JTS/HPS Wishlist and Random Thoughts

[2-81 Armor]

I'm posting this with the hope of starting a general discussion regarding the overall state and direction of the John Tiller/HPS Operational series, and a few asides for the ACW series as well.

No complaints or demands here, just some random thoughts concerning what I'd like to see, and what might have been (or could be). I doubt any of these will ever see the light of day, but it's nice to day dream.

I think we all realize that JT is pretty closed-mouthed about what he's working on, and so are the scenario and series developers. For all I know, some of this just might be in the works, or was considered and rejected at one time.

I'm also interested in seeing what everybody else has thought about. It's nice to discuss, and who knows? Someone might notice.

For the Panzer Campaigns Series:

Adapt the France '14 map so it can be used with France '40 for a more complete campaign scenario. I'm not sure how hard this would be (certainly the road net and size of urban areas would have to be adjusted), but it would be nice to game out the whole 1940 Campaign using this expanded map, which would include the entire Maginot Line. I'll bet the map could also work well with Bulge '44. Just think of all the alternate strategies that could be employed using this bigger map!

For the Modern Campaigns Series:

Fill in the blank unused space on the existing "Germany" map so that all of it can be playable...I'd like to see a map that extends past the West Bank of the Rhine, so that more of the Dutch and Belgian national territory is in play, and the Eifel area of Germany is included. In the east, all of the area around the Berlin "extension" would be playable, along with a pretty fair chunk of Czechoslovakia. This opens up a lot of campaign variations, along with making "mobilization" scenarios possible.

For the World War One series:

I don't know if this is being worked on or not (I suspect it is), but an 1914 East Front (Tannenberg) game to compliment the France '14 game would be nice.

For the ACW series:

Increase the map scale for selected battles (not full campaigns) so that major affairs can be fought out in an even more super-detailed manner. Battles like Antietam, Gettysburg, Stones River, and Chickamauga come to mind. This was done for Campaign Waterloo, (company level), so I wonder if it's possible for the ACW too?

Finally, for the Strategic War series:

Anything at all! JT has said in an online interview that this series is still "alive". I take him at his word. He's never let us down.

One again, no demands or criticisms, just some ideas. What things have you wanted or imagined?

[Volcano Man]

Hello 2-81 Armor (E/1-81 AR myself!), welcome to the Blitz.

In regards to using the F14 map in F40, yeah it wouldn't work too well without someone doing a lot of work to it, because the F14 map was specifically depopulated of urban areas to represent 1914, and some rail lines and canals were also removed to be more period specific. So I don't see that happening without someone committing to extensive work unfortunately, but that is not to say that it would be impossible if the original F40 creator wanted to do it.

As for ACW at greater detail, try out SB:First World War. Its certainly not ACW obviously, but the 1914 scenarios might be something fun. (yes, shameless plug!)

[2-81 Armor]

Hello 2-81 Armor (E/1-81 AR myself!), welcome to the Blitz.

In regards to using the F14 map in F40, yeah it wouldn't work too well without someone doing a lot of work to it, because the F14 map was specifically depopulated of urban areas to represent 1914, and some rail lines and canals were also removed to be more period specific. So I don't see that happening without someone committing to extensive work unfortunately, but that is not to say that it would be impossible if the original F40 creator wanted to do it.

As for ACW at greater detail, try out SB:First World War. Its certainly not ACW obviously, but the 1914 scenarios might be something fun. (yes, shameless plug!)

That's about what I figured when it comes to a larger F '40 or Bulge '44 map. Still, the possibility is/was intriguing (to me). I remember having this idea the first time I played your F'14 (early) Campaign.

For modern Germany (D '85) I'm only talking about squaring off the existing map by filling it in...it might be possible, but I don't think that's likely simply because of a lesser interest in this series as compared to PzC, and WW2 in general.

