theory, it might be something that would apply.  I would think most Napoleonic or Civil War players would insist on formation changes, but I'm not so sure it'd be necessary if the only options were line and column.  I would think facing would be necessary, but the Campaign Series has a facing element with the armor.

I like the idea of trying to use this engine for 19th Century Warfare, and I'm excited about it.  I think at this point, the question is whether the leep can be made to 19th Century Warfare with this engine.  If not, you'd move on.  If it seems promising, then you'd probably invest to have the program tweeked to better reflect the demands of 19th Century Warfare.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 7
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/9/2007 8:21:47 PM   
JoMc67

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 7/21/2007
Status: offline
Jason,           You showed us how to change the Computers AI Opp fire, can a player also change the way the Opp fire is used. Here are some examples below of what I like to see changed in the game. let me know if and how it can be implemented. Something tells me that this part of the Opp fire is hard coded and cannot be changed.  - Only units in a hex being shot at can return fire assuming they are  within the restrictions below. - Disrupted units who receive fire from the front 3 hexes can only return Opp fire a max of one time. Disrupted units who receive fire from the flank 3 hexes can not return Opp fire at all.
 I always disliked the fact that I can get on a Disrupted units flank 3 hex sides and he turns around and returns Opp fire twice.                                        -- OR -- You shot at one unit in a hex and the rest of the enemy on the battlefield Opps fire back at you.  By using the Optional rules, changing the range and how the Opp fire is used will IMHO make the game alittle more realistic.
  

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 8
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/9/2007 8:37:21 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 13386
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: JoMc67
- Only units in a hex being shot at can return fire assuming they are  within the restrictions below.


That is hardcoded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JoMc67
- Disrupted units who receive fire from the front 3 hexes can only return Opp fire a max of one time.
Disrupted units who receive fire from the flank 3 hexes can not return Opp fire at all.



Considering the engine doesn't regard facing for infantry units, flanking fire for infantry is a relatively moot point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JoMc67
I always disliked the fact that I can get on a Disrupted units flank 3 hex sides and he turns around and returns Opp fire twice.                      
-- OR --
You shot at one unit in a hex and the rest of the enemy on the battlefield Opps fire back at you. By using the Optional rules, changing the range and how the Opp fire is used will IMHO make the game alittle more realistic.


Three things.

1. OP Fire for the Computer can be set in scenarios and Linked Campaigns, just not in Dynamic Campaigns.

2. You can use the AI OP Firing against the AI. If you fire at a unit, and all AI units in LOS is firing at you, that leaves you freedom of movement without worrying about being shot at for the remainder of the turn. Keep in mind, that the OP Fire routine will stop when the targetted unit has retreated, been disrupted or reduced.

3. IMHO, the biggest and simpliest step to making the game significantly more realistic is finding a human opponent.

Jason Petho


< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 8/9/2007 9:32:07 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to JoMc67)
Post #: 9
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/9/2007 10:49:14 PM   
JoMc67

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 7/21/2007
Status: offline
Here is a House Rule that players can use to enhance gameplay, it will be a challenge against the AI but better if 2 human Opponents agree to use it.
At the beginning of a game I ofcourse use the Optional Rules and Set the Opp fire for units but also under the Options menu I use the ' Save AP for firing ' for all units.

I believe Units move too far in a 6 minute turn, a medium speed tank can move about 10 hexes on the road, abit to far IMHO. By using the ' Save AP for firing ' it will automatically slow you down to a more reasonabe 2/3 speed and still give you eneogh AP to fire atleast once. Ofcourse some units ( Mortars in Woods ) you will need to turn this feature off at the Units menu just so you can atleast move one hex.
                                                                  Joe

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 10
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/10/2007 3:20:26 AM   
JoMc67

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 7/21/2007
Status: offline
Here is another House Rule that we are play testing and near completion,

- All Platoons must attempt to stay within Command and Control range of their respective CHQ.  Any Platoon outside this range cannot move except to rotate. The Platoon with low ammo can only shoot at close range targets ( your unit may still Opp fire anytime ). 
Exception to the above, if their is a respective BHQ or higher present on the map and within C & C range of that Platoon then it can function normally.
 We are working on an even more strict C & C system, it will also include BHQs and RHQs.

< Message edited by JoMc67 -- 8/10/2007 3:31:33 AM >

(in reply to JoMc67)
Post #: 11
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/10/2007 4:43:41 PM   
Huib


Posts: 585
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JoMc67

Here is a House Rule that players can use to enhance gameplay, it will be a challenge against the AI but better if 2 human Opponents agree to use it.
At the beginning of a game I ofcourse use the Optional Rules and Set the Opp fire for units but also under the Options menu I use the ' Save AP for firing ' for all units.

