CS Wishlist

[Dan Caviness]

That's why we love ya Ed...stick to your guns and give 'em Hell my friend...

Your point about higher level commanders requiring greater staff is valid and it's a viewpoint I hadn't considered.

It's all abstract in the end, and I would agree that a Divisional Commander would have more staff than a 2nd Lt. running a platoon.  Still, that 2nd Louie (Loo-eey?....sorry...Navy boy here...don't know the Army slang...we just called them snot nosed Ensigns) may be a 5 rated commander while the Brigadier General running the division is rated a 2.

I would think this suggests the game engine rating is how effective, or how "good" that commander is and irrespective of any staff attached.  Is it possible they are taking that into account with the HQ units?  I.E., a Battalion HQ moves quicker and pays less for movement then a Divisional HQ?

All I know is in The Longest Day  they managed to jam John Wayne (portraying Maxwell Taylor as I recall) into a single  wheelbarrow... ...

[Herr Straße Laufer]

But, how many runners did he have? Radio men? Wheel barrel operators?

As far as the game mechanics, I agree. Regardless, the rating of how good a commander is should not be contingent on how many transports it needs to move him.




HSL

[Scud]

I like to use the next unit/previous unit to progress through my turn. Playing larger scenarios I often have to save the turn and pick it up again later. Is there any way the program can save my place, so I don't have to start all over again with the first unit? 

Dave

[Cole]

My two cents. Wanted to get some play time in after a long hiatus before submitting:

Rubble -

Has my vote. If possible, would be good if there was a small chance for woods to catch on fire but burning wooden villages would be a good addition, even if it was only cosmetic in nature.

On Board Aircraft -
I wouldn't say get rid of our current aircraft system but if it means a dedicated icon/counter for aircraft that is moved around then definitely not.

Do think air support can be improved without significant changes. Assign a hex for a strike like we do now but assign so many fighter factors, assign combat air patrol factors if this is a large battle, ground attack factors or recon. This points can be assigned to different areas of a large map.

If a scenario designer doesn't like it or if it is a small skirmish then no need to use it.

The big change I recommend is get rid of spotting requirements from ground units for a successful attack. Think the pilots can spot their targets better than a Russian AT platoon. Of course, there was a lot of times units would have colored smoke to call in a strike but I'd say keep it abstract for ease of play. Assign target hexes for so many bombing factors along with CAP points for different areas of the map.

What I would really like to see is recon that would show ground units (if they survive enemy CAP) and the ability to assign air to ground strikes anywhere on the map. I'm guilty as the next guy but there's a reason there are a ton of AAMG platoons and AA guns and most of them don't belong on the front line. They need to remain by and protect their higher HQs and artillery positions.

Tank Riders, Loaded transport
Read the discussion on if everyone jumped off immediately after the first shots, historically they may not have but the precarious nature of loaded units means that if real life was like Campaign Series your electronic troopers would jump off at the first shot, each and every time. Let they guys unload automatically.

Armor facing and retreat.
Depends what level of abstraction you prefer. I don't mind it.

Unit Highlight
I hope the programmer can split the highlight unit feature (fixed, moved, organization, etc). It would be good if I could highlight all units in an organization but at the same time also select to highlight which units have moved or are fixed, etc.

[Crossroads]

Nice thoughts Cole, thanks for sharing!

[Cole]

Nice thoughts Cole, thanks for sharing!

And a couple more thoughts!  Going forward, I remember interviews I did with Glenn Saunders and David Freer.  I think it was David that said he used to post on forums concerning CS, especially about armor factors.  Eventually, one of the designers asked him for references (I can't find the quote but basically "put up or shut up").  Going forward, any "good idea" I have about EF III, I'll try to add a reference(s).

This morning I was thinking about on board air recon ability.  If they, for example, spot a regiment of 152mm Russian artillery, it is slow going for that regiment to pack up and move if they use their assigned carriers.  The tracked carriers are very slow, especially compared with each side's stock truck units.  

Thing is, I was reading about Romanian Army transport (Mark Axworthy, Third Axis, Fourth Ally) and he mentions the lack of Romanian cross country ability on the Russian Steepe because they didn't have enough treaded transport and not enough 4WD trucks.  On roads, trucks of all types will go fastest but cross country those treaded artillery carriers were actually fast compared to anything else available.

[Crossroads]

Nice thoughts Cole, thanks for sharing!