For the ACW, all that I think is needed is to double the size/scale of an existing map. That's what was done for the co-level Waterloo, and I think it would work here. ACW infantry units should remain regiments, and most of the improved OOB's now show the artillery as sections instead of batteries, and in some cases the cavalry is shown as squadrons/battalions too, so the current unit scale could work.

I was in CSC (Scout Platoon) 2-81 Armor 1972-76 at Erlangen.

[-72-]

Technically speaking that couldn't have been the only thing that was done in the Waterloo Campaign series ( adjusting the map to fit the scale), the OOB files would have had to been modified (not just due to structure of formations - naturally you need that), but you also have to set a new time scale and adjust the movement factors as to what is needed at the scale you now have.).

Plus you also have to work within the OOB structure as given in the sense that you only have leaders set for specific programmatic positions. At some point you run out of layers because you only have (now at least) Army, Wing, Corps, Division, Brigade commanders in the NB series - in CWB you don't have a Wing Commander position -meaning that you have one less layer.

You would also need to adjust the PDT tables due to different weapons' effectiveness and ranges as well.

The main problem would be with the maps, however -not many people have access to the mapmaking program (my guess is that the majority - maybe all of the guys that do) are probably already engaged in projects.

The other thing too is that not everyone actually doing Lead Scenario Design work has access to the mapmaking software -the point being that the ability to create maps is not probably as widespread as some guys might think. :)

[2-81 Armor]

Technically speaking that couldn't have been the only thing that was done in the Waterloo Campaign series ( adjusting the map to fit the scale), the OOB files would have had to been modified (not just due to structure of formations - naturally you need that), but you also have to set a new time scale and adjust the movement factors as to what is needed at the scale you now have.).

Plus you also have to work within the OOB structure as given in the sense that you only have leaders set for specific programmatic positions. At some point you run out of layers because you only have (now at least) Army, Wing, Corps, Division, Brigade commanders in the NB series - in CWB you don't have a Wing Commander position -meaning that you have one less layer.

You would also need to adjust the PDT tables due to different weapons' effectiveness and ranges as well.

The main problem would be with the maps, however -not many people have access to the mapmaking program (my guess is that the majority - maybe all of the guys that do) are probably already engaged in projects.

The other thing too is that not everyone actually doing Lead Scenario Design work has access to the mapmaking software -the point being that the ability to create maps is not probably as widespread as some guys might think. :)

I never had considered the issues concerning the CWB OOB command structure, but did realize the PDT would have to be altered. If the game .exe needs to be changed in order to support a new time and movement scale, I can see that this idea is really a no go. Obviously, whoever designed Waterloo had the inclination and time needed to make the changes to the Napoleonic system. Like I said though, just thinking out loud, and trying to get a discussion started.

From what I can see, the only thing I've mentioned that might be able to be done quickly (quickly being a relative term) might be the filling in of the DF '85 map, but then again, I suppose it all comes down to who has access to the map software and more importantly, who has the time and interest?

All of this is worth talking about I think, if only to sort of bring back the "good old days" when these forums were buzzing with comments about the game systems, OOB's, and ideas for new scenarios....I sort of miss them myself, but then again just look at my post count - I was never a contributor, just a reader anyway. Now it's maybe too late in the game.

Here's another silly thought: I seem to remember that in the Modern Campaigns system the only game that allowed for companies and platoons to NOT have to pay a penalty when broken down from a battalion, or treated as an independent unit is ME '67. I wonder if it would be possible through a patch to extend that to all games in the series? Flagging everything as a KG works I know, but the problem is that once units are broken down, they can't recombine. For that matter is the Kampfgruppe designation the only one that works, or can Combat Command and Task Force be used to the same effect?

[BigDuke66]

@2-81 Armor
Regarding the initial post.
-Panzer Campaign
Yes a big France 40 map would be nice, currently it's all about Case Yellow(and not even complete) again and ignores Case Red. Not sure if the map would need the complete Maginot line or run down south that even Bordeaux is on it but at least to the point where it is clear the the French campaign can't be won anymore by the Allies would be nice, I would say down to Dijon maybe.