I believe Units move too far in a 6 minute turn, a medium speed tank can move about 10 hexes on the road, abit to far IMHO. By using the ' Save AP for firing ' it will automatically slow you down to a more reasonabe 2/3 speed and still give you eneogh AP to fire atleast once. Ofcourse some units ( Mortars in Woods ) you will need to turn this feature off at the Units menu just so you can atleast move one hex.
                                                                  Joe



And what if you proclaim that a turn is > than six minutes? It's nothing more than a line in the printed manual.
Although I do agree with you that the game sometimes needs slowing down (and a reduction of casualties). A way to do that is to set a low base ammo in the scn. This will force the players to use their HQ's and keep them in range AND supplied. This slows down movement significantly.

Huib

(in reply to JoMc67)
Post #: 12
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/10/2007 5:19:28 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
That's an excellent suggestion. 

(in reply to Huib)
Post #: 13
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/10/2007 5:52:41 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
Another thing I've experimented with is lowering the morale values.  If morale goes to zero, the unit disppears even if it's at full strength.  This means you've got to watch the morale values more closely.  Lower morale also means units get disrupted easier and have more difficulty getting out of disrupted status.  This puts a premium on keeping the company close together and a premium on the use of leaders.  In short, it makes the game more challenging, especially if you're playing the AI.

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 14
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/10/2007 6:49:40 PM   
Arizonus

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 5/22/2007
Status: offline
Play vs. Humans - Sin qua non.

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 15
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/10/2007 7:13:50 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
Yet another excellent suggestion. 

(in reply to Arizonus)
Post #: 16
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/10/2007 7:26:54 PM   
JoMc67

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 7/21/2007
Status: offline
This is still in playtesting stage, we need to figure out how to lower the speeds of units ( Trucks, jeeps, etc, ) where there is no AP set aside for firing to match the ones that do. Maybe we can say those units can move a max of 50 percent of their APs rounded up, then ofcourse you would have to factor in if that unit has eneogh to load/unload passengers.

(in reply to JoMc67)
Post #: 17
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/10/2007 7:52:02 PM   
JoMc67

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 7/21/2007
Status: offline
quote:
Another thing I've experimented with is lowering the morale values.  If morale goes to zero, the unit disppears even if it's at full strength.  This means you've got to watch the morale values more closely.  Lower morale also means units get disrupted easier and have more difficulty getting out of disrupted status.  This puts a premium on keeping the company close together and a premium on the use of leaders.  In short, it makes the game more challenging, especially if you're playing the AI.


Yes, I think a good rule of thumb when generating battles or if you decide to change a Scenario is to make Vet units a 7, Regular units a 6, Green units a 5. As the battle progresses the moral will become more apparent as a larger green force dissolves to a much smaller Vet force.

< Message edited by JoMc67 -- 8/10/2007 7:55:12 PM >

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 18
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/10/2007 8:12:57 PM   
Arizonus

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 5/22/2007
Status: offline
LOL    Frank - my favorite poster

    JoMc, think of it this way: all units are moving in relation to each other, and as long as they are evaluated properly for speed by the game...an AC is faster than a Sherman is faster than a King Tiger...then any debate over how long a turn is and how far units should move is not really relevant, is it?

P.S. Be careful monkeying with morale values, you're multiplying fractions and that can get out of hand real quick...

                                                                                                Ariz

(in reply to JoMc67)
Post #: 19
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/10/2007 8:24:38 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
Please tell me more about modifying morale and multiplying fractions.

(in reply to Arizonus)
Post #: 20
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/10/2007 9:09:58 PM   
Arizonus

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 5/22/2007
Status: offline
Frank,

    There's obviously a lot of ways to look at this, but....let's take the easy one: the game actually does TWO morale rolls for each unit at the beginning of your turn, one to recover lost morale (if any) and one to un-disrupt. Right there, you multiply, say, a 50% chance (for a unit down to 5 morale) plus a 60% chance (for a newly-full morale unit at 6). That's .5 x .6 = .3 --- a 30% chance a 6 morale unit, down one morale point, will undisrupt in one turn. The same calculation for a morale 8 unit works out to .7 x .8 = .56, nearly double the chances. Quite a difference, and possibly not what the designer intended for a "mere" two-point addition...and again, the calculation for a 5 morale unit is .4 x .5 = .2, 20%, a hell of a whallop for just a single morale-point difference.
    You can substitute other morale-related die rolls into the equation, like the odds of losing morale after retreat (in a previous turn) but it all works the same way - high numbers stay high, low numbers drop off the table like you never saw them. The rich stay richer, I guess.
    Also think about what a leader does to the equation - a little "1" leader doubles the chances for a morale 1 unit but barely affects the die at all for a morale 8 unit.
    Morale levels should be left right there in the meaty part of the bat - anything above 7 or below 6 should be re-considered seriously.....

