Campaign Series II?

[Dan Caviness]

While my nomenology and terminclature may be dyslexic my love for the game remains pure and unadulterated.

Let me access my notes...huddle with a few guys...and get back to you.

[Crossroads]

These threads are easily lost in space, so remember there's the 2.0x Wishlist Thread at Matrix forum to have everything in one place: LINK

With the next UPDATE due in 2016, there's plenty of time to share your thoughts and wishes there

[Dan Caviness]

Thanks Petri...will do!

[dgk196]

Hello...

I completely agree. I'm not interested in change for the sake of change. It should 'fix a problem' or add a feature or function that is currently not available. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not interested in the number of mobile kitchens or bakeries in a unit. Not to be morbid, but I'm also not interested in field hospitals and so on (sorry M.A.S.H. fans)!

Only those aspects of weapons or activities that enable effects as a result of combat are necessary additions, in my opinion. Accuracy of weapons abilities and limitations is the first thing in my book. Next the ability of units to act together as an organized force. Then the supply level that allows them to operate in the field.

Dennis

[Nitram Draw]

I'd also like to see the HQ units and leader movements revamped for the AI. It doesn't seem to use the leaders. HQ's generally just never move forward or stop on the map edge when they arrive as reinforcements.

[dgk196]

Hello...

I don't know if it can be made so there is some significant difference, but I'd like to see some sort of 'attack' variations for 'artillery' units. It would seem that much time and effort, depending on the country, was put into being able to target units for attack. And so, maybe there should be something in the game that reflects that.

The type of 'registration' for the battery as regards indirect-fire, 'hasty' or 'deliberate'. Which presumably result in an 'area-fire' or a 'specific target' being attacked. Also such things as 'rolling barrage', 'sweeping barrage' and so on. Since this seems to be the scale at which such things are applicable maybe they should exist in the game, if even as an optional setting!? Not all forces practiced these techniques so they should be made 'historical' as much as possible.

Dennis

[ArmyEsq]

Can we have the random map generator back? Please?

Platoons being able to split into smaller strength point sections? (Sorry, purists)

Machine guns on the tanks that fire separate from the main gun?

Fuel shortage. This happened to Peiper (among others). IG would be really cool if we could simulate this in scenarios!

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Can we have the random map generator back? Please?

Platoons being able to split into smaller strength point sections? (Sorry, purists)

Machine guns on the tanks that fire separate from the main gun?

Fuel shortage. This happened to Peiper (among others). IG would be really cool if we could simulate this in scenarios!

Yes, I agree, I am not sure why the random map generator was taken out in the first place.

Tank machine guns firing separately, ... uh no thanks. I think how the armor operates is right for the scale of the game. I can see it at a squad level simulation, and it is in those games.

Splitting platoons and fuel shortages can be replicated by the scenario designer? Add platoons to the OOB and then reduce their strength during the placing of them on the map (though, they will be affected by the morale algorithm when half strength or less, but since the scale is platoon level maybe a morale hit should be expected).
Scenario designers can lower the supply of the side that they want effected.

HSL

[dgk196]

Hello....

Something that may be useful... or not... is the ability to 'breakdown' units into their subunit components, as in Panzer Campaigns. Just because the 'base' unit for a game is set to a 'size'... platoons or such doesn't mean they operated that way all the time.

Most units would send out subunits for 'outposts', observation, pickets, recon and so on. This established a 'barrier' between the main unit and the areas around it. It supplied early warning, recon, observation and scouting and so on. It also maintained a level of concealment for the 'parent' organization. Since subunits are easier to maneuver and conceal, they could observe what was around them from a remote location without always giving away their presence.

Maybe having a 'deployed' setting as differentiated from a movement deployment or deployment that only occupies the hex the unit is in would be an option for the game. Not all units would have this feature, it would be on a case by case basis.

So, I'd like to see the ability to breakdown units at least 'one-level'. So the platoons should be able to breakdown into at least squads. 'It' should not be limited for 'infantry' class units...for example armored cars would send out single vehicles to recon ahead of the main unit so the whole parent unit wasn't exposed to attack from 'hidden' units.

I realize the potential for increasing the complexity of the game, simply 'handling' all the subunits would increase the time for a turn. But on the other hand 'units' would begin performing operations as they actually did. That would be a good thing for a game that is 'simulating' combat operations.. right?

Dennis

[Herr Straße Laufer]

My vote is not.
I think scale should win out here.
What is done in other games may not be "great" for this game.

There are squads available by the creation of the scenario designer. It does not have to be for the entire game play. In a 250 meter hex platoons are just fine. Coupled with the existing spotting rules it seems that smaller sized hidden units are/will be redundant.

Pandora's box does not need to be opened again?

HSL