-World War One
Oh yes Tannenberg would be nice, would be a good counterweight to the 1914 West Front. Well maybe we see something this year, we already see new patch for the ACW series were I thought it was done so maybe we get other surprises this year.

[-72-]

Technically speaking that couldn't have been the only thing that was done in the Waterloo Campaign series ( adjusting the map to fit the scale), the OOB files would have had to been modified (not just due to structure of formations - naturally you need that), but you also have to set a new time scale and adjust the movement factors as to what is needed at the scale you now have.).

Plus you also have to work within the OOB structure as given in the sense that you only have leaders set for specific programmatic positions. At some point you run out of layers because you only have (now at least) Army, Wing, Corps, Division, Brigade commanders in the NB series - in CWB you don't have a Wing Commander position -meaning that you have one less layer.

You would also need to adjust the PDT tables due to different weapons' effectiveness and ranges as well.

The main problem would be with the maps, however -not many people have access to the mapmaking program (my guess is that the majority - maybe all of the guys that do) are probably already engaged in projects.

The other thing too is that not everyone actually doing Lead Scenario Design work has access to the mapmaking software -the point being that the ability to create maps is not probably as widespread as some guys might think. :)

I never had considered the issues concerning the CWB OOB command structure, but did realize the PDT would have to be altered. If the game .exe needs to be changed in order to support a new time and movement scale, I can see that this idea is really a no go. Obviously, whoever designed Waterloo had the inclination and time needed to make the changes to the Napoleonic system. Like I said though, just thinking out loud, and trying to get a discussion started.

From what I can see, the only thing I've mentioned that might be able to be done quickly (quickly being a relative term) might be the filling in of the DF '85 map, but then again, I suppose it all comes down to who has access to the map software and more importantly, who has the time and interest?

All of this is worth talking about I think, if only to sort of bring back the "good old days" when these forums were buzzing with comments about the game systems, OOB's, and ideas for new scenarios....I sort of miss them myself, but then again just look at my post count - I was never a contributor, just a reader anyway. Now it's maybe too late in the game.

Here's another silly thought: I seem to remember that in the Modern Campaigns system the only game that allowed for companies and platoons to NOT have to pay a penalty when broken down from a battalion, or treated as an independent unit is ME '67. I wonder if it would be possible through a patch to extend that to all games in the series? Flagging everything as a KG works I know, but the problem is that once units are broken down, they can't recombine. For that matter is the Kampfgruppe designation the only one that works, or can Combat Command and Task Force be used to the same effect?

I think that the PDT can probably be altered in the CWB series (not 100% sure) but if for some reason it wasn't I would fully expect it to be opened after what point JTS considers themselves done with the series. Rich (Hamilton) has said as much on some public boards in the past (the one I remember was I think the ACWGC board), that the OOB files would be unlocked at that point.

No one outside the company should have access to the map software (and even at that it is not something that if one had the map editor for one series -that it would work for other series.).

I suppose the larger point is -that it is not going to be something connected to the exe file. The Waterloo project, that was Rich White -who is a scenario designer with JTS (and has been in the past); one of his projects was 'The Renaissance'. He's done some other things as well -plus even worked with Paul Bruffell's ancients series.

You can check out the scenario editor in the series (respective series) to see all of the different time scales allowed; I know that in the MP engine I think it can be as little as 5 minutes per turn (off of the top of my head), although the series standard is minutes per turn. While the CWB series is different from NB (which is closely related to MP), different to EAW ... and entirely different from SB and the operational series ... there are some related concepts ... it is more closely related to NB and EAW in structure - and in NB, MP, and EAW I think - all allow PDT, OOB, and scenarios to be edited. In fact not too long ago I tried my hand at using the sub map editor - which is basically a short code in notepad and saved as a .map file -so it is possible to reframe current maps (takes a little practice - which almost entirely revolves around knowing the hex coordinates that you want to use.).
___

From what I understand (and I don't remember who it was that told me) - but the DF -85 is done, and they are not going to revisit it -it is not really a matter of filling in black hexes from what I have been told (and I do deal with guys that have made maps for JTS).