                                                                                                   Ariz

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 21
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/10/2007 11:32:33 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
This is good food for thought.  I enjoy your posts too, Arizonus.

Wouldn't this analysis apply only for recovering the last step in morale and becoming undisrupted all in the same turn?  If a unit were two morale steps low, this analysis would not apply, and if a unit were at full morale, this analysis would not apply.  That jump might be a rarity for a poorly-trained unit, but a better-trained unit might be able to make it consistently.

One other thought about lowering morale, this puts a premium on keeping the units in woods or villages and on avoiding being in the open.  The idea of lowering morale occurred to me after reading one of Martin Crevald's (I may have the name mangled) books where he quoted an Israeli saying during the '48 or '56 conflict that the Egyptians fought well provided they were in bunkers but were otherwise not dependable.  A low morale unit might hold its own in a bunker, because there are morale bonuses (or supplements), whereas a low morale unit would be asking for trouble in the open.  A unit with a 5, 6, or 7 morale would prefer not to be in the open, but it's very existence would not be threatened by going bankrupt on morale if caught in the open.

I've seen Italian Blackshirts with morale ratings of 4.  I think I've seen that with partisan units too, but I could be mistaken.

I've seen units lose two morale points in a single turn.  I guess it lost one when it lost a SP and another when it retreated.  I'm not sure how that works exactly.

(in reply to Arizonus)
Post #: 22
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/11/2007 12:32:39 AM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
Regarding troops with lower morale, I wouldn't suggest that with regular forces.  Their morale is right where it belongs.  There were, however, troops that were suspect.  I believe the Germans used Ostroopen in Normandy that were unreliable, not because they weren't good soldiers but because they had no interest in dying for Nazi Germany.  The Germans rushed French volunteers (Legion of French Volunteers against Bolshevism) to the Moscow front in November and December 1941 with disastrous results.  Partisan units would, by and large, probably not have the staying power of regular troops.  I'm not familiar with the Italian Blackshirts, but somebody apparently thought they were relatively unreliable.

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 23
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/11/2007 12:54:17 AM   
Arizonus

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 5/22/2007
Status: offline
* Sigh *

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 24
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/11/2007 1:00:41 AM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
  Lol.  I stand corrected.  There is a smiley face that does multiple cartwheels.  I'd prefer one that does cartwheels to the right, however.

(in reply to Arizonus)
Post #: 25
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/12/2007 7:21:17 AM   
JoMc67

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 7/21/2007
Status: offline
Jason,
A player can change the Opp fire, Action Points, Moral, strength, etc, of his units and that of the AI. Can a player also change the APs a unit spends per hex of travel, example: a T34 on good road conditions spends about 7APs per hex - a PzV Panther spends about 9 APs per hex, I would like to change this to say 10 and 13 respectivley.

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 26
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/12/2007 7:25:07 AM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 13386
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: JoMc67

Jason,
A player can change the Opp fire, Action Points, Moral, strength, etc, of his units and that of the AI. Can a player also change the APs a unit spends per hex of travel, example: a T34 on good road conditions spends about 7APs per hex - a PzV Panther spends about 9 APs per hex, I would like to change this to say 10 and 13 respectivley.


The probably won't change, no.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


(in reply to JoMc67)
Post #: 27
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/12/2007 7:42:39 AM   
JoMc67

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 7/21/2007
Status: offline
Jason,
       Thanx for your response.
Hmmm, its indeed becoming a challenge to change CS to get the desired affects I am looking for.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 28
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/12/2007 7:53:00 AM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 13386
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: JoMc67

Jason,
       Thanx for your response.
Hmmm, its indeed becoming a challenge to change CS to get the desired affects I am looking for.


You could always edit the movement values for the units yourself.

Of course, this means you will not be able to play anyone else unless they are using the same values.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


(in reply to JoMc67)
Post #: 29
RE: JTCS - Comments & Suggestions - 8/12/2007 8:11:40 AM   
JoMc67

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 7/21/2007
Status: offline
How is it you can change the movement values ? 
Do you mean changing the APs from 100 to say something like 75, which will in turn give me the slower speeds I am looking for.
If so, then yes that would be my other and simpler option.  

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> JTCS - Comments & Suggestions Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.184