And a couple more thoughts!  Going forward, I remember interviews I did with Glenn Saunders and David Freer.  I think it was David that said he used to post on forums concerning CS, especially about armor factors.  Eventually, one of the designers asked him for references (I can't find the quote but basically "put up or shut up").  Going forward, any "good idea" I have about EF III, I'll try to add a reference(s).

This morning I was thinking about on board air recon ability.  If they, for example, spot a regiment of 152mm Russian artillery, it is slow going for that regiment to pack up and move if they use their assigned carriers.  The tracked carriers are very slow, especially compared with each side's stock truck units.  

Thing is, I was reading about Romanian Army transport (Mark Axworthy, Third Axis, Fourth Ally) and he mentions the lack of Romanian cross country ability on the Russian Steepe because they didn't have enough treaded transport and not enough 4WD trucks.  On roads, trucks of all types will go fastest but cross country those treaded artillery carriers were actually fast compared to anything else available.

This reminds me, this is a bit Off Topic, but are you guys aware Avalon Hill ended up significantly revising PB and PL vehicular movement speeds , and especially for cross country movement. Now, PB was a Jim Dunnigan design, so to alter anything was as close to blasphemy as anything. But alter they did. 

As of Arab-Israeli Wars, the vehicular movement factors were reduced to 60% level from original, with a suggestion to do the same for the said two earlier games. 

I checked this a while ago out of curiosity as how Campaign Series was done, for it was the same guys still at Talonsoft right. Turned out the movement factors were very close to AIW, so they had taken this into account. Yet, if cross country movement was very close to AIW, road movement still is a bit in the wild side. 

Ha.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I'm still recovering from a stroke for the last year and a half and doesn't look good for anything quick in the near future. Still no right arm. Haven't played any games because of too many mistakes using my left hand.

Anyway, when I finally got the game downloaded, I was disappointed with so many buttons at the bottom and a different symbol/icon on the buttons vs the classic style from EF/WF. Is there something I can click to change to the old symbols and also a way to eliminate the number of buttons? If not, could it be implemented with drag and drop between shortcuts and drop down menu giving us our own customized setup with the shortcuts?

[Crossroads]

I'm still recovering from a stroke for the last year and a half and doesn't look good for anything quick in the near future.  Still no right arm.  Haven't played any games because of too many mistakes using my left hand.

Anyway, when I finally got the game downloaded, I was disappointed with so many buttons at the bottom and a different symbol/icon on the buttons vs the classic style from EF/WF.  Is there something I can click to change to the old symbols and also a way to eliminate the number of buttons?  If not, could it be implemented with drag and drop between shortcuts and drop down menu giving us our own customized setup with the shortcuts?

Sorry to hear about your health, I wish you a speedy recovery regardless. Don't give up!

As for a configurable Toolbar, that's a neat idea. I am not sure how easy that would be, but something to add to the wish list as you did here.  

As for what you can do now, there's the Colored Toolbar option in CS Middle East 2.01 now, under Options - Toolbar, see if that makes the icon groups stand out better. It was a popular request to have actions available as Toolbar icons as well, in addition to having them available from Menu or as hot keys. The look has now settled, it will be the same for Vietnam and East Front as well, although with latter some minor tweaks, regular rifle instead of an AR etc. 

Here's a picture of the Colored Toolbar in action:

[Dan Caviness]

Hey Gents:

I'm just going to throw some of these up here and apologize in advance if they have been mentioned already.

Only my two cents, of course.

1.  Many of the actions in the game are tied to a percentage roll on a table.  Some like reinforcements are variable percentage while others like building blocks, laying minefields, bridges, are a fixed percentage.  All of that is great, and makes sense, but I think it could be better if we make those percentage values cumulative from turn to turn.  Or at least the low percentage ones.  For example, I think a Block Building Engineer has a 20% shot at successfully building a block.  If he stays put, and continues to try and build the block, I would like to see it go to 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%.  

I know it's not that simple, and it's possible the game engine is not capable of tracking such a thing over multiple turns.
If it could I think it would be nice.

2.  I still have those revised fire tables for the King Tiger.  Jason indicated that they may have to be implemented via the MODS section.  If anyone would like them let me know.  Basically I changed it to match the other KwK43 long barreled 88mm's.  

To be clear...I am not opening the can of worms about revising all the tables to make long shots more difficult.  This change was only made in order to make it equitable to the other units firing a similar or the exact same 88mm.

3.  Assaulting into minefields with no mine damage.  Not sure if that's an easy fix, but as it stands now you can assault into a minefield for free.  A rare occurrence, and one could question why, but it does happen in desperate situations. 

Regards,

Dan