:) About all I can really say is that I am getting practiced, but well.. I will have a lot to say later (promise). Just not now.

[Mr Grumpy]

All of this is worth talking about I think, if only to sort of bring back the "good old days" when these forums were buzzing with comments about the game systems, OOB's, and ideas for new scenarios....I sort of miss them myself, but then again just look at my post count - I was never a contributor, just a reader anyway. Now it's maybe too late in the game.

Yes I also miss the "good old days" when a new title release would create a mass of excitement and chat, not sure if the community has shrunk or if the guys that used to contribute the posts have moved on, I guess it is a bit of both, but we still have the hardcore here and with guys like Ed and David still creating new titles at least the various series supported on this ladder are not stagnating.

Although I understand why we have moved to direct download, in the old days it was still fun to see who could get their disc first and load it onto the PC and post screenshots, because midnight came first in the UK and HPS could be slow to update their webpage, we used to be able to order from a UK supplier and get our discs first, much to the annoyance of our friends your side of the pond!

[2-81 Armor]

@2-81 Armor
Regarding the initial post.
-Panzer Campaign
Yes a big France 40 map would be nice, currently it's all about Case Yellow(and not even complete) again and ignores Case Red. Not sure if the map would need the complete Maginot line or run down south that even Bordeaux is on it but at least to the point where it is clear the the French campaign can't be won anymore by the Allies would be nice, I would say down to Dijon maybe.

-World War One
Oh yes Tannenberg would be nice, would be a good counterweight to the 1914 West Front. Well maybe we see something this year, we already see new patch for the ACW series were I thought it was done so maybe we get other surprises this year.

Well, overall it looks to me like I've really missed the bus concerning most things I've brought up.

I'd still would really like to see the F '14 map adapted for use with F '40 (and also B '44) though. That, and some OOB work to include the heavy and RR artillery units missing from both sides, among other things. I think it would really give this game (F '40) a new life and interest. B '44 could also make use of the new map, since now that Antwerp and other locations would be present, the full breath and scope of the Ardennes Offensive could be shown (to say nothing of being able to model "Nordwind" in the south). Both titles would benefit from being able to throw in a lot of new strategic and operational variations and options for both sides. But, since it looks like it's a question of individual designers having the inclination to do these things, and given the age of the two titles, chances are this won't happen, since most likely the designer(s) have moved on.

As far as Modern Campaigns goes, I accept the fact that for NATO vs WP stuff, this series is over. I'm still playing around with a new OOB for the 1976-78 time frame (Mod 3 now, with more accurate info concerning the French Army, and a ruthless cutting down of the overall unit count) and maybe someday soon it will be done. Using it for a new Campaign Scenario will be harder, but worth doing just for personal enjoyment - I don't think anyone else is much interested in the time period when compared to the 1980's, but I like having things like M551 Sheridans and M60A2's in the OOB.

For CWB, I guess it's almost the same thing really. Not much more new territory to cover in any case. I think in the East all that hasn't been done is the Shenandoah Campaign (both 1862 and 1864-5) and the Petersburg-Richmond Campaign from 1864-5. (Petersburg would be really tough I think, how do you simulate siege operations over months using the current system?) Out West, I might be wrong, but I think all that's left is maybe the Red River Campaign? Having larger maps for the "big" battles would have been nice, but I can see now why it would be hard to do, and most likely will not happen.

In PzC, I don't know what's left to do for brand new material, but I'll bet more than one thing is in the works. I'd really like to see something covering the Vistula-Oder operation, and going straight into Berlin myself.

[Many Mariuses]

FWIW, I would think that a Korea '50 would be a natural fit for the MC series, and I'm actually surprised that its not already covered-- especially given the existence of Korea '85.

Though it would probably be too much to include the entire war, I would think that through using multiple smaller maps (al la Salerno) that the important parts could be covered. Or it could be covered in two or three titles.