Campaign Series EFIII, WFII and Pacific Front USER WISH LIST

[Jason Petho]

Please post your Wish List items in this thread for the new versions of the Campaign Series World War II games.

Thank you
Jason Petho

[rmmwilg]

1) Please, pretty please... for the love of all that's holy, please(!)...Double-time effects should not happen until unit actually moves as such!
2) Ablility to fire Starshells at empty hexes, particularly since this is often how they're used in real life.
3) Leaders should be able to fire starshells
4) Starshells and smoke rounds should be task-check based rather than a set quota. This would create a proper uncertainty, including those units that are independently smoke-capable, and do away with scenario quotas.
5) Infantry units should be capable of placing smoke in an adjacent hex. Again though, availability being task-check based.
6) Add icon to unit panel showing whether a unit is smoke capable (didn't the original game used to have this?)
7) Echelon movement should apply to all equal or lower-hierarchy units in a formation, including those in separate hexes; ie. I can select an infantry unit, select highlight organisation, and the entire company will move in that general direction. Just an ease-of-play feature

[fritzfarlig]

1, different color on org.
2. A retreated tank don’t turn around but driving reverse

[rmmwilg]

ORIGINAL: fritzfarlig

1, different color on org.
2. A retreated tank don’t turn around but driving reverse

[rmmwilg]

8) Combined firepower attacks from the same hex, instead of each unit firing separately
9) Be able to save campaigns under edited names instead of the current, generic 'campaign' label

[rmmwilg]

10) Armour leaders need to either be integral to a company HQ unit or equipped with an armoured car or some such, because there are occasions when, as a jeep mounted unit, they have not been able to go into terrain where their AFV units are going, because they're a jeep unit! It would make much more sense that they be integral to an AFV unit of that company

[rmmwilg]

11) In campaigns: Have the ability to merge ravaged units during the reinforcement phase. Again, this will happen in real life if a unit loses too many people, even though it significantly reduces unit cohesion, at least temporarily. Maybe once a unit's strength drops below 40% or so, it's SP's can be xferred to another unit?
The problem that we, otherwise face, is going into a battle with units sometimes at only one or two SP's, which is ridiculous! I get that the whole point is to focus one on minimizing losses, but as we've all experienced, it's not always possible to avoid it. Things go wrong that you may or may not always be able to control in time before the damage is done; ie. it's not always because the commander/player was reckless or incompetent. So, when it has to, in such situations, the military is not averse to merging such units to retain average unit strength with what's left.

[LittleBen]

What could be amazing is that...you play a huge scenario with many troops, and you could delegate some units to the AI...Imagine the 3rd battalion as a chief on the map, you could give him order, and then it's the AI who takes care of all the counter of the 3rd battalion...and you could give order to many différents chief while playing some others…

Of course each turn, if you want you could modify the orders, or take back control of the units

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: LittleBen

What could be amazing is that...you play a huge scenario with many troops, and you could delegate some units to the AI...Imagine the 3rd battalion as a chief on the map, you could give him order, and then it's the AI who takes care of all the counter of the 3rd battalion...and you could give order to many différents chief while playing some others…

Of course each turn, if you want you could modify the orders, or take back control of the units

Great request, but highly unlikely you'll see that in the Campaign Series.

[LittleBen]

I'm not sure it's so complex….when the AI plays a scenario, I think he just sees the unit he has, and some objectifs hexs with a value, and he tries to get them… if it's the case, we just have make him play the unit in the org we want (he doesn't see the others, with a partial org) and we show him another list of victory hexs, in fact just one, where we want him to go and attack or hold…

Nothing to change in the way the AI plays, just to make him see temporary just an org reduced and just a victory location, even if it's not one in the scenario...

[Jason Petho]

But that's just it, we are completely changing how the AI plays and how it works.

[LittleBen]

Ohhhh !!!! That's really great !!!

[Crossroads]

Thanks for all your insight, gents, keep it coming please! [:)]

[rmmwilg]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

But that's just it, we are completely changing how the AI plays and how it works.

As in EFIII, etc. will have a completely different AI, or LittleBen's suggestion would? I do love his suggestion. Would assigning a unit to the A/I's control really change things? After all, from day one of Talonsoft, one could assign both sides to the A/I and just watch them duke it out. If, for whatever reason, one really wanted to!
By the way, I probably differ from LittelBen in that I would define 'units' as complete formations: companies, battalions, etc. rather than individual, select 'units' on the map.
Being able to make such assignments would really give one a sense of command and 'control' at a higher level, not least, because you'd have to react to and deal with units doing things and making choices that you wouldn't do if you were in their position. Just my two cents worth. A very different challenge from the standard, micromanaging, RTS world

[rmmwilg]

This would go in my "pretty, pretty please!" column:
12) User setup, at least in the campaigns!

13) Currently, when FOW is on in a night scenario, the programming makes no distinction in revealing (or not) the impact of attacks and/or losses to my troops. It's not a bug, per se; it was just never addressed. So the details window *would* display the results of attacks to *my troops* while still hiding those details (when appropriate) for attacks I make to the enemy.

Thanks for all your hard work guys. Definitely looking forward to reimbursing you for it!

[LittleBen]

What would be really useful, are some little ".exe" with a graphical user interface to edit/create new platoons, even if we can do it with a text editor, more convenient to do it easily with a visual interface, all the more to not have duplicate numbers !! (in the oob files, the P#### are not in order, so hard to know if a number is already used…) And to edit at the same time the platoon.oob and the weapons.dat to give the weapon range and values !!

In the same idea an editor to create the company, regiment, division…oob, a little like we can do it in the org editor, much more easy and it will avoid wrong numbers. A little .exe to edit the movement data, those one I don't even know how there are put, and not so easy to be sure to be at the right place among many numbers !! And for last could be great to have a little interface to edit the graphics associated with the map, there are so many files !! we choose the region, the kind of terrain, the zoom level...we have the current graphic displayed and we just have to modify it, then it is saved at the right place, under the right name…

I know, I ask much, but I'm quite sure, it isn't hard for a good programmer, and some of these, quite already exists, just to modify a little.

And of course all those files saved in a subfolder (chosen) of the mod folder...

[Jason Petho]

Been long on my personal wish list, on both counts.

[LittleBen]

If YOU didn't get them it's really too bad, all the more as with CS_Unitviewer, it's not far, just to add the possibility to add data and save them…

And the oob files are quite the same as the org files...

[Jason Petho]

Nope, I'm still building everything in a text editor.

Keep in mind that all the OOB's have been rebuilt for EFIII

[LittleBen]

Would it be possible to choose, the nation's 2D counter used by some units, in the org, such that some organisation don't have the same as some others (per division for